Yes indeed.
And Massimo must be pretty pleased too. All that free publicity... — Amity

The grapes are sour.

Time to be stoical? :grin: — Baden

I suppose so. At least we got one reply.

:blush:

Since Professor Pigliucci is busy and can't get to answer all our questions, @Baden, has opened this discussion up for the rest of the members of the forum.

Any thoughts or responses welcome.

Eh, anyway, we put a lot of effort into this and did our best to make it work. And I'm proud of so of us and the community as a whole for trying. :clap: — Baden

Wallowsome; but, everything is OK.

But we will always have the concept :wink: — Amity

:blush:

Poopy. Oh well...

Guess no more @Wallamity...

Time, it seems, can be Complex and/or infinitesimal. Go figure.:cool: — John Gill

Can you explain the "and/or" part?

Thank you.

Cool! :cool:

Nevertheless, a general way to move into a mathematical setting is to view the XY plane (or complex plane, its equivalent) as points representing events, in a rough sense. A time dependent path through the plane means moving seamlessly from past to present, event by event. When a SA is present these paths converge toward it regardless of where one starts nearby. And when SDIC exists even the slightest shift at the starting point produces bewildering trajectories. — John Gill

Could you list examples of "strong attractors"?

Well, Dems have decided to educate the public again with a testimony from law professors. Call me impressed.

Yes, well, it will be a rather gradual process at the start. But, overall it will happen in a relatively short span of time, 1 generation.

I think you are right, about suicide rates shooting up. A lot of people seek meaning through work, as that's how they've been raised.

Not much to add.

@Baden, can we get an estimate when Prof. Pigliucci will join us?

I’d love to hear more about what you see as important regarding ‘feminist ethics’ in greater detail if you’d care share. — I like sushi

Well, I believe that contrary to most outdated definitions, in a sense more "rational", by which I mean, more in alignment with realizing long-term goals, and cooperative behavior, which are hallmarks of economic success along with educational achievement.

Is this something you would perhaps be interested in commenting?

The Professor is correct that the logical conclusion of how our society is developing is towards saturation. That we will experience catastrophic wars and famines before we get there is besides the point. — ovdtogt

Yes, pretty much...

The important part that you might be omitting is that all these changes will be progressing in tandem with increases in efficiency. So, you end up with more output with less energy required to produce it.

Here's the crucial point: By "quite some time" we will have burned through another mountain of coal and petroleum and disrupted the climate so much, we won't be worried about maximized production — Bitter Crank

Well, yes, we aren't really on track to prevent a 2-degree rise in temperatures, at least not yet. But, that's the sort of thing that as a species we will have to face at some point down the road.

My personal opinion is that there will be some serious issues that we will have to face; but, nothing is really pointing towards a future where the human species will face extinction due to the climate crisis.

I don’t understand. I thought ‘feminist ethics’ was an investigation into psychology and society not an economic model. — I like sushi

Yes, and none of what I have said should imply otherwise. My point, at least in terms of menial jobs with which I had experience was that women are more valuable as a worker than a male counterpart.

I’m not focusing at all on who has what job or who earns what - not interested because I find that to be extraneous to developing psychological maturity. — I like sushi

Yeah, you're going to have to spell it out for me, as I'm having a hard time understanding what is psychological maturity.

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll see a little more about it.

It’s interesting that you see what I’ve put across in terms of financial profit and hiring. I was talking about this in terms of basic human development. — I like sushi

I guess I don't entirely understand how advancements are made possible without an appeal to some metric of exchange.

It bothers me because I see the ‘ideal’ as being more or less a situation where both men and women are ‘advancing’ alongside each other rather than some kind of handing the baton on state of affairs and then skulking in the shadows.

Essentially what is ‘feminine’ cannot survive without what is ‘masculine’. Men cannot live without women and women cannot live without men - if they could then humanity is no longer ‘humanity’. I see the psychological ‘division’ between men and women to be manifest in society yet the real psychological ‘division’ is merely a convenient way to express a vibrant cauldron of humanity. I think that analogy works well enough expressing what I am looking at here? — I like sushi

It sounds like nostalgia from the '60s. It seems to me that women are better leaders, in terms of ensuring survival of a company or work. Mind you, I think there's even a bias towards nowadays towards hiring women, due to the fact that they are simply as reliable as men, if not more so.

Are you very familiar with de Botton’s ideas? If so what do you think of his thoughts on economics and human ‘needs’ and ‘meaning’? — I like sushi

Not really, what does he talk about?

Sure it's important to keep in mind that there are unconscious desires (which may be uncovered), thanks for pointing that out, but a Buddhist attempts to be detached from all desires, not just the conscious ones, so let's assume that I refer to all desires including the unconscious ones when I talk of "being detached from our desires". — leo

How can you be detached from an unconscious desire?

I don't see a fundamental distinction between between need and desire. I would say needs are a subset of desires. Needs are those desires that we believe we have to fulfill or else we will lose something important, whereas other desires could be seen as "nice to have" if they are fulfilled. — leo

I don't think it makes sense to generalize every volition to some kind of implicit desire, don't you think?

Regarding your third point, if I understand you correctly, yes clearly there are desires that lead us down paths of suffering. As I mentioned in the first post some desires are incompatible, for instance if person A desires to hurt person B and person B doesn't desire to be hurt then both desires cannot be fulfilled. But it would be extremely premature to give up based on this sort of observation, because as I mentioned our desires aren't set in stone, many of them change throughout our life, through understanding the world and ourselves we can come to see which ones are worth pursuing and which should be abandoned, our beliefs can change too, so in principle it could be possible to reach a state where all people come to have mutually compatible desires that can be fulfilled. — leo

Yes, well my point was that desires aren't always acted on, so it's not as forceful a matter that one always has to act on their desires to attain happiness or that not doing so will produce suffering?

It is as if society has instilled the idea that fighting with foam swords is some kind of passage into psychological maturity. I think women are certainly playing with breaking open their potential right now - it’s a great thing. There are dangers and their should be. What bothers me is men have fallen back and resisted danger due to this to some extent. The juvenile period has been extended a huge amount which certainly plays into women's hands more than men’s because men lack urgency and did to be driven by a sense of urgency, whilst women are naturally inclined to a sense of urgency so extended juvenile periods leads to women being in a situation where they can mature more thoroughly. — I like sushi

Following this up to the point, as to why this bothers you?

And, yes, women are more mature than males on average.

What do you mean by 'saturate'? — A Seagull

Basically, a point in time where mankind cannot compete with the machine in terms of productivity.

I said that desiring nothing implies doing nothing, but maybe that’s mistaken. Maybe it’s possible to be in some sort of free state where we can experience change without actually desiring anything because we already have what we desire. — leo

Well, there seems to be multiple things going on here.

First, it's assumed that we possess desires that are entirely available in discerning to the conscious mind, where in fact we do have many "desires" that are unknown to us, which can be called volitions.

Second, it's assumed that needs are tantamount to desire, which I don't think is entirely true. There are some very deep needs that are prone to manipulation of them, such as the need for water.

Third, there's a sort of fatalism present in the above. In that, it's assumed that we have desires that are not prone to denial and that in any case, we have a desire to fulfill our desires, no matter how outlandish they may seem or even detrimental to one's life. This presents a situation where, only in "heaven" will we have all our desires fulfilled, as long as they are allowed by some higher authority.

Does any of that make sense to you?

Hedonism, of course. — TogetherTurtle

This is a rather optimistic view of the future, what makes you think it will actually happen?

Addressing the OP more specifically, I think the future of philosophy at the academic level will be towards greater polarization, with departments dividing along ideological lines. — Hanover

What makes you think that the already status quo in the field of philosophy is enriched or saturated with already liberal thinkers will allow this to happen?

I think the most noted point for me is in the arts and how this seems to reflect the exploration of ‘coming of age’ - the same thing interests me in regards to men too (whose ‘passage of rites’ into maturity is also being re-realised in some ways). — I like sushi

What do you mean by "coming of age" and "psychological maturity"?

I see being detached from our desires as giving up on life itself, and letting others decide our life for us. As long as no one bothers us we can live that way, but if some natural phenomenon or someone attacks us we are at their mercy, and we leave our fate in their hands. — leo

That's rather jumping to conclusions, that attachment to desire equates with life itself. Why does this conclusion seem correct to you?

Not sure how you’re correlating Locke’s tabula rasa with a liberal education, or with feminism as such. — Possibility

Yeah, I suppose I will omit that part. But, I think Lock's conception of a clean slate is implied that education is a driving force to the attainment of happiness. This is where Noddings talks about aims talk and more holistic education that will suit not only the market or economy but the individual too. Rorty comes to my mind when talking about aims talk in his highlighting of the difference that children face when undergoing individualization and socialization. Noddings seems to even go further and talk about the criteria by which we evaluate performance, or even do away with it.

I got the impression that the focus of Nodding’s relational ethics approach to education was about the relationship between the teacher and student, with the aim to develop the ‘whole child’. — Possibility

Yes, and this is where she differs from other feminist thinkers, as far as I'm aware. Her version of collectivism imposes an undue burden on the already aggravated teacher and empathy depleted teacher to care for her or his students more than required. But, of course, I suppose, that once we do away with grades, and evaluations of performance, that the role of the teacher fundamentally is different than what we see nowadays.

We might consider the distinction between what the future holds for the 'field of philosophy' in academic settings and how the general population might derive benefit from it. — Amity

As far as I'm aware, analytic philosophy bears no fruits to the hoi polloi, contrary to the first link you provided, and that in-of-itself is a huge issue for academic philosophy nowadays.

This includes thinking of the function and aims of philosophy; theoretical and practical. — Amity

Yeah, the issue is nuanced. [Personal opinion] I believe that philosophy will encounter a revival as technology leads to saturations in productivity increases, meaning that eventually at some point down the road people will become redundant in many fields that will be taken care of by ever more intelligent machines. Now, I do know that when this will happen is contested; but, when, and not if, this happens will be when philosophy becomes the sort of work that people won't even consider work again. [/Personal opinion]

Whether this is what they’re achieving, I can’t be sure at this stage - from your interpretation of Noddings and Gilligan, I would say they’re not. — Possibility

I'm only familiar with Noddings to a larger extent and her emphasis on education. In her, Education and Happiness, she often takes the presupposition of a liberal education to be inclusive and open to all, a very egalitarian presumption. Lock's tabula rasa is a central theme for feminists, do you think so?

My illness is disabling for me. But remember doing well in college despite it, and I had some really good experiences, so I'm going to try it again (for the third time).

It is easy, no girlfriend or wife, no job, no responsibilities, free government assistance etc.. — Wheatley

Well, you can be on disability and go to college, it's not an excluding factor. I'm not really college material even though I was there for a brief period, not do I have a drive to really indulge in jumping through hoops.

To each their own, I suppose.

I think philosophy is great, I personally don't think it should be the sole focus of someone's life. Also, I'm not really addicted to philosophy, it's the forum I'm addicted to. I also have another online addiction (no, it's not porn). I found this website where you can create and upload memes. I'm just spending way too much time online, and it isn't fun constantly checking notifications, or checking if someone responded. — Wheatley

Sounds like anxiety. I know you mentioned that you have another diagnosis in another thread. Hows coming to terms with it? For me, it ended up being on disability, and contrary to what other people might say, it's the easiest life possible, and I'd do it again, as now I get to indulge in exclusively all my interests online (posting and reading and interacting with other people on this forum being the primary one), haha.

I think I think I'll be fine, thanks. — Wheatley

OK, just so that you know, my addiction is much worse than yours. It has become so absolute, that I have no life. But, I'm am very happy. So, try and find something that negates the premise in your mind that philosophy isn't a good thing, because this cannot be so.

Somebody shoot me now. :grimace: — Wheatley

That won't solve anything. What's the problem?

You might find this interesting:

I guess it was a poorly made comment. Apologies.

Allows I watched that to see your evidence of decline. None. Why waste my time. — Brett

He specifically mentions the opposite effect of imposing egalitarian laws or policies towards an equal outcome in the Scandinavian countries, which can be used as an argument towards saying that the status quo is fine. As I said, I'm no expert on Peterson; but, I believe he portrays the psychological issues that men experience, as being exacerbated by denying them gender roles where they would be happy and productive.

I just don’t think he’s portraying males in some sort of decline. But if you can give me some evidence I don’t mind considering it. — Brett

I haven't really read much of Peterson, so I digress. But, here's a video that can elucidate the issue:

I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. — Brett

This:

Maybe not decline so much as under assault. — Brett

Assult from who? Females?