• No Safe Spaces
    Outside of company time, it's no business of the company what a person says or does. — counterpunch
    The thing is that it is the other way around already: People at large judge a company by its employees. If you know a guy who works for such and such company, and you don't like him, chances are you're going to hire some other company for some work you need done.

    So it makes sense that a company's employees act in line with company policy 24/7 and that the company has some overview and control over it.
  • What are we doing? Is/ought divide.
    What is the purpose of ethics, then? — Philguy
    If you look at the way theories of ethics are usually used, it's to judge, condemn, and punish people.

    So one purpose of a theory of ethics is that it is used to justfify activities that are intended to bring about social order (a theory of ethics is implied in the content of the laws and in the way the legal system works).

    Related to this, but on the level of the individual, they are used to inform psychological and physical boundaries between oneself and other (e.g. a person has a principle of not associating with people who drink alcohol, because they believe such an association is bad and ought not be done).
  • Can God do anything?
    This thread is about whether an all powerful being can do anything - which is a philosophical question that can't be settled by appeal to the bible or anything else. — Bartricks
    Damn straight it can't!
  • Can God do anything?
    Let us imagine a God so powerful, that he could make an entire universe from absolutely nothing. A square circle would be child’s play to such a being.
    As a human. I can’t imagine how either of those things could be done, but who am I to judge those whom believe it is possible?     — Present awareness
    If you can't imagine it, then why believe in it or assert it as possible??
  • What's the difference?
    But women are complicit in this. A complex social situation doesn't come about just by the actions of one party, in this case, men.
    — baker
    It takes two to tango. Right!
    — TheMadFool

    Oh, ab-so-lute-ly. My heavens, what a shame the world had to wait for you two geniuses to figure it out. If only we had known that slaves wanted to be slaves - after all, they were complicit and it takes two to tango. And those women murdered across the world even today? Can't overlook their complicity. Women who apparently wanted to be jailed, burned, stoned, beaten by mobs, hanged, beheaded mutilated. And great thing of us forgot! The Jews of Europe, 1933-1945, neglecting for the moment the antisemitism before 1933, and everyone thought it was just those Nazis. Whew, I'm glad not to make that mistake any more.

    In case you miss the irony, I consider the idea that abuse is the fault of the abused or that the abused is complicit in his or her own abuse disgusting. And if you cannot tell the difference between a woman's choosing to be a member of a religious order as a nun and accepting the obligation to dress a certain way, and a woman forced to wear certain clothing, then what can be said of you? Serious question: what would you say of yourselves?     — tim wood
    *sigh*
    Strawmen prove nothing.

    Clearly, you are emotionally invested in this topic and are willing to look at it only from a very narrow perspective.

    Sure, looking at things from a chronologically narrow perspective, they appear the way you describe them.

    But this way, you're also asking us to believe that for millennia, women have been helpless victims of men.
    That all men (or at least the vast majority of men) have been crazy, uncaring, aggressive, misogynist zombies.
    And that the most that anyone can ever do in the face of prospective aggression is hunker down and give in.

    Think about that.
  • What's the difference?
    All Moslem women are Moslem women. Not all Christian women are Christian nuns.. — tim wood
    Becoming a Catholic nun is not entirely a free choice, out of context. One can, ideally, only ordain if one has received "the higher calling". Catholic nuns and monks will tell you that God chose them, and they answered the call. Not that they chose God, out of a multitude of options.
  • A spectrum of ideological enmity
    I was thinking more of political conversations with non-philosophers out there in the wild. — Pfhorrest
    I don't see why a categorization like the one in the OP would be necessary or helpful. Other than in the case where one assumes one's superiority over others, and thus feels justified to unilaterally define the terms of engagement.

    Because this is what the categories in the OP are: unilaterally defined terms of engagement.
  • A spectrum of ideological enmity
    So you're suggesting that studying something disposes one to biases but a lay approach, what, magically removes bias? — Isaac
    Heh.
    Some things do escape those who study people professionally.

    For example, there are areas of studying people that are ethically prohibited for direct study (such as the behavior of people in their privacy, when they don't know they are being observed and have never agreed to being observed), then there are areas that would be prohibitively time-consuming or expensive (such as detailed long-term all-round studies).

