@schopenhauer1

Well I created a whole long argumentative response, but then decided I had better be sure I put some effort into understanding your position. After re-reading a couple posts, I think I have come to a bit of understanding. Is anti-natalism heavily attached to the Philosophy of "do no harm"? Like utilitarianism but where suffering takes heavy priority over happiness?That helps me to understand, but then I would still have a problem with the absolute nature of the argument (and for that no amount of our discussing is likely to bridge our gap).

Also the source of pleasure, no? — Janus

Always my first thought :smile:

Yes it dismisses a kind of hard moral guilt, but it leaves practical responsibility intact.

The killer might not have hard free will, but we still need to lock them up (for our safety) and try to rehabilitate them (if we're kind). Because we do have the capacity to make decisions, sometimes we need to be held accountable, in practice, for decisions we make without significant or abnormal coercion. (the question really is how should we intervene to reduce some kind of harm or potential harm? If a person commits a crime because they were manipulated or extorted into doing so, we might not hold them accountable; if we suspect that someone is likely to commit more crime in the future, we're morally motivated to somehow intervene. — VagabondSpectre

Nailed it. I really like that thoughts like this seem much more common on these philosophy sites (it seems @camus-enthusiast would agree with you, but I can't say for sure). If you bring up crime and punishment in the regular world all you hear is a bunch of whining about how harsher penalties deter crime and the criminals must be punished for the sake of their victims (the first has evidence against it, while the second is too ridiculous to even be tested). Maybe I just need to expand my social circles

Headlines now: Medical doctor treats tape worm infection using experimental Buddhist surgery. Worms still there, attachment to body gone. — fdrake

hehe, you must've been waiting to use that one :grin:

Benatar does a good job separating ethical decisions related to starting a life vs. continuing a life. He sees these two decision matrix as requiring different weights for good and bad. For something that does not exist yet, no one is actually deprived. This is an important point. No actual person is around to miss out on anything. It is only in the parents' head. However, if born, an actual person will be born to suffer. — schopenhauer1

Sorry if this is a tangent, but it will be quick. Also, my question is not sarcastic or snarky, nor intending to be derogatory. Just the one glaring question that always seems to jump out at me when I read about anti-natalism. Why don't anti-natalists promote suicide? The paragraph above explains why they don't promote murder, but gives no reason why all these "suffering" people don't just end the suffering they so adamantly seek to save potential others from. If there is no reason to be born in the first place, why exist just to suffer?

You ought to be careful here because the end really is the goal, the intention, and the results are not necessarily consistent with the intention. That's why good intentions sometimes have bad results, especially in the case of mistake. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think I am fine with this. I was just testing every potential meaning of ends. If we say ends are goals or purposes then I am fairly comfortable saying I have seen zero evidence that "all inanimate objects are directed toward ends" (or even a reason to begin making the assumption).

if you suppose that the being of a thing is a kind of action, then who says that action must be toward anything. — tim wood

I agree with this line of thinking.

Or do you mean that the Allies were morally justified in fighting Hitler but other wars lacked moral justification? — Noah Te Stroete

I just meant that was the one example where we can come close to blaming it 100% on one party. Even that situation had additional factors.

I can comfortably say that no war ever fought NEEDED to be fought. But that is far different than claiming them to be objectively morally wrong. Are the defenders as culpable as the attackers? Did everyone involved even have a choice? What if the attackers are fighting against an injustice (perceived or real)?

So the only real issue in this example is: is politeness an important enough thing that society would add it to the list (murder, child abuse, etc)? — Pattern-chaser

I would think the answer to this is "of course not"?

Who gets to judge politeness? @S is offended by your use of a smiley face emoji. Should that be a jail worthy offense?

You keep referring to "intolerant speech" but aren't there just a couple of very specific types of "intolerant speech" that you think should be banned? I am no free speech absolutist. I can't see any significant way that Germany has suffered due to limited speech related to Nazism. I have no problem removing confederate statues (I don't even count that as a free speech issue, but some do). But you seem to be taking it MUCH farther.

But the complaint is precisely that the evidence is dismissed without evidence to the contrary, and the evidence of testimony is discounted on one side and counted on the other. — unenlightened

Thanks unenlightened. I was siding with the OP, but I had missed this point (funny, that seems to happen when I don't read the articles attached to the OP :grimace: ).

Do you think groups like these (and individuals from these groups) would benefit from a little understanding of marketing and psychology? If Alexandra Painia had titled the essay, "My experience is as valid as yours" wouldn't the reception have been different? Similarly if "Black Lives Matters" was changed to "Black Lives Matter Too" it would answer the number 1 objection (in-valid, but an objection none the less) while adding weight to their point that they are treated as "less than"?

As a white guy, I have no business telling those who do not experience America the same way I do, how to solve their problems. But as an annoying person on a philosophy site, solving problems is what I do (hehe, poor attempts anyway).

@Aaron R

I was writing other points, but I can't get the past the fact that I don't understand how "ends" is being used in premise #1

Things act in an orderly way, as if they are ordered towards an end. — Metaphysician Undercover

(MU I quoted you to help with my question to Aaron R - I am happy for you to clarify when I am wrong, but I don't think I am asking you anything directly)

This paragraph helped a little (thanks MU), but all I can do is substitute "purpose" or "goal" for "end", and that doesn't seem like the intended meaning?

In the phrase, "the ends justify the means", "ends" would mean results (I think). But from a philosophical/divine/universal perspective it seems impossible to draw a line and say something resulted or ended (when does a child become an adult?). We can create definitions to define ends that exist in our temporal reality (all I mean by that is humans live for 100 years +/-). In that time, the sun is the sun (or a taco is a taco). But in billions of years the sun will have changed into something else.

So I guess I can agree with this portion of premise #1:

All inanimate things are directed — Aaron R

but I would just finish the sentence with "by the 4 fundamental forces (and possibly more/less as our understanding is incomplete)"

I struggle to see a goal, purpose, or even end results (do we call our current reality "results {ends}" or just more "transition"?). My understanding of Philosophical jargon is limited at best, so perhaps there is another potential meaning. Or, maybe I am overly hung-up on semantics like every other time I have posted here :grimace:

I think Aquinas would say that if inanimate things did not act towards ends, then the we would observe pure chaos. But we don’t, so things must act towards ends. — Aaron R

How is this statement more true than "if inanimate things DID act toward ends, then we would observe pure chaos. But we don't, so things must NOT act toward ends." I have always found logical proofs to be cumbersome and incomplete, so I am happy to learn why I cheated and you did not :grin:

Just being honest and nothing to do with spiritual enlightenment. I wouldn’t blame others for saving humanity in this way, although it would still be an evil act. I just don’t have the stomach to harm a baby. — Noah Te Stroete

Evil is a tremendously loaded word that I would think has no place in a rational discussion of morality...but I will try. So boiling babies is evil. So is killing all humans. But given a choice between the two, one choice seems better in any measurable way. And based on your description, I think I would view most important morality as "picking between the lesser of two evils."

For example, there was only one war with a Hitler. Most of the rest are nothing but moral ambiguities.

Oh, and sorry for the Spiritual Enlightenment bit, I was half-joking based on your description sounding very much like a Buddhist monk who seeks to achieve enlightenment, but this requires that they are disconnected from the world and its problems. Good for them, but I sure hope they don't think the world would be better off if everyone thought like them.

That said, I would rather die and take others with me than boil even one baby. Never mind that it is the alien race who are committing an evil act. — Noah Te Stroete

So you are unwilling to sacrifice your spiritual enlightenment (never doing anything "wrong") for the lives of billions? Doesn't seem so moral anymore?

I get what you are saying otherwise.

Sorry if I am a couple days behind.

For example, you don’t boil babies. This is a moral truth, not just mere opinion where individuals feel disgust. — Noah Te Stroete

Uh, oh. I was sure I was right when I said I would boil three babies if the aliens promised not to destroy earth to build their galactic bypass (not sure how boiling 3 babies helped them, but it saved earth!)

The categorical imperative — Noah Te Stroete

What would Kant have concluded on the above situation? It is clearly a wacky scenario, but shows at least one example of that "objective" moral being untrue...is there anything you can come up with that I cannot add "unless under threat of something worse" to? Are they still "objective" morals if they need qualifiers? With enough qualifiers they eventually just become facts, right?

Which leads to...

If morality is based on doing what promotes the flourishing (health and happiness) of a society and all its members, and the basic requirements for such flourishing are established and universally acknowledged, then morality as an "if, then" set of principles can be established and universally acknowledged, and the problems with the "is, ought" divide circumvented. — Janus

This is the only type of objective morality I could ever get behind. However, the series of if-then statements would end up being infinite to account for any situation that could ever exist...right? Does that make it an impractical method?

Frankly I'm flabbergasted that you would try to put up any defense of FGM whatsoever. — VagabondSpectre

Where did someone defend FGM? Saying it is not objective does not mean they are in favor, or even remotely suggest they are in favor.

I think that you could have a general set of rules to prepare for anything, but specifics are really up to the disaster. Rationing food, for example, is something that would be needed regardless of the degree or type of disaster. It would also be nice to have some sort of central authority on this kind of stuff. I don't know about you but I don't count the UN. They aren't great about the whole "authority" thing. I think that's why most discussions about regulating industrial waste don't go anywhere. — TogetherTurtle

Ok. I get where you are going now. So things like the seed bank in Iceland are along the lines of what you are talking about?

I am going to have to put some thought into this. It was so much easier to just pick apart a partial hypothetical, hehe.

I will keep reading and try to contribute if I come up with any solid ideas. But, for now I will just cast a vote for @Bitter Crank to be king of the new world. He seems to have a good grasp on all the factors (beer and coffee keep the gears lubricated), and it will likely take a while before democracy is tenable again.

I think it is impossible to establish such fundament on a global scale without unified transcendent or totalitarian power. — Aleksander

I entirely agree...unfortunately...

To solve global problems countries have to co-operate to do a lot of difficult and extremely disruptive and expensive things. They won't do that, not all at once in a sufficiently co-ordinated way. It's too disparate and competitive. — bert1

I agree with this also, which suggests disaster will have to strike BEFORE any global commitment will be likely. We need a pathetic (if it is not pathetic, they will win) alien invasion to unite us before the world kicks us out. - just saw that @emancipatealready covered this.

I was just being a smartass due to you asking "what is the greatest strength of the human mind," whereupon you listed a handful of things and then said "All of the above." — Terrapin Station

Haha, I assumed that was joke, but couldn't quite pin it down. Thanks for the explanation :grin: I actually consider myself decent at analyzing grammar, but missed that one.

@Janus @Theorem

I have enjoyed your debate. I look forward to you 2 disagreeing (slightly) on future threads :smile:

Meaning is merely a product of reason and in no way is a property of that which reason examines. — Mww

Ok. But once meaning is "produced" can't it exist separate from the producer?

The problem with this for S's view is that S claims that meaning would exist if no people existed. — Terrapin Station

Most things that are created or "produced" continue to exist even if the producer suddenly vanishes.

If meaning is not discovered, but instead it is assigned by rational agents; once assigned the meaning can persist absent the agent.

Fear just is the experience and an orange just is the experience. — Michael

So there is no such thing as anything. Just the experience of all these "things" that don't exist? How is that helpful, useful, predictive, testable, etc? And if this is a mis-use of reducto absurdo (I still haven't looked up the correct latin for that one), please show me why (I expect to be wrong, but don't get it).

Ignoring it then leaves one with rationality in general and humanity in particular irreducible to a non-contradictory fundamental condition, because the only other possible methodology, empirical science, cannot provide one. — Mww

Would you mind expanding on this? It seems important, but I don't get it (surprise, surprise). If I have never heard of idealism, how is humanity (or rationality) reduced to a contradictory fundamental condition? Doesn't idealism (I expect to be wrong) reduce to "it's all in your head" or at least "it wouldn't exist without your head"? And the common understanding (whether anti-idealist or just agnostic to idealism) would be, "it all exists separate from me"....how is one non-contradictory and one contradictory? Sorry if it feels like teaching a 101 class.

When I use "people" or "person" I'm actually thinking "creature, or just simply entity, with a mind." So not necessarily a human. Not necessarily something on Earth, etc. — Terrapin Station

Sorry, I actually did get that. I was being intentionally obfuscatory, because that is how I feel when I read many idealist responses.

Kant also acknowledges the theory is quite incomprehensible to those who do not wish to understand it. — Mww

Is that a predictive ad-hom by Kant? I also think that everyone who does NOT agree with me is just not trying hard enough or maybe they just decided ahead of time that they don't like me.

Or maybe Kant's statement is a meaningless "truth" like "those who do not want to run are less likely to run"?

It seems like a lot of people, read a lot of Kant, and disagree. So they (all) spend all that time just so they can confirm that Kant is wrong? I will agree that some do, probably even most, but surely not all.

Still have several posts to read, just wanted to throw S a little support.

The problem with this for S's view is that S claims that meaning would exist if no people existed. — Terrapin Station

The universe is pretty big, it seems likely there will be another intelligent being to decipher meaning other than homo sapiens, right?

I get this is not your point at all. But if you ALL can pretend that you don't understand @S, why do you expect to be understood?

AND IT IS STILL BLOWING MY MIND THAT THE LINE OF YOUR'S THAT I QUOTED SEEMS TO BE SEEN AS COMMON SENSE IN PHILOSOPHY CIRCLES. They went too far down the rabbit hole.

A disaster is coming in the near future. No preparations have been made yet. What changes do you look into or technologies do you invest in? What political, social, economic, or even biological changes do we need to make to our planet? What do we do to make sure we can keep fighting it after the effects come into full swing? How do we evacuate the planet if necessary or create proper defenses underground? — TogetherTurtle

I am a little confused. Are we talking a rather minor disaster? Anything that results in societal collapse (ie no more governments), would make these questions no longer matter...? When struggling to survive, one does not have much time for philosophy. I think I mis-interpreted your hypothetical (non)scenario?

You mention investment? Like planting crops that will bear fruit in a few months? You don't mean like stocks or banking right? I definitely misunderstood the scenario.

a good groundwork for reconstruction after a global disaster is generally a good idea. — TogetherTurtle

I can get past the specific disaster, but I think we need some idea of who survives. 6 billion? 4 billion? 1 billion? 1 million? Dozens? Do some governments still exist? Corporations?

But maybe I am trying to answer something that you are not asking? Feel free to steer me in the right direction.

It seems that is our first hurdle. A psychological disposition to give up when odds are low. It turns out that giving up is a bad idea when what you are giving up is everything. — TogetherTurtle

Nicely said. Fortunately, there are examples everywhere of humans making the best of terrible situations. I have heard many stories where I initially thought, "nope. I would just roll-over and die." But the more of those stories I hear, the more I believe many people possess some trait that will cause them to fight on (and even enjoy themselves occasionally).

That's the essence of the question I have posed, we don't find suicides to be committed solely due to realizing that everything is meaningless. — Kushal

Well I am glad we agree there. Because the rest of your response caused me to do some research on existentialism; and while I THINK there is not much there of value (for perspective I am still looking for value in idealism and a few other philosophies), I now KNOW that I am unqualified to offer an opinion. I will enjoy the rest of this discussion from the bleachers :smile:

Camus said many of us, me included, perform all kinds of philosophic suicides to reconcile this absurdity. — Rank Amateur

Can we avoid these suicides (and the crux of Camus' problem) by changing one premise? - The assumption that all life is suffering. If I change that to, "life is a bit difficult and there will be some toil and sorrow but also the potential for joy", does that fix anything?

Addressing the OP, I can't see "life is absurd" as justification enough. I could be way off, but isn't most suicide more emotional than logical? Isn't one argument against a regularly armed populace the fact that people will kill themselves due to easy access when they are in a bad place emotionally? Tomorrow, suicide might not seem like such a great idea.

I agree that life is a bit absurd. But I am happy most of the time. Why would killing myself even cross my mind?

Sorry, couple pages behind but need clarification:

If it's impossible to understand the meaning, because e.g. nothing that speaks any language exists, how are words in a dictionary different from random scratches in a rock, or the pattern of waves on the ocean? — Echarmion

For any language to work at all, we need to be able to mirror other humans to some extend. — Echarmion

But that intentionality is only visible to an intelligence with something akin to human "rationality". Without an intelligence, the patterns would still be there, but patterns are literally everywhere. — Echarmion

Echarmion, I did not mean to pick you exclusively, but you said it most concisely. Based on the above, here is a hypothetical that I would like to know what your side thinks (if this point has already been made, sorry - I try to read carefully):

All human go extinct very suddenly. Our written word survives everywhere. Libraries are full of books, some may last thousands of years. To further help the case, computers can digitally preserve information for eons, someone will just have to provide electricity and turn them on (yes there will be limits and difficulties). Beyond that, many words are literally carved in stone or other methods that would result in long-term preservation.

So, for your beliefs none of those texts have any meaning once humans (or a language capable being) disappear...right?

What if 1000 years later aliens arrive or a new species evolves (gonna need more than 1000 years) with language capabilities and somehow finds a largely preserved database of human information. Like humans re-discovered the meaning of cuneiform or Egyptian hieroglyphs, these new beings could rediscover the meaning of our texts...right?

Please list all aspects of this hypothetical that are wrong because it creates a bit of a problem for your side: So that dictionary (or whatever surviving texts) had meaning when humans were alive, then had no meaning for a long time, then suddenly had meaning again when the next "language capable" being shows up?

How are you interpreting the definition of meaning? google says meaning is (had to combine with definition for "mean" because google uses "meant" in definition of "meaning"): intending to convey, indicate, or refer to (a particular thing or notion); signify.

Where does your side's, "relative to an observer" come from? Don't get me wrong, obviously without an observer there is no one to understand the meaning. But so what? Totally separate point. Maybe someone will come along...right? And when that new person arrives, they do not invent the meaning...right? So it already existed...or not?

Rule of thumb: — fdrake

hehe, slipping that one in the middle of a discussion on political correctness. nicely done :cool:

How does a convention or something merely understood but not explicit govern conduct? You don't have to follow any convention. There's no punitive action for not doing so. What sort of government is it if there's no punitive action for not following any of its rules? Under that government, I can do absolutely anything I like. Other folks may not like it, and they might bitch and moan, but so what? I can do whatever I want, including murder, rape, etc. I'd not be controlled in any way. I'm only controlled if there is specific punitive action for breaking rules. Otherwise I'm not really governed, am I? — Terrapin Station

I can certainly see the above as an interpretation of "govern". But I don't think it is the only thing "govern" can mean.

definition of govern: conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people).

That wasn't enough for me so...

definition of conduct (the "conduct" used in definition of "govern" not the conduct used in definition of "rule") : the action or manner of managing an activity or organization.

So in relation to "rule" (one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.)

So it seems like we can clarify the definition of rule in relation to the word govern:

so a rule is: one set of explicit or understood regulations or principles managing conduct in a particular activity or sphere.

So if we replace "govern" with "manage" (based on all applicable definitions that show govern has very little to do with government in this case) does that leave us a bit more room?

In your mind I am guessing the phrases "general rule" or "rule of thumb" (I apologize for sexist undertones in that second one) mean "not a rule"? Because both of those expressions refer to basic guidelines, not "do it or else."

Oh god, no. There'd be one of those in every discussion I involved myself in. That's already an invisible signpost which follows me around. They wouldn't recognise my good sense if it ran up to them and slapped them round the face! To them, everything I say is utter nonsense. — S

Haha. Fair enough. But we don't have to agree when they say you are speaking nonsense. It allows them to say the forum is regulated, but we can keep our discussion going.

Gives me a chance to show off. — Mww

haha, as long as I can learn something, call it whatever you want :smile:

America simply provided a new packaging to an old theme using science, magic and mythology. Americans are excellent at business. — TheMadFool

Nailed it. While America is pretty amazing, we should not give it credit for everything, hehe.

Older superheroes from around the world (a mix of purely fictional and mythologized real people):

Gilgamesh, Beowulf, King Arthur, Achilles, Hercules, Guan Yu, Chin Shi Huangdi, and I am sure there are many more.

Just to give one more reason that superheroes are popular (probably hinted at by someone already): Don't we all like to think we are entirely in control of our own fate? (a bit of poetic language, but hopefully clear enough) Yet, we all realize we have limited control over our own lives. Superheroes have the power to carry out their will (more so than we typically do). Don't we all know how to solve all of the world's problems if everyone just did what we said? (I get on a philosophy we are more apt to understand that is just our ego, but it is always lingering in the background)...or maybe I am just way too American?

Fair to prevent further nonsense. — Baden

Surely those arguing against @S can decide there is nothing of value left? I may be missing something. Does it cost money to keep the posts? From a philosophy perspective, wouldn't it be better for the staff to add a post that says, "we (the site administrators) think the position of @S is nonsense. The argument seems to have devolved to an emotional tit-for-tat." Or maybe a "watch out. you are getting off topic".

Then those of us involved can defend ourselves against that (or correct our behavior). Also, that may encourage those who disagree with S(or me or whoever), to think, "Ok, I won. I can stop the discussion now" or they might have more to say. If so, what is the harm in continuing?

I would also note that the thread was SO active there was likely to be a bit of banter mixed in. It had over 600 posts in just a couple weeks (when closed I had four responses waiting for me).

Fun while it lasted. — Mww

Indeed. Thanks for the thoughts. While I may not have been entirely convinced as to the merits of idealism, I certainly learned a good deal about certain distinctions between realism and idealism.

Sorry I didn't bring enough knowledge to keep the thread open :grimace:

I would like to hear from Janus and @ZhouBoTong on that. They're less likely to be biased against me than others in that discussion. Also, @Marchesk. — S

Well, I think I am unnecessary as @Terrapin Station (one of the people more likely to be biased against you, hehe) already defended your position.

I suggested and carried out the closure on the basis there was no philosophy left in the discussion. — Baden

This seems unlikely. Couldn't we have a long philosophical discussion on the idea that it is impossible to have a discussion absent philosophy (aren't most expressions tainted by our personal philosophies?)

I think you meant no PRODUCTIVE (or valuable or something?) philosophy? But isn't that just a matter of perspective? Most people I know think ALL philosophical discussions are a waste of time...?

Well I probably missed it in the thread, but with all this discussion of "rules", I don't think there was ever a definition, so...

rule: one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.

Looks like @Janus wins!

@Terrapin Station and @Metaphysician Undercover: Which part of that seems to disagree with anything Janus and @S have been saying? I see no requirement of consequences and it is explicitly stated that it does NOT have to be explicitly stated (notice "or understood").

I think I agree with @S that all of us are really just whining about semantics (someone said that in this thread anyway, sorry if it was not S).

“There is a rock”, is not susceptible to falsification. — Mww

So it sounds like adding, "do you think" would have solved the whole thing. Surely, I can not give my opinion without thinking? So isn't adding "do you think" to "is there a rock" redundant?

Great care is advised here, because there are many disciplines listed under Idealism as a philosophical domain, just as there is in Realism. — Mww

Indeed. I am learning as the thread goes along.

And what came after was a paradigm shift, the single greatest such shift in history, with respect to philosophy in general and epistemology in particular. — Mww

And that shift was so complete and profound and that those of alive today have made idealism a part of our lives without even knowing it? Becuase how come, when I hear the philosophy of idealism (the modern one you refer to), I think yeah that seem true, so what? How is it such a massive paradigm shift? It seems to me nothing changed. I few well-educated people just started admitting certain "truths" right?

The new way says the image “star” belongs to the mind alone, hence the mind is responsible for everything having to do with “star”, meaning we tell ourselves how it is to be known by us. — Mww

A nice example of admitting certain "truths" but changing nothing. How did that change how we study the stars?

There’s also the aspect of the new Idealism in the reinstatement of a priori knowledge as being both real and substantial, whereas classically, and even mid-Enlightenment, a priori knowledge was generally either disavowed or at least misunderstood. Like, everybody knew mathematics was always true but nobody knew how it could always be true, what made it always true, with respect to human cognition. It wasn’t the instance of “ideas” in the mind for rememberance of things not in immediate attention, but a very real kind of actual knowledge by means of which intuitions based on extant experience are brought forth. — Mww

I don't think I understand this. Are you saying concepts like math were a priori in that they already existed and humans discovered them (I hope). Or are you saying that knowledge of math was(is) already inside people's minds (I hope not, but please do your best to explain - I can let you know now that I will likely be a terrible student as I am struggling to make any sense of that).

The power of the mind began to overshadow the power of the Establishment. — Mww

And here I had to think my way out of the church without even knowing what idealism was :grin: Doesn't this suggest that I didn't NEED idealism to do that - I would also point out that my becoming atheist was very tied to no longer NEEDING god to explain how I exist, or how the universe operates.
I suppose that you would say that I was using idealism without knowing it. But if I already had/have the same benefits, why do I NEED to know idealism? It happens to be interesting, so I may WANT to know, but I do not expect it to benefit me in any way.

Well this one got long. I really am working on being more concise on this site...very slow progress :grimace:

@S This post got rather long and I may have attempted to represent your view a couple times. I think if you just read the last 2 sentences of the post, you will see what I am getting at (and either agree or NOT).

That there were rocks in the past is not an effective argument against idealism — Echarmion

Maybe this is part of our problem. I do not think I have once in this thread attempted to argue against idealism. I am more asking, "why idealism?" "what does it explain?" (I get that these questions could be seen as an argument against idealism, but that takes an extra step) Similarly, before I engage in an argument against god, I will want someone to show me something that god does. Until then, I will remain agnostic.

I agree that rocks in the past does not refute idealism (as you mentioned some idealist could easily say we don't "know" there were rocks in the past - I suppose the king idealist would say we don't "know" there are rocks now, even this one I am holding in my hand), but I just view this as one of those extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. Surely to say "there is a rock", is far more ordinary (far less extraordinary) than "you know there might not even be such a thing as those entities we erroneously label as rocks". So not evidence, but decent reasoning...no?

But this means that, unlike S, I accept that idealism is at least coherent. — Echarmion

If S admitted that it is possible we are all in the Matirx (he did so in this thread), then I think that places him more in line with me (sure idealism is possible, but it is meaningless whether it exists or not). I also think the varying degrees of idealism also vary in how coherent they are, and so you may have noticed S vehemently attacking a particular interpretation of idealism.

This is especially true with regards to Quantum mechanics, which has given rise to a bunch of bad metaphysics trying to square it's findings with a naive realism. — Echarmion

This is interesting. I do not have advanced degrees in physics so I do not feel all that qualified to have a strong opinion, but recently I was reading the Wikipedia entry on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (damn, I must be fun at a party) and one line stood out to me as suggesting the exact opposite of what you have said - ie bad metaphysics attempting to square it's finding with naive idealism. Take a look and let me know what you think:

"It must be emphasized that measurement does not mean only a process in which a physicist-observer takes part, but rather any interaction between classical and quantum objects regardless of any observer." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

This line can be found at the end of the second paragraph (attached to reference #10).

By mentioning that "measurement" exists outside of any observer, it seems the author is worried about what idealists will do with his ideas...right? (I really am wondering if I am right or not here, not just driving my point home)

And if I am reading that correctly, I think it addresses an important distinction in how idealism can be interpreted. If this is a definition of idealism (I tried to find a simple general one, please correct me if it is wrong or incomplete): Idealism is the group of metaphysical philosophies that assert that reality, or reality as humans can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial. This could be interpreted as "we can not know reality except through the mind" which I would say is fine and I think S would agree (how else would we know anything?), but so what? It changes nothing, and explains nothing. However, if the above definition is interpreted as "nothing exists outside the mind" then we have a problem (and I think this is where S starts saying things that imply idealism is incoherent). I am not even saying I know it is false. But if it is true, it implies (directly states?) that we have NO IDEA WHAT REALITY IS. I am fine with being agnostic toward a claim like that. However, how SHOULD one live if they have no idea what reality is? Do you see the question itself becomes meaningless. Again, I am not arguing against idealism, just saying "why should I care?"

The core of idealism is that at the core of everything we know are our thoughts. — Echarmion

Yep, and as long as that means "we can only observe reality through the filter of our mind", I am find with it. If it means "reality only exists in the mind" it has become a hindrance and not a useful tool.

@Mww @Echarmion

I just responded to a post from each of you, but realized they are a couple of days old and S may have already replied. If there is nothing new (or worthwhile, hehe) in my posts, feel free to ignore. I will read the rest of the thread and catch up before adding more.

But post-human rocks are not simple and easily understandable if you actually think about it. — Echarmion

Until I have access to new evidence, I will just assume that "post-human" is rather similar to "pre-human". That's what happens when I actually think about it. I can also invent all sorts of hypothetical possibilities (like "maybe this is all just in my mind"), but actually "thinking" leads me to be agnostic toward those claims.

This is a bit like saying quantum physics "fails" because it goes to great lengths to explain away such simple and easily understandable concepts as discrete objects, or measurements that don't affect that which is measured. — Echarmion

Quantum physics has led to stuff. It has some predictive and explanatory power. Can you give concrete examples of the "gains" of Idealism? See, I would not say quantum physics "fails" because it has "succeeded" in some areas. Aside from sounding good (or bad) in our minds, what has Idealism contributed? By the way, if you can point to hard gains of Idealism, you will be going a long way toward convincing me your position has merit.

Expain to me how this is not just an argument from ignorance? — Echarmion

I had to think about this quite a while, as I am sure I am somewhat ignorant of idealism. I think if you can explain how it is (an argument from ignorance), then that will help. What information do I not know? Like I said, I know of NO "gains" of Idealism. I certainly CANNOT disprove Idealism, but I can't disprove god either. Is there a hypothesis that would allow us to test whether idealism is real? Maybe that pixelated universe thing is a related experiment (although that seems FAR more specific than general idealism)?

Ok, no prob. It is true there are apt to be rocks in the future. No different in principle than believing there will be rocks in the future. No different in principle than having no reason to think there wouldn’t be rocks in the future, all else being equal. None of those are congruent with the truth statement in the OP. And, truth-apt statements can be false, which means the statement there are no rocks when all the humans are gone is truth-apt. — Mww

Ok, so below is the OP (I think I put enough):

"There is a rock, but no one is there to perceive it, because we all died an hour previously.

Is there a rock? Yes or no?"

Are you saying if it was phrased this way:

"There is a rock, but no one is there to perceive it, because we all died an hour previously.

Do you think there is a rock? Yes or no?"

Then it is totally fine?

If it weren't for the involvement of those such as yourself and Janus, I would feel much more like I am in a madhouse! :lol: — S

I have been reading sites like this (including this one) for years. In the past, as long as there was one person per thread (like you in this one) arguing my line of reasoning, then I was content to simply linger. But lately the urge to add my thoughts has been growing, so I am happy that my ego satiation contributes to your sanity :smile:

Oh, and just know that even if you are the ONLY one presenting a certain line of reasoning, there could be some socially awkward person that entirely agrees but will always just lurk (I think you may have done that for me a few times in the past), so thanks and keep it going.

Just realized I am 3 pages behind on this thread. Got some reading to do.

Isn't there pretty widespread agreement about, say, characteristics of Santa Claus or vampires? Or pretty widespread agreement about the Beatles being a good band?

Neither is any closer to being correct, especially not objectively so. — Terrapin Station

??? Hence my use of "more" objective. So scientists publish the results of their studies to inform the rest of us about the objective facts they have discovered? Or do they publish so other scientists can attempt to duplicate? Why bother with duplication? Maybe it suggests evidence of "something that occurs independently of us"? That was my point. Clearly, we all know that facts are not determined by democracy.

Re the way I use the terms, what makes something objective is that it occurs independently of us. Comparing, agreeing with others doesn't make something objective, and disagreeing, not comparing doesn't make something subjective. — Terrapin Station

Correct. Agreement does not make it objective. However, if objective is "something that occurs independently of us" (I am fine with that) then surely having agreement from outside "myself" implies my subjective experience is more likely to be objectively correct - right? Isn't that why scientists have to publish?

It might not seem like it on the surface, but given this context, I think that that line might be an indication of his extreme empiricism. I am an empiricist. I am onboard with Hume that a huge amount of things require experience. How would I know stuff about rocks, like what they look like, if I hadn't acquired that knowledge through experience? How could I even engage the thought experiment if I had never undergone the experience of learning English? But there is some knowledge which doesn't require experience in every respect, for example, that I know that there would still be rocks in the scenario doesn't require that I am there to experience it, not that that would even be possible, since it would violate the thought experiment and result in an obvious contradiction. — S

I think I am fine with all of that. I would say that any single experience I have is subjective, but it can be made more objective by comparing it to other people who have had similar experiences. Isn't that a major part of the scientific method? I can agree that experience is how we learn. Heck, I would even say that experience has taught me that the rock will still be there when humans are gone because when I leave a room and return, everything is still there (I get there could be some crazy supernatural or just plain weird stuff going on, but extraordinary claims blah, blah... it seems simplest to assume it all just stayed there vs thinking it disappears and re-appears every time I blink).

You all get in a lot of responses each day. I try to read everything, but apologize for any overlaps.

