:up:

But what do you think of the principle in terms of the likelihood that it will be followed? — 8livesleft

I’m sure most people follow it...

We have irrefutable evidence that moral decisions are not made by consultation of any one of these rules, but rather by a varying, often contradictory consultation of several models at once depending on the specifics of the moral choice to be made. — Isaac

Are you referring to dual process theory?

Emotivism is a theory of moral semantics. It's not just a theory that we use the emotional part of our brains when answering moral questions, but a theory that moral claims are just expressions of emotion like "boo this" and "yay that", the likes of which are not semantically capable of being true or false. — Pfhorrest

I agree with that also. I think it’s entailed from which part(s) of our brain is used.

Hedonism isn't just the view that we do seek pleasure and avoid pain, it's the view that we should, and so is contrary to nihilism and thus emotivism. — Pfhorrest

Considering the fact of hedonism render the “should” question moot. If that’s all we can do it doesn’t matter what we should do.

Again, egoism isn't a view about what people do do, but what they should do. — Pfhorrest

Again this seems an irrelevant question. If we cannot do otherwise, then it doesn’t matter, because there are no other viable alternatives.

What exactly does that mean here? — Pfhorrest

The short response is that it is whatever I feel is right. The keyword being feel. It isn’t rational or logical, and it isn’t based on facts. I can say that I consider outcomes before acting, at least some of the time, but whether or not the predicted outcome is good or bad depends on whether or not it benefits me, or is otherwise desirable. Things like potentially feeling guilty, or the likelihood of being punished are also factored in. Basically, I avoid pain and pursue pleasure, and what is painful/pleasurable is based entirely on emotion (and biology of course).

Perhaps objective as in universal (i.e. altruistic), but not objective as in transcendent; and subjective as in phenomenal (e.g. hedonistic), but not subjective as in relative? — Pfhorrest

Universal may be a better way to say it, but also relative, because they vary from culture to culture. Sort of like language, I suppose. All cultures have a word for beauty, but what they consider beautiful varies.

What do you think about the harm principle? As in "prevent unnecessary harm and suffering?" — 8livesleft

I don’t think it can be applied universally in all situations.

Yes but this is not just a “consideration” it’s a logical argument. If you say that a person experiences X harm due to not having children then all having children does is pushes this X harm onto one or more people (depending on how many children they have) unless THEY (the children) also have children. — khaled

Not necessarily. It depends on if they actually want to have children. If I don’t want to have kids, I don’t suffer by not having any.

There is almost no case where procreation causes less harm than the harm due to not having children. — khaled

You might be right, but I’m not as sure as you seem to be. If you look at couples who have fertility issues you will find that the inability to have children can cause serious emotional/psychological harm, and that harm can be spread out to include the couple, their parents, siblings, etc.

This is why I was asking about how you determine which harm is worse. In some cases, by sparing one person from potentially significant harm, you actually cause some, possibly less significant, harm that is felt by maybe 5 or 6 individuals. Ultimately it is unknown how much a person being born will suffer, and it’s also unknown how much a family will suffer by not having children.

Not only this, but if the justification for not having children is that it causes harm, then it contradicts itself because not having children also causes harm.

Lol, now that I’m awake, I see I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying Kimbra was essential.

Well...if you say so.

Because I am part of this calculation too. The "expected value" of the harm I would cause unto others is much lower than the "expected value" of the harm I would cause myself by killing myself. So I continue to exist. You have to consider alternatives. — khaled

So, in your view, do you consider the expected harm a person being born will experience through life greater than the expected harm experienced by those who wish to have children if they follow antinatalism? I’d also be interested to hear how you quantify harm. For example, is 1,000 people getting paper cut equal to one person breaking their leg?

:up: love NIN

Happy Holidays

In order to obtain power, one must be powerful. In order to be powerful, one must enjoy dominating others. In order to enjoy dominating others, one must be at least slightly sadistic.

I think there’s a lot that goes into this, including what “love” looks like in other countries/time periods, so don’t consider these thoughts as exhaustive, but here’s what comes to mind.

1. Tolerance. Everyone you get close to will hurt you, maybe even intentionally. Understanding this, and learning to see people as people, goes a long way to minimizing personal emotional damage in a relationship.

2. Forgiveness. Kinda goes hand-in-hand with 1, but probably needs stated explicitly.

3. Realistic expectations. Love is not the Hollywood or Disney version you’ve been raised to believe it is.

4. Selflessness. You have to realize that the other person’s feelings are just as important as yours. You have no right to try to control or manipulate them, regardless of how bad their actions may hurt you. Either accept it or move on.

5. Patience. Disregard social/religious pressures to marry too early in life. You can’t realistically vow to love your partner for better or worse if you have never seen them at their worst. It takes time to get to know someone, and for people to reveal themselves fully to someone else. It also takes time to heal.

6. Openness. Let your likes/dislikes and needs/wants be known. Your partner isn’t a mind reader.

7. Respect. There should be certain lines that are never crossed. Violence is the most obvious, but also things like not using their vulnerabilities/insecurities against them, demeaning them, or disregarding their opinions/dreams/etc. Personally, I also think simple manners and politeness are important.

8. Sex. I’m not one to advocate for celibacy until marriage, but your infatuation with your partner should be recognized as such so it isn’t confused for love.

So, in American culture of 2020, there are many guns available for individuals to use. Criticize the society for the number of guns. However, only an individual can pick up a gun, point it at you, and pull the trigger. That's the fault of the individual. — Bitter Crank

Sure, but what I’m getting at is that it’s someone’s fault that we have so many guns too. I just get the idea that some people treat society as if it was a separate entity capable of making decisions. It’s not. Decisions are made by people with their own agendas and intentions. So instead of criticizing society for the number of guns, we should criticize the people who caused that (the founders of the constitution, I suppose), and those who perpetuate this status quo (judges who interpreted the 2nd. Amendment in a certain way, advocates, etc.).

So the issue is if, when people do things together, there is a something that is worthy of it's own name. — Banno

I guess that’s one way to put it, but the bigger issue is what is more likely to cause change; blaming society or people? To me, blaming society is too broad to be very useful. How do I change society? Whereas blaming specific people, or groups of people, at least let’s me know where I need to stand with my picket sign.

Framed in this context, it's easy to see that a claim like "it's society's fault" makes sense only in the case of society applying a negative selection pressure on certain individual predelictions and that in turn causing negative pyschological effects down the line that manifests in myriad ways at the individual level. — TheMadFool

If I create a machine, and that machine creates a machine that kills people, who is responsible for those deaths? And let’s assume the machines are conscious and have free will, for the sake of argument.

Their ideas and practices, their organisation and many things. — Judaka

So if all Americans were dead, would American culture/society still exist? Things like ideas, practices, etc. are just parts of people, right?

Look at how society develops as a result of technology, overseas ideas, soft power from other countries or music, culture develops through food, drugs, religion. — Judaka

All things created and perpetuated by people...

Even if society was just all individuals making choices, why would you ask people to take responsibility for someone else's choices? — Judaka

I’m not. As a practical matter, I consider everyone to be responsible for their own actions. But you can’t be responsible for what happens to you, like getting arrested, being discriminated against, etc. Who’s responsible for things like that?

Why would that mean someone can't blame society even if they thought that meant "the individual choices which have impacted me"? — Judaka

Because that wouldn’t be accurate. I’m not saying that individual choices have no effect on other individuals. I’m saying that each person should be blamed for their individual actions, instead of society.

Yes, people ultimately choose whether to be violent or not, even if there are particular environment or social factors which influenced them, they still go to jail for their crimes. — Judaka

My point is that these factors are themselves all caused by people.

You haven't even said who you're really arguing with just "them goddamn folk who blame society". — Judaka

I’m not really arguing with anyone. I’m asking questions. Perhaps you mistake questions for arguments?

Everything about this thread is mediocre and I've spent too much time on it already. — Judaka

I’ll happily waste as much of your time as you allow. :smile:

Prussian military order is a few establish the policy and then they can all be killed, but the policy is still in force. — Athena

But the cause is still those few who established the policies. I think we should move away from blaming things like society or policies, and towards the people who create/perpetuate them. If the point of ascribing blame is to create change, then the focus should be narrow. Society encompasses many things, some good, some bad, but when we blame society as a whole the good seems to be overlooked, or overshadowed by whatever we’re railing against to be changed. We don’t want the entire society to change (at least not usually), we want particular parts of it to change that are created/ spurred on by particular people. It’s those people that need to change, not some abstract notion of society.

Effectively that is what we have but the parts of computer are organic. The parts are humans following policy and who expect everyone to follow policy. — Athena

But there is still no need to be complicit in a system you feel is corrupt. Following orders aren’t the only option you have. And no, you’re very unlikely to have the power to change or influence much beyond your personal inner circle, but that’s precisely how change takes place over time. It just takes a lot of people, and a lot of time being the change they wish to see in the world, to paraphrase Gandhi.

And the very powerful media people are not being responsible people, but total prostitutes doing whatever it takes to accumulate wealth. — Athena

Perfect! This is a good example of what I mean. Holding particular people responsible, rather than just “the media.”

Ah, you're a Thatcherite.

That didn't go so well. — Banno

I don’t know what you’re referring to here. Margaret Thatcher? If so, her name is about all I know about her.

I'll happily follow Searle in pointing out that there are intentions that can not be had by an individual alone — Banno

I have no issue with that. The issue is that all ideas, customs, norms, etc. were created by people, perhaps several people, but people nonetheless. Therefore, people are always the cause.

But we probably wouldn't say "people who are violent just so happen to prefer group X for whatever reason." — BitconnectCarlos

If I was violent, and there was a place where violence was not punished (or rarely/lightly punished), I would prefer to be there. So would everyone else like me. Once there are enough people like me living in the same are it would be viewed as a society. Fast forward a couple hundred years, and you’re likely to find that violence is still a large part of the culture. The violent people that live there are also likely to blame their propensity for violence on the fact that they are surrounded by violent people (society), but the entirety of the situation can be traced back to people who are violent choosing to live together, because they were able to be violent there. So, you can say that society enabled them, but that isn’t a cause.

many religious people believe that atheists are immoral and cannot be trusted. This belief causes many atheists to stay closeted. — Aleph Numbers

Right, and as you demonstrate, the cause is a large group of people holding the same belief. But the same would be true so long as the majority of people held this belief as compared to atheists. You could have 5 people, which I don’t think anyone considers to be a society, and if only 1 of them is an atheist, s/he will likely still exhibit the closeted behavior you describe.

They are obviously part of society, that's like saying "I'm not part of a group, I am the group". — Judaka

If people are only part of society, then what exactly do the remaining part(s) consist of?

That is, we experienced a shift of power away from the people and into the hands of authority above us. — Athena

“Authority above us” meaning other people, right?

Hence putting the blame on the individual alone, or on society as a whole, are equally dubious approaches.

Isn't that obvious? — Banno

Yes. My point is that “society” is just a group of people, so the blame still falls on the actual people making the choices. “Society” isn’t responsible for anything, the people that drive it are.

I will say though that society is more than just "the people" - if a society or culture is particularly violent we should look into why that is. — BitconnectCarlos

The obvious answer being because the people are violent. After all, that’s what’s really meant when we say a particular society is violent, right? So the real question would be “why are people in group X more violent than people not in group X?” And it could be that people who are violent just so happen to prefer group X for whatever reason. Or it could be that violent people created group X for whatever reason. It doesn’t have to be the case that group X created violent people.

These expectations (i.e. standards) can be oppressive to some and have deep implications and we should be cognizant of this. This type of thing transcends the individual. — BitconnectCarlos

Sure, but I don’t think anyone can accurately say why I have the expectations I do. Maybe it’s the influence of the group of people I find myself to be around, or maybe it’s not. You may have a correlation with violence and group X, but correlation is not causation.

Blaming society for the actions of one is reasonable. It is a loop of whatever issue exists within the society.

If a society is extremely violent, the individuals will be violent which cause the society to be violent and so on. — CallMeDirac

But the loop has a definite starting point, which is individuals. The terms “society” and “individuals” are almost synonymous.



What I’m getting at is that when people blame “society” for something, it is a deflection of blame. It isn’t capitalism, or racism that is a problem; it’s capitalists and racists that are. We tend to look at people as if they are a part of society, when in actuality they are society.

while addressing a widescale problem, blaming individuals diminishes the importance of looking at the impact of the institutions, laws, culture and so on. — Judaka

Institutions, laws, etc. are all comprised of individuals who either make personal decisions, or enforce decisions made by other individuals. Also, this isn’t really where I was headed, but institutions are not even physical entities, which according to materialism/science, necessarily excludes them from having any causal power.

Can he be the cause of her suicide? — Matei

As a determinist, I would say that none of us are truly responsible for our own actions. So his actions, along with various other factors (each of which has their own causal chain), may have contributed to the outcome, but it’s unlikely to be able to definitively know to what extent his actions affected her actions.

From a strictly moral position, I believe we all should be considered to be responsible for our own actions. Throughout life you will find yourself in unpleasant situations, but it’s your responsibility to recognize this and find a way to escape or overcome them. In this particular situation, that may or may not have been possible. Was she entirely powerless? Were there options available to her that she either failed to see, or chose not to pursue?

Can anything but weakness be the cause of suicide? — Matei

I know you aren’t meaning to make this thread about suicide, but I disagree with this view. People kill themselves for many different reasons, and some would argue that the act of killing oneself requires strength and bravery, rather than weakness and cowardice.

You suggest that the main point is to survive and reproduce. — Jack Cummins

I was just speaking in evolutionary terms. That’s all that matters from an evolutionary perspective.

I think we may need to adapt not just in the future but now — Jack Cummins

However you personally adapt in your lifetime makes no difference if your DNA isn’t passed on. People who have more adaptive traits, and pass on those traits to future generations, are the only ones that cause evolution to occur.

While views on morality can be as diverse as the day is long, I hold that most views can be classified as either hypocritical or non-hypocritical 95% of the time. — Outlander

That’s an interesting way to look at morality, but unless you’re willing to somehow assert that it is right/wrong to be hypocritical, this doesn’t say anything interesting. You’ve successfully separated most actions into two groups, but aren’t able to say which group is good/bad.

Now if you believe it would be OK to do so to an innocent... — Outlander

There is still some relativity involved in this as well, because not everyone will agree who is innocent, and who is not. Some may believe that holding a different system of beliefs means you’re not innocent. Therefore it wouldn’t be hypocritical, right?

Assigning common traits to a class, based on limited experience with individuals, is a "useful fiction" for most purposes. But it can also result in Racism or Speciesism. — Gnomon

Yes, I was aware of that, but it’s good that you stated this explicitly. I agree completely.

The question is how will we evolve in the future? — Jack Cummins

Yeah, that’s an interesting question. I really have no idea, but I think to make an educated guess you would need to analyze what traits are most necessary for us to survive and reproduce. In this modern world this is difficult to determine, because with advances in things like healthcare and fertility, almost anyone is capable of surviving long enough to reproduce. To take a very rough view though, it seems like physical traits like strength are becoming less important for survival, whereas emotional/psychological traits like compassion, or mental health in general, are becoming more important. We’re less likely to have to rely on things like strength to survive, but our ability to navigate the world mentally without falling victim to incapacitating mental illnesses, or becoming suicidal, seems like a real challenge in today’s world.

I thought that you were coming from the point of view of thinking that human nature is an unnecessary construct whereas you think it is immutable, but think that the role of nurture is the main issue. — Jack Cummins

Just to clarify. I’m skeptical that human nature exists. That is, I’m doubtful that there is some universal trait that we all share, and that is immutable. I think this because nurture seems to affect all traits, thereby making all traits mutable. However, thinking of humans as having a nature may be useful to help us understand ourselves. It may be a useful fiction, at best.

Of course, we could say that genetic factors play a role too. — Jack Cummins

Aren’t our very DNA shaped by evolution as well?

If it is part biological or shaped by the environment is it not the case that we are different from people from earliest times. — Jack Cummins

We are certainly different from our ancient ancestors. I think there was a time when humans were not even conscious, for example. Also, I think one thing to keep in mind is that evolution is slow. So, Jung or Freud may be correct about “human nature,” but only during a certain period of time. But I would bet that if they had solely looked at our ancient ancestors, and tried to derive a theory of human nature from them, that their theories would be very different from the ones they came up with. It may very well be that humans currently have a shadow side in the Jungian sense, but perhaps 500,000 years ago they did not.

I suppose I am just wondering about the core constructs of what it means to be a human being and whether this is distinct from the culture in which the person belongs. — Jack Cummins

I think being a human is different for each human. But I would say that the most universal aspect of being human is our ability to adapt. However, I would say that this ability is again determined by our existing in an environment that demands it. Which means that if our ability to adapt was not beneficial for our survival, we would never have developed the ability in the first place.

I believe it’s me you’re referring to, so I’ll try to explain my thoughts more fully than I did in the other thread. Personally, I want to believe in human nature, emphasis on want, but I’m skeptical. Also, what I mean by human nature would be some trait, or characteristic that all humans share regardless of their environment, culture, sex, etc. I would also consider human nature to be immutable. That said, the issue to me is how you can go about separating nature from nurture, so to speak. Humans necessarily exist within an environment that shapes them. That’s basically the premise of evolution. If human nature existed, then it would imply that there is some part of all of us that our environment does not affect. I fail to see what this part of us is, or even possibly could be, so I doubt it’s existence.

I’ll bite. I’m only peripherally aware of Jung and his ideas, so if I seem to be misunderstanding or misconstruing his ideas, let me know.

He speaks about 'divine savagery and ruthlessness' in human behaviour. This argument is based on his concept of the shadow which refers to aspects of the self which are repressed in the socialisation process. — Jack Cummins

I’m not seeing what “argument” you’re actually presenting or talking about. Simply that humans have the potential to be savage and ruthless? Or is it that if our shadows were not repressed we would not become savage/ruthless?

But from a philosophical point, what I wish to ask is does his idea of the shadow and the capacity for destruction have any relevance for our understanding of human nature? — Jack Cummins

Well, I think by now the fact that humans can be evil, for lack of a better word, is rather obvious. So, no I don’t think an understanding of Jung’s shadow archetype is necessary to realize this. Also, “human nature” is a loaded term. From what I’m aware, whether or not it even exists is still being debated, as is it’s definition. If you’re sort of equating human nature with human potential/capability, then I don’t think there’s much interesting about that, as we are basically only limited by physics and creativity.

Could it be of relevance for us in understanding our own destructive potential, including the personal, such as suicidal tendencies and other forms of destruction including alcohol and drug addiction. — Jack Cummins

I could see it being used as a scapegoat for negative behaviors, but I don’t know what other practical value it has. If I come to the conclusion, for example, that I’m a drug addict because I have repressed fear, anger, etc. I don’t know what recognizing and accepting this leads to. What does this imply or entail? That I shouldn’t repress these feelings? How do I do that?

To me, focusing on the issue of prison reform is a bit misguided. Certainly there are issues with our prison system (I.e. privatization, abuse of inmates, it’s ineffectiveness, etc.), but the underlying issue of why we have so many people committing crimes (or being falsely convicted, if you prefer) remains unaddressed.

At bottom, this is a societal issue. I believe statistics show that poverty and being a member of a racial minority are the biggest predictors of future incarceration, meaning that all three are correlated (not to be confused with causation!). So a good place to start would be to reduce poverty across the board, and to provide better opportunities for racial minorities. The issue of racism is obviously a factor in both categories that needs to be addressed as well. The underlying idea, or assumption, behind this is that desperate people are more likely to resort to crime as a way to survive.

Aside from this, there will always be criminals that need to be dealt with appropriately and effectively, so prison reform is necessary for that reason. Psychology shows that punishment is largely ineffective. In order for it to be effective it has to be very consistent. The prison system/law enforcement is not able to consistently punish criminals. By this I mean that for every person who gets caught doing a crime, there are exponentially more that do not get caught. So why are we even supporting a system of punishment which is shown to be ineffective? To me the very idea of punishment is outdated.

The amount of harm, chaos, destruction, etc that they cause is subjective, as is all moral and political truths. — Harry Hindu

Not always. Even if you just look at potential for harm, their are clearly some lies that are worse than others. Lying about ones merits vs. lying about how wearing masks save lives, for example.

