What if I decide to eat simply less meat? — Cheshire

To my eyes that would be an advance. I do think it's better to, for example, eat a burger per month instead of eating a burger per day, and that not eating any burgers is even better.

If some people don't want to stop buying animal products completely right away, that's fine, they can go at their own pace and start by buying less meat.

I think the false dilemma of people being either completely good or completely bad, with no degrees of goodness in between, should be avoided.

labeling other people's moral choices with your judgement. — Cheshire

Doesn't free speech allow me to say if I consider someone's actions right or wrong according to my moral compass and giving reasons for my judgement? Am I not even allowed to say that?

A person buying a burger has zero effect on your life — Cheshire

If it was only one person, sure, but when speaking publicly one tries to reach as many people as one can. If many people buy burgers, that will have a direct effect on sentient beings, which will also have an effect on me, when I contemplate the suffering caused by those actions.

You wouldn't want someone telling you right and wrong would you? — Cheshire

I honestly don't mind people judging my beliefs and actions and telling me what they think is right and wrong, they are free to do it. If I felt mad or annoyed by that, I'd think that's my problem, for why would I feel shaken by their words if I was sure that I'm not doing anything bad?

I agree, bringing up different examples of moral and immoral actions isn't helpful. — Cheshire

You didn't answer my question though, if by telling a thief that I think he should stop stealing, give reasons for making that judgement and criticize the arguments he invokes to justify his actions, I'm “imposing” my worldview on them, then under that interpretation I don't think adopting an “imposing” attitude is necessarily a bad thing to do.

It creates of subtext of needing to guilt trip people as if they can't make a decision without your approval. — Cheshire

Some people may infer that, but only because they are putting words in my mouth, since I have never claimed, either explicitly or implicitly, that they must consult me before making moral choices. They don't even have to read my posts if they don't want to.

On the contrary, I've emphatically stated that people should judge the morality of their actions according to their own moral/ethical principles, for like the third time now.

Then, assuming they owe you justification for how they live — Cheshire

They don't “owe” me a justification, if they don't want to answer my questions they can simply ignore me and stay silent.

I'm merely suggesting that they should ponder how they justify those actions to themselves, according to their own moral principles. If some people don't want to even think about it, then I can't do anything else besides asking them why they don't want to do it, if they are willing to tell me.

it's an unpleasant implicit superiority or simply lacking the willingness to respect others right to make their own mistakes. — Cheshire

Again, it seems to me that accusations of “implicit superiority” are often just a way to add claims which the other party has never made, to create a straw man. Not once have I implied that someone who is vegan is a better person than someone who isn't, just because of being vegan, nor have I claimed that purchasing animal products turns someone into a bad person.

For example, I wouldn't think Hitler was a good person just because I found out that he was vegan, because the atrocities that he did far outweigh that. And I know people who are not vegan, but greatly help to diminish the amount of suffering in the world a lot with donations to charity and the like, and I don't think they are morally worse than many vegans. What I do think is that they would be even more morally good, as well as more consistent with their principles of decreasing the suffering in the world, if they stopped buying animal products.

Of course, a single person's abstention probably won't, if at all, make a significant difference to the total amount of suffering, but many people's abstention certainly would, something which can't be achieved if everyone thinks that their individual abstention doesn't change anything, which would have the consequence that animals would continue to suffer.

then yes you will need prove it's as bad as torturing people for fun. — Cheshire

Why? I think all I'd have to prove is that it's bad, even if it's not as bad as torturing people. I gave examples of other actions that I consider bad, not to imply that they are all equally bad, but only to imply that I consider them all to be bad to certain different degrees.

when a vegan imposes their judgement on others knowing full well they did (and probably still do on occasion) use animals as means to an end. — Cheshire

What do you take “imposing” to mean? As I understand the term, I'm not imposing anything, unless you think that stating one's view on a subject and suggesting to others what one thinks they should do is to impose my views on them. They are free to accept or reject my advice. If I tell a thief that I think he should stop stealing, am I “imposing” my life style or ethical philosophy to him? (And no, I'm not saying that one person buying a burger is just as bad as one person stealing someone's car, I just want to understand what you mean by “imposing”).

I've already said that I only want to express my view on the matter so that people can think about the matter for themselves, and according to their own ethical principles. If someone disagrees with my view, then there's nothing else I can do besides asking them for the reason of their rejection (if they want to give it), and if I think their arguments for rejecting my views are fallacious, shouldn't I point out where I think their errors are?

So, the alternative you have presented is the realistic belief that it's 'not bad' in all circumstances. — Cheshire

That's right, for example: I don't think someone who buys animal products because they would have health problems if they didn't, or because they don't have access to the necessary kinds of food to maintain a healthy diet as well as B12 supplements; is doing something bad.

But such cases are not very common, it seems to me that a great number of people don't have such impediments (and many mistakenly think they do, because, it seems to me, they haven't done enough research). So how do those who don't have those problems justify to themselves doing something which collectively causes animals to suffer (supposing they are aware of it)? Besides meat tasting good and the like, I mean.

or do you have a novel definition of this as well — Cheshire

I took those definitions from a dictionary, I didn't make them up. Anyhow, think specifically about physically torturing humans for amusement. I don't think it's unreasonable to be opposed to that in all circumstances. That's an absolutist position, and also a perfectly reasonable one.

