I can say “It is true that there are a hundred thalers on the table” but this adds nothing to the proposition ‛There are a hundred thalers on the table’. — J
I can say “A hundred thalers exist” but this adds nothing to the concept ‛a hundred thalers’; — J
I’m looking for some source help — J
I see it more as sowing seeds. — wonderer1
One cannot do philosophy without giving due consideration to the language with which one does philosophy. — Banno
So I am offering two arguments — schopenhauer1
1) Suffering in Pinprick World isn't "suffering" as we know it — schopenhauer1
2) Since there is no one to miss out on the "good", no obligation was intendent on the missed opportunity. In other words, your world could be COMPLETELY all BLISS.. and if you did not create someone into that world, you are still NOT in the wrong by preventing that birth. — schopenhauer1
The antinatalist will always say that in the case of future people, we have no obligation to add happiness for them, but ALL the obligation to prevent the harm. — schopenhauer1
I think this is more-or-less the discussion ANs have — AmadeusD
it's the balance (ironic, given apokrisis' objections in the other thread) between suffering and other considerations — AmadeusD
The position is that suffering always wins out — AmadeusD
If so, none of that resembles the NATURE OF SUFFERING as it pertains to this world. — schopenhauer1
1. Suppose every living human being is guaranteed a pinprick of pain followed by 80 years of pure happiness.
2. [Insert Benatar's antinatalist argument here]
3. Therefore, we should never procreate — Leontiskos
And I hold that Christianity purports to be an universal religion. What it excludes is hatred, Some folks have not heard the Good News, others have not Yet accepted it, but none are excluded. — unenlightened
Do you see a downside to divisiveness in religions? For example, dividing people into Brahman/Dalit or Muslim/dhimmi?
Is "sheep" vs "goats" any less divisive? — wonderer1
But that is the basic difference I would say. A dualism of transcendence or a triadicism of immanence. — apokrisis
Then don't make that argument, and don't accuse me of making it. — unenlightened
No I am reciting a creed, not The creed. We can discuss, as long as you do not have exclusive rights to the truth. — unenlightened
It's not an argument indeed. It is a piece of history; the plain fact of the matter is that the term "Christian" has always been disputed from its inception and such identity labels nearly always are disputed. — unenlightened
Thanks. I wouldn't call myself a Christian, but I appreciate the story, and hate it when people wilfully distort the meaning or claim the copyright on interpretation. We are surely all God's people, and none are excluded - that's the story. — unenlightened
We know a song about that. — unenlightened
as I have answered you about the stabbing that reanimates — schopenhauer1
Also to add, yet again, when I mentioned Benatar, [...] It wasn't to introduce Benatar simpliciter. — schopenhauer1
My "thesis," to use your term, is that the Creed starts with the words, "We believe...." As such, I'm satisfied it's not just a throw-away line at the beginning of a prayer, but instead a much thought out and carefully weighed expression of how they thought Christians ought to profess their - their what? - their faith. Nor would I call this a "thesis," it is a fact. — tim wood
No. I wasn't making any such argument. I was just pointing out what is easily recognized with sufficient knowledge of history. — wonderer1
Well, I think it is ambiguous and I didn't recognize that. However, because he says the "the many" are not fit to rule and therefore implies that some, but not all, are fit to rule, I should have realized that your interpretation is correct. So you are right. — Ludwig V
I'm in a bit of a quandary here. There are two conclusions in this argument. One is about leaders. I don't have any violent objection to that argument. I think it's false, but I'm not sure that I can be bothered to refute it. In practice, it wouldn't make any difference. The other is about slaves, and I cannot accept that it is right, or even all right, to enslave any human being. — Ludwig V
If we can identify characteristics that make someone fit to rule, then it follows that people who do not possess those characteristics are not fit to rule; it does not follow that they are slaves, or fit to be slaves. We could, instead, characterize them as natural followers or maybe natural independents (compare Simpson on tame and wild animals p.4) — Ludwig V
B. You may be mistaken, however, to think that "the rational are more fit rulers than the irrational" is empirical. I may be wrong, but I think that, for Aristotle at least, reason is the faculty that enables us to get things right. A leader needs to decide the best thing to do and how to do it; so, by definition leaders need to be rational. — Ludwig V
If slavery comes naturally to some people, why is it necessary to enslave them? — Ludwig V
A natural slave would accept slavery when it was offered. Voluntary slavery is a contradiction in terms. — Ludwig V
That's a most confusing sense of "nature". In the real world, disease is entirely natural. That's why we take many artificial measures to restore us to health.
We are in two minds about nature. Sometimes we consider that what is natural is good. Sometimes we consider that it is bad. It depends on the case. No general evaluation can stand up to the facts. — Ludwig V
So this is why we shouldn't debate Benatar's full position here without actually having Benatar's full positions available to us. — schopenhauer1
It's just an aspect of the inherent divisiveness of Christianity. — wonderer1
Not at all.. If one is reanimated when stabbed, that changes the very conditions of the world itself. — schopenhauer1
So AGAIN, you ignore the answer I gave you? That is twice you ignored my answer. Why didn't you quote what I quoted you?? — schopenhauer1
It wouldn't be wrong in the same way as it is now. But your theoretical does not function as a reductio to any argument that I have offered, and that is the primary difference. — Leontiskos
The problem occurs if this is a valid argument:
1. Suppose every living human being is guaranteed a pinprick of pain followed by 80 years of pure happiness.
2. [Insert Benatar's antinatalist argument here]
3. Therefore, we should never procreate
Are you starting to see the reductio? The reductio has force because we know that any (2) that can get you from (1) to (3) is faulty argumentation. — Leontiskos
This is rhetorical blather. First off, I DON"T EVEN USE Benatar wholesale. His asymmetry, if I do mention it, is a way to jump off but I have my own variations of it, which I have taken painstaking time to outline over the course of MANY threads over MANY years.. To have you pin me to one line of reasoning, like that is a subtle but malicious form of uncharitable reading.. But keep mistaking me for Benatar. — schopenhauer1
Funny you defend this ghettoizing of the topic of antinatalism (something you vociferously disagree with), and yet you bring up a topic we discussed way back.. Something which I can't easily look up BECAUSE of this ghettoization whereby EVERYTHING related to antinatalism, no matter what thread/topic is squished into one long thread. So perhaps it is the limitations of PlushForums, but I am proposing a way to give people the ability to create new threads on the topic, so that conversations can be logically viewed. — schopenhauer1
Oh fuck no, because I don't see this world as ever being just a pinprick. Did you find my response? — schopenhauer1
schopenhauer1 would seem proof this ain't so. :grin: — apokrisis
Supposing only a pin-prick was the suffering, I guess the scenario could be reconsidered. — schopenhauer1
Reconsidered on what basis? — Leontiskos
Where's yours? — schopenhauer1
This thought experiment is highly unsophisticated and further, irrational. Suppose somehow? The somehow, or the 'in some way' would have to be explicitly stated and put forth, otherwise it's an exercise in futility. — Ray Liikanen
Just for fun, here is a phenomenological discussion of why new car colours suddenly look so weird and wrong. — apokrisis
They believe they'll one day become Gods, no? — BitconnectCarlos
My position argues from the point of view that even chaos can’t help but self-organise itself into some form or order. Chaos negates itself. Therefore order emerges. — apokrisis
Yes. When learning about Peirce as a group of biologists and complexity theorists in the 1990s, the Peircean scholars making sense of his vast volume of unpublished work were mostly theology researchers. Deely was one. — apokrisis
It depends how much information we have about the situation. If you know that the U(1) symmetry of electromagnetism is the simplest possible chiral form, then it is not a surprise that the Big Bang did not stop evolving until it arrived at that final simplicity.
If you know that the chemical reaction with the most bang for buck on the planet Earth is the redox reaction of carbon-oxygen bonds, then it is no surprise that life on Earth kept evolving until it not only could harness this reaction but even set up the planet to have its Gaian balance of oxygen and carbon.
So the basic entropic race drove the Cosmos towards an ultimate symmetry breaking simplicity, and Life, as the negentropic response, was driven towards its maximum negentropic advantage.
The goals existed in dialectical fashion. And they forced Nature through a whole set of unlikely hoops so as to arrive there. — apokrisis
Science earnt its keep by being the epistemology that delivered a mechanised world. Teleology could take a back seat as technology was the pragmatic point. Humans existed to supply the point of a world of machines.
But when it comes to now incorporating telos into science, the mathematical inevitability of topological order or dissipative structure is how that is happening.
That could be seen as a thumbs up for Platonism, divine immanence, idealism, or whatever. Or it could be seen as the arrival of a structuralist understanding of Nature that rides on the back of stuff like Lie groups, thermodynamics, path integrals, and Darwinian selection. — apokrisis
Ultimately, for the Christian, what matters is who is in Christ. — BitconnectCarlos
The point is that unicorns both exist and don't exist. That leaves the problem of defining "existence." Belief neatly sidesteps the problem. — tim wood
What is the crux of the thesis you are proposing? It seems to me something like, <Christianity does not teach that God exists>, or else, <Christianity professes belief in God without in any way committing itself to God's existence>.
If this is not what you are saying, then what are you saying? — Leontiskos
Yet I'll take [X] over [Y]. — BitconnectCarlos
The convention "literally" has had to undergo a redefinition because of it's constant misuse. — AmadeusD
We use language differently. Great! "red" conceptually is a percept (lets pretend) and "the red pen" or "the red percept" is a label which is conventionally used to cut-down the actual phrase "Items we use to write with, containing ink flowing to a nib, which reflects light in "such and such a range" so as to trigger, under normal circumstances, that percept referred to as "the colour red" as a property of the brain-generated image of the object viewed by the sensory organ". But we don't say that. We say "red pen". — AmadeusD
That the pen is red just is that it (ordinarily) appears red, and the word “red” in the phrase “appears red” does not refer to a mind-independent property of the pen but to the mental percept that looking at the pen (ordinarily) causes to occur. — Michael