My purpose was to find out if Trump was really crazy as the media portray. I did not find him crazy. — L'éléphant

Stating that immigrants eat house pets as some form of large scale problem isn't something you would find defines him as crazy? Or in other terms, unfit for presidency? It's either that he's a total nutcase, or he's a blatant and obvious racist, or both. You think either is a good foundation for a presidency?

The whole saga has been so totally unlikely from the very beginning — Wayfarer

And thus, it shows that the problem isn't that morons can run for president, but that the guardrails of democracy are non-existent. The solution is not to fight the morons, but to evolve democracy and the ways of how governments works and function in democracies.

Finding a place in which the system itself guards against bad actors, while promoting competence and problem solving for the people that does not play into and promote people's inability to understand what an actual solution is.

This is a philosophical question I'm constantly thinking about. That society today is too quick to just summarize democracy as being the end point of how society is functioning.

It only takes minimal insight into psychology, sociology and media theory to summarize a conclusion that while democracy is the best of what we have, it is extremely flawed as it is used in society today, and a perfect tool for malicious actors to rule as a dictator under the guise of the people's freedom. Essentially giving people a Baudrillardian illusion of reality while living as a king, all while the people fight for things they have been fooled to believe is forth fighting for.

‘childless cat ladies’ and ‘pet-eating immigrants’. And that’s really the best they can do. — Wayfarer

With that combo, they really need to protect the childless cat ladies cats from the immigrant pet eaters! :scream:

Believing that it's hopeless plays into his hands. — Wayfarer

What I mean and criticize is how someone like Trump is even approved to be running for presidency. That people in democracies play far to loose with democracy and are generally totally oblivious about how to protect democracy from collapsing.

The US is not electing a representative of the people, they elect a king or queen, someone who can be totally incompetent and play into any demagogical scheme they want in order to gain power beyond the laws of the nation that any other citizen is obligated to follow.

Someone like Trump should, in a healthy democracy, be blocked from running as a representative, because people like him are clearly incompetent for the job.

In any other job that feature dangerous operation, you need a license, or be approved to work with said dangerous operation. But not presidents in the US; they can be any level of moron and idiot and use any methods to mislead and fool the population into voting for them. And the people of the nation can only shrug and be forced to go along with it.

He can spout lies, exaggerations and hyperbole for 90 minutes, and everyone can acknowledge that this is what he's done, but it may not matter. — Wayfarer

For a large portion of his voters, it doesn't seem to matter. It also doesn't seem to matter that his statements about immigrants is one of the most blatant examples of his racism. Maybe because his core voters are blatant racists themselves? Who knows. I just know that in modern politics, it seems that racism is fine and there's no apparent will or action to get the racists and racism out of corridors of power.

That in itself is a clear sign of how the current structure and system of government is a failure in every form other than playing with authoritarianism under a plutocracy.

I pinned this for a bit. Unpin it when you like. — fdrake

Still good to be pinned for reference to a good upload site. Or, it could go into forum rules thread?

You couldn’t dispute anything I wrote, resorting to ad hominem by your own admission, then lecture me about “epistemological responsibility”. — NOS4A2

You are making wild conjecture through right-wing bias, with no actual evidence of corruption against Trump. Since there are actual evidence presented for what Trump has done and which was the foundation for the court rulings, you have to provide an extraordinary body of evidence for your counter claims to supersede this. But what you're doing is rather make wild conjecture through an emotional response to everything. This lack of epistemic responsibility is further proven by how you look at the supreme court dismissal of Trump's guilt in a positive light, an act that should be equally treated as a line of corruption, this time in Trump's favor. The treatment you make of each event that's happened just underscores how any event that's favorable to Trump gets treated as a win in your posts, but anything even remotely in his disfavor gets a rant about how the democrats are corrupted. Your right-wing bias shines brighter than a neutron star, and it absolutely makes you fail epistemic responsibility. This is not an ad hominem, this is an analysis of your ability to stay neutral in analysis of what's going on about Trump. The reason why most of us are in a position against Trump is because it's been proven so many times over how unfit he is for presidency, and it's this sum of all parts that produce a consensus on the matter. If anyone tries to dispute this, then they need extraordinary evidence and rational reasoning to support such defense claims. So far, you've contributed nothing of the sort.

If you fear the facts and resort to imagination, and seek only comments that validate what amounts to propaganda-driven gossip, you’re not fit for discussing anything. None of that is going to stop me from pointing out your failures. — NOS4A2

You don't provide facts in the way in support of your conclusions. You are doing the same as any other conspiracy theoris; connecting dots you want to connect between stuff that you deem to support those dots. It's impossible to deconstruct your arguments or have a proper discussion with you, as seen with how people try to do with you, because you're basically using all fallacies and biases known to man in order to just slither your way past what everyone says. I, and the others, have no problem discussing with people of opposite opinions, but such ability relies on the two interlocutors able to handle facts and arguments with epistemological responsibility. There's no point in discussing this with you because you don't care about such scrutiny.

As a cult member myself, being ruled guilty by a corrupt, anti-Trump, Democrat Judge, whose daughter raked in millions from the Biden and Harris campaign, is a badge of honor. Non-cult members are seeing that too and they’re joining in droves. — NOS4A2

Having conspiracy theories invalidates your input's value in this discussion. Risking an ad hominem, you're mostly a laughing stock in this discussion. I'm not interested in discussing Trump with you so I'll just ignore any future writing that isn't a proper argument with actual substance.

It's the moderates and independents that he's losing. — Michael

But then the question is, if they didn't understand how he's unfit for presidency before, would any of the current problems matter to them? Being ruled guilty in a trial should have been enough for them to sway away from voting him into office, so what's the parameters that actually matter to these people who aren't directly in the cult?

Between this and his VP pick, I wonder if one or more of his advisors are intentionally trying to sabotage him. — Michael

Would any of these things even matter to the core followers of his cult? The only ones who might be swayed seems to be regular swing-voters who're on the low spectrum of education. All the people who are actually affected by political propaganda and demagogue speeches. But since the republicans found a cult that can feed them votes, they basically have a giant bag of votes that will never change, regardless if Trump at a rally, pulls off his meat face to be revealed to be a malicious alien.