I haven't bought into any system. I'm an atheist and an independent voter. I'm not the one that is indoctrinated into some system here. Atheists that are registered Democrats have simply swapped one Big Brother (god) with another(govt). Atheists that are Republicans are just confused. — Harry Hindu

I assume you’ve lived for some substantial amount of time, yet you’ve somehow remained untouched by the education system or culture you were brought up in? You’re also painting very broad strokes, as if atheists and democrats can only be one thing.

Democrats lie. Republicans lie. Thinking one does it more than another is just a reflection of your indoctrination. — Harry Hindu

You may be right, but the issue isn’t necessarily the quantity of lies, but rather the harm, chaos, destruction, etc. that they cause. I think there is at least an argument to be made regarding whose lies have been worse. Also, doesn’t all thought reflect whatever system (political, philosophical, religious, cultural, etc.) the agent has bought into?

It’s been 22 years, but this song could have been written yesterday. I guess some things will never change...

Tupac- Changes



Come on come on
I see no changes wake up in the morning and I ask myself
Is life worth living should I blast myself?
I'm tired of bein' poor and even worse I'm black
My stomach hurts so I'm lookin' for a purse to snatch
Cops give a damn about a negro
Pull the trigger kill a nigga he's a hero
Give the crack to the kids who the hell cares
One less hungry mouth on the welfare
First ship 'em dope and let 'em deal the brothers
Give 'em guns step back watch 'em kill each other
"It's time to fight back, " that's what Huey said
Two shots in the dark now Huey's dead
I got love for my brother but we can never go nowhere
Unless we share with each other
We gotta start makin' changes
Learn to see me as a brother instead of two distant strangers
And that's how it's supposed to be
How can the Devil take a brother if he's close to me?
I'd love to go back to when we played as kids
But things changed, and that's the way it is

That's just the way it is
Things will never be the same
That's just the way it is
Aww yeah

That's just the way it is
Things will never be the same
That's just the way it is
Aww yeah

I see no changes all I see is racist faces
Misplaced hate makes disgrace to races
We under I wonder what it takes to make this
One better place, let's erase the wasted
Take the evil out the people they'll be acting right
'Cause both black and white is smokin' crack tonight
And only time we chill is when we kill each other
It takes skill to be real, time to heal each other
And although it seems heaven sent
We ain't ready, to see a black President, uh
It ain't a secret don't conceal the fact
The penitentiary's packed, and it's filled with blacks
But some things will never change
Try to show another way but you stayin' in the dope game
Now tell me what's a mother to do
Bein' real don't appeal to the brother in you
You gotta operate the easy way
(I made a G today) But you made it in a sleazy way
Sellin' crack to the kid (I gotta get paid
Well hey, well that's the way it is

That's just the way it is
Things will never be the same
That's just the way it is
Aww yeah

That's just the way it is
Things will never be the same
That's just the way it is
Aww yeah

We gotta make a change
It's time for us as a people to start makin' some changes
Let's change the way we eat, let's change the way we live
And let's change the way we treat each other
You see the old way wasn't working so it's on us to do
What we gotta do, to survive

And still I see no changes can't a brother get a little peace?
It's war on the streets and the war in the Middle East
Instead of war on poverty they got a war on drugs
So the police can bother me
And I ain't never did a crime I ain't have to do
But now I'm back with the blacks givin' it back to you
Don't let 'em jack you up, back you up
Crack you up and pimp smack you up
You gotta learn to hold ya own
They get jealous when they see ya with ya mobile phone
But tell the cops they can't touch this
I don't trust this when they try to rush I bust this
That's the sound of my tool you say it ain't cool
My mama didn't raise no fool
And as long as I stay black I gotta stay strapped
And I never get to lay back
'Cause I always got to worry 'bout the pay backs
Some buck that I roughed up way back
Comin' back after all these years
Rat-a-tat-tat-tat-tat that's the way it is, uh

That's just the way it is
Things will never be the same
That's just the way it is
Aww yeah

That's just the way it is
Things will never be the same
That's just the way it is
Aww yeah

Some things will never change

Curtis Mayfield- [Don’t worry] If There’s a Hell Below, We’re All Going to Go

[Spoken: Woman]
Last night, I was so depressed
And I went and got the Bible
And I turned to the book of Revelations
And if people would just get and read the Bible
And read the book of Revelations
They would really turn around and straighten up
This is all we need to do, is just get the good book
And read it and put it to everyday life

