I agree, AIDS pride and similar movements are basically coping mechanisms.

Just because a trans person has a horrible experience of dysphoria, it doesn't necessarily means they are incapable of task or less fit to survive. To experience something horrible doesn't mean you are some how useless and unfit for anything else. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Nor did I intend to imply this. I meant that in a bygone age, transgenderism would not have passed the status quo, as we had different goals back then, such as reproduction and gender-designated social roles. In today's day and age, we have much more freedom to be an individual instead of a cookie-cutter derived from evolutionary need.

Compare this to the case with women. Feminists will often speak of the past age in which women were suited to do different sorts of things than men. They didn't hunt, nor did they usually fight over mates. But in the present day we have no such need for these gender roles.

The worry I had was that I would be called out as a bigot simply for saying some people would rather be someone else than who they are, because they perceive the alternative to be superior. Which I suspect is actually more of a product of their environment than some inherent essential human psychological urge. A gay man might wish to be straight because he lives in an environment of anti-gay sentiments. If he grew up in a progressive area, however, this might be different. It all depends.

I also do not wish to be seen as a close-minded bigot, but I suspect that if given the choice from the very start of life, most people would choose to be heterosexual and cisgendered, in the same way they would choose to be tall rather than short, strong rather than weak, intelligent rather than dim.

The reality is that not everyone is tall, strong, intelligent, heterosexual, or cisgendered, even if these would have been evolutionarily advantageous. It is an inconvenient truth that nobody seems to want to address publicly: not everyone is equal. Some people are indeed better suited to do things than others.

The righteousness of things will depend on what our goals are. If our goals are instinctual and bent on surviving in a pre-technological and pre-leisure community, then indeed those who are not suited to fulfill the necessary roles will be looked down upon.

But as the civil rights activists have pointed out, we no longer live in Darwinian communities. We no longer need to discriminate between appearances for protection. And we no longer need to be heterosexual or cisgendered in order to manage.

Because our collective goals have moved on from our ancestral instincts, we no longer need these obfuscating and discriminatory principles. So there's nothing wrong with being homosexual or transgendered. Although notice how most people would like it if you could be tall, strong, and bright, because it would benefit the community. Once again we have the subjugating nature of goals.

What does pragmatism have to say about two competing theories of equal plausibility and appeal? You say you are a realist about an external world if I remember correctly, whereas I am actually leaning towards straight-up idealism. Both are able to capture the same things. They are empirically equivalent. Realism, in my view, could be seen as a historical and biased prejudice.

To put it another way, then, you can't criticize language without using language. You can't argue against argument without using argument. You can't fully disprove or withdraw from reason without using reason in the process of doubt.

Just speaking from personal experience, I have to agree with . Not everything I do is from boredom. I often do things because I like to do them. I find them interesting and fun, or because I have to do things out of necessity.

I think boredom is a byproduct of consciousness. If we view sentients such as humans as some kind of "machine" (not necessarily literally), then it is our "programming" to accomplish things. That's what Heidegger called the nature of action: accomplishment.

So instead of saying boredom is the "natural" experience of humans and other sentient organisms, we should see boredom as what happens when we aren't able to fulfill our telos, so to speak.

Instead of boredom being the most significant emotion, I would say fatigue is the more proper "emotion" and even suitable on a larger cosmic scale. Things fatigue. They break down. Bits and pieces go missing. The structure falls apart.

We see this everywhere, including biological organisms, whose ultimate destination is death. To exist means to be dying. So humans get boredom when they fatigue and run out of energy to focus on things that might interest them. Boredom isn't the most fundamental emotion as much as it is the final destination of every sentient project.

If by "significant" you meant "inevitable", "effortless", or "guaranteed", then yes, I would say boredom is one of the most significant features of conscious experience. If you get rid of everything else, you have boredom. Which makes sense considering conscious reasoning evolved as a counterfactual method of problem-solving and deception. It has a purpose and when it cannot be applied to this purpose, consciousness "breaks" in the Heidegerrean sense and we get boredom.

But as long as we have a sufficient amount of things to do that interest us, boredom and the instrumentality phenomenon you speak of is rather unimportant, side-lined as a mere possibility (threat).

And if not boredom, then anxiety is the baseline human emotion.

The hinge beliefs Wittgenstein primarily focused on were those required for reason itself. Skepticism and doubt are inherently rational. They depend upon the ability to reason. You can't have global skepticism because that would entail doubt of reason itself. We can doubt the fruits of reason, sure, but reason itself cannot be doubted on pain of contradiction. It is always a given.

If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around, does it still make a sound? — dukkha

It still makes compressive waves in the air. Without a mind, though, no sound is made. In the same way your alarm clock beeps for a while before you wake up. You only register a beep when you are conscious.

Where scepticism goes off the rails is in ontology. It might be entertaining to consider the unlikely - like that the world doesn't exist, it's all in the mind, or it's all demonic illusion. But it is not useful to pretend to believe the unlikely. You don't really doubt unless you are fully prepared to act on that doubt. At which point it has just turned into a belief. — apokrisis

A Buddhist perspective on epistemology is that there are two types of "truth": ultimate and conventional. Conventional truths are made of ultimate truths, but are not legitimate in themselves. An example of this as an analogy might be the denial of objects, or mereological nihilism. We commonly see objects around us, from vacuum cleaners to clouds to tigers to moons. But the mereological nihilist will argue that these objects don't actually "exist" and that only the various mereological simples do in various arrangements and patterns (cloud-like, tiger-like, etc). In this case, it could be said that the object is the conventional truth and the part-simples are the ultimate truth.

Indeed the Buddha was a heavy empiricist and quite skeptical of unobservables and static entities. The idea of staticity is a conventional truth, according to Gautama.

But Gautama was also very much so a pragmatist. He did not advocate philosophizing for the sake of philosophizing. Instead, action, according to Gautama, should be primarily focused on the soteriological endeavor. This means that conventional knowledge may still be useful for us to achieve some end. This can be compared to the concept of desert, or perhaps even karma depending on the interpretation.

The bottom line is that conventional truth is only useful if it is harnessed for a greater cause: in the Buddha's case, it was soteriological release from birth. So the Buddhist tradition definitely has pragmatic aspects, not in search of truth per se but in search of truth for the sake of karmic release.

What is the purpose behind westernized pragmatism (Peirce, James, Dewey)? In what sense are we to see theories as "useful", i.e. to what end? Is truth simply equivalent to what is useful, or is usefulness the best method of obtaining truth in the correspondence sense of knowledge? If the latter, then pragmatism seems to become more of a methodology than a metaphysical theory of knowledge itself.

Keeping Ourselves in the Dark by Colin Feltham

Is Nature Ever Evil?: Religion, Science and Value by Willem B. Drees

An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion by Brian Davies

Peirce: A Guide for the Perplexed by Cornelis de Waal

and a few others

Didn't Quine want to naturalize philosophy, and transform psychology into a sort of epistemology? In that knowledge would not be the only aspect of epistemology, but also how we come to know such knowledge, i.e. learning as you said, which of course would have important consequences for theories of knowledge.

I've noticed that there haven't really been any crippling defeats in scepticism, which makes me wonder, can't you disprove any philosophy? — Hobbez

This is false. Wittgenstein disproved global skepticism by his analysis of hinge beliefs. Global skepticism is self-defeating.

Skepticism in general is good, but today it seems like people are equivocating hyper-skepticism with intelligence, when really all it is, is intellectual laziness.

No, I don't think philosophers are trying too hard to sound smart.

Philosophy is one of those things that you have to actually do yourself to understand it. Philosophy cannot be communicated like a pop-science magazine that tells you we've discovered this or solved that problem. It's a pro and a con. A pro being that it can really change your life for the better. A con being that it makes a lot of impatient people look down on philosophy as being "obscure" or what have you.

So when philosophers are communicating to the public, they admittedly have to tone down the intellectual talk, which unfortunately sacrifices important nuances that get reflected in the comment sections of newspaper editorials. But when philosophers are writing to other philosophers, they don't need to really worry about being "over-intellectual".

A more important problem with philosophy (and other forms of inquiry for that matter) would be the exoteric vs esoteric divide. A metaphysician may understand what "substance" means, or what "metaphysical grounding" means, but nobody else does.

Fuck off, then.

People often argue that a fetus is a human life and that all human life should be valued equally. I don't see how we as a society could do that. More specifically I don't see any logically justifiable reason to hold human life to a higher importance than all life. The concept of all human life being equal but more important than lower intelligence life is ridiculous. To me the logical step is to make a value hierarchy for all life. Obviously a fetus would be lower on that than the woman carrying it. Any thoughts? — MonfortS26

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. On one hand you claim that speciesism is ridiculous, but then claim that we ought to have a moral hierarchy of all life.

I would argue that anything that can feel (sentience), and more specifically, anything that can suffer, is worthy of being considered ethically important. If a fetus can feel, then it is important to consider its experiences. If it cannot feel, then it might as well be a rock. There's no use anthropomorphizing rocks, trees, water molecules, and a clump of fetal tissue. Nothing happens to them that is morally important outside of our own attachments to them.

The question is whether you trust your instinct or overrule it with reason. — Hanover

Yet how does reason begin if not from certain basic intuitions? (the external world exists, other people exist, I myself exist, x is a sound premise, my mental representations are probably not deceiving me too much, etc.)

