Nagel's argument that 'a philosophical construct like "subjectivity" – itself, at best, a secondary quality (re: Democritus, Galileo, Locke) – be accounted for by the natural sciences' proceeds from a category error as well as his profound misunderstanding of the epistemic status (i.e. probabilistic fallibilism via abduction) of scientific theories such as e.g. 'neo-Darwinian Evolution'.

:up:

:up:

Yeah, by next Wednesday the bill we be on Biden's desk or he will have to invoke the 14th Amendment the week after. This ain't silly shit like the Lehman Bros fiasco.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/05/laurence-tribe-explains-how-14th-amendment-can-help-biden-avoid-default/

What will be the outcome? — Mikie

The Dems will use a parliamentary procedure with the help of several GOP congressmembers to force a vote in the House that will pass and go on to easy passage in the Senate for Biden to sign the clean debt ceiling raise into law by the first of June. McCarthy is Dead Speaker Walking –'even if he were to get everything he wants out of Biden – so both men are just engaging in political kabuki theatre in order to give Minority Leader Jeffries time to engineer the Dem's parliamentary rescue of the US Debt from the pathetic default-ransom by the GOP Insurrection Caucus.

Of course, worse case, Biden invokes the 14th Amendment and keeps paying on US Treasuries until the constitutional crisis is litigated in SCOTUS ... sometime next year (maybe in time for the general election). No US Default -– come hell or highwater! – is my prediction.

My reference to Kahneman's work was only mentioned as scientific corroboration, not justification or proof, of my philosophical statement about a 'metacognitive processing bottleneck' (re: System 2, thinking slow aka "consciousness"). There isn't any evidence among higher mammals, including h. sapiens, that Sys 2 / conscious processing such as ours is indispensible for intelligent – adaptive problem-solving – behavior. To me it's clear that that expectation is only an anthropocentric bias. The current developmental state of 'large language models' / 'neural net machines' (e.g. ChatGPT, OpenAI, AlphaZero, etc) in still narrow ways, as far as I can discern, show that 'sapience sans sentience' is the (optimal) shape of things to come.

Another link to the catastrophic effects of (runaway) global heating on Earth's fresh water sources: lakes & reservoirs.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/18/world/disappearing-lakes-reservoirs-water-climate-intl/index.html

The heating of oceans and drying up of lakes-reservoirs are strongly correlated. Not "pessimism", my friend, just facts. :mask:

In my own case, I rarely know why I do anything and have very little insight into my motivations - I'm a swirling vortex of contradictions and unconscious values and biases. Despite this I feel unreasonably content. — Tom Storm

More an Epicurean than a Stoic? :cool: :up:

Most other traditions prize practice above creedal orthodoxy: Buddhists, Hindus, Confucians, Jews and Muslims would say religion is something you do
— Karen Armstrong, Metaphysical Mistake — Christoffer

Perhaps an aside but, IME as a born, raised and educated ex-Catholic, the distinction between orthodoxy and Ms. Armstrong's emphasis on orthopraxy lacks much of a difference in so far as in the main, ceteris paribus, religious practices and religious beliefs are strongly correlated.

@Gnomon :roll:

[E]xplain why, particularly in philosophy, you prioritize 'arguments with non-propositional premises' (re: mental-states (i.e. ideals)) over above 'arguments with propositional premises' (re: more-than-mental-states (i.e. concepts)). — 180 Proof

self-interested altruism — Tom Storm

:up:

If morality is ultimately a social enterprise and about cooperation and flourishing, then the idea that there is something in it for us all to be moral is possibly inescapable. — Tom Storm

:100:

"... voidism (Democritean / Buddhist)." ~180 Proof

Accepting this definition of a theory, would you say that (your best interpretation of) atheism qualifies as a theory? — Hallucinogen

Not at all. Atheism is only a critique and rejection of theism.

More (disingenous) word-salad. :lol:

:up: :up:

Why posit monism? — IP060903

My guess is that it's much easier to cope with – much more intuitive – than voidism (Democritean / Buddhist).

