Ah yes, just dismiss. This is one way not to engage (dodge?) the issues I raise. You haven't even explained why it's "dull", so your comment falls flat and dull. My guess is because I do not mention your entropic yadayada philosophy and shoehorning of the notion of "balance" and "two complimentary sides" to create a basis for ethics. But I already addressed that in the last post. And I think what I brought up suffices as an objection to this non-foundation that you propose. You will call it "black-and-white" thinking, but that is misconstruing what normative ethics is. Ideals can be separated out from pragmatics. You don't ditch the ideals though. And that is the crux of the debate. Are ideals the basis for normative ethics? And from there, you are most likely going to go into a relativistic aspect to it. At the least, you can go with some Hegelian "revealing" of ideals which I would entertain. But to simply be a Sophistic relativist to the extent that you seem to be will reveal our main disagreements.The rest is just too dull to address. — apokrisis
This question addresses the subject of moral concern: actually living, present persons, n o t possible, future persons (which is AN's category mistake).Do you cause unnecessary harm? — schopenhauer1
This question addresses the subject of moral concern: actually living, present persons, n o t possible, future persons (which is AN's category mistake). — 180 Proof
actually living, present persons, n o t possible, future persons (which is AN's category mistake). — 180 Proof
which your trolling is too lazy to pick-up on or too disingenuous to acknowledge my references elsewhere in this thread (as well as o — 180 Proof
My sense is similar, namely that anti-natalism is a kind of second-order malady rather than a first-order thesis. It seems to stand on the circumstantial situation of the proponent rather than on its own intellectual legs, and my guess is that anyone who holds it on purely intellectual grounds could be dissuaded in time. It's hard to understand it any other way when the arguments are not sufficient to justify the conclusion, nor the tenacity with which the conclusion is held. — Leontiskos
which your trolling is too lazy to pick-up on or too disingenuous to acknowledge my references elsewhere in this thread (as well as on schophenhauer1's other "AN" threads), so STFU, STFD and maybe you'll learn something, kid. — 180 Proof
anti-natalism is a kind of second-order malady — Leontiskos
my guess is that anyone who holds it on purely intellectual grounds could be dissuaded in time. — Leontiskos
You have proved yourself incapable of reading a simple response. AS always, proving you're not a serious person. It gets easier and easier. Maybe if you stopped behaving in a way that squarely fits th definition of trolling, you'd say something sensible. — AmadeusD
Where's yours? — schopenhauer1
Why not just chill and enjoy the friction of lively debate? — apokrisis
And all your accusations seem better fitted to describing your own behaviour. — apokrisis
It is not as if anyone can win or lose in an internet forum where no one is really invested in the outcomes or any independent party keeping score. — apokrisis
ou can't seem to decide whether to love everyone or hate everyone — apokrisis
schopenhauer1 would seem proof this ain't so. :grin: — apokrisis
Surely it would make more sense to spend your time elsewhere on this forum? — AmadeusD
I suspect schopenhauer1 regrets pulling you into the thread. — Leontiskos
As someone on the autism spectrum, the question arises for me of whether in an afterlife I would be autistic.
If not, then it doesn't seem like it would be me in the afterlife.
If so, and for eternity, I expect I'd think the afterlife kind of sucks. — wonderer1
I suppose the after life for an autistic person would be a world in which perfect steam engines ran exactly to time according to a really clear timetable and everyone said exactly what they meant and meant exactly what they said. — bert1
Schop keeps requesting my presence. No matter how many years it’s been. It seems to energise him judging by the caps lock shouting. — apokrisis
I'd recommend avoiding such stereotyping, unless your goal is to be seen as an insensitive douche bag, in which case :up: — wonderer1
Well assuming that autism is an essential feature of 'who you are', it might be possible that autism is not a cause of suffering in an afterlife, eternal or not. — boundless
"An Anthropologist on Mars" describes Sacks' meeting with Temple Grandin, an autistic woman who is a world-renowned designer of humane livestock facilities and a professor at Colorado State University. The title of this essay comes from a phrase Grandin uses to describe how she often feels in social interactions.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Anthropologist_on_Mars
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.