The evidence is everywhere. — Razorback kitten

Show us. At least provide references.

You haven’t provided any evidence for this fundamental reworking of everything anybody knows about physics and cosmology. You don’t show in any fashion how it answers the questions you claim it does. Beyond that you claim things that are clearly not true based on what we know. For example, light is quantized, no matter how you redefine it. Light waves are not fluctuations in spatial density.

As for speculation about the idea of the end of time, it may be one of the tangents of metaphysics. Perhaps, it is something of which Wittgenstein would advise 'silence' as it is possibly unknowable from the human perspective. — Jack Cummins

From my point of view, this is the right way to think about it. Assuming there is no way, even in theory, to determine what happens at the end of time and space, or even if there is an end at all, then the whole question is metaphysics. There is no empirical answer. There is no truth or falsity to any of our speculations.

To put things in perspective, it’s estimated at 50 million people were killed in World War II. Just prior to the bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the allies bombed Tokyo using conventional explosives. It is estimated that 100,000 people died there. During the rape of Nanking in 1938, it is estimated that 200,000 civilians were killed.

I don’t think Nagasaki and Hiroshima are anything out of the ordinary during what is called total war. I think the atomic bomb had much bigger implications for the future. I don’t think it makes any sense to wring our hands about one incident like this. It’s not the morality of Hiroshima that matters. It’s the morality of war.

The bad news is, he thought this was another way of stating the categorical imperative! — J

Yeah, what's up with that? Here are the three formulations.

[1] Act only according to that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.
[2] So act that you use humanity, in your own person as well as in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.
[3] Act according to the maxims of a universally legislating member of a merely possible kingdom of ends.

Kant says they're just different ways of saying the same thing. The first is the one that is most often talked about - the one that says it's not ok to lie to Nazis. I certainly like the second better and I have no idea what the third means.

This may be way out of left field, but it reminds me of Kant. Chuang Tzu is saying, What you do is morally irrelevant, or at least secondary. What matters is why you do it. For him, the "why" is a rather mystical expression of authenticity and oneness. For Kant, it's the good will, also rather mystical in the end. — J

I don’t think this is nitpicking - rather than “why” I would say “how.” How do I know what to do next without reference to conventional morality or expectations?

As for Kant - I don’t know enough to say, although, when it comes to morality, I haven’t yet forgiven him for the categorical imperative.

I think people find it unsatisfactory when they listen to themselves reciting and performing according to the image they have of themselves. They do not listen to the emptiness, but fill it with theory and listen to that. — unenlightened

The note I usually add when I use that Chuang Tzu quote is “Easier said than done.”

I wasn’t trying to be a nitpicker. It’s just that I’ve always understood postmodernism to be a reaction to the stark and dour minimalist rationalism of modern art and architecture from the early 1900s on.

The modern period I put between the Trial of Galileo and the 1920’s, characterized by belief in progress, the normativity of reason and objective fact. — Wayfarer

I have always understood that the modern period was dated between the early and mid 1900s.

I see that. I hope our moral understanding can support that differenc — J

Neither option matches my personal understanding of morality. I’ve talked about this on the forum before. Here’s the quote I always use. It’s from Ziporyn’s translation of the.Chuang Tzu.

“What I call good is not humankindness and responsible conduct, but just being good at what is done by your own intrinsic virtuosities. Goodness, as I understand it, certainly does not mean humankindness and responsible conduct! It is just fully allowing the uncontrived condition of the inborn nature and allotment of life to play itself out. What I call sharp hearing is not hearkening to others, but rather hearkening to oneself, nothing more.”

Many people find that unsatisfactory.

Deleted

Did you get your diagnosis on this forum? Is it an inside joke? — Quk

It was a self diagnosis. Yes it is an inside joke - it came from inside me, although I have shared it here on the forum before.

The model doesn't have tiers. It has a sequence: — Truth Seeker

Thanks for the clarification.

Exactly my view. And I think this is true for non-human animals as well. A walking horse will not step on this bird that is sitting on the ground along the path; the horse prefers to not kill that bird. One could call this behaviour "behavouristic". But that's no answer. Actions are accompanied by feelings. I think it doesn't matter whether the "mechnical reflex" is caused by the feeling or vice versa -- or if it's just a correlation. The feeling of "liking something" is just there and it's very powerful. — Quk

This is from what is an instinct by William James. A bit florid…

“It takes, in short, what Berkeley calls a mind debauched by learning to carry the process of making the natural seem strange so far as to ask for the why of any instinctive human act. To the metaphysician alone can such questions occur as: Why do we smile, when pleased, and not scowl? Why are we unable to talk to a crowd as we talk to a single friend? Why does a particular maiden turn our wits so upside down? The common man can only say, “of course we smile, of course our heart palpitates at the sight of the crowd, of course we love the maiden, that beautiful soul clad in that perfect form, so palpably and flagrantly made from all eternity to be loved!”

And so probably does each animal feel about the particular things it tends to do in presence of particular objects. They, too, are a priori syntheses. To the lion it is the lioness which is made to be loved; to the bear, the she-bear. To the broody hen the notion would probably seem monstrous that there should be a creature in the world to whom a nestful of eggs was not the utterly fascinating and precious and never-to-be-too-much-sat-upon object which it is to her.”

So what we're asking is, Is that "difference" also something that can be subsumed under the same scientific explanation from which we derive the theory of morality as social control? — J

I wouldn’t call it a theory. I think it’s more a value judgment. I do believe there is a biological basis for all the things we think and believe. That’s not to say it’s the only contributing factor. I don’t see moral judgments or beliefs as any different from any other human judgments or beliefs.

How can it leave an escape clause for things that are actually right, as opposed to learned or evolved rule-following behavior — J

I guess I haven’t been clear enough. I’ll say it this way. It makes a difference to me whether I’m doing something because I think it’s right rather than only because it’s what’s expected of me.

What do you think of this model? — Truth Seeker

One major problem I see with your model is that all three factors on the lower tier - desire, capacity, and behavior - are equally influenced by the factors on the upper tier.

I see. Just checked Wikipedia. Hadn't heard of this "syndrome" before; I live outside the USA, haha. — Quk

There’s a good chance I’m the only person yet who has been formally diagnosed.

If we did have a convincing sociological or biological (I'll just say "scientific" from now on) explanation for why people form moral beliefs, — J

I think we do have a convincing, or at least plausible, incomplete scientific explanation.

the content of those beliefs must be mistaken, or at least misunderstood by those who hold them? — J

A good question. Here’s my personal take. I see most public morality as a form of social control, there to lubricate the wheels of social interaction. There are good reasons to follow the rules of society 1) to show respect for our community, 2) to keep from being punished, 3) because we think the rules are reasonable and effective. But sometimes there may also be good reasons not to follow those rules, or at least to question them. When that happens, the difference between morality and social control is important. There’s a difference between doing what’s right, and doing what’s expected of you.

I took a look at your forum profile where you list Donald Trump Jr. as one of your favourite philosophers, hehe. What "reflect/lead" ratio would you diagnose in his case? I'm asking to find out whether a further dimension needs to be considered apart from the "reflect/lead" axis. — Quk

Don’t think too hard about this. I generally include Donald Trump Jr. on every list I make, including my weekly grocery list. You’ve probably heard of TDS, Trump Derangement Syndrome. I have been diagnosed with TJDS, Trump Jr. Derangement Syndrome.

I forgot to say that I consider the gentlemen I mentioned -- Popper, Russell, Kant, Epikouros, Sokrates -- in some of their works political too. Popper wrote about Marx. German chancellor Schmidt sought advice from Popper. Or think about Russell's pacifism and the moment when he gave up his pacifism in order to stop the nazis. And so on. — Quk

That's one reason I don't think we should spend much time on the evolutionary (or sociological) question. — J

Do you mean we shouldn’t spend much time as philosopher’s, or in general?

Beyond that, I disagree. I think the sociological or biological explanation undermine the basis for some moral positions. I have stated several times here on the forum that I see most of what we call morality as a form of social control, meant to grease the gears.

And if one is content to say that morality "just means" whatever evolution equipped us with in terms of group behaviors, there'd be no argument; sure it could have been different, if conditions were different. — J

I would say moral theory is more sociology than philosophy. Morals fill a social and political role. Then again, I guess that statement is moral philosophy.

Or are we foolish to use words like "good" and "right," misunderstanding them to mean this special something, which doesn't really obtain apart from Mother Nature's adaptations? — J

I’m not sure it’s foolish, but it does seem like people want to have it both ways.

That’s why postmodern ideas, while not yet fully assimilated and still resisted, seem to be gradually becoming more influential — Tom Storm

In my recent exchange with @Quk, above, I convinced myself that I’m being too definitive in my statement. As I noted, Marx certainly had a big influence and led to a lot of social and political change.

As I think about it more, it probably makes sense to include scientific philosophers in with them. Descartes is a good example. Of course, that was back when philosophers were still scientists too. Perhaps more recently, Popper.

Social philosophy, such as postmodernism as you mention, strikes me as exactly the kind of philosophy I’m talking about. Society changes and philosophy tries to explain it, often badly. As far as I can see, postmodernism just regurgitates ideas that have been around for a long time and tries to apply them to modern life and politics. Strikes me that to the extent it is influential, it’s primarily influential among philosophers, not the public at large.

Quite the contrary, you can fit evolution in via the "metaphysics of goodness" in Aristotle, the "Neoplatonic tradition," Thomism, Schelling, and Hegelianism in a number of interesting and satisfying ways. Charles Sanders Peirce and Vladimir Sergeyevich Solovyov represent two appealing directions (both being students of the Patristic/Scholastic tradition and German Idealism), although I'm more partial to the latter. David Bentley Hart is pretty good about this topic too. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It seems to me if morality developed biologically through evolution then it could have developed differently than it did. How is that not relativism? Or do we have nothing against relativism?”

I think there are some philosophers that reflect and then lead. Popper, Russell, Kant, Epikouros, Sokrates — Quk

I used the words "usually" and "generally" because I didn't want to be too definitive. I'm sure there are some cases, although I don't know enough to argue the specific philosophers you've identified. I would have thought that the best candidates for philosophers who actually lead would be political philosophers such as Marx.

Well, I would say that man, in virtue of his rational nature, possesses both will and intellect and is thus oriented towards the Good, the Beautiful, and the True, as such, by their rational appetites, but that's a whole different case to make. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes. You're talking about morality from an entirely different perspective than I am. We're using entirely different language. I think you and I have had this conversation before in other threads. I don't see any empty spaces where we can fit anything about evolution into your argument.

Hi T, the scientific claim about our moral sense is that the reason it exists is because it motivates cooperation strategies. Without punishment, free riders would destroy cooperation by exploiting others' efforts to “care for, look after, and protect” them. By “exploit,” I mean accepting help and not reciprocating. Punishment of exploiters is a necessary part of cooperation strategies. — Mark S

I don't find this a convincing argument. You don't have to punish bad guys, you just have to stop them. There doesn't need to be a moral judgment to protect vulnerable people.

Michael Tomasello ‘Human morality arose evolutionarily as a set of skills and motives for cooperating with others’ (Tomasello & Vaish, 2013 ) — Mark S

How the hell does he know? How would you possibly demonstrate that? Evolutionary biology is full of what Stephen J. Gould called "just-so stories" about how specific behaviors evolved for specific purposes. That's not science, it's just "seems to me," speculation.

Here's something you might be interested in. I think it's relevant. First, a link to a "The Moral Baby," an essay by Karen Wynn.

https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/campuspress.yale.edu/dist/f/1145/files/2017/10/Wynn-Bloom-Moral-Handbook-Chapter-2013-14pwpor.pdf

Also - a link to a 60 Minutes episode that discusses Wynn's work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRvVFW85IcU

When I first watched the show, it knocked my sox off. I guess it could be seen as an argument against my position. I'm not sure about that.

Hasn't philosophy played a large part in that? — RogueAI

No, I don't think so. As I see it, philosophy usually reflects rather than leads. It's generally a couple of steps behind.

How would I achieve global political action? — Truth Seeker

I wouldn’t. This is your quest, not mine. I was just commenting that the only possible way of achieving what you’re talking about is politics. Unless, I guess, you are a billionaire like Bill Gates. He’s done incredible things with his money.

Why is this? — Pieter R van Wyk

Welcome to the forum. Philosophy is not really equipped to solve the problems you’ve identified.

To the extent the problems you identify are soluble at all, it would only be through political action.

That said, I do think this gets things somewhat backwards. Man has a moral sense to aid cooperation, perhaps, because this aids survival and reproduction. But it doesn't follow from this that the human good is limited to cooperation (or survival, or reproduction). Cooperation is not sought for its own sake, but rather as a means. Hence, cooperation cannot be the measure of the good; we should cooperate just when it is truly best to do so. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I am mostly on board with this, although I don’t think you go far enough. You should give us humans more credit. We treat others with kindness and compassion because we like each other. The fact that we came to like each other through the actions of natural selection doesn’t change that fact.

And almost all people, except psychopaths, have a moral sense that motivates them to act unselfishly in common circumstances, to punish immoral actions by others, and experience feelings of shame and guilt when they perceive they have acted immorally. — Mark S

I think this is not true. Certainly not true of me and a lot of people I know who are not psychopaths. If there is a moral imperative to care for, look after, and protect our fellow humans, I don’t see that it has any connection with a motivation to punish other people for behaviors we don’t like.

There has been a growing scientific consensus in the last few decades that, based on its explanatory power, it is provisionally true that past and present cultural moral norms and our moral sense exist because they solve cooperation problems within groups. — Mark S

Can you provide some evidence of this growing scientific consensus? Can you provide some examples. The way you stated it sounds very simplistic to me - to the point of being trivial, almost tautological. Of course humans evolved to live in social situations. Of course social norms work to deal with problems in the community. Perhaps you can provide more detail.

Here is a recipe for fried tripe.

INGREDIENTS

2 lbs beef tripe
1 cup flour
salt
black pepper
cayenne pepper, to taste
oil (for frying)

DIRECTIONS
Heat oil to 350 degrees F. Boil tripe until tender. Allow to cool enough to handle. Cut tripe into strips or cubes. Mix flour, salt, and both peppers. Dredge tripe in flour mixture. Fry until golden brown. Drain on paper towels.

I think it would be great if the mods enforced intuitive OP-terms, but that thread showed me that they are not willing, or else are not able due to time constraints. I was even PMing one, asking for help. — Leontiskos

I’ve had better luck with moderators than you. Baden in particular takes these things seriously. He’s not around all that much these days. Other moderators have told me it’s not their job, which certainly perplexes me.

I've often thought that the notion of 'reality' is what some of us chase in lieu of God, and it's probably every bit as chimeric. Reality is simply the space we inhabit and navigate each day. Whether that reality is a simulation or an act of constructivism makes no real difference to the experience. So, for me, the question doesn’t really matter. My intuition tells me that in creating reality humans devise contingent descriptions that prove useful within a given time and community, and are always subject to revision. — Tom Storm

That’s my problem with you - you’re always downplaying your philosophical aptitude. You seem to want to come off as a down home, down beat, Aussi schlub, but then you write stuff like this.

The only problem with an open discussion is that it can get derailed or split into multiple conversations. — SophistiCat

This has been a frustration for me in my own threads. I try to write detailed OPs and be very specific about the issues I want to discuss. This is important to me, when I start a thread, I have something very specific in mind and I need help figuring it out or testing my ideas. When I try to enforce the terms of the OP on other posters, they are often incensed.

You’re an engineer. I’m sure you’re also a lover of good music, movies and other forms of artistic creativity. — Joshs

I like music, movies, and other arts, but my primary interest is in written words. I read fiction, watch movies and TV, and listen to music for entertainment and read nonfiction to help clarify my own ideas and understanding of how the world works. I am not deeply emotionally affected by the works I read, watch, or listen to, although I am often moved. My primary interest is intellectual and my the primary standard I apply is the quality of the writing, film-making, or musicianship.

When I partake of an artistic product, my standards are based on memories of experiences with a song or film that shook me to the core, that changed in some small fashion the way I felt or thought about things. I remember stepping out of a theater after watching a life-changing film and everything around me seemed a little different. — Joshs

As you might guess from what I've written above, I don't think I've ever been shaken to the core by any artistic work. I have never seen a life-changing film. I have been shaken to my intellectual core by books of science and philosophy.

I’m selfish about my artistic experiences that way. I will settle for superficial entertainment, but I crave the kind of art that unsettles me, surprises the hell out of me, disturbs me. — Joshs

As I've gotten older, I've found it harder and harder to participate low-quality intellectual or artistic production of any sort. I think that has more to say about me and my advancing crotchetiness than about work being produced today.

I would say, then, that the innovative art and philosophy are out there, but they are produced and consumed by an increasing guy smaller segment of the general culture. — Joshs

As I noted, there is more high-quality intellectual and artistic work out there than anyone can ever use. One thing I really love about the internet is the ability to find guidance about where the good stuff is. I don't listen to the radio anymore, but there is no one I liked listening to more than a good DJ not just playing good music but helping us develop our own taste.

I still don't understand how you think I've excluded science. Even when science was part of philosophy, it was still just a part, not the whole thing. — Skalidris

Right, but you haven't included advances in science in your evaluation of the current creativity of philosophy. That was my point. You're measuring modern philosophers on different measures than you are Aristotle and Plato. This comment probably isn't worth taking any further.

Maybe the title of my post was confusing. I said decline because I do believe creativity has decreased over the past centuries as a general trend (even if we look at just 2 or 3). And I mentioned the ground breaking philosophers to show that creativity matters, not to show that at these points in time when these philosophers lived, creativity in philosophy in society as a whole was higher. — Skalidris

Yes, and that was my main point in my response - you're comparing the output of a few years against the output of 5,000 years and finding it wanting.

I have a feeling I'm not really contributing. We should probably leave it here.