Cool. I need to read more Berry. I like his unabashed individualism; not for it's own sake, but for the sake of saying what he feels needs said.

Interesting to see Wendell Berry on someone's list.

This is paradoxical. A fool suits both as a friend and as an enemy.

How do you solve this paradox? — TheMadFool

Befriend fools, not philosophers.

goodness requires the concept of well being to have meaning". Well being can refer to physical well being or psychological well being. In essence, I am saying that hedonism trumps goodness as a concept to strive for. — Jake Tarragon

Well-being and hedonism are not the same thing. So, Jake, are you saying that well-being trumps goodness, or that sensual pleasures trump goodness, or something else?

There is no goodness that exists outside a context of well being, — Jake Tarragon

What is "a context of well being"?

except some sort of arbitrarily imposed goodness from a religious source. — Jake Tarragon

Is religion not a "context of well-being"? If it's not, then how so?

and of ultimate importance to understand. — PeterPants

why?

Maximizing well-being, being defined as anything that could possibly matter to everyone, is the goal. So all things must be considered, sustainability, fulfillment, satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, joy, pain, pleasure, intellectual stimulation, gratification — PeterPants

,pedophelia, rape, arson, political corruption, sexual fantasy, bigotry, sexism, racism, ahhhh...what fun...

What else is there? — Samuel Lacrampe

There are ambivalent emotions that blend between the two.

This cannot be the case. Or else, logically, Hitler could be have been a very ethical person if he performed the Holocaust out of emotional bursts towards the Jews. — Samuel Lacrampe

I don't mean that emotions ethically permit whatever act someone does. Hitler had an ethic; Churchill had an ethic. Either of those ethics is predicated upon assumptions about the nature of humanity. Those assumptions have a strong emotional component; maybe that component isn't exactly the basis, but the emotional element is key to the ethic. The emotion gives content to the ethic. I'm not sure how else to say it; it seems self-evident to me. Note that this conception of emotion with regards to ethics posits emotion as a neutral force, hence why I wanted to highlight that emotion isn't pleasure. Like you described, we need to distinguish between the different types of emotions which have positive, vague, or negative impulses and effects.

Ethics is based on innate knowledge of justice; — Samuel Lacrampe

What is innate knowledge? That idea isn't enough for me, unless you can give a compelling case otherwise.

You have it backwards: we get a feeling of right and wrong because we have a knowledge of ethics, not the other way around. — Samuel Lacrampe

So where does that knowledge of ethics come from? How can you be sure "we" have that innate knowledge? It seems obvious that not everyone has that.

Thanks for this.

Free will is predicated on consciousness. This is getting boring. You appear to employ an approach that doesn't allow for anything to actually be established. At some point, you have to allow yourself to take something at face value, just so you have somewhere to begin. The most obvious place to begin is experience. Consciousness is where we experience.

*And should you really be trying to define one ambiguous idea by one other, entirely ambiguous idea? — StreetlightX

Please illuminate us all with the ideas that you personally have defined unambiguously, upon which your philosophy is presumably predicated.

Presumably my teapot does not have free will, and I do. What's is the relevant difference between me and my teapot, as far as free will is concerned? — StreetlightX

You have consciousness; the teapot doesn't.

Lots of societal change has recently occurred rather quickly - I'm thinking of sexuality and race. — Jake Tarragon

But societal change is neutral; if you're chalking up changes in societal norms towards sexuality and race as positive societal changes, then you need to also look at what you might consider negative societal changes that occur at the same time. Political corruption is a constantly boiling pot which eventually leads to tectonic political changes, and suddenly the social reforms that we thought we built up are now toppled down. The hubris of our time is that we implicitly assume that things like technological innovation, a globalized economy, social equality, are synonymous with a sort of humanistic progression. But that's only one side to the neutral phenomenon of societal progression. Most western societies ultimately progress to a point of societal death.