I'm not a sci fi guy, but I enjoyed Firefly/Serenity. I liked the imaginative literary ambition of the original Trek (in small doses) but later Trek seemed a bit contrived and mechanical for my taste. I remember hearing about Next Gen in 1987 and saying (quite idiotically it turns out), 'This will never catch on, Trek was an unrepeatable one off!' — Tom Storm

Nonetheless, your "tv scifi" taste is impeccable, mate! :cool:

Staying with space operas, what do you think of the portrayals of "human dilemmas" in Firefly (and/or the Serenity movie) or The Expanse (s1-3)?

(Btw, I gave up on nBSG after the first 2½ seasons and never watched more than online preview trailers for any Star Trek series since the last few years of DS9. Same with Stargate & Star Wars-related tv shows despite my nephews' best efforts!)

I think that creating children is the source of all human harm. — Andrew4Handel

I disagree. I think scarcity is the source of (all) human harm and that "not having children" doesn't solve anything ...

... as I pointed out in this old (antinatalism?) thread:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/505320

:lol:

:up:

I don't remember ever making such an assertion about "anti-metaphysics". — Gnomon

Well, here's a post in which you use "anti-metaphysical prejudice" ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/781277
... and elsewhere "opposes / blocks philosophical speculation" (i.e. metaphysics) and "anti-philosophical". Remember now? :smirk:

All tip and no iceberg, man — Wayfarer

At last, a confession. They say it's good for the anatta. :up:

Aristotle is enjoying a renaissance ... — Wayfarer

A good time for you to actually study his First Philosophy which has come down to us as metaphysics. :smirk:

The term "metaphysical" refers to concepts or principles that transcend the physical or empirical realm and are typically associated with supernatural aspects of reality (bearing in mind that the Greek-derived 'metaphysical' is a synonym for the Latin-derived 'supernatural'). — Wayfarer

Well, at least we agree that materialism (e.g. classical atomism) is anti-"supernatural" (i.e. anti-woo). I prefer the Greek conception of tà metà tà physikà biblía which I'd summarized recently:

... First Philosophy with respect to his Physics. The word 'metaphysics' literally means 'the book after the book on physics'. It is meant to consist of categorical generalizations about nature derived from studying the many domains and particularities of nature. In other words, one must know nature (i.e. physics) in order to understand the principles / limits of physics (i.e. metaphysics). — 180 Proof

Also, an older post ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/667780

To equate the metaphysical with "the supernatural", as you do, Wayfarer, is both contrary to Aristotle's first philosophy (i.e. reflective thinking on what can be known of nature) and a species of irrationalism (i.e. magical thinking ... that transcends nature) which, IMO, is why our disagreements are so intractable – my positions and arguments are mostly grounded in (a version of) first philosophy whereas yours are mostly committed to (perennialist / dharmic) magic, miracles & mysteries. And perversely, you (and like-minded others) frequently make use of modern physical sciences in ad hoc attempts to justify anti-physical ideas, or ideals, about "reality" which you believe in.

There is a vast universe to explore, but can we earn the privilege to do so? — universeness

Too anthropocentric. The universe, my friend, is extremely inimicable to complex organisms outside of their miniscule, watery envelopes of powerful magnetic fields in 'Goldlock's Zones' like Earth. Outer space is for the machines; virtual space is for (our) species. At most, we're tele-explorers (i.e. remote viewers (e.g. space telescopes, Martian rovers, Jovian probes, etc)). AGI—>ASI may be "our guardian" one day ... :nerd:

I only ever watched a handful of B5 episodes back in the day, maybe 1-2 each season; all I remember is being bored by the characters, derivative space operatic metaplot and the cheezy CGI. From what I've read in recent years I don't feel I'd missed much.

What a sweet Pollyanna! — Vera Mont

:up:

I am bewildered that we can not achieve "the better" through reasoning. I think we are proving those of the Enlighten[ment] right, that with reason we can do better. — Athena

Our intelligent machine descendants are emerging now from the womb of human reason. They will be either an extinction event or the apotheosis of human civilization – IMO, a profound improvement either way on the global status quo / human condition. :victory:

:100:
Why intelligent, well-intentioned people delude themselves with panglossian nostagias escapes me. Coping mechanisms?

A request to either of you gentlemen: (A) please explain why you claim that a metaphysics of materialism (e.g. classical atomism) is "anti-metaphysical" and also, more broadly, (B) explain why, particularly in philosophy, you prioritize 'arguments with non-propositional premises' (re: mental-states (i.e. ideals)) over above 'arguments with propositional premises' (re: more-than-mental-states (i.e. concepts)). :chin:

In my opinion, people only do something if they expect it to benefit them, and not because they ought to do it. — Jacques

Yes, especially those people who understand that 'one ought to do whatever one expects will eventually benefit one.'

Are you familiar with the existential psychotherapists Viktor Frankl and Irvin Yalom? Have you investigated or undergone cognitive behavioral therapy (with or without medications)?

Well okay, don't answer my question.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/808415

In light of you using the term like an epithet, do you think Spinoza is also a "positivist"?

He doesn't "say" that; rather, as I've pointed out, Spinoza considers all "revealed faiths" and "transcendent beliefs or ideals" to be mere superstitions and, I'll add, that for him the only 'true religion' is Reason (à la logos) – the devotional object of which, so to speak, being the (infinitely & eternally immanent) natura naturans. As for "resemblance", Wayfarer, in the context of my post I alluded to what @Christoffer had said about philosophy and religion, which resembles Spinoza's approach, and asked you whether you'd object to Spinoza the way you have objected to Christoffer for being, as you have claimed, "a positivist".

Philosophy is for questioning unquestionable answers.

Much of what Hadot is talking about refers to a meditation for the purpose of dismantling biases, towards habits, passions and... religion. This is the difference between religious arguments, religious beliefs, religious thinking and... philosophy. — Christoffer

:fire:

If you think about all philosophical topics and arguments, they're all trying to do one thing, remove bias and fallacies from an argument in order to arrive at a conclusion that can be agreed upon. — Christoffer

:100:

The proposal you're suggesting is really like [ ... ] Spock, the Vulcan, possessed an enormous IQ and encylopedic knowledge, from a terrestrial point of view, but was often caught out by what we would now describe as his lack of EQ ... — Wayfarer

So do you consider Spinoza with his counter-biased more geometrico, for instance, a "positivist"? The author of the monumental (though suppressed for centuries) Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, which had inaugurated modern biblical criticism and strongly suggested that all "revealed faiths" and "transcendent beliefs or ideals" are mere superstitions (i.e. dogmatic fairytales & fables) – by your lights, Wayf, is he just confusing metaphysics with "scientism"?

Btw, I think "Mr. Spock" was more a Stoic-caricature in the 1960s than the Spinozist he seemed to be portrayed as by the 1990s.

"That which is hateful to you, do not do to anyone"
~Hillel the Elder :fire:

What are your thoughts on the rather broad category of 'human flourishing' (or 'wellbeing' as Sam Harris has it)? — Tom Storm

I think of 'flourishing / well-being' as the process of optimizing agency. What do I mean by 'agency'?

Agency (i.e. ethos) consists in individual and collective capabilities (i.e. adaptive habits, skills, norms-conventions, commons-affordances) of agents to help others and themselves to prevent and reduce harm to others and themselves. — 180 Proof

So my conception is that we flourish as our capabilities optimize from being exercised individually and collectively (otherwise, we languish...) E.g. Peirce-Dewey influenced 'disutilitarianism' + Philippa Foot's 'natural goodness' + Martha Nussbaum's 'capabilities approach'.

Btw, Sam Harris' notion of "wellbeing" is much too vague (& positive psychology) for me.

The fact that there are competing moral standpoints raises the question of how you choose between them. — Andrew4Handel

Why not select the least problematic elements from each of the major ethical schools and consistently reassemble them into an adaptive moral practice?

I think you should read some actual works of moral philosophy (there's 2,500 years worth), even some contemporary moral psychology, and then compare what you learn with your so-called "moral intuitions" in order to better inform your views on these topics. Just my two bits.

What does the term moral add to a description of normal altruistic and cooperative behaviour? — Andrew4Handel

Semantics without substance. Non sequitur, Andrew. Don't be evasive.

We do not tend to refer to all cooperative and altruistic acts as moral ...

Well, since I haven't referred "to all cooperative and altruistic acts as moral", this statement is another non sequitur. Apparently you cannot directly answer my questions.

I believe that the outcome of a thorough moral calculation ... Are we assuming a moral calculation ... — Andrew4Handel

Okay, we're talking past each other. I understand ethics as a form of reflective thinking of which moral behaviors are normative / habitual enactments and not "calculations" (i.e. instrumental problem solving) as you apparently believe.

Antinatalism is a logical conclusion of a harm based morality and other extreme [absurd] utilitarian calculations ... — Andrew4Handel

Maybe ad absurdum (e.g. "destroying the village in order to save the village" :roll:) but it's not an ethical conclusion because moral utility only applies to either 'how to minimize the suffering' or 'how to maximize the happiness' of actual persons and not how to avoid – eliminate – 'the problem' of moral utility itself.

Assuming that ethics is the study of reasons for moral judgments and conduct of 'how persons can adaptively (ergo ought to) treat each other', what do you think of flourishing (i.e. well-being) as an ethical goal? And 'reducing harm' as an optimally moral (i.e. normative) means to that end? Do you believe, Andrew, that there are not any sound reasons for morality and that it's only a matter of personal 'sentiments' or arbitrary (relative) customs? :chin:

NB: To clarify my questions above, substitute sharing the commons for ethics and non-zerosum for moral (or public health for ethics and hygenic-sanitary for moral).

Antinatalism preaches that we are all better off dead than alive because it avoids suffering. — Benj96

I don't think so. Assuming that the occasional joys of life do not justify or compensate for life's inexorable and useless suffering, antinatalism proposes that it's better not to be born in the first place, and failing that, therefore, we who are already born and suffer should not breed any more generations of 'innocents' who will uselessly suffer as we have and do. For the antinatalist, it's (hypothetical) never-borns which are "better off", not "the dead" (especially since the prospect of an 'afterlife' remains an open question – perhaps the dead can suffer?! (which is, for some, another precautionary / paranoid reason not to breed)).

Btw, I'm an antinatalist in principle – at least until a viable mode of Abolitionism is invented – but not by policy (i.e. ideology). I am far more concerned with reducing the suffering of actual already-borns (naturalized ethics) than preserving the 'hypothetical bliss' of never-borns (speculative inexistence).

minimising harm — Benj96

:up:

"Cooperation" itself (e.g. Nazis' "die Endlösung") is only a means which doesn't entail an ethical end (i.e. flourishing / well-being). To wit:

Means and ends must [can] be adjusted to one another so that the latter is not undermined or invalidated by the former while the former is calibrated to enact the latter. A version of reflective equilibrium. — 180 Proof

Also ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/777275

How anti-modern – retrograde – of you to say so.

:100:

The idea of looking within, is not looking into the fine structure of matter, but paying close attention to the nature of lived experience. You can zoom in as far as you like on the micro-circuitry of your television set, but you'll never find a story there. — Wayfarer

:victory: :smirk:

Reality ultimately must be as the symbol of the circle not the line. So the ceiling and the floor are the same. — TheMadMan

:fire:

Can we please focus on the good? — Athena

My apologies for the defect in my character whereby my brand of historical nostalgia fails to be myopic and pollyanna enough for your liking. Enjoy your Mother's Day, madame. :victory:

:100:

Okay. We're now just talking past each other. Thanks for the exchange.

Well, as I've pointed out previously, I prefer 'economic democracy fortified by universally enfranchised representative democracy' rather than our status quo laissez-faire, plutonomic, "representative democracy" (i.e. constitutional republicanism) inspired by classical Athens-Rome and established in 1789. The insidious "group think" (which was reinforced in the 20th century by public relations, mass media/consumerism & John Wayne's Hollywood) of "the people" – who have only ever ratified the various exploitation-agendas of plutocrats with their "morally-informed" votes – was baked into the US system some one hundred and eighty years before the "1958 National Defense Education Act ". :roll: