What is the institution that has the jurisdiction over this issue, so that one can file a complaint to it properly? — baker
So with my Pessimist philosophy, I have distilled the idea that Comply or Die is a feature of the human condition. Basically, this means that we either comply with the conditions we are situated in (socioeconomic in particular) or we will die a slow death due to not playing the game correctly or simply outright suicide (outright rejection of the game). — schopenhauer1
Holding off on what other animals can do (because people get caught up in the red herrings of animal psychology rather than my essential point at hand), individuals of our species must continually self-impose the regiment to do work, over and over to "get things done". — schopenhauer1
Sorry, but I am disagree with you in this specific point. You express it as a failure, a defeat, an act of giving up by someone. It looks like a scape from the rules they are forced to play in the game. I think you are not appreciating suicide in his most beautiful aspect: freedom. — javi2541997
If people just comply there would be no political shifts ever. Clearly people do not always comply, do not commit suicide either, and make a rebellious change (via some form of paradigm shift or political revolution). — I like sushi
Clearly we do not sit and wallow in our own filth whilst nature peels grapes and feeds them to us. — I like sushi
The constant quest for more stimulation is actually a base instinct we have. — I like sushi
Life is not a game. All games are representations of life. They are our imagined dreams of what life can be in the face of the eternal failure to meet ‘perfection’ yet we can glimpse it through others (or in nature) and that guides our course if embraced with optimistic pessimism … they are the same thing after all. — I like sushi
At bottom, it's not a social or economic issue. If you were alone on an island you would have to comply or die. — T Clark
But we are animals. The constraints you're talking about are the constraints all animals face. You're just making them seem more highfalutin by giving them an existential twist. Metaphorically, you're complaining about gravity. It's not fair that it hurts when we fall down. — T Clark
Holding off on what other animals can do (because people get caught up in the red herrings of animal psychology rather than my essential point at hand), individuals of our species must continually self-impose the regiment to do work, over and over to "get things done". This is interesting to note because it puts us squarely in the existential situation of doing something we might not want to do otherwise, but for survival purposes. It is not simply "doing" the job, but self-imposing ways to motivate ourselves to do the job and understanding things like consequences if we don't do the job. — schopenhauer1
I see your point in terms of conflict between objectivity and subjectivity. Objectivity forces us to a lot of unwanted things. Subjectivity is when we are able to freely express ourselves, like artists do. We can use creativity to change some objectivity aspects into positive resources working in favour of subjectivity, like artists do. — Angelo Cannata
We choose to work. We don't "survive" in the manner animals just "survive". — schopenhauer1
So, it seems to me the only philosophical alternative is the subjective perspective. — Angelo Cannata
This is the gist of the OP. However we choose to call it -- division of labor, sharing, team-work, pitching-in -- your question is whether it is even moral to require everyone to pull their weight. And my answer to this is no. If people don't want to share with the work, they have every right not to. But the fruit of one's labor should commensurate with their contribution of time and effort.To be "moral" you would pull your weight to not allow others to perish with you.. But then the meta-position from this is whether it was even good to put people in the position that they needed to pull their weight. — schopenhauer1
:rofl: :up:↪schopenhauer1 Suck it up, sunshine.
You've recognised the nature of your existence. Welcome to adulthood. Get over it and keep buggering on. — Banno
:lol: :clap:Metaphorically, you're complaining about gravity. It's not fair that it hurts when we fall down. — T Clark
So that would be a straw man you are presenting to say we don't have to live in such a manner.. We are indeed social animals. — schopenhauer1
It isn't trying to be "high falutin" but rather, it is describing our situation in opposition to other animals who live more in the present and have inbuilt instinctual mechanisms.. Whatever the case with other animals, WE don't operate like that. Rather, we operate via self-imposed plans, goals, and expectations.. We choose to work. We don't "survive" in the manner animals just "survive". — schopenhauer1
Forcing people to anything is bad and immoral. We do it sometimes because we can’t escape doing it, — Angelo Cannata
With this said, what I am trying to get at is there's a callousness in having to produce at all. Even if we were a 10 person society, it would be the same. Someone not pulling their "weight" means the group will suffer. Our needs and wants (of survival and comfort and the like) ensure our enmeshed reliance on each other's work. It's intractable. The fact of it doesn't make it just, right, or moral. Just because it is a feature, doesn't mean it's a good feature. — schopenhauer1
This is just what I was talking about when I said "highfalutin." You're trying to turn our simple, straightforward, fundamental biological nature into an existential crisis. It's not fair! It's not fair! It's not fair! (stomps feet) — T Clark
This is interesting to note because it puts us squarely in the existential situation of doing something we might not want to do otherwise, but for survival purposes. It is not simply "doing" the job, but self-imposing ways to motivate ourselves to do the job and understanding things like consequences if we don't do the job.
On the way, you might manage to make things a bit more comfortable for yourself and others. That'd be more worthwhile than what you do here, which is just incessant complaining. — Banno
... "buggering on" with that old philosopher's stone. :smirk:I prefer to imagine Sisyphus happy... — Tom Storm
Mainländer didn't "find life" so "intractable" ... For fuck's sake, man, stop whinging and get on with it! :point:So I'm going to follow the logic where it leads and not where I want it to go, unlike you all. The Pessimism lens finds the intractable negative/immoral conundrums about life. Because its intractable, does not redeem it in any way.. — schopenhauer1
callous — schopenhauer1
So I'm going to follow the logic where it leads — schopenhauer1
It is intractable that by being born we are forced into complying into a situation lest death. That is a moral problem, not a "get out of jail free cause we can't help it". It is callous to make others choose between X, Y, Z activities or death by de facto the very fact that X, Y, Z leads to non-death. — schopenhauer1
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.