Comments

  • Romanticism leads to pain and war?
    Common sense is accepted without question. We believe it just because we hear it all the time. — Athena
    Okay I have no objection to this. We're on the same page. I'm only citing those examples that have been proven to be sensible. The calm before the storm is true -- you feel it in the air.
  • Praying and Wishing are Wireless Communications
    That's how cruel the universe is: it tears apart our delicate souls. — Agent Smith
    I can assure you that the universe has no meaning or emotion.
  • Pessimism’s ultimate insight
    Yes, this is a common objection that I find objectionable. Since there is no person prior to existing for whom consent can be obtained, it is okay to do X which may lead to future outcomes for a person who actually will exist..

    You can see the flaw in that right?     — schopenhauer1
    My post is purely out of socio-political reasons. Consent is attached to that notion. But if you want to talk about obligation of parents to unborn children, that's a different issue. Honestly, I can't think of a way to "apologize" to those born into a bad situation. The only thing that I can think of is the liberty of individuals to happiness, which is in the constitution of most, if not all, nations. This right to happiness includes forming a family and bearing children. Now of course we do have laws to protect the children from harm -- which is obvious to everyone. So, I'm not sure what else to say about that.
  • Pessimism’s ultimate insight
    My own addition is that by being born at all we are forced into a socio-culturo-political agenda (lest suicide by slow or fast death). Solution: Griping and self-understanding (consolation through shared Pessimism) and not forcing others into the agenda (antinatalism). — schopenhauer1
    The notion of consent is a socio-political notion. So, yes, it is talked about in the world of philosophers, not just Schopenhauer's. There's actually an argument about the formation of a society, say a first society, where adults gather together to talk about the rules and laws. Well and good. But then, after this society is formed, there'd be babies born into this society without the benefit of providing their consent, so what to do if you're one of those babies who become an adult and find that the society you live in, whose rules you didn't consent to, is disagreeable to you.
    One, people can't tell you to move to another society since not everyone can for various reasons. (Of course you can if you volunteer, but this is not the point).

    Two, people shouldn't force you to accept the rules and laws you find objectionable.

    Third, so what should those people do? Apparently, you can't blame the first people who formed your society for making those rules since you weren't born yet or weren't of age to consent. When you're born into a fully formed society, the first people are not under obligation to ask for your consent. Your consent isn't on a level of their consent.
  • Romanticism leads to pain and war?
    We agree those are not examples of scientific thinking, right? They are knee-jerk reactions done without much thinking — Athena
    Uhm, I think I didn't make that clear. The examples I gave are scientific facts, but we act like they're common sense. There's a scientific explanation of the calm before the storm, moldy and sour foods, and looking both ways so we don't get hit by a car because the speed of the vehicle is a lot faster than our speed of avoidance.

    Romantic thinking is not really thinking either. — Athena
    Not necessarily. I mean, are you just talking about romantic feeling of love? Or are we still in the romanticism movement? The attitude that predominates the 18th century? Where a young mind is filled with hopes, and dreams, and goodness, and yes, courage?

    this too is a romantic vision of sorts.. It's not the romantic vision of a dictator but of the idealistic parent hoping for some sort of Platonic stability that doesn't exist. — schopenhauer1
    Okay I give you that. Early on in life, people have romantic vision, and as they get older the romantic vision becomes impractical or unrealistic. Then finally, they see that life is about suffering and hardships -- so they join capitalism.
  • Praying and Wishing are Wireless Communications
    Somehow that breaks my heart. Good day. — Agent Smith
    Okay, I think you're wrong. Don't walk away with a broken heart.
    I believe in the law of attraction.
  • Praying and Wishing are Wireless Communications
    ↪Agent Smith

    Actually I think you're right.
  • Praying and Wishing are Wireless Communications
    Speaking of which, I actually had a dream of Hanover. :gasp:

    There was a knock on my door and there's freakin' Hanover. First thing I uttered was "WTF!"
  • Praying and Wishing are Wireless Communications
    ↪L'éléphant
    So, you don't believe that the law of attraction holds? I agree. Imagine it were that simple to find happiness.     — Agent Smith
    I freakin' do! :starstruck:

    Did I not make that clear in my post? I find the law of attraction very believable, but we just don't have scientific backing for it.

    As for the OP, a novel take on prayer and wishing wells. :up: — Agent Smith
    Thanks.
  • Romanticism leads to pain and war?
    ↪Agent Smith
    :up:
  • Praying and Wishing are Wireless Communications
    ↪Agent Smith
    Thanks! I posted a passage here from that link.

    In the New Thought spiritual movement, the Law of Attraction is a pseudoscience based on the belief that positive or negative thoughts bring positive or negative experiences into a person's life.[1][2] The belief is based on the ideas that people and their thoughts are made from "pure energy" and that a process of like energy attracting like energy exists through which a person can improve their health, wealth, and personal relationships. There is no empirical scientific evidence supporting the law of attraction, and it is widely considered to be pseudoscience.

    This is the gist.

    The pure energy is what we give off when we have those thoughts. When sending good wishes to people, we're counting on that pure energy to travel through space and reach those people. As crazy as it is.
  • Romanticism leads to pain and war?
    The positive spin it gives to what are normally considered the bringer of misery and pain (war being the archetype) leads to people willing to kill & die (for a cause). This, I'm led to believe, is akin to brainwashing/mind manipulation of the worst kind ever. :smile: — Agent Smith
    I think this is an incorrect understanding of romanticism. On the contrary, being lost in the romantic view of the world is like wearing rose-colored glasses all the time. One fails to see the ugly side of existence -- that there are undertakings that are impossible to achieve or that there are things that require suffering and hardships. If you actually read the writings of the romanticists, you would think that people living in that world are childlike or immature, forget about innocence. There are failures in life.
  • The start of everything
    The universe is an infinite cycle of expansion and contraction. The beginning is equal to the end. — Benj96
    I voted for this because the universe is not bounded. The everything is the universe. We gave meaning to time, but without us, it has no meaning or existence at all. But -- there's decay! How about that. Stars die out.
  • Praying and Wishing are Wireless Communications
    ↪Garrett Travers

    Yes, I know the feeling.
  • Praying and Wishing are Wireless Communications
    ↪Garrett Travers
    I agree. I think it's one of the most honest conversations with yourself.
    lol. I know someone who reserves best wishes for people she likes. But don't we all do that? And what about the expression "I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy".
  • Praying and Wishing are Wireless Communications
    You don't go around praying about unicorns after all, you pray about what really matters to you. — Garrett Travers
    Yes! People actually pray for facts, for the actual reality. That's why I put this in epistemology because we treat our own prayers and wishes as part of our knowledge about the world.
  • Praying and Wishing are Wireless Communications
    it’s possible the prayer is a kind of therapeutic process. — Average
    It is, right? When visiting a person who is ill, people leave words of encouragement and well wishes. Even those who do not believe in prayers.

    I don't buy into these things literally of course, but I do have this instinct of refusing to say or think bad thoughts for fear that I'll think them into existence. — Hanover
    Good read from the link. Thanks.

    Same here. This thing is very strong and I doubt there's one individual out there who do not have some sort of thought-positive and negative-thought avoidance practice in them.

    Be strong!

    Do you feel the strength now within you?     — Hanover
    Yes, just reading those words make me feel it. I literally sent that thought to someone living abroad at the time when I couldn't reach him. And I felt at the time that the stronger you will it, the stronger it would get to the person.
  • Romanticism leads to pain and war?
    I'm assuming you had to meet a partner (assuming in your case a husband), go through a sort of dating/courting/falling in love process, decide to create new people in the world and raise them a certain way, be able to provide for yourself and family with some sort of job in the broader economic system which allows for things to survive.. — schopenhauer1
    This is too graphic. :)

    Yes, but how many of us think scientifically? Scientific thinking is empirical and religious thinking is not empirical. Understanding human values is not empirical thinking and our opinions are not empirical thinking. Even those who do think empirically do so only once in a while because it is very energy-consuming and we are running on automatic most of the time and rarely really think about anything. This is a problem for democracy and education can resolve but it is not. In fact, some states have laws preventing thinking. — Athena
    We shouldn't think that thinking scientifically means thinking logically. Common sense works too. No we do not think scientifically at all times. I made that clear in my thread about praying and wishing. But, in our day to day affairs, we've learned to treat scientific facts as common sense facts. The calm before the storm makes us stay inside the house and wait for the rain. We don't eat food that had gone sour or moldy. And of course, looking before we cross the street saves us from getting hit by vehicles.
  • Praying and Wishing are Wireless Communications
    ↪Average
    Please share your idea.
  • How do we know if we know something?
    ↪Average
    Fair enough.
  • What is the meaningful distinction between these two things?
    Obviously almost everyone rightfully supports criminalizing actual (real) [racism], but some people also support criminalizing the cartoon/animated kind of [racism] even though it doesn't actually involve the harming of any actual [black people]. One rationale that has been used to justify the criminalization of cartoon [racism] has been the belief that it could desensitize people who are [racist to blacks] to the idea of [lynching black people]. However, I've been thinking about this logic and I was wondering: By the very same logic, can't one also argue in favor of criminalizing photos and videos (especially but not only lynching tapes) of [white] adults who have a very [blackish] appearance? — Xanatos
  • How do we know if we know something?
    Exploit the nature of what? What kind of twist do you have in mind? — Average
    I mean how else can you breathe life into JTB? Do you have an idea of how to revive this epistemological view?
  • Romanticism leads to pain and war?
    "If you have faith in the natural ordering of state of affairs" My faith is in science, not human stupidy and the religions that maintain it. — Athena
    Science is part of the state of affairs.
  • How do we know if we know something?
    Well I suppose you can always discuss something else with someone else. — Average
    Or you could exploit its nature and introduce a twist. That would be something.
  • Introducing myself ... and something else
    So, you’re confused because I have written words you do not understand, and not because you do not understand the words I have written? Sorry, dude, that’s idiotic. — Joe Mello
    Nope. That's your interpretation of my post. I can't blame you. You're gung ho about your view. Suit yourself.
  • Welcome PF members!
    ↪Amity
    Okay, well put.

    In fact, it could be argued that there is a need for trolls.
    All the better to set things straight.     — Amity
    This is a philosophical stance. Good catch.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪javi2541997
    ↪Janus

    Are we really this ingenuous? Or is this just our forum's personality?
    Why use nuclear weapons when you could inflict greater damage with economic and chemical/toxin terrorism using less resources? The covid pandemic had exemplified it could be done -- although I am not saying that it was a conspiracy. But we now know, this is one hell of a bitch!
    The nuclear war would wipe out the whole civilization -- read the nuclear winter, as the aftermath is much more deadlier than the actual weapons themselves. So, the nukes come with attached diplomacy and networking to make sure everyone does not become trigger happy. Putin included.

    All countries with nukes are licensed to kill. But being licensed to kill does not mean your nuclear ambition and decision are your decision only.
  • How do we know if we know something?
    You’re not really referring to a specific argument. — Average
    I am speaking in general. What must be true if xyz is sound and valid -- certainty is true.
    Somehow, I've gotten tired of discussing JTB (justified true belief). It's been talked to death in another forum for years.

    ↪Tom Storm
    :up:
  • Ukraine Crisis
    I just wanted to say, the push-button knee jerk reaction on nuclear weapons is a fiction.
  • Introducing myself ... and something else
    I browsed through the posts here to try to understand how this introduction thread of a new forum member got to be 10 pages long. I don't mean to offend anyone, but I thought finally someone had the profound insight into what it is the rest of us was missing in our understanding of philosophical questions in metaphysics.

    @Joe Mello, sorry dude, but I tried reading your posts, but the more I read the more I get confused as to your point. And 10 pages later, no one has got a clue on what is being discussed. I don't mean any disrespect, but 10 pages of back and forth attempts at clarification went nowhere in the end.

    Could you summarize for me the philosophical view you're trying to articulate? Please be concise. I just really need to know because there's a lot of "god" and finite and intangibles being thrown around here. They are, to me, conflicting ideas.
  • How do we know if we know something?
    I don’t know what you mean by “ought”. — Average
    Probably I shouldn't use ought. But must. What must be true if xyz argument is sound and valid.
  • How do we know if we know something?
    ↪Average

    Obviously, you have some idea of what is true or false, else you wouldn't be questioning the information you come upon. Why don't you start there, define what ought to be true. Then, you can critique how we dish out "truths", which could be misinformation.
  • Romanticism leads to pain and war?
    I think I might be one of those people :gasp: so I really have to ponder that difference because I value liberty but hate the ugliness that results from the liberties some people take. I hope others have more to say about this. — Athena
    If you have faith in the natural ordering of state of affairs, then besides behaving reasonably, having good judgment, and having reasonableness in the way you see the world, you don't have to do anything else because the ordering of the ugly side of liberty will happen. This phenomenon has been observed in the natural world-- when groups have become unsustainable, whether by toxicity, overcrowding, and unrest, they naturally break apart into smaller groups somewhere else.

    As far as romanticism, @Gnomon had got a handle on it -- his post provides a brief description of what romanticism is.
  • Welcome PF members!
    place is going downhill fast at the moment. — Wayfarer
    I don't flag shit here. My posts could very well be flag-worthy. I think the most effective way to show your disapproval is to say it in the thread and explain why the post is bad.
  • How do we know if we know something?
    how do I know that the surgeon is real? — Average
    Then this is not about the OP anymore. If you wanted to discuss justified belief, be explicit. And I say this because in the OP, it reads like you wanted to sift though good and bad information and how to go about that. This is different from justified true belief.
  • How do we know if we know something?
    But how do you know that your experiences are reliable or that you are interpreting them correctly? — Average
    So if a surgeon told you about the surgery he just performed and which you just watched performed, you would still be skeptical of the account of the surgeon?
  • How do we know if we know something?
    But how do you verify the validity of experience? Do you need another experience? If you use experience to verify the validity of experience then that seems a bit circular. — Average
    By simply accompanying the person to the vaccine clinic and seeing the needle emptied in his upper arm.
    Seriously? Watch a surgeon operate then. How's that for experience?
  • How do we know if we know something?
    Most people have opinions on topics but how many people have knowledge? How would we recognize knowledge in the first place? — Average
    One way to know is experience -- a person talking has some or a lot of experience in it. If you got vaccinated, you know the side effects and how long they last. You could pass this information around. In fact, that's how the medical authorities know the side effects of a drug -- people experiencing it.
  • Pessimism’s ultimate insight
    So what is one to do? If suicide isn't a real option, there is only the perpetual cycle. The illusion is that it can be broken. Schopenhauer deigned freedom by asceticism. That was a nice consolation-hope to provide, but it's simply training the mind to live with the existential striving-after more easily. That is all- a mental technique. It is not a metaphysical escape hatch. We are stuck until we are not. — schopenhauer1
    Schopenhauer's view is gloomy, indeed.
    No one has a really good solution to this, only good suggestions. And funny thing is, after we're told by Schopenhauer, we turn to other philosophers for a silver lining. A mind can do wonders without altering our surrounding. Just the shift in mind. Although a change in surrounding can temporarily alleviate it. That's why we're all escapist in one form or another. Some bury themselves in art and music, others in paid work, and still other in hobbies.
  • Youth for longevity.
    ↪MAYAEL

    Infact one of my hypothesis I have as to the increasing mental health problems people are having is do to the constant bombardment we are receiving from radio waves I think we are starting to subconsciously pick up on them despite the fact that they are far past the range of the human ear I feel that we are developing a way of reading these signals phiscally and subconsciously it's creating anxiety. — MAYAEL
    Great hypothesis! I believe you. Find a way to do an experiment on that.
Home » L'éléphant