I think many people here see philosophy, in a broad sense, to be a pursuit of truth. — FlaccidDoor

...I don't. Also, hi. :smile:

While methods to reach our conclusions may vary, many here pursue truths or facts about our reality, implying some inherent value in said truths and facts. However in reality, there are white lies or lies that are meant with good intentions, including lies by omission. The truth does not always seem like the most optimal of choices to present to people. Sometimes I have to even deceive myself to get through hard times, implying that falsehoods maybe more useful than truths.

You're contrasting truth with lies, here. So are we talking about epistemological/scientific/psychological "truth", or about "truthfulness"? I consider being truthful as something different than the other forms of "truth" I mentioned, btw. Might be a personal quirk though.

So my question is: Are truths useful? Aren't there falsehoods that are more useful?

There are times when half truths or even whole lies are more useful, in my opinion. Depends on the context. Things are never just "useful" without a specified goal. Books are useful for reading, less so as a main course for dinner.

Does listening to lecture series count? Well, whatever. :razz:

Currently going through the following:

-James Hynes, "Writing Great Fiction: Storytelling Tips and Techniques".
-Richard Spence, "The Real History of Secret Societies".

Is humanity, as a species, capable of selecting competent, moral leadership with the will to move this world forward into an age of sustainable environmental stewardship and peaceful coexistence with each other......or are we totally screwed. — Steve Leard

Us, as a species, capable of selecting competent leadership? HA! No. Moral leadership then? HAHAHA no. Just take a look at our current leaders and the long line of idiots preceding them... Either we get despots or systems where a select few feign to champion the interests of the people. There's a reason why its still possible to classify politicians as "populares" and "optimates", even though the days of the Roman republic have long since passed.

I'd just like to say thank you for contributing to this thread and not the other (vastly more pretentious) thread 'deep songs'. — The Opposite

Lol, no problem. :grin:

.
"What's a philosopher?" said Brutha.
"Someone who's bright enough to find a job with no heavy lifting," said a voice in his head.
"An infidel seeking the just fate he shall surely receive,' said Vorbis. "An inventor of fallacies. This cursed city attracts them like a dung heap attracts flies."
"Actually, it's the climate," said the voice of the tortoise. "Think about it. If you're inclined to leap out of your bath and run down the street every time you think you've got a bright idea, you don't want to do it somewhere cold. If you do do it somewhere cold, you die out. That's natural selection, that is. Ephebe's known for its philosophers. It's better than street theater."
"What, a lot of old men running around the streets with no clothes on?" said Brutha, under his breath, as they were marched onward.
"More or less. If you spend your whole time thinking about the universe, you tend to forget the less important bits of it. Like your pants. And ninety-nine out of a hundred ideas they come up with are totally useless."
"Why doesn't anyone lock them away safely, then? They don't sound much use to me," said Brutha.
"Because the hundredth idea," said Om, "is generally a humdinger."
-Terry Pratchett, "Small Gods'

"The history of research into the philosophy of language is full of men (who are rational and mortal animals), bachelors (who are unmarried adult males), and tigers (though it is not clear whether we should define them as feline mammals or big cats with a yellow coat and black stripes)."
-Umberto Eco, "Kant and the Platypus", p. 9

https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/542446-webcomics

http://dresdencodak.com/2009/09/22/caveman-science-fiction/

Actually, I hate to admit it, but "blub, blub, blub" is a pretty good summary of my philosophy. — T Clark

Mine is more like "blah blah blah", but basically yeah, same here. :grin:

Well, if someone states that: "if the arguments/claims of sceptics are valid/true, then they would refute themselves, therefore they can't be valid/true”, then they don't understand what philosophical scepticism is all about. The main claim of classical scepticism is:

"The Skeptic Way is a disposition to oppose phenomena and noumena to one another in any way whatever, with the result that, owing to the equipollence among the things and statements thus opposed, we are brought first to epoché and then to ataraxia"
-Sextus Empiricus, "Outlines of pyrrhonism", book 1 ch. 4.

and:

"After these remarks, our next task is to explain the goal of the Skeptic Way.Now the goal or end is that for the sake of which everything is done or considered, while it, in turn, is not done or considered for the sake of anything else; or, it is the ultimate object of the desires. We always say that as regards belief the Skeptic's goal is ataraxia, and that as regards things that are unavoidable it is having moderate pathè. For when the Skeptic set out to philosophize with the aim of assessing his phantasiai – that is, of determining which are true and which are false so as to achieve ataraxia – he landed in a controversy between positions of equal strength, and, being unable to resolve it, he suspended judgment."
-Ibid. ch. 12

Ascribing epistemological nihilism to all forms of scepticism misses the mark completely and only results in a straw man. Some people are (self-)sattisfied with knocking down straw effigies though.

What got you into philosophy? — khaled

Reading an article in a magazine about Immanuel Kant when i was 15.

So I’ve a had a few glasses of wine and I want to go into the more mushy sentiments of Philosophy. — Benj96

Urgh, fine. Lets talk about the categorical imperative.

Like “love”.

Oh. :meh:

Hi there.

Its possible that we're living in an oscilating universe sure, but that's just one of many possibilities. Its also possible the universe ends with a big crunch, if it happens to collapse in on itself, or if it doesn't collapse but keeps on expanding, it could possibly end in a big rip or the heat death. Who knows. Fun to think about, but impossible to prove empirically for obvious reasons.
As for singularities at the heart of black holes, yeah that's possible too. It might not be a singularity but a fuzzball or some sort of degenerate matter for all we know. Again, hard to prove empirically for, again, obvious reasons.

:smile:

Hello:

I had the following conversation with an atheist and I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts. It went like this:

Atheist:
Most epistemologies agree, broadly, that beliefs can only be considered reliable when they are backed, (somehow), by observation. Faith would be belief in that for which there isn't observation, and thus, beliefs so backed are not reliable.

Me:
"beliefs can only be considered reliable when they are backed, (somehow), by observation."

I don't think this is backed by any observation. Therefore it contradicts itself.

Atheist:
I have consistently found beliefs not backed by observation to be not reliable, so there is no contradiction.

I'm not sure how to reply to this. But I believe on some level he is begging the question. He said that he has observed that non-observable statements are unreliable. I think his reply would work if he said "I have observed that observable statements are reliable." But the other is just an assumption and is not observable, at least not in the scientific sense he is saying. — John Chlebek

There always are 3 ways to argue, those being defense, attack and counter. Some examples:

Defense: You take the counter point of the interlocutor. His claim that: "I have consistently found beliefs not backed by observation to be not reliable" can be countered by bringing up multiple theories in theoretical physics which got confirmed at a later point, like the existence of black holes.

Attack: You bring up the problem of induction; the problem of induction is a big issue for folks who rely too heavily on empiricism. Either you don't account for all specifics, which makes the induction vulnerable to black swan instances or you attempt to do, which is impossible because of the amount.

Counter: You attack the claim itself, in this case that he personally "found beliefs not backed by observation to be not reliable". You can nail him on providing anecdotal evidence because of the wording.

ed but the one I'm specifically interested in is ideas - memory of ideas.

Insight is defined as sudden breakthroughs or eureka moments that one experiences while tackling a usually difficult problem.

What got me thinking is there's no way one can distinguish insights from memories - they're both thoughts. Yes, memories are supposed to be recorded past experiences but I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that in terms of purely mental features, we can't tell apart insights from memories. Both of them have identical mental qualities. — TheMadFool

Well... There actually is a difference between episodic memory and declarative memory. While episodic memory deals with past experiences, declarative memory deals with information. I'm guessing you're talking about insights in regards to information analysis, not insights in the sense of emotional revelations (about past situations and the like) btw.

One can respond by saying that the past can be corroborated with witnesses while no such supporting evidence exists for insights but then the problem is that corroboration itself is a function of memory i.e. the whole enterprise of corroborating the past with witnesses begs the question - it's like trying to confirm news on CNN by watching more CNN. Ergo, memories can't be distinguished from so-called insights or the methods available (corroboration) falls short of the mark.

OK, I get what you're saying, but wouldn't it be more like comparing a CNN report with a another report from a different outlet? :brow:

The million dollar question is this:

If reincarnation is not bound by time i.e. deaths and rebirths are temporally unrestricted (people who die in the future being reborn in the past, the converse scenario being a non-issue) could insights be memories?

As some form of anamnesis? Sure, I guess, if you're into that kind of thing. :smile:

Well if you want something in line with Kant (and Schopenhauer- to a certain extent), you might want to look into the works of Jakob Friedrich Fries and Leonard Nelson. You can check some essays on https://www.friesian.com/ if this particular line of thinking is your cup of tea.

we used to listen to this song driving to Switzerland and Italy with my parents and brothers. In a time without internet and mobile phones, can you imagine? thanks for sharing — TaySan

:up:

Steve Joordens has an excellent lecture series on memory over at www.thegreatcourses.com called "Memory and the Human Lifespan".

I'm talking about ascending to a higher plane of existence... It was meant as a joke btw. :wink:

If you can set up everything perfectly, how would you die? — FlaccidDoor

Ascension, obviously. I'm an agnostic btw.

"By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher."
- Ol' Soc.

There are many skillful people who go unnoticed but how many lucky people are bereft of success?

As the title says, I just want to know if anyone has any recommendations in this topic. I only recently started dabbling in Eastern philosophy and was wondering if there were any must reads on the topic. I'm especially interested in Daoism and Zen (don't think the latter counts as a philosophy but I'm interested nonetheless) — khaled

For daoism:

-"I Ching".
-"Daodejing".
-"Liezi".
-"Zhuangzi".

There also are the "Wunengzi" and the "Huahujing", but I don't consider those to be "must reads". There also is a documentary series on Youtube called "Wudang Mountains - Cradle of Taoism", which is about religious daoism. Here's the link: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHcd6JRba7QueJHpCTUC1Wc9NnFvpRcV-

For zen:

-"Shobogenzo" by Dogen Zenji.
-""The Unfettered Mind" by Takuan Soho.
-"Zen Mind, Beginners Mind" by Shunryu Suzuki.

To be honest, though, the thoughts Bartricks is professing is not that different than the caricature of Stoicism that any newbie might encounter, through reading about "stoicism" from Jