Comments

  • How wealthy would the wealthiest person be in your ideal society?
    ↪Tom Storm
    :cool:
  • How wealthy would the wealthiest person be in your ideal society?
    How wealthy would the wealthiest person be in your ideal society? — Captain Homicide
    Given that my "ideal society" consists in post-scarcity economic democracy, "wealth" would be measured only as personal reputation acquired by positively contributing to (A) excellence (i.e. singular performances, innovations, inventions, discoveries) in culture and/or (B) positivesum conflict resolutions, such that "the wealthiest person" at any time would be the one who is most esteemed (trusted?), or among a cohort of the most esteemed, by her society for service to the overall well-being (i.e. flourishing, sustainability) of her society.
  • Fascista-Nazista creep?
    ↪Vera Mont
    :up: :up:
  • Are some languages better than others?
    Are some natural languages more logical than others though? — I like sushi
    If some are, then trivially so.

    As I said with German do you think that is more logical?
    I don't find it so (though I've never been fluent). As far as I can tell, Goethe's verse isn't "more logical" than Shakespeare's and Hegel's metaphysics is far more opague than C.S. Peirce's.
  • A Normative Ethical Dilemma: The One's Who Walk Away from Omelas
    ↪hypericin
    Yes, which is why I think "moral judgment is more a matter of habit" and not only or always a matter of habit.
  • Are some languages better than others?
    ↪I like sushi
    Formal languages (i.e. systems of substitution-rules) are "more logical" in structure than natural languages (i.e. conventions of ambiguity-constraints) which, IMO, are more semantic kluges than "logical structures".
  • What are you listening to right now?
    "Reason's Greetings, y'all. And Happy Solstice. :sparkle:

    Men I've been seein'
    Got their soul up on a shelf
    Though they can never love me
    Can't even love himself
    I wanna man to love
    I wanna man
    that can finally understand

    [ ... ]

    They all want me to rock 'em
    Like my back ain't got no bone
    Go ahead & rock me one time, big stuff
    Like my backbone was your own
    (Baby, I'm not foolin' around this time)

    "Love Me Like a Man" (3:56)
    live, 1989
    writer Chris Smither, 1970
    performer Bonnie Raitt
  • Metaphysically impossible but logically possible?
    ↪javra
    'A child older than her parents' is metaphysically impossible and logically possible insofar as there is not a contradiction in terms but an inconsistency in temporal composition, or relation.

    addendum to:
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/862580
  • A Normative Ethical Dilemma: The One's Who Walk Away from Omelas
    Either commit this active violation of the child, or passively allow everyone on earth to die. Which do you choose? — hypericin
    Do you think moral judgment in situ is more a matter of habit or "choice"?

    Like Aristotleans, Epicureans, Stoics, Spinozists, Nietzscheans, Peircean-Deweyans et al, I say moral judgments are mostly matters of habit and that so-called "moral choosing" comes ex post facto (or in a speculative exercise / rehearsal).

    addendum to ...
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/862582

    It might have been interesting to attach a poll to this thread - just "Stay" or "walk away".

    My money would be on "Walk away".     — Banno
    :up:
  • Metaphysically impossible but logically possible?
    ↪Lionino
    :victory: :mask:
  • Metaphysically impossible but logically possible?
    ↪Lionino
    The one I gave ...

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/862580
  • Are some languages better than others?
    Mathematics and logic seem "better" (for deeply rather than shallowly adapting to nature) than natural languages.
  • Metaphysically impossible but logically possible?
    ↪javra
    In this context, "person" connotes subject which suffices for my example.
  • Metaphysically impossible but logically possible?
    ↪Lionino
    I agree, which is why I say person and not "human".
  • Metaphysically impossible but logically possible?
    Please justify this so far unsupported affirmation to someone who can't comprehend it. — javra
    If the person can't comprehend what has been said clearly (i.e. supported by the context), then that person certainly can't understand its justification.

    Sure, but in different respects. Hence, they are not logically contradictory.
    Same as the concept "infinite person". Finally, we agree. :up:
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    Ah yes, the dominoes keep falling ...

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/19/trump-colorado-presidential-ballot-disqualified-14th-amendment :victory: :cool:

    This ruling will force SCOTUS to decide the issue for all 50 states ... soon after they decide Putin's neoNazi Bitch – Joe Biden, Barack Obama & George W. Bush does not – have "absolute presidential immunity from criminal prosecution".
  • TPF Quote Cabinet
    The goal has never been to defeat the state and claim sovereign authority but rather to change the world without taking power. — Antonio Negri, d. 2023
  • Commandment of the Agnostic
    If I was a criminal I would still consider it "harmful" to me if you locked me up, If I was a murderer I would consider it harmful/hateful if you killed me in retaliation. — mentos987
    So what? Most criminals 'believe' they are not guilty of their crimes. Moral reasoning and judgment is preventative, or proactive, not an in media res reaction. Hillel's principle is not subjectivist or relativist. Read Epicureans, Stoics, Aristotle, Spinoza ...

    religious commandments
    Don't shift the goalposts. The OP thought-experiment mentions "commandment" for nonreligious persons. Nothing I've said here has any whiff of "divine command theory".

    ↪Joshs
    If you say so ...
  • Metaphysically impossible but logically possible?
    ↪javra
    Without warrant you ascribe the property of being "finite" to "person" which is not intrinsic to the concept. Also, circles (or spheres) are both infinite and finite simultaneously ...
  • Metaphysically impossible but logically possible?
    ↪javra
    Yes, metaphysiically, not logically.
  • Commandment of the Agnostic
    ↪Joshs
    Can you distinguish between politics (or jurisprudence) and ethics, Joshs? Hillel's principle, as I call it, concerns moral encounters with others (M. Buber, H. Arendt, P. Foot), not some instrumental, or ideological, calculus.
  • Metaphysically impossible but logically possible?
    ↪Lionino
    "Infinite person" is one person that is infinite in extent, not "more than one" person. The concept is no more contradiction in logic than "pegasus" or "chocolate fudge mountain".
  • Commandment of the Agnostic
    ↪Joshs
    I can't follow you.

    You can help victims by locking the criminal up; this does not change the fact that this action also "harms" the criminal, thus invalidating this action if you follow this "moral conduct" in any literal way. — mentos987
    Literalism is the death of reasoning and judgment.

    It is hateful [harmful] to me to be amputated unless it is medically necessary to prevent more amputations or worse. Likewise, it is hateful [harmful] to be imprisoned except as the only way to (temporarily) prevent me from continuing doing to others what is hateful [harmful] to them/me.
  • Metaphysically impossible but logically possible?
    ↪Lionino
    Elaborate on what?
  • Commandment of the Agnostic
    If locking someone up is "hateful" then we can't imprison criminals, if it isn't then anyone can imprison anyone. So many loopholes here. — mentos987
    The above misses the point. You are talking about 'public policy"' and Hillel is talking about moral conduct. No "loopholes" when comparing apples and oranges.

    Notice in my prior post I interpret "hateful" also as harmful (footnote¹), emphasizing dysfunction of a person rather than merely negative preference. Hillel the Elder proposes a way of responding to others (i.e. a heuristic, a principle), not a mere calculus (i.e. an algorithm, a formula). Also consider your example, mentos: in most instances it is, in fact, more hateful/harmful to victims not to "imprison criminals" than it is to do so.

    In sum: that there are limits to a general prescription, or rule, does not entail a (legalistic) "loophole" but instead indicates an edge case that requires moral reasoning and judgment. Isaac Asimov's "Three Laws of Robots" is a fantastic cautionary tale about "perfect commandment"-misconception of ethics like yours (& Kant's).

    Shouldn’t that be changed to UNJUSTLY hateful or harmful? Isnt hate just a strong version of blame? — Joshs
    No. "That which is hateful [harmful] to you" does not "blame" or has anything to do with whether or not the thing is "unjustly". For example, being deprived of food and water, under any circumstances, is hateful/harmful to each one of us, so Hillel suggests that therefore one should not (by action or inaction) intentionally deprive another of food and water.
  • On Fosse's Nobel lecture: 'A Silent Language'
    ↪javi2541997
    I still don't know why I bother. I've been scribbling incessantly since preschool. Why do it? Like for most who write, putting down 500 words of prose daily, along with obsessive note taking & marginalia, collecting specimens of unusual wordplay & quotations, reams of memos-to-self-cum-essays, etc is the best way I've found of keeping my own company. "Sanity"? That's saying too much. About twenty years ago I told myself I write to correct, or clarify, my younger selves; I still believe that, even more so now. But why bother go on when not one of those younger selves will ever read me. I can't go on, but I go on anyway, out of spite, or kicks, because at this age I've forgotten how to do anything else. :death: :flower:
  • On Fosse's Nobel lecture: 'A Silent Language'
    Reasons for suicide are similarly diverse. Some people are just fed up with living. Some people are unwell. Some are unable to deal with trauma. Some are reacting to situational factors. Suicide is one word for many situations. — Tom Storm
    :fire:
  • Commandment of the Agnostic
    This is a thought challenge where I try to form the perfect commandment for anyone that isn't religious. — mentos987
    Welcome to the forum! :up:

    IMO, no one yet, secular or religious, has improved on ...
    That which is hateful¹ to you, do not do to anyone. — Hillel the Elder, first century BCE

    i.e. harmful¹
  • A Normative Ethical Dilemma: The One's Who Walk Away from Omelas
    ↪L'éléphant
    :up: :up:

    Can we morally justify sacrificing people for the greater good, especially if it is a huge sacrifice (like getting tortured constantly)? — Bob Ross
    IMO, that's instrumental reasoning (re: things, i.e. means-to-ends) and not moral reasoning (re: persons, i.e. ends-in-themselves) which I'd sketched out in this old post mentioning Le Guin's "Omelas":

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/365307
  • Metaphysically impossible but logically possible?
    ↪Lionino
    A metaphysical impossibility such as 'an infinite person' is logically possible, no?
  • Is supporting Israel versus Palestine conservative?
    "Conservatism?" To conserve the status quo (ante).

    The oppressor always desires peace in the form of a completely pacified, oppressed population – perpetual status quo. E.g. Nazi Wehrmacht & Paris, France in 1940, respectively; PRC & Tibet since 1951, respectively; US-client state of Israel & Palestinian territories since 1967, respectively; ... Russia & Crimea/Donbas, Ukraine since 2014-22, respectively; etcetera.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    ↪Baden
    "Shalom!" :mask: :up:
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    ↪tim wood
    :lol: Wtf are you talking about, tim?! Your (Dunning-Kruger level) historical illiteracy and/or self-deception are stunning.
  • Meaning of Life
    :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
  • Meaning of Life
    ↪javra
    Plenty of "controlling" females have crossed my path but not enough commanding women (or men for that matter).

    And thus spoke the little old woman: You go to women? Do not forget the whip! — Also Sprach Zarathustra
    :fire:
  • Meaning of Life
    Humans (predominantly, I think, human males) seem in every age preoccupied with their own significance and dashed when they are compelled to admit how very small it is in the scheme of things. This is part of the reason for inventing gods: in a way, gods are magnified sock-puppets for men who want/need to feel in control of the world; who therefore provide themselves the purpose of imposing meaning and order - at least on their fellow humans. It is also the reason for the entire body of Metaphysics: If only we could reduce life, the universe and everything to basic principles, we could wrestle into submission. — Vera Mont
    Brilliantly succinct – Wille zur Macht – oh yeah! You 'mansplain' that much much better than I ever could, lady! :clap: :cool::flower:
  • Meaning of Life
    I’m confused. What is life? — George Fisher
    This.

    Why is life?
    Chance.

    Where did [life] come from?
    The universe.

    Life seems to go against the basic law of entropy.
    "Life" (i.e. local order) is just entropy's rarified way of increasing entropy (i.e. global disorder).

    Are we special?
    Compared to what? And what difference does "special" or "not special" make?

    Is there a God?
    The best evidence compellingly suggests that 'there is a god' only in our just-so stories.

    What is God?
    An empty name.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_name

    Why is God?
    It's h. sapiens' oldest placebo and still works on far too many of us.

    Here I am, one of 8,000,000,000 people on earth. What on earth could be special about me?
    Like the rest of us, George, you are a grain of sand that isn't exactly identical to any other grain of sand on the beach. And you can know this. That's not much but it ain't nothing.

    There is a maelstrom of stuff out there. How could I ever hope to grasp the meaning of it all.
    You also can't count all the stars in the observable universe and visualize all of their relations relative to one another and hold that image in your mind either. So what. It's absurd (A. Camus, P.W. Zapffe) to desire such an omni-grasp of things. Now what does one do in such a vast, encompassing "maelstrom"? You might take
    ↪Ciceronianus
    ' sage counsel for a start ...

    Do I have any meaning or ...
    I think you do to the degree you strive to make your choices and relationships "meaningful" each and every day.

    ... responsibility within this milieu?
    Like everyone else, George, you are responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of your actions and inaction.

    Would it make any difference if I did not exist?
    To you, it might. From the universe's perspective, well, you don't even "exist", none of us ephemerae "exist". (Read Epicurus, then read Spinoza)

    A more interesting question might be: Why do you need to look for a meaning? — Vera Mont
    :fire:
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    ↪ssu
    So what's your point?

    Israel (& its settler-colonialist apatheid policy) has been a US-client state for over a half-century.
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    ↪Pantagruel
    You shouldn't be. :sweat:
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    @BitconnectCarlos @RogueAI @tim wood @schopenhauer1

    Can you handle some more truth?


    "This is not a war against Hamas"
    by Jeremy Scahill, 11Dec23
    https://theintercept.com/2023/12/11/israel-hamas-war-civilians-biden/


    addendum to ...
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/847621

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/856307

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/858450
Home » 180 Proof