The nature of time or consciousness have no impact on this. In terms of epistemology and ontology - I leave such weighty subjects to the experts. I don't have a significant interest in the origin of life or the nature of the universe. I hold that no answer in that space will make any difference to how I live my quotidian life. I think these sots of yearning questions are an inevitable by-product of human beings as meaning making creatures. As you say in the video, most of the putative answers here are wild, speculative and imaginative.

Most questions of metaphysics are just people telling stories to each other to try to ground the 'mystery' of life in some kind of foundational meta-narrative. I am happy to be a partially reflective follower of the crumbling remnants of the post-enlightenment world, who holds no real answers to any of the portentous questions and isn't all that fussed. — Tom Storm

That's a really interesting, relatable and well spoken reply. Thanks for sharing Tom :up: :smile:

I'm more about the truth rather than The Truth — Tom Storm

When it comes to religious belief there can be no empirical evidence or inter-subjective confirmation. So faith is, in relations to these kinds of evidence, belief without evidence. But people may believe on the strength of experiences that in themselves seem to them to constitute good evidence for their faith; and if that is not wrongheadedly put out into the public arena as something that seeks to convince others, then it will draw no critique. — Janus

Indeed. Perhaps the secrets within religious experience are some of the best kept secrets known to man-kind. The buddhist monk attaining nirvana, which is unified in its qualities of consciousness with other monks or even sages who have attained moksha (liberation from delusion) requires no logical proof of its truth about reality. For its truth is attained only within the ontology it is sought within and needs no further justification. Perhaps that is why our human thought, philosophy and scientific progress has so many loose ends, we have simply come to a rabbit hole with no end. For, it is the way we define those truths in our being which provides a veridical account of their truth, both within the scientific materialist state of consciousness as well as within an enlightened state of consciousness.

IMO, the best way to teach magick is to both embody said subject through metaphor. — Bret Bernhoft

It is interesting to see what happens when people relax their rigid rational conceptions of events, things, aspects, qualities. We see it under alterations to consciousness with some psychoactive drugs (cannabis, psilocybin, lsd, etc). Relationships between concepts become loose, free, flowing, imaginative, creative. The space that creates for metaphorical thought is enhanced and so to is the ability to form meaning. Looking at magick in terms of some of its attributes, we can immediately see value in its processes (as described in relation to the value within Altered States of Consciousness-ASC).

To look at magick in terms of a strict doctrine that is true absolutely in every aspect is just missing the point. The point i was making in my video was that the process of imaginative conceptualisation borrowed from new age religions (even from religions) can be utilised alongside scientific knowledge to attain exactly what einsten was getting at when he said: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind".

The less plausible a statement, the less likely it is a lie — Agent Smith

Sounds great. But, I can think of many implausible facets of knowledge which were proven factual/reliable: observer effect, quantum entanglement, decoherence, etc. Imagine how you might feel hearing about those theories 400 years ago). Perhaps its a good rough guide in common sense, just not reliable absolutely.

And the sociological-pedagogical evidence for the efficacy of these "practical tools" is what exactly? — 180 Proof

It would be an individually perceived truth taken from the correlation between procedural knowledge (performing of certain rituals) and effects in reality that take place (proposed effect of ritual).

Remember that in epistemology there are:

• facts (propositional knowledge),
• skills (procedural knowledge),
• objects (acquaintance knowledge).

Philosophers tend to draw an important distinction between three different senses of "knowing" something:

• "knowing that" (knowing the truth of propositions),
• "knowing how" (understanding how to perform certain actions),
• "knowing by acquaintance" (directly perceiving an object, being familiar with it, or otherwise coming into contact with it).

Magick could hypothetically be proven true through metaphysical connection to other hypothetical realms so long as the ontology of the being undergoing said connection were able to draw correspondence to a) procedural knowledge or b) propositional knowledge.

Important to note here that some people may regard their own existence (acquaintance knowledge I.E. cogito ergo sum) to be the most veridical. In fact i think many philosophy who tend toward pansychism, neutral monism, or monistic idealism, buddhism (enlightenment) might claim the most fundamental truth is to be found within our own ontology. Funnily enough, isn't this the same appeal to justifications of god through experience? Yes, if and only if such experiences took place in veridical ontologies, in other words, experiences of consciousness which offer more truth than rational computational thoughts within the conditioned complex called sanity! haha.

Actually the dearth of rational thought is faith. That's the very point of faith, isn't it? — Tom Storm

Good point! I believe rational thought is being used by the two of you in slightly different ways. One being that it brings you closer to the truth, the other being it brings you further from it.

Life is evidence of the divine. Nothing about the spark of life is reflected in atheism. It's just a dearth of rational thought masquerading as science. — neonspectraltoast

I love that, thanks for sharing. I would say I would have to agree with you, yet atheism could be a powerful tool in the timeline of human history. It may allows us to capture enormous potential in our scientific progress at an accelerated rate, even though it may occur at such an expense of our well-being (to live without a sense of the divine in our lives as atheists, which more often than not in my opinion sees people get swayed in to materialist lifestyle choices, heavy social conditioning, ego traps, selfish decisions, all of which limit our ability apprehend the true beauty of what nature/existing is. IE staring at iphone at the beach scrolling instagram vs listening to the wind and the waves and perceiving it as divine (even in a sense that is not related to an anthropomorphic entity aka god).

I often just quote Isaac Asimov: "I believe in evidence." :fire:
I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be. — 180 Proof

I think that is a fantastic quote and relates so much to what I was talking with Javi about in this thread. The idea of there being metaphysical truths about reality (common in new age religions) i believe can be subjected to "evidence" through ontology. All the while still pertaining rigidly with the criteria for what we set truth to be in epistemology (correspondence theory of truth).

This is a common rhetorical device used by evangelical apologists all the time - 'You atheists have faith in reason/science.' Seems an inadequate approach and a gimmick. It's also an example of the tu quoquo fallacy, or an appeal to hypocrisy.

Most atheists I know do not have faith in science or anything else. Faith is the excuse you give for believing something when you have no good reason to believe it. An atheist who privileges science generally sees it as the most reliable method for determining what is true or not, developing tentative models, using the best available evidence at the time. Science therefore is fallibilistic and changes when new facts emerge - which is the opposite of how faith functions.

Atheists do not always subscribe to materialism. Some are into New Age ideas, reincarnation and idealism. Atheism generally holds that there is no good reason to believe in any gods. It does not say there are no gods (a positive claim). That's all there need be to it. There is no faith in 'no god' just as you or others do not have faith in 'no Loch Ness Monster'. As an atheist myself, I am simply unconvinced that there are god/s. — Tom Storm

Yes, my apologies, that was not my intention but an error of how i chose to display it. I have updated the OP to what I actually meant which is thus:

• new age (faith in spirituality) vs atheistic faiths (belief/faith in no god)
• scientific materialism/logical positivism vs loose or perhaps more "continental" conceptualisations of the universe

I was giving two discussion points relating the similarities in new age vs atheist debate to the materialist vs metaphysics/continental debate. Atheists do not always subscribe to materialism, it is true, I said that in my video too.

On your comments on Atheism being a belief in no God/s, it appear in debate that it is a spectrum. "Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities". It becomes grey because the first broadest sense of atheism is almost identical to agnosticism. I see atheism used more commonly in philosophical debates with the context of the narrower sense: of the rejection God/s and belief that no such God/s exists or can exist. If Atheism isn't the correct term for such a belief, I don't know what term is.

You write well and I would be interested in hearing more of what you have to say, especially on my previous comments on epistemology/ontology.

Ideas aside, if I may offer a brief critique of the video presentation, it's far too long and rambling for what substance it offers, though I can't say that with much certainty because I could only bear to watch about a fifth of it. Also, the powerpoint-like images presented, which must have taken a lot of work, were more distracting than enhancing. — praxis

Interesting, thanks for share your perspective praxis. I guess I was trying to go for the rambling style youtube video which is common among youtube philosophy vloggers who make videos in response to others peoples NB: It is a fantastic alternative to philosophy forums. I wanted it to be more of a conversational journey in the evening on the lounge rather than a short sharp philosophical video essay at the computer.

The powerpoint-like imagery presented is indeed distracting at times but ideally it should be used to enhanced peoples conceptualisation, understanding and imagination through the extra use of brain power. I think people who find it hard to multi-task may find that difficult, but my reasoning is sound, which is that we need to move toward a more multi-dimensional modality of conveying information, not just text, not just words, imagery too!

I also think the OP is contradictory. There is not "atheistic faith" because atheism is against this sacred and religious act. Putting "faith" and "atheist" in the same group has no sense — javi2541997

I am the OP and for context I am agnostic. By definition, a belief in a lack of the possibility of there being god is still a belief. Grammatically, one can take "faith" that god does not exist.

FAITH: define
1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2.strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

Any atheist makes the claim that God does not exist only on his/her own conviction and not any proof. Whether that conviction is a spiritual conviction is a question toward ontology, of whether our being is fundamentally spritiual or not. I'd hazard a guess and say most atheists don't conceive of their being as spritual, but then you get rare gems like Bret Bernhoft on this forum who also believe in magick so go figure! :)

While logical positivism is based on proofs and scientific evidences, religion depends on your own belief. — javi2541997

What does epistemology tell us about rationality? That what is true comes down to a justified true belief? Well, Epistemologists disagree about whether belief is the only truth-bearer. Other common suggestions for things that can bear the property of being true include propositions, sentences, thoughts, utterances, and judgements. Plato, in his Gorgias, argues that belief is the most commonly invoked truth-bearer. In epistemology there are

• facts (propositional knowledge),
• skills (procedural knowledge),
• objects (acquaintance knowledge).

Philosophers tend to draw an important distinction between three different senses of "knowing" something:

• "knowing that" (knowing the truth of propositions),
• "knowing how" (understanding how to perform certain actions),
• "knowing by acquaintance" (directly perceiving an object, being familiar with it, or otherwise coming into contact with it).

Remember that without any experience of the world, we couldn't tell what the number 2 is conceptually, or that 2+3=5 or 6x7=42. We need acquaintance knowledge to deduce propositional knowledge (facts). They are completely dependant on the way we make sense of our world. On most views, truth is the correspondence of language or thought to a mind-independent world. This is called the correspondence theory of truth. We have no idea whether there is an intelligence/order on the other-side of the sense data we receive and confirm in our corresponding propositional logic and conceptualisations. The very correspondence of mind to reality is where we take our belief of truth to be existent.

THEREFORE, if we found a system of correspondence that integrates a new set of relational data, on top of or separate from propositional knowledge, logic, mathematics... what are we to do? We use replicability and uniformity between people to claim the truth of propositional knowledge, but what if new ontologies provided this framework for us? WELL, such is already the case wrt mystical experiences... and i talked about that in my video. Meditation and psychedelics provide this experience and have done for thousands of years, they offer a new state of consciousness to analyse ourselves in relation to the world -> therefore new epistemological benefits -> therefore new personally defined truths about ones existence that are repeated in individuals with psychedelic or mystical experiences. Are they as easily expressed as a set of mathematical equations? No. But how long have we been at it with those states of consciousness? Not long! Do we have psychedelic universities? No. Were the early mathematicians in Egypt writing logical calculus forumlas on blackboards to infer theorems from axioms according to a set of rules? No...Things take time...

My point here is that we need a new king of language a language embedded within a new ontology. And I think that in order to create that language, you're going to have to learn how you can go through a looking glass into another kind of perception, where you have that sense of being united to all things. And suddenly, you understand everything.

I hope that clears a few things up about that. Interested to hear your thoughts. Thanks.

We are in 21th century already. Those pagans doctrine should not be allowed in schools. It is primitive and it goes against all the basic knowledge the world needs to find solutions to our problems. — javi2541997

You sir have made the error in thinking that you know what the "basic knowledge the world needs to find solutions to our problems" actually is! Many of our ills are encountered through the confines of our understanding of the world, especially in our desires not being met leading to hatred, pain, etc. We have modern medicine and yet 1 in 5 have chronic mental illness, 1 in 8 are depressed. Anti-depressants have 30% effectiveness on depression, psychedelics have 80% effectiveness on depression.
Just because something is outdated, does not mean you can deny possible truths within its doctrines. If anything, we should be looking to our ancestors toward providing some sense of truth in all of its compartments of beliefs and be looking holistically with a fresh perspective to deduce new conclusions. Your thinking is the kind that leads people toward hatred of others with a different religion, the kind wars are waged on. It is not healthy, nor open-minded.

Can religions be working assumptions and is it prudent/wise to believe in God (re Pascal's wager)? — Agent Smith

I believe so. I wouldn't go as far as Pascal's wager in terms of its appeal to pure agnosticism. Ideas have their merit in so far as their application to reality, as tools to use to interact in new ways. So long as those tools (concepts) apply strongly to some order of logic then we should be safe.

The question then becomes is there not some definite limitations to logic?

Quinne certainly seemed to think so, probably wittgenstein too... I think post-modernist philosophy has a lot to say on that, as well as Goedels incompleteness theorem, as well as, most importantly, the veracity of mystical experiences and the truths that lie within ONTOLOGY as opposed to rationality...

Rationality is a box we place ourselves in to progress in a particular kind of way. Truth lies outside of it.

I recognize your freedom to say so, of course, but in my view 'magick' is in the same family of ways of thinking that the Enlightenment reacted against. Anything esoteric is suspect.

It'd be fine to teach about all religions in public schools, but I don't think it'd be wise or proper to teach it as binding or true. I suspect you wouldn't want bible-thumpers teaching biology, for similar reasons. — Pie

Precisely, it is suspect and it should remain suspect because of the tendency humans fall victim to with sharp unjustified beliefs (centuries of war waged in their god/s name/s). Philosophy first, always.

While I am an atheist, I am also a optimistic Gnostic-type of person. Whereas most Gnostics are rather pessimistic about this reality. Ultimately the use of tools such as magick and technologies are a matter of choice. If a person chooses to shut themselves off from their own potentials, so be it. It's when they attempt to limit others in their own individual pursuit(s) of actualization, that a line has clearly been crossed. — Bret Bernhoft

You make a good point that magick/technolgies or imaginative ways of interpreting the world are tools of choice and that if people are closed to them, they may never discover their truth or potential. This is what I tried to talk about in the video and that we mostly live in a western culture whereby the common perspective is heavily influence by materialism in negative ways which reduce imaginative modes of interpreting the world NOT TO EVEN MENTION the degree of social control there is through language conventions and habitual tendencies of speech which convey distaste and disdain for such imaginative interpretations of reality EVEN THOUGH they don't necessarily have to be at odds with scientific materialism (we see that most fervently and efficaciously within peoples integration of psychedelic experiences).

I like the idea of teaching Magick in public schools, but would prefer students are taught the possibility of truth behind different ways of interpreting the world rather than being taught magick per se. This comes down to how much time is required to teach it in comparison with the necessity of teaching philosophical doctrines of analysis which are more primary.

That is interesting to know your Gnostic beliefs don't conflict with your atheistic beliefs, but i can imagine how that might be so.

Thanks for the reply Bret. In the beginning I was attempting to speak upon a potential driving cause of a tendency in many people toward intense new age beliefs, that being the inferiority felt in what science has revealed of the muchness of this universe. Prima facie, to common sense, it appears we are so small. In reality, it does give us all the more reason to think of ourselves as so important too. I believe both perspectives are true depending on the angle which you look at them. Life is important and special, while paradoxically it is not at the same time.

Sorry, I really should have written that differently. When I used the disjunction "OR", I didn't mean they are synonymous with one another. So really how I should have typed it is like this:

• new age (faith in spirituality) vs atheistic faiths (belief/faith in no god)
  
• scientific materialism/logical positivism vs loose or perhaps more "continental" conceptualisations of the universe

Ugh, foolish mistake in my typing, forgive me. I was giving two discussion points relating the similarities in new age vs atheist debate to the materialist vs metaphysics/continental debate.

Thank you guys! Much appreciated :pray: :blush:

Classic, that was my first.. changed my life, made me decide to study a degree in philosophy. I don't know why it is so appealing. Perhaps the way he applies the theory of philosophy to instances of life itself in the form of a narrative. Something which i think most common people suffer with when trying to assess the value and utility of philosophy (usually before being scared away by an apparent complexity of words and therefore leads to a subconscious decision to label it all as "useless obfuscating time-wasting nonsense" so that they remove the confusion they feel by allowing them self to feel justified in not having to see value in any of it)

The Mike Tyson’s of the world can pulverize the world’s Einsteins; therefore we should let ear-biting boxers rule and do away with the Einstein’s (the guy had a weird kind of dyslexia or some such, which, naturally, is a disability). For evolution is about the culling of the weak. — javra

Remember i said that this is about chronic mental retardation. Einstein I am sure would be smart enough to be able to stop mike tyson from doing that in one way or another, through the use of invention, money or control via spatial proximity. Physical power and mental power are not distinct in this context, nor is dislexia any kind of detriment to the survival of einstein.

But in a nutshell, he says that when humans remove themselves from the conditions in which they evolved, they cease to evolve. — 0 thru 9

interesting, but how would evolution take place if humans never removed themselves from the conditions in which they evolved? It is kind of a non-starter.

Us, not them; the disabled don't get a say in this, because... they are disabled. They are not us. We are not disabled, despite wearing glasses, needing medication to reduce our blood pressure or surgery after that incident with the knee.

There is a nasty lack of self reflection in the OP that reeks of a lack of breadth of experience. — Banno

You clearly didn't keep reading to see what encompassed the term disabled in this context. Furthermore i suggest you actually reply with arguments rather than vitriol. I would expect more from someone with 3.3k posts on here...

Can I just point out this is a really stupid understanding of evolution? That's not what fitness is. — MindForged

Do you want to point it out by just stating what you believe without any evidence or argumentation? Or should i remind you that you are on a philosophy forum *rolleyes*

Evolution is a theory about the origin of species. The 'idea of progress' is another matter altogether. — Wayfarer

Yeah, but just because it is a theory about the past doesn't mean it is not still occurring. There is even evidence that it is still occuring, both genetically and morphologically.

I do not think evolution is an entity that can make decisions rather it is posited to be a process of change. I think the idea that evolution weeds out the weak is very pernicious. There is no intent supposed to be involved in evolution. — Andrew4Handel

It doesn't NEED intention in order to weed out the weak, it does so with out it. Its just a natural process with causal reactions just like any other physical process.Not sure where intent got brought in to this.

Anything that fails to survive and reproduce is weak regardless of physical abilities — Andrew4Handel

Exactly my point.

Fitness defined by survival is banal and vice versa unfitness — Andrew4Handel

Curious. Why so?

Also we are part of nature so anything we do is tautologously a part of nature. there are no natural laws for human behaviour that we have to follow humans are massively flexible and creative. — Andrew4Handel

Good point. However all I am pointing out is how our choice to keep a disabled person alive when it is a cost to us, serves us no purpose and for the most part is not an enjoyable experience for them is not only completely contrary to good reason but contrary to what has enabled us to survive. All of this withstanding in nature and being a product of nature. So in that sense the naturalistic fallacy can be removed, albeit still 'appealing' to it.

Is it the severely disabled continuing to live that bothers you, or is the "taxpayer supplied checks"? — Bitter Crank

It is both, but only in the context of deficiency in money and therefore spent potential energy and also cost of suffering to the individual because we prolonged their life due to our ethical uncertainty (inherent public opinion that all life is good life).

Evolution led us to be care-givers as well as perfect survivor specimens. Evolution doesn't have a plan. It just grinds along powered by random mutations. It's not heading anywhere. We are not the apex of creation, and evolution wasn't trying to get us there (unless you entertain some teleological ideas about the omega point, etc.). — Bitter Crank

Yes, i agree with all of that. It doesn't bear any argument against what I said. Survival is just a natural process, nothing more.

what the OP is suggesting is a distorted view of the idea of survival of the fittest. It fails to understand that it is through evolution that we have recognized the need to take care of the sick, disabled, etc. To suggest otherwise implies a retardation (perhaps, a disability). — BrianW

It is through evolution we have recognized we need to take care of the disabled (caring for the sick is another matter entirely). But that doesn't necessarily mean that just because we have evolved to care for the disabled that that is a good thing purely because it arose from evolution. Evolution (as has already been mention) has both good and bad outcomes.

Evolution filters out weaknesses not lives. The increase in the number of disabled people in productive fields both physical and intellectual, implies that we can learn to overcome inability in disability. Initially, way back in 'em days, we considered the disabled as failed human types and, in our ignorance, caused them a lot of suffering but, fortunately, presently, we have arrived at the realisation of how primitive that designation is. By incorporating deliberately directed and well-filtered human interactions with the disabled, we help them overcome the major limitation and threat which disability poses - social ostracism, which in turn leads to a larger host of issues. Finding ways to involve the disabled in all human activities has served as a therapeutic measure which has helped to counter some discomfitures. There is no doubt that the way to the future is through more integration and the outlook promises further success. Such is the true path of human evolution.

Isn't the statement, 'Disability is not inability!' a testament to our capacity to evolve? — BrianW

it's a testament to our stupidity in thinking that seeing them as "capable" will ever actually make them be. How can you ever throw a full blown autistic person in the jungle and let them survive?

You want to claim that through our ignorance we have arrived at some new and improved paradigm shift that allows for disability to be "ok", yet it is self evident by its possibilities that it isn't. Granted for low level retardation then much of what you say IS true, and IS applicable. It is a good thing to remove social ostracism in such cases as they posses BOTH the capacity to offer a benefit to society and enjoy life. But for the retardations and chronic disability that i speak of that is a parasitic drain and a torture for the participant then it calls in to question our contemporary moral understanding as humans.

For one thing, there is rarely genetic determinism when we are discussing people's intellectual abilities or character traits. — LD Saunders

This is where you have misunderstood the OP. It was about mental retardation and chronic disability that cause suffering. Not variation of intellectual abilities and character traits.

This is one reason we see so many extinct species --- evolution does not always lead to optimum outcomes.
Therefore, the argument here is based on a faulty premise. — LD Saunders

It is true evolution doesn't always lead to optimum outcomes but it also doesn't favour negative ones either (at least in terms of survival) because eventually time causes them to disappear. One factor that always remains is if it is ABLE to survive, then it will. If it isn't, then it won't. The only reason disabled people are able to survive is because we have a (in my opinion) unjustified desire to keep them alive for some reason. Mainly brought about due to our fear of whether it is wrong to kill any innocent thing, and this of course may due to our violent history as a species and the changes that have come to be within our psychology over the last century.

You're conflating a biological theory with an ethical principle - which it isn't — Wayfarer

Dont get me wrong, im not saying there is an ethical principle within evolution, that wouldn't make sense. There is only a "practical methodology" that is self-serving as forms the very foundations for survival

Besides, appealing to evolutionary fitness as a basis for ethics is close to 'eugenics' which is 'the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. — Wayfarer

eugenics requires human preferences for it to be called eugenics. natural selection only requires what is favorable in terms of survival.

this is the distinction between the two so it is incorrect to claim I am advocating eugenics as my "preference" isn't a preference at all, it is simply a realisation that these types of disabled people WILL not survive on their own under the conditions we have accustomed to evolve in, so why should we spend effort keeping them alive or allowing their life for no good reason (especially when a lot of their lives are miserable/confusing/painful etc).

On another note, it wouldn't be accurate to say evolution offers a form of eugenics either.

it is a mistake to project conclusions about what amounts to 'successfulness' on that basis; when you do, it always will sound very like eugenics or the justification of 'dog eat dog' capitalism on the basis of 'survival of the fittest'. — Wayfarer

But successfulness is something directly apparent in the world. survival (and to a lesser extent 'reduced suffering') in its own right isn't a conclusion i have projected out of my own desires, it isn't something like a choice of hair color. it is something "inherently" valueable to the organism and species removed from any personal preference. It is impossible to claim natural capacities of 'survival' a trait of eugenics. That is just a natural occurrence, not a preference.

You seem to attribute to death, by your construction, that it has anthropic properties, or sentience and maleficence of some kind. Death is not a person, but a state, one which befalls each of us. How do we say X 'is' dead if they are not X? By your argument, we ought not to attend funerals for the deceased we know...oops, we can't know them if they no longer are whom they were prior to (their) deaths. Funerals are out because they are about death, and not the dead. — gloaming

That's right, they no longer exist. the funeral is for the memory of who they were.

I see now I misinterpreted "the loss of death" for the "process of death". I thought epicurus was saying death can not occur to anyone, but it is purely about the aftermath of death. Thanks

But this is nothing but a tautology: all it says is that every evolutionary success is a success, and every evolutionary failure is a failure - right up until the point a failure becomes a success and vice versa. You can draw no conclusions from this, let alone the idea that successes are 'proven' - whatever that even means. — StreetlightX

What is proven is the system whereby success arise and failures fail. What is dependable about it is the testability of it due to its nature of repeatability. It isn't some abstract notion that has no relation to the world, these are physical processes that are measured by biologists. The fact that there are success grants the praise of those successes.

Not every university professor can maintain a positive sense of well-being and/or is a benefit to society and certainly not every given person with trisomy 21 is unable to maintain a positive wellbeing and/or is of no benefit to society. So, even by your own criteria of whose existence is allowed, the argument isn't sound. — Baden

What I was saying was relating to what constitutes a sufficiently superior intellect to decide, not whether down syndrome people can be happy and a benefit to society because that is true, they can, albeit with limited abilities that we have and i think that is a source of pain for them because they are outcasted (regardless of our opinions).

Only those who were can be called that. What is a wrecked 'car'? Was it a horse, or is it still a car? Does it cease to be a car simply because it is inoperable and beyond economical repair?

If I sent you looking for a wrecked train, would you look for a wrecked car on your drive? If I sent you to look for a lost boy, would you look for a lost girl instead? Or maybe the wrecked car?

Again, if death befalls all of us, how can it be countenanced as a misfortune. — gloaming

A wrecked car is simply a wrecked car, it is not a car. It is in a new category of its own. "wrecked" is not a variant of a type of form the car is "assuming" much in the same way a dead person is not a form in which the person is "assuming" in form and time.

It can be countenanced as a misfortune because death deprives
us of the praemia vitae.

So I'll confine myself to shuddering with fright when I wonder which intellects are sufficiently "superior" to decide whether my own disability condemns me to euthanasia? Do you consider yourself up to this task? :chin: I'm afraid I don't. Sorry. :fear: — Pattern-chaser

It is readily apparent that a university professor is sufficiently superior than any given person with trisomy 21 (down syndrome). Need I say more?

The basic principle is, if they are able to maintain a positive wellbeing and a benefit to society then existence is allowed. Low level autism is completely out of the question in this argument, that should be very obvious by now and the fact you bring it up is just another fallacious appeal to pity etc.

Stephen Hawking was afflicted later in life, but he is an illustration nevertheless of how misleading the term "disabled" can be. — Baden

Yes, of course you're right. Stephen Hawking should've been drowned at birth, right? :fear: Because he was just a "parasitic drain" on society, right? :fear: Yeah, kill 'em all! :fear: :groan: :cry: :rage: — Pattern-chaser

Your statement is irrelevant if you see the post above yours:

Disabilities of the kind that serve no positive influence. Mainly in the form of mental retardation. I only speak to physical disabilities insofar as they effect peoples mental/emotional wellbeing (as much as they enjoy their life and even want to live with what challenges they must face).

Oh and btw, keep your emotions out of this.

But this betrays a basic misunderstanding of evolution. Evolutionary 'fitness' is only ever context-bound (to an environment), and the evolutionary record is paved with detritus of the millions upon millions of evolutionary 'failures' produced by evolution itself. There is no possible, coherent way of talking about evolution as a 'legitimate' system with 'proven methods'. The majority of evolutionary history is a history of miserable failure. — StreetlightX

Yes, but it is the outcomes of those failures that are the "proven" successes (humans being one of them). The proven method I speak of here is natural selection, it is a self evident feature that is dependant on failures of other species. Indeed the majority is a failure but proportions aside, we still exist. I also fail to see how this breaks any context specific to evolution.

However the real problem here lies in the gap between natural selection (letting all disabled people die from natural causes) and artificial selection (prohibiting their birth). Because it seems we really can't have any kind of natural selection going on without any human interaction (artificial selection) involved. But it would be close enough to the same outcomes of natural selection anyway so it is probably irrelevant (ie, all people with fully expressed muscular dystrophy in the jungle would die)

exactly the type of comment i was looking for. It seems those restraints have only been loosened in the last few ages but the main point here is that evolution brought us to the point where we are able to relax its control over us. The fact it has enabled us to survive and thrive in itself means it is a system we should pay homage too, have respect for, for we owe it purely on the basis of it allowing our existence as we are currently.

I agree with you, I am committing a naturalistic fallacy here (yet so does every carnivore). However it is not a naturalistic fallacy when the methods nature uses itself have proven outcomes (such as millions of years of the death of failed species and the survival of the strongest species). In that sense it isn't just because its "natural", it is because it has a system that is legitimate. Not only that but it is responsible for our existence and that in itself deserves credit does it not?

Tell me how it is so though that by allowing the disabled to live the best lives they can, we are following our evolutionary imperatives literally better than any other creature on earth? You say it as if living to the best of their capabilities actually warrants any kind of enjoyable life. I used to be a carer and I can tell you first hand that most of their lives are spent in confusion (as to their circumstance) or seperation (from society) and warrants a higher intellect to stop such atrocities of human experience to take place.

Lifelong suffering from disability can be prevented yet you want to argue we ought not to intervene with our superior intellects (much in the same way judges do) to do what is in the interest of further "potential sufferers" purely because it follows an evolutionary imperative of ours? What evolutionary imperative is that?

What I often got though was a disorganized "picture of thought" as if students believed their impressions of what I was trying to impart could simply be regurgitated on the page and it was up to me to reinterpret that back into some properly organized whole. There was a lack of application of thought to thought, and what I tended be given back was a filtered version of what I gave out rather than a positive transformation of it. — Baden

I don't doubt your capacities as a teacher to spot such occurrences but it may also be the case that the integration/systematization took place internally yet they lacked the linguistic capacity to follow on through. It is often mistaken that people who can't speak well don't think well. Fascinating you say this though, ive always wanted to hear such a perspective.

Others too, although they are less well-known. I am autistic, which is considered by many to be a disability. Do I have a place in society? — Pattern-chaser

Sorry, i should of clarified. Disabilities of the kind that serve no positive influence. Mainly in the form of mental retardation. I only speak to physical disabilities insofar as they effect peoples mental/emotional wellbeing (as much as they enjoy their life and even want to live with what challenges they must face).

I find myself wondering if we should not be considering instead how each member of society (able or disabled) can contribute to society? — Pattern-chaser

Which in the case of disabled people isn't much at all really is it? Are they not like a parasitic drain due to our ethical hesitation?