That the present is extended, is the reason why it ought not be called a "moment". "Moment" usually refers to a much more precise point in time, not an extended duration. When we realize that the "experiential present" is an extended period of time, rather than a moment in time, we need principles which separate now from past, and now from future, or else any divisions made are arbitrary. — Metaphysician Undercover

Per Wiktionary, "moment" has two non-specialized definitions: a brief but unspecified duration of time and, potentially at odds with this, the smallest portion of time. But in both cases, there is a duration - rather than it being akin to a mathematical point on a linear diagram of time. I was using "moment" in the first specified sense. As to the divisions being arbitrary, they are in the sense that the experiential division between past, present, and future are fully grounded in the experiences of the arbitrator. Yet, as I previously mentioned with conversations, there is an intersubjectively experienced present whenever we in any way directly interact.

This provides a good argument for why we need to be careful with naive realism. Our temporal perspective, the length of any supposed experiential "now" has a huge influence on how what we call "the world" appears to us. So we need to take this into account, and validate any principles we use to designate the length of "now", when speculating ontological principles, because how the world appears, from the perspective of experience, is greatly shaped by the particular temporal perspective. — Metaphysician Undercover

No disagreements here. But I'll just add that I don't find the experiential present to be a quantifiable duration - in part, precisely because it is experientially arbitrary.

The difference between upward causation, and downward causation, may simply be the product of different temporal perspectives, different lengths of "now". — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't find this to be the case. For instance, natural laws determine things in a downward direction: from the source's form, i.e. the given natural law, to the many givens that are partly determined by it. Same can be said of a culture's form (or that of any subculture, for that matter) partly determining the mindset of any individual who partakes of it. These being examples of downward determinacy. In contrast, the type of forest that occurs (temporal, tropical, or else healthy or sickly, etc.) as a form will be significantly determined upwardly by the attributes of individual trees to be found in a given location. Or else the attributes of a given statue as form, such as the potential sound it would make were it to be hit, will be in part determined by the statue's material composition (wood, bronze, marble, etc.). These latter two are examples of upward determinacy. In both upward and downward determinacy, that which determines and that which is determined by it occur simultaneously. You can't have one occur before or after the other - if at all conceivable - and still preserve the determinacy in question. So the lengths of "now" would hypothetically only make a difference to this in terms of whether the given determinacy is at all discerned. But if discerned, the determinacy would be found to have the determiner(s) and determinee(s) concurrently occurring.

And I would also add that to be facing one goals, facing the future, is to be forward facing in time. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm confused here. Weren't you arguing that goals are not found in the future? Facing one's goals would then not be tantamount to facing one's future - as far I've so far understood your arguments.

You act, and then the words appear. You, as an observer, "the observing perspective", see the words appear. Now you have to look back in time to remember your goal having caused the words to appear Having the goal to make the words appear was prior in time to the words appearing, therefore further away, in time, from you as observer, than the words appearing is. — Metaphysician Undercover

Two disagreements. My goal of, say, writing this post to my satisfaction does not cause the specific words that appear in this post. I could have chosen words that are different to those that now appear while still being determined by the exact same goal I hold or writing this post to my satisfaction. Not only do I not take determinacy, in this case teleological, to result in determinism but I also find goals or intents to allegorically act as mathematical attractors to causal processes, such as in my causing a word to appear on the screen. This in the sense that one can do different things for as long as each of the two or more alternative paths yet lead to the fixed potential end one strives to make the actual end of ones given set of activities, this being the given goal. It is not my stated goal which causes these individual typed words but, rather, it is I as a conscious being (that is partly determined by my goal) who causes these specific words. Again, I could have chosen to cause different words than what appear while yet being driven by said goal.

The second contention is that my typing words on this screen is perpetually under the sway of getting closer to my goal of writing this post to my satisfaction. My goal always dwells ahead of me while I type words. The end I pursue - technically, the potential end that I want to make actual - has not yet occurred. When and if the goal is actualized (I could erase all I've written and try again some other time), all activities that strive to actualize it end with its actualization (when I've written this post to my satisfaction, I no longer type words for this purpose). It is not until my goal is actualized that I might look back at what I once wrote and need to also then look back to what my intents were in so writing. But for every existing goal that I hold - every goal that has not yet come to fruition - it is never behind me but, instead, is found in front of me. So, I'm not currently looking back in time to remember my goal of finishing this post to my satisfaction; I'm instead looking forward to the time that this goal will (fingers crossed) become actualized. A time period I approach with every activity striving to accomplish it.

Have I misunderstood what you were intending to express?

But my initial point was that if you uphold free will, as I think you do, then it is you in the present as, in part, "the observing perspective" which causes effects via your free will. You as cause is the very observing perspective addressed. Yet this free will that causes effect is always in part determined by its intents, or goals, in so causing - which, again, dwell ahead as that which one is nearing.

Incidentally, this is probably one reason why goal directed activity is so hard for physics to understand. Physics doesn't have the principles to understand one extended activity, which consists of many stops and starts (writing many different posts for example), these would be distinct actions in physics, therefore not necessarily in the same direction. But with goal directed activity, the activity may stop and start, while keeping going in the same direction (the same goal). — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree with much of this. Yet still find that a goal is a state of affairs, or a state of being, one is attempting to make actual - rather than the activities one engages in toward this goal. Each goal is a potential end, or stop - and becomes an end or stop for all those activities striving to actualize it once the goal becomes actualized. And to complicate matters, not only are there subordinate and supraordinate goals but most goals are plastic, fluid, in their nature, sometimes appearing, changing, or disappearing based on a multitude of both conscious and unconscious factors. But in the vein of keeping things simple:

I agree that this is the way "a goal" is commonly characterized, but I think it's a mistake. Suppose that you fix a goal in your mind, and you are what we call "determined" to achieve that end. I believe that this is not the best disposition to have. Consider that things change, circumstances evolve, and unknown factors become known. We must be willing to adapt our goals accordingly, as we move forward. So being hard set in one's ways, and to relentlessly seek to fulfill a fixed goal, is not good. We must be flexible. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm not in any way opposed to this. Its why I added "for as long as I strive to accomplish said goal".

In reality, the goal and the activity mix together, and become one. The activity is directed toward a goal, but the goal then gets adapted to match what the activity is capable of. Then the activity must be readjusted to meet the new goal. — Metaphysician Undercover

Goals can change. True. Yet a goal is still a potential state of affairs one wants to accomplish. No?

For any given goal, activities done for the sake of the goal can take innumerable alternative paths for so long as they're judged in one's ever-changing context to best approach the goal's actualization. So again, I yet find that for any given goal, the goal is fixed, or static, while the activities striving for the goal are not - again, this for as long as the goal is actively maintained.

The proposed endstate is what, death? — Metaphysician Undercover

Notice that you're here equivocating between telos (potential end striven for) and endstate (actual end arrived at). Also that an endstate is the culmination of any activity - and not the ultimate cultimation of all of one's activities. But to be more forthright, death, as in a complete non-being of what once was, is only one of a number of possible ultimate endstate scenarios for any individual psyche. That we die is a certainty. That our mortal death equates to eternal non-being is a faith, for it cannot be demonstrated. An arduous topic, though.

The unmoved mover is a thinking which is thinking on thinking [...] — Metaphysician Undercover

I have so far not found this in Aristotle (but I grant most of my readings are secondhand). Can you point out some references from Aristotle that substantiate this interpenetration of what the unmoved mover is for Aristotle?

What does "the now" mean to you? If you define "the now" as the time which you are perceiving, then you are begging the question. — Metaphysician Undercover

I imagine that if I were to be having a conversation with some non-philosophically inclined person and to then spontaneously ask, “Are we right now talking to each other in the present, in the past, or in the future?” that this other person would easily say, “In the present” (given that they’d reply in a few seconds’ time and wouldn’t find my question overly strange). And that it takes considerable conceptualization of the nature of time to question this intersubjective reality regarding an extended present period of time that unfolds during any conversation – one that transpires prior to percepts becoming memories, and before as of yet unactualized percepts occur as actualized percepts (which, again, have yet to be recollections).

In short, my take is that experiential now (or present, or current moment) consists of that extended duration in which our actualized percepts are not yet memories which our conscious selves recall. Our experiential past consists solely of what is recollection to us. And our experiential future consists of expectations, predictions, and aims - and, hence, in a roundabout way, of future percepts obtained via the physiological senses that have yet to transpire. It takes inference and temporal reasoning to consider that all our non-recalled actualized perceptions in fact occur in the objective past by a magnitude of nanoseconds relative to our experience of them. But, again, to me this does not constitute our experiences regarding the extended present moment; which, again, is at least in part composed of actualized percepts that have not yet become consciously recalled memories.

That said, what our discussions are teaching me is that the basic temporal placement of our experiences – be these of memories, of immediate percepts obtained via the physiological senses, or of ends we move toward - are less then uncontroversial. A worthwhile lesson. In honesty, this was my principal reason for starting this thread. Upward determinacy (bottom-up; or Aristotelian material causes) and downward determinacy (top-down; or Aristotelian formal causes) would occur such that what determines is fully simultaneous to that which is determined. Causation (Aristotelian efficient causes) is by definition forward moving sequentially and, hence, temporally: first the occurrence of the cause, followed by the occurrence of the effect. It then seemed a neat way of categorizing the Aristotelian notion of final causes (hence, teleology) in relation to the aforementioned three: as backward moving from a yet to be actualized end to activities intending to actualize this end that occur in the present. And in truth, I do have a hidden agenda in so categorizing. But this dispute regarding the temporal placement of our experiences confirms my qualms. I'm placing the cart before the horse. Bummer for me. :)

Still, I don't find this to affect the uncontroversial assertion that intents partly determine behavior. Right? IOW, by my reckoning, the reality of our experiencing ourselves to be goal-driven in a good part of what we do is not contingent on establishing the temporal placement of goals. So I figure we can further address telos-driven determinacy without needing to agree on the temporal location of teloi.

What you describe here is having one's attention firmly fixed on the future, one's goals. As I described in an earlier post, addressed to Arcturus, we need to distinguish between this, and having one's attention firmly fixed on the past, empiricism. Please read that post. — Metaphysician Undercover

From that post:

If we place cause and effect in a temporal relation to each other, the cause is always further away from the observing perspective, than the effect is. — Metaphysician Undercover

I can understand what you're getting at in most of the post. I find disagreement mostly on two counts. That teleology - here, goal-driven determinacy - occurs would not of itself dispel the reality of causation. As in, "that billiard ball caused that other to move". But I'm not sure if by the analogy of the cave you intended to claim that all causation is illusory. More importantly to me is this quote above. When I cause these words to appear on my screen, me as cause to the words that appear is not "further away from the observing perspective" than are the words I type as effect and observe. Furthermore, if any degree of free will occurs, then to the same degree the observing agent in question is a causally undetermined cause of the effects which unfold. One which is always partly driven, hence partly determined, by the intents it has in so causing the effects it produces. But I get that these issues are both complex and controversial, and they do complicate the basic issue of the thread: the ontology of teloi.

Getting back to your latest post to me:

When we turn around, to face the future, "the goal" becomes something active rather than passive, as the means, what you call "telosis", and the goal, as "an object" becomes elusive. In Aristotles ethics, the end is "that for the sake of which". But each end is just the means to a further end, onward indefinitely, until we posit a final end, which he suggested as "happiness". But he further suggested that the highest virtue was to be found in activity, because as living beings our nature is to be active. Now we have the problem that activity is usually represented as a means to an end, telosis, because we ask what is the purpose of any activity. But this is just the product of the backward facing ontology which makes "the end" a static object. When we replace this with an ideal, such as "to better ourselves", then activity, or practice is implied rather that a static goal. And the goal itself is to be active.

This is my proposition. Forward facing "goals" are activities, such that true goals are described as activities. Backward facing descriptions, observations, are expressed in terms of static states. This implies that activity does not really happen at the present, it occurs in the future, in relation to our experiential perspective which we call the now. — Metaphysician Undercover

OK, more concretely exemplified, my goal of completing this post to my satisfaction is in and of itself an activity in which way? Regardless of the goal's temporal placement, it is a state of affairs which has yet to transpire that I want to accomplish. My activities to actualize this goal might differ, but the goal remains fixed for as long as I strive to accomplish said goal. The goal is static while the activities done to actualize it are dynamic.

Also, since you've brought up Aristotle's notion of "a final end (or ultimate telos)", remember that for Aristotle this ultimate telos was an unmoved mover (this with no intimation of personhood whatsoever) of all that is. Being unmoved, this final telos cannot be an activity. It instead teleologically drives all that is activity - this while remaining determinate, or fixed, or static, in a metaphysical sense. At the very least here, the telos cannot be activity.

I'll leave it at that for now and see where you stand regarding this.

The modular view of mind has a long pedigree in cognitive science. Check out Marvin Minsky’s ‘Society of Mind’. — Joshs

Cool, and reassuring. Thanks for the reference.

As regards the experiential nature of time, I feel like viewing more of your debate with Luke.

For my part, I don’t understand how your claim that present perceptions are aspects of the past can be obtained without reliance on inferences made by neuroscience. With these neuroscientific inferences being themselves an aspect of reasoning, and not one of direct experience. Note that I’m not disagreeing with the neuroscience. I’m only clamming that as far as direct awareness is concerned, the perceptions we are directly aware of are taken to occur in the now, whereas memories we are directly aware of (which are qualitatively different than direct perception) are taken to indicate nows that have already passed by. All this being independent of our concepts (i.e., generalized ideas) regarding time – which, as concepts, are abstractions abstracted from concrete experiences. And I maintain that these concrete experiences consist of an ever-changing now, of former nows, and of nows that have yet to be: with former and future nows being meaningful only in reference to the ever-changing now which we perpetually live through at the level of direct experience. And yes, I agree that the now we live through is extended in duration, otherwise we would not be able to experience sounds (as we once previously discussed on a different thread, with emphasis on musical notes).

But, again, I don’t think the nature of time is all too pertinent to what I’m stipulating for as long as there is general agreement in there being a past, present, and future.

If we agree that a goal significantly determines one’s intentions toward said goal, that one’s intending to achieve said goal occurs in the present, that the future is not fixed (or actualized) prior to it becoming the present moment, and that the goal (i.e., that aim one intends to make actual) references a future state of affairs, why again do you object to claiming that the as of yet unactualized (ese stated, potential) future one strives to make actual determines one’s presently occurring intentions toward said goal? Such that here, a potential future state of affairs determines the actuality of present activities.

Hence, that in some sense aspects of the future determine aspects of the present … rather than aspects of the past determining aspects of the present. The former again being deemed by me to be backward determinacy (i.e., teleology) and the latter being forward determinacy (i.e., causation).

So its know, I'll contribute later on.

So I think simple perceptual identification is already well along in capturing the centra composted of the kind of intentionality you have in mind. — Joshs

Thanks again for the informative post. Yes, I in fact do agree with what you've outlined. For me, at least, the intending that occurs so as to perceive through any of the physiological senses occurs via sub/unconscious process of mind. While I don't want to derail the thread's theme with this, I by this infer that a total mind is composed of a multitude of sub/unconscious agencies (which in a healthy individual typically work in harmony, i.e. in unison) in addition to the conscious agency which we experientially know ourselves to be. An emotion or want that bothers us consciously (e.g., a pang of envy which we then proceed to dispel as inappropriate ) serves as an example of such a sub/unconscious agency that stands out to us for as long as we are opposed to what the emotion/want desires, or else intends. But I'm probably opening up a whole can of worms with this. Still, this is how I've so far made sense of perceptions being intentional, both in the sense of aboutness and in the sense of intending: via the intending of very basic unconscious agencies that together constitute the mostly involuntary conscious act of perception (leading to the notion of aboutness).

Yes, I'll need to read more into Husserl. Please let me know if anything just said in this post - regarding a multitude of agencies that typically work in unison constituting a single mind - strikes you as too audacious.

If the present is the time at which we are sensing, then the past and future are not needed to help define the present; they are instead defined by it. — Luke

To @Metaphysician Undercover: Yes, what Luke said.

[...] I'm just playing around with what your model looks like to me in order to better understand it. [...] — Dawnstorm

First, I don’t assume determinism. I assume a form of compatibilism that is largely rooted in what most would nowadays term indeterminism (rather than one that is grounded in determinism). This part is exceedingly hard to explain in a nutshell. But such is my stance: compatibilism.

In attempts to better express my pov:

The telosis is the active striving to accomplish a given goal/telos – is what one does to reach what one aims for. The endstate is simply the outcome of this goal-driven striving. I’m going to make this post a little more complex, hoping that via this complexity some of your questions might be better addressed.

For any given goal, there can be subordinate goals and supraordinate goals. Subordinate goals will serve the purpose of accomplishing the given goal. Ultimate supraordinate goals can potentially take the form of what various philosophers have described as a psyche’s overarching and generalized will to – be this will to power (Nietzsche), to meaning (Frankl), to pleasure or else the “pleasure principle” (Freud, which I acknowledge is not that great of a philosopher), and so forth (self-preservation also comes to mind as a candidate for some), which would then as an ultimate supraordinate goal hold all other goals as subordinates of itself.

Think of, say, a tennis match between two professionals at a tournament. Why does a player move this way and not that way at some particular time during the match? Because they deemed it the best way to act at that given time so as to win the tennis match. Right? Their actions during the tennis match where thus significantly fixed, determined, by the goal of winning the match. This being the goal of each of the two players which is taken for granted while they’re playing in the tennis match (barring the goal of loosing the tennis match for whatever reason). A subordinate goal to so winning might be to tire the other player out by making them run left and right as much as possible. A subordinate goal of this might be to hit the ball in a certain way rather than another. Yet all these subordinate goal serves the purpose of winning the match. On the other hand, a supraordinate goal to winning the match might be increased fame, or money, or obtaining a kiss from some gal/guy in the stands. And this supraordinate goal might itself be subordinate to some overarching will-to that is ever-present.

The endstate of the tennis match cannot have both player’s goals to win the tennis match actualized. As the tennis match’s endstate, only one of the two players will be the winner of the tennis match – and this is known beforehand by both. The characteristics of the endstate to the tennis match are indeterminate until the outcome – i.e. the endstate – of the tennis match becomes actual … rather than being a potential outcome/endstate that dwells in the future.

As to goals determining the striving toward said goals (else expressed, the telos determining the telosis): Would a person invest the time and effort in preparing for and then playing a competitive tennis match in a tournament if they didn’t have the goal of winning said tennis match? The goal of so doing determines, for example, that the person practices prior to the match rather than, say, binging on TV and ice-cream on the sofa during the same period of time. Or, else expressed, the telos of winning the tennis match determines the telosis of practicing for and partaking in the tennis match in such ways as one deems best to accomplish the telos – with the telosis, again, being the striving, moving, etc. toward the particular telos.

The end as eventual actualized outcome, as endstate, doesn’t determine one’s present behaviors. For starters, one doesn’t know whether one will win or lose the tennis match prior the tennis match’s conclusion. Instead, it’s the end as telos, as goal, as a potential future outcome one strives to actualize, that determines one’s current behaviors … which, again, seek to make this potential future outcome an actual outcome at some future time.

What led to someone having the goal of winning the tennis match is a separate issue, but I maintain that this too would need to be accordant to some supraordinate goal the person holds. And if, for example, one were to change one’s mind about wanting to win the tennis match, this too would be in part determined by some goal that is supraordinate to that of winning the tennis match. Depending on example, such as the supraordinate goal of wanting to survive, or to have a good reputation, or some such.

In sum, my general stance: Every consciously performed action is in part determined by what one wants to accomplish by performing that action. Else it is not volitionally enacted. This serves as an important reason for our actions: our intents. Our intents don’t simply give our actions meaning. They significantly determine what we do (and what we don’t do) in our striving to accomplish our intents. All the same, our intents are not always the actual outcomes that result from our striving to actualize our intents.

Complexities of course abound. And, I’m now thinking, other examples might have better served my purpose (my intent, or goal, or telos) of clarifying where I’m coming from. But I’ll leave it here for now and see what unfolds.

(I’ll have to further respond to other posts later on.)

My hunch is that this is pointing towards any action being the relationship between what you meant to do, what you ended up doing, and how you see what you ended up doing from the point of view of what you meant to do, and how that feeds into what you want to do next. But I'm unsure how that relates to time, except that some of it seems... nonlinear in some way? I'm not sure. — Dawnstorm

Nice post! I'm interpreting goal-driven determinacy to be performed by sub/unconsciousness as well - which obviously isn't strictly divided from consciousness. An easy example: a slip of the tongue. This complicates matters, but it might also serve as a way to resolve at least some of the issues you've brought up.

But, personally, I'm right now just focusing on how to best understand goals in and of themselves. To keep things simple, from a consciousness pov.

Thanks. Unfortunately I think I may have bitten off more than I can chew with this thread, since it turns out I'm shorter on time than anticipated. But I'll do my best to reply as needed.

Interested to see where you go with this. (And I'm curious if you have any ideas about when & why the emphasis on forward-determining causation came about.) — Arcturus

Right now trying to see how fluidly goal-driven determinacy would fit into the label of "backward determinacy: where that determined occurs in the present and that which determines occurs in the potential future".

There are further implications, but this thread isn't the place to mention them, I'm thinking.

As to why teleology has become out of favor in philosophy nowadays, tmk, it has a lot to do with folk like Descartes, Bacon, and Hume - in no particular order - which saw no use for any type of Aristotelian causation other than those of "material cause" and "efficient cause" ... making it easy for modern day materialism/physicalism to take root.

However, from this perspective we only come to believe in "the present" as a logical conclusion. The present is not experiential, we experience the past, and anticipate the future, and since we understand a substantial difference between these two, we come to the logical conclusion that there must be a present which separates them. — Metaphysician Undercover

Hm. We here hold different perspectives. I find that the separation of all experiences strictly into past and future is the product of a logical, rather than experiential, conclusion. I again find that the present is extended experientially, as in the experienced sound of a musical note. An interesting topic for debate, though I'm not sure it is pertinent to the issue of where goals are temporally located.

I really don't know what you mean when you suggest a difference between imagined truths and factual truths. — Metaphysician Undercover

Imaginary as in "existing only in the imagination (but not in reality)". For example, that Santa Claus gives presents to good kids would then be an imaginary truth, since this state of affairs exists only in the imagination. That no such being as Santa Claus exists in reality would, for most, be a (factual) truth. Maybe my word choice was poor, but I still find the connotations to "imaginary" to be problematic due to aforementioned reasons. I'm thinking we could get into notions of Maya where everything but Brahman is imaginary, but that wouldn't be much help in better understanding how goal-driven teleology operates ... kind of a thing. :smile:

In assuming as much of an ontological ignorance as possible, can we experientially agree that our goals reference a future that has not yet been actualized but which we want to see objectified, i.e. to see actualized? Furthermore, that it is this referenced unactualized future of which we are aware that then determines our present choices (regarding how to best actualize this as of yet unactualized future)? — javra

Yes, I'm in agreement with this. — Metaphysician Undercover

This to me points to goals having an important relation to the yet to be actualized - hence potential - future. I'm trying to see where our disagreements dwell and how we might, maybe, remedy them. If a goal is not, in and of itself, a potential future (of which we are aware and yearn to actualize), then, given the aforementioned agreement, how would you say a goal differs from a memory or a perception? This with agreement that all three (memories, percepts, and goals) in at least some sense also always occur in the present.

By "determinacy" here, do you mean that we, in a sense, determine the future, through our goal-driven acts? This is obviously different from "determinacy" in the sense of determinism. — Metaphysician Undercover

The short answer is "yes": determinacy as in "to fixate the boundaries or limits of, either in part or in whole". I can't use the Aristotelian term of causation, since today causation strictly signifies efficient causes. But, as you rightly point out, determinism is today understood to be a system wherein the boundaries or limits of everything is completely fixated in advance, with no possibility of ontological change. Again, I dislike introducing novel terms where they're not needed, so I'm sticking to "determinacy" for now.

Have you looked at Husserl’s notion of intentionality? He begins from a notion of the present as ‘thick’ or ‘specious’. This time consciousness underlies all of our experiences. The present is not a punctual now but a triad consisting of the just elapsed past ( called retention) , the immediate present and a protentional aspect anticipating into the future. — Joshs

Thank you for the well written post regarding Husserl's intentionality. In truth, I need to delve into Husserl's notions more than I have. In my view of ontology, I agree with this quote. The present isn't infinitesimal or else illusory but holds an extension, and part of that extension includes the very recent past and future. As I once discussed with MU, sounds stand out to make this point. A musical note can only be heard within an extended present. And, as you say, so too is a melody, reductionistically composed of various musical notes.

I've, for better or worse, shied away from Husserl due to, imo, his "intentionality" being significantly different from the more common sense of intentionality that stems from "intends", which basically describes a stretching out from here to there. When it comes to goals, a consciousness's stretching out from the current conditions it is in toward the goal as desired future conditions it wants to see objectified. E.g., one generally plays a competitive game with the intention of winning. One here intends to win, i.e. as psyche, stretches out from where one is in the game to a future state where one has won the game. This notion of a psyche's stretching out so far seems to me to be a different category than that of aboutness.

Your thoughts are very welcome on this subject. I'm especially intrigued by this conclusion, which I believe I understand from Husserl's pov, although too vaguely for my own tastes:

So every intention is teleologically oriented , every intention is both a prediction and a fulfillment , in the same act and same moment. And every intention produces novelty and the unexpected at least in some smalll measure. — Joshs

BTW, in an ultimate scheme of things, I very much agree that all aspects of the psyche are at least in some measure teleologically oriented.

Telos = the potential end toward which a given moves; e.g., a goal (that which one wants to accomplish)
Telosis = the movement of a given toward a potential end; e.g., a striving (what one does to so accomplish)
Endstate = the actual end; e.g., the outcome of the striving toward a goal — javra


I don't see how these are significantly different than my formulation. — T Clark

Hm. The telos is the objective that might or might not become a reality. The telosis is all the activities one engages in to make the objective a reality. And the endstate is the reality that unfolds at the end of one's telos-driven telosis, which might be accordant to the objective or might not be.

Telos = goal
Telosis = plan for achieving that goal
Endstate = intended future condition. — T Clark

So telosis includes planing but also incorporates movements toward the goal, as in the implementation of plans (if plans were made). And the endstate is the future condition that actually unfolds, not necessarily the future condition that was intended to unfold.

Everything occurs strictly in the present. Our memories of the past and thoughts about the future take place in the present. Ok, ok, I'm being tediously pedantic. — T Clark

I'm not disagreeing, but this can lead to a trivializing of past, present, and future such that no meaningful distinction obtains. Ontologically, presentism can make sense. But we nevertheless can only live by separating events into the past, the present, and the future.

Even non-physical causation has to eventually lead to physical causation. — T Clark

Interesting hypothesis, though I'm not clear on what "non-physical causation" is meant to entail. I forget what ontology tickles your fancy. Would thoughts that cause other thoughts that eventually go nowhere and never get turned into observable behavior be an example of non-physical causation that doesn't get turned into physical causation?

I've been thinking for a while that causation is not a very useful concept. That is not a new thought. Bertrand Russell wrote about it extensively. Maybe I'll start a new thread. — T Clark

:grin: Yea, I'm somewhat familiar with Russell's take. If memory serves right, he also thought everything is mathematical and, hence, non-causal. Thing is, blame/credit would be impossible without the notion of causation. And its hard to live without figuring out who does what. To not mention what does what. Here I'm entertaining one of the reasons for why things get done.

There is a difference between the goal, and the fulfillment of the goal. The former is what exists in one's mind, at the present, as a determinate thing, the latter is indeterminate. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, I agree. As much as I dislike introducing novel terminology, it's the difference between a goal one strives to achieve and a goal-accordant endstate in the terminology I'm proposing - as you initially mentioned. The first is determinate for as long as it persists, the second indeterminite until the time it becomes actualized, if it does become actualized.

I agree with this, but I would not say that our memories are necessarily our epistemological past, nor that our goals and anticipations are necessarily our epistemological future. I wouldn't even say that our perceptions are necessarily our epistemological present. This is because I think we use other conceptions to form our temporal conceptions, which serve as the base for our epistemological "time", therefore, past, present, and future. This is why we can have an epistemological "time" like eternalism, which removes past present and future from the experiential definitions which you give them. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, agreed, and there are also false memories, hallucinations, and futile goals or incorrect predictions to add into the mix. There's more to comment on here, but it will likely deviate from the thread's theme.

I believe it is important to ground epistemology in solid ontology, so I think that going in the way which you do, referring to the ontology of time, for your epistemological definitions of past, present, and future, is the correct way. But I do not think that this is necessarily the way that epistemological definitions of past present and future, are formulated. — Metaphysician Undercover

I do have an ontology in mind, but I'm trying my best to approach the issue from a perspective where ignorance of ontology is (first) assumed.

You use "potential future", here, in a similar way to my "imaginary future". I think it's better that we use something like "imaginary", to maintain that this future is only in the mind, [...] — Metaphysician Undercover

I see where you're going with this. Still, connotations stand in the way for me. For instance, given the possibility of hallucinations, one could say that all our present perceptions constitute our "imaginary present", since our perceptions are only in the mind, and since there is a slim possibility that they could be wrong. In short, describing all our awareness of past, present, and future as imaginary on account of it taking place in the mind fails to distinguish between imagined truths and factual truths - for me at least.

In assuming as much of an ontological ignorance as possible, can we experientially agree that our goals reference a future that has not yet been actualized but which we want to see objectified, i.e. to see actualized? Furthermore, that it is this referenced unactualized future of which we are aware that then determines our present choices (regarding how to best actualize this as of yet unactualized future)?

There's something subtly difficult about goal-driven determinacy (whose occurrence I find is incontestable) and, as mentioned in a previous post, it as determinacy is a different category from that of causality as understood in modernity. To introduce other Aristotelian notions, also different from formal (top-down) and material (bottom-up) determinacies. Maybe noteworthy, to Aristotle, goal-driven determinacy was about the (potential) ends to present activities determining said present activities; hence the Aristotelian term of "final cause".

I don't think you can truthfully say that the goal is in the future. The goal always exists in the mind, at the present, and it is the intended fulfilment of the goal which is understood as in the future. The goal itself is in the present — Metaphysician Undercover

How is "the intended fulfillment of the goal" - which, as you say, is understood as in the future - not a redundant way of saying "the goal"? (e.g., Wiktionary defines "goal" as "a result one is attempting to achieve". To which I add that this result is not yet achieved, hence not of itself in the present.)

Also, as I mentioned in a previous post, memories, perceptions, and goals all occur, ontologically speaking, in the mind and in the present. Everything that we are consciously aware of does. Yet our memories are our epistemological past, our perceptions are our epistemological present, and our goals are part of our less than certain epistemological future. To say that a goal takes place in the present holds the same weight as saying that a memory takes place in the present. Yet the memory is our awareness of the past (of past present moments we have already lived through) just as a goal forms part of our awareness of the future (of future present moments we have yet to live through).

While this can make little sense in eternalism, it can fit in neatly into a system of presentism. Whereas this quote seems to presume eternalism as regards the future:

If the goal itself were in the future, then fulfilment of the goal would be necessitated, and telos-discordant endstates impossible. — Metaphysician Undercover

What I'm maintaining is that the future is not fully fixed ontologically. A goal is as much of the future as a memory is of the past. But, if for no other reason, there are a multitude of goals in competition with each other, and only some can become actualized as future present moments. When a predator pursues some prey, the goals of the predator and prey conflict, and only one of these two goals can become actualized as an endstate. Yet the "result each is attempting to achieve" resides in the potential future and not in the present.

As an aside, do we agree that a goal partly determines one's present choices of how to best achieve given goal?

So:

Telos = goal
Telosis = plan for achieving that goal
Endstate = intended future condition. — T Clark

No. I'll try to re-describe the three concepts:

Telos = the potential end toward which a given moves; e.g., a goal (that which one wants to accomplish)
Telosis = the movement of a given toward a potential end; e.g., a striving (what one does to so accomplish)
Endstate = the actual end; e.g., the outcome of the striving toward a goal

If one's telos happens to be the taking to flight by the flapping of hands, one will start flapping ones hands as the telosis. The endstate of so doing is that one will not take to flight no matter how hard one tries. The goal determines what one chooses to do - is the motive for the activity one engages in - but the endstate of this might be opposite of ones intent, as per the example just given.

Response - All the factors we are considering - goal, intended final condition, and plan - exist in the present. They are not in the future. Therefore, we are talking about just normal old everyday causation. — T Clark

Causation, as typically understood, does not occur strictly in the present. The cause is not simultaneous to the effect, but precedes the effect in time. If the effect occurs in the present, the cause occurred in the past and no longer occurs in the present. If the cause occurs in the present, the effect will occur in the future after the present cause. This, in and of itself, does not adequately specify the nature of goal-driven determinacy: The goal, while being a potential future end, is always present for as long as that which it determines - viz, the striving toward it - persists.

Or maybe I should ask, how do you define causation?

That said, because a goal is always a potential future which one strives to make objectively real (here placing goals found in fantasies and dreams aside), a goal as telos is always found in the future. — javra

I kind of have to disagree with this. The intent of a deed is never found in the world. The deed in itself is a means to achieve the intent but never really "wanted", in the sense of being the primary intent or will of the subject. What is objectively found in the future are consequences of deeds, not intents. Consequences are concrete and detailed while intents are abstract and general. — Heiko

Thanks for the disagreement. I assume you are approaching this from an eternalism pov. If not, the future is not yet objectified and so is also never found in the world in the sense I believe you're using, in so far as the future is never objectified until it becomes the objective present. I find that this applies both in presentism and in the growing block theory.

But even for an eternalist theory of time, would it make sense to then say that intents don't exist since they're never found in the world?

Is telos in the kind of examples given facing the same direction as cause because it starts in your mind and crytallises or concretises later. — Fine Doubter

Though it takes place in the mind, in the mind it takes place in the future - and from this mentally established potential future is determined what one chooses to do in the present. Contrast this with a memory, which takes place in the past, or a perception, which takes place in the metal present, both of which determine one's mental states and activities in different ways from that of goals.

You may be intuiting the examples you said you wouldn't cite: the late S J Gould believed that at after a time of maximum mutations the form of many of which contained apparently useless features, after a contingent elimination episode had occurred some of the later surviving species found some of their features contingently matched the new environment they had to survive in. — Fine Doubter

I'm focusing on goals because while non-sentient "ends toward which things move" in biology are contestable, and much more so in physics (despite the mathematical notion of attractors), I don't know of any that would contest the reality of consciously held goals determining at least some behavior. This, however, doesn't make me want to be dogmatic about goals being the only type of "ends toward which things move".

But if he cannot be represented as an individual, then where does he fit?

Of course some theologian will argue that he is in some way special, but that's just special pleading - When logic shows the notion of god to be problematic, they claim that logic does not apply to god. — Banno

In alluding to your interchange with @Wayfarer so far:

I too find the OP's proposition is relative to what one interprets by the term “God”. If, for example, God is the ground of being, aka being-itself, then in what possible world would the ground of being, or being-itself, not be? (An absolute nonbeing, even if someone claims such a thing imaginable, does not constitute a world.) Again, in this example God is not "a being" but "being-itself" and, as such, is necessary in all possible worlds, and is furthermore beyond the principle of sufficient reason.

As to the common Abrahamic notion of God, where in God is "a being", He is omniscient, omnipotent, etc., and, thereby, was fully knowledgeable of and fully responsible for that serpent incident in the garden which He then got upset about, cursing everyone left and right. That self-contradictory God can well be envisioned absent from some worlds, much including the one we live in.

13. G v ~G is exactly what skepticism is. A skeptic doesn't commit to either p or ~p for any proposition p. — TheMadFool

Don't want to derail the thread, but this in no way describes Academic skeptics such as Cicero, who committed himself to a multitude of, some would say, very important propositions. And even Pyrrho, founder of Pyrrhonism, committed himself to the proposition that skepticism leads to eudaimonia. Which is to say, something's amiss. For my part, I'll leave it at that.

Groovy. What abouts this part heres:

My point, again, is that the issue is not death, but suffering in life (much including the suffering caused by the death of loved ones, and the like). — javra

Or do you find no correlation between increased global warming and increased human suffering?

No, the given is not extinction. But that all humans are mortal, with or without extinction.

My point, again, is that the issue is not death, but suffering in life (much including the suffering caused by the death of loved ones, and the like).

As you may recall from a former conversation a while back, that all humans die is a given. So the issue is not one of whether or not humans will die.

The issue, at least as some of us see it, is the degree of suffering experienced by us and other humans - including that which is to be experienced by future generations - while alive.

And, while others will speak for themselves, I for one don't find overall positions such as that of @Xtrix's in any way discordant to the issue I've just addressed.

All this intended in good sport:

1. If good justifications exist, Agrippa's trilemma doesn't matter — TheMadFool

To start with premise (1), how do you figure its verity? For: If good justifications exist, then Agrippa’s trilemma indeed matters, this because it is of itself concluded from good justifications. And until the trilemma is solved, it presents the fallibly proven truth (fallible because the trilemma can be applied to the trilemma’s own justification) that no infallibly proven truth can be obtained as far as we (fallibly) know. Which, apropos, is the only rational way I can make sense of Nietzsche’s mindset of there being no (infallible) truth.

How are you not here equivocating between good justification (in the sense of beneficial - implicitly given, beneficial to those subjects that utilize it) and perfect justification (in the sense of being completely absent of any actual or potential fault)? For one thing, a good justification is comparative, i.e. can be a better or worse justification relative to other good justifications – and a best justification is always so deemed by comparison to other justifications. On the other hand, a perfect justification, in the sense “perfect” is here used, is superlative rather than comparable, thereby absolute, thereby necessarily infallible.

[...] the skeptic will reply, "I'm not sure." — TheMadFool

And as a side note: I’m currently quite certain/sure (psychologically) of my position on fallibilism being (fallibly) true. :razz:

When someone asks me a question along the lines of "are you sure?" or "are you certain?" I very rarely say "yes". I always reply by saying "I think this is what I saw" or "it's likely", but I cannot for the life of me say "I'm certain" or "I'm sure". — Manuel


Also same. I find it very hard to say I “believe” something. Rather, I say I “think.” But I’m also really indecisive, so it may just be a personality quirk. I’m usually just too apathetic to make up my mind. — Pinprick

I’ve been a self-proclaimed philosophical (aka, anti-Cartesian-skepticism) skeptic since at least my late teens. Due to feedback from this forum and more so from its predecessor, more recently the term’s been updated to “fallibilist” so as to minimize confusion. Same thing to me. As such, I’ve never had problems in saying “yup, I’m certain” because I’ve always equated it to psychological certainty, this rather than epistemic certainty. The latter is for me cognitive (a certainty justified to the highest degree); the former is a kind of wager that your belief is in fact true despite your inability to evidence the belief’s claim to be epistemically certain.

Just in case it might be of interest: Taking a step back, when I say “I believe X” I see myself as choosing to endow X with the property of being real, this irrespective of the degree of conscious justification I may have for X, if any. So to me it connotes a less stanch position than that of “I think that X”. “I believe X” allows me the leeway of being wrong in what I believe, because beliefs are readily understood to be fallible. “I think that X”, however, is sterner: it to me claims that not only do I believe X but I’ve given this same belief thought wherein I’ve justified its verity to myself. Being wrong in the latter is more embarrassing, because to me it shows that my thought processes are not trustworthy to others or to myself. But “I believe” is more whimsical, so not as embarrassing when what I believe (without much if any conscious consideration) is wrong.

Then, to say “I’m certain that X” is to say that a) I believe that X (i.e., I choose to endow X with the property of being real), which is on its own flimsy, and b) that I wager my belief of X to be in fact true, typically because I find good enough justifications for it to so wager. But it to my mind is never the claim of infallible certainty.

Interesting for me to see others’ takes on this.

