But we can choose to not pay attention to those folks if we find them annoying or whatever. — Terrapin Station

I'm not so sure we can as that could be seen as an silent acceptance.

Another problem is, that when you answer you push up the subject and by default your answer will become hidden but the first post will be seen.

It's not the first time people with hidden agendas try to smear the reputation of philosophers.

They are actually suggesting that we should justify harming animals and people to end their suffering.

That is a really sick opinion.

I think anyone who try to justify violence should be banned. There should be a zero tolerance for justification of violence, it's easy to argue morally for such a stance.

There can still be interesting philosophical discussions.

It's just naive to accept such posts as they display zero knowledge and understanding of basic moral philosophy and human values. They can't claim to even be doing basic philosophy. There hasn't been a single historic philosopher who has not been concerned with how to help humanity prosper, it's the opposite of what these two charlatans do, they can't have read a single line of philosophy.

And they put philosophers in bad light by pretending to act as philosophers, when any real philosopher no matter school of thought will find their reasoning utterly idiotic, and also puts philosophers at risk of harm by missrepresenting them or people interested in philosophy.

I will not want to be associated with or contribute to a place that permits people who try to justify violence.

On Reddit I could have downvoted their views, unfortunately it is not possible here.

I believe Judaka and Schopenhauer1 perhaps should be banned from this forum.

I believe their opinions are an attempt to smear this forum by being very negative and extreme, thus enabling bad actors to point at this forum and say.

Look they are at a forum where 'people' have dangerous opinions, maybe they have picked them up too.

Thus I believe Judakas extreme views is not only using a faulty logic, but they end up being bad and dangerous, and also very bad for this forum and it's members.

They enable bad actors to smear people who are interested in philosophy and philosophers.

People here need to strongly speak out against their lack of moral and understanding of moral.

They are very wrong.

Most animals on earth don't suffer most of their life.
Insects, fishes, birds, wild animals etc are probably contempt most of their lives. We can also clearly see happiness in animals such as dogs.

Humans who suffer depression should get help.
Instead of giving up, we should carefully understand how to improve our society to minimize suffering without sacrificing lives.

If animals suffer we should help them live without suffering. In any normal situation it is not up to us to decide if we or other animals shouldn't breed or get children, only in extreme situations under certain conditions may we try to help another human to not procreate, for example by handing out condoms.

Because it is not certain if an animal or a human will suffer or how much or more than they enjoy life.

If it is a disease we might find a medical cure, we don't know what the future entails.

The views from Judaka and Schopenhauer1 lacks all basic philosophical understanding of morality and thus morality and is appalling, they are not representative of any normal person interested in philosophy or any known philosopher, they are the very opposite of any opinion I have ever come across among philosophers and therefore I suspect they are trolling and trying to harm the reputation of the forum and it's members.

It does not matter what they say or if they deny it, I will suspect it.

One reason could be to missrepresent atheistic philosophers.

Usually when we refere to something as existing we define it as existing today in reality.

A chess game existing would be a game being played.
A chess move existing would be a move that is being made or has just been performed. A move that give the opponent a consequence.

If it was three moves ago, it only exists as a historic move.

It no longer exists.

When you say "exist in some form" you make the question very broad.

One might than wonder if a computer vs human play on a computer and the computer calculates various moves, but do not end up making them, do they exist in some form?
Yes, but do all of them exist?
Do the sum of all calculated possible moves in all chessgames being played right now end up being all possible chess combinations?

When we imagine such a thing we will also have to imagine quite bad moves, because right at this very moment children are also playing chess and chess moves in books and movies as they too exist in some form.

How many games of chess are being played right now and how many possible moves and situations do these players calculate?

Will it be all possible chess combinations?

When someone ask if something exist, and we answer a bit later we might be wrong, because there is a time constraint. If you ask how many elephants exists and you get an answer one year later that around 5000 elephants exists, The answer will be referring to what is known with a high probability at the very moment but you were referring to probably the days around when you asked your question.

During that year perhaps around 500 elephants was killed and died. So if someone answers your question if something is existing year later their answer might be wrong.

In order for someone to answer if all possible combinations exist in some form, and say yes, they need to know that the total amount of all imagined possible moves at any single time will be all possible moves and not less.

That would be exist in some form, but in order for a chessmove to be defined as existing the move has to be performed, so they do not exist in the usual sense of what we mean with existence when we use the word existing refering to a move in a game and existing right now.

It comes down to semantics.

They all exist in some form, as a possibility, which is just as a concept. But that form is kind of uninteresting as everything that is possible can exist as a concept.

It is more interesting to ponder the question of existing or might exist in such a way that it will end up creating consequences for someone at the moment you receive the answer.

symbols can't convey complex or even abstract thought.

Words in the form of text are symbols, just abstract symbols.

An icon is a non abstract symbol depicting an object, action or emotion.

But there is nothing that says we couldn't communicate with graphic icons only.

It's just very difficult to start over and associate graphic symbols with anstract meanings.

Words such as belong, claim, esoteric etc would be difficult to describe with icons.

But some things become much more universal and are much more efficiently described with pictures.

One way to communicate an abstract word, would be to show several different examples of an action. This in order to show that it is not the specific action but the common denominator. For example the word belong could be visualised as three icons that depict things that really belong to eachother. But we would still have to have some abstract symbols that communicates how we are supposed to interpret non abstract images.

If we are supposed to interpret them literally or abstract.

However these abstract symbols can be given their meaning by repeating them between two images.

For example the symbol for need could be repeated between and image of a withered flower the symbol and water, a boy reaching for an apple the symbol and a ladder, someone on a bicycle with no wheels the symbol and bicycle wheels.

This could still be interpreted as the word lacks or misses.
But perhaps we could define a symbol for those words by showing examples of images that lacks things but without showing what they lack.

A boy with only one shoes, a bicycle with only one wheel, a a girl with only one glove.

This way abstract meanings can be assigned and built up from example images.

This way we could start to translate written languages atleast simple languages into sequences of visual images that anyone can understand.

If you can find people who are only interested in the same sex when it comes to sex, but only in the opposite when it comes to love, you are right.

My first thought was that if you can get sexually aroused by a sex you will definitely be open to falling in love with them, but than I came to think of prisoners who sometimes have sexual relationships, but might still not consider having open relationships.

I'm not sure if this is simply because some get desperate to release stress and get human touch or that they are bisexuals and in a normal situation can chose what is the most socially accepted and simply supress some of their sexual desires.

But if you are right, the defintionens has to be expanded.

Question about infinity.

Do counting to infinity simply not mean that you never stop counting?

As soon as you stop, you have a number that is less than infinite.

Or if you claim you have a number that is infinitely big, it means you do not have to count anymore as your number can not grow anymore and includes all possible numbers.

But you can not have counted to your infinite number as that would have required an infinite time.

Thus infinity can exist, but it is not something we can count to.

However, I do know something very sure, there was something that triggered our whole existence because everything we see around us are well organized and placed in order. Flower petals in Fibonacci series is one such example.

–YnY

You appear to hint that something had to think that out, but that is less likely than nature adapting certain traits because it's the traits that over time survived.

One such trait could be to grow like the fibonacci series.
They have to grow in some kind of series, they can't just grow completely random, well some things grow quite randomly, but if something is to survive it can't only be randomly.

Whatever way nature would grow in would form some kind of series. So it's doesn't show you anything other than that life often repeats some patterns.

There are millions of things that doesn't grow in the fibonacci series.

Contributing everything to a creator has never throughout history given us an answer to anything. Nothing.

Everything that at one point was attributed to God has been as our knowledge expanded proven to be caused by something else.

You become sick, it's not god's will, someone sneezed on you and you caught a virus.

It's a storm. The god or gods must be angry.
No it's reactions in nature.

If a god existed these thing would had turned out to really be gods will.

That unicorn could exist is infinitely more likely than that a single God does and if such a God does, cares what we do


I will give you a thought experiment.

Lets say God created this as a simulation. The purpose is to see how good people behave, and let the God people come to his Kingdom.

Now imagine you created a simulation similar to the Sims but much more advanced for AI personas to test what ai personas you could trust if you took their AI and put it into real physical bodies.

If some of these AI personas started to convince themselves that God existed and they had you on their side and started wars with other AI would you want them? No. Because if they believe that a higher being justified their action but actually you didn't, than once you 'manufactured' them as a real robot or physical lifeform they would do the same in this world.

You might even put in a faked religion, a myth for them, something impossible to prove, just to see what they do. And those who believe without evidence you would consider gullible and wouldn't want to put into real powerful robot bodies, since you wouldn't want anyone to trick them.

Lets say some AIs in your simulation play hockey. One of the teams believes in a God, and they pray that God will be with them.

What does that mean that they want a God on their side?

Do they want you or this God they believe in to intervene and help the puck get into the goal when it's a 50% chance that it would miss otherwise? If so, aren't they actually asking for this being to cheat?

They might because, they want help and they want you to help them but not the other side. Thus they want an special advantage that the others should not have simply for believing in something that they really cannot prove.

Getting treated better than the other team outside of their own performance would be cheating.

Not all but some prayers would be considered as a try to cheat. To get advantages without actually doing anything.

Thus they are more selfish than the other team that doesn't ask to get special treatment.

And thus they are not the AI versions you would turn into physical beings in this world.


So with that I would like to prove that if a god exist you are probably more likely to go to heaven if you don't believe in that God, because otherwise what is it that says that you wouldn't continue that behaviour in the heaven and believe that a even higher being created that heaven?

If God appears to you as a normal person in that heaven.

Just as you would appear a normal person to the AI if you took it out of the simulation and into a physical body?

Nothing.

Is it possible that there are some people who try to be reasonable, but are inescapably unreasonable, at least in some respect? — S

Yes, because even if someone is guided by fear or wishful thinking, they don't see what guides them but believe that their flawed arguments are "good enough".

Noone, except for philosophers and most scientists want to know that their arguments are bad. Everyone wants to think of themselves as reasonable people.

But a philospher listen and analyses if someone points out a flaw, or should be able to do so as they put truth higher than being right themselves.

They might even be happy if they learn or upgrade their thinking.

A normal person, will instead put being right over truth if truth means that they have to change the way they understand the world into a way that is more uncomfortable than their current view of the world.

Changing the way you think the world works is extremely difficult for some if it means that they have been wrong for a long time or that they will think differently than everyone around them.

Such situation just completely blocks the mind in many grownups and they simply refuse to accept arguments that leads to such conclusions.

We have a disgust center in our brain, the anterior insula which regulates emotional feedback on disgust.

–Christoffer

I don't believe perfections has to do with disgust, disgust is too far from being triggered by things that are perfect.

We don't avoid something that is great or good and strive for perfection because we are disgusted by something good.

I believe disgust is a driving force away from things rather than towards. It's enough to get away from what disgust us into neutral territory, it doesn't have to be perfect, if things have to be perfect for someone in order to not feel disgust they probably have a personal problem they need to deal with.

That people want perfection I think has to do with being afraid of other peoples opinion, insecurity or wanting to impress.

I think these two are the main drivers.

People who fix old cars or boats into perfection, often really like to exhibit their vehicles.

I don't think they would spend so much time polishing their cars if they knew noone would ever see their work.
So I rather believe it's social status that is the most important motivation.

I personally don't care that much about perfection, I wouldn't polish an old car or boat into perfection, I would rather enjoy using it. But it is nice to look at the work of people who strive for perfection. Who doesn't enjoy being impressed by a balette dancer, artist or anyone who has honed his skill to perfection.

I believe that to be admired and show your skill or when it comes to objects, show of your 'acquired taste'. Is the most common motivation behind perfection.

When it comes to collectors searching for the perfect item, it's probably also the hunter gatherer in us.
Finding a perfect object to a collection, could be similar to finding a treasure. The hunt for a perfect object is in itself a pleasure. But the endgoal is to exhibit your collection or item.

There is a good article on Wikipedia under how perfection is the enemy of good.

Perfect is the enemy of good, or more literally the best is the enemy of the good, is an aphorism which is commonly attributed to Voltaire, who quoted an Italian proverb in his Dictionnaire philosophique in 1770: "Le meglio è l'inimico del bene".[2] It subsequently appeared in his moral poem, La Bégueule

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_is_the_enemy_of_good

Take this thought experiment: You are truly intelligent in a world where the majority aren't. You solve a mathematical problem that will be important to humanity, research a cancer cure or write a huge philosophy book.

However a movie star or a sports star end up earning way more money, because the large majority do not read your philosophy book, but rather watch sport or movies.

In a world were everyone were intelligent, intelligence would be appreciated and sports not so much as entertainment other than as exercise.

Money is not a good measure of intelligence.

One might argue that a intelligent individual would earn and invest in what will make him money and that do happen, but we have a limited time and a highly intelligent individual might also realize that writing down his or her thoughts in a philosophy book or researching a cancer cure might in the long term be more important. As lots of people can earn money but no one else can solve the math problems, find the cure or do the philosophy.

Also in order for it to be a good indication, all individuals should start with the same amount of money.
Right now a tiny percent are born into extreme riches, this removes money as a good measure of intelligence.