[Spoken: Curtis Mayfield]
Sisters
Niggers
Whiteys
Jews
Crackers
Don't worry
If there's hell below
We're all
Gonna go

[Vocal]
Sisters
Brothers and the whiteys
Blacks and the crackers
Police and their backers
They're all political actors

Hurry
People running from their worries
While the judge and his juries
Dictate the law that's partly flaw

Cat calling
Love balling, fussing and a-cussing
Top billing now is killing
For peace, no one is willing
Kind of make you get that feeling

Everybody smoke
Use the pill and the dope
Educated fools
From uneducated schools
Pimping people is the rule
Polluted water in the pool
And Nixon talking 'bout, "Don't worry"
He say, "Don't worry"
He say, "Don't worry"
He say, "Don't worry"
But they don't know
There can be no show
And if there's hell below
We're all gonna go
Everybody praying
And everybody saying
But when come time to do
Everybody's laying
Just talking 'bout, "Don't worry"
They say, "Don't worry"
They say, "Don't worry"
They say, "Don't worry"

Sisters
Brothers and the whiteys
Blacks and the crackers
Police and their backers
They're all political actors

Smoke
The pill and the dope
Educated fools
From uneducated schools
Pimping people is the rule
Polluted water in the pool
And everybody's saying, "Don't worry"
They say, "Don't worry"
They say, "Don't worry"
They say, "Don't worry"
But they don't know
There can be no show
And if there's hell below
We're all gonna go
Lord, what we gonna do?
Tell me what we gonna do?
If everything I say is true
This ain't no way it ought to be
If only all the mass could see
But they keep talking 'bout, "Don't worry"
They say, "Don't worry"
They say, "Don't worry"
They say, "Don't worry"

However, I am not sure that experimentation is simply about rebellion entirely. — Jack Cummins

I agree. I think curiosity is a big factor in experimenting. But curiosity is also a necessity for philosophy.

Finally, I will say that the philosophers who have experimented are not necessarily superior to those who have not. Some individuals paths in life seem to be so straight and narrow and yet they go on to develop fantastic philosophical insights. — Jack Cummins

Sure, but I don’t know if you could find a decent philosopher that didn’t at least question/rebel somewhat against some established way of thinking or living. Repeating the status quo isn’t doing philosophy. Also, I’d like to add that rebellion can look vastly different depending on what the predominant view one is rebelling against consists of. Perhaps a person who grew up with hedonistic parents will turn to asceticism as a way to rebel, for example.

Maybe this isn’t the direction you’re trying to go, but I don’t think “sex, drugs, and rock’n’roll” is the whole picture. To me, that lifestyle is more a symptom or product of simply having a rebellious nature. And I think that is important for philosophy. Rebelling is just a crude form of questioning, imo. And to me in order to do philosophy, you have to be at least willing to challenge prevailing systems (religious, political, social, moral, etc.). So it isn’t that doing drugs will make yyou a better philosopher, but having that type of personality can definitely help.

Marilyn Manson- Burning Flag



They wanna sell it out, buy it up
And dumb it down
A good god is hard to find
I'll join the crowd that wants to see me dead
Right now I feel I belong for the first time

Multiply your death, divide by sex
Add up the violence and what do you get?

We are all just stars and we're waiting
We are all just scarred and we're hating
We are all just stars on your burning flag

You can point your gun at me
And hope it will go away
But if God was alive
He would hate you anyway

My right wing is flapping
The left wing is grey
Let's hear it for the kids but nothing they say
They gyrate and G-rate on Election Day
We got our ABC's and our F-U-C-K
F-U-C-K
F-U-C-K

Multiply your death, divide by sex
Add up the violence and what do you get?