------

More in line with the OP, here's a philosophical compulsion I once had in everyday life: Years back, due to my contemplations at the time, I had problems in proclaiming anything to be perfect. As in, a perfect cat, or a more typical "perfect storm". Thought it to be a misapplication of language. Nothing in space and time could be completely without faults, and hence perfect. Much like cognitive objectivity, perfection was for me strictly an abstract ideal to be aspired for that can’t be obtained in anything concrete or spatiotemporal (akin to this Sting lyric: To search for perfection is all very well, but to look for heaven is to live in hell.). Then a former colleague humorously exclaimed that what someone or other did was “better than perfect!”. In its context, it made emotive sense, but at the moment not cognitive sense. Afterwards, I came to the conclusion that it referenced X being better than what was required of it to fully suit its purpose. The person, in other words, outdid themselves. Since then, I’ve become a lot more easygoing in saying of something, “perfect”: as in, the given suits the purpose(s) in question fully; rather than it having obtained a metaphysical status of perfection. So, nowadays, in the right context, I can make sense of things such as perfect cats (cats that completely suit the purposes in question), as well as of cats that are better than perfect (at things like catching mice). :wink:

Cool post, thanks.

As a sign I once saw on a math prof's door said: Good sense about trivialities is better than nonsense about things that matter! — fishfry

:up:

Cantor himself was a very religious man, and believed that after his endless hierarchy of infinities, the ultimate infinity was God. He called it the Absolute infinite, and denoted it Ω. Cantor's mathematics is universally accepted now, while his theological ideas are forgotten by everyone except historians — fishfry

An idea regarding infinity I’d like your feedback on, since you’re far more knowledgeable regarding mathematics:

“Infinity” is fully synonymous to “unlimitedness”. All mathematical infinities (e.g., 0, 1, 2, 3, … infinity) are bounded by being other than what they are not (e.g., 0, -1, -2, -3, … infinity) and so are bounded infinities, or infinities limited to that subject of contemplation addressed. There is always something other relative to such infinities which demarcates them as such. Here, infinities are quantitative.

Boundless, or complete, or absolute infinity, however, (though I’m not certain if this is in line with Cantor’s works) is not limited nor bound by anything; it is the same as absolute unlimitedness. It is therefore nondual in every conceivable sense of the word: there is nothing other relative to it. Hence it is not, nor can it be, numerical, for it is not quantitative. Nor can it be a quantitative understanding of “greatest” for this always stands in contrast to that which is lesser as other, as can be exemplified by X > Y, which limits the greater to X by excluding Y as the lesser other.

(In terms of the overall thread: Other than boundless infinity’s possible correlation to the notion of omnipresence, I don’t see how this can make the case for God as typically conceived: e.g., the greatest being among all other beings.)

That long-winded rant was really good. 10/10 — Kasperanza

Thanks. So no corrections to what I posted, then?

You can't have economics if you take away people's freedom. — Kasperanza

To my mind already answered this aptly. My post on freedom which you gave 10 out of 10 to ought to have indicated via its satire that freedom, while being an all-around feel-good term, is not a good thing in all conceivable cases. The freedom to pursue happiness via the mass murder of others is an example most take to be a bad freedom. Going by this example, a proposed truism: freedom is good only in so far as it doesn’t unfairly harm others.

Do you agree with this premise? If not, on what grounds should a person’s freedom to pursue happiness via mass murder be prohibited by others? Or should it not be?

If you do agree, then by what consistent reasoning should freedom to devastate the world and the humans that inhabit it in the name of personal happiness not be prohibited?

Please note, I ask from a philosophical perspective in respect to the generalized notion of freedom. Whether or not global warming is real, is human caused, is a means of devastating the world, etc., is not the issue I’m presently addressing here.

Nick Cave anyone? — Tom Storm

Yes to some of his works being close to timeless for me, but not all. Personal tastes though.

Waits is one of the few artists who became less accessible and more difficult with age. — Tom Storm

I'd say sharper as well. But again, tastes.

1. Is the breadth of an artists work indicative of the quality of their work? Or no? — Noble Dust

I'd say "no". I've got folk that only made on album in my library that I don't get tired of enjoying. Good quality, little breadth.

Or, consequently, is it possible for an artist to maintain such a deep tap on their creative potential that they always are evolving and never sitting still, even up until their death? If yes, who is an example? — Noble Dust

Assuming one shares minimal tastes with mine, Leonard Cohen comes to mind (now deceased), as well as Tom Waits and Tori Amos (not deceased but fairly well blossomed by now). There might well be others but this is what I think of first. All these have gone through a creative evolution with sustained quality that hasn't slowed down with age.

Mitigation and adaptation. The former requires worldwide commitments. The latter can be dealt with by individual nations. Which do you think has the better chance of succeeding? — jgill

Why pit one against the other? Last I checked economy is dependent upon resources. When resources vanish, economy plummets. Our economy is now global. Individual nations won't be able to adapt acclimate economically when our resources become unsustainable due to lack of mitigation. To address this in only economic terms.

I might be wrong on this, and may I be corrected if I am, but I think you’re missing @Kasperanza's crucial background issue of us not being deprived of our freedoms on account of mitigating a global calamity. Like one’s freedom to benefit from all that society has provided without the taxing requirement that one contributes back to it in return. Or maybe the freedom to grab vaginas non-consensually as one pleases on account of it being empowering, with recently elected presidents as our role model in so doing. To keep this short, last but not least, our right to freedom from the despotism of nature, be this from the evils of a corporeal death, from the tyranny of gravity in not allowing us to spontaneously fly by sheer will, or, most importantly to this discussion, our freedom from nature’s absurd injunction that we need a sustainable environment in order to continue living. We are free in our isolationist individualism to not give a damn about the rest of humankind; their present or future plight is their problem, not ours, and our helping them out in their plight as best we can is our own self-enslavement. As I said, I might be wrong about this, but the concern of losing freedoms in the name of mitigating global warming has been brought up more than once. And I deem it to be a widespread concern.

It’s like parents losing their lifelong freedoms once the kids are birthed. Its not just! So, to hell with the kids’ well-being; our freedoms to do as we please come first.

Thinking of Johnathan Swift, this is my little "modest proposal" for the day.

Some highlights:

[*] "Civility discourse enforces a false equation between incivility and violence that works to mask everyday violence as a civic norm. The violence that is polite is thrice as damaging as the direct attack because it gaslights as it wounds".
[*] "Calls for civility seek to evade our calls for change. The accusation of incivility is a technique of depoliticization aimed at undoing collectivity... When they tell us to be more civil, we need to go bigger, ask for more, come back harder".
[*] "Civility is a political aesthetic that obscures its politicity by asserting that it is “only” an aesthetic or a style. It is thus an aesthetic that is served by the assertion that aesthetics and politics are separate realms". — StreetlightX

One can be aggressive toward powers that be while being fully civil (reasonable and not rude). Tree huggers and water protectors, as only two examples, do it all the time. Aggression and civility are not mutually exclusive, especially when the aggression is defensive. Where propaganda enters is when tree huggers and water protectors are deemed uncivil strictly on grounds that they violate the prevailing status quo.

And that leads us to deeming war-mongers civil and pacifists uncivil. Only here do your three highlights begin to make sense.

The movements started by Gandhi or MLK, both of which violated the prevailing authoritarian norms of the day, would have gone nowhere in the absence of their civility.

Is it already too late? — Xtrix

Since I’m not big on defeatism: Too late relative to what? Too late for us to live as we’ve so far lived in relation to the climate? But of course it is! (At the very least, we should have taken the Kyoto Protocol a bit more seriously, but its too late for that now.) Is it too late for future generations to not have it as bad as it would be were humanity to go about its business as usual. Nope, not at all. One interesting fact I’ve so far learned in life, no matter how bad things get, things can always get worse.*

This however pivots on how much most of us care about future generations. At the very least the kids we're related to.

Is there ANYONE out there who still doesn't consider this the issue of our times? — Xtrix

Yes. Most of the people I’m surrounded by, for starters. Then there is a fair sum of the same in government. Also in the media …

---------

* Doctor calls up a guy saying, “Your tests are in. I’ve got bad news and worse news. Which do you want to hear first?” Guy replies, “The bad news”. Doc: “The tests are conclusive in you having only 24 hours left to live.” Guy: “What the hell can possibly be worse?” Doc: “I forgot to tell you yesterday.”

… kind of thing.

I get you. And there's something of what was saying regarding ignorance to all this. And I'd rather step on a bug than release fishes into the ocean which hooks or hook holes in their mouths. For one thing, to me fishes are higher up in the, I'll say, sentience (rather than ecological) pyramid of life.

But in terms of why one is frowned upon by some and the other generally isn't, I again think its because stepping on bugs that do no harm to you tends to express the intention of cruelty whereas sport fishing is, after all, a sport, and sports tend to express intentions such as comradely. Now, of course, there's cruelty toward fish in sport fishing, but those that do engage in sport fishing don't do so with willfully cruel intentions toward the fish (as is often ascribed to those who step on bugs for the fun of it, rather than for reasons such as you've ascribed). Reminds me of Cobain lyric taken out of context, "It's OK to eat fish, because fish don't have any feelings."

Iff that is granted, then an interesting hypothetical: sport bug-squashing. It's obviously not an official sport we're indoctrinated into. Whether this would be frowned upon or not I still think would be dependent on what we take the participants' intentions to be in partaking in the sport. If we find they do it for the pleasure of cruelty, then frowned upon (by those who don't value cruelty). If we appraise that they don't, then we may think them ignorant and so on, but we don't hold the same type of aversion to the participants.

No?

The difference is in the intention behind the act. At least, the intention that is assumed to be the cause of each act.

As one alternative example, it's the difference between killing a snail by covering it in salt for the kicks of it and putting salt on escargot because it tastes better that way. The snail gets killed either way, but the intentions are different.

Personally, I can't stomach even so much as watching another put salt on snails for the mirth of it (and, in all honesty, feel like becoming aggressive toward that human; why, because I disdain their sadistic pleasures), but I have no significant qualms in personally eradicating an excess of snails from my backyard by poisoning them, which is second best to using carnivorous snail species for the same purpose.

Same can be said to feeding seagulls alkaseltzer tablets so as to see them blow up ... its a long list.

Edit: don't mean to be harsh on you. (yet, at least :wink: ) Stepping on a bug kills them quickly, unlike burning them alive with a magnifying glass.

Democracy is where people vote directly on issues of concern to them. — Banno

Yes to your overall post. I however take democracy to be pivoted on a checks and balances of political power among citizens. This either via direct democracy (as one example I find remarkable, in later ancient Athens many public offices were elected by lottery, presupposing the requisite that all citizens in the lottery were capable of holding the given office for the allotted time, with all such citizens holding the potential to exert the same degree of political power) or via representative democracy, wherein - at least as the USA was envisioned to be by its founders - checks and balances are meant to occur both between a) representative factions themselves as well as between b) representatives and those they represent. A voting citizenry would then be a necessary consequence of “a checks and balances of political power among citizens”, but democracy seems to me to be defined by the latter and not the former. Voting could for example occur in oligarchies, but to me this does not make them democratic.

Curious if you’d disagree and, if so, on what count.

I think what was getting at is that the yin/yang is rooted in the notion of nondualism:

Taoism's wu wei (Chinese wu, not; wei, doing) is a term with various translations[note 21] and interpretations designed to distinguish it from passivity. The concept of Yin and Yang, often mistakenly conceived of as a symbol of dualism, is actually meant to convey the notion that all apparent opposites are complementary parts of a non-dual whole.[229] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism#Taoism

(boldface mine)

If states could agree globally on effectively including all costs in the prices than that would already be one step in the right direction. Other such agreement could be made as needed... — ChatteringMonkey

I'm not in disagreement with this "if". And I've heard of other concrete proposals regarding improvements in general, that of a universal property/death tax to level the playing field where nothing is taxed under 1 million USD or equivalent and that of having CEO profits capped off at roughly 200% of the company's mean employer income, as two examples that come to mind. Both these ideas I'm acquainted with sound good to me. But without such laws being global, those that would subscribe to them would suffer due to global competition. And without the general agreement to so globally implement there is no political will for it. So stagnation in the form of business as usual results.

I'm questioning how an agreement could result among the powers that be in the absence of there being a common cause among them which all intend in the name of respective self-interests?

I know this is idealistic (in the common sense of the word), and I have cognizance of just how difficult it would be to bring it about, but I so far don't understand how concrete progress can be made in the absence of a goal that is agreed upon and toward which all/most relevant parties progress.

For starters, currently, not even the earnest goal of mitigating climate change is shared by most worldwide. I hope this is a warped perspective, but I so far see no evidence for it being so.

You know what, I'll bite a little.

Rationality, for better or worse, is the self-proclaimed infallible authority. — TheMadFool

It can't be, since reason evidences itself to be fallible, rather than infallible. See the previously arrived at conclusion that justification for justification cannot be obtained which we both agree upon.

Still, you got references for this proclaimed belief of yours? I ask because, as explained justified above, it strikes me as glaringly incorrect: as it being an erroneous belief regarding reasoning, and not anything which reasoning itself evidences.

Can rationality justify itself? No! It can't! — TheMadFool

Yes, yes. Agreed in full. And the point to this is?

Differently asked, we both appear to fallibilistically know that we infallibly know nothing. All well and good. I do believe this state of affairs regarding the human condition was discovered by schmucks millennia before we came along. Back then they went by the label of "thoughtful enquirers" or some such.

So what bearing can this fallible knowledge - of which we both appear to be quite certain/sure of (i.e., not a shred of doubt involved ... we're not skeptical about it) - possibly have on the experientially verified reality that what is true can be justified (yes, fallibilistically) without inconsistencies ever appearing, whereas what is false can always be found to suffer from inconsistencies?

Don't know about you, but beliefs riddled with inconsistencies are to me a red flag.