I wonder to what extent despair is a temperament or a philosophical perspective? Also, to what extent is it a chosen viewpoint or one arrived at through outer experience of suffering? — Jack Cummins

So, I am asking how do you see the idea of despair, and hope, as philosophical concepts in making sense of the navigation of life possibilities? How may ideas of despair be juggled effectively, to go beyond the deadend of pessimism and thinking? To what extent is nihilism a 'realistic' philosophy or a flawed one? — Jack Cummins

Ah got it. Yes, loans for all. Cars for all. Shit for all. — schopenhauer1

Imagine a world where automobiles were rare, and mainly used in rural areas that were extremely remote or for emergency purposes only. — schopenhauer1

I asked, "And how do you distinguish between who a person is and who you think said person is?"
Replying, "Okay, seriously, by spending time with them" is below one would expect at a philosophy forum. — baker

This is what I mean, and to me, these things are obvious.
People's bodily appearance is like the picture of Dorian Gray: it depicts all their sins and passions. — baker

This is a philosophy forum. Presumably, you have a systematic methodology for distinguishing between who a person is and who you think said person is. — baker

But there are outward clues as to who they are if you look closely.

"Closely"? I think it's quite obvious. — baker

How do you tell which is which?

And how do you distinguish between who a person is and who you think said person is? — baker

I would also add that I never know who a person really is. — Tom Storm

What do you mean by "appearance"? And what by "who they are"? — baker

We can ask ourselves: Does the gravitational singularity coexist with the current state of the universe? Should we differentiate them as two different moments? You could say: "In the gravitational singularity there is no before or after." Well, then there is an inadequacy of that space-time scheme that we use to represent the difference between one state of the universe and another state. — JuanZu

So, is philosophy very much invested in physics? Should it be? Is philosophy equipped, in general, to circumvent details and pull quantum tricks out of its big hat? — jgill

I wouldn't say Newtonian. I conceive spatiality and temporality as part of the thing to the extent that it is always in relationship. However, when talking about the order of coexistence and order of succession I am talking about something that all science implies when using the notions of space and time. — JuanZu

This is strange territory where philosophy can't seem to abstain trespassing. — jgill

If the universe is actually eternal, that solves the problem. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Basically, if inherit fluctuations in the singularity could produce the universe 14 billion years ago, how did the singularity not produce any such fluctuations for an infinite amount of time before these fluctuations finally did occur? My understanding is that this is the problem that drives the appeal of cyclical universes or Black Hole Cosmology. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Of course, we could appeal to the status of time in singularities, but we have reason to think our understanding of singularities is incomplete because of Hawking radiation, conservation laws, the prediction that black holes will decay and have an end, etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus

But as I said in my answer, although things come into existence constantly, what would be unusual is for them to come from nothing. Since generally there is a causality that precedes and explains them, kinda. The important thing is that "coming into existence" presupposes the order of coexistence and the order of succession. From this it follows that the universe did not come out of nothing: It could have been there forever. — JuanZu

Yes, that's the premise I was accepting starting out. Things can begin to exist for no reason at all, no Principle of Sufficient Reason in effect.

I'm not really sure if you're trying to rebut my solution or the problem itself? If a singularity can start to exist, i.e., it did not always exist, why can't others? Why does one beginning to exist preclude others? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Actually we do see many new things appear: new stars, new human beings, new social problems, new diseases, new hopes, new philosophies, new theories, new films, new technologies, etc. What is not common is that something new arises out of nothing and for no reason. — JuanZu

Here is the solution that occured to me, and it might not be very good. But let's say that all sorts of things do start to exist, at random. Why should we expect that different sorts of things that start existing would be able to interact with one another? Maybe stuff is popping into being all the time and it just makes no difference to us. — Count Timothy von Icarus

In other words, our conscious experience correlates with the notion of individual, since it is present almost all the time, but I don’t see any proof of causality, since one can happen without the other. — Skalidris

And of course, there's the hypocritical anti-philosophy types who don't wish to be doing philosophy, and even claim not to be doing philosophy, while not having the will power to prevent themselves from doing philosophy... and so they go, into the production of depraved philosophy. — Metaphysician Undercover

In case of the online information such as from WiKi or ChatGPT, the editors, publishers, scholars ..etc source information can be unknown or vague. And also the quality and accuracy of the information could be a bit suspicious too.

I prefer relying on the information from the traditional printed books and articles for the clearer information of the source, editors, writers and publishers. — Corvus

With the advent of A.I. and the use of ChatGPT getting popular, I wonder if all the Encyclopaedia and Textbooks become obsolete. Would it be the case, or the textbooks and Encyclopaedia will still be in demand? — Corvus

Philosophy has its own lexicon that's different from politics, for example. — L'éléphant

Do you refer to a particular lexicon, like a specialized dictionary or encyclopedia --e.g. Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, etc.-- or a personal vocabulary, based on their own personal meanings of terms?
If it's the first case, what Philosophy lexicon are you using? — Alkis Piskas

2) How can they expect to communicate effectively with others if they don't know the standard, common, agreed upon definitions/meanings of terms (with all their variations depending on context ) or if they have their own, personal, different definitions/meanings according to their own views and reality?
One can always of course describe one's own definition/meaning of a term --nothing bad about it-- but at least they should make that clear if that definition/meaning departs from the standard, common, agreed upon definition and meaning. Isn't that right? — Alkis Piskas

That being said, anyone who gives you flak for daring to use a dictionary should be red flagged in your mind. Anyone who resists clear definitions is likely a charlatan who will continue to twist and retwist the meaning any time you think you get a handle on it and it points to a contradiction. Discussing with people like this can be a waste of time, so be careful. — Philosophim

One cannot be both his own slave and his own master. — NOS4A2

The acceptance and appreciation of individuality. — Vera Mont

So find laws where the punishment is X fine without jail time and so long as you're poised to make a greater reward than the fine, break the law, pay the fine, reap the profits. — Vaskane

Are you just identifying your subjective opinion, or are you saying something objective?

As in, you think you better express yourself with painting than sculpture, or are you saying that sculpture is the truly best way to express certain perspectives?

Seems the former would be the only sustainable claim. — Hanover

For me it is clear that languages are different and that if there is a difference then one is to be better than another. — I like sushi

Firstly, it should be obvious that we can read, understand and interpret bits. Second, our perception is literally composed of what a bit is - a binary distinction. You either see an object or your don't. You either distinguish something from another, or you don't. Our perception is completely dependent on binary distinctions. — Hallucinogen

IMO, that's instrumental reasoning (re: things, i.e. means-to-ends) and not moral reasoning (re: persons, i.e. ends-in-themselves) — 180 Proof

Pictures can be represented in bits and bits can be processed to produce a picture. So I don't recognise the mutual exclusivity that serves as the basis of your reply. — Hallucinogen

They both use information processing. Saying that one of them "reads" some substrate that isn't information isn't going to be defensible. — Hallucinogen

So, there’s a certain moral perfection to a society where no-one goes astray, where there is no crime, people cooperate fully etc., but the emptiness of this social morality is highlighted by the cost necessary to achieve it. — Baden

I'm confused why you mention this - computers do "use" bits, and our minds do understand the world in pictures. This is an example of why my points are rushed and undefined? — Hallucinogen

3. Quantum cognition and decision theory have shown that information processing in a mind exhibits quantum principles known to underlie the emergence of physical space.
4. From (2) and (3), the information processing from which physical space is emergent is scientifically indistinguishable from the information processing that occurs in a mind. — Hallucinogen

I don't quite follow: doesn't Aristotle believe that the good is objective? — Bob Ross

Since then the object of the present treatise is not mere speculation, as it is of some others (for we are enquiring not merely that we may know what virtue is but that we may become virtuous, else it would have been useless), we must consider as to the particular actions how we are to do them, because, as we have just said, the quality of the habits that shall be formed depends on these.

Now, that we are to act in accordance with Right Reason is a general maxim, and may for the present be taken for granted: we will speak of it hereafter, and say both what Right Reason is, and what are its relations to the other virtues.[4]

But let this point be first thoroughly understood between us, that all which can be said on moral action must be said in outline, as it were, and not exactly: for as we remarked at the commencement, such reasoning only must be required as the nature of the subject-matter admits of, and matters of moral action and expediency have no fixedness any more than matters of health. And if the subject in its general maxims is such, still less in its application to particular cases is exactness attainable:[5] because these fall not under any art or system of rules, but it must be left in each instance to the individual agents to look to the exigencies of the particular case, as it is in the art of healing, or that of navigating a ship. Still, though the present subject is confessedly such, we must try and do what we can for it.

4. From (2) and (3), the information processing from which physical space is emergent is scientifically indistinguishable from the information processing that occurs in a mind. — Hallucinogen

What normative ethical theory do you subscribe to? A form of deontology, perhaps virtue ethics? — Bob Ross

Can we morally justify sacrificing people for the greater good, especially if it is a huge sacrifice (like getting tortured constantly)? — Bob Ross