I ask because I feel many if not all our problems are caused by not getting our priorities right. For example, I'm a sucker for good-looking peeps and my life is nothing but a series of disasters caused by my idée fixe with beauty. — Agent Smith

You're shallow and you suffer from lack of something in you. This is the true meaning of your desire for physical appearance. I've dated super good looking individuals, and appearance-challenged individuals. I'm speaking from experience.

Jesus! This is painful!

Philosophy is/was my cope. I thought l was improving myself and the world with philosophy but it's all a facade. Who cares what we have to say, what we think ???

Replace my clearly thought philosophical paragraphs with schizo rambling and it remains the same in character — Wittgenstein

Things like engaging in philosophical discourse could only work intrinsically. Do not reach out for the external satisfaction of your torment. Accept it and live with it. That's the only way you could "win". I'd say courage is a virtue even in a losing battle.

I'm too much of an asshole to let torment like that bother me. (not that I have what you have)

There are a lot of de factos of life to live in a socioeconomic environment with surviving, getting comfortable, and entertainment. These de factos are in a sense a "force" if you don't want to overcome the fear of death. ALL of this imposition of following the de factos of socioeconomic realities or death, is wrong. — schopenhauer1

So I ask you, what might a society look like with a rebellious stance towards production? — schopenhauer1

I'd like to know at which non-production point would it be sustainable/livable to be. Because I don't think there is in human history a period when all productions halted. This is equivalent to committing mass suicide. So, my question is, do we want to continue to live? If so, do we want to change the socio-economic power structure so that we're not compelled to work in order to produce? I'll tell you that if all workers stopped producing, that would hurt everybody.

When I debate anti-abortion people I always ask them how it comports with their other moral ideas. — Jackson

Good inquiry.

My question is, does it really matter if morality is objective or subjective? I do not think so. — Jackson

Good point. It does not. (But it doesn't mean that one is free to do whatever they please).

Whether it's objective or subjective, or whatever form it comes, morality is a set of principles that needs reconciling with other sets of moral principles. And this is an ongoing thing.

First of all, I'm glad someone is again raising questions about objectivity. Because before anything else, this notion needs to be understood fully. I had wanted to open a thread just for this purpose alone.

But here is something:

It seems that you have quite a moderate idea of "objective", since a few checks are enough for you to think that something is objective. This makes the discussion very ambiguous and confused. In philosophy "objective" means absolutely, totally independent from our judgement. — Angelo Cannata

Angelo pinpoints the problem with our understanding of objectivity. But he stops short of explaining further what's missing.

So, I think from your post, Marvin, objective to you means that there is either a scientific consensus or an individuals' affirmation of moral principles incorporated in their daily lives. And I disagree to the fullest that, philosophically speaking, this is what we mean by objective reality. Objectivity means that meaning is out there. And that we didn't improvise, create, influence this objective reality in one way or another. Neither is objectivity to be understood as a consensus among people: an objective reality could be one that's never been discovered due one reason or another, namely, we do not have the right faculties to discover it.

One of the examples that's commonly used by philosophers is the existence of a triangle. This is what I would call the epitome of objective reality, if I believe in objective reality.

What can I say, I'm a healer. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Another talent that's been demonstrated here. haha!

Thank you for accelerating my mediocrity to advance in no time -- and that's without having to put out any project like you did in the videos.
Sweet! I feel much better now. :grin:

Now that's the spirit. Stretching is good for the soul. :sweat:

I've come to terms with the thought that I'm not creative.

Or to put it another way: they did not even understand what it means to be poorly serviced. — Janus

The irony is that they built the most impressive architecture in the world -- water ducts, coliseum, palaces, government buildings, etc.

Why do I have to help other persons? — Jackson

You don’t. But the society or the masses would impose you that if you do not do so, you would be amoral. — javi2541997

You're engaging in true moral discussion and maybe not know you're pushing the correct buttons.

1. Society's compulsion for the individuals to provide moral contributions to the public is itself a legitimate moral question. And guess what? One can actually question it and they would still be under a legitimate reason to question, like what Jackson is doing.

2. Contrast that with an individual's action that directly affect others -- for example, murdering someone, or smoking in a closed room with other people, or inciting chaos in a crowded theater by fire alarm prank.

Bottom line, society cannot compel individuals on 1, but it is within reason to punish for the offenses mentioned in 2.

Apparently more like one of the greatest vectors of disease in the ancient world (well Rome at least), since they apparently were not cleaned and the water replaced often enough — Janus

Okay that, too. That's a separate issue though. If there was a way to keep them regularly clean, then they should work.

"Diogenes syndrome is a disorder characterized by self-neglect, domestic squalor, apathy, compulsive hoarding of garbage and more importantly lack of shame. The syndrome does not refer to the intelligence or the philosophies of Diogenes but rather refers to the way Diogenes lived." — Hillary

This is fair and accurate.

Even animals would prefer cleanliness, unless they're ill of some malady. Cats definitely show health by how clean they keep themselves. You'll know it when they're not feeling well, or they're neglected -- they'd also stop grooming themselves. Dogs prefer clean environment -- they don't shit where they eat.

Public bath facilities were one of the best contributions of the ancients to the world.

women still love tall handsome masculine man, biology doesn't lie. — Wittgenstein

This is a myth.

To be "moral" you would pull your weight to not allow others to perish with you.. But then the meta-position from this is whether it was even good to put people in the position that they needed to pull their weight. — schopenhauer1

This is the gist of the OP. However we choose to call it -- division of labor, sharing, team-work, pitching-in -- your question is whether it is even moral to require everyone to pull their weight. And my answer to this is no. If people don't want to share with the work, they have every right not to. But the fruit of one's labor should commensurate with their contribution of time and effort.

And I agree, often in capitalist society, one's time and effort do not commensurate with the prize they get. You can dig ditch 24/7 and still not able to enjoy life as others can. I mean when bonuses in hundreds of thousands dollars are easily given to some in the organization, even during the pandemic and lay-offs, there's absolutely something wrong with this society.

If you find issue with this, can you explain why? — Philosophim

I don't think I can. At least not to you. And I don't mean this in a negative way.

I'll tell this you this, though, then I'll blow off of this thread:

Your "core values", whatever those are, and whatever definition you attach to that expression, wouldn't play a role in a situation in which you find yourself in possession of power and opportunity that you could exploit. (Please keep track of the nuances here). While not all in power would usurp it, when some do, that core values would have nothing to do with it. That's why cybersecurity, surveillance, and monitoring are effective means of combating corruption. They (the people in charge of tracking) would give zero credits to your wholesome goodness.

An expression of disapproval is not a point. — Philosophim

Neither is this:

False character only holds when there is threat of punishment, loss, or promise of reward. True character holds when no one will punish, harm, or reward you for what you do. — Philosophim

Ugh. Where to begin.

If you think the way you do here on this thread, then you have no understanding of human nature yet.

You can't see where a bird would fly until you've released it from its cage. — Judaka

Unless it's a crow. This morning I witnessed a crow trying to cross a crosswalk on a wide intersection. A driver trying to make a right turn couldn't wait until the crow was out of the way, so driver went ahead and took his turn. The crow sensing the car coming towards it took to the air and flew the length of that intersection at the height of 3 feet all the way. What a sight! The bird might be thinking, "I'm gonna cross this fucking crosswalk if that makes you unhappy!".

And after a while you start to ignore the bullshit and just do the job. — Metaphysician Undercover

It can be learned, yes. I reserve the special treatment of just quitting to a very few instances. The fight is not worth it. I pick my battle.

So what kind of philosophy helped you with that self control ? Was that something you read or something you learned over time by yourself ? — Skalidris

Would you believe Ethics and Metaphysics?

Ethics I don't need to explain further. But metaphysics -- well, appearances can be deceiving. I have treated "what's real" at the very moment with "this is my brain telling me what's in front of me, but there are other things going on that are hidden from me. I need to, also, assume the presence of certain things that's hidden from me." So far it hasn't hurt me, and it only helped me.

You mentioned rationality, but to me, you could be rational without caring about philosophy at all. — Skalidris

If you want to be a robot and be transparent, yes. That's to your own defeat, though. Rationality without philosophy will suck your soul. And I need to hold down a job. So, what's keeping me sane is my soul. When I abandon something, pangs of guilty feeling would creep up on me, but philosophical rationality would get me back from falling.

I must admit I'm biased to a more sustainable option. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

Then that would be the men's decision. They're the ones who decide what's sustainable long term. And so we find ourselves in this reality that we're in now.

I find the very opposite. My dealings with other people cause me a lot of stress, and keep me awake at night. Then I need to deal with myself, so I pick up some good philosophy to read and I fall asleep almost immediately. So philosophy is really good for dealing with myself, by allowing me to ignore my dealings with others. — Metaphysician Undercover

We're not in disagreement. Trust me, I've met all kinds of people because of my work. If I did not use self-control and command of my emotion while sitting in front of them, I'd fall apart, too. I've walked away from a couple of jobs because the bullshit was just not worth my time.

If men wanted to, they could enslave women.

I know it reads really extreme. But it’s the truth. Men could do it, they just don’t.

So, if women are biologically more important than men, but men are stronger and could override that women superiority,

What is the most coherent way to conclude this? — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

Mass suicide.

Women could deny that important function, which is the womb.

You are forgetting that in nature, the need to carry something in the womb is fostered by the favorable environment. Females wouldn't want to bear children if it's not conducive in the environment they're in.

'm asking you : has any of your reasoning/reading made a big difference in your life ? — Skalidris

Yes. Mostly in my dealings with people. The rationality has a lot to do with it.

Argument:
1. The consumption of meat will never be perfectly ethical, but the consumption of well cared, pasture-fed animals, is much more ethical than factory-farmed animals and is beneficial to human health.
2. A vegan diet is directly morally ethical, as it does not involve direct animal suffering, however, it may have indirect ethical issues given the environmental and health impacts.
[For the sake of the argument, please assume the scientific side of premises 1 & 2 is true]
3. It is more ethical to consume humanely raised animal products for the sake of human health and the prevention of climate change. — Louis

There is a jump between 2 and 3. Where's the missing link?

I think it's necessary for, at least, lowering demands for food production (re: impacts e.g. agricultural deforestation) and depletion of highly-stressed fresh water aquifers and wetlands as well as the number and frequency of regional military conflicts (massive carbon emitters) over scarcer arable land, etc. — 180 Proof

Yes, this. But to lower demands, we must lower the population, or find substitute nutrients. (You mentioned reduce population in your earlier post). In any areas of people's lives, consumption has always been a linear increase, never a decrease, unless an item we're used to consuming in the past had been deemed poisonous or cancer-causing food. It would take a governmental action, such as in the subject of smoking, to stop the population.

So perhaps a better way to put it would be, "nothing ventured nothing gained, and that includes not gaining stuff you don't want," since when you do venture you might get what you want, but you also take the risk of getting stuff you don't want, namely pain. — HardWorker

Yes, you can put it that way. But, the word I had wanted to hear is vulnerability. When we ventured out to do something, we are exposing ourselves to the elements, so to speak, that is, we are vulnerable.

:razz:

You risk pain, that's how I see it. When you don't get the job promotion you wanted its painful. When you don't get into the college you wanted to get into its painful. When the girl that you wanted so much to have as a girlfriend tells you no when you ask her out its painful, ect. So I would say you risk pain. — HardWorker

Yes, this is the harm. But it's not considered a loss.

:up:

We tend to value the things culture tells us to value (unless we fancy ourselves as outliers).

There's that nice quote by Francois de La Rochefoucauld - People would never fall in love if they hadn't heard love talked about. — Tom Storm

This is good! But yes, there are outliers. I tend to be one. It's actually sort of empowering when you desire something that no one, or very few people would pay attention to. And don't get me started with attraction. I assure you that my taste is not your taste, or anyone here in the forum.

Is this correct? Can cravings or needs not be engineered by socialization or marketing which generate needs where naturally, there might not be any, or only a bud of interest that never sprouts? — Tom Storm

Are you talking about indoctrination? Like "subliminal message"? Then, no, I'm not talking about that, nor am I talking about brainwashing. And I think I misspoke when I said "psychological". Let me correct that -- I meant physiological need, like thirst.

And so the whole project of putting a positive spin on things. — schopenhauer1

No. It's where the emphasis is made: A wanting or a craving is a psychological need that one has no control over, like thirst. Deleuze, on the other hand, seems to have defined it as inspiration ("an inter play between positive forces). When one is inspired by a great writer, one desires to write a great book someday, like his idol.

Unlike computers which can generate self-reports, humans can't or if they attempt to, it all comes out wrong. — Agent Smith

Most likely.

To me, trying to deal with capitalism using various theories like Marxian, laissez-faire, socialism, communism, or free-market is like trying on different shoes hoping to alleviate the bunions that had grown so large and permanent. You can't excise it, and can't remedy it by trying on different shoes.

The best way to regulate a system, is when you have governance influenced by the people involved. — Philosophim

Yes.

It's not like, all of sudden, because of Laissez-faire, everyone's chance of peaceful success becomes equalized. No. Those at a disadvantaged would still be in that situation. Except now, you don't have the government to run to when you got screwed.

Do not believe this bullshit of the inequality of the economy would straighten itself out. It is never designed to be so. The rich would want more because when the prize is the moon, then a 100 billion dollar wealth wouldn't suffice anymore.

Better yet -- this is how things are now. Used to be the playground is the world, the grounded world. Then, we've expanded to the ocean and uninhabited frozen vast of lands. Finally, the space exploration. That's now a vacation dream.

Clever little devils!

I should've taken a picture pre-Covid and then one post-Covid. I would've got a rough idea about what Covid does to people. — Agent Smith

Okay that, too. But I meant to your mind or attitude.