The Chinese changed it to 3. They are stupid. One was better. — Dijkgraf

But they were aborting the girls so they could have sons. Leaders also figured out that they would run out of people to participate in the economy and China would plunge into a bottomless depression. There's a good chance they're right. Then we'll see some real misery.

I was going to stay out of active participation in this thread because I'm not really familiar with Kant and I don't want to skew the discussion toward my own non-standard way of seeing this issue. But since @Wayfarer mentioned Buddhism and there seems to be a multiplicity of views of what Kant meant, I'll toss this in quickly but won't follow up unless someone else is interested.

You've shown an interest in Taoism in past threads, so I know you're at least familiar with the idea of the Tao. The first time I came across Kant's noumena, the similarities between that and Lao Tzu's idea struck me, although there are clearly differences. I'm not the first person to see that similarity, although it is clear Kant was not influenced by eastern philosophies.

To simplify, the Tao is what there was before there were people to see it and talk about it. But of course, that's not right, because, to Lao Tzu, before oneness was divided into a multiplicity, those things in a sense didn't exist. The Tao is called "non-being" and the multiplicity is called "being." It can't be conceptualized. It can't be spoken. Conceptualizing it is what turns the one into a multiplicity. This came to mind again when reading Mww's post:

On the other hand, asking about a noumenal world in general presupposes it, in which case the ask becomes....can the physical forms of noumena be understood. Now the answer is incomprehensible, insofar as only real physical objects which affect the senses can be intuited, and these, being phenomena, as arrangement or synthesis of object matter into a logical form, are for that reason, not noumena but actual objects of knowledge. It is quite absurd, and mutually destructive, to attempt the cognition, and thereby the experience of two entirely different kinds of worlds at the same time under the same conditions. — Mww

Don't worry, Mww, I'm not assuming you agree with my way of seeing things, but I think you get at something basic.

Also, I really like this:

But in Buddhism that is elaborated through meditation which is a discipline of getting direct insight into the way the mind constructs the world. — Wayfarer

I had never thought of it in those terms, but it has the ring of truth.

You should focus on arguments, not arguers. — Bartricks

Agreed, but you and @Agent Smith started it.

bringing people into our situation would be a very evil thing to do. — Bartricks

evilly self-absorbed inconsiderate person — Bartricks

It's evil to have children! — Agent Smith

I'm a chicken!

The modern world is not suited for new chickens. I think all chickens should take that into consideration. One egg to breed max! Until people are re-educated. — Dijkgraf

That's a reasonable position, although it didn't work so well for the Chinese.

The female species loves me. I'm a good-looking guy. Talkative body. Burning brains. The mere thought of putting children in this world is a frightening one. Poor children! No normal future ahead of them. Prone to depression and nuclear destruction. Forced to play the materialistic capitalistic game. I have all it takes to procreate beautiful children (some girls told me they never saw a more good looking bloke, "le mec plus beau du monde"...), provided with the brains to turn all they touch into gold. But I refuse... — Dijkgraf

I'll give you a more serious response this time.

As I wrote previously, no one needs a reason not to have children. It's their choice. The choice you've made is your choice. So far, all you discussed is the specific choice you've made and the reasons for it. You haven't turned it into moral philosophy and you haven't tried to apply that moral philosophy to how other people should be obligated to behave.

So that's my question. Do you believe that other people have a moral obligation not to have children? If you answer "no," you're not an anti-natalist. You're just a guy who doesn't want to have children.

But I refuse... — Dijkgraf

So... send us a picture and let us decide.

Misfits? If to care about people suffering, horribly some times, makes one a misfit, I'd gladly be one! Who wants to be a part of a group that turns a blind eye to the real and abject misery that, perforce, must be mentioned in the defintion of the world as we know it. — Agent Smith

Baloney. Just because you're too lazy, or socially inept, or frightened, or ugly to have children, that doesn't make you a person of integrity.

I don't think that all of these individuals are misanthropic. They could indeed be driven by a strong sense of compassion for others. I would merely say that empathy and understanding can also extend to the positive aspects of life. People on our side might also rationalise without thinking about these issues in a thorough manner, which is something I hope will change for the better, since I do believe that existence can most certainly be justified. I am still grateful to everybody I've interacted for providing me with thought-provoking ideas to ponder over. I obviously have much to learn. — DA671

You're much too reasonable. What are you doing on a philosophy forum?

This and your previous post are interesting and well-written. My plan is to learn everything I need to know about Kant without ever reading another word by him. After that, let's go on to all the rest of the pantheon.

I don't think I have anything to offer, but I'll be reading along. Good idea for a thread.

It could, but once again, looking at an incomplete picture is dangerous. There is a potent joy hidden beneath that sacrifice, and I don't think it's trivial. Nor is such a great sacrifice always necessary, of course. Things can also be a win-win scenario, wherein people contribute towards each other's well-being. — DA671

@Agent Smith, @Bartricks, and the other anti-natalists are misfits. They were never going to have children with or without the justifications provided by philosophy. Anti-natalism is just the rationalization that people who don't belong use to dignify their misanthropy.

Deciding not to have children is fine. My brother and daughter both decided early that they weren't interested. They aren't anti-natalists. They don't need bullshit "ethics" to justify their personal decisions.

Personally, I don't think that it has any positive/negative value (aside from the process). — DA671

As Woody Allen said - I'm not afraid of death, I just don't want to be there when it happens.

Now, once more Clarky boy, try and answer the question: do you think we have reason to avoid death under most circumstances? — Bartricks

As I noted, that's not the claim you made originally. You're changing the rules of the game in the middle of play. No need for us to continue this any longer.

you are claiming that, in general, we do not have reason to avoid death? — Bartricks

No, I am claiming that most of us won't "do virtually anything to avoid it." You are changing the basis of this discussion in the middle.

My question was whether we generally have reason to avoid death — Bartricks

No. You wrote:

Our reason tells us to do virtually anything to avoid it. — Bartricks

Generally having reason to avoid is different from doing virtually anything to avoid. As I said, I'm enjoying my life; I'd like to live longer, but there are many things more important.

A neat piece of research, — Banno

Yes. I went to Google, typed "how many people are afraid of dying," and picked the link at the top of the page. I am exhausted from all the work.

My claim is that we have reason to avoid death under virtually all circumstances. Are you challenging that claim? — Bartricks

It's not true of me. It's not true of most of my friends and family. It wasn't true of my father while he was dying of lung cancer. I'm enjoying my life, so I'm in no hurry to be gone, but when the time comes, I'll be ready.

Our reason tells us to do virtually anything to avoid it. — Bartricks

I looked on line and it said that more than half of people in the US are not particularly afraid of dying. Only about 10% are very afraid. Perhaps you are in that 10%, but don't expect the rest of us to follow along.

The Forever War — Pantagruel

One of my favorite military science fiction books. Clever and well-written.

What then is the point? — Cornwell1

I don't think this line of discussion is getting us anywhere. Let's drop it.

There is only one speed of light. In the vacuum. The smaller speed comes in handy in using glass fibres, but the concept of speed of light in glass is weird. — Cornwell1

You missed the point I was trying to make when I provided the link. Let's leave it at that.

To OP is extremely confused, and responding in the same terms would only add more confusion. — Olivier5

I was confused, but I don't think that means the OP was. After all, it wasn't @Ignoredreddituser's writing, it was Steven French's.

Shot in the dark but anyone hear or read anything from the Kyoto School of philosophy? — Dermot Griffin

Sorry, I can't help, but I'm interested. I have noted similarities between the writings of western philosophers and the understanding expressed in the Tao Te Ching, e.g. similarities between Kant's noumena and the Tao, but I never thought about the other way round. I hope someone responds. I'd be interested in following the discussion.

And welcome to the forum.

I think T Clark's question is also a valid philosophical question, — Cuthbert

I agree with your explanation, but I think Wayfarer's criticism was that I wasn't responding in the terms that the OP laid out. I don't disagree with him.

But only one is right. Photon absorption and re-emission. — Cornwell1

You got something different out of the video than I did.

Say you have a conceptual model of a site that uses different concepts as mine, but insofar pragmatics is concerned there is no difference. Your model is as accurate as mine. Does the pragmatic value equalize them? — Cornwell1

Here's a link to an interesting video explaining why the speed of light in glass is different than in a vacuum. 16 minutes long.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiHN0ZWE5bk

After the presenter goes through his explanation, he says - oh, by the way, here are two other ways to look at it, and he briefly describes them. So, he has three apparently different ways of modelling the phenomenon, one classical and two quantum mechanical. He gives a very interesting description of the differences between the three models and the value of each.

C'mon TC. This is a philosophy forum, and it's a perfectly valid philosophical question. It's a lot better thought-out than many of the one-liner OP's that are posted. Not seeing the point of an OP is not a constructive criticism. — Wayfarer

I think it's a good OP. The addition of the summary was a good move. I read the whole OP, including the summary. As I noted, I tried hard to figure out a way to respond in the terms laid out, and I failed. I don't understand the point being made, but I put effort into it. At least it gave you a chance to kick me in the pants.

Also these are mutually exclusive. — Cornwell1

I don't think you and I mean the same thing by "mutually exclusive." No need to take that up now.

there would still be atoms without people. — Ignoredreddituser

Would there be? Would there also be cells, and trees, and forests, and ecosystems without people? Would there be hydrogen and oxygen, and water, and runoff, and brooks, and creeks, and tributaries, and rivers, and oceans?

Yeah you’re basically saying there’s things are grounded, whereas he just says they don’t exist only the grounding stuff exists, if that. — Ignoredreddituser

I'm not sure what this means.

General relativity and Newtonian gravity are conceptually different. General relativity doesn't consider gravity a force and space and time are relative. — Cornwell1

I was talking about Newton's laws of motion and special relativity. I should have been clearer.

If two different models are equally accurate then they are both true? — Cornwell1

As I've said, conceptual models are more or less accurate, not true or false.

There are domains in the world where two or more mutually excluding conceptual models lead to succesful interaction. — Cornwell1

I wouldn't think that two different conceptual models of the same phenomena would be mutually excluding, e.g. Newton's laws of motion are consistent with relativity at velocities less than about 0.7c. Above that velocity, relativity is a more accurate model.

this isn't to deny the concept of truth or to identify truth with utility. — sime

As I noted in another post, the Pragmatic understanding of "truth" takes some getting used to. I'm still working on it. Identifying truth and utility has it's problems. I get around that by saying truth and utility aren't the same thing, but utility is the one that matters. As I said, I'm still working on that.

But surely some knowledge must be true or false. — Cornwell1

The point I've tried to make in this thread is that knowledge, from a pragmatic point of view, isn't made up of facts that are true or false. It's made up of conceptual models that are accurate or inaccurate.

On the other hand, "The capital of France is Paris," is a true statement and I agree that it constitutes knowledge. I do knock my head against that a bit.

When assessing a site, and another pragmatic epistemogist comes up with different knowledge as you do, are you both telling the truth? — Cornwell1

"Telling the truth" refers to whether or not someone is lying or not, which is not the issue. The question is whose conceptual model is more accurate. Whose will lead to the most successful action.

If engineers develop a model on the basis of past experience, their words and actions assent to some notion of truth. — sime

That doesn't tell me how an action can be true or false. I get up, go into the kitchen, and get a glass of water. Is that action true or false?

TLDR: 1. An object is an object non-deriviatively whereas a mereological sum is an object only derivatively. Objects are constituted out of mereological sums.
2. The primary difference between mere sums and objectslie is in persistence conditions.
3. The arguments against eliminativism assumes an object and begs the question against eliminativism
4. The difference in persistence conditions only points to a set of particles dispersed and those aggregated objectwise and subjected to the principles of physics like the Pauli Exclusion principle.
5. Because all the work is being done by those physical principles and constraints then it follows there is no difference between mere sums and an object. — Ignoredreddituser

Sorry. I tried, but even with your summary I got lost. Why does any of this matter? A table is a table by human convention. An atom is an atom by human convention. Why is there a mystery? A table is made up of atoms held together primarily by electromagnetic forces. My family is made up of my wife and children held together primarily by tradition, duty, and love.

Again, I wanted to respond to your post in the terms you laid out, but I got lost.

You forgot "reject". I don't reject this function, as pragmatic epistemology does. — Cornwell1

You're right. I wasn't certain which assumption you were rejecting.

I see you are Collingwood's faithful acolyte. — Cornwell1

I've read Collingwood and I find his ideas about metaphysics helpful.

The presuppositions, while not true or false, correspond to true or false actions, so important in pragmatism. The actions might even be absolutely true or false. — Cornwell1

Pragmatism doesn't say anything about the truth of actions. How can an action be true or false?

and rejects the idea that the function of thought is to describe, represent, or mirror reality.
— T Clark

Here you are wrong. That is not the function of thought. The function of thought is to give an analogue image of the world, so we can walk in it with confidence. Which has a pragmatic aspect, obviously. But walking at night beneath the winter moon and stars in a sleeping city, shows the function of thought goes beyond its pragmatic function. — Cornwell1

You say "The function of thought is to give an analogue image of the world..." How is that different from "...the function of thought is to describe, represent, or mirror reality"?

I provided that quote as example of one of the underlying metaphysical assumptions for Pragmatism. Metaphysical assumptions, called "absolute presuppositions" by R.G. Collingwood, are not true or false. They are more or less useful in particular situations.

Nuff said.

When I start a thread, I do it for a reason. I have a position I want to test, a question I want to answer, or some thoughts I want to put into words. I work to set up the OP so people can understand what I'd like the thread to be about. I define my terms, describe the issue, provide my position, and then lay out the terms of discussion. I am always surprised by how much I learn from other people's responses. The threads I start are important to me.

I try hard to show the same consideration for others that I desire for myself. I admit that I haven't always lived up to that goal, but I try. When someone calls me out on it, I apologize and try harder to keep on track.

It's just common courtesy.

Well, that's not very diplomatic or friendly. — universeness

I don't think it's friendly to shanghai my discussion.

The moderators are the arbiters. Why don't you request a directive from them? Let them be the class monitor. — universeness

This is from a few months ago:

it seems clear to me that responders to an OP have a responsibility to address the issue as the OP sets it up and not to go off on a tangent of their own
— T Clark

Yes.

Reciprocally, I have always understood that the person who starts the discussion has the authority to enforce the OP
— T Clark

Not directly. But we can enforce it for you. — Baden

How's that?