I don’t think there is such a sweet spot. Someone can explain all of physics by referring to a God that moves things on a whim and that the reason there is regularity and the appearance of laws is just pure chance and that would be just as “epistemologically valid” as our actual theories of physics. As to which will be believed that is a different matter entirely. The whimsical god theory I just mentioned will definitely be cast aside as invalid when it is only really improbable.

However what I have noticed is that beliefs that tend to obscure their “pivot” the most are the most believed. If you present just the pivot as a belief (like the whimsical god) people will have no reason to believe you. However the more deductions and logical steps you take further away from said pivot the more believable the thing is. Because it makes it seem like there is no pivot making the belief seem “objective” when really it’s that the pivot is so obscure that by the time you find it you have invested too much in the interpretation of the world resulting from it that you end up believing it anyways.

In other words a belief is more believable the more times you have to ask “But why” or “But how do you know” to get to an unproven premise.

Firstly, comparing being to non-being appears to be a difficult comparison to make because if one were to posit "it would have been better for me to not have existed" — TVCL

An antinatalist never says this. Antinatalism isn’t about putting people in a better situation (assumed to be non existence). It’s about NOT putting people in a WORSE situation (existence). Actually it’s not even that existence is worse than non existence but that in order to put someone into existence you will be harming them. And whenever you are about to harm someone explicit consent is required to make that harm ethical. Since that isn’t available here (no one to get it from because they don’t exist) it is effectively not given (since that’s how consent works).

Antinatalism is more like “don’t shoot people”. It’s not that “not shooting people” is a good thing, it’s that shooting them is a bad thing.

Finally, there is an assumption that suffering is simply bad. For example: — TVCL

Because it is defined that way. Suffering is different from pain. Pain is what you feel when you stub your toe. Suffering is “A feeling that feels really bad and you want to get rid of”. You often have one and not the other. For example, when you’re enjoying a sport you’re in pain but you’re not suffering. When you are depressed you’re suffering but not in pain.

but is there an assumption that freedom is so paramount that it trumps birth? — TVCL

It’s not so much about freedom as it is about consequence. When one has children it results in their suffering. In every other situation when we are about to inflict harm on another consent is required or else it’s unethical (unless it’s self defense) don’t you agree? In that case there needs to be a reason birth should be treated as the exception not the other way around.

I don’t think that question remains answerable when asked in succession enough without forming circular logic. I think there is at least one “pivot” to every belief. An unproven claim that is just accepted. I remember long ago (maybe a year or 2) I was replying to you specifically after you said something along the lines of “Should we concede all civilization and progress in the favor of the annoying child that just keeps asking “why?””. This sounds like a very similar thing.

I’m not saying the preexistence of spirits is impossible I’m saying we don’t nearly have enough evidence to assume it

none of what you are sending requires the existence of spirits. It could still be explained in terms of genetics and nurture. I don’t know why you think those two aren’t enough.

Also the definition of character that you sent:
“Qualities that make someone distinct from others”

Doesn’t take long to develop at all you already have qualities that make you distinct from birth.

I don’t think child geniuses are amazing to the point of requiring the existence of spirits that reincarnate with some of their “character” intact

Tell me exactly what you mean by “character” and why you think it takes so long to develop. I don’t know what young Mozart was like so I don’t know what you think is so special about him that the only way to explain it is by saying he is some kind of “old soul” or something

What problems are there with many individual bobs in many individual rooms rather than one universal Bob that somehow looks into all the rooms simultaneously yet doesn’t remember what’s in the other rooms. You say “he only know A fro A and B from B” but you also say “he is in A and B” so that would imply he knows both A and B. But he clearly doesn’t (because I don’t experience what you’re experiencing or I might have understood your view XD)

I can get behind everyone having an identical Bob but not everyone sharing a single Bob

also lends credibility to genetic theory. Some people will just be born with the right genes for the right environment to be considered geniuses. There is no need for past lives or spirits to explain that. I tend to favor the metaphysics that “creates” the fewest things and makes sense. You don’t need spirits to explain differences in intelligence and performance so I don’t believe in them.

I can get behind some sort of “experiencer” being in everyone but I don’t get how it is “universal”. I never got “universal self” even though I hear it here and there. It would make sense to me to say that everyone’s consciousness/experiencer operates in the same way or that everyone has an identical copy of it but it doesn’t make sense to me to say that everyone’s consciousness is literally the same one and only “universal consciousness”. Why do we experience different things then?

I keep bringing this up when people ask “would you rather not have been born”? There is no situation in which I get to choose between existing and not existing, because that would require me existing to choose.

I have no idea who that is but maybe he meant that people are inclined to dryly answer philosophical questions at the beginning and to defend the answers. So when someone says “Is it right to kill in self defense?” a beginner in philosophy would just say “yes” or “no” and try to justify their answers afterwards whereas a non beginner would maybe ask “what counts as self defense?” “Should killing be justified in self defense even when it is likely that one would be able to defend themselves without killing?” Etc. I think he was saying that the more you do philosophy the more simple answers become a rarity.

well when something that was animated becomes inanimate doesn’t it mean that it is no longer alive? You seem to be implying that although the body is inanimate the “animation” itself sticks around but I don’t understand what that could mean.

A living being becomes inanimate object after they die no? So I’m not sure what you mean

"A living being is created so it can't die" makes no sense to me. Care to explain?

First off, no matter what you say people will still be afraid of death, or at least avoid it. We're built that way. And secondly, you assume that death is a dreamless sleep but you've never been dead as far as I can see. The source of people's fear of death is partially that they don't have a clue what will happen when they die.

That being combative about it (or any topic for that matter) just gives everyone involved headaches. To be able to tell when someone wants to have a discussion and when they just want to fight with words. But most importantly not to worship ideas/ not to take it too seriously and to always be willing to change your mind.

Not philosophy generally, but the "what is the meaning of life?" question is a curse. — Pfhorrest

I think any question in philosophy can cause the same reaction as that one. That one is just the most common affliction. I have a case of "Is morality objective or subjective" yearly with all its accompanying questions such as "If there was an objective answer to that question how can I know I have reached it", "If the answer doesn't produce a change in behaviour is it a meaningful answer at all?" and so on. I think the problem is not the questions themselves but the questions you have to answer to get to your questions. And the questions you get as a result of the answer.

I think there are 2 kinds of words: ones with “composite” meaning and ones that serve as pointers. “Pointer” words are those that cannot really be defined, they serve to “point” to a concept or understanding we come prepackaged with. Like “space”. You can’t really define space using simpler words, but everyone knows what space is. Same as “color” and “shape”. Composite words just combine these concepts so a “tree” is a combination of:

A particular shape
A particular texture to the wood and the leaves individually
A particular color to the wood and leaves individually

You can comprehend all these basic constituents of the tree (shape, color, texture) but you can’t know what “tree” means until people agree to bundle those constituents under the tag “tree”


Or at least these are my intuitions on the matter. I don’t know what words wouldn’t work like this but there probably are some.

Oh I thought the last line was you talking not Anscombe. My bad.

“ But for that reason and because the contrary pain soon disappeared, it can’t really be counted as self-harm.”

When someone self harms they are doing exactly what you did for your tooth ache. When they self harm the contrary pain (emotional) disappears. For them it is more harmful to sit with their emotions than to cut themselves. The benefit is avoiding a greater pain.

“Moments of insanity” hardly exist. They are not the reason people self harm. If they were self harm would be spontaneous and random not habitual as it almost always is. When people self harm they are doing so precisely because they don’t want what is harmful for them (the emotional pain) and choose a lesser harm.

If your toothache thing doesn’t count as self harm then most self harm wouldn’t count as self harm by your definitions.

Then how did we conceive of the law? Isn’t the law supposed to outline what is bad?

Also would this mean that if Trump allowed all crimes within a 48 hour period that anything you do then is fine?

How does “due to error we can never predict the position of the balls” lead to “the notion that the universe is determined fails”? I would agree that the notion that we can predict the universe fails, but those aren’t the same thing. Not that I agree with the notion that it’s deterministic.

self harm IS a coping mechanism for people that do it. So you can argue that they do want it. It is entirely possible to want to hurt yourself because it serves as a good distraction. People self harm because it takes their attention away from an immense emotional pain and replaces it with a relatively mild one (not that self harm isn’t painful). We have many similar “distracting” coping mechanisms like laughter when we’re nervous or afraid.

And how does “it is contradictory to hurt yourself” follow from “there is no meaning”? Where is the contradiction? How are those two even related?

not in need of reconciliation to some universal standard, are the defining features of relativism and subjectivism — Pfhorrest

But they ARE not in need. You yourself said, "Or we can BASELESSLY assume that there is morality, etc." I think you took a pragmatic approach against nihilism but then treated that as a logical argument against it. Nowhere in what you said is it implied that there is a "need" of reconciliation to some universal standard. You yourself called it a "proposal" which doesn't sound very objective to me. And even if that need isn't established as objective, in practice, people will tend towards this reconciliation naturally.

Someone who tries to get everyone who disagrees to come together and figure out something that everyone should agree to is not a relativist at all. That's exactly what objectivism is. — Pfhorrest

Really? I don't think of that when I think of objectivism at all. The definition I found online (that I agree with) is Objectivism: the belief that certain things, especially moral truths, exist independently of human knowledge or perception of them. What you're describing requires people to agree on something. And whatever they agree upon is deemed "objective". Objectivism doesn't do that at all. To me what you're describing sounds like relativism but the "group" in question is everyone. "If everyone believes it, it is true" is the essence of relativism. What you're proposing is just a very wide scale relativism.

I thought I had explicitly said that, but apparently not. I explicitly meant it in any case. I should probably add a small bit explicitly saying it. — Pfhorrest

You implied it heavily but I just said it to stay on the same page.

Relativists say that whatever a majority of some thinks (their beliefs or intentions) is correct, relative to that group, and those who think differently are incorrect, relative to that group.

Subjective idealists say that whatever a majority of some group feels (their perceptions or desires) is correct, relative to that group, and those who feel differently are incorrect, relative to that group. — Pfhorrest

Yes BUT the point is neither of those views opposes this:

coming up with a model that does account for all their different experiences. — Pfhorrest

Your view is that we should try to reconcile all the different experiences. I'm saying idealism and relativism don't oppose that at all. That's what I meant by "Whether or not you say there is an objective reality/morality you end up practically doing the same thing" and that is trying to reconcile conflicting views.

This is the statement I most disagree with: "simply because to assume otherwise would just be to give up for no reason" but I'll get to that later.

I don't think this is arguing against nihilism logically but pragmatically: "I object to that on the grounds that if it is true, then by its nature it cannot be known to be true because to know it to be true we would need some means of objectively evaluating claims about what is real and what is moral"

Nihilism doesn't exclude itself from its own equation. It doesn't claim to be objective. It claims that all beliefs (including this one) are relative and believed in by the person's choice. To disagree with it is just that, disagreement, it doesn't prove it false. It's a statement that, whether you agree or disagree with it, remains unprovable. It cannot be established objectively but neither can it be dismissed. So your argument against Nihilism is purely a pragmatic one. "We can either give up or go on" is what it boils down to but that doesn't logically disprove anything. You can't logically respond to the people that choose to "give up".

Also, another interesting thing I find with your argument against it is that, whether or not one believes there is nothing real or moral, they will take very similar steps from that point.
"or, instead, we could baselessly assume that there is something real and something moral — as there certainly inevitably seems to be, for even if you are a solipsist and egotist, some things will still look true or false to you and feel good or bad to you — and then proceed with the long hard work of figuring out what seems most likely to be real and moral, by attending closely and thoroughly to those seemings, those experiences."

How exactly would one go about figuring out what seems most likely or real WITHOUT employing some sort of arbitrary system of evaluation? The system you proposed sounds to me like trying to reconcile all the different views, to find common ground among them. But how is that different from the initial position you disagreed with of saying that the closest we can get to objective morality or reality is whatever the group agrees with? Because to me, they sound exactly the same. And that's why I disagree with: "simply because to assume otherwise would just be to give up for no reason."

People don't go: "There is no objective reality I'll just kill myself now" they usually go "There is no objective reality so what's the next best thing?" And end up doing the exact same thing as people that say "There is an objective reality time to find it"

That's why I usually don't bother getting into threads that have "Is there an objective X" because:
1- To assume there is or there isn't is just as baseless
2- Whichever you end up going with you practically do the same things

In other words, answering the question is pointless.

I read almost everything about alan watts. That's why I'm so confused!

It'd help if you gave a topic of discussion instead of a few books. I for one would like to know why there are so many schools of Zen, Buddhism, etc that teach radically different things. How can you reconcile someone telling you that you need years and years of practice to acquire "enlightenment" and another that says everyone already has it. I can't remember the names of the heads of either school but I can pull it up if you want.

As far as I understand it, Zen is about achieving total "spontaneity" where the conscious "you" stops trying to control things. This doesn't mean it's ascetic, because asceticism is very clearly all about controlling things but in Zen, you're supposed to give up attempting to control completely. So if you don't feel like meditating don't, if you feel like getting angry do, etc. Obviously you can't do so without attempting to control yourself into doing so which is why enlightenment is described as a "sudden realization" that attempting to control is futile so you automatically let go of it. You can't "induce" enlightenment it just happens to you. What I don't get is how that leads to the "end of suffering" that Zen purports to achieve

I’m more concerned with how we can tell whether this simulation is conscious or not when we can’t even tell whether the person we’re talking to is conscious or not. Until we get a consciousness-o-meter I don’t think we can answer this question

I don't think causation has to do primarily with either of those things. I think it has to do more with our recognition of certain events following other events and they don't have to closely follow. Some people have thought that God is the cause of their suffering/pleasure. There is an example that has neither of those proximities. Cause and effect are all a matter of how we imagine the world to be. Though events being close in time and space certainly helps us recognize them more easily as causes.

Yes, of course I can imagine my body not existing. — Bartricks

That’s what it means for you not to exist.... What you’re trying to imagine is the experience of not existing and your inability to do so doesn’t prove anything. If your body didn’t exist there wouldn’t be an experience because there wouldn’t be a self.

my parents created my body, not my self. — Bartricks

But surely without your body your self wouldn’t exist? That’s the assumption here. Your self is contingent on your body existing. Unless you’re suggesting that selves can exist without bodies in which case it becomes unclear whether their existence is contingent or necessary.

No, first "a married unmarried man cannot exist" is not true if the 'cannot' means 'necessarily cannot', for it is by convention - and thus not necessary - that 'unmarried' means 'not married'. — Bartricks

Ok how about “a married not married man cannot exist”. Mr nitpick

And if you agree that 'necessarily true' adds nothing to 'true' (and that this is also true of contingently true') then you agree with me. — Bartricks

Now when did I say that? I wouldn’t be responding to you if I agreed would I.

it seems absurd to think that our imaginations place limits on reality and vice versa. — Bartricks

But our logic/reason does? Both are just human faculties. Also categorizing truths into necessary and contingent doesn’t place limits on reality any more than Newton’s theory of gravitation forced the universe to behave according to his theory. Because our categorization can simply be flawed

two quite different views that you vacillate between. — Bartricks

I asked you to provide an example of something that is “true by definition” that is not “inconceivably false” or vice verse and you provided “khaled exists”. However it is conceivable that khaled doesn’t exist and nothing in khaled’s definition says he must exist. Therefore that example fails. I think both views are the same though I’m not sure on this point. As I said, could just be lack of imagination

When most people say it it just means “I don’t like this”

wat?

What sort of authority would that approximation have? I don't care what others consider "Best".

I have learned statistics. What does that have to do with what I said?

ok so?

?

because we don’t know them?

“Best” depends on a subjective judgement so maybe it is the best possible world for you. Not for me though.

Yes, er, that's MY point - I cannot conceive of not existing. I cannot imagine it — Bartricks

You CAN imagine a world in which the collection of molecules known as your body doesn’t exist correct? Therefore your body existing is a contingent truth. You’re trying to imagine the “experience of not existing” which is not a coherent concept so of course you’d fail.

For the proposition "Bartricks exists" is one that I cannot conceive of being false, — Bartricks

Really? You cannot imagine a world in which your parents never met?

first say that you can conceive of it, and now you say that it is impossible to conceive of it. — Bartricks

Maybe actually read what I’m saying. One can easily conceive of a world without themselves. That’s not what you’re trying to do. You’re trying to conceive of the experience of not existing, which is an incoherent concept like “square circle” and I don’t know why you’re trying to do that

This proposition "Khaled exists" is, for you, a proposition you cannot conceive to be false, yes? — Bartricks

No. And I never said that. I can easily imagine a world where the homo sapien referred to on this forum as “Khaled” doesn’t exist. What I cannot imagine is the “experience of non existence” which is, again, an incoherent concept. Because if said homo sapien didn’t exist there wouldn’t be an experience to imagine

But the definition of a term - and thus what you can substitute one word for - are not necessary truths. — Bartricks

I understand your point. I just think it’s trivial. However you swap around the terms and definitions “a married unmarried man cannot exist” will remain true. When someone says “true by definition” It usually means “if you substitute the definition in it will be clear that the statement is true” which is exactly what I mean.