It's the same exact mistake that people make when they take moral or aesthetic utterances to be objective. — Terrapin Station

This is a confusing example, because isn't it your position that ALL utterances are subjective? If definitions are subjective can anything be said that is NOT subjective?

So since religious people take certain claims to be objective, that is the "exact same" as someone claiming that words have consistent meaning?

I think I am missing your point?

I assign meaning to things like text strings. — Terrapin Station

But surely you do not do so arbitrarily. Otherwise language does not work.

This may help me understand your position:

Why should a student NOT be allowed to argue (and actually win / get credit) any wrong answer on a test, because that is what the question "meant" to them?

2 + 2 = 5? Well I interpreted = to mean equal plus 1. Why am I not allowed to do that?

In case you will make some "math is objective" argument...

If a 2nd grader had a vocabulary test and defined a "boat" as: something that glows in the sky and provides heat to the earth. The teacher might say, "it sounds like you are describing the sun." Huh, what's that? I call it a boat. If language and meaning are subjective why can't somebody do that?

I get that these are ridiculous examples, but if you can explain them from your viewpoint I think it will help. I am just trying to understand your position by taking it to logical extremes

Good point. Supposedly Shakespeare’s plays were performed for the general public, a rowdy,barely literate audience. So, yes, I don’t see why ‘Breaking Bad’ is any different in terms of portraying human nature than Shakespeare. — Brett

Thanks Brett. That will entirely satisfy me :smile: I just get easily triggered by the idea that the classics are better than modern works because they are the classics.

I apologize for being slightly off topic, and thanks for taking the time to give me your thoughts.

I identified that problem long ago. To put it bluntly, whether it's truth or knowledge we're talking about, his criteria is fucked up, and he repeatedly assumes his fucked up criteria in his criticism. But we reject his fucked up criteria for a better, more practical, more sensible, more reflective of ordinary language, criteria. — S

True. I do remember you saying that several pages ago, and I suppose your discussion of overly-high standards is continuing that. My stupid brain always thinks people just need to hear something in a different way and my view will suddenly make sense - whether it is my ego's fault or their biased thinking, I should have learned by now that it is unlikely to work.

for example that it is of greater explanatory power, makes more sense, is more reasonable... — S

This is the part of this discussion that has baffled me the most. They do not seem to even care if there ideas have explanatory power. It seems if they are right, and I KNEW IT, it would still change nothing about how I live...so, so what?

If I have a point, THAT is the matter. Whatever is said here matters to nothing but whatever else is said here. But I understand you to mean how does it matter in general, and of course, it doesn’t. Not to say there are not those who would claim if everybody thought his way there wouldn’t be any wars, deforestation or blue jeans with the knees ripped out. A car in every garage and a chicken in every pot. Jimmy Page would always be ranked #1. — Mww

That last point (bolded bit) would suggest that what you are saying DOES matter. If you know any good arguments in that direction I would be happy to look into them; but at first glance I can think of no way that idealism would necessarily lead to any of those things? - of course realism would not necessarily lead to those things either.

On definitions...not. Math and logic alone, because only those are susceptible to proofs. You said it yourself....language creates ambiguities, and nobody wants their truths ambiguous. — Mww

As a human adult, I don't know that I can even think, without language dominating the experience. Once objects have known labels, can we do anything but recognize them as such? Math can remove most of the ambiguous language, but not all, so therefor...?

I think some serious thinking needs to be done here. If definitions are not objective, how can proofs possibly be objective? Even math proofs will often include language (even with only symbols we will interpret as language, = means equals for example, so what if we disagree on the definition of equals?). If those definitions are subjective, then so are the proofs. I would also suggest that "experience" is about as subjective as it gets (can I ever have an identical experience to you?), so I am not sure how this follows:

all empirical knowledge absolutely depends on experience for it’s proof — Mww

, unless we begin to summarize meaning like I have been suggesting.

Everydayman thinks from a practical point of view. Philosophers and critical thinkers in general don’t. — Mww

Really? So economics, politics, space travel, human longevity, curing cancer, etc do not require critical thinking? I am not sure if this is intended as an argument or a not so subtle insult, but it just comes across as haughty. I must have mis-read.

The problem is that even if there are such objective moral principles, upheld by God or some such thing, then we have to allow for human knowledge of these principles to grow and evolve, just like our knowledge of the natural world grows and evolves. This means that ancient mores and customs, may now be determined as "wrong". But also we need to respect the fact that any mores and customs at any time, may be "wrong", and this applies even now. At any given time of "now", the practised customs may be wrong. If an artist apprehends an existing custom as wrong, that person must employ creative skill, tact, in shedding light on that custom as wrong, to avoid scorn by the general population. — Metaphysician Undercover

Nicely said. I am starting to enjoy how much I can disagree with a person in one thread, then completely agree in the next. Even if it may suggest I (or they, but I will usually assume I) have some inconsistencies in how I analyze each separate topic.