It is an experience of caregiving. — schopenhauer1

There are probably many reasons people desire dependents. And in nearly all cases, I would say that the acquisition of a dependent is the result of impulse, rarely is it founded securely on solid rationale and well-thought-out reason. I'm quite confident most people are on autopilot nearly all the time.

No one has the perspective change that perhaps it is not good to make another being endure, and deal with existence in the first place. — schopenhauer1

I don't know if it's that simple. Young women seem to have an insatiable desire to procreate. I cannot think of one young woman that is totally put off from the thought of giving birth. The feminine is more immediate than the masculine, so it does not consider the course of history in its desire to procreate. The masculine has a stronger affinity towards the historical and speculative, but the feminine has the power to draw the masculine into immediacy. Translated, men want what women have, and to get it, they ultimately must give the woman what she wants, and what does the woman want more than anything else.... a baby. It's all part of God's sick plan.

Nevertheless, we can still work towards a technological utopia on non-utilitarian grounds. — Alvin Capello

Utopia is a pipe dream. Any attempt to implement utopia, whether technologically based or not, necessarily requires some measure of tyranny. It is totally absurd to merely consider the possibility of a system that perfectly fits every single individual, free of conflict and injustice. And even to imagine such a fictitious state invokes imagery of an excruciatingly boring and meaningless existence.

How does this not lend cause to abstaining from procreation? — schopenhauer1

People are really horny. Under the threat of inevitable and impending doom, fucking is as good an option as any. Consequence: invasion of the babies.

I don't think it is possible for people to abstain from procreation, it's what they do outside of eating, shitting, and sleeping.

Making a difference to a part of a thing makes a difference to that thing. — Pfhorrest

Is that a universal fact? Does making a difference to a part always make a difference to the whole? Say I change a tire on my automobile, does it become a different automobile? Or, does it become the same automobile with a different part?

Individuals are part of the world. — Pfhorrest

Exactly, individuals are not the world, but only a part. So then God can only indirectly make a difference in the world, by mediating through individuals. God has no direct relation to the world, except perhaps for pagans.

The latter is the only kind of God anyone would have any reason to care about the existence of anyway, since the former kind by definition would make no noticeable difference on the world whether he existed or not -- since if he did make a difference, that would be a way to test for his existence. — Pfhorrest

God never makes any difference in the world, but only in the individual who believes.

But how do you compare the fun factor to other what-ifs? — javra

I find that it's better to just have fun for fun's sake, and not compare one fun thing to another. But it is time to compare, I suppose.

I'm sure better one's can be found, but here's an example: What if extraterrestrials (that they exist is a good what-if for many) teleported the sun out out our galaxy and into another (teleportation is a staple what-if in many a philosophical hypothetical, typically used to gain wisdom (cough) into personal identity issues; I'm here extrapolating), this exactly seven minutes ago such that in one minute's time there won't be any sunlight? In my view, this is a far better roller-coaster ride of what-ifs than is solipsism, which is kind'a bland and boring.

I don't know if solipsism is bland and boring. Comparison is "apple's and oranges", there is no real basis of comparison. They both stand on their own merits, and whoever likes the taste will like what they are tasting.

I like your theory on the destination of the world (don't worry, I won't hold it against you that you evoked "teleportation"....we are simply conducting a thought experiment). But there is a major difference between solipsism and the notion that extraterrestrials teleported the sun out of our galaxy and into another seven minutes ago such that in one minute's time there won't be any sunlight? In one minute, everything will go dark regardless if you are a solipsist or not. It is an event, and it will become objectively verifiable. Solipsism however, is not an event, it is a mode of experience for the existing subject. For the subject, existence is a particular way, qua. everything including that which seems to possess an independent subjectivity is merely a projection of one's own sensation and cognition - one's own immediacy. There is nothing that can argue against an individual who believes that this is "the way it is", in contrast to the speculation that everything will go dark in one minute.

One can even converge the two: the same question posed but with everything now being a projection of the given solipsist.

Now you're talking! Let's do it.

That's not true though. Because there are others around me I am not alone. I don't think alone, and I hopefully won't die alone. But if solipsism were the case then it would be true. — Darkneos

But it is true . The existence of other subjects does not mean that you share experience. This is because it is impossible for one subject to have direct access to another subject's immediacy, in fact "subjectivity" necessarily presupposes that your experience is unique to yourself as subject, and separate from all other subjects. The only place you are not alone and share a common experience with others
is in objectivity. (Strickly speaking, there is no objectivity for the solipsist).

But maybe I'm not understanding you, maybe you can tell me, how can another subject directly experience your death?
How can another subject directly posses your thoughts?

I can't see why anyone would do it. Willingly choose to be cosmically alone and shut off from any friends or loved ones.

What about the quantum physics that proves it though? — Darkneos

How does quantum science prove solipsism? I haven't made the connection.

Is it a choice to be a solipsist, or is it just the way it is for the solipsist? The importance of existence for the subject is the same either way, solipsist or not. For example, why would you act differently with your projections than with your perception of other subjects? Both options seem to have identical consequences, whether solipsist or not. There are definite rules of conduct for there solipsist, just as the are for the nonsolipsist. How not?

What are the people around me other than images, sounds, and feelings?" — Darkneos

They are immediate, and whatever you believe the nature of existence to be, is what everything can be reduced or expanded to. It really matters whether your attitude is elimanitivist or speculativist.

If existence is only an aesthetic projection, then everything is reducible to sensation. But subjective immediacy is not merely confined to direct sensation, it also involves cognition. Hence the solipsist, as an existing subject, is not simply restricted to an aesthetic projection, but has an intelligible dimension of cognitive projections.

But none of this is very important when we consider the ethical dimension of solipsism. The solipsist can understand the nature of existence (what is seen and known) in any way he pleases. None of it matters and it is always validated. But how the solipsist relates to existence is very interesting. Although everything is a projection, the solipsist still suffers the consequences of his actions, and must relate appropriately to his projections if he favors a particular outcome. It seems that he must makes ethical decisions, decisions that have consequences as serious as those that concern nonsolipsists.

The fun thing about solipsism, everybody can do it!

Solipsism being true would not be fun. — Darkneos

I didnt say it would be fun. I said reflecting on the absurdity of it is fun. And it is.

For example, if I were a solipsist, you would merely be a projection of my mind, and I would literally be conversing with myself. What would that mean? Is my existence any less significant or less serious because everything originates with me, and exists only in my immediacy? No, Existence has the same bearing on a subject regardless of its metaphysical qualities; that is to say, how an existing subject relates to existence is infinitely more important than the nature of existence.

How is this not fun?

It would lead to despair and tragedy as one would become keenly aware that they are "It". — Darkneos

And, it is the existing subject's relation to existence, not the nature of existence, but the relation that causes despair and makes a tragedy. As an existing subject, one is effectively "It", and this is the case regardless of whether solipsism is true or not.

If solipsism is untrue and there are other subjects like me, I still cannot directly access their subjective immediacy as I do my own. In this way I am unique and separate. Whether there are others like me or not, I am (as a subject) alone as it were. I think alone, dream alone, shit alone, die alone...this is what existence as a subject entails, even if you are incessantly surrounded by crowds imitating your every move. This senario seems to me to be even more dreadful and tragic than that of solipsism.

Just remember, when in solitude, everyone is effectively a solipsist, or maybe not, who knows?

The duopoly has found the perfect formula:

1) Nominate Presidential candidates "Bad" and "Even Worse"
2) A third party on the ballot will automatically mean that the "Even Worse" will win, and hence Americans won't dare to vote the third party or will be accused to be the reason why candidate "Even Worse" won.
3) Depict the House of Representatives and the Senate being meaningless and focus on the Presidency.
4) And of course, portray the "primary elections" as the way how people can influence the "democratic process" of choosing the President and not by creating new political parties, which would then battle the duopoly.
5) Discourage grass roots movements that would start competing at the municipal / city / state level with the duopoly.

Duopoly rules the US. — ssu

Great analysis. The game really is fixed.

CoViD fatigue.

It's not a thankful topic for philosophers anyways. It doesn't lend itself to analysis from first principles, and a lot of data is unclear. Figuring out just what kind of reaction is justified is very technical. — Echarmion

Great term!

Unclear data, like the actual effectiveness of masks.

You could always reflect on the notion that you’re the only being in the Universe and that all other beings are your projections is simply absurd. — Wayfarer

Don't be so negative. Why not reflect on how the absurdity of being the only being in the universe is really really fun?

If all others beings are mere projections from yourself, they are no less significant, and possibly more so since the solipsist would understand them to be immediately himself. In fact all other beings would have no existence external to the solipsists immediacy, making immediacy of utmost importance.

I suppose speculative thinking is a terrifying prospect to the solipsist. His uncertainty must be so immensely unbearable that he actually turns to the very projections from his own mind to give himself the illusion of contentment (delusion?), that is: because his projection says "it is so", then "it is so", and so it is.

Adjusted for population, Europe has twice as many people hospitalized for covid19 than the US. If you get the NYT, it's here. — frank

I assume that means twice as many covid fatalities. Or do Europeans simply like hospitals more than Americans? In the United States, nobody gets news about Europe because nobody cares, and that doesn't sell newspapers...bullshit does. And, in the US, nobody gets the news at all because everybody reads at a 3rd grade level and they eat up all the bullshit they are fed on the tools of ignorance (e.g. traditional media, social media).

Wtf? Is it that the US is just behind due to weather? I actually don't know of any reason for this that makes sense. — frank

Maybe people that can read (like Europeans) are more susceptible to being hospitalized for covid...I wonder.

I think the "permanent campaign mode" is one of the bigger problems - along with unlimited money. Read recently there are laws/restrictions on this in Europe - perhaps others here can comment - but in the US, by now the next campaign starts the day after inauguration day (or sooner?) - and the bid for 2024 is perhaps already underway. This seems to me to favor those that can afford such a thing. — Kevin

I would say those are the problems, along with others, like the fact that the American people are not truly represented by either party. Of course all these problems are interrelated and are integral components to a deeply embedded system. I see only two realistic strategies, either 1) to overtake the system from within by whatever means possible and make changes via the already existing mechanisms, which means dumping the two, or 2) complete state revolution.

The notion of an emergent 3rd party in the US is something of a pipe dream I'm afraid. — StreetlightX

Absolutely, I agree.

But, there needs to be a vote of no confidence in the current system, and that begins by not voting for the very parties that comprise it. The only real effective solution, for obvious reasons, seems to be something new and truly oppositional, not some rehash of the same old...Hardly likely though.

the way forward is the expropriation of the democratic party appartus from under their own cowardly and oblivious noses. — StreetlightX

By who? definitely not from within. That seems like even more of a pipe dream.

progressive politics under the democratic flag in fact had a pretty good time this week, at local and state levels. — StreetlightX

I am only talking about the most obvious solution for reforming the highest levels. And if the state and local levels are of concern, a third party could easily carry forth a progressive agenda as well as the dems.

The solution is so simple, yet impossible : America needs to dump the two parties, definitely at the higher levels, and probably at the mid and lower levels in order to really make it stick.

Why is this not the big topic on TPF? What happened to the big pandemic? Did people stop dying? Or has our new way of life finally set in as the new norm?

Just woke up to Biden taking the lead in PA and the presidency and now I can sleep for the first time in 4 years. — Mr Bee

You should keep sleeping, you do not want to see what's coming. :scream:

Great movie. Don't think it was ever released in US

Now is the moment for the American people to begin plotting a viable third party for 2024, to finally oust the two parties that have been ruining the country for decades. But it won't happen, because Americans are as dumb as they come...keep doing the same thing and wonder why everything sucks, idiots.

People need to realise the USA is full of bigoted Cunts who voted for Trump. Thankfully not all of them are of this ilk though. — The Opposite

You are correct, it is also full of bigoted Cunts who voted for Biden. And, also full of bigoted Cunts that voted third party, or abstained.

Museum of natural history, foot section. — frank

If memory serves me, that's in the basement near the food court

Gangrene doesnt really spread aggressively. The fungal or bacterial infection near the juncture is what spreads, straight into the bloodstream. But we give high powered antibiotics and just let the appendage fall off naturally. For some reason that's helpful. So you have this black mummy foot that sort of wobbles on the bone until it's eventually found in the bed. It really stinks and its super painful so people just lay there sobbing, calling for a parent, usually their mom.

It's like a horror movie in real life. — frank

That's very interesting, never had gangrene myself. You have enlightened me my friend

By the way, what do they do with the foot?

Hubert Humphrey?

US politics will continue to be dragged into the gutter that is right-wing neofeudalism — StreetlightX

:rofl: love that term.

The only relevant question defining the American path forward is how much its gangrenous decay can be insulated from the rest of the world, and at what rate. — StreetlightX

That is the definitely the big concern. Wealthy americans will need somewhere decent to immigrate once the putrefaction of the country has thoroughly festered.

it wasn't the convincing repudiation of Trump that was expected. — Wayfarer

I have to disagree that a vote for Biden is a repudiation of Trump. A vote for Biden (or Trump, it doesn't matter) is to keep playing the same game and support "politics as usual". As long as Republicans or Democrats are running things, everything is going to continue getting shittier.

I really hope Biden gets elected so all those suckers (those idiots who think he is an actual choice that will make a difference) will see him run America further into the ground. I predict that when Biden's term expires, America will be fucked up so much worse, that Trump will look like Mother Teresa in comparison. (Just look at how Bush's tyranny, which was incomparably more horrific than anything done by Trump, has been virtually forgotten about because of how terrible things seem to be now).

If ever there was a time for the populace to make a stand against the status quo and vote en masse for a third party, it was this round. But alas, Americans en masse, are excruciatingly dumb and cowardly

I fixed that for you. — Benkei

True indeed. Thank you my friend. I know I can always rely on you to correct my errors.

Perhaps I may be bombarded against this but I would be surprised if all the people, including philosophers, have found a relationship or have one at all. — Jack Cummins

Most philosophers I've met need to get layed asap. I would bet my firstborn that this applies to most of the members on TPF.

Masturbation is definitely a Communist plot to undermine the free world. We cannot sit back and allow communist infiltration, communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids

internal/external distinction — fdrake

It is an old philosophical puzzle covered by much better philosophers, much better. Berkeley and Hume come to mind. From no scientific discovery since them has there been any progress on the question of q.

It’s the opening paragraph of the article - Dennett’s words, not mine. But go off. — Luke

I know, sorry for attributing it to you, it was a technical error, I quoted something you quoted. Nevertheless, it holds.

you took the insult as a compliment. — The Opposite

The greatest strategy never invented. I bequeath to you, my dear lord :brow:

the ways things seem to us — Luke

gustatory quale

Gustatory? Seriously? How are you going to talk about "the ways things seem to us" by introducing terms like "gustatory quale"? Fuck "masturbation", more like "rectal bombarbment"!

I have other meaningless bullshit terms that we can make up shit about: "god, subject/object, soul, existence &c.

But, you say, science and empiricism can show 'what is really the case'. And yet you deny that this criticism is positivist - look again at the definition of positivism: — Wayfarer

Perhaps it is indeed positivism. But those are the definitive criterion for objective knowledge in our age, and they cannot presently demonstrate what "really is the case". By other standards we might be afforded other avenues.

Thanks for the compliment too,: — Janus

Totally dude!

:kiss:

Again, it subjectivises the matter. I think the adherents of those faiths would say that it's not simply a matter of comforting oneself through belief, but that the belief is actually efficacious. — Wayfarer

Yes, it is specifically the believer's belief that is efficacious. No disagreement.

Now, for pretend purposes, let us qualify and quantify every believers belief in a stated system. Let us hold each and every individual believers belief up to the light and compare them. Are they equal, insofar as doctrine/authority command. I say no.

All this bullshit is to say, the believers are, so to speak, comforting themselves with "belief itself", not necessarily "belief in something". If there is a something for the believer, it is only significant insofar as it sustains his belief.

And I should repeat, contrary to Wayfarer's accusations, I am not against religion (apart from some religions' genocidal and oppressive tendencies), and nor am I a positivist (if anything I am a skeptic!). I don't have any problem with people having faiths of various kinds, provided they see, and admit, that it is faith. — Janus

It is obvious to anyone with two shits for brains that you are not against religion. Even if anyone thought that, remember, the most religious dudes in history were thought to be infidels by their culture/peers.

The inability to see faith as faith leads to fundamentalism; and that is a big problem (on both sides of the argument).

Absolutely, the imposture of faith becomes an ethical matter rather than a matter of relating to what one believes in (by faith). "Killing in the name of" is most justified under those terms.

It should lead to clarification of the differences between the aesthetics, ethics and religion on the one hand and logic, mathematics and empirical investigation on the other. — Janus

The former is definitely philosophical territory - fun, as it were; the latter causes philosophers to shove their heads up their own stanky asses.

so needy :monkey: