I blame the judge. As the responsible adult, she should know better than to give warning of surprise. The prediction might turn out to be false, because no one knows the future in such detail. Indeed, as the prisoner reasons, the prediction must turn out to be false because it is a contradictory speech act. Unfortunately, in this case his logic rescues the judge from her contradiction, because he concludes that the execution cannot take place, rather than that the judge is irrational.

Boys need to develop the masculine virtues. Men need to develop the feminine ones. Otherwise, one will be lopsided. First become what you are, and then transcend it.

why not get angry — csalisbury

For fuck's sake dude! :razz:

No one's telling you not to get angry. There's nothing 'nice' about all this. Anger is a strategy folks can use to express and fulfil their needs. It's not a very good one.

To paraphrase our man while talking about the need for autonomy and the many autonomy wars around the globe, you cannot make your children do what you want, you can only make them regret not doing it. And then they will make you regret making them regret...

Get angry, have regrets. Be my guest.

I say it as someone with an abusive relationship with an internal moral-voice — csalisbury

So you are your own abusive parent and stubborn child. Of course there is a video for that.

It's maybe worth looking at this to understand better how the needs based process language functions.
the distinction between the need and the strategy is important and subtle. I need food; McDonald's is my strategy. I need love; you are my strategy.

it's hard though to avoid the unequal valuation of people. — j0e

Marshall tells a story of a Mum coming to his seminar and saying she was worried about her 5 yr old son not wanting to go to school. And he says to ask the child if he could say what they didn't like, next day she arrives with the answer; "It's all about tomorrow, Mummy."

The culture is saturated with preparation for a life that is never reached, because there is always another phase of life to prepare for. A child cannot run round a field for joy, without some adult measuring it with a stopwatch and drawing up a league table. On television, cooking, sewing, gardening, pottery, every aspect of life is turned into a competition in which the mantra is recited "there can only be one winner". I fully expect the next big thing to be The Great British Fuck off, in which contestant are judged for their performance by experts and professionals and set unrealistic orgasmic time-limits.

It's hard to avoid the enculturation of thousands of years, sure enough. So we carry on fighting.

We want people (I think) to value themselves as those who bring gifts to the tribe. — j0e

In this thread, as opposed to that thread, we don't want people to value themselves, because we have discovered that the valuation of people - others or self - is violent. So we say that everyone in their talk and in their action is intending to fulfil their needs. Hitler thought he was doing the right thing, and people who self harm are fulfilling their needs as best they know how. You can call this "unconditional positive regard" as proposed by Carl Rogers. Because it is unconditional, it does not compare or measure, it does not separate by identification.

"I don't want to be a burden." One hears this from old folks and disabled folks often. But when one questions the value of their gifts, one makes a burden of those that have no valuable gifts, a burden that one carries in order to be oneself a valuable member of the tribe. Thus one does violence in the act of kindness. I don't want to be a burden, but you have made me one.

If your kindness is a gift for me and brings you no joy, then I cannot afford it, and I would rather die. I don't want to be a burden. Compare: "He ain't heavy; he's my brother."

So we have this process of "translation" from Jackal language to Giraffe language, from static language to process language.

"I always hear the need behind the 'no', the compliment, the insult, the refusal to engage."

So compare this with this thread "Be a good person but don’t waste time to prove it."

The suggestion is that one can be a good person (or a bad person) but that a good person does not worry about making sure everyone knows how good they are. But someone who thinks this knows for themselves that they are even better for the fact that they 'don’t waste time to prove it'.

They pride themselves on their humility.

Giraffe ears translate this, I think, into "I need to see myself as better than others". One sees, perhaps the insecurity that needs reassurance. Giraffe ears do not hear identifications like 'good person' at all.

Just don't call me 'late for dinner'.

You're all wankers, don't pretend otherwise. And don't go insane over being called what you are.

arrogance
— unenlightened

Why so much of that one though? — schopenhauer1

I think it's a philosophy thing particularly, but not exclusively. Philosophy depts are notorious for sexism, racism and all forms of assumed superiority. You and I of course are above such things. :wink:

I just remembered this very old thread of mine, that focussed mainly on anger, and that this thread can be thought of as sort of the successor to.

We conduct a disembodied dialogue here, but we are all embodied and our thoughts are also embodied. I would suggest that there is the legitimacy of argumentation which is based on logic, but that this is unbearably thin. The prospect of a site conducted entirely in propositional logic is not very attractive. I, at least, need as well as the argument to get the flavour of the person I am communicating with. Emoticons help sometimes, and other informal expressions give one a sense of a real person that cares about things.

So personally I want to see expressions of frustration, or boredom or confusion, or arrogance, or amusement, or love, from time to time. I want to see the passion behind the argument; if nobody cares about the argument the conclusion is - ahem - "academic" (in the insulting belittling sense). But there are limits of course, and if your limits are exceeded, there are 2 things I recommend; 1, stop responding, and 2, report to the mods.

Here's another piece that gets a bit deeper into anger.

There again, professor Bob Dylan says:

I’m just average, common too
I’m just like him, the same as you
I’m everybody’s brother and son
I ain’t different from anyone
It ain’t no use a-talking to me
It’s just the same as talking to you — Bob Dylan

Being a bat is like being a very small flying me with sonar.

You can do that on Earth too. Life is such a great game, you can play it how you want.

This shook me to my core. — maytham naei

Imagine that happening to a whole nation... a whole people believing what is comfortable to believe about themselves, and eventually finding reality un-ignorable.

It seems to me that the modern analogy of the virtual world makes this problem quite tractable to intuition.

the Almighty Nintendo is responsible for Mario's world and Mario, and Bowser, and Princess Peach. But when you play the game, you become responsible for Mario's moves, within the limits of gameplay set by Almighty Nintendo. If Almighty Nintendo had made the game such that nothing could go wrong, or that there were no Bowser, it would have been a dull game that you would have complained about having to play.

That is to say; evil makes the world better.

Why should it be that, in one instance, too many cooks spoil the broth, and in another, many hands make light work? You might want to dig a little deeper. — TheMadFool

You really don't need to dig very far at all. One spade depth is sufficient. There are many different jobs to be done, and some of them can only be done alone, and some cannot be done alone. In between, there are many that can be either. The sayings don't contradict, because they are never applied to the same thing. If the soup is good it was made by many hands, and if it is bad, it was made by too many cooks. It is never made by both, because it is never good and not good at once.

Wise sayings are always applied after the event. If a cooperative venture succeeds its a case of many hands, and if it fails, too many cooks. These things are not a guide to life, but a classification system. Confusion arises from taking cliches as advice, because the nature of cliches is that there is one applicable to every outcome. That's why they are wise sayings; they encapsulate the wisdom of hindsight, and the main lesson of history is 'you never know.' It's easy to be wise after the event, so wise people always comment on the past.

Well I think this whole "antinatalism is proselytizing" thing is unfair and just based on strong biases against it. — schopenhauer1

FOR FUCK'S SAKE. I DID NOT SAY "antinatalism is proselytizing". PLEASE DON'T MAKE UP SHIT AND QUOTE IT AS IF I SAID IT.

I'm going to stop responding to you for a bit, because you are wilfully misunderstanding me.

proselytize
/ˈprɒsɪlɪtʌɪz/
Learn to pronounce
verb
gerund or present participle: proselytising
convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another.

We can discuss in any number of threads; we can argue it back and forth. But now you are again misrepresenting my position, and that is an unfair and unreasonable practice. It is another rhetorical trick, and it stinks. And it is not antinatalism that stinks, it is your debating style, and your use of illegitimate means to try and convince others of the strength of your position. And that is what I am calling 'proselytising'.

I know you think antinatalism as a rhetorical question rather than an argument — schopenhauer1

No, you just think you know that. In fact I was rather specific in my criticism, not antinatalism is a rhetorical question, but questioning is a rhetorical device, overused in this thread. If you would read what I say, you would understand more and be less insulted. I respect antinatalism as a legitimate position; I take another view. what I do not respect so much is the proselytising.

If we evolved from primates, why should I believe that my thoughts are coherent and true — Georgios Bakalis

The general answer to this is very simple. Thoughts that are not coherent and true would not on average aid survival. The planet is littered with the corpses of people who thought they could fly, or that they could live on fresh air alone, and so on. Realistic thinkers are favoured by natural selection. I know this because the Magic Beans told me in my sleep.

What is your point, refuted or not, and what is his? — Outlander

I don't have a point or an argument, I have a judgement and a motive. Other people make other judgements and have other motives.

My judgement is that life is good; that a poor life is better than no life, and a long life is better than a short one - at least as a general rule. And the natural shape of human life includes procreation as a necessary part of its continuation. Antinatalism makes the opposite, negative global judgement of life as a whole, that existence is characterised as a whole by suffering and is as a whole evil.

My life is winding down towards its dissolution in death, but I am still motivated to spread the joy of philosophy, of love, of communication, to the extent I can, to you, to my children, natural and adopted, and to anyone else around. Dry arguments of moral principle seem to me to already presume this global judgement that life is either a gross imposition, or a gift of great value.

In the exchange above, I did make a point that this thread and others similar make too much use of challenging questions, and that such questions are rhetorical devices not arguments. I will not waste more time on that, or on the rhetorical questions.

We need answers, and what we have instead is confusion. — counterpunch

The scenario is an artificial one designed to create confusion. Have some answers instead. Don't kill people. Not even when it is very convenient to do so. Don't blow them up even if they are right in the way and you urgently need to be somewhere. It's murder, even if you save some lives on the side.

While we're at it, don't torture people either, even if they have the magic life saving information and won't give it to you.

But I am saying to apply your critique of why my argument is not an argument not just a general critique of how a question isn't an argument or something like that. — schopenhauer1

The question is a complaint, not an argument.
— unenlightened

I disagree that it is not an argument — schopenhauer1

Fuck it, dude I can't be bothered any more. Carry on without me.

What would you think if... — javi2541997

...you were a bit overweight and happened to get in the way of a dynamite philosopher?

"Oh no, not again!"

Ironically, you did not make an argument for why my particular argument is not an argument. Poor form if you want to show what you are accusing. — schopenhauer1

a question is not a proposition, and has no function in an argument as either a premise or conclusion. — unenlightened

I don't need to make an argument, I am stating a fact about what makes an argument. Do you dispute the fact? Go consult an elementary logic text. Or just ignore the facts and me too. Or whatever.

That’s how I’d rank the moral decisions. — DingoJones

Since you take the utilitarian stance, you ought to consider other possibilities, like the following: You insert the dynamite in a suitable orifice and blow up the fat man and me who refuses to abandon him. And also the team of rescuers who are outside the cave working to free everyone. And of course the lifting gear they were setting up collapses into the hole along with their corpses and you still can't get out. What rotten luck!

A case of the thin end of the wedge justifying being mean to the fat?

How do I know that no other means of unsticking him will work? Personally, I would still be greasing his fat arse and pulling or pushing when the waves broke over my head, so you'd have to blow me up too, you callous bastards.

I disagree that it is not an argument. — schopenhauer1

You are wrong to disagree. It is a simple matter of grammar, that a question is not a proposition, and has no function in an argument as either a premise or conclusion. Rather it is a rhetorical device that attempts to put pressure on the interlocutor to make statements that can be attacked without stating an argument that can itself be attacked. A question can be wonderful opening to an open discussion, but as an argument, it is a trick and a cheat.

is it right to assume that force recruiting them is okay because YOU deem the game so good, that everyone else should play it? — schopenhauer1

This thread {and all the others} repeats this question over and over again. The answer I and most people give is YES.

Life is good and life is a gift, and if you are ungrateful, and some other people are ungrateful, that is an unfortunate consequence, usually of a life lacking in challenge and engagement, or occasionally of traumatic events. Not much I can do about that, but it is no reason to end all life. We disagree about this, but your endless question has no more force with me than my repeated answer has on you. The question is a complaint, not an argument.

I say: There is no Law but the Law! — Ciceronianus the White

The law can change, and then there is the old law and the new law. As witness our beloved leader Boris, he of the meter-long forearms deftly shaking elbows with all and sundry whist maintaining the now statutory 2 meter separation. :mask:

I wonder what is the law that exists? Is it the paper appropriately signed and sealed, or is it the published version thereof, or is it a more complex construction of social effects that include the implementation thereof. If there can be a law that forbids unequal pay between genders, but there is is a gender pay gap, there seems to be be at the least a third question as to whether the writ runs or not. To speak of law without mention of the power of enforcement seems to me to miss something essential.

I'm not competent to argue christian theology, so I relate it instead to simple secular principles, like justice. We 'believe' in justice in the sense that we commit to it, we demand it, we seek it, we take pains to implement it. We don't believe that it is a principle of physics or nature. It exists to the extent we live it. and I think love is like this, it is something we can do at a cost to ourselves, not something that is already how things work. Love should prevail justice should prevail, truth should prevail, and this is the faith - make it so!

You could suggest that faith is not a kind of belief and so not subject to justification in the first place.

Rather it is a commitment. The God of love is not reliable and does not prevail; He gets crucified. Faith is to believe in commit to what does not exist, and try to realise it in one's life.

People say they believe in truth, and justice and so on, but they do not literally believe that the world is just or that the truth always prevails. They commit themselves to promoting these things as best they can.

Well, it is a rather odd position. — Tzeentch

I think it is quite commonplace; antinatalism is the odd position. The only oddity on my part is that I even bother to articulate the view.

Rather, I Think it odd that you take ignorance as a reason not to have children and knowing as another reason.

This fundamental ignorance you speak of, isn't that a serious reason to refrain from making major decisions on behalf of another? — Tzeentch

No. One must either have a child or not; that is the decision one must make if the choice is available, or else let nature take its course. One decides to have a child or not, and one does not decide not to have a child on behalf of the child one does not have, nor does one decide to have a child on behalf of the child one has not yet had, and might never have. How many more times would you like me to answer that question?

Is what one deems to be good a justification for making major decisions on behalf of another?

If so, why? — Tzeentch

I think it is good for you and other readers if I answer this question. It brings me no joy, and it will probably bring you none either. Nevertheless, there is no justification for doing anything at all other than that one deems it good. This post will change the world forever in a very minor way, and the full consequences are unknowable. Who knows, my daughter my yet become the antinatalist that finally convinces the world to stop making babies? Such is the terrible risk one takes in making a post or a child. but the same risks go with doing nothing at all. There is nothing for it but to do what one deems good and refrain from what one deems bad. "It seemed a good idea at the time ." is the only justification of anyone for anything. You seem to argue that I should have refrained from giving life to another from a place of even more ignorance than me. At least I know my daughter somewhat.

Some people wish they had never been born. Some people live lives full of pain and suffering. Others like myself are privileged and lucky. It isn't fair. We could make it more fair if we tried; we could massively reduce suffering if we cooperated, but I do not think we can end it or that we would want to end it. Our current guest has a project, but it makes no sense to me. I don't like suffering, yours or mine, but I love life and I choose to pay the price, and I have to choose one way or the other for untold future generations. I make the best choice I can in ignorance. I respect that you make the opposite choice in your ignorance. I do not even seek to change your mind.

You goddam commies! :rofl:

One of the differences between the modern age and the classical Greek-Roman age is that in the bad old days, they thought that the good old days were in the past. the golden age had passed and the present was degenerate. Now we are much smarter, and know that we are about to usher in the golden age. Such is progress; or as the ancients called it, hubris.

Considering the questions of this thread as a whole, I was wondering about how here is the USA we medicate people forcibly if they are acting outside social norms and say that they hear voices. — Gregory

And yet we all hear God blessing America. It's the godblessest place in the universe.

Because YOU deem it as a good thing, should another be the recipient of your preference, especially if the consequence is a whole lifetime of unknown variations on a theme of possibilities of suffering? — schopenhauer1

I act on my deeming as I suppose you act on yours. What other course do you suggest - that i act on yours and you on mine?