That is pungent, short, and puzzling....but I have no clue what the moral of the story is. Could you elaborate?

Is it that we should strive to push ourselves beyond our limits (viz., to avoid the comforts of joining a club which we already qualify for the hard work required to join one we don't)?

Good questions.

First, I want to note that an aphorism is meant to be pungent, short, and puzzling. The point is to simplify a proverb down into a thought-provoking sentence, which will cause one to think about it more deeply exactly the way you are. (:

Second, let’s dive into its meaning.

Drinking salt water is ok, assuming the concentration is low, but maybe we are intended to think of someone who is drinking only sea water as opposed to broth, which is a death sentence. Drinking salt water is ok if you have the means to dilute with fresh water in alternation.

The immediate point is that salt water doesn’t quench one’s thirst—not that it may kill you. Hope is the same way: when you are really thirsty—perhaps when stranded on a boat—it is really tempting to see the salty water as a viable solution, but the more you drink it the more it slowly causes more of the issue needing to be solved. Hope, schopenhauer famously stated, is the confusion of the possibility of something with its probability: it to latch onto something in a manner where it is despite its probability being disproportionate thereto.

When we are in despair, we tend to see hope as a viable antidote—a solution to the problem—just like using salt water to quench one’s thirst; but, in reality, it is contributing to the problem. How so? The problem, the Stoic would say, is that the person is discontent with what is outside of their control; and the attachment thereto is causing their mind a disturbance—viz., from which the ‘problem’ arises in the first place needing to be solved—and procuring hope only temporarily alleviates the problem by consoling the person swiftly but making them, so to speak, thirstier. Hope just makes a person more attached to what is not in their control, which adds fuel to that fire of discontent. The Stoic is going to say that it would be better—and a real solution—to detach from what is outside of one’s control and to work towards whatever one wishes with respect to what is within their control.

The important thing to note here is that the Stoics are talking about ‘hope’ as an irrational passion because it only arises when one is irrationally attached. They are not claiming that one cannot be wishful of the future—just that one needs to equally detached from what is outside of their control and they must be able to size up the probability of it occurring properly. Most instances of hope are not like this: they are, instead, irrational fits of emotion.

I think in some of what you mentioned, you are just using the term ‘hope’ in the sense of merely wishing or desiring; and that is not what is meant by ‘hope’ here. Hope, traditionally, is more than a mere wish—it is more than a mere desire—: it is much stronger than that.

I think about this all the time. There's a news article I read (probably 20 years ago) about some military official watching a bomb-clearing robot work it's way through a practice field. After watching the robot get blown up repeatedly and then crawling pathetically toward the next bomb, he said to stop the test. He couldn't stand to watch it anymore. Fast forward ten years from now and we have lifelike robots as intelligent as we are. What are we going to think when someone uploads a video of themself torturing/raping some childlike robot while it begs him to stop? I think we'll have laws protecting them.

Yeah, I agree. People don't tend to be good: they are only as "good" as they have been conditioned to be and their environment allows. Most people think that human beings have rights just because they are humans and they only believe it because their conscience---the conscience of their ancestors---screams out for it.

We are already seeing immoral acts with robots, and it is only going to get worse. I saw a video of someone who bought a tesla robot and had it watch the part of the iRobots movie where one of the robots gets executed: the tesla robot was visibly haunted.

The worst part of it is that AI is being development for the purpose of slavery; and is being advertised exactly for that (although there are other purposes too). Eventually, e.g., we are going to have prominent adds of buying a robot for household chores.

No I didn't: your OP denies the existence of consciousness. I quoted it...unless by "subjective experience" you didn't mean consciousness. Is that what you are saying?

I really don't mind if you want to keep discussing them in here: I just was pointing out that they are not aphorisms: they were quotes that you like, which is fine.

It is a tall order for sure; but that doesn't mean people shouldn't strive towards it. Everyone can do it: it just takes hard work and practice. I still struggle with this, and that is why it is one of my aphorisms I rehearse.

@frank

A super-duper slave.

I am predicting that we are going to reinvent slavery with AI; since it is feasible that, although they are not conscious, these sophisticated AIs will be sufficiently rational and free in their willing to constitute persons, and I don't think humanity is going to accept that they thereby have rights.

People don't have subjective experiences.

This is patently false; and confused consciousness with sentience and (perhaps) awareness. An AI does not have conscious experience even if they are sentient in the sense that they have awareness.

