Nietzsche became a drooling potato. He didn’t commit suicide.

How people say they will react is usually quite different from how they would react. Generally speaking if someone’s worldview (axis mundi/weltanshauung) is X it will remain X even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The reason being the human mind can only become so stressed.

I haven’t looked at the articles at all and probably won’t. Not a topic that interests me massively tbh

I can answer this easily enough. It would depend on the mechanism of Astrology and the scientific mindset.

Some scientists deny any suggestion of a causal effect if there is no known connection. Others are more willing to accept some ‘effect at a distance’ without knowing the actual mechanism at work. Xtrix, by my judgement, may fall a little more towards the requirement of some mechanism being explicable than I do … such differences are useful though and opposing stances help reveals more reliable approaches.

For me if I shake do X and Y happens far more often than not I will continue to do X if Y is what I want. I would still be curious about how X produces Y, and question if it really did do anything, but it would not really matter that much.

To state that scientists have been wrong all of the time is blatantly false. Newton was not ‘wrong’ just because Einstein came along with more accurate equations.

That said I completely understand that in regard to the history of the Earth ‘outside’ influences could be a bigger influence than previously thought. The best data we have (from numerous sources) does strongly point to human impact being highly influential in regards to climate change (a very, very basic understand of greenhouse gases shows this). And again … That said, there is undoubtedly more to climate change than we know about given that such cycles cover vast periods of time … and again, that said we can still make some pretty darn good models that have had good predictive accuracy. The weather is VERY hard to predict yet the seasons are VERY easy to predict.

Either way the human race will not die out due to climate change anytime soon (as in for thousands and thousand of years), yet we could effectively end civilisation by the end of the century by various other means. Perhaps ‘humanity’ will cease and we will just become more cyborg-like? Who knows? One thing for sure is we struggle with mass communication; we are mostly mad as a bag of badgers; struggle to manage information and crap at long term planning & prioritising. On the flip side we are often stubborn and highly adaptable.

If we were mostly sane we would basically be superhuman. Sadly perhaps 0.01% of people are ‘sane any any given moment though :D

I know enough to know that prominent neuroscientists today have stated that in their youth they were told to steer clear of research into ‘consciousness’ because it was regarded as too ‘fringe’ and would possibly end their careers. I also know that many scientists ‘play the game’. Meaning they will contrive experiments around a popular demand/theme in order to get funding if they can shoehorn in a way of getting the data out for something they need - often happens for military research.

Bjorn Lomborg is a somewhat questionable source. Check your sources out thoroughly, question them, hold onto doubt and try to destroy your heroes at every given opportunity.

Again, this ties back into the poor ability of humans to manage information and communicate amongst the noise and hyperbole.

Just to add, water can be boiled multiple times in a single day whereas the changes to the climate are on a slightly more grander scale ;)

Maybe you should read what I said before stating I didn’t say it?

Climate scientists have been studying the climate. Did you think I believed they have been developing hairstyles? Do you think I believe that current climate change is not primarily being caused by human actions? Do you think that I believe humans have had no impact on the climate … point being what you think I think is irrelevant. I was addressing the OP which states Climate Change as the biggest human problem and that I do not think that is the case at all. The biggest problem is more or less people as generally lacking the ability to communicate and discuss in a calm and civil manner rather than tarring and feathering anyone who appears deluded, evil or wrong.

Now my question to you. What have hairdressers been doing for the past century? :D

Jesus didn’t write the Bible did he? If he existed he might have been a good teacher and someone to look up to. All I know is the Bible is a piece of political propaganda written after his death and edited/censored to serve an institution rather than as a moral compass for humanity.

Evidence: The gospels were selected from a much larger corpus of work.

No it is not. To question the possible effects of a changing climate is reasonable. Like I said, a great many so-called ‘Climate Deniers’ are simply questioning nutcases at the other end of the scale who talk about human extinction. The kind of folks pushing for all kinds of policies that result in destructions of environments and poverty.

Why is that so hard to grasp? I am not saying there are not people who outright deny the human effect on climate change but THEY are quite ignorant. Questioning the impact our actions will have and have had is not denial.

Understand?

Having reasons is a burden. It means we choose to do something and we think it leads to various consequences for doing so. It isn’t just an impulse that drives us with absolutely no awareness. — schopenhauer1

Yes.

Climate Change is normal. The impact of humans on the climate is also a factor.

Ironically it is likely those that push for ‘greener’ living, at the expense of everything else, that will magnify the potential damage to human civlization.

Examples of such stupidity are those against GM foods and genetically modified livestock (the knock-on effect is not great) and the idea that ‘nuclear power’ is somehow ‘dangerous’ and wind and solar are viable alternatives. When countries shut down nuclear power stations whilst simultaneously espousing views on climate change regarding carbon emissions … frankly it is baffling and either due to wilful stupidity, ignorance, political self-promotion and/or a combination of these factors with numerous other pieces of nonsense thrown in.

Hysteria and knee-jerk reactions made by governments, and pushed by people who have little to no understanding or training in a broad range of fields and related fields, are the biggest problem humanity face. Note: This extends into free speech and various other areas that have made mass communications such a hotbed over the last few decades.

In short, how we communicate is the biggest problem we face and it has always been the biggest problem for humanity and will remain so as long as we are human.

You can generally see if a problem is a genuine one when the problem encapsulates the multiple potential solutions in various other seemingly unrelated areas.

A great number of people are framed as ‘Climate Change Deniers’ when in fact they do not deny that the climate is changing, nor that humans have an effect on the climate, but they do question the extent of the impact humans have. This is a reasonable position to have. Those that completely deny any hint of Climate Change and how humans impact the climate are simply ignorant to basic science.

I think we are entering the umpteenth utterance of ‘everyone is going to starve’ or ‘there are too many people,’ yet again these dire warning of human civilisation collapsing have never come about. This is not to say there is not danger, only that in today’s world any such perceived ‘crisis’ is magnified tenfold by the carpet bombing of public minds via various media resources espousing all kinds of unverified nonsense as conclusive evidence. My hope is that the younger generations coming into future political prominence will be wiser to the world of sensationalism, hysteria and advertising to the extent that they can calm the storm enough to think independently.

Philosophy is classed as part of the humanities. Hence, ‘Arts’ rather than ‘Science’ … yet Social Sciences are not always classed as ‘Science’ … demarcations are just demarcations. Anthropology is another subject area that straddles both the Arts and the Sciences.

I think maybe he meant this more along the lines of ‘they are currently not exactly at their peak’. I think that is a reasonable point to espouse, but it is not so easy to gauge this.

The same has been said of Science before now. Then someone comes along and shakes it all up. I think it is a fair comment that the social sciences and/or humanities are overdue some form of paradigm shift or general ‘shake up’.

I believe Husserl was onto something regarding how psychology has shifted more towards being a ‘science’ (in the physical sense) and away from the ‘psyche’ sense of psychology.

Another problem here is that these areas may very well be changing right now we just cannot see it due to proximity. Maybe in a few decades we’ll look back and state ‘that was the time of resurgence and change in those fields’. In the here and now it looks stagnant and that is probably because we’re reforming/rediscovering/rethinking long held views and tearing them apart as best we can?

And some linguists are happy to refer to ‘language’ in a broader sense than others. Those that study animal communication are quite happy to refer to ‘language’ as something animals possess (just clearly not in the common use of the term in colloquial speech).

Well, the term ‘truth’ is essentially an emotionally charged concept. All concepts are moe or less emotionally charged. Our sense of ‘reality’ and/or ‘truth’ is not usually something to can wrestle with as it is our keystone. Such is called (in Jungian speak) our Axis Mundi or in more philosophical jargon our Weltanschauung.

In the terms you use I would simply ask what kind of characters ‘Intellect,’ ‘Logic,’ ‘Truth,’ and ‘Emotion’ might be and how they would relate and interact with each other in the stage in your head?

When thinking about this keep in mind that infants have strong emotional interest when watching abstract shapes move around. For example they will watch a Square moving towards a Circle and hitting it repeatedly. They are seeing the Square ‘attack’ the Circle. This is a well documented phenomenon of how human’s interpret abstract objects interacting. We see an ‘emotional act’ playing out where ever we can. This is long before we learn to speak.

I am not entirely sure what you will think of this …

I am very much interested in anthropology and the role ‘religion’ has played in cultural development (not merely conventional modern ideas of religions - as in organisations). I have come to regard ‘mythos’ as the basis of human communication.

I have reason to believe that verbal communication was developed after play acting forms of communication and that even today humans are pretty much geared to explaining the world by ‘acting out’ it is just that verbal ‘language’ (spoken, written and/or signed) has come to dominate human ‘thought’ (note: ‘thinking’ is not necessarily something that involved ‘words’).

I also have fairly solid grounds to state that human beings understand the world, first and foremost, as an ‘emotional landscape’. On top of this our disposition to ‘emotional interaction’ (with each other or the world in general) plays into how we learn and communicate ideas. Memory is essential for passing on information and various mnemonic techniques work so, so well due to using emotions as prompts to recall information - ideas laden with extreme emotionally charged contents are more readily remembered.

I should pause here as the most difficult problem I have here is that I am using words to explain something that is absent of verbal baggage and underlies our very being. This is not me stating that ‘language’ is or is not innate, just that at some point in our evolution we developed a broader tenporal understanding of the world, and ‘langauge’ (as we commonly refer to it), sprung forth and readily attached itself to our underlying ‘mythos’ (which is an intersubjective beast being both ‘subjective’ and yet clearly ‘objective’ as can be evidenced by looking at common markers across various traditions and our growing appreciation of fundamental human traits).

Any thoughts on that semi-ramble?

This looks like it could be one thread I could really get my teeth into.

First off … I want to try and figure out what definitions and explanations you have of the term ‘myth’? By this I am asking for different possible uses of the term and any nuances you add to personalise this term.

My take is that each and every individual has a personal ‘mythos’ over which - and from which - we build up our representation of the world allowing us to navigate it. In another line of thought I view the use of ‘myth’ in teaching and education as fundamental to human development that has been somewhat overshadowed by the written form.

Anyway, will read this thread more carefully later and see if I can pick anything out that will help us engage more on this topic.

‘What’ not ‘Which’.

Not really. Child marriage was pretty much ‘traditional’ and this has been pretty much removed due to laws for ‘consenting adults’. If anything I can sooner imagine the required age for marriage being moved up rather than down. Either way it is just a number and I’m sure many marry when they are still emotionally immature and irresponsible. Polygamy is common enough already (albeit mostly beyond western cultures).

Stupid question. Flagged.

My thoughts are the same after reading the first few sentences.

and I guess laws protecting incest or child marriage would also be easy to make legal, so perhaps those would be next. — Paulm12

How are these even vaguely comparable to same sex marriages?

Try googling it maybe before putting your foot in your mouth.

Bye bye.

You are in my sin bin again. See you in 2 months maybe.

I actually did just check. I was correct.

I was stating fact not opinion. Scientifically speaking what I said was correct I dudn’t day it because it ‘makes sense’ it is just simply what experts in the field have stated.

These experts know more than you clearly. Too much genetic variation is too much. Too little is too little. There actually is an optimal range for procreation and this optimal range is regarded to be (by experts in the field) with breeding between 3rd and 4th cousins if I recall correctly.

You are using this alongside something posed as ‘Darwinian’ though - ie. Scientific. Optimal procreation is not simply about mating with someone more different than you are (note: the actual genetic differences within ‘races’ is far broader than between said ‘races’). The optimal last heard was to mate with your 3rd or 4th cousin I believe.

Quantifying such items has more or less use depending on the problem posed.

If a problem is viewed as entirely a quantifiable one then it is not really being viewed with any kind of ‘ethical’ tilt. This is something common to ethics where the individual will strive almost endlessly to reduce any problem to number in order to abstain from any sense of responsibility if the results of actions are unwelcome.

The societal norm is an ever present prison on any decision we make and it is an ever shfting prison. For this reason alone drawing any conclusion with certainty is somewhat foolish. The ‘moral’ here being the ‘best’ thing to do is be willing to except the fallout yet try to avoid as best you can to produce a fallout whilst simultaneously knowing soemm kind of ‘fallout’ is inevitable at some point in your life.

Anecdotal evidence is just that.

I simply relate this to Jungian Individuation.

This is (very bascially) broken down into four stages where the outward social projection is pretty much nullified - Persona - followed by exploring and accepting your inner ‘dark side’ - incorporating your Shadow - then coming to terms with the feminine/masculine opposite - anima/animus - which then leads the individual to a fuller sense of self by realising they are in fact multifaceted and more complex than they ever first imagined.

This is something akin to realising the ‘ego’ and not exactly kicking it out, but more or less realising the necessity of the ‘ego’ whilst not placing it on a pedestal.

The process of Individuation is likely to be traumatic and at the very least a large mental/‘spiritual’ feat to take on. For some it happens accidentally (like it did mostly for myself) but I guess it can happen through a pure wilful pursuit (although I cannot fathom how this would work).

Whatever … there is no philosophical question in the OP.

Entropy. And this is not exactly a ‘philosophical’ question.

In philosophical terms we ‘die’ because we are alive. Not dying = not living.

I don’t see much of an argument being presented nor a solid position. You do not believe that suffering is necessary for a full life? What is it to live a good life? Is a good life a life absent of suffering? Does ‘meaning’ make a life a full life or is meaning more or less a waste of time? How does meaning relate to knowledge in terms of suffering/woes in life?

I do not really think searching for ‘meaning’ in life is very ‘meaningful’ … I find the whole idea of searching for meaning to be ‘meaningless’ … maybe that is your point?

I do not see how being poor or rich has anything to do with meaning or suffering so some of your points in the OP are empty for me.

I think it is a perfectly reasonable evolutionary function to ‘search for meaning’ when things do not go our way. That is basically a damn fine survival mechanism that allows us to venture beyond our perceived limitations and learn about what is out there.

My point was that they are just words. ‘Suffering’ is no different to ‘meaning’ in the broader picture.

I have had a few discussions on here where some describe ‘suffering’ as being basically anything that requires effort.

Note: a ‘positive’ event can only be called such in relation to a ‘negative event’.

Words are just words. The ‘meaning’ (whatever that means!) is a referential tool for us to navigate around. For you perhaps the ‘meaning’ is to stop looking for ‘meaning’ … kind of self contradictory but most language is so … :D

Maybe if there was no suffering there would be no meaning? By this I mean that knowledge and understanding pretty much tie into some obstacle in life in one form or another.

Maybe meaning is suffering or suffering is just an alternative perspective for finding meaning. Generally in life I have found that suffering increases when meaning/understanding is avoided. The challenge of life should probably be met head-on as much as possible so as to find meaning and circumnavigate unnecessary suffering.

Note: ‘suffering’ seems to be ‘necessary’ for conscious and conscientious living creatures.

Here’s a question … Is ‘race’ a ‘social construct’? :D

I have noticed that people are so quick to say how others are easily offended, ridicule them and then hammer home the argument of people being offended when openly trying to offend them.

Humans are funny creatures.

Is your post here driven by morality. It seems to me that I agree with the gist of what you are saying but any public agreement is necessarily ‘immoral’ as it is tied up in the whole ‘morality’.

Morality is essentially immoral.

Note, every claim I have made is true — Bartricks

You are a moron. That is not ‘true’ it is my opinion. Do you understand the difference? I think not.

Bye bye. Not interested in any exchange with you for at least 3 months. You are officially in my sin bin.

Have fun :)

I can, and will, do better than you have :)

Currently busy arranging trip so it is not exactly the most important thing atm but WILL present an argument for antinatalism and go over several misconceptions on both sides that I have seen others repeat.

Either way:

- You validated what I said about the loose use of terms and I do not assume what is or is not meant by ‘harm’ (meaning if he meant ‘unnecessary harm’ then he should have said that AND been particular about what ‘unnecessary harm’ means).
- No red herring. He argued, quite clearly, that ‘innocent’ people do not deserve ‘harm’. If unborn/non-existent people are somehow different in terms of ‘innocence’ then that is something the OP needs to outline and differentiate between not me.
- I would say that life necessitates suffering and that suffering is necessary for any life-form in some capacity. That is what I would call ‘necessary suffering’ rather than throwing a blanket over all suffering as ‘unnecessary’. You yourself pointed out that there is ‘necessary’ and ‘unnecessary’ harm. If you are not entirely opposed to the idea of ‘necessary harm’ - which would be peculiar as if we call something ‘necessary’ then it seems fairly validated - then must surely admit that some ‘harm/suffering’ is actually beneficial.

In conclusion it seems that the ‘harms’ you berate are the ‘harms’ I see as strengthening peoples and individuals so they can live good lives.

The whole consent issue was not mentioned in the OP sadly. That is another area where there are huge misconceptions cast by both sides and all it takes is to listen and agree or disagree. No one consents to being born and no one (or rarely) consents to dying. I did not consent to gravity either … and it is right there in the hyperbole where the nuances of the argument begin to be lost. Gravity is not exactly a phenomenon of nature like birth is, but picking apart what is similar and different in these two phenomenons might help.

My view is basically formed around the use of hypotheticals and general dislike for ‘ethics’ (meaning something announced to the community as ‘good’ or ‘bad’). My dislike is due to the constant self manipulation we torture ourselves with due to peer pressures and general societal ‘norms’.

My argument for antinatalism (whenI complete it) is more or less going to be about how the argument can benefit us collectively and as individuals.

It would be interesting to see how you could write an argument against antinatalism. Will you attempt that?

You have two options.

1) Express yourself better so you do not constantly find yourself telling others they are ‘not addressing the OP’ when they have and found little to nothing of content.

2) Be constantly ignored and ridiculed due to the inability to react to how people respond to your posts where the blame is put 100% at their doorstep.

If someone reads what you wrote and replies to it then it might help to either point out the misunderstanding (without insulting them) and/or trying to express what you meant more precisely, or just try another approach.

I’m done with you for a month. Bye