I think this may be more a mentall illness issue than a strictly philosophical one. I just know that I dont get any enjoyment from philosophy anymore. It feels more like a very tense and nervous imperative to organize thought into some arrangement of leakproof compartments. — csalisbury

:ok:

“I mistrust all systematizers and avoid them. The will to a system is a lack of integrity.”
-Nietzsche

I'm finding it difficult to enjoy philosophy as well. Well, not just philosophy, I think it might be related to general anhedonia. But when I read philosophy, especially analytic philosophy, I get this almost immediate and overwhelming ennui. It's absurd. It's like - yeah, this stuff is neat and all, but what's the point?

I get the same thing when reading stuff on the natural sciences. Neat! Anyway .... these galaxies are billions of light years away. I cannot comprehend that distance. I will never go there. I will never see anything more than vague pictures touched up in Photoshop. So....meh. Dinosaurs used to roam the Earth millions of years ago? Neat! Anyway...I need to pay my utilities. A capacitor discharges in approximately four time constants? Neat! etc, etc, whatever.

I think what's up is that any inquiry that isn't apathetic to a certain degree is inherently silly. It's silly to play dress-up with costumes (suits, dresses, lab coats, robes, etc). It's silly to send rockets to the moon. It's silly to dig up dinosaur bones. It's silly to find things interesting. It's silly to do a lot of things. But we'll still do it but it's with this absurd cultural momentum, this sense of importance. But it's all just silly. We're just passing the time, that's all.

It is no longer possible to take seriously the Socratic formula of reason leading to happiness. It has atrophied. The need for a system is a symptom of being a child, in a spiritual sense. Taking an interest in the world is a sign that one is a young soul.

In the case of moral goodness, we have not fully apprehended the essence of perfect morality, and therefore this being cannot be man-made. Instead, we deduce its existence from the existence of imperfect moral goodness. — Samuel Lacrampe

How do we do this? Could it be that perfect moral goodness cannot exist?

Interesting post.

Eg 1: Take a circle: A hand-drawn circle is called a good circle if it gets close to a perfect circle, its nature, and called a bad circle if it gets far from it. — Samuel Lacrampe

My objection to P1 can be illustrated by objecting to this part of your argument. There are no perfect circles in the world. Every circle is slightly elliptical, they never have a perfectly uniform radius. The point being is that the existence of imperfection does not entail that perfection must exist.

This argument reminds me of the ontological arguments of Anselm and Descartes.

I think science, like many other things, is a family of separate enterprises that resemble each other without strict transitivity of similarities. There is no essence of science; there are properties that some scientific enterprises have that other scientific enterprises do not.

What happens, I think, is that an ideal image of science is covertly substituted for the actual manifestation of science. The "scientific method" is an example of this. There is no one single methodology shared by all the sciences, nor is the "proper", "tried and true" methodology always followed. There is no single scientific "culture". There is no shared belief system across all scientists. There is no shared qualities of scientific theories that make them specifically scientific.

Lots of scientists have opinions about what they think science should be. But what a scientist says about a scientific topic is far different than what they say about science as a field, which is a philosophical, normative topic. I think this distinction gets overlooked sometimes - just because a person is a scientist does not mean they have a good understanding of what it is they are doing or what it represents.

On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason by Arthur Schopenhauer.

It don't like the term "realist" because everyone considers themselves to be a realist. Everyone's opinion is the "realistic" opinion or they wouldn't hold it. "Realism" is question-begging, in this context. Unless by "realism" it is meant "neither optimist nor pessimist ... but actually optimistic with a cynical flavor for the sex appeal."

In my opinion it seems like to even ask "is the glass half full or half empty" already basically confirms a pessimistic evaluation of the world. You'd think, that if the world really was good, it would be immediately obvious that it was.

Didn't Greek tragedy kinda implode on itself?

Are you saying that people have to be intoxicated for sex to be comfortable?

I agree with your analysis. Nietzsche's view, in my opinion, is that if the philosophers devalues life through reason, then a life affirming philosophy devalues the philosopher and his reason. If truth undermines life, then life lashes out in retaliation by devaluing truth. According to Nietzsche's analysis, the Schopenhaurian-esque pessimist cannot deny life without denying his own ability to deny life (because it takes life to deny life). Life, according to Nietzsche, cannot be "refuted". It is spontaneous, processual, changing.

Nietzsche frequently considers that man can only handle "so much" truth. He also (and I believe he was influenced by Leopardi, whom I personally have great respect for) considers that a person "addicted" to truth is ugly and weak. They can't "rise up" and affirm life. There is no art, there is no journey, there is no ambition or passion or any of that. This is why Nietzsche criticizes Christianity, Platonism, Socrates, Buddhism, etc for being "nihilistic" and death-worshipping. Consider how Plato thought the point of philosophy was to prepare oneself for death (through understanding the transcendent, perfect Forms that, according to Nietzsche, are a psychological illusion).

For Nietzsche, it is as you said: he does not "refute" the Schopenhauerian pessimism. Instead, he tries to go beyond good and evil and embrace a "Dionysian" pessimism, a yes-saying pessimism, a life-affirming pessimism. It is tragic, because the yes-saying comes fundamentally as a reaction to the structural negativity of life.

This is all very inspirational and heroic, no doubt. But I wonder how realistic it can actually be. Nietzsche wasn't exactly the most impressive person all things considered. His philosophy of the Ubermensch looks more like a fantasy day-dream than something that can be seriously put into practice and lived. The same can be said of Schopenhauer's ascetic ideal.

I think Nietzsche is important. I think he's on to something. I don't think Nietzsche is where the analysis should stop, though. Nietzsche should be integrated into a broader pessimistic worldview that includes things like antinatalism, in my opinion. There is nothing incoherent, contra Nietzsche, with life devaluing life. It may very well be that life can enter a stage of maturation where it is able to understand itself, and thus deny itself.

Sure, I've already said that I'm not committed to saying that ALL sex is immoral, just that certain kinds (which may entail most) sex is.

Sexual relationships tend to be characterized by a passive-active role. Heterosexual relationships tend to place the man in the active role and the woman in the passive role. This private affair is a mirroring of the patriarchal system in general.

I have read some sociologists who have said that the roles can be reversed. The woman "welcomes" the penis into her vagina, instead of the man always penetrating the woman. And sure, maybe this can be interpreted like this. But let's be frank: penetration is the term most often used and associated with PIV sex. Penetration of the vagina by the penis. Penetration of the passive member by the active member.

It's also been shown that chemicals in semen influence the behavior of women. Pheromones in general influence people's behavior. They are intoxicating. Can someone give true consent if they are intoxicated?

Heterosexuality = patriarchal subordination is a plank in the platform of constructionism. The equivalence supposes that natural processes operating over many, many millions of years have nothing to do with us. The hateful feminists who spout this nonsense think heterosexuality is a plot hatched in the halls of wicked patriarchal capitalist, imperialist, sexist, racist males. — Bitter Crank

No, I don't think this is true. I mean, there are hateful feminists, no doubt about that. But I don't think most are that hateful. And I don't think patriarchy is some scheme conjured up by the powers-that-be, behind closed doors in shadowy rooms with poor lighting.

Oppression of women is not merely sociological but biological. All you people saying heterosexuality is "just" how the human species perpetuates itself are ignoring the details of what heterosexuality entails: how the chief alpha male of the apes gets a harem of females, how many males of species rape females to procreate, how historically women have been chattel of men and were traded and used not as people but as property, etc.

It's naive and ahistorical to think we can look on heterosexual relationships without any of this historical baggage. I never said that heterosexuality just is oppression by the patriarchy; I said that heterosexuality is inherently related to patriarchal oppression. That doesn't mean there can't be some heterosexual relationships that are healthy and good.

But then there's also some who have tried to undermine my credibility by declaring that what I see to be common elements of heterosexual relationships, or just sexual relationships in general, is idiosyncratic. Well, you can say that, but why not give examples of what a healthy sexual relationship looks like?

Look, I am still relatively young, I do not have all this experience that older folk here may have. I also happen to have a low libido that makes me basically asexual. I have never had sex nor do I particularly have the need or desire to. I believe I see sex in a different way than most people do and this may be influenced by my lack of sex drive. Sex seems clumsy, awkward and particularly unsanitary. But it also seems, to me, to be very unsettling at times. This is especially apparent in pornography. Now you may say that pornography is fiction and not indicative of real sex - yet if this is true, then why do people watch porn? Why is porn so popular?

It is as if, during the act of sex, morality sort of goes out the window. Morality is suspended, at least partly. To me, it seems like if people did not have sex drives, sex would seem strange and even wrong.

And yet I do ask for consent before I walk into your house, drive your car, remove your earrings from your ear, or play with your tongue, So we've now established that some things require consent and others don't. Typically we require consent when we seek to use something that belongs to someone else, which would include anything from your ballpoint pen to your vagina. — Hanover

There is a new culture surrounding sex that puts consent as the sine qua non of acceptable sex. I have been told by the authorities that "consent is sexy" (does that imply that if it weren't sexy, it wouldn't matter....?). Yet just because someone consents to something doesn't mean it's okay. Someone can consent to having all their money stolen at gunpoint - that is not true consent, that is coerced consent.

And so in sex, consent can be washed up in coercion. A woman, for instance, may feel pressured to consent to avoid a sour relationship with a man. She may consent because she feels compelled to by the culture she was raised in. A man may consent because he feels to do otherwise would be an indication of not being a man (in our culture, it seems as though men must want sex - or they are not a man).

My point is that just because someone consents does not mean it is genuine. And just because someone has a preference for something (such as a kink) does not mean this preference can't be criticized. Preferences don't just appear out of the blue. There's a background from where they develop. This is why, for example, I'm critical of BDSM.

https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/dhaka/2018/08/04/live-students-block-streets-in-uttara

Thugs, protected by state police, are raping schoolgirls and beating schoolboys.

Fuck the Bangladeshi government.

Life in a Medieval Castle by Joseph & Frances Gies. Cool book.

If you don't have one then the other sides that do take you out. — yatagarasu

But why do they have a military? It is a prisoner's dilemma, a rat race, a constant fight to one-up each other out of fear and masculine pride.

How do we stop this? How do we convince the members of the militaries of the world to stop listening to their superiors and lay down their arms?

I was originally going to respond to each response, but that would be a little too OCD, even for me. — rachMiel

I know you were not intending to, but I want to interject and say that OCD can be a serious psychological disorder that significantly impacts the quality of a person's life. OCD is not just, or even, perfectionism, but unfortunately, this colloquial designation continues to be widespread. This makes it difficult for people with OCD, such as myself, to be taken seriously when they say they have OCD because it is assumed that we are simply perfectionists or even just joking around when in actuality it is something we struggle with every day. Just for future reference.

Ignorance might be bliss for a short time but it tends to bite you in the ass later on down the road when you suddenly have serious problems that you should have dealt with earlier but didn't because you didn't know the problems were even there.

However as Nietzsche observed, people can only handle so much truth. That life continues to exist is enabled by our capacity for self-delusion which includes being willfully unaware of real problems.

I disagree. States are necessary for militaries, we know this from history. The Roman Empire had the most sophisticated armed forces of the ancient world and after its fall (at least, the Western half), the European political scene changed drastically. There were no standing armies anymore, there were small militias here and there to protect against bandits and raiders, and the king would call on his lords to conscript men in times of war.

It is with the advent of the industrial state that standing armies (militaries) became more common. Industrial states tend to be capitalistic and are viciously competitive with each other. Militaries are what protect one state's means of production from another state. World War I saw the clash of old-school warfare with new technology and it was horrible. World War II saw similar, although the strategies were beginning to change. But WWII brought something even more terrifying: the nuclear bomb, which immediately launched the Cold War before WWII even ended.

Now that terrorists can get their hands on nuclear warheads, it is difficult to see what other alternatives there are to stopping them apart from the use of states. Unfortunately, many of the terrorists the West is fighting today cropped up because of the meddling affairs of states. We got ourselves into this mess in the first place by having states that fought each other in total war and produced nuclear bombs!

For one, military power is sometimes needed to quell internal dissent. Were a home-grown fascist terrorist organization attack from within, the military (army, marines, or state national guard) would probably be needed to destroy such a group. — Bitter Crank

Fascism breeds in certain environments which may not exist in an anarchistic society.

This is similar to why is does not make sense to argue that the state is necessary in order to quell crime. Obviously the state isn't doing a very good job if it has to quell crime! How do we know that crime would exist without a state?

For two, the military is an on-call personnel pool in times of emergency. Should the Really Big Quake happen in California or off the coast of WA, OR, and CA, the resulting severe and widespread damage would exhaust local emergency resources almost immediately. The Army/National Guard would need to be deployed as rescue and recovery workers, in addition to FEMA (for whatever they are worth). — Bitter Crank

But why does it need to be a military?

For three, many individual countries could find themselves with dysfunctional states on next door. In order to defend themselves from disorder, if not military attack, a functioning military is required. We have problems now with people crossing our border illegally; what if Mexico became even more dysfunctional. The military would be needed to help manage the situation (however you care to define "manage"). — Bitter Crank

Yes, however I think this is still absurd. If we didn't have states, we wouldn't have militaries. But since we already have states, we may not be able to ever get rid of them. We're stuck - the wheels of revolution that were meant to lead to an anarchist and socialist future are broken. The opportunity seems largely to be gone, thanks to technology.

If you want to stop wars I say that we should just shoot all of the politicians so that there will be no one to start them. — Sir2u

:lol: I was thinking along the same lines.

Those in power can only maintain their power if they successfully dupe their subordinates into fighting each other. If the king tells the lord to go to war, and the lord refuses, the king will threaten to send his other lords' armies on him. Yet what if these lords refuse?

It seems as though the only reason we may need militaries, or political states in general, is because we had militaries and political states in the past and that permanently fucked everything up.

Re-reading Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics by the sage of Königsberg.

Take ice for example, when ice melts, it isnt destoryed, it instead transforms into liquid form, another phase of the cycle. — Johnpveiga

It isn't ice that is undergoing these phase changes, but water. Ice, water and clouds are all made up of the same thing, H2O. When the ice melts, the ice is destroyed but the water, the H2O, remains.

Actually this is a super interesting idea when applied to the world and everything in it. Can we see everything that exists as modes of some fundamental substance just as we see the water and its phases?

This is exactly what modern physics tells us: energy cannot be created nor destroyed, and everything is said to be "made up of" energy.

Is my current state as a solid physical human being simply a phase of a cycle and when i die, i did not get "destroyed" or cease to exist instead i pass to another phase of the cycle, just like ice that melts transforms into liquid form? — Johnpveiga

You, as a particular individual, ceases to exist when you die but the matter and energy that constitute you remain.

The question, I think, is not what happens to the matter or energy but what happens to its form. Where does the form "ice" go when water melts? What is the being of essence?

As I see it, the answer to this question is intimately related to mind. Thought is what holds form.

In a rudimentary sense, yeah I think perception is less "direct" than it is "inferential", and more specifically, less is more. The brain, through some complex neurological mechanism that I don't understand, "fills in the dots". What seems like a continuous plenum of sense is literally not quite there. We don't see each and every leaf on the tree. We don't see each and every rain droplet. It would be pointless to. The brain/the mind (leaving the relationship between the two open here) is a filter. Most of what's out there doesn't even register, our brain/mind makes a prediction, a model of what might be there based on prior experiences. In a psychoanalytic bent, the ego is meant to be a buffer, a way of postponing reactivity in order to sift through all the information and consider alternate possibilities.

It seems to me that one cannot posit one's existence without formally limiting the existence of others. To say, "I exist", or rather, "I will continue to exist" is to stake one's flag into the dirt and claim a certain island of space as one's own. It is to say, my life is important, my existence is worth something. But do we have the right to do this? On what grounds can we say that we, ourselves, have a right to exist, and if push comes to shove, also have the right to exclude others from this space?

The self is an arbitrary locus of value. Simply being always-already is a formal violence against the other. There is no such thing as a purely pacifist existence, only a gradient of aggression.

I don't think pacifism tout court is admirable. Sometimes it can just be plain fucking stupid. If someone threatened to kill my cat (which I unfortunately do not have because allergies) I would go defensive. Defensive aggression, i.e. self defense, is perfectly acceptable I think.

In fact to lay yourself down prostrate in front of an oppressor is a passive evil because you are merely enabling them to continue oppressing you and other people. Pacifism sometimes seems to me to be a cheap way out of difficult moral problems that demand some degree of intervention.

However, there are a few caveats to this, I think. First and foremost, self defense should never be taken further than necessary. Additionally, and most importantly, the concept of irreversibility should be taken into account. The death penalty, for example, is absolutely wrong, in my opinion, because for the simply fact that empirical observations are always, on principle, about to be doubted. Guilt is never proven absolutely - it is only proven within reasonable doubt - yet death is an absolute punishment with no way of going back if it turns out the justice system failed in its operation.

It seems like every person is a potential murderer. Pull the wrong strings too many times and they're bound to snap eventually. Even the most benevolent person has their limits (and it seems like God has a relatively low limit himself if the Old Testament is to be taken literally).

From what I can tell, most murders come from jealousy or envy, as a sort of "revenge". It may start out as a benign sorrow, but over time, or after an especially traumatic episode, the murderous zealotry develops. It's megalomania, the idea that a person has the right to end another person's life.

Murder, and crime in general, is an inevitable aspect of any society because society is and always will be constituted by inequality. Crime, including murder, is a reflection of the current state of a society as much as it is a reflection of the individual's mental state. That crime is "separate" from society (and in particular, the state), is sort of an illusion, I think. That the "state" exists to keep crime in check is ridiculous because the state is the condition from which crime couldn't exist without. In my opinion, the state perpetuates itself by making problems that can only be solved by state intervention; i.e. the state creates the conditions of its own necessity.

I suspect any pacifist society will eventually erupt in a bloody, violent catharsis, much like an abstinent ascetic will eventually release their loins. Murder is a natural expression of social frustration. War is fun, at least for the politicians who wager they can win.

Any particular texts you recommend? I read about Collingwood in A. W. Moore's The Evolution of Modern Metaphysics, but haven't read anything primary.

Collingwood?

Agreed. The truth of a metaphysical theory is not its most important feature. It doesn't matter if it's true or false, what matters is what it inspires.

But to judge a metaphysical theory to be true or false is not so different from any other theory. If it's internally consistent and coheres with the rest of the human sciences than it qualifies as a respectable position, one that may even be "true".

Something I have not resolved is whether the folks who take up these theories do so because they are persuaded the world is actually as the respective theories describe insofar as the theories go, or because they find within the theories an adequately self-consistent model of the world that they find congenial. I suspect it's both, but that many of those who insist on the accuracy of these models apply them beyond their scope. Happiest those who take pleasure in them for what they are within their limitations; miserable who think they're effective tools for modern applications. — tim wood

Well said. Nietzsche said the same thing. Carnap portrayed metaphysics as failed art. It certainly does feel anachronistic for someone to call themselves a "Platonist". Philosophy lost that role a long time ago, the prestige is gone. Only in a philosophy department will you hear someone call themselves a "Neo-Aristotelian". When this is said outside the department, it's met with either mocking laughter or naive reverential awe. Nowadays metaphysics seems to be a punching bag for the left and a sacred cow for the right.

I suspect a common motivation to think "metaphysically" is from prior religious commitments. It does seem as though many Christians, for example, use theology as a substitute for faith. Theology is the sophisticated and gold-plated "science of God". At least certain forms of theology, I don't want to generalize here. But certainly the sort of "public theology" or "public metaphysics" that is really just apologetics. It's disingenuous, I think, to pretend (this sort) metaphysics isn't secretly apologetics.

However may this psychologizing be accurate, it nonetheless does not replace the argument itself. A metaphysical theory can be assessed and judged true or false. These conservatives may very well think that much is to be gained by bringing metaphysics back. A re-awakening of sorts.

But the reality is, I think, that any "importance" this sort of metaphysics has is inherently going to be political. It doesn't really supplement the natural sciences and it seems to at least sometimes even contradict the social sciences. Metaphysics is the smokescreen for a political ideology, in particular a conservative nostalgia for a more hierarchical society.

I'm weary of discussing the pains of existence. Prayer, meditation and music are more expedient, and less intrusive to others.

Nothing is gained by these discussions. The same people say the same things and nothing ever changes, nobody ever convinces anyone else. Philosophy is irritating after a while because of this. It's clearly narcissistic, auto-erotic, libido. Every argument is an erection.

Awareness is a curse. But it's better to try to make peace with the world instead of waging war against it. Nothing is going to change, no sophisticated argument is going to convince people not to have children because having children is not an action undertook by reason. It's a lost cause to try to find reason where there is none, assuming that is your real intention.

Torturous pain is the acceleration of the structural pain of living. In a sense, the structural pain is almost imperceptible torture. It's a sigh, rather than a scream.

Yep, we cannot think the unthinkable. Objectivity is already subjectivity.

Well, regardless, you're still making moral claims here, and extremely passionate ones at that. Nobody ever said a moral evaluation of mankind has to paint it in a good light.

You are correct in that humans are the most murderous and destructive species on the planet.

But it is a non-sequitur to assert that because of this, moral progress cannot occur. I agree that we should not rest on our laurels. But we can and must make a distinction between the past and the present. And we have made progress, even if it doesn't justify the carnage that we have and continue to inflict on ourselves, other species and the planet at large.

The 'moral progress' of the white westerner comes at the cost of continued slavery, in the 'third world' and the moral ugliness of humanity is lately transferred onto the other species with whom we share the earth. — Marcus de Brun

This has a moral seriousness to it. You degrade the moral progress of the West because it comes at a great cost, which is a moral claim.

'Moral progress' my arse, humanity is as ugly as he has ever been, perhaps more so when one considers what morals might be achieved at the cost of his guns. — Marcus de Brun

...or at least, is an aesthetic claim. Not that I necessarily disagree, since I think morality is probably aesthetic.

What is good and what is bad, what is right and what is wrong, ultimately intersects at the human being and what she ought to do. When she does her duty, she is praised for her character. When she fails to do her duty, she is condemned for being a bad person.

Ethics (or morality, philosophers use the terms interchangeably) differs from aesthetics only insofar as it prescribes behavior in accordance to an aesthetic ideal. Goodness, righteousness, these are aesthetic dimensions of the highest degree.

If you see an elephant and no one else can see it, the objective reality of the elephant becomes increasingly less likely. — Marcus de Brun

What are your thoughts, then, on moral progress? Civil rights advocacy?

What we see as morally correct today often was a minority view in the past and these appeals to the majority population were used to silence them.

You waste my time by being a useless troll.