Comments

  • How Morality as Cooperation Can Help Resolve Moral Disputes
    Can you imagine a moral premise that counters (shows an error in) mathematics? — Mark S
    This is presumption.
    I have not actually accepted the premise that evolutionary game theory is the explanation for morality.
    Remember, religion was the first to spread moral principles.
  • The integration of science and religion
    "Religion := The acceptance of something without the necessity of proof and claiming authority based on this premise." p180 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

    Since science does require some proof (and we could certainly argue some more on what, exactly constitute such a 'proof'), it would seem that the two concepts, science and religion, is incompatible.     — Pieter R van Wyk

    Sorry, but these are both rubbish definitions.

    Science does not require proof of it's findings. It is enough that a systematic process of observation and hypotheses has been followed to be called it science. In fact, if after applying the scientific procedure on a hypothesis, that the expected result did not pan out, then to be scientific is to revisit the observation and maybe conclude that the hypothesis could not be supported.

    Religion, on the other hand, strives to have evidence and proof for its claims. But their point is to spread faith, moral teachings, and belief in the almighty being -- none of which forces acceptance, but asks you to see the truth of life.
  • Could anyone have made a different choice in the past than the ones they made?
    Unless the universe (of determinant forces and constraints on one) changes too, I don't think so. — 180 Proof
    And if we only had one choice at the time, then yes, the answer is no. But I have no idea why determinism works here. I actually do not understand the relationship between determinism and the choices we make. The choices we make in our daily life are nothing compared to what determinism has in store for us.

    Here are my examples:
    1. We do not have a choice but to be a moral agent (not to say we will be moral, just that we either be moral or immoral).
    2. We do not have a choice as to thoughts. We will have thoughts and imaginations. That's determined given our constitution.
    4. Perception is determined, unless you're born a lump of flesh. We will perceive, period.
    5. Desires are determined -- you can have difference desires, but you will have desires absolutely.
  • How Morality as Cooperation Can Help Resolve Moral Disputes
    But I would disagree that VOI can “counter” morality as cooperation. The scientific truth of morality as cooperation is in a different domain of knowledge from morality based on assumed ethical premises. — Mark S
    Actually I was referring to the evolutionary game theory you mentioned when I said VOI could counter it.
    I'm still not quite sold on morality as cooperation. Morality might have that unintended effect of cooperation, but not quite as the goal. There are moral principles that followers do for the sole purpose of their soul and conscience regardless of what the outsiders looking in think. In the one example where a bandwagon effect happens, do I really want to follow a moral principle because it's good for the whole group?

    What if I want to deliberate first and eventually come up with a different conclusion that what the group has concluded? Is a deviation from the norm a bad thing automatically?
  • How Morality as Cooperation Can Help Resolve Moral Disputes
    First, congratulations on your submission. Not an easy thing to write for publication.

    I make four main claims that may not have previously been explicitly stated. — Mark S

    First, virtually all the contradictions and strangeness of past and present cultural moral norms can be explained by evolutionary game theory and moral psychology as parts of cooperation strategies. — Mark S
    Not all. Tyrannical moral laws were part of the past (and present). There was no "cooperation" strategy, except the laws made by the one person in power. There were also tribes, nation, communities that had become extinct because morality was to serve the almighty being, to the detriment of the population.

    Second, cultural moral norms are those norms whose violation is commonly thought to warrant punishment of at least reputation damage. — Mark S
    Good.

    Third, these explanations imply three cultural-independent moral principles that define what is descriptively moral, universally moral, and immoral within the framework of morality as cooperation. — Mark S
    Good.

    Fourth, the ultimate source of our moral psychology and cultural moral norms lies in cooperation strategies that are as innate to our universe as the simple mathematics on which evolutionary game theory is based. — Mark S
    The veil of ignorance as a hypothesis should counter evolutionary game theory in one way. The VOI theory wants to bring up the least advantaged members of society without the members knowing their own talents and abilities. If wages are the measure of equality, would you agree to equal wages for both non-productive and highly productive members of your society?
  • Do you think AI is going to be our downfall?
    In the absence of choice, making a wish for a song or a film becomes easy, when your choices are infinite, making up your decision becomes much harder.
    I don't know if this phenomena has a name already,     — Bivar
    No special name except it's " choice overload". But the psychologist Barry Schwartz wrote about the paradox of choice. There is the danger of paralysis in the decisions we make when there are so many competing alternatives.

