I deleted your post to me as it was a reiteration of your prior deleted thread. It was non- responsive to my post, which is that racist views are off limits here, even if you believe they are scientifically justified. — Hanover

This seems to me to be very wrong. This is a feedback thread, you shouldn't delete posts in here, so long as they are not things like threats, etc. Feedback can't be seen to users who aren't logged in anyways.

Aug, Id' suggest you'd not mistake my general indifference to your posts as 'begrudging acceptance'. Some arguments and people are simply beneath engagement. — StreetlightX

Yes, I think everyone saw in that discussion your inability to accept the facts.

The discussion is here if anyone wants to have a look:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/96965

When I pointed this out to Mr "Streetlight X" ( a forum moderator) in a recent post he promptly expunged my comments from the site and advised me that he would not engage any further debate on the matter, full stop. — John Gould

Yes, there is no doubt about that. When I told Mr. SLX that greater testosterone levels make men more competitive and aggressive in general and on average than women, he tried to give me some convoluted pseudo-science based on his favorite post-modernist writers (who are not doctors or medical researchers) that testosterone isn't explainer but explained. I had to provide him with actual studies showing the existence of such biological differences, which are indeed also influenced by social conditions/perceptions but definitely do have a biological source of influence as well. He seems to have begrudgingly accepted it by that point. However, this is one of the reasons why I've said in the past that I think SLX should step down as a moderator. His commitment to a dogma make him unfit to judge posts adequately.

Now, issues of race are difficult to discuss objectively, so perhaps you should have prefaced your previous thread/post by this:

Therefore, let me tell you - first and foremost - that I am not, nor have I ever been, affiliated with, or sympathetic to, the kind of "racism" that is associated with these groups. I utterly despise and unequivocally condemn the acts of criminal violence and hatred that they continue to incite and perpetrate in the West. — John Gould

That would have made your intentions somewhat more clear, that you wish to have a scientific discussion based on the facts, and not promote some ideology of racism.

On the other hand, if your claim was bs, shame on you, but I have no reason to think that. — Hanover

I'm sure Posty McPostface is a better administrator of the funds than the government.

One can fantasize, while on disability. — Posty McPostface

LOL! >:O So you plan to be a disabled millionaire? :-O

@jamalrob ban

Oh, and if you go to somewhere like Poland, you'll find a lot of cheap programmers/designers, etc. to hire. Just go to a computer science uni, and speak to someone, tell them you're a company looking to hire some whatever you want, and would like to have access to their students. They'll most likely let you. Easy. And if you tell them you're coming from the US as well - guaranteed access >:O

It's just that my quantitative understanding of 'work' has changed dramatically. It's really hard to return to a minimum wage job after seeing the gross profits some can make on insane margins importing goods from China. — Posty McPostface

>:O . Yes, but it's not so easy to set up that kind of business. It would actually be a lot easier in a country like Poland. Because most people there aren't very familiar with this stuff. Going to less developed countries with such knowledge, always makes making an income much easier.

Even then though, setting up such a business and getting it right from the first time takes a lot of work. Presumably you'd want some minimal experience (at least, let's say 5 paid projects in each) in terms of web development, web design, copywriting, Google Adwords/Adsense, importing/exporting, blogging, online marketing and shipping (if you sell internationally). If you have that, then you understand all the steps involved very well, and can even hire others to do it for you. You'll be very familiar with how it goes, and you can even hire not so good ones and pay them less because you can instruct them what to do and guide them along the way.

OK, but isn't it also just for the love of it? — Janus

What does "it" refer to? If you're referring to the love of self-cultivation, then probably not. If you're referring to the love of God and the world, then probably yes.

Just for that matter, I work for a guy who makes 200k USD selling SARM's online. So, my view of work has dramatically changed since working predominantly minimum wage jobs for 8 years. — Posty McPostface

Yes, money can come very easily from some types of work, but it takes years to develop the infrastructure and practical knowledge required to pull it off. But you're better off working independently than employed for someone else in building that kind of infrastructure.

Yeah, but I'm afraid the truth is I don't want to work. *gasps* — Posty McPostface

Why not? It depends on your motivations you see.

When most people say they don't want to work, they really mean they don't want to work a certain job, or in certain conditions. It helps to know what those are for you. For example, for myself, I don't want to work for someone else anymore. And I really can't since I'm very independent-minded, I'd get fired very easily. The only time I'd do it is if I literarily starve. So I know that I can't work if someone else sets the time for me, sets how I need to dress, and bosses me around.

