It’s a good question I mean it’s like asking whether a Utopian society is possible. I don’t know, it may be but I bet it would be boring.

Every citizen in such a utopia would be happy, there would be no suffering, no death, no injustice, no disease, no poverty, perfectly possible given God’s omnipotence.

Yet such a society would be impoverished in other aspects for if they did not know what the opposites of happiness or what suffering or disease were such citizens would be ungrateful and they would lack the experience of ever having experienced sorrow or unhappiness. These are all palettes of human emotion: happiness sadness pain joy etc, without them the palette would be small indeed and unable to paint a human being in all aspects of existence.

Therefore whilst suffering is not necessary it’s needed for a fully fledged human being to exist.

Think of this analogy, rain (a bad thing) is required for plants to grow. Without rain the plants would wither and die.

Joy then would not really be joy without pain and suffering because it would not be appreciated for what it is.

What do you mean by the perfect creator? — MoK

The definition of god is of a being that is perfect in every way. All knowing all good all powerful. Perfect in all aspects.

How would you know the concept of joy without suffering? How would you know what sunshine is without the rain, justice without injustice. These things don’t point to a sadistic god but to a creature that is simply beyond our discernment.

Perhaps there’s a reason to earthly suffering and is as it should be. Of course we cannot discern any more motive in his creation as we are creatures caught up in such a creation where suffering is inevitable and yet there’s happiness and joy to so perhaps these two opposites cannot exist without each other. How could we appreciate health without sickness or happiness without suffering ? Justice without injustice etc … Utopia while at first sounds amazing would be boring after a while without any challenges to be overcome.

If god cannot create perfect humans then he is not god. In the bible it said that he created man in his image therefore perfect. Yet we have children who are born disabled how can you explain that ?

In that case the perfect creator cannot exist. So no god.

Determinism seems flawed in that regard because it looks backwards to the present and says the sum of all my choices lead to me having or not having my breakfast.

Please note that I haven’t had my breakfast yet…this means the future is undetermined yet I’ll be damned because whether I do or don’t, once that decision has been made (whether to have breakfast or not) then it appears that I didn’t really have a choice…yet the choice was there.

Bit of a conundrum indeed.

The world is not fair and just because some people are unfair and unjust hence why we have a justice system for serious breaches of injustice.

Fairness although in most cases non-enforceable is due to lack of empathy and compassion.

Also people can be fairly ignorant, judgemental and short sighted which creates all sorts of problems and on the other hand of the scale even wars.

but it's not really a "choice" since you are destined to always "choose" a particular "optionć due to your brain-state at the moment of choosing — LuckyR

But that’s not free will. Free will is simply the ability to choose between different courses of action or inaction.

Let’s say I have two brainstates of whether to have breakfast in the morning Yes and No what you’re saying is that my choice was influenced by my brain state…well let’s dig a little deeper …what is and constitutes a brain state ? What if I was to introduce external events such as flipping a coin …clearly this is not a brain state but a random external event…

Theists would however argue that their belief in a god is a matter of faith and not proof and therefore under no obligation to provide such proof.

On the other hand scientists don’t go around trying to prove or disprove god either because no such experiment can be conducted to detect god.

Plus if god could be detected by experiment then there’d be no need for faith which is what religion is in most cases.

Atheism is logical because it requires proof in order to believe the premise that God exists. Theism is unable to provide proofs other than faith which is a sort of blind belief in something that cannot be seen. From this perspective then atheism is logical and grounded on evidence not fears of punishment or rewards to bait its adoption.

Theism and atheism are two different mindsets and neither is logical nor illogical as theists have their beliefs for different reasons other than just divine favour.

Once the definition of consciousness is grasped, there is nothing more to explain. — bert1

Because consciousness is embodied in matter,(our brains) which questions its own existence must be duly given not just a definition but an explanation. One such explanation is panpsychism as hinted at by the first post here.

Yet such an explanation seems raise more questions than answers and not just from the biological perspective of why there even is life in the universe at all. Matter could have easily stayed dormant and inanimate and have not given rise to mind or consciousness, life etc at all. So it is of course a big mystery.

Our vision and cognition although not special per se are special in comparison to this non-life which in the face of it could have persisted in the universe but it didn’t as here we are asking these types of questions.

Your whirlpool analogy is quite relevant if such phenomena was rare and non-ubiquitous in the universe and so meriting a scientific explanation.

So then let’s suppose one second we didn’t have consciousness or life at all in the universe but only this whirlpool phenomena.

The whirlpools would still be special compared to the stationary matter in the universe but it would be just natural phenomena which laws of physics could account and explain.

Asking where whirlpools and consciousness came from appears to be the same question but it is not for no whirlpool could question where it came from but only consciousness.

But there’s more to consciousness being special than the above. It’s why didn’t the universe stay inanimate to begin with, no big bang just matter floating around doing nothing. This must merit special philosophical and scientific attention.

Seems a bit of an irrelevant question. What are you getting at ?

He’s talking about certain things being transcendal, namely value.

I can’t make much of it but it appears to be an exception to his obsession with language and appears mystical in his formulation.

I do not think it’s possible to minimise suffering on global or personal level.

Life is meant to be hard so there’s gonna be some suffering in it. However a lot of it is unnecessary suffering created by war mongers who bomb their fellow human beings.

We need to evolve beyond our apeish past achieve global enlightenment somehow and eliminate wars.

Other forms of suffering such as food scarcity could be reduced by population control though this is just as hard as stopping wars.

I’m unclear on what you mean. What other interpretations of Wittgenstein’s philosophy are there apart from language, linguistics and language games? I think that’s the sum of his contribution to philosophy.

Are you proposing that is a self evident component of the text?

In most cases, yes where whatever is being formulated is done in a concise and meaningful way. Otherwise it would need clarification.

Well Wittgenstein claimed that the things that could be talked about could be talked about clearly and things which couldn’t we couldn’t talk about at all like Values. He also believed early on that any philosophy that wasn’t linguistic analysis to be a criminal waste of effort but here he was wrong as he later softened his position.

I don’t know what the main path is when it comes to philosophy and whilst the progress from antiquity to enlightenment has been slow it has sown plenty for fruitful discussion yet elementary questions of philosophy and metaphysics remain.

Eg why is there something rather than nothing ?
Do we have free will
Does God exist etc.

Imo his whole philosophy is a linguistic sidetrack. But calling it a sidetrack I don’t mean to devalue his contribution at all. His focus on philosophy was purely at a linguistic angle which looked at its problems differently to traditional ways of answering philosophical questions.

Doing philosophy shouldn’t be about defining terms alone. A dictionary is a good starting point in this regard. Wittengstteins philosophy appears to be to dissect the question at its linguistic composition rather addressing it. In this regard he falls short of a true understanding of what is being asked and what is at stake for philosophy by side stepping the big questions entirely.

We have valid philosophical questions and lines of enquiry which remain almost impenetrable such as the big question of does God exist or what is truth, what is reality etc?

These are questions WORTH pondering without the linguistic sidestepping that Wittgenstein seems to offer.

Maybe Wittgenstein dodged the big philosophical questions by implying that we’re all taking part in philosophical games rather than addressing the questions of antiquity starting with Plato and Aristotle. Maybe he was a fraud in this regard maybe he was a genius.

Some claim he’s the greatest philosopher ever for his linguistic trickery but all he did was look at philosophy from a different angle, the linguistic one and whilst he enabled some new insight in this regard I believe his whole contribution to philosophy to be a minor one.

The solution to this problem is to posit that something has always existed since nothing is impossible. That’s the only conclusion to be drawn from it. The obvious question is well where did this something come from and again we’re faced with the brute fact that it’s always been.

Ghosts were probably popularised by popular culture and become easier to be accepted through various passed down fictive accounts of what happens after you die. As the evidence for it is scarce or unreliable then such claims can and should be dismissed.

Faith can be confidence in something coming true as in the expression “I have faith in my team winning for example.” The other type of faith like you say is the religious kind as in having faith in there being an afterlife or a god. Faith does not require evidence of such a thing existing but merely confidence in it being so.

Faith is correlated with belief in that they relate to things being true or coming true according to that individuals world view especially concerning the supernatural such as Gods etc or other scenarios where there’s uncertainty involved.

An example would be any piece of equipment that is more than adequate to its intended purpose such as a chair. Now you might want to question how can a chair be perfect which is a valid question but for the sake of argument, one made to a high quality and more than comfortable and able to hold the weight of the person without breaking, long lasting etc. Let’s call this chair the perfect chair - would you be happy to have the label perfect applied to it rather than just adequate?

Sure, if you want to add math to the equation, after all what is metaphysics but mental gymnastics.

Beauty is such a tricky concept to adequately measure objectively because everyone’s standards are different. The question is whether the object itself is beautiful or just my opinion of it. This can vary from person to person when it comes to beauty I believe.

The beauty is there but only one is seeing it (if he is truly having beautiful experience) — Gregory

But then what would make what is being witnessed beautiful is it the thing in itself - or is it the witness that ascribes such a value ?

If perfection is the description of a mere functional goal then that doesn’t say much as the definition in this case appears more restrictive then the definition of perfection I had in mind.

On the other hand without a clear definition the word itself remains open to interpretation, therefore the more descriptive in terms of output the more objective we get when classing such machines or organisms in terms of perfection.

As the often quoted saying goes “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” would imply that perfection is subjective.

On the other hand natures organisms and animals that roam the earth would be described as perfect, not by the same criteria but rather by the fact of the ecological niche they’re able to occupy, with imperfections being ironed out over time through extinctions such as that of the dodo or other evolutionary adaptations. By mere fact of them being extant (which would be a criterion for perfection) then despite whether they have predators or not would imply that such creatures are perfect or as perfect as they can get from an evolutionary perspective.

Thanks that clarifies things for sure, so to describe something as perfect is to take into account subjectivity, as in the perfect woman example (open to disagreement for sure as a matter of personal preference), objectivity in terms of intended output as per Carnot cycle and things that can fall somewhere in between.



But as Lionino explained in his Carnot cycle example there are certain operations that are produced which are perfect with little room for dispute so how do you account for that ?

Metaphysics can be fun speculation and because it’s an arena where there are no right or wrong answers simply because those answers are unable to be probed by science means that only good critical thinking need be applied to various metaphysical postulations insuring against logical inconsistencies.

Is goodness defined by the actions it is able to perform as part of its inherent design or evolution ? Or can it be ascribed to any mundane objects such as a rock ?

Thinking here of man made objects and natural organisms if they’re not able to fulfil the function/s of their intended design would you say that such organisms or inventions are not good in this sense?

A paper printer that does not print correctly or not print at all by virtue of not fulfilling its function would lack goodness, and thus would be a bad printer even though originally it was good when it was able to function correctly. @Bob Ross

Man though is different and able of goodness or lack of, so it’s inherently neither, as goodness is judged upon the actions one performs and whether they’re beneficial to the individual within the context of the society they operate in, in obedience to its laws, customs and regulations. A breach of such laws would be considered not good as the punishment would be to the detriment of the individual.

It is my 1st assertion that happiness along its entire continuum is evidence for morality. It is in fact the only evidence possible for morality. The basis of the happiness result, either more or less happy, is the consequence of choice/action. So, the only causal agent in the multiverse is free will. I do not want to debate determinism here. I can, but that is not the point of this post. So, please despite your reservations, assume free will is true. — Chet Hawkins

Just want to pick on this first point.

It’s interesting that you’ve somehow linked morality with happiness. And perhaps there is truth in it because doing the right moral actions signifies that that person has a conscience and doing the wrong moral action would lead to guilt in an individual. But this is not always the case as one can perform immoral actions and feel happy about it. Or make correct moral choices and feel neither happiness or sadness.

But now assume someone just found a suitcase with a million dollars in it. The right moral action would be to return it to its rightful owner however if they the choose the immoral choice which is to keep it by your logic they would be unhappy ?

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

It can be philosophical perspective or just a perspective of life too. Whether the viewpoint is selected from various other viewpoints is the personal choice of the individual because one can go through suffering and not succumb to despair.

Despair can be a psychological temperament albeit not a very useful one. Self-empowerment would be a more beneficial trait to have allowing for one’s personal growth.

Despair really gets you nowhere, to have hope for better by setting oneself goals and aims such as being the best version of oneself is to truly add meaning to one’s life and making it richer in experience.

As such I believe that the differences between an optimist and a despairing pessimist is one of attitude and mindset.

Hope is a powerful tool in overcoming despair.

Hopelessness and despair are quite similar in nature and are somewhat fatalistic in outlook. Hope is the cure for this philosophical predisposition as it allows one to view life as full of opportunities and that change for the good is only around the corner. As such having this optimistic and positive outlook in life that things are within one’s power to change one’s circumstances allows one to take realistic steps to do so. Which is much better than wallowing in static despair where one has no motivation to bring about positive change.

That is a dismal thought. Aren’t we more special than that? Looking at the statements above, is number 4, Man is a sentient life form, sufficient to make man special. If it does then that suggest there is more to us. Why would evolution produce a thinking being if there was no purpose in it other than continuation of the species? Could we not have been as successful in the world as a very clever ape? Does our ability to reason contribute to our ability to adapt and thrive on the world in a critical way? That is an open question that I don’t think has been answered yet.

If we are an exception to the evolutionary path of life, why should we be? It does suggest that there is a higher purpose to our existence, but what could it be. It does suggest that there is some force in the universe that is, in very subtle ways, directing the evolution of life. I don’t want to call it intelligent design as that leads to all sorts of other philosophic problems, but what is happening here. — George Fisher

Interesting points. As human beings our ability to use language be it verbally or non-verbally to communicate and impact the overall thought of our species enables us to develop on a social and technological level beyond our limited 80 or so year lifespan. This means us humans can communicate ideas and knowledge to future generations and this is indeed special. So perhaps the meaning of life is to add to the sum of this knowledge.

As to whether life is guided by a higher power such as a god, well this idea can be dismissed by atheists and cannot be proven by theists, but there do appear tell tale signs of intelligence in the universe with human beings manifesting it best, as far as we know. This could have been by chance and the chances of not just us but life itself manifesting in an otherwise lifeless universe appeared to be slim yet here we are.

Also worth noting that there are a lot of laws in the universe, intelligent laws that keep planets steady in their orbit or even atoms. These laws would in my opinion point to a higher level intellect that created this universe.

I would equate life being conscious with being aware of its surroundings and environment and its ability to adapt to environmental changes. The issue then is that plants can respond to environmental changes so does that make them conscious? You could apply a stricter definition of course as being conscious and alive are not quite the same thing.

In that case you’d have to start with the concept of personhood which as you rightly pointed out is sapiocentric.

I think there are different levels of being conscious from plants being able to respond to stimuli to human beings who are aware of their thoughts or aware of being aware (meta-aware).

I’d prefer a harsh reality or truth rather than a comforting lie which is why I voted against living in such a simulation. One of the enjoyable aspects of natural and real life is the challenges and adversity it can sometimes present and our ability to deal with such adversity which would help an individual build character and resilience. For me then the simulation would be a cop out.

But then again if prior to being born I was offered the option of being born into wealth rather than say to a poor family then that would present to me a bigger dilemma than the artificial wealth of a simulated environment.