Ironically, Neo had to take a magic pill to open his mind to the possibility that his reality might not be what it seemed to his brainwashed senses. Where can we find such pill in our own Matrix? :wink: — Gnomon

The red pill is a metaphor for the willingness/desire for knowledge no matter what the cost.

Are people in heaven free? — Art48

Good question. Could it be that those who make the cut are the ones who choose good over evil? A selective breeding program, si? Free will? :chin: Hmmmm.

The cost of freedom is evil.

This seems a futile dance. It's okay if you prefer asking questions to answering them. — universeness

Sorry, but it's not your fault.

Stupidity is underrated. Its value is amply demonstrated by it persistence and dissemination in the gene pool. It's as if mother nature's mantra is keep 'em stupid or else ... they'll find out (life's as pointless as it's painful).

I appreciate the suggestion, but I am interested in some details, not yes/no responses. — universeness

Are lies, illusions (deception) dangerous?

suicide — Athena

It's that bad, eh?

You could start by answering the question — universeness

We should conduct a poll.

Do you? — universeness

We should conduct a poll.

Should we fear being led down the garden path? Should we fear illusions? Should we fear lies?

An Appeal to Fear

Do you think 'good' modern philosophers have a responsibility to protect people from such or teach them ways to defend themselves against such? — universeness

I don't know. Some have graciously stepped up to the plate, offered their services for free. Skeptics like the late The Amazing Randi have made significant contributions to critical thinking; atheists like Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, the late Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins too have made a mark in that arena. Scientists like Neil deGrasse Tyson have been more reserved in their criticism of bad ideas, preferring to defend rather than attack.

Is this thread about Jordan Peterson specifically? He's human and part of being human is to err. It's just that his worldwide audience makes his mistakes, if acted upon, extremely dangerous. Mind you, I'm not saying his philosophy is flawed in any way. I'm not qualified enough for that task. Plus, people may simply be using Mr. Peterson as an echo chamber, just to validate what they're already convinced of. If so, Mr. Peterson is blameless for he's not giving people ideas, they're already infected with toxic memes. Am I on topic or have I gone off on a tangent? Apologies if in order.

Indeed, you are right!

I am not surprised you bracketed (true). Do many philosophers act out of character? or are many philosophers, past and present, merely characters and some even more accurately described as caricatures. — universeness

There is nothing in philosophy that could make a novice or a veteran in the subject a fanatic and you need to be one to find brinkmanship appealing.

You mean to say philosophy is a luxury item? Some would argue that it's an esssential item.

Without incentives, mediocrity. With incentives, paywalls. Lose-lose! :sad:

I think we have relied on tools from the very beginning. In fact, that, along with social and linguistic forces, were factors in the development of our cognition/brains/neocortex/etc. It is not just that we rely on these tools, but it is what these tools create.. estrangement.

One side--- Estrangement of the minutia of the tools themselves
Other side--- Estrangement from the minutia of the tools themselves.

There is no win here. 011001010110 to you sir. Now I have to go back to mongering more minutia so we can all live and see the world turn.

I mean look at some of the other topics here that you are no doubt posting on.. Propositional Calculus. Enough said. — schopenhauer1

Estrangement, yep, tools, although they make life easier for us also distance us from reality and living. Without 'em we become aliens in our own home planet, barely able to survive, on the path to fanā (annihilation). This, as I hinted, is an evil omen. :snicker:

P. S. What about my posts on Propositional Calculus?

How do we develop our consciousness and self-awareness?

By using a combination of ratchets & pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps of course! :snicker:

(Subject)ivity vs. (Object)ivity. The meanings of these two concepts are evident when you study their etymology, oui mon ami? The former is of the subject viz. you, me, us and the latter is of the object viz. the thing that's under examination.

Whatevs. Bedtime. — GLEN willows

Sweet dreams.

Oh please... — GLEN willows

Your double reply threw me off. :grin:

It would depend on what one means by nothing and real. It's quite fascinating although not unexpected that at those scales of reality, there's confusion as to what's real and what's not.

A (true) philosopher wouldn't resort to brinkmanship - it's out of character.

I suppose so.

Yeah, we havta make up our minds what to do.

Again, you've lost me. — 180 Proof

Apologies, unintended.

Just look at the truth table.

Anyway, you didn't use RAA. — TonesInDeepFreeze

:chin:

I don't know where you're going with this.

Philosophical brinkmanship as in calling for change/belief ... at any cost? That would be terrible indeed!

So we eat in silence! :up:

First off, congratulations for seeing what very few people do. Your committment to pessimism is worthy of a standing ovation. Did you notice, how some folks make such a big deal out of tool use - we consider it one of humanity's greatest achievements. For your information there are 6 simple machines viz. the ramp, the wheel, the pulley, the lever, the screw, and the wedge. Anyway, the asset has now become a liability, oui mon ami? We're now totally dependent on machines/tools even for the smallest of tasks i.e. they've become critical to our survival. This doesn't bode well for us and for this reason I second your Gloomy Gus attitude.

We must transmute water into wine! That's what we need to do!

All power is equal? Why then is there evil in the world?

I think "the best = the least worst". How could it not? — 180 Proof

What you desire and what you settle for are two different things. Nevertheless, we could say best = least worst and that, my friend, is how the evil genius plays with us.

What's the evidence for pessimism?

Power asymmetry, oui mon ami?

I see what you're getting at. Nevertheless, philosophers have been thinking about (moral) luck.

Jainism has two intriguing concepts.

1. Anekantavada (no-one-sidedness): A claim can be true, but only so under one/more conditions. Remove/alter these conditions and it ceases to be true. The word "syād" or "syat" meaning maybe/perhaps prefaces all claims.


2. Nayavada (perspectivism): A naya is a point of view and there are as many truths as there are nayas.

A judge took his friend along to a court hearing. The plaintiff presented his story, the judge announced "you are right!" The defendant took the stand and presented his side of the story. The judge declared "you're right!" The friend, quite shocked by this, objected "they can't both be right!" The judge replied calmly, "you are also right!" :snicker:

Just trying to make sense of RAA.

There's another way of showing why RAA works.

I'm particularly intrigued by your decision to link antinatalism to the utilitarian trolley problem. Life is defined by the choices we make: in most cases they're n-lemmas (equally unpalatable options) and at other times, they're either-or ones (one or the other but not both). Lose-lose situations characterize every single choice node and that, as we all know, is the calling card of evil geniuses. If life were a game, its inventor/creator is a sadist who delights in seeing us writhe in agony as we select not the best but the least worst. :snicker: