What is love — Athena

The closest feeling I have to love unalloyed with other factors such as desire, expectation, and obligation is my love for my three children. It came to me as a force of nature - immediate and uncaused - automatic, like a switch being switched. It's a feeling of affection, respect, interest, protectiveness, and commitment. Most importantly, it's unconditional - it doesn't expect or require any response or acknowledgement.

how do we know when we are loved? — Athena

There are a few people in my life who have shown me they feel for me something similar to what I feel for my children. I don't feel like they owe it to me, but it feels wonderful. A gift.

What is this thing that Bob paid for? We could call it form. In the world of art, form goes hand in hand with its brother: content. Form is actual shapes molded into the clay. It's the technique that shows up, the style, whether medieval or modern. The content is something beyond the form: it's the meaning of the statue, which doesn't have to be something that can be put into words, although it could be. In the case of a statue, the content could be the way it makes us feel. — frank

Bob received an Ikea statue - assembly required - but he ordered a fully assembled statue.

What is this thing that Bob paid for? — frank

Bob received a blob of clay. What he ordered but didn't receive was the work required to turn that clay into a statue as well as the artists skill and vision.

What a great post. Here are some thoughts - rather piecemeal and off the cuff rather than comprehensive.

How much of the answer to this question depends on the existence of income as money rather than what is produced - material or agricultural? Money separates and abstracts the labor from the product. Of course, a sharecropper or slave gives some or all of what is produced to the landowner and even farmers who are landowners themselves pay taxes.

For example, a hedge fund manager might earn significantly more than a nurse, not because they are more deserving in a moral sense, but because of the structure of the market. — Benkei

Although there is need to address the fact that CEOs often have an income that is hundreds of times what their workers make, there is also the issue of risk. The willingness to take on risk has value that has to be compensated. Beyond willingness, there also has to be ability, which often depends more on wealth than income.

Even where we're not considering different types of labour but within the same type of labour, I might not be the best person to do the work and therefore less deserving. Or perhaps not deserving of the amount paid if the quality of my production lacks compared to others, even if the market accepts the price I set. By being paid income I divert income from people who might be more deserving of it than I am. — Benkei

I see this as a fraught issue. It makes sense that more trained, experienced, and competent people should be paid more than people who are less so, but so called "meritocracy" without more or less rigid job definition will generally lead to socially disadvantaged people, e.g. racial minorities and women, being paid less. Beyond that, it leads directly to those from historically privileged groups becoming even more privileged, but I guess that is outside the scope of this discussion.

This raises a critical question for the argument that we are entitled to our income: if we acknowledge the importance of need in labor contracts, then it follows that income should not be viewed as an absolute right. If individuals are hired based on their needs, the resultant income is not merely a reward for their labor but also a response to their vulnerability. — Benkei

This makes sense from an ethical perspective. As I see it, a good society should ensure a decent life to all it's members willing to participate. I think that would be hard to implement. I guess minimum wages are an attempt to get at the issue. Beyond that, the only practical solution I can think of is a universal basic income, which can separate work from income completely. I guess that's also outside the scope of this discussion.

Is the production process fair and just? Are workers adequately compensated? Are the environmental and social impacts of the work accounted for?

For example, a company that profits from exploitative labor practices or environmental degradation may pay its executives enormous salaries. Can those individuals claim a moral right to their income, when the production process itself is unjust? — Benkei

Solution - costs of production and prices should include social and environmental costs as well as those for labor, materials, and processing and transportation. Again, easier said than done.

When we center the discussion on worth, need and just production it becomes clear that individuals do not have an unqualified moral right to all of their income. — Benkei

As I noted previously, risk should also be considered.

In light of these factors, a moral right to income cannot be reasonably held. Instead, it is merely a legal right. — Benkei

The problem is enforcement. There have to be legal rights to enforce moral ones.

I think he signifies the importance of one's own authenticity in thinking and at least for me this is a huge part of why I enjoy philosophy and like learning about it. — Jafar

I agree. For me, philosophy is there to help us listen to and recognize the voice inside.

The Emerson doesn’t do it for me, I’m afraid. Too cryptic. Many of the people I have known who championed introspection have been breathtakingly arrogant and appear to lack self-knowledge. (I don’t think you’re one of those.)

I question the extent to which we are capable of examining our own beliefs - our cognitive biases and our unconscious processes might well be unassailable. — Tom Storm

Not to be flip, but that's what philosophy is for. For me, philosophy is about self-awareness - paying attention to how we think. If we are not capable of examining our beliefs, biases, and mental processes, then philosophy is useless, pointless.

@Jafar

I'm curious about the introspection part. How do you critically evaluate your own thoughts?
— Jafar

Good question. Can it even be done? Or do we just move from one set of emotionally based presuppositions to another? — Tom Storm

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to bring out one of my favorite quotes. I try to use it at least once every couple of weeks here on the forum. It's from "Self-Reliance" by Ralph Wald Emerson.

To believe our own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men, -- that is genius. Speak your latent conviction, and it shall be the universal sense; for the inmost in due time becomes the outmost,--and our first thought, is rendered back to us by the trumpets of the Last Judgment. Familiar as the voice of the mind is to each, the highest merit we ascribe to Moses, Plato, and Milton is that they set at naught books and traditions, and spoke not what men but what they thought. A man should learn to detect and watch that gleam of light which flashes across his mind from within, more than the lustre of the firmament of bards and sages. — Emerson - Self-Reliance

When Emerson says "genius" he doesn't mean like Einstein. It's more like our true nature, what Taoists call "Te" - our intrinsic virtuosity. It takes self-awareness and discipline to follow Emerson's path. You need to pay attention.

Ones hand is forced — Benj96

No, I can choose to do nothing.

They then offer you a trinary quarternary choice — Benj96

4) Deny the word.

Ignore the word — Benj96

Ignoring words is one of the fundamental human mental tasks. We can't pay attention to everything, we have to choose. The trick is knowing which ones to ignore.

I think the only way to get to "nothing nothing" might be using zero. — javi2541997

We are not talking about mathematical nothing, at least I'm not. We're talking about actual nothing - no matter, no energy, no fields, no quantum vacuum, no space, no time. Nothing.

When you say the universe is inevitable, how do you mean? Do you mean it is non-contingent or metaphysically necessary? — Bodhy

How could there possibly be nothing? Not nothing like the inside of an empty box with all the air removed and shielded against radiation, but nothing nothing. Not even a quantum vacuum. What does that even mean? How can you have nothing without something to compare it with? Is that metaphysics? I'm not sure.

Propositions that can be expressed by language are indeed linguistic entities. The ones that cannot be expressed by language, however, are not. — Tarskian

There are no propositions that can't be expressed in language.

Subset X of the natural numbers is a subset of the natural numbers — Tarskian

This is just a restatement of the tautological proposition "All subsets of the natural numbers are subsets of the natural numbers."

I can see you and I are not going to agree on this. I'll give you the final word.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of truth cannot be expressed by language — Tarskian

This is not right. Perhaps "the vast, vast majority of subsets of natural numbers cannot be expressed by language," but judgments of true or false only apply to propositions. Propositions are linguistic entities - they can all be expressed in language. If it can't be expressed in language, it isn't a proposition and if it isn't a proposition, it can't be true or false.

Articulating your thoughts is an essential part of philosophy, but there is, in my opinion, more to philosophy. It involves a critical examination and evaluation of those thoughts and opinions, whether they are your thoughts and opinions or someone else's. — Fooloso4

Agreed, but the purpose behind that examination and evaluation is to figure out how other's thoughts fit into your own understanding of how the world works. If they don't fit, then you can either reject them, change your own understanding, or do a little of both.

I'm curious about the introspection part. How do you critically evaluate your own thoughts? — Jafar

Many people here don't see introspection and intuition as valid ways of knowing, while to me, they are the strongest intellectual tools we have to work with. How can I have confidence in what I think if I am not aware of how I think. Although it's not the standard definition, that's what philosophy is to me - an exercise in learning to be more self-aware. Even an understanding based on reason must come from, be motivated by, something intuitive. And to be useful, an intuitive understanding often must be justified using reason.

When I hear someone else's ideas, someone here on the forum or Immanuel Kant, I have to check them against my own understanding of how the world works to see if they resonate. If they don't, sometimes I'll reject the ideas and sometimes I'll expand my understanding to make room for them. The final arbiter is your own judgment. Parroting philosophers is not philosophy. Eventually you have to take responsibility for your own beliefs.

I think this puts you at a distinct advantage. All too often giving an opinion is mistaken for doing philosophy. Rather then telling others what you think inquire into what others say on topics that interest you. — Fooloso4

@Jafar

To be clear, many of us here disagree with @Fooloso4’s opinion. You shouldn’t let it stop you from putting your thoughts into words. Introspection is a valid method for obtaining knowledge. You should appreciate the irony of him giving his personal preference without justification in this instance.

Why not start a discussion in an area where you are comfortable. Write a good OP (original post) and be ready to answer questions and stand up for your ideas. Keep it simple and non-controversial until you feel more comfortable. Warning - consciousness, metaphysics, free will and some other topics tend to be quagmires. Look over the past couple of weeks and make sure you aren't repeating something done recently. Try not to focus on too narrow a subject to start or you might not get many responses, which can be discouraging.

From what I can see in your OP, you write clearly and well.

By reason, I generally mean a cause for an action, whether it is feeling, preference, value, rationality, etc. — MoK

Perhaps "a reason" would be clearer than "reason." Even then I'd be tempted to argue your point, but then we'd just get sucked into another of those unresolvable arguments that results whenever we dive into the bottomless pit of free will.

A decision is either based on a reason or not, in the first case we are dealing with an unfree decision, and in the second case we are dealing with a free decision. — MoK

Most of our decisions are not based on reason, for example when I decide to order a cheeseburger rather than pate de foie gras or when I turn left on Washington Street without thinking about it. Preferences and values are not generally rational.

As you noted, this isn’t a critique of the OP. All philosophical positions are like this: so I am failing to see how you are resolving the paradox or denying its existence. — Bob Ross

After reading your response, I went back and reread the OP. I think I misunderstood the argument you are trying to make. I still don't think there is any paradox, but I certainly haven't made that case.

But you seem to be using the notion of "useful" as the arbiter of moral import here.. Which is indeed revealing. If "character counts" in some way, this notion of "useful" would be contested at least as far as moral value. — schopenhauer1

I don't see being an asshole as a moral issue. I acknowledge you have defined that term differently than I did. Under either definition, perhaps it would be more useful to characterize it as a management issue.

Is being an asshole inherent to someone's nature/personality/character or is an asshole made- something you become/work at? — schopenhauer1

I often tell my brother that he and I are assholes. By that I mean we are sometimes, often, insensitive to how the things we say and do affect other people. I usually say (at least to myself) it is a matter of temperament, i.e. a "characteristic or habitual inclination or mode of emotional response" (Merriam Webster). Claiming that in no way absolves me from responsibility for the things I say and do. It is something I have worked to soften all my life, with some success.

if someone is a longstanding asshole, that is to say, "sets the precedent" for being an asshole really early on in a community, they seem to get more of a "pass" as it's just "them being them!" — schopenhauer1

I see this in a somewhat more positive light. It is often true that I recognize qualities in a person that compensate for any difficulties in their behavior. As an engineer, it was much more important whether a coworker was competent than that they were a bit cranky or tactless.

Philosophers often get confused by language because their thoughts reflect upon the ways the world is normally interpreted - which is using something full of holes and prejudices to analyse something full of holes and prejudices. — fdrake

This is a good way of looking at it.

People who are not philosophers are also bewitched by language, they just don't need to care, because few of the inconsistencies in our norms of interpretation matter. — fdrake

I'm not sure if I think this is true. I'll have to think more about it.

errors of presupposition arise when a person's way of thinking is so tied to a use case, or nascent context, that it stops that person from understanding what they intend. — fdrake

As I noted in my response to @Shawn, I think the primary error associated with presuppositions is caused by the fact we don't recognize them as such and try to establish their truth by empirical means.

Regarding the statement about philosophy being the bewitchment of our intelligence by the means of language, then why is that so? I mean to say, why does language behave this way or what makes this true that language going on holiday is all that some philosophy amounts to? — Shawn

I think that most of the conflict I've seen in my somewhat limited understanding of philosophy, and this forum in particular, result from these kinds of issues. The problem isn't our presuppositions, i.e. foundational assumptions, it's that we don't recognize them as such.

I like the quotes from Westacott and MacGee you've provided, especially this:

Anyone who supposes that if all the perceiving subjects were removed from the world then the objects, as we have any conception of them, could continue in existence all by themselves has radically failed to understand what objects are. — Schopenhauer's Philosophy, Bryan Magee, Pp105-106)

I'd suggest seeking scientific understanding of what the sensations are a result of. It seems you might need some understanding of the role the things themselves play in your experience of sensations.

What are the details of the light that reflected off the thing and into your eye?

Do you see consideration of such matters off limits for this discussion. If so, might it be that you are trying to understand things in overly simplistic terms? — wonderer1

As I've noted in my responses to @Bob Ross's posts, the specific cognitive mechanisms of perception are not relevant in addressing his concerns.

any given phenomena stripped of the a prior means of intuiting and cognizing it is left perfectly unintelligible (viz., remove all spatial, temporal, mathematical, logical, etc. properties from the phenomena and you have nothing left to conceptually work with other than a giant '?'); so whatever the thing-in-itself is will be exactly what is unintelligible: it is the 'thing' stripped of the a priori means of cognizing it. — Bob Ross

As I see it, this is a good way of looking at it, but it is not paradoxical.

the paradoxical and necessary elimination of knowledge of the things-in-themselves via particular knowledge of thing-in-themselves. — Bob Ross

I don't think it's truly paradoxical at all. As with most "paradoxes," it's a matter of language, attitude, perspective, not fact.

Kant begins with the presupposition that our experience is representational and proceeds to correctly conclude that knowledge of the things-in-themselves is thusly impossible. However, anyone who questions the legitimacy of this presupposition readily realizes that its justification rests purely a posteriori—on the empirical evidence of our representative faculties as presented to us in our conscious experience (or of another); and, as such, presupposes, from the onset, that one can trust their experience — Bob Ross

Here's the heart of the problem. There is no true "justification" for Kant's presuppositions because they can not be established empirically. This is not a criticism, because it's true of indirect realism, direct realism, and all other philosophical isms. For example:

one can trust their experience enough to know that (1) they exist (2) with representative faculties (3) in a transcendent reality which (4) has other things in it and of which (5) one’s representative faculties are representing. — Bob Ross

I can trust my conscious experience enough to conclude that I exist in a world with other objects, then I thereby trust it to know at least some things about the things-in-themselves (namely, that I and other objects exist in reality). — Bob Ross

I exist with other objects in reality — Bob Ross

None of these things can be established empirically. There are many, many problems like this in philosophy - there always have been and always will be - until we give up and recognize these kinds of statements are not true - they are assumptions, presumptions. We need them in order to proceed in the world, but they are human inventions, not properties inherent in the world.

The truly perplexing paradox arises when one accepts empirically, through trusting one’s conscious experience, those minimum 5 claims about the things-in-themselves — Bob Ross

Again, there is no paradox because the claims are neither true nor false. We act as if they are true, but there is no way to establish that.

I’ve had my say. I’ll leave it at that.

Freedom of speech is not the same as the first amendment, I'm afraid, so its a mistake to equate the two. That's fine, it's a common error. — NOS4A2

It's not a mistake and your response is disingenuous. There is no freedom of speech beyond what protections government or other institutions provide. Are you suggesting there should be? Are you suggesting people shouldn't be held accountable for what they say? Are you suggesting there should be no consequences for libel or slander? Are you suggesting the government should get involved in protecting freedom of speech beyond what they already do? What exactly are you suggesting?

The US isn't the only country in the world. At any rate, this isn't about the United States and its legal system. — NOS4A2

In your first paragraph you identify Trump's lies about the 2020 election as an example of the issue at hand. Caitlin O’Connor and James Weatherall are both American academics working in an American university. For you to say you're not talking about the US goes beyond disingenuity into intentional misleading.

I do have a problem with that. The consequences of speech, for instance, is air and sound coming out of the mouth. To be fair, I'm willing to subject myself to a test if you wish to promote your harm theory. Let's see which injuries you can inflict on me with your speech. — NOS4A2

As I asked before, are you suggesting that people shouldn't be accountable for what they say? That I shouldn't be able to sue you if you lie about me in a way that causes me harm? If that's what you mean, you should be clearer. It would involve a radical rewriting of civil law in the US and every other country in the world. Is that what you think is needed?

I put a link in the original post. It's old, so it may be out of date, but it shows how people and journalists around the world are being placed in jail on the premisses you advocate. — NOS4A2

Another false statement. The article you linked to identifies no country in North and South America or western Europe except France and Italy that have potentially significant restrictions. Indications of people being put in jail are primarily located in authoritarian countries in Africa and Asia. Is that it? You're worried about press freedom in Burkina Faso?

You've just made up this whole issue so you can paint your preferred right-wing political cohort as unjustly persecuted.

Are you suggesting that slander and bomb threats shouldn’t be illegal? — Michael

No, slander shouldn't be illegal. As I noted in my response to @NOS4A2, slander is not a crime in the US, which makes sense to me.

I recently read an article in Nature magazine in which researchers plead to their readers that we ought to care more about the threat of misinformation to democracy. To illustrate the threat they provide the typical examples, “false claims about climate change, the efficacy of proven public-health measures, and the ‘big lie’ about the 2020 US presidential election have all had clear detrimental impacts that could have been at least partially mitigated in a healthier information environment”. The researchers promise us that “efforts to keep public discourse grounded in evidence will not only help to protect citizens from manipulation and the formation of false beliefs but also safeguard democracy more generally.” — NOS4A2

Whenever this subject comes up, someone points out that freedom of speech, the First Amendment here in the US, only applies to government action. It doesn't limit what individuals, corporations, or institutions can do about your or my speech. It's not against the law to fire someone or ask them to leave your house if you don't like what they say. Certain kinds of speech, e.g. slander and libel, can also be addressed under civil law. If I sue you for something you said, that's not a violation of free speech as it is usually understood. Here in the US, slander and libel are not crimes.

So... I don't see anything wrong with what the authors of the article wrote, at least as you've described it.

In their book The Misinformation Age, philosophers Caitlin O’Connor and James Weatherall come to the stunning conclusion that the same legislative prohibitions the state puts on false advertising, hate speech, and defamation ought to extend to misinformation. — NOS4A2

In the US, there are no "legislative prohibitions" against defamation and so-called hate speech. I'm not familiar with the laws regarding false advertising. I assume it is considered a type of fraud. As far as I know, it is still addressed in civil rather than criminal proceedings.

These two examples are meant to illustrate a perennial tale, that some individuals believe other individuals need to be protected from the kinds of information our betters do not approve of, and therefore monopoly on information needs to be achieved. In this case, our betters are advocating for some form or other of Official Truth and censorship so that others do not form “false beliefs”. — NOS4A2

Actions, including speech, have consequences. If those consequences harm someone, it may be appropriate for the harmed party to take the speaker to court. Do you have a problem with that?

One wonders how it is that the authorities in this instance are immune to misinformation and false beliefs. — NOS4A2

Do you have specific examples in mind of "authorities" putting the kibosh on someone's politically incorrect speech? If not, what's your kvetch? How about that - "kibosh" and "kvetch" in the same response.

All of this leads me to conclude that the hubbub over misinformation is a campaign for more power rather than a legitimate plight for public safety. — NOS4A2

Well, you certainly haven't made any case for your claim. Besides that, I'm with Mikie.

Oh cool, the dude who worships the guy who said anyone burning the flag should get put in jail is gonna lecture us on free speech absolutism. Pass. — Mikie

It's hard to take this seriously.

Language cannot express feelings but merely describe them I’m just wondering if there is other things that language cannot express or has limits … thoughts ? — kindred

The philosopher I feel most at home with is Lao Tzu, who wrote "The Tao Te Ching," one of the founding documents of Taoism. As the first verse says "The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name." To vastly over-simplify, "Tao" means the world.

Again, to simplify, the map is not the territory, the story is not the experience. When we describe something with words, the words and what we are describing are two different things. "My memory of my mother" is something different from my memory of my mother. So, to answer your question, we can't truly express anything with language, but it's the tool we have to communicate our experiences to others.

The first example is a decision not based on neutrality, values or beliefs though. We’re not always making decision based on neutrality, personal beliefs or values but based on circumstances for example a poor person buys cheap products because they’re restricted by their finances not their tastes, values or personal beliefs. — kindred

I think we've carried this issue as far as we're going to get.

As I indicated previously, I appreciate the sentiment. It means a lot to me.

Now that you talk about it like that I think you are right and no decision can be neutral and every decision is influenced by personal beliefs — QuirkyZen

You're new to the forum, so maybe you don't know how rare that kind of acknowledgment is. I appreciate it.

No threats, but circumstances, such as: you have to work otherwise you will end up on the streets or no food on table is such an example of a forced decision, on the other extreme slavery was a forced decision too or a custodial sentence handed by a judge to a defendant a decision with which the defendant has no choice but to accept. — kindred

In the first example, forcing someone to make a decision doesn't force them to make a neutral one. As for slaves and convicted criminals, there are no decisions involved at all. Crooks don't decide to go to jail. Slaves don't decide to do the work their owners tell them to.

A simple example of this is a judge in a courtroom given a decision. There he is not influenced by his personal beliefs and values but rather gets beliefs from external sources. — QuirkyZen

I disagree. Have you ever read a judges decision in a court case. Just look at recent events in the Supreme Court in the US. How could nine judges come to such differing conclusions about the same facts and laws? There clearly is a connection between their political and personal values and how they voted.

What about a forced decision, one that is imposed upon someone without their consent ? — kindred

How is the person forced? By threats? How could such a decision be neutral?

even if I try not be influenced by personal beliefs that itself is a belief — QuirkyZen

Although this is true, it's not what I've been trying to explain. I thought I expressed myself clearly, perhaps not. To go any further I'm just going to have to repeat myself.

It will really help if you can give us an example of a decision that you or anyone has made without input from personal values and beliefs.

I think there might be a misunderstanding between us because you are saying that a decision cant be made without value and in my last reply I told you that I also believe that decision can't be made without beliefs and values but I also believe that decision can be made without personal beliefs and values(though not 100%) — QuirkyZen

I don't think there is a misunderstanding, just a disagreement. What is ethical is a personal value. Even an understanding that it is necessary to consider ethics is a personal value and belief. All my professional decisions as an engineer took my personal values into account.

Can you provide an example of the kind of decision you are talking about?

I am not saying that a decision can be made without beliefs and values but I'm saying that it can be made without personal beliefs and values (though I have mentioned in comments on this discussion that it is impossible to make a decision without influence of personal beliefs but we can make the influence very low). — QuirkyZen

Again, I can't think of an example of a decision that can be made without values. When I was an engineer, the first question in any decision making for a course of action was always is it ethical? is it in my client's best interest? Is it consistent with my obligations as a professional engineer.