Hi Rein.

The Cynics chided the Stoics for not partaking, as least not in as an extreme an extent as the Cynics, in voluntary discomfort.

I guess it's a matter of adaptability and resilience training...

Sorry to necromance an old thread, mods...

I am feeling audacious and have a nagging interest in utilizing the Barcan formula to prove the coherence of the thought that within a possible world scenario, there can only be a finite amount of possible worlds given that entities (a priori) cannot be multiplied into existence. I know this smells of essentialism given the ambiguity surrounding the definition of what constitutes an entity; but, if we expand the scope to the sum total of possible worlds, then God is the only entity that can be stipulated to inhabit every possible world, leading to a solipsistic conclusion that either God inhabits every possible world or the ineffable assertion that s/he/it transcends it.

Thoughts?

Hi,

I'm looking for a good book on QML. Any suggestions welcome.

I predict a war with Iran before the end of his presidency.

Someone hand me some Prozac and wine...

IIt might be a good thing if pantheistic solipsism can inspire a person to be kind and ethical to others. — Michael McMahon

Yes, you essentially are hurting yourself by being unethical in a pantheistic universe.

For starters, I don't think it's solipsistic as we're all separated by the void of death. — Michael McMahon

Actually, solipsism is pretty hard to escape in a pantheistic universe. You can use the Barcan formula to prove this even in a universe with a near infinite amount of possible worlds.

If you evolve in an adverse environment, then you may be ill equipped to survive once you leave it. — Hanover

That's actually quite paradoxical. If your aware of social Darwinism along with conservative sentiment that statement doesn't contrive with those doctrines.

Is it still a joke if it makes you sad?

Dunno what you're saying, dude. — unenlightened

I'm saying that people aren't as malleable as any frustrated psychologist might know.

To put it another way, if one learns to expect abuse and neglect, then one expects it from everyone thereafter. It makes perfect sense, except that one does not continue learning - that some are abusive and some are not. — unenlightened

I'm not a big fan of the notion that behaviors or memories can be unlearned or fundamentally altered. These memories tend to stick out and one identifies with the coping or defence mechanisms that allowed them to survive.

My theory is that if one finds themselves with a repetitive behavior or pattern, then they ought not to project their expectations in a self fullfilling loop. So, instead of prescribing the Vietnamese farmer who stepped on a land mine, an SSRI, buy him a cow to start a dairy farm instead?

Part of me wants to say that psychology is anti-rational. I mean, if a person was exposed to trauma, abuse, and neglect, and form a resulting aversion towards risk with dealing with people, then what's wrong with that?

They say only the paranoid survive.

The worries are situation indifferent, is what I meant. — fdrake

I'm not sure about this. I suppose you are implying that there is a difference between situation averse and situation indifferent, yes? I don't really like this rationale due to my beliefs about there existing higher-order volitions as opposed to simple binary logic.

Having one strategy, a single point of failure, isn't being responsive; it's a stoically held, maladaptive worry. — fdrake

Cynical, not Stoical...

And did you also learn when to defer and when not to? — unenlightened

No, the customer is always right. They might have changed their return policy, as it wasn't Costco. I mean, even Costco with their money back guarantee had to eventually change their return policy...

May I enquire what's wrong with pleasing people? — unenlightened

Supposedly, not many people deserve to be pleased. Back when I worked in retail and handling returns of products, I soon found out that the favorite word the customer wanted to hear was "I'm sorry", followed up with a quick refund for the created dissatisfaction.

In a communist utopia, nobody gets a refund because everybody gets the same shit.

Yeah, no thanks. I don't need to be told that we have a pseudo-godfather as a president.

His problems are not in the least associated with intoxicants. — Wayfarer

Then what are they associated with?

Rumor has it that Trump is snorting Adderall since cocaine is not available.

Yeah, Hitler was a precedent in modern day history. My (justified?) paranoia kind of brushes on this issue over in my old thread about profiling leaders.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3580/profiling-leaders

New favorite quote:

In every discourse, whether of the mind conversing with its own thoughts, or of the individual in his intercourse with others, there is an assumed or expressed limit within which the subjects of its operation are confined. The most unfettered discourse is that in which the words we use are understood in the widest possible application, and for them the limits of discourse are co-extensive with those of the universe itself. But more usually we confine ourselves to a less spacious field. Sometimes, in discoursing of men we imply (without expressing the limitation) that it is of men only under certain circumstances and conditions that we speak, as of civilized men, or of men in the vigour of life, or of men under some other condition or relation. Now, whatever may be the extent of the field within which all the objects of our discourse are found, that field may properly be termed the universe of discourse. Furthermore, this universe of discourse is in the strictest sense the ultimate subject of the discourse.

— George Boole

So, in a sense, we're all trying to change the world based on what we think are wrong/right with it. Interesting (or not) that there seems to be a rough consensus on what we perceive as good/about the world. Poverty, injustice, crime, etc. are on everybody's list and so are charity, kindness, etc. — TheMadFool

To focus this thread on a theme, I think the issue boils down to who deserves "authority" and the issue of "governance". Does that resonate with you?

No, that wasn't his goal, although some might think so based on some of the things he said. I don't agree with your characterization of the TLP or the Investigations. — Sam26

Could you expand on your views of the TLP's theory of truth along with the Investigations? And, ultimately his final views on theories of truth found in the OC?

I hope things are well with you Wallows. — Sam26

Just squeaking along. :blush:

Do you think Wittgenstein's goal in OC was at some foundationalist attempt, despite there being a lot of controversy about logical foundationalism in the TLP, and contextualism or correspondence in the Investigations?

Guy must have done too much cocaine with the prostitutes or something. Someone give me dictator Pence over this guy...

I guess a healthy balance is the issue here. I think, the De Niro attitude fits for the society we live in America. I don't think he's all that a popular actor over in Scandinavian countries, despite their social policies pretty much being in align with that quote.

You posted an emotionally charged meme and I responded with why I don't think that approach works. — csalisbury

Could be paranoia, I suppose?

Anyway, addressing your response again, I figure that it's a healthy attitude not to become a people pleaser or seek out approval wherever possible. Less dissonance, and stronger ego boundaries, I suppose?

I mean, if someone at work was participating in a conversation and then suddenly said 'stay the fuck away' but remained in the conversation, I'm not really sure how I'd react. — csalisbury

As far as I'm aware, or my attitude at work has always been guided by checking your emotions at the door. I digress because I set standards so high for myself that I find it hard to work around anyone under 30.

Your whole argument here is based on the false premise that everyone needs some form of "approval" to justify their attitudes. The "leave me be" attitude portrayed so awesomely in the above picture, pretty much confronts this premise in telling the rest of the world to "feck off if they have nothing nice to say".

Or in other words, treat me as you would a person at work if someone has worked at all in their lifetime.

Pretty much my attitude summarized in a picture in regards to trauma, neglect, and unhappiness:

spurious problems due to philosophical inbreeding. — Izat So

That's actually pretty deep. :rofl:

Hegelian dialectics always in need of a job I suppose.

So, do you think Witt. had an essential concern that transcended the great importance he placed on language? — Merkwurdichliebe

Yes, pretty much everything concerning ethics and the mystical.

My question is: why can't philosophical problems that are attributable to psychology be further reduced to our use of language, like everything else? — Merkwurdichliebe

Because propositional attitudes have no epistemic content. Thus, philosophy is concerned with life as a practice and not a problem that can be solved.

Yep, good philosopher.

I don't know. He despised a lot of philosophers before him and hated Christianity. Can you imagine a world full of people admiring Nietzsche? Not a pleasant world I think.

Yes, but Nietzsche pretty much the dark psychologist of philosophy trivialized much of philosophy into psychobabble like the will to power and some other crap about ethics belonging to the ubermensch. I refer to him as the drama queen of philosophy...

After Wittgenstein claimed that most of the problems of philosophy are due to the way we use language, he made the next bold claim and stated that the remainder are psychological. I pretty much agree with these assertions and think that many of the problems of philosophy, which are related to ethics are essentially about attitudes. Others might differ.

What would limited agency look like vs. the illusion of agency? — Harry Hindu

Well, to go all Zen on you, let me answer by asking another question. Does agency matter at all in a solipsistic world? I mean, within the set or domain of discourse, there can only be one solipsist, yes?

In other words, how would God know that his agency isn't an illusion, and just limited? — Harry Hindu

Doesn't really matter if he/she/it is a solipsist, does it?

No but I'd like to. What's your point if I may ask? — TheMadFool

Well, here's a rough draft.

We all dream. The world we inhabit within our dreams is a solipsistic one. Dream entities are created from our memories, and seemingly have an intent of their own. When one becomes lucid within a dream, one can do just about anything they desire. Fly, dance with their late partner, even do homework (something I tried to do; but, could never attain a sufficiently high enough state of lucidity to do). Essentially, you become a God within your own solipsistic dream (world/universe).

Lucid dreams are about as realistic (indirectly) a "proof" I have ever been able to entertain of there being such an entity as "God".

What about us? We're not God, let's say for the reason we're capable of evil and god is all-good. Therefore God wouldn't be a solipsist since he would know us as distinct from himself. — TheMadFool

Back a long time ago in a forum far away, I began my philosophical beggings with the claim that we are all indeed god's* in a solipsistic manner. Have you ever lucid dreamed?

*Lower case g, as the late Mars Man taught me in that thread.

Read some Marx. I find his analysis astonishing in its depth and rigour. He really does confront the problem of the desire to change the world.