I include as evil self harm, not just that harm to others, including subjecting yourself to degradation or humiliation. " — Hanover

I do not. You regard the severely depressed as morally similar to sadists and abusers?

When you have catastrophic loss of animal and insect biomass, ecosystem collapses, extinction rates comparable to historical extinction events, then maybe, just maybe, this time is different.

When you have multiple "Once in a century" weather cataclysms wrecking havoc multiple times per year, and it will only get worse, much worse, then maybe, just maybe, this time is different.

When you have scientists chaining themselves to buildings, the us army predicting it's own immanent collapse, then maybe, just maybe, this time is different.

But, no. Y2K didn't happen, 2011 didn't happen. Therefore, this is just more hype, you can safely ignore it.

Now I'm glad I had no knowledge of this word, nor its depressing meaning. — jgill

Is the collective turning our heads away the true irrationality, the enabler of this crisis? — hypericin

Living on high ground in the Southern Hemisphere will be sustainable for centuries at least — 180 Proof

Curious about your source on this.

And it's not like I aspire to mere survival. The world as a whole is the greatest artistic masterpiece there will ever be. It is daily being defiled and degraded, shit smeared on it's canvas. I want to experience a small slice of its beauty before it is completely gone, and its people before their lives are totally consumed by continuous crisis and stress.

First off, it's rather intriguing that your response to the end times is precisely what a person diagnosed with cancer would (decide to) do. — Agent Smith

Yes, in both cases the future is seen as an illusion. For cancer it is just the individuals, here it is everyone's, but the effect is largely the same. For me.

. What I find odd is that with or without a fatal illness/global catastrophe, death is certain and yet to "spend away my savings travelling, extracting what joy and fulfillment in life remains" isn't on your average Joe's to-do list. — Agent Smith

Except, it is. We all want to to do the things we've dreamed of, and typically defer these dreams. There will be time, later. All of a sudden, you realize: time is running out.

Evil is to act without regard for the well being of the other. This is epistemically objective to the degree motivations can be objectively determined.

Sadism is a perverse evil, that cause pain and permanent damage to gratify a psychic or sexual need.

Narcissism is evil, because the narcissist acts with only their benefit in mind.

Sadistic narcissists are the most objectively evil humans we've got *cough* Trump *cough*.

To be moral is just to treat moral agents justly. Our concept of justice is largely built in and intuitive. What has always been at issue is who is worthy of the status of moral agent. The reason that outrages like slavery can exist is the wholesale denial of moral agent status to groups. This is how moral outrages always happen.

So the question is, who is worthy of being moral agents? Is there an objective criterion? I think so, it can only be consciousness. To be a moral agent is to be conscious. Why? To be conscious is to feel, to have goals and interests, to have a sense of self, to be in the most important respect similar to all other moral agents, that is, all other conscious beings. (Consciousness is not an absolute, if a being is minimally conscious, it is minimally a moral agent.)

Therefore, to enslave people or animals is objectively immoral, as this is treating moral agents, that is , conscious beings, unjustly.

But abstract objects are often said to lack causal power. The number 2, on its own, can’t cause anything to happen in the physical universe. But if The Maltese Falcon is indeed an abstract object, then an abstract object can have causal powers. For instance, the novel can entertain, cause me to feel suspense, happy, sad, etc. — Art48

But, the Maltese Falcon, on it's own, cannot do any of these things. It must be encoded in some way to exert causal power.

I have had similar thoughts. I came to the conclusion that the world is comprised of both material and information. They are never isolated; physical objects embody information, informational objects cannot exist without a physical "host", if only a mind. .

"Objects" don't hold any special privilege, their boundaries are largely human drawn. With that in mind there should not be a problem in admitting informational objects to your ontology.

Computer programs and genetic codes are great examples of informational objects which have causal effects on the world.

Yes, at best it can only be sold as a failed war aim. Earlier in the war Russia had opportunities to secure Ukraine's neutrality, which it ignored.

My argument is against the tankie delusion that the war was somehow a defensive response to NATO encroachment.

I don't understand your last sentence. — Manuel

"Retreat" is only weakness if the aggressor did not obtain what they want. If they achieved everything, "retreat" is not even the right word.

If forcing Ukraine from NATO was truly the aim, Russia could have had that easily, early in the war or before. And if they gained that, their withdrawal would not be a "retreat", and it would not be a show of weakness, they would have gotten what they through raw force.

Only by acknowledging that NATO is not their true aim, that all of Ukraine is their goal, does Russia's withdrawal in this scenario turn into a "retreat".

f they retreated as soon as they invaded, that would convey weakness, not power. — Manuel

From the way you talk you are already aware that NATO has nothing to do with Russia's aim. If it was, and they got what they wanted by military force, it would have been a brutal show of raw strength. Only if their actual aim was Ukraine itself would their leaving be a "retreat" and a show of weakness.

Not because he's less bad, but because he doesn't have the same amount of power. — Manuel

Total non sequitor.

the negotiations were rejected, and then as soon as it was launched, they would've stopped and retreated? Really? — Manuel

Obviously. They would have been negotiating from a position of power, and gotten what they wanted. But what they wanted is nothing less than Ukraine.

Politicians, by definition, are liars, so of course proven liars must negotiate. — Manuel

Yet you are holding Zelensky to this unrealistic standard while he negotiates with one of the greatest liars in politics.

I'm positive I remember Zelensky offering to abandon his NATO bid immediately before the invasion. But I cannot find this anywhere. Did I hallucinate this?

Once the conflict started it was too late. — Manuel

"Too late"? What a blase dismissal of what is purportedly the war aim of Russia. Russia could certainly have saved itself a lot of grief.

Zelensky says different things depending on which camera is on him: Western, Russian, etc. — Manuel

So I guess negotiation with such a proven serial liar is impossible?

As for NATO launching a conventional war, this came out yesterday: https://www.yahoo.com/news/petraeus-predicts-us-lead-nato-190325472.html — Manuel

This hypothetical is in response to a Russian nuclear strike. By that point, the calculus changes dramatically.

But it's not speculation, NATO is the cause of the war, and should be recognized. — Manuel

How do facts bear this out?

Ukraine offered neutrality multiple times before and during the conflict, Putin was unmoved.

NATO offers no conceivable threat to Russia. Russian military doctrine permits a nuclear first strike in the case of an incursion into Russia's borders. This constitutes an ironclad security guarantee for Russia. AFAICT even Russian apologists don't take seriously the idea that NATO could ever launch a conventional war into Russia's borders.

Far more likely, Russia considers Ukraine at best a proper satellite of imperial Russia. Even the suggestion that Ukraine join NATO challenges this status and is intolerable.

would argue that every time you use the word ‘greed’ to describe another you are failing to see how they legitimately justify their actions based on their perspective and personal history. — Joshs

There are few who view themselves as explicitly immoral. There is always a way to rationalize. But this fact does not impact the legitimacy of our own judgements of them.

My point is that intellect and morality are not intrinsically linked. — Deus

It's worse. Interject is an amplifier of evil.

I define evil as seeking ones own benefit at the expense of others. Evil is a constant, but Intellect amplifies it's power. Worse, with technological sharing it enables the evil of the led intelligent. The ingenuity of the gun enables the killer to murder in mass. The ingenuity of nuclear weapons enables a wounded narcissist like Putin to murder a country or the planet.

I’d much rather find voluntary means of coordination. — NOS4A2

Democracy is the only such means.

Democracy is the natural state of social organization. Leaders emerge, but they lead by the consent of the led. If they lose that consent, they are removed, because the led outnumber them. Simple.

It is only when populations increase to an unnatural extent, due to the invention of agriculture, that tyranny becomes possible. While the led still outnumber, they now need organization to effectively resist. This becomes difficult with increasing numbers and a determined ruling elite which suppresses such organization.

Democracy is the institutionalization of the original, natural state of affairs, and is the only means of voluntary organization of large numbers. It's sole function is too maintain voluntary rule by consent, by providing an institutionalized organization the masses would otherwise lack. It is only ever partial, and it is always under attack, always threatens to devolve into minority rule, as we are observing across the world now. But it's all we've got.

] Except their point is not "the purpose of suffering is to avoid suffering", rather "the purpose of suffering is to avoid the things which causes suffering".

Yet there's a vicious circularity here, in that suffering is what we seek to avoid, and yet what we seek to avoid is suffering. — Banno

Where is the vicious circularity? You just rephrased the same thing

Such a system doesn’t occur naturally — NOS4A2

If you look at the earliest examples of statehood, these forms "occur naturally" as seen by their repeated emergence and are at the same time imposed, and are deeply exploitive.

The problem with that definition is that by that ,we cannot say about anything at all that is "real".Since every procedure that allows us know/think/consider something as "real" is made via our minds.So nothing at all is actually mind independent. — dimosthenis9

A better definition is "existence independent of thoughts about it".

I see only one sense of exist. The lump of granite exists, or it does not. The deity exists, or it does not. The past exists, or it does not.

And the relevance of your self quote, afaict, does not exist.

Hence, the thought of the rock of yesterday is a thought just as real as the thought of this rock today, but the existence of either rock is not given by mere thoughts about it. — Mww

Yes this is obvious.

It is therefore unjustifiable to say the same thing about those by which the determinations of each depends on non-congruent modes. — Mww

I don't really know what you are going on about. And it is frankly not interesting to me. I don't want to quibble about grammar. My question is, do the past and future exist? My phrasing in the op was an attempt to eliminate "define exist" responses. This was a blunder on my part.

he saying is not the thinking, but merely presupposes thinking for its antecedent, and represents thinking as its consequent — Mww

More quibbling. My point is, the reality of thought is not an argument against the notion of "real" as "mind independence", in the sense that its existence is not contingent on thought. Thought is real insofar as its existence is not contingent on thought about thought.

If "the rock exists" says nothing about the rock, if the rock might be illusory, how can "the rock exists" point out that the rock is not an illusion?

How can "god exists" be meaningful?

Tell Lord Russell. And Kant. — Banno

How would you or presumably they handle illusions? Suppose the rock is illusory. Illusions exist, yes yes, but the sentence is "the rock exists"

Now to say that the rock exists is not to say something about the rock. — Banno

Gibberish.

My thoughts are real. My thoughts are not mind-independent. Therefore some things which are real are not mind-independent. Therefore “real” doesn’t mean “mind-independent”. — Michael

Rather than "mind independent", how about "independent of thoughts about them"? When you say "my thoughts are real", you are thinking about your thoughts. You will have thoughts whether or not you think about having thoughts.

Even better, I like "Existence not contingent on having thoughts about them".

Also a toy gun isn't a real gun, but (for the sake of argument) toy guns are mind-independent. — Michael

"define real" produces two definitions:

"actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed."
"(of a substance or thing) not imitation or artificial; genuine."

It is an unfortunate fact that multiple meanings will forever muddle all philosophical discussion. Let's restrict the conversation to the first usage.

So my mind isn't real? My thoughts and feelings aren't real? — Michael

Your thoughts and feelings themselves are real. But it is what they are about that is in question. When one says "X is real", this does not mean, "My thought that X is real". These are two different assertions.

From my understand hypericin isn't asking if the rock existed yesterday. He's asking which theory of time is correct: growing block, presentism, or eternalism. — Michael

Yes, I regret the way I phrased it.

I see, sentences are real and rocks are true. This must be an extension of your private, idiosyncratic language where "to exist" means being the subject of a predicate. Why your personal language should be of interest to anyone else is beyond me.

Wouldn't it be better to say that what is real is what is true? — Banno

Absolutely not.

.

actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed

This is just another way of saying, mind independent. Real/unreal is a conceptual divide which separates that which exists independently of our thoughts of it from that which is our thoughts of it.

True/false is a different divide, which categorizes statements, not existents.

Seems to me you are not happy with the consequences of reality being mind independent. — Banno

What's wrong with reality being mind independent? Why do you think I am unhappy?

Mind independence is simply what "real" means. What is your problem with this definition?

1. I do not rejected classical logic. But it is not a complete tool, much as Newtonian physics is an accurate but incomplete description. The world seen through the lens of language is simply not bivalent.
2. Rejecting bivalence is not antirealism., in fact quite the opposite. It is rejecting a distortion that prevents a faithful rendering of what is real.
3. That truth or falsity depends merely on the manner in which we speak of seems decidedly antirealist to me.
4. You quoted a discussion where I was defending the reality of the past and future. Its just that this reality, as most things, is not 0 or 1.

what

There's nothing real about that in the philosophical sense. — Tzeentch

To be "real" means to be mind independent. Do you really believe historical events are not mind independent?

If there is no one around to remember my birth, does it still exist? If so, where? — Tzeentch

As long as you are alive or your life had impacts, it exists in its effects on the world. Eventually that effect will fade away.

Can I touch the past and the future? Can you point to it so I can verify it exists? — Tzeentch

When you touch a Greek stature you are touching the present day successor to a far past event and object. When you wrote the above your past writing reverberated into my present. I see it right now.

Just a memory, a conception, a reasoned argument, but nothing real. — Tzeentch

The distinction between "real" and "unreal" is the distinction between mind independence and mind dependence. A rock is mind independent, and so real, while a dragon is completely mind dependent. The event of your birth does not depend on the state of anyone's mind. It is real, and it's mind independent reality extends to right now.

I don't believe I am experiencing my birth right now, unless we have very different ideas of what it means to be born. — Tzeentch

You're whole life is the experience of your birth.

According to theory of relativity, time is a special kind of space. So you could say that the rock of yesterday or tomorrow exists in that space, just in a different location. — litewave

So then the passage of time is an illusion, we experience every moment "simultaneously".

But we are "flatland" creatures living in a 4d universe confined to a 3d space, which, from our perspective, is drifting through the 4th dimension. Is 3d space real to flatlanders? I would say, only to the extent that it impinges on their 2d world. Events in 3d space which do not intersect their 2d world do not exist for the flatlanders.

If they are real, then where are they? — Tzeentch

The past and future are right here, embodied in the present.
You could not understand yourself without understanding that you were born. Your current state of affairs all flow directly from the event of your birth. Therefore your birth is a real event, you experience it right now, that will have completely passed from existence in a hundred thousand years.