Well, looks like we need a different metric to answer my question. Can you think of another way to decide which is more insulting, 1 or 2? — TheMadFool

But the reason I tried to show those moral complexities is because I think they show that the question of which statement is more insulting is not relevant, from that moral perspective. Maybe my points were too much of a tangent, but I was trying to get at the underlying moral problems in the situation that you set up here. I still don't think the binary "this or that" is the right way to look at those underlying moral problems.

I think my problem is that the idea of not being sure "what kind of thing we are" is too vague. Can you elaborate on what the options are here of "what kind of thing we are"?

I think we're in agreement.

Now, this view is only possible if you factor in things like masochism and sadism — TheMadFool

No, I don't think so. What I was trying to describe is the complexity of these moral problems. Like I said, not wanting to see others suffer as you've suffered stems from a desire to see the ones you love flourish, to see that their well-being is preserved. This is a deeply spiritual part of us. It's implications are wide as deep. But what it doesn't consider is the role that that very suffering plays in the very concepts of flourishing or well-being. Think of the archetypes of light and dark, yin and yang. I'm not prescribing anyone allow suffering that they could prevent; I'm trying to open up a more nuanced understanding of suffering and well-being.

Because the kind of thing that you or I 'am' is not at all clear. And without knowing that, you might as well have said anything at all. — StreetlightX

I disagree; the kind of thing we are would include aspects like "has free will", or "doesn't have free will". Why would we need to start by figuring out the "kind" of thing we are in order to address a question like "Do we have free will?" On the contrary, these very questions and their answers are the things that describe the kind of "thing" we are. We need to start by asking and answering those questions in order to find out about ourselves, not the other way around. Starting the other way around is completely unintelligble, which must be why you're so hung up on this perceived problem.

one really ought to specify, from a wide field of contenders, which notion of free will is in play. — StreetlightX

The one I'm putting into play is mine, not someone else's.

I completely agree. But, re: your last paragraph: can we discover "universal laws" (scientific terminology), or is the process something different? Wouldn't universal laws preclude free will?

Incredibly unclear. — StreetlightX

Why?

I guess I'm not sure what we disgree about. This is just the question I've been asking all along. — StreetlightX

As far as I can tell, it's that you were asking about "levels of freedom", but I was asking for a "definition". But now you seem to be saying otherwise? Maybe I misread?

If everything can be read both ways, there's nothing to pin decision on. — TheMadFool

By both ways, then, you mean "poetic"? I can't find much in my post that was poetic other than "futile devices", and maybe "learning how to grow".

In a way, my OP is similar. We can't decide. Paralysis ensues and no thought/action is possible. — TheMadFool

Are you saying paralysis ensues when writing or speaking gets poetic? I'm really confused here. I guess paralysis is ensuing...

In all seriousness, I'm against our Western insistence on microscopic definition. I think poetry says it better. We'll soon find that the search for exact metaphysical definition only leads to a sort of "metaquantum uncertainty".

Why are moderate Moslems engaging in PR battle to restore the reputation of Islam and Moslems? — TheMadFool

For the same reason that moderate Christians try to maintain the status quo of conservative Christianity? Really, the political blind spots in regards to Islam are getting annoying. But I was really just responding to the binary distinction you described initially in this context.

You think moral analysis doesn't help. — TheMadFool

Did I say that somewhere in my initial mis-reading of your comments? Because I definitely don't think that.

Your argument focuses on outliers and unique cases e.g. masochism and sadism. — TheMadFool

I didn't focus on that. My focus was specifically moral practicality.

presumably you want to say something like 'you and I, and not this other kind of thing'. — StreetlightX

No I don't; I want to say "You and I". Is it unclear to you what I mean when I say "You and I"?

the question is why one, rather than another, ought to be of any relavence at all. — StreetlightX

No, I disagree; take a step back with me: It's rather that the problem is abstract thought (the method of thought that lead to the imagined states of freedom) is not the proper method to apprehend the concept; experience is what we should use to apprehend the concept. Think about it: free will would be a state of action. Free will would mean acting on some inner state that predicated total freedom. Now, for you to think abstractly, as you've been doing, about this concept, you would need to first have experienced the thing that the concept derives from in order to make valid statements about it. Otherwise you're just creating thought experiments, which are useless because they don't pertain to the reality of experience. So, by saying you agree with me here, you're simply stating that you agree that we can imagine different states of freedom, but that doesn't mean they exist. Now, I was not the one imagining these states, that was you. I was, rather, asking for a definition (provisional is fine) of "freedom", or of "free will".

That would seem to go against every Enlightenment/modernist assumption about there being objective reality that we observe, inductively or deductively model with theories, etc. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Yup...

It would seem to play right into the hands of postmodern theorists who say that reality/truth is cultural constructed. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Why would it have to play specifically into their hands?

I thought that free will simply implies having freedom within the parameters one is working within. We do not people accountable for things that they could not have done--we hold them accountable for the choices they made out of everything they could have done. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Yes, this is a problem I wrestle with constantly. Ironically, I think you're bringing up one of the core problems with the free will debate here. How much of one's individual actions are your own "free" choices, and how much of them are determined by environment? Is it something that's correlative to age? To "maturity"? Or something like "consciousness" or "awareness"? Perhaps this is why free will is such an unanswerable question for philosophy? It really deals with spiritual questions, not strictly philosophical questions, at least in the analytical sense. This means that, by definition, free will is actually something out of bounds for much of philosophical thought, as much as that philosophical thought is determined by classical analytic thought.

This means nothing though. Or at least, one cannot draw anything philosophically useful from this answer. — StreetlightX

You'd need to explain why you think that.

But there certainly are different kinds of freedoms; or rather, freedoms understood in various, not-necessarily-compatible ways. — StreetlightX

Hmm, I can entertain that idea, but, on the contrary, I tend to come to the realization that, rather than different kinds of actual freedoms existing, it's rather that I'm able to imagine different kinds of freedoms existing, but this doesn't mean that they actually exist. This is just on a philosophical level. Now, if you just mean levels of freedom, then sure, that's a different matter, because I would consider that to be more practical and less philosophical. I'm assuming you still disagree, so can you explain in detail why?

Which has no bearing on the fact that free will qua choice is a relatively recent invention in the history of philosophy. — StreetlightX

Ok, fair enough, as I'm not educated enough to have a good response to this. So are you saying free will was a concept that didn't include the idea of "choice" until recently?

See my reply above.

It seems to always be presented as one part of a binary: free will vs. determinism. And determinism seems to always be presented as saying, "You thought that you had a choice between chocolate or vanilla bean, but you did not have a choice".

Therefore, free will is apparently the freedom to choose between alternatives. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

But here you're just basing your conception of free will on how it's colloquially presented. There's no philosophical grounds (or there might be, but there are definitely opposing other grounds) to assume this colloquial assumption. The binary that you describe might in fact be the problem. What if free will wasn't a choice between alternatives, but an ability to create reality? Choosing "between alternatives", after all, involves set choices; if the choices are set, is it really free will? If free will is truly free, then nothing can be extant with regards to freedom.

One might ask, for instance, who or what exactly is the subject of free will - that is, what exactly is the 'thing' or 'person' that is excercising free will? — StreetlightX

Clearly you and I.

Further, one might ask what kind of freedom is involved in free will? It is commonly understood to be a matter of choice ('freedom of choice', or the liberum arbitrium), — StreetlightX

Yes, this is definitely the crux of the problem; or rather, not what kind of freedom (kinds of freedom seems fallacious), but instead, the question of how to define freedom. This question seems ultimately unanswerable, just given the multiplicity of nuances of answers.

(indeed, this understanding of freedom was only introduced relatively late into philosophy, and was done so on theological grounds - credit to Augustine), and there are rich, alternative traditions of thought for which freedom is something else entirely (Arendt, Foucault, Merleau-Ponty to name but a few). — StreetlightX

I'm not sure what you mean, since Augustine pre-dates all the other people you mention.

(Y) Drink but don't Drive. — TheMadFool

NYC, baby.

Your analysis is too, let's say, poetic. It's good - makes sense but it's romantic - impractical. — TheMadFool

How so?

Which is a bigger insult, 1 or 2? On what other factors does the decision hinge on? — TheMadFool

Why is the decision of which is a bigger insult something that anything should hinge on? What exactly is the hinge here?

Moslems are faced with the accusation ''All terrorists are Moslems'' and women too face such accusations e.g. ''all women are whores''. — TheMadFool

Are they/do they?

(Y) (was hoping for an applause emoticon)

See my further comment above.

Morally speaking, which point of view is better? Is it better to be relieved that others are in the same bad situation as you are (inclusive above) or is it better to be comforted by the thought that others are not in the same situation as you're in (exclusive above)? — TheMadFool

Ok, so I totally misread this, and that's on me. Overworked, sleep-deprived, and slightly tipsy. You may call yourself the Mad Fool, but that's me, for the moment. Let me try again.

To be relieved that others are in the same bad situation as you isn't inherently selfish or unselfish. It's selfish if you derive pleasure from bringing others down to your level of misery. But, it's unselfish if you find companionship through suffering that you perviously didn't have, if you were in a state of isolation. This could manifest as someone willingly offering you this companionship out of charity, or it could manifest as two isolated people finding companionship through a shared experience of suffering.

Likewise, to be comforted by the thought that others are not in the same situation as you're in could go either way. It would be selfish to feel this way as a way to willingly isolate yourself; there's a masochistic tendency in some of us that derives pleasure form imagining that we're bearing a form of suffering that others are not; this is (psychologically) a need to achieve personhood (through imagined individuality; through the perceived idiosyncratic nature of our own suffering). What comes to mind is the "tortured artist". On the other hand, an unselfish experience of being "comforted by the thought that others are not in the same situation as you're in" would be a desire that those who fall under your care, those you love, are not subjected to the unique sufferings that you yourself are experiencing. This is because love means, among other things, a desire for the well-being of the loved one. We do all we can to maintain that state of well-being for those we love, and we hope and trust that they reciprocate. We do this because we ultimately imagine our loved ones as having the potential to obtain a state of "true" happiness, which is a spiritual longing not to be overlooked. But this gets complicated; well-being presents itself as a lack of suffering, but there's an inner character to suffering, an esoteric character. Suffering can lead to enlightenment, as well as destruction. Is it really just to attempt to, or to find comfort in, the obstruction of the experience of suffering in others? I tend to take an extreme view; suffering is neutral. As I said, it can lead to enlightenment, or to destruction. Does the potential for destruction merit an attempt from an outside force to obstruct suffering? I think we should protect those we love form suffering at all costs, but we should gratefully accept the suffering that inevitably comes, despite our own futile devices. And why? Because that suffering that comes is inevitable. Wisdom lies in between; protecting our loved ones from suffering, and learning how to grow from the suffering that none the less comes our way.

So, to answer your question, I don't think one of the situations you pose is better than the other. Again, I think it's a false binary concept that doesn't apply to the real world.

Well, I don't know where philosophy comes in. Perhaps its more about psychology, decision theory, morality. — TheMadFool

Sorry if I was harsh; it's just that this is a philosophy forum, and I don't see what philosophical end this question serves. But there are other threads that I would say the same thing about, yours just touched a nerve. Apologies. I consider psychology and morality to be aspects of philosophy, so fair enough.

Morally speaking, which point of view is better? Is it better to be relieved that others are in the same bad situation as you are (inclusive above) or is it better to be comforted by the thought that others are not in the same situation as you're in (exclusive above)? — TheMadFool

Now, this goes back to my critique. Why does this matter? I don't see how any of this matters in the real world. Why does this question matter to you?

Hello. While pleasure is indeed an end and not a means to any other ends, there exist other ends as well, like ethics or duty. A parent may feel no pleasure in punishing a child, but do it because it is the right thing to do. — Samuel Lacrampe

You seem to be equating emotion with pleasure here. If we "live for emotions" like the OP is saying, then things like duty and ethics would subsumed within emotion, since emotion is not the same thing as pleasure. Emotion is the driving force of why ethics and duty, for instance, are ends in themselves. Ethics can't be an end in itself without an emotional source; how would ethics obtain without emotion? On what do you base a philosophy of ethics or duty?

I think your first paragraph is spot on; it's a very intuitive insight. It sounds to me like you're saying "experience is subjective; the experience of poverty is different than the outside view of poverty; the experience of wealth is different than the outside view of wealth; the experience of physical or emotional pain is different than the outside view of pain". That's a valuable idea.

It sounds to me like your second paragraph is your interpretation of what you lay out in the first paragraph. I don't think I fully agree with your interpretation there; I don't think that because experience is subjective, therefore Karma, or some other force, guides how experience happens for individuals. If that's not what you mean, then correct me on that.

Why is this important, and how is it philosophy?

The whole binary set up of the statements is useless. Are you actually trying to understand something about the concept of someone being a fool, or are you just playing a game?

Think about addiction on an individual level. The more severe cases require a person to spend years recovering; the process is long, and can take a lifetime. Apply that idea to humanity as a whole; the 6,000+ years of history as we know it, and every aspect of the failure of the human will that comes with it; the state of the human condition. Can that same human will alone bring about even the extremely conservative Utopia you're describing?

Do you really consider playing an instrument and drunkenness to be the same experience? Have you experienced either?

so the only drink that goes down without actually hurting me is red wine from Tuscany (chianti), I think because of the way that it is made. — TimeLine

Ok now...I work in the wine industry...perhaps it's just a simple matter of the antioxidants that red wine offers (thanks to the inclusion of skins) which white wines don't? Chianti is a sub-region in Tuscany, and the wines aren't specially made in any particular way.

I feel that as biological beings our views will constantly be skewed by biological and evolutionary impulses (emotion and intuition).It may even be the cause for most of the harm currently occurring in our world. — Zoonlogikon

Here's the problem. There's no antecedent to your use of "harm" here, if you're adopting the presumably materialistic view that phrases like "biological and evolutionary impulses (emotion and intuition)" suggest. Why exactly is harm something you care about? What predicates harm as a moral problem for you if emotion and intuition are the things that are responsible for this "harm"? You have no referent to why exactly harm is something that should be avoided in the first place if you place no importance on human faculties like emotion and intuition. The deeper problem is that you, as a human being (assuming lack of psychosis) are a being who possesses those very faculties that you dismiss, and not only do you possess them, but they are fundamental to your being. Emotion and intuition are the building blocks upon which your consciousness is built, thus allowing you to make the rational (and erroneous) arguments you're making here. You're argument, like so many others here, has no content.

Where do I sign up?..

More like this.

The language of the headline suggests this study is the reason for American obesity. The underlying zeitgeist is that studies like these give us the definitive reasons, the absolute truths, for things.

Maybe underlying principles is the wrong term. I come from a more or less fundamentalist Christian upbringing, and so I've seen first hand the mindset and way of seeing the world that this view entails. These days I have materialist friends and co workers, and I see the same mindset and way of viewing the world as those fundamentalist Christians, just with a different set of beliefs. They get mad or stand-offish, for instance, if I try to question these beliefs, and they generally revert to moving the goalposts when their views are threatened. A typical response of fundamentalist Christians. These materialist friends of mine tend to be influenced by the new atheist crowd, so whether those actual philosophers are scientistic in their beliefs or not, I've seen their influence lead to scientism generally in the mainstream. You also see it in pop journalism headlines like "science just explained why we all do this!"

I guess that I didn't recognize taking science as a "source of moral authority or a basis for normative judgement" as an expression of rationalization — praxis

It's not... I'm not still not sure where the misunderstanding here is...

By the way, and not that it's important, I was perusing the Get Creative! topic in the lounge and noticed some of your artistic expressions. — praxis

Fair enough, there are religious references in my music, which is on purpose, just like how I'm referring to it in this discussion.