the thrall of profound ignorance of, and helplesslessness before, the fact of imminent decay dying & death (i.e. mortality) and told themselves self-consoling fairytales and made propitiating sacrifices to 'good fairies for "protection" from evil fairies' as ritualized anti-anxiety terror management (i.e. religion). — 180 Proof

That's all well and good, seems to fill in all the gaps quite nicely and whatnot, but surely you've left out another just as equally profound line of questioning: Purpose.

Put yourself in the shoes of primeval man, or even modern man, a distinction I find to be quite fleeting at times. Why strive? To accumulate, to spread one's genes throughout the biosphere not unlike a common cold germ, experience pleasure and perhaps a bit of profound discovery and enlightenment (somehow), then hit the sack for good and all, knowing inevitably all one's worth and accomplishment will go the way of the morning dew on the grass blades of eternity? Surely there must be more to existence than that? Surely man's place in the universe is more than that of a glorified cold germ? Surely...! It would seem man has yet another unique ability to distinguish himself from the animals: uncanny ability to create purpose when there is none. Something from nothing, the hallmark of the divine. Ideological alchemy in the purest and grandest of ways! That and that alone is reason to believe, in at least the possibility, there is more to existence than can be known or is currently known in the course of man's lifetime. Perhaps? :confused:

... or as opposed to the truth: "I, the Lord thy God, shall condemn thee to suffer and die. :roll: — 180 Proof

Well that's surely harsh, no doubt. But are Man's decrees and punishments not both beyond on par but surpassing in both fastidiousness and cruelty? "Look at me wrong, I'll beat you up", "Take my overpriced new sneakers, I'll kill you", etc, etc. I could go on. We are of no moral ground to talk let alone compare. Absolutely none whatsoever.

I mean, imagine giving something everything they could ever want and more, literally paradise and perfection. No suffering, no harm, and it still not being good enough. It'd be annoying, wouldn't you say? ONE rule. Not ten, not twelve, not the thousands upon thousands of ordinance and code we have today. One. Again, annoying.

Besides, just to stick to the tale, since that's the subject at hand, the "happy ending" per se was "(but) God so loved the world he gave his only begotten Son so that Man would not die but have everlasting life". So, bingo bango, order restored. Happy ending. Cue the mariachi band. :up:

(Again, just going by the chronological "factual" order of the story, as that happens to be subject of discussion)

The serpent actually tells the truth in the story. — Tom Storm

I realize the majority of participants in this thread view this as a debate in fiction, but regardless, let's examine the tale a bit closer. The warning was "If ye eat from the Tree, ye will surely die", as opposed to "instantly die". Similar to how if you go outside in subzero temperatures or unarmed in a wilderness of wild animals you will "not die" as in, upon doing so, you will be just fine. But. Given time. You see.

Fast forward to today. Mankind has almost exterminated all life on Earth, multiple times, by sheer accident. So, I don't know. Sounds like it holds water to me. :smirk:

I personally don't know whether this is posted with mischief or my lack of 'fluency' is actually the cause of not performing a good discussion. — javi2541997

I think it's likely the chastiser believes you are not absorbing or fully understanding the deeper subtleties and "theme" or argument of certain complex, multi-faceted topics.

I consider myself highly proficient in English and there are many topics that I struggle to properly grasp in full on first read. Or in layman's terms, that fry my brain. I majorly use this site in betwixt other PC work and so have the main part of my brain "occupied" with whatever it is I am working on and as a result prefer simpler, shorter more general philosophy type topics like the ones @Shawn often posts. I look at my brain as something of a multi-range oven. Most life tasks and many threads here I can easily multi-task with "one burner" per se, however many require me to have to "clear the range" and intensely focus on specifically, word for word, concept by concept, to even begin to get a vague picture of. And even then I find myself having difficulty and the need to ask superfluous questions to make sure I'm even in the right ballpark mentally with what I conclude the poster is conveying or intending to convey. In short, don't feel bad. There are many high level discussions of concepts here that are difficult to understand, even by those who introduced them. Don't be afraid to ask questions. But also don't feel discouraged by the fact that some discussions will simply be at a higher level of understanding and proficiency than is currently possessed.

You define freedom as defiance to God. You are the serpent. :grimace: — BitconnectCarlos

Oh come now. I can assure you @180 Proof is far from the one who masquerades as an angel of Light. Far. :lol:

A bit stubborn, perhaps, we might not see eye to eye, but there's been nary a time I observed him speak with ill-logic or intent!

To rephrase his interpretation, let's frame it under the context of an old-fashioned parent, who has seen all there is to see, and more, and that of a fledgling child. The child questions the outside world, becomes enchanted in its delights and mysteries, wholly unaware of the pitfalls and dangers that he himself is unable to fathom! In the context of magic and lore, talking serpents, and whatnot, surely there are dangers man is not prepared for, despite his ability to convince himself otherwise. To judge a man for his own limitation, nay, to damn him, is what makes one a serpent in my book, I dare contend. :smirk:

And this is why my former English teacher was right again in his philosophy of "never discussing religion or politics with anyone" no matter how hard I pressed him on the two. :rofl:

magical quests for "immortality" — 180 Proof

Isn't everything a magical quest for immortality, when you think about it, really? We (people in general, not necessarily anyone reading) seek to prolong and yes even immortalize ourselves and ideas with medicine, philosophy, networking, friends, relationships, rearing children, science, sure it's of a different flavor but is it not all the same at the end of one's weary day? We wish to become more than we are or were the previous day, this is not anything mystical or bewildering or some sort of hocus pocus from a book, this is the real most unrefined nature of who we are as a species, to become greater and break free from our mortal shackles as most concretely and effectively as can be done. We have done this through intellectual evolution and philosophical intercourse with one another's ideas and identity on a level that truly transcends the physical into the metaphysical or spiritual, through scientific advancement, which all began from a simple "unrealistic" idea in one's mind! It's all the same, friend! I do contend. Religion gives man the blueprint for the impossible to become possible. Through simple faith yes often in a higher power but also indirectly in one's self and potential to continue on, to thrive, to grow, to take challenges and defeat with a smile and hearty laugh, knowing even in one's defeat and yes even death, seeds were left behind, be they physical such as writings, unfinished plans, half-built inventions, or conceptual such as ideas from those who perished hundreds of years ago that we discuss as if their authors were alive this very moment in the same room as us! All actions, even failures, become the most powerful stepping stones for future generations that remain strong, everlasting throughout the ages if we only have the will, the spirit to pioneer and truck on, knowing that while the body may die, the spirit, be it physical as religious texts purport or conceptual as simple observation confirms, truly does live on in others! This I believe is the essence of all great religion!