Is it humanly possible to trust no-one? — Hypnos

Interesting question.

Yes, you don't have to trust anyone hundred percent, but if you don't trust anyone atleast a tiny amount, it will be impossible.

You won't be able to travel unless you check your car all the time with different mechanics, or trust the driver of whatever you travel, and you won't be able to eat unless you grow your own food and cook it yourself with water you get from a lake you have tested yourself for purity.
But you need to get the seeds yourself from nature as you wouldn't go into town.

Unless you can do those things you won't be able to live.

"Kurt Gödel? Considered by some to be just as influential a logician and philosopher as Aristotle, he sadly succumbed to crippling paranoia later in life. In his sixties, he became convinced that his food was being poisoned, and would only trust the cooking of his wife Adele. When she was hospitalized for six months in 1977, Gödel refused to eat, and subsequently died of starvation."

Maybe the story is not really true and he died of sadness, losing his appetite as he should had been able to cook at least basic stuff or eat from cans.

Some people want things that are clearly not good for them, such as cigarettes, junk foods, drugs, etc. What moral reasoning would Rand use to praise or condemn those who sell such products?
— praxis

She would say that it is perfectly moral and good for creating a product and selling it. The creator of the product is rewarded for his efforts, and the buyers are happy because they payed for something that they wanted. — AppLeo

This really lacks an understanding of what makes up a sound moral argument.

Morality should be grounded on what is longterm good for everyone, or least possible bad option, not shortterm satisfaction for a single person or two persons.

It's not morally justified to give drugs to someone because the will be happy in the shortterm if it means they run the risk of runing their life or other peoples life in the longterm.

Morality is all about holistically evaluating both short and longterm consequences for everyone.

I factor in that:
A. God is most likely a human made up concept.

B. The Bible was written in a time when people had absolutely no scientific knowledge about our world, and no scientific approach to validation, thus any rumours they heard would be taken as a truth.

C. As nothing could be understood or explained at the time the Bible was written, and I mean nothing. Believing whatever happened that they couldn't explain was the will of a God was the only explaination they had.
Thus everything that happened could only be interpreted as if it was the will of that God.

D. If God doesn't exist there is very little point in reading the Bible other than as a historic study, when you can read philosophy that support itself with sound logical reasons instead of simply dogma.

If that God does not exist you most likely only have one life and if so you have a limited time and would be better of spending that on studying what is most likely to give you and other people real value whether that God exists or not.

Therefore in order to minimise the risk of wasting your time, you need to intellectually honestly evaluate the argument for and against the existence of that God.

Without being affected by unsupported belief, social pressure, and wishful thinking.

Once you have understood most of the atheist arguments and come to a sound position from which you can give sound answers to why you believe or do not believe in that God, you can study the Bible from several perspectives.

But you are free to study it and interpret it in whatever way you want.

That is just the way I would use to ensure I do not waste my time.

I believe that you can be held responsible for your belief as a grown-up if you hold a belief higher than search for truth, search for truth in a intellectually honest way.

If you value your belief higher than truth, because it gives you an advantage such as comfort, false self-esteem etc, I can not refrain from thinking of you as a intellectual dishonest person.
Especially if that belief is used as a means to control directly or indirectly other peoples life or justify harmful actions or inactions.

I believe we need to find what gives us purpose in life, we can have several purposes at once, short term, longterm etc, and we don't have to limit ourselves to just one.

Sometimes having a good time with your friends will be important for your well being, and might be important for your future self, it is not as simple as it is just wasted time.

In the future you might need their help or they might need you, you made their life a bit happier by being there and you both built connections.

If you look at this world there are plenty of issues that needs to be fixed or improved such as plenty of suffering and it is meaningful to help reduce suffering.

Perhaps one day down the road you will receive help from your connections with reducing suffering.

I believe humanity and life have a meaningful purpose in trying to achieve a better world without resorting to any form of violence.

Your help is needed. Thus your life is needed thus you have a meaningful existence. In that your life is meaningful for others.

I believe meaning has to a large extent come from the outside, because if it comes from the inside only we can easily change it, which makes it feel less authentic.

But it can not only come from the outside as we also have to find that what the outside wants from us is meaningful.

But as there are plenty of people who are willing and eager to abuse our search for a meaningful existence, we have to choose carefully what to devote our energy, skills and focus on, in order to not become useful idiots.

This requires us to study philosophy, history, politics, psychology etc.

@romanv

Good insights. I have also identified a crucial need for the ability to vote negatively in a democracy.