I'm not a sci fi guy, but I enjoyed Firefly/Serenity. I liked the imaginative literary ambition of the original Trek (in small doses) but later Trek seemed a bit contrived and mechanical for my taste. I remember hearing about Next Gen in 1987 and saying (quite idiotically it turns out), 'This will never catch on, Trek was an unrepeatable one off!' — Tom Storm

Nonetheless, your "tv scifi" taste is impeccable, mate! :cool:

Staying with space operas, what do you think of the portrayals of "human dilemmas" in Firefly (and/or the Serenity movie) or The Expanse (s1-3)?

(Btw, I gave up on nBSG after the first 2½ seasons and never watched more than online preview trailers for any Star Trek series since the last few years of DS9. Same with Stargate & Star Wars-related tv shows despite my nephews' best efforts!)

I think that creating children is the source of all human harm. — Andrew4Handel

I disagree. I think scarcity is the source of (all) human harm and that "not having children" doesn't solve anything ...

... as I pointed out in this old (antinatalism?) thread:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/505320

:lol:

:up:

I don't remember ever making such an assertion about "anti-metaphysics". — Gnomon

Well, here's a post in which you use "anti-metaphysical prejudice" ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/781277
... and elsewhere "opposes / blocks philosophical speculation" (i.e. metaphysics) and "anti-philosophical". Remember now? :smirk:

All tip and no iceberg, man — Wayfarer

At last, a confession. They say it's good for the anatta. :up:

Aristotle is enjoying a renaissance ... — Wayfarer

A good time for you to actually study his First Philosophy which has come down to us as metaphysics. :smirk:

The term "metaphysical" refers to concepts or principles that transcend the physical or empirical realm and are typically associated with supernatural aspects of reality (bearing in mind that the Greek-derived 'metaphysical' is a synonym for the Latin-derived 'supernatural'). — Wayfarer

Well, at least we agree that materialism (e.g. classical atomism) is anti-"supernatural" (i.e. anti-woo). I prefer the Greek conception of tà metà tà physikà biblía which I'd summarized recently:

... First Philosophy with respect to his Physics. The word 'metaphysics' literally means 'the book after the book on physics'. It is meant to consist of categorical generalizations about nature derived from studying the many domains and particularities of nature. In other words, one must know nature (i.e. physics) in order to understand the principles / limits of physics (i.e. metaphysics). — 180 Proof

Also, an older post ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/667780

To equate the metaphysical with "the supernatural", as you do, Wayfarer, is both contrary to Aristotle's first philosophy (i.e. reflective thinking on what can be known of nature) and a species of irrationalism (i.e. magical thinking ... that transcends nature) which, IMO, is why our disagreements are so intractable – my positions and arguments are mostly grounded in (a version of) first philosophy whereas yours are mostly committed to (perennialist / dharmic) magic, miracles & mysteries. And perversely, you (and like-minded others) frequently make use of modern physical sciences in ad hoc attempts to justify anti-physical ideas, or ideals, about "reality" which you believe in.

There is a vast universe to explore, but can we earn the privilege to do so? — universeness

Too anthropocentric. The universe, my friend, is extremely inimicable to complex organisms outside of their miniscule, watery envelopes of powerful magnetic fields in 'Goldlock's Zones' like Earth. Outer space is for the machines; virtual space is for (our) species. At most, we're tele-explorers (i.e. remote viewers (e.g. space telescopes, Martian rovers, Jovian probes, etc)). AGI—>ASI may be "our guardian" one day ... :nerd:

I only ever watched a handful of B5 episodes back in the day, maybe 1-2 each season; all I remember is being bored by the characters, derivative space operatic metaplot and the cheezy CGI. From what I've read in recent years I don't feel I'd missed much.

What a sweet Pollyanna! — Vera Mont

:up:

I am bewildered that we can not achieve "the better" through reasoning. I think we are proving those of the Enlighten[ment] right, that with reason we can do better. — Athena

Our intelligent machine descendants are emerging now from the womb of human reason. They will be either an extinction event or the apotheosis of human civilization – IMO, a profound improvement either way on the global status quo / human condition. :victory:

:100:
Why intelligent, well-intentioned people delude themselves with panglossian nostagias escapes me. Coping mechanisms?

A request to either of you gentlemen: (A) please explain why you claim that a metaphysics of materialism (e.g. classical atomism) is "anti-metaphysical" and also, more broadly, (B) explain why, particularly in philosophy, you prioritize 'arguments with non-propositional premises' (re: mental-states (i.e. ideals)) over above 'arguments with propositional premises' (re: more-than-mental-states (i.e. concepts)). :chin:

In my opinion, people only do something if they expect it to benefit them, and not because they ought to do it. — Jacques

Yes, especially those people who understand that 'one ought to do whatever one expects will eventually benefit one.'

Are you familiar with the existential psychotherapists Viktor Frankl and Irvin Yalom? Have you investigated or undergone cognitive behavioral therapy (with or without medications)?

Well okay, don't answer my question.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/808415

In light of you using the term like an epithet, do you think Spinoza is also a "positivist"?

He doesn't "say" that; rather, as I've pointed out, Spinoza considers all "revealed faiths" and "transcendent beliefs or ideals" to be mere superstitions and, I'll add, that for him the only 'true religion' is Reason (à la logos) – the devotional object of which, so to speak, being the (infinitely & eternally immanent) natura naturans. As for "resemblance", Wayfarer, in the context of my post I alluded to what @Christoffer had said about philosophy and religion, which resembles Spinoza's approach, and asked you whether you'd object to Spinoza the way you have objected to Christoffer for being, as you have claimed, "a positivist".

Philosophy is for questioning unquestionable answers.

Much of what Hadot is talking about refers to a meditation for the purpose of dismantling biases, towards habits, passions and... religion. This is the difference between religious arguments, religious beliefs, religious thinking and... philosophy. — Christoffer

:fire:

If you think about all philosophical topics and arguments, they're all trying to do one thing, remove bias and fallacies from an argument in order to arrive at a conclusion that can be agreed upon. — Christoffer

:100:

The proposal you're suggesting is really like [ ... ] Spock, the Vulcan, possessed an enormous IQ and encylopedic knowledge, from a terrestrial point of view, but was often caught out by what we would now describe as his lack of EQ ... — Wayfarer

So do you consider Spinoza with his counter-biased more geometrico, for instance, a "positivist"? The author of the monumental (though suppressed for centuries) Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, which had inaugurated modern biblical criticism and strongly suggested that all "revealed faiths" and "transcendent beliefs or ideals" are mere superstitions (i.e. dogmatic fairytales & fables) – by your lights, Wayf, is he just confusing metaphysics with "scientism"?

Btw, I think "Mr. Spock" was more a Stoic-caricature in the 1960s than the Spinozist he seemed to be portrayed as by the 1990s.

"That which is hateful to you, do not do to anyone"
~Hillel the Elder :fire:

What are your thoughts on the rather broad category of 'human flourishing' (or 'wellbeing' as Sam Harris has it)? — Tom Storm

I think of 'flourishing / well-being' as the process of optimizing agency. What do I mean by 'agency'?

Agency (i.e. ethos) consists in individual and collective capabilities (i.e. adaptive habits, skills, norms-conventions, commons-affordances) of agents to help others and themselves to prevent and reduce harm to others and themselves. — 180 Proof

So my conception is that we flourish as our capabilities optimize from being exercised individually and collectively (otherwise, we languish...) E.g. Peirce-Dewey influenced 'disutilitarianism' + Philippa Foot's 'natural goodness' + Martha Nussbaum's 'capabilities approach'.

Btw, Sam Harris' notion of "wellbeing" is much too vague (& positive psychology) for me.

The fact that there are competing moral standpoints raises the question of how you choose between them. — Andrew4Handel

Why not select the least problematic elements from each of the major ethical schools and consistently reassemble them into an adaptive moral practice?

I think you should read some actual works of moral philosophy (there's 2,500 years worth), even some contemporary moral psychology, and then compare what you learn with your so-called "moral intuitions" in order to better inform your views on these topics. Just my two bits.

What does the term moral add to a description of normal altruistic and cooperative behaviour? — Andrew4Handel

Semantics without substance. Non sequitur, Andrew. Don't be evasive.

We do not tend to refer to all cooperative and altruistic acts as moral ...

Well, since I haven't referred "to all cooperative and altruistic acts as moral", this statement is another non sequitur. Apparently you cannot directly answer my questions.

I believe that the outcome of a thorough moral calculation ... Are we assuming a moral calculation ... — Andrew4Handel

Okay, we're talking past each other. I understand ethics as a form of reflective thinking of which moral behaviors are normative / habitual enactments and not "calculations" (i.e. instrumental problem solving) as you apparently believe.

Antinatalism is a logical conclusion of a harm based morality and other extreme [absurd] utilitarian calculations ... — Andrew4Handel

Maybe ad absurdum (e.g. "destroying the village in order to save the village" :roll:) but it's not an ethical conclusion because moral utility only applies to either 'how to minimize the suffering' or 'how to maximize the happiness' of actual persons and not how to avoid – eliminate – 'the problem' of moral utility itself.

Assuming that ethics is the study of reasons for moral judgments and conduct of 'how persons can adaptively (ergo ought to) treat each other', what do you think of flourishing (i.e. well-being) as an ethical goal? And 'reducing harm' as an optimally moral (i.e. normative) means to that end? Do you believe, Andrew, that there are not any sound reasons for morality and that it's only a matter of personal 'sentiments' or arbitrary (relative) customs? :chin:

NB: To clarify my questions above, substitute sharing the commons for ethics and non-zerosum for moral (or public health for ethics and hygenic-sanitary for moral).

Antinatalism preaches that we are all better off dead than alive because it avoids suffering. — Benj96

I don't think so. Assuming that the occasional joys of life do not justify or compensate for life's inexorable and useless suffering, antinatalism proposes that it's better not to be born in the first place, and failing that, therefore, we who are already born and suffer should not breed any more generations of 'innocents' who will uselessly suffer as we have and do. For the antinatalist, it's (hypothetical) never-borns which are "better off", not "the dead" (especially since the prospect of an 'afterlife' remains an open question – perhaps the dead can suffer?! (which is, for some, another precautionary / paranoid reason not to breed)).

Btw, I'm an antinatalist in principle – at least until a viable mode of Abolitionism is invented – but not by policy (i.e. ideology). I am far more concerned with reducing the suffering of actual already-borns (naturalized ethics) than preserving the 'hypothetical bliss' of never-borns (speculative inexistence).

minimising harm — Benj96

:up:

"Cooperation" itself (e.g. Nazis' "die Endlösung") is only a means which doesn't entail an ethical end (i.e. flourishing / well-being). To wit:

Means and ends must [can] be adjusted to one another so that the latter is not undermined or invalidated by the former while the former is calibrated to enact the latter. A version of reflective equilibrium. — 180 Proof

Also ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/777275

How anti-modern – retrograde – of you to say so.

:100:

The idea of looking within, is not looking into the fine structure of matter, but paying close attention to the nature of lived experience. You can zoom in as far as you like on the micro-circuitry of your television set, but you'll never find a story there. — Wayfarer

:victory: :smirk:

Reality ultimately must be as the symbol of the circle not the line. So the ceiling and the floor are the same. — TheMadMan

:fire:

Can we please focus on the good? — Athena

My apologies for the defect in my character whereby my brand of historical nostalgia fails to be myopic and pollyanna enough for your liking. Enjoy your Mother's Day, madame. :victory:

:100:

Okay. We're now just talking past each other. Thanks for the exchange.

Well, as I've pointed out previously, I prefer 'economic democracy fortified by universally enfranchised representative democracy' rather than our status quo laissez-faire, plutonomic, "representative democracy" (i.e. constitutional republicanism) inspired by classical Athens-Rome and established in 1789. The insidious "group think" (which was reinforced in the 20th century by public relations, mass media/consumerism & John Wayne's Hollywood) of "the people" – who have only ever ratified the various exploitation-agendas of plutocrats with their "morally-informed" votes – was baked into the US system some one hundred and eighty years before the "1958 National Defense Education Act ". :roll:

Great. Thanks for linking this video.

I don't think philosophy is a quest for truth at all; it's more a search - quest is too romantic a word - for some modus vivendi that would yield the best results - best, that is, by the philosopher's reckoning, which is formed by his time and culture and experience and convictions. — Vera Mont

:100: :fire:

I've always appreciated Bohmian ontological holism (à la Spinoza?) as a climb up from (and tossing away the ladder) above monism aka "reductionism" which I suspect has contributed during Bohm's lifetime to the unpopularity of his (ontological) interpretation of quantum theory.