I'm asserting that if we aim to change course, i.e. switch the mode we're in (what we're doing right now) it changes the future indirectly. — Barkon

This seems, at face value, at least to me, to be lacking in the depth or profoundness you yourself may find in it.

Short anecdote - and I promise it's related - during a tragedy, religious leaders often attempt to console the grieving by stating "God has a plan" or "it was part of God's plan". Which I've often observed if not delivered in the most delicate and tactful of ways and timing, can actually become quite infuriating, unsatisfying at least. It makes one, at least internally. question: "Oh so if I decide to take out a knife and stab you right now, that's part of God's plan too?!" Point being, I think your premise needs a bit of "dressing up" to be as profound or satisfying to others as you yourself find it to be. :smile:

I'm not sure I understand your point. — Relativist

No worries there, me and @Patterner are of one mind when it comes to understanding the underlying premise of the thread itself! :smile:

I heard once an argument, based on determinism I believe, that in theory a supercomputer could predict the future if, as you said, every painful, excruciating detail of every physical and environmental aspect of a given thing could be known. So for example, a bridge built in 1957. If somehow a computer could know the exact composition of every atom in the steel of the bridge, it's exact number of vehicles traveled and their weight, as well as any environmental factors such as salinity of the air that affect corrosion or weakening of integrity, etc, etc. x1000 for every single other factor (of which it admittedly is virtually impossible to. though not technically impossible) it could be predicted an exact date and time when the bridge would collapse and by what type of vehicle, etc. If that makes sense. Basically in short, your statement of "everything is based on factors" such as the rock being pushed and if every single factor was known (force, resistance, etc) basically any movement, trajectory, or location could in theory be determined. I was just suggesting the modern presence of certain factors that truly cannot be determined (random computer generation or glitches in technology), similar but NOT like the flipping of a coin (I had a debate earlier which a person asserted a coin flip is in fact not random as, much like your rock example, could in theory be measured by force, friction, etc.) whereas a true random event such as random number generation or a glitch cannot. I think? That's all I was trying to bring up, at least. The introduction of modern technology that creates truly random outcomes not based on any measurable or observable factors prior to said outcome, unlike a coin flip or dice roll.

No alternative decision could have been made given that specific set of factors. — Relativist

What about playing the lottery and having one's life changed by a random computer algorithm? Or a computer glitch that affects a streetlight causing a collision or death?

This thread turned out to be much more readable and robust than I thought it would. :smile:

Imagine? Try being a woman in sub-Saharan Africa.

Been there, done that. No thanks, OP. Hard pass. :up:

And no not in some distant past, I mean right now as you're reading this.

As well, I'm sure has or will be mentioned, people like to be rewarded for their contributions. If you're a raving intellect, and perhaps your peers have ostracized you or even worse, or perhaps you just don't consider them worthy of benefiting from your intellect, you become very disinclined to do anything but what can be called "quiet quitting", which as an intellect even your bare nearly-unconscious minimal effort far exceeds that which is "sufficient". So you live a quiet life, finding peace where you may, often in the bottle of a drink, and like always, because of the dregs of society, that society fails to progress. Or perhaps you have a bitter personal rivalry between a social better or even the leader for I don't know what's the classic, misappropriating your beloved, often due to circumstance outside any involved parties control (say the person was simply born larger than you and as a result would defeat you in a fight and due to the benighted nature of the society views that as some sort of character or quality of identity and great metaphysical worth and value instead of the transient happenstance it is, or perhaps is simply wealthier due to being born into a position, etc), and you don't want him to take credit for your work of exponentially improving the society, or something like that.

Whereas in this modern "free market" ownership type system, you can effectively work for yourself, make what you need to make, copyright it, make it private or closed-source, earn your money, and shoot even fly the coop to go to an entirely different nation or land and benefit them, leaving your doubting peers in the innovative dust and darkness they so desperately tried to sentence and prescribed unto you. So it works the way it is, sure there's some downside, but it's the only way you're going to get work out of certain people. So again, literally, "it works" :grin:

I don't think there's anything establishing that indulging in sexual desires dominated political, social or economic decisions in antiquity, or influenced them in any significant sense. — Ciceronianus

Perhaps a better way to put it would be the following. The culmination of all human relationships (a man, no matter if it be a leader, a merchant, or an unskilled laborer, and his life companion) is influenced predominantly by... who you find attractive ie. who you want to have relations with. All decisions made are impacted and influenced by, if not in part, by what the person's significant other thinks. So sexuality is an omnipresent factor in every facet of activity or thought by default, if not in the background after being the sole or principle "cause" for setting up, basically every form of non-platonic relationship. So to expand on that, let's remove every person who already has a romantic partner, without forgetting sexual indulgence or attraction was at minimum a significant factor in establishing that relationship to begin with and as a result every act or failure to act that occurs after that point. So, no matter what position you are, a political leader, a relatively well-off merchant, or struggling laborer without such a partner, it is not unreasonable to suggest, you want to find either A.) a wife or B.) an attractive partner to have by your side to feel complete and not lonely. Fair? So, you will likely work to make that happen, be it as a leader either freeing up your time perhaps neglecting your job or perhaps bringing glory through conquest or some sort of socially-praised act that is likely to result in obtaining such a person. Or as a merchant, you might wish to open up another shop or start selling items that single women might buy so as to again, produce a result or environment where it is more likely for you to obtain such a person based on, sexual desire. Even the struggling laborer, why does he work? To eat and sustain himself yes, but also to be able to support and thus encourage the likelihood of finding, a romantic partner, to satisfy his sexual desire. Or perhaps it can be romanticized yes, absent of overwhelming physical desire, perhaps any one of these individuals just wants company from a fellow person, to raise a happy home and bring glory and honor to his family, those before him, and his empire. Guess what? 9 times out of 10 he's still going to prefer his partner to be sexually attractive to satisfy that primal urge every man and woman has, an urge that left unchecked will also 9 times out of 10 override logic or better judgement at least on occasion, often at the most unfortunate times. All is fair in love and war, after all. This is the "bulk" of my argument: Unchecked sexual desire makes logic and judgement go out the window like NO other thing can! No it is not "established" or "announced" when a man kills another man out of jealous rage, but also 9 times out of 10 there is a woman involved, which means the act was ultimately brought about by sexual desire.

