It depends on what institution -- for example, workplace, you need to know how to do your assigned role, you should be meeting deadlines, you should show up for work, etc.I might ask what are the expectations based upon? I imagine you mean that the answer to the question lies is in the following line, — kudos
No, it goes both ways. The institution needs to optimize the delivery of learning or instruction (subject matter) they're offering by having rules on performance. This is really not about the greatest happiness and all that jazz. You're misunderstanding.We optimize, but the structures we are optimizing are ultimately for us. OK Jimmy then gets an 'F' in gym class because he fails to catch the ball. Someone might say that catching the ball is a structure optimized for us to perfect our visual and spatial sense in the best way possible (according to experts). This system maximizes happiness. It is the optimal solution to the differential equation of what will cause the least suffering. — kudos
When we say someone is underperforming or not performing at all, it means that that individual is not meeting the expectations set forth by the institution -- be it the academia, workplace, or competition. It is hard for some people to accept this because it restricts creativity and it is a direct assault to the individuality. Again, let's go back to rules. I cannot stress this enough, the justification for rules lies in feasibility and optimization. The first rule is, there should be rules if something is going to be measured and judged.For example, a child who despite their best efforts tries to get good grades in the end is still given a failing mark for bad performance. What form are they failing to master, is it the form of academia or the form of the subject that they are trying to learn?
If it is the latter, then would it be unreasonable to suggest that given the near unlimited forms that subjects can take that there might be another form better suited to each failing student, which is merely overlooked by others for convenience? — kudos
Sorry to know about it. But good for you for having the wisdom.I have a brother in Prison for truly horrific reasons I won't mention, with a history of recidivism. Having grown up witness to him, I am comfortable saying he is exactly where he belongs. He is actually what inspired me to go to law school. I doubt he cares about preserving lives, or mine for that matter. — Cobra
Let's assume that the two people are equal medical-wise, meaning they're both good candidates for the transplant. But the first person had a dark past, he hurt another individual, the second person is a law-abiding citizen. The first person is next in line, so he gets the transplant.I am essentially asking if the elements of ones past and history where they have demonstrated to be indifferent, or at least, disinterested in preserving the well-being of others, should be taken into account when giving someone an organ transplant, that may prolong their life further, when there are demonstrably better candidates to pick, but may not be "next in line". — Cobra
lol. Yeah. I suppose when a frontman says "We haven't played together in 6 weeks...jam...see what happens...I hope you don't mind..." believe that it's gonna be not great. Aroluoma has a point.Aroluoma gives the concert low marks for the performance, and one can see a lot of fiddling. I, however, like the ensemble playing between the three during show. — Paine
Good observation. That's how coherence theory came about. Philosophers wanted to give credence to common sense observation. According to this theory, we really couldn't have stability and sustainability of our belief system unless it coheres with the external world. Looking at it another way, if our belief system didn't cohere with the outside world, it would have had grave consequences even before the dawn of modern man.One real problem I see with this is that it wouldn't be scientific; It basically amounts to someone saying "I know just because!", but at the same time, the utilization of one's humanity to understand humanity is appealing, and would seem logical (or not!) from afar... — john27
No. There's nothing wrong with having an extreme view. Having an extreme view is relative anyway: People are disgusted with filth! That's extreme, as in, no middle ground there. Are they correct? Yes, they are.Right. But is that ok? What's wrong with having an extreme view; better yet, what's wrong with being mediocre? — john27
Much better! Thanks.Time and time again, in philosophy we tend to apply "sometimes", to act out in moderation, as a welcomed answer to a plethora of questions, one most notably on the organization of one's life. This is illustrated by Goldilocks, Aristotles Golden Mean, Harmony; it would seem that, to act in moderation is in instant of a rationalized act, to be, in some way or another, perfect. — john27
I was mainly responding to your opening post. You said:Edit: reread your reply and i'll be honest, I'm pretty lost. I'm not sure if what I said here applies to your response...Care to maybe dumb it down a bit? — john27
Do you see how you slide from what should have been a question in this form "When is killing justified?", to "Is killing justified?", answer = "Sometimes". There is a difference.Time and time again, in philosophy we tend to apply "sometimes" as a welcomed answer to a series of most difficult questions. Should you kill? Sometimes. Should you love? Sometimes. Goldilocks, Aristotles Golden Mean, Harmony; it would seem that, to act in moderation is in instant of a rationalized act, to be, in some way or another, perfect. — john27
I'd say this is not how we apply an "exception" to the rule. The accepted question is in the form "When is killing justified?" which shouldn't be construed as "there is always a justification for killing" -- as your use of "sometimes" suggests. There may never be a time when killing is justified, so that "average" may never happen.Time and time again, in philosophy we tend to apply "sometimes" as a welcomed answer to a series of most difficult questions. Should you kill? Sometimes. Should you love? Sometimes. Goldilocks, Aristotles Golden Mean, Harmony; it would seem that, to act in moderation is in instant of a rationalized act, to be, in some way or another, perfect. — john27
False analogy. We don't always get a "fix" from the things we like to do. We do things to satisfy something else -- for duty, for love, to improve our skills, or just to pass time.I don't see what is wrong with the picture I was painting though. Is life not somewhat akin to a big drug store in which we all get our fix from something or another? — Yohan
And so was the construction of banks -- in the past, banks were constructed with bricks and stones to make them appear like it's protecting the gazillion amount of cash in the vault inside. It's for appearances.I was always struck by architect Albert Speer's observation that in building Third Reich structures they be made robustly, with the right materials — Tom Storm
Whatever is the amount of spike.Too much or too little alcohol? :chin: — Yohan
I want to visit you in Dijon. :)Little a bit of context: it's a scene from Cyrano de Bergerac with Gerard Depardieu, in Dijon, where I was born. :cool: Cyrano de Bergerac is a traditional french play, really well known for its consistent use of rhyme and wit. Gerard Depardieu, is like, the best actor ever. It's like two giants meeting up, creating a masterpiece and it happened here, in front of this tiny restaurant. If have a decent literacy in french, I highly suggest you watch it. The word play is impeccable. — john27
Maybe you're right. I'm not adventurous enough to like his buildings -- a gentle push, in my mind, is enough to cause a fall.The dream reflects the unconscious longing for being in his paradise. Your not feeling at ease in his paradise reflects your attachment to the enormity of the architecture you are used to. It's a conflict between the place you want to be and the place you're born into. The tension expresses itself in the nightmare you had. You're afraid to break free but the longing is there.
Or you just don't like his buildings. They look if they can fall down because of a gentle push. — Raymond
I had a dream I was in a place with nothing but Hundertwasser building. Somehow I didn't feel at ease.Hundertwasser. — Raymond
Tom, it was an instant attraction of those buildings when I took art, and I couldn't look at other buildings such as Hundertwasser's in awe.Seems to be a matter of taste and timing. This minimalist, anti-ornate, geometric style has been a widely celebrated retro fetish for some years now. — Tom Storm
Try it please.Oh wait I can't upload photos. Too bad, you would've been amazed. — john27
Very attractive to me. The lines -- the glorious symmetrical lines.Again, in the early 20th century, radical architects --- inspired by the rise of Socialist aspirations for an egalitarian society --- attempted to transform their oppressive industrial cities with housing for factory workers. One proud and sad example was Corbusier's Unité d'Habitation in Marseille — Gnomon
Adaptive architecture.The architecture has an enormous impact on their worldview. Alternatively, the architecture would be slowly transformed into what they need. Any insight would help greatly. — Warren
Correct. You ingested alcohol, but consumed the punch.Fair point, but that would mean if I drink punch, not knowing it is spiked, that I didn't consume alcohol. — Yohan
The surgeon general's warning about smoking.What are some texts that you believe to be essential for anyone who wants to clarify their understanding about some topic? Any topic you like lemme hear it. — _db
Let's start in the inner workings of our brain and intuition. It's powerful.There is at least some form of power dynamics that comes from being excluded from that which we survive from. — schopenhauer1
Yes.Am I using the word 'chemical', 'consume', or 'alter ones state of consciousness' too loosely? — Yohan
If you define consume, that's intentional action on our part. Perceiving is sensing with or without our intentionality.3. All sensing is consuming
4. All sensations alter our consciousness (to greater or lesser extents) — Yohan
You misunderstand. We're not talking about just any independent sources of capital here.Independent sources of capital were always a part of it. — schopenhauer1
You are preaching to the choir.People need the capital infusion and rarely have their own to grow the business unless already wealthy which is where an unfair advantage does enter into it. — schopenhauer1
Which, perhaps, had also the highest register of happiness in the history of the US.It's important to realize that the United States in the 1950s and 60s had high economic growth which was much more egalitarian than today, — Xtrix
You must be thinking about the era of entrepreneurship -- which has been replaced now by VC and other sources of funding. The incubator outlook is long gone.But, the small businesses, are the incubators for creating the bigger ones which then become almost like public goods by being so ingrained in the lives of everyone. — schopenhauer1
That will be a good thread. I'd like to collaborate, if you don't mind.Why don't we compile an anthology consisting of how various philosophies/philosophers are/can be misunderstood. — Agent Smith
While I do not disagree, somehow it leaves me a feeling of dissatisfaction from the understanding that we are shifting the philosophical nature of solipsism (as a matter of principle) to a psychological one. Not that I disagree with talking about solipsism in the psychological sense. But that I find that we can't even justify talking about it philosophically even if we try. Does this make sense?So in practice, empathy - which is 'the ability to understand and share the feelings of another' - is an obvious antidote to solipsism, and suggestive also of a philosophical answer to the challenge. — Wayfarer
This caught my attention. Can one really experience solipsism? Or will solipsism remain just an interesting philosophical topic.↪TerraHalcyon
the solution to solipsism is empathy, i.e. the realisation that all beings are the same as you. — Wayfarer
Not in the way you put it. Philosophy asks a question in a different sense because reality, to philosophy, can be inquired upon in a different sense. However philosophy draws empirical examples and evidence from science.Isn't it that philosophy generally avoid science in collaborating on philosophical topics? — Doru B