Is it really the case that naming a set of words is perplexing. — RussellA

No, that's not the point here. What I'm referring to is the fact that Pegasus or Santa doesn't exist in the world, maybe perhaps Meinongs jungle, but we refer to him as if he does.

Do you mean there is no actual person answering to the usual descriptions and hence named by the relevant tokens of the word "Santa"? — bongo fury

Yes.

"Santa" is a name appearing in a declaration of the domain of discourse? — bongo fury

Is it? I don't think Santa qualifies in the domain of discourse as an individual. Yet, we can instantiate him freely in movies, towards children and anywhere else.

My point, if you will, is if we can freely refer to Santa then what is it that allows us to instantiate him ontologically in the domain of discourse?

Santa doesn't denote a person in the world, and yet is treated as if he is an individual in the domain of discourse.

I think that's quite stringent. Santa isn't an individual and yet is in the domain of discourse. So, what can one do about that?

I mean, I'm guessing that didn't end well, as "fictional entity" is an oxymoron? — bongo fury

Clearly language goes on holiday whenever we try and actually do that kind of stuff. What are your thoughts about instantiation and ontological ascription such as the case with Pegasus or Santa?

My belief is that the North Pole, reindeer and "real" world are as "fictional" as Santa Claus, as I have yet to come across any persuasive argument that relations do ontologically exist in a mind-independent world. — RussellA

My belief is later stated in the OP, that somehow through language we can ascribe ontological placeholders to fictional entities such as Pegasus or Santa Claus. I find this feature of instantiation of imaginary objects perplexing in language. But that's how ordinary language works to my surprise.

If you don't mind there's some kind of issue I raised in my recent other thread that has import here if you don't mind me presenting. Such as the the rebuttals towards OLP in favor of ILP regarding the existence of entities such as Pegasus or Santa Clause. Or would you say there's no issue here at all?

See:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13691/in-what-sense-does-santa-claus-exist

So if someone holds their hand before them and expresses doubt as to it's being real, one is entitled to ask what they mean by that doubt - are they asking if it is a fake? a hallucination? a prosthetic? The question drags the supposed argument back from the metaphysical. — Banno

Yes, well little to argue about Moore's two hands example. In a manner, wouldn't further doubt or doubt at all beg the question or are we just being uncharitable about what our senses are telling us about the his two hands example?

I'm not sure what you mean by "Quietism." — Ciceronianus

AT the very least, it seems to me to be a stance or position to assume towards certain questions in life. Such as questions about God or existential concerns.

I would assume you are well acquainted with why these questions bother some, whilst Quietism would seem to profess an attitude of (indifference?) if non-care towards them; but, not based on emotive reasonings; however based on rational grounds.

The quote from (allegedly) Seneca was for some reason written by my father on the preface before he gave me his own Bible to read or rather disregard as I came to feel that profound quote towards my-self.

God is too inscrutable to understand or even reason with.

However, I do not seek divine revelation; but, rather choose to believe in what I have come to understand myself. Just as a passing note, what happened to Job was too gratuitous to understand.

I think the Benthamites are even closer to the idea that Britain influenced the United States. Russell notes that Darwinism and Socialism arose from the Philosophical Radicals.

Any true government economist would say that they are closet Utilitarians, methinks.

Just some passing thoughts that have been on my mind as to utilitarianism is that the greatest happiness principle seems to have been subterfuged to the desires of the individual. Meaning, that the notions of rational self-interest took a higher primacy over anything that Bentham or Mill might have desired for the greatest happiness principle to transpire in practice.

I wonder why the above seems true. The calculus of ascribing axiological values seems to point towards that human nature is mostly self-interested in economic affairs, that presuppose that what is best for one's self is good in terms of the pleasure principle.

So, I don't see any inconsistencies with the economics at large and utilitarianism apart from the issue of greed or rational self-interest deterring the greatest happiness principle.

Then again, the invisible hands works in mysterious ways.

Most people don't realize that utilitarianism is fully coherent ethical epistemology that is reliable. — Garrett Travers

But, the epistemology is mostly driven by what? Hedonism?

Oh, I see. Yes, I would agree. At the end of the day, any ethical framework is going to be the responsibility of the individual to employ. Generally speaking, humans tend to their own affairs well enough without oversight, or at least well enough to get along. If I'm understanding what you're saying properly. — Garrett Travers

I had a brainfart and forgot to mention that ethics inside of utilitarianism is devoid of personal bias and judgement.

Anyway, getting back to the OP, I think that what makes utilitarianism so important is its effectiveness at harnessing human greed, self-interest, and what Keynes called animal spirits to manage a flexible equilibrium between the marketplace and the consumer.

Aren't we all modern day utilitarian's?

No, its one of the most sophisticated epistemologies there is. It furthers ethics, provides it more clarity. Again, I defer you to the multifarious ethical frameworks that can be drawn from in a given scenario, as exampled in the above series of questions I listed. — Garrett Travers

But, it seems that these things tend to take care of themselves, no? I mean, I gave an example of game theory assigning values to outcomes that are desirable or non-desirable.

So, instead of appealing to multifaceted ethical frameworks, it seems that utilitarianism sidesteps them by assuming that humans don't necessarily need to be watched over by Bentham's desire for government to oversee all activities of human interaction. Of course, this means that the whole thing is self-reinforcing.

So, for this dilemma I draw your attention back to me saying that Utilitarianism as a base ethical methodology is great, but it isn't the only one. What I have found is that most of the world's ethical frameworks are compatible. So, for instance , if you want to determine if a given action is ethical, you might ask this series of questions, however the scenario is not limited to these, just an example: Am I being sufficiently stoic in this scenario? Is what I plan to do predicated on a rational assessment of the situation, or on my emotions? Will my actions produce better results for all involved if I entangle myself? Is what I plan to do the expression of a universally symmetrical principle? Would the situation require force on my part to see my actions executed?

Do you see what I am saying? Instead of merely relying on that singular framework, which in most cases is not sufficient to be totally relied on, draw from as many as possible, so that it is clear you are making as rational attempt as possible. Unfortunately, the future is always going to be a mystery, thus a true evaluation of outcomes requires one evaluate them only after actions have been taken. — Garrett Travers

Much to your surprise, I find it somewhat puzzling that when it comes to the calculus of utility, that the only question (according to utilitarianism) we ought to ask is "What's best for myself?", when presented with new situations or outcomes that we need to deal with in life or even in the marketplace.

I find this perplexing that such a simple hedonistic calculus that leaves one to ask "What's best for me?" can be so effective at governing human relations and behavior.

Does utilitarianism make the hoi polloi happy?

There is a fundamental dilemma here about utilitarianism having a criteria upon which one can assign values onto consequentialist outcomes of behavior or outcomes of behavior. — Shawn

I don't know what this means. You mean to say it is hard to evaluate outcomes? — Garrett Travers

What I mean is that when devising a calculus, the process of assigning values on qualitative outcomes demands an ethical framework to designate those quantitative values onto. I hope that makes better sense. The fact that one must engage in denoting what human behavior ought to do in certain scenarios is where consequentialism runs into a dead-end and we have to pick or choose an ethical system in accordance with human nature, to designate these values into those desired outcomes. As far as utilitarianism goes, it seems that it all boils down to hedonistic slant of desired outcomes for the greatest amount of good principle.

What do you think?

As far as a base level ethical framework, Utilitarianism, I hold, should be one of the primary starting points when alayzing any ethical dilemma. — Garrett Travers

There is a fundamental dilemma here about utilitarianism having a criteria upon which one can assign values onto consequentialist outcomes of behavior or outcomes of behavior. Again, selfishness and greed rears its head here as a primary intrinsic motivator for attributing these axiological values on relationships...

There isn't a single philosophical framework that I know of that doesn't incorporate a good deal of utilitarian ethics. Period. As far as it being the ONLY metric by which to calculate ethics, I would say that has the potential to do more harm than imaginable, and has been used by tyrants in the past to justify their atrocities. However, economics is not a utilitarian practice, fundamentally, and never should be. — Garrett Travers

Economics seems to be a field that developed after utilitarianism became a more abstract field dealing with the quantitative ascriptives of numerical values onto outcomes. Given that interpretation, I would think that ever more latter fields like game theory or what used to be called a calculus of utility would be of merit in describing it as an extension of what one would call Bentham's or Mill's hedonic calculus, no?

Very few people are motivated by anything short of greed, and greed is not an evil. In fact, praxiologically, it is going to be difficult for anyone to make the case that they aren't motivated almost exclusively by what has been termed "greed," which I would, in that specific sense, regard as irrational self-interest, or self-interest with a disregard to people's rights. Greed is what motivates coal miners to keep the lights on, ford workers to produce vehicles, and grocers to supply food. It's the greed that isn't associated with production that needs to be critical analyzed (Washington), as well as the greed that is associated with violating rights; which I hold, a Free Market would address naturally on its own through competition. Economics is an exercise in self-attained material success, motivated by greed, propelled by labor. So, the two are fundamentally different, utilitarianism and economics. One operates in the domain of ethical analysis, the other operates in the domain of individual attainment. — Garrett Travers

In as much as greed is a motivating factor, I think the more appropriate term here is rational self-interest. I believe, that rational self-interest is what mandates a rational process or deliberate process of transactions and trades between individuals to reach a consensus of interests at an agreed value of exchange towards a unit of value, being money. I also think that given the assumption that people desire to be happy rather than sad, that the system is self-sustaining, as long as demand is governed by expectations in accordance with realistic outcomes. But, more philosophically, there's a point to be made of greed that philosophy cannot address with a hedonistic calculus, without making reference towards our inherent natures.

Yeah, and I'm Frank Sinatra. This is amusing but please stop taking the piss, Shawn. — Baden

I would show you my bank account if I could; but, that's like going to a public bathroom to show your dick in front of the pisuar, completely pointless and distasteful.

All I'll say then, off the top, is that I would

(1) subsidize TPF with no-strings attached grants (the details tbd with site owners/admins, et al)

(2) provide grants (re enough to live on for a year or two at a time) to TPF members who are writing books of original scholarship-research in philosophy science history art biography or fiction ... with an eye towards, at the very least, self-publishing (selection criteria details, again, tbd)

which I admit reflects my own concerns and aspirations. Anyway, that's the least of what I'd do, Shawn; good luck with whatever you decide. :death: :flower: — 180 Proof

I'm actually considering reaching out to Paul to refloat the old PF, and see how that goes, and finance it. I had some ideas of paying the moderators and seeing what they can do with providing resources like SEP and posting their thoughts new topics. I really missed Postmodern Beatnick, and would be looking around for mod's that have phil degrees and offer some financial assistance to support their work and promote it their. I also think, I would look forward to inviting actual philosophers more for anything ranging from AMA to posting about their philosophic writings. I also would like to have a chess corner built into the forum software if @Paul could organize that.

I might reach out to you about (2) in the future. That's all about that I've got in mind.

Of course, there's a big difference between having just enough to live comfortably, and having a great surplus. But that's kind of the key to me. Life is just a series of habits. As we live, so we think. For me, my thoughts are to have a nice home gym, to establish healthy patterns of eating and exercise, to read and write a little more, to donate a bit more to and also volunteer a bit with some local charitable organizations, like the food bank. Maybe we will buy ourselves a nice, new electric vehicle (I'm thinking of a Hyundai Kona).

If I had a whole lot of money, and allowed my life to become about buying a lot of things, well that would become one of my dominant and defining habits. I'm not sure how that advances the set of cognitive habits that constitutes me. It doesn't really make me anything more than a consumer, a hyper-consumer. That's not something I aspire to be.

What do you aspire to be? — Pantagruel

Thanks for the input and reply to my question. I suppose we can only speak for ourselves, and what you would so seems like a little modification in your life.

AI aspire to go to somewhere like USC in California for possibly a masters in behavioral economics. That seems like a natural extension of my abilities that I could hone in on. I want more education in my life. One of my old wants in regards to education is to finish a degree in philosophy, especially analytic philosophy.

There ain't much I want to do with my money other than park it somewhere. I think that offering it all to XYZ isn't as rational as growing it and doing what Warren Buffett wants to do with his wealth upon his death.

Regardless, I want to finish my masters first, and then see what avenues that opens for me and my wealth.

In the ancient world there was considerably more social stratification, and the hoi polloi were held in low regard. (I wonder if you see echoes of that in Heidegger's conception of 'das man'? Is that the element in Heidegger that is said to be proto-fascist?) — Wayfarer

I'm not sure. You may want to ask @Ciceronianus, he would know. :smile:

I don't know if Aristotle really argues that the virtuous man should be treated differently, like some kind of master. — Xtrix

I believe that is something he advocates openly in the Ethics. It's been a while since I've read Aristotle and I'm quoting from Russell's - History of Western Philosophy.

I don't think there's enough emphasis on Aristotle in modern curricula, although it's a subject that has to be taught with an eye to the historical and interpretive matters. And of course for a section of the populace, Aristotelianism will be forever associated with the Catholic Church and condemned on that basis. — Wayfarer

Not only the Catholic Church; but also think about how his conception of man was so influential towards Randians. Why is that?

Look first to the society they lived in. Greece was not egalitarian. Privileged men played leading roles at the top of the heap with not too many in the middle, and a lot at the broad base. Not only did they practice slavery, but anyone unfortunate to be bankrupted or captured in battle could become a slave. — Bitter Crank

Yes, well. Plato wrote about Spartan society mainly, which the Greeks looked in very high regard.