So, not to get personal, it is none of my business, but I doubt you or anyone reading has not acted or chosen not to act based on the likelihood of said action or inaction resulting in gaining the attention, admiration, or affection of the desired sex for reasons beyond being a nice person. And we're intellectuals. So double or triple that for the average, especially relatively-uneducated citizenry in older times. Imagine if, instead, every action or inaction that affected other people was based on what is best for oneself and others intellectually and morally, instead of what appeases one's primal sensibilities, an appeasement that as I said earlier easily becomes confused with the Great virtues and values in life such as love, honor, etc.

I'm not even personally agreeing or disagreeing with anything, I'm sure you're right about what your asserting, I just find your reply as I happen to interpret it as glossing over a few very important underlying dynamics that seem to suggest, absent of education (theology or morality of any flavor), man is not first and foremost guided if not largely influenced by primal desire, the most prominent (or overlapping, universally connected? ie. likely to influence other emotions) of which being sexuality. I would find that a very difficult claim to defend to say the least.

I voted no. Not that I wouldn't, I just prefer the community here, as well as the traditional forum platform. Nothing seems to be "missing", at least nothing that PSE would offer. I'm sure like all communities there's great minds and contributors there as well. Based on very little I conclude people who sign up for TPF are 100% focused on philosophy whereas on the StackExchange network many of the participants who clicked "join StackExchange Philosophy mini-site" from their exhaustive list of profound topics likely might have only a passing or casual interest in philosophy or were just bored.

Also, possibly somewhat of a Lounge topic. Still, welcome to TPF!

I think you give sex far too much importance, as did Paul and others did after him. — Ciceronianus

It could have been sorcery or addiction to shopping or marijuana or drunkenness, that was my point it wasn't what happened to be the most life-controlling it was the fact that it was. Whether the majority of society "viewed" it as good or bad or casual or not, I'm merely referencing the biological fact it's the easiest form of influence over a person's life, be they man or woman. I get your argument the person who engages in casual sex often and is in no short supply begins to view it as little more than reading a book or completing a puzzle, just another thing that happens, of no more significance that a cloudy afternoon or running into a neighbor at a local market, easily, as you're suggesting "the least important thing in the world and couldn't be further from the forefront of daily thought in one's mind", because it has already become a background controlling factor that has quietly influenced nearly all decision and indecision from as early as the person can remember despite, if asked, their honest belief of the opposite. That was my assertion, at least. The insidious nature of over-indulgence of the flesh and it's quiet, subtle as well as not so quiet and subtle controlling grip over man's destiny and most consequentially, society itself, whether it manifests as a conscious urge or theme one recognizes and responds to or has quietly become part of one's identity and character or community zeitgeist without it consciously being in people's minds as "important" or "occupying", ie. the measurable effect and influence remains pivotal whether or not it is viewed as such or even pondered at all, similar to unconscious bias.

If we threw away everything or better yet were forbidden by law to use anything invented or that came about as an invention by way of a person who's view we didn't share, well, that'd make for mighty simple living now wouldn't it? :grin:

What are your main disagreeances or suggestions for alternate interpretation you think could lead to greater understanding or utility of his works in the simplest most direct way and why?

eg. Debater A believes when Wittgenstein claims/makes reference to X it alludes to Y, while I believe X is actually a case against Y in favor of Z... etc, etc.

You can't convince everyone of your view. If it's not well-received, one might consider that ought be the end of it. If you're right or have something to offer the discussion those involved are choosing to ignore, their loss, no? You can lead a horse to water. No need to beat it to the death if it's not particularly thirsty. :chin:

The old society had some good ideas. You would be permitted to have children if and only if you performed some legendary task of heroics or invented something society-changing or happened to be selected by random lottery. It was a privilege one earned voted on by those who proved their worth and intellect, not a right. If not, you were free to have a wonderful, dignified life, unless you broke the law, in which case you were banished to the wilderness, a de facto death sentence, but not always. It was going quite well actually. Until, through lack of foresight, enough of the banished managed to survive and became numerous enough to overthrow the ruling society. And here we are today. War, suffering, overpopulation, and all. Perhaps order will be restored someday. Until then, here are some, a bit more pragmatic, thoughts for your consideration:

Suffering, being a pronounced, elevated, and prolonged state of undesirable emotion or sensation? Many types of suffering are self-inflicted or otherwise easily-preventable. This would require removal of free will and personal autonomy in favor of government mandate over what a person can or cannot do and say. This would lead to more suffering, whether or not it ultimately reduces suffering writ-large. Other forms of preventable suffering, and biologically-related suffering (hunger, thirst, exposure to the elements, etc.) become equally as complex to solve. A scenario or thought experiment I like to go to that seems reliable is the "last man on Earth" scenario. What if, everybody, and everything other people invented, were to disappear, right now? No one to blame for anything, the world is literally yours and yours alone. Would you still not only eat by the sweat of your brow? Have dangers such as finding and maintaining shelter, avoiding predators, and sheltering from natural events or disasters, and even being entertained and not losing one's sanity? As you can see, it's not so simple. Sure as a result of the progress man and society has made, all efforts and struggles across the board should be lessened as in this case society is not the sum of its parts, but something far greater. Still, a world without suffering, is a world without personal choice and excitement, as if there is no risk for negative, there is no purpose or appreciation for the positive.

Inequality is another one. People will always be unequal in some way. There will always be someone stronger, someone smarter, someone happier than you, regardless of if we were all born with the same "starter class" as if beginning a new fantasy RPG. Because life is not an RPG, it's life. The cosmic role of the die decides whether or not we are born tall, short, strong, meek, or even disabled as well as into a rich or respected or large family or abandoned at a stranger's doorstep. That's why it's life. It goes back to the classic socio-economic questions: Should we cease rewarding people for being productive and ingenious and would this not weaken a society that does so where other societies that do not get ahead and advance in all ways, inevitably gaining the means and eventually rationale to overpower the former? Do we completely devalue the responsibilities of creating life to a "meh. I feel like having a kid today. Other people will take care of it so, I don't have anything else planned today, guess I'mma go do that now" attitude toward life itself leading to inevitable overpopulation? This would only increase suffering.

One man's punishment is another man's cruelty, and yet another man's mockery of justice. Goldilock's and the Three Bears, one bowl too hot, one bowl too cold, and but one just right. Some say punishment is too severe, some say it's not severe enough. If someone accidentally kills your child through no intent ie. drunk driving or firing a gun during New Years, you will likely opt for the severest punishment even if you discovered the perpetrator was suffering or perhaps experienced a similar loss whereas an outside observer especially one who never felt the same pain or is ineligible to (does not have a child) may wish to be more sympathetic as "it could happen to anyone and was a freak accident", etc. Even in a wholly fictional "perfect" utopian government and resulting system of justice with zero corruption, racial, social, or economic bias, something ran by an AI for example, it still can't be everywhere at once. Evidence can still be erroneous or erroneously produced (placing fingerprints or other evidence, or people flat-out lying in unison). So like most negatives in life they can only be greatly reduced, unlikely to be eliminated altogether. Such attempts to have done so only resulted in unfathomable amounts of suffering before ultimately leading nowhere.

Death is part of life. Health and safety is a factor. Again, requires government mandates and restriction. Should we imprison people found smoking or eating fast food more than 3 days a week in order to prolong their own life? Outlaw extreme sports or hobbies such as scuba diving, skiing, or mountain climbing? You see where it becomes difficult. Again, a world without suffering is a world without personal choice.

A fun thread. Possibly more Lounge material but interestingly similar to something I discussed with others before.

I believe it was called "Royal madness" or "King's disease" where a ruler who seemingly has no struggle, challenge, or any of the normal hardhship or monotony that reminds us we are human begins to think one of the following:

- He's not real (whether he died or went to an after life where he is being rewarded or perhaps in some sort of coma or dream

- Nothing else is real (similar to the cases above, seeing as any item or experience that is known to exist can be presented to him nearly immediately without question, also by the fact a monarchs' Will becomes the highest Law, he might begin to notice things that exist only in his mind seeming to manifest in the world around him without his "saying" or "doing" leading one to believe in the possibility he is in fact in some sort of simulation, this is the most powerful of the "symptoms")

Not dissimilar to something like this:


However to remind you as a valued newcomer of the rules of engagement one might call them, do check out this thread when you have a moment. Doing so ensures you make the most of your time here as well as that of others. Cheers. :smile:

sex-hating — Ciceronianus

I'm rather certain his disapproval and concerns lie in the greater more generalized danger of over-indulgence and the effects it can have on not just people but entire societies when one allows his or her life to become warped and inevitably controlled by intrinsically purposeless (albeit enjoyable) pursuits, recreational sex naturally being the most dangerous, likely to sway individuals both rich and poor, be they strong or meek, morally-upright and pious or not. It rightfully holds such a reputation as it (sex for pleasure) is often confused, especially by the young or uneducated, with being among the Great qualities and pursuits in life man strives to achieve: love, health, honor, and family. In societies where these formerly great values have become corrupted, the victims of that society then begin to view mindless whoredom as the pinnacle and sought after sum or culmination of all life purpose and effort. It is in no short part because, we, especially when young or uneducated, tend to view sexual relations as the ultimate form of personal acceptance, and as a result the ultimate form of worth or value, and conversely, the ultimate form of rejection and worthlessness. This corruption, this animal-like social dynamic man has been given the tools and intellectual capacity to leave behind as the first upright mammal left behind his former place wallowing in the dust of the Earth is what he valiantly tried, and succeeded for a time, to prevent.

So like most things, it was not the thing itself, but the principle behind it, in this case the lack of one, the dangers of blind indulgence, corruption and destruction of intellectual and moral values, and the resulting tendency of these things, especially when conducted in unison, to destroy societies and as a result end entire civilizations writ-large.

You will, then, be good enough to make clear exactly what does happen when I - or anyone - reads a book. — tim wood

I see his point. Your saying by allowing the written words and stories of those much like yourself to enrich your life and instill the values they were meant to instill and have instilled unto those who were presently involved in the story, you yourself are now effectively part of that story, or at least able to gleam a sufficient amount of experience and culture from said tales to a comparable degree of those who lived in/during said times and to place yourself within the story as if you yourself were there. He is saying that's still more living vicariously, a lesser depth or dimension than that of those who the story was literally about or involved chiefly due to the fact such tales despite any level of detail and depth of perspective will always fall short to that of a person who was born and raised in such a time as that was literally their reality and all they've ever known from birth til death, a reality that cannot be "visited" and "unvisited" the way we can choose to read or not read a book and so remains more of a cultural enrichment or immersion activity similar to a trip to another country as opposed to full on cultural transcendence and ultimate understanding.

led the world in conquest — Lionino

Sigh. I'll bite.

So that's a good thing now? What if someone "conquests" you of your wallet and blood pressure levels by way of a stabbing on your next morning walk? Don't call 911 or bother other people now. Make sure you lay there and die with honor following your principles to your last breath lest you survive and live a life of shameful hypocrisy upon discovering the shocking revelation seldom reserved to only the most profound of intellects (and most ten-year-olds) that doing bad things might actually be bad after all. :smirk:

The strategy of the weak, because it is weak, is to demonise the consequences of the strongest, even though the weak, if it were in the position of the strong, would have acted much much worse. — Lionino

All true. Though, one might ought to think twice before assuming which side of the divide one truly belongs to. Those who can remain consistent in their virtues and values despite hardship, remaining a product of themselves despite difficulty, who avoided being molded into monsters by the world around them, instead mastering their own life and level of contentedness without succumbing to the worst of human nature and all that is universally detestable: greed, theft, deception, violence, indifference, dishonor, and savagery are the strong, not the other way around. But as you say, it is the strategy of the weak to convince themselves and others otherwise. A winning one at that, it would seem. :smile:

Besides. There was probably much lying, deception, and other means of dishonor, not to mention sheer luck. Furthermore, being stronger than a person, which again has yet to be established, does not make others weak other than by means of a one-off snapshot comparison. This is a common phenomenon often observed in those with deep-seated inferiority complexes and related neurosis, doomed to a life of psychological projection, constantly seeing their own inferior qualities they desperately wish to conceal from the world and themselves in others, manifested as inability to avoid condescending feelings upon observation of others. And anyway, me thinks you confuse quantity with quality. A common mistake. As well as that last assertion of being "much much worse" being little more than an out-of-left-field claim of baseless conjecture.

Come on Lio, I read your posts. You're a smart cookie. Surely you can do much better than that. Surely the good readers of TPF deserve better than this pseudo-intellectual juvenile hoodlum talk you're peddling and granting us the displeasure of having to ingest this Thursday morning. :smirk:

And I'm all for Europe. But what I won't stand for is having Her represented by such a poor, shortsighted, poison-welled, empty-headed excuse of a defense of integrity and value. Again. Do better.

Where did THIS come from (and it is not a question of causality)? — Constance

This is an interesting question. I was going to suggest something along the lines of "fear is a result of memory or a bad experience, whether or not that experience actually happened to you or was simply created in your mind by another or even yourself". However this is not true as an infant can be made afraid by loud noises or startling them or something of that nature. Is that really fear though? Surely not the same depth as the fear a grown man might feel if a letter from the IRS or a policeman shows up at his house, but is it perhaps the same essence ultimately or something completely different? A curious question indeed.

My, are you on a roll today, @Constance. :smile:

Perhaps, linking the two examples, fear is a physiological response to one or more stimuli, either active (say, a loud noise or the sudden, unexpected presence of a possible danger) or passive (a thought or possibility on one's mind that has the potential to become disastrous), that causes a distinct feeling of unease due to the possibility of loss of control or well-being? :chin:

Basically, what you said.

the oldest discovered, and possibly due to the destructive sands of time, discoverable proto-language is Proto-Afro-Asiatic — Lionino

:up:

We learn new things about those before us near every day. Sadly, or perhaps not, some things will remain lost to the ages.

The point is this: if the world were simply as a scientist describes it to be, that is, an ethcailly neutral place of quantitative descriptions and systems of quantitative pragmatic categories, then there would be no religion for there would be ground for it. But this is not the world. Science cannot quantify ethics (notwithstanding Bentham's hedonic calculator, essentially a quantification calculator") because ethics is a qualitative issue. The world is not reducible to science's quantifications. The world is the source of all value, and because of this, the world presents the very possibility of ethics; therefore, the world IS an ethical "agency". It IS the transcendental source of ethics. — Constance

Huh. Interesting take. A few follow-ups, just to clarify any confusion I and perhaps others may have as well:

"Science cannot quantify ethics"

Surely that depends on what one chooses to define ethics as. In a simple definition of what is largely perceived to be right or wrong by a given social majority based on absolute factors such as human suffering, malaise, and distress compared to comfort, pleasure, and contentedness, again, more so or "as the majority of normal functioning humans respond and demonstrate", it most certainly has some form of measurement or quantification. How could it not?

"The world is not reducible to science's quantifications"

So what is "the world" in the absolute most definitive and concrete form of understanding? Surely not the physical planet we reside on but "existence" or the Universe, rather one with sentient beings capable of identifying themselves apart from others and their environment as unique entities that have free will to perform or not perform certain actions? Something like that, no?

What I want to say is, to even reach the precondition of being able to talk definitively about something, be it a physical thing or a conceptual idea, one must in fact, have a solid understanding of the thing in question, or in simpler terms "know what one is talking about". So, while it may not necessarily be :reducible" to the given quantification or standards of a given science, it surely has to be well-defined by concrete definitions and boundaries that enable it to be discussed and declared as "this or that" as opposed to something else. In short, it has to be, perhaps "reducible" is not the ideal term but rather "indisputably definable" in some way that effectively does enable it to be discussed and declared as having quality X or not having quality Y, etc.

"The world is the source of all value"

I think this is an interesting claim for reasons I will attempt to explain. You mention just as logic itself requires a brain but discussing logic itself does not require discussion of the brain itself. Imagine, if you will, a world devoid of all sentient life. Where would ethics fit in? Where would value fit in if there is no one to value or be valued or be ethically treated or mistreated? Some might argue WE as sentient beings, rather consciousness, is the source of all value. Sure we live in a physical world and as such we value physical things required for survival, but does your above statement not have some correlation to your previous example of how discussing logic, which requires a brain, does not require discussing the brain itself?

Example, what if, somehow, right now, the two of us were in a non-physical world with just our consciousness floating around in some metaphysical vacuum with no physicality anywhere, like ghosts or something. I could value your company, I could value your insight, I could value the fact I'm not alone or even simply that I am self-aware and thinking (I think. therefore I am) even if the "world" as it is commonly understood were to vanish, could I not?

What a fascinating thinker you are! I greatly look forward to your reply. :grin:

what are the necessary conditions for a problem to be an ethical problem? — Constance

Condition A.) Involvement or presence of a sentient being and Condition B.) the possibility for that sentient being to be impacted by the action or inaction of another sentient being through no action or declared will and intent of their own (ie. against their own will or sans consideration/input).

It is incredibly broad and open-ended, yes.

One of the fundamental questions of existence: Why? For no reason whatsoever? Just a result of a vast near limitless universe where every possible combination of planetary factors, collisions, and lack thereof just so happened to result in a place where eventually every genetic variation possible occurred that just so happened to produce the only advanced, intelligent, thinking species that engages in complex thought and communication and have managed to master every frontier available to us as a result of random, nuanced evolution while, somehow, the closest match, supposedly one notch down is a wild, mute occasional-biped running around throwing fecal matter at one another? That just adds up perfectly fine to you, case closed, no further questions? Not to some. Which begs an explanation. Religion offers this explanation.

And of course for all the psychological benefits, if scrutinized from an atheistic point of view. It's helpful. So why not let people be helped?

the avoidance of pain will lead to being content in life — Shawn

Not to be churlish but surely you could have led with a better example to showcase Schopenhauer's genius and resulting effect on your life to those currently unaware. I can't say I find that specific mantra to be particularly dripping with profound wisdom. Makes me picture a warning label on an imported cutting board placed there by an overachieving translator.

On a serious note I'm likely less acquainted with him than yourself, but from a quick, nuanced read of his popular works and ideas, I have to say at least a few of them definitely seem to "leap out" at me as if he took exactly what I feel at times and put it into words I myself have yet to. Particularly this gem: "Life presents, in fact, a more or less violent oscillation between the two (pain and boredom)."

The man was clearly a genius, and like the old saying goes "ignorance is bliss", meaning I'm sure he was far, far from a blissful person - at least in a natural state but learned how to become content despite his likely (at times) burdensome intellect and resulting capacity to experience and understand pain and suffering at levels most are fortunately spared from - and in doing so helped others like him and those who aspire to be like him, fundamentally changing the intellectual world for the better in the process.

I'm sure not every single belief he held or declared is without some folly or shortcoming, some scenario where his wisdom would appear to fall short or otherwise be without any room for improvement or adaptation for the better. The world is a chaotic, violent place and those who fail to recognize this as a great and solemn truth merely delude themselves, I would say. Now, you could also say it doesn't have to be, at least it can be improved so as to make the world of tomorrow a literal world of difference by avoiding or rather properly dealing with some of the common behaviors, frames of mind, and patterns of thinking associated with overthinking about or focusing on the negatives of the world we live in. He seems to have found his own way to have done so, measurably and indisputably beneficial to others as well despite there being a seemingly overshadowing theme of pessimism to some readers. Some things can be simplified, others can only be oversimplified.

In short, the man had an idea and ran with it. It obviously resonated with enough people, in that era, and even in our own to have turned into something we're still discussing a good 200 years later. Sometimes we ask ourselves the wrong questions at the right times. Was he "right"? Should his beliefs be declared law of the land and mandatory in public education for the good of humanity as a whole? Perhaps. Perhaps not. What matters is, did his influence help guide you to become a better, more content, dare I say realized, human being or better still, did it help refine the image of the ideal person you can still be and have yet to become?

The first (and often last) types of societies were nomadic hunter-gatherers. There was no permanent housing, furniture, or storage as it was not needed or rather had no place in such a civilization. Once man was able to master the land and protect himself from the elements society progressed to an agrarian type where there was something along the lines of 6 months work farming followed by harvest followed by 6 months of winter where, depending on the harvest the society was able to continue. From there food could be stored and effort shifted to producing goods and infrastructure that finally had a place to reside for more than a season or couple of years. This was the dawn of the age of thinkers as man now had more free time and didn't have to carry around a spear all day completely enshrouded by a constant fight-or-flight frame of mind from dawn til dusk. This however still wasn't good enough as some harvests were unsuccessful at times and famines were a real and present civilization-ending danger. Those that did manage to survive became industrial societies as man now had means to produce food regardless of the elements or natural hardships slowly shifting the social dynamic from a solely goods producing economy to a service-based economy. Of course, the industrial age produced a need for something never required before: energy. Not counting horsepower and oxen plows. In ending one existential threat man has unwittingly unleashed another more drastic one: pollution.

Every nation on earth could come together tomorrow and end all war and legislate birthrates but unless we find a better source of energy or means of procuring it with less negative output, we would still be in hot water. Literally.

The science fiction type ideas of "nutrition pills" and cold fusion "limitless energy" would seem to be the Holy Grail of sustainability mankind is looking for. Paths to such such as lab-grown meat, insect based diets, and electric cars (still at-present ultimately powered by fossil fuels) are met with resistance. The microcosm is the same as the macrocosm. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. What would work for a small town of 500, can work for a country of 500 million, which can work for a world of 5 billion.

But to answer the question.

Are we doomed to ever expanding-consumption and ever-expanding resource extraction and production? — BC

Not likely. We're far more likely to either be destroyed (or at least have society fundamentally reorganized or altered) by a cosmic ELE (extinction level event) or run out of resources to extract. To avoid coming off as tongue-in-cheek I will return to the following and suggest innovation has continued to grow at exponential rates, offering a shining light of hopeful possibility towards sustainability or at the very least a much longer road to kick the can further along. :smile:

According to Harry Frankfurter (the respectable late philosopher), the highest good seems to be 'love'. — Shawn

A solid statement to make, assuredly. But what is love in this sense? By most definitions it alludes to a feeling of admiration that transcends (is devoid of any and all or is otherwise operating outside of the realm of) logic. If this is true, how useful is such a quality in philosophy, really? Does it not make philosophical discourse into little more than a game of favorites based on transient states of favor not fixed in any deeper absolute truth or concrete value?

Well, I think the confusion can be mitigated about the quality of value by asserting that it exists in degrees of greatness, yes? So, if love is something we value, then I believe that it seems to exist in a category of its own. — Shawn

Value is certainly, in most cases, non-binary, I agree. I'm semi-artistic, but nothing at all in comparison to others. One can be a tad miffed at something just as one can be overwhelmingly infuriated, yes. A sign can be reddish-purple or flat out bright red. A person can be a bit misdirected and misguided without being flat out lost and bumbling around mindlessly, etc, etc. However, one cannot be "a little bit" pregnant, for example. Rough example but a valid one of a quality that is in fact binary or otherwise limited to a dual state of either "committed" or not. But for most conceptual things, I would agree.

Could there not be different types of a single value each with varying degrees, though? Take love, for example. There's platonic, romantic, and one other I believe. You could love someone as a brother but hate them as a friend, no?

I don't think the disambiguation or delineating what is good and what is of value is entirely a semantic issue. Again, if you want to go in this direction I believe in the very subjectivity of 'value' is to be associated with relativism or postmodernism if that's how you want this discussion to delve into... — Shawn

Just my personal difficulty in understanding the concept as I believe it to be intended, is all. Nothing more. :smile:

If you could replace 'value' with a single word, what would it be? Worth? (to whom?) Characteristic? (intrinsic and absolute or circumstantial based on social or environmental factors?) Something else?

I enjoy your threads as they're often brief and to the point, allowing even those ignorant of common philosophical models and -isms such as myself room to jump in and postulate from a beginner's frame of mind comfortably in between other mentally-taxing tasks. Looks like I may have gotten a bit over eager on this one, however.

What is good, though? Value as in, intrinsic quality but in a taxonomical sense, whether that quality is good or bad or neither. Something can have an extremely high value of "indistinctiveness" or ambiguity, rather, couldn't it? So, essentially traits and characteristics and their levels of is what "value" refers to here?

Seems easy to get lost in semantics. A critic might suggest why not have the study of the value of studying the value of a study of value while your at it. Or something along the lines of suggesting all philosophy relates to the characteristics or lack thereof of things and ideas as such is what constitutes a definition which is required for any form of understanding. Or am I way off here? What is your take, bearing those possibly warranted critiques in mind?

From a logistical perspective, opportunity for suffering, particularly absence or loss of factors that are not "givens" in life such as wealth, companionship, and health that without are likely to incur at least a modest amount of distress, far outnumber the possibilities for contentedness. Without a robust, spiritually or emotionally satisfying underlying philosophy guiding one's thoughts and actions, that is. I think so at least. Pretty sure it can be proven mathematically on paper as well, provided someone had the time. In short, there's a million ways for something to go wrong but far fewer ways for something to go right or as intended or planned.

Empathy in this world is often likened as a curse or burdensome quality, despite lack of it being the main definitive tenet of clinical psychopathy/sociopathy.

The average person worries about his or her self and those immediately around them that offer tangible benefit or utility - or, conversely - would incur some detriment or drawback if they were to not be around or to view the person in a negative light. You wake up, eat, say hi to your kids or pets, feel validated and useful to others, earn a living, go home without incurring serious bodily injury, experience pleasure, and repeat. This is a good life. At least, all that can be reasonably expected to consider oneself "fortunate". All well and good. Now, for those who happen to care about others the same they do themselves or who refuse to remain ignorant of what tomorrow could very well hold, not just for themselves and the homeostasis of their own detached social sphere, but others, life becomes a bit more burdensome. In short, ignorance is bliss.

In a simple, if not crude way, the following can be often observed in most all societies past and present. A good woman takes on the burdens of her children. A good man takes on the burdens of his household. A good leader takes on the burdens of all. If, as a good person of any position, suffering is not a constant dynamic in the back or forefront of one's mind, a persistent, ominous fog on the horizon, and a mere stone's throw away, that person is either extremely lucky, extremely foolish, or both. I'd say so anyway.

Furthermore, one man's good time is another's punishment. Intellects may enjoy a half-day museum or scientific lecture. Others may prefer a firm beating in place of such an activity. Introverted and extroverted come to mind and seem to be a reliable archetype of mental identity, more so than not. Some people could be perfectly content reading a novel in a room for days on end without seeing as much as a soul. Others might become depressed or even unhinged. Some people love social gatherings, being around people, or being the center of attention, etc. Others abhor the idea and consider it a chore they wish to avoid at all cost. Neither are without their distinct advantages and drawbacks. Still, something I like to tell others, if not as a shameless defense of my own social disinclination: "If you can't make yourself happy, how can you (or others) expect for you to make others happy". Seems fair.

I don't think the building (Moscow State University) is a beautiful thing, and yet it's magnificent and photogenic. — Jamal

Stalinist skyscrapers — Jamal

They’re not made to be good places to study or live or work, but just to project the power of the state. Magnificent, but inhuman—downright horrible. — Jamal

I find these statements curious. What makes a building "Stalinist"? Surely he wasn't the first person to come up with such an elementary style of architecture, that style being essentially a lack of one and laying bricks as they are in the simplest way? What makes a structure "beautiful"? You find these buildings "magnificent" and "photogenic", but lacking in something, "humanity" you refer to. Could you show some buildings that do quantify what you would call "beautiful" or "human"?

It seems the main difference is there types are "blocky" and squarish, lacking rounded curves such as Greco-Roman architecture incorporates. Curves are a bit pleasing aesthetically for a few reasons I could imagine. I heard once "there are no straight lines in nature" or something of that effect. Do the former-style of buildings therefore invoke a sense of uneasy artificiality, an alien structure that seemingly does not belong and exists only out of forced necessity? It seems, at least in my mind, the most stark contrast between the two types of buildings are those with rounded curves or more "personal touches" reflect the human effort, intelligence, and craftsmanship that went in them as opposed to mere angular blocks that could have been placed there by a machine without any human involvement whatsoever.

Just trying to better understand.

In a sense, it's an act of validation that the struggles and great suffering of those before us was not in vain. A form of immortality achieved by those who brought us the facts and findings we now take for granted in our everyday lives. Imagine the frustration of those who spent years and yes indeed even lifetimes struggling in a cold, dark lab foregoing the pleasures and desires of the flesh, even companionship and therefore the human experience as a whole, to produce the discoveries and findings they did. And those were the lucky ones who managed to achieve something notable during such a life. Many did not, though thankfully most at least contributed something to lay the foundation of works others did complete in theirs.

"The simplest schoolboy is now familiar with truths for which Archimedes would have sacrificed his life"
- Ernest Renan

Society and yes even humanity is a never-ending chain of knowledge and accomplishment, sprinkled generously with failures and drawbacks, which of course only sweeten the rewards we do find.

Education, or generational knowledge, is indeed one of the things that separate man from animal, I believe. Sure, squirrels hide nuts for the winter, birds crack open coconuts by dropping them on rocks from a great distance, beavers build lodges with a level of craftsmanship and engineering prowess that rivals that of most adults, but none of which compare to the vast repository of knowledge mankind has amassed over the generations.

Without education, the medium of all knowledge and understanding, what is life but a prolonged cruel and unusual punishment all sentient beings are sentenced to at birth?

Seems like a moot exercise in morality considering the course of human affairs in regards to technology and science: "if you don't do it, somebody else will anyway".

Interesting a dog invokes a sense of person-hood more so than say a fish or a plant. Is it just because they have complex nervous systems and mammalian brains that can emulate a form of consciousness we can detect, measure, and recognize as not dissimilar to our own?

How many dogs are we talking about? What kind of dogs? There are people who advocate for the eradication of supposedly violent breeds whose purpose has long since vanished in modern society, for the very same reasons but with an emotional modifier: the safety of *dramatic pause* the children. :gasp:

It's been the way of the world since time began that for one creature to survive, another must die. This, rightfully, stirs feelings of negative emotion in thinking, compassionate beings such as us and motivates us to strive for a better standard of living, such a thing we call 'society' that elevates us above the animal kingdom utilizing things such as innovation and creativity to satisfy our biological needs and desires as opposed to harmful, destructive actions such as theft and killing. Still, it can be argued that, absent of humans, animals kill other animals all the time and no intervention short of imprisonment will stop this. So, that's an underlying dynamic that probably needs to be recognized before anything else.

Earlier peoples hunted animals to extinction at times, unlikely for fun but for survival. Were these people "bad" for doing so? I don't think so. Foolish or perhaps ignorant maybe.

Your question has many dynamics and moving parts to it, so, could it perhaps be simplified to: "Is it wrong for a human being to take the life of an animal to survive?" Or does that remove or neglect certain aspects of your OP you wish to discuss?

I subscribe to the idea of a fallen world or society, at least. Not necessarily in the Biblical sense, though the two go hand in hand, rather a degradation of what was as far as morals, what is or should be important and desired, etc. Essentially crowned by the observation that all things that were once good and desirable are now being cast as unfavorable, and vice versa. Key example being people who are simply vitriolic and unhappy or bothered when others are unfettered by what would bother or upset them who never miss an opportunity to chastise and condemn, referring to themselves in a positive light as "blunt" or "honest" which while may be so detracts from an underlying purposelessness and unrefined level of character.

Case examples:

Positive "bluntness":
Person A: "You're going to die if you keep drinking like that."
Person B: "That was mean."
Person A: "Just being honest."

Purposeless "bluntness":
Person A: "I don't like your clothes. You look stupid."
Person B: "That was mean."
Person A: "I'm a blunt person. Get on my level."

Etcetera...

Social floors or depths are often now painted as ceilings or "bare minimums" to aspire toward instead of the undesirable states of being to be avoided they always were by those who are confined to them.

Still, others offer a valid point. Any adult who cries over spilled milk or the slightest criticism for example is likely doomed to bring preventable hardship, struggle, and even mortal danger to themselves as well as those close to them. School of hard knocks I guess.

"If you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes into you." - Nietzsche

It's a fine line to walk. Easiest thing in the world to bring someone down, a literal dried piece of excrement on a sidewalk can do that. But to lift someone up, make a person smile, and give purpose to the self-proclaimed purposeless? That is what takes ability most either do not possess or find too difficult to achieve and live by, what separates a true leader from his or her peers.

There is a brief summary at the link provided in the OP. — Philo Sofer

Thanks, will definitely check it out. Just noticed you're a nearly decade long veteran here with only a few posts. It'd be nice if you posted more. A shame to think what we've been deprived of all these years. Looks solid. Best of luck whatever it is you decide. This world certainly needs more thinkers.

I'm still leery of PDFs.

What's the main takeaway? Live and let live, don't try to change the unchangeable, stop and smell the roses, that sort of thing?

"It's all relative." - Albert Einstein

Good can mean beneficial as in bringing one (typically the speaker) benefit, good can mean morally satisfying, pleasing, or acceptable. Often both, but not always. I take it to mean "Pleasing" as in "this pleases me", which seems to fit basically every moment or use of the word "good". Which as you can imagine carries no grounds in morality but personal sentiment alone.

Police: "Your husband just died".
Person A: "Oh no! How will I ever go on?!"

Police: ":Your husband just died"
Person B: "Yay, I'm rich! I mean, oh no."

I take it this thread is meant to be explicitly about morality. In which case varies wholly on the underlying facts of the situation, facts which are never guaranteed to be known in full by those who assert otherwise, even with their life.

So, absent of religion, one might circle back and cast what is "beneficial" to the speaker, as a strictly cellular being as "good". Say, if I eat food and do not starve, that's good. However, if I get cancer and face certain death, that's bad. Anything beyond that is pure speculation and personal preference, in the aforementioned context, at least.

An armed gunman attempted to rob an Amazon delivery driver, who in turn shot and killed him.

https://www.whio.com/news/local/alleged-armed-carjacker-shoots-killed-by-ohio-amazon-delivery-driver/HLD7ROJHWBE2ZOQBDIHLMTPLTM/

Thoughts? :chin:

However, atheism couldn't possibly gain you any divine favor, and therefore it is irrational to hold atheist beliefs. — Scarecow

Sure it could. Organizations receive donations from people they've never heard of all the time.