So knowing that, then I can base my life around that. Which is what I've been doing for the last 1-2 years or so. Develop a skill, hone it, expand it, keep growing. Find the type of work you can do. I'm not really passionate about anything in particular, so I don't really care about the skill. I picked web development because I've done some programming before, and found it interesting. Also makes it easier since you can work from anywhere. And recently I've expanded into online marketing too, which is also very interesting. I've learned a lot of design skills over time as well, and I feel my knowledge is becoming more and more solid. Now I pretty much no longer doubt my abilities to "earn a living" assuming I don't get sick and the like. A lot of work pays off sooner or later.

It may; but, I haven't lived continuously in Poland for almost a decade. I don't know how that might affect my ability to establish residency in other EU states.

I might have to stick it out in Poland for a while before I can come over to Sweden or Finland. Norway is a place I would consider too depending on the inter-European laws they have with the EU. — Posty McPostface

I don't think it affects it in any way. You are still a Polish citizen.

However, your Polish citizenship will be a huge help all over the EU :P

Can a preeminently apply for benefits if I have such a status? — Posty McPostface

A preeminently what? I'm not sure if you can apply for residence from outside the country.

I mean, I'm pretty sure official documents from the US of A would suffice or is this place to place dependant on individual law based country? — Posty McPostface

It is dependent on the individual law of the country, and also the manners in which the law is applied in practice. The law itself and the application of the law are always somewhat different.

Well, I have dual-citizenship with Poland, which is part of the EU and thus what would remain is to apply for residency in another EU nation to become a member. Something like that last I rationalized through the process. — Posty McPostface

You don't actually "apply for residence", but rather you go there, rent a place, and then sort out the residence aspect. But to rent a place, the letting agent, unless you're very wealthy, will want to see that you are employed somewhere (or at least have a source of income, but being employed is more certain).

For one, I can only know that she hasn't cheated on me if she hasn't cheated on me. Knowledge requires truth, not just no reason to doubt. But then as Gettier showed, truth and justification are not sufficient either. — Michael

I can't agree with that, because what we mean by truth is most often approximation. At least in most contexts we use it in.

So you equate knowledge with certainty (in the sense of conviction). — Michael

No, quite the contrary, the skeptic sets the bar for knowledge too high. He says knowledge only exists in the complete impossibility of doubt. And then he bases his doubt off logical possibility which is irrational.

Knowledge just requires the elimination of real - not imaginary - doubt.

I might not have any grounds to doubt my girlfriend's faithfulness, but that doesn't mean that I know she hasn't cheated on me. — Michael

Yes it does. Until further evidence, you know she hasn't cheated on you. You cannot rationally doubt her faithfulness if you have no reason to.

He's just saying that we can't (or don't) know that it isn't. — Michael

Knowledge is that which we have when we don't have grounds for doubt. Knowledge can change and evolve.

A brain in a vat would also come to the same conclusion to explain the consistency of his experiences, despite the fact that none of his experiences are of an external world. — Michael

Sure, but the brain in the vat has no grounds to doubt that his experience is of an external world (and in some sense it is, because the electrical impulses stimulating his brain do come from an external world).

That doesn't mean that the scenario isn't logically possible, but something being logically possible is not sufficient to form a ground for doubting it.

The concept of an external world doesn't come from experience at all, but from rational consideration. — Michael

Yes it does. You experience things like your thoughts and emotions, and you see that they're not always the same. But you wake up in the same bed (presumably). Because of its constancy, you deem one to be independent of your experience - it looks the same every time you come back to it - while the other - like dreaming, your mind, etc. you view it as depending on your experience. This concept arises precisely out of experience - more specifically the experience of the constancy of the external world, and the impossibility of altering it just by thinking about it. That's why you call it external in the first place.

Excuse me sir, I think you have been directed to the incorrect forum. This here is The Philosophy Forum. I'm sure the forum you're looking for is concerned with the dark arts. — Wayfarer

Have you ever engaged in Buddhist dark arts Wayfarer? >:)

Except I don't imagine ghosts to be electromagnetic radiation. I imagine them to be non-physical things. — Michael

No you don't. This is what you imagine:



How are ghosts shown in paintings, etc. ? Be honest with yourself. You can't imagine a non-physical thing. What you really mean by non-physical in this context is something that has a shape, but can go through walls, etc. that kinda stuff.

So I've had the experience of a disembodied thing? — Michael

Yes. By disembodied you refer to things like light - light has no body (according to your own beliefs in the other thread). Think about what you imagine when you imagine a ghost.

Furthermore, at best your argument can only have you conclude that at some point you've had an external world experience. — Michael

Then you'd need to specify that point and also why you think your experience was of an external world then, and not now.

So I must have seen a ghost because I have the concept of ghosts? That's wrong. I have the concept, but I've never seen one. — Michael

What's your concept of a ghost? The concept of a ghost is a composed concept - composed of multiple atomic concepts, just like unicorns. Its atomic concepts, you have had an experience of all of them.

of Gods — Michael

Experience.

or demons — Michael

Experience.

unicorns — Michael

Experience (we experienced both horns and horses).

We don't need to have had an experience of an external world to have the concept of an experience of an external world. — Michael

Yes we do need to have had an experience of exteriority - something external to us - in order to ground the concept of external world.

You seem to be conflating. I'll set it out more clearly.

1. We have experiences of type A and experiences of type B.
2. We refer to experiences of type A as "wakefulness" and experiences of type B as "dreaming".
3. We claim that wakefulness is the experience of an external world and that dreaming is the experience of an imaginary world.

There are two ways for the sceptic to approach this. They can either claim that "wakefulness" and "dreaming" are defined by their referents, in which case our claim that wakefulness is the experience of an external world is false, or they can claim that they are defined as being the experience of an external and imaginary world respectively, in which case both types of experience fall under the umbrella term "dreaming" (even though they have other properties to distinguish them).

Nothing about this "destroys meaning" or "short circuits" language.

But again, this is just pedantry. The sceptic's claim is simply that we can't know that our experiences are of an external world, regardless of what we call them or think of them. You can't counter this by pointing to a dictionary. — Michael

I don't think I'm conflating anything.

If experiences of type A are actually "dreaming" as well, then what grounds our concept of wakefulness? :s We have no experiences left to ground it, because even type A experiences are dreaming. But without grounding wakefulness (the real world), how can we ground the imaginary? Without the reference of the real, the imaginary cannot be imaginary.

Similarly. If type A isn't external world and is also internal, then what experience grounds our concept of external? And if none, how can we then talk of internal? Internal only exists with reference to what is external. By undermining one side of the dichotomy, the skeptic effectively destroys the meaning of the terms.

So the possibility that one's understanding is fundamentally delusional or deeply mistaken about the nature of reality should always be considered. Indeed I think that was the original impulse behind sceptical arguments. — Wayfarer

That makes little sense though. Otherwise we'd always be doubting ourselves, and we wouldn't be able to get anything done. Quite the contrary, if we don't have any reason for doubt, then we shouldn't doubt.

They're not equivalent. They're different. But neither are experiences of an external world. — Michael

If the meaning of awake no longer has a reference in experience, then that meaning has been destroyed. If you say that being awake is dreaming, then you have short-circuited your language.

This is just pedantry. You can always accept the meaningful distinction between wakefulness (experiences of an external world) and dreaming (experiences not of an external world) but claim that those experiences which we claim to be of wakefulness aren't actually so. — Michael

No you can't. Meanings are developed based on experience. If you categorize the experience of being awake as being equivalent to the experience of dreaming, then the meaning of awake and dreaming collapses. To avoid that collapse you'd need to have - in your experience - some other state in reference to which being awake is a dream. Lacking any such experience would render your terms meaningless.

The problem I see is that it is still feasible that the waking state, the state of presumed normality, is still a consistent illusion. It would be logically possible that, at the time of death, one is suddenly roused as if from a sleep, to a mode of existence that one had never guessed at while alive, but which now is obvious once again; one might immediately begin to forget the life you had just lived, in the same way as forgetting dreams that you have just had woken from. — Wayfarer

Sure, it's logically possible that life - by analogy - has the structure of a dream, but we really have no reason to suppose so (at least in our ordinary consciousness). Lacking a reason to suppose so means that doubting it would be irrational. Much more, within the waking state we come to know about the distinction between awake and dreaming, hence if even being awake is dreaming, then we have destroyed the notion of awake - and hence the notion of dreaming, which also depends on the notion of being awake. Language is rendered meaningless by such skepticism.

When you think of things you do for mental pleasure, where does the sense of satisfaction come from? — CasKev

It's an interesting thing. For me, I don't do things for mental pleasure. Rather mental pleasure sometimes is a result of it. I do things, at a proximate level of motivation, to better myself and my understanding of the world. So that's where my sense of satisfaction comes from. Being successful at that.

You paint something you think looks nice. So what? — CasKev

It means I understand my own perception better. It means my skills have improved. It means I've learned more about the world. It means I'm capable to communicate more about the world.

I'm the greatest painter that ever lived! So what? — CasKev

So you have a lot to teach the world through your paintings.

I think love falls into the survival and procreation category. Being part of a larger group that cares about your existence increases your chance of survival, and courtship and intimacy can be linked to procreation. — CasKev

Love can be conducive to procreation, but that's not the driving force. It's more like a possible result.

