I don't love you hoes,
I'm out the doe. — Harry Hindu

That's Snoop Dogg.

Strawmen aren't philosophical either.

Thanks, man. :hearts:

I wrote a song about zombies when I was 17. It was pretty similar to the above far as I can remember. Started with:

"Another mindless zombie joins the crooked line..."

(Note the amusing superfluity of the word "mindless.")

Can't remember the rest. Our band was called "Morbid..." something or other. Good fun at the time.

Unlike the horn, my post had a real point. :) That was informative and fun to read though. :up:

My thought is, don't sit on it.

Having said that, I don't know that philosophy works in the same way that art does. Art has a place in the world for expression. Philosophy does too. But I don't know if this art replaces philosophy -- they are just different modes of expression.

One thing art has over philosophy is that it's able to express philosophical ideas in a manner that is more tasteful and moving than philosophy tends to be.

But philosophy appeals to reason, at the end of the day. That is both its weakness and strength. — Moliere

Art, is the liberated soul of Man. — Marcus de Brun

Best to analyze it as political art then along the lines Cavacava described. That's no bad thing. Designating it as philosophy as you originally did is coming at it from the wrong angle I think, and leaves an unnecessary opening for counterpunches of the type you're receiving here

You keep repeating scripts. You haven't answered my points.

Map/territory confusion.
The paradoxical claim is:

This would actually make all motion impossible — Jeremiah

The realm is ultimately physics. If the mathematical models (maps) cause paradoxes so much the worse for their application in this instance.

I don't see what this has to do with mathematics. — Michael

This doesn't seem consistent with your continuing focus on the maths.

If there's one thing we can agree on, it's that things in the real world aren't clear cut. Mull over the example though if you would.

It's a crap shoot Baden — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Wouldn't it be less of a crap shoot if training was compulsory?

Reason says satisfaction is better than pain.
Love says pain is better than emptiness.

What I'm trying to get is that the reality is that you would find you couldn't. You are likely to find yourself loving even if the result is overall more pain and sadness rather than satisfaction simply because that's how love operates. Reason isn't pulling the switches.

Or even love it less for this reason? Wouldn't you, in actual fact, love it even more?

But suppose the baby was sick with a terminal illness and loving it was bound to cause you more pain than satisfaction (as it's always more painful to lose that which you love and in proportion to the intensity of that love) could you stop yourself loving it for this reason?

So, your description of your love for your baby would be something like: you give to your sense of self-interest the sanction to give love to the baby, which in turn gives you satisfaction by responding to that love? The transaction is love for satisfaction then. Something like that?

The transaction would seem to be more with your sense of self-interest than with the baby then?

i can feel myself transforming and i see it in her too. — Gord

Who?

No, it just wouldn't seem to make sense to call that love "transactional". "Unconditional" would be a better word, no?

And you are talking in terms of "transactional analysis" right? Because Moliere wasn't as far as I could see.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_analysis

Do you think that would apply even to your love for your (hypothetical) new born baby? (Who is (let's face it) not immediately capable of reciprocation.)

I better quit while I'm ahead then. :gasp:

it's not all talk, feelings and actions play a bigger role than Reason may wish, but reason can help too. — Moliere

I guess I just prefer a subtle approach than a full-on sermon, which even the most reasonable of us can fall into at times on topics like this.

Suppose you have a child Posty. And you love your child. Is it necessary or even appropriate to talk of such love in terms of a transaction?

To me though it seems to inhere conditionality, the necessary expectation of something in return, which doesn't fly with regard to love. See Un's post. Anyhow, talk is cheap in this area.

Maybe you two are using different definitions. "Transactional" is fairly broadly used in psychology to refer to relationships.

"Psychology: an interaction of an individual with one or more other persons, especially as influenced by their assumed relational roles of parent, child, or adult"

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/transactional

Happy Hangover, Birthday!

It's fairly straightforward. The 8th amendment is a clumsy and heavy handed tool that makes it impossible to draft even measured abortion legislation. It has no place in modern society and is a hangover from an Ireland overly influenced by Catholic dogma. The real abortion debate comes after it's removed.

Or the view that knowingly having sex, where pregnancy even while using birth control, is a predicable consequence of one's act of free will establishes a tacit right on the part of the fetus to the use of the mother's body ( this argument of course is predicated on the assumption the fetus is a Human being with a right to life - to make any sense) — Rank Amateur

The 8th amendment gives an equal right to life to mother and foetus regardless of the circumstances of conception (including rape).

(To quote someone, you can highlight their text and click on the pop-up "Quote" button.)

Put it another way, it's valid to generalize outwards from your own experience with regard to structural/systemic elements of life that are obviously shared, such as pain, boredom etc. But it's not valid to generalize outwards with regard to your attitude to these structural elements, and your attitude is an intrinsic part of the equation with regard to what effect these elements have on you, and therefore your overall quality of life. And that is actually what makes life worth living or not. So, there's a huge lacuna in your reasoning that presumes a frame that's actually a choice or orientation rather than anything intrinsic.

It's fine as an intellectual exercise to examine the negative structural/systemic aspects of existence, but it carries no weight in practical terms for anyone who doesn't frame their lives such that those structural elements become a problematic point of focus. Then what you're left with is people who have extremely low quality lives, such as Van Dongen after he was attacked, and most of the rest of us whose quality of life is variable but not such that the question of whether we should continue our existence becomes an actual serious consideration. I was trying to identify if you saw yourself as someone whose burden was so great that your continued existence was a problem for you. And why that would be. You have a tendency to generalize outwards from your own experience using the inclusive pronoun "our" in a way that comes across as an attempt to impose your frame on others. What's your justification for that?

So, to clarify, I don't argue that the negative structural elements are there, and that we can't escape them, but do I argue against the notion that framing them as a problem that brings the value of our existence into question regardless of our current circumstances is a valid move. On the other hand, life does sometimes present real problems that no amount of framing can rid us of. In that case, we really do find ourselves in the type of situation you describe.

There are alot of seemingly inane discussion topics that i can see, some of which have nothing to even do with philosophy (such as "what are you watching right now" and "cat person.") — Gord

Neither of these topics are inane. There's a social element to the site which covers the first one and the second one is an analysis of a short story. But obviously feel free to ignore them. You can click on the "Categories" option in the left side-bar to organize your front page in such a way that off-topic discussions won't be immediately visible.

It might be better if you have this conversation with yourself. That way you can get the answer you want.

Some burdens end up becoming a form of entertainment or even work for those so burdened. The type of thing they can periodically laugh about on a philosophy forum or make money from writing books about. Some are actually serious burdens which bring into question whether a continued existence is worthwhile. Which category does your burden fall under?

We have a discipline called physics which provides a potential solution to the problem as outlined. Have a read of the papers.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.08506
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/701/1/012014/pdf

And so on.

He just said movement could be discrete. There would therefore not be an infinite number of distances to cover. Think Planck length.

I'm sorry you are having a bad experience with life and are "forced to experience stimuli to survive, maintain, restlessly move about" and suffer the "burden of continuous survival, maintenance, and entertainment". Here's someone else who had a bad experience and suffered a burden:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/17/kill-me-now-acid-attack-led-euthanasia-mark-van-dongen

"Mark van Dongen’s father was shown to the ward at Southmead hospital in Bristol where his son had been taken after suffering acid burns to his face, body and limbs at the hands of Berlinah Wallace, he thought there had been an error.
...
A doctor arrived and told him his son was in room one. “The first room I had looked in. I failed to recognise my own son. His injuries were unbelievable.”

Staff had never seen such injuries. Burns covered 25% of Van Dongen’s body and much of the damaged skin had to be surgically removed. His face was massively scarred. He lost the sight in his left eye and most in his right.

When he arrived in hospital, Van Dongen, 29, could see enough of his injuries to scream and beg: “Kill me now, if my face is going to be left looking like this, I don’t want to live.”

After the attack by Wallace, Van Dongen spent four months in a coma in intensive care, fed through a tube and only able to breathe via a ventilator. His lower left leg had to be amputated.

When he woke he only had movement in his mouth and tongue and communicated by sticking out his tongue when his father pointed to a letter on an alphabet board.

I drove straight to Gloucester. I arrived at five in the morning.” When he got out of the van, he heard screaming. “It was Mark. It didn’t stop. I was banging on the door. It opened. A woman came to the door. Mark was in the very first room at the entrance. What I saw there was horrific.”

He said his son was covered in his own faeces and distraught. “I calmed him down. I said: ‘I’m here.’ I went back to the van and fetched towels and flannels and I washed Mark. He said: ‘Dad, I’m coming with you to Belgium.’ He was scared. I said we’d work it out.”
...
He was constantly itching, I had to support his arm, try to relieve the nerve pain. There is membrane around the bones – it was full of holes, the sulphuric acid continued to burn. It was unbearable pain.”

Van Dongen underwent voluntary euthansia in the end. There's a crowd-funding campaign to help his father here:

https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/bart-vandongen?utm_id=108&utm_term=pJeNNvazv

There's an indefinite amount of context required to resolve any moral statement into an "objective" truth, and no moral principle beyond a truism (e.g. "We should always do what is right") does not admit of exceptions, so you need to pick a level of generality that's practical and run with it. Anything beyond that is a matter of faith. But this doesn't mean morality is simply "subjective" in the sense of being "whatever you want". Rather, it's inter-subjective, by necessity a matter of agreement between conscious agents that may or may not reflect some higher level of truth.

It is a nasty combination and one that can be reduced by responsible gun owners keeping their firearms locked up, securely held and our children properly trained in what to do when they see a gun, how to handle it and who to notify if you stumble across a firearm. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

But many gun owners aren't responsible. Is there a way to force them to be so short of threatening to take their guns off them?