You’re just lucky they don’t ban for self-righteous
twat-ness.
Celebration of the banning of a bad actor like Bartricks reflects badly on no one.

oh ya? Which half? :shade:
Obviously we are talking about all the experts, not half of them. What you said makes no sense in the context of this discussion.

Depends what we mean by 'conclusive' I guess. I don't think it entails agreement. I can find something to conclusively be the case. But someone else might think I'm completely mistaken. — bert1

“Conclusive” according to other academic standards. I previously used a geology example: in geology there is disagreement about specific details, as with philosophy. Fair. We could go down the list until eventually to major questions, in geology whether the world is flat or round for example. If for all such major questions about geology it was a near split, geology would have a big problem. If roughly half the geologists thought the earth was flat, geology would quickly become a punchline. A joke.
This poll shows that philosophy has this problem. The experts have spent centuries or more and still can’t give us a reliable conclusion (the weight of all the experts on one side or the other, rather than more close to evenly divided).

I dont know about everything. You could still accomplish a lot working within the confines of already existing systems as well, like by providing scientific discoveries for example.
Im not saying anyone could be trusted to create paradise (people would bitch about it anyway), just that it wouldn't be at all hard to make it better.

You would just fuck things up. Anyone would. I hope there's a reset button. — T Clark

You are selling yourself short if you think you couldn't improve things with omnipotence. It would be easy.
Also, of course reset button. Youre god. Will it to be so and it is so. How could you really fuck up?

How can you call a result conclusive when there is an near even split about what the conclusion is?! — DingoJones

How do you know they have been correctly solved?
How can you call a result conclusive when there is an near even split about what the conclusion is?!

On the contrary, this is just to say that philosophy isn't science, and isn't supposed to be. However there can be rigor in the conceptual analysis, examination of inferences, clarifying concepts, mapping the theoretical possibilities (or interpretations of them). Philosophers can and should fix the sloppy thinking when they find it in other disciplines. — bert1

Im not saying philosophy is science. I'm talking about academic value. Im open minded as to what would constitute a fair comparison, as some academic disciplines (like mathematics) lend themselves to more concrete conclusions.
How can you call academic philosophy rigorous when the results of that “rigor” are inconclusive on so many major philosophical issues?

My take on this is that philosophical questions may well have been correctly answered already. But we don't have a way of settling the dispute easily. In science, the scientific method eventually compels dissenters, at least amongst scientists (not flat earthers). In philosophy, it's easier to maintain a dissenting position, as consulting the physical world rarely settles the dispute. — bert1

Well that is my point…if philosophy is so easy to dispute, so easily justifying of opposing views, isnt that a bit of a joke academically speaking? An academic discipline so lacking doesnt seem to belong.

I don't think academic vs non-academic is the place to put the boundary. Peter Singer is an academic, for example. There is a lot of woolly thinking outside the academe and a lot of sharp thinking inside it. — Cuthbert

I would say that says more about Pinker than in does about academia. I think you are talking about whats being brought to academia from outside its confines, leaving my point about academia itself standing.
What has academic philosophy taught its students if most of the main issues cannot be decided by that education?

But I have some sympathy with your complaint. I admit I graduated in 1979 with the thought - "Now Wittgenstein has proved the vacuousness of metaphysics I suppose that's the end of it." But still we debate whether the lump of clay and the statue are one thing or two. It's partly because the confusions arise from deep problems with our thought and language which will repeatedly resurface. I'm prepared to admit that it's partly a desire to play with ideas just because they are there. You put it more derogatorily but I don't entirely reject the complaint. — Cuthbert

I tend to agree that there are deeper problems with thought and language when it comes to philosophy, but this falls under the purview of academic philosophy’s responsibility.
What would we say about geology if there was close to an even split between about how old the earth is, how mountains are formed, whether or not the ice age created modern waterways and whether or not diamonds form from coal? We would say “what a joke, get your shit together geology”.
I could have made my point in less harshly but it seems like we have a harsh reality about academic philosophy on our hands. Also, I meant it lightheartedly if that matters. I should have used some emojo’s I guess.

