Referring to pure fiction, like Orwellian Newspeak, as though it were something real. — praxis

Yes, and other similar pieces.

Another annoyance -- referring to "War and Peace" whenever one means "lengthy" without ever having read the book. It's fucking 1,400 pages, written by Tolstoy!

"Oh, he wrote me a war and peace email just to explain the procedure".

Don't do this or I might as well quiz you on the novel.

(I did not read the book)

But anyways, to the broader point, much of philosophy revolves around how it is that the world exists without an observer, or sometimes formulated as a human observer. — schopenhauer1

This is an incorrect formulation of the ontology-epistemology question, which I've seen quite often. With the "How is it that the world exists" you really mean to ask "how is it that we know that there's anything that exists. Very different questions.

Your question, as you posted it here, is about the "why" does the world exist. Epistemology deals with our knowledge of existence. Which one are you asking?

When you act do you know you are acting, or are you not sure whether you are acting? — Leontiskos

So, if one is doubting whether they're acting, then the doubting itself is an act that they're not sure of. This has a funny consequence -- I'm not sure I'm walking, but I'm also not sure that I'm not sure I'm walking, and I really can't be sure at all of anything, which means there is one thing I know non-mediately: that I don't know anything. So, there IS ONE THING I know for sure!!
:sweat:

The continuation of this argument is -- so if there is one thing one knows non-mediately, surely there could other things one can know non-mediately. Why is there only one thing that occupies a special place of knowing non-mediately? Is it because one is trying to win an argument? Is it because one hasn't put a lot of thought into this argument and does not know how to end it?

To everyone in the thread it is accepted that we know our own actions in a more immediate way than we know others' actions, — Leontiskos

We know our actions in a direct way -- no input from the outside world. If I walked over to the kitchen, I knew it without waiting for an object to hit my eyes. My action is within me. My being is within me. A ball is outside of me, I can perceive it. I can perceive its qualities. If I lay down and imagine aliens, only I could know I am imagining. The act of imagining is not something that I perceive like I am perceiving a tree. In fact, compared to the perception of a tree, my imagination can take many forms; whereas a tree is a tree is a tree. Seven billion people could confirm that a pine tree is a pine tree.

:up:

It's valid because "action is mediated" is not our argument. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It's valid because of the form of the argument.

Although, I am aware that mathematicians generally prefer direct proofs over the reductio, because a reductio lacks fecundity, it cannot be used to set up new proofs as easily. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Proof by contradiction works in math -- and it was built as a mathematical argument.
We can't use the argument by contradiction here because.....

It's a containment relationship that fails to obtain. Or we can define it through membership. Action is not in the set of "things known mediately," while "all appearances" are members of that set. Thus, on pain of contradiction, action cannot be a member of the set of appearances as this would entail that it is an element in the set of things that are know mediately (which is rejected in P2). — Count Timothy von Icarus

...there's not a containment relationship that exists in the argument. "Setting a set of things" itself is part of theory of action, which is about critical judgment -- see Kant's theory of action. If you notice, the argument provided includes that critical judgment on judgment about appearances:

If anything is an appearance it is known mediately,
The individual knows that he (or she) acts non-mediately
Thus, action cannot be an appearance.

So, action is a universal set, which can also be a urelement, in ZF theory. (Now I'm matching your proof by contradiction for lack of a better communication alternative. If we're gonna be wayward, let us, at least, be consistently wayward).

agree that depressed people are not happy, but I don't believe they have an accurate assessment of life. When they suggest there is no meaning to life and no reason for our existence, they are wrong and that's what makes them so unhappy. — Hanover

So, depressed people have a clearer perception of reality than most of us, and they are more "prepared" for tragic events than the overall. Oh, come on... why is depression the main cause of suicide then? :roll: — javi2541997

nteresting. In my experience people with depression are just as likely to get things wrong but the tendency is towards catastrophic underestimation and negative inferences rather than Panglossian overestimation. — Tom Storm

I have no objection to the above comments. I did not read the scientific study to support that article. I also find that glorifying the dark perception of life by depressed people is biased -- serious looks do not entail deep meaning.

