But you didn't have to clean it. Something cultural and personal compelled you. — schopenhauer1

"have tos" or needs always hinge on wants. I want to do it.

Why did the person wash the dish in the first place? — schopenhauer1

You'd have to ask them. Usually I do because I ate something on it.

An advantage of this would be less to remember and therefore freeing up memory space for other stuff. — TheMadFool

That seems like you're taking a brain/computer analogy too literally.

Who has a problem with "memory space" that's taken up by vocabulary?

This is stuff that's interpretational--whether something is a dilemma, whether it's negative, etc. It depends on how an individual looks at it.

I don't know. That's what I'm asking people who argue for free will. I don't get the concept of "free" and I need them to explain it to me in a way that doesn't boil down to "a mix of random and determined" which I don't think is free. — khaled

What happened to me explaining biasing a couple times? There's something other than 50/50 random and determined.

This is where the "socialist" part of my libertarian socialism comes into play. I think it's ridiculous that health/medicine/etc. costs anything.

I wouldn't have a society centered on anything like the traditional idea of money though.

Haha--yeah, I realized after I typed the first example that "S" might be read as referring to you rather than being a variable.

But the fact that there is even a reason to zen out on washing dishes is a dealing with. — schopenhauer1

Nothing negative though.

But even the most mundane stuff can be seen as mildly annoying to deal with — schopenhauer1

It can be, sure. There are a lot of ways to look at it, including the zen "wash the dishes to wash the dishes."

The way I understand you, what you're saying is that it makes no sense to criticize someone for not using words the way most people do if that's not what they are trying to do. — Magnus Anderson

Well, or I'm asking if you'd do that and why. S using a word unusually and saying something to U, who is using the word conventionally, where S doesn't realize this, is not what I'm talking about.

Well, I don't think I am overthinking it. Rather, I am analyzing what people don't perhaps analyze. I believe in existentialist literature at least, there is talk about an "aboutness" to consciousness. I see a similarity here in terms of there being a "dealing with-ness" to normal waking life. We deal with all the things mentioned. And yes, if just very "low grind" activities like getting out of bed, it isn't so bad, but added to the complexity of how humans live and interrelate and survive, there is very much a stressful dealing with in even the most mundane of lives. However, I don't want to downplay the initial "dealing with" that is deemed as good in the first place. What is it about overcoming situations and challenges that need to take place? Of course, if someone wants to sit it all out.. well, that is not an option. At least not without suicide or making someone else deal with it, thus transferring the dealing with situation to someone else. — schopenhauer1

Are they dilemmas if people don't think of them as dilemmas?

C'mon. Everyone loves me. :joke:

This is metaphysical as, once born, and become an autonomous, self-conscious being, we must always deliberate with how to deal with a situation. We are presented with challenges, discomforts, obstacles, and then we deliberate and act accordingly. This is what I mean with "dealing" with the situation. In other words, we are presented with existence, and then we have to "Do something about it!". There is no other option. Non-action is still doing something about it. — schopenhauer1

Okay, so the next point: this sounds like "overthinking" a bit. I don't think that most situations are dilemmas in the way that you're describing it. It sound like you're describing someone rather neurotic, who would find even the slightest thing stressful for some reason, rather than being able to just go with the flow without worrying about most things. Certainly everyone has to work through some things that are dilemmas for them, but most things won't be dilemmas for most people I don't think.

I've been around people who constantly worry and stress and find everything difficult to deal with. They tend to be "psychic vampires."

Say what?

The idea is, no one existed prior to their existence (whatever that might mean, conception, gestation, birth, consciousness, self-consciousness one or all of them). — schopenhauer1

Yeah, we agree with that.

In my opinion, if we're doing philosophy we should not do so by throwing in colloquialisms that don't amount to much in terms of anything that's literally the case.

Ok, first this is a tangential argument. — schopenhauer1

Just tackling things I disagree with in the argument, in the order that they occur. If it wasn't important in your argument, you should have edited it out prior to posting.

When a child is born, it is thrown into the world at point X of its consciousness. — schopenhauer1

The child is already in the world prior to birth.

we are thrown into the world (not of our choosing), — schopenhauer1

This is the first thing I disagree with here. In order for you to be "thrown into the world," there has to be a you that we can do something to (namely, throwing you into the world). But there's no you outside of the world. We can't do something to an entity that doesn't exist. Your existence can't obtain until you're already in the world.

I suggest that choices are determined irrespective of whether or not libertarian free will exists. Reflect on any past choice, and think about why you made it. If those are really the reason for the decision, then you could not have possibly made a different decision given the fact that those reasons were present. — Relativist

Aside from choices with reasons for a moment, as I noted, I sometimes intentionally make choices that are epistemically random. There's no reason for those. That's the whole point of them.

If I say something like "Cats cannot fly" and you tell me I am wrong merely because you fail to realize that I don't define the word "cat" the way you do -- you define it to mean "dragon" -- then it would be more than relevant to remind you that your use of words is unconventional. — Magnus Anderson

That has nothing to do with what I asked you. I said, "If S is not trying to match the convention, then telling S that they're not matching the convention is irrelevant."

You're positing S not matching the convention and S telling U that U is wrong.

I am telling you that it is relevant to criticize their lack of regard for conventions because it makes them blind to reality. — Magnus Anderson

? First off, this is prescriptivist.

Secondly, how does not regarding linguistic conventions make them "blind to reality"?

Re the brain/mind question, yes, sure I've come across people who believe that, but what does that have to do with what I'm asking you about whether someone is trying to match conventional language usage when they define or use a term?

You can form mistaken beliefs. — Magnus Anderson

I'm asking you specifically about word definition/usage.

Which has been my point all along, contra the attempted spin of nonsense.

I mean, this is clearly of a case of you thinking that people SHOULD have concern with conventions and try to match them.

I am saying that their lack of regard for conventions can lead them to making mistakes of all sorts. — Magnus Anderson

If you're not trying to match the convention, because of a lack of regard for it, how could you make a mistake in word definition/usage?

The mistakes they make might stem from their lack of regard for conventions. — Magnus Anderson

You're saying that even if they're not trying to match the convention, they could be making a mistake?

If they're not trying to match the convention, then telling them that they're not matching the convention (by saying that something is correct/incorrect) is irrelevant, right? And they're certainly not saying something not true, because they weren't trying to match the convention.

What do you call those things you do every day, in which you make a selection from among multiple options? — Relativist

A choice.

Sure, the factors that go into making those choices are determined, — Relativist

What I'm talking about is whether the "choice" is determined. It's not. ("Choice" is in quotation marks there because it wouldn't be a choice if determined.)

Whether the factors that go into making the choice are determined would be a different issue. We'd have to look at the factors in each situation to say, and even then we wouldn't be sure, because many phenomena that seem determined/causal might not actually be.

I'm not making any value judgments (re your question about "an improvement")

So, when someone uses a word in a way that doesn't at all match the convention, do you ask them first if they were trying to match the convention before you tell them they don't have the word correct?

You identify as heterosexual because you are heterosexual and recognise it. Plenty of people are attracted to the opposite sex and have a penis, but are not heterosexual. Those two properties don't define one as heterosexual.

One cannot be heterosexual just because they have a penis and are attracted to the opposite sex. There are many sexual orientations a person with attraction to the opposite and a penis might take. It's even possible they might have none (e.g. a person who falls outside of categorising their sexual attraction under an orientation). — TheWillowOfDarkness

It's not clear to me what you have in mind here. I might agree with you, but I don't know what an example would be.

Saying that something is correct or incorrect is not a prescriptive statement, it is a descriptive one. If you say that "The sky is red" and I say "That's not correct" that is not the same kind of statement as "You should adopt the view that sky is blue" or "People should have true beliefs". Of course, I'd rather be surrounded by people whose beliefs are true . . . if that's one of the things you're asking me. — Magnus Anderson

"Correct" has a prescriptive connotation. Because people would rather be surrounded by folks whose beliefs are true as you say.

It's true that most people use words to refer to things that most people use them to refer to.

When someone uses a word in a way that doesn't at all match the convention, do you ask them first if they were trying to match the convention before you tell them they don't have the word correct?

Some choices are epistemically random.

Do you know why the word "epistemically" is in that sentence?

"This is the meaning you should go by if you want us to have a meaningful conversation about chairs without you being a pain in the arse by making up your own meaning" — S

Which of course is already putting social pressure on them. If they don't use the meaning you're calling "correct," they're being a pain in the ass.

Or are you going to claim that "pain in the ass" is only descriptive, too?

"2 + 2 = 4" simply means that the symbol "2 + 2" is equivalent to the symbol "4". It's a statement about language. So yes, it has to do with conventions. — Magnus Anderson

Can we make statements about something other than language in your view?

And would you say that you never use "correct" prescriptively?

The correct answer to the question "Is 2 + 2 = 4?" is "Yes". — Magnus Anderson

Are you just saying that that's the popular way to think about mathematics?

So what? There's nothing wrong with that. — S

The problem would be if one is claiming that anything prescriptive is objective, and of course I'm not a fan of people putting prescriptive social pressure on others.

<---doesn't for a second believe that anyone here is actually using "correct" to simply descriptively refer to what's conventional, with no hint of a prescriptive connotation to it.

What is it about them that makes them 'good philosophers' - from your point of view ?
And why wouldn't you have Hegel amongst them ? — Amity

For one, they're what I consider good writers. Clear, coherent, there's a good logical flow to their writing and argumentation most of the time.

What or who is your idea of a good philosopher ? — Amity

See the list of some of my favorite philosophers on my profile.

so: choice made = free choice? — khaled

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking, but I wouldn't call something a choice if it's determined.

so a free choice is: the random choice I made? — khaled

It can be, sure. Again, I said, "Some choices are epistemically random, sure."