But like I said, I think purchasing animal products is not bad in all circumstances, so I don't take an absolutist view there.

If it were a more reasonable position there wouldn't be a need to emotionalize it with "cruelty" — Cheshire

Here are some possible definitions of the word “cruelty”:

A) “Callous indifference to or pleasure in causing pain and suffering”.

B) “Behavior that causes pain or suffering to a person or animal”.

C) “Behavior which causes physical or mental harm to another, especially a spouse, whether intentionally or not”. (a legal definition)

It is definition B which I had in mind, which only implies that the collective behavior of purchasing animal products causes more suffering to them, which is an observation of fact, with no emotional element mixed in at all.

The only emotional element that I see in what I said is whether one cares about the suffering of animals more than about tasting some particular flavor or not. If you care more about the latter, nothing that I say about this subject will persuade you.

and compare the general public to thieves and murders. — Cheshire

Seems to me like you didn't understand what I said, I'm not saying that purchasing animal products is just as bad as murdering or stealing, I'm saying that many of the arguments used to justify purchasing animal products are such as we would never admit as a justification of other acts which also cause a significant amount of suffering, such as murdering and stealing. And if those arguments were valid as a justification for causing suffering to animals, then necessarily they would also justify those other actions.

If we determined in an ethical debate that the collective purchasing of animals is morally reprehensible, then to argue that everybody is free to choose whether to do that or not, is as bad to argue that everybody can just choose whether or not they want to murder, steal or have slaves. And that doesn't imply that stealing, murdering and having slaves are all equally bad actions.

Maybe it's just unreasonable to take an absolutist position and then hold everyone else to it — Cheshire

To oppose to all torture is also to take an absolutist position. Does that imply it's unreasonable to oppose to all torture? Of course not.

What's more, I'm not an absolutist since, as I said before, I think purchasing animal products can be justified in some cases for health reasons, when the person has no other choice if they want to stay healthy.

It's dishonest to label every pain felt by animal for the production of food as "cruelty". It merely serves as shock value to gain a false moral position. People have balanced the notion of using animals and respecting their lifeforce for 10s of thousands of years. It wasn't discovered by vegans. — Cheshire

What would you call what is done to pigs and cows in that industry then? Call it whatever you want, I don't care for debates about semantics. I can just call it suffering if you want.

My points are simply these:

1. I think the things done to many of the animals for the production of meat and other products are wrong because many of those animals undoubtedly suffer a lot.

2. If people keep on increasing the demand for the products of their exploitation, more animals will suffer to a clearly significant degree, so those who value diminishing the total amount of suffering in the world should ponder that and consider changing their actions.

Do you ensure the fair pay and working conditions of the people picking your vegetables? — Cheshire

No, and? I hope you are not just trying to repeat the same Tu quoque fallacy that I already addressed in this thread. Plus I do think they should have good working conditions, so I'm not sure what your point is.

So, a minimal amount of pain is inflicted. — Cheshire

How exactly did you come to that conclusion? Watch videos showing what they do to pigs and cows, and you'll see that their pain is by no means minimal.

Again, if a vast amount of people continue to demand the products of their exploitation, then obviously more animals will continue to suffer to a very significant degree, and one simple way to diminish that suffering is for many people to stop demanding those products.

Putting a lobster in the freezer till it falls asleep is not the same as beating an animal for fun. — Cheshire

Regardless if it is done for fun, as it's done with bullfighting in some countries, or for food as it's done to cows, pigs, chickens,etc. the amount of suffering caused to animals in both cases is comparable. Those people in the meat industry who don't cause suffering to animals for fun, but rather because they think there's no other way to kill them, and think they have to do it for whatever reason, are causing the same amount of suffering as those who feel a morbid pleasure or amusement out of doing the same thing.

Of course doing something bad for fun is worse than doing something wrong because one isn't aware that it is wrong, or because one thinks it's a necessary evil, but in the latter cases you just need to investigate and be more constantly self-critical of your actions and moral principles to realize your mistake.

Once the person becomes aware that what they are doing is wrong according to their own moral compass, then they have no excuse to continue doing something that they know is wrong, and those who continue doing it despite knowing that it's wrong do so only due to cognitive dissonance.

I think it's the part where you tell other adults what they should and shouldn't eat that gives veganism a cringe twitch. — Cheshire

To be precise it’s not eating meat which I think is wrong, it’s purchasing meat, because when many people purchase animal products, they cause more animals to be treated cruelly. I have no problem if someone wants to eat some dead animal struck by lightning which they found on the street, since that doesn’t increase the demand nor cause any cruelty.

As for what I mean when I say they should do so and so, I already clarified that here:

what I'd say is rather more like this: I think that if you stop purchasing the products of animal cruelty, you will be a more moral person than if you don't, in a way similar to how a person who stopped murdering and stealing would be more moral than what he'd be if he chose to instead continue doing those things. — Amalac

Also, notice how ridiculous someone who hired a hitman to torture and murder humans for food would sound if someone criticized him and told him he should stop doing that, and he replied: «It gives me a cringe twitch when you tell me what I should and shouldn’t eat»
I don’t see why we should see hiring someone to torture and murder animals as in any relevant way different from that.

The constant equivocation between minimal pain and outright cruelty. — Cheshire

Whose equivocation? I already told someone else that the amount of suffering should be significant, which is obviously true in the case of cows, pigs and the like.

Or put another way for illustration. Do people constantly hound you for moral guidance in general? Aside from sandwich construction? If they don't need your assistance in making moral decisions most of the time, then why suppose it's appropriate or invited in this regard. — Cheshire

I only express my view and give advice so that people can think and decide on their own. They can accept my advice or reject it, it's up to them to judge whether they are acting badly or not when they purchase animal products.

As for how “appropriate” it is, tell me: is it appropriate to tell a murderer that they should stop murdering other people? Is it appropriate to tell a slave owner that you think what they are doing is wrong and that they should stop doing it? They may not feel like it is, but I think you'll agree with me that that is irrelevant in those cases. So why should it be any different in the case of cruelty to animals?

And thus you also have vegan evangelists. — ssu

Only if you think adopting a philosophy which opposes to theft, torture, slavery, etc, is also to take an “evangelist” attitude.

I, for example, haven't said anything like “I'm better than you because I'm vegan!” to anybody here, what I'd say is rather more like this: I think that if you stop purchasing the products of animal cruelty, you will be a more moral person than if you don't, in a way similar to how a person who stopped murdering and stealing would be more moral than what he'd be if he chose to instead continue doing those things.

Don't predators cause suffering to their prey? — ssu

So now your argument is a fallacious appeal to nature? “predators do it too, therefore it's not bad if we do it”?

Or perhaps you are saying that they would suffer just as badly if left in the wild. But as I answered to another user, that's not the only alternative there is, we can try to fit as many animals as we can in shelters and sanctuaries.

And humans have domesticated animals and farmed them from around 11 000 - 9 000 BC — ssu

And? From the fact that animals have been domesticated for many years, it doesn't follow that they don't suffer horribly with the way they are treated. Anybody can realize this if they see videos of how horrendously animals such as pigs and cows are treated.

Or to use the example of hens, they have been artificially selected to lay a far greater amount of eggs, which causes great suffering to the hen just so they can sell more eggs, showing clearly that domestication doesn't imply that the domesticated animal won't suffer.

That this has been a necessity for our present numbers of humans and our society and culture should be considered too. — ssu

A necessity? The amount of food required for the survival and good health of our species can be supplied completely through adequately supplemented vegan diets.

What many people don't realize or seem to forget is that many of the plants given to animals so that they can grow to then be killed for food, could be eaten directly by us, thus preserving the energy that is lost when we eat the plant's nutrients through the animal. The reason for this is the 10% law of transfer of energy:

When organisms are consumed, approximately 10% of the energy in the food is fixed into their flesh and is available for next trophic level (carnivores or omnivores). When a carnivore or an omnivore in turn consumes that animal, only about 10% of energy is fixed in its flesh for the higher level.

For example, the Sun releases 10,000 J of energy, then plants take only 100 J of energy from sunlight (Only 1% of energy is taken up by plants from sun); thereafter, a deer would take 10 J (10% of energy) from the plant. A wolf eating the deer would only take 1 J (10% of energy from deer). A human eating the wolf would take 0.1J (10% of energy from wolf), etc.

I do not deny that there are some people (a small percentage) who at present need to consume animal products in order to stay healthy, and I don't object to them doing that, but those of us who can stay healthy without consuming them should simply stop purchasing them.

In fact, the examples of other animals "farming" shows that this basically is a symbiotic relationship which humans as being smart animals have advanced. — ssu

By all means, give those examples you have in mind. But keep in mind whatever examples you are thinking of, they don't justify the horrible things people do to other animals such as pigs and cows.

Everything dies eventually and some might say that the suffering at the end of life in a state of nature is comparable to the suffering of culling. — Nils Loc

I already answered that leaving them in a state of nature is not the only alternative to torturing animals for food, there are sanctuaries for fish too. We won't be able to fit all of them there, but we can try to save as many as we can, just as it is good to try to help as many poor people as we can, even knowing that it's not possible to save all of them.

Supposing we put them in sanctuaries, if those fish which we can't help for one reason or another (like sanctuaries being full) which are in the wild would suffer just as much as they would in the fish industry, then I wouldn't object to them being killed quickly and painlessly for food, or even if they had to suffer just as much they would in the wild for the same culinary purpose, if we have no better choice.

Could vegans embrace insects as a food or is there still concern over taking life. I'm not so sure being ethically opposed to eating insects makes much sense from an appeal to suffering. — Nils Loc

From what scientific evidence suggests so far, insects probably have very little sentience, so I don't think we should be too concerned about them. It's not taking the life of an animal that is wrong, what's wrong is to make them suffer (to a significant degree) in the process.

And supposing insects did actually have a significant amount of sentience, I'd say it could still probably be okay to kill rats, cockroaches and the like, since they carry many diseases. On this point I more or less follow one of Bentham's utilitarian principles, I think the courses of action (as well as choices of not doing anything) which are more likely to lead to a state of affairs which has the better balance of the total positive mental states (pleasure, joy, peace of mind,...) and total negative mental states (pain, psychological suffering, boredom) are to be preferred.

If leaving cockroaches and rats alive caused a greater total amount of suffering to sentient beings than if we killed them, then most likely the better course of action is to kill them.

But from the fact that killing rats and cockroaches is probably not bad, it doesn't follow that it is also not bad to torture and kill cows, chickens and pigs, since leaving them alive doesn't have the negative consequences that leaving such insects and disease-carrying animals alive has.

the simply fact is that if you have chosen one diet, you should let other people choose their diet as independently also. Simple manners — ssu

Veganism is an ethical philosophy, not merely a diet. And if your diet finances an industry which is cruel to animals, then you will have to admit that you care more about tasting some particular flavor than about the suffering of animals.

Also, would you accept the same argument coming from a cannibal who wanted to exploit humans to sell and purchase human meat? After all, it's “their diet”.

So yes, it's your choice, but that doesn't mean your choice should be immune to criticism.

The more you label something as wrong, more people will do it. I agree with the Vegan cause but people will still eat meat cause it has become taboo and vegans are making this behavior very attractive. — TheQuestion

No doubt some people have that irrational and dogmatic reaction [“if they tell me purchasing animal products is wrong, that means it's actually not wrong and they just want to annoy me!” (a criterion which, by the way, they could apply to things like stealing, murdering, having slaves, etc.)], but like I said, those with an open mind will stop doing it. That some people will likely continue doing it in the near future, does not imply that we shouldn't try to persuade as many of the people who are willing to change their mind and actions as we can.

2) Vegans are becoming more of a dogmatic secular group than that of a activist movement and they’re losing creditibility because of it. When you shame meat eaters is no longer about the cause or the environment but about your personal beliefs. What the individual perceives as what is morally right or wrong. And the original message gets lost and is seen as something different. — TheQuestion

Again, not all vegans have such inefficient ways of protesting, though I do agree that the way many of them protest is not the right way if they want to persuade other people to become vegan. The right way is not to accuse people of being evil murderers or boasting about some pretended moral superiority, but rather simply to state the relevant facts clearly, and present a clear moral argument for veganism, so that the interlocutors themselves judge whether what they are doing is right or not.

Similarly you could make the case that humane farming of animals for food might cause less suffering than animals experience in a state of nature. For example the winter cull is probably kind of brutal for animals that didn't consume sufficient calories during the warmer season. If farmers could manage their farms well enough to assess degrees of suffering and to expertly cull animals that are suffering, this might provide better conditions for animals compared to the state of nature. — Nils Loc

Leaving them in a “state of nature” is not the only alternative to farming them for food or other products, we can place as many as we can in sanctuaries and shelters made to take care of animals.

The overpopulation of animals is due to the fact that people keep demanding the products of their suffering, and so the people of that industry forcibly reproduce them to satisfy that demand. In the case of the demand for eggs, through artificial selection hen are made to lay ridiculous amounts of eggs, not caring at all about the suffering of the hen.

As the demand goes down, the need to forcibly reproduce more animals or artificially select them to fit their needs will also go down, which will diminish the total amount of suffering. And as was pointed out, these changes (if they occur) will be gradual, just as the changes needed to abolish slavery were.

I didn't say is not possible but consider this analogy of a doctor.

If a Doctor has a patient with gangrene and need to have a limb severed. You don’t rip off the arm, the patient will go into shock and die. Prep work is needed to properly remove the infected limb surgically. So the patient can survive.

Slavery in US history has record of that. Was it the right thing to do, yes obviously but not without struggle. — TheQuestion

Then I don't see why the idea of a sudden change worries you, the chance of everybody turning vegan as soon as you do is practically 0%, so the change would be gradual. None of that implies that you are doing nothing wrong if you continue to purchase the products of animal exploitation.

The more people become vegan, the better, even if it's almost certain that not everybody will become vegan at the same time.

It doesn't matter if it's cruel or not is an addiction, is like having a moral debate with a meth addict. — TheQuestion

Not everybody is so close-minded and dogmatic so as to never seriously question their actions. If that was true, neither I nor anybody else would have ever become vegan. So one just has to reach those who are willing to change their mind and their actions.

This applies to murder, stealing, raping, etc as well: some murderers or rapists would say that they don't care about the sufferings of others, or that they know that it is wrong but will continue doing it. But so what? None of that justifies murdering, stealing or raping. So what conclusion are you trying to get to here?

You have animal cruelty but statics show agricultural kill about 1.5 million native animals like gophers, foxes and other small creatures by agricultural machinery alone. Meaning if you order a salads you still indirectly contribute to a animals death in some way.

Does that mean vegans kill more animals than meat eaters? No. — TheQuestion

No serious vegan will deny that they also contribute to the suffering of sentient beings by many of their actions, and it does not follow from this uncontroversial fact that purchasing animal products is not bad. Even philosophers like Chomsky use this kind of argument against veganism, not realizing that it is clearly a case of the Tu quoque fallacy

Just because we contribute to suffering, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to contribute less to suffering and cruelty. Veganism is not about trying to be completely and perfectly moral by means of not causing any suffering, which is a mere chimera, but about showing a way in which we can be more moral and cause less suffering than we would if we purchased animal products.

Imagine a thief or murderer saying to a judge: “why are you convicting me? All of you contribute to the death/suffering of many people as well, just by purchasing those phones you have, or driving to your workplaces”. It is clear that no decent person would accept that as a justification for stealing or murdering, so why should it be any different with contributing to industries which treat animales so cruelly?

But I do find there protest through veganism very ineffective, for one there is the sensitivity factor.

Food is addicting and very delicious and people are not motivated to care about where there food come from — TheQuestion

I'll grant that many protests by vegans are very unpersuasive, such as those where they call others murderers and what not. But I know many vegans who are more respectful and persuasive, and who are more concerned with presenting a clear moral argument in a calm and civilized debate.

As for people not caring enough, well they should care, and you don't need to think too hard to figure out that most of the food most people eat comes from sentient animals, and once they inquire into how these animals are treated, some of them would realize that that is a bad thing.

As for food being delicious, suppose someone found out that human meat tastes really good: would that justify their torturing and exploiting humans to eat them? Of course not, so why should it be any different in the case of other sentient beings?

There is the money factor, your fighting against a industry that makes annually $152.5 billion in meat packing and processing and $65.6 billion in poultry slaughter and processin. So you have to take in account how it can effect the nations economy if a radical change was implemented. — TheQuestion

Slave owners could have used exactly the same argument in the past: “you can't abolish slavery, you have no idea how radical a change in the economy that would be!”

Meat eating can be justified ethically, provided that one lives honorably and does something worthwhile with one's life. — baker

Can stealing be justified ethically if in all other aspects of one's life, one lives honorably and does something worthwhile? Of course not, if one wants to live a more ethical life, one way to do it is simply to stop financing cruelty to animals by not purchasing the products of their exploitation. Being good in one aspect of life is not a good excuse to be bad at another, in fact we should try to be as moral as we can in all aspects.

Here's an interesting video about essentialism, which clarifies some of the topics discussed here further, for those who are interested in this subject:

One thing we want to achieve is preservation of the phenomena. Is the sentence "Socrates wrote The Republic" using the name "Socrates" correctly to refer to Socrates and saying something false about him; or using the name incorrectly by introducing a false description and therefore referring to Plato? Kripke (in those lectures) would say we would tend to say the former. — Cuthbert

Of course, it seems like nothing useful could be gained by defining "Socrates" in that way, but there are other cases where different definitions could have important consecuences, for example the pragmatists' new proposed definition of “truth”, or considering Cusa's shape as a triangle. But these also depend upon what we want to achieve by defining the terms in that way rather than in any other way.

If the essence of "Socrates" is every property in the absence of which something encountered in the universe is not Socrates, then the same criterion can be used to determine correct and incorrect use of the name "Socrates" - and vice-versa - perhaps? — Cuthbert

Whether the use is “correct” or “incorrect” depends upon how the word “Socrates” is defined or used.

Let's use as an illustration the question whether a fetus is a person o not: under some definitions it is a person, and under some other definitions it is not. I don't think we can know if there's such a thing as the “true” definition of a word, so which definition we prefer depends upon what we want to achieve with it, on the consequences of adopting one definition rather than another.

So for instance if we thought abortion is bad, then we would prefer the definition that allows for legally punishing those who abort. But if we thought abortion is not bad, then we would use a different definition.

Socrates might have died aged 2 and it would still have been Socrates the very same person, as Kripke said. — Cuthbert

I still think that's merely a semantic matter, we can define the word “Socrates” so as to make it so Kripke is right, or not. Depends on what we want to achieve.

Nothing that constitutes an essence of a triangle is present in a Kanizsa "triangle". — AgentSmith

Your link didn't show any picture, which is why I answered that there wasn't a triangle.

I looked up the Kanizsa "triangle", and my answer as to whether or not it's a triangle depends upon how we define the word “triangle”.

It's a purely semantic matter.

Is there a triangle? — AgentSmith

No (if we use the usual definition of triangle), your point being?

This is one of the criteria of essence. It's the properties without which a thing could not be the thing that it is. — Cuthbert

This is possible, no doubt, but it's also possible that those properties merely reflect what our minds impose upon what we apprehend:

The "essence" of a thing appears to have meant "those of its properties which it cannot change without losing its identity." Socrates may be sometimes happy, sometimes sad; sometimes well, sometimes ill. Since he can change these properties without ceasing to be Socrates, they are no part of his essence.

But it is supposed to be of the essence of Socrates that he is a man, though a Pythagorean, who believes in transmigration, will not admit this. In fact, the question of "essence" is one as to the use of words. We apply the same name, on different occasions, to somewhat different occurrences, which we regard as manifestations of a single "thing" or "person." In fact, however, this is only a verbal convenience.

The "essence" of Socrates thus consists of those properties in the absence of which we should not use the name "Socrates." The question is purely linguistic: a word may have an essence, but a thing cannot. — Russell

It's curious that although what Russell says about the use of words seems quite in line with Wittgenstein, he concludes that words do have an essence, unlike Wittgenstein. I suspect there's a linguistic confusion there somewhere.

It's possible that Ludwig Wittgenstein's claim that words lack an essence is a sign of sorts that the OP is on the right track. — AgentSmith

If what he means is that we have no sufficient grounds for maintaining that there are “true” or essential definitions, because it seems more plausible that we understand the meaning of a word by seeing how it is used in a language game, then I do agree.

The essence of a triangle, one could say, consists of all the properties required for us to call something a triangle, such as having three sides, that its interior angles add up to 180° and so on. It could be that things have an essence in some other sense, but we have no way of knowing if that's the case.

For example, if we are mathematically rigorous, we can't say that Cusa's infinite "triangle" is actually a triangle, since it only has one infinitely long side, and it's part of the essence of a triangle, as it is rigurously defined, that it must have 3 sides. Yet one could device a different language game, some different kind of geometry, in which we are allowed to call such a thing a triangle, if we believe (as I do) that something useful could be achieved by doing that, so that the essence depends upon the particular language game/form of life.

The affirmative assumes logic psychologism — 180 Proof

I'm not sure about that, in the OP he says that rejecting essences only commits one to nominalism, not to psychologism.

It's true, however, that universals and essences are not quite the same thing, as he seems to suggest. I think it's possible to reject essences while at the same time believing in universals. Russell, among others, took this view, more or less, since he considered essence to be a “hopelessly muddle-headed notion” (a claim with which I agree), but also thought that universals must, in some sense, exist.

I'm interested to know why you think logic psychologism is incoherent/an attribution error, if you could elaborate on that.

I don't think he is making an argument there at all, he seem to be just stating what he thinks is the case, and why we tend to believe in essences... i.e. because we wish it. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, it's either just an assertion with no argument to support it, or a poor argument.

Yes, and it cuts both ways, wishing doesn't have a necessary relation with truth either way... there are just putting the emphasis on the other way (because that is where the tradition they are criticizing was coming from I guess). — ChatteringMonkey

One does see this sort of argument often in philosophy of religion as well for example, some philosophers seem to claim that there is no afterlife, or that religious text are just fairy tales, and then go on to say that we only believe in those things because we don't want to die (among other things), but that does not prove (as they sometimes seem to imply) that there is no afterlife or that religious texts are just fairy tales.

There are also cases like that of Harari, who seems to just take it to be self-evident that religion is nothing more than a cohesive myth.

Of course the burden of proof is on the claimant, but the claim that religious texts are no more than fantasy has a burden of proof as well. The right attitude, it seems to me, is to not make claims either way.

This reminded me of another quote of Kolakowski's:

Various definitions (of religion) are therefore acceptable; However, those that imply that religion "is nothing more than" an instrument of secular, social or psychological needs are not acceptable(for example, that its meaning is reducible to its function in social integration); they are empirical statements (false, I believe) and can be rejected beforehand as parts of a definition.

Which country is that If you wanna share it of course? — dimosthenis9

Costa Rica

Really seems extremely weird to me that there aren't places as to keep permanently people with mental illnesses. Are they spread all over the streets everywhere?? Are there only private mental hospitals that you have to pay for and your family can't afford it? — dimosthenis9

Well, I meant excluding those who are completely and utterly insane, like a man who seriously believed that he is a dog. I think those kinds of people may stay at mental hospitals permanently, but since my sister is not completely insane, they can't have her staying there for life, even if we wanted to pay. Such is, I believe, their policy, but I'll ask them for more details when I have the chance.

Especially if money is an issue for your family. — dimosthenis9

It is quite the issue, yes (though most people in my family aren't poor either).

Make a serious discussion with all the family members (even distant members), ask for their financial help (it is not a shame at all, you are family after all and they probably know already your situation). Send emails everywhere to each one hospital in your country or other countries too describing your situation.

At a desperate effort, even ask for donation as to raise money for that. Go for it via Internet etc. Remember the goal is one :"Get your sister in a place where she could get help" so chaise it till the end. — dimosthenis9

I suppose that's a possibility, the only problem is that I'm quite distant with the people of my family, so I'm unsure if they'll help with money, but I could try asking for donations online.

you suffer also by having to live with her it won't change anything at all. It will just make suffering persons 2, and that's all. — dimosthenis9

Yes, I think the same. And my gut feeling is that she should not come back to my house. But I still feel uncertain.

Morally, you should all work together to help your sister. Takes shifts in who looks out for her. — rocksteady88

That’s one option I have contemplated, but I doubt they’ll agree to do it (they’re quite a busy bunch). I’ll ask anyway.

You simply cannot practically look after someone in such a fugue state as an individual while they are in that crisis mode. It is hopefully possible for the professionals to stabilise your sister, get her sleeping regularly and less paranoid and non-violent. There are drug treatments that can help, and a quiet un-stressful environment helps too. Gardening, work with animals, woodland management... — unenlightened

I pretty much agree with everything you say there.

There is no morality that requires you to do the impossible, or what you have no idea how to do. Perhaps there will be times when you can help, but perhaps the family relationship will actually make it impossible for you to help, but on the contrary, will make your presence an aggravating factor. — unenlightened

That’s right, as I mentioned she doesn’t like being near anyone from her family (since she thinks we are all conspiring against her). The doctors tell me that wherever she stays, the person who takes care of her must stop her, by force if necessary, if she tries to leave the house; which means it’s probably a bad idea to have her live with somebody in the family, since that makes all the parties involved miserable.

But then what should we do? Just leave her on her own? I am concerned of what people might do to her if she wanders around dangerous places, as well as what she might do to herself or others.

Listen to the professionals, but with a little scepticism, and refuse to take on more responsibility than you can reliably cope with. — unenlightened

This is pretty much what I’m currently doing.

Hi tim, thanks for your reply.

the mental hospitals in your country certainly can keep people for more than a month. — tim wood

They may be able to, but they refuse to do it. Not sure why, but it's their policy.

Where should she go? If there is a place, it's the business of the hospital to direct you to it or itself to keep her. — tim wood

Yes, but they told me that they are also unsure of where she should go, though they think it's probably a bad idea to send her back to my house, and I agree with them, but I'm still worried about what may happen to her and other who meet her if she just goes wherever she wants.

And there is the question of medicines: are there any she can take that would work? — tim wood

She started taking medicines when she got in the hospital, a few days ago. However, they told me that they were slow in taking effect, and that its effects are rather limited. Plus they told me that paranoid schizophrenia is incurable.

Another thought: paranoid schizophrenia can be a diagnosis of convenience. — tim wood

Maybe, but she definitely has persecution mania, screams like a maniac and has suicidal tendencies.

If your country has nothing, then two things: it's a barbaric state, and you need a different country - easier than replacing leadership. — tim wood

As much as I'd like to go somewhere else, I don't have the money to do it.

Bottom line, all the pain you may feel on behalf of your sister will avail you nothing and cost you much. Set limits for yourself and stick to them. — tim wood

True, I should also mention that although she is my sister, I never talk to her, I never had any kind of emotional bond with her (except when she went insane, which just made a bad bond. But even then I did my best to endure and ignore her), and know almost nothing about her life, besides her Illness. In short, she's not much different than an insane stranger to me.

And so I thought: Would I be willing to tolerate some insane stranger coming to my house to scream, harm themselves, insult me, and constantly complain about how being there makes them want to die? Of course not. Then why should this be any different?

I don't accept any contradictions. Thinking a contradiction 'can' be true is not equivelent to thinking it is actually true. — Bartricks

If I recall correctly, you think that the Law of Contradiction is true. However, the Law of Contradiction states that:

it is impossible for anything at the same time to be and not to be — Aristotle

So if you think contradictions can be true, then you are thereby denying the LNC, because to assert that a contradiction can be true, is the same as to assert that it is not impossible for something to both be and not be, at the same time (and in the same sense), which is the negation of the LNC.

In fact, this shows that it is impossible to accept the LNC contingently rather than necessarily, because to say that the LNC may be false in the future is to say that it is possible that it is possible for something to both be and not be, at the same time and in the same sense.

In modal logic we would have: ◇◇C → ◇C (If C is possibly possible, then C is possible). [Axiom 4 corollary].

This can also be seen by the definition of possibility in modal logic:

¬□ ¬C ≡ ◇C

But here's the catch, when a therapist helps a patient they are doing so because it is their job to help them, and not because they are care. And at the end of the day, nobody has actually cared about the mentally sick however much help they get. My question is: How valuable is the help of those who do not actually care? — Wheatley

It shouldn't matter whether the therapist cares or not, so long as that doesn't disrupt their job when helping the patient, and they are competent enough (as is the case in your example):

An able physician is more useful to a patient than the most devoted friend, and progress in medical knowledge does more for the health of the community than ill-informed philanthropy. Nevertheless, an element of benevolence is essential even here if any but the rich are to profit by scientific discoveries. — Russell

I think any help is valuable, regardless of the reason for helping or from which person it comes, so long as it is effective at diminishing suffering and/or increasing happiness.

The ‘postmodern’ writers I particularly admire are Derrida , Foucault, Deleuze, Heidegger ( yes, I consider him to be postmodern) , and Wittgenstein. — Joshs

I see part of the confusion here is purely verbal: I don't consider Foucault or Wittgenstein to be obscurantist at all, unlike Derrida. I don't consider them “postmodern”.

To be fair , if your only exposure to ‘postmodern philosophy’ is Sokal’s book, you really need to read primary sources — Joshs

I never said it was my only exposure, that's something you inferred on your own.

Matthew Ratcliffe is one of the leading writers on cognition and emotion. Here are two articles showing why he considers Heidegger’s work of affect and mood so relevant to current theorizing in psychology.

https://www.academia.edu/458309/Why_Mood_Matters

https://www.academia.edu/458222/Heideggers_Attunement_and_the_Neuropsychology_of_Emotion — Joshs

Ok, I'll read them if I have the chance.

He would have appeared as incoherent as Derrida does to many today. — Joshs

It doesn't follow from the fact that someone's work wasn't understood in his time, that future discoveries will show that it was actually important.

Try going back 200 years and simplifying him for the average person of the late 1700’s — Joshs

A hard task, but not an impossible one, unlike with people like Derrida and Lacan (excluding his psychology, about which I haven't read enough to make a judgement). I bet their “ideas”(if you can even call them that) will not have any importance in the next 200 years.

If you’re going g to compare philosophy and science , then recognize how often it happens that a new philosophical work is dismissed and ignored for decades by academics who blame the author’s style rather than their own limitations. — Joshs

Once again, it doesn't follow that if a work is dismissed as nonsense or as unimportant, that means that it is in fact not nonsense and/or important.

Then suddenly the philosopher is rediscovered by a new generation of scientists who are ready to absorb what the philosopher was saying. This is happening now with Husserl, Merleau-Ponty and Heidegger. — Joshs

I don't know Merleau-Ponty, and I only know
a bit about Heidegger's work , so I can't comment on them (they are not who I had in mind when speaking of poststructuralism anyway). But perhaps you could give me a brief explanation of how Heidegger's work helped or is contributing to scientific progress.

As for Husserl, I actually find his work quite interesting, and he wasn't at all who I had in mind when I refered to post-structuralists, I would classify him rather as an analytic philosopher. I don't take “postmodern” or “post-structuralist” to mean merely “contemporary”.