There are some basic "intuitions" or beliefs that one must have in order for reason to even take off. Wittgenstein called these "hinge beliefs". They cannot be reasonably doubted without utilizing them in the process of doubting.

I agree, but I haven't concluded that yet. I am in despair over not finding any good reason. Only fools jump to conclusions like that (atheists, christians, etc.) — intrapersona

Indeed this seems to be a reasonable position, however it also seems to offer quite little in the way of prescriptive action. So we're left with a kind of dizzying uncertainty - do I walk my dog, do I ask that girl out, do I contemplate the nature of the divine, do I kill myself, do I watch the clock tick endlessly, do I study thermodynamics, do I vote for this guy or that guy, do I get a spray tan, do I make a smoothie, do I take a nap, do I read Hegel, do I do I do I do I do I ...

At some point in time your biological needs take over and you are forced into action, reluctancy be damned.

Do we live for something? Does the divine give us fulfillment? Can we revolt against the absurd? All of these thoughts seem inspiring, yet oddly distant or esoteric, as if it's always the other people who have it all figured out, and we're just playing catch-up. Don't agree with So-and-So? Then read Such-and-Such, fuck So-and-So, Such-and-Such has all the answers. And on it goes.

Obviously many will disagree with me when I say this, but I don't see very many good reasons to accept that even a single person "has it all figured out." Not the egotistical pop-scientists, not the religious nuts, not the academic philosophers (who have made neuroticism a discipline), not the stoner kid down the street, not the heroic explorer or patriot, not the spiritual gurus, not you, me, or anyone else here. Hell, God Almighty probably doesn't even know what the fuck is going on.

Now this doctrine of uncertainty is ironically a rather "certain" doctrine - indeed if taken literally it would lead to a contradiction: I am positively sure that nobody, including myself, knows anything substantial (a quite substantial claim!) But it seems to me that this belief in the uncertainty is more of a gut-reaction than a crisp theoretical position - yet surely gut-reactions have some credentials in cases like this.

So maybe, just maybe (notice the uncertainty?) a point of existence can be derived from a skeptical curiosity that the doctrine of uncertainty will be falsified in the future. Prove me wrong, Universe. Show me there is an overarching purpose. I'll stick around and eat some popcorn in the meantime, entertained by the whole absurdity and metaphysical uncertainty of it all.

And when I die, if there is no meaning to be found, I'll ask the Universe to guess what finger I'm holding up.

What the fuck is going on on this forum right now?! Seriously guys, get your shit together, it's a fucking internet forum.

Platinum rule is superior: treat others in the way they want to be treated. How you wish to be treated may not be equivalent to how someone else wishes to be treated.

I would personally argue that the most serious philosophical problem isn't whether or not we should cease our own consciousness, but whether or not we ought to create another consciousness. For the former question inherently depends on the the latter question.

Of course, the command to us to go kill ourselves may be becoming more and more realistic, considering assisted suicide has been legalized in many states, as well as in other countries like Switzerland. Or perhaps we all just get together and intentionally get stoned as to attempt to remove the instinctual barriers keeping us alive.

This is about where I realize that, despite the shittiness of life in general, I have a distinct urge to continue to live, for whatever reason that is. I don't want to miss out on the happenings of the world, at least not right now. Game of Thrones hasn't ended yet.

So the real twist in the stomach is when you simultaneously see very little in life as a justification for the beginning of a life, but somehow see these things as a justification for continuing a life. And you realize that yeah, all these things are pretty much just distractions, and that if you're gonna hold that it's not enough to make a life worth starting then it really ought to not be enough to continue a life. Suddenly it becomes more difficult to truly enjoy things; instead one has to take a mindfulness approach to experience, and/or submerge oneself in the absurdity of it all and find a sort of aesthetic to the rogue, absurd, wandering survivor, an internal contradiction that can only be expressed in catharsis.

Tolstoy hit the nail on the head: there are four different ways out of our position: ignorance (in which you don't even know our position), epicureanism (hedonism, most people do this), the rejection of the former two but the continuation out of weakness (i.e. existentialism) and the rejection of all three and the embracing of suicide (i.e. the strong). It is the strong who kill themselves, and the weak who persist for no apparent reason whatsoever.

So what would be equivalent to "You shouldn't have been out at night!" in this situation? — schopenhauer1

"Why don't you just kill yourself?!" or "Stop being a lazy fuck!"

So is flow and faith a good thing or is it more of a stop-gap from addressing bigger existential questions? — schopenhauer1

I guess it depends on what ones' priorities are. If you're going for authenticity then no, the probably aren't. If you're just trying to survive, then yeah they're probably going to be helpful.

One is the victim blaming phenomena. Do you think it is a strategy for regulating societal expectations? In other words, is it to prevent people from voicing despair and bringing others into despair mode? Is it like a meme that worked well in maintaining the status quo, so remained as part of the social discourse when someone evaluating the negative voices an opinion? — schopenhauer1

Yes. I mean we still see this with rape victims. "You shouldn't have been out at night!"-like bullshit.

Does flow and hope justify life affirmation? Flow can prevent the mind from thinking of all these larger angsty existential questions.. Hope can cause someone to take a plan of action to get to a more desired situation. — schopenhauer1

Flow and in particular faith can justify the continuation of a life even if they are not founded well.

You need to realize that when we perceive anything, it's really just the reflection of photons traveling through a transparent gas or space.

I suspect it has something to do with liberalism being seen as naively optimistic. But we'll see what tgw has to say.

Because that's what it means to be see-through: photons are able to pass through the material.

The trouble with this idea is that, thanks to modern physics, we already know what makes things transparent. Depending on the grain pattern of a substance, light may or may not be absorbed. That's what transparency is - something going through another thing without much friction.

So your theory becomes irrelevant because in this case, empirical evidence trumps a priori speculation.

Of course. Do you think Sanders is done with politics now?

Besides being a consolation, it may provide perspective on existence itself. — schopenhauer1

I mean, yes, I agree that the pessimistic perspective is helpful in toning down expectations and desires. That's fine.

Believe it or not, there can be a giddyness to pessimism.. To knowing we are all in the same boat, that it is all part of a similar structure. I dare say, there may be a joy and connectedness in pessimism. — schopenhauer1

This is have an issue with. There is no giddyness to torture, horror, or anguish. It's comedic to see how absurd everything seems to be, so long as you aren't being impacted too much by the absurdity of it all. Why should I be giddy that countless animals are currently being ripped to shreds by predators? Why should I be giddy that life is disappointing and painful? This kind of giddyness ends up being not too dissimilar to the crazy guy in the movies who starts out laughing and ends up crying.

You'd have to explain that. It sounds like you have many things to say in regards to arguing for pessimism but no one to hear it.. You always have me, dark solitary biting fish. Just don't bite me too much, as is your nature or I'll tear you up like a hapless salmon that is eaten by the grizzly in the picture — schopenhauer1

Well, I mean to say that pessimism is pretty obvious. It is based in empiricism, specifically phenomenological immediate perceptions of existence. It's not easy to argue against it. Some people might say that this is simply because it's easy to complain and bitch and moan. Or maybe it's because it's an accurate picture of reality, and a tough pill to swallow. What is worse is when pessimists try to act upon their belief, they're seen as the baddies, destroyers. When really if something really is this bad then it ought to be destroyed. Permanently.

Goddammit, why couldn't Bernie have won.

I always feel bad when I argue for pessimism, unless I have an desire to change people's actions for what I perceive to be the better (ethics). Like, unless something productive is going to come from me presenting pessimism, I don't really feel comfortable intentionally trying to break people's spells of optimism. Unless there is something wrong with living a life unaware or uncaring of the pessimistic point, then arguing for pessimism only increases the total amount of suffering in the world. It's less about doing something productive and more about expressing oneself through pessimism, to the annoyance of others.

The thing about pessimism is that it is probably one of the easiest philosophies to argue for, yet one of the hardest philosophies to accept.

Please delete

Trump's speech was actually not too shabby. He still repeated himself a lot and asserted all these things that he'll never actually be able to do. But I was genuinely surprised that he apparently called Clinton right beforehand. For once, Trump was not a wild, raving lunatic in a suit.

Trump looked scared during his speech. Maybe he was just tired from the whole election campaign. But I suspect he also was finally understanding the gravity of the situation.

The state in which I live just legalized assisted suicide. This makes it legal to die if one is terminally ill with six months left to live.

If this was extended to those who are depressed or who just don't want to live anymore, would you take it?

For me at least, as much as I generally find life annoying and painful, I nevertheless have a strong instinct to survive, to create, to do. I don't want to die. Suicide fantasy has been a recurrent theme in my thought but whenever I actually seriously consider dying, there is something that keeps me back. Something beyond just primal instinct, I think.

Perhaps life is bad but not bad enough to warrant suicide, not enough to get a eliminate the capacity to derive a decent amount of enjoyment out of it. We may not gain anything in life but it sure as hell is difficult to act as if this is the case. At least by surviving we maximize irony.

Thoughts?

It requires certain assumptions and confidences, but it would be wrong to equivocate this form of belief with religious faith.

Disappointment with a collective group of ignorant plebs.

Dumbass new atheists...

Crikey.