Doesn't this have to do with the natural law of "Survival of the Fittest"?
And from what I know, roaches and other insects (maybe the most hateful living things for us) are the only living things that will survive an atomic ot other desctuction of the planet ... This makes them the fittest, as far as life is concerned. Gleah!

But yes, it is a paradox in a way: Since they are apparently the most useless --at least, from human viewpoint-- living things, besides lliving in the most unhealthy environment and conditions. So, one might ask, figuratively, "What does life want to prove?". Well, life doesn't want to prove anything. Like it or not, it has no purpose in and for itself.

God and gods again and again and again ... I wonder for how more long we'll have to hear about this useless subjet, the main purpose of which is to force morality, fear and discipline on people ...

Sometimes I wonder why God allows evil.
... But for us to not be robots God has to allow us free will and free will ... — Art48

Unfounded assumptions, assumptions, assumptions ... about an unfoundedly assumed entity!

Good luck! :smile:

OK. So, what's the conclusion? What should we do?

in what sense, circumstance, etc. is it good/safe/sensible to commit this "fallacy"? — Agent Smith

Fallacy ...

From Oxford LEXICO: "A mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound arguments.". More specifically, in Logic: "A failure in reasoning which renders an argument invalid."

From Wiki: "The use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or 'wrong moves', in the construction of an argument."

All standard definitions will basically talk about the same thing: "failed or faulty reasoning".

So, why would it be good/safe/sensible to commit (carry out) this --or in fact, any-- fallacy?
What fallacies can do mainly is to destroy arguments, theses, positions, etc. of those who carry them out and the opposite, to give the "opponent" an advantage in a discussion.

The core idea: This fallacy is almost indispensable to stay out of trouble, it can mean the difference between life and death, between dying like a dog and living like a king. — Agent Smith

This is how a lot of animals behave. If they are harmed by something and can remember it, they would normally always avoid it. More intelligent animals, might need more harmful incidents --in fact some training-- in order to avoid something. A classic example Pavlov's experiment with dogs. The bad thing with that man was that he extended his findings to human being and he was in part responsible for such horrible psychiatric despicable techniques, such electroshocks (ECT). Because, indeed, the human mind too disposes of such defensive mechanism. However, the human mind also disposes logic and a reasoning ability that make the being that owns it to differentiate between very, quite, a little or slightly dangerous cases. And it's not fallacies about these cases that must dictate his actions but rather experience, logic and knowledge (including statistics).

Question: Can all other fallacies be recommended as a rational course of action based on Algos/Thanatos? — Agent Smith

My answer: No. There are no good or bad, helpful or harmful, acceptable ior unacceptable, etc. fallacies. They all diminish human reasoning.

A more practical answer: "Try tho think of some case win which you have based some action on some fallacy, which you are willing to always apply as a behavioural rule in your life. I, personally, can't. But who knows, maybe I just can't remember one! :smile:

or there to be definitions in the first place, abrtract, mental construction had to take place — SatmBopd

But there are already definitions. Why must construction take place at all? This was my point from day one.
I can't see what is your purpose. To forget about dictionaries and encyclopedias and build definitions from scratch? And then what? Even if we construct an ideal definition of free will that is accepted by most --because by everyone, it is certainly impossible-- we would have consumed our discussion to creating such a definition. And then we woukd have to do the same for every other concept that will appear in the discussion. And that would turn us into lexicographers, without actual subjects to talk about!

Thanks for your thoughtful responses. — SatmBopd

You are very welcome! :smile:

***

BTW, I don't know if you have realized that we have gone astray from the topic, which is not about definitions but "The Limitations of Philosophy and Argumentation"! :smile:

Spelling is not that impotant. More important are things that people ask you (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/703817) and you chose to ignore. Most probably because you don't want to change your beliefs.

Indeed, beliefs are very strong, sometimes stronger than knowledge.

Thanks for the tip. My browser's cache is cleared everytime it closes. It's impossible that NY Times remembers me.
Bah, simply, there are perverse minds. Some more than others. These ones have no parallel! :smile:

I have no problem reading it and I am not a subscriber. — Jackson

Good that you can. I can't.

This is what I get:
https://pasteboard.co/xQcRnLsIb06Y.jpg

...
What do you think? — Paulm12

From ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) I got the following description of ID:
Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific set of beliefs based on the notion that life on earth is so complex that it cannot be explained by the scientific theory of evolution and therefore must have been designed by a supernatural entity.

And from Wiki:
Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".

It seems that ID says that whatever (traditional, conventional) science cannot explain, must be taken as a proof for the existence of and the act of (some) God. I don't find this plausible at all. There are hundreds of things --both in the physical and the non-physical world-- that science cannot explain or provide a proof of or evidence for. At least not yet. It would be very easy then to prove the existence of (some) God just base on our inability to undestand or explain things! Moreover, this reminds me that Man had always the tendency to refer to gods things he could not undestand or explain: fire, thunders, sun & moon, desasters, plagues, and so on. Which with time were explained by science. Myths that collapsed.

So the story continues ...

So, what I think is that ID is not even a "pseudoscientific" belief. It's just an absurd and useless concept.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/technology/quantum-internet-teleportation.html — Jackson

I got the ridiculous message, i]"You’ve reached your limit of free articles. Already a subscriber? Log in."[/i]. What is my limit??? I guess, zero. Because it's the first time I opened this page and even visited nytimes.com!! Why don't they say simply "You must be a subscriber to read articles" or even more silmply, just ask me to log in! Yes, even reknown places like New York Times can be ridiculous.

OK, this may be off topic, but one should not refer to articles which, in order to be read, one must subscribe to a website!!

I can make a definition for free will which is easy to argue for — SatmBopd

Why create a definition? There are standard definitions around. Again, this is what dictionaries are for.

I think we would learn more about free will, if we forgot (for the time being) about whether it existed or not, and deeply picked apart the thing to which all the definitions imperfectly (or so I would argue) try to point. — SatmBopd

Can't get this. In order to learn more about dogs, we should forget (for the time being) that they exist? What then are we going to talk about? Makes no sense.

1. There is a "thing" in the universe which a human experiences and it inspires the creation of a "concept" which the human terms "free will" — SatmBopd

What is that "thing"? Shouldn't it be described? There's a thing that inspires humans, which they call "love". So what?

2. "Free will" is then refered to on a consistant basis and articuations of the "concept" inspire more humans to think about the "concept" and NOT the "thing". Because all of the linguistic definitions, and articulations of "free will" are only robust labels (just as "free will" itself is only a label), none of them are the original "thing" — SatmBopd

"Articuations of the 'concept' inspire more humans to think about the 'concept' and NOT the 'thing'". What is the "thing"? From Oxford LEXICO: A concept (in philosophy) is "an idea or mental image which corresponds to some distinct entity or class of entities, or to its essential features, or determines the application of a term (especially a predicate), and thus plays a part in the use of reason or language. (Any other standard definition will do.) So, when you think of a concept, you connect it and you refer to the object/entity it belongs to. This is all. Now, each person in a discussion may have a different application in mind for, knowledge about and experience regarding that concept, but they should all talking about the same thing. If, e.g., we are talking about the feeling of "being in love" and I never had an experience with that, I still undestand what we are talking about; only it's not so "real" to me.

3. Since all discussion only revolves around the definitions and articuations of the "concept", the "thing" ... — SatmBopd

Not necessarily. As I already said, the definitions just offer a frame reference. After that, the discussion may follow any course one can imagine.

Coming to your example of free will: Oxford LEXCICO defines it as: "The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion." (Any other standard definition will do.) Now, there are a lot of people who do not believe that such a thing actually exists. That's OK. Note everyone has to agree that something exists. It's enough that they are all taking about the same thing, after having it defined it in a standard, a generally accepted way. Let's say we define God as the creator and ruler of the universe and source of everything, a supreme, etc. You may believe that such an entity exists and I not. It's OK. We are still in communication and undestanding between each other.

Definitions of terms --explicit or silent-- are essential in a discussion, philosophical or other !

I don't get it. Why should anyone joke about "Brain Cells". It is my own brain cells or, more correctly patterns and arrrangements of my brain cells that are typing these words. — Ken Edwards

Oh, sorry. I was almost sure that you used "brain cells" in a humoriys way. I could never think that somenone would say seriously that bain cells actually "believe". But now I do. Esp. after your claiming that your brain cells dictate to you what to type and, in fact, force you to do it.

BTW, by saying "my brain cells" I believe you mean that you own --you are the owner of-- a brain with cells, right? Have you ever thought who is that owner?

Defining terms starts at beginning to make sure people are using the words the same way. — Jackson

Right.

Anytime you define terms, you are already establishing the goal posts for the argument — SatmBopd

What else one would try to establish with this action? Although I would use the description "frame of reference" --indicating an area one should move in-- instead of "goal posts" --indicating the edge of a discussion area and the target/point/position one wants to create or achieve, which has nothing to do with defining terms.

Then, what's the meaning of "already"? Why, should this action be postponed for later? :smile:

Any time you ask the question "Is A, B?" and you get to define A or B, then you can probably make a strong argument for… anything! — SatmBopd

I can't see what does the definition of terms have to do with the creation of an argument, much less "for anything".
As I said above, the definition of terms provide a frame of reference in which a discussion can take place. Because if you are talking about A and I assume that you are talking about B, our communication will most probably fail. And, in a discussion, the more such assumptions take place, the more the whole discussion will tend to lead to nowhere, but rather go round and round and eventually dissolve without any conclusion.

And this is indeed what can constitute limitations for philosophy and argumentation: lack of definitions, not defining terms as you try to point out.

***

Note about definitions:
They don't have necessarily to be strict or standard. They can be presented as loose descriptions, examples. etc. Whatever will do as long as it appeals to common sense and/or agreement. That is, they must refer to commonly and widely accepted data. Personal, biased or otherwise twisted definitions or descriptions will have a limited application, if any. That's why dictionaries and encyclopedias are created.

"Believe" is a verb and is a frequent activity or an action of human brain cells. — Ken Edwards

I hope this is said jokingly, I mean "brain cells", right?

:pray:
Glad you agree with keeping and using disctionaries! :smile:

no other animals are human but humans. That alone puts humans in a unique place in the animal kingdom, one that may have exclusive access to ethics — Merkwurdichliebe

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain why so many people and even scientists believe humans are animals and describe them as such: It's the narrow view that characterizes them. They all consider one only part of the human being: the physical/physiological one. Indeed,

"Although humans and animals (technically “non-human animals”) may look different, at a physiological and anatomical level they are remarkably similar." (https://speakingofresearch.com/facts/the-animal-model/)

But another part of humans is ignored: the non-physical/physiological one. This is where "ethics", which you mentioned, belongs. This is where mind --thinking, logic, imagination, etc.-- belongs. This part classifies humans in a separate category of life and living creatures of its own.

That the belief that humans are animals is only superficial and not actual is reflected in everyday life in a lot of ways: animal protection, animal cruelty, people loving or hating animals, wild animals & zoos, animal life, can animals do this and that?, and so one. There's a single category of doctors that treat animals: the veterinarians. There are dozens of categories of doctors who treat humans. It's not just a question of complexity; it's a question of diversity.

All that clearly show the differentiation humans actual make between themselves and animals.

Tell me again then that "Humans are only animals".

I assume you mean your quote from an old thread on a related topic: "Only expressions of morality (codes of conduct, or normative conventions) are "social constructs". Humans are eusocial animals and instincts for (a) reciprocal harm ..."

Well, this contains an arbitrary personal statement --Humans are eusocial animals-- based on no evidence, proof or definition/description of "human" or "animal". In fact, it is based on absolutely nothing.
Someone else could well say that "An animal is any living creature that does not fly!" and whatever other crazy stuff.

So, do you really prefer such arbitrary and unfounded descriptions than standard definitions? Can a sensible discussion be based on them?

I know, a lot of people hate or disprove of dictionaries, esp. some "philosophical thinkers". Let's follow this attitude, throw away all encyclopedias and disctionaries and start living in a Tower of Babel!

Yes — 180 Proof

Great argument!
Plus, while you seem to not know what an "animal" is, you still ignored the three definitions of the word "animal" that I took the trouble to bring up for you. What a fruitful discussion!

OK, but I answered your question afirmatively myself. Has that helped you? Has that made any difference?

we are only animals. — 180 Proof

Are we?

Definitions of "animal":

"A living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli." (Oxford LEXICO)

Something that lives and moves but is not a human, bird, fish, or insect (Ccambridge Dictionary)

A living thing that is not a human being or plant (Britannica Dictionary)

It's indeed very straibge to meet this kind of view about humans in an intellectual place as this (is supposed to be)!

Quite obviously, morality does not exist in animals, by definition.
So, what more are you looking for with your question and topic Do animals have morality?

Check this ref too: https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/archives/sum2012/entries/plato-parmenides/

Is this the article? — Banno

Isn't this too evident after reading that article??

Are you referring to the very difficult second part of the Parmenides? — magritte

Yes, of course, it is very easy to find out in the Web that it's from Parmenides Dialogue, but I wonder how this could help you answering what the topic asks ...

Secularism may claim to be untied from religion, but I still find it hard to see how anything can be free from religious influence. To me, it would be like saying some movement is "free" from philosophical or philosophical consideration — Paulm12

I see what you mean. In fact, everyone has a philosophy about life and its various manifestations and aspects, even if one doesn't realize it or does not think about it explicitly. And everyone believes in something basic, even if this is not God. I use to say that non-religious scientists have science as their religion and in fact, they are more fanatic about it than leymen about their religion! :smile:

So, it all depends on how we use the term "religious" and "religion": loosely or strictly.
But since, as I undestand, your topic refers to the strict aspect, I don't think that the proposition "nothing is really secular" is valid. For one thing, it invalidates the term "secular" itself. (Which, in fact, leads to a circular or self-denied statement: I first define "secular" as something "not religious" and then I state that nothing is secular, i.e. there's no such thing as "secular" and by conseqence everything is religious! :smile:)

a lot of people would be wiser and the question isn't interesting. — Skalidris

Obviously.

My question is more about which method seems to lead to the wisest knowledge. — Skalidris

Do you mean between spending a lot of time thinking, writing, and actively exploring the world ... and pursuing an academic career?
If I understood well, talking with philosophy professors, their credentials, etc. you were not sure if all that get them closer to wisdom. Right? If so, then ... yes, it is right! :smile:

Pursuing an academic career in any field does not make you necessarily an expert in that field. Professors have to know well the material tey are teaching. Even "by memory". A math professor is not necessarily a good "problem solver" himself. A IT professor is not necessarily a good programmer --also a "problem sover"--himself. What makes a good "problem solver" is the ability to analyse a problem and think about (logically or using imagination or intuition), design and produce a solution himself. It requires a lot, a lot of practice, with which one acquires experience and becomes an expert.

The same happens in the field of philosophy.

Pursuing an academic career in philosophy -- e.g. graduating from a University-- doesn't make one a philosopher. I believe that a lot if not most of the great philosophers of the past we know were self-taught, i.e. they were not teached philosophy in a school or under a teacher, in a systematic way and for a long period (as today is done in Universities). What makes a philosopher is what you said about "independent thinkers" --BTW, I like and use the word "thinkers" myself-- namely, spending a lot of time thinking, writing, and actively exploring the world .. And those who are pursuing or have pursued an academic career may well do that themselves.

I'm not sure what the word "Would" in the question of your topic actually means; it's somehow dubious. It indicates a condition or imagined situation. It would be more clear to me if the question asked "Can ...?" That is, is it possible that an “independent” thinker is wiser than an academic/famous philosopher?
To which I would answer: "Certainly yes!" :smile: (The reasons are quite obvious ...)

Now we can define secularism as
denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis
or in some cases
not overtly or specifically religious — Paulm12

You most probably refer to the term "secular". Otherwise, "secularism" is far from that. It is the principle of separation of the state from religious institutions.

It's like mixing the term "physical" with "physicalism", "spiritual" and "spiritualism", etc.

I used to mix ethics and aesthetics ... — Hillary

... That's maybe how ethics look like after taking anesthetics! :grin:

Anyway, good that you have finally sorted all this out! :smile:

I think, BTW, that ethics or morals (I can't really see the difference) is objective. What the objective morals are then depends on who you ask. And somehow a world in which the bad or evil is not allowed to exist seems a worse world than a world in which it can exist. — Hillary

Yeah, I know ... Ethics, morality and morals are used interchangeably in common language. That's why I have made a distinction and got "ethics" out of the basket with all kinds of fish, using it in a more strict way, i.e. as a philosophical sytem or branch. Wiki says, "Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that 'involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior'. The field of ethics, along with aesthetics, concerns matters of value; these fields comprise the branch of philosophy called axiology." This is a totally different approach from what is assumed in common language.

Glad you agree with that! :smile:

Questions? Comments? Discussion? — Marvin Katz

You shouldn't ask for all that if you are not interested.
My constructive comment that I posted in your topic 3 days ago has been wasted. No response. Quite frustrating.

I believe that when one posts a topic, it is becoming to at least acknowledge replies addressed to him, even with just a "Thanks" or "OK".
So, you won't hear from me again ...

Can Morality ever be objective? Very interesting question and topic! :up:

Morality too, like science, has to do with common agreement on principles concerning "right" and "wrong" or "good" and "bad" behavior. Which of course are subjective. They differ from culture to culture, even there are some basic principles that are common to almost all (civilized) cultures. Moreover, these principles too may change through time, although not so easily and often as in astronomy and the science in general.

So, morality --as we understand the term in general-- is subjective.

Can it be objective?

I have to replace here the term "morality" with "ethics". Although these are considered synonyms in general, they differ in that the term "morality" has a much wider use than "ethics", which can be treated as a system and a branch of philosophy.

An objective ethics system must be universal, i.e., that can be always applied, independently of the circumstances. And it must be based on a fundamental element or principle of life. It will itself then be the base of ethical behavior.

This fundamental element is the purpose of life itself. And the fundamental purpose of life is Survival.

Survival -- is the purpose of all life. That's what life --in its basic state, raw form-- wants: To exist and continue to exist! This is the fundamental law of life and it is where ethics must be based on. Ethics must protect, support and enhance Survival.

A secondary law of life is that it seeks pleasure and avoids pain. Life responds instinctively in a positive way to pleasure stimuli and in a negative way to pain stimuli. This law too must be adopted and applied by our ethics system. In short, our ethics system must support and apply all the laws of life.

So, the basic principle and purpose of such an ethics system is: Support and promote survival for as many lives as possible and to the highest possible degree. This is an objective and absolute principle and purpose.

(Note: The terms "survival" and "life" must be considered beyond just "being and staying alive". Life can and does exist in many levels, areas and forms beyond bare existence. I believe that this is quite obvious, yet I could expand it, but not in here.)

He deleted all after a dispute. Another thread he deleted. — Hillary

Acutally, this is "deleting", not deleting. Indeed, you cannot delete your reply even before posting it! It will be waiting for you to get posted for ever! "Dude, you shouldn't start typing ... It's too late now. You can't back off!" :grin:

(I wonder why the TPF administration likes to keep garbage in its house instead of just adding a "Delete" option ...)

Can we put a monetary value on the life of an individual? — Benj96

Are you a businessman? It's them mainly who are valuing people on a monetary basis. They have to. Entrepreneurs have to pay money for their employees and they expect that they would get back some money as a result of their production. No one would like to keep an unproductive employee in his business. Also they usually pay more money, offer bonuses, commissions, etc. to the most productive ones --although this not always the case.

But outside the business environment, I don't think that people value others on a monetary value. Far from it! There are innumerable things based on which each one of us values others. I believe I don't have to give examples. It would be too mundane. And this, on a personal basis.

On a general basis, I thing that we cannot value a human life. Everyone human life is valuable. Even that of a criminal. Imagine what a huge win would be to reinstate a criminal case to a normal, virtuous one. And this can and has been done a lot of times. These people are only heavily deranged. But authorities don't have the means and facilities or even patience to achieve such a "restoration" more often. They prefer to just get rid of these "scumbags" by throwing them to prison or hang them.

Every human life is valuable.

You have posted about a dozen replies that contain just a dot. I wonder why are you doing this ...
I can't think of a purpose for that is or that it is so difficult to control your posting ...
Interesting phenomenon! :smile:

employees are more important. Both are necessary, but employees are more important because of that. (Because the more of them there are, the better, i.e., the more probability of survival for the economy) — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

Have you thought that the more the employees the greater the unemployement?
Hasn't overpopulation, periods of economic crisis, immigrational floods, etc. shown that?

And on the contrary, that the more the employers the less the unemployement?
Hasn't a flourishing and expanding businesses and economy, business investments, etc. shown that?