We are all just stars and we're waiting
We are all just scarred and we're hating
We are all just stars on your burning flag

You can point your gun at me
And hope it will go away
If God was alive
He would hate you anyway

We are all just stars and we're waiting
We are all just scarred and we're hating
We are all just stars on your burning flag

Stars on your burning flag
Stars on your burning flag
Stars on your burning flag
Stars on your burning flag
Stars on your burning flag

The Who- Won’t Get Fooled Again

A Perfect Circle- “Fiddle and the drum”
Originally by Joni Mitchell

I’d like to push back somewhat on the idea that philosophy isn’t important, or doesn’t have much value. To me, the value doesn’t lie in something tangible or quantifiable, but in how you experience life. I feel that people interested in philosophy naturally find the world to be more mysterious and interesting than others, and I think doing philosophy feels purposeful, and I say that as essentially a nihilist. But there’s something that feels meaningful about discovering answers (or discovering that there are no answers) to big questions that most people never consider. So I wouldn’t say it isn’t without merit. It probably won’t help you pay the bills or put food on your table, but it may provide meaning. I also think it adds depth to your experience. I don’t know how many TV shows, or books, or games, or movies that I’ve found to be more sublime because I was aware of the implicit philosophical themes throughout them. Themes I wouldn’t have been aware of or able to appreciate without some knowledge of philosophy.

I've deduced D from N and N from D. — TheMadFool

My point is that D and N are statements that attempt to correspond to reality; the statements are about something. That “something” may in fact be as they describe, regardless of whether or not those statements are logical. So, showing that they are irrational/illogical doesn’t necessarily mean they are inaccurate descriptions of reality.

An instance of this will go a long way in proving your point. — TheMadFool

I think they current example demonstrates this. “I want nothing” is illogical, in my opinion, for the reasons I’ve explained. Nonetheless, it could be an accurate description of how I feel. My feelings (wants) don’t have to follow logic or reason.

Also, your statements indicate that you believe logic is independent of nature in the sense that there's no connection between them at all or that if there is one, it's a coincidence. — TheMadFool

No, it’s more that nature isn’t necessarily consistent. Some parts may be logical, but others may not. IOW’s, it’s both logical and illogical. Also, note that I consider basically everything nature, thoughts, delusions, emotions, etc. are all as much a part of nature as trees and streams.

Yet, I've heard, though never personally experienced, of Buddhists making claims of a reduction, if not an elimination, of wants, and turning their backs on materialism to embrace a life of frugality. — TheMadFool

I don’t really doubt these claims, but I consider this pursuit as just another want. Presumably this is done because they want to be a good Buddhist, or to become enlightened, or to cease suffering, etc.

The problem, however, is that logic, no less, dictates that D = N. What this means is that if one is to be logical, and that is a primary goal in philosophy and in life in general, I have no choice but to accept that if I don't want anything then that entails I want nothing. — TheMadFool

The other option would be to reject the assumption that logic is 100% accurate. Or that the world (including things like humans, consciousness, and nature) is somehow inherently logical. It doesn’t have to be. Yes, using logic and other tools of reason we are able to learn much about how the world works, but it should also be clearly obvious that humans often think and act irrationally.

In philosophy, this is almost always regarded as a sort of flaw in human nature (?) that needs to be reduced or eliminated completely if we are going to make progress. The idea of the rational charioteer controlling the irrational, passionate horses is regarded a noble ideal in philosophy, but a more accurate model is Haidt’s rider and elephant analogy; and personally I see nothing wrong with this. We needn’t always be rational or logical, and we needn’t always assume the correct explanation is the one that is most logical. Sometimes, trying to insert logic into nature is like trying to force a square peg into a round hole. What I’m getting at is that I believe it is physiologically possible to feel like you want to not want, or that you want to continue wanting, because our feelings care little about what is logical or illogical. I think these paradoxical issues arise because language is structured in a logical way, which may not necessarily accurately describe nature. In order for statements to make sense, certain types of words (verbs, direct objects, etc.) must be used in certain ways, but nature may not fit neatly into these certain ways.

I beg to differ. For one, I don't think desire is an emotion. — TheMadFool

That’s fine. I just meant to show that it is separate from cognition.

Generally speaking, we like (want) things that make us happy and dislike (don't want) those that make us sad. — TheMadFool

And very often have no clue what will make us happy/sad. Therefore, we end up making mistakes by wanting the wrong things.

This, in my opinion, indicates wanting/not wanting can operate at a meta-emotional level, making it, at the very least, not completely an emotion. — TheMadFool

Again I have no issue with this, so long as you’re not trying to say that wanting/not wanting is rational. I don’t think we can decide what we want or don’t want. I can’t make myself want anything. I just either want something, or I don’t.