Comments

  • 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.
  • Youth for longevity.
    I feel that technology is killing us more then it is helping but I can't see this world giving up it's beloved technology any time soon — MAYAEL
    I hear ya, man. As someone who took a hiatus from city life, I had half an acre to myself to live in the bare minimum. I slept well and woke up with mental brightness and lots of energy to do plantings, build things, and fucking..cook..real food! I was also reading books, writing, and couldn't care less about the rest of the world. My hearing got sensitive -- I could hear sounds a lot louder. I didn't allow noise to invade my abode and my existence.

    Then I went back to civilization. First thing that bothered me were sounds of loud TV, the mower, and house alarms.
  • Is perfection possible?
    You’re a fortunate man if you’ve never had to encounter something that you detest. I wish I was that lucky. — Average
    Encounter is the wrong word. Try imagine. We could have a notion of perfection. Imagine something perfect. Although, I want to take back what I said that I detest perfection. There are a few things in life that are perfect, whose qualities I do not detest:

    Eggs -- are perfect. The shape, size, and nutritional value.

    Small birds are perfect, like hummingbirds.

    The moon looks perfect.

    Some pine trees are perfect.

    Some bells sound perfect -- like the big church bells.

    Some rock formations are perfect. The outcroppings of boulders are perfect to me.
  • The Moral Emotions: Can we overcome anger and blame?
    ↪baker
    I don't know what to make of your post because all the examples you gave are abuse of the moral senses. Before we could talk about that, let's talk about what had already been considered moral judgments.
  • Is perfection possible?
    Is it possible to live a life that is flawless or are we destined to live lives that are less than ideal? — Average
    I detest perfection -- whatever that means since I don't think I have encountered perfection ever. And I'm not even sure what a flawless life is. It's weird to use it in this context since we know we can't control everything in our life to make it work the way we envision.
    That said, I have no attraction to perfection. I am drawn to "flawed" people, whose flaws make them interesting. I am also fascinated by those whose bad decisions in life didn't deter them from continuing the path they've chosen and overcoming it.
    People who try to live a perfect life is boring to me.
  • The Moral Emotions: Can we overcome anger and blame?
    Is it really philosophically correct to take for granted that the party who feels wronged is automatically the arbiter of morality? — baker
    You do know what I mean. Are you saying that rape is justified sometimes? lol.
    No one could say, yes I raped her as a self-defense.

    How about we think before we take the neutral position or the it-depends position.

    What this discussion is lacking is an acknowledgment of the role of the power differential in moral judgments.

    The one who can punish is in the position of power.
    If punishment is justified, as a matter of principle, then might makes right. Do you want to go in that direction?     — baker

    First of all, I don't understand your post. Power differential in moral judgments -- what's that? Say we have a court functioning with integrity. Is it really that hard to discern fault here?
  • Need Help to Move On
    Why? I expect no such thing from anyone, least ways family members, as those are the most arbitrary relationships in one's entire life. I never did understand this. — Garrett Travers
    Liar! Or you're a school of fish! Gratitude is a common knowledge. :smirk:

    Like hell you don’t care. There’s a lot of anger and resentment in your choice of words here. — Possibility
    That's what I get, too, from his post.

    Time to say something about this:

    Hey guys! When you sound bitter, but you're not aware in your tone of voice that you sound bitter, then that means your natural emotion is showing. Often we don't smell our own fear. But others can.

    Not to beat a dead horse or parse words, but I think reciprocity would be included as a way to show gratitude. That's just the way I think I guess. — Tex
    You're mistaking necessity for sufficiency in reasoning. Reciprocity is sufficient to show gratitude, but showing gratitude does not necessarily contain reciprocity. I'll give you an example: We show gratitude to our parents for raising us. But this gratitude is never a reciprocity in the sense that we do perform an act in exchange to make it a mutual benefit. A true reciprocity is between friends extending a favor and returning a favor. Another example is a business deal.
  • Need Help to Move On
    but I can't shake the feeling that, now that this person has the means, that reciprocity would at least enter the person's mind and then act on it. How could it not, is the question I ask myself. — Tex
    It's a family member, so there's a whole different mindset. The reciprocity bias was never there to begin with. Gratitude is what one expects from a family member. Not reciprocity. That person didn't have gratitude. Very common occurrence. But, let's talk about you. Are you feeling this way because it is actually about the money but you're in denial? Let's say he never got the windfall, but he also never thanked you, and never showed up for your birthday, your most important occasion, or for your funeral. How do you feel now? Would you be as bitter?

    Explain this.... How so? Asshole? He asked for money, it was given to him. Do you think that purchased a part of him to be owned and an expectation to behave in a certain way towards the giver of the largesse? — Garrett Travers
    No, the person was an asshole even before I started giving money, is what I meant. I also said I don't feel anything when helping that person. So, there's that lack of expectation on my part.
  • Need Help to Move On
    I've always given and not asked/implied for anything and have never brought it up ever again. Just gave and that's that. — Tex
    Herein lies the problem. If you must give, give wisely. Ask questions. I don't know what's your relationship with this person, but if they're family members, then there's your answer -- lack of reciprocity bias because either they feel entitled to your money, or to their mind you just have too much money.

    Let's assume though that this person is not a family member:

    If you had been doing this for years to the same person, you made it clear to that person that it never hurt you to help him, so his reciprocity bias had become neutral -- he never developed the need to reciprocate. Nor did he try to think, he couldn't possibly repay you so he must stop asking.

    No matter how genuine his needs were, you were the enabler of such behavior.

    Ethics wise -- nothing to be said. But etiquette, yes he violated this cultural norm.

    Just tell yourself -- that money you gave him was made based purely on your own volition. You were not forced to part ways with the money. The windfall he got, that's never your money, so there was never a loss there either.

    Do this. Stop seeing or talking to that person. It could be years or never that he might want to contact you. That would be fun times.

    As someone who has been helping another person myself -- I'll tell you that that person is an asshole, yet I do not feel anything when parting with my money and sending over electronically, and paying the wire fee. I get a text, and I just do it. When I'm not in good mood, and I get a text for money help, I ignore it. Then the next time I get a text, I just send it. I really feel numbed about this person. I don't tell this to anyone in my family as this is as stupid as it gets. My ex broke up with me citing stupidity on my part as one reason for the break-up. Like a violent feeling of "You're fucking stupid!!" God yes, now that I think about it, that's why I don't date anymore. Because they might find out about this stupid thing I do. I don't even talk to this person. Okay, there's one dark reason -- which I'm going to divulge here. This person almost died by suicide. But this person is still an asshole!
  • On Scientific and Philosophical creativity relative to wealth
    1. Those who do not know that science was created by philosophy — Garrett Travers
    "Necessity is the mother of invention" originated from Plato:

    “Come, then, let us create a city from the beginning, in our theory. Its real creator, as it appears, will be our needs.” “Obviously.” [369d] “Now the first and chief of our needs is the provision of food for existence and life.”4“Assuredly.” “The second is housing and the third is raiment and that sort of thing.” “That is so.” “Tell me, then,” said I, “how our city will suffice for the provision of all these things. Will there not be a farmer for one, and a builder, and then again a weaver? And shall we add thereto a cobbler and some other purveyor for the needs of body?” “Certainly.” “The indispensable minimum of a city, then, would consist of four or [369e] five men.”

    and that my economic status was not suitable for an inventor.
    This realization somehow dampened my mood. Reflecting once more, I reassured myself. Shortly afterwards I came up with a quote.

    Philosophy is the poor man's Science and Science is the rich man's Philosophy... in the context of creativity.     — Nagel
    Fear not. Watching too much netflix and youtube will make you feel that way.
    Here, let me help you sort it out. Many philosophers came from wealth. Some denounced it. Seneca, Aristotle, Plato, and Pythagoras were all wealthy while philosophers. Contemporary ones include Wittgenstein. If I am reading you incorrectly, then let me know.

    But I'm pretty sure our great philosophers did not consult youtube or netflix to decide whether to become a scientist or a philosopher.
  • The Moral Emotions: Can we overcome anger and blame?
    Can you find a way to defend blame in a way that 'redeems' the notion for Joshs? — Tom Storm
    Getting rid of blame is not logically sound. Why? How do we even start to define harm? Someone caused it, but he couldn't be blamed for it because there's no free will? How do we hold people accountable then? A no-blame morality is untenable and unsustainable because it is a one-sided premise whose burden is on the person harmed.

    The desert proponents once argued that punishment is a way for us to acknowledge the humanity of a person. Denying him a punishment is denying his accountability for his actions. And denying his accountability is denying his moral agency. So personhood has this component of culpability. You take away this culpability, then we treat him like we treat innocent animals.
  • The Moral Emotions: Can we overcome anger and blame?
    ↪Agent Smith

    The blame here is the culpability of the person who caused the harm. Josh's argument is, if we get rid of the notion of blame, then we get rid of the root cause of anger.

    But moving past this, is it really philosophically correct to not assign blame for the wrong done?
  • The Moral Emotions: Can we overcome anger and blame?
    ↪Tom Storm

    Tom, please do not inject another element into the argument. Josh and I and, I believe, Cuthbert, too, know what's at stake here.

    So, let's assume that Josh's view has assurance that the removal of blame is not because it is bound to be abused by "convenient flare up" and "righteousness". Josh, you know this. We are precluding righteousness here.

    The blame definition is pure.
  • The Moral Emotions: Can we overcome anger and blame?
    ↪Cuthbert

    Good call on Strawson's quote.

    But as you can see above, Joshs's view is this: why don't we stop looking at is as free-will so that we could also stop the blame-desert corollary.

    And I reject this view. First of all, I don't use free-will philosophically to argue about why guilt, blame, and punishment is a just view. Humans are psychologically predisposed to recognize these 3 elements. So, I use the psychological framework to make a statement about moral agency.
  • The Moral Emotions: Can we overcome anger and blame?
    But you haven’t articulated this decision-making in terms
    of how it differs from a morally ‘correct’ decision-making.     — Joshs
    I just said, they're found to be able to discern right from wrong. In short, they're not mentally ill. So yes, they are aware of what's morally correct.

    But mental illness understood as a pathology is another name for randomness. The cause is arbitrary. — Joshs
    I think we need to sit down and sort this thing you call randomness. To me, when an individual is born with mental illness, that's not random. That's their being. And for that, our society provides a treatment.

    Why are some self-centered and self-absorbed but not others? Is it a certain randomness or arbitrariness that lurks within each of us? — Joshs
    This you might call arbitrariness (God I don't know what country you're in, but no offense, I find these terms not the kind I would use when discussing morality, but well okay.) Because it is a vice they want. And to support this vice, they would rationalize their behavior (while knowing right from wrong) -- this rationalization is their support, in a manner of speaking, to go ahead and act on their vice.

    Have you taken information systems, btw? Have you heard of "internal controls" -- it would be a perfect framework for your topic because it involves human behavior but in technology setting. The computers against wayward humans.
  • The Moral Emotions: Can we overcome anger and blame?
    What I would like to know is how you articulate the nature of wrong-doing and evil in terms of the capriciousness of straying from the path of righteousness. Tell me more about what makes such straying possible. Is it a kind of randomness? — Joshs
    The straying, as you also name it, has various causes. There are certainly people born with mental illness whose propensity to harm people is well documented. So, this one is not capricious or random -- it has a root cause.

    One cause is the development of a vice. There's a joke that mocks the petty crimes, double life, and white lies as something that could not progress to heinous crimes. Well they do. We know this is true. Self-centered and self-absorbed people can discern right from wrong. That's a fact. But when they make a decision, this decision involves rationalization (in another sense of the word) to make this decision palatable and justifiable. So there's a deliberate attempt at plotting the perfect crime.

    You know police investigations would show that rapists make a decision to go out and hunt, depending on the weather. If the weather is not conducive to prowling, they postpone it. So, the weather factors in to their decision to commit a crime. They don't aimlessly wander around separated from their minds and decision-making.
  • The Moral Emotions: Can we overcome anger and blame?
    But what if this simply reflects a failure of insight on our part? What if ‘evil-doers’ believe they are just, and their failure isn’t one of moral intent but of insight? — Joshs
    Sorry. But I take a harder stance on moral claims -- those that involve suffering of the psychic and physical harm. I won't compromise on this. (Heck, that's why I made a thread here Enforcement of Morality)

    The "what-if" failure of insight on our part, as you proposed, has been studied for ages and ages -- backed by scholarly and medical studies. We aren't wrong in limiting the freedom of those who cause us harms. There's no more excuse that we might be short-sighted and not seeing the forest because of the trees.
  • Murder and unlawful killing
    Think of preparatory acts, like buying the murder weapon, lying in wait, etc. — Benkei
    You mean premeditation.
  • The Moral Emotions: Can we overcome anger and blame?
    ↪Joshs

    So does your view apply to every moral harm? Rapists? Murderers who murdered an entire family? Torturers of children?
    And sins, I didn't know that you were going in that direction -- what if one is an atheist? How does an atheist forgive?

    You know that forgiveness does not deter transgressions against people by evil people. The law does. People who commit heinous crimes and crimes of opportunity don't have conscience, and there are plenty of them around. If you remove the punishment by law here, then heaven help us all.
  • The Moral Emotions: Can we overcome anger and blame?
    Is this discussion a one-sided argument against a person who is injured one way or another by another person? i.e. the person who suffered harm could go past the blame phase and see why the harm was done to him?

    I'm trying to clarify the completeness of the argument here, because in any moral assessment of a situation, there are always two sides -- the person causing harm and the person who suffered the harm. I've heard of people who forgave their attackers -- that is, they've come to terms with their anger and found closure by talking to their attackers directly and forgiving them (in court or prison of course).

    But there's another component of this moral event -- what to do with the attacker. The society has something in place: appropriate punishment. It is this component here that seems to be missing. @Joshs, are you saying that aside from skipping anger, should we also skip punishment or desert to the person who caused harm?
  • Very hard logic puzzle
    ↪Philosophim

    Okay, thanks for the input.
    So why didn't he just correct it? He said 10 people had solved it. And "there's no correct answer" but follow the logic. So he lied.

    I don't understand people. Why get embarrassed about posting stupid logic puzzle with the title "Very Hard Logic Puzzle"? Some people take a picture of their dick and text it to other people. They should be embarrassed by that behavior -- it's a like taking picture of a secret pet and showing it to people. What do you feed it? And they're not even interesting to look at.

    My advice -- puzzles should only be posted by people who know what they're doing. If it's not published yet, and you decide to publish it to get paid for it, then don't show it on public forums then later retract it.
Home » L'éléphant