I’m saying ‘suffering’ is actually what gives life value. No suffering is a zombie life without emotion. — I like sushi

Interesting!

@Wayfarer, what do you make of this?

But we are responsible for procreating - and we could stop or at least wonder why we do it; we can actually consider reasons for and against. — ToothyMaw

So the 'responsibility' is no more valid a point than 'procreating'. We have a sense of responsibility tied to our procreative abilities. I cannot see how it can be argued that these are separate to the point that one is on a pedestal but not the other. — I like sushi

As long as the people involved don't decide on which narrative to go with, there is confusion.

If we go with the "selfish gene" narrative, then we cannot consequently talk about responsibility or anything else that is conceived of as being subject to a person's will.

If we go with the personality narrative, then we cannot consequently talk about the genes, selfish or otherwise.

Those two narratives are mutually exclusive.

Patronizing me clearly brings you a lot of pleasure ...

:starstruck:

If there were someone who knows, how could she demonstrate her knowledge such that everyone would be able to see that in fact she does know? — Janus

Why everyone?

Can you explain?

Lack of consensus doesn't mean that nobody knows; but it can mean that only some know and others don't.
— baker

Maybe my language was sloppy. It doesn't mean nobody knows. But it also doesn't mean somebody does.

How would we know? — Tom Storm

It depends on why you want to know whether someone else knows or not.

No dichotomy! I didn't intend anything like you think I did. I said that we can know ourselves better with the added benefit of science. That doesn't obviate the need for self-examination. I wasn't referring to the question of others knowing me at all. — Janus

"Knowing yourself better with the added benefit of science" _is_ knowing oneself on other people's terms.

I won't go into what they are but the thesis of this thread is that stoicism presents itself as a constant struggle (in my experience) with analyzing what is important to control in one's life. — Shawn

In discussions of S/stoicism, the point is often made that one needs to distinguish between what one can control and what one cannot control.
However, I do not know any reference to this in the writings of the ancient Stoics. Could you post it, please?

every day affirmations of Marcus Aurelius or Epictetus. — Shawn

Could you please post a link to those?

I'm interested to hear about other terms, or sets of terms, that have a habit of stagnating discussions — I like sushi

Rational, rationality.


Irrational, iirationality.

In short, the EU has a long way to go to become democratic. — Manuel

I wonder what you mean by "democratic".
It seems you mean something like "being voted into a position of power, as opposed to inheriting it or usurping it".

This is how democracy works: prior to the American civil war there were five different parties that claimed to be anti-slavery. Only one party was pro-slavery.

The result was that anti-slavery energy was scattered at best and divided against itself at worst.

Lincoln gathered all the anti-slavery parties together and thus won the presidency. — frank

No, that's how a polarized, simplificationist two-party system works. In such a system, what matters the most is whose will prevails, not what the issue is about or how well it is being handled in terms of economics, logistics, and such.

But indeed, Americans tend to call that "democracy".

Plurality of parties usually means there's either no pressing issues to deal with or there's apathy about dealing with the issues at hand.

Typical American response.

Again, no. A country has to deal with dozens of issues at any given time, most of which require some creativity, ingenuity. A dichotomous two-party system kills that creativity, ingenuity.


In the example of slavery: this was an issue on which two camps were possible at the time, in those circumstances, so there were party A, B, C, D, E who were against slavery, and party F who was for it.

But on some other issue, such as gun ownership, those parties couldn't form those same two camps, but, for example, A, B, F on the one side, and C, D, E on the other side.
While on the issue of women's rights, they could be divided in three camps, A, B vs. C, D vs. E, F.

There's a reason why there is a mutltitude of parties: because they do have different views, different programmes, which only partly overlap, and overlap differently on different issues.

The difference between old-school European politics and American politics is that old-school European politics approaches political communication as a means to solve a problem, a constructive exchange of ideas so as to jointly come up with the best solution of a problem. Whereas American politics is all about persuasion, persuading others of one's view, the prevailing of one will over another.

From what I've seen, Americans tend to be this way in general as well: "Either you're with me, or you're against me. Either you see things the way I do, or you're wrong/bad/defective. (But look, I'm so nice that I sometimes even let you have your wrong opinion!)" This is more pronounced with Republicans than with Democrats (although Democrats are still firmly in that dichotomous way of being). And this doesn't pertain just to how they handle politics, it's about everything, from cosmetics, to cooking, to the meaning of life: that same dichotomous mentality.


What you see as "apathy" in EU politics is actually putting the solving of a problem first, and placing the desire to rule as a distant second, or further down the list. EU politics is like a brainstorming session and teamwork to implement the best idea.

You must've missed it: I referred to genomes (genes) with no mention of "those who feel immortal". — 180 Proof

It's people who reproduce. People make the decision to reproduce, or not. It's not that their genes somehow run the show.

to make room for descendents. After all, genomic self-replicators self-replicate or perish: without mortality, I think, natality would not be sufficiently urgent or adaptive in nature (for vertebrates). — 180 Proof

Ergo, those who feel immortal, who have a sense that their life will somehow go on forever, have no biological desire to reproduce. Ha!


A sense of one's own immortality, a sense that one's life will somehow go on forever needn't be a sign of megalomania; it can be a sign of feeling desperately trapped in one's situation.

There's no doubt it should make sense to want to be stronger. But what about the strongest? Or even stronger than that? As an idea it can easily transform into a fetish, or a masochistic pride that doesn't speak for the full breadth of our real interests. — kudos

What are "our real interests"?

We miss the mark. Shoot the arrow to the wrong place. We give the prey a chance to escape, because that's how we survive. And why should it not be the case in our civil lives as well? — kudos

You mean as in, letting others live?

Still inappropriate as a means to compare the natural instinct of prey and predators with personalities of people. Categorically incorrect. — Caldwell

Do explain why.

If we hold the Theory of Evolution, why taboo Social Darwinism?

3. Conceivably, the most effective method of minimizing suffering would be ending the life of every being that can suffer, immediately and simultaneously. — darthbarracuda

No, that would merely render the problem of suffering moot. It wouldn't minimize it, it wouldn't make an end to it, it would only make it not applicable.


And as for the elephant in the room:

Define "suffering".

Daoism originates in China. Study the history of China. Daoism seems to be a Chinese version of quietism. Of course the ruling class in China would not want the people at large to rebel, so it taught them quietism. At the same time, the ruling class had to justify itself, and its often brutal ruling practices.

Getting out and doing something is very Daoist, provided one was the Chinese elite; and very non-Daoist, if done by the lower class.

An injustice did not happen to someone. Why is the idea of “bad thing did not happen to someone” somehow not legitimate? The opposite is something bad happened to someone. We are preventing that scenario. — schopenhauer1

When there is noone to whom the injustice could happen, there is no injustice.

When there is noone to whom the injustice could happen, you haven't prevented the injustice. Because when there is noone to whom the injustice could happen, the notion of injsutice does not apply.

I take your points. — tim wood

You owe me an apology.

But this is false. Hospitals are filling with people not vaccinated, to nearly 100 percent of patients being unvaccinated, as reported in the US. — tim wood

Not here. In Slovenia, as of yesterday, the percentage of people who are hospitalized for covid and who are fully vaccinated is around 30%. In Croatia, too, it's keeps growing; a couple of months back, it was about 3%, now it's 20 to 30%.

In Israel, the vast majority of those hospitalized for covid are fully vaccinated.

Some EU countries have been trying to scare people into getting vaccinated by making it a policy to publish the daily covid numbers (infected, hospitalized, dead) along with the percentage of the unvaccinated in those numbers.

Too bad that the percentage of the fully vaccinated who get infected, hospitalized, or who die keeps growing.

Just the other day on the Croatian news, the reporter said "Of today's 18 coronavirus deaths, as much as 13 were unvaccinated". No, adding that "as much as" doesn't make it more egregious, but it does make the other number more egregious. — baker

Well, I take it you're against vaccination, and such arguments you adduce ill-informed and ungrounded on the one hand, and irrational on the other - and that you persist in and insist on them. In particular it seems you deny that an authority can reasonably impose duties on citizens when justified. Assuming of course the authority is itself reasonable and well-intentioned - and perhaps where you live that is not the case, and perhaps never has been. — tim wood

Why is it so hard for you to read what I say?? Why??

Do I really need to repeat myself over and over again?

Matters of public health should not be left to individual citizens to decide, simply because they are too complex for an ordinary citizen to have the proper grasp of them, and too important to be left to lay public discourse and individual decision.

The government should make a decision and make it mandatory for people to comply.
— baker

Infectuous diseases (esp. those with potentially fatal outcomes) are a matter of public health, and therefore, cannot be left to the individual to decide about. They should be regulated at least by laws, but preferrably, by the constitution.

The focus on personal choice is nothing but an attempt to shift the burden of responsibility on the individual person, releasing doctors, science, and the government from responsibility, all under the guise of "respecting the individual's right to choice".
— baker

I'm not against vaccination in general, nor against vaccination against covid in particular.

But I am against vaccinating people of unknown medical status with an experimental medication.

And I am against vaccinating people in epidemiologically unsafe conditions. At mass vaccination sites, but also in smaller vaccination settings, people often don't wear masks, or don't wear them properly, they don't social distance, disinfect. It's a perfect place to spread the virus. And this at a time that is critical for the people there: they can get infected precisely at the time when they should be most cautious and most safe. Ideally, a person should go into sufficiently long quarantene prior to vaccination and afterwards. Some will say that this is not realistic. But then we get the result: covid hospitals filling with vaccinated people. The trend is clear: as more and more people are getting vaccinated in unsafe conditions, more and more vaccinated people end up in hospitals.
— baker — baker

Too late for the already born. However, recognizing our common suffering is one thing we can do. Of course, not bringing more people into the unjust situation is the main thing. Prevent future cases of injustice (in this regard the injustice of the work situation). — schopenhauer1

The main reason why I think this is wrong is because the only apparent benefit from this stance and this course of action is a certain satisfaction of the antinatalist's ego.

Since not procreating means there will be no future entities that would suffer, the whole issue of their suffering becomes moot.

So the only thing that remains is the satisfaction that the antinatalist feels in the here and now. And it's perverse to argue that people should not procreate so that the antinatalist could get some satisfaction.

You and several others have been viciously criticizing me over stances I don't hold. And nothing seems to get through to you. Nothing.


I can't say I'm not in awe of your strategy, though. It's a typical right wing strategy, extremely effective.

That's what you get for fighting strawmen of your own making. And insisting -- insisting -- on fighting strawmen of your own making.

(we ultimately do not know)
— Tom Storm
How can you say that?? Based on what??
— baker

Based on the fact that philosophers hold different views on the subject. And there is no accepted definition of what consciousness is. — Tom Storm

Multitude of opinions among philosophers is indicative only of there being a multitude of opinions among philosophers. Lack of consensus doesn't mean that nobody knows; but it can mean that only some know and others don't.

Again, no, not in the case of God and people who believe in God (and whose knowledge of themselves proceeds from their knowledge of God).
Because these people's knowledge is not derived from the observational, empirical knowledge, but is a (directly) received revelation from God.
— baker

The problem is, that even this sort of "knowledge" (I'll call it that, though it does not qualify as knowledge by epistemological standards) which one obtains from within, "intuition", or "mystical union", must be expressed in some sort of words, if one is to proceed in a logical manner from principles derived here. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, I'm talking about divine revelation, not that "which one obtains from within", "intuition", or "mystical union". Divine revelation as in, holy scriptures. The "inner" part of all this is just the personal affirmation one feels inside that the holy scriptures are in fact the word of God.

Sure, it avoids all the epistemological problems, but that's just because it isn't real knowledge, it's pretense. The epistemological problems are involved with real knowledge, not pretend knowledge.

How can you possibly know it's pretense?

Is this epistemic or imaginative? Who can really say they know God? Well, I know they can say it, but it's hardly plausible. — Tom Storm

Your word against theirs.