The solution here, apparently, in this OP to the hard problem of consciousness is to radically deny the existence of consciousness in the first place; which, I for one, cannot muster up the faith to accept when it is readily available to me introspectively that it does exist.

While there is plenty of suffering that might be avoidable if one could muster the courage/will to act rationally, there is plenty of suffering that is not avoidable.

The aphorism doesn’t say all suffering is avoidable: it says all suffering is a choice. Suffering is not reducible to the pain or torment of the body: it is, rather, attachment to something by the mind in such a manner where the mind wants it to be other than it is (or is going to be).

Ironically, I’ve found that most people don’t understand this until they end up with relentless and persistent suffering from some sort of trauma (and still many don’t realize it then too). Usually when I explain to someone that I have experienced being in extreme pain and physical unwellness for long periods of time in absolutely relentless manners while being completely at peace in my mind; it sounds absurd and almost unimaginable to them—nevertheless, that state can be achieved.

If you think about it, suffering can only coherently be posited in this way—unlike pain; for two people with the same exact injury can suffer different amounts, and one person with a lesser injury can suffering tremendously more than a person with a greater injury. The mind’s attachment to what is happening—of not properly sizing up the situation and remaining irrationally attached to that which is outside of its control or outside of what will happen—is what generates the mental torment.

The point of the aphorism to make a person aware that suffering—unlike pain—is always in their control; and that they can choose to properly shape their mind to be unaffected by (or only affected in a healthy manner towards) problems of the body.

It is also worth mentioning that suffering can be chosen in a manner where it is a good thing; which relates to the other aphorism about the tree striving towards heaven. We must volunteer to suffer to become great; and this is the other aspect of the aphorism that is powerful.

:up:

:up:

Those are good: keep them coming. I like the "there are no antirealists in foxholes" :lol: :ok:

The tree which strives towards heaven must send its roots to hell. — Bob Ross

This one gave me a chill.

Yeah, it is one of my favorites. It stems from Jung and, in turn, from Nietzsche. The idea is that suffering and happiness are intertwined insofar as one has to be willing to suffer proportionately for what is good. We tend—or at least I tend—to forget this and think that what is good involves avoiding suffering. Nietzsche tries—many times—to break us out of that line of thinking—being that it is anti-thetical to natural life—in his works. I like to remember this every day so that I am more likely to embrace the suffering—no matter how small—I must go through to become greater.

Needing a knife that is sharper than a knife is a sign of irrationality. — Bob Ross

Yet this one escapes me.

Yeah, that one isn’t too amazing; but I have it in there because I have a tendency to be like Kafka’s metamorphic creature in Der Bau: reason—and specifically my personality—tends to gravitate towards an irrational sense of security and absoluteness which cannot be afforded in real life. Kafka’s point—by my lights—was that reason tends to want something so incredibly secure that it is impossibly secure; and I just basically modified it to target my personality such that my soul wants a knife (for self-preservation) that is sharper than any knife—which is patently irrational and impossible. It serves as a reminder for me to let go of that OCD urge.

It can basically be it's own 6-tenet religion.

:up:

(though I perhaps would have worded that last one as: "Pain is not a choice, suffering is." -- just to give it some context that might be otherwise easily missed or dismissed)

This is fair and a good point. Personally, I like to force myself to think a bit about it by having to decrypt the message; but you are absolutely right that your version is more clear. I will add that as an additional version to the OP. Good suggestion!

I don't mind what you do with your previous post: I am just letting you know that most of them are not aphorisms and this OP is a list of aphorisms.

I am going to read the Politics and then get back to you: I don't believe I've read that, or if I have then I don't remember it, and so that's probably the issue here.

It's a good one for sure. I also like the Stoic one about man suffering in the imagination more than reality: same idea.

I appreciate you sharing your favorites, but most of those are NOT aphorisms. An aphorism is a short and concise statement that contains a general maxim or expression. Most of yours are just long paragraph quotes.

That's a good point: I am open to people bringing to the table their favorite aphorisms and if I think it is worthy then I will add it to the list in the OP. I'll update the OP accordingly.

If that's what it boils down to, then I prefer civic nationalism myself.

I agree.

I believe in continentalism, because I think that continentalism is to the continent what nationalism is to the nation. Non-Europeans and Non-North-Americans (what you call "The West", which is now a "global thing") would do better to just embrace Europeism and Northamericanism (respectively) instead of imperialism (and, of course, Europeans should embrace Europeism instead of imperialism, and North Americans should embrace Northamericanism instead of imperialism, as well).

I don’t understand what that would mean in the context of the values currently shared in North America or Europe. It seems to me that the West has it better than the East; but there’s lots of petty disputes in the West about different topics.

As for Western Supremacy, I don't believe in that concept, because I don't believe in Eastern Supremacy either, nor do I believe in Northern Supremacy, nor do I believe in Southern Supremacy.

So you think cultures are just different, not inferior or superior?

Sounds good: take your time :smile:

You said that you believe that you have good reasons to believe that the Absolute exists, but not that you have good reasons to believe in the sense that Hegel means it. I then asked what good reasons you have for believing the Absolute exists in this non-Hegelian sense; and you answered that you mean the Absolute in the Hegelian sense. :roll:

If you can't reconcile or acknowledge that blatant contradiction, then this conversation is over. My patience is running thin with you, my friend.

Not quite. I have good reasons to believe that the Absolute exists, and I acknowledge that. What I don't have, which I also acknowledge is that I lack good reasons to believe that the Absolute in the Hegelian sense exists.
…
Right, here's the problem: I mean the same thing that Hegel meant

This is a contradiction; and makes no sense at all. You can't say you believe in X sans a Hegelian interpretation (and that you have good reasons for it) and then turn around and say X is the Hegelian interpretation (which has no good reasons for it).

I am now thoroughly convinced you are either a sophist or incapable of admitting that you clearly cannot explain any of the concepts that you believe in. This is turning into the same problem we had with the fact that you don't know what "factiality" means...

:up:

I haven't read your guys' entire exchange, but based off of my horrible interactions with @Arcane in this thread I can guess how it went down. Either way, I don't know why @Arcane keeps quoting that given the real irony is that @Arcane originally told me I was too nice and to tone it down; and then, when I did, they said I am too mean :lol:

You give me green stop-sign vibes @Arcane. **sigh**

Sorry @Leontiskos, somehow my response didn't get recognized by this forum as an actual response to your comment (and thusly not notifying you). Here's my response: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/958145 . I must have accidentally forgot to click the reply button before typing.

Not quite. I have good reasons to believe that the Absolute exists, and I acknowledge that. What I don't have, which I also acknowledge is that I lack good reasons to believe that the Absolute in the Hegelian sense exists.

Ah, I think this is the confusion between us: I just want to know what you are meaning by the Absolute and not Hegel. I want to know what this "Absolute" is of which you clearly affirm you have good reasons to believe in, and what those good reasons are. Could you please elaborate on that for me?

:up:

I like to think that I have about the normal number of friends and acquaintances. There’s about 30 people I’m in regular contact with, and almost all are people like me, directly connected to the arts in some way.

I would challenge this: maybe I am off here, but I don't think most people have thirty people they regular are with that share in their deep interests. Don't get me wrong: that's impressive, Rob! Good for you!

I often wonder, what makes a person interested in philosophy? What is it about them that draws them to read, study and discuss philosophy?

I think most people engage in philosophy when something catastrophic in their life forces them to (in order to cope). Maybe I am too cynical, but I don't think most people look to poetry, art, truth, and wisdom too keenly with an extreme invested interest unless they are going through some serious internal battles.

On the other hand, if you are wondering not why the average person might get interested in it (and why they tend not to be interested at all) but, rather, why the people prominent in philosophy (as a hobby or profession) tend to be interested in it; then I think you are right to point out that they tend to be introverted, analytic, intelligent, socially-awkward and have a yearning for wisdom.

I can tell you right now I got sucked in naturally because I am kind of autistic, socially awkward, extremely introverted, analytic, brutally honest (with myself), and I yearn for absolute truth. I cannot live without doing philosophy, just as much as I cannot live without eating....in all seriousness.

I don't accept that rationality comes in degrees; but I understand what you are saying. So let's go back to your original point:

No, I don't have a firm grasp of what it [The Absolute] is. I don't think anyone does. I don't think Hegel did either, for that matter.

My point was that you seem to acknowledge that you lack good reasons to believe that the Absolute exists; so why do you believe in it?

Your original response was that people irrationally believe in things all the time; and that is justifiable. Now we agree that isn't true, so are you saying you have good reasons to believe it such that you are some degree rational in believing it? If so, what are those good reasons?

I apologize: I forgot to respond.

The other textbook example is the one about swans

I would say that they were justified in believing that Swans were all white until they had sufficient counter-evidence to refute the evidence they had. The thing with induction is that the more the occurrence, the higher the (bayesian) probability that it is true. Again, you have to argue not that they were wrong but, rather, that they were irrational for believing it prior to seeing a black swan. What’s the argument you have for it?

This is the same problem that gamblers have. Gamblers have to rely on inductive reasoning. Even the blackjack players that can count cards have this problem.

No. You are confusing induction with abduction: the former is when there is a sheer repetition in results such that a correlation is derived (which may or may not be causal at all) (e.g., expecting to get slapped if you pick up the lolipop because your mom has slapped you a ton in the past for it, seeing the sun rise and expecting it to rise tomorrow, etc.) where abduction is reasoning about evidence which you have by making inferences which do not necessarily hold (e.g., she committed the murder because she was there at the time caught holding the bloody knife used in the stabbing, he’s probably just in the bathroom because I heard him talking someone about having to go, etc.).

Gamblers are usually abducing, and abducing, at that, in irrational ways. E.g., the average gambler doesn’t count cards; and they just expect to win even though the probability is severely low: they have an irrational expectation to win.

Good gamblers aren’t just abducing: they are deducing. E.g., card games can be counted and their strict probabilities calculated.

Most imortantly, neither tend to induce. E.g., most people don’t walk into a casino and see a certain bet always win repeatedly a 1000 times and then decide to make that same bet.

So, I guess my argument is that having the justification for some beliefs is a matter of degrees

You were arguing that it is irrational; which is not implied by arguing that beliefs have different credence levels. Are you changing your position, and agreeing with me that induction isn’t irrational? If not, then what argument do you have to the contrary?

What would be your honest answer to that problem?

Good question. I don’t think Hume’s problem of induction holds any weight: I think he gave an interesting, radical, and skepticistic perspective—but at the end of the day it is a self-refuting position (in terms of his entire pure empiricist position).

Specifically with the problem of induction, it is no longer a problem if we do not allow ourselves to be absolutely certain of anything induced or abduced. At the end of the day, all Hume is really noting, IMHO, is that we cannot be completely confident of these forms of logical inference; but that doesn’t mean that we aren’t justified in having good reasons to conditionally believe things through induction or abduction.

Let’s take your example:

Can I guarantee that the Sun will rise tomorrow?

Of course not: does this mean that you don’t have good reasons to believe it will rise tomorrow? Of course not. You are arguing that, somehow, the ample evidence you have for the Sun rising every morning—of the sheer regularity of experience and of nature—is not good evidence that the Sun will rise tomorrow ceteris paribus; and I don’t see why one should believe that.

Of course not. But we shouldn't throw common sense in the trash bin just because it's not infallible.

I agree insofar as radical skepticism doesn’t work.

Thanks for letting me know! Although I know you think I have not found the appropriate mean between niceness and meanness, the silver-lining to honesty is that you know I really mean it when I compliment you. The OP is much better than before.

I am going to refrain from commenting further on the OP because I do not think we will have any productive conversations in here.

If you ever do figure out what 'factiality' refers to, then let me know: I would be interested to hear what the concept is trying to get at.

I wish you the best of luck,
Bob

So, ethics, under your view, is a personal habit? It doesn't hold absolute binding force when propositionalized? (e.g., "I should not be obese" is just true for me personally, but not for anyone in the same circumstances and of the same nature as me)

which are not limited to or by those norms.

Could you give an example where the "community policy" is not underpinned by "interpersonal conduct" (so that I can understand where you are coming from)?

That's fair; but I don't think most people would agree with you, and, beyond that, even if they did, one should hold only justified beliefs (I would say). Kierkegaard is a radical example: in most versions of Theism, there is a recognition that one has good reasons to believe in God but that also they have to have faith in God because they cannot explain all of it. My only point is that one must have good reasons, if it be just in the sense that they think they are good, in order to be justified in believing something. Wouldn't you agree?

EDIT: Also, when you speak of Nietzsche, the way he talks about being irrational is really more about 'arationality' than irrationality (viz., being beyond the purview of rationality vs. violating rationality).

Most Theists would not say that they lack good reasons to believe. What you are describing here is something that is irrational: you are saying that one is justified in believing X when they know they are unjustified in believing X.

Yes. Why would one be justified in holding belief in X if they recognize that they have no good reasons to believe X?

In accord with your response, I think it is best we agree to disagree and move on from this thread: this discussion is wholly unproductive (for the both of us).

I do want to clarify that nothing I have said is in any way violating the forum guidelines, I am not evangelizing anyone, and I have no intention of inciting an emotional reaction out of you. I cannot stress enough, that I was being properly polite at the beginning and you made fun of me for it; and now that I am being more plain, you charge me with impoliteness! Anyways, water under the bridge.

My original and main point in joining this thread despite knowing nothing about the book, is that the ideas expressed in the OP were not directed—ironically—at the book and of which I can provide food-for-thought. It turns out, that the OP is so disorganized—which violates the very guidelines you mentioned—that it gives false impressions.

My biggest issue is not the informality of the OP (as we’ve all been there) but, rather, that you clearly don’t understand the basic building-block concepts of your own OP; and, as I mentioned before, is the source of a lot of the issues you wish to resolve. I don’t say that to be mean: it is easy to tell when someone is not very familiar with the subject because they give nothing but vague notions and muddied explanations. I suspect you appreciate to some extent what I am saying here; because you say this OP is for “exploration”.

I wish the best of luck for you in this thread; and hopefully by the end of it you will actually know what factiality means :wink:

Bob

I see what you are saying now, but it seems merely semantical. Isn't this "interpersonal conduct" that you are referring to underpin the "community policy"? Or are they completely disparate areas of ethics?

That's how science works, Bob

Philosophy is not science.

ou imagine a hypothesis, which is a claim about some thing or feature of the world, and then you investigate that claim to see if it's true. You don't have to believe the claim yourself. If you did, it wouldn't even be a hypothesis to being with. It would be something else, like justified true belief, for example.

Sure, but science requires the scientific method; which, in turn, requires a positive verification of the hypothesis through strict experimentation. We are not doing that in philosophy; and we can’t. In fact, science presupposes philosophical principles and ideas to begin with….

That being said, let's take a look at Meillassoux's definition of the word "facticity"
…
“Let us go back to Kant….”

What you quoted was about how to properly understand the a priori forms of our understanding; and how that relates to things-in-themselves. It was not a description nor depiction of what Meillasoux means by a fact. I asked you what a fact is, and you gave me an instance where Meillassoux use’s the concept of a fact to talk about Kant vs. Hegel—do you see the problem?

Let us try to attain a better grasp of the nature of this facticity,
…
Facticity is the 'un-reason'

It sounds like Meilassoux might be claiming that facts are grounded, in part, in the a priori modes by which we cognize; and thusly is taking a Kantian approach.

My problem is that you clearly don’t know what they mean by facticity; because you still haven’t given me a clear (or even vague) definition.

Here, I’ll go first. A fact, by my lights, is a statement about reality which corresponds appropriately to what it references about reality; and thusly I accept a version of correspondence theory of truth. What do you mean by facticity? What does Meilassoux mean by facticity?

So Bob, you see why these debates are not restricted to formal mereology. There are of interest and relevance to metaphysics, as I've hoped to have shown.

I agree mereology is important; and I would say it is a branch of philosophy—specifically metaphysics.

God damn, that's a hard question. What do you want from me, Bob? You just want to "beat the metaphysical truth out of me, whatever that metaphysical truth might happen to be". I mean, it feels like intellectual torture, "mate".

This is how philosophy works, lol. I want to know what you believe and why you believe it. E.g., I would go for a physical substrate—as a physicalist myself—and no other substrates. This is important because once you posit two it gets zesty.

I have no idea, I'd have to think about it. See my comment above.

Hegel’s concept of the truth being the whole of negativity and reality is the closest I’ve got to whatever you are trying to say. For Hegel, subjectivity is inherently negativity—it isn’t real, but rather negates what is real. So there’s the real and there’s the negativity that negates it; and both makeup the totality of what exists. Hence Hegel’s triad of negativity, reality, and totality.

I am going to be honest, I don't think you know what 'The Absolute' means (based off of the fact that you can't explain it at all); and I therefore don't think you have good reasons to believe it exists. No offense meant.