However, Aristotle wrote about a way of personifying ethics through virtue, which was equivalent to happiness, and a end desirable inofitself. What speaks strangely to me is how people looked at his characterization of men and turned it into something profane by modern egalitarian like-minded people. Why is that?

I endeavor not to blame authors for the misuses (or abuses) of their works by politicians and theologians, unless said authors in their own rights are dogmatic ideologues. — 180 Proof

How true that this happened so much towards Plato when assimilating his views of the soul into Christianity! And, sadly, the philosopher king was never attempted or taken seriously.

Aristotle's dogmas, I think, don't align with the subsequent political or theological dogmas rationalized in his name. — 180 Proof

Yet, why was it so appealing to men to take parts of his Nicomachean Ethics and use it to justify forms or what many women call chauvinism on parts of males?

Could you re-phrase this question? I think I'm understanding you but I want to be sure. — Xtrix

In the summary of the Nicomachean Ethics that I'm reading from Bertrand Russell's perspective it's said that Aristotle maintained a view in accordance of the magnanimous man standing in higher regard than other men for being virtuous, as defined by Aristotle. The question to rephrase, would be that why does it seem so important that someone who is in higher standing with regards to ethics, should be treated any differently.

Maybe, I'll just base this off my proclivities of egalitarianism, which Aristotle isn't very accommodating towards with his conception of what most modern day women might call male 'jingoism'.

That's rather the issue in question, isn't it? — Banno

I don't think it can be persuasively argued on until there are other motivations other than profits, value, or expenses. Markets adhere by a common agreement in law and jurisprudence of a country. So, I don't think the system can take care of itself, as traditionally understood.

Is the market taking care of itself a conclusion, or an assumption? — Banno

It's an assumption of laissez-faire economics, which has been time and time again been refuted by market failures, and poor accounting on behalf of rational actors operating in the cosm of "the greater world", and not only individual nations.

Apples and oranges?

The only metric governing the behavior of the above are productivity and efficiency increases. Thus, the market takes care of itself, and has no overriding natural law such as thermodynamics governing a differential in entropy. Even then, demand can still mandate a larger increase in supply due to expectations, so that would violate thermodynamics of the economy.

I mean, it's also hard to argue that we can take into account the recently hotly debated externality of climate change into our equations. For example, try and define a common unit of cost of each ton of carbon emissions emitted into the atmosphere that would (under ideal circumstances) be agreed on by most rational actors. You can do that if you're all under the same banner as the EU does; but, how can the EU convince China that their cost of per ton of carbon emissions is equal to theirs? (This issue of agreement can only proceed from legal agreement or consensus on an issue, and hence is not in the scope of economic analysis to direct or confront the issue, and by definition this would be a tragedy of the commons issue).

Classical economics breaches the first and second laws of thermodynamics by treating the economy as a closed system that increases in order. — Banno

You might not be familiar with the economic saying "et ceteris paribus", all other things held equal. Again, you can't just assume that every externality is taken under consideration.

Thinking of our own times, sports (though much less bloody and risky relatively speaking than the games) are sometimes thought to instill virtue or involve a sort of artistry. You know, the "playing fields of Eton" sort of virtue, at least. Do they? If our sports do, and the Roman games did not, why is that the case? — Ciceronianus

Given that the height of gladiatorial fights manifest in modern day boxing, I believe that incidents like what Mike Tyson did to his opponents ear-lobe-no longer occurring-makes us modern "men", so much less, "masculine".

Obviously, men have aggrievances over this fact. To whom, nobody really knows.

@Noble Dust, what's The Weekend all about?

I'm curious to hear what people think are the actual and meaningful limitations of the metric, and what benefits or value (personal or social) it provides. — Reformed Nihilist

I think, that there are two types of IQ tests. One where g is measured due to knowledge and memory abilities (non-culture fair tests) and the other where g isn't as heavily measured as in Ravens matrices tests and culturally fair IQ tests.

In the latter case I believe that academic success, associated with IQ testing isn't as heavily measured; but, the culturally fair tests that I have taken indicate greater fluid intelligence, which didn't do anything meaningful for academic achievement in my opinion. There's a caveat to culturally-fair testing in my opinion, where you can learn to do better on the test, and hence we have a tendency to measure g more heavily on tests like Binet or others.

I scored high on tests that don't measure g as heavily as on other tests. What the implications of that mean is that you can carry on a conversation pretty well for intellectual stimulation, as a form of pragmatic utility derived from such a high number.

I would vote in favor of altruism, but I haven't seen it on the ballot. People vote in favor of their own interests (as they should) and they vote in favor of others' interests to the extent that they can relate to them. — Bitter Crank

What makes you say that voting should be based off of self-interest? Much of the issues separate from the certain death and taxes, require a semblance of altruism to function for the benefit of other people. I mean, social issues are raised by propositions in my state of California. However, if one disregards the importance of altruism in voting, do we end up with more polarization between voting parties?

Otherwise altruistic people can organize in a flash if a non-profit wants to open a group home in their neighborhood for released offenders, recovering drug addicts, sex offenders, or former mafioso. No, no, no! We need to protect women and children from these menaces! Keep the sons of bitches in prison! — Bitter Crank

So, what gives? Is this about dominating interests or political forces coercing people to vote in a certain way?

At the core of democracy is the notion that we are in this together and together we can build a common wealth. — Banno

Apparently someone might call this socialism. Isn't it? Anyway, I have no issues with altruism when facing problems or issues to solve. There are things that are of higher value to me than the profit-motive, and unfortunately the myth that voting is virtue signaling at its core, is true, but during the 50's virtue signaling through voting was never so cool to do.

The myth of 'enlightened self-interest' is a curse that undermines that common wealth. It is the root of the ongoing failure of your democracy. — Banno

More precisely, the notion of enlightened self-interest originated in the past with the arrival of the marketplace. One does dealings with X irrespective of X's heritage or biases towards X, and both parties end up happy as long as the deal can be ratified legally through legal tender issues by and from a common government. Anyway, what's so wrong with enlightened self-interest in your opinion?

As an example of altruism with a concrete self-interested benefit, one need look no further than at unemployment benefits. The small minded will cavil and object, "Why should I pay for him (or her)?" — tim wood

Ah, yes. The non-existent fairytale of welfare kings and queens living off your dime or 0.0001 cents.

If you mean value is always wrt to some standard, then sure. But is that really the case? I invite you to think a bit more about what value is. Is gold valuable? How do you go about answering that question? Or if not gold, then food, water, shelter, or tickets to the opera.

Your question would seem to be, can there be value where there is no valuer? A nonsense question until and unless the details qualified, but qualification then being/providing the answer. — tim wood

I take it as following. A good-in-of-itself is recognized as valuable to a person or even government. The issue with determining value or ascribing value to something that has worth is complex because it has utility, as far as I can tell.

When you rule out utility and preference, you are still left with subjective an aesthetic appreciation of value, as you describe it being tickets to the opera or some such?

I'd say community has intrinsic value. — john27

It's somewhat vague to say that community has intrinsic value. Comparative to what else?

What's the problem with intrinsic value being reduced to instrumental value? — khaled

Mainly a definitional one. Things that have intrinsic value are good in-of-itself. Something with instrumental value is regarded as something that has relative value depending on needs or wants. Hence the issue with the definitions not coinciding...

I can only tell you what I would do if I had that money. But you've got to figure that out yourself. What is it that you care about? Do you care about humanity or not? What is a good life? — Xtrix

I'm concerned about trying to provide a means for educational games for young people that aren't that resource intensive on processing power of a computer. I used to play some games like that, that made school, where I couldn't pay attention no matter how hard I tried, an easy venture. It's very hard for me to explain just how difficult school would have been if I didn't play those educational games that provided the core concepts distilled and entertaining to learn whilst interactive.

There's somewhat a lot of interest in online games that are fun to play, and quite a lot of interesting educational games for people to utilize. I haven't seen anything engaging for young children to play anything that would tell them how to multiply large numbers in an easier manner than doing it on your hands. I also want some advanced concepts better explained or educated rather than listening to some Hindu on YouTube that is trying to make spare change, like the Khan Academy.

One of my other ideas is to invest into online video production for entertainment. It wouldn't make much money; but, in my opinion the quality of in-game graphics has improved so considerably that you can make some photo-realistic scenes even in something like Unreal Engine 4/5. See for yourself:


So, yeah, education and entertainment.

Reading an old one and no longer taken seriously.

The Price of Inequality by Joseph Stiglitz

Sadly, none of which really gathered too much in effect in policies or mandates against reckless market behavior.

I have a personal narrative. It didn't come from my desire of consistency though, its rather more just a series of twists to satisfy my conflict of interest. — john27

I have a pretty weak narrative in my head. I don't really have a strong causal narrative in my head for the matter. I think it differs for each person on how they perceive issues in their life. Hitler called it Mein Kampf, and Buddha called it the Noble Eightfold Path.