No, there's "know thyself" and then there's "know thyself according to someone else's idea of who you are".
— baker

Is there anything you know about yourself that is not couched in cultural terms? Or represented in a public language? Are these not ultimately "someone else's ideas"? — Janus

That we know things couched in cultural terms is a given.

The issue is the dichotomy as proposed by you, namely, "know thyself" vs. "know thyself better".
The latter is about someone else assuming authority over you.

As in, I may know myself, but a psychologist claims to know me better; Christians, too, claim to know me better, and so on.

No drug is 'harmless' per se. — I like sushi

Then why call it "harmless"?

Also, what justifies the hatred and the contempt that the vocal pro-vaccers express for anyone who is in any way not enthusiastic about the vaccine?

That's nice to see then, apparently pressure from the public helped a bit.

Still, the EU country I live has no compensation for damage due to covid vaccines.

If the government declares something to be mandatory tout court it doesn't follow that they will be legally responsible to pay compensation in the unlikely event that something goes wrong. — Janus

It is the case with other madatory vaccines. For every other mandatory vaccine, there is a safety net for the case that something goes wrong, but not for the covid vaccines.

a harmless jab — Janus

No. It stopped being harmless the moment the patent holder of the vaccine officially published its side effects, ranging from mild to deblitating to fatal.

The university system to me seems to be instilling a sense of class separation and control — kudos

Fair is fair, the system of higher education was devised for precisely this purpose. It's why the elites protested at the prospect of commoners being allowed into this system.

(Just like the police force was established to protect the upper classes from the lower classes, and not to "uphold the law".)

And it will go on failing. — dimosthenis9

On the contrary.

The academic may know a lot, but they don't know how to truly behave like a layman. They can never know how to not know what they know, and that is a weakness
— kudos

This sounds like an argument an anti-vaccine layman might make. Pity the poor virologist who toils in the lab. — jgill

Should actual lay people, Tom, Jane, Mary, Henry, be convinced to get vaccinated by the arguments given by the virologists? Do they have such an obligation to the specialists?

I teach and so I see all kinds of people who do not know what I know, but who will know in the future. Why do you think I have mysteriously forgotten how it is to be a student? — Tobias

It's a cognitive bias:

The curse of knowledge is a cognitive bias that occurs when an individual, who is communicating with other individuals, assumes they have the background knowledge to understand.[1] This bias is also called by some authors the curse of expertise.[2]

For example, in a classroom setting, teachers have difficulty because they cannot put themselves in the position of the student. A knowledgeable professor might no longer remember the difficulties that a young student encounters when learning a new subject. This curse of knowledge also explains the danger behind thinking about student learning based on what appears best to faculty members, as opposed to what has been verified with students.[3]
/.../
The term "curse of knowledge" was coined in a 1989 Journal of Political Economy article by economists Colin Camerer, George Loewenstein, and Martin Weber. The aim of their research was to counter the "conventional assumptions in such (economic) analyses of asymmetric information in that better-informed agents can accurately anticipate the judgement of less-informed agents".[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_knowledge

As a better-informed agent, you are unable to correctly anticipate the judgement of less-informed agents; in short, you cannot relate to them. Now, in a teacher-student setting, this can be irrelevant, because the only thing that matters are the teacher's expectations and standards. But outside of such a setting, it can be of vital importance. See, for example, the effectiveness of vaccination campaigns. Simply calling people stupid, irrational, and such doesn't help much.

The academic is likely to encounter the traditional way of life with a critical eye perhaps because of what they believe they know; sure they know things, but do they know better so as to decide for someone else?
— kudos

Yes of course they do. Say you have a broken car. Then you take it to the mechanic. If you have a problem with your skin, you go to a dermatologist and when you have a legal question you go to a lawyer. Try taing your skin problem to the garage and your car to a lawyer and see whether your problems are solved or not. Academics are just specialised in some field or other and therefore they know more about that subject.

And well, acadmeics do not decide for you. Policy makers do. They decide what behaviour you may perform and what not. they could also use conviction or nudging. But all of that is perfectly straight forward no? I do think you agree that society needs laws and policy.

Do you think this applies to all spheres of human effort, including questions of the meaning of life?
Is it up to academics to decide what the meaning of life is, in general and in particular?

However, I did not know academics had more rights than other people. They are more well respected socially maybe. That is logical. They know more about the subject at hand. It is that simple.

Maybe in the New World, but perhaps not even there consistently. In the Old World, having an advanced degree is mostly about status. For all practical intents and purposes, having an advanced degree (mostly regardless of the specialty) raises the person to the level of nobility, or at least aristocracy. If I would find myself in a situation where I would be expected to bow my head before someone with a Ph.D., I wouldn't be surprised. Even in informal settings these people expect to be treated with special reverence (others must greet them first, even if the person with the advanced degree is visibly younger; they get to sit down first, eat first, etc.).

You assume there is some 'ideology' which apparrently the acaemically trained share. This is not true. — Tobias

Do the academically trained not believe something like "We are better humans than the average Joe"? I believe they do. Also, society at large seems to believe this about them.

You also seem to unerestimate academics. Why would they just apply dogmatic strictness? you think that scholars of the field of linguistics are so dim that they do not understand language is a living instrument? Of course they do. Their vision is not somehow clouded by 'academic' reasoning and thinking as you seem to suggest, it is expanded by it.

Fachidiot. Do you know what this German term means?

The difference between non-academic and academic writing and argumentation is that academic writing and argument has standards of rigour

Rigour which is relevant only to academics.

But it makes me personally feel dead inside when the educated elite talk about human beings like they are children who need to be guided around by the adults who know better. — kudos

By all means, I can relate to that.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock

That is because I see it as an abuse of authority.

I think, rather, that this is an expression of authority, not an abuse of authority.

How else is the exercise of authority supposed to look like, if not in telling people what to do, who they are, what is really are, and so on?

I’m not suggesting by this we run around and grab the pitchforks for a good ol’ fashioned witch-hunt, but surely we should give the common person some respect for choosing his/her destiny even if it doesn’t fit in with the value system of professors and (private) educational institutions.

That's Thatcherian!

Do you really think that all the people who don't pursue academic achievement do so as a matter of their own choice?

My reading of Kant’s ‘kingdom of ends,’ inspires me to say a valuable structure in power and politics can’t be found without the consent to some degree of all the people within it as moral equals.

Or perhaps there is nothing deliberate about it, no consent, just "the flow of things".

Who here thinks that if they question the "game of life" that god setup and call god immoral, that they will be cursed by that very same god for calling him immoral? — schopenhauer1

Well, there was a time when I would here and there have nightmares about going to hell, punished by God eternally. It's been a while since the last one.


But I'm not sure such fear of divine punishment is what drives many people's (desire for) procreation and their efforts to maintain the worldly status quo. Those seem to be more about the fear of not fitting in.

Also, sensual pleasures do have some allure to them. One cannot give up on them easily.

So he should believe the symptoms you make up. — Banno

They don't.

When you are eventually rushed into the ER with meningoecephalitis, with fever and vomitting and so on, they ask you, "Why did you wait for so long? Why didn't you come in earlier?!"


The point being that in the real world the subjective and the invented are often equated. We cannot just dismiss this, thinking that a fancy philosophical explanation will save our day.

I despise this song. It helped turn "happiness" into a status symbol.

"See, I'm happy. Therefore, I'm better than you, so I can spit on you."

I think it pretty clear that equating made up and subjective is a long stretch. — Banno

Pffft. I'd venture to say that most people believe that "made up" and "subjective" are one and the same thing.* There surely is some reason why people believe that. How can you so readily dismiss it with an idle hand gesture?


*Ever had a health problem and went to see a doctor? You list your symptoms, but the doctor doesn't believe you. He believes only those that he can see or otherwise assess by himself, with whatever resources he has available or willing to use. You could be having a bad headache for weeks, but if the doctor isn't willing to do any tests, isn't willing to send you to an MRI test -- then, for him, you don't have a headache. And since he's the one calling the shots, there's nothing you can do.