• 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.
  • A spectrum of ideological enmity
    I was talking about the point at which engagement stops, rather than the nature of the action to take. It goes back to what I said right at the beginning, most of these ideas are not new, and those that are become old very quickly. Most of what people consider 'not engaging with the ideas' is more properly "I've hard these ideas before, they were daft then and they're not any less daft in their new clothes". — Isaac
    I suppose it comes down to how much education a person has and how much reading and thinking they've done so far, so considerable differences among individuals are to be expected because of that.

    But a person's life experiences can also radically change their outlook on life and change the way they view ideas they had dismissed long ago.
    For example, I have a situation with several new neighbors for about a year now that has made me completely rethink moral realism.
    To say nothing of how the election of Trump made me rethink things.
  • Reason for Living
    then you completely discount the possibility that other people aren't depressed. — Kenosha Kid
    It's not that they are depressed.

    It's that you are lucky and nevertheless implicitly take credit for this luck.
  • Reason for Living
    ↪Kenosha Kid The question that arises is why would you want to when you don’t have to keep living. All that sounds like a chore to make life bearable and when you die you won’t remember anything at all. So why not skip to the end and not concern yourself with doing things you like? That argument only works if you have to stay alive in which case you should do stuff you like. But if you don’t then I see no reason to do so. — Darkneos
    The effects of a pleasant life shouldn't be underestimated. When someone has been fortunate enough to be able to enjoy their life, this feeds back into how they experience life: they ejnoy it and look forward to it.
    Such a person becomes incapable of empathizing with those less fortunate.

    What such a person fails to recognize is:
    1. that their enjoyment of life is not the result of a deliberate effort on their part to do so,
    2. that their enjoyment of life depends on factors and resources that are beyond their control.


    Such a person is like gambler who won the lottery and who is on the trajectory to lose all he gained, but isn't aware of this yet.
  • Reason for Living
    As much as I want to buy that from what I gather it's not simple at all like that. If that were the case then Buddhist monks or enlightened ones would commit suicide. Yet despite Buddhism knowing life is suffering and craving they claim that isn't why they stick around. — Darkneos
    They'd probably say they stick around in an effort to make an end to the craving, make an end to the suffering -- and live to tell about it.
  • A spectrum of ideological enmity
    To learn, and to teach. — Pfhorrest
    But are others here for those same purposes?

    Do you believe there are people here who come here to be taught by you?
  • What Forms of Schadenfreude, if Any, Should be Pardonable?
    Roman Catholics, when they go to heaven, will be glad that some people are suffering in eternal hellfire.
    This is doctrinally enforced joy at seeing others suffer.
  • Reason for Living
    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? — unenlightened
    It's a tabooed topic.
  • A spectrum of ideological enmity
    So if someone were to come on and politely, patiently explain why Jews were the inferior race and need to be exterminated for the benefit of the master race, and I told them to "fuck off", I'd be the one in the wrong there? We should, rather, have a long in-depth and polite conversation exploring our difference of opinion about the extermination of an entire race. — Isaac
    This is one of those situations where the impotence of internet discussion forums becomes painfully evident.

    Should I interfere at the building of the gas chambers? Or is it too soon whilst the debate is still to be settled?
    Would you actually go out to the building site and interfere?
  • A spectrum of ideological enmity
    So for all practical purposes you couldn't actually tell the difference, in any given discussion because it's extremely unlikely you're going to know you interlocutor's past sufficiently to know if they have ever given any ideas a fair shake - ie you'll never know if they're dismissing your idea out of hand because they decided to do so on that occasion (philosopher) or because they always do so (idealogue). — Isaac
    Of course. Like I said earlier -- It's not like one intends to take one's interlocutor's from this forum out for dinner afterwards or start a company together.
    Again, it comes down to what one wishes to accomplish with debate or discussion.

    Frankly, I think much of what we do here is a kind of philotainment. For socializing and for fun, some people go out drinking and talking nonsense, some play golf, some remodel their house, and some engage in philosophy-ish discussions on the internetz ...


    It would be more profitable to try to delineate what makes for love of wisdom, as opposed to what a lover of wisdom would/should be like.
    — baker
    OK - have at it then.
    Perhaps I'l start a thread on this some day.
  • A spectrum of ideological enmity
    I'd just like to be clear that nowhere am I advocating disrespecting anybody. Even group 5, I think, still see themselves as good people holding their views for good reasons; they're just ones to whom communicating the problems with those reasons and the consequent problems with their behavior is nigh-impossible. The whole point of the rest of the spectrum is to distinguish other degrees of disagreement as even less bad than that: that it's not just "us" and an unreachable "them", but there's shades in between, who deserve to be treated differently than the "unreachable them", the latter of whom I don't even think are in principle unreachable or some kind of inherently evil, but just... really, really hard to get through to. — Pfhorrest
    Here's the thing: What do you want to accomplish with debate or discussion?
  • The self
    Okay. But K is by no means typical. His Attack on Christendom rails against the banality of middle class Christianity. He thought the medievals has it right with their singularity of devotion. — Constance
    At some point, I could recite by heart passages from De Imitatione Christi ... it seemed so right, so true ...

    But I eventually decided that the banal middle-class Christians were better off in life, and that devotion is for losers.
  • What's the difference?
    I think and conclude you are either very young or out of your mind - non-exclusive "or." — tim wood
    *sigh*
  • What's the difference?
    ↪tim wood

    You already made the case for this earlier:

    The lines between countries, nations, races, cultures may be arbitrary to you, but they aren't necessarily arbitrary to others. You're saying you're the one who dictates what the right way to think about the differences between countries, nations, races, cultures is, and that those who don't agree with you are wrong?
    — baker

    At some point, yes. How not?     — tim wood


    You, too, are arguing for moral realism, or, in your case, moral egoism/narcissism.
  • Can God do anything?
    If that's correct, then one could be omnipotent and have created nothing. Indeed, to insist otherwise would be once more to put restrictions on an omnipotent being.

    So, God could have created everything if he had so wished, but whether he actually did so or not is an open question and it is not inconsistent with his being omnipotent that he created nothing at all. Or so I think at the moment.....     — Bartricks
    Just go read some Hindu theologies, and you'll have the whole gamut of options on this ...
  • Can God do anything?
    Now, once more, a being who can do anything is not going to be bound by the laws of logic, for if they were they would not be able to do anything, but only those things that logic permits. — Bartricks
    Are you able to see a square circle?
    If a square circle would be presented to you, would you recognize it as such?
  • Can God do anything?
    Truly, there is nothing that an imaginary God could not do, since there are no limits to the imagination! — Present awareness
    Really? You can imagine square circles?
  • To What Extent Can We Overcome Prejudice?
    ↪Jack Cummins

    Jack, you're such a romantic, such an idealist ...
  • Reason for Living
    I want to know WHY people choose to go on. — Darkneos
    Habit, inertia, hope, romanticism, idealism, revenge, apathy, momentum, to list a few, seem to be what keeps people going.

    How much choice plays into this is hard to say. A person doesn't give birth to themselves (not even metaphorically); being aware of this, one, directly or indirectly acknowledges that one's existence and the possibility of one's existence are something that is beyond one's control.

    We are neither entirely free, nor entirely bound.

    The fact that one lives is not entirely up to oneself.
  • A spectrum of ideological enmity
    I find visciousness and vitriol a reason to stop all debate and is exactly the reason why discussions break down and become emotional fiat. I dont go into a discussion to stoke emnity like some troll. There should be some element of respect to keep the conversation from devolving into a brawl. I dont buy the idea that all arguments must get persinal and that using condescension and ad personum attacks count as anything resembling phosophical discourse. If you resort to that, then its poisoning the well right off the bat. Who wants that except a bunch of asshole types that get pleasure at complete conflict mode. — schopenhauer1
    Not respecting a person doesn't automatically translate into being vicious toward them or that the conversation will devolve into a brawl. Why should it?

    It's perfectly possible to be polite to someone whom one doesn't respect.
  • A new argument for antinatalism
    Most people are going to have kids and aren't remotely interested in whether it's ethical to do so or not. I mean, have you met people? — Bartricks
    Please. Why do you want to add to the bad image that philosophy already has in culture at large, and rightfully so?

    Apparently, you want to produce a valid argument but for which you foresee no practical application in the real world, even though the content of the argument has everything to do with the practical application in the real world.

    If you'd be arguing for something like whether there is an unlimited number of simple substances from which the universe consists, or whether that number is limited, I wouldn't object. But you're taking a subject with enormous real-world implications and treating it as if it were trivial.

    All along, you have been the one emphasizing the people at large don't want to live monkish lifestyles nor are they required to do so.

    So what gives?
  • What's the difference?
    ↪tim wood

    I think ownership of turf is the highest epistemic and moral principle.
  • To What Extent Can We Overcome Prejudice?
    What makes something true is how well it works. — Athena
    Then threatening people with eternal hellfire and burning them at the stakes are good practices, for they work!

    I do not know the first person who said "look for God in everyone", I just know doing so has a positive effect.
    Yes, the Holy Inquisition were "looking for God in everyone" as well.

    In the short term the Nazis were very successful, but today, Germany acknowledges the wrong done to Jews, and through education attempts to right the wrong and prevent it from happening again. The US occupies land held by indigenous people, and we have learned they were right about our planet being a living organism and that we need to protect ecosystems so they work as evolved to work.
    But today is not yet the end of the story.
    Take Nazism, for example: it's being rehabilitated. If the current trends are anything to go by, it might not take that much before it rises to power again.

    The Romans conquered the Greeks but it is the Greeks who live on in our understanding of democracy and through the philosophy we share and science we develop.
    Read again. Whose letters are you using to write this?
  • A spectrum of ideological enmity
    However, I can see Pfhorrest frustration maintaining respect for people — schopenhauer1
    One doesn't actually need respect for people in such discussions. It's not like one intends to take them out for dinner afterwards or start a company together.
  • A spectrum of ideological enmity
    I don't see how that follows. Either the philosopher is deciding at random which ideas to give a fair shake, or he is deciding based on some factor. If the latter, its not prima facie impossible that such a factor might, by chance, never arise. — Isaac
    Of course, but then the criterion "Giving all ideas a fair consideration, at one's discretion" becomes moot, and there is, for all practical intents and purposes, no difference anymore between a philosopher and an ideologue.

    Either way, is there some minimum number of ideas then one must give a fair shake in order to count as a philosopher? If I give one idea fair shake in my teens, am I then set for life to be a dogmatic idealities and still be called a philosopher?
    *hrmph*
    "No true philosopher would refuse to give all ideas a fair shake."

    Terms that denote racial, national, cultural, religious, or political identity are hard to pin down, they have multilayered meanings. The No True Scotsman fallacy doesn't apply to them (just like it doesn't apply to the story from which it originates, which was a case of an equivocation -- 'person living in Scotland' vs. 'a good person').

    It would be more profitable to try to delineate what makes for love of wisdom, as opposed to what a lover of wisdom would/should be like.
  • What's the difference?
    ↪tim wood

    One of my points is that there are different social norms, rules and they apply locally.

    Again:
    The lines between countries, nations, races, cultures may be arbitrary to you, but they aren't necessarily arbitrary to others. You're saying you're the one who dictates what the right way to think about the differences between countries, nations, races, cultures is, and that those who don't agree with you are wrong?
  • Destroying the defense made for the omnipotence of god
    because if he can't do them then he can't do all things. If I can do everything you can do, but I can also draw square circles then I have more power than you. — Bartricks
    The kind of power that gets people locked up in institutions with white padded cells.

    Insisting that omnipotence should include being able to do the illogical is something 6-graders are impressed by.

    Logic provides the limits for what is tenable. What some people present as the limits of God's power, are actually the limits of what is tenable, as provided by logic.

    In the same way that it is impossible to draw a square circle, or a bachelor being married, or you being your own father, it is impossible for God to create a rock so heavy he can't lift.

    God is defined as the greatest being, the biggest being etc.. So the concept of something being bigger than God (in this case, a rock) is a concept flawed from the onset. The way a "square circle" or a "married bachelor" are flawed from the onset.


    And if you're going to make up your own definitions of "God" to begin with, and ignore the way God is defined in actual monotheistic religions, then why bother with the analysis at all? You're just arguing against a strawman.
Home » baker