    We see that it's been happening for some time now. We just go by what the algorithm tells us to watch, listen, and read. So, we're stuck with a narrow view without us knowing or minding it. In the name of comfort, we are happy for an AI to serve us what we watch, listen, and read without us protesting about it.
  • First vs Third person: Where's the mystery?
    Good, ranty post!

    Not until 85% through do we get more than this summary.
     — noAxioms
    The problem is, how could a mere physical system experience this awareness. — Chalmers

    But this just seems like another round of feedback. Is it awareness of the fact that one can monitor one’s own processes? That’s just monitoring of monitoring. — noAxioms

    No. What Chalmers meant by this, which you point out correctly is the gist of the whole endeavor, is that the brain, which is physical, made of matter, can produce awareness or consciousness, which is non-physical. The brain is viewable, the consciousness is not, to put it crudely.

    If you believe that consciousness is non-physical, then you agree with Chalmers and the task now is to explain why there's a connection between the material and the non-material. Consciousness affects the brain and the brain affects consciousness.

    The hard problem is explaining the bridge between the two.
  • World demographic collapse
    In many of the industrial countries of the world there is talk that there isn't going to be even younger working age people to do enough work to support those that are retired. I wonder what the thoughts are of the members of this forum on this subject. — dclements
    Many countries have no social security like the US or Europe. The dynamics of aging and surviving do not rely solely on 'artificially' formed social security. The concepts of resourcefulness and adaptation have been around before social security was implemented.
    If you mean that we would revert back the longevity that we've gained as a population because the comfort of social security is threatened, I'd like to hear about the relative costs to longer life and happiness. A five-year gain in longevity does not equate to five-year gain in happiness. The proof? Prior decades, when people lived 5 year less, but happier 5-year more.
  • The value of the given / the already-given
    If I may express it briefly: The Method of Humbly Presence is a conscious way to appreciate life without loss, accepting oneself not as the center of the world, but as its natural part. Through the rejection of egocentrism, gratitude, sobriety of perception, and the ability to rejoice in the simple are born. — Astorre
    Well said.
  • In a free nation, should opinions against freedom be allowed?
    If what you say is so wrong that people are very offended, then the company can fire you. — Wolfy48
    Yes, that is actually the consequence. I don't think anyone has been jailed for offensive gestures and language. Unless it is an assault or murder.

    I think you misunderstood the role of society and government. Government does sanction societal rules, forming it into a law. Enforcement is the key. A society may frown upon racism and sexism, but without punishment, such as lawful job firing, then no meaningful enforcement is in place.
  • The value of the given / the already-given
    It often seems we only realize the true value of something after it's lost. But is there a way to consciously experience gratitude, recognition, and sober appreciation without having to go through loss? — Astorre
    There are situations where loss does not have to be experienced to appreciate the value of life itself. Blissful ignorance is one. There were isolated people who lived their lives contently without experiencing significant losses. Or the "losses" they experienced is part of living a life -- old age, passing away, illness.

    I think losses don't always teach us to appreciate life more. Humility is much more the way to feel gratitude. We look at the awesome world and realize we're just a small part of it, and we're okay with it.

