Hello, nice to see a computer scientist on the forum. Would you care to comment on some of my thoughts about computing in this thread?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15411/post-turing-processing

I just reinterpreted everything after learning more about Frege, and some other thoughts of mine about logical monism or unificationism in logic.

No one is reading the what is in the Lounge, let alone the forum to make that a concern, unless you want to fall into a conspiracy trap. Maybe it could involve the cyber intelligence wing of Scientology. — Nils Loc

Shh, I used to work there. :cool:

No, the theaters are full of Tom Cruise's cum. Mental masturbation is my thing.

Hollywood has some wild talent and pretty zealous workers there. I can't imagine in being such an environment.

Stoicism doesn't teach apathy: it teaches equanimity. That's a common misconception. — Bob Ross

Regarding which, I think that the affect stoic teaching has on one's behavior is accurately, even in ancient times, one of a dispassionate stance, which they called apatheia. I believe that this would be where Aristotelian virtue ethics somewhat distanced itself from stoic teachings or vice versa.

Old or new the ultimate goal seems to be wellbeing, which might be characterized as sane and calm. — praxis

Thanks for backing me up here; but, my intent was to point at the secondary effect, or a real 'affect' stoicism engenders; that of one becoming calm and more sober. I mean, the Alcoholics Anonymous prayer, derived from Stoic philosophy, is actually mentioned in this thread.

'Inventing terms' resonates. Richard Rorty often talked about philsophy as being an ongoing activity of "finding new vocabularies." In his view, you get philosophical progress from the creation of new ways of speaking and thinking through which we identify and tackle new problems and experiences, rather than through discovering objective truths. The search for a final vocabulary that represents reality "as it is" was a misguided one. Or something like that. — Tom Storm

Interesting. I haven't done a detailed study of Frege, the father of logicism, but with what you said in mind he makes a lot more sense. If the purpose of philosophy or science is to discover how new vocabularies make sense within the current vein of philosophy or sciences' framework, then sure, philosophy makes sense in that aspect.

A while ago, I don't recall if this was on the old PF, and I have a knack for facts; but, your sister or one of your family members works or worked at Hollywood. Is Col W. F. Gahng in contact with how she could be adversarialy treated by such things said?

I don't think one needs a philosophy or lifestyle to want drugs or be mentally ill. — Moliere

Both of which would suck, I imagine.

However, it is worth noting that you must self-reflect on what you should be doing with your life (rationally) and then utilize any irrational emotions you have as fuel (if applicable) to achieve it: so, technically, the best approach is not always to eradicate the pathos. — Bob Ross

Yes, this can be said about the stoic practice of negative visualization. I have practiced it quite a lot, which had led me to apathy. The stoic conception of apathy has been called mistaken in English form, more in close line with a passionless state, leading to tranquility. I find it difficult to understand how the stoic sage would have to become somewhat apathetic in every regard to be labeled a sage.

If you are struggling to implement Stoic principles in your life, then try reading (and re-reading) the meditations and implement a robust lifestyle-structure to build self-discipline and self-integrity. Then move from continence to temperance. — Bob Ross

Strange, I went from the Meditations to the Enchiridion, and then to On Desire, and then towards understanding CBT in how it trains the mind to think rationally or less irrationally. To be honest, I haven't really focused on the cardinal virtues of stoicism, as every stoic appeared to me as an individual.

Hey I’m also wrestling with all this. I often feel - actually I know - I’ve been corrupted by the society I’ve been born into. — Wayfarer

Well, I've asked this many times before; but, the hippies got some of this right, yet veered off into hedonism, as a virtue. It then sabotaged anything they had to say to take this route.

It’s a constant battle - the original meaning of jihad was spiritual struggle, although that’s been corrupted too. — Wayfarer

Well, we do live in a democratic world at the moment, yet the whole world is concerned about such terror watchlist flagging terms. I don't know how things went so bad after 9/11.

Anyway, there's definitely a link between modern society and mental well-being. Hence the appeal of stoicism, paleo food, and all the other 'return to the ancients' kinds of movements, but it takes more than reading about it. — Wayfarer

Assuredly. I guess this goes into the realm of practicing philosophy; but, go ahead and find a practicing philosopher. As you said in another thread, there is definitely a revival of ancient stoicism and philosophy. A lot of people are talking about, for sure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutter_punk is the modern phenomena I associate with ancient cynic philosophy. — Moliere

Yes, well, I guess if one sifts the chaff for the hay, then the cynics had something to say, as would the people you linked. The rest just want drugs or are mentally ill.

From my reading, I can't but see a modern day young German guy being those types. Punk not dead, antifa and all that.

Indifference to heat and cold and to physical discomfort is not something that is acquired by thinking about it. That's one reason that modern culture is inimical to stoicism - it has accustomed us to previously unheard-of levels of pleasure and comfort and encourages only the pursuit of consumption. — Wayfarer

As others have said, it seems a little too tortuous to do that. A drill sergeant couldn't motivate me to work out.

I agree with the whole online identity thing as pretty nasty stuff. A lot of the magic behind advertising is to appeal to your pleasure center of the brain, thus distracting you or at worse running you on a hedonic treadmill. YouTube seems like a harmless activity; but, there's a lot of programming going on with behaviorizing you to respond to cue's.

But seriously, is there any end to consumption? Can one draw a line hard and fast over how illustrious wants can be detrimental to a person?

So the goal is an attitude of indifference. How does one get to that goal? — Leontiskos

Well, most stoics believed in the practice of stoic logic, much of which has been lost to history.

Is it just by practicing indifference? Or is there some better way to get there? — Leontiskos

To the first, I believe that practicing indifference is something that one has to desire or will into the way one behaves or thinks. Stoics could be ranked as some of the most sensitive and in-tune people with human nature. Otherwise we never would have heard of Epictetus, or the ancient logician, Chrysippus... and then there's Seneca, who kind of had everything a person could desire.

To the second question, there is actually a school of philosophy called 'cynicism', which stoics admired and thought, the cynics, made a shortcut to virtue. I am not so confident to become a cynic as of soon.

What is your approach to achieving your Stoic goals? Presumably it doesn't occur just automatically. — Leontiskos

Well if you're interested in my take on pop-psychology, I think that stoicism has appealed to many as a refuge where they can regenerate or escape from the world through a attitude of indifference. This has been my goal for many years, and I don't want to speak for others; but, it may have been something of interest to others. What I aim at is a better understanding why I am not happy with my own progress, which I won't ask others to diagnose; but, perhaps see if what I am saying might be true. So, the habituation of studying stoicism and practicing it, as one would praise God every Sunday, to the stoic being, maintaining an attitude of indifference.

It's important to note that the first investors of bitcoin were the people who mined the easy to mine bitcoin. All you could expect from them and everyone else was to hold until the price increases for bitcoin. Further, the more hype you added when it first came out, the higher the demand for mining bitcoins. Its sort of complicated to see; but, over time as the price rises and difficulty of discovery is drastically higher you would expect less supply and higher demand given how popular it became.

Just some observations of the bitcoin market.

It seems important to add this HBO documentary about scientology, and there are plenty of others like it.

I'm sure you will enjoy it. I mean, hey, its HBO talking about scientology... :monkey:

Sorry for dumping this in this fabulous thread; but, from a secret tape I heard Tom Cruises' deepest regret was not being picked for the role in American Psycho. It really was or always had to be his film.

A whole world just for him wouldn't be enough.

The man invented the word "cum". Need we say more? — Baden

No, let's go even further and imagine, as Hollywood does, that in the possible future where women want his DNA in themselves they just might reach out for it, depending on the circumstances or situation.

Yes, I knew that. And it is not even the most frightening thing about him. — Baden

Do you know that Hollywood made a whole movie about it for Tom Cruise and the church of scientology? You couldn't pornographize a life any harder.

@Michael can back this up with some consultation with Anonymous.

Tom Cruise. — Baden

Do you know, and there is a secret about scientologists... Tom Cruise wants to live out there in space with Xenu, their god-figure. He even sequenced his DNA for the encounter one day with their god-figure. I'm serious about this, don't ask me how I know.

... The home today is a kind of Platonic cave, the moral ruin of an archeological humanity. It is only by revolutionizing the way in which we give form and content to the experience of home that we will manage once again to make the world a place where common shared happiness is possible. — E. Coccia, The Philosophy of the Home, (2024)

I'd like to add to this the proverbial British saying that my home is my castle.

I don't think there could be many places one could call home. It seems that without money a person is quite home-less. So, anyway I thought that might be important to add.

Are you saying that the question of "philosophy proper" or "a proper way of doing philosophy" can receive an answer that is non-philosophical or outside philosophy? — J

Sure, I see why not.

Or would any answer assume, or reveal, a particular conception of what philosophy is? — J

I'm no authority, so have at it.

Like this thread. — Banno

I'm glad you like this thread.

As regards Hadot, I agree that it seems challenging, but I'm a subscriber to both Medium and Substack, and they're teeming with threads dedicated to revivifying ancient philosophy in the modern world. — Wayfarer

It seems like psychologists, instead of philosophers, are the go-to for the majority of whatever you want to call it, people. I once heard a priest talk about how awful this is and yada-yada.

There's that one guy, Jordan Peterson who seems like some guru on life matters.

I know only that Anglophone philosophy has produced at once the most copious and most frequently fruitless literature on the so-called mind-body problem. — Hart, David Bentley. All Things Are Full of Gods: The Mysteries of Mind and Life (pp. 18-19). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

I take it as analytic philosophers recognizing that the mind-body problem is not one which philosophy should grapple with anymore, and is best left to the scientist to elucidate such matters in terms of what can be said intelligibly.

Regarding Hadot, I don't think you can disagree with him; but, how is one to practice philosophy in such a manner? We are a longs way from the days of ancient philosophy.

I don't think the practice of philosophy nowadays is some sort of handmaiden or blacksmith for the sciences and fields it has created, as philosophy has its own purpose. Although it is often regarded by postmodernists and pragmatists that philosophy could be seen as a 'tool'.

I still find the refuge of thinking philosophically as a form of therapy, still.

It would be interesting to ask the analytic school, as to what remainder of pure philosophy, as what can be called "ethics", has to offer.

I do not associate it with 'purity' as I tend to think of this word (when applied to humans) as having a Christian association - as in purity culture. As a secularist, I see no use for such a frame. — Tom Storm

Yes, well... The Christian and philosophical concept of 'purity' seems to be at play in this topic, as you say. I also think that from the philosophical concept of purity, per Locke's tabula rasa, there's quite a lot of concern to create a world where innocence can flourish without impediment. Regarding censorship and exposure, the US once banned Brave New World by Huxley. There's also the point to be made about how cautious we are about allowing what we deem as potentially harmful various substances like alcohol or drugs. I'm sure there is more to be said about this...

When he enters the school system, the child is no longer wrapped in a cocoon of innocence - nor should he be. He must learn to navigate a society in which deceit and chicanery play prominent roles.
It is the parents' assigned task to prepare them as well as possible. — Vera Mont

I've always been a proponent of homeschooling, which is something popular in the US. There are different theories of how schooling should work. I'll leave the topic of schooling the young at that.

I personally don't see how having children matters in this. — Tom Storm

Then quite possibly I assumed that those with the highest degree of innocence, or the understanding thereof, would lead to some better understanding of the issue.

It's not like parents can always tell when a child stops being innocent, or whether innocence is some kind of transcendental essence, embodied in childhood. — Tom Storm

Again, I assumed that parents know or are responsible for maintaining the state of childhood called 'innocence'.

Kids can't defend themselves and most people have an innate wish to protect the weak (the vulnerable and the trusting) from the strong predator. — Tom Storm

Strange how gang members or criminals in the US have a thing for such people preying on the weak.

A more complex understanding of innocence itself is probably not part of the framing. — Tom Storm

Possibly then that I got it mixed up. Thanks for the input!

So, what I can infer from the posts by other members and yourself is that conservatives went too far? From what I understand its not the conservatives, per se; but, the third way politicians? Does that seem accurate?

Of course we could call the picture theory a “mistake”, but I’m thinking more of the mistaken desire for purity that that theory, or any theory, would try to satisfy. — Antony Nickles

Yes, well it was a book written, with the intent to put philosophy in the right category of thought, as I understand it. From what I gather the name and form of the book was inspired after Spinoza's own Tractatus. I view the work as concerned, more than any other work in philosophy even to this day, with explaining the various areas touched by the book via a method or school of thought called 'logical atomism'. Logical atomism could be viewed as a philosophy inherited from Leibnitz. Bertrand Russell called his philosophy the philosophy of Leibnitz, which I believe Wittgenstein further adopted from Russell upon their friendship.

If we call that a desire for pure (singular, universal) logic, then he does abandon that goal in the PI, however, the varied grammar he sees in each concept has its own internal logic, though not foundational, so he does continue a rigorous, precise, intelligibility in the PI. — Antony Nickles

I wouldn't call it an internal logic; but, a logic derived from context and use. The desire for a pure and singular logic to understand the world, which I think Wittgenstein was influenced by Frege and the Vienna Circle, is a goal that got superseded by Godel's Incompleteness Theorems.

The point of the PI is that we don’t need pure formal logic to have a workable rational world. — Antony Nickles

It would seem as though the world could not be understood as philosophers would have wanted it to. If so, then where does one go from here?

The idea of 'blindspots' comes from the psychodynamic as opposed to cognitive behavioural school of thought. They are frequently contrasted, including ideas about the 'subconscious' in the psychodynamic vs core beliefs in CBT, among other aspects. — Jack Cummins

I'm quite interested in your take on what psychodynamics is about. It seem like a field with a higher difficulty rating than Jung or Freud with simple ideas about what governs one's psychology.

Amazing that you got that exactly backwards. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I'm really not interested in continuing this.

Like I said, I didn't get personal with you until you did with me. — TonesInDeepFreeze

If you were offended by my comment about the halting problem, then I'm sorry about how you felt about it, which was bona fide-as stated-not meant to be a snide comment. That's the best I can offer and I hope not to participate in any future exchanges with you.

You must mean that there's no point in you continuing. — TonesInDeepFreeze

No, you telling me at this point to simply 'shut up' won't happen, sorry.

Others can choose for themselves. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Yeah, so its a discussion forum, so if you don't like the thread, then there's no point in trying to cow down other members, which in this case is your personalization of the issue.

I will get decidedly personal at this point — TonesInDeepFreeze

Then, I suppose there's no point in continuing this thread as is; but, if anyone wants to address Wittgenstein's disregard of Godels Incompleteness Theorems, then by all means.

I responded personally only when you falsely and snidely insinuated regarding my acquaintanceship with the halting problem and the method of definition. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Given the limitations of communication online, as I actually said that it was not meant to be a snide comment, then I rest my case as there's no further point in trying to change your perception of what I meant by what was said...

And deserved though quite slight sarcasm about your claim about Einstein. — TonesInDeepFreeze

To think that Einstein didn't have discussions about the import of the defining work of Godel, being his Incompleteness Theorems, would seem like a moot issue to profess skepticism over.

Anyway, this thread was mostly about why Wittgenstein or what Wittgenstein could have meant by claiming that Godel's Incompleteness Theorems are logical tricks.

I have no comment on Wittgenstein. — TonesInDeepFreeze

:up: