We only share our talk here, so nothing is at stake but the truth. And if there is no truth, then there is no meaning. Therefore our discourse has to presume a moral commitment to truth. — unenlightened

Only a statement can be true (or false). You're talking about truth. In your comment I'm literally missing the statement that needs to be true. What statement needs to be true?

Or are you confusing the term "truth" with the term "reality"?

Robert Macfarlane asks seriously if rivers have rights. I think this is an interesting question. If they do, are rivers non-human moral beings? Honest question. Of course, rivers can't speak for themselves. They need human attorneys.

Perhaps you are morally blind, or perhaps you have been persuaded to ignore your sensibilities, or perhaps I am full of shit. But if you don't have a moral commitment to truth, then I find you are not worth talking to because you will say anything that suits you. — unenlightened

Is this "you" addressing me personally or is it a general rhetorical "you"? I'm not sure what you are arguing for or against -- or whether your comment is just descriptive, -- and what the purpose of that fecal sarcasm is.

The scientific hypothesis Morality as Cooperation, which is about cultural moral norms and our moral sense, makes no claims about what ought to be. — Mark S

Then it is inadequate. Nazis cooperate. Mafias cooperate. That is not what anyone wants to mean by morality — well that's too strong, it's not what anyone ought to mean by morality. — unenlightened

Cooperation includes several dimensions and magnitudes, I think. It's not a "yes/no".

• Short-term cooperation: Do just the bare necessities, forced by the tyrant (nazis, mafias)
• Long-term cooperation: Do more than necessary, do it because you like it (trust, reliability)

• Minimal cooperation (nazis, mafias)
• Great cooperation (trust, reliability)

By these parameters the paradoxon gets resolved.

Do you think there's a worthwhile purpose ... — J

My hypothesis: Within a group there are usually a few alphas and many betas. The betas are unsure about how to behave. The alphas give the betas the instructions and they call them moral rules, given by an alleged higher power the alphas invented (religion or ideology), and the alphas act as self-proclaimed bearers of those higher moral rules. The alphas have optimized these rules for their purposes. They are worthwhile insofar as they maintain the alphas' power. Fact is: Rules are constructions. The alphas must hide this fact, for example, by telling great religious or ideological stories which are fictitious, of course -- or by referring to certain nature observations: There are many hens on the ground and one cock on the fence. This shall be the rule in our town as well. It shall be "right" that one man is at the top, controlling many women that do the main work. Why? Because we see this rule in nature. -- I think this is nonsense. The truth is: This so-called moral rule is just the result of cherry picking. Here they pick the chickens. Why not the bonobos? Bonobos behave differently. And even if all creatures on earth were in fact behaving the same, proclaiming this fact as a "rule" is a naturalistic fallacy. I mean, there's no reason to behave like this just because this has been the way until now. Evolution is here for experiments. Unfortunately, conservative minds don't like experiments.

I think there's no universal moral, and that makes the whole morality question superfluous. Yes, there are certain moral elements that are very popular, like "save the children", for example, but they are not universal; there are millions of child abuse cases every day, and calling them "psychopaths" is just a linguistic filter to keep the universalism cosmetically clean. Morality is just an artificial construction. For every act you do and that others find ugly, you can construct a moral excuse. This is possible because life is infinitely complex. It contains so many parameters that can be put on one side of the moral scale, and on the other side you can put whatever compensational weight you need. There's always an excuse for everything.

I think morality is qualitatively overrated. The normative "should" lies in the feelings and not in those man-made books. The Do is the Should, and the Should is the Do. It hurts me when I hurt you, I'm glad when you are glad. My feelings guide me. I need no book.

"Why should I reproduce?" — unenlightened

Because love and sex feel good.

Those were the days, when we believed we all had knowledge of good and evil because of something we ate. But now we have to defer to some Chinese ancient saying the same things, because it turned out not to be fruit tree, but an evolutionary tree. — unenlightened

Exquisite comparison. And the difference between the two trees is the concept of sin in the one plant and the absence of intimidation in the other.

Yes, I know Kant's categorical imperative. I find that concept useless. It might be of some use when implemented in A.I. though, as machines have no feelings.

I think the "good will" is useful as an excuse to avoid draconian penalties when something went wrong. As cooperation is an essential stabilization factor in a society, "good will" is an indication of that cooperation. Humans make mistakes; one cannot keep a society alive and at the same time decimate that society by draconian penalties. So these mistakes need to be accepted to a certain degree. This also allows a continuous "learning from mistakes". These are all stabilization factors and evolutionary motors. The "good will" is a requirement for this system. This doesn't work in fascistic systems where every living creature needs to function like a machine and where nobody trusts anyone. Such systems are not stable in the long run.

I find postmodernism one of the vaguest isms. It's so vague; one could actually drop the idea entirely.

I guess I understand your thoughts. Here's just a linguistic-technical question: In your text you use the words "I" and "my" for a non-existing entity. What do these words refer to in your text?

I am a temporary sentient process generated by my brain activities. — Truth Seeker

So, process is a temporary sentient process generated by the process' brain activities?

People can overcome some of the these factors.
In your example with ice cream, even if somebody loves chocolate ice cream and hates strawberry (Vanilla man myself), they can still choose strawberry. It is not like it is impossible. — Red Sky

I think Joe will choose that object of all available objects which will lead in summary to Joe's greatest satisfaction. If Joe feels satisfaction in proving that there is a "free will", he will choose an object he dislikes just to demonstrate his alleged free will. But in fact he just compared the satisfaction regarding his preferred object with the satisfaction regarding the free-will-demo. During the comparison he found out that the free-will-demo will make more fun. So Joe was determined to do the free-will-demo. His personality and personal taste forced him to do this. Yes, there were other choices and they were free in the sense that nobody was threating him with a gun. Freedom requires a reference -- free of what? Free of threats. But the choices were not free regarding his personality and his personal taste. Joe likes the idea of a "free will". That's his ideological taste. So he is determined to construct a proof in order to satisfy his taste.

I meant the "[Bush/DT/...] Derangement Syndrome" in general. Did you get your diagnosis on this forum? Is it an inside joke?

We treat others with kindness and compassion because we like each other. The fact that we came to like each other through the actions of natural selection doesn’t change that fact. — T Clark

Exactly my view. And I think this is true for non-human animals as well. A walking horse will not step on this bird that is sitting on the ground along the path; the horse prefers to not kill that bird. One could call this behaviour "behavouristic". But that's no answer. Actions are accompanied by feelings. I think it doesn't matter whether the "mechnical reflex" is caused by the feeling or vice versa -- or if it's just a correlation. The feeling of "liking something" is just there and it's very powerful.

I see. Just checked Wikipedia. Hadn't heard of this "syndrome" before; I live outside the USA, haha.

Probably the largest of the numerous issues with the OP is the reference to "philosophy", as if it is a single entity. — LuckyR

I agree; I had the same thought and wanted to post a similar comment. It's a generalization of all thoughts that have ever occured. As if philosophy were a creature with a phone number: "Hello, philosophy! What have you done?" -- On the other hand, poetry is allowed as well. So why not talk about "all thoughts of the world" in a poetic way and name it philo-sophy -- "the love of wisdom"? There we are again: Language is based on metaphors. We're running in circles.

I took a look at your forum profile where you list Donald Trump Jr. as one of your favourite philosophers, hehe. What "reflect/lead" ratio would you diagnose in his case? I'm asking to find out whether a further dimension needs to be considered apart from the "reflect/lead" axis.

I would have thought that the best candidates for philosophers who actually lead would be political philosophers such as Marx. — T Clark

I forgot to say that I consider the gentlemen I mentioned -- Popper, Russell, Kant, Epikouros, Sokrates -- in some of their works political too. Popper wrote about Marx. German chancellor Schmidt sought advice from Popper. Or think about Russell's pacifism and the moment when he gave up his pacifism in order to stop the nazis. And so on.

I correct myself: I actually agree with you regarding the word "usually". I have the impression that most philosophers remain caught in their reflection loop. They usually remain descriptive and unable to provide suggestions for problem solving. I guess this happens mostly in the field of language philosophy, less so in the field of logic, for example.

I think there are some philosophers that reflect and then lead. Popper, Russell, Kant, Epikouros, Sokrates ...

My answer is simple: the world is as it is because that is how the world and we humans evolved. Which then begs the question, how did this evolution took place? — Pieter R van Wyk

I think the evolution randomly varies the magnitude of the selfishness in the personality of each newborn. With this individual variation in our societies, evolution will develop sweet compromises between too much selfishness and too much selflessness. No individual is autarkic, so it is forced to be cooperative. When the individual exaggerates its selfishness, the other individuals won't trust him or her anymore, thusly the selfish parts of the society will die out after a short time as the elements of personality are partially inheritable, I guess. That's why cooperative societies live for millions of years and selfish societies such as the Hitler-regime, for example, last for just a few years. But evolution won't stop to generate variations of personalities at random. That's why there's often three steps forward and one step back; the cycle goes on. Life is based on random variations, and that does not only affect the development of bodies but also that of the minds.

It’s not a hypothesis, there is no empirical test that could be performed that would verify or falsify it. — T Clark

That's why I call it a hypothesis rather than a thesis. A thesis can be tested. A hypothesis doesn't claim to be testable as it's just an idea.

Is logic not reasoning then? Something done by minds ? — kindred

Reasoning is done by minds, yes.

But reasoning is not a logical rule. In my view, reasoning is a subjective act and may lead to wrong results when certain logical rules are incorrectly applied. -- Logical rules per se, however, are constant, timeless, objective, and in any case valid.

It's similar to math. Mathematical rules are not acts; they are rules. Rules don't do anything. A rule shouldn't be confused with the act of calculating. Calculations may be wrong. Joe calculates 123+321=999, and Jane calculates 666. -- Mathematical rules per se, however, are constant, timeless, objective, and in any case valid. So I think logic and math were not invented by minds; they were discovered. And I guess in logic and math there is even more to discover; we are just not intelligent enough yet. The unknown is already there. It's just not discovered yet. You think there is no unknown at all? You think everything new that surprises you in this moment is something you just invented yourself in this moment? I don't believe in solipsism.

A rock can’t do logic. — kindred

I agree. Logic cannot be done; neither by a rock nor by anything else.

You set a different premise than I do. Your premise is that logic is an action. My premise is that logic is not an action.

no minds = no logic. — kindred

Is this statement meant as an empirical observation or as a logical rule? If it's empirical, I see no evidence. If it's logical, it stands transcendentally a priori to the possibility of a mental existence. In other words: Logic is there before you can even think about it.

What's the reason you think your hypothesis is true?

When my mind is blacked out, logic is still valid.

Reasoning is a process.
Reason is not a process.

You're trying to finish the race before starting it. — Harry Hindu

Nobody needs to start your off-topic race.

You mean the etymology of the word "Dimitri"?

In this context I understand "personal identity" as the identity by the person's biography which consists of much more than just the label "Dimitri". His biography from birth to the present time will not change; it will just grow into the future. Dimitri's true history is unique; it refers to just this person. If you understand "identity" as the forename in the passport, then yes, the name can change. But then every Joe would be the same person; all Joes would be identical with each other. What is this reduction-to-name useful for? It can't be used for passport systems nor for philosophical explanations. I think it's more important to see that the history of Joe Miller is not identical to the history of Joe Smith. By the history you can see if it's that Joe which needs a new chair and not the other Joe which needs a new table. They are not identical. I think the reason for this lies in the difference between their histories. The names are just labels. "Joe," "chair", "table" are universal labels. A history is hardly universal.

Does the Law of Identity apply in this situation? — RussellA

If you compare the magnitude of two weights, the reference will be just that magnitude and no other attributes.

Now it depends on whether or not you allow a magnitude to be a "thing". If you do, we can test this:

Compare the weight of this table with the weight of this Dimitri. If the scale is balanced, their magnitudes are identical. 99 is identical to 99.

If we define Dimitri solely by his weight during the years and nanoseconds, Dimitri is changing his identity from one Planck time to the next.

However, If we define him by constants, his identity will remain constant.

That's my view. What do you think?

Has any of these organism made it into space using their own (brain) power? — Harry Hindu

Has any of these humans made it into the sky using their own wings?

Your anthropocentrism is using the method of cherry picking. And your conclusions are naturalistic fallacies.

Suppose Dimitri was photographed in May and wrote the letter in June. In what way is Dimitri in May identical to Dimitri in June? There are many ways in which Dimitri could have changed. He could have learnt how to cook moussaka, been on a diet and lost weight or lost a parent and emotionally suffered.

Is anyone the identical person that they used to be? — RussellA

It depends on the definition of that identified object.

For example, the identified person is the one which is named Dimitri and which was born in Athens in 1855 and died in 1911, and whose parents were Athena and Ioannis Papadopoulos. Dimitri is unique. There has been no second person with these attributes.

It is therefore a tautology dependent upon a definition and therefore cannot tell us about the reality or the logic of the world. — RussellA

I think the Law of Identity, which is a tautology, is useful in analyses: "The person the photo refers to is identical to the person who wrote that letter." This example discusses two reference arrows; the one is a photo and the other is a letter. Both arrows point at the same object, in this case a certain person. This is good to know. I.e. a tautology is not neccessarily useless. It's an operational tool for analyses.

The act of counting is performed by the subject to whom phenomena appear. — Wayfarer

[off-topic]
I think the subject is embedded within the phenomena; i.e. the subject is not an evacuated cinema visitor.
[/off-topic]

Do you think non-human sentient animals don’t also desire to know? Some of them certainly do. — T Clark

Absolutely. Every brain owner is curious. Humans are not the only brain owners. Curiosity is the motor of brain development. No curiosity, no brain.

If this thread is about the logical question why there is logic, then this thread is attempting an infinite regress, I think.

If this thread is about the cause of logic's birth, then this thread considers logic a physical thing, and that's a misconception in my view.

Logic is a supergoddess. There's no further background.
She's mightier than the abrahamic god -- for logical reasons.

That's my conclusion as an agnostic.