• Average
    469
    "starvation-wages" and "compulsory work" are not a thing when one volunteers to sign a labor contract.Garrett Travers

    It would seem somewhat incoherent to me if someone asserted that work could be compulsory, meaning involuntary, if you voluntarily agreed to work. Because in order for something to be voluntary it has to be free from compulsion. It’s almost tautological.
  • Deletedmemberzc
    2.5k
    Go on...Garrett Travers

    Do you agree that folks with mental illness are victims of mental illness?
  • Deleted User
    -1
    It would seem somewhat incoherent to me if someone asserted that work could be compulsory, meaning involuntary, if you voluntarily agreed to work. Because in order for something to be voluntary it has to be free from compulsion. It’s almost tautological.Average

    More contradictory than tautological. But, I've rarely seen anything more contradictory than the views that inform this kind of conclusion. It comes from a reading of history that did involve compulsory work, during the Enclosure Movement, when the commons were first shuttered by state expropriation and and declared ownership of land to be used for certain economic purposes regarding agricultural output. Such action, taking place after Charlemagne became Holy Roman Emperor, and the Feudal system really took off. In short, the state usurped land that had been the serf's one common commodity upon which to draw resources, for its own use, relegating humans to cut out pieces of land, know as "demesne." This process grew and grew until 18th and 19th centuries, after Mercantilism dawned on the world scene, which is an evolved form of Feudalism with lords chartering companies to be used as economic behemoths, which has now given birth to the modern economy that is, for some strange reason, referred to as "Capitalism." The difference is now, though, that people are at least respected in their property rights, which frees up the economy enough for people to create jobs, which you can voluntarily take employment with, based on your own standards for work. This freedom being mistaken for the wage-slavery and compulsory work that is no longer in existence.
  • Deleted User
    -1
    Do you agree that folks with mental illness are victims of mental illness?ZzzoneiroCosm

    Yes. If we're talking neurological disorders.
  • Deletedmemberzc
    2.5k
    Yes. If we're talking neurological disorders.Garrett Travers

    So you accept that it's rational to feel compassion for folks with mental illness?
  • Deleted User
    -1
    So you accept that it's rational to feel compassion for folks with mental illness?ZzzoneiroCosm

    I do.
  • Average
    469
    More contradictory than tautological.Garrett Travers

    I agree that it would be a contradiction to assert the voluntary work is compulsory work. What I meant by tautological was that voluntary work is automatically not compulsory.
  • Deletedmemberzc
    2.5k

    Do you accept that Hitler had a mental illness?
  • Deleted User
    -1
    I agree that it would be a contradiction to assert the voluntary work is compulsory work. What I meant by tautological was that voluntary work is automatically not compulsory.Average

    Yes. As all propositions that are both valid, and sound are tautological, so too is the this presentation to you. It is voluntary, because it's voluntary. A=A. See how A=A is tautological? That's a logical truism. Everything that is true is tautological. How do I know if something is true? I'm looking at, it's right there. How do we know the sun is really there? Because it is self-evidently emergent in the universe. A=A.
  • Deleted User
    -1
    Do you accept that Hitler had a mental illness?ZzzoneiroCosm

    Yes.
  • Average
    469
    I don’t know if it makes sense to use mathematical symbols like the one for equality in the context of epistemology. 2+2=4 but I don’t know what A=A means.
  • Deleted User
    -1
    I don’t know if it makes sense to use mathematical symbols like the one for equality in the context of epistemology. 2+2=4 but I don’t know what A=A means.Average

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_identity
  • Average
    469
    I’m familiar with the law I’m just not on board with the way it is represented Or symbolized.
  • Deleted User
    -1
    Right, such is clear from the "how do we know what we know" discussion. Unfortunately it is something that simply cannot be argued with. Not in any falsifiable manner. But, exploring that is all perfectly good and well.
  • Average
    469
    Not in any falsifiable manner.Garrett Travers

    I’m not sure I understand the point you’re trying to make about falsification. Are you referring to my mirage hypothesis?
  • Deleted User
    -1
    I’m not sure I understand the point you’re trying to make about falsification. Are you referring to my mirage hypothesis?Average

    No, I'm saying that if an assertion about a fact of the world cannot be placed under the scrutiny of falsification, meaning it can be tested in a manner that has the potential to dispprove it in one or more ways, then it isn't science, per Karl Popper, and should thereby be dismissed from one's philosophical approach until such a time that it can.
  • Deleted User
    -1
    Do you accept that Hitler had a mental illness?
    — ZzzoneiroCosm

    Yes.
    Garrett Travers

    My dear fellow, were you under the impression that this confirmation of mine ended our line of discussion on the topic?
  • Deletedmemberzc
    2.5k

    Okay, that gives us this syllogism:

    It's rational to feel compassion for people with mental illness. Hitler had a mental illness. Therefore, it's rational to feel compassion for Hitler.
  • Deleted User
    -1
    It's rational to feel compassion for people with mental illness. Hitler had a mental illness. Therefore, it's rational to feel compassion for Hitler.ZzzoneiroCosm

    It is rational. But, only on that basis. You seem to be forgetting something, so I'll turn the question around to see what you say:

    Is it rational to have compassion for mass murderers?

    Just a confirmation or a denial will do.
  • Average
    469
    No, I'm saying that if an assertion about a fact of the world cannot be placed under the scrutiny of falsification, meaning it can be tested in a manner that has the potential to dispprove it in one or more ways, then it isn't science, per Karl Popper, and should thereby be dismissed from one's philosophical approach until such a time that it can.Garrett Travers

    What assertion are you referring to though? Is it the assertion that a thing isn’t what it is?
  • Deleted User
    -1
    It's rational to feel compassion for people with mental illness. Hitler had a mental illness. Therefore, it's rational to feel compassion for Hitler.ZzzoneiroCosm

    Proper form would look like this:

    If it's rational to feel compassion for people with mental illness, then it is rational to have compassion for Hitler as someone who suffered from a mental illness.
    It is rational to feel compassion for people with mental illness,
    Therefore it is rational to have compassion for Hitler as someone who suffered from mental illness.

    p>q
    p
    -----
    q

    Modus Ponens
  • Deleted User
    -1
    What assertion are you referring to though? Is it the assertion that a thing isn’t what it is?Average

    The one about it not being compulsory, because it is voluntary. But, logically, any valid proposition, or sound proposition is tautological.
  • Average
    469
    oh ok thanks for clarifying.
  • Deleted User
    -1
    oh ok thanks for clarifying.Average

    Does that makes sense? Or, still a little confusing?
  • Average
    469
    no the only part that confused me was the introduction of the whole a thing is what it is and couldn’t possibly be what it isn’t concept. That concept traditionally being represented by A=A.
  • Deletedmemberzc
    2.5k
    Proper form would look like this:Garrett Travers

    It's rational to feel compassion for people with mental illness. Hitler had a mental illness. Therefore, it's rational to feel compassion for Hitler.ZzzoneiroCosm

    Tidied up a bit:

    (You've already accepted the premises.)

    P1. It's rational to feel compassion for a person with mental illness.
    P2. Hitler was a person with mental illness.
    C. Therefore, it's rational to feel compassion for Hitler.
  • Deleted User
    -1
    P1. It's rational to feel compassion for a person with mental illness.
    P2. Hitler was a person with mental illness.
    C. Therefore, it's rational to feel compassion for Hitler.
    ZzzoneiroCosm

    This is improper, but no worries I get the gist. Yes, I accept the whole argument as valid.
  • Deletedmemberzc
    2.5k
    Yes, I accept the whole argument as valid.Garrett Travers

    Good.

    On to the unskilled laborer.

    If an unskilled laborer - in light of mental illness and lack of access to mental health services - is inhibited from self-development and career advancement, is it rational to feel compassion for him?
  • Deleted User
    -1
    Good.

    On to the unskilled laborer.

    If an unskilled laborer - in light of mental illness and lack of access to mental health services - is inhibited from self-development and career advancement, is it rational to feel compassion for him?
    ZzzoneiroCosm

    Yes. I think I've already confirmed this position.
  • Deletedmemberzc
    2.5k

    Okay. So there's more room for compassion in your view than I originally thought.

    Mental illness rates among the impoverished are about twice that of the rest of us.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.