Regret and sentimentality come from not believing one has a purpose that is constantly being fulfilled. If we accept that the driver for our acts aren't the causes that precede them but are for the purposes we are to fulfill, then it's hard to find a reason to focus on yesterday and try to run backwards in time and away from our intended destination. — Hanover

Because we have adopted the meaning of "purpose" as something that's got to be grand. Anything less than grand is just existing. And existing is easy to do. Rocks exist. People can't picture themselves serving a purpose if they make a minimum wage and cannot pay the rent. Or if fuel price increases and everyone is bothered by it. How can we think of the grand purpose in life if we're annoyed at the pump?

We could thus set this up as a proof by contradiction by assuming our premises and assuming that "action IS appearance." This results in a contradiction where action both is and is not a member of the set of "things known mediately," — Count Timothy von Icarus

Except that we can't do it that way. Remember the OP's question is "IS it both valid and sound?"
If "action is appearance" (by proof of contradiction) then you're setting up an absurd argument before you could finish. That's why it's important to know that that argument is coming from Kant because 1) external objects can only be known mediately and 2) humans have freedom of the will.

Action is not an external thing -- it's coming from you.

If one is in a coma or has a brain injury that they cannot act based on their will, then they cannot argue that they know they're acting non-mediately.

Here is an article about "depressive realism" -- a term I just found out about:

What Is Depressive Realism?
Depressive realism is a psychological term describing the tendency of people with depression to have a more accurate assessment and perception of reality than those without depression. While people without depression tend to overestimate their successes, capabilities, and control over the world around them, people with depression generally have a more realistic view.

Depressive realism is based on an overall tendency among depressed people to focus on negative aspects of reality. Because the world can be a difficult, unpredictable place, and because it is likely that bad events will happen at some point in life, depressive realists may be more prepared for those eventualities than people who overestimate their control and capability. — Arlin Cuncic, Very Well Mind

Here's a link to the article:

https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-depressive-realism-6891266

This is the social butterfly's view on life, who surrounds themselves with as many friends as possible. Do social butterflies live especially meaningful lives? This has not been my impression. — hypericin

I believe the field of psychology, or at least in the study of personalities, acknowledges that the pensive, quiet people (who often find life to be "not happy") are the ones who have a more accurate assessment of life. Not a good finding coming from this field -- but there you go.

I'd say, do not dwell in the past no matter how beautiful or successful the past was. Keep it off your mind. Take care of what you have now. You can't be with your past anymore -- it's gone. Love the one you're with. This, coming from my own experience of dealing with all sorts of people.

:up:

Modus tollens logic is of the form "If A, then B. Not A. Therefore, not B." — Alkis Piskas

Check again.

If anything is an appearance it is known mediately,
The individual knows that he (or she) acts non-mediately
Thus, action cannot be an appearance. — KantDane21 — ItIsWhatItIs

Valid and sound.

Questions like, should this footage elicit a change in beliefs at all? — flannel jesus

No. It doesn't make me change my mind. If there are evidence of alien life forms, and they've reached the Earth, and caught on camera, then they should be here. Man-made space debris fall on Earth in minute particles undetectable by our existing technology. If you found something at the bottom of the ocean that's "strange", most likely it's our own space debris.

If there are other life forms, and they're too far away to reach the Earth, then all we have are speculations.

do I have the right, as the egregious perpetrator, to keep my kidneys if I do not consent to giving them to the victim? — Bob Ross

Yes. You do.

Here's a good specimen of humans that might be of interest in relation to the OP:
Search for Robert Tulloch and James Parker murder of two professors.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/03/the-apocalypse-of-adolescence/302449/

I just like to use examples that prima facie aren't about abortion so that the conversation doesn't derail into begging the question and to try and latch onto intuitions one may have outside of abortion talk which are pertinent to it. — Bob Ross

I understand. You are right to call out statements such as "a woman has autonomy over her body" carte blanche. Abortion is one of those situations where there is a lot of gray areas -- she can have an abortion, but she cannot use drugs while pregnant. The hazard for women who birth live babies is that the moment the baby is born, that baby is a whole person with a whole bunch of rights given to them, such that if she harms them in any way, it is criminal automatically.

Although, of course, if a woman does not feel like taking care of that baby, she can make it known legally and give up the baby. She has the right to reject the newborn baby.

She has been doing this from infancy, in spite of all attempts by her caregivers and teachers to modify the behaviour? — Vera Mont

From the sound of it, she developed this not as a child, but as a teen.

There's a basic flaw in the assumptions of this thread; actions are what are good or bad, not people, and not genes. — Banno

So, we can eliminate people and let actions happen? lol.

Her ‘dark side’, her ‘evil’ and manipulations are how her behaviors appear to us when we fail to see the world through her eyes , and instead try to force our perspective on her. — Joshs

You can say all the right things, but suffice it to say that her employer and colleagues had always been supportive of her. That did not stop her from taking advantage of them. Like I said, I haven't talked about the really serious issues. But I will no longer talk about it. I just used it as an example that you could stumble upon people who are just truly evil even if no one has harmed them.

I disagree: why would she have that sort of absolute right to bodily autonomy? — Bob Ross

In certain states in the US, a woman does not have a full autonomy over her body. An example is, if she was pregnant and a drug user, it is criminal.

In addition to genetic mental conditions — Outlander

In my previous posts I avoided saying the "mental conditions" because I don't want to turn this into a mental health issues. When the OP asked if good and evil are born or nurtured, my response is they are born (nature). And we only turn to nurture to modify bad behaviors (and foster good ones). So, continuing on, the reason why I don't want to bring in the emotional or mental health issues is because most people have those conditions, short term or long term. There are many bipolar individuals who are not evil, let alone mean, for example. So, I hope this is clear.

I'm talking about people who have good command of their emotions and mental conditions but whose constitution-- the whole of their personhood-- predisposed them to be bad.

I'm very interested in this topic because I'm currently observing an individual who I shared an office with recently and whom I got to know closely for over a year. I have moved to another office now, but to continue with this point: this individual is just your ordinary person who has held her job for a long time. I believe it's only me who got to know her dark side, though. Not even the boss knows her well, at least not what I've discovered. I won't go into the deep dark secrets, but the example I'd use is she revels in "playing tricks" on others: manipulation, compulsive lies, and dramas to get her "wins" no matter how small that is.

I would find it hard to believe for the simple reason as it could be argued then that people should be imprisoned or stripped of rights from birth because they are fundamentally bad. — Benj96

You must not have heard the joke about the thought police. No, we don't imprison people just cause they were born bad. We wait until there's evidence. There was a research done on some murderers whose ancestors were once murderers as well. Generations of families did not wipe out the traces of evil in them.

But we don't have to go to the most heinous criminals. Just your everyday functioning, employed sociopaths will do as an observational experiment.

Some people are predisposed to sociopathic behavior because they have it in them something similar to what gets them high. Some people have the alcoholic predisposition, some phobic predisposition.

Is stealing a loaf of bread to feed your hungry children a good thing or a bad thing? — Agree-to-Disagree

I thought we're talking about the evil here? Obviously, we can ignore those.

How many of you would propose it is down to one thing: that people are really born bad or good eggs, or that really there is only conditioning and interpersonal influence at work. Who would propose that it is in fact an obligatory combination. That both are neccesary to give rise to certain outcomes. Please support your arguments with examples. — Benj96

People are born either bad or good -- so nature. I apologize in advance to those who disagree. When we apply intelligence to behavior, i.e. learning, experiment, results, we are turning to nurture to modify bad behaviors. Look at recidivism of criminals (although it's not confined to those who went to prison as we do have other bad people at large also).

An explanation of what something “is” or isn’t— that’s dealing with meaning, and is a kind of definition. — Mikie

You're not convinced with your own assertion. "Kind of"?

I want to use the example of surgery. If you find someone cutting though the flesh and rearranging the organs of another human being, is he performing surgery? After all, these are what surgeons do when they operate. But what if that someone is not a doctor? -- certainly he's not performing surgery because the definition of surgery is limited to the "practice of medicine" which could only be applied to doctors.

Philosophy involves ongoing conversation -- whether written or verbal. But not all ongoing conversations are doing philosophy.

Not a puzzle. A woman's bodily autonomy does not transfer to a murderer. — LuckyR

But the definition of a fetus by the state changes depending on who terminates the life of the fetus.

If it's a woman's action that terminates the fetus, then that's legal. But if it's another person, it's homicide. The fetus has two ways of legal existence, concurrently.

Funny that you’d end your post with a definition of philosophy as an “ongoing conversation.” — Mikie

I disagree. Banno's comment is an explanation of doing philosophy, not its definition.

I'm not posting here to argue for or against abortion. I want to just explain something that's irreconcilable about pro-abortion and anti-abortion societies.

When someone announces the pregnancy, her whole circle celebrates: there's formal announcement, there's gender-reveal (shown in theaters, no less), there's baby shower-- when I was a kid I thought they literally bathe the pregnant woman in front of the guests) then there's the birth, and finally the christening where food and gifts are used to celebrate this important occasion. Following this, a lot of legal rights accrue to the baby: the mother could be prosecuted for drug use while pregnant, the baby has the right to be taken care of and not neglected, and of course, if the baby dies at the hands of the parents or any member of their society, there's homicide or infanticide.

Meanwhile, within the same society, the pregnant woman can decide to terminate the pregnancy without any reason required. Because in the pro-choice stance, it doesn't matter whether the fetus growing inside is the woman's own flesh and blood. She is not held accountable morally to spare the fetus just because it's her own blood. This is what it means by her-body-her-choice. The fetus has no right to use the woman's body to grow to full viability. At any given point during the pregnancy, the fetus doesn't count as an entity. Note that if you're one of the guests in a baby shower, you're celebrating the woman, not the fetus inside the womb.

Then here comes another puzzling thing. Suppose a woman decides to terminate the pregnancy and made an appointment with a doctor two weeks from now. Suppose that an intruder attacks the woman and kills her and the baby before the appointment. The state can then charge the intruder with double homicide -- never mind that the woman doesn't' want the baby and is about to terminate it. Depending on what country or state in the US you're in, killing a pregnant woman is double homicide.

In a society where govenments try to tell you what is true and raise you into believing what you believe, — Hailey

Any government does not have a monopoly in information. This is what a common person believes -- that everything that comes out as information is created by the government. There are modern intelligentsias who continually write, if not verbally contribute, about the society. There are also the capitalist multi-nationals who continue to shape our beliefs -- good or bad.

This leads to the individuals recognition that they’re in a self created bubble allows room for their self emergence from it and different perspectives on life and reality and maybe a pursuit of knowledge be that self-knowledge or philosophy.

But why philosophy anyway ? If a person is happy who needs it ? It’s often recognised that life is suffering and ignorance is bliss but are these just convenient aphorisms or is the truth somewhere in between? — simplyG

The truth is somewhere in between. Life is not suffering. Life is one huge experimental lab that anyone could explore and try things out. It should allow you to think and be satisfied, be unhappy, or happy about what you find. (JS Mill might help here as a reference). Philosophy is a refuge to those who find that material things do not make them satisfied -- or they find that material possessions or wanting material possessions leave them empty. Science is also that -- many inventors in the past had devoted their entire life -- often dying without success -- working on their projects. Then, there's the artistic or creative realm where you can bury yourself just creating.

Bubbles are good -- if it leaves you not wanting other-wordly things. If it leaves you self-sufficient. I don't allow in my little circle individuals who suck. The energy vampires, as you some call them, have no life other than dump on you their dramas. And it's repeated everyday, multiple times a day. If you examine the way they think, there's really nothing exciting happening there.

We all think we’re special. — Mikie

This is not the norm unless you are a narcissist. I mean that in a factual way. Most people have a good sense of more here, little there, okay, and good. In fact, even an egoistic individual would only be egoistic within his own circle around him -- usually a very tiny one: himself and another person.

"Egoistic" as used here is not the philosophical egoism.

where do the loan repayments come from? — LuckyR

I could explain some of it, but won't.

Do you think some kind of scheme should be put into place to help minimum wage workers in later life? I do. Maybe open up a pension/saving scheme to set up like I said? Good idea or bad idea? — I like sushi

Good idea on paper. I would like an automatic benefit plan for minimum wage. The good argument is, the retail and food sectors really need people to work at low wage. They need people to stay at that level. The bad argument is, any employment benefits, including health coverage, is part of the compensation package. That is, you need to include that in the calculation of their overall compensation. So, the cost to the employers is much higher than the actual per hour rate. Labor is one of the most expensive costs in running a business. (Don't worry, come staff reduction, the highly compensated employees are always the ones being scrutinized. But this is for another topic).

The problem is, pension doesn't always mean people can make ends meet. One, if they're married, they need to stay married so that money can go along way -- one household only. The ones who can afford to be alone in retirement are those that were highly paid during their active working years (not minimum wage).

Second, shit can happen to anyone. Irresponsible money handling can still lead to broke-ass life despite the high income production.

This can be a good topic on a separate thread.

I didn't buy the ticket. I want a real freak show, not modalities and scenarios.

A two-prong dilemma doesn't count.

So, please excuse my joke at your expense. — BC

lol. No problem. :up:

Thus, Fukuyama appears to be looking in the wrong place for a new movement. — Count Timothy von Icarus

To me, his mistake is to think that history -- or the development of political history is linear. The ancients actually thought it was a cycle, in which the liberal democratic form is just going through its phase, and then another political form replaces it. There were probably 4 or 5 forms of a government. They cycle around until it repeats.

Rather, he thought (he is writing in 1989-1992) that no alternative to liberal democracy could emerge that would be widely considered to be a more legitimate alternative. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That's assuming that "political freedom" and individuality continue to be the ideal values. But we can't even fathom now that a possibility exists that the development in eons, human minds could change into something we wouldn't recognize now. Maybe humans would actually turn docile and think that an oligarchy is desirable -- so long as the needs of the population are being met, the oligarchs are the ideal masters. Maybe in eons, the population do not want to be responsible for their own life and want the ruling elite to take care of everything.

Ancient philosophy was designed for the sake of living a truly eudaimonic life. The modern philosophies that have risen since the Enlightenment need to shift towards this paradigm of therapeía, that is to say, "healing. — Dermot Griffin

We can't have this if our world worships massive material wealth -- the surplus economy where only those in position to hold the surpluses flourish.

Great, IF the spouse has lots of cash,

I don't recommend it. — L'éléphant

Especially if one IS the rich spouse. — BC

No, we're not talking about cash or "one rich spouse". We're on topic here as below:

that would mean they have to pay capital gains tax. — Mikie

This is the topic.

This is a funny thread.

So, what do they do instead? — Mikie

A spouse dying also works. I don't recommend it. But that's how it can work too.

I'd define reality as "The sum of everything that is objectively true right now." — Cidat

Reality is the whole cosmos. But in philosophy, we really do not have a hard definition of it. Philosophers do not intentionally define it, for good reason. Instead, what we have is a contrast against appearance, illusion, imagination, and possibilities. This is the best way to understand what we mean by reality. A negative definition works better than any other attempts.

Someone on a philosophy forum once said the amount of new information (they might have said knowledge) in a dictionary is essentially zero, because all the dictionary does is refer to itself. That's always stuck with me. What do you think of that? — RogueAI

To me this is incorrect as there are actually panels of experts who write the dictionary, they're just not cited for each word definition. So, it looks like "no human source" was used in the making of the dictionary. Besides, words, as years go by can change its meaning due to change in population's way of talking or writing. And more words are added to the dictionary, as we now know "google" is a verb.

What’s annoying is how expensive it is. — Mikie

Exactly.

[1]

Influencers. — Sir2u

[2] people who go to concerts so they could hear themselves talk nonstop. They do this intentionally.

[3] Drivers who hit pedestrians. WTF, man! :scream:

[4] Drunk drivers. There should be a breathalyzer device in the car to start the ignition. But it wouldn't take long before people could fool the breathalyzer. So, I don't know.

[5] People who eat ramen everyday. Look, it's good. But everyday? We're not in apocalypse yet.

[6] Animal abuse

[7] Dragon fruit.