Thank you I appreciate that.

Lol, no Im not. I was just curious about whether or not your adamancy about defining “god” before discussing has ever actually resulted in a definition that you were not atheistic about. I'm not sure why you are so hostile, it was just an honest question. No reason not to be a lady.

I think a good question for him would be:

Are you resentful that you''re not God? — Gus Lamarch

I always find it very rude when someone uses a response to me to actually be talking to someone else. Please don’t involve me in your squabbling sir.

No, I do not. Does that mean you will answer my question now?

Are there any gods that you wouldn't be an atheist about? Have you ever had god defined in a way you weren’t atheistic about (without the term “god” being a simple placeholder for something else like “universe” or “happiness” of course)?

You can see where I'm going with this. There are some great conversations out here, but there are also pages of pointless back & forth posts repeating the same things over & over and/or insulting and/or cursing out one another. Why? What does this accomplish? Do people get some sort of pleasure and/or satisfaction out of this? — EricH

The good discussions are had by those here for discussion. The other folks you mention arent here for discussion, they are here to soapbox, to vent their dogma, to expound on some pet argument and/or to satisfy weak/insecure ego. Also, some just cant seem to tell the difference between philosophy and therapy. So yes, its about pleasure/satisfaction, with a wide spectrum of what gives that pleasure/satisfaction. The hope is that most are here for discussion, but the discourse just doesnt bear that out.

Someone recently called me a bot. <Sarcasm> Oh no! That wounded me to the core of my being - I'm going to introspect for the next 6 months until I can figure out the errors in my thinking. </sarcasm> — EricH

Thats exactly what a bot would say :wink:

(and he extends this to the idea of treating beliefs AS actions. We can't tolerate certain beliefs and we must treat them as fait accompli actions. Interesting what happens if you apply this to his beliefs about torture,say) — Coben

Thats the first sentence of a paragraph, which explains what exactly he meant by that. Perhaps you disagree with it, but thats not the same as “dumb”.

I believe that I have successfully argued for the use of torture in any circumstance in which we would be willing to cause collateral damage (p198)

Given what many of us believe about the exigencies of our war on terrorism, the practice of torture, in certain circumstances, would seem to be not only permissible, but necessary. (p199)

What is it about that you think is dumb?

I dont know that it would factor in per say. It may or may not, the society good be nihilistic, or the individual not nihilistic. All depends on each specific instance, thats why I mentioned that before. Its too complex to make general statements or conclusions.

I would say yes to that. Until it evolves out of us humans will always express individuality, in fact id go so far as to say that its only the conformity to society that weakens this natural instinct of individuality. I think it does that on a scale/spectrum. Certain societies will be better or worse for the sense of individuality.

The individual's existence is already an eternal battle against the external environment. I don't see a "truce" being made between the individual and the collective. — Gus Lamarch

I think I can agree with that.

Its that the concept of individuality doesn't make sense - to me - when applied to a completely hegemonic population, without religious, cultural or social differences. It seems to me that the individual "dies" when an absolute truth has been completely reached and everyone believes in it. — Gus Lamarch

I think by definition the individual “dies” in this complete hegemony, but only because you defined it so. Am I misunderstanding? It seems like you are essentially asking “if there was an environment with no individuality would there be any individuality?”.

Well thats an example of someone trying to get others to express individuality, not Majorians self expression of individuality. You asked whether or not someone can be an individual in that specific society, not whether an individual can change that society. In the latter, its more a question about how a populace changes or doesnt change regardless of the environment, where as in the former its the reverse: can the individual resist the environment?
So I think you are juggling two questions here. I Believe what I said initially about individuality stands, but to the second question about a populace/society changing their absolute beliefs I think its much more complex. Psychology, habit, adversity, the power/influence of the would be changer, desperation or prosperity of the populace, the structure or content of the absolute belief...there are so many factors Im not sure it can be reduced to a single, widely applicable answer. Its going to depend on the details, the specific instance.

Of course, in so much as an environment is able to be opposed/ignored by each individual within it.
Im not sure where the conundrum lies here...if the individual subscribes to a social environment, they subscribe to the level of individuality permitted by that social environment, if any. If they do not subscribe then they have no restrictions on being an individual. If the person subscribes but doesnt always follow the rules, then they have individuality proportionate to the degree to which they go against or ignore the environment. Finally, if they subscribe to the social environment but privately (mentally or otherwise) exercise individuality then they are able to be individuals to whatever extent they are able to have privacy (of thought or otherwise).

Thats true, there is always resistance from that crowd. I guess I more mean people who are against certain intellectuals who aren’t necessarily the fringe left. Harris is often attacked with strawmen, accusations of racism and bigotry with no basis, misrepresentations of his political views etc. People will straight up lie in attempts to smear him...they so despise him that they can justify dishonesty. I see it with others too, like if you disagree with the person you have to hate them and do whatever you can to discredit them regardless of its legitimacy. Ezra Klein is a good example of this with Harris, even though Harris let it get to him it was clear to me Ezra wasnt arguing In good faith and I know from other exchanges that Ezra knew he was misrepresenting Harris.

I agree with you, I think Harris is a very good communicator. Id say his job is a public intellectual, if that term means anything.
People hate him though, so the clarity of his points gets lost in the emotional reactions he provokes in people. There are a few of these public figures that are like that, the mere mention of their names taps into a ready waiting mob that feel like they need to tear him down.

Before answering your question, I would remind that not to be a "genuine philosopher" isn't negative or condescending (perhaps in our times it would be the opposite). Being a "philosopher" is as loose or even looser than being a historian. — ssu

I understand, I was just curious what your criteria was.
From what you posted, it seems like you just mean a professional or working philosopher?

What makes a philosopher “genuine”?

Which one of his works was that in?

No I agree with you. Forum has been a bit toxic of late.

That surely has something to do with it, we are social creatures and thats where it all comes from. Once we soar on the wings of reason, thats where things get interesting ethically.

That coincides with your brand of egoism. Im more of a social contract guy myself, and I dont much buy into principal based ethics. I think you are right about tactical compassion as the basis or origin of morals, but there is also a strong biological basis in empathy as well. Its not tactical to have compassion for an injured child or animal for example. (Well, not necessarily anyway).

Ok, I understand. :up:

if you think about it, moral value must begin when the ability to suffer begins, in regards to NU, right? So in regards to abortion, it is wrong to kill as soon as the foetus is sentient. — JacobPhilosophy

I think you are correct, under NU suffering is the qualifier for moral agency.

However, If one were to reject NU, and merely believe that it is wrong to cause suffering, this would surely justify murdering new-borns, wouldn't it? I'm reinforcing this concept as it do not like it as an outcome and I struggle to figure out how to avoid it. I often see a suffering-less death as equal to never having been born in many regards. — JacobPhilosophy

Well a newborn can suffer, so again that is only part of the calculation made under NU. You must also consider the net happiness.
It seems like you reject NU but do not want to reject it. Is there some reason you think NU is what you should be subscribing to?

Well you would make a utilitarian calculation on the babies net suffering and net happiness. Under NU you would first consider minimising suffering and then look at the net happiness.
Im not aware of a strictly Utilitarian/NU precept about when someone is considered a moral agent.

Btw I know I am embarrassingly ignorant, but I ask questions in order to gain a deeper understanding, so forgive me. — JacobPhilosophy

Nothing to forgive, asking questions is the essence of philosophy in my opinion.

maximising pleasure is a consequence of minimising suffering. How can it be immoral to not bring pleasure to an individual? This seems irrational. When ethics are concerned, we do not feel that it is unethical to decide not to cause pleasure, but we find it unethical to cause suffering. Therefore I feel it seems irrational to say that "potential pleasure" being restricted is a reason why it is immoral, as the same argument can be used for not conceiving in the first place, and nobody says it's immoral to use a condom. — JacobPhilosophy

Then you are rejecting NU, and your initial query about NU is moot.
Also, NU (and just Utilitarianism) isnt about maximising pleasure, its about maximising net happiness (As a primary precept of Utilitarianism and a secondary precept of NU).

In addition, it could be argued that the pleasure of the parents is increased, as they no longer have the child that they didn't want, and the child experienced neither pleasure nor pain, so therefore it is ethical. — JacobPhilosophy

The child not experiencing pleasure or pain isnt enough for NU, NU demands that after considering the minimising of the childs suffering you must then consider maximising net happiness of the child. If you do not, as you have not dine here, then you violated NU.

If you do not want to make that consideration and speak of general ethics then you can also just go ahead and not make the minimising suffering consideration as well since as you’ve noticed it doesnt make much sense when you operate in that precept alone.

I think you misunderstand NU. Its true that it is primarily concerned with minimising suffering, but that doesnt mean it has no other precepts. NU is also concerned with maximising happiness just like normal utilitarianism, its just a lesser priority than minimising suffering. So while murdering newborns might be ok under the primary precept of NU, it violates other precepts of NU. (Many of which come from utilitarianism, but NU directly references maximising happiness as well as minimising suffering none the less)
So you arent using the proper metrics of NU when you conclude its ok to murder newborns. Once you do, murdering newborns is no longer ok under NU.

You sure can be thick headed. His point in repeating that same thing in in response to your repeated question is his way of of saying “sorry Timmy, your use of “fuck you” has ended my desire to converse with you, Timmy”.
Its obvious he has retired even the small amount of cordiality he has in his responses to you. Should be obvious anyway, but you relentlessly carry on as if you haven't poisoned The well with 3017amen. Why do you do that?

Howd I do @3017amen? That pretty much sum it up?

Well ok, but there was more to what I said than just that.

Right, but you said its purpose is what you are using it for. I used a spoon to make it clear that you can use something for a purpose it wasn't intended. Under your view this would never be the case. Instead of spoon, we could talk about different qualities of knives...all purposed for cutting but some purposed for cutting certain things in certain ways etc and it would be the same thing. Eventually it will come down to different senses of the word “purpose”, different contexts of the same word (“purpose”).
Maybe this is semantic...what about if we make a distinction between the purpose of something and the usage of something? (As opposed to a distinction between two usuage of “purpose”).
Does that make it more clear what Im getting at? That you use something for a task doesnt mean that task is its purpose. If that were true, then in some sense the spoons purpose is to cut bread. (In the sense thats what you are using it for, but NOT in the sense that the spoon was made for a specific set of uses (scooping, stirring, transferring contents of a bowl etc).
Your notion that its a matter of degree to which the thing is useful for a purpose can be countered by a different example, a necklace. The purpose of a necklace is to look good or show status or whatever. Its also very useful for strangling a person wearing them. If our clueless friend from my spoon example asked “what is the purpose of a necklace?”, what would you answer? Even if you have used necklaces to strangle people before, I think the answer is still clearly “its purpose is as a fashion accessory” (with whatever Purpose you want to assign to fashion accessories).

I think to “have“ a purpose is the same thing as to “be useful for” a purpose, and so if a thing is not useful to some purpose, that is not a purpose of it (a purpose it “has”); that’s not something it’s good for. — Pfhorrest

I understand. So what about things that have a purpose/usefulness but do not fulfil its purpose particularly well, or even poorly? Would that change anything? Like, you could use a spoon to cut bread but it seems strange to say thats the purpose of the spoon doesnt it? Its what you are using the spoon for, not what the spoons purpose is. If you were cutting bread with a spoon and someone who did not know what the purpose of a spoon was asked you what the purpose of a spoon was would you say “cutting bread”? You might explain to them about purpose being what something is used for but at that point you are describing a different sense of the word. You might say “the spoon wasnt made with cutting bread as its purpose, but thats what im using it for now so thats its purpose” and to me that sounds like two different kinds of “purpose”. One the purpose intended, the other purpose its being used for.

Ok, so can something have a purpose that it isnt useful for? What about something that has a purpose but it isnt really that useful to that purpose, or at least mot as useful for something else?
Also, could you address the lack of mutual exclusivity I mentioned? It seems to me it can be both, and thus my point about different senses of the word being used stands.

Its both. Its two different ideas about the purpose of the golf club (as a means to play a game and as a weapon) AND it is two senses of the word purpose (purpose created for and purpose in use).
Do you think that the purpose of something is the same as the usage of something? That seems like a clear distinction to me.

A thing’s purpose is whatever it is good for, regardless of whether or not anyone created it with that use in mind. Our use of the word in the blackbird case demonstrates that we are generally okay with this sense of “purpose” in everyday speech. — Pfhorrest

I think its useful to have a distinction between purpose of use and purpose created for. I could create create a golf club for the purpose of playing golf, and that purpose isnt changed if someone decides to use it, re-purpose it, as a weapon to smash in someones head. It was created for the purpose of playing golf And later used for the purpose of murder. Neither purpose negates the other and the “use” for the purpose of murder doesnt change what the golf clubs purpose was/is because there are two senses of the word “purpose” at play.

Wow. I did 1 minute 27 seconds on the first and 57 seconds on the 2nd. That blonde was particularly cringe inducing. No wonder I never watch those things.

Whats an example of one of his dumb ideas?

In what way is that “ mod submitted” dipshit? What I said is highly accurate, as you just evidenced.
First, you don’t know enough to understand how you are wrong. I am not a mod dipshit. This is Dunning Kruger, just like I said.
Second, you are on here doing exactly what I accused you of doing: repeating the same muddled talking points and infecting new threads when you dont get the proper response to your precious (“precious” Meant here in the most condescending possible sense) little ideas. You have an axe to grind, and its transparent in everything you post.
Who started this thread? You. Whats it about? The same shit everything else you say is about.
The fact you think your garbage ideas are going to be any more accepted by repetition is the third thing, arrogance.
Number 4, aggressively wrong. You are wrong, and you are aggressive about it, lacking the humility to consider the possibility you are wrong and having only the very poor option to double down, full speed ahead.
Number 5, ignorant. You at least have touched upon a few pertinent bits of knowledge but alas only enough to hop on a Dunning Kruger soapbox to support your pet idea. You clearly lack knowledge on what you talk about (philosophy, philosophers, logic, reason, burden of proof...really everything you talk about you have only superficial knowledge about).
Lastly, I included you amongst these train wreck fools, and you obliged me by not only staying true to form but also went out of your way to post my spot on analysis that is proceeded by strong evidence of its truth.
You havent been banned by the grace of the mods, but you will be eventually because you are a dipshit. You are not open to ideas or argument, you make stupid, ill considered posts, you cant help but be obnoxious since your arrogance demands ridicule (cuz youre so brilliant and correct and everyone else is so hopelessly burdened by weak thinking. Classic arrogance) and because you so poorly grasp the content of what you speak nothing you say or think will ever get any traction (except, of course, with other dipshits).

This thread is embarrassing, not just for 3017amen and for @Frank Apisa, but for the forums that spawned it. — Banno

You have never made a more clear and accurate statement. If the difference between a soft handed mod team and a hard handed mod team is jerkoffs like those 2 polluting the forum with garbage then I welcome the heavy hand. My self-righteous judgement would be complete except I share in the embarrassment, having interacted with both trolls.

Im not out there bitching about my threads getting moved you fucking dipshit. If I was you would have a point, but im not so you dont.
I cant remember a single douchebag with these painfully stupid threads that get deleted or moved actually make a good one. Its always starts with this muddled, dogmatic talking point that they preach over and over again whether its pertinent or not. Then when they dont get the recognition of brilliance they think it deserves they make an equally unimpressive thread demanding peoples attention to their ill conceived pet philosophy/talking point.
Its just a bunch of arrogant, ignorant, Dunning-Krueger dummies who are aggressively wrong and right only by accident. And yes, this includes you, so take your brainless commentary about what I said to somebody else, shine it up, put a nice little bow on it and shove it up your ass.

Its fine the way it is, stop bitching about it and concentrate on making better threads/OP’s.

:lol: