As for your question, I don't find it very interesting, — praxis

Okay. Next time I'll ask about dancing girls and wolves that balance chairs on their noses.

No, seriously, I get your point. I did not write this question particularly for you or to entertain you. I wrote this quesiton for ALL those philosophers who find it not particularly interesting.

Point 2 in the OP could also use some clarification. Stoics believe in living according to nature. — praxis

Dr. Prof. Pigliucci does not leave it unexplained in his video. Please watch the video instead of asking me to clarify. It only takes 10 minutes, I think. It's better than an audiobook. I just don't feel like explaining things that occur to you only because you haven't watched the video.

I beg you, please watch the video.

All General Trump Conversations here!!

Good grief. Now we have a general Trump, aside from President Trump.

Next we'll have a high priest Trump.

Should humans respect these organisms as perhaps capable of borderline rationality instead of sending unfortunate animal souls to the dinner table en masse? — Enrique

I personally have no problems viewing animals as perfectly capable of rational thought, romantic behaviour, and sentimental emotions. And personally have no problem eating their cooked flesh either.

Your question assumes that we, humans, a rational species, ought not to harm members of other rational species.

I reject the validity of that notion. I eat them, and love the taste and texture of their flesh. Furthermore, I have no guilt, remorse, or any sort of feeling or undertones of wrongdoing when I eat the flesh of animals.

That said, I also contest that it is more sinful to eat a rational animal than a merely reactive and unthinking, unfeeling animal, such as a shrimp, tape-wrom or earthworm. If you, for some to me unknown consideration, stop yourself from eating rational animals, why do you allow yourself to eat rationality-free animals? What is about rationality that makes it a decisional factor whether to massacre and eat, or not massacre?

To answer your question seriously: I agree with @Tim Wood and with @Fiveredapples.

I would only add one more idea: put your feet in your reader's shoes. You must always reflect, even during the writing process itself, on how informative your writing is. You must make sure that when you're leading the reader with your text, you don't make him take baby-steps if he is an adult, and you don't make her jump over huge gaps in your logic if she is not Albert Einstein. In other words, your writing must have a tempo of ideas introduced and connected, and made clear what the ideas and connections comprise.

In a way it is like having a continuity supervisor in the movie industry when they shoot footage (i.e. in your writing process) and later in the editors/ cutters room (when you re-read your text with the intention of correcting mistakes in it.)

In short: try to imagine you are your reader, and determine if your text makes proper sense or not.

Oh. I mixed you up, @John Gill, with @Wittgenstein.

My mind is going. It is horrible to have early-onset Alzheimers at such a young age that i'm at. (Mommy just brought me home from the hospital, I still have some raw umbilical cords hanging off of my belly.)

(Is there a chance that you may be dyslexic? transposing digits and characters in your writing? And your age is 28?

In months.)

What's my age ?? :wink: — Wittgenstein

I'd say, five or six... but a very precocious five or six. A child genius. A prodigy. A pedagogical miracle.

Speaking from my perspective, I suffer with the reverse problem so it doesn’t really bother me either way. That said I’m generally not encouraged to continue discussions with people who present nothing but one line replies to complex questions - in those cases I just cut my losses and move on, or maybe try and provoke a fuller answer. — I like sushi

I hear you loud and clear. I answer even one-liners, if I see merit in the one line or one word uttered. It is easier most of the time than to analyze and respond carefully and meritfully to some long, rambling post.

You're right in my opinion by making the assessment that this site is above others. There is one site that is completely bereft of idiots, (whereas this one is not) but they did that by heavy-handed moderation, and now their active membership is down to ten participants, with three posts total in any week on average. They call themselves Science Chat Forum, and they have a philosophy section. I was heavily moderated out of there in little time.

Wot? — khaled

1. As stated, my brain was mush when I wrote the OP.
2. Wot is "something else" indeed? It is kind of a catch phrase to everything that could be written, or said, but haven't been said yet in a particular thread.
3. I assume "Wot" means "What". If i am mistaken, please let me know, as it is an honest mistake. Misspelled words are abundant in txt lingo and on the Internet, and I'm less conversant in these languages than in informal common English.

Most of these fantasies are playful in nature, and not serious anyways. It's no problem if it ain't serious, and it's kinda foolish to treat a non-serious occurrence as serious — Agustino

Not mine. I had serious crushes on my Russian teacher, on my math teacher in another high school, on my math teacher at college. I was too young at these times in high school to capitalize on the opportunities, and the college professor crush came at an age when people had already been keenly aware of the career-crushing effect of affairs with students.

So I went out into the community and sexed with women typically 20 years older than myself.

I was reluctant at first, but my psychiatrist at the time (yeah, right) advised me that I should not reject these opportunities due to the forbidding nature of some prefabricated cultural expectations. So I did not, after a point in time.

I had a ball with older, actually very good looking women (some of them were movie-star quality in looks; others were not) until my heart disease and diabetes set in due to a lifetime of smoking and being overweight; then I was forced by natural effects to abandon all sexual contact.

The thing with sexual and other love contacts is, that you hone your skills with a certain demographic, and the more skilled you are and more successful in your endeavours, the more you are stuck in having sex with people within the same demographic group. Sure I like young women's looks, sure I'd like to bone them, always have; but my social conditioning sorta kept me in the same old beaten path, dating older women.

The ability of males to make these intra-sex bonds is key in determining whether they reproduce, as female interest and consummation depends on the slender male liaison.


There are more than a thousand officially documented gender-bending species, — Enrique

A bit like Keith Richards had been tasked by the group leader of the Rolling Stones to pre-select females via expansive trials and performance evaluation for the ensuing sexual consumption by Mick Jagger of the thus pre-selected females.

Why would a perfect God make something with shit for brains? — Hanover

"And He created him in His perfect image."

I have been long known to be saying that it is not inconceivable that the universe is the work of a designer; but he or she sure hain't been an intelligent one, that's for sure.

Let's get moderation done. — unenlightened

Everything in moderation, fellows.

God created Trump to spare me from being the butt of your joke. — Hanover

"Butt of a joke." Hahaha!!

V.o.:

Horn of a dilemma
Leg of a trip
Arm of the law
Brain of an operation
Head of state
Face of: terror, adversity, evil,
Eye of a needle
Ears of a corn (like hearing a bad joke)
Knows of many things (he does)

I watched the video only. I never read a thing on Stoicism. I can't read.

I never assumed the qualities and nature of the two pillars of Stoicism. I took the exact snapshot of them as described in the speech on the Internet by Dr. Pigliucci, as given by a link on somebody else's post.

Perhaps the only (and maybe invalid) assumption I made was on human nature, it being immovable, unchangeable. I am not sure to this day if that is an invalid one, or its opposite (that human nature can be changed) is an invalid one.

I can read maximum 2000-3000 words of a well-written article or else work of fiction (short story). Beyond that I can't read. My focus becomes blurred (not visual, but mental), I can't concentrate, I am unable to read longer stuff.

So I altogether and completely gave up on reading. It was a gradual process. First I decided at college not to read any of the textbooks, but to go to each lecture, not take notes even, but listen intently. It got me a C+ average. That was lucky, because it was the bare minimum passing mark to earn the degree.

(about John Gill) Assuming you were 20 year old back then, you are approximately 77 right now. You are probably the oldest user here then — Wittgenstein

I've been guessed to be hugely different in age from the real one on one philosophy internet forum. Forgot which of the four I was active on at the time. It pleased me to no end.

Why would you not be able to? It is simply a tool, like any other? — Pantagruel

Well, the thesis was that the tool (critical thinking) is useless, or even undefined, non-existent without an application, without a piece of material that it can work on.

If, and only if, that is true, then my earlier conundrum stands.

You're right on both counts.

Damit, I admit: guilty as charged.

An acceptable theory of mind is beyond the scope the philosophy and even science in my opinion. — Wittgenstein

A workable, acceptable, or even just merely descriptive theory of mind is beyond the human mind to construct.

We are stuck in this together. We would need to invent an apparatus or mechanism or process whereby we can pull our own selves out of the quagmire by our own hairs.

Somebody, don't have the reference or the author's name, said that philosophy should not seek to have its questions answered; instead, it should seek a cure to treat itself.

There is neither comprehension nor predictability for individual particles. The operation of the universe is not understood. — GeorgeTheThird

Precisely. It is not understood. It is assumed to be true, and that is precisely the assumption of scientific materialism: "The laws of the universe can be learned; they are universal; and man is capable of learning them".

Just because they are not understood, they are still understandable (this is an assumption).

But because we don't understand it, there is no reason to believe there are no rules.

It's a belief, that the assumption is correct. Just like your belief in the assumption that a god creates a causal relationship.

When we say that man chooses himself, we do mean that every one of us must choose himself; but by that we also mean that in choosing for himself he chooses for all men. For in effect, of all the actions a man may take in order to create himself as he wills to be, there is not one which is not creative, at the same time, of an image of man such as he believes he ought to be. — Sartre

I am sorry, but the passage in and by itself is nonsense. At least I see no sense in it.

There must be ways in which Sartre defines what he means a man chooses himself. In common language you choose something or someone FOR something else. Without the "for" it is meaningless to speak of choosing one's own self. To do what with it?

A man creates himself? That is in opposition of the reductio to absurdum. A thing must precede another thing in time before it would be able to create it. Therefore concurrent creation of the self is not possible.

I am sure Sartre made sense, but from the quoted passage you can't possibly see that without any useful initiation.

thanks for the lecture. In my mind,

You ought to act such that the rule you adopt could be the same rule for everyone. — Immanuel Kant

is a useless rule.

I think my paraphrasing it "You must do so that if everyone did what you do, would cause no harm to mankind" is a better imperative than Kant's.

If you consider that Kant's imperative, as expressed, does not prohibit any behaviour, good or bad, moral or immoral, sadistic or not sadistic, survivalist or defeatist.

For instance, I will make myself the rule, "I will drop an atomic bomb on this town." As long as everyone will drop an atomic bomb on their town, the rule is not violated.

What is the good in that?

Or.... or..., "I'll rob this bank now." I adopt this rule, and it could be a rule for everyone. Even for the bank employees. Is this a good rule? A useful rule? NO. But it is completely compatible with the CI as phrased by Immanuel Kant.

One of the biggest lie that we are all told is that everyone is creative. — Wittgenstein

How do you measure the size of a lie? You put them side-by-side, and the taller lie is bigger? Or you put them on a scale, and the heavier one is the bigger lie?

"Dear, they do it with smoke and mirrors."

Karl Popper has highly-regarded and expansive epistemology called "Critical Rationalism" that is entirely based on the concept of critical thinking. — Pantagruel

Expansive means "can be expanded". So it can be shrinked. Because whatever is expansive, is elastic.

So Popper's expansive theories can be reduced and disregarded, if one shrinks them, instead of expands them.

----------

Does the book "Critical Rationalism" describe the process of critical thinking without any topic as the topic of the critical thinking, or does the discussion discuss critical thinking without any topic?

This is a question only you can answer, Pantagruel, since you are the only one who has read the book in these parts.

Please also be careful you read the passages in the book that are about critical thinking, not about merely critical rationalism. I wish you to avoid building an argument on a strawman.

Deliberate misrepresentation of one's own thought and belief.

I think that that covers them all.

Anyone have an example to the contrary? — creativesoul

Yes, it covers them all. That is true. But just like there are big circles and small circles and yellow circles and blue circles, the circles are all circles, except they have attributes that makes them different from each other, while maintaining each circle's circleness.

Same with the categorization of lies. They are all lies. But they have different effects. They are all different in outcome. Therefore though they have differences, they are still all lies.

----------

A lie is a deliberate misrepresentation of one's own thought and belief. Contrary example would be if Fred saw a bedsheet, and he remembered it as being blue; but he lies, and he says the bedsheet was pink. But in reality the bedsheet is pink.

Fred's statement satisfies the criteria of a lie inasmuch as he speaks other than what he believes to be true. But he inadvertently spake the truth. If you speak the truth, notwithstanding your intention to lie, is that a lie, or not a lie? If Fred called a gun blue, and the gun were indeed blue, then would anyone accuse Fred of lying? While in Fred's memory or mind the gun was pink.

@180 Proof presents that lies are not bad if they do not cause bad things.
@tim wood sets up an interesting dilemma: can lies in the Aristotelian sense be compatible with CI, and with the classification I presented? @tim wood presents Kant's view of every lie being bad is actually a correct assessment, and gives an empirical acount of how very probable each lie is to foster distrust.
@themadfool further argues that Kant was not a consequentialist, but his arguments used consequentialism; and that consequentialists on some level accept non-wonsequentialism, judging from the wording how one would defend his or her most well-meaning lies as well.

Humans, one of the arguers above expressed, are programmed to reject the moral validity of lying, even when it leads to good things. We are all apologetic; we try and rationalize why we lie; we don't want to be caught lying by others when we lie to effect a greater good to individuals.

I think, personally, that consequentialism wins out over the initial bad feelings one generates by the sin of lying. If betrayal is not generated, distrust won't be, either.

If one wants to bring the three presentations of lying on a moral field, one must realize that hurts get generated by lying, but the hurts are not necessarily permanent, and can be forgiven. This does not contradict the Kantian CI, since the view accepts that lying is bad and ought to be avoided; but if it happens, then (this does not contradict the CI) it can be of a forgivable nature. And some of the types of lies I presented are such.

While all along, lies are "words spoken that the speaker knows are not true."

-----------

Another angle to consider the dilemma would be: can an unethical act be beneficial for all mankind?

According to the Kantian CI, yes. Because immorality lies not in the consequence, but in the intention. If one asks himself, "If everyone did what I'm about to do, would it serve mankind to create a better world?" then one only has to imagine the scenario, and decide whether to execute his planned act or not.

However; the question posed by the CI bases the desirability of the action on the consequence.

So whether the actual consequence is good, or bad, is of no consequence. What is important, is that the person who is about to solve a moral dilemma, imagines the outcome one way or the other, and he acts the way which according to his imagination better serves mankind.

But different people have different powers of imagination.

So suppose that one asks himself, "Would mankind be better off if everyone uttered a white lie in the situation I've found myself in". His answer is "yes". This negates the categorical rejection of all lies on moral grounds, yet it satisfies the rigorous criteria for the CI.

-----------------

"Truth hurts but it liberates."

Another way to examine our question would be to say, does knowledge liberate enough so it is worth the pain to go through that hearing the truth generates?

This is not at all an offshoot of Kant's CI, yet the impact of its strength is staggering. Here, not merely moral dilemma is present; but a social significance of being excommunicated from the community if an individual tells everyone every opportunity he gets, what the others are doing wrong. In this situation the person benefits the community, because he eliminates incompatible or undesirable behaviour; but he does not benefit himself, but rather, harms himself. Is this compatible with CI? NO, it is not, because the individual does something that serves NOT all mankind. It serves most of his community, but not himself, and he is part of mankind. So the CI fails here too.

---------------------

I venture to say that most moral conundrums can be made compatible with most moral theories, except with that of the CI of Kant.

This is not to discount Kant's genius. Instead, I am amazed that he managed to create a system that teaches people not to be categorical, but be instead flexible in their moral judgments, because the field is full of nuances that can be turned against each other. But only until you remove CI from the comparable set of moral theories.

The question is how order at the macro level comes out of complete chaos at the individual particle level. — GeorgeTheThird

I don't think there is a chaos on the individual particle level.

Electrons and atomic nuclei are pretty stable at our operating temperature range.

If some weird thing is happening, such as a quick half-life of an element, chances are that that element is rare, or can't be found freely in nature.

But for those elements that have a somewhat weird, and relatively not too slow nuclear change, such as carbon atoms, their nuclear deformation does not manifest in a change on the chemical reaction level.

Now, on the other hand, if you put a whole bunch of uranium atoms together, then you get a fission chain reaction, which is a near-random occurrence, and indeed the outcome is an unstable state of matter.

Because serious philosophy is difficult, and because we live in an almost post-literate age, those who have worked at it are mostly only intelligible and interesting to one another. — softwhere

There are two types of serious philosophers these days: 1. academic philosophers, whose jobs are mandates to delve into topics as hard and difficult a way as possible, and 2. gentlemen (or gentle lady, or Aristocratic) philosophers, who have a lot of time, energy, and other resources to devote to enquiries in philosophy.

The second type, type 2. philosophers, have the option of reading the same material and work through it and work it through as the type 1. philosophers. The type 2 . philosophers' other option is a speculative approach, which discovers for them brand new, but to the professional philosophy circles well-known philosophical thoughts.

I belong to the second optioner group of type 2. I am having ball. I don't know if I could even handle a disciplined study at an institution (academic, not psychiatric or penitentiary). I have taken four courses, but I used them mainly to shoot down the ideas of the presented topic's original author. I had a ball debunking Socrates and Hobbes, and had a chance to fall in love with the ideas and mind of Hume.

This is what it boils down to in this thread: We're critically thinking about critical thinking.
Critical thinking all by itself, without a solid, tangible or conceptual topic, is not possible.
If critical thinking has no topic, or the critics have limited or no knowledge of the topic, critical thinking is a waste.
But we are criticising pure critical thinking.
And critical thinking has been shown to be useless without a topic.
So we are critically thinking about something that is critical thinking with no topic.
---------------
Let me explain.
F(x) only has meaning when x is not equal to zero.
F(F(x)) therefore only has meaning if X is not equal to zero.
We wish to examine F as a function.
But we do it with a conceptual approach, where we in effect examine F(F(0)).
Therefore this discussion is only worthwhile if we approach the topic with actual examples, and not with conceptual megadescriptions.
Yet the notion that F(0) is meaningless was postulated while talking about F(0) in terms of F(F(0)).

Go figure.

a Few examples of primal words
- ouch
- mamma
- dodo
- poopoo
- kaka
- yummy
- pipi (or peepee)
These are the first words a baby hears, repeatedly hears, and later understands by way of visual and other sensory verification of the phonymal string's cognitive image.

No natural cause has been found for the outcome of any individual particle event. Therefore, whenever someone says, "God has caused this event", the materialist cannot point to the experimental evidence and say, "No, this is the cause of the event." — GeorgeTheThird

I would have written the above as
"No natural cause has been found for the outcome of any individual particle event. Therefore, whenever someone says, "God has caused this event", everyone in the room breaks up in spontaneous laughter."

No natural cause has been found for the outcome of any individual particle event. Therefore, whenever someone says, "God has caused this event", the materialist cannot point to the experimental evidence and say, "No, this is the cause of the event." — GeorgeTheThird

If your faith is strong enough, you can discard the entire history of human endeavour to get to know how natural forces operate.

"God made it happen," you can say this to explain any event. And if you believe in God proper enough, your stance can't be wrong.

The ultimate Occam's razor.

You can discard even your elaborate proofs and descriptions and appeal to reason. This is where the buck stops: "God made it happen." The alpha and the omega.

This still covers over and bridges the two sides of all gaps. If you believe it strong enough.

The [alleged] strength of scientific materialism is in the experimental demonstration of cause and effect. Without demonstration of cause and effect, there is only materialism. — GeorgeTheThird

no cause can be identified for any event in the universe. — GeorgeTheThird

Then there is only materialism.

I agree with that. I said that already. Precisely the same thing as you are saying. I said in a post here, that scientific materialism is a philosophical concept, that stands alone by itself, without dependence on reality, on observations, on anything.

Not at all, I am neither irritated, frustrated nor angry. It is all part of the great debate. — A Seagull

I may venture to say that you just hain't got there yet, to that point with @Bartricks. Have you experience with debating him?

So totally right.

Well thou and I are most philosophers, so the case is proven. — unenlightened

I think everyone 'round here laughed inwardly, not in written words, but by moving their paragraphm or diaphragm or whatever it's called rapidly in a rhythmic way.

Gregory, are you a Gregorian by conviction of faith?

You switched topics several times in your post.

Ugliness is not the original sin. first switch.

Substance is not sin.

Privatization is a sin, but not synonymous with sin.

Several switches later:
Child rape is not physically good (for the child)

Modern art is neither child rape, nor sinfulness

There are other alternatives to explain the logic of the post. They are, in no particular order, but alphabetical, Alzheimers, Confusionism, Dementia, Kaposi's sarcoma, philosopher's stone**, psychosis, schizophrenia, syphillis (advanced stage) and Wittgenstein.

** as in "Excuse me, while I kiss the sky"-- Jimi Hendrix

I think you are missing the point. — A Seagull

I'm afraid it's you who's missing the point, @A Seagull. The point being that any debate involving @Bartricks leads to irritation, frustration, and anger for the opponent of @Bartricks.

I think death is a burden, a harm, yes. And a far bigger one than living - unless you're on fire or something - which is why our reason tells us to do all we can to avoid it.
Plus, if death is not a burden, not a harm, then what's so wrong about killing someone? I mean, what if someone is in my way and I don't want to burden them with the task of moving - should I kill them? Would that be the kind - because less burdensome - thing to do? — Bartricks

Bartricks, I would give you the perfect answer from my point of view, but why should I bother engaging you in a debate? I'll only do that if you can give me 2 good reasons why that would be a good idea.

Did you know that the word "stupid" comes from the Latin word "stupere" meaning "be amazed or stunned"? — Michael

From inside every big and learned word there is a small, stupid word trying to come out.

That's how new words get born. Then they grow up, and they also give birth yet to another generation of stupid little ankle-biter words.

I predict that in two thousand years, "stupid" will be written as "stupoimeusse", and it will mean "the nice smelling lady's breasts".