In 1989 I was living in Washington, DC when I'd found Peter Sloterdijk's ominous Critique of Cynical Reason (with an effing orange cover to boot, which I still have) in an used books store near the WH and read his trenchant diagnosis of the zeitgeist of the post-1918 Anglo-Euro sphere aka "populist cynicism" (i.e. postmodernity) – the return of the repressed "losers" (Nietzschean resentment). :mask:Reasonable questions but is it apathy and cynicism from supporters? Or do you think many of them accept the Trump narrative as true believers in a war against a corrupt 'business as usual' political process? If this phenomenon operates similarly to a cult, then it's a highly complex situation. — Tom Storm
Thanks so much for encouraging me. :flower: :hearts:You are marvellous. Keep on going on! — Amity
Since my first bout of Covid-19 in early 2021, I have, for all practical purposes, forgotten how to write 'fiction'. I've had to relearn how to enter that headspace and stay there long enough either to put words to paper or rewrite what I've already written. I used to be a fastidious plotter and outliner from first paragraph to the last. I couldn't start without knowing the ending first. Since my second bout in late 2021,"long covid" manifests in me as chronic fatigue and persistent brain fog.I'm curious what people's writing process is. Mine may be unusual.
[ ... ]
How do you write? — hypericin
It's a symbolic practice heuristically (or algorithmically) effective for controlling behavior and / or the environment despite insufficient time and/or information – IIRC, Peirce-Dewey's conception of 'rationality': practice.Can you firstly define what you mean by “rationality” ... — Bob Ross
I ground ethics in rationality (i.e. inferential rules/heuristic-making) because I conceive of ethics as the study of 'the how of well-being', that is, how to reduce negations of well-being. (NB: Thus, I analogize well-being (how to reduce its negation) in ethics with e.g. sustainability (how to reduce its negation) in ecology and optimal health-fitness (how to reduce its negation) in medicine.)... and, secondly, explain how and why you ground ethics in it? — Bob Ross
Yes; just as medical facts and ecological facts also oblige us to ask 'how to reduce' their adverse impacts as noted above.Are you saying that the moral facts obliges us to posit hypothetical imperatives?
Species (e.g. h. sapiens) specific functional defects – natural vulnerabilities – which cause dysfunction or worse – increase suffering – in living individuals when such defects are neglected and/or exacerbated (via e.g. deprivation). In other words, whatever harms – is bad for – our kind.If so, then what are those facts?
At minimum, they (e.g. hunger, bereavement, isolation, injury) are constitutive constraints on – limits to – (our) biological functioning.And how are they facts (as opposed to hypothetical imperatives themselves)?
:100: :lol:If God is anything like the ones depicted in the Judeo-Christo-Islamic doctrines, and if your proposition is correct, free will becomes impossible, as does moral growth.
Personally, I'm picturing a parent of small children who teaches them correct behaviour by watching through a one-way mirror as they kill one another. — Vera Mont
On the contrary, I "ground" ethics and epistemology and ... "in rationality" (i.e. adaptive inferential-discourse). Maybe this divergence is why we're talking past each other.It seems like, and correct me if I am wrong, you ground rationality purely in ethics and not epistemology (and I do the opposite). — Bob Ross
To whom? For what? Like ecological or medical facts, the utility of "moral facts" is a function of context, Bob: that is, such facts oblige rational agents to posit hypothetical imperatives – normative practices – which are adaptive with respect to those facts as constraints.Moral facts are useless.
He hears the silence howling
Catches angels as they fall
And the all-time winner
Has got him by the balls
Oh, he picks up Gideons bible
Open at page one ...
I assume, @Bob Ross, you will take issue with this paraphrase and so I look forward to you making explicit its problems or confusions.I think that, in light of this, “rationality”, in the sense of “acting in a manner that agrees with reality”, can be objectively grounded insofar as the hypothetical imperative (of reducing suffering (i.e. species defects)) is a presupposition of ethics (ecology, medicine) and thusly not within it; and so “rationality”, which in the sense defined (above) is deeply rooted in ethical (ecological, medicinal) principles, is grounded in the objective ethical (ecological, medicinal) norms.
I'm a failed poet. Maybe every novelist wants to write poetry first, finds he can't and then tries the short story which is the most demanding form after poetry. And failing at that, only then does he take up novel writing. — William Faulkner
Only the questions are eternal. — Elie Wiesel
Except tautologically, how are you "100% certain" of anything at all?I am 100% certain that I am conscious but it is not possible for me to know with 100% certainty that my body, other humans, non-human organisms, the Earth and the rest of the Universe actually exist. — Truth Seeker
IMO, your un/mis-informed "4 precepts" are incoherent or false (as I've pointed out), so their "evidential values" are negative (à la e.g. candy cotton mountains, five-sided triangles, disembodied minds, etc). Again, go inform yourself, ucarr, by reading the rigorous (popular) studies on natural selection, etc by Mayr, Dawkins, Gould, Wilson et al.What do you think about the evidential value of these conjectural examples? — ucarr
Clouds, waterfalls & digestion, for examples, are not "intelligent".1) Intelligence is motion organized; — ucarr
Primate digestion does not adapt and yet viruses do adapt.2) Motion organized within sentients is adaptation;
Again, viruses adapt.3) Adaptation is sentient control of environment;
This might be breeding but it is not natural selection. Read Ernst Mayr. Read Richard Dawkins. Read Stephen J. Gould. Read E.O. Wilson. Read Daniel Dennett. :shade: wtf4) Sentient controlled environment selects for mutations that improve adaptation to environment
:up:It really doesn't matter if we call it 'philosophy' or 'fundamental ontology' [or] 'big picture synthesizing talk.' — plaque flag
4. Fulton County, GA, felony indictment1. NYC felony indictment
31Mar23 :up:
"34 counts of Business Documents Fraud Crealing and/or Covering-up Felonies", etc
https://apnews.com/article/trump-indictment-full-document-640043319549?utm_source=homepage&utm_medium=RelatedStories&utm_campaign=position_02
2. Miami, Federal indictment
8Jun23 :up:
re: 37 counts "Mishandling Documents, Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice, Violating Espionage Act, Making False Statements to Federal Authorities, Witness Tampering" etc
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/08/donald-trump-charged-retention-classified-documents
9Jun23 Federal indictment unsealed ...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/09/trump-indictment-unsealed-pdf-text-criminal-charges
2.1 Miami, Federal Superceding Indictment (1)
27Jul23 :up:
+3 felony charges (+1 Espionage (32), +2 Obstruction), etc
+ new exhibit – "Iran war plan" documents (audio, July 2021)
3. Washington, DC, Federal indictment
1Aug23 :up:
re: 4 counts
• Conspiracy to Defraud the U.S.;
• Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding;
• Obstruction of and attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding;
• Conspiracy to Deprive Voting Rights
1Aug23 Federal Indictment unsealed ...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/01/trump-indictment-full-text-2020-election-jan-6 — 180 Proof
Probably because h. sapiens are about a chromosome and a half away from p. troglodytes (chimpanzees).I would ask simple questions:
1. Why does one human wish to be more powerful and have more wealth than any other? — universeness
The history of h. sapiens' dominance hierarchies (i.e. civilizations, sovereigns / states, cults-communes) certainly suggests such a sociobiological "connection".Are such drives/motivations, 100% connected to our 'survival of the fittest, jungle rules, beginnings?'
In practice – dynastic-oligarchical dominance hierarchy.If so, then what does the notion of 'civilisation,' really mean to humans?
No. Not under conditions (status quo) of political-economic scarcity.2. Do you think 8 billion humans, fully co-operating, could achieve more than 8 billion humans competing under the control of an elite global few?
We haven't yet in over half a century. It's certainly not in the interest of shareholders who profit from – dominate by – exploiting natural and/or man-made / strategic scarcities.3. Can the human species find common cause, when we consider the scale of the universe and the resources available within it?
Eventually 'survival of the elitest' (millions, not billions) in scattered networks (sprawls) of AI-automated enclaves. Think: Ayn Randian dystopias à la Judge Dredd or Blade Runner (without Replicants).4. Consider unfettered capitalism in permanent action, forever unchallenged, what would you predict,
would be the main result of such a permanent global system, for our species?
:smirk:I've never read any of Schopenhauer's works, but [ ... ] — Gnomon
News flash @NOS4A2 – Anti-"Deep State" Federalist Society legal scholars argue that Seditionist-Traitor-Rapist1 is CONSTITUTIONALLY DISQUALIFIED from ever being POTUS again:Btw, DJT will be stricken from some key state ballots due to provisions in US 14th Amendment, Sec. 3 because of the findings of J6 Committee and subsequent state & federal indictments, so the fat old orange fascist fuck won't be able to run again in '24 (though he'll still be a player / spoiler of some sort.) — 180 Proof
:up:And on and on and hosanna. That is to say apparently gaslighting seems to be the answer. — schopenhauer1
The only deity consistent with a world (it purportedly created and sustains) ravaged by natural afflictions (e.g. living creatures inexorably devour living creatures; congenital birth defects; etc), man-made catastrophes and self-inflicted interpersonal miseries is either a Sadist or a fiction – neither of which are worthy of worship. — 180 Proof
Evolution explains the development of life and not its origin like (so called) "creationism", so it's no more a substitute for an inexplicable (alleged)"creator" than astronomy is "posited in place of" astrology or modern medicine is "posited in place of" faith-healing. Evidence-based stories and evidence-free (faith-based) stories have incommensurable discursive functions and are not interchangeable, or substituteable one for the other.In this conversation, I want to examine whether or not positing evolution in place of a creator amounts, in the end, to the same thing as ... — ucarr
"A creator" is either "posited in place of" We Don't Know Yet – as a creator-of-the-gaps placeholder – or bullshitted denialism of modern evolutionary biology.... positing a creator in place of evolution.
... or minimally egoic (e.g. Laozi's wu wei, Epicurus' aponia, Pyrrho's epochē, Spinoza's scientia intuitiva, Nietzsche's amor fati, Zapffe-Camus' absurd, Rosset's cruelty ...)So there's an existential decision to live in a beautifully impersonal way, which I understand as maximally social. — plaque flag
How about you – second person plural – such as Buber's Ich-Du (or even Dao)?I want to be us and not just me.
à la Meillassoux / Brassier! :fire:I want to strive heroically against my own petty finitude, toward the relative infinity of Feuerbach's species-essence.
