Picking the "us = good" mentality alone is absent grace, gratitude and humble regard. — James Riley

Yes. And does this extend to the argument that we can therefore hunt like animals do?

Are you saying it is possible to live without eating? To eat without causing harm? — baker

No. It is possible to live without eating animals. It is not either we eat or die. No one said you can't eat.

The Jains, ideally, believing in absolute harmlessness, end up not eating at all, and thus die of starvation. — baker

This is the fallacy of false dilemma. Dramatic, yes, but fallacy nonetheless.

That's, basically, the Jain perspective, a recipe for a slow death by starvation. — baker

Please explain.

Because this is the only perspective that we can intelligibly have. — baker

I just said it is not the only perspective. What you're saying is, that's the only acceptable perspective for you.

Capital gains tax is terrible and disincentivizes investing and also makes taxes extremely, extremely cumbersome here in the US. — BitconnectCarlos

Incorrect.

In other words, people should treat animals well because to do otherwise would reflect badly on the people. — baker

I really don't think this is meaningful idea. A case can be made for not culling sharks but I don't think it can be grounded in the idea that a shark has rights. — Wayfarer

There is indeed something more to be said about this point. There's an unsettling thing in saying, in order for animals to be treated with respect they must pass the "have rights" test. Rights, as T Clark said, are a declaration of commitment, but created by humans nonetheless.

Likewise, treating animals with respect because it would reflect badly on us if we don't is also an unsatisfying, to say the least, notion. It bothers me.

We are looking at this issue for the sake of our interest only.

Treat animals with respect like us because they, too, have a will to live. This has been demonstrated by many studies on animals. And you don't even have to turn to researchers to know this. If you live with animals, you'll know this!

A will to live includes trying to escape from entrapment, from a predator, hiding their younglings from predators and other dangers, getting food for sustenance, play games for entertainment, and rest. Why else would they secure these basic needs -- shelter, food, protection? It's all nature, you say? Okay, humans are delusional if they think that the "free will" they believe they have are all created by "civilization". We think our will is different from animal will? No it isn't.

However, if we cannot argue with the consumer of pork or beef, then what are we to do about this issue between interested parties? — Shawn

An apocalypse.

Ah I see. :)

Accordingly, I'd prefer to reformulate Heelan's characterization of perception more moderately, without the emphatic bias: Like all human activity, perception is historical and cultural as well as physical and biological. Like all human experience, it involves interpretation from a point of view, but is nonetheless rooted in and constrained by physical and biological processes. So it seems, in keeping with the balance of appearances — Cabbage Farmer

Okay.

What questions are these? — Cabbage Farmer

Those are his analysis tests to come up with his theory on perception. Semantics (the meaning we attribute to what we perceive), the epistemic validity (how do we support our assertions), ontology of the perceptual world (what actually exists, or what's real in our world as perceivers.

How is this a refinement or improvement of more customary ways of describing the interrelations of perception, science, and technology? Does it help us solve those "recalcitrant problems" mentioned above? — Cabbage Farmer

According to him, yes. See my points above this.

As I indicated at the outset, it seems to me that phenomenology is indifferent with respect to "metaphysical" doctrines like materialism — Cabbage Farmer

Absolutely not indifferent. Phenomenology cannot exist without disowning materialism, the staple of realism.

Now explain how it is relevant to my claim. As I've noted, I never claimed that ethics and morals didn't involve facts, only that ethical and moral statements, positions, are not facts. — T Clark

Oh cause you said morals deal with values not fact. So, I countered it with a response.

whenever I think about where I wanted to be when I was a kid it makes me sad, because it's not here. I'm not doing what I want to do. I feel the world is passing me by and going to hell while I'm working my butt off just trying to pay the bills. I have $20,000 of student loans left after paying for 7 years and going to a public school. I have no ideas for a better job and not real interest, because it would mean I have to work even longer hours. — John McMannis

Hello. Your existential crisis is a very common experience. So, this is absolutely real and understandable.

First things first. Don't worry about student loan debt for now -- deal with your feelings one at a time. Student loan is the least of your worry (that's not an existential problem).

Sometimes, being with others messes you up even more, I'm sorry to say. Going it alone gives you that edge that you might not able to have in you if you're with someone. This works for certain people. Try to understand yourself and see if that's one of the reasons.

Second, have you tried being unemployed for a stretch of time? Reverse psychology might work with you. This is only for those who are really confident in themselves -- be unemployed for a while. Move to a cheaper apartment if you have to, or move back to parents. Your view about what you want might surface and provide you insight. You don't need passion to be gainfully employed -- but challenge yourself to learn a skill. (For the record, I left a cushy job to join a start-up - big difference. A lot of uncertainty).

Third, don't fight your feelings -- acknowledge it. Don't feel dejected either. Rest assured you're not alone. I know personally someone who after graduating from the world's number one university (so they say), held crappy jobs, and finally moved back to parents.

Not a problem.

Explain to me how. — T Clark

For one thing, Schopenhauer's argument for morals cites suffering as a condition of humanity. I'd say, he is using a fact that there is suffering. (Those who would argue against suffering as a fact of life need only to look at illness, death, and disappearance statistics (all facts).

Morals, ethics, art, and politics clearly deal with values rather than facts. — T Clark

The values are vigorously argued, however. A valid argument is what's common among these disciplines. They make use of facts to support their arguments.

:up:

Recruitment officer: We need soldiers!
Draftee: What's the qualification? A heartbeat? — TheMadFool

haha! Good catch! :blush:

This thread should be re-titled The Essence of MadFool because the posts are talking about MadFool.

Also it is obvious to anyone with a pulse that... — StreetlightX

:sweat: You guys are killing me.

:up:

I've been outed. :blush: — TheMadFool

I'll give you the clues that gave you away:

my hunch is, — TheMadFool

Another Wittgensteinian idea I haven't got a handle — TheMadFool

:ok:

I done see the relevance of this comment. I didn’t say anything about the concept of “self” not that it was a religious idea. — Xtrix

No you did not say self. It was an implication from C's post and yours. It is relevant in the exchanges between you and C.

Of course “primitive” humans referred to themselves, just as I said. There’s nothing philosophical about that— people do it all the time, and there are words in every language that does so. If you truly can’t distinguish between this ordinary usage and the technical notion of “self,” then that’s your problem. — Xtrix

You certainly missed the philosophical part of my comment. That's why I emphasized it as philosophical. Referring to yourself is not what "self" in philosophical terms means, although for practical purposes, they did have awareness.

Essentially and in short, a living organism in an environment, trying to survive as well as as possible given the characteristics we have and the resources available to us or which we can acquire. Much like any other living organism. All else is nuance, dependent largely on circumstances and matters at hand. — Ciceronianus

Yes.

So a biological interpretation is what we’ve always known?
I highly doubt prehistorical people thought of themselves this way or spoke of themselves this way. — Xtrix

The sense of self is a "modern" notion. Believe it or not, "self" did not exist in the cerebral happenings of humans in the primitive era. This is a modern philosophical idea, not a religious one.

I see. Care to share your personal experience? What does it look like? — TheMadFool

A bunch of high IQ individuals who couldn't function without a person next to them.

I don't get why Nietszche is quoted as 'the last word' on anything in these subjects. — Wayfarer

Cause of the Antichrist.

If perception itself is existence, then it doesn't need the conditions for existing. — Corvus

Yes. Very cartesian.

Doesn't the fact of an observer presuppose reality? — 180 Proof

Yes. And an observer/perceiver must be allowed to have presuppositions as well -- presuppositions which are apart from the object of perception.

No. From personal experience. I have connections. :cool:

Never a Nietsche admirer. — Wayfarer

No longer a fan. I gave up on him a while back.

With IQ you can build EQ — TheMadFool

No.

Yes, I was horrified at the notion of cognitive hygiene, even when links were given. It seems like cleaning out the negative as if it is 'dirt'. I hope that is not the way forward for management in the mental health professions. — Jack Cummins

This is understandably a concern. I wouldn't use the word either.

If we apply the problem philosophically, perhaps we can look at metaphorical and analogical discourse. (I can't recommend a proper essay at the moment -- but Carl G. Vaught wrote Metaphor, Analogy, and the Nature of Truth, if you can make do of his essay, not sure).

That word "hygiene" is already adumbrated by images of uncleanness, grossness, ickness, germs, and viruses, so it was astounding to know that it is being used to describe mental and emotional health by none other than the experts in the field! Geeze!

Personal hygiene truly fits. It's an equal opportunity cautionary expression for everyone, and can be remedied easily through personal care, at home, without much financial difficulty, training, or even additional assistance. But cognitive hygiene is something else.

* By Aristotelian philosophy I mean both the philosophy of Aristotle and of those who generally are considered to subscribe to Aristotle's system. — banana peel

I don't have a book reference -- I actually lost my collection of books, which I intend to replace once I get the time and motivation.

But the one thing that comes to mind is the essence of human being -- being rational is the essence of human being. So, Aristotle's essentialism is the one thing that's easily mentioned.

which part of Aristotelian philosophy convinces you the most or which one you find it the hardest to argue against. — banana peel

I believe there's essence in every entity -- what it is that necessarily belongs to an entity for its identity. The appleness of apple, for example.

I was joining you in your declaration of nonsense, not fighting against you. Too bad you missed that sarcasm against Husserl. Or was it my fault? :)

So, just to close that post -- I agree with you that it is nonsense. You certainly exist with or without me perceiving you.

Now that's out of the way:

It's good to rant. Nice to meet you. I'm Caldwell, a female.

Don't be discouraged about what you read in this forum, or any forum. It's a personal activity - take it or leave it. Find what makes you feel excited. I've been part of the philosophy forum community for a long time, and had "suffered" through grad school, falling in love, break-ups, new relationships, work politics, work toxicity, job changes, heartbreaks, happiness, contentment, disappointments, etc. I've seen the same members developed into expert interpreters of philosophy (or however you may describe them), some are very witty, sharp, and quick. It amazes me sometimes.

It takes a skill to evaluate forum posts -- what the merits are, whether they're worth responding to, or even worth engaging with. Try to be patient and understanding. Don't forget that in the music world, for example, there are a bunch of mediocre artists or musicians that are....well...mediocre and boring. But they are there, getting millions of views.

So, again, welcome. If you choose to stay, remember that your reaction to what you read here is a reflection of your personality. If you want scholarly writings, please try to access publications online -- there are tons of them, you might need to create an account or pay even. Some aren't free. But, those might satisfy what you're looking for.

Nonsense. If I don't perceive you, you still exist. — DecheleSchilder

As I would like to say so myself -- I did not create a bullshit account so I could log in to this nonsense!

And just so you know, Husserl, if I was reading it correctly, believes that the existence of objects is a necessity. Why would he say something like this? Because it could only exist - the material world - if it's perceived. So, objects exists, if and only if we perceive them.

I'm saying there is a class of things (mental states) that cannot be described by observers other than oneself. — RogueAI

Then, are you an observer or the perceiver? Mental states, as a phenomena, are supposed to be latent (in philosophical term) to the perceiver, but an objective account by an observer, if it could be observed at all.

I think you mean, if the perceiver is eating an apple, he is not perceiving the mental states, but the qualities of the apple -- color, shape, taste.

Do you agree then that there are phenomena in the universe (first-person experiences) that cannot be described by an objective third party? — RogueAI

This is a common mistake found in posts in perception/phenomenology threads.

Try to be clear about what it is you're referring to.

We have a legal name if it isn't too: - fraud. — unenlightened

I concur.

Is the ability to tell a lie constitutive of a right to tell a lie? — tim wood

No it isn't.

In fact this would fall under JS Mill's harm principle. Spreading lies which harm others is an offense.

We have a legal name for it if directed to a specific person -- slander.

I can't see why it's impossible for humans to have social instincts as well. — Hanover

In a collective mind, there would be. But the OP is talking about a single individual with no prior or current connection to another human or any living animals.

All of her needs are catered for in terms of food and shelter (let’s suppose being raised to fend for oneself is somewhat of an instinct, she does not recall a time when she had parents, she doesn’t even know what that is.) All she has ever known is herself and her planty environment. — Benj96

She would be fine if she had innate skills to fend for herself. But as far as seeking another "human" or a male partner, or even knowing she could carry a baby in her, I think it would be that she'd be lacking awareness. Keep in mind this is a single mind. No emotion would develop -- attachment to something, maybe.

In a collective mind of a group of humans in similar situation, a lot more things would emerge -- it is known that a primitive society searched for that something bigger than themselves, usually above. The supernatural or some "magic".