    Even successful rat race, which is not a loss, rather a very busy life in pursuit of material wealth can be an instrument to retreat back to simplicity and appreciate the simple things in life.
  • Laidback but not stupid philosophy threads
    Is that to be found here or elsewhere? — Ansiktsburk

    Yes, here you can find them. If you don't find it here, I think that either you haven't spent enough time here to find those conversations that engage with the idea of leisurely discussions; or that you have found and read them but not understood the sentiments or tone behind them.
  • Is there a purpose to philosophy?
    Most of us are in the wheel reinvention business. — Tom Storm

    :grin:

    I don't remember who that thinker was who commented on this behavior against other philosophers who seemed to have been doing it in their writings. But yes, there was a mention of this behavior within the philosophical community.
  • Is there a purpose to philosophy?
    I don't think everyone is a philosopher like he says, most people don't really seem to question the way things are in life and just go along with it with what they were taught. From my understanding our brains are sorta resistant to what philosophy requires of us. — Darkneos

    I wonder what the minimum standard would be for someone to be called a philosopher? — Tom Storm

    Being a "Philosopher" is usually someone who does it for a living such as educators, scholars, and thinkers who publish books critiqued by peers. Time and effort spent, not money, defines them.

    You will find that there are methods common among them:

    1. Studied extensively the writings of those who came before them.
    2. Formed analyses and critiques towards other philosophical works.
    3. Formed their own theses to debunk or agree with other philosophical works.
    4. Tried not to re-invent the wheels, but built up on previous works by others.
    5. Got their works analyzed and critiqued by their peers before and/or after publication.
  • Was I wrong to suggest there is no "objective" meaning in life on this thread?
    Any data on the cannibalism rates back then or not so much? Hey, never let good meat go to waste am I right. — Outlander
    Lol. Though cannibalism happened, there were some evidence that some tribes did it against enemies. As a victorious behavior.
    At the same time, there were evidence that within tribes, there were medical procedures done to save their limbs or life. Instruments or tools were found in their possession.
    Some populations or tribes actually survives for many decades or hundreds of years due to the concept of hygiene and cleanliness.

    So, while cannibalism is an horrific act, it wasn't practiced commonly.
  • Was I wrong to suggest there is no "objective" meaning in life on this thread?
    Well part of me thinks he comes of as a crazy sage who's seen some truth because he uses words like semantics and syntax and cites Wittgenstein a lot, but when I look at other stuff of his it doesn't seem like that. like his stuff seems deep only if you don't know better — Darkneos
    I would think not crazy but prone to generalization and using arguments by jumping to conclusions, unsupported claims like like everyone is a philosopher and historical accounts that have been proven inconclusive or just outright inaccurate.
  • Was I wrong to suggest there is no "objective" meaning in life on this thread?
    I'm also not really sold on how he thinks we make meaning:

    It merely refers to the fact that I, you, and all of us, are continually maturing. We evolve, and in that adaptive development over time we apportion significance to our experience in a manner that manifests as mood, motivation and morality.     — Darkneos
    The use of the word "maturing" here is suspect. It is because according to historical accounts, maturity of the mind, similar to the conception of "modernity", does not differ among people thousands of years ago.

    In fact, dating as far back as 200,000 years ago, one discovery that researchers have found is that, compassion and helpfulness have been around since the cave man era. There were evidence that members of a tribe had carried their wounded members to safety, not left them to die out in the field.
  • Self-Help and the Deflation of Philosophy
    means of coping, maximizing productivity, reducing stress, or achieving “authenticity.” I have seen this particularly in some pieces on Stoicism I've read that seem to be largely aimed at the "tech-bro" crowd. A commitment to truth gets shoved aside for a view of philosophy as a sort of "life hack."

    There is a sort of "managerial" outlook here, where praxis reduced to a sort of tool. In a similar vein, I have seen the critique that modern therapy/self-help largely focuses on helping us "get what we want," but not so much on "what we ought to do" or the question of if "what we want" is what will ultimately lead to flourishing and happiness. That is not seen as the purpose of therapy or self-help. That might be fair enough, but then it also not seen as the purpose of education either. So, what does fulfill that function? It seems to me that nothing does, except for perhaps wholly voluntary associations that one must "choose" (where such a choice is necessarily without much guidance). Aside from "self-development," this seems problematic for collective self-rule and social cohesion.     — Count Timothy von Icarus

    This is a very astute observation, which reminds me it is at the back of my mind, though I was not coherently aware of what's happening with the use of philosophy as a personal self-help advise. So, putting it together like your post is helpful.

    Repurposing is a very common human activity, including repurposing the philosophical writings for personal gain. Thankfully, forums like this know the difference and I haven't seen an argument advocating for life-hacks as the purpose of philosophy.

    The School of Philosophy, as the classics had viewed philosophy, is not harmed insofar as the teachings remain the scholars domain and philosophical procedures such as hermeneutics, are in place -- scholars who assiduously read and translated some of the most difficult writings were a gift.
  • Was I wrong to suggest there is no "objective" meaning in life on this thread?
    but I felt like the post was mistaking what humans do with that being purpose. Like us making meaning is what we do but that doesn't necessarily imply a purpose right? — Darkneos
    There's a gap in his argument regarding 'man's search for meaning is the man's purpose'. I am also not satisfied with that.

    What I find is that, "purpose" is often confused with "essence", as in the essence of man is wisdom, for example. Philosophically, I haven't found a strong argument for purpose (I'm not widely versed, so I could have missed it). But I always find the explanation for the 'meaning' of existence, which is not the same as purpose.

    Search for Aristotle passages and see if he wrote about "purpose" or "essence". What does humans embody? What is it to be human?
  • The passing of Vera Mont, dear friend.
    This news was 3 months ago, during which I was also gone from the forum. So I'm just now posting this.
    So sad to find out she had passed away. She was a very solid contributor to this forum.
    RIP Vera.
  • The Ballot or...
    So you are arguing or asking if the assassination of Charlie Kirk was justified?
    Youre a mod?
    Thats pretty fucked up.     — DingoJones
    :up:
  • In a free nation, should opinions against freedom be allowed?
    And I believe that a society that strives for constant liberation from anything restrictive and oppressive is liberated to the point of freedom from being — Astorre
    Acknowledging that we have a moral obligation -- which in itself is restriction, but not oppressive -- is what a moral agent is.
  • Philosophy in everyday life
    you emphasize the importance of a solid foundation. Is it possible to build a foundation that includes subjectivity as an integral part of truth? — Astorre
    Subjectivity will always occupy an important place in philosophy. Note that I emphasized errors in thinking, not the depravity of subjectivity. In fact, intersubjectivity, which is the idea that when we all share a common perspective, then it becomes a valid principle in philosophical arguments.

    For example, colors are, in fact, intersubjectivity reports of what humans see when they look at objects in the presence of lighting. While in physics, colors are wavelengths with different lengths, in the macro world, we see colors or red, yellow, orange, white, pink, etc. So, depending on what you're arguing for, philosophically, the admission of colors is valid one.

    does philosophy make you happier? What role does it play in your daily life - does it criticize your beliefs, or does it inspire you by connecting you to your humanity. What kind of people does philosophy make us in a world where objectivity is increasingly dominant? — Astorre
    I didn't come to participate in philosophical discussions to be 'happier', rather to be more at peace in what the world is, what was it in the past, what was it now, and what it will be in the future.
    Yes, in fact, I learned to be self-critical in my beliefs in the practical sense and to connect more with my humanity.
    I would say that it is important for objectivity to occupy an dominant place when it comes to science and technology. Imagine medicine -- we have had major improvements in saving the patients' lives in chronic and acute diseases in just a matter of less than a decade. But we haven't really lost major subjectivity when it comes to politics, historical accounts, interpersonal relations, family relations, and preferences in tastes. We are very much influenced by heavy marketing, by heavy social media, and internal impulses beyond our control.
  • Philosophy in everyday life
    In other words, I think that philosophy should face the challenge of appreciating subjectivity as something much more important than we usually think. Normally we think that subjectivity means limits, narrow horizons, being conditioned, being relative. — Angelo Cannata

    As I said, I favour criticism, because it protects and vaccinates us from deception, contradictions, it reveals a lot of hidden bad mechanisms. But what shall we do once all mechanisms, bad and good ones, have been deconstructed, revealed and pulverized? — Angelo Cannata

    Angelo, I like your posts. You should have started a new thread with that kind of thinking. They are well written.

    My criticism to what you said about "Normally we think that subjectivity means limits, narrow horizons, being conditioned, being relative" is that, what philosophy tries to expose about subjectivity, which we all start with during the naive period, is the error in thinking when we mistake opinions as arguments. Subjectivity has a way of drawing an invalid conclusion from the available anecdotal accounts.
    What philosophers, and the excellent posters in this forum, are trying to build is a solid foundation for the things that we claim to be true.
  • A Great Evil is a deliberate moral failure
    ↪Barkon
    What you're saying is maybe good on paper. But, let me go back to the concept of individualism. Your vision of a society is one that's organized and shares a common goal, that is, the goal is the greater good.

    But the principle of individualism is one that fosters or rather tolerate the individual decisions in matters of private life -- going to school or not, getting a job or not, contribute to society or not. Do you see the problem with these individual decisions? When you have thousands and millions of individuals who want to do nothing (!), what is a liberal society going to do about it without violating the individual decisions?
  • What is right and what is wrong and how do we know?
    If other people were aware of him they would probably revolt. Which is where a moral power play ensues. — Barkon

    Someone can knowingly sell cigarettes or cancer causing products and be very successful and live a very happy life. Period. — Tom Storm

    Tom's post is eerily true. No mass revolts on the street against tobacco and cigarette when the surgeon general put the warning on the cigarette.
  • In a free nation, should opinions against freedom be allowed?
    @Wolfy48
    Free speech, as conceived by the writers of the law, is never absolute. Nothing is absolute in any given society. Your conception of free speech is naive and disruptive.
    A good discussion of an ethics topic is one that wants the greater good to surface. Among the competing opinions, the goal is to come up with what is the moral obligation given the freedom to speak our minds.

    I am glad that there is a law prohibiting sexism, racism, and bullying at work. I'm glad because I don't have the desire -- through my own conscience, through education at home and at school, and through my interaction with other people -- to make people feel inferior, feel threatened by my presence, or to make a place a toxic one. And I certainly do not wish others to spout toxic nonsense in the workplace.
  • A Great Evil is a deliberate moral failure
    If we're willing to do it we can produce a societal system that's far more harmonious than the current system. — Barkon
    Not quite. A society that values 'individualism' will have its share of unintended consequences. Think of people who do not make an effort to contribute to their own welfare. There's no law that would incarcerate people for being unemployed.
    Think of homelessness.
  • Coronavirus
    Hopefully, we live in a very modern era, and scientists can overcome this virus quickly. — javi2541997
    Medical researchers work nonstop. Even while the world sleeps.

    My granny is 91 years old, and it seemed that the covid didn't even approximate to her. — javi2541997
    She is a super granny!
  • How should children be reared to be good citizens, good parents, and good thinkers?
    That is your pov. — BC
    The philosophical justification for punishment desert. I did not invent this.
  • Coronavirus
    ↪javi2541997

    Good to know you're out of it and doing well.
    It hit people differently. Many did not show obvious symptoms that they have covid.
  • How should children be reared to be good citizens, good parents, and good thinkers?
    Even if the Justice system were to be perfect, I am still against capital punishment. I do not believe it has the power to dissuade someone from committing a capital crime, — BC
    The main purpose of any punishment is desert.
  • How should children be reared to be good citizens, good parents, and good thinkers?
    Sadly, "the extent of the law" may include capital punishment. I am against capital punishment for two reasons: #1, in the United States, at least, justice has been perverted in a significant number of convictions, including those of capital cases. The wrongfully convicted are sometimes exonerated by the hard work of a few justice groups. It's bad enough if someone spends 20 years in prison for a wrongful conviction. A wrongful execution is beyond appeal. — BC
    There is room for improvement in the justice system and it is constantly being evaluated, reviewed, analyzed. But to say that capital punishment shouldn't be part of the system because the justice system is not perfect is similar to saying we will not give every and each individual what they deserved because we don't have a perfect system. Desert is the main focus of punishment. In a philosophical argument, desert is a way of acknowledging a person as a moral agent.
    Let me ask you, if capital punishment shouldn't be one of the choices of punishment because of an 'imperfect system', then why incarcerate criminals at all, as in life sentence, or twenty years in prison? Life sentence and capital punishments are both punishments based on desert. If you say we don't have a perfect system, then you should apply your objection to all types of punishment, not just capital punishment.
    I wouldn't want to see someone incarcerated for twenty years if they don't deserved it.
    Heck, I don't want to see anyone spend one year in jail at all.

    #2, execution is an unseemly activity for the state to engage in. — BC
    Oh really? Execution is an unseemly activity for the state to engage in? Who should deliver the execution then? The federal government? The City government?
    What's missing in your point is that the State is made up of everybody -- including the voters. The state is made up of moral agents who decided that a capital punishment is an appropriate punishment for a given crime.
  • What is right and what is wrong and how do we know?
    "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." - William Shakespeare, Act 2, Scene 2, "Hamlet".

    Is right and wrong just a matter of thinking something is right     — Truth Seeker
    This quote is being taken out of context. Hamlet is in conflict with himself/ his thoughts.
    It is a wishful thinking because deep down he is morally perturbed.
  • How should children be reared to be good citizens, good parents, and good thinkers?
    Wisdom tells me that the second hanging is a formality, since the hangees will no longer be 'present'.

    On the other hand, I'll own up to a certain amount of vindictiveness toward responsible agents who wrecked the climate and caused billions of deaths.     — BC

    As you were.
  • How should children be reared to be good citizens, good parents, and good thinkers?
    Let them be hanged twice. — BC
    No!
    Punish only up to the extent of the law. Anything beyond that is vindictiveness. Vindictiveness and wisdom cannot co-exist in you simultaneously.
  • Wisdom: Cultivation, Context, and Challenges
    I forget exactly where, I think it's in a few places, Plato describes being educated as primarily "desiring what is truly worthy/good and despising what is truly unworthy/bad." He says that a formally educated, wealthy person might be able to give more sophisticated answers as to why something is desirable or undesirable, but that this is ancillary to being truly "educated." If the more sophisticated person is nonetheless not properly oriented/cultivated such as to desire the good and abhor evil, then they are in an important sense uneducated (unformed); whereas the unsophisticated person is educated, although lacking in sophistication.

    Now, Plato's point here sort of goes with what you each have said in different ways. In general, we do not love the good by default. While people might have more or less of a talent/inclination towards specific virtues and vices (e.g., tempers can "run in families"), in general they won't attain to a state of virtue without some cultivation. Indeed, without care and cultivation, at the limit, infants and children will die, so there always needs to be some cultivation (some "education").     — Count Timothy von Icarus
    Good exegesis!
    Cultivation is part of education. Cursory learning, as we often see in schools, could only scratch the surface. The depth of learning brings us closer to wisdom, I believe.

    A bit out of scope for this conversation. — T Clark
    Okay.
  • Wisdom: Cultivation, Context, and Challenges
    I've been careless in language. — Tom Storm
    Count me in. That's why I'm here in this thread.
  • Wisdom: Cultivation, Context, and Challenges
    Because, in most situations, even a fool can see when something is a failure. You don’t even need to know what success is. But as I already said, very few people are 100% foolish. — Tom Storm
    This answer is neither here nor there. Fools by definition are people who act unwisely and get unwise results.

    Here's a copy-pasted thought on wisdom:
    “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” — Aristotle

    Here's another one from Albert Einstein:
    “Any fool can know. The point is to understand.”


    Your understanding of Taoism is different from mine. — T Clark
    Okay, then educate me. How do you understand Taoist wisdom.
  • Wisdom: Cultivation, Context, and Challenges
    Wisdom comes from letting go of what you’ve learned, not adding more to it. Wisdom is a surrendering, not the result of an act of will. — T Clark

    I disagree with the above passage. Sainthood comes to mind when I read that passage. If you surrender yourself to the way of the universe, you become Tao, a passive observer of the universe. But we are here on Earth -- living and interacting. If you want wisdom to mean a passive observer, then you should make that clear.

    In fact, I have learned more from watching mistakes and making them than I ever have from success. — Tom Storm
    Okay so you're just supporting what I said earlier. How do you know what mistakes are if not by knowing what success is. By knowing the difference.
Home » L'éléphant