Assuming that the observable universe is the interior of a black hole, this dynamic structure – Spinoza-Einstein's natura naturans – expands an unbounded, positive, Everettian volume which spans from the Planck scale to the Hubble-Schwarzschild scale. Perhaps one day a testable theory of quantum gravity (QG) will fill out the significant, devilish details of such a speculative, holistic picture. However, I fail to see how (your) suggested 'ontological transcendence' follows or makes any more sense than the concept of 'south of the South Pole'.

Do people value truth? — Andrew4Handel

Do cripples value crutches? :chin:

Morality has failed ... — Andrew4Handel

I suppose history and math have failed too ... When does it ever make sense, Andrew, to blame a tool because fools neglect or misuse it? :roll:

Ah yes, the myth of 'discernment by committee' ... :smirk:

This digression might interest you, Benj:

The DNA molecule (and DNA-RNA system) is a self-replicating autopoiesis process 'recently' modeled by Chiara Marletto in a constructor theory of life (as a specialization of David Deutch's general constructor theory.)

Would you say that religions qualify as theories? — Hallucinogen

If by "theories" you mean explanations of how states of affairs change or formal abstractions work, then I don't think "religions qualify as theories".

Would you say theories among scientific theories or theories among historical theories are incompatible with each other?

They are about as "incompatible" as observational evidence and circumstantial evidence, respectively.

If your answers to these two questions aren't both "yes", what is the substantive difference between religion and theories (historical/scientific)?

Religions proselytize with fact-free myths and folk tales which do not explain any publicly accessible facts of the matter whereas, at best, "scientific and historical theories" are rigorously critical, abductive, attempts to do so.

The point I am always trying to make is we can not have rule by reason without transmitting a culture that manifests that. — Athena

Ah yes, "ruled by reason" such as that of misogynistic slave cultures like Classical Greece and Rome upon which our ethnic cleansing settlers' "constitutional republic" had been founded and had legalized chattel slavery and then systemic apartheid until about a half century ago. :brow:

My second point is education for technology prepares us to be ruled not to have rule by reason. The 1958 change in education changed our culture and the clip Proof gave us is a pretty good explanation of that. In the clip, Scott represents all of us who remember when things were different, and f**k the damn computer that has replaced a human receptionist.

My post prior to the one with that clip ends with an emphatic Live Long and Prosper (not Make America Great Again).

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/807297

I agree 80s Trek was a dumbed down, paint-by-numbers version of the 60s Trek, but as an example of the latter's originality inspite of crass commerce considerations in contrast to the former's derivative formulaic commercialism and not an example of your "change of education in 1958" (whatever that means – Sputnik-scare? :roll: ) Both 60s & 80s audiences, for the most part, had lacked the 'classical education' of most of the creators, writers & actors of the original show so it's not surprising that the less challenging and visionary show has always been more popular, especially with under-40somethings.

As for Scotty's gruff irritation on display in that clip, it's not with the computer per se but with his situation – being stranded out of time (75 years in the future) by accident and realizing that he was obsolete. You'd have to watch the episode titled "Relics", Athena, in order to fully appreciate the context of Scotty's forlorn mood.

Both are true as I further elaborate in this subsequent post ...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/807274

In the context of the discussion, I try to keep the forest and the trees – Titannic and the deck chairs – distinct. History isn't a logical argument or mathematical proof, as you know; it's full of incommensurate micro facts and macro trends.

Does it even make sense to quantify knowledge? — Moliere

No less sense than it makes to quantify ignorance.

How would a view from everywhere look different from either in your understanding? — schopenhauer1

For me "view from everywhere" refers to objectivity / perspective-invariance (immanence), whereas "view from being there" refers to subjectivity / perspective (bias) and "view from nowhere" corresponds to a God's-eye view (transcendence).

The logistical 'problems' mentioned in the OP are features of a representative form of government not flaws [ ... ] the US government has been erring on the side of the few for around 50 or 60 years. That's the result of the corruption, not the form of government. — creativesoul

:up: :up:

How would a view from everywhere look different from either in your understanding? — schopenhauer1

"From either" what?

Does anything stand out to you about the difference, such as the captains' relationships with their crews and with headquarters? — Athena

Well, in comparison to ST TOS's aircraft carrier-like Enterprise, the ST TNG's Enterprise-D is a "Love Boat"-like cruise ship. :smirk: