Although one wonders what kind of analysis might yield information that validates, or falsifies, the hypothesis that ‘the propensity for happiness is determined by evolutionary factors’. — Wayfarer
When a religious person earnestly asserts that "God Exists", to doubt the factual accuracy of what he is saying is in some sense to misunderstand what he is saying. For the only meaningful scientific problem is to ascertain the environmental stimuli that upon interacting with the person's brain provokes his assertion. Thereupon identification of the environmental stimuli, we can interpret the religious person's assertion "God Exists" as his empirical measurement of said environmental stimuli. — sime
Science bottoms out in the real world - it deals with real abstractions - in a way metaphysics and epistemology usually don't. For example, metaphysical and epistemic concepts are rarely parametrised or operationalised; they don't need to interface with reality in the same way as scientific thoughts do. Another contrastive case - what would an epistemologist specialising in Gettier do with a survey on people's responses to Gettier Cases? — fdrake
If it helps, I've worked in a few scientific research projects and am a statistician, and not once have I been asked to used Kolmogorov's axioms in a Carnap-ian quest for scientific objectivity. Much more effort is placed on designing appropriate controls and resource efficient experimental designs than anything which resembles 'applied probabilistic reasoning' in the sense you outlined it. — fdrake
In my view, good philosophy isn't there to vouchsafe the operations of scientific thought, or to ape scientific thinking in a philosophical register - scientific thinking will continue to happen without philosophy's help. Philosophy at its best is a problematiser, a composite of overlapping and sometimes contrary metaphysical, epistemic, ethical and political intuitions which allow it to ask interesting questions. — fdrake
Haven't you already relied on axiomatic assumptions in establishing your particular take on the way philosophical questioning should proceed? — Janus
This seems unnecessarily complicated. Maybe it would be clearer if you can give simple examples of philosophical and scientific issues addressed by your method. — T Clark
Also - in my experience application of one of these methods does not start with a question, it starts with an observation, an issue, or a problem. If there is a question, it's "what's going on here?" — T Clark
Yes. Mind over matter. — matt
But since the traits are not specific to humans you can't do that. Which is very much the point I was making, obviously. You are looking for human lived experience as a way of uncovering the evolutionary reason for those traits, but humans came ready supplied with them; traits that had already been a foregone conclusion for 100s of millions of years. — charleton
I think happiness is a way of being in the world which may have evolved "as a survival mechanism" but limiting happiness's scope to pleasure and pain does not differentiate man from beast. One of the fundamental aspects of humanity is its desire to know, as Aristotle stated in his metaphysics "All men by nature desire to know”. The generation of meaning in life is essential for a happy life in my estimation. — Cavacava
So much , so obvious. But you are changing the goal posts.
All mammals, and birds, probably reptiles too; experience pain and pleasure.
Let me remind you, that you were talking about 'happiness'. — charleton
Pain as physical, suffering as mental. — matt
A state of mind. — CuddlyHedgehog
I do not think you have any warrant to distill ONE emotion such as happiness out of the entire human set of emotions. Hate, since it also is part of human experience is as valid a candidate for an evo-psych analysis. But this is the myth of evo-psych, that they just cherry pick something and think of the nice traits and decide that is why we have it. It's rubbish. Because happiness can lead to not bothering to have children. Contentment can mean wanting to keep what you have rather then burden your life with kids! — charleton
But evolution is not a thing that can choose or meld the creature's emotional spectrum. The only rubric is that some fail to reproduce.
So nothing really can be said on this topic despite the gallons of ink that are spilled by the fantasy science of evolutionary psychology.... except masturbatory speculation, based on a false and backwards teleology. — charleton
The pain comes from the torture. The suffering comes from the frustrated desire to not be tortured. — matt
Evidence? This is metaphysics, not medicine. It has to do with attitude and values - how you look at things. — T Clark
Buddhism's First Noble Truth (there are 4) - All life is suffering. Second Nobel Truth - Suffering is caused by desire. The desire for pleasure. The desire not to feel pain. Struggle. — T Clark
In what way wouldn't it affect us? — schopenhauer1
What does Watts' status as an entertainer or a philosopher have to do with whether or not that is true? — T Clark
The real reason why human life can be so utterly exasperating and frustrating is not because there are facts called death, pain, fear, or hunger. The madness of the thing is that when such facts are present, we circle, buzz, writhe, and whirl, trying to get the I out of the experience...Sanity, wholeness and integration lie in the realisation that we are not divided, that man and his present experience are one, and that no separate I or mind can be found .... [Life] is a dance, and when you are dancing, you are not intent on getting somewhere. The meaning and purpose of dancing is the dance. — T Clark
Thus all the ordinary pursuits of mankind are not only fruitless but also illusory insofar as they are oriented toward satisfying an insatiable, blind will. — Schopenhauer article from Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
The surest path to the long hill and the big round rock is the stupefying loss of passion--the emotions. What mortal, above-ground proletarians should do about their work life is a good question, which bears on whether we will have a chance at happiness (one of those emotions you want to get rid of) or mere survival. — Bitter Crank
Instinct here is defined as an innate behavior in response to stimuli that is essentially "pre-programmed" in the organism. So, a bird flies south for the winter, sea turtles move towards the beach to lay eggs, etc. etc. I will also lump certain forms of learned behavior into instinct as well. — schopenhauer1
Yes, it is not innate, but it seems to be epigenetic in a way for some learned behavior in other animals, as they are "primed" to learn and cannot help but learn based on their programming — schopenhauer1
An example of this is a daughter chimp learns how to be a "good" mother from watching its mom. However, the daughter chimp does not have a choice to do anything but learn from her mother. It cannot say one day, "eh, I don't feel like being a mother". — schopenhauer1
In a way, this is an instinct to learn specialized behaviors for survival. — schopenhauer1
This linguistic mind has changed the way human behavior functions from other animals. It gives humans the ability to create complex hierarchical thinking. — schopenhauer1
Even something as fundamental as child-rearing is not instinctual. If people want to have a child, it is a desire just like any other desire. That is to say, it originates with concepts (I, raise, baby, development, nurture, care for, etc.) and concepts are purely in the realm of linguistic-cultural. — schopenhauer1
How do you know it is an instinct and not just something that is what you simply desire based on your personality and linguistic-cultural enculturation? — schopenhauer1
This is learned behavior, and not the kind where we just can't "help" but learn, but ones where the culture/family/community transmits information and instruction. — schopenhauer1
There is no decision, or alternatives. — schopenhauer1
The content is wide and varied due to ability for conceptual transmission via language. — schopenhauer1
In Einstein's epistemology..."the axiomatic structure (A) of a theory is built psychologically on the experiences (E) of the world of perceptions. Inductive logic cannot lead from the (E) to the (A). The (E) need not be restricted to experimental data, nor to perceptions; rather, the (E) may include the data of Gedanken experiments. — Galuchat
Einstein referred to the demarcation between concepts or axioms and perceptions or data as the 'metaphysical original sin' (1949); and his defense of it was its usefulness. — Galuchat
My suggestion is to look further into what logic is: it's a formal discipline that has alot of specificity to it — StreetlightX
I think your'e in for a hard time trying to discuss anything sensibly if you're aren't familiar with even the actual axioms of logic themselves — StreetlightX
I don't mean this harshly, but only as a suggestion for study! — StreetlightX
One can establish a system of logic without a single reference to any real life constraint, or scientific result. Logic is more or less entirely disconnected from the empirical — StreetlightX