I had in mind rather the kind of authors who say the nonsense featured in Sokal and Bricmont's “Fashionable Nonsense”.

If you can find a paragraph quoted in that book that Sokal and Bricmont failed to understand (like Irigaray's quote in my previous post) explain it to me in simple terms and show how it's important, perhaps I can take your views more seriously.

I guess if Chomsky and Popper agree with us, we must be right. — T Clark

I never said that if Chomsky and Popper said it, that means it's right.

What matters is the content of what someone says, not who says it.

What do you think? — Wheatley

Your post reminded me of a short audio (5 minutes long) I heard a while ago:



(From 1:57 onwards)

In the case of poststructuralism, I think Chomsky explains rather well why one can't compare Kant to someone like Derrida, even though Kant's work may be obscure in some parts.

Is $E = M c^2$ a sexed equation? Perhaps it is. Let us make the hypothesis that it is insofar as it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us. What seems to me to indicate the possibly sexed nature o f the equation is not directly its uses by nuclear weapons, rather it is having privileged what goes the fastest... — Luce Irigaray

If someone read this and told me that there is something profound or important in what Irigaray says, I'd say they are speaking utter nonsense.

It would seem like there's a tendency by some people and some philosophers to believe that if someone is famous or critically acclaimed, then everything they say must not be nonsense, and must be important or profound. But to argue thus is simply to appeal to authority.

Contrast with this the case of Kant: some of his ideas are quite hard to understand, but when you ask kantians or philosophers who are more or less knowledgeable about his works to explain them, they usually can give a more or less satisfactory explanation of them in simpler terms. The same cannot be said about many postmodernists.

So, it's better to follow Popper's advice:

If you can't say it simply and clearly, keep quiet, and keep working on it till you can

Maths is made up. — Banno

I know this isn't the main point of Turing and Wittgenstein's dialogue, but:

It seems strange to say that we made up numbers like e or π. We don't know what the 10000000000000 trillionth digit of e is, yet if we invented e shouldn't we know that?

How could we not know something about that which we made up? If I made up the tenets of a religion, I should know everything about those tenets I made up, right?

.

Even as a nonmathematician, I simply can't imagine that such a beautiful/elegant equation like Euler's Identity could be false. It has to be true, nothing so aesthetically pleasing could be false. — TheMadFool

I bet you would say the same thing if the golden ratio, or any other important mathematical constant, was there instead of pi, and didn’t already know Euler’s identity is true.

Initially, I wanted to discuss truthiness in the context of ethics, my intuitive response being that to a good person what would happen is moral laws will have a truthiness to them - no logic, no argument, no reasoning, just the firm belief that moral laws simply have to be true. — TheMadFool

So a good person is one who is dogmatic and guided by blind faith?

Does it not occur to them that at least some of their moral laws might be flawed?

“Is there something like artificial stupidity?”

Often philosophy is exactly that:

When people begin to philosophize they seem to think it necessary to make themselves artificially stupid. — Russell

I'd recommend The Analysis of Mind, by Bertrand Russell.

Beware though: some parts of it are quite complicated.

The violinist is innocent and his life is in danger. But nevertheless, he's not entitled to restrict your freedom for 9 months so that he may live. — Bartricks

Would the violinist die painfully if I unhooked myself? If so, I would consider it my duty to avoid his suffering, since it is within my capabilities to do so. I am perfectly willing to sacrifice my freedom for 9 months, which seems to me to be a very small price to pay (assuming the doctor was telling the truth).

If he/she were to die a painless death, then I could understand more why some people wouldn't consider it their duty to keep themselves hooked to him/her, and I myself may not see anything wrong in unhooking myself (I'd have to think about it though).

Death by Covid-19 tends to be very slow, despairing and painful, something I want to avoid as much as possible with my actions, and I would also want to prevent, as much as I can, other people who I see in the streets and markets to go through that because of me.

So if the violinist dies a painless death in that thought experiment, the analogy with covid confinement breaks down there.

Regarding Russell, who correctly denies the possibility of imagining space with nothing in it, for to do so is to imagine the non-existence of that which contains the subject thinking space as empty of all things, a contradiction, Kant stipulates that by objects space is thought to be empty of, are those external to he who is thinking, from which is derived the principle that space is no more than the necessary condition by which objects relate to each other as such, or, relate to us as mere phenomena. — Mww

But if Russell is correct in pointing out that we can't imagine space with nothing in it, wouldn't that refute Kant's argument that we can imagine nothing in space, but not that there should be no space? Since that is the basis of the argument.

Or did Russell misinterpret what Kant meant by “imagine”?

in order that certain sensations may relate to something without me (that is, to something which occupies a different part of space from that in which I am); in like manner, in order that I may represent them not merely as without, of, and near to each other, but also in separate places, the representation of space must already exist as a foundation....” — Mww

Russell had a different counterargument against this other argument, but that would take us away from the question guiding this thread, I think.

In fact, in “The Metaphysical Principles in the Foundations of Natural Science”, Kant refutes Newton’s iteration of both absolute time and space, which ironically enough, predates Einstein by a century, and even though Einstein had precious little appreciation of Kant, at least in some respects. — Mww

I admit I haven't read that work, so I'll have to look into that.

Anyway....hope this helps. — Mww

It sure did, thanks.