Hi Bitter Crank. Good to know you're alive & well.

Does what Lord Kelvin (aka William Thomson) had to say about physics apply to philosophy and your example of asking what good is utilitarianism? — Bitter Crank

I'm, as mathematicians say, merely extrapolating the results.

I don't know how familiar you are with math but increasing precision in a physical law e.g. Newton's F = ma, can be done, at least I think it can be done, by making more precise measurement.

Say, m = 2 kg, a = 3 $m/s^2$

F = ma = 2 × 3 = 6 Newtons of force.

Now, if I measure the mass more precisely e.g. 2. 014 kg and I do the same thing to acceleration, a = 3.009 $m/s^2$ what I get is

F = 2.014 × 3.009 = 6.060126 Newtons

In other words, precision is a matter of inputting finer measurements into Newton's formula.

However, that's not how it actually happens in science. If I'm correct, don't bet on it. we need an entirely new formula as part of an completely novel theory/hypothesis to achieve greater precision.

Note: I'm not a scientist or a mathematician, cum grano salis.

You've completely lost me. — 180 Proof

No problemo. Here's something funny :point: 'Missing' man joins search party looking for himself!

The only deity consistent with a world (it purportedly created and sustains) ravaged by natural disasters, man-made catastrophes & self-inflicted interpersonal suffering is either a Sadist or a fiction – neither of which are worthy of worship. — 180 Proof

Evolutionarily speaking, draft and reared-for-meat animals are to be considered successful - they outnumber any wild animal, solitary or social, by a factor of at least a 100, perhaps even a 1000. The cost - short, painful lives - maybe something cattle, pigs, sheep, chicken, horses, are willing to bear so long as they can pass down their genes. — TheMadFool

The predator-prey relationship is more complex than it seems when viewed under the moral lens. I think Nietzsche had similar thoughts as me in this regard.

That said I don't endorse the view that goes I'm only torturing/killing you for your own good. If anything, it indicates a very disturbing lack of imagination even though the obviously elliptical way nature achieves balance bears the hallmark of creative genius albeit in a twisted, wicked sense. Nature is a psychopath! — TheMadFool

Now, I understand why the Buddha is, in a sense, above the gods or even God himself because the Buddha is empty or is one with sunyata i.e. the Buddha is nothing and the joke goes,

What is greater than god, more evil than the Devil, the poor have it, the rich don't need it, and if you eat it, you'll die?

The answer: Nuthin'!

It appears the sunyata is a package deal - the Buddha had to take the good with the bad!

Yes, the poor man went crazy after seeing a horse whipped too much. Empathy was very important for him. — Shawn

But I don’t want to go among mad people," Alice remarked. "Oh, you can’t help that," said the Cat: "we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad." "How do you know I’m mad?" said Alice. "You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn’t have come here. — Alice in wonderland

@schopenhauer1 - we must all be mad "or you [we] wouldn't have come here."

I defer to your better judgment 180 Proof.

Justice is not "indistinguishable" from injustice, Fool. — 180 Proof

A sentence no doubt but also more than just a sentence. :up:

Interesting biological angle. Strike the word "willing" and it would be more interesting. The same argument has been made for those humans which would, under natural circumstances, be removed from the gene pool. Whatever their malady, they may possess that one gene that gets us through some as-yet unknown or unforeseen upset. It's a form of intraspecific diversity.

In the end, though, domestic animals have a dependence upon us such that if we ever wipe ourselves out, they probably won't last long in competition with those of the ilk from which they descended. They might make a good meal for them, though.

There could be exceptions, and interbreeding between domestic and wild, but since they have, like us, left off the honing of edges on hard surfaces, the majority won't be worth much to themselves. The jury is still out on us. It's only been a few hundred thousand years. Hardly long enough to have back-slapping party. — James Riley

The predator-prey relationship is more complex than it seems when viewed under the moral lens. I think Nietzsche had similar thoughts as me in this regard.

That said I don't endorse the view that goes I'm only torturing/killing you for your own good. If anything, it indicates a very disturbing lack of imagination even though the obviously elliptical way nature achieves balance bears the hallmark of creative genius albeit in a twisted, wicked sense. Nature is a psychopath!

Evolutionarily speaking, draft and reared-for-meat animals are to be considered successful - they outnumber any wild animal, solitary or social, by a factor of at least a 100, perhaps even a 1000. The cost - short, painful lives - maybe something cattle, pigs, sheep, chicken, horses, are willing to bear so long as they can pass down their genes.

Nirvana is the complete cessation of suffering. — baker

There's more.

One ounce of evidence for God, becomes one ounce of evidence of our guilt.
— Bartricks
Thus, Onan self-flagellates ...

The only deity consistent with a world (it purportedly created and sustains) ravaged by natural disasters, man-made catastrophes & self-inflicted interpersonal suffering is either a Sadist or a fiction – neither of which are worthy of worship.
— 180 Proof — 180 Proof

:up: Keep it coming, keep it coming!

I just want to bounce something off of you. Have you ever noticed how justice and evil seem indistinguishable? They employ the same method - inflicting pain and causing suffering, That means, it isn't necessarily the case that the suffering extant in the world is evil, it could be justice.

@schopenhauer1

From what I know, we have a "better", comparatively exquisite in detail, description of hell in religion than heaven. Take any religion, any religion at all and look up hell, you'll see what I'm talking about. It's as if we're more familiar with suffering than joy. Religions tend to be very vague on what heaven is like. Most simply claim that it's a place of eternal happiness and if, like me, you were expecting a higher resolution image of what that actually looks like, I'm sorry to say, you'll be sorely disappointed. That in itself is a hell of its own kind.

How does what I said relate to torture? We know how to inflict pain but, relatively speaking, we're clueless about how to bring joy. This is problem number 1 for humanity.

All I can remember about the so-called 1% is that they cause more environmental damage than the rest of us bottom-feeders. However, I don't know how exactly; the Devil, as we all know, is in the details.

I like Parmenides, especially because he was the first Greek philosopher - as per Wikipedia - to have made nothing a subject of study.

Ex nihilo nihil fit (nothing comes from nothing. — Parmenides

Since ex nihilo nihi fit, Parmenides rejected becoming; after all becoming implies an initial stage of nonbeing which in Parmenides universe is either nothing or too close it for comfort.

Hence, Parmenides endorsed eternalism but then how do we explain aging of men, women and children, the flux of rivers, motion, the ripening of fruits, seasons, day & night, and so on? "Simple," says Parmenides and his disciple Zeno, "change is an illusion." It has to be, right?

What's fascinating is how Parmenides and Heraclitus contradicted each other. The latter claimed that change is the only constant. For Heraclitus, panta rhea.

Most philosophers and that includes Socrates, Plato, et al were, my hunch is, uncomfortable with the Heraclitean position because it has sophist written all over it. After all, to a philosopher veritas numquam perit (truth never expires or, positively rendered, truth is eternal). Given this view of truth is non-negotiable to a philosopher, Parmenides, for the reason that he subscribed to eternalism, was viewed as toeing the official line and thus favored.

Grotta del Cane & Nirvana. Expect the $CO_2$ situation to worsen in the coming century. Avalokiteshvara, the thousand-armed one, did make a promise.

You can refer to objects with words--say "Cat" when you see a cat; the use here could be naming, or identifying, or seeing. But this will not tell us anything about a cat's essence (what is essential to us about them) other than it is an object that can be seen, identified, and named (though even as: Fluffy). — Antony Nickles

Why not? A cat is a domesticated small species of feline. These are the essences of a cat. By the way naming is an act of referring.

That said, there is a certain interpretation of Wittgenstein I've warmed up to viz. philosophy, all discourse in fact, is simply symbolic manipulation, including but not limited to logic reminiscent of Searle's Chinese Room. Nobody understands a word they're saying is my point à la Wittgenstein's ladder.

What's inexplicable though is much like how we have no clue as to the existence of free will and still feel, our world is structured accordingly, we do possess free will, we have what could be described as an illusion of understanding.

Human activities have increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, amplifying Earth's natural greenhouse effect.
— www.climate.gov

Does hypercapnia (carbon dioxide poisoning) explain the chaos apparent in the world today?

Hypercapnia may happen in the context of an underlying health condition, and symptoms may relate to this condition or directly to the hypercapnia. Specific symptoms attributable to early hypercapnia are dyspnea (breathlessness), headache, confusion and lethargy.
— Wikipedia

Are climate deniers and all others who are in a state of confusion (the whole world basically) suffering from CO2 poisoning? :chin: — TheMadFool

Cave Of Dogs

The Plant Paradox Of Climate Change

Switching to a plant-based diet can help fight climate change, according to a major report by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which says the West's high consumption of meat and dairy is fuelling global warming. — BBC

The reason why we're in this mess (climate change) is because we've neglected the plant kingdom (deforestation). One way out of the climate crisis is to eat plants.

:chin:

@Banno@tim wood

Perhaps you're taking the notion of skepticism too far, so far that it begins to appear nonsensical. There's a kind of specious armchair skepticism which says that everything is debatable, but it cuts the ground out from under its own feet. There are things that can't be doubted - the painfulness of pain would be a good start. Attach a strong paper-clip to your earlobe, and then debate the point — Wayfarer

:lol: Now, I see why :point:

Pains occupy a distinct and vital place in the philosophy of mind for several reasons. One is that pains seem to collapse the appearance/reality distinction. If an object appears to you to be red it might not be so in reality, but if you seem to yourself to be in pain you must be so: there can be no case here of seeming at all. — Wikipedia (Private Language Argument - Ludwig Wittgenstein)

It's as if pain makes it real.

See below the definition of have to pinch yourself

Used for saying that you do not believe that something good that is happening to you is real

Example: I had to pinch myself to make sure I wasn’t dreaming.

Why is this so? What's so special, so real about pain?

Perhaps because pain and what it heralds, death, both negate existence, they can be taken to confirm an existence that's being negated.

@schopenhauer1 Reality is painful (antinatalism).

:chin:

Omnibenevolence does not stand in the way of free will. — Tobias

So nature has no bearing on our freedom? I believe Schopenhauer said something to the effect that we had no choice on the matter of what type/kind of personality we are. Benevolence or goodness is God's nature is it not?

Suicide?

Don’t let the language mislead; “discover” can also apply to a state/ condition or substance that we have “created”. Ie. I “discovered how to manifest” discovered and invented are very similar — Benj96

So, we create knowldege? :chin: Hmmmm...

Spending too much time on Internet forums, probably — Wayfarer

Probably? How exactly?

If God decides to relinquish one of the Os is he still God? — khaled

I thought once you lose an essence, you stop being that which the essence is a feature of. So, once you're not a wolf, and you aren't domesticated, you stop being a dog. In short an undomesticated non-wolf is a dog is nonsensical.

Is it? Which bit? — Bartricks

Sorry, you'll have to figure that out yourself. I'm :confused:, remember?

Then you're neither Pyrrhonist nor skeptic. And yours seems a question lacking sense. Can you put any of its feet somewhere on the ground? — tim wood

How am I not a Pyrrhonist or a skeptic when I doubt the existence of the evident? Perhaps I'm taking the notion of skepticism too far, so far that it begins to appear nonsensical. Can you explain how that happens?

Bart Bot minds. What was the meaning of your question? — Bartricks

Your claim is debatable, that's all.

I do not understand your question. — Bartricks

Never mind!

What helped them decide? it's not clear to me they either needed help or made a decision. Do you decide to believe the floor is under your feet when yo swing them out of bed in the morning? — tim wood

All I'm saying is I doubt the reality of the evident.

Appearance. (Try reading the OP again; the substance of it is from the book referenced.) — tim wood

We're going round in circles. I question the claim that there are evident things.

If everything flows from omnipotence then how come this:

We've arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces. — Carl Sagan (The Demon-Haunted World)

What about this too :point: Lex Luthor (evil genius)?

My impression is that trust itself would not be part of any question. — tim wood

What then helps you decide whether to believe a given claim or not? Perhaps there's a distinction to be made between trust simpliciter and trust won.

Suicide?

God & Free will Paradox

One of the main reasons why we doubt our free will is our nature - our preferences not something we chose.

God is seen as having a nature viz. benevolence, in fact God's omnibenevolent. No free will!

However, God's also omnipotent i.e. he can defy his nature. Free will!

The paradox: God has free will (omnipotent) & God doesn't have free will (omnibenevolent)

Update

1. Having a headache: An experience, private but with public physical correlates (frowning, rubbing the temple region, etc.)

2. I have a headache: A report of a headache (1). It is a proposition, the conclusion of the following argument:

a) I have a sensation in my head.
b) The sensation in my head is called a headache
Ergo,
c) I have a headache (from a, b)

It looks like I have a headache = I (know) I have a headache.

:smile:

These philosophers were unique in the West in consciously not developing belief about nonevident matters, pro or con. Such beliefs, they maintained, being about things nonevident, could not be substantiated, and so remained unstable and open to challenge from competing beliefs.... Beliefs about things nonevident therefore were to be avoided, they recommended, and their philosophy addressed how this was to be achieved" (1). — tim wood

I concur!

Nonevident matters bad; evident matters good, apparently. — tim wood

:up: Well put!

there is no reason to assume that appearances have to be explained; instead they themselves can become the principles of explanation. This is the 'Copernican revolution' — tim wood

:up:

Appearances are just the involuntary objects of consciousness, objects "not as abstract concepts, such as substances, forms, matter, etc., but rather as distinct pathai, like the sight of a tree, the taste of a lemon, or the dread that follows rejection" (75). — tim wood

:up:

On the evident, (from Against the Logicians, Sextus): there are four distinct classes of objects [pragmata, or facts]... 1) things manifestly evident, 2) things absolutely nonevident, 3) things naturally nonevident, and 4) things temporarily nonevident.

1) Things manifest are just the appearances themselves, sensations and thoughts
2) Things absolutely nonevident are "the things never to be presented to human apprehension"
3) Naturally nonevident things are those incapable of clear presentation to perception. "The soul, for instance, is one of the things naturally nonevident; for such is its nature that it never presents itself to our clear perception"
4) Temporarily nonevident are just those things but for circumstance are not manifestly evident, like the books in the library when you're in the kitchen (93-94). — tim wood

Excelente! Count me in, Pyrrho!

"Appearances constitute a reality;.. they resist, under the questioning of Pyrrhonists,.. resolution into any other reality.... Indeed, appearance appears as its own reality, provided we accept it just as the peculiar reality that it is.... But if we seek to explain appearance as a function of some... synthesis, or anything else, then it becomes... a secondary function of more basic factors, of other criteria, which are themselves beyond appearances as such, and so necessarily nonevident" (75). — tim wood

Pyrrhonism is not skepticism. Skeptics doubt. Pyrrhonists believe. — tim wood

Whoa! Hang on!

Of the non-evident, I believe we're on the same page - Pyrrhonists would withhold belief. However, for someone (a Pyrrhonist) who makes such a big deal of the non-evident how evident would be the evident? If I don't trust my enemies, how much trust do I have in my friends?

The standard albeit controversial definition of knowledge requires belief i.e. there has to be an intelligent being (read observer). Ergo, reality defined in terms of knowledge requires an observer. We discover knowledge i.e. knowledge pre-existed us - is there a god?

But why make Frankenstein go through it in the first place? Careless and didn’t think it through. — schopenhauer1

Frankenstein was, in some sense, a natalist - he was, at the end of the day, father to the "wretch" and it (the "wretch") was the culmination of his life-long passion to give life.

Plus, the "wretch", despite the abject misery of his condition, wished to live on.

This is the paradox: Life is misery but people still want to live. Absurdism: our desire for meaning in a meaningless universe.

This just feels like we're going around in circles. — T Clark

Gravity is dangerous. It makes us go round in circles.

By the way, people seem to enjoy merry-go-rounds! Odd that! :chin: