I don't think a person can become a victim of another's thoughts. Even if the racist imagined murdering the other, the so-called victim would be completely unaware, let alone injured by it. — NOS4A2

I’ve had this thought quite often, and for the most part agree. The only issue then is that, in order for us to be consistent, we must not object to pedophiles lusting after our children. Emotionally, I’m just not able to stomach this. So I’m at a bit of an impasse...

Well, it’s kind of hard say. I think the synth bass usage is part of it, as well as the funk sound. The drums are also key. I just can’t get over the opening of Chameleon with the bass and drums. But I’m also a fan of just weird sounds, like how Watermelon Man begins. Like all music, I’m sure it’s the combination of everything, but those are the parts that stick out to me the most. Thanks for the compliment :smile:

Been trying to figure out how to approach this...still not completely satisfied, but anyway. The two albums I keep coming back to are the Beatles White Album and Nine Inch Nails The Downward Spiral. The Beatles are like the Plato of music; almost all of music has footnotes leading back to them. And the white album is just so bold with its experimentation. I’m always amazed that that music was made in the 60’s. As for NIN, that album’s concept is just executed perfectly, and all the layers, both musical and lyrical, make it feel like you’re rediscovering something every time you listen to it.



With your extensive collection, perhaps you could help me with something. I’ve discovered I’m really not a fan of Jazz, but Herbie Hancock’s Headhunters album blew my mind. Is there anything else that sounds similar to that album?

Just found these guys... best “new” music I’ve heard in quite some time.

:up:

Alcohol — Outlander

Lol, ok.

failing to address a problem from it's source is not solved by simply creating more environments where the same problem simply has more chances or opportunity to somehow resolve itself on its own simply because it does not have any more chances here nor there. — Outlander

What is its source? For me, part of the cause (source) of feelings of insignificance is knowing that no matter what we do we can’t win the game of life. One way or another we will all die. So in the end any good I may be able to cause is inconsequential. Having this thought in one’s head makes life seem pointless. But, what if it wasn’t an absolute given that we will all die? What if the possibility that we, as a species, could exist indefinitely?

Beyond all that however, how is life of a species on another planet even in an entirely different galaxy any more hope other than trivial hope? We can just as easily be destroyed by a black hole, cosmic ray burst, star explosion/implosion, asteroid, heat death of the universe, or any other cosmic phenomena one could imagine. Furthermore, if one errs on the side of evolution, life will just re-create itself, perhaps even better here, so why worry about it so much? — Outlander

It’s more hopeful because even if the worst does occur (like one of the doomsday scenarios you mention) it doesn’t necessarily mean extinction. What destroys one planet, may not affect another. I think for a multi-planetary species, these events would be comparable to the various natural disasters we face now. They’re tragic, but capable of being overcome. And evolution couldn’t recreate life if the planet was destroyed. That seems beside the point anyway. We don’t, at least I don’t think we do, feel significant because other species exist.

Selfishness. Myopia. Fear. Arrogance. Ignorance. That is all that will be "spread" throughout the universe if your maniacal plot of galactic domination ever comes to fruition. — Outlander

Well, we’re certainly an ego driven species, so yes those things will still exist and be spread throughout the cosmos, but perhaps we will feel at least a lot bit more significant in the grand scheme of things.

Reggie Watts- A Song About Apples (Always Love Yourself)

NO. — Outlander

Why do you seem so sure? IF we had the ability to spread to other planets, we probably wouldn’t feel like our species is doomed to extinction. I think having the ability to realistically hope for a better tomorrow, if not for ourselves, then for others, would certainly lessen our feelings of insignificance.

We are confined to this doomed planet out of compassion. — Outlander

Care to explain? Compassion for whom?

The only place left where the existence of human life and the suffering we deal and tolerate is tolerable due to the fact God doesn't pay much attention here. — Outlander

This is rhetoric right? Or do you believe there is a God that simply ignores us? Either way, I don’t see how being ignored by God makes life tolerable.

No. I'm saying 'nature inherently lacks significance, therefore natural creatures inherently lack significance, and human beings are cognizant of this lack in so far as we feel insignificant.' — 180 Proof

Oh, ok. That’s interesting, because people usually have no problem ascribing significance to nature, although none exists. I think the fact that the naturalistic fallacy (and it’s relatives) even exist demonstrates that. We tend to value whatever is natural.

It's curious isn't it? — Tom Storm

Yes it is. I always seem to be fascinated by how we humans are capable of reaching different conclusions based on the same data.

Humans, being natural beings, feel 'insignificant' because the natural systems within which we are embedded-nested and together live out our entire lives do not need 'significance' in order to function — 180 Proof

Are you saying we feel insignificant because the universe doesn’t need us? That’s understandable, but how does that relate to size? Do people simply mistakenly take our relatively small size in comparison with the universe for the cause of our feelings of insignificance?

Personally, I think it has more to do with the perceived absence of life in the universe. As amazing and beautiful as the cosmos is with its complexity, we can’t help but realize that the universe doesn’t even notice us. So it seems the extinction of life would be an inconsequential event, because there is no one/thing to miss us. If I’m correct, then I think the discovery of life elsewhere in the universe could have a profound impact on our feelings of insignificance.

I'm trying to say that there may be psychological hoops that people will accept for someone to be credible. Thus a random guy on the internet saying "Antinatalism... good" is not going to be fly as much as this highly-decorated person saying the same thing who is known for all these socially-accepted accomplishments (from the perspective of middle class social normative values). — schopenhauer1

I don’t think I agree. To begin with, at least personally regarding philosophy, what establishes one’s credibility is his ability to articulate sound arguments. “Expert” philosophers are constantly being disagreed with by other experts, as well as novices. So I don’t think one’s academic credentials, or notoriety hold much particular sway when it comes to accepting one’s philosophical views.

Also, philosophy tends to be very subjective to begin with. Therefore, oftentimes what ideas one accepts depends solely on whether or not it is appealing to them. To be blunt, you and I will likely never agree on AN. Even if you become, or are, some world renowned philosopher, or if AN becomes popular, it won’t change what I value, or how I prioritize those values. Unless there’s a way to objectively determine what we should value most, I see no way of overcoming our difference of opinion.

I suspect many antinatalists, out of principle of not causing the suffering that gets to goal, would not recommend to procreate until we get to that Transhumanist goal. — schopenhauer1

Just curious, but from what I gather, the goal is to have a 80-100 hedonic range. Given this level of variability, wouldn’t the risk that one may experience low levels of pleasure (80) become the new AN cause for not procreating? If the risk of experiencing a 0 or -1 is reason enough to not procreate, then why would anything less than absolute 100 level pleasure suffice? How low would you allow the baseline to drop before you reverted back to AN?

I think this is a really good question. I take it to mean decisions free from any emotional pull, desire, bias, etc. With that in mind, I would say that some very mundane decisions are rational, like deciding the answer to 2+2 is 4, but that’s about as far as I am willing to concede. Environment plays an enormous role on our behavior, especially regarding our basic needs. Is the decision to fulfill our basic needs rational? I personally don’t think it is, and virtually every decision is made in order to fulfill some desire or need, which is necessarily subjective.

Hello, and thank you for participating here.

Regarding the three “supers” mentioned, I’m curious about how the three are interrelated. Particularly super-intelligence and super-wellbeing. Generally speaking, intelligence means learning/knowing what is true. However, truth is often unpleasant, and would therefore seem to detract from one’s wellbeing, at least occasionally.

Also, you seem to advocate for essentially the removal all suffering. Much of our suffering derives from our biological needs (food, sleep, etc.). So would these needs need to be removed in order to eliminate suffering? If so, this too would seem to detract from the goal of super-wellbeing, because much of our happiness is rooted in pursuing, and hopefully meeting, these needs. Basically what I’m saying is that if you eliminate our biological needs, you also risk eliminating our very will to live. What would our motivation for life be without experiencing desire? It’s like Buddhism without the concept of nirvana, enlightenment, rebirth, etc. A state of eternal contentment and complacency seems to be what the outcome would look like. Do you feel this would be more desirable than our current state of affairs? Thank you for your time.

That I take to be the liberal view. — Wayfarer

Is that your view as well? For what it’s worth, I think both perspectives can be true, which is to say the “truth” is probably somewhere in the middle. The difference in perspective seems to come down to how one prioritizes there values. Liberals prioritize freedom of choice over all else, whereas religious conservatives prioritize things like sanctity over everything else. I don’t see a way to determine, objectively, which prioritization system is better.

Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials. — Wayfarer

This seems nearly impossible to implement effectively, or fairly. What counts as pornography? There is a very wide spectrum of things that people find sexually arousing. And what of the right to freedom of expression? If I want to express myself hypersexually shouldn’t I be allowed to do so?

Would you then it is "bad" to hate a baby killer on the basis of their actions then? Do you feel similar about the body positivity movement, that it is also "reducing people down to their weight"? Is it good if it doesn't contain hate/hatred? — Cobra

So, I don’t consider feelings to be good/bad. They’re just feelings. I’m not sure exactly what you mean by the “body positivity movement,” but if it is reducing one’s worth to one’s appearance, then yes I disagree. I don’t think we should only find value in how we look. Attractive people are no more valuable than unattractive people, at least not solely based on their attractiveness.

It is then reasonable to harbor "hatred" or "hate" for obese people (for inflicting harm on themselves and others [habits being normalized in children]) that have to deal with them. — Cobra

Since hate is an emotion, isn’t it irrational by definition? I mean, you can’t rationally decide to hate something; it’s an uncontrollable reaction. But the point is that our actions are controllable (at least if you believe in free will, which I don’t, but that’s an aside), and are the only thing that have an actual affect on others. Feelings are incapable of causing harm to others, whereas actions are not. This is why separating the emotion from the action is necessary to determine any moral judgment.

Now, I think it is appropriate to judge whatever actions one might do to others, like allowing/encouraging their children to eat unhealthily. But you can’t just lump those actions in with obesity. They’re separate. Being obese does not harm others, so what makes it worthy of hate or disapproval?

Hatred: "Hate" institutionalized (with power). Prejudices + intent + actions taken to "exterminate" or "eliminate" that which causes hate. — Cobra

I think I understand the distinction you’re trying to make between hate and hatred, but my objection would be the inclusion of “actions” in your definition. Hatred can’t be both an emotion and an action. At best, I would just consider hatred to be more intense than hate. I hate asparagus, for example, but I wouldn’t say I have a hatred of it.

Considering that we know "obesity" is harmful, is it the good then to harbor or influence hatred against obese people to eradicate obesity? If no, what is the difference here? What "action" is best appropriate? — Cobra

No, for several reasons. First, hating obese people isn’t going to eradicate obesity. If anything it will make those who are obese feel even worse about themselves. Secondly, hating a person for being obese is like hating someone because they’ve autistic. It simply makes no sense. One’s “being” (dis/abilities, physical features, etc.) doesn’t determine one’s value or worth. What does determine it is their character.

The most appropriate action for someone who hates obesity would be to do everything they could to not become obese. Also, educating others about the dangers of being obese, encouraging others to exercise or eat healthy, advocating for better/cheaper food options, etc.

But I don’t see any way to justify treating someone without respect. Intentionally trying to harm someone, be it physically, emotionally, or psychologically, is wrong. Self-defense may be an exception to this, but I don’t think there are any others.

How Hatred against obese people on large scale, society wise, less good than Hatred against Trump (not in terms of eradication). — Cobra

Well, for starters the majority of people who hate Trump do so because of his character or political opinions and actions, not because of his physical characteristics or appearance. Also, there is a legal aspect to this as well. There is a lot of debate about whether or not some of his actions were legal, and those that feel they weren’t feel like his lack of punishment is unjust.

Spontaneous combustion seems fun. But seriously, I’d prefer to just die cancer or something like that. I know it seems morbid, but part of me really wants to know what death feels like, which obviously means I have to actually experience it, which means instantaneous ways of dying are out. On the other hand, I’m very averse to pain and feel like the knowledge that you’re dying would be unbearable.

So, if I have an extreme hate toward fat people, is this unethical? Or is this hate "good" because being fat is unhealthy? — Cobra

Are you hating obesity or people who are obese? There’s a difference, and I would say reducing a person’s value due solely to their weight is wrong, but hating obesity is like hating pain; there’s nothing wrong with it (I’d actually claim it’s amoral), but that’s because things like obesity and pain are more abstract, so there’s really nothing concrete to direct your anger towards. Hating obesity or pain entails nothing that could affect someone else, at least not that I’m seeing.

Or, say, if Mike says, "I hate women" as a result to trauma, should this be cause of concern? And should he be labelled a "misogynist". — Cobra

This is digging into issues regarding moral responsibility. The implication in your statement is that Mike cannot do otherwise, correct? I think ignorance is also a factor here. Is he ignorant of the cause of his hate? Is he ignorant of methods to address and overcome his trauma, or does he choose to not pursue those methods?

But without getting too far off topic, I don’t see how you can find Mike morally responsible in this example. Now, were he to just be using his past traumatic experiences as justification or an excuse for his hate, then that’s a different story.

What I mean is, hate seems to lose significance often, but it's not exactly clear what is determining the degree of significance, even following analysis. — Cobra

My guess would be the degree of potential harm caused by harboring hate. Hating flying spaghetti monsters is completely benign, for example, because doing so doesn’t cause harm.

Also, I’d like to say that hate, just like every other emotion, evolved with us, so must have been evolutionarily beneficial. So, the idea that hate is somehow inherently bad, or useless, is probably false. It’s more likely that hate is very useful for our survival/wellbeing in certain circumstances. I’ve also always viewed the cause of hate to be love. It’s our love of our selves/country/family/race/etc. that causes us to hate whatever harms or threatens our selves/country/family/race/etc.

without law without control over others — Huh

I can’t figure out what you’re trying to say...



I think I agree with everything you said, but what of the question of the relationship between laws and peace?

What do you think. Is porn bad for us? — TaySan

My take on this is the same as my take on any “thing” being good/bad. No thing is inherently good/bad. That said, it certainly can lead to problems with addiction, and can contribute to sexism, objectification, etc. But the fix, in my opinion, has more to do with fixing society as a whole. The US is largely a country of overstimulated, instant gratification addicts who have no semblance of self-control or discipline. It is also a sexually repressed country where sexual feelings, fantasies, etc. are encouraged to be kept secret. I think it takes a certain amount of maturity, for example, to understand that just because you’re turned on by over-sexualized women being objectified, doesn’t mean it’s ok to objectify women in general, or treat them as sex objects. I think a large percentage of people who consume porn lack this maturity, but better education could maybe help in this regard.

In a world without law would the only people who would be alive be people who want peace? — Huh

No, it would be those that are lucky/strong/smart enough to avoid being killed; those that have the most power and influence over others.

I think you are oversimplifying things. Mass murderers aren’t necessarily out for revenge, so to speak. There are other possible motivating factors involved. The hope of fame seems to be a rather obvious one, but also simply living a miserable life and twisting that into envy. So you get it in your mind that others should pay. You know the saying “misery loves company.”

If there was peace, would there be need for law? — Sir2u

That’s actually a more interesting question. I think it depends on what one thinks the purpose of laws are. Is it to keep the peace, or maintain power? Is it a manifestation of a human need for control? Who knows?

The problem of morality - which you have essentially described as a code of conduct - isn't resolved so much in how people behave and how they want to be treated, but in the justification of applied ethics. What would give someone the authority to say the ethical behaviour of any given tribe or culture is wrong? — Tom Storm

:up:

I’d go with luck, because luck even determines what skills we have, at least to an extent, via DNA.

Original by Bruce Springsteen



[Verse 1]
Man walks along the railroad track
He's goin' some place and there's no turnin' back
The Highway Patrol chopper comin' up over the ridge
Man sleeps by a campfire under the bridge
The shelter line stretchin' around the corner
Welcome to the New World Order
Families sleepin' in their cars out in the Southwest
No job, no home, no peace, no rest, no rest

[Chorus]
And the highway is alive tonight
Nobody's foolin' nobody as to where it goes
I'm sitting down here in a campfire light
Searchin' for the ghost of Tom Joad

[Verse 2]
He pulls his prayer book out of a sleepin' bag
The preacher lights up a bud and takes a drag
He's waitin' for the time when the "last shall be first, and the first shall be last"
In a cardboard box 'neath the underpass
With a one-way ticket to the promised land
With a hole in your belly and a gun in your hand
Lookin' for a pillow of solid rock
Bathin' in the city's aqueducts

[Chorus]
And the highway is alive tonight
Nobody's foolin' nobody as to where it goes
I'm sittin' down here in the campfire light
With the ghost of old Tom Joad

[Verse]
Now Tom said
"Ma, whenever ya see a cop beatin' a guy
Wherever a hungry newborn baby cries
Wherever there's a fight against blood and hatred in the air
Look for me, Ma, I'll be there
Wherever somebody's strugglin' for a place to stand
For a decent job or a helpin' hand
Wherever somebody is strugglin' to be free
Look in their eyes, Ma, you'll see me
You'll see me
You'll see me
You'll see me
You'll see me
You'll see me
You'll see me
You'll see me
You'll see me

[Chorus]
And the highway is alive tonight
Nobody's foolin' nobody as to where it goes
I'm sittin' down here in the campfire light
With the ghost of Tom Joad

Buried too deep for me, I'm afraid. Where are they supposed to be ? — Amity

Sorry for the late reply, but if you’re truly interested, the best way is to use headphones, but only use the left side. It’s easiest to hear at the very beginning, but supposedly loops throughout the song.

Probably just needs fleshed out better. Two sentences doesn’t say much.

Finding some possibly conflicting data.

https://www.fbi.gov/about/partnerships/office-of-partner-engagement/active-shooter-incidents-graphics

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-in-the-us-2019-042820.pdf/view

Shows 2017 (30), 2019 (28), and 2018 (27) as the highest number of active shooter incidents since 2000. Note the term “active shooter.”

However, when looking at “mass shootings” I find the following.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2021

107 so far this year.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2020

615 last year.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2019

434 in 2019.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2018

322 in 2018.

You can follow the wiki links to other years, but I’m confused about how there are more mass shootings than active shooter incidents. The second link states that of the 28 active shooter incidents in 2019, 12 met the definition of “mass killing.” Are there mass murders that don’t meet the definition of active shooter? But more to your point, mass murders have increased since 2018, but the same isn’t true for active shooter incidents, which have hovered around 30 since 2017.

What if it's the wisdom of love? — TaySan

What does that mean? That love is a type of wisdom? Knowing how to love and be loved? Which type of love? Parental? Familial? Intimate? Ideological?

Regardless, reducing philosophy to only being about love seems ridiculous. It obviously includes much more than that.

The justification of oughts can be found in the system of values one chooses. — TheMadFool

So something like “You ought to be compassionate” is justified by something like “I value compassion?” If so, the issue is that you’re extending, or projecting, your values on to me. What is the justification for that? Why should I, or you for that matter, choose to value compassion? In order for values to be able to justify oughts, they must be justified first, or else they are baseless. Any appeal to some internal state seems incapable of justifying anything.

Oughts do nothing but express our desire for things to be different, that's all there is to it. — TheMadFool

This is where we’re disagreeing. Oughts are much more than expressions of our desires in my view. Besides this, to say you want things to be different than they are, is to say that because things are a certain way we ought to do X. So it still seems to be derived from what is. “The current state of affairs is unsatisfactory, therefore we should do X.” The only thing you seem to be doing is adding an additional premise, while trying to eliminate the first. “The current state of affairs is unsatisfactory. I desire to change the current state of affairs. Therefore I (we?) should do X.”

What is an ought really? — TheMadFool

I see oughts more as commands, or even demands. Supposed justifications for why one act/behavior should be preferable to another, or all others.

Doesn't it express a desire/wish/hope that things could be, well, different but different from what exactly? Well, different from what is of course. It appears from what I've just said that the is-ought relationship is not in any sense a logical deduction and therefore Hume's objection is N/A. The ought isn't deduced from an is, rather an ought is desired from an is. — TheMadFool

Then what does justify an ought? How do we arrive at an ought if not by appealing to the current state of affairs? There’s obviously lots of disagreement about what we ought to do, so how do we go about settling these disagreements?

Also, I think part of the point is that we can’t justify desiring things be different. As soon as one is asked why things should be different, either circular reasoning ensues, or the is/ought fallacy occurs.

That is all within the domain of what I mean. Hedonism can be far-sighted or short-sighted. If the long-term consequences you’re concerned about are still all about whether you will be suffering or enjoying life in the future, then that’s still a focus on feeling good or bad, pleasure or pain, etc; it’s just a smart way to do so, that doesn’t shoot itself in the foot. — Pfhorrest

:up:

What strikes me as odd is that moral theories are precisely the systems of values that bridge the is/ought gap and Hume, for some reason, seems to have ignored/overlooked/dismissed that as inadequate. — TheMadFool

Aren’t they inadequate because they aren’t capable of bridging the gap? It’s funny, because I always felt like it was the moral theories that ignored/overlooked/dismissed the is/ought gap.

It doesn't include our impressions/feelings of/about the facts of nature and only refers to the facts of nature minus our impressions/feelings with respect to them. — TheMadFool

Is there a reason for this exception? Does he argue that feelings are somehow above/outside of nature? Is it because they’re secondary?

Regardless, couldn’t the argument be made that our feelings are facts about the world, and therefore an is?

The is/ought problem arises out of the absence of an inferential link betwixt descriptive statements (is) and normative claims (ought) but our feelings/impressions about/of deeds/actions provide the missing link, bridges this gap. — TheMadFool

Saying you feel sad seems like a descriptive statement to me. You’re describing how you feel. Much like saying an apple is red. Certainly there are causes of your sadness, but the same is true for redness or any other feature.

In short, an ought/ought not is never obtained/inferred/deduced from an is but from our feelings/impressions towards/of an is. I'm surprised Hume failed to notice this. — TheMadFool

Aren’t our feelings/emotional states also “is’s?” Aren’t they facts about the world like any other?

I voted the middle options on both questions. Other things are relevant, such as future outcomes/consequences (I.e. long term health vs. short term gratification). And not everyone’s pain/pleasure is relevant all the time. The pain a child experiences due to being made to apologize for doing something wrong is irrelevant, imo. There must be limits to this, of course. The aim should be to ensure the punishment fits the crime.

Also, I think it’s worth saying that pleasure (or excessive pleasure perhaps) often leads to pain. So if what is meant by hedonism is to blindly pursue pleasure/avoid pain, then I disagree with that, and would advocate for something like “rational hedonism” where the consequences of pursuing pleasure/avoiding pain are considered prior to acting, and potential unwanted consequences are weighed against potential desirable ones.

Have you thought about songs or lyrics you would have at your funeral ? — Amity

Absolutely! This one remains a constant, but I’m wishy-washy with others.



Disregard the video, it isn’t official.

Also, surprisingly there are lyrics buried in the song.

“The best thing about life is knowing you put it together.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/genius.com/amp/Nine-inch-nails-a-warm-place-lyrics