Comments

  • 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
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    ↪Pantagruel
    You are my example. :zip:

    ↪javra
    Of course, science cannot address non-scientific topics (and vice versa).
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    ↪Pantagruel
    Thanks for proving my point that you have no idea what you are talking about, Pantagruel. :clap:
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    ↪Pantagruel
    :sweat: Gotcha, it's so basic or fundamental to science that you can't provide a single example.
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    ↪Pantagruel
    That's not my understanding of scientific practice. Science certainly does not "study itself". Again, you got examples? There must be countless many if, as say, "it's the basis of science".
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    Is a dualist ontology more than a misattributed dualist epistemology? — Fooloso4
    I don't think so. :up:

    Science is a process of selective limitation. — Pantagruel
    Please clarify. Examples would be helpful.
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    180's approach to philosophy is dialectical. A mode of inquiry. It is antithetical to doctrines. It asks questions but a doctrinaire approach is based on the assumption that answers to these questions have been given. There may be some common ground here in undecidable. Socratic (but not Hegelian) dialectic is an examination of opinions ... — Fooloso4
    Thank you for pointing this out. @FrancisRay is like too many others who traffic in "doctrines" and dogmas and take offense when someone attempts to cross-examine their so-called "truths". So now @universeness is taking a different approach but I suspect he won't get anywhere philosophically interesting with FrancisRay either because there is no there there – just :sparkle:
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    ↪universeness
    :up:
    ↪universeness
    :up:
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    ... why disturb my peace? — FrancisRay
    This is what thinkers, particularly philosophers, do, Francis: we disturb the peace (i.e. smug givens, unexamined assumptions, etc). You're right, though, I am "not interested" in unwarranted, or dogmaric, beliefs; I prefer to dialectically discuss speculative ideas. Go vegitate in an ashram if philosophizing disturbs you.
Home » 180 Proof