    Secondly, there are social phenomena that can only be studied emically, by the observer becoming a member of the group he's studying (like the motivation for taboos, or the content of public secrets), and are as such problematic.

    However, it is precisely these areas that ordinary people routinely have access to and in which they have to function. They can study these areas qualitatively, but not quantitatively (which would be relevant for generalizing scientific purposes).
  • A spectrum of ideological enmity
    I see, so we're back to the delusion that what seems to you to be the case is actually the case. You personally have a sense of what constitutes encroaching upon other's freedoms, other people have a different sense.

    Really...most people grasp theory of mind by the age of three and you're still having trouble with it.     — Isaac
    Understanding that other people think differently than oneself doesn't automatically lead to caring about that.

    46194edf04086ba61488864bbd9e54c6.jpg
  • A spectrum of ideological enmity
    Things being in two different categories is insufficient to justify any two responses to them. You must show how each category justifies each response. — Isaac
    Indeed. I have so far been unable to get this answer from free speech absolutists (FSAs).

    But if that were the case, then all disagreement would be trivial. There'd be no reason at all to resolve it.
    Not just attempts to resolve disagreement, but any situation where people use language to accomplish anything would become trivial.

    It appears that the FSA position is internally inconsistent.

    It wasn't an historical question. I was asking why you believe they should be treated differently, not why other people might have come to.
    I don't believe they are in different categories, I'm not a FSA.
  • A spectrum of ideological enmity
    He believes that the mind is computational. She believes that mind is connectionist. He comes in the debate dripping with hatred for her position, calling her argument the "worst thing I've ever seen".. intersperse with ACTUAL content.. more ad personum attacks.. the End. — schopenhauer1
    Hold on. I've yet to see this! People who discuss models of the mind and use terms like "computational" and "connectionist" actually use phrases like "worst thing I've ever seen" and who knows what name calling??

    I thought that at that level, even the ad homs would be more classy ...
  • A spectrum of ideological enmity
    Another way of putting it might be that ideas are either meaningless or they affect the world. If the former, then what's the point in resolving disagreement? If the latter then it's no less morally relevant to hold an idea that it is to act.

    We dismiss, ostracise, even fight with people whose behaviour is in opposition to our moral codes. Why do ideas get treated differently?     — Isaac
    The constitutional clause of freedom speech drives a wedge between words and actions, as if the two would be in different categories.

    People who want to uphold the constitutional clause of freedom speech have to, if they want to be internally consistent, maintain that words and actions are two different categories.

    Some free speech absolutists, for example, believe that words (ideas) can be neither moral or immoral or have anything to do with morality. It's the old sticks and stones.


    Why do ideas get treated differently?
    Probably because the general consensus is that thinking or speaking about killing someone is not so bad as actually killing someone, for example.

    Somehow, for some people, this "not so bad" faded into oblivion, or the above clause got truncated to "thinking or speaking about killing someone is not so bad", and further to "thinking or speaking about killing someone is not bad".
  • Reason for Living
    I've been talking about people whose happiness depends on material wellbeing, and what applies to those people.
    — baker
    Of which you counted me among.     — Kenosha Kid
    Yes, based on what you said about yourself.

    Or he's hitting a wall in conversations because he's not talking to anyone who can "take him to the next level", so to speak.
    — baker
    I think it's because, as Gus has pointed out, he doesn't field answers he's not predisposed to agree with.
    That's bad faith on your part.

    Other people's happiness appears to be a big problem for him.
    I yet have to see proof of that.

    No, I'm talking about your outlook, your mentality. It's perfectly possible to be of lower middle class (and lower) and have an upper middle class mentality. If you went to a public school, that's what you probably got there.
    — baker
    I didn't go to a public school. Stop making stuff up, it's pointless.
    Start reading what I write, it'll help.

    For presenting or misrepresenting it like that, I'd have to believe it's a physical illness. Which I don't.
    — baker
    That's the problem. People can and successfully do get medical assistance in dealing with depression. It is scientifically quite well understood. It is harmful to peddle nonsense about it being merely a projection of a power structure as it ignores the actual causes. Depression is not madness. We're not in Foucault territory here. It is a biological concern (e.g. Strawbridge R, Young AH, Cleare AJ. Biomarkers for depression: recent insights, current challenges and future prospects. Neuropsychiatry Dis Treat. 2017;13:1245-1262. Published 2017 May 10. doi:10.2147/NDT.S114542)
    *sigh*
    Oh, the irony ...

    And why you subscribe to mainstream psychology -- to avoid the stigma?
    — baker
    Because evidence-based reasoning is a good way to avoid bad faith activity.
    While ignoring how psychological definitions and diagnoses come about, of course.

    I don't know if it's possible for someone who enjoys life generally to get fed up with it; I suspect there are edge cases, but on the whole happy people, barring accidents and even in spite of them, seem pretty happy forever in my experience.
    The thing is that neither you, nor mainstream psychologists can give actionable instructions on how to enjoy life. You just dismiss that person as "depressed", and that's it for you.

    Well, there's a lesson in this: One should not expect that other people will care about one's happiness.


    Again, none of that is relevant. The question was:

    I want to know WHY people choose to go on.
    — Darkneos
    Has it ever occured to you that this was a somewhat clumsy attempt to formulate an existential problem, rather than an attack on other people's happiness?
  • Reason for Living
    There is an endless supply of people complaining that life is all meaningless suffering. This thread gets repeated every few weeks with variations. What's worse though, is that the same people come back again and again to the point where one has to wonder if they don't enjoy their misery, and think themselves fine, wise and brave philosophers for facing the unpleasant truth. — unenlightened
    A person in pain can search for an answer, a way out. But because of the pain, they can also become bewildered.
    If the bewilderment guides the search, this just exacerbates the problem.
  • To What Extent Can We Overcome Prejudice?
    I am quite sure there are many things you have not heard yet. What concerns me is I don't think you have a desire to learn of things you do not already know. — Athena
    If Christians want me to change my mind about them, they're going to have to do better than pass the buck for the witch hunts.
  • Reason for Living
    It's a tabooed topic.
    — baker

    No it isn't.     — unenlightened
    I'm talking about the limits of discussing such topics in open forums, or in "polite society" in general -- I took that this is what you were referring to when you said:
    It's odd how people speculate about why people go on living as if it is something that they wouldn't consider for themselves, but surely there must be some reason such a lot of THEM do?

    It doesn't seem like ...
    An honest discussion ...
    — Darkneos
    ... to me. If you are a person, and you go on living, its personal isn't it?     — unenlightened

    I know a case where a forum poster was talking about "the meaning of life" rather candidly, and the moderator called the police, gave them the poster's IP address, and the police actually went to that poster's home to check on them.

    Knowing that you could have the police called on you if you're too candid online is quite a deterrent from discussing existential issues "honestly".

    Happiness is not at all a middle class privilege, but rather depression is.
    Some conceptions of happiness are an (upper)middle class privilege. It's those conceptions that I criticize.
  • A spectrum of ideological enmity
    My point was that philosophical agreements are either trivial or they have moral connotations (with all that's incumbent). — Isaac
    Sure. So where seems to be the problem?
  • Reason for Living
    Your equating of wealth and happiness is false. — Kenosha Kid
    Of course it's false, because I'm not doing it.
    I've been talking about people whose happiness depends on material wellbeing, and what applies to those people.

    Again, nothing to do with it. Darkneos' objection was not that he couldn't afford to go scuba diving: there are other fun things to do.
    And I'm not talking only about what he's saying.

    His objection is that doing anything for enjoyment sounds like a "chore". That is not a financial issue. It sounds like depression, which is probably why he keeps hitting that wall in conversations.
    Or he's hitting a wall in conversations because he's not talking to anyone who can "take him to the next level", so to speak.

    Depression is not a traditional means of the wealthy to oppress the poor.
    And noone said it was ...

    You are not only misrepresenting my economic status
    No, I'm talking about your outlook, your mentality. It's perfectly possible to be of lower middle class (and lower) and have an upper middle class mentality. If you went to a public school, that's what you probably got there.
    Mainstream psychology and mainstream education are, essentially (upper)middle class mentality.

    you are misrepresenting societal inertia in recognising depression as a physical illness.
    For presenting or misrepresenting it like that, I'd have to believe it's a physical illness. Which I don't.

    If you give a homeless person with terminal cancer a piece of chocolate, do you really think they are in any position "to make the most of it"?
    — baker
    This has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've said.
    It's a testing point for you: You keep talking about "all the more reason to enjoy life while you can". I'm giving you an example that puts your attitude to the test.

    I want to see how profound their happiness is. If they bask in their happiness and stigmatize everyone who isn't like them
    — baker
    That is hysterical and paranoid.
    And why you subscribe to mainstream psychology -- to avoid the stigma?



    In short, I maintain that it is possible to become fed up with the pursuit of pleasure, and that this is not necessarily due to an illness. This is not a popular view in modern culture. But it is the starting point in some religious/spiritual traditions.
  • To What Extent Can We Overcome Prejudice?
    Yes, people were ignorant and superstitious and yes the Church attempted to create social order, but if we are speaking of the Catholics, they were not in favor of claiming people are witches and burning them at the stake. That was more a protestant thing and there were so many different groups of protestants they never had the power the Catholics had. Actually, the witch hunts were more secular than religious. Someone wrote a book about witches and educated people used the book to hunt witches. Here is a marvelous explanation of why witch hunts spread like a pandemic.....

    “Similar to how contemporary Republican and Democrat candidates focus campaign activity in political battlegrounds during elections to attract the loyalty of undecided voters, historical Catholic and Protestant officials focused witch-trial activity in confessional battlegrounds during the Reformation and Counter-Reformation to attract the loyalty of undecided Christians,” write the study’s authors, Peter T. Leeson, an economist at George Mason University, and Jacob W. Russ, an economist at Bloom Intelligence, a big-data analysis firm.
    — Gwynn Guilford     — Athena

    Oh, that's cute! I haven't heard this one yet.
  • Can God do anything?
    ↪Athena

    Well, you can make up your own religion; or, if you're going to discuss religion, work with the claims that a particular religion actually makes.
  • Can God do anything?
    I think necessity does not exist, — Bartricks
    We'll just wait until your next toothache.
  • Can God do anything?
    There is no human nor god that can break the laws of the universe. — Athena
    *tsk tsk*
    In standard monotheism, the laws of the universe don't precede God.
  • To What Extent Can We Overcome Prejudice?
    I am not sure about the point of people with alcohol problems not seeing themselves as part of a group. I am thinking of the whole history of the AA movement. — Jack Cummins
    But prior to that, they characteristically didn't. It's an identity assigned to people with alcoholism by others.

    Some individual people with alcoholism still don't see themselves as part of the group" alcoholics" and refuse to internalize the identity that others have prescribed for this group.

    I would say that self- help groups have been a significant force in uniting people with alcohol problems and other issues which people identify as a focus.
    And such groups are a good example of how people internalize the identity ascribed to them by others; ie. they internalize the prejudices of others.
  • A spectrum of ideological enmity
    I was countering your view that "most of the conversations at forums like this are about people, ie. the people directly involved and the way some particular idea is relevant or irrelevant to them." Were that the case disagreement over the status of X would be irrelevant since one would have no reason to think its relevance to oneself might need to be corroborated by relevance to another. — Isaac
    Not at all. See below.

    People do not simply passionately declare that X us relevant to them. They passionately declare that X seems to them to be the case in such a way as to imply that such a property renders X necessary, in some way.

    This is the conceit we adopt when we imagine the 'polite debate', respecting the views of either side.
    Sometimes, this is the case and people are in fact acting in such conceit.

    But other times, what you're seeing is simply amateur philosophizing. It's quite messy. It's when people don't know yet how to properly formulate a syllogism, when they don't know much about informal fallacies, and so on. So they express their thoughts and their concerns in a pre-philosophical way. Hence all the "it seems to me" mixed with all those expressions of certainty.


    A person could rightfully be accused of the conceit you mention if they also demonstrate that they are able to think and write philosophically, but that in some instances, they characteristically refuse to.
  • Reason for Living
    That is hysterical and paranoid. — Kenosha Kid
    And people should just quietly accept the verdict that official psychology charges them with ...
  • To What Extent Can We Overcome Prejudice?
    I am not sure ignorance works and fear of the supernatural is ignorance? What is our goal? — Athena
    They were burning people at the stakes and threatening them with eternal damnation. It worked, in that the population at large acted in line with the way the Church wanted them to.

    What do you mean, whose letters am I using? What kind of argument is that?
    You were praising the ancient Greeks and dissing the ancient Romans -- while using Roman script.
    Rather ironic, don't you think?
  • To What Extent Can We Overcome Prejudice?
    But the act of generalising precedes the group. — bert1
    Good point.

    Obviously, there are some groups that are "motivated from the inside", ie. where a number of people get together, decide to be a group and decide on a group identity. Religious and political groups are like that.

    And then there are groups that are "motivated from the outside", which is where are number of individuals who don't necessarily feel like they have anything in common or that they are a group, are perceived as a group by other people. For example, people with alcoholism don't perceive themselves as members of a group, even though some other people perceive them as such.
  • To What Extent Can We Overcome Prejudice?
    If we had been at an earlier stage of history, it could have been that there had been less concerned for the elderly. — Jack Cummins
    We'll see how consistent this concern is as time progresses.

    I do believe that we are at a stage in the life of humanity which has transcended the emphasis on 'the survival of the fittest'.
    Given the looming socio-economic crisis, hardly. But we'll see what happens. If we're still around.

    I am inclined to think that one of the problems with any current rise in Nazi values is more of a backlash against the way in which most people have already overcome a fair amount of prejudices already.
    This overcoming of prejudices could be just temporary, due to the luxury of relative soco-economic stability.
  • A spectrum of ideological enmity
    The point was that something's seeming to you to be the case is not contradictory to that thing's seeming to someone else not to be. And yet the bulk of disagreement seems to be on that very issue. — Isaac
    So? I don't understand where you're getting with this.
  • Reason for Living
    If a person can't be happy when external conveniences are taken from them, then their happiness with those conveniences in place is weak, fragile, a liability.
    — baker
    A negligible one for the most part since, fortunately,     — Kenosha Kid
    Global socio-economic covid crisis, anyone? Hardly negligible.

    For every human, it's just a matter of time when those external conveniences are taken from them -- by disease, injury, accident, economic collapse, natural catastrophe.
    — baker
    That seems to me a good argument for making the most of it.
    Yes, a frequent argument, nevertheless a problematic one.

    If you give a homeless person with terminal cancer a piece of chocolate, do you really think they are in any position "to make the most of it"?

    Btw your presumption that happy people will become unhappy after an accident is not valid.
    No, that is not my presumption.
    I'm assuming that a happy person whose happiness depends on material wellbeing will become unhappy after they experience a critical measure of loss of material wellbeing (what that critical measure is can vary from person to person).


    It's interesting though that your instinct upon meeting a happy person is to want to change their environment in order to:
    wonder how long you'd still enjoy life
    — baker
    rather than just let them enjoy life.
    I want to see how profound their happiness is. If they bask in their happiness and stigmatize everyone who isn't like them, shouldn't those others have the right to test that happiness, as opposed to just accepting and internalizing the stigma?

    Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
  • Reason for Living
    If you're not only not enjoying life atm but cannot imagine anyone else enjoying their life, to the point where you suspect they're lying about enjoying life, yes, it probably is depression. — Kenosha Kid
    The issue I take with your outlook is that it is an upper-middle class/elite outlook, based on their privileges. You tie in with the old tradition where poor people were routinely considered mad.

    Your idea of happiness (and normalcy, mental health) is one that is contingent on material wellbeing. Material wellbeing that the majority of the human population simply doesn't have and cannot hope to have. So per an outlook like yours, they are destined to be depressed, classified as mentally ill -- and written off.
  • A spectrum of ideological enmity
    The point was that something's seeming to you to be the case is not contradictory to that thing's seeming to someone else not to be. And yet the bulk of disagreement seems to be on that very issue. — Isaac
    Sure, as is to be expected in an informal place like this.
  • A spectrum of ideological enmity
    These conversations aren't about adding to the body of work of philosophy as such. Or, at most, adding only in small ways or indirectly. These posts aren't like contributing articles to a philosophy journal. — baker
    In fact, this is quite rightfully called a "forum", reminiscing of its ancient function:

    In addition to its standard function as a marketplace, a forum was a gathering place of great social significance, and often the scene of diverse activities, including political discussions and debates, rendezvous, meetings, et cetera. In that case it supplemented the function of a conciliabulum.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(Roman)
  • A spectrum of ideological enmity
    I think most of the conversations at forums like this are about people, ie. the people directly involved and the way some particular idea is relevant or irrelevant to them.
    — baker

    You may read a different range of posts to me. The overwhelming majority of threads I read are of the form...

    "it seems to me that X is the case".

    "X cannot be the case because it seems to me that Y is the case and that Y contradicts X",

    "but Y cannot be the case, because, as you have just admitted, it contradicts X and yet it seems to me that X is the case"...

    ...and so on.     — Isaac
  • A spectrum of ideological enmity
    So, often an idea might be expressed even more doggedly by someone invested in that framing than it might be by a layman, but the idea itself does not gain anything by repetition, whether by expert or layman. — Isaac
    I think most of the conversations at forums like this are about people, ie. the people directly involved and the way some particular idea is relevant or irrelevant to them.

    These conversations aren't about adding to the body of work of philosophy as such. Or, at most, adding only in small ways or indirectly. These posts aren't like contributing articles to a philosophy journal.
  • Reason for Living
    Probably not a lot, since I will have been kidnapped and deprived of the things I love about life. — Kenosha Kid
    Which just goes to show that your enjoyment of life is not under your control.

    If a person can't be happy when external conveniences are taken from them, then their happiness with those conveniences in place is weak, fragile, a liability.

    For every human, it's just a matter of time when those external conveniences are taken from them -- by disease, injury, accident, economic collapse, natural catastrophe. Thousands of people are facing this every day. It behooves a person to prepare for such a contingency. And focusing on enjoying those external conveniences to the hilt doesn't prepare them for it.


    I have heard and experienced that people who don't get much out of life are extremely selfish. Did not realise they were so vindictive and petty though.
    Lol!

    I want to test the Buddha's teachings, and for this, subjects who declare to "enjoy life" are necessary.
  • To What Extent Can We Overcome Prejudice?
    Personally, I think the whole problem is extremely complex, but I am interested to know of what potential solutions you see, if any. — Jack Cummins
    The Sun going nova.

    Okay, I may be idealist but, surely, this is a better option than indifference.
    I'm not indifferent, I just don't see a viable solution.

    Also, in consideration of prejudice I am not just thinking of collective movements, but the existence of prejudice in daily life.
    I think that in order to overcome prejudice of any kind, it would be necessary to have an outlook on life that would be both positive and realistic, so that people wlll look forward to internalizing it and live accordingly. An image of life where people can actually live together without prejudice.

    There are limited settings in which people seem to be able to live together without prejudice -- such as forced labor camps, prisons, patients in mental health institutions. But nobody is looking forward to live in such a setting.

    But as long as natural resources are scarce and it takes a considerable amount of work to obtain them, there is going to be a battle for survival, and as long as this is the case, prejudices are a necessity, with several functions, here to note some: as a heuristic for categorizing people into those that can help one in the battle, or those that don't; as a psychological tool to create boundaries between self and others; as a cognitive tool to make sense of the competition for resources.


    Rather than dismissing prejudices right off the bat as bad and as something to overcome, it would be more profitable to look into the purposes they serve and take those as a starting point for talking about prejudices and overcoming them.
  • Reason for Living
    Sounds more like missing the nature of it entirely. It's not a distraction; it's a project. — Kenosha Kid
    You speak like someone intent on fully exploiting things ...

    I wish I could do an experiment with you and drag you into the pits of early Buddhist thought. I wonder how long you'd still enjoy life.
    Too bad it's ethically prohibitive to do so.
  • Reason for Living
    I take credit for nothing. On the contrary, I'm well aware that being alive is a privilege and I intend to fully exploit it. — Kenosha Kid
    You intend to fully exploit a privilege? Interesting choice of words.

    If you're not only not enjoying life atm but cannot imagine anyone else enjoying their life, to the point where you suspect they're lying about enjoying life, yes, it probably is depression.
    Or seeing the true nature of enjoyment.
  • To What Extent Can We Overcome Prejudice?
    I am still interested in hearing your point of view on the problem we have facing humanity, regarding the rise of Nazism once again. — Jack Cummins
    Romanticism and idealism are impotent against Nazism.
Home » baker