Do you conclude from this that all those professors getting paid to teach and write are not doing philosophy? — Fooloso4

No. I merely stipulate to the notion they might find my understanding of it to be quaint. Regardless of what I think, I hope they love what they do.

:up:

The separatist impulse, — tim wood

:100:

I sometimes wonder what saved me. The seduction is real, and it can be very persuasive. I think my proclivity toward both the illness and candidacy was balanced by a strong sense of a non-existent justice. I see my own footprint on the Earth, and realize I cannot ameliorate it on my own, without compounding the problem by making space for others with bigger feet. Thus, we must work together to check ourselves. So I stay and play.
. . . .

Oh, but to be the first man through the Bering Strait! Days of harshness, big game hunting, clean water and air, and countless miles of Eden with no need to anticipate conflict with other humans. Now, about those two or three each of the most beautiful females of every ethnicity, 40 and under, and all trained up in things I could use, like medicine, engineering, and etc. . . .

If you were to visit most university philosophy departments the faculty would regard this claim as quaint. — Fooloso4

I suspect you are right. Drilling down on the word "love" might cause some discomfort.

I think we've pared this down to a question of language. — T Clark

I wish that were the case, but I've stipulated to your use of terms. I don't think it's a question of language so much as it is a difference of opinion on the merits of the statement. Anyway, thank you for forcing me to think without the triggering.

Bleh, A creature is more than a memory. When a person dies they take nothing with them but themselves. Even if ou argue that their perception of the person is a person I'd say that that perception is merely an extension of the dead person.

No one takes anyone with them into death. — New2K2

I was trying to acknowledge the Vidal quote as illustrative of the statement that I take issue with: "Man is the measure of all things." I'm not here going down another rabbit hole unrelated to the argument at hand.

When we measure, we compare one thing, what is being measured, with another, a measure. So, no, I don't think most animals do that. — T Clark

I guess there is the rub. I think we can use the same definition of measure, but still disagree on whether man is the sole measure. As a slight digression, I think the distinction you draw is one that we use to assuage our feelings about how we treat animals. But again, that's an aside.

Measurement is a matter of social convention. We, humanity, decide on how to measure by what standards, — T Clark

I agree, and those social conventions often spring from experience. We might say that pack of wolves doesn't attack that giant, prime bull because "instinct" and "evolution" have taught them not to. I disagree. Getting kicked to pieces, or seeing a peer get kicked to pieces is a lesson an animal can measure. They won't even waste their time, even when hunger is the great motivator.

The fact that we, humanity, do this does not render it our province to he exclusion of all else, much less All.

If the intention of a questioner is simply to find agreement there is doubt about the whole point of the enterprise. — Amity

The intention of one who loves wisdom would not be to simply find agreement. It would be to elicit a reasoned response, to help the asker to understand.

Questions are not always easy to form. Even well thought out questions with a view to reasoned discussion can lead down surprising avenues to explore, including others' reactions. — Amity

This is true. That is why the question is so important. If you are looking for another's reactions, as opposed to his reasons, then I think philosophy is not the enterprise. Maybe politics, or boxing, or psychology.

We aren't ideal, we have to deal with the unideal. And we ask unideal questions for all kinds of reasons. — Amity

No truer words were ever spoken. The question about the purpose of philosophy would go to those reasons. If one's reason is not to find reason, then again, philosophy doesn't seem to be the enterprise.

Compared to the classroom experience, the 'new' part of learning in TPF environment is perhaps less about people showing or witnessing character but more about processing our own thoughts, feelings and attitudes. — Amity

I would hope so. It is an aid to processing our own thoughts, feelings and attitudes when any character, other than the love of wisdom, takes a seat. Granted, no one is perfect, and the proof of that, in oneself, is in trying to carry another, especially when that other is looking for reactions instead of reason.

Reason tends to fly out the window when we feel under attack. Initial sensations of dislike or discomfort can limit our ability to stand back and think 'straight'. — Amity

Bingo. So, if philosophy is about sending reason flying out the window, I guess I've been misunderstanding it.

I don't mind being 'pissed off' or people being 'pissed off' with me. — Amity

You are a better man than me.

It shows passion and action.
It is better than complete apathy or indifference. — Amity

I don't believe it is an either/or proposition. The vetting described is the demonstration of passion and action. I'm seeing it in you, now.

A little bit of aggravation is good for the soul. Now is that 'wise' or not ? :chin:

I find a distinction between that which is wise, and the love of the pursuit of it for wisdoms sake. The former is simply being, and the latter is seeking the reason for it.

Socrates may deny being a wise man, but lets say we perceive him to be such. If he presented himself to an open forum, I would ask him questions to understand why he is or is not as I perceive him to be. If he wanted me to piss him off in the pursuit, I guess I could try to humor him. But he would have to tell me that, or I'd have to ask him: "Hey Socrates, how best can I get you to explain to me why I think you are wise? Should I piss you off, so you can show me I am wrong about you? Or should I just ask well-thought-out, probing questions?" But if he just wants to go be wise somewhere, I'll leave him alone. — Amity

nd yet Good is a way for Man to measure. A blob of clay is a blob of clay. Easy to mold or hard to mold, brittle, dark, light.
Good or bad comes from what Man wants, and so I feel you might have boxed yourself in. — New2K2

I don't see how I boxed myself in. I can stipulate to all you just said (and I do), and yet it does not mean that man is the measure of all things. There is a leap there, that cannot logically be made. I like the Gore Vidal quote, not only because it is witty, but it is illustrative of what I think is meant by the statement "Man is the measure of all things." When Vidal dies, he is going to take all of us with him. I get that. That is true, for Vidal. Yet: 1. We are still here; and 2. The same is true for an elk. Are elk the measure of all things?

If a pack of wolves is harrying a herd of elk, looking for the weakest link, are they not measuring the herd, even if no man is there to witness it? Even if I never proposed it? If they select what they perceive to be the weakest link and kill it, have they not measured that elk? And when that elk dies, does he/she not take all those wolves and all she's ever known, with her?

Why is man the measure of all things when there is so much more than man to measure, and be measured? It seems the height of something, if not arrogance, to say we are the measure of all things. If not arrogance, then what is it the height of, to say that? It's clearly the height of something. Maybe someone can explain that to me.

Personally, I believe All is the measure of all things.

SYMBOLIC OF ALL MATTER. You agreed. — god must be atheist

First, on the merits of our argument, that does not make man the measure of all things. That makes me the measurer of those things. Second, my point in entertaining your digression, from clay to all other things, was, as already explained to you, in reference to All. All is the measure of all things, good or bad. Not man.

But you contradicted this, by this: — god must be atheist

I did not contradict, as explained above and below.

Back to the merits of our argument: The statement "Man is the measure of all things" is exclusive. If man is the measure of all things, then nothing else can be the measure of anything. If you do not agree with that, then let's argue that. If you agree with that, then when I measure a baby with clay, or clay with a baby, and measure the clay as good, that does not demonstrate that man is the measure of all things. As I said in response to your digression, I leave it to All to measure (and I'll add, be the measure) of all things as good or bad. Man is not the measure of all things, and my measuring anything as good will never make it so.

You keep calling me an idiot, — god must be atheist

?

calling me out on all kinds of drummed up reasons? — god must be atheist

The reasons were not drummed up. They were responses to your digression from clay to all things, your trying to put words in my mouth, and your hyperbolic, emotive frustration, as demonstrated by suggesting I called you an idiot, or that by saying "good" of something, I inadvertently made man the measure of all things, or asking "How one can shoot himself on the foot in one easy step."

So, trying to get back on track, is the following statement true? "If man is the measure of all things, then nothing else can be the measure of anything." If you disagree, then we can argue. If you agree, then I would be happy to argue that things other than man can be the measure of other things.

1. What kind of vetting ? How would it help ? — Amity

I did not number them as you did. In my opinion, doing so makes them seem exclusive as opposed to complementary.

I consider your 3 to be explanatory of your 1.

Comments about thoughts are part and parcel of being challenged, no ? They are a stimulus which can be responded to. Both in positive and negative ways. Part of the learning process. — Amity

Again, your 2 is explanatory of your 1.

If my intellectual curiosity is sincere, then I will not ask you a question in such a way as to get the answer I want. The vetting I suggest would be questioning intended to elicit a reasoned response. I can't speak for others, but if you say to me: "You are weak and stupid. How can you arrive at that conclusion?" The answer you get, whether reasoned or not, will be more likely to have a similar impedance to reason. In my experience, the love of wisdom is eventually lost to a pissing match.

I was once taught that using logic as a weapon is itself a fallacy. Having seen teachers help students makes fools of themselves in front of a class did indeed reveal the character of the student in his response. But it was usually just a witness to human nature and nothing new. Anyone can piss someone off. If that is a teacher's lesson, say in psychology or whatnot, it need not be done at the expense of the love of wisdom.

P.S. I'm going to measure the inside of my eye lids.

We didn't "transmogrify" into the measure of all things. We invented measurement. Measurement is human enterprise. Why else would we care about measurement except as it applies to ourselves? What would we ever measure except things that have an effect on our lives? — T Clark

You don't think animals measure their environment? And is what we care about the only measure? And where does the "we" come from? By that, I mean why are you and I, both "man" aligned together in measure under the heading of "man", instead of being pitted against each other in our measurement as would, I guess, be man and animal? Wouldn't it be better to say "Each individual is the measure of all things?" That way the truth, as Plato might have it, is whatever we, individually, say it is. Or is there some collective human experience that has yet to collect?

I don't suppose we would measure anything that didn't have an effect on our lives, but I don't see how that makes us the measure of all things? Are you saying "measurer" or "measurers" or simply "measure" as used in my initial post? Regardless, we measure. But that doesn't mean we are the measure of all things.

Loving wisdom doesn't mean you have any. I've never been quite sure how to interpret this 'love of wisdom'. It sounds passive and slightly lackluster. It seems to miss something of the vigor attached to challenging one's assumptions and beliefs and actually fighting to comprehend something new and alien. — Tom Storm

I guess love can be feigned. Maybe a better vetting process would help. Maybe trying to avoid triggering someone with comments about their thoughts. Maybe questions from sincere curiosity. Maybe trying to be helpful instead of superior. I've written about complaint and the strong/weak, wise/stupid dichotomy, and I always try to recognize the humanity of it, and the fact that we all are human and lack wisdom and strength. The best way to prove that, and engender humility, is to try and carry, understand, and feel. That's a hard pull for folks like me, especially when triggered.

And humans love to think they are wise. Whether they are or not. — Monitor

True. And sometimes they are, and sometimes they are not.

As Gore Vidal used to say - 'When I die I'm going take all of you with me." — Tom Storm

HA! Love it.

I just watched a lady die today and was talking with my wife about it. Notwithstanding all the talk and actions, when it boils down to it, death is ALL about the living. I've seen it's approach, it's arrival, the Wills, the memorials and many other angles. There is a lot of memory and memories and homages. But it's all about the living. I just see other measures, or at least I'm willing to acknowlege they might exist in spite of me or anyone else.

I've seen animals measure. I've seen them measure others, and I've seen them measure me. Anyone who's spent time with horses knows it.

Humans think like humans for human reasons - the world and us is to some extent 'created' by our corporeal strengths and limitations. — Tom Storm

I think that is correct. I don't quite understand how that makes us the measure of all things. If it's simply saying that we can't not be us, okay. If that means there cannot be an objective perception, or the perception of anything other than man, or that any such other perception is irrelevant, then I would disagree.

Well, on one hand you said it is not all things that are dead matter that you judge, and on the other hand, you agree it is all things that are dead matter you judge. — god must be atheist

Slow yourself down, and try thinking before posting. In referencing clay, I talked of nothing else (i.e. not all dead things). Then, in explaining how man is not the measure of all things, I referenced All as the measure of the rest, good or bad. My humanity is not the measure. And that would not only include clay or "all dead things" (I don't know where you pulled that language from) but also living things.

it is easy to refute my point — god must be atheist

It is easy to refute your point when you set up straw men and try to impose your measure of me on me by telling me what I mean or think or say.

that I am wrong in doing so, by drawing my attention to the opposing side of your contradictive claims. — god must be atheist

There's were you fall down. My claims are not contradictive.

So would you say the purpose of philosophy is to satisfy the love one feels for wisdom? To seek out truth, and be able to use logic to defend it?

I would argue, that that's pretty well it. Or very close to it, at any rate. — god must be atheist

That sounds good to me. Everyone has a muscle. Everyone has a brain. But the love of their use, simply for the use (and not some practical goal) would separate them.

Beyond that, it makes sense to me that our understanding of the world, reality itself, is a function of our particular human nervous system and perceptual organs. — T Clark

What I see in your entire post (correct me if I am wrong) is that humans are humans; that humans are stuck being human. I can agree with that. But that does not transmogrify us into the measure of all that we measure.

By attributing a quality to a blob of wet clay, honestly I thought it was symbolic of all dead matter. — god must be atheist

You were correct, it is, but my saying so says nothing more than my subjective opinion is human. It does not make man the measure of it simply because a man acts like a man. It is my philosophy that All perceives itself through All it's parts. That would make clay, wood, whatever All would have it be. Not us. Not man.

But you say, that the buck stops at blobs of clay. — god must be atheist

There you go again, telling me what I say. LOL!

"In the preoccupation with doing things as they should be done - which is morality - there is a line past which we begin to think that what is purely our whim or mania is necessary. We fall, therefore, into a new immorality, into the worst of all, which is a matter of not not knowing those very conditions without which things cannot be. This is mans supreme and devastating pride, which tends not to accept limits on his desires and supposes that reality lacks any structure of it's own which may be opposed to his will. This sin is the worst of all, so much so that the question of whether the content of that will is good or bad completely loses importance in the face of it. If you believe you can do whatever you like - even, for example, the supreme good, then you are, irretrievably a villain. The preoccupation with what should be is estimable only when respect for what is has been exhausted." J.O. yGassett

No. — Monitor

You just answered the question. Philosophy is, literally, the love of wisdom. That's what distinguishes it from all the day to day thinking you reference.

You mean, "how can someone not agree with me?" — god must be atheist

Another demonstration of your faulty reasoning is when you tell someone else what they meant.

By dividing ALL things into being good and not good, you give all things a measure of goodness or badness. — god must be atheist

I did not divide ALL things into being good and not good.

And good and bad are qualities that are humano-centric; without humans (or equivalents) the terms "good" and "bad" would be meaningless. — god must be atheist

First, good and bad are not qualities that are humano-centric. Second, to find "meaninglessness" is your subjective opinion. All may find an objective good or bad (or something else) in spite of us.

It's true that language itself also would not exist; but you use the language to translate your judgment of things (good or bad) into human-understood information. — god must be atheist

My judgement is not the measure of all things. And my use of language to translate my judgement into human-understood information says nothing more than I am human. It does not make man the measure of all things. And being "human-understood" is not necessary to All.

Language is a transfer element; the "good" and "bad" are primary judgments, the measure of man, and only of man. — god must be atheist

Other creatures have language and transfer judgements of good and bad all the time.

But don't we all make philosophical decisions every day? Don't we decide what events "are" and then how best to live with them? We may be wrong, or do it poorly, or don't want the awareness of what we are doing but no one else is doing it for us. Don't we all have a current world view that we have accepted whether we worked at it or not? — Monitor

Do we do all that for the love of it?

When I look upon a blob of clay, I see good; not because I see potential for it to be molded into something good (for it could just as well be molded into something bad) but because a blob of clay is good in and of itself, regardless of what we do to it, or what it might become later. Man is not the measure of all things.
— James Riley

By saying "good" of something, James Riley inadvertently made man the measure of all things.

How one can shoot himself on the foot in one easy step. — god must be atheist

How can anyone's reasoning be so faulty? I did not make man the measure of all things when I said I found a blob of clay to be good. I am not the measure of all things, nor do I speak for All.

And then you may lose whatever precious little freedom you now have. — Fooloso4

ala Claude Dallas.

We met the new MAGA, same as the old MAGA, didn't we? — 180 Proof

Gottabe lovin me some of that CCR!

I don’t want isolation. By “leave me alone” I mean I want them to quit meddling in my life. That’s what you fail to recognize. — NOS4A2

I learned that no policy, regulation, statute or Constitution ever came about in a vacuum, or through some insidious governmental desire to meddle with someone for no reason. Each and every case came about in response to:

1. Someone who just wanted to be left alone externalizing the costs of their existence onto the backs of someone who did not agree, in an arms-length transaction, to voluntarily assume those costs; or

2. The insidious desire of those who sought to suppress competition by lobbying government for a standard they could afford to comply with, but which they knew competition, or would-be competition, could not afford.

Unfortunately, society applies those standards across the board (unless you can afford to purchase an exemption) to everyone, regardless of whether they personally have externalized a cost. But here's the deal:

I also learned the greatest threat posed to those who just want to be left alone is not who they think it is (government or meddlesome liberal busy bodies) but, rather, other people who just want to be left alone, who got their first, have more power, and want to keep the little "leave me alone" guy down.

Unlike you, I did seek isolation. I sought it for two different reasons:

1. I wanted to get to. To the Earth.

2. I wanted to get away from. From meddlers who wouldn't leave me alone.

I'd rather supplement the word "wanted" with "freedom." I wanted freedom to, and I wanted freedom from.

I conjured up the notion in my own mind, that all the freedom in the world ain't worth shit if you don't have a place to be free in. I then read a man, much more eloquent than I, who said the same thing thus: "Of what avail are forty freedoms without a blank spot on the map?" Aldo Leopold.

I knew an eastern man, long in city pent, with, ostensibly, the same Constitutional and legal freedoms as I had, out west, was not as free to, or as free from, as was I. And I knew that the greatest danger posed to my place to be free was not the man in the city. Rather, the greatest threat is my peer out west, just wanting to be left alone, so he can clear cut, strip mine, dam, over-graze, plow, subdivide, pave and domesticate all that he claimed he loved, and all that he found pride in, all while looking down his nose at the city slicker, and all while dissing the eastern locations that were once just as great and free as the west. This man, who just wants to be left alone, is hell-bent on turning his place into what he hates about that other place. He should just pack his damn bags and move to the city if that's what he working toward. Instead, he complains about the urban immigrants moving to the west, yearning to be free of the city, but bringing their liberal ways with them.

But it all boils down to people who just want to be left alone. There's too god damn many of them. And they encourage breeding and the production of even more, throwing semen and seed, hither and yon, because it's his God-given right to flood the world with his spawn.

In short, you can't do it alone, Bro. You're gonna need help to be left alone. Make sure you don't ride for the wrong outfit. But you will have to ride for one. There is no more open range.

I agree. — T Clark

:rage: . . . . :razz:

I'll argue with anyone, — T Clark

No you won't!

Allow me to beat my analogy some more: The Philosophy Forum is a gym. We have some dumbbells in the corner and they can provide a workout in developing patience. But we also have a bunch of other free weights, machines, treadmills, punching bags, and even some showers to clean up in, and where some pervs might go to ogle. And the whole place can stink if we don't use towels and clean up after ourselves. Periodically, someone needs to come in and clean house. :razz:

And some of us (me) should learn to stretch and pace ourselves or we'll pull a muscle.

Oh, and if you hang out in conservative Q safe-space echo chambers of confirmation bias, compounding stupidity, then you are basically having your brain lay on the couch eating McDonalds all day. That is not only dangerous for you, but it's dangerous for everyone else. Get out there and engage in philosophy: not the easy weights you want to lift, but the hard ones that will grow your brain.

So in essence is it better that someone is happy with little drive/ ambition or that they’re constantly unsatisfied but driven and motivated? — Benj96

1. Is the pill a choice?
2. I think it depends upon what constitutes better, and to whom? Which one of these options will lead to enhanced biodiversity and a smaller human footprint on the Earth?

In nations where the public health responses so far have been efficient and effective (e.g. Taiwan, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Vietnam, Iceland, Germany, (Scandinavia), Australia, New Zealand, etc), you are quite right, NOS: their approaches have been much more collectivist than not. However, nations mislead by individualistic, reactive, populist governments like the former Trump maladministration, BoJo's clown show, Modi's "Raj", Xi's sweatshop gulag, Putin's klepto-czarship & Bolsonaro's junta, for example, demonstrate yet again that not working collectively – collaboratively – on common complex problems is disastrously self-defeating. — 180 Proof

When Trump said he was a war time president fighting an invisible enemy, the first thing I thought about was the front line troops, how the Commander In Chief and his crew failed to support the troops, how un-American it would be by their own patriotic standards, and how they essentially spit on the troops. What happened to all the "United We Stand", and "If you aren't with us you are against us", and blah blah blah? Troops died because of it, and the collateral damage of innocents was horrible. End rant, sorry. Next time conservatives go banging the drums of war, they can pay for it themselves and go under a different flag. Back to our regularly scheduled programming.

When I look upon a blob of clay, I see good; not because I see potential for it to be molded into something good (for it could just as well be molded into something bad) but because a blob of clay is good in and of itself, regardless of what we do to it, or what it might become later. Man is not the measure of all things.

The brain is a muscle and philosophy is exercising. Some are better at it than others, some more dedicated than others, some more helpful to others, some start out with a better baseline to work with, some are handicapped, some go for endurance, some strength, some balance, some flexibility, or any combination thereof. Everybody has a muscle. So what? That doesn't make them an athlete. Everybody has a brain. So what? That doesn't make them a philosopher.

You gotta work that SOB.

X and Y exist, and the simple fact they don't matter, itself does not matter. So they proceed apace as if they did, and that is all that matters. Philosophy is the proceeding apace with the brain.

Be a drag if we screwed up the dynamo.

What about the autonomy of the baby? — Gregory

The baby is not autonomous.

By all accounts Tesla has never gone anywhere near meeting projected production, — Janus

He could have found the money in a storm drain for all I know. But people who have that kind of loot usually have a bevvy of brains around trying to keep them from losing it, and then to compound it. Even if it's blind luck, it doesn't take a lot of genius to know one is lucky, and to then hire hands that know what they are doing.

The Vivisector — Herg

:100: :heart:

you need to be able to store the energy, or back-up those windmills with fossil fuel generating capacity, — counterpunch

Etc. etc. I get that. I also don't have a problem with your geo heat thing. But cars didn't become what they are today overnight or without subsidy. Pointing at wind/solar/whatever for it's failure to solve overnight and on it's own nickel is not how anything anywhere ever worked, ever. I could be wrong, but I have a feeling Musk, et al, are not stupid and they like money too. If I was them, with their resources, I'd sick the best dogs in the world on the problem. Kind of like I defer to the physicists when push comes to shove because, well, they've put the time in.