I don't think it is a possibility for humans to be happy, as suffering is structural to life. There would still be want and need. However, the situation describe may be better for contingent suffering (i.e. suffering that is based on circumstances). If people were still people though, other people and circumstances would somehow find a way to cause negative experiences and create new contingent pain. — schopenhauer1

I feel like I could come up with examples to refute this, but they all assume a level science knowledge that we do not know we will ever achieve, so probably not worth a lot of our time.

A sort of rule comes out of this formulation. — schopenhauer1

We have sort of discussed this before. I think as opposed to me saying, "I want a child to experience, X, X, and X", can't I just say, "well I am CERTAIN that I am glad some other person chose to bring me into this world, so I can apply that logic to future babies?" It does not refute your points, but is enough logic for me feel comfortable that this baby will also PROBABLY prefer existence to non-existence (I do understand your point, that once they exist, what else would they prefer?)

In any case, I will not be having kids, so I obviously agree to an extent. I just don't know that I would go as far as calling the breeders immoral.

Absolutely zero humor taboos here.

That some people have humor taboos helps the impact of some humor, though. — Terrapin Station

I agree with this. The more taboo, the more ironic. Most humor plays off some form of irony.

The funniest moments are often in the most inappropriate situations (someone farting is funny, someone farting at a wedding is funnier - I clearly use very sophisticated humor). It becomes an assessment of laughs vs offends. Fortunately, I am socially awkward so I save funeral jokes for myself...but MY funeral will definitely have jokes (unless my death is entirely unexpected and I have no time to prepare).

'Can't take a joke' is the eternal cry of the bully. — unenlightened

Despite having no personal limits on humor, I can still understand that others do. I also hate the idea that I made someone's day/month/life worse do to my behavior. Therefor, jokes that put other people down are avoided until another person makes a joke that puts someone down; they have just announced themselves as fair game (I assume they can take a joke if they can dish it out, although many can't). I also tell jokes to get laughs. If I don't get laughs, but instead, I get offended tears, then I have just made myself sad and unhappy (or at least I will become sad as soon as I realize I just made someone else unhappy).

And here is a 'joke' that I find unfunny — unenlightened

I have 2 problems...First, it isn't very funny. Offensive jokes need enough humor to outweigh the offense. I am not sure that "joke" is funny at all. Second, it feels a lot more like a suggestion than a joke. Even if it is a joke, she KNOWS someone might act on the idea.

So I guess I am saying that I do not limit what can be viewed as funny, but I absolutely limit myself from telling jokes that others may not like.

In fact, most parents think they are justified in having kids because, like the slaves in the OP, they may learn to identify with the challenges in some way, and say "they like it". I think this does not matter. — schopenhauer1

So I guess this parallels what I said about not trusting the slave who writes about how good slavery is...because he has no idea what freedom is like.

Why trust people who say life is good/valuable when they don't know any alternative?

What if we can do some Gattaca/Brave New World stuff. If we completely understand neuroscience and genetics, we could BE SURE that everyone is happy; and if we also had enough resources (a la Star Trek) we could entirely remove suffering. I get these examples are possibly more outlandish than the ones you gave, but would that situation change your view at all?

How many hours a week do your slaves work? If it is less than 40, I volunteer :smile:

More seriously:

The slave-owner is doing something wrong by forcing work/challenges on someone else. — schopenhauer1

I agree with this. However, if we were ever to know FOR CERTAIN that

the slaves were generally happy to be born into their situation of forced work — schopenhauer1

, and we also knew FOR CERTAIN that there was ZERO chance they would be happier as non-slaves...I might be willing to reconsider. But I do not see how we could ever know these things for certain.

one slave writes a whole philosophical treatise about how enduring hardships help one become a more virtuous person, and that it is good to be born a slave. — schopenhauer1

Well if that slave did not have the comparison of freedom, I am not sure why their opinion of slavery would be of much value.

My first thoughts, were "hell no. You can't justify slavery any more than rape. It is definitionally bad." Your hypotheticals made me think, but outside fantasy, I think I stick with my original idea.

Did you expect someone to disagree? — DingoJones

I mostly agree with this sentiment, but having read a lot more on philosophy threads than I have contributed to...I am always amazed that there seems to be a couple people willing to defend even the most outlandish ideas (like that one idiot who keeps saying Transformers is better than Shakespeare, haha).

I tend to agree in this case.Male soccer players of a similar skill to those female players also get paid considerably less than the best male players. And if it's not skill or revenue or difficulty of work that determines pay, what is it? — Baden

Woohoo! Alright. I actually started this thread because I went searching the internet for opinions that agreed with me and could only find 1 or 2 (with about a thousand on the other side). Got to confirm I am not crazy and all.

And I think I forgot to mention the bold portion. That is an important point. The wage gap between the highest and lowest male earners is 1000% plus. This is NOT a gender issue.

It takes a keen eye to know how to respond to this question. — Schzophr

I think most posters in this thread would argue that my thoughts are not keen enough...:smile:

Generally though, I would just say that your definition of art is unrecognizable to me. I am not saying it is wrong, just not very close to what I think when I read definitions of art.

lasting appeal of a piece is down to interest keeping art hype alive. — Schzophr

I think I very much agree with this.

I think your definition of art is just too artistic for me, haha. It seems like trying to "feel" what a word means. I just use words/definitions (this might be because I have emotional deficiencies, I often act similarly to someone with mild Asperger's, autism, etc).

a triceritops who's colour changes to repent other predators. — Schzophr

A solid effort, but for me, that doesn't seem to fit the definition of art:

art: the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

I am happy to drop the "human" from the definition but not "creative skill and imagination". I am sure some biological interpretation could see this behavior as creative and intentional...but isn't that just the consciousness argument (ie which animals are conscious and to what degree relative to humans)?

Any examples that almost everyone would accept as art? I don't think most people will accept nature as "art" until a human puts a frame around it (whether a literal or figurative frame).

Well then you’re talking about entertainment. That’s different from art. ‘Transformers’ is entertainment. So is Shakespeare, or was. Now it’s an idea, of what art is. Once you begin viewing everything through the prism of entertainment then you have a few basic parameters to judge it by: dollars and asses.

So your attitude to art is very warped by your entertainment expectations. Other than that you have education: art as an instrument of instruction. So for you art is just utilitarian. — Brett

Can you give an example of a work of art that "entertainment" is not part of it? Show me art where a message is delivered, and there was no more direct way to deliver it? That "indirectness" is the entertainment. Why else would we not say it directly other than to make it more interesting/engaging/entertaining? I get those 3 words do not have identical definitions, but when applied to art, I can see very little distinction (if I am interested, it goes without saying that I am entertained).

And I know you told me not to apologize, but I was being a bit prickly there...sorry :smile:

Oh thank zeus. Yes, and America wonders why we lag behind the rest of the world.

Or do I need to specify that I am referring to the 4 years of high school? Maybe you thought I was talking about K-12?

The fact that 4 years of English education is required when one only needs 2-3 years of math (depending on the state)

So you think literature and poetry is more important than math, science, and history?

↪ZhouBoTong Seriously? — I like sushi

I have no idea what you are on about.

I’m not sure this is exactly true. We’re all coming from different parts of the world here so our experiences might differ. But my experience is that the elites are not imposing their views. Though a Principal might draw the line at certain works being used in class.

Where are you seeing this, and what work are you seeing? — Brett

The way I have described it in that sentence makes it sound much more intentional and conspiratorial than I intend. In fact, the "elite" domination of English classes is more of a status quo at this point. The fact that 4 years of English education is required when one only needs 2-3 years of math (depending on the state) shows the power of artistic elitism (even if it is an unintentional cultural force). Most of English class focuses on art. Generally speaking, art has been almost entirely eliminated from schools as frivolous. But literature and poetry are still going strong (to the point that I am required to learn more literature and poetry than biology, chemistry, physics, history, math, philosophy, etc). Why do we all just accept this?

Those who view Shakespeare as a great writer of plays displaying ideas of morality, human nature, conflict or right and wrong, are behaving exactly the same as those who believe Michael is a great director portraying the same ideas, or Saul Bellow or Bergman or Joyce or Tennessee Williams. — Brett

Yep. No problem with that.

How and why it should find its way into education is another matter? Outside of school people can act on their preference by choosing or ignoring a book or film. Inside of school the work is pressed on them by those who chose the curriculum. Actually, that’s not necessarily the case, the teacher is allowed to chose an artist or writer that he/she can use to work within the demands of the curriculum. — Brett

Outside education, I don't have a problem. We each like what we like. Additionally, outside education, art has been monetized, so I don't have to worry. People willing spend billions on Transformers movies. Much less on Shakespeare. People vote with dollars and asses in seats. But once it comes to education, we let the elites decide for us; and most of us just assume they are right (until I had to re-read Shakespeare as an adult, I assumed I just didn't get it - now I know I get it, and I like it even less).

Art is not about extracting (intellectual) insights. — Henri

As I tend to view art as entertainment (even when we learn, the "art" made learning more fun/engaging - there is always a more direct way to learn something), I agree.

People were saying Shakespeare is better than Transformers because of what it can teach. That is why I asked for examples.

While we're at it, I could also use a novel to level a desk, by putting it under one of the desk's legs. And I am still waiting for an example where a DVD with a movie is a sturdier leveler for my desk than the hardcover, 200-page novel. — Henri

No question that a book is a better brick than a DVD. But a DVD flies farther when thrown. It also reflects light better :razz:

I haven't been arguing that literature is somehow "greater" than film, just that it requires more imagination by virtue of the fact that in the case of literature you are being presented with descriptions rather than images. — Janus

Fair enough. I just have a couple of disjointed thoughts/questions on imagination. I am not sure if I am disagreeing with you, or just trying to understand your position...

I think that using less imagination on imagery, setting, etc might open up room for my imagination to delve into other areas. I think that has been part of Terrapin's point (admittedly, a small part).

And just to be sure, we can agree that sometimes an image requires more imagination to understand than words...right?

Finally, isn't visualizing verbal imagery about the simplest form of imagination possible? You just barely have to imagine anything (the "better" the author, the more vivid the description, the less I have to work to imagine the scenario). Hell, the more I read, the better I am at skimming through and ignoring character descriptions, because they matter very little to the part of the story I do care about.

Isn't..."gee, I wonder how I would feel/respond if I were in that situation" the most significant imagination that takes place with works of fiction? That would be the same, whether, poetry, prose, film, plays, or any other version of story telling.

You have definitely highlighted that "imagination" is just another word in these discussions where I suddenly realize that we all think we mean the same thing when we use the word, and yet we don't mean exactly the same thing, do we?

Anything described, as opposed to being directly shown, must be imagined, so your point remains irrelevant. — Janus

Doesn't this just lead to the conclusion that the more figurative the art, the better? It also sounds like empty space would be the ultimate artistic expression as the viewer would have to engage their imagination 100% to get anything out of the artwork.

I would say the skill of the writer to describe and evoke places demands on your imagination, and the greater your engagement with the work and your imagination is the greater will be your insight. — Janus

Might film "engage" the audience in ways that literature does not?

I am still waiting for an example of one of the incredible insights anyone has had from reading literature? I am still baffled by the suggestion that "insight" regularly occurs. The bar for "insight" seems to be set rather low.

Notice if we say that "X" novel teaches that power corrupts. Well that can't be insight because we already knew that. I understand that some of these novels contain ideas that USED TO BE clever and insightful. But they are just universal truths (I am using "universal truths" as an English teacher would, not a as a philosophy professor would) at this point.

but you might find yourself looking down on someone who thought vomit was art or soap operas. — Coben

No worries there. For those who genuinely enjoy that stuff, more power to them. And while staring at vomit may have few fans, we know a lot of people like soap operas. So even if I think they are crap, I cannot dismiss their artistic value. To be fair, even the few people who like staring at vomit for the emotions it causes, suggest some value to that art. It is just such a small percent that I would not suggest using it to teach.

So the dynamic I can be critical of also, but here's a difference between Michael Bay and, say, The Brother's Karamazov. — Coben

There is. But if my goal is to teach, say, the concept of symbolism, Transformers might be a better teaching tool. Notice in Transformers the symbols slap you across the face, whereas in most novels they are so subtle that it might take 3 readings to actually understand the symbols. What is being taught by Brother's Karamazov that you think is so important? Wouldn't there be a more direct way to teach that concept if it was really important? Literature uses subtlety and nuance to dance around relatively simple ideas and make them feel significant and complex. It gives us a way to experience emotions and consider our responses in situations that we are unlikely to ever encounter. If we want to learn an actual concept, there will be a more direct way.

Many of the classic works continue to give you something the more you dive into it. — Coben

And yet, the better I understand Shakespeare, the more I am convinced the stories are not all that great, and don't teach much of value (I can admit that I do not know exactly how much his stories have influenced history and society over the last few centuries - to the point that his ideas have become redundant...but they do not teach anything of value to a modern reader). Also, many people will find similar depth in movies.

I can't see any point to choosing to show children a Michael Bay film. They will find that stuff on their own. — Coben

Hopefully we have a REASON for whatever we are teaching. Hopefully, Transformers, or Hamlet, or War and Peace, are being taught because they can TEACH something? I am not selecting these things because "students should be exposed to 'X'". That is the elitist attitude I am talking about. If 'X' has value, then we should be able to clearly state its value. If it is just traditional, we can throw it out.

Classic works, most of them, changed the range of ways we can think about life, ourselves, relationships, meaning and more. — Coben

I obviously don't really get this (or I do, but feel the effect is tiny, where as you seem to be implying a large noticeable effect). Let's keep this simple (for my sake). How does Romeo and Juliet do the above? Wouldn't a modern reader have very little change in "the range of ways we can think about life, ourselves, relationships, meaning and more" after reading the story?

And these options got sucked up directly and indirectly by the culture. They increase possibilities and insights. — Coben

I did acknowledge this somewhat.

Amazingly, they can often still do this even centuries later. — Coben

I have already asked for specific examples, so those would help me to buy this argument as well.

Transformers is not offering anything new. — Coben

Neither is Shakespeare anymore! Whether or not those ideas were original centuries ago, they just come across as saying nothing of value. To give an example with a slight subject change, picture any book about the holocaust (I am thinking of "Night" by Ellie Wiesel). What is learned? "The holocaust was bad and it would have sucked to be in a death camp. People will still struggle to survive and even make the best of a bad situation." Now if I was 6 when I read that, maybe I learned something. By the time I am 10 years old, it is a bit redundant. MOST literature (and movies) feels that way to me. The art is for entertainment. Sometimes entertainment makes boring concepts interesting. But if we REALLY want to learn a concept, art is not the best way.

But the possibility that students would turn to more challenging works in their lives and have the tools to do this well, makes many of the classics much better choices. — Coben

It seems obvious that most adults (I think 90%, but we can hopefully agree 51%+) do not read much at all, and if they do, it is usually not the classics. I am in America. Is this wrong in the rest of the world? I don't know anyone besides English teachers that have read Shakespeare since high school. I am sure in the world of college professors, everyone reads Shakespeare for fun. But the other 99.7% of the population doesn't seem to get much out of it.

Bay's got nothing (that he is showing through his films) that shows he has a deeper understanding of anything related to human relations, psychology, the nature of the world, what the good is, how to come fully alive, whatever. He's not in Kubrick's league, let alone Shakespeare. — Coben

I am obviously unconvinced that Kubrick and Shakespeare are teaching anything more of value in these areas. i would appreciate specifics.

Why not learn from the best? — Coben

We must first identify exactly what we are trying to learn. Then we can begin to make assumptions about who or what is the best method. Notice, that I would generally say there is a better way to "learn" rather than literature or movies. These things expose us to ideas that may encourage us to go out and do some actual learning.

But, because students don’t want to engage with books is no reason to let them have it their way. However, if I was going to use a film for the purpose of education it wouldn’t be ‘Transformers’. — Brett

yes, giving kids a little bit of film does not mean they get a pass on reading. And I really picked Transformers because I know people view it as crap for teens, but I don't hate it (certainly like it more than Shakespeare). But I could teach the concept of "symbolism" just as well using a Transformers movie, and many other concepts as well (many literary devices do not actually require literature). Aside from concepts that require a written medium, please list everything you can think of that one could learn from Shakespeare, that cannot be learned from a Transformers movie. Careful, it is trickier than one might think. Maybe start with, what important lessons have you learned from Shakespeare?

Some get William Burroughs, some don’t, some get Harold Pinter, some don’t, some get Van Gogh, some don’t, I never have. But I accept the love others have for him. ‘Transformers’, nah. — Brett

indeed, ALL art is subject to interpretation and perspective. except Transformers apparently, which is just crap :roll:

There's justification for it, and not only a little. Art has a purpose, and when we understand the purpose we can understand which piece of art fulfills it more. — Henri

If you can clarify the "purpose" of art beyond its definition, then maybe. But you would have to justify the "purpose" using the definition, and I don't see how you can.

How was art defined in this thread? Piece of art is human product with primary purpose to provide you with an impression of human experience through passive consumption (no interaction), usually through sight and/or sound. — Henri

Close. I went with this one (first one on google): the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

Is there a photograph that can give you more depth, width, impression of human experience - as a piece of art — Henri

Neither of our definitions suggest how much "depth, width, or impression of human experience" is best. Why is more better? What "purpose of art" does the added depth achieve? If a photo can't be judged to be as artistically valuable as a novel, what about a painting? So, War and Peace is automatically better than the Mona Lisa? I don't get it? What definition or purpose of art would allow us to even begin to make such an assessment?

With that said, how much of a human experience was impressed into you through seeing Transformers movie? — Henri

IN ALL HONESTY (capitals denote emphasis, not sarcasm), more human experience was "impressed into" me in ANY Transformers movie than was "impressed into" me by ANY Shakespeare novel. Oh, and if you tell me it is because I did not really grasp or comprehend Shakespeare, then I will just respond by saying "well everything I am saying makes perfect sense if you are smart enough to understand it" (sorry Henri, I don't mean to blame you, but I hate when that line of reasoning is used without justification).

And if you couldn't do it now, it wouldn't be because of subjectivity, but because of lack of exposure and experience. — Henri

And there it is :grin: My knowledge of Dostoyevsky is VERY limited. However, I will happily test my knowledge of Shakespeare against 98% of ALL humans on the planet (I have to teach it).

Maybe, just maybe, it is possible to be of average or even above-average intellect, and not like all of the classics? And maybe, such a person would find more value in artworks that have not historically been highly valued. Crazy, I know, but if such a person exists, there is nothing in the definition of art to suggest that they are wrong...unless you see something I don't?

So Zhoubotong goes for film first as a learning tool over the written word, or at least regards it as an equal.(I’m think that’s his position). — Brett

Well thanks for reading :smile: I think you summarized my position fairly well, but may have missed one point I made that may solve our disagreement (I think you have already seen that our disagreement is much smaller than the way many people are disagreeing with my stance).

Somewhere in the last 17 pages (I do not expect you to go back and read, haha), I mentioned that I would like to see around 10-20% of high school (secondary school if you are not from USA) literature taught using movies. Notice that does not quite suggest I view film as a better tool. I just think that film IS an available tool that is typically ignored because it is viewed as "lesser". Films are "lesser" when it comes to teaching grammar and literacy. Films are in no way lesser when it comes to teaching moral lessons or universal truths...why would they be? Films are also not lesser when it comes to teaching many of the literary devices - symbolism is expressed just as well, if not better in a visual medium; on the other imagery is handled so differently in films that it is almost unrelated to imagery in books. Things like metaphor, simile, personification, irony, allusion, etc can all easily be taught using films along with a pause button.

I get the sense that you were thinking I want to replace half of all literature with films. If I only want to replace 10-20% of literature (including scripts, plays, etc) with films, does that seem more acceptable? If not, is there any percent of literature that could be replaced with film? 10%? 5%? 2%? If so then we are just hashing out where to draw the line. If you think no films should ever be used because written words are a better teaching tool, then please give your reasons and I will argue with them :grin:

Apparently I don’t need nuance as you seem to regard nuance as “elitist” — I like sushi

As @Brett was paraphrasing the OP, maybe I can help (probably not, haha). I would say that use of the word "nuance" strongly hints at an elitist perspective. It really becomes a problem in education. If a student is graded down for their "lack of nuance" that is a problem (whether we are grading recognition of nuance or including it in one's own writing). That would be like getting a bad grade in physical education because you can't do 100 push-ups in 2 minutes or run a 5 minute mile. You are grading/teaching something that should be viewed as largely a natural talent. Can I teach someone to play soccer? Of course. Can I teach someone to be a pro soccer player? Not unless they have a lot of natural talent (and, in fact, if they are largely uncoordinated and not huge fans of the sport, then we are just torturing everyone involved).

Nuance reminds me of the french phrase, je ne sais quoi (I don't know what). To me, when someone applauds nuance, they are actually saying, "I like it, but I can't express exactly why". Well if you can't say why, then are you sure it is so great? (the "I"s and "you"s that I have used here are just figures of speech, I am not trying to directly tie these ideas to @I like sushi - more a summary of past conversations I have had)

If "nuance" is beyond most people for most subjects, and you think "nuance" is a required aspect of creating or even enjoying "high art", then I think you have defined it as elitist. I have not said whether that elitism is always good or bad (only "elite" soccer player get to go pro, and yet I like soccer).

Why can’t you see how some people can be experts? — I like sushi

People can be experts at lots of things. What would it mean to be an art expert? When we use the word "expert" for me that suggests that their OPINION matters. If expert just means, knowing a bunch about a subject, then google is more of an "expert" than any human at ANY subject.

So why does the opinion of very knowledgeable people in the field of art not count as expertise? Because of definitions:

Art: the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

Soccer: a game played by two teams of eleven players with a round ball that may not be touched with the hands or arms during play except by the goalkeepers. The object of the game is to score goals by kicking or heading the ball into the opponents' goal.

These definitions suggest to me that art is far more subjective than soccer.

Notice there is an "object" to the game of soccer. Therefor, it seems clear that a more knowledgeable person would be better at telling me how to win a soccer game. What is the object of art? Something along the lines of "to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power"? How is anyone going to tell me what I think is beautiful or emotionally moving?

Take movie critics. They are worthless until I have read several reviews by any given critic. If they have significantly different tastes than I, then it doesn't help me in any way.

So there can be informed people that offer up their opinions on art, and because they are interested in the same things as I, I might pay attention. But what makes them experts? Notice an expert in soccer makes a lot of money to help teams win games. Art experts teach at colleges (sounds like their expertise is not widely valued). Unless we want to count the Michael Bays and Quentin Tarantinos of the world as the experts, but most of the art "experts" I know of consider Bay's movies to be very "low brow".

Did that help at all? Or is an art "expert" the still the same to you as an "expert" soccer coach? If you were trying to win a soccer game would you hire an expert? If you were trying to enjoy a movie, would you hire an expert?

First, I am sympathetic to this view. If we have a philosophical goal of "cause no harm", then these ideas need to be considered. But I do see logical problems (but perhaps this is just me defending my meat-eating, so feel free to call me out):

If it's really lacking intelligence, that is the reason why we can kill and eat animals (this is the most popular trait used). We have to justified both "killing and eating animals who lack intelligence" and "killing humans because they lack intelligence" .. if you can't justify both, there is - as Alex points out: "a philosophical inconsistency"

His reasoning is, just because something is less intelligent, does that mean that we want with it? — Kaz1983

All of this logic applies to all life, including plants and single celled organisms. I am not saying the whole idea is wrong, but this single point does not say much.

Is it possible animals feel pain, more than we do? — Kaz1983

Certainly seems possible. Also, once we introduce the idea of "pain", it seems far less likely that plants and single celled organism experience pain, but can we know for sure that they do not? (I honestly don't know enough about biology, is there already an answer to this question? but logically, what is pain other than a signal that your body has been damaged? so it seems plants may have that in some way?)

It seems that killing a plant can be viewed as equally bad to killing an animal (logically anyway), but we need to know more about how pain is experienced to make comparisons of suffering across species.

3. "a pig is not equal to a human"

A black person was not seen as equal to a white person? Was slavery legal before? And does it really matter whether a pig is not equal to a human? — Kaz1983

I think this still has the same problem as above. When he (or she - Alex?) argues that a pig is not inferior to a human, what makes a plant or bacteria inferior to a pig?

4. "the circle of life"

Human beings are no longer a part of "the circle of life", maybe before when we lived off the land and were one with nature but that is no longer the case. — Kaz1983

Again, this seems a weak argument. How many people were vegans back when humans lived off the land and were part of the "circle of life"? (IIRC people today, especially Americans, eat a lot MORE meat than our ancestors...but I don't think our ancestors would be good evidence for the need of veganism).

In a very simplistic sense how would you feel if your throat was cut, dying slowly from blood loss, feeling pain up until the end, — TheMadFool

I wouldn't like that. But if I was just happily chewing grass and then, fade to black. Where is the harm? Particularly if we are talking something like cows or chickens where 99% of them NEVER would have existed without the human desire for meat.

then cut up into tiny morsels, cooked, served over dinner on a table where the people who're eating you don't even give a second thought about what you were, all the while conversing, cracking jokes, yes jokes, discussing how great you tasted or even that you weren't prepared to someone's liking? — TheMadFool

A well painted picture :grin: Don't forget complaining about how I exercised too much or too little. But that all seems fine to me, as I would be unaware of the whole event taking place (and even if I knew before I died, no huge objections, because I won't be there to "feel" bad about the whole thing). Heck, people are always being poetic about immortality anyway, maybe being consumed by another person means one lives forever in them (bullshit, but not much worse than much of the mystical/poetic crap that is flung around).

Sometimes I get scared of my closest friends and family at how they can eat meat and still say ''I love you''. The cognitive dissonance is disturbing to say the least. — TheMadFool

I don't understand this part. Do they tell cows "I love you"? Why is it cognitive dissonance? Oh! Are you saying there is cognitive dissonance when they directly address you and say "I love you"? That makes more sense as cognitive dissonance, as they know you view eating meat as a terrible thing and yet they are happy to do it right in your face and even say "I love you " during the meal. Am I even close?


I think the stance you both hold is likely the superior moral position that will eventually win out, but the argument needs work. It may have to wait until science can explain the experience of pain more completely, once we know which organisms experience pain to what degree and how the pain can be increased or reduced, then we can begin to make a more solid argument. in the mean time, rhetoric is likely the best approach (I don't mean that negatively, just pointing out that until the evidence is known, an appeal to emotion, like TheMadFool's description of a person being eaten, is probably the best bet).

If art hasn't been defined I don't see how there can be any such thing as an art expert. If there are no experts on art then there is no objective standard. If there are no objective standards then anything goes. — TheMadFool

I have been using the dictionary definition of art (the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power), but I can't see how "experts" could be created based on that definition either. So I think we are in agreement. But I have thought I was in agreement with others who were actually being sarcastic or making a different point, so feel free to clarify if I have missed something.

So, I’m now replying, basically, to let you know that I’ve enjoyed talking to you. — javra

Cool. Same for me. If I think of some mind blowing idea that will completely transform your view (haha, yeah right), I will let you know...feel free to do the same :smile:

Well, looking at things uncharacteristically optimistically, we know that cognition and culture coevolve, so if there's nothing to be gained from corrupt behaviour or power-seeking for power's sake, then the crappier aspects of human behaviour might just fritter out for the most part and come to be seen like human sacrifice or cannibalism (i.e., as psychopathic), which were more popular and acceptable - even supposed to be divinely sanctioned - in the past. — Izat So

That does seem somewhat reasonable. I may still be a bit pessimistic, but I like the idea and am happy to try the experiment :smile:

I thought that, but it's nice when someone else does too. :wink: :up:

Some people fall back on insults when their position is challenged. Sad. — Pattern-chaser

Well, I tried my best, but this has gotten a little ridiculous (I guess it was already ridiculous by the end of the OP). Keep up the good work :smile:

Something like late Heian/early Kamakura Japan or pre-Christian Scandinavia: A petty and warlike nobility with a weak to non-existent state power. — yupamiralda

Would you be a serf, a knight/samurai, or part of the nobility?

Maybe a dumb question as you would be King/Emperor/Shogun?

Makes use of technology to rid the world of mind numbing jobs. We've found a healthy alternative to fossil fuels or any kind of fuel that disrupts the planet negatively. There is deep respect for the environment. Everyone has a Universal Basic Income. — Izat So

Sounds great. I wish we were working toward this already.

People do not tribalize around memes. People are not interested in superficial differences but enjoy differences of opinion. — Izat So

People transcend merely instrumental thinking to concentrate on their growth needs, including how to maintain the conditions of doing so. There is an ongoing conversation about the best way of governing, given nothing can be actually ideal. Ethics and philosophy interest people. People keep abreast of scientific debates and find a meaningful worldview that aligns with the age of the planet and the evolution of humans and our ongoing interdependency of ourselves and nature. — Izat So

People are kind, decent, and able to use their skills in beautiful and useful ways. — Izat So

This stuff sounds even better, but I question the feasibility (even UBI seems FAR more likely than the transformation of people). What percent of the current population of earth meets these standards? I would think like only 20% of people on a philosophy forum can actually live up to all of that (Liverpool is playing some incredible soccer this season, so I have likely modeled some negative behavior - ie "haha Man United sucks" - does sports count as a type of "tribalizing around memes"?). And the regular world will be far less likely to meet these standards.

But just like the Green New Deal, I appreciate the goal and the sentiment. So you have my vote.

If that proves unworkable, then something like : a regime where it's three guys in a field. They're always saying things to each other like 'this is crazy'. (They're talking about just being three guys in a field)) They're always getting covered in mud, from the mud in the field. 'We're covered in mud, guys' they say to one another. Are there scarecrows? Yes, three of them. But that's in a different part of the field (the field is miles and miles long.) Sometimes, late at night, one guy says "what if there were more than three guys in a field?" but, though this thought is entertainable late at night, looking into the fire or at the stars, it always betrays its falseness in the cold light of dawn. If it wasn't meant to be that there were three guys in a field, then there wouldn't be three guys in a field. One time, a castle appeared at the far end of the field, but the closer the three guys got, the smaller the castle seemed. When they finally reached the castle, there was no castle. — csalisbury

Am I missing some cultural understanding here? This doesn't seem like gibberish, but I can't make sense of it. Is this an allusion to something else? Am I just missing some metaphors?

Or is this like Mark Twain's Frog of Calaveras County story? What you wrote is exactly what you meant, it isn't saying much, and that is the joke? By the end, I was laughing for this reason, but then realized I was likely missing something?

Do you understand English? The first clause, "Depending on my experience," did you read that? If you did you clearly did not understand it. Try this: "Depending on my experience [playing golf - if that were our topic], I might get a hole-in-one." I do not play golf. Get it? It's a hypothetical. — tim wood

Yes, we get it. Notice when you say "breaking the law is immoral", we answer "it depends" but then give examples where other morality obviously trumps following the law (Schindler is a nice easy one in case you forgot).

We understand that I said

If I spend $1000 one year on illegal drugs and 3% of that money ends up in the hands of mexican cartels or Al Qaeda (and ignoring the fact that if it was legal, then that would not be the case), do I need to justify my contribution of $30 to global terrorism? Surely my use of plastic water bottles is a more major moral failing? — ZhouBoTong

And then you responded,

Depending on my experience, I might think it the greater morality to shoot you - after all, they merely meet a need, but you are the problem. — ZhouBoTong

However, you don't give an example. To people like Pattern-Chaser and I, there is NO CONCEIVABLE SCENARIO where I deserve to be shot based on my actions above. But you are claiming there is. So Pattern-chaser asked for an example. Depending on what possible experience would lead to the conclusion that I should be shot for my actions above? And beyond that, show that the action of shooting me was less of a moral failing than my breaking the law?

There’s a lot that I haven’t yet replied to. Even if I don’t get around to all of it, I thank you for the candid replies. It in the meantime struck me that we might not ever resolve our differences due to reasons that are far more foundational philosophically: those pertaining to our underlying views concerning human universals. I’ll do my best to illustrate this possible disparity via one analogy: — javra

I appreciate what you are trying to do here. I was just thinking after my last post that we might just go back and forth on details for eternity :smile:

In that spirit, after reading your post a couple of times, and deleting my own unhelpful ramblings, I think I can get to the heart of the matter a bit quicker.

Now, if due to the aforementioned you are one to argue that, therefore, what we English speakers commonly term the experience of “being in love” cannot be validly upheld to hold a universal referent relative to our human species—a universal referent relative to which greater or better, and lesser or worse, instantiations of this universal can occur in individuals — javra

So I would say the "experience of being in love" is quite comparable to "the experience of enjoying a work of art". But how does this make Shakespeare universally better than Transformers? I feel like I missed something major, because as I read your description of love and how we are unlikely to fall in love with the same person, I immediately thought, "exactly. just as we are unlikely to like the same work of art to the same degree".

a universal referent relative to which greater or better, and lesser or worse, instantiations of this universal can occur in individuals — javra

Wait, I got lost here. How can love be better or worse? If a husband beats his wife, is that worse love than a husband not beating his wife, or is beating NOT an act of love...even if the perpetrator thinks it is? Is love better if you remember every valentine's day? Notice I have ZERO idea how love could be "better" or "worse"? Human expressions of love could be viewed as better or worse by the recipient, but that seems very different (Do I love my mom more if I remember Mother's Day? No. But Mom sure seems to think so).

Basically, how can I take the universal truth that "most (all?) people enjoy some art" and somehow then conclude that Shakespeare creates "better" art than Michael Bay?

As an example: such as the human capacity to experience the color red; while some colorblind people may not be so able, this, to me, does not then dispel the human universality of the experience of red as a color — javra

I hope this example can help. I think it is easy to establish the universality of red (to a fairly strong degree). Put the colors ROY G. BIV on a piece of paper and ask people to point to red, as you said absent colorblindness, we will approach 100% agreement. Now obviously if I have people choose from 50 colors ranging from light pink to dark maroon, then we will see it is not EXACTLY universal, but pretty close. Why do we believe people when they point at red, but not believe them when they say they like Transformers more than Hamlet? And if art appreciation involves more than "what people like", then we need to specifically define that and provide justification (and I admit you have been trying provide justification for why Shakespeare or other high art is generally better than the "lower" arts; but I have not seen the definition that brings your justification into context).

If it is the case that we disagree on this rudimentary issue pertaining to the human mind, I’ll then respectfully bow out of this discussion - primarily because the discussion would enter a completely different ballpark. — javra

Haha, sorry. I can't even make it that easy. I think I partially agreed, but still had plenty of disagreement. I felt like I started saying new stuff, but by the end it probably is just the same tired argument I have been making (with maybe a new example or two).

As I won't even agree to disagree, haha, you are likely right that we have gone as far as we can with this. I am happy to read and respond to more, but ENTIRELY understand a desire to bow out. Thanks for giving me a few specifics to think about.

Seriously: can you offer some sort of reasoning behind your claim? Please explain how killing someone with a gun is more moral than their using illegal drugs? — Pattern-chaser

I didn't say it was. It might help if you could read and understand English — tim wood

That seems awfully harsh and insulting considering the post that Patter-chaser was responding to looked like this:

If I spend $1000 one year on illegal drugs and 3% of that money ends up in the hands of mexican cartels or Al Qaeda (and ignoring the fact that if it was legal, then that would not be the case), do I need to justify my contribution of $30 to global terrorism? Surely my use of plastic water bottles is a more major moral failing?
— ZhouBoTong

And perhaps you might consult your larger community on how they feel about your engagement with illegal drug infrastructure.Depending on my experience, I might think it the greater morality to shoot you - after all, they merely meet a need, but you are the problem.
— tim wood — ZhouBoTong

Care to explain how your response here DOES NOT suggest that in some cases (at least) it is more moral to shoot someone than to use drugs? As far as I can tell, it does not even need to be implied. It is fairly directly included -

I might think it the greater morality to shoot you — tim wood

I highly encourage anyone considering posting here to first consider how ruinous increasing taxation on the rich will be. They will not be able to spend their hard earned money they achieved through exploitation on vital necessities such as a fifth home along the Mediterranean, building a spaceship so they can go to Mars, getting handjobs from high-end prostitutes, and donating to political candidates in order to reverse the progressive taxation. Shedding a tear thinking about it. — Maw

Whew, thanks for the reminder. I get so caught up thinking of how to reduce the suffering of the poorest individuals in our society that I often forget what must be sacrificed.

If I spend $1000 one year on illegal drugs and 3% of that money ends up in the hands of mexican cartels or Al Qaeda (and ignoring the fact that if it was legal, then that would not be the case), do I need to justify my contribution of $30 to global terrorism? Surely my use of plastic water bottles is a more major moral failing? — ZhouBoTong

And perhaps you might consult your larger community on how they feel about your engagement with illegal drug infrastructure.Depending on my experience, I might think it the greater morality to shoot you - after all, they merely meet a need, but you are the problem. — tim wood

I just want it to be clear to any 3rd party, why I deserve to be shot :smile:

Basically, yes. I, myself, would likely proportion the scale of my "justification" to the significance of the act in question. — tim wood

If the act in question does not interfere with the lives of others in any significant way, then I (we) do not need to worry much about justification.

The more my actions affect others, the more I need to justify my actions. When it comes to drugs, you have not convinced me of a need to justify. If I spend $1000 one year on illegal drugs and 3% of that money ends up in the hands of mexican cartels or Al Qaeda (and ignoring the fact that if it was legal, then that would not be the case), do I need to justify my contribution of $30 to global terrorism? Surely my use of plastic water bottles is a more major moral failing?

That in the case of the extra piece of cake, it ain't much. And agree with me, in the world there is often more worrying about that extra piece of cake than about many things of much greater significance, yes? — tim wood

I think almost everyone arguing with you would agree with this. Your concern over "illegal drug use" is the "extra piece of cake".

my side: there is a degree of immorality that attends breaking the law, any law; i.e., it is immoral to break the law. — tim wood

So breaking the law is immoral, but we have agreed that this can easily be over-ridden by superseding morals. Sounds like "breaking the law" is the "extra piece of cake", with the superseding morals being of greater significance.

That is, the breaking must be moral and have in sight a greater good - and it's hard to see how taking illegal drugs realizes a greater good! — tim wood

I am going to try another example but relate it to this concept of "one must accomplish a greater good to justify acting immoral". I think if we acknowledge degrees of morality/immorality that changes the problem.

Take eating healthy: Is there any question that eating healthy is more moral than eating unhealthy? So every time we eat unhealthy we have to justify some greater good? Notice eating unhealthy does not cause enough harm to matter as a moral qualm. A lot of drug use would fall in a similar category.

And I wasn't accusing you of being one of those awful black and white thinkers! :smile: — Janus

So I got that going for me (silent fist-pump).

I find that hard to believe to be honest; I think you're probably being too hard on yourself. — Janus

Well I am not convinced that emotional IQ is actually a thing, but if it is, I won't be at the head of the class :grimace: Maybe drugs will help? (just making sure I stay on topic, hehe)

Sure, no problem. It's a topic I'm very interested in, but so far in this thread I primarily keep hoping that people will relax from typing so much, haha. I like to interact with folks so that it reads like a transcript of a casual in-person conversation we might have . . . which makes me picture people obliviously going into interminable lecture mode with all of these long posts. — Terrapin Station

I get what you are saying and have been trying to think of a way to accomplish that. But I think part of the problem for people like Javra and I is that I can go a long time between responses. Therefore I try to include a lot and respond to every point a person has made. I do wonder though, if every post between us is so long, will we ever be able to recognize any progress? I think for me personally, I need to learn to respond to the spirit of people's arguments rather than nitpicking every word (but I can't help it). I will work on it...this is still longer than most of your posts, haha.