Any child with a digital phone or tablet device, anywhere in the democratic world (and in the absence of parental control software), now has instaneous access to an unlimited array of pornographic media through the same device they're supposed to use for homework. How can that *not* have an effect? — Wayfarer

I agree with the statement that there is some effect, yet this hasn't been proven according to science of the magnitude or degree or what kind of effects it has on teenagers and adults.

At the present moment, it's hard to exactly measure what kind of effects does pornography produce in the adolescent brain or psychology or behavior.

@unenlightened, what do you think? I'm not much of a psychologist; but, doesn't pornography have negative effects that change our beliefs towards women?

Are there any ethical detriments you can think of in regards to the young being exposed to pornography?

I think the most philosophical problem I can present whist ethical is the objectification of women. Women are portrayed as some tool for men to gratify themselves. I think this is a philosophical problem for the reason that the purpose of a women is skewed towards the idea that their function is to look a certain way and do certain things for men out of a man's desire or lust towards her.

If that makes sense what else can be mentioned?

I haven't read any Proust, but philosophers routinely say some things of the real, apparent, and immanent in reality. So, it's a pretty popular theme.

There will be blood.
2001...
Blade Runner
Paths of Glory
The Shining

Anything with Jack Nicholson.

Imagine what the founder of TNT must have felt like during WWI &WWII... It was the same guy who founded the Nobel Peace Prize awards.

Yeah, scientists became very self-aware of misuse of their findings after the Manhattan Project and WWII...

You might find evolutionary game theory more interesting.

Yes, I read most of it. He seems to advocate a very trivial notion of ontology that if something to exist it should exist in reality. However, how does this differ from Quine in that we ought to have an existential quantifier to instantiate x in the domain of discourse.

Pragmaticism takes the desired end (the good) as the feature with the most power to shape knowledge and society as a whole. — Metaphysician Undercover

Pragmatism seems to be a sort of antithesis of Philosophical Pessimism...

Does philosophical pessimism take failure to achieve the desired end as the formative feature of society? — Metaphysician Undercover

Not of society; but, the world as a whole, along with human nature reflexively interacting with the world in some authors opinion.

So, just to clarify, Pegasus has no essence but can be instantiated in the domain of discourse without being a singleton, yes?

What does existential quantification look like for singletons?

I know Quine is mentioned, so does Fine profess his 'no instantiation without existential quantification' belief?

So, what is your opinion of what was said in my post above. I'll quote it again here:

Thus different essentially induced truths may have their source in the identities of different objects - Socrates being a man having its source in the identity of Socrates, 2 being a number having its source in the identity of 2. In particular, an induced truth which concerns various objects may have its source in the nature of some of these objects but not of others. This is how it is with our standard example of Socrates being a member of singleton Socrates; for this is true in virtue of the identity of singleton Socrates, but not of the identity of Socrates.

I don't quite understand the difference here ...

De dicto, we can only state truthfully what is analytic about Socrates. However, the author seems to argue that Socrates can refer to his identity without being a singleton. Isn't this way of analyzing obscuring the de re-de dicto distinction.

I'm not seeing much that concerns simples. — Banno

He does refer in the quoted part in my response to your OP as a singleton.

the set [Socrates} is dependent on Socrates but Socrates is not dependent on {Socrates}. — Banno

But, that's an ambiguity introduced by not adhering to the de re de dicto distinction, yes?

Where's that? — Banno

Nevermind, I don't think it's relevant, what I said.

Definition of a simple:

In contemporary mereology, a simple is any thing that has no proper parts. Sometimes the term "atom" is used, although in recent years[when?] the term "simple" has become the standard.

Simples are to be contrasted with atomless gunk (where something is "gunky" if it is such that every proper part has a further proper part). Necessarily, given the definitions, everything is either composed of simples, gunk or a mixture of the two. Classical mereology is consistent with both the existence of gunk and either finite or infinite simples (see Hodges and Lewis 1968).

-Wikipedia

The author brings up the de re/de dicto distinction, initially; but, proposes a different way to denote a person by a name, and argues that definitions aren't always analytic. But, what are analytic statements if not definitional? It seems to me that the problem the author presents is how do we pick out things in the world, with names if there isn't anything particular about them that could allow us to categorize them as singletons in sets.

Am I reading this accurately, @Banno?

It's time for me to take another very long break.
Talk elsewhere, as usual. — Amity

You will be missed.

:flower:

I'm quoting the gist of the argument displayed between pg.7-8.

Certainly, there is a connection between the two concepts. For any essentialist attribution will give rise to a necessary truth; if certain objects are essentially related then it is necessarily true that the objects are so related (or necessarily true given that the objects exist). However, the resulting necessary truth is not necessary simpliciter. For it is true in virtue ofthe identity ofthe objects in question; the necessity has its source in those objects which are the subject of the underlying essentialist claim.

Thus different essentially induced truths may have their source in the identities of different objects - Socrates being a man having its source in the identity of Socrates, 2 being a number having its source in the identity of 2. In particular, an induced truth which concerns various objects may have its source in the nature of some of these objects but not of others. This is how it is with our standard example of Socrates being a member of singleton Socrates; for this is true in virtue of the identity of singleton Socrates, but not of the identity of Socrates.

Regarding the bolded part, what's the difference? Is it again the de re/de dicto distinction?

The teenager is starting to become more independent, more resistant to demands to be, and starting to become sexual. All of which is in conflict with being good for Mummy. So that is when there is an internal conflict developing. — unenlightened

Not a local phenomenon, in the least. My view is that after a period, which can last a decade and a half, the brain is developed, society steps in, and you either became something through work or college or something went awry throughout that process and just depend on a government check.

Yes, but it is because they don't, that the person they are busy not being because they are being good becomes the bad person who does want to hurt other people, and in a special situation it can to come out. Have you read about the cruelty of nuns, and the sexual antics of priests? The saint creates the sinner in himself. — unenlightened

I'm sorry but I beg to differ. Take for example the homeless. Have you dealt with them? Don't they come off as the genuine saints of society, and even the target of Jesus' teaching? May, I ask if your speaking about only people in power such as leaders or priests?

And the being that is negated is angry, frustrated, and hungry, for its own life. The prisoner in one's own psyche hates the one who is so free as to say yes to everything. Does that resonate at all? — unenlightened

I read this again, and kind of slowly understood this psyche as dominated by want's. A lot of people want things, but to return to the OP, I don't think people want to hurt other people most of the time.

One is told to be something, always and everywhere, to be good, to be better, to be, God help us, authentic. And so everyone is always being something or other, which can only happen by negating what one is. — unenlightened

I don't think we're as driven to ideals as you make it seem. We usually start with socialization, then individualization. It's during the teenage years when things start emerging as problems. I think these teenage years where mental health issues can crop up is what your talking about. Is that something that I'm portraying accurately with regards to what you are saying?

I'm in my early thirties, and have seen many people fall through the cracks in society. I have been around homeless people quite a lot in the great state of California, in rehabilitation facilities. My experience with them is that they are tough people with a certain demeanor that wouldn't threaten or hurt you. They don't tend to hurt or exploit one another. It's the gangs and criminals that cause the most amount of trouble with selling methamphetamine and other highly addicting drugs to people. Never been to jail; but, have also dealt with people who have come out of prison or jail for misdemeanors or even felonies. I suspect the rich wouldn't go out of their way to actively hurt someone, since they're having so much fun with themselves.

People tend to maintain homeostasis and don't explode. Only those coming back from war or the battlefield with conditions like PTSD tend to fall apart or implode under the stress if not helped by their own Veteran's Affairs.

I suppose to answer the OP, I think your results may vary depending on the area you inhabit. If it's late at night on a street in some slum, you might get hurt.

In my dull normal life, people are never that free with each other, even when drunk. But it's interesting that sex and violence is where the op's mind went, and it reminded me of Rhythm 0 because 'do whatever you want with me' is very close to 'say yes to everything'. — unenlightened

Do you mind me asking, that on a deeper level why do people behave this way? Namely, the yes to everything ending up with negative things?

Sorry to hear about that. He must be angry.

I honestly do not think life is getting worse. Progress, is a difficult measure to calculate and there doesn't seem to be a lack of it. I also doubt that trickle-down economics works by any measure. Elon Musk is addressing some hard problems nowadays, with neuroimplats that will possibly enable a person to walk again or solve depression for the depressed

Regarding progressives, I live in a highly progressive state that is handing out money to build shelter for homeless people, and direct funding for the bottom of the economic spectrum. So, I have no doubt that things are getting better for those who are most in need in my corner of the world.

I might start a thread inspired by your post regarding, How do we define progress? I hope you can join.

Shawn why do you bring this topic of philosophical pessimism up every so often in this forum? I am the only one who identifies as one here so it is oddly pointed, even if broadcast to "everyone". — schopenhauer1

As you say, the topic was directed at everyone and didn't have anything to do with antinatalism, go figure.

I'm hoping to start some reading group around Philosophical Pessimism.

I think it would be rewarding to have one oriented around that.

Any takers?

Whose pessimism is being overcome but at what cost and to whom? — 180 Proof

The question seems incoherent. As I posted elsewhere, pessimism is an attitude. So, for some pessimists who view reality with dukkha and all the suffering of the world or even the senseless samsara that we undergo, until we break through the karmic cycle, then no matter what kind of progress technology has to provide they probably wouldn't change their attitude. I say it is an attitude because Buddhists don't fall into that mood for example. Furthermore, it also seems that if what the Philosophical Pessimists profess as hard truths or brute facts about reality, then doesn't that make their point universal?

And yet dukkha remains despite the high-tech hedonic treadmill of modern mass consumerism and televangelism. — 180 Proof

Yet, the Buddhists didn't just advocate complacency with dukkha, they professed non-attachment to desiring things or goods that we hear from self-help gurus from the Eastern tradition.

Existential dread, my friend, of which pessimism is an expression, is the ineluctable condition to be endured and not a (technoscientific) problem to be solved (by "progress"). — 180 Proof

Progress, as defined wouldn't solve the issue but alleviate the degree to which it is apparent in ones condition.

Well, I just wanted to raise the issue of positivism as the antithesis of Philosophical Pessimism. In that positivists seem to have a strong desire to alter brute suffering and lack that some of us have experienced in our daily lives.

The new age positivists label was directed at entrepreneurship and huge stores of money in Silicon Valley to alleviate said lack and suffering, through technology.

@Joshs, what are your own thoughts about rational egotism and how facilitating it is dependent on governments?

Perhaps better question would to ask of a modern police force integrated to a central government? — ssu

A self policing government sounds pretty cool, but, isn't that called fascism?

We have always experienced 'authority,' even in tiny groups. — universeness

Is that really true? I can't imagine any authority imposed on prehistoric homo sapiens other than satisfying basic needs such as food, clothing, and shelter.

Even if this were true how would it help today? — Tom Storm

I think it's interesting to advocate libertarianism from an evolutionary standpoint. If homo sapiens needs governments and enforcers of the law to promote its own welfare, then it's a moot point. In other words, are governments and police forces inevitable from an evolutionary perspective? Is the question incoherent or is there any sense to it?

Did Plato glorify the historical Socrates or himself? — Amity

Given the stature of Socrates and the link you provided, I don't see how else to describe Socrates as a man with incredible integrity. This fact should answer the question as to why Socrates didn't abandon Athens and possibly be called a hypocrite* by his enemies.

* Or a sophist.

Well, Socrates was a man on a mission and his best student took the gauntlet after his death and glorified him like none other. Didn't Socrates die a noble death?

Well, I might be wrong about my previous comment with regard to continental's like Sarte or Camus.

Maybe...part of our story-telling... :chin: — Amity

Plato is unique in how his Socrates, whether he was factual or not, is the narrator. I haven't seen any other philosopher apart from Plato that utilizes any narrator or narration in their works.

I've been wondering how you and others read or would re-read any of Plato's Dialogues as literature.
For example: How to Read 'The Symposium'. — Amity

A work of fiction; but, a different kind of fiction? Maybe philosophy is a different kind of fiction... :chin:

The problem I see is in generating desires including dissatisfaction towards a model of infinite growth on a planet of finite size. — Andrew4Handel

Yes, dissatisfaction is valued quite a bit to any company invested in legacy products. Advertisers make their money from not always promoting superior products or more efficient products. On the other hand, Google made a quarter of a trillion dollars off of advertising in 2021. People on a fixed budget don't have the luxury to spend money on their preferences towards which good best satisfies them. Then again one has to consider the fact that our populations are so large that the target audience can return the cost of advertising from their purchases.

If the topic is to be about the downsides of advertising, then I feel comfortable to say that advertising targets human biases, opinions, and irrationality moreso than those in the marketing business are willing to admit. Then again they are protected by the nature of the free markets.

Can you expand on this? Are they using a model or rationality taken from psychology or philosophy? — Andrew4Handel

There's a field of economics that specializes in this area, called behavioral economics. Last time I was at college to get a degree in behavioral economics you would have to take quite a lot of classes in cognitive science.

So, I'm assuming the majority of modeling done is empirically based on consumer behavior. The concept of rationality is taken from psychology or cognitive science rather than philosophy as far as I understand.

Some people say science and technology has been destructive in its progress because it has allowed us to suddenly over exploit the environment to cater to peoples short term desires which is not sustainable in the long term. — Andrew4Handel

It would be unfair to label blame on science or technology. I don't think it makes sense to do so at any rate.

Is the model of rationality one that only considers individuals short term goals and selfishness or does it encompass the idea of humans having long term goals and not needing instant gratification. — Andrew4Handel

In terms of what? A lot of economists are no longer preoccupied with Keynes in saying that in the long run we are all dead.