That is why Aristotle proposed "happiness" as the end which breaks the infinite regress — Metaphysician Undercover

I fear that doesn't work. Why is happiness good?

The difficulty is that ends and means are only separable in the limited mental intentionality of the individual. So what purports to be a pragmatic approach to morality falls at the first hurdle. For in reality saving and killing are interchangeable as ends and means. One might say that there are no ends, because the end one has in mind, if achieved, becomes the background means to some new end, just every effect becomes a cause of a new effect. — unenlightened

That is correct! I believe it's one major snag in the whole consequentialism project.

Gödel died from a fear of poisoning, and malnutrition killed him. Most geniuses are killed by old age. — RussellA

That's a more accurate statement than mine! :up:

Moore claims ...

If X is good because X is beneficial, why is beneficial good? If the response is beneficial is good because it enhances cooperation, we can then ask, why is enhancing cooperation good? So on and so forth ad infinitum/ad nauseum. It seems to be one of the dentes of Agrippa's trident (infinite regress).

Sounds like Gödel's incompleteness theorem. — RussellA

Kurt Gödel, genius made him, genius killed him.

Perhaps the bigger puzzle is how do we decide whether a puzzle, such as the puzzle of consciousness, is an impossible puzzle or not. — RussellA

May be an even bigger puzzle is, the mother of all puzzles is, that it's turtles (puzzles) all the way down. Good morning Montana, it's 8:00 AM and sunny. Just the kinda weather to break bad news in. A team of puzzlers at MIT claims that There is no final puzzle we could solve to get a handle on reality.

Unlike beliefs simpliciter, fallible knowledge has an accompanying justification.

What happens to one's corpse? It's either buried/cremated and in both cases, perfectly working organs are destroyed when they could actually save lives. I say we harvest organs of dead people. Why would they mind at all?
— Agent Smith

I suppose we might as well have an opt-out system for having one's dead body used as a high-quality sex doll for necrophiliacs. Who would pass up on such an amazing opportunity to make others happy after their death? — Tzeentch

Beware of the slippery slope fallacy mon ami.

Organ harvesting is ok, corpse as a sex doll not ok. I've told my family that I know a coupla guys who'd like nothing more than to dance on me grave. I've got to save up ... for refreshments for the occasion. I wonder what their favorite drinks are. :chin: God bless their souls! :smile:

That was me being playful. — Bylaw

Very playful! :up:

We can only hope. — Wayfarer

We can and we must. I've done me part mon ami. Time to pass on the baton to younger, more optimistic, folks. There are plenty of 'em around. As for the lion, I can feel its fangs on me jugular.

I thought you'd never say Uncle — Bylaw

Apologies if my response touched a nerve. Unintended ... or was it? I dunno! Allah Rahim.

Ok, ok!

Nevertheless, let's not fall into the woke hysteria of judging every historical character against the standards of modern liberalism. — Wayfarer

Let us not judge lest we ourselves be judged or let us judge kindly so we may ourselves be judged kindly.

You didn't mean 'defective'? — Janus

:lol: Possible.

He’s not entirely off the hook, his attitude towards and treatment of animals was far from exemplary, but wanton torture, it wasn’t. — Wayfarer

Yep, let's not rule Descartes out yet. He's a suspect even if not the prime suspect.

As an aside, I found during the course of that thread that Descartes likely DID NOT commit the terrible acts of cruelty that had been ascribed to him on various Internet sites, but that these acts MIGHT have been carried out by students at a notorious French college purportedly influenced by Cartesian ideas about animals as automatons. — Wayfarer

Awesome! A person of his caliber could never have committed a mistake as silly as that! That's the detective in me speaking.

So, you're sayin', we use the same brain to do both politics and science, but they're apples and bicycles? An IQ and EQ test assesses cross-domain skills, oui? As far as I can tell, politicians almost always fail, but a horde of scientists have made it big. What does that tell you, mon ami? You're good at philosophy, but something tell me you'll excel in science but will be utterly disoriented as a president/(prime) minister.

Politics is easier than science. The reason: It's easier to lie and get away with it in politics. — jgill

:ok:

I think @Wayfarer started the my-hero-is-a-jerk trend (vide his thread on Descartes & Animal Cruelty) on this forum. Let's check who else of so-called Great Men were assholes. Newton, I was told, was very vindictive, Aristotle was pro-slavery, Heidegger was a Nazi, ... I'm disapppointed, very disappointed mon ami.

Before we get all worked up about the issue, I suggest we define difficulty in order to answer the question is politics harder than science?

I'm not headed in a good direction. Come watch me put me head in a hungry lion's maws. :cool:

Spinoza made lenses for a living and was still able to produce some musings during his short life — NOS4A2

Amazin' grace! Allahu Akbar!

I'm on Khan Academy and Salman Khan (it's a bloody one man show), who tutors members for $0.00 on math and a variety of other subjects, claims that he never memorizes proofs of mathematical theorems - he simply relies on his intuition and constructs proofs from scratch, every time! :cool:

I guess most politics simplify to lie, cheat, repeat, but I'm referring to actual/genuine statecraft which, in me humble opinion, requires more brain and heart than all of science combined.

:up:

@Astro Cat

Ask yourself, what could be worse than (physical) pain?

Does practical = better? The way you phrase "fun way" "lazy", and "appalling track record".. Let me give you a scenario.. What if everyday everybody did all the things to stay alive, with no thought to speculation? You coded the code, hammered the nail, crunched the number, but that's it. Consumed your consumption. Repeat. Oh wait, that is much of what goes on anyways. I don't see how that's any less pernicious. — schopenhauer1

I should've been clearer. I didn't mean to say life, including but not limited to speculation, is fun; I meant people seem to think/believe it's a fun activity. I have a lot of plans, but life always has other plans for me. The Game (of Life), I'm forced to play, as we all are, oui mon ami?

Empathy is a significant factor in life as a whole. When weltanschauungs encounter each other, empathy is one of the first casualties and hence the usual - brawls, wars, and all.

Live and let live. — SYT

What's of great interest to me is speculation is sometimes fruitful and despite the appalling track record, people still do it. I guess it's kinda a fun way to spend a lazy Sunday afternoon, sippin' on something.

At least any kind of God that most of us wouldn’t consider a monster. — Astro Cat

Malus Deus, da! First there's pain; second, there's too much of it. Double fault.

IIRC, Zoroastrianism is the belief that two gods are eternally at war with one other (light vs darkness). — 180 Proof

Bundleware, si, señor! Daoist, Heraclitean, Empedoclean undertones. I don't have a choice. Intriguing that logic is about having no option but to accept yada yada yada.

It seems the answer to the OP's query is No!

Einstein is Einstein and I know too little about his competency outside of physics to comment further. Is a politician's job more difficult than a physicist's? A question worth asking, oui?

Zoroastrian — 180 Proof

That's just right for me. — Goldilocks

Polytheism, no, I have crowd phobia. Duotheism hits the sweet spot.

Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler. — Albert Einstein

What sayest thou?

I intelligo woman. :lol:

I believe you're on the right track, on the same track as Epicurus was 2.5k years ago, if your goal is to cast doubt on the existence of the OOO God of Christianity.

It appears that God's alleged omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omniscience thwarts all attempts at crafting an argument in favor of God.

Siene — Paine

:love:

Good to know that you're keeping yourself busy ... doing the right things. In the dark, mon ami, your imagination goes berserk.

A guidance system isn’t required if there is no danger. So physical suffering still demands an explanation on the 3-omni sort of theism. — Astro Cat

If there's no pain, in all likelihood something really bad happens, The Congenital Analgesia link I posted gives you an idea of what a toy world might look like.

Who says we understand reality?
— Agent Smith

If we didn't we would probably be dead. We can predict reality's behaviour accurately. Our perceptions need to represent something accurately about reality so we can survive.

What would be the point of a hidden incomprehensible layer of reality?

The other situation is that we are in an illusion or a brain in a vat/matrix scenario. — Andrew4Handel

I don't think longevity has any correlation with understanding.

Indeed, I do wonder, but that wonder doesn't translate into knowledge, mon ami. We can only explore the possibility space, offering only our personal take on the matter. 'Tis best not to overthink, but of course, that's only my opinion. Ask yerself "what did I discover today?"

Thank god we know so little about these topics. Allah Rahim, God is most merciful, eh Jack?

Why are we able to understand reality at all? — Andrew4Handel

Who says we understand reality? Einstein refused the presidency/prime ministership of Israel. Was it because he understood reality or was it because he didn't?

The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's comprehensible. — A. Einstein