No. The next one might be a variation of Ebola. We'll see. — frank

The "problem" with Covid-19 was that it wasn't deadly enough. It ended up in this middle ground in which people could just brush it off as "just another cold" while others got seriously ill and died or contracted long covid symptoms.

And since the public operates on whatever bubble of convictions that each individual lives within, the seriousness of the pandemic were never truly taken seriously.

But a larger and more deadly pandemic would drive the point home and get people to demand their governments to do precautions for it to never happen again. It's unfortunate that the only way society can truly change is if it gets hammered to inches of death, otherwise it would just create a polarized white noise that erodes any intellectually sound and proper precautionary practices to prevent a new outbreak.

It's the same for nuclear annihilation. People think that governments will press a button and send everything they got, but it would be more likely that a tactical nuke is set off on the battlefield or an already destroyed city (that's occupied) and the act would be so shocking that it would shake the world into reducing nukes.

The problem is that everyone rationalize based on hypotheticals that are filtered through fictional narratives all the time. And the subsequent hyperreality it creates makes progress slow down and precautionary and constructive actions and plans to be reduced over time.

In Sweden during the 90s, the fall of the wall made our governments think that we don't have to be ready for war anymore and the cost of having a big military defense was irrational seen as we could use those funds to fund necessary things in society instead. We didn't need Nato, we didn't need much of our own defense etc. And nothing happened when Russia first invaded and annexed part of Ukraine in 2014 because it seemed (in the public) as some minor shenanigans by that Putin clown.

But with a pandemic and a full blown invasion that shook the world, all of a sudden, seemingly out of the blue, the public supported a massive increase in rebuilding our defenses and joining Nato.

What changed was the perception, the narrative, being hit by actual reality. It's only this sledgehammer that moves a society to take action, nothing else is as effective.

So, whenever something more serious than the recent pandemic happens, it would quickly reprogram the population into supporting actions to mitigate, fight back and create precautions for future risks. But Covid-19 wasn't enough, so we will probably be unprepared for something more deadly and only after something like a billion deaths will people create demands that can move elections.

Just think of all the elections going on this year. Has any politician, anywhere, had any election point around preventing new pandemics? No? Or course not. Covid-19 is treated like it's over and that it "wasn't that bad". So there's no interest from the public, they just want to move on to other stuff. But if something really deadly starts a new pandemic, it would be at the top of the list for elections and push politicians who speak of necessary changes to global society.

if Biden doesn't voluntarily step aside and endorse his replacement. — 180 Proof

Yeah, him doing so would be the only possible positive outcome other than taking the chance at him winning, but that feels more far fetched the closer to the election we get.

50 is old. Presidents should be 50 at the most. I'm 45 and I read a lot and make music so I can't say my brain isn't regularly used and I can tell my retention rate for information is a fraction of what it used to be. I can barely memorise new pieces and forget them in a few months after I do but will play your anything I learned when I was a teenager. — Benkei

50 isn't old. 50 is a good age in which the maturity of ideas settle down. And since 40 year old's today act like they're still children, with immature handling of philosophical concepts and ideology, they have to get ten more years of maturing before they have the calm to act on their convictions and ideas.

20-30 is the age in which people explore who they want to be as an adult. 30-40 they explore the validity of such aspirations. 40-50 they manifest the true aspirations, solidified as their true identity. 50+ is when a person has manifested who they really are, a stability matured by years of exploration in which they find wisdom rather than just knowledge.

A presidency requires wisdom and it's something lacking these days.

Of course, all this requires a sane psychology and proper introspection throughout life. Most people can live to their dying days without ever thinking an original thought or questioning themselves properly. But for a president, a leader, someone who's supposed to work for the people, it should be a requirement.

I find democracies today to be pretty lackluster in their defense against those taking advantage of it. Just because democracy demands a representative of the people to be the person who wins an election, shouldn't mean that any dipshit should be able to. I rather think that a representative in a democracy should have demands of competence like any other job in society.

A president do not stand above the staff of representatives for the people, they should be in service of it. They should be the ones taking the raw emotions, wills and wants from the people and fine-tuning it into working policy, law and national practice. They should be in service of the people.

That's not what's going on in the US. The US president is a pseudo-king. It's a plastic kingdom similar to Disneyland. The US does not have a good structure of politics, there's no actual parliament. The congress is just a big funding party for lobbyists rather than a place to evaluate strategies for the nation and international politics.

Democracy is still in need of philosophical progress, it needs further work. The term has become some plaque and adjective to describe a "good nation", but since none of the "good guys" in our world seem to know in what way to actually describe how democracy is producing "good nations", we end up with sham democracies and representatives of the people who can just con everyone into believing these representative are kings and religiously elevated deities. Until people see them as they are and goes for the next plastic king.

Democracy today is in a hyperreal state of what democracy could be. And we lack the framework to produce actual leaders because we haven't thought through what is actually required to end up with stable, good leaders who are competent at their job.

The entertainment industry that is democracy today must end and be replaced by democracy that has evolved past this shallow plastic shell of "a good nation".

It’s a lose-lose situation now for the democrats. — Mikie

It should be a walk in the park to stand up against the fascist MAGA movements, authoritarian republicans and Trump, but it's a special level of incompetence that the Democrats weren't able to do this with the mountain of shit that has been piled up against Trump.

Maybe now they will simply put an age limit on their future candidates? And maybe be better at preparing younger party members for future candidate material. Like, get them started in their 30s, really build up their reputation in their 40s and let them run for presidency in their 50s. With enough work they would have 10-20 candidates to put forward and really nail home not only a candidate people like, but also have a number of backups that are also liked. Against the republicans, it would become easy.

But I guess, since Gen Z doesn't seem to care about politics and just want some magical solution to everything, there won't be any young people available to be prepared for future presidency. We're not doomed because we have senile old people running the show, but that we have no young people actually caring for politics. Maybe when the fascist boots step on their throats they might get the memo to actually do something for real and not just continue their slacktivism thinking that accomplishes anything.

Is it so hard to find a younger and better suited candidate for the democrats? Is there no else who has the ability to act as a better president than a self-appointed dictator-cult-running clown and a demented relic who fled the nursing home?

How is it possible that the dems have no other candidate that can just swoop in and take the reigns in a way that makes people actually hopeful about the future? Where there no other backup plan among the dems if Biden were to fail, go full demented or die?

Everything about US politics is just stupid. It's an entertainment machine. We have more presidents depicted in movies and television that acts better than what actually exists.

The US is a joke trying to act like adults in front of the world. Redo the entire political system, let intelligent philosophers and historians write a new constitution and rebuild a better nation. Right now it's just a patch-work of stupid interpretations of old politics, with a population who's suffering in both education, health and financial stability while at the same time being so indoctrinated into believing that the enlightened ghosts of the founding fathers inhabit the candidates running for president.

:vomit: Fire everyone, ban lobbyists and manipulating narcissists, hire intellectuals who are humble educated experts without any interest in prestige or glory; rebuild everything.

The Bangladeshi is paid too little for the pants he sows, his neighbour is affected by the toxic dyes that are unregulated there and you pay an exorbitant amount for the same pants considering the low quality (which fall apart after about a year), while being brainwashed to think the quality is acceptable and you need new pants next year (no wait, every other season) to stay fashionable. This conduct killed local tailors who couldn't compete fairly and in the end everybody is worse off. But hey, everybody "agreed" to the underlying transactions; so it's all fine and dandy and you can rest easy that as long as the market runs free, everybody gets what they deserve. — Benkei

I do, however, see a slight pushback from people in western societies. One would think out of moral grounds, but that rarely produce promising sustainability. No, it's rather that people have started to get fed up with the trash quality that's ever so increasing in all products. So they seek something more expensive but lasting. If this trend is growing, we may very well see the rise of tailors again, not just for suits and fine clothing, but for more common casual clothes. Based on the premise of actual quality and discounts for fixing damaged clothes by the same tailor. If a tailor were to set up a store for high quality T-shirts that actually last longer, I'd bet that they would need to expand their business fast as there would be far more customers than initially prepared for.

I speak out of personal opinion here as well. For years I've always looked for the most decently priced product and viewed the expensive ones as some unnecessary luxury. But when checking older products, been auctioned out or just found in the attic, they have lasted for decades and still outperforms new products. Older tools are much more robust and get the job done for longer. And so I took a look all those luxury level versions of products that can be bought, only to realize that the best brands just do one thing good and that's caring for the material and work that went into making the product.

Taking inflation into account, it's basically buying old sustainable products that have been updated for today. So all these cheap products that are mass produced and won't last a year is not just because modern technology help reduce prices, but rather that they've cut through normal rising inflation by cutting corners in production.

I've been looking for a good office chair since my old one broke. There's a lot of options, but most of them are plastic and will fall apart after maybe 3-4 years. So I'll go to the prestige brands instead, find something made by actual hands who cares for the material. It will cost me a small fortune just for a damn chair, but it will maybe last for a majority of my lifetime I have left. If people were to split out the up front cost of something by the estimated lifetime of the product, people wouldn't view things as luxury brands anymore, they would look at it as a personal investment.

People stare too much at the price tags and not at the value of something. But if that's changing, we may even end up in a more sustainable world in the end, without much of morality or anti-capitalism driving it.

I will support my local casual clothes tailor if they ever showed up. I would never go anywhere else.

I work all day, and get half-drunk at night.
Waking at four to soundless dark, I stare.
In time the curtain-edges will grow light.
Till then I see what's really always there:
Unresting death, a whole day nearer now,
Making all thought impossible but how
And where and when I shall myself die.
Arid interrogation: yet the dread
Of dying, and being dead,
Flashes afresh to hold and horrify.
The mind blanks at the glare. Not in remorse
- The good not done, the love not given, time
Torn off unused - nor wretchedly because
An only life can take so long to climb
Clear of its wrong beginnings, and may never;
But at the total emptiness for ever,
The sure extinction that we travel to
And shall be lost in always. Not to be here,
Not to be anywhere,
And soon; nothing more terrible, nothing more true.

This is a special way of being afraid
No trick dispels. Religion used to try,
That vast, moth-eaten musical brocade
Created to pretend we never die,
And specious stuff that says No rational being
Can fear a thing it will not feel, not seeing
That this is what we fear - no sight, no sound,
No touch or taste or smell, nothing to think with,
Nothing to love or link with,
The anasthetic from which none come round.

And so it stays just on the edge of vision,
A small, unfocused blur, a standing chill
That slows each impulse down to indecision.
Most things may never happen: this one will,
And realisation of it rages out
In furnace-fear when we are caught without
People or drink. Courage is no good:
It means not scaring others. Being brave
Lets no one off the grave.
Death is no different whined at than withstood.

Slowly light strengthens, and the room takes shape.
It stands plain as a wardrobe, what we know,
Have always known, know that we can't escape,
Yet can't accept. One side will have to go.
Meanwhile telephones crouch, getting ready to ring
In locked-up offices, and all the uncaring
Intricate rented world begins to rouse.
The sky is white as clay, with no sun.
Work has to be done.
Postmen like doctors go from house to house. — Philip Larkin

There is the sticking-point. The galvanizing charismatic leader is missing. — Vera Mont

People driven by rational ideas and ideals out of consensus formation through critical thought - self-organizing by such concepts as individual agents able to act on their own and amplify their neighbor along the same path... is infinitely better than some fist pumping charismatic leader who's, more often than not, right on the edge of self-indulgent deification, subsequently pulling their strings of manipulation a bit too far and collapsing the good into a state of utter destruction.

People in an unhinged individualistic society can still be individuals and act as individuals. They all just need a bit of ego death before anything can happen as a collective. People just need to get better at understanding and sorting good ideas from bad ones and get better at sifting which knowledge is actual, real and rational from the endless trash formed by the attention economy and its representatives and slaves. The need isn't a charismatic leader, it's the ability of regular people to form an epistemic responsibility of knowledge in front of an endless sea of raw information.

Yes, changing the political landscape is hard! My vote means nothing. My little bit of feeble activism is ineffective. Can't introduce electoral reform, can't take financial interests out of the process, can't get media to focus on the relevant issues and give more than the most superficial cursory attention to climate science or climate policy. Whatever tiny headway we make, some other interest group overtakes and cancels it. Very discouraging. — Vera Mont

That's my critique... the modern ideal of individualism has ingrained itself so deep into the self-image of even rational, thinking people today that everyone feel that any kind of collective movement is a losing game and thus surrender all seeds of power that collectively could move mountains if ever they were to organize for real.

What, like cutting down on their energy use, meat consumption or plastic packaging? Walk instead of drive? Refrain from throwing out last year's fashion? You must be kidding! — Vera Mont

I'm speaking of actual change to the core problems. Those examples of actions, while good for the environment, have also become a sort of individualistic green washing, in which people act according to the fashion of behavior connected to the identity of being someone who cares for the environment, while still rolling out the carpet for people in power who act on a larger scale to dismiss or counter-act necessary changes. Such identity traits can in some cases be so ingrained into the hyperreality of moden living that it even obscures the idea of the self as being more environmentally conscious than it actually is. Effectively soothing their climate anxiety with a comfort blanket rather than being part of actual change.

It's the same as people who just put money into charity while then voting for politicians involved with keeping a certain conflict going that as a consequence produce the conditions that the charity money then tries to mitigate. It's shallow, unengaging and centered on the ego of the person and their self-image as being morally good within a certain societal context.

I can't stress enough the number of people I meet who live up to the agreed upon moral standards of "how to behave for the good of the environment" in day-to-day living, but at the same time know close to nothing of climate science or what is actually going on within the politics of climate change.

Our government is supposed to follow the precautionary principle, which states that "where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation." But alas, our government is not guided but what is best for human health or the planet's health, but what is best for the profits of corporations, no matter the price to the environment or future generations. — xraymike79

No, modern politics in western democratic societies are governed by modern individualism. It doesn't matter on what side you stand politically, the hyperreality of individualism still has corrupted the ability for society to socially and collectively hold the epistemic responsibility necessary to drive humanity in a sober and rational direction.

What's abundantly clear and evidence for this is the inability of anyone to analyze our culture without finding blame onto anything else. While we can absolutely find perpetrators who are actively taking actions against societal rationality, the truth is that everyone is guilty. Statistically there are far more people who actually care for the environment than there are voices against it, but they simply just feed their ego and shadow of morality with pointing fingers.

If people actually cared beyond their individualistic driving force, we would see politicians get kicked out of office and replaced by those who would take action. We would see massive shifts within society all over the world. But we don't.

So the guilty aren't simply just those who are obvious perpetrators, it's not just the corporations and corrupted politicians, it's also everyone else who paints a picture of themselves as caring and rational while doing jack shit to produce or actually support any form of necessary change.

Well, this is a publicly visible forum so nothing stops ChatGPT from visiting the website and copying what shows on the page.

It's possible to stop this by creating a robots.txt file that tells ChatGPT that it's not allowed to visit, but PlushForums doesn't provide such a file.

As for the raw database, the PlushForums FAQ says "we do not sell or share your data with any third parties." — Michael

A kind of backdoor way into the collective body of work of philosophy; you get your ideas actually swooped up to be part of something larger. That's not all doom and gloom. I easily take pride in if my ideas are worth spreading, regardless of being credited or not. Won't matter in a hundred years anyway, only the ideas will remain, and if mine contribute to that body of knowledge then I won't just die off after only having been a decade going resource-soaking methane-leaking meatbag.

But would be nice if GPT get its quotation algorithm working. It's basically the only requirement to bypass the problems with accidental plagiarism and would credit people if ideas from here spread into the usage with AI systems.

I don't see this much different to how scientific experiments are always much simpler than everyday reality. A dice roll is presumably describable via Newtonian / classical forces but no one creates a direct Newtonian / classical model of a dice roll and then conducts an experiment to validate it. — Apustimelogist

The key difference is that they aren't experiments, they are theoretical in nature only. You cannot really do these experiments practically and the ethical requirements today are so high that they can't ever be done. Therefore the scientific relevance without any form of actual experimental validation makes these quite useless in the same way we can't use string theory as a foundation of thinking about physics as the only form of validation for that is how well the math matches up to the rest. But without any actual correlation between that math and the wild statements of that theory it becomes useless as a foundational theory of everything.

For me, the point of it isn't to produce moral thinking and correct moral answers but to uncover the underlying reasons and intuitions of moral thought.

Most of us would assume those reasons are consistent across many different scenarios regardless of complexity or if "the experiment [has] already been conducted". — Apustimelogist

Yes, they work as introduction courses to philosophy, but since there's no validation past the theoretical, and real world examples of similar events show much more complexity in their situational circumstances that they become unquantifiable as statistical data, they end up being just introduction material, nothing more.

The thought experiment itself is the conduction of it. I just want to see what the opinion or judgement is of it. The fact that people may over-estimate their ability to act morally would apply to any thought experiment regardless of complexity or realistic-ness. — Apustimelogist

The problem is that since the main point of moral philosophy is to find truth in what constitutes and defines human morality, it requires accuracy in how we determine morality and situations of moral thinking. These thought experiments aren't valid in any scientific manner other than to conclude just how people over-estimate or under-estimate their ability to think morally, but they're not really good as actual components and premises of moral theories.

I disagree. As far as I'm aware there is no consensus on the correct solution to the trolley problem. — Apustimelogist

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with since it's the fact that there's no consensus that's part of putting a spotlight on people's banalities when thinking about morality. It rather shows the weaknesses and lack of depth that people have around the subject of morality as their justifications for their solution to the trolley problem becomes arbitrary and sometimes just a question of their current state of mind and mood.

The fact that people disagree brings up the question of why they disagree and what this says about their moral thinking and what kind of variables make them change their moral choices, which imo is an interesting thing in its own right. The question of how people act and actually behave morally in real life (and whether they actually do what is in agreement with the beliefs, judgements, moral frameworks they have) is also another interesting question in its own right. — Apustimelogist

But still, the problem is that people's justifications rarely correlate to how they actually behave in real moral situations. Their "critical thinking" about their choices in a moral thought experiments just becomes self-indulged fantasies about their ego, rather than a true examination of their morality. The problem with these theoretical lines of thinking and discussions end up being fiction rather than examinations of truth.

And I'd say that fiction actually manage to be better at promoting moral thinking as the thought experiments in themselves rarely have an empathic dimension to them. But investing yourself in characters of a story that make decisions on your behalf, or even have yourself in control of them like in games, usually promotes much better critical thinking about morality. Just reading the audience discussion around the moral actions in The Last of Us part 2 and how people had problems with everything that happened in that story is more fascinating and revealing as a case study in morality than how people justify their choices in the trolley problem.

I think my disagreement with people in regard to these things maybe stems from me finding these questions interesting in their own right as opposed to just a vehicle for prescribing practical morality. — Apustimelogist

I found them interesting when I started out studying philosophy, but the further I've dived down into the complexity of moral philosophy the more trivial I've found these thought experiments to be. Especially when taking into account the complexity of human cognition and psychology and the entire experience of the human condition, both for the individual and the social realm.

I'm not sure I agree that scenarios like the trolley problem never happen - I think they probably do a lot in a messier way and in some ways the fact that the trolley problem has no perfect outcome reminds of the messiness of reality sometimes. — Apustimelogist

But the messiness of reality strips the simplicity out of the scenarios adding so many moving parts that the scenario in itself has changed so much that the parameters of measurement becomes skewed.

I think the value in these analogies is not necessarily in trying to find out what the right thing to do is, but why we have the moral preferences we do and how they differ. — Apustimelogist

Yes, as an introduction to philosophy it's great. But it's not very good at higher level thinking about morality as it's already clear how complex morality can really be.

Its like an experiment. Scientific experiments need controlled and independent variables to figure out whats going on. If you have a simplified scenario and you change certain aspects of it and see what people think then it may give more clarity as to why we make certain choices or what our preferences are. If you just present a scenario with lots of different factors then its not always clear what is actually guiding peoples decisions. — Apustimelogist

Yes, but in that case I much rather look at the scientific experiments that have already been conducted. Since experiments that cannot be actually conducted only becomes theoretical and at best very surface level. The fact that people regularly over-estimate their ability to act morally in every single situation makes it hard to actually get a good "scientific" result.

Most moral analogies usually only pinpoints the banalities in people's confidence in their own morality, but those people were usually not very involved in critical thinking about morality to begin with. The same people who would most likely freeze like a deer in headlights when they actually face a real moral dilemma and situation.

Since the complex parameters always matters in real situations, I'd much rather try and find a method of thinking that can incorporate variables and speed up decision making within moral situations; a more holistic approach with a focus on having a trained mental state and a practical moral methodology to be able to act regardless of pressure.

It is only useful where we know nothing about the past or the future, the situation is entirely decontextualised from reality and then we are commanded to chose. It is a game, nothing more and nothing less and we can always choose not to play. All valid moral choices. — Benkei

Yes, I think most moral analogies automatically fail in that they are too simple for being actually valuable in moral philosophy. At best they are a good introduction for people learning philosophy to get them to think critically about morality, but in the end I think that these scenarios tend to get in the way of actually thinking about morality.

Reality is damn messy and the worst that these kinds of simplified scenarios can get is that society tries to judge someone's action based on a similar simplicity; rather than carefully evaluating the situation that happened. It's the prime reason why we don't have a "final" moral philosophy that can be applied everywhere, because it can't.

It's why I'm thinking that the "final" theory of moral philosophy may be in a rigid framework of practical moral evaluation, that can be applied to any situation as a framework of critical thinking, rather than being a conductor of axiomatic oughts. Malleable enough to adapt to any situation involving humans in morally challenging situations.

The situation adds an extra variable of expertise involved. The participants didn't fully understand the situation, and thought hitting the lever might make things worse. Makes sense. If I'm in a strange room with equipment that I'm unfamiliar with, and I know there are people who normally operate this equipment and are possibly nearby, I'm not going to switch the switch. — Philosophim

Isn't this the point of what I meant by it being a real world test? As in, taking into account all the complexities that piles on top of each other when faced with a real world scenario.

It's very common to hear philosophical analogies that try to simulate a moral question, but we rarely meet such problems in real life because real life is messier. In real life, if you have a gun and need to choose who to shoot to save whoever, or something along those lines, that scenario would incorporate a lot more moving parts that affect how you morally act. Aspects that aren't as black and white as many philosophical analogies tend to incorporate.

In the end, most philosophical thought experiments in morality ends up being rather useless for evaluating morality.

when is it morally acceptable to choose non-interference? — Tzeentch

When there's insufficient knowledge of the outcome, or of the moving parts of a situation. Or if there's significant risk to your own health. It's not selfish to not risk your life and people who scold someone for opting out of action when there's a significant risk to their own health and life are usually not very good at understanding the pressure of such a situation.

Other than that, if there's no risk to your own health and the situation is clear and obvious, then I would say it's immoral not to act.

Here's... as close as possible... to a real world test. Just to check how people would actually react rather than believe they would.

Do you agree that the philosopher must uphold, almost, a fiduciary duty towards the public, in terms of living a certain life? — Shawn

A person who does not live by his own philosophy comes off as being dishonest. But there are a few more sides to it.

If the philosopher is pushing for a certain moral praxis, then why wouldn't they follow it themselves? Being convinced that a certain moral praxis is the right way to live would be informed by living that experience in some way.

However, there are philosophies that can extend beyond the ability to fully live by it. For instant, a marxist political philosopher can criticize capitalism and the modern free market and its culture, but living by that is close to impossible. This is also why I detest the kind of counter arguments against great thinkers today by dismissing them because they're not fully living by their own teachings. For instance, someone releasing a book that tries to argue for a world without the normal monetary transactions on the free market; would still need to operate within this free market to reach out with his/her ideas and will probably need to sell a few books in order to continue their work without the need for distracting side gigs and burnout.

Or think about someone criticizing the current social media behavior and TikTok addiction. What's the best way to talk about such ideas? To have an account on social media and TikTok and spread that knowledge there, especially communicating that knowledge within the context of behaviors that people have on these platforms.

This is all a gradient of course. A moral philosopher in a totalitarian state would look like a fool if they argue against killing innocent people in society if they at the same time also participate in that practice. But at the same time, there's been such thinkers in nations that were in between, arguing against the practice of the state within the context of the political ideologies in power, and subsequently leading to the people slowly turning away form those ideologies over time.

In the end, it doesn't really matter who the person was or how they lived. We don't dismiss Heidegger's philosophies because he became a Nazi, that's how the mob in society operates. We examine the ideas on their own merits and we examine them in context.

Philosophy isn't one idea over all else, it's a pattern of different ideas that interplay into a holistic wisdom. The relations between many philosophical ideas are just as important, if not more important than any single idea. This is why I do not like it when people stick to a favorite philosopher and argue any topic as some kind of zealot to that philosopher. That's not the point of philosophy, it's about the progress and evolution of ideas into better wisdom and knowledge.

The judge is required to look at this conviction in isolation. He can't pile on just because Trump is otherwise a piece of shit. — Hanover

Not in a general sense, but there have been people who got worse sentence because they acted like assholes towards the judge. Trump’s continuous threats against people involved in this trial could factor in as attempts to obstruct the justice system and lead to a sentence that is more severe.

It may be that he gets three months in prison, no one knows, but even if he got one day in prison it would be of symbolic importance.

Is your impression that this isn't already the case? — Tzeentch

Yes, but that's already obvious for most intellectuals. I'm wondering how the general public will react, think and act. If he were to be elected president while being in prison, how would the general public behave? And on top of that, let's say he actually starts to act like a dictator and begin some retribution, what then?

I will feel encouraged only if he loses the election. Right now, this looks like a nation where only about 50% of the population respects the rule of law. A loss won't cure that problem overnight, but perhaps it will loosen Trump's hold on the GOP, who's sycophant leaders feel compelled to echo the convicted felon's attacks on the justice system. — Relativist

Let's say Trump got prison time, even if it's just one year.

If he were to win the election anyway, what would this mean for the spirit of the US population as a whole? The rest of the world would surely look upon the US as a broken democracy that has lost its ability to function through the framework of a healthy democracy, but what would the people do?

It's not like there's a Mandela at the helm of the party, someone who's been fighting for a good cause and for democracy who is put in jail because of a corrupt state. No, it's a narcissist who's on the brink of being a dictator and who's a convicted criminal for actual crimes in a democratic state.

So, how would the people react? Both short term and long term?

Imagine we did agree on what "art" means - what meaningful conversation could you build out of that agreement? You show me that, and I'll show you how to build that conversation WITHOUT agreeing on what "art" means. Deal? — flannel jesus

The OP question would be meaningless. The AI debate would be meaningless. All debates about "is that art?" would be meaningless. And instead the conversations would be centered around the meaning that is being created by artists operating under the definition of art and the consequences of trying to work as an artist under the definition of content. As well as allowing guidance to artists who've gotten lost into content production losing their sense of artistic soul in their daily work. We could focus on talking about art in a way that is true to the human and individual creating it and distinguish it from the influence of monetary need or corruption through profit-driven intentions that takes over the creative process.

Such discussions bypass that shallow level of people throwing examples at each other asking "is this art?" Which seems to dominate the discourse within aesthetic philosophy, at least dominating public discourse.

How you personally form a conversation around art does not equal society operating on similar grounds. I'm observing what the discourse in public and places like this forum actually is and argue out of those facts. How you idealize a conversation outside of that is rather irrelevant, isn't it? What would be the point of that? And how would you universalize this to improve the discourse around art? Please show

I'm just pointing out that you're spending a lot of time on the things you call meaningless, and apparently no time on the things you call meaningful, and I think that's interesting.

I do think your definition of art is disagreeable, but I'd be roping you into a conversation you've already said is meaningless if I tried to argue that. — flannel jesus

I have to make the argument for why the question asked is arbitrary in order for making the expanded argument for why such discussions are meaningless as a whole. This discussion is not a question of the aesthetic appreciation of "idol", but about whether or not to define it as art, and my argument is that society often get stuck in such meaningless discussions instead of having a clearly defined starting point of whether it is art or content as a foundational premiss for the interpretation of the created object's or performance's meaning. Without such foundation, we attribute irrelevant or non-existing meaning to content that in its core intention merely had monetary or social status interests in mind, and such, any interpretation of meaning becomes merely hollow interpretations rather than functioning on the foundation of interplay between artist and receiver in which actual artistic meaning can be found.

The conclusion of a discussion's shallow framework rendering it meaningless is determined by the argument I made, so a counter argument to that would return meaning to the original discussion.

I don't think you really understand the point I'm making here. If my conclusion is correct, then why is this discussion on-going (the discussion as in this thread, not our specific conversation)? If I'm right, why are people still debating the merits of "Idol" as art? Wouldn't my answer be the final conclusion? And since the discussion is still going, then either I'm right and the discussion in here (among all others, not me), in itself is proving how society cannot transcend this shallow level and self-delusion with the illusion of meaning centered around such shallow debates about art's definition. Or there are actually merits to the question of whether "Idol" is art or not, but that would require a counter-argument to my definition, which I've yet to hear.

If you agree with me and my argument about the definition, then answer me why almost every discussion about art is centered around a "creation" with the question "is this art?". Because it doesn't matter if I personally operate out of my definition of art if other people cannot transcend that surface level question since every attempt at having a discussion beyond it always end up with them struggling to define if something is art or not.

If my conclusion were so obvious, then why is the discussion of art's definition still going on? Not just in here, but all over society? I have to make a convincing argument for what art is until society operates on that conclusion and since that's not going on, that's the argument that needs to be settled first, or else everyone will just circle around that surface level and never ending up anywhere because without a framework of definition, the question of "what is art" becomes meaningless.

I think there are a couple places in philosophy where I make an exception for that - where it actually makes sense, I think, to have a more fluid definition of a word. I think EACH PERSON should attempt to concretely define the boundaries for their use of the word, but I don't thinks it's necessary for every person to conceptualize the word the same way or to have the same boundaries as another person. — flannel jesus

Why would the term "art" not be able to be defined? I think that people attribute too much magic to that term because they're awestruck by some divine mystery about creativity. But in the end it just becomes religious and spiritual hogwash surrounding the term, with some subconscious attempt to elevate it to the divine.

And I would say that this framework has been a broken primary gear in aesthetic philosophy that makes the branch unnecessarily muddy and vague.

Why is it so important that the term "art" is vague in its definition? It just seems like people are afraid to touch any attempt to define what "art" is because they've subconsciously formed a divine framework around it. Maybe it's also more common among atheists as the lack of divine belief push them to deify other parts of their reality, and in so attribute creativity and art as divine, which leads to them protecting the term from being clearly defined.

I value better definitions in order to actually answer the questions about "what art is" once and for all in order to remove this spiritual and religious framework around creativity.

Free Will is, I think, another word where each person should draw their own distinct boundaries, but two different people can draw their own ideas of the boundaries in different (often extremely different) places. — flannel jesus

Why? It just renders all discussions about free will nonsense and irrelevant. It creates a framework for a discussion that can never reach truth or conclusion since core premises are built on arbitrary foundations. It renders any discussion around the subject pointless as anyone can just return to re-define their definitions in order to render the other's argument wrong.

It rather seems like an easy way to control the narrative rather than having interest in finding out any truths on a topic. Philosophical discourse aims to build a body of knowledge through the interplay between interlocutors. If the foundational terminology is "whatever", then there's no point in any discussion in the first place. It's utter meaningless.

Free Will and Art both have a common feature which makes their fluid-boundary-ness palatable, and that is, they have a more primal experience at the center of them, prior to any concrete definition for the source of that experience. — flannel jesus

I disagree. I think that attributes some arbitrary invented mystery to the terms. Just find the logic of the term, the core meaning, settle on it and move on to the discussion using those defined meanings as part of the premises.

Free Will is an *experience* first and foremost, before it's *whatever some particular philosopher defines it as*. — flannel jesus

No it's not. Free will is literally the ability to choose something freely. That's the definition. To have the ability to, without influence and control over you, choose by yourself. All other interpretations are part of that spiritual nonsense that tries to add magic to the concept in order to transcend the difficult truth of determinism.

The more both philosophy and science have in both deduction, and evidence shown free will to be non-existent, the more wild magical interpretations of the term we've seen been invented. It's the result of cognitive dissonance, nothing more. The term is pretty clearly defined, it's just people who can't accept determinism or the fact that we're operating on deterministic cognitive processes who are playing lose with the term trying to inject new meaning into it in order to be able to say "yeah, but what exactly do you mean by no free will?" It's a way to control the discussion and narrative at a surface level, nothing more.

Most thinking people have the experience of Free Will, before they ever come close to trying to define the word Free Will - that experience is more central than any single definition, and I think it makes sense to leave room for different thinkers to define the boundaries and causes and underlying reality of that experience differently. — flannel jesus

No, it's much rather just the difference between a scientific perspective and the common language one. Just like "theory" as a term has two different meanings depending on if it's used in society or in science. Free will in society can be used as a term in legal matters based on the laws we have today, but it's not used in the same way in philosophy and science. In common everyday speak we use "free will" to navigate certain everyday concepts, but in philosophy and science, "free will" is much more strict in its definition.

But this is creeping out to the public as well, especially in the last couple of decades, as the scientific definition starts to inform how utterly ridiculous society views free will and how destructive it is to view problems in society within the concept of free will. We literally have problems with fighting crime in society due to the stupidity of how we ignore free will as a concept. The inability to understand the true nature of determinism's effect on society makes people believe in solutions that have no roots in scientific theory.

Just another clear example to demonstrate my point of the importance of clear definitions. Just like with "art", this duality in meaning between the scientific/philosophical definition of the term just produces a shallow level at which all discussions in society operates on. In terms of "art", this is at the frontlines of discussions today as defining AI as art or not is literally what everyone is discussing. So the inability to operate on clear definitions of such terms just produces utter chaos in public debate.

How is any abstract and arbitrary definitions a positive thing when we clearly see the chaos in society because of it?

And perhaps Art is similar - perhaps it's an experience first and foremost, before it's a solidly defined word in Webster's English Dictionary. And because it's experience-centric, it makes sense to me to allow for different people to have different boundaries for how they define that experience. — flannel jesus

This is just your own opinion, it's not something we can all operate on to help create better frameworks for debates around art. "Perhaps", "Perhaps", "Perhaps" just makes things unnecessarily abstract in a time when, as I said, we literally see the public debate struggle because of this ill-defined terminology. And as laws are set to be drawn upon stuff like AI, you can't have this "personal opinion" version of a definition, it needs to be clearly defined.

But if clarity is important, how can we have clarity when words are fluid like this? — flannel jesus

They're not fluid, I clearly defined them. You've yet to make an argument for why they're fluid in opposition to my conclusions. And you stated earlier that you don't disagree with my definition, so why is it fluid if I clearly defined the term and how to use it in society?

Well, easy: you clarify exacty what YOU mean when you say it, and get them to clarify exactly what they mean when they say it, and then *avoid debating if things are art* -- because that's just semantics, that's just arguing about the boundaries of a subjective experience -- and instead talk about the things you said are more important. As long as MOST words are more clearly unambiguously defined, the occasional word being a bit fluid shouldn't be a terrible barrier to clarity. — flannel jesus

But this is literally impossible as evidenced by how public discourse is being done on concepts like AI art. It's not easy, because, as I've said, people do not operate like this in discussion, just look at this thread alone. People can opt in for what definitions they make for a concept and then they start to debate, only for one interlocutor to, in the middle of the discussion, just return to their own arbitrary definition of art and then the debate becomes circular.

The proof is in the pudding and the pudding is every damn discussion about art that is going on today. People are not able to do what you are describing there, because it's impossible for people to bypass their bias rooted in ill-determined definitions and lose foundations for the premises.

You're describing some fantasy discourse that does not reflect how discussions actually look around this topic. This entire thread is centered around the very questions "is that art?", the very headline of this thread shows that your ideal discussion does not exist.

The solution is to have clear definitions of the terms. That's the actual solution. What you are arguing for is some fantasy of the optimal discussion to just appear out of nothing, out of no parameters of how to conduct discourse. The entire field of philosophy is built upon having the best framework possible around a topic in order to collectively reach truths about that topic. The more ill-defined and lose the terminology is, the less accurate or meaningful such philosophical discussions get. And seen how most discourse around AI-art is going in public, it shows just how shallow and stupid things get when people don't have a good idea of what art actually is defined as.

The core question I'm asking you is why you are opposed to better and clearer definitions? It seems like a totally unnecessary stance when the alternative is to have a common defined ground to base our premises on. I really don't understand the reasoning here? What possible benefit to collective discourse does that generate? As evidenced by public debates on both "free will" and "art", it produces and pushes polarized nonsense which lead no where but antagonizing people against each other as well as laying an ill-defined foundation for laws and regulations when applicable. I think you underestimate the consequences of ill-defined terminology.

YOU would like to have more fruitful conversations that aren't weighed down by the annoying problem of differing definitions of Art. — flannel jesus

Once again...

That's not the issue here, I'm talking about a broader perspective of how society handles knowledge and how to mitigate unnecessary lack of clarity through better handling of definitions in language. — Christoffer

so why do you care so much? — flannel jesus

Once again...

That's not the issue here, I'm talking about a broader perspective of how society handles knowledge and how to mitigate unnecessary lack of clarity through better handling of definitions in language. — Christoffer

You were talking as if the definition of art is stopping you from doing that - I'm letting you know, it is not. — flannel jesus

The definition of art is part of the thread's core question if "Idol" is art. I made an entire argument for why it is not, based on clarifying how "art" can be defined and the difference between that and merely aesthetic appreciation. I'm doing aesthetic philosophy here, I'm not sure what you are doing? This entire thread just shows underscores exactly what I was arguing, that people are just arbitrarily trying to draw some defining line as to where Idol "fits into art", mostly based on personal feelings rather than some philosophical logic.

Just to point out what I'm doing in relation to the question in the OP:

Both aesthetics and the philosophy of art try to find answers to what exactly is art

I literally made an argument for what art should be defined as, how it answers the OP question and how I think it could help mitigating the unnecessary lack of clarity for these kinds of discussions. If you have a proper counter-argument to that conclusion, please go ahead. Right now you don't even seem to understand the actual problem I addressed.

Like, you enter a discussion that asks whether or not "Idol" is art, what is your answer to that question? If it's "who cares", then why? Why is that the answer? What's your argument in support of that?

I'm just pointing out that that's you're choice - you don't have to argue with anybody if ads are art, you can talk about the other stuff you said was more important anyway.

You could literally do it now. That guy that said a McDonald's ad was art... you could literally have the discussion you said was more important, right now, with him. The wishy washy definition of the word "art" isn't the thing stopping you from doing that. — flannel jesus

That's not the issue here, I'm talking about a broader perspective of how society handles knowledge and how to mitigate unnecessary lack of clarity through better handling of definitions in language.

At the same time, the "definition of art" is at the core of aesthetic philosophy, so I don't get your "who cares" attitude? If it doesn't matter, the why are you even in this discussion? You're literally in a thread that tries to define something as art or not, and for that we need to set a definition of what art is.

I already set parameters for defining art in a way that answers the OP question. So far I've not seen any reasons to why those parameters would be any worse than any "who cares" arguments.

You can skip the pointless debate and go right to the meaningful conversation regardless of if you both call it art or not - choosing to focus on the word is up to you. Don't do it if you don't want to — flannel jesus

I rarely see this. Fuzzy defined terminology constantly gets in the way of depth in discussions. Just because I'm able to cut through it doesn't mean the masses seem able to. And the consequences of it spirals upwards into societal norms rather than just being a single discussion between two people. The accumulation of unnecessary discussions keeps people away from more important depth. It's the same as with political debates as people start to debate the meaning ideological terms because they don't have clear definitions of them, so they get stuck in just wasting time on that rather than get to the core of political issues that needs to be resolved.

I'm not really sure what you're defending here? What's your argument? That it's better to have lose definitions of terms rather than more defined ones? Why is that even a thing to promote?

Most discussions of aesthetic philosophy generally just get stuck in this "how to define what is art" debate, which I find meaningless as the examples are just arbitrary interpretations out of the lack of clear definitions of the term "art". It leads to nonsense circular arguments in which people just spell out their personal opinions rather than philosophical concept. That's why I'm more interested in setting clear definitions and through them it's much easier to answer questions like the OP is asking. Otherwise what's the point of even asking if there's no logical and rational argument for an answer to be found?

Duchamp claims that something is art if someone declares that it is art.

So, nothing too remarkable about declaring American Idol, or any other television program, Art. — BC

I disagree. Duchamp's intention was focused on being a message, a communication through expression. Regardless of what that message is, it wasn't made for profit as a primary intention. American Idol is profit first and focused on profit, so it's content, not art. People can appreciate the show for its aesthetical value, but so can they with a beautiful tree in the forest, both the show and the tree weren't formed through the intention of a person wanting to communicate something as the first primary intention; the tree grew as a natural object, the show was created for the profit of the channel, record label and the intention of the contestants to win over others. If they later, after they've won, made art for the sake of creation as artists, then that would be art.

I refer to my argument earlier in the thread for a deeper dive.

But is it really important that everyone agrees on what art is? I mean we disagree on what things qualify under what categories all the time, why should art be an exception?

Maybe it's okay that one person says "this McDonald's ad is art to me" and another one says "not to me". That doesn't necessarily mean the word has NO meaning, that just means these two people have different criteria, right? — flannel jesus

Why is it not important if we can? Aesthetic appreciation is not the same as "art" and having well defined terms are good for preventing language to get in the way of discussing meaning.

Lose terminology just leads to those kinds of meaningless hollow shells of debates. In which it's not a discussion about the core and subject that is supposed to be discussed, but instead about how each person defines what something is. And without any anchor to what a term is defined as it leads to a circling argument of no meaning as the two sides are just disagreeing on a criteria for something that has none. It becomes utter meaningless to have such discussions (yet most discussions online are just exactly this).

So yes, it is important, because it lowers the amount of meaningless illusions of valuable exchange of ideas. Two people disagreeing on the criteria of if a Macdonalds ad being art or not is utter meaningless compared to even the minor meaning of them agreeing it is content and discussing the aesthetical appreciation of said ad.

Why settle for unnecessary societal norms of language that just adds more barriers in communication when it's possible to form a clear definition that removes them?