The belief that everyone else "has it all figured out" and I'm the one who doesn't, and that I need to keep up.

Of course. Thinking is a means to an end.

When talking about how the world should be, saying "but it's not that way" is non-sequitur. — Pfhorrest

Developing a moral theory as a "pipedream, unlimited" ...

Yay, for you're the one who is despaired!!

However the philosophy forum is filled with people with just that, but even seem to be happy to continue butting heads for exactly that reason. If a community exists with only irreconcilable differences in opinion to bring them together, I don't see how they can't be accepted by friends or family. — FlaccidDoor

But people at a forum like this typically are not friends or family. We're not a community.
Discussing issues in a philosophical-ish manner is not conducive to friendship.

There's a saying: "You shouldn't discuss politics or religion in polite society." I add philosophy to the other two. Such discussion makes society impolite.

I would like you to explicate those assumptions. Like I said:

"There are several assumptions in "putting things aside" and "moving on". If these assumptions aren't elucidated and if they aren't the right ones, "putting things aside" and "moving on" can do more harm.

For example, the assumption can be "I should just move on, let it go, because I am worthless". If this is one's assumption for "putting things aside" and "moving on", how is "putting things aside" and "moving on" helping one??"


It is my assumption that there is no need to specifically "put things aside" and "move on", but that "putting things aside" and "moving on" occur naturally as a side-effect of holding certain assumptions about oneself. Such as "Doing my work is my highest priority" or "Doing X is beneath my dignity".

Merely focusing on "putting things aside" and "moving on" can move one away from some problem, but not automatically toward a valued direction in life. While moving toward a valued direction in life takes care of everything else.
(It's similar to the difference between running from danger and running to safety.)

So the premise of hedonism that pleasure and pain determine what is good and bad seems to me inherently flawed. Our senses are simply too easy to fool. — Tzeentch

Humans also have a social dimension; they are epistemically dependent on other humans; they have internalized and have access to knowledge accumulated by other humans, which can help them navigate individual deficiencies.

Social trust and epistemic dependence on other humans can give us reason to doubt our particular experiences: experiences that can be temporarily pleasurable, but harmful in the long run. Beside that doubt, they can also help us navigate them and endure the temporary displeasure that comes from depriving ourselves from things that are temporarily pleasurable but harmful in the long run.

Left to oneself, one single human doesn't seem likely to be able handle the problem.

- - -

To sum it all up, we need to move on/away from what, by my analysis, is a rather superficial understanding, perhaps even a total misunderstanding, of happiness/sorrow which is to think that happiness/sorrow are themselves objectives either to attain/avoid and arrive at the truth that the state of wellbeing is the real goal. With this realization we can perhaps get rid of the go-betweens viz. happiness/sorrow and all the complications/paradoxes/problems/dilemmas that go with them. — TheMadFool

How do you think this can be put into practice?

So like I concluded, the alternative is “because someone said so”. — Pfhorrest

But your moral objectivism amounts to the same thing.

Eudomonia in Aristotelian philosophy is linked with virtue and with fulfilling your life's purpose (telos). I don't think it's difficult to differentiate those kinds of aims from the hedonistic pursuit of pleasure. Nor do I find it difficult to differentiate the faculty of reason from that of sensation. — Wayfarer

In Early Buddhism, they speak of the six senses, with the intellect being the sixth. And if you look at the suttas, they talk about taking pleasure in ideas/thoughts as being simply yet another pleasure, like the pleasure of eating or engaging in sex. They do talk about gross and refined pleasures (and gross and subtle forms of suffering); but the point is that these pleasures (or sufferings) are considered as being on a spectrum, not different categories.

As things stand, I'm finding it difficult to relate to the differentiation you make (and which I am aware is very common in Western culture at large).

(In Dhammic religions in general, philosophical pursuits (seeking and taking pleasure in thoughts, ideas) is considered a hedonistic pursuit, mind you, hence the characteristic anti-intellectualism that can be sometimes found among their practitioners.)

I don't understand how your mind works, Harry. THis seems to me to be a non sequitur. — Banno

Who decides whether a person is male, female, or whatever?

My issue is not with whether people choose to identify as non-binary, but with the projection of expectations upon others based upon this choice. Language evolves as a function of collective use, not selective pressures. And it is a slippery slope. What is to prevent me from identifying as a completely unique gender, and applying all kinds of linguistic constraints which other people then not only have to respect, but follow in general usage? If a minority of a few thousand has this authority, why not a minority of a few hundred? Or one? — Pantagruel

Great question. It seem obvious to me that there are people that can identify as something that they are not. — Harry Hindu

Exactly. There are ways to make oneself seem special and thus demand to be given special status and to be allowed not to play by society's norms. In a culture that has a strong tendency toward political correctness, such people who demand such special status can do very well, as the politically correct majority tries to accomodate them.

What makes sex/gender so special that people that identify as something that they are not and then their assertions simply accepted without question? Take, for example, my assertion above that I am a Dark Sith Lord. Why do you question my self-identification, but not a man who says that they are not a man, but something else?

Good question.

This sounds like you're lashing out at me suggesting you being scared of non-binary people is a psychological problem of yours, not a social problem of theirs. — Pfhorrest

*sigh*
I suppose US culture is different. Here, we have reverse isms. Such as reverse racism, where there is the trend to think of people of other races more favorably than of one's own; and so letting them get away with shit that if done by us would be punished; and being pressured into letting them get away with it.
There's a trend to favoritize minorities (and those who wish to be seen as such) and to give them special rights (even legally), even at the expense of the "natives" and the "ordinaries".

This is why I feel consternation whenever some new identity signifier becomes popular: because it means that yet more people will be able to get away with doing things that we, "the ordinary" couldn't get away with, and we, "the ordinary", will be expected to give them right of way, or be stigmatized as racist, homophobic, anti-Christian, or whatever.

Do you believe in objective morality?
— baker

Objective as in universal, non-relative, yes. — Pfhorrest

Well, this explains everything then. Empathy and moral objectivism are mutually exclusive.

Seems to me that hedonism always wants to avoid this conclusion - to say there’s no real difference between pleasant sensations and eudomonaic happiness (which is the happiness that comes from the pursuit of virtue.) One can, for example, attain happiness in the contemplation of verities, which surely can’t be reduced to sensation alone, and which only a rational mind can entertain. — Wayfarer

But what would justify this difference?

What do you guys think? Is a difference in language an accurate way to perceive this divide? — FlaccidDoor

No. It's a difference in stances. It is to be expected that people holding different stances cannot be friends or form a harmonious family.

IOW, it's not (bad) discussion of politics that tears families and friendships apart. It's that discussion of politics reveals the irreconcilable differences that are there between the people, and which have possibly been there from the start of the relationship.

What makes conduct moral, if not refraining from hurting people (not inflicting suffering), and helping them (enabling enjoyment)? — Pfhorrest

The obvious example is from monotheistic religions: moral is that which is in line with God's commandments. Acting in line with God's commandments can lead to (other) people's happiness or suffering. But making (other) people's happiness or suffering the reference point for what counts as moral or not would be a grave mistake in the context of monotheism.

The Christian references are relevant for our discussion, because we are discussing morality against Christianity's backdrop and within its conceptual framework.

I find myself just flabbergasted at the notion of reckoning something as good or bad regardless of (or even in spite of) whether it makes anybody feel good or bad. — Pfhorrest

Yet it's an idea that can be found in some major religions. Like when Christians say that believing in God and following his commandments has nothing to do with your happiness. In fact, doing the morally right thing is possibly going to or is even supposed to make you feel crappy (a burden you should gladly accept, given the massive sacrifice God has already made for you).

One of my favorite parts of the Republic is when Socrates' brother stares down Thrasymachus and assures him that any wager made would be satisfied if he should lose.
Thrasymachus left the room shortly afterwards. — Valentinus

IOW, Socrates' brother appealed to might makes right, and apparently had the wealth and the power to back up his challenge. No surprise there.

Why is this a favorite part of yours of the Republic?

I agree with you, but how do you argue the case against someone who doesn't accept the power of rational persuasion? — Wayfarer

And further, how do you make sense of being the loser/victim/underdog in such a situation?

Gandhi and the Indians used some passive resistence methods of rebelling against the British. And those methods worked: but only because the British were honorable enough to be persuaded by those methods.

In contrast, such a passive resistence proved futile in many other cases, such as for the Native Americans against European colonizers or the Jews against the Nazis.

A massive boulder rolling down a hill on a trajectory to run you over does not accept the power of rational persuasion, and you wouldn't expect it to anyway. But normally, one expects humans to be open to rational persuasion, esp. when they themselves open the communication with you by appealing to rational persuasion.

Making the step from seeing other people as humans (who are open to rational persuasion) to seeing them as no different than massive boulders rolling down a hill on a trajectory to run you over requires some considerable change in one's outlook on life. It's not clear how that change can be made.

There is a wide body of literature in the foreign policy and security studies fields that shows that norms (e.g. rule of law, honor culture, etc.) shape and constrain the use of force. Even when there is total state breakdown and no monopoly on force, not every battlefield regresses into the maximum apocalyptic scenes of say, the Liberian Civil War.

Philosophy shapes thoughts, which in turn shapes actions. Might makes right isn't necissarily the case even in warfare. I'd argue it's generally not the case in day to day life. Otherwise, after a lifetime of weight lifting and martial arts practice, I wouldn't wait in lines anymore. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Might isn't limited to brute force. Might is everything that other people can use as leverage against you, and that can be anything from brute force to blackmail.

My point is that it is possible (and perhaps even preferrable) to hold people morally responsible without having any theory of free will or determinism to back this up, but to instead follow one's "gut feeling". This way, one at least has a definitive answer as to whether the person is guilty as charged or not, as opposed to getting lost in an endless effort to prove/disprove free will/determinism.

Oh, the irony.

Cases of 'might makes right' are clearly discernable in cultures without the human rights background of the West, conspicuously the People's Republic of China, where individual rights are held to be subordinate to the requirements of the State, as well as in other authoritarian and one-party states. — Wayfarer

Might makes right is the doctrine of modern Western capitalist countries as well, given that the pursuit of justice costs a lost of money. For many people, it is prohibitively expensive.
People can do all kinds of things to you, things that are nominally illegal/criminal. Yet if you don't have the money to pursue them legally, this counts as agreeing with them, condoning those actions done to you.

Judgement is about power, not truth? What kind of shitty philosophy is that? — ToothyMaw

The one that pretty much everyone I know lives by. And they are doing well!

That's one of my favorite maxims, Baker. But you can't teach the whole world. — Tom Storm

And this exonerates you when others treat you poorly?

I have a similar story to move kids past things that are obsessing them - an ill parent, an incident of bullying. I tell them that they will carry the problem, but they have a choice of holding it in their hands so that they cannot do anything else, or putting it in their pocket or backpack so that they can get on with the stuff before them. — Banno

But this doesn't address the "big picture". There are several assumptions in "putting things aside" and "moving on". If these assumptions aren't elucidated and if they aren't the right ones, "putting things aside" and "moving on" can do more harm.

For example, the assumption can be "I should just move on, let it go, because I am worthless". If this is one's assumption for "putting things aside" and "moving on", how is "putting things aside" and "moving on" helping one??

The popular maxim that we can't control what others say to us but we can control how we react is also similar. — Tom Storm

Another popular maxim says that we teach others how to treat us; and that if they treat us poorly, it's because we have taught them to do so.

Then I suppose most people live a pretty sad existence. — ToothyMaw

Not at all. They get pleasure when judging others. This pleasure, the gratification of moral indignation is a motivation for judging others. To withold judgment would be to deny oneself this pleasure.

Maybe for an authoritarian regime that murders people for speaking their minds. — ToothyMaw

No, it's how ordinary people are: they love to judge others, in matters big and small. It's how they exert power.

my point is that judgement should be withheld until we find out if it is indeed false. — ToothyMaw

Judgement is about exerting power, not about truth.

When we're setting out to do anything, there's two things to ask ourselves: why to do it / why should something come to be the case, and how to do it / how does something come to be the case? We've got all of the descriptive sciences, including the ones you're talking about, investigating the second type of question, the "how does", to great results.

But we barely have any systemic investigation into the first question, the "why should". — Pfhorrest

Because for a psychologically normal person, the Why is supposed to go without saying, be something that the person takes for granted.

Yes, but not to agree with him, but to understand his deeper motives and find alternate ways of satisfying them that don't so deeply dissatisfy others'. — Pfhorrest

Then you wouldn't be "walking in his shoes" to begin with. You wouldn't be empathizing, you'd be projecting, following your own agenda.

If you're already sure you know what's right and wrong, then why randomly empathize with others??

Extreme egalitarianism?
— baker
Yes, otherwise known as altruism. Everyone matters. Everyone.

No. For one, this is not how the world works.
For two, what you're describing sounds more like codependence or borderline personality disorder symptoms.

And what would such extreme empathy have to do with finding out what's good or bad??
— baker
What do you think "good or bad" even mean? Because this just sounds like a bizarre question to me.

You're not answering my question.


Do you believe in objective morality?

As I have attempted to counsel him on several occasions, I told him that learning to let things go (good and bad) is the most important lesson in life any of us can learn, that carrying feelings (particularly anger) can have devastating effects not only on the quality of your life, but the lives of those around you. — synthesis

That's just nihilistic quietism.

To find out what's good or bad, walk some miles in other peoples' shoes, put yourself in their places, experience for yourself what it's like to go through what they go through, and if necessary figure out what's different between you and them that might account for any differences that remain in your experiences. — Pfhorrest

Why on earth would anyone do that???

Would you empathize with Hitler, see things from his perspective, see, how from his perspective, what he did was good and right? Exactly.

Apart from such extreme empathy being impossible to do, what should the purpose be for it? Extreme tolerance? Annulment of responsibility? Extreme egalitarianism?

And what would such extreme empathy have to do with finding out what's good or bad??

It seems like this is simultaneously a principle that everyone must have already learned as children,

No. What children are taught isn't empathy, it is projection under the guise of empathy.
The whole idea is remiss anyway, as small children aren't even able to reason about morality in terms of empathy. See Kohlberg's stages of moral development. A person cannot relate to a moral reasoning that is outside of the stage they're in.

But again, 'critical thinking' in the original Platonic context, started with very different background assumptions to critical thinking in the current day and age. — Wayfarer

Could you sketch out the difference, please?


Obviously, there are several ways to interpret "critical thinking". In the OP, I was referring to critical thinking as it is usually understood in modern secular academic textbooks about the topic (notably, in textbooks about informal logic and informal logical fallacies). But beyond that, people tend to have diverse ideas about what comprises "critical thinking" (e.g. I've seen Bahais argue that if one thinks critically, one will see that Bahaullah is the prophet of God).

Culture and society allow people to accept their impulse to seek dignity and decency. — Wayfarer

And to tie this with the OP question: Would you say that philosophers advocate for critical thinking in an effort to seek dignity and decency?

These domains barely tolerate restriction by rule of law.

What would be the general motivation to adoption? — Pantagruel

That description by authority becomes the norm the masses are expected to obey.

It's what we have in psychology, for example: Psychologists study the population, then, based on empirical findings assess what is statistically normal, and then, because the psychologists have considerable institutional power, the statistically normal becomes the norm, the normative that people must live up to or else get stigmatized as "abnormal" and needing treatment.

merely dilettante pessimism.
— baker

You'd have to explain that. Pessimism doesn't mean an utter inability to do what one doesn't want to. — schopenhauer1

Consequent pessimism is paralyzing. You're at most, talking about occasionally having some pessimistic thoughts. I'm talking about real, consequent 24/7 pessimism. That's the kind that makes one see the futility of every human action, 24/7.

Antinatalism is about empathy or compassion for the future people that would be created by the procreators. — schopenhauer1

But since, if the antinatalist is successful in convincing other people not to procreate, the potential future people will not exist anyway, so no compassion or empathy for them, so the point is moot.

Compassion and empathy are meaningful only in relation to already existing entities.
It's not possible to feel actual empathy for someone whom you don't know because they don't exist.

The compassion and empathy you're talking about are idle perversions.

This actually seems unempathetic.. being more akin to eugenics and nefarious programs in the past. I also don't see how shaming people is compassionate.. Rather, it's just more social pressures to see a certain outcome- ends justify the means.

It's empathy and compassion for existing people -- such as for those who are burdened with looking after orphans or the defective. Social norms are there to protect and serve the normal, the majority.

The motivation is to prevent future sufferers from suffering.

But there are not going to be any future sufferers!

That seems pretty egoless being that the antinatalist has nothing themselves to gain from it, since they already exist and all.

It looks more like the final drop of pleasure that the antinatalist is trying to squeeze out of life.

Have you ever consistently made an effort to have a pessimistic attitude to life, yet were able to dilligently get up every morning and do your work well?
— baker

Much work gets done because it has to be or X will happen. — schopenhauer1

IOW, you haven't consistently practiced pessimism.
Getting up in the morning and thinking, "Oh no, not this again", but then getting dressed and going to work and doing it well is merely dilettante pessimism.

One of the points of the OP is not only do we survive, we can evaluate any given task needed to survive (in the socio-economic-cultural superstructure). That's why I see this situation as a negative. Here we are, being able to negatively evaluate the very tasks needed to survive (and find comfort and survive).

Yes, we've been over this. I'm not seeing anything special in this. You need to break eggs in order to make an omelette. Most people don't cry over the eggs being broken.

(and find comfort and survive).

What do you mean by "find comfort"?
Are you saying that you see the futility of life as it is usually lived, but you nevertheless find ways to feel comforted? By what, how?

I am very concerned people want to see X from another person because they have a vision that just needs to happen for the other person. — schopenhauer1

But proponents of antinatalism are doing the same thing: they want to see other people stop procreating because they (ie. the antinatalists) have a vision that just needs to happen for the other people.

Antinatalism, precisely because of its specific anti-life content, is not a stance that can be backed up by empathy or compassion for other people.

If someone argues for selective natalism/selective antinatalism (as has typically been the case throughout human history, such as in the form of forbidding sex outside of marriage, killing defective newborns, or stigmatizing unwed mothers and their children), then this can still be motivated by empathy or compassion for one of more parties involved.

But with antinatalism, there can be no such motivation -- other than to please the ego of the antinatalist (who will be dead within a few decades anyway, so why care about him).