Even then 'true' is just a temporary label meaning 'usefully predictive for the time being'. — Pseudonym

So perhaps then we should delve deeply into truth. What does it mean for a proposition to be true? And is all truth limited to propositional truth?

You seem to suggest that 'true' means 'usefully predictive for the time being'. When I tell you that I have $100 in my wallet, is the truth of this proposition granted by its usefulness? If so, what is usefulness? Is it usefulness to me? Usefulness to who exactly?

Physicalism is a belief which cannot be justified. — Pseudonym

Right, as are the other metaphysical beliefs. Is your belief that "metaphysical beliefs cannot be justified" itself a justified belief? If not why should we prefer it, as opposed to the opposite?

If philosophy is useless, then why would his ignorance of it minutae be relevant? — Pseudonym

I am sure that you will agree that in order to determine if something is useless, you must go into it, you must investigate it, and do so seriously. Otherwise how can you know if it is useless? We do not start from assumptions like "philosophy is dead" or "philosophy is useless" - we must rather argue to them. And to argue to them, we have to engage with philosophy - we have to show that we have engaged with it, and it has proven to be futile.

Philosophers seem quite confident in arguing that science cannot answer questions of morality, for example, without knowing all there is to know about neuroscience. — Pseudonym

That should be seen as a problem for those philosophers who want to say that neuroscience cannot provide any help in resolving moral conundrums.

I agree, and I do personally think that a good role for philosophy is to comfort people (although I have some reservations too), and of course if it is to play this role it will not necessarily be able to prove it can do so. — Pseudonym

Who would be able to prove that philosophy is playing such a role, and what would proof consist in?

I think perhaps we can agree there are laughably bad reasons for believing something on both sides of the argument, but if it works for them personally, then I don't think we have much authority to dismiss it. — Pseudonym

Suppose there is a man who has cancer, and he refuses all medical treatments, and claims that eating grass will cure him of cancer. And he eats grass and he is indeed cured of cancer (let's say it is spontaneous remission). It clearly worked for him personally, in that he did reach the result he was aiming for. What will we say if he now intends to market and promote his idea to other cancer patients?

You are confusing proving with providing an account. — Pseudonym

What would it mean to prove that naturalism is true? What does that even mean?

I think over the last 15 pages I have provided something of an account of why I am a Naturalist (although that want the intention of my original post). — Pseudonym

No, I have not actually seen you provide an account for it. You have merely been arguing that it's a possibility, there is nothing incoherent or contradictory in being a naturalist. Sure, there isn't. But you haven't provided any reason for why anyone, including yourself, should be a naturalist as opposed to, for example, a Cartesian dualist.

and I simply don't believe it is possible to suspend judgement. — Pseudonym

Why not? If you perceive so clearly as you say you do that metaphysical propositions cannot be true, why is it that you cannot suspend judgement with regards to their truth, but rather prefer to choose one position amongst the available range?

That is a dangerous question. If I am trapped in a mindset that always deals with the new in terms of the old, then for anyone to give me an answer is to again give me an old method with which to deal with the new. — unenlightened

Okay, I think I agree with you that we cannot deal with the new through a method - it is, afterall new, and methods are always old, what we develop from the past. So clearly to engage with the new completely, one must let go of methodology. Granted that this is the case, it's obvious that nobody can provide a method, so perhaps a method is not what we're looking for when we ask the question. But the question is, as you say, dangerous - if I am asking "how" it seems like any possible answer will have to be a method, a set of steps. But we have established that this isn't what we're looking for.

So my instinct now is to ask you how do we go about approaching this unknown without appealing to the past? But I see that there is a subtle contradiction in asking that. I see that when I ask you "how", I'm asking you to appeal to the past. And that's just what the remainder of the question precludes. So what are we to do?

If I am trapped in the known, unable to face the unknown, the answer is unknown - it must be. — unenlightened

So perhaps this is a better approach. Would engaging with the unknown sincerely, authentically, originally - would this implicate any effort of thought at all? Or would any thought about it necessarily send us to the past? Because I feel that there is a sort of relationship between thinking and the past, as all thinking relies on memory, it relies on associations we have formed in the past. Is any authentic thinking, that is entirely new and fresh possible? I don't think so - because all thought seems to be the known...

I used to be a big fan of martial arts when I was somewhat younger. In martial arts there is an emphasis on just doing without thought - without judging whether it's correct or incorrect, without planning, without any of this. It seems to me that it is something that brings you somewhat closer to rootedness in the present...

"Man is most nearly himself when he achieves the seriousness of a child at play." — Erik

(Y) If you look at the child actually, you will see just how intensely he is playing, how immersed he is into it - he does it with his entire being, it is not a half-hearted effort at all.

Another thing that determines whether you are risk tolerant or risk averse in situations is how much you like or desire something. If there's a person who likes/desires driving, they're more likely to be willing to take risks in driving than someone like myself, who doesn't like it and doesn't desire it at all.

I like business for example, so I'm more than likely to take risks in business and to tolerate the risks that are necessary in business. It's my desire that pushes me to accept those risks.

Someone might be risk tolerant for drug use but risk averse for rock climbing. — Bitter Crank

Yes. I am quite happy to take financial risks, but a lot less likely to take other situational risks (for example, I don't like driving, and if I can avoid it, I will). I am also fine with the risk-taking that comes from public speaking, social situations and so on so forth. But not fine with the risks that come out of going in a dangerous part of the neighbourhood, etc. So in some ways, I am very risk averse - and in others, I am very risk tolerant.

I have read most of this thread, and @Pseudonym has been running circles around at least @Wayfarer and @StreetlightX. That moment with the Quine quote was quite hilarious, I must admit :lol: And this is coming from someone who is completely against scientism, and doesn't even think science is that valuable to begin with.

I agree entirely, it is an act of philosophy to say that philosophy is dead, but I don't see this as any more contradictory than Wittgenstein's 'ladder'. Not all philosophical statements can be true without making each one pointless (unless we accept your 'philosophy as comfort' idea, which I will come back to), not all philosophical statements can be false as that would itself be a philosophical statement and so paradoxical (again, we could argue about whether that's actually a problem, but let's presume it is for now). — Pseudonym

Okay, I get what you're saying. Positivism, or the claim that science can answer, say, moral questions better than philosophy and other disciplines would be a philosophical claim, but just like other philosophical claims, it excludes other possibilities. My issue is then, how does one arrive to accept positivism as true? Clearly, it is not something that can be empirically determined, granted that it is a philosophical position, and not a scientific one itself.

I don't think that "philosophy is dead" is something to be laughed out of court or dismissed. I think it is a serious statement, that ought to be taken seriously.

The book 'The Grand Design', in which the "philosophy is dead" statement was made, goes on to explain Hawking how feels the answers to questions like "why are we here?" are correctly answered by a deductive nomological model. — Pseudonym

However, the issue is that Hawking does NOT take it seriously. He does not prove why we ought to think that philosophy is dead. Quite the contrary, he proves how ignorant he is when he, for example, states that Epicurus argued against atomism - Epicurus, of course, being a famous materialist and atomist.

If the 'purpose' of philosophy is to comfort people, then show me a paper marked on its ability to do so. — Pseudonym

Why must something be reproducible to be valid? If there is a paper on it, it means that we have the capacity to reproduce results, such as comforting people. But the issue is that people are extremely complex, intractably so, if I may say that, so we have no way to "reproduce" any of this comfort giving when it comes to people. Everyone's situation is different, it's not like we're dealing with atoms, all of which behave in the same predictable ways. The situations with people are extremely complex, so it makes little sense to expect philosophy to provide reproducible results in comforting people.

The point I am making is that this makes 'Scientism' no different from any other philosophical position (which also requires a similar set of fundamental beliefs), and yet it (unlike all other philosophical positions) is treated with derision and hatred. — Pseudonym

Yes, if the person in question cannot provide reasons for so believing, then it ought to be treated with derision. Many scientific materialists here have laughable arguments. I've debated a few of them, so I know. You seem to be somewhat more sophisticated than the "God does not exist and religion is a fairy tale" BS of some atheists, so we'll see. But people like Lawrence Krauss (for example) are laughable. They cannot even articulate their position, that's how confused it is.

I am not trying to prove that Scientism is true, I don't even believe it is possible to prove such a thing, to do so would be to answer a philosophical question about Physicalism and I've just argued that answering such question is (in all likelihood) impossible. — Pseudonym

If you cannot provide an account for why you choose Scientism over other belief systems, then you are being irrational. You ought to suspend judgement if all positions are equally likely.

To put it another way, saying that there needs to be a movement demanding we do not kill for no reason is like having a movement advising that we eat when hungry. Yes, there are some people who do not eat when hungry, there are people with eating disorders who will not eat even though they are hungry, but we do not need a movement to advocate eating just because of a minority whose faculties are not working properly for whatever reason. — Pseudonym

Interesting. However, you miss telling us that even if we were to have a movement advocating eating when hungry, it doesn't thereby follow that more people would eat when hungry than already do now. In other words, it is not proven that advocating something will get the results desired.

it’s not in your best interest if I do. — CuddlyHedgehog

Why not? :worry:

move on, dear. — CuddlyHedgehog

I would move on, but I don't know where. Wanna show me? :halo:

I only know of one great scientist that has said silly, dismissive things about philosophy, and he hasn't been mentioned in this thread yet, so I won't mention him (and in any case the thing he said was much less dogmatic and generalising than the sort of thing Hawking or Krauss have said). — andrewk

Richard Feynmann.

To be serious, however, is the wrong word. — TimeLine

I disagree on this. Even when you are joking or humorous you ought to do so seriously. Not half-hearted, not with reservations, etc. No, you ought to joke wholeheartedly, with your whole being. I think seriousness is the right word.

One must take their life seriously. One must care about it. Even when one is joking, playing, etc. You must play seriously.

One thing that I see in most of the responses you have had is that they have missed what I see as the point. And the reason for that is that you have given in several paragraphs, several examples of you own encounter with a lack of seriousness in others. — unenlightened

Yes, you are correct. I did want people to reflect on their own lives and personal examples in addition to mine. I think going through the process of reflection helps clarify the idea - if you do the work and try to get intimate with it (don't get any unserious thoughts about it now... ) by seeing how it applies to your own life, you'll understand it on a deeper level.

So you have made it very easy for people to talk about you, and talk about business and management and quite difficult to talk about fear, which we would rather not go into anyway. — unenlightened

Okay, so how can we change this then? I agree with you that the focus of the thread should be about how fear is affecting our relationships, professionally and otherwise. But it should be practical, it shouldn't be merely theoretical. We have to actually consider it, seriously, if I may say so.

Otherwise, it will be just like going to the doctor. The doctor will say "You have this, I am the doctor, and I know. This is the treatment for what you and many other patients have, you must take it. See you next week". And there is no relationship there, is there? If all we do is engage in listening to each other's soliloquies, we aren't really interacting, building something together, investigating together, solving a problem together.

Repeating the past is boring, and facing the unknown is scary, and this leads to a sullen half-assed bitter response to life in general. — unenlightened

Yes, every time I take on a new unfamiliar task, until I clarify things in my mind, and organise everything, and see, with my mind's eye, what the final outcome will look like, I fear. I know this fear, it is almost inescapable. But it is fear mixed with a sort of excitement - it is, if one can put it this way, a sort of anxiety which both draws one towards the future (the future being an end to the anxiety) and pulls one away from the future (the past being a source of comfort, being known). Being too much into the future makes one experience dread and confusion - not knowing how to even approach the problem. Being too much in the past makes on bored. So do you reckon it's possible to be present with the problem as it exists now, and not reach out into the future or go back to the past?

A lot of this is the fault of a degraded and degrading education — unenlightened

I agree. I am not a big fan of education and schooling as it exists today. I think the purpose of it actually IS to transform you into a docile robot, who will obey instructions and stay within the lines so to speak. And I do not see school, as understood today, as equipping people to be independent, to be able to stand on their own feet, both psychologically and in matters of work. If anything, I would say that most people get out of school unprepared for the world, with no real skills. And of course, if someone is to be dependent on you, the establishment, then, of course, you cannot give them any real skills, because they would result in freedom, not in dependency. Any real skills are dangerous.

But the system is as it is, and I doubt it will ever change. The question for me is how can people, once trapped within, find a way out?

Let's take the relationship between myself and @Pseudonym - it is not a serious relationship. Why not? What's making it like that, and what could we (both of us) do to fix that? This is an opportunity for you to investigate your own relationships with others - not only here, but everywhere else in your life. Let's do this - let's do it seriously, not half-heartedly, not disinterestedly - it is YOUR LIFE too that is under discussion. This is what philosophy is meant to be, we are to engage authentically with our experience, and persevere, not settle for easy answers, and displacements of the problem. So are people serious in their relationships with you? Are you serious in your relationships with people?

This a serious question. Do you suffer from OCD? — CuddlyHedgehog

:lol: That depends what you mean. Am I a perfectionist? Absolutely. Have I been diagnosed with OCD before? Yes. But I would say that at present I don't have symptoms of OCD qua mental illness/disease. My symptoms of OCD were checking the door was locked 1000 times, checking the gas at the oven is switched off 1000 times, etc. Those are all gone now.

If you were traveling through the amazon, would you complain that the snakes and spiders don't seem to be taking their jobs seriously? No. You'd just wake up every morning and say, "Today some snake is going to try to squash me to death." Then you aren't surprised when it happens. No energy wasted on angst that things are what they are. — frank

You're not quite getting the drift of what I'm saying at all. This isn't a situation of wishing there were no snakes & spiders. That whole framework is wrong, these people are my vendors, they are not my enemies or my competitors or anything of that nature. We are actually in a symbiotic relationship with each other - they benefit from working with me and I benefit from working with them. The trouble is that such issues can drain a lot of resources and energy, and they create mutual problems which put each party at a disadvantage (and consume our time). It's not that I can't soldier or, that things aren't getting done, etc. Everything is well, but my issue is how can it be better? Can you imagine if these things worked smoothly how much energy would be freed? How much more one could do? Throwing your hands up and saying oh well, there are snakes and spiders, is precisely not to be serious about solving the problem. Sure, one can live with unresolved problems, that's not an issue, but why do that? Why not make things better?

I can care less for this blame shifting game, it's your fault, it's their fault, etc. I don't care. The problem is how can there be a greater seriousness in the relationship from both sides. The question is how can there be seriousness in a relationship between people - doesn't even have to be a business relationship.

Since your post is quite long, I thought it might help to summarise it for those who are too busy to read the whole thing.

- Why don't people think and act the way I want them to? — Pseudonym

What did I say?

In fact, even on this forum, where people are more intelligent, better read, and more cultured than the average man, even here people lack seriousness. — Agustino

You're the common denominator in all of these troublesome business dealings. — Hanover

Being a good producer doesn't always translate into being a good manager and it sounds like you have vendors running amok. — Hanover

It is absolutely possible that I am a bad manager of people, I never claimed to be a good one. As the saying goes though, my mother ain't making a new one, so we're going to have to work with what we have :lol:

One thing that makes me somewhat of a bad manager is that I am too lenient with people when they make mistakes. Meaning that I give people many second chances. It is one thing that I have been contemplating, whether I should just start being harsher with people, more ruthless from a business point of view. But then that is worrying that it will turn relationships more conflictual, and I generally try to avoid conflict. One thing that I find annoying is that conflict seems to be essential in order to get good results - it seems that people have to see that I have teeth before they will do good work. I don't like that very much.

Another shortcoming may be that I'm not the best at motivating people. I am decent at getting good quality work from people in the end, but I don't think I'm great at making people feel good about themselves, or about their progress. That's definitely something of a shortcoming.

And I may not be the best judge of character & skill when it comes to choosing who I work with.

I will say though, that I think I'm a very good manager when it comes to managing resources, organising, planning and implementing projects, getting things done under budget, selling services, virtually all the technical aspects etc.

You get what you pay for. Quality doesn't usually come cheap. — frank

That is true, I am quite expensive with what I charge people, and cheap with what I pay people - but for the most part, I have been able to obtain better quality than what I paid for. Largely because I typically understand very well what I need, and I understand the work that I ask others to do (I used to do it myself), so I can't be fooled or short-changed.

Though I disagree with your basic point. I used to work very cheaply for people at first, and I did very high-quality work. Sometimes I worked non-stop to ensure that the work was at the adequate standard that I would be proud of, regardless of what I got paid. That's what distinguished me from a lot of people, and helped me secure some repeat business and bigger contracts.

And this whole idea that people have of doing some work and then receiving feedback, and then redoing it... I never personally worked that way. I always expect my client not to have to do anything. But everyone, including my accountant, etc. they all try to do things in a way that is easy and simple FOR THEM without thinking about what's best for me. And this has created problems, I've already changed accountants several times, and I'm with quite an expensive one at the moment, and still not very satisfied.

But this is another thing that I have contemplated - maybe I do need to start paying people more than I do, but the worry is that I will pay more, and then they will do work with the same amount of micro-managing from me, which isn't great for me. For example, my accounting company changed my accountant, and this new one is absolutely terrible. And even if the price I pay with them is quite expensive now, his responsiveness is absolutely abysmal. So I will have to ask them to change him or change accounting company again... but it doesn't work that easily. Say I will choose to get him changed (which I probably will) first I need to build up a case - have multiple instances of when I email him, call him, etc. and he is not responsive and him being responsive only when I threaten him financially. Then with this history, I will easily be able to get him changed. But this entire game seems so ridiculous to me. I know that I will change him, and he probably knows that he will get changed granted his behaviour, but we can't speak openly about it, we have to play this stupid game before something gets done.

Paradoxically, the real _____ is _____. — unenlightened

Paradoxically, the real pee pee tape is in America :lol:

I think Stormy Daniels will ____________ to Donald Trump, and so ______________.

You've never seen such an example.
Capiitalism is global. You forget the all the starving under $1 a day people also live under the yoke of capitalism. Given a random placement the likely hood is that you would be one of those living under a $1 per day.
Maybe you should take your head out of your bum once in a whilst and try to see the bigger picture?
The other thing you might like to consider is the thread subject.
The morality of it , not whether or not you happen to live in a country where you benefit from Capitalism's immorality! — charleton

Yes, I am aware that this thread is discussing the morality of capitalism. I do not think that capitalism is more immoral than the alternatives that have been tried so far, let's put it that way. I don't think capitalism is perfect. It's definitely not, and I am very much opposed to consumerism and pretty much the whole modern culture (Hollywood, etc.).

Suffice to say that out of all economic systems I've seen tried, I'd rather live in capitalism. At least freedom is possible in capitalism. Under communism, it's not. Communism was a horrifying system.

But perhaps that might be worth a thread of its own, Ecosophy is a bit neglected round here. — unenlightened

Oh dear... hopefully you don't become an @apokrisis version 2.0. :joke:

You're just describing a particular type of industry and type of capitalist where production requires little skill and the owner is trying to maximize his own profits at the expense of his employees being provided very little. — Hanover

No, I'm describing the capitalist system as a whole. There are industries which are less affected by this, but overall, even those industries will ultimately rely on those industries that require exploitation in order to be possible (at the scale that they are possible). And look, even relatively lean internet businesses, like Amazon FBA stores, outsource like crazy - customer service is outsourced, production is outsourced, shipping is outsourced - the entrepreneur ends up not doing very much of the actual work except providing the capital, supervising, sales & marketing and making sure that all the parties are working together smoothly.

All economic activities will ultimately rely on the production of the basic goods like food, clothes, raw material mining, etc. I rely on the exploited Chinese worker to get my Mac for example. Make no mention of my clothing, toothbrush and on and on.

In a capitalist system, the worker is a commodity, so the greater his skills and talents, the better he will be treated, which is why you should stay in school, be hardworking, and make yourself valuable. — Hanover

When production and money is the only criteria, then someone's value is always tied to their productive capacity. That is wrong from a moral point of view. If one's wife, for example, doesn't work, do you reckon they should consider her a useless piece of trash because she's not "productive"?

The "stay in school and be a slave" is not something I buy into as a way of making yourself valuable from an economic point of view. Quite the contrary - the school graduate is not valuable, that's why he gets paid so little. And I'm saying this as someone who is moderately successful in the current system, and who values entrepreneurship and people producing on their own, creating new businesses, creating value etc. I'm an entrepreneur myself. I'm saying this because I know that school is bullshit - it will train you to be a good slave, not to be a business owner. I've had the good fortune to attend a good university, so it's not like I'm jealous or anything. I've also done incredibly well in schooling.

But I agree with Marx on this. This is false consciousness, the proletariat thinking that by going to school, etc. he is freeing himself and obtaining a better life - while in truth, he is merely training to become a good slave for the capitalist. If you want to be the capitalist, then school isn't where you need to be. It doesn't take much to see - just pick a copy of Forbes.

And if I am to judge what I learned in school, but really, judge it authentically, I will come to the conclusion that I could have learned the same things I learned in 4 years of university, in a single year of serious study. Lacking seriousness is not good for an entrepreneur, and people are taught to lack seriousness in universities - party party party, learning just a little bit and very slowly.

What the capitalist system (not individual capitalists) isn't saying is that they are purposefully dumbing down people through school, public education, etc. in order to get them to be good slaves later on, and not be capable to be independent. They will be dependent on the 9-5 their entire life. If the common man discovered that he could provide value without working under terrible conditions for the capitalist, you reckon he would do it? Of course not.

I am an entrepreneur because I recognised that I don't need school, degrees, and on and on to provide value. This is what made me an entrepreneur, and gave me the freedom to start out on my own. Yes, I do have drive and persistence, and I do work hard, and I am not a dumb guy but that is all secondary. Some people work hard at digging ditches their entire lives - merely working hard won't take you anywhere.

So what upsets me is that some people keep this to themselves - only they should be the entrepreneurs and the business owners - the secrets should be kept from everyone else, everyone else ought to be their slave. That's what I take issue with. Most of the entrepreneurs of today are the rebels of yesterday. The drop outs - Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Michael Dell, Larry Ellison, Mark Zuckerberg etc. It is almost that you have to be a dropout to be a billionaire :rofl:

Making money is actually not difficult once you get the hang of it. Once you learn what you really need to learn (which is how to sell mostly), then it's easy. I would never work for anyone 9-5 for a single day - even if they said, we will give you $100 million per year, I would not work for them. I think that anyone with intelligence ought to refuse to live like a slave.

Now I'm sure that you will say, well you're a particular case, not everybody is like you, and on and on. Truth is that when I started out everyone thought I was crazy, and nobody believed in me. That's just how it works. The world tries to keep you a slave, you have to break the chains yourself, no one can do it for you. But I remain firmly convinced that this is possible and available to everyone, and not merely to a select few who are "gifted", "intelligent", "lucky" and whatever other positive adjectives.

I think the morality of capitalism depends on there being a frontier. As long as there are untapped resources out there, the accumulation of property cannot be said to be depriving anyone. We all slave on Jamalrob's estate here, but if anyone feels unhappy, they are free to carve out their own philosophical homestead further down the internet highway. — unenlightened

I think this is close to how capitalism functions, but not quite. My point of view is that capitalism works by outsourcing exploitation, just like life works by decreasing its own internal entropy by increasing the entropy of its environment (by more than it decreases its own). So for capitalism to work, there must be an "out there" that we don't care about - the Chinese, the Africans, etc. - let them produce everything for us cheaply, we don't care how they live so long as we have what we need back home.

So in this manner, life becomes materially better for the capitalist countries. Today, even the poor from the UK live better than ever in the past. However, some people in the world, for example in Syria, live worse than they have ever lived in their entire history. And these aren't proportional - we live somewhat better than ever before, but they live a lot worse than ever before.

The reason we have so much money invested in space travel and space exploration recently is because capitalism is looking for new places to export exploitation to. Can you imagine what a golden age it would be for Earth if we found another planet with somewhat intelligent aliens that we could exploit?

But in the absence of this external "enemy", "victim", etc. capitalism cannot work.

But there is no land left to clear; no free space to invest my labour in and grow my food and my capital. The landless peasant is doomed to remain forever landless, because all the land is already owned. And at this stage it becomes apparent and significant that to own property is to deprive others of its use. — unenlightened

Skyscrapers? :P On the same surface area of Earth live more and more people. We're not yet at the point where we have a land shortage, though in certain parts of the world, this is becoming a problem.

Because this case is like the others. — Sapientia

Which others?

It would mean that the matter could be put to rest. — Sapientia

So the matter being put to rest is what you mean by answering it conclusively. That is the standard by which we judge if something is answered conclusively. Are you sure about that? The Big Bang is, by that criterion, not a conclusive answer. Global warming is also not a conclusive answer - 1% of scientists disagree.

It is the nature of our human discourse for matters never to be put to rest. We will always discuss and keep on re-discussing and going through the motions with everything. The dialectic does not happen once, and after that nobody talks about it anymore. Why not? Because the answer can only be conveyed to you if you yourself go through the motions. It cannot be conveyed merely verbally. But this isn't to say that the answer is a matter of opinion.

I propose another definition for matters being put to rest. Matters are put to rest when, after going through the motions of the argument, there are no remaining unanswered strands that create doubts and uncertainty in the mind.

Because it's not the kind of thing that can be answered conclusively. That would be a category error. It only makes sense in terms of, "What's your opinion?". — Sapientia

Yes, but I am asking you why this is the case. Why can't it be answered conclusively? What does answering it conclusively even mean to you?

That is, and can only ever be, opinion, and one with which I disagree. — Sapientia

Why can it only ever be opinion?

Without reading Plato's Republic, one can pretty well predict the consequences of many or most people behaving immorally and getting away with it. — Bitter Crank

Yes, but Plato doesn't talk about that relatively simple situation. Plato frames it through Thrasymachus that only you will behave immorally, and you will get away with it, nobody will ever know or find out. The question is then posed if, in that case, you should do it?

Yes or else we would doubt it. Do we exist, is an evil demon deceiving us. Descartes made sure that at least we can think because we cannot doubt we are doubting and our act of thinking proves we exist. — René Descartes

First we must understand what we even mean by considering whether an evil demon is deceiving us. I do not see any possibility of absolute deception, along the lines argued for by Spinoza, not Descartes. Namely, even in decieving someone you must use things which are real. Suppose I create the image of a unicorn before you. That image is created of things which are real - whiteness, extension, etc.

Descartes said I think it therefore I am. He proved our existence. — René Descartes

Did our existence need proof? :meh:

What would you be able to do in Philosophy without his method. — René Descartes

The better question is what has the method of doubt allowed us to do in philosophy that you consider to be of such importance? Certainly Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, Schopenhauer - all of them did very well without the method of doubt. As did Plato, and Aristotle. What is Descartes' advance even over Plato and Aristotle who came before him?

How would anyone be able to do maths without Cartesian Axes. — René Descartes

What does ability to do math have to do with philosophy again?

@Buxtebuddha - the above post is for you, please come and correct me. I thought I'd make your work easier. Thanks. Love ya :hearts:

Because he is French and he thinks therefore he is. — René Descartes

Common man, be serious!

Hose are all good, but Descartes is better. — René Descartes

Why?

This is the greatest philosopher of all time — René Descartes

Highly doubtful. Off the top of my head, I have found Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Spinoza, Kant, Schopenhauer, Wittgenstein and what I've read of Hegel & Heidegger to be much superior to Descartes in insightfulness & truth.

Imagine you can live the rest of your life immorally and get away with it, societal or otherwise.
Would you still choose to be moral, why or why not? — Ruchi

Please go and read Plato's Republic. He asks exactly this question and answers it, I think, conclusively.

Because of the fear of getting caught and punished. — CuddlyHedgehog

Is that what you do? :lol:

The psychology of philosophers tends to be ______. whereas the philosophy of psychologists is usually______. — unenlightened

The psychology of philosophers tends to be true. Whereas the philosophy of psychologists is usually wrong. :naughty:

Fixing the shower yesterday went ___________, and I ________________. :P

Frogs __, hence ___. — Lone Wolf

Frogs are cute, hence hamsters ride on them.

Hamster likes ___________ therefore ____________ .

The truth is ________ , and so I ___________.