What? I felt like those were fair points.

Can you locate a similar survey in some other discipline, and so demonstrate that there is no similar bifurcation? — Banno

No need for a survey, such is the obviousness of the examples in other disciplines. We would first have to agree which other disciplines are fair comparisons.

Again, and as acknowledged by the editors, the choice of questions is arbitrary. it may well be set to find those that have toughly equal presentation on both sides. — Banno

So the survey is the joke. I see.

If you would maintain that this is something more than a bias in question selection, you will have to do some more work. — Banno

I dont think its out of line to take the survey at face value. Maybe it shows nothing of value, but if its arbitrary and biased and you decided to share it then maybe you have some work to do.

I agree, that is why ive attempted a distinction between all of that and academic philosophy.

Ways of clarifying questions to which there is going to be no indisputable answer. Ways of weighing up the costs and benefits of coming out firmly on one side or another. Ways of understanding the confusion that underlies some questions before rushing into giving answers. — Cuthbert

All of which are accomplished with careful thought, academic philosophy isnt necessary.
Its not like there are a minority of disputes like in other fields, its all but one of the major issues philosophy is supposed to address! Centuries on some of these!

There are plenty of places to go for undisputed answers to difficult questions. E.g. sign up for Twitter and block everything you disagree with. Job done. — Cuthbert

Its not about an undisputed answer, I understand that dissenting opinions exist in all areas of study.
Look at this study/poll, its an even split on the majority of issues. It shows that academic philosophy is the mastabatory exercise of wishy washy airheads that the public at large has always taken it for.

That depends on the purpose of the survey. A survey doesnt have to be philosophically interesting ( assuming thats what you mean by interesting) , generally their purpose is to inform. In this case, more like expose.

The fact that even the trained professional philosophers are split fairly evenly on virtually every philosophical query makes it an academic parody. What then does philosophy offer? To what purpose is academic training in philosophy if they offer the same lack of conclusion as a layman?
Those so trained speak with a totally disproportionate amount of confidence on these topics given how little definitive conclusions the academic apparatus actually offers.
I wonder if perhaps academic philosophy is going to turn out to be the last religion to die. Murder/suicide?

Hilarious how many major philosophical inquiries are pretty close to an even split despite being discussed and debated for centuries.

So academic philosophy is a complete joke. Roger that.

I was talking about the lies about Trump. The lies Trump tells are pretty obvious.

Im not in possession of special knowledge about Trump, no. Its not hard to find lies or dishonest spins on the things Trump says and does, any more than finding out Trump himself lies and deceives. (Or his people)
I can’t think of any specific example off the top of my head.

I would guess its pretty close but who knows.
I do think its rampant enough on both sides to be the responsibility of both sides.

Its not though, its seems nearly impossible to have a rational discussion about Trump, with either side.
“He’s the worst evil!”
“Hes the saviour that delivers us from evil!”

Conversation done. This entire thread is just rephrasing this sentiment, meanwhile neither position is true.

Ya, I didnt mean it as an actual psychological condition, more of a social phenomenon. Its derangement in the layman's sense.

I intended to also include derangement of the type where Trump supporters are blind to his flaws, think he is fighting secret cabals of baby eating rich people, think he is a good christian etc.
Trump Derangement Syndrome, to me, is believing all or most of Trumps lies and/or believing all or most lies told about Trump. Its the suspension of reason because of ones strong feelings about Trump.

Trump Derangement Syndrome. As prevalent on the right as the left…roughly.

It would be real swell if all discussions on this forum were like his one, nice job comrades that was a worthwhile read.
Thanks.

Nope

Can we consolidate some threads into a “beating a dead horse” thread? We can start with this one. :wink:

No more, no less. Humans just can’t be trusted.

Because you can’t be trusted.

In the case of your objection which is - as best I can tell - that animals can be farmed ethically, — Graeme M

You arent paying attention to what you are reading if you think this is the counter argument Isaac is offering.

Neither (a) nor (b) follow from your premise alone. You've drawn no connection at all between liberty and being used as an end. — Isaac

Answer that. This is a counter argument to what you are saying. If you cannot answer it, your position is refuted so address it if you want to be taken seriously.

Nothing about killing something interferes with it's liberty other than by foreshortening its life. If foreshortening life is unethical, then it's hard to see how lengthening it (above average) is also unethical. Farmed animals often live longer than their nearest wild equivalent. — Isaac

This too. Don’t be confuses by the mention of farming, its the bolded portion you need to answer for your position to stand.

Your objections either don't seem to apply, or apply also to humans where some exchange of freedom for welfare is made. — Isaac

Again, address these claims made by Isaac. If you cannot refute this then your argument doesnt stand.
The fact that you only got “animals can be farmed ethically” from reading Isaacs posts is amazing to me, and it should give you pause on your own position that you have so clearly failed to comprehend counterpoints made against it. This is a very good sign that you haven’t considered the issue thoroughly. Also a good indicator you are making an ad hoc argument, rather than in good faith.

Oh. Please explain then.

I dont see the contradiction. Some things are more important to some people than “cultivating optimal agency/well-being via conduct and relationships”. I think you are trying to assert that ethic over all other priorities just as I described above. Its simply not the case for most people, they worry about ethics after a number of other things that come first. These priorities preclude moral judgements.

Well you gave me an extreme scenario, so I answered in that context.
It seems to me your reason for not eating your dog is based on a revulsion of how it would make you feel to do so. Im not sure thats a moral basis of rejection. For the lamb, you have not these feelings, so there is no parallel justification.
Some people do have these feelings but they have no more right to suggest we treat animals the way they do than I have to tell them ignore their feelings and eat lamb cakes.

Oh. Well thanks.
The flaw with most ethical systems is the assumption that being moral is ones highest priority imo, when really for most people its more like 3rd or 4th down the list, hence most people do not consistently follow any system of ethics. Ethics gets hedged out by higher priorities

I dont understand what the flame signifies.

I do have a pet, and I would eat it to survive. I also have kids so they would get the dog burgers first, followed by dad burgers if it meant them surviving. Survival trumps morality for most people, for most things.

I dont see why either position/lifestyle needs to be justified.
If youre asking whether “emoti-intellectual capacity” is a justification for either position I would say no. I do not think that emoti-intellectual capacity is a metric for morality or ethics, either is pain.

Why would a human need to rationalize consuming meat?
Cuz it inflicts pain? So does all kinds of things, so what?

I guess my question here is at the risk of coming up with statements describing current economical reality … what are the best ways of combating modern day cartels/monopolies who don’t have the best interests of the common man as their driving principle… — Deus

Teach common man enough self control and foresight not to empower corporations with their slave-like devotion to materialism. Start with getting people to stop exploiting child slaves by shopping at Walmart cuz its cheaper.
Good luck.

Good point, but the certainty still wouldnt make the choice predetermined. The knowledge of what happens does not effect the outcome of what happens. That was my point.
You would be predicting, with certainty, what the person will choose. Its pre-knowledge of what will happen, not knowledge of what is predetermined. The predetermination is still separate from what youre asking here as I described initially.
You are essentially positing that pre-knowledge and predetermination ( in the free will sense) are the same thing, which I dont think they are. You can have pre-knowledge ( in the context of this thought experiment) of something whether its predetermined or not so you arent actually addressing free will here imo.

Just because you know what someone will choose doesnt make the choice predetermined.
Would you rather have your eyeballs pulled from their sockets with a rusty knife or a pleasant meal?
Nothing magical about predicting you would choose the pleasant meal. Its not predetermined, its just easy to determine just like it would be for your writing god or future seeing person.
I didnt answer the poll because your OP doesnt actually address free will. Its a free will adjacent question but you're actually just asking about foreknowledge of action, the answer to which depends on what ones views on free will already are.