When I consider things like this, I sometimes think of what a child raised by monkeys on an island would do. — CasKev

Why is a child raised by monkeys anymore normal or natural than a child raised by human beings? I would think that quite the contrary, that child would not represent the natural condition of man, but quite the contrary - the unnatural one. For example, he may not be able to speak - that isn't the natural condition of man.

We have basic instincts that drive us to gather food, create shelter, and socialize (play with the monkeys). — CasKev

This is a hypothetical, quite frankly, I personally would like not to adventure there, since I'm not quite sure what such a child would feel. I think "gathering food" is learned in a community, as is socializing.

It's hard to imagine that it would sit like a cat, just passively taking in the surroundings until the monkeys returned - that would get boring pretty fast for such an intelligent mammal. — CasKev

Well, baby animals don't sit around doing nothing either. Exploration is one of the primary ways infants (not only human infants) learn. Even baby cats play around a lot more than adult cats. Why so? Because playing and exploring their environment is how they learn, both about their own powers and about how their environment works. And of course, the baby wouldn't be always doing something when the monkeys left. Sometimes he would be just resting and dozing off. I can bet that in less industrialised civilisations than ours, people rest a LOT more than we do.

The things we do today that aren't aimed at survival or procreation, are simply to alleviate the discomfort of doing nothing — CasKev

But again, this may be true for yourself and schopenhauer1, all that I'm arguing is that it's not true for everyone. I gave myself as a counter example, you're free to indicate how I am motivated by boredom.

Plato wrote some stuff- some thought-providing stuff, but he is not god or a prophet, man. He is was a brilliant intellect for sure, and we can all study his work and draw from it, but his thinking, like any other thinker, is still prone to many criticisms and flaws, like anyone else. — schopenhauer1

Okay, sure.

Here's a thought experiment- for every goal you do question the reason for why you did it. — schopenhauer1

If I do that, I end up many times with the answer that it's an expression of my being to pursue that goal. There's no further reason. It's not to avoid boredom or to survive.

So it is clear to me you cannot see the contradictions in your own arguments, especially the ones you just made about Plato when compared to what I said. — schopenhauer1

No, it's laughable that you compare yourself with Plato. Plato didn't have cases like myself who cannot be accounted by his theory. YOU, on the other hand, do. Your theory takes into account only your personal experience, and fails to take into account the experience of other people. And I'm not talking here about the idiotic masses who live their life without knowing what they're doing, but the more cultured, educated and intelligent people around.

You accuse me of being uncharitable — schopenhauer1

No, I haven't accused you of being uncharitable. I've accused you of failing to read what I write, and here's another instance of just that.

This isn't even about reading what I said charitably — Agustino

Frankly, your arguments are mere assertions and simply shows you have a particular animus to this view for personal reasons probably related to cherished theological views. — schopenhauer1

You haven't provided any justification for why I should believe you, it's no surprise that I don't.

So it is a legitimate theory if Plato uses his own experiences and conceptual analysis, but not if I do? — schopenhauer1

Where did I talk about his own experience? This isn't even about reading what I said charitably, it's simply about reading it. If you can't even do that, discussion is difficult.

You just contradicted yourself. You stated that my basis was not legitimate but was exactly the same one you are using (or Plato rather). You have got yourself in a little bind there. Also, it seems like since this is the case, you are not just being a hypocrite but committing the fallacy of appeal to authority, as Plato obviously is your authority on these matters. — schopenhauer1

Gibberish.

Your analogy makes no sense in this case. Angst is part of the human experience and not part of a birds. Therefore there is no analogy here. — schopenhauer1

I'm pretty sure birds can feel emotions - like fear or angst - too. But regardless, this isn't even relevant. The analogy was between goal-seeking and singing. Had nothing to do with angst.

Birds sing because of the instinct/mimicking attributes of the bird, and humans goal-seek due to their propensities that I have stated. — schopenhauer1

So why don't humans seek goals because of the instinct/mimicking attributes of humans? This is in fact a thesis that has some evidence to support it (René Girard's Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World).

Just because they both have innate tendencies does not mean they have to have the same innate tendencies. But that should be obvious. — schopenhauer1

Yep. Still don't see the link between angst and goal-seeking.

When you keep on questioning the root of your goals, they go back to very basic drives. — schopenhauer1

Show me.

Everything else is a romanticization, a post-facto rationalization. — schopenhauer1

Again, take the example of the girl and the rose that I gave you. If it's just a post-facto rationalization it would be perfectly acceptable for you to say I give her the rose because I'm bored. But it's not. And saying that does nothing to explain my actions - using your framework you cannot even make sense of what I do.

The way I see it, self-cultivation, provided it is not done for self-aggrandisement, is an end in itself, practiced out of love. Why do you want to be a better artist, writer, musician or whatever? — Janus

Personally? To gain greater insight into myself and the world. Why do I want that? To change the world for the better.

I can't think of any coherent sense in which boredom could be considered to be a manifestation of will. Can will exist at all in the total absence of interest? — Janus

I would agree with you, that's why I prefaced my statement by "under Schopenhauer's own system"

Yes, but on the other hand God's authentic will is only to be found in and by individuals; it is something that must be found within, not in any outward authority or institution. — Janus

I would agree, however outward authority and institutions may be good at guiding individuals towards this. Take the Christian sacraments for example. There's the outward ritual which is governed by the authority of the Church, but also the inward meaning of theosis.

That's true, but it is only Schopenhauer who advocates negation of the will. If this negation of self-will is not replaced by affirmation of a greater will, it, ironically for Schopenhauer, leads to boredom, the very state that he had postulated comes about through satisfaction of desire; that was really my point. — Janus

Hmmm... Not under Schopenhauer's own system though. Since boredom still would count merely as a manifestation of will, so that would mean that will hasn't been completely negated.

However, I do agree with your larger point. The individual's will needs to be negated and God's will needs to be affirmed.

Yes, I think it's true that a-pathy or negation of affect may often be associated with fear. — Janus

Yes. It's a defense mechanism.

It's not clear whether you are saying that the pleasure comes from the erotic longing or its satisfaction, though. — Janus

I would say both.

Also, I wasn't so much thinking in terms of "self-affirmation" as "self-cultivation". — Janus

But self-cultivation cannot act as end-in-itself. It must be directed towards some other, selfless end. To what end are you cultivating your self? This is what I mean when I critique these "programs of self-cultivation". I agree with Plato that in the final analysis, parts of our being shouldn't be rejected (our will, for example, shouldn't be rejected) but integrated within the greater whole harmoniously.

Thanks.

I've also read The Ego Tunnel.

As everyone knows I'm not sympathetic to the eliminative materialist stance, nor for that matter to those who are diametrically opposed to them: the (Cartesian) substance dualists. Like Richard Swinburne.

But I think Metzinger, despite his tendencies towards eliminative materialism has quite a few interesting points. For example, his idea that the self is more like a process / activity rather than a static / passive substance is good. His idea that this "phenomenal self-model" is transparent, namely that it is not perceived like an activity/process is also interesting - this also brings up the possibility of the phenomenal self model becoming opaque, and hence visible. I'd say he is quite close to the religious tradition of Buddhism, and is more like someone such as Sam Harris from the atheists. In other words, his "eliminative materialism" isn't as eliminative as he sometimes makes it sound.

Personally, I side more with philosophers like Plato/Aristotle or St. Augustine/Aquinas and think that the soul (or self) is the form of the body, in the technical sense of the term. Both form and matter are needed to constitute the substance that is us.

Graham Harman — darthbarracuda

Could you give me a link to those? Thanks!

But is it ethical for you to do so? It seems you likely had to actively search out such a file, as opposed to it falling into your lap. — Thorongil

Believe it or not it actually did kinda fall into my lap. — darthbarracuda

>:O

I'm currently reading these books, all at once :-O (a few I've finished already though):

Behold The Spirit by Alan Watts
Gravity and Grace by Simone Weil
The Web of Life by Fritjof Capra (reread)
The Republic by Plato (reread)
The Real Estate Game by William J. Poorvu
This paper by Thomas Metzinger (not that I agree with his views, but it was interesting to read)

Mostly philosophy, except that business book by Poorvu.

Contrary to Schopenhauer's assertion, boredom doesn't not ensue upon the satisfaction of desire, but exists where there simply is no desire, no interest, no sense of valuing anything enough to strive for it. — Janus

Hmmm yes, I think this is correct. Someone who cares deeply about something or someone else cannot be bored, because caring moves him to do things. The whole German tradition after Kant - Hegel, Schopenhauer, Heidegger - have emphasised the role played by will / care / self-affirmation as a primary source of motivation.

Personally, I have found boredom to be attached to apathy, and apathy itself to be a move that my mind makes in self-defense when life/situations become too difficult and I lose self-confidence. At that time, and usually momentarily until I recover my strength, I become apathetic and lose interest in what I previously cared about. But it's just a defence mechanism, temporary. It enables one not to suffer from not being able to care.

The greatest pleasures consist in striving after mastery. — Janus

I think those pleasures emerging from self-affirmaton are up there, but they are inferior to pleasures emerging out of erotic longing for someone/something.