I might ask what are the expectations based upon? I imagine you mean that the answer to the question lies is in the following line, — kudos

It depends on what institution -- for example, workplace, you need to know how to do your assigned role, you should be meeting deadlines, you should show up for work, etc.
And the justification for rules is that there needs to be a standard of measure. If you're being evaluated, they have to have a written guideline on what they're measuring so that, not only they could see whether you're a good fit to the company, or they need to put you on performance improvement plan, or just outright fire you. That also protects them from being sued.

We optimize, but the structures we are optimizing are ultimately for us. OK Jimmy then gets an 'F' in gym class because he fails to catch the ball. Someone might say that catching the ball is a structure optimized for us to perfect our visual and spatial sense in the best way possible (according to experts). This system maximizes happiness. It is the optimal solution to the differential equation of what will cause the least suffering. — kudos

No, it goes both ways. The institution needs to optimize the delivery of learning or instruction (subject matter) they're offering by having rules on performance. This is really not about the greatest happiness and all that jazz. You're misunderstanding.

Ah! Foucaultish. The examination and the great graduation.
You can also use JS Mill here, regarding conformity (in contrast to individual experimentation).

For example, a child who despite their best efforts tries to get good grades in the end is still given a failing mark for bad performance. What form are they failing to master, is it the form of academia or the form of the subject that they are trying to learn?

If it is the latter, then would it be unreasonable to suggest that given the near unlimited forms that subjects can take that there might be another form better suited to each failing student, which is merely overlooked by others for convenience? — kudos

When we say someone is underperforming or not performing at all, it means that that individual is not meeting the expectations set forth by the institution -- be it the academia, workplace, or competition. It is hard for some people to accept this because it restricts creativity and it is a direct assault to the individuality. Again, let's go back to rules. I cannot stress this enough, the justification for rules lies in feasibility and optimization. The first rule is, there should be rules if something is going to be measured and judged.
So going back to failing -- that individual is failing to meet the expectation set forth by the rules. They're not failing the subject, per se.

I have a brother in Prison for truly horrific reasons I won't mention, with a history of recidivism. Having grown up witness to him, I am comfortable saying he is exactly where he belongs. He is actually what inspired me to go to law school. I doubt he cares about preserving lives, or mine for that matter. — Cobra

Sorry to know about it. But good for you for having the wisdom.

I am essentially asking if the elements of ones past and history where they have demonstrated to be indifferent, or at least, disinterested in preserving the well-being of others, should be taken into account when giving someone an organ transplant, that may prolong their life further, when there are demonstrably better candidates to pick, but may not be "next in line". — Cobra

Let's assume that the two people are equal medical-wise, meaning they're both good candidates for the transplant. But the first person had a dark past, he hurt another individual, the second person is a law-abiding citizen. The first person is next in line, so he gets the transplant.
This is the reason why there are rules! If the rule for transplant is that, it doesn't look at your past, only that you're a good candidate for transplant and you're next in line to receive it, no one could deny you that opportunity. Looking at his past is changing the rules. Now ask yourself, would you like the rules changed in another situation? Blame the rule-makers if you must.

I also don't like thinking about it, that a bad person got to extend his life due to the genius of science, while a good person must wait longer for the next opportunity, but I am also for following rules.

I am anticipating the objection to this is, I no longer think morally for myself but taking the easy way out of this conundrum by pointing to the rules. But look at the bigger picture, expand your horizon -- what if this happens in another situation where you are involved, or your loved ones are involved.

Aroluoma gives the concert low marks for the performance, and one can see a lot of fiddling. I, however, like the ensemble playing between the three during show. — Paine

lol. Yeah. I suppose when a frontman says "We haven't played together in 6 weeks...jam...see what happens...I hope you don't mind..." believe that it's gonna be not great. Aroluoma has a point.

He walks over to the effects box 10 feet away. :)
That's before the stomp box, no?

You earned a lot of points for that music! :up:

If you "copy video url" and pasted it on the "insert media" and click go, it should work. The question is, are you copying the correct url?

One real problem I see with this is that it wouldn't be scientific; It basically amounts to someone saying "I know just because!", but at the same time, the utilization of one's humanity to understand humanity is appealing, and would seem logical (or not!) from afar... — john27

Good observation. That's how coherence theory came about. Philosophers wanted to give credence to common sense observation. According to this theory, we really couldn't have stability and sustainability of our belief system unless it coheres with the external world. Looking at it another way, if our belief system didn't cohere with the outside world, it would have had grave consequences even before the dawn of modern man.

So while not scientific, the utilization of one's humanity has a very solid foundation (yes, I know, it doesn't look good on paper amongst the logical interpreters we have here).

Did you click on the "video" icon on the ribbon above and pasted the link?

Right. But is that ok? What's wrong with having an extreme view; better yet, what's wrong with being mediocre? — john27

No. There's nothing wrong with having an extreme view. Having an extreme view is relative anyway: People are disgusted with filth! That's extreme, as in, no middle ground there. Are they correct? Yes, they are.
We have extreme views on a lot of things -- on clearly immoral acts such as serial killers, child abuse, starvation, etc.

Time and time again, in philosophy we tend to apply "sometimes", to act out in moderation, as a welcomed answer to a plethora of questions, one most notably on the organization of one's life. This is illustrated by Goldilocks, Aristotles Golden Mean, Harmony; it would seem that, to act in moderation is in instant of a rationalized act, to be, in some way or another, perfect. — john27

Much better! Thanks.
In that regard, your issue now focuses more on the response we make -- the middle, or the moderate answer. I think a lot of us want to play it safe by giving this kind of answer. We don't want to come off as the "bad guy", or having a extreme view.

Edit: reread your reply and i'll be honest, I'm pretty lost. I'm not sure if what I said here applies to your response...Care to maybe dumb it down a bit? — john27

I was mainly responding to your opening post. You said:

Time and time again, in philosophy we tend to apply "sometimes" as a welcomed answer to a series of most difficult questions. Should you kill? Sometimes. Should you love? Sometimes. Goldilocks, Aristotles Golden Mean, Harmony; it would seem that, to act in moderation is in instant of a rationalized act, to be, in some way or another, perfect. — john27

Do you see how you slide from what should have been a question in this form "When is killing justified?", to "Is killing justified?", answer = "Sometimes". There is a difference.
Then you continued on with the goldilocks syndrome of an answer, etc. which should not be the case here. Those are two different attitude or reasoning.

Time and time again, in philosophy we tend to apply "sometimes" as a welcomed answer to a series of most difficult questions. Should you kill? Sometimes. Should you love? Sometimes. Goldilocks, Aristotles Golden Mean, Harmony; it would seem that, to act in moderation is in instant of a rationalized act, to be, in some way or another, perfect. — john27

I'd say this is not how we apply an "exception" to the rule. The accepted question is in the form "When is killing justified?" which shouldn't be construed as "there is always a justification for killing" -- as your use of "sometimes" suggests. There may never be a time when killing is justified, so that "average" may never happen.

And exception to normative behavior may never arise. No one guarantees that an exception will occur.

I don't see what is wrong with the picture I was painting though. Is life not somewhat akin to a big drug store in which we all get our fix from something or another? — Yohan

False analogy. We don't always get a "fix" from the things we like to do. We do things to satisfy something else -- for duty, for love, to improve our skills, or just to pass time.

Eva Cassidy's beautiful voice! People get ready! Gone too soon.

I was always struck by architect Albert Speer's observation that in building Third Reich structures they be made robustly, with the right materials — Tom Storm

And so was the construction of banks -- in the past, banks were constructed with bricks and stones to make them appear like it's protecting the gazillion amount of cash in the vault inside. It's for appearances.

Modern bank building:



1980 Bank building:



Early architecture. US National Bank building:

Too much or too little alcohol? :chin: — Yohan

Whatever is the amount of spike.
Honestly, if we're being cross-examined here, would it be fair if you said outright you consumed alcohol, knowing you were deceived that it was a punch?
I bet you wouldn't say it as plain as that. You have a right to an elaboration and clarification.

Little a bit of context: it's a scene from Cyrano de Bergerac with Gerard Depardieu, in Dijon, where I was born. :cool: Cyrano de Bergerac is a traditional french play, really well known for its consistent use of rhyme and wit. Gerard Depardieu, is like, the best actor ever. It's like two giants meeting up, creating a masterpiece and it happened here, in front of this tiny restaurant. If have a decent literacy in french, I highly suggest you watch it. The word play is impeccable. — john27

I want to visit you in Dijon. :)

I had a brush with de Bergerac. People told me. Will do. Thanks for a little background story.

The dream reflects the unconscious longing for being in his paradise. Your not feeling at ease in his paradise reflects your attachment to the enormity of the architecture you are used to. It's a conflict between the place you want to be and the place you're born into. The tension expresses itself in the nightmare you had. You're afraid to break free but the longing is there.

Or you just don't like his buildings. They look if they can fall down because of a gentle push. — Raymond

Maybe you're right. I'm not adventurous enough to like his buildings -- a gentle push, in my mind, is enough to cause a fall.

'love the stonework.

Hundertwasser. — Raymond

I had a dream I was in a place with nothing but Hundertwasser building. Somehow I didn't feel at ease.

Seems to be a matter of taste and timing. This minimalist, anti-ornate, geometric style has been a widely celebrated retro fetish for some years now. — Tom Storm

Tom, it was an instant attraction of those buildings when I took art, and I couldn't look at other buildings such as Hundertwasser's in awe.

Oh wait I can't upload photos. Too bad, you would've been amazed. — john27

Try it please.

Another shot of Bauhaus:

Again, in the early 20th century, radical architects --- inspired by the rise of Socialist aspirations for an egalitarian society --- attempted to transform their oppressive industrial cities with housing for factory workers. One proud and sad example was Corbusier's Unité d'Habitation in Marseille — Gnomon

Very attractive to me. The lines -- the glorious symmetrical lines.

Here's one my favorite German architectures:

The architecture has an enormous impact on their worldview. Alternatively, the architecture would be slowly transformed into what they need. Any insight would help greatly. — Warren

Adaptive architecture.

Fair point, but that would mean if I drink punch, not knowing it is spiked, that I didn't consume alcohol. — Yohan

Correct. You ingested alcohol, but consumed the punch.

What are some texts that you believe to be essential for anyone who wants to clarify their understanding about some topic? Any topic you like lemme hear it. — _db

The surgeon general's warning about smoking.

There is at least some form of power dynamics that comes from being excluded from that which we survive from. — schopenhauer1

Let's start in the inner workings of our brain and intuition. It's powerful.

Am I using the word 'chemical', 'consume', or 'alter ones state of consciousness' too loosely? — Yohan

Yes.

Happy new year!

3. All sensing is consuming
4. All sensations alter our consciousness (to greater or lesser extents) — Yohan

If you define consume, that's intentional action on our part. Perceiving is sensing with or without our intentionality.

Not all sensations alter our consciousness. Our heartbeat goes on 24/7, we sense it, but our consciousness remains the same.

Independent sources of capital were always a part of it. — schopenhauer1

You misunderstand. We're not talking about just any independent sources of capital here.

People need the capital infusion and rarely have their own to grow the business unless already wealthy which is where an unfair advantage does enter into it. — schopenhauer1

You are preaching to the choir.
The nature of funding these days has changed. You're still in the old school of entrepreneurship.

It's important to realize that the United States in the 1950s and 60s had high economic growth which was much more egalitarian than today, — Xtrix

Which, perhaps, had also the highest register of happiness in the history of the US.

But, the small businesses, are the incubators for creating the bigger ones which then become almost like public goods by being so ingrained in the lives of everyone. — schopenhauer1

You must be thinking about the era of entrepreneurship -- which has been replaced now by VC and other sources of funding. The incubator outlook is long gone.

Cheers, Proof!

Why don't we compile an anthology consisting of how various philosophies/philosophers are/can be misunderstood. — Agent Smith

That will be a good thread. I'd like to collaborate, if you don't mind.

Thanks for the link.

And just as I've suspected, it remains problematic to use empathy as a counter argument for the existence of other minds, especially outside psychology. Note that the article never once mentioned "metaphysics" and "ontology". Rather, there is this inter subjectivity loophole we could use to argue, helplessly, that we could connect with other minds by way of analogy or mirroring.

Empathy cannot be used as a evidence-gathering against solipsism by the very fact that solipsism cannot recognize analogy, let alone, other minds.

So in practice, empathy - which is 'the ability to understand and share the feelings of another' - is an obvious antidote to solipsism, and suggestive also of a philosophical answer to the challenge. — Wayfarer

While I do not disagree, somehow it leaves me a feeling of dissatisfaction from the understanding that we are shifting the philosophical nature of solipsism (as a matter of principle) to a psychological one. Not that I disagree with talking about solipsism in the psychological sense. But that I find that we can't even justify talking about it philosophically even if we try. Does this make sense?

Some clarification: empathy is a subject of psychology. Or please enlighten me what philosopher has used empathy to argue about the nature of reality or perception.

↪TerraHalcyon
the solution to solipsism is empathy, i.e. the realisation that all beings are the same as you. — Wayfarer

This caught my attention. Can one really experience solipsism? Or will solipsism remain just an interesting philosophical topic.

Isn't it that philosophy generally avoid science in collaborating on philosophical topics? — Doru B

Not in the way you put it. Philosophy asks a question in a different sense because reality, to philosophy, can be inquired upon in a different sense. However philosophy draws empirical examples and evidence from science.