Can philosophers at least find the emotion to get successfully trolled? I mean some guy just said we're all a monumental waste of time and all he could elicit was a "Yeah? Prove it." — Hanover

Staring at the wall seemed like a better use of my energy.

Why does anyone still continue to study this nonsense? — lambda

Because they understand philosophy better than you do.

-ism debates are a giant pointless waste of time. Most such terms are largely subjective at any rate.

And seems self-refuting. — Noble Dust

Then think about it some more.

Quite an objective statement! — Noble Dust

And?

Al right, I am sick of this secular nihilism.

Here is some purpose to life for everybody to follow, an objective biological telos regarding human flourishing, namely to procreate with a stable long term traditional family. — Emptyheady

I refuse to restrict my life to your standards. I mean if having a "traditional" family is your thing go for it, but doesn't mean my life is defined by your telos.

Should I disengage in the unimportant small talk and save myself so much time by getting to the point? — TheFreedMind18

Sorry I didn't read the bulk of your thread and just skipped to the end. Small talk is just a way for people to start the process of getting to know each other, or a way to pass the time.

Babbeus
37
Maybe you already heard about the one electron universe: it is the idea that the apparantly multiple identical electrons could just be several occurrence of the same electron traveling in time and space and interacting with itself.

I was considering the analogous model about consciousnesses/self: there seem to be several completely separate consciousnesses but they could be all occurrences of the same consciousness interacting with itself. In every single occurrence within a brain the consciousness only has access to the local available memory and sensory data so it cannot know anything about having experienced other occurrences in other bodies/brains/forms. If "you" become "me" for a while and then you come back to "you" again you wouln't realize anything, you just would have access to the continuous streaming of memory of your brain, so in principle there could be a same consciousness that travels throught everyone of our brain interacting with her own occurrences without having any awareness of this.

What is good in this model:

It has similar advantages to the one electron universe: it reduces the number of entities and solves the problem of why are there so many consciousnesses.
It solves the problem about how consciousnesses could start and stop existing from nothing.

Is this position already known in the literature?
What do you think about it? — Babbeus

You are clearly anthropomorphizing and multiplying entities beyond necessity.

MonfortS26
92
I believe that the key to being genuine in life lies in your intuition. Intuition is the core of who we are as a person and everything else is just whatever our intuition chooses to perceive us to be. The way to live in the present is to be in touch with your intuition.

Anyone disagree? — MonfortS26

I think the key to being genuine is to stop trying to be genuine. Honestly, the word holds no substance for me anymore, as it has become a fad word. "Living authentically" has become a goal for people to change who they are. I am sorry but that does not sound like living authentically to me.

Life is definitely without objective meaning, but it is because of this that life can have any meaning we assign to it.

Some seem to get depressed by the lack of a clearly shaped purpose in life, but it has only ever made me feel free to shape my life in the direction I want. A life with objective meaning would be a prison to many people; it is only in a life without meaning that we are truly free.

How can you really define the distinction between objective and subjective if we only ever are subjective.

The objective world remains only ever an inference at best. — intrapersona

How can you really define the distinction between subjective and objective if we only ever are objective?

The subjective world remains only ever an inference at best.

The idea that subjectivity really is just an objective process, is far more believable than the other way around.

"Creativity, art and forgiveness are not special religious insight."

I agree with that completely.

I am sorry, but the whole idea of special religious insight is a plead for authority. It is an unfalsifiable claim people use to feebly leverage a position of authoritative knowledge. It is used by the intellectually lazy and is nothing but pure ego.

People who argue special religious insight are only do so because they are not smart enough to come up with a real argument.

This isn't a response to my comments.

Yes it was and I should know, after-all it was my post. A bit egotistical of you to tell me about the aim of my post.

"The divine element in humanity is something experienced inwardly, but it manifests outwardly in the world in different ways. Art and the creative urge in general is, to me, the purest form of the divine element breaking through into the world through humanity. But forgiveness is the most powerful manifestation of the divine. The oppressed forgiving the oppressor is a manifestation of the divine in humanity. There is no "proof", only experience. Again, you're using the wrong faculty to try to apprehend the divine when you ask for definitions and proof. It's the fundamental flaw behind fundamentalist fads like the new atheists. You have to step outside the bubble of logicism to understand this."

Anthropomorphism that you are trying to validate with special insider knowledge, the same song and dance told over and over.

" You have to step outside the bubble of logicism to understand this."

I am going to suggest you have to step outside the bubble of your religious belief to truly understand them. So many people boost claims of knowledge of the "divine" it is impossible to take any of them serious. At least atheist understand that they are not all knowing, and that there is a limit to what they can know.

"your depth of vision is skewed when you only use one faculty in your attempt to see"

Your depth of vision is skewed when you start making up crap as well. I love how people always think their silly religious beliefs makes them better than everyone else; but then religion is all about the ego.

" the divine element in humanity '

Please define and prove the existence of this supposed divine element.

Let's look at a few possibilities here:

God is not real: stop here.

God is real: that moves us on to:

Humans have no Knowledge of God: stop here.

Humans have knowledge of God: OK, now which humans? Who has it right? Can you prove that god is all powerful? And if so, can you prove God can only do what is logically possible?

This is why arguments based on God are just bad arguments, as when you get right down to it, whether you believe in God are not, the entire argument is based on make believe.

" You can read something such as Rene Descartes, with his 'I think, therefore I am' and I realised it was based on logic. So couldn't an Evil Demon fool you into believing in Logic?"

The point is not that the demon is tricking us, but at that point we cannot deny that we exist. It is the unmovable point; a point that cannot be doubted because the act of doubting creates it. Whether the demon is involved in shaping that reasoning is moot, as those are the rules of reason we are bound by. Descartes' demon is just another word for reality, just as the word subjective is as well. The question is not what is reality made of, but rather it is: how can we interact with reality?

It would probably be necessary to frame the question in the context of the class in order to understand the answer it is looking for, but it reminds me of Descartes' conclusion "I think therefore I am", than proceeding from that point in a logical fashion.

"Too bad procrastination wasn't a viable career, eh? We'd all be saved."

But it is; I think they call it being a congressman.

"baseline mental state"

And can you prove this? Or can you even prove that humans have a "baseline mental state"?

I don't know what could rightfully be considered the "baseline metal state" of the human mind, but I have doubt it is a question that can be answered simply by pondering over it. I have a feeling that is a question that is not easily answered, as it is not likely the baseline mental state (if there even is such a thing) is as simple as boredom. Likely it would be a combination of factors; again even IF there is such a thing.

If I am being honest, I am having a hard time remembering the last time I was genuinely bored, which would suggest to me that it is not my "default" position. But I can't judge the nature of all humans based on my single experience; for all I know I may be abnormal.

" However, calling it "opinions" about boredom is a bit odd, being that I can experience the mental state myself"

Well, I have driven a car and that hardly makes me a mechanic. Likewise being bored does not make you a neuroscientist or a psychologist. I am sorry, but simply because you have a human brain, that does not mean you necessarily understand how it works. Your OP was very much opinion, and there is nothing wrong with opinions, but they should be supported by more substantial information.

"it does not conflict with my view."

Just because it does not conflict that doesn't make it correct or accurate. If we accept what John Eastwood and Theodor Lipps describe there is a conflicting state of wants that was not addressed in your OP. This part "Boredom is felt when one's attention is not focused on any particular task" would need further validation; I simply don't accept it. And this part here "can originate from a lack of stimulating things to do" is at the very least incomplete; if we are accepting that boredom is a conflict of wants, or a conflict of a want and a lack of.

I won't exactly call that an academic quality resource but it is much better than the OP, which of course was nothing but your opinions on boredom.

"That seems to be a definition with an origin in there as well.. inability to engage in satisfying activity. Again, this has to do with attention, inability to focus, and lack of stimulating activity.. all basically what was mentioned or implicit in the OP."

Actually this is what you said in the OP, "Boredom is felt when one's attention is not focused on any particular task, or can originate from a lack of stimulating things to do."

And this is how John Eastwood of York University defines it in that article, "an aversive state of wanting, but being unable, to engage in satisfying activity"

No mention of "not focused on any particular task" or "a lack of stimulating things to do."

He instead is describing boredom as two conflicting states; a state of wanting and a state of not being satisfied. Further down in your article, the German psychologist Theodor Lipps, also seems to view it as a conflicting state of wanting and not being satisfied, but seems to be suggesting a state of both wanting an not wanting. A more in depth article could be very interesting.

"boredom is a baseline emotion"

In your article they say, " which springs from failures in one of the brain's attention networks." That says nothing about it being an emotion. You keep calling it an emotion, but you have not provided any supporting data for doing so.

"Do you need me to provide academic journals to prove that boredom exists?"

I think my questions were: Do you have a reference other than your opinion as to what boredom is and how it originates? And: Do you have something other than your opinion to establish it is in fact an emotion?

I don't see anything in there about the need to prove boredom exist.

Replying to your ninja edit.

Up is a direction orientated to my physical location (or whatever point you choose). Natural and unnatural is just an subjective view, which varies from person to person. But up will always be up, as long as you are orientated the same way I am, and that does not change if you call it down, left, right or chicken. However, the meaning of natural and unnatural varies from person to person, and there is no objective measurement for it.

Yes, the dictionary, definitely the epitome of the philosophical edge. My shit is man-made, is that therefore unnatural?

It is basic cause and effect, nothing can occur that can not naturally occur. Meaning everything that occurs, naturally occurs.

Can you define for me where the line between natural and unnatural occurs?

"Boredom is felt when one's attention is not focused on any particular task, or can originate from a lack of stimulating things to do."

Do you have a reference other than your opinion as to what boredom is and how it originates?

"boredom so significant compared to other emotions"

And do you have something other than your opinion to establish it is in fact an emotion?

If you can prove to me, that the mental processes of boredom is the same as say happiness, or sadness, I would be able to view from the perceptive that it is an emotion. However, your opinion that it is an emotion is not very convincing.

So are you speaking factually, and where are you getting your information, or is this opinion? Please clarify, because if boredom does act like other emotions, then that is something I would find interesting, but without something substantial I have to be skeptical.

See the problem with your post, is that I have no clue if you are speaking form a position of factual knowledge or if you are simply stating an opinion.

"Boredom is a first world problem and not natural at all. The price of living in an aggressive culture where contentment is for losers." -

There is nothing in this world that is not naturally occurring to this world. I'll even go one further, and say there is nothing in this world that is truly unnatural, as only things which can naturally occur in this world, occur. Humans building cites, making money, driving cars and typing on computers is every bit as natural as a river flowing down the mountain.

Unnatural, and natural is humankind's semantic attempt to pretend they are not a part of nature; that they are not the very arm of nature themselves. As if they somehow magically teleported outside nature and exist separate from it.

So boredom is completely natural, just as birds singing in the trees, and the development of the Atom Bomb.

What I see, are people who are trying to create a separation between college educated philosophers and non-college educated philosophers. Perhaps there should be a thread about the significance of such a distinction.

Even though philosophy is my passion, there is a good reason I didn't pick it as a major, or even a minor. I honestly don't believe college is needed to teach philosophy, and I thought it would be more beneficial to my philosophy to focus on language and math. I believe those two to be the main tools of thought and reason.

So that might make a worthwhile thread; however, I get the feeling some people want to divide it into tiers of philosophers rather than a serious inquiry.

"Nonetheless, these people that post on philosophical forums usually aren't as well disciplined as actual philosophers of academics." - WiseMoron

Academics, in every field, like to think a few college courses makes them a great writer; but the question of how much higher education contributes to the development of writing is not an easy one to answer. In many ways it is restrictive to the natural flow of language and the development of language skills.

If students pursue writing beyond just the basic required classes, I might agree. As higher level classes get a bit more in depth as to what constitutes as good writing. However, generally the core requirements are there to teach a students the "proper" grammar of standard formats; and that is about it. They don't really go into what makes good writing; instead core classes are there to teach students how to sound like everyone else so they can get a job.

When it comes to writing, pleading academics to me will not be likely to convince me. I am very critical of the way higher education teaches writing, as in many ways it actually impedes the development of good writing. In essence what they do, is teach everyone how to sound the same.

That is some ego you have there.

"Thoughts?"

It is a leading question: If you could make everything perfect would you? The question leaves no room for any real world ethical evaluation, and would create bias results. It does give a true reflection of an individual's position. You can't muddy the water and expect usable valid results. I am sorry but philosophy has to be practical or it becomes useless; and it should be considered in appropriate context.

My ethical views are, in part, a reaction to, and the result of the environment that I am in, and if you remove me from that environment, trying to set me in a fantasy, then you will not get an accurate view of my position. The goal of a philosopher should be to understand truth as it is; not shape the truth into the desired image.

Let's not confuse "dumbing down" with clarity and conciseness.

"I suspect that this happens because learning jargon to use as a merit badge to display to other people that you've been exposed to academia is much easier than having any worthwhile or original insights."


I am sure that is part of it. For example if you pay attention you'll notice people who are tying to sound academic use the word however instead of but, even though they have the same meaning. However just sounds more official, or scholarly. And this is something that happens across all studies. It is no secret when people enter academia they start using however. I am not knocking the use of however, as I am a big fan of the word; just an observation.

Though, I think there is a bit more too it than that. Studies have shown that people primarily learn how to write by reading, and I think if philosophers took to reading literature or poetry more often it would help them clean up their writing and make it more digestible. Philosophers may be great at philosophizing but if you want to learn how to write it makes sense to learn from writers. I think Albert Camus is a great in between for philosophers, as he was both.

"Someone has been watching Steven Pinker videos. I bought that book."

I have no idea who that is.

Or the barrier is not philosophy itself, but instead an inability to communicate philosophy. Communication is an art that takes work to learn how to do well. It would be unrealistic to assume simply because someone studies philosophy that they are also good communicators of philosophy.

Generally the people writing those pop-science magazine are people who specialize in what is know as scientific journalism, or at least they are held to those standards. They have both an understanding of science and writing.

Good prose is definitely hard work; I have been a student of the craft for many years. Well, for most my adult life actually. I think the problem is that many people confuse good writing with complicated writing and big words. While the truth is, good writing is about simplicity and clarity, and simplicity is actually harder to achieve than complexity. Anyone can hammer out a convoluted sentence, but to communicate a convoluted idea in a simple sentence that takes real talent.

Is that a statement or a question?

Case in point, there is typo in my title. Is there a way to edit? NVM, found it.

People rejoicing over a Trump presidency should stop and think about the fact he was elected on a platform of anger and hate. Our country cannot move forward on anger and hate; it can only move backwards.