If it serves to end the conversation, it might be worth it.

:lol:

No, I don't have to. I haven't claimed or implied that I know that any particular event will or won't happen later today, and I don't need to. That's an unreasonable thing to demand in response to my objection. If I claim that being struck by lightning is an imminent threat, and that the pressing nature of it is such that it's akin to someone holding a gun to your head, and you object that my claim is misleading, then would you have the burden of having to explain how you know that I won't be struck by lightning later today? No, of course not. That's an argument from ignorance, an informal fallacy. It's possible that I'll be struck by lightning, and you haven't denied that possibility. Lots of things are possible. That both misses the point and tries to shift the burden of proof.

Moreover, people have of course been struck by lightning before, and it has happened way more times then we've been on the verge of a nuclear war, so, in that sense, it's way more of an immediate threat. But you'd still be right to object that my claims are misleading. Being struck by lightning is not an imminent threat. I have gone my whole life without being struck by lightning. So have most others. That's not lucky, that's average and to be expected. It would be unreasonable to resort to extreme measures against being struck by lightning, as though it were an imminent threat, as though it could happen any minute now if I don't do something drastic right now to prevent it from happening, and as though I'm being held hostage by an armed criminal. — S

Blah, blah, blah, blah etc etc etc.

If I was holding a gun to your head you would have no problem at all seeing that as the highest priority issue.

But when it comes to a gun to the head of civilization, like a good philosopher you try to turn it in to some abstract, complex, sophisticated, analysis that displays your laser sharp reasoning etc, etc. The problem here is that this is not some abstract, complex, sophisticated issue like you want it to be.

It is instead ruthlessly simple....

1) Gun...
2) To our heads...
3) Important!

Simple! Can be explained to a child of ten in a few minutes.

Let's observe how S has completely ignored all the real world evidence presented above. This is just what I'm talking about.

I'm assuming that S is an intelligent well educated person. He may have taken philosophy classes, or even be an academic. Perhaps he has a Nobel Prize!

Makes no difference at all. Philosophy is worthless for things that really matter.

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists set the Doomsday Clock for 2018 at 11:58, p.m., or two minutes before midnight (Doomsday).

Why 2 minutes, and not 10 minutes or 45 minutes to Doomsday? Because more countries now have deliverable nuclear weapons. North Korea has had nuclear weapons for a few years, but they now have (apparently) learned how to shrink the size of their bombs to fit on their long-range rockets. In addition, a gangster and a lunatic are in charge of the two largest arsenals.

Pakistan has an at least somewhat unstable government, with uncertain security over their nuclear weapons and missiles. Iran has probably not abandoned nuclear weapons research. When and whether Israel will feel called upon to defend itself with it's nuclear weapons is uncertain.

It may well be the case that a nuclear exchange won't occur between the US and Russia (though that can't be ruled out) but what North Korea, Pakistan, India, and Israel might decide to do is less certain.

I think the risk of nuclear war is relevant to a thread about the intelligence of philosophers--or anybody else--because the justification for nuclear weapons comes from a deep pool of very bright scientists, politicians, philosophers, strategists, etc. You and I and a few hundred million others may disapprove of nuclear weapons' mere existence--never mind destructive potential--but there are also hundreds of millions, or maybe billions, of people who are quite proud of their nations' nuclear achievements.

4 hours have passed since your last post, no nuclear war yet. Big deal. 73 years have passed since the last use of nuclear weapons. Still, the number of bombs has increased from 4 or 5 bombs in 1945 to maybe 15,000 today. The US and Russia have something like 1800 nuclear weapons on high alert--which if used would pretty much be The End. (Think of the massive fire storms that would follow the nuclear blasts.)

I think the risk of nuclear war is relevant to a thread about the intelligence of philosophers--or anybody else--because the justification for nuclear weapons comes from a deep pool of very bright scientists, politicians, philosophers, strategists, etc. — Bitter Crank

Thank you. You said it better than I did.

Yes, if plumbers and cocktail waitresses aren't focused on nuclear weapons, that's not too interesting. But when intellectual and cultural elites, especially those like professional philosophers who are presumably experts on the art of reason, also show little interest we're entering different territory.

But anyway, having accused pretty much everyone of not being able to reason, I feel an obligation to publicly upgrade my own reasoning.

Imagine that our grandma is 85 years old and ailing, but she's at peace because she believes she'll soon be in heaven with Jesus. All of us would have enough sense and compassion to not rock that boat, even if we believed the Christian story is a bunch of hooey.

Seen clearly, the rest of us are in a situation not so different than grandma. We're all trying to get through life as best we can, and we're all a lot closer to our own personal demise than we like to think. Like grandma and her Jesus, we want to go through what time we have left with a story that helps us get through with minimum suffering.

And for the culture at large, including the elites, that story generally is that everything is basically under control and that the progress of the last 500 years will continue. Sure there will be bumps in the road, but we'll get past them as we always have, so says the comforting story.

And then some annoying butthead typoholic comes along and tries to force reality on us, spoiling the cozy fantasy story party. What an ass, he probably argues with his grandma about Jesus too.

If I was as rational as I demand everyone else should be, I would sit down and be quiet, and not disturb the fantasy story our culture clearly needs to get through the day. If I was rational, I would calmly accept the obvious reality that we are too stupid as a species to survive, just as I calmly accept that grandma's time to depart is upon us.

I've been writing about this for years. I have pretty much no evidence it's ever to ever accomplish anything. Rational people are supposed to listen to the evidence, right? Hopefully I will someday before my own time comes become an intelligent enough of a philosopher to realize that philosophy is just an entertaining parlor game, and I'm taking it way too seriously.

Hey, if everyone else is going to enjoy a fantasy story, I deserve to have one too, right? :smile:

I have known a couple of grandmas who told their little grand children that there was no Jesus, and no Santa Claus either. Good people, actually. Kind, generous, caring. They were both socialists. Talk about hopes in things unseen!

I'm not fond of the view that everybody is stupid. Some people definitely are very stupid, in fact, but most are moderately bright, at least. Given a good high school education, they'd do just fine. But you now, just try to get a good high school education, these days.

Philosophy might be a parlor game to some extent, but rational thinking is for real.

I'm not fond of the view that everybody is stupid. — Bitter Crank

It seems a successful life requires some balance in how we are intelligent. As example, our culture is brilliant at technology, but idiots when it comes to seeing where our technology is taking us. The problem is perhaps less that we are stupid, and more that our abilities are out of balance. If we were both less brilliant and less stupid, we'd be in better shape. All things in moderation etc.

If I was holding a gun to your head you would have no problem at all seeing that as the highest priority issue. — Jake

Yeah, but you're not.

If I burned your house down, then you'd have to relocate. If I was Elton John, then I'd be a best selling solo artist. If apples were made of concrete, then they wouldn't taste as nice.

We could do this all day, but it won't change the facts.

Please explain how you know that something like the following quote below won't happen again later today.

Like most people, you may be coming to your position based on the current geo-political situation. You may not be taking in to account that the current geo-political situation may be totally irrelevant. In fact, I know you're not taking that in to account, or you wouldn't be posting as you are.

Speaking of which, let's remind ourselves who has control over 90%+ of the world's nukes. Putin, the world's leading gangster, and Trump, a wacko in the White House whose own employees are scrambling around trying to figure out how to get rid of him before he does something insane. — Jake

Well, Vlad the annexer and Agent Trumpov seem to be best buddies. Why worry about the two?

Like almost everybody, you aren't using reason and thinking for yourself, but are instead referencing authority in the form of the group consensus. You look around you and see that all the big shots of various flavors are complacent, and so you understandably feel it's ok for you to be complacent too. — Jake

And how are you doing yourself? Because your line is what I've been hearing from the 80's myself personally and this goes to an earlier discourse. Straight from a large group consensus that various authorities starting with Bertrand Russell among others presented to us: the utter doom that nuclear weapons present to us and the World.

You can list all the false alarms and broken arrows, yet no war happened during MAD between the US and Soviet Union. What history has shown is that when just one side has a nuclear deterrent and the other side hasn't, war can happen (one example is Israel and Syria). Or when the war isn't an existential threat to a country with nuclear deterrence (as with Argentina attacking the UK in the South Pacific). And when one side has a huge advantage in nuclear weapons to the other, war can be at least seriously contemplated (just like the US generals did during the Cuban Missile Crisis and nearly went to war).

Yet let's not forget that the vast majority of the nuclear weapons that US and Russia had during the Cold War were actually destroyed after Cold War. And that part of those Russian nukes made to destroy American cities were then used to fuel their electricity needs (see Megatons to Megawatts Program). And that many countries have ended their nuclear programs (like Brazil and South Africa) or didn't get on with it (like Sweden). We have less nuclear weapons now than during the end of the Cold War, no matter how many Pakistan, North Korea and India are now building. Basically in number terms there are as many nuclear weapons in the World as there was in the late 1950's.

In my view being against nuclear weapons has been the most easiest opinion any philosopher can have. Just like the warnings, sounded decade after decade after decade, of the imminent end of humanity by an all out nuclear war. That we have not had the doomsday can been brushed off quite easily with "pure luck" without any serious question or debate just why we haven't had the nuclear armageddon, if it would be so imminent. Hence the topic is a no-brainer for the so-called intelligentsia.

There are many threats other than nuclear war. Nuclear war is a threat, but it is really is not the duty of the philosopher to base his philosophy on the impending threat of death or extinction. This has already been done by many philosophers. Camus, for instance, wrote that the most significant philosophical question is suicide, and wrote the whole book The Myth Of Sysyphus, based on this idea. There are other conceptions too. Freud and his death drive... Some people would say that the threat of death makes one feel more alive. You're not going to get very far attacking a supposed whole of philosophy.

You're not going to get very far attacking a supposed whole of philosophy. — Blue Lux

You're right, because philosophers (along with most of the rest of us) aren't rational enough to focus on a hair trigger gun aimed at their heads.

Meaning no disrespect to you personally, for I have no beef with you, what you've just expressed is the corrupt idiot group consensus, which no amount of education seems able to cure.

It's always the same blah blah blah. Philosophers have already done it, they are the elites, whatever it is they must already know it, don't think we know any better than they do etc etc etc. That's just blind authority worship, not rational thought.

It is absolutely not a half triggered gun pointed at my head.

I have other more pressing matters in my life.

It is absolutely not a half triggered gun pointed at my head. — Blue Lux

Hair trigger.

I have other more pressing matters in my life. — Blue Lux

It's not about you. It's about the billions of people who created what we enjoy. It's about the billions of people alive today who would lose what's been created. It's about the future generations who would live in violent squalor, and curse us as the stupidest human beings who ever lived every single day of their short sad existence.

If you think this is the first time in history in which the future of man has been at risk, you are mistaken.

And yes, hair trigger. The autocorrect on my phone must have changed it.

Nuclear war is a problem, but I am not sure any of the most powerful countries are ready to blow themselves up and enter into a global thermonuclear war. People have not been this stupid yet, and so as long as there are people in the government who care about this sort of thing, the potentiality of it is dormant.

Something that maybe could happen is worth focusing on. But people don't focus now on the number one killers of themselves. Instead of nuclear war you should be talking about the opioid epidemic, heart disease, emphysema, diabetes, certain cancers, etc., which are in huge ways preventable, although not 100% preventable for everyone.

More people die from these diseases, these preventable causes... These things are actually happening. If you want to focus on some sort of 'hair-trigger' then focus on the problems that already exist. One could make the statement that in this you are extremely irrational for emphasizing the risk of nuclear war.

If you think this is the first time in history in which the future of man has been at risk, you are mistaken. — Blue Lux

I didn't make this point.

Nuclear war is a problem, but I am not sure any of the most powerful countries are ready to blow themselves up and enter into a global thermonuclear war. — Blue Lux

Here you (along with almost everyone else) are counting on two fantasies.

1) People are rational.
2) There won't be any mistakes.

Was it rational for Hitler to invade the Soviet Union (a much larger country) against the advice of his generals when he had already won most of Europe? No, it wasn't rational, but Hitler was a high stakes gambler addicted to the next role of the dice.

Can we count on there not being any mistakes which unintentionally trigger a nuclear exchange? No, we can't. I've already offered a number of examples in other threads, and you can educate yourself in detail on this subject by watching the documentary Countdown To Zero.

People have not been this stupid yet, — Blue Lux

Um, a few generations ago they burned most of Europe to the ground, a stupid pattern repeated over and over again for thousands of years. You're basically arguing we should rely on a shortage of stupidity which has never existed.

Instead of nuclear war you should be talking about the opioid epidemic, heart disease, emphysema, diabetes, certain cancers, etc., which are in huge ways preventable, although not 100% preventable for everyone. — Blue Lux

All these things fall in the category of manageable threats. I'm referring instead to a threat which could end our ability to manage anything, a game over event. As example, if I have heart disease maybe I can manage that with diet, exercise and drugs etc. If I put a gun in my mouth and pull the trigger that's the end of me managing anything. See the difference?

If you want to focus on some sort of 'hair-trigger' then focus on the problems that already exist. — Blue Lux

Thousands of nuclear weapons sit in their silos on hair trigger alert ready to erase modern civilization at the push of a button. This situation has existed since the Kennedy administration, perhaps earlier. It exists now, right now, and the missiles could start arcing over the poles at literally any moment.

The problem you're having is that I'm just some anonymous nobody on a little net forum so you can't believe me, or even your own reason, over basically the entire culture. I'm sympathetic to that problem, but the simple reality is that our culture, including the vast majority of the intellectual elites, are irrational morons. I'm sorry, but there's no other way to describe people who are bored by a huge gun in their mouth.

I get why people don't want to see this. I don't want to see it either. It's a staring in to the abyss experience that few would welcome. But there it is, like it or not. This is where reason can take us, to the perception of reality. Those who can't handle the view might consider abandoning philosophy in favor of tennis.

Hi, I've seen your passionate call to philosophers to speak out more against nuclear weapons with respect to a possible nuclear fallout. I'm wondering, isn't the core of that topic already established? While the talk has already been talked, I don't see how philosophers can also walk the walk for everyone.
My thinking is that the measure you give to a negative outcome, is the same given for the need to have them (nuclear weapons). Worse, the arguments against nuclear weapons falls short as insufficient and hysterical when contrasted with the practical value that they provide in these uncertain political waters. Wouldn't a nation argue that it's better to have and not need than to need and not have? Also, I think if not for the presence of nuclear weapons in most, if not all, of the powerful nations, then the war to colonialism would still be on-going. Presently, there seems to be attempts at indirect approaches to colonization and while still potentially dangerous, especially in such a politically unstable world, they do not seem to imminently disrupt the overbearing stalemate.

I think another reason why we do not make too big an issue of this subject is to avoid unnecessary antagonism. This is because we still have a lot of tyrannical and unhinged leaders across the globe who would see the extra focus directed at the subject as a stage set for them to showcase what they've got or add to their arsenal in rebellion to the cause (Kim Jong-Un and Trump do readily come to mind).

As you say, it's like a gun to our heads. However, philosophers do understand their limitations too. How can we convince individuals that they don't need to own guns to protect themselves from criminals who would take them at gun point? One person's philosophy cannot address the fear in the other person. The same with nuclear weapons - it would be a hard sell for nations to give up their ultimate defense against another 'hitler' situation.

Perhaps the only consolation to this madness is that, happy as the fingers on those hair triggers may be, the risk of losing everything overcompensates against their need to gain something. Right now the stalemate exists because of mutual distrust and the high risk of mutual destruction.

I think we need a very creative way of addressing the issue, and even then, the best we could probably hope to accomplish is a lie that they have been disarmed or destroyed. In the end, because we've set this precarious situation ourselves, we must learn to endure, and live with the outcome should anything happen.

Well, it has been roughly two hours since I submitted my last comment in this discussion, and nuclear war hasn't broken out yet. Odd. :chin: — S

Don't be trite! :wink: :joke: Because nuclear war is possible, doesn't mean the threat can be dismissed because it didn't happen within the space of a few hours. For myself, I believe that the loss of 75% of flying insect species in the last 25 years is more serious than a nuclear war that had already broken out. A 'limited' nuclear war could be survived by most living things on the planet. [Admittedly, a bigger war would be much more pervasive and damaging.] But I wonder if humanity can be survived by all the other living creatures? I don't think we could destroy all of them, but we could destroy enough that it would take life millions of years to recover. There are other threats too. Nuclear war is definitely one of them, but only one.

Because nuclear war is possible, doesn't mean the threat can be dismissed because it didn't happen within the space of a few hours. — Pattern-chaser

Don't take my criticism out of context and straw man it!

If you look at the comment just before that one, it should be clear that I only made that criticism in response to what I argued is a false analogy which erroneously suggests just that, i.e. not merely that nuclear war is possible (which I have explicitly acknowledged), but that it would have broken out well within the two hour limit I set.

Do you have to be of above average intelligence to engage seriously with philosophy? — Andrew4Handel

I think all you need is a questioning spirit, a way to look into yourself, and honesty.

Should philosophy and philosophical debate be made more accessible (without diluting it)? — Andrew4Handel

I think everybody ought to have a right to learn to think for themselves.

Does philosophy improve based on the philosophers hypothetical IQ? — Andrew4Handel

Honestly, I know it pays to be able to write and speak clearly when philosophizing. I haven't always done this.

Or should it be a highly qualified domain? — Andrew4Handel

Professional philosophy yes, amateur philosophy no.

Thanks to all for the ongoing commentary, and responses to my posts.

Do you have to be of above average intelligence to engage seriously with philosophy? — Andrew4Handel

It seems how we answer this would have a lot to do with how we measure intelligence. If for example we were to measure intelligence by one's ability to create orderly polished presentations of intellectual arguments in print, then philosophers could fairly labeled as being of above average intelligence, for their ability in this arena exceeds most of us.

In my posts I'm measuring intelligence more in the way that nature defines it, in our ability to survive. This measuring stick is not appropriate for many or most species, but it is for humans because without our intelligence we wouldn't last long.

In today's world especially, modern civilization is essential for most of our survival. In the past many or most humans could live off of the land, but today all the average human knows about how to get food is the ability to swipe a credit card at the grocery store. Most people have maybe a week's worth of food in their house and once that's gone, or rather once they begin to fear it will be gone, civilization begins to unravel, chaos begins to rule, and masses begin to die.

There are many problems in the world, and many threats to civilization. That is surely true. But there is no preventable threat to civilization which compares to the threat presented by nukes in terms of scale and immediacy. Nothing else can convert the modern world in to chaos in less than an hour.

Thus, I'm reasoning that our relationship with nuclear weapons is a reasonable standard by which we might measure our intelligence. Using that standard, I see no evidence that philosophers are any more intelligent than the population at large. So I vote no to a theory that philosophers are of above average intelligence. Instead, I suggest that philosophers are like plumbers, talented at very specific operations which should not be confused with global intelligence.

As far as nuke go, philosophers arrive at the topic with a serious liability, a need to complicate everything. For some topics this bias may be an asset, but when one has a gun in one's mouth, one is facing a ruthlessly simple equation. Clarity is the essential ingredient in such situations, not cleverness.

But there is no preventable threat to civilization which compares to the threat presented by nukes in terms of scale and immediacy. Nothing else can convert the modern world in to chaos in less than an hour. — Jake

In fairness, I think chemical and biological weapons come very close to the imminent threat that nuclear weapons present. And if the timescale is extended just a little, there is the forthcoming famine and drought, as our soil collapses [ link ], and there isn't enough drinkable water to go around. [ link ] Then there is pollution of all kinds, or rather the effects of that pollution (e.g. micro-plastic granules in the earth, water and air....) on the living world, and all of the effects that climate change is starting to create. Hurricane Florence, for example. The list is extensive, and I venture to suggest that none of these life-threatening and species-threatening things are taken seriously enough by us humans.

But we also shouldn't forget the possibilities for the rest of the life on Earth, aside from humans. To them, by far the greatest threat is humanity, the creatures that have annihilated - and this is only one example! :fear: - 75% of all flying insect species in the past 25 years, and the carnage is still accelerating, not slowing down.

The world is filled with really serious, preventable (mostly), threats. Nuclear war is one of them.

It is absolutely not a [hair] triggered gun pointed at my head.

I have other more pressing matters in my life. — Blue Lux

Yeah, but good luck trying to convince Jake of that. He sees it that way, so everyone else simply must see it that way. Evangelism in a nutshell, which is probably why he was banned from other forums, and it should be why he's at risk of being banned here, given that evangelism is against the guidelines. But that would be a shame, because he is clearly intelligent and has expressed views on other topics in a way not symptomatic of the evangelism he has regarding nuclear weapons.

In fairness, I think chemical and biological weapons come very close to the imminent threat that nuclear weapons present. — Pattern-chaser

Do you two actually know what the word "imminent" means? For your information, it means "about to happen". For example, "they were in imminent danger of being swept away".

synonyms: impending, at hand, close, near, approaching, fast approaching, coming, forthcoming, on the way, about to happen, upon us, in store, in the offing, in the pipeline, on the horizon, in the air, in the wind, brewing, looming, looming large, etc.

A nuclear attack is not imminent.
Stop using misleading terms.

Nor is a bullet to my brain. No one is holding a gun to my head. Nor is a road accident involving myself and others as passengers on a bus. We're not on a driverless bus going down a steep road. I'm at home, not sat on a bus.
Stop using misleading analogies.

I refuse to think about any problem due to the existence of other problems.

There are many problems in the world, and many threats to civilization. That is surely true. But there is no preventable threat to civilization which compares to the threat presented by nukes in terms of scale and immediacy. Nothing else can convert the modern world in to chaos in less than an hour. — Jake

So, really, to be clear, what you're talking about is only the potential consequences, not the actual situation we're in. That is, if there's a nuclear attack, then these would be the consequences.

Once again, that's a big "if".

Pertinently, a nuclear attack isn't imminent. It has the potential of being imminent, under the right circumstances; which, pertinently, have yet to reoccur since the last nuclear attack; which, pertinently, was the first and only such attack to ever have occurred; and which, pertinently, occurred 73 years ago back in 1945.

Also, pertinently, just as a nuclear attack has the potential of immediacy, stability has the potential of being sustainable in the long-term, as it arguably already has been. So your one-sided and partially concealed talk of potential immediacy is effectively cancelled out by contrary potentialities.

It doesn't really make a difference what you're talking about. You could use the same underhanded tactics to scaremonger about the threat of meteorites or an alien invasion. And, by the way, either one of those renders your last sentence false, and there are probably other counterexamples too. Take your pick.

But people, thousands and thousands every day do die already from the preventable causes I mentioned. They dont die today from nuclear weapons. My point stands.

Of course the threat of nuclear weapons is a terrible threat. But it is hypocritical to focus on one cause of death. What is leading to the quickest extinction or mass death of the human race is overpopulation. In fifty years, at the rate we are going, do you know what the population will be? That is the greatest threat, along with pollution, diseases and war of all kinds,

The threat is war, not nuclear weapons...

And just looking at the current trend of human behavior, the human race has BEEN screwed. People are screwed every day.

As long as the human race is responsible for the deaths of the human race, the human race is inadvertently doomed.

But people, thousands and thousands every day do die already from the preventable causes I mentioned. They dont die today from nuclear weapons. My point stands. — Blue Lux

Your point is irrelevant to the subject I'm discussing, the collapse of civilization.

Your point is however indeed relevant to my claim that philosophers in particular, and the larger public too, are largely incapable of simple common sense reasoning on this particular topic. Thus, no, we philosopher types, amateur and pro, are not of above average intelligence. We are average at best, and maybe on this particular topic below average due to an incurable need to complicate everything so as to demonstrate our awesome laser sharp logic, and other similar fantasy poses.

So, really, to be clear, what you're talking about is only the potential consequences, not the actual situation we're in. That is, if there's a nuclear attack, then these would be the consequences. — S

So, really, to be clear, what I'm really talking about is that we philosophers are morons with a rich fantasy life. As example, my fantasy is that typing all this over and over again is going to ever accomplish anything.

A nuclear attack is not imminent. — S

No, it isn't, but one might argue that the threat is. :chin: Either way, there are a number of serious - species-threatening or world-threatening - things that we might chose to be concerned about. Nuclear war is one of them. Is it really worth arguing any more about this? I think not, and I will add no further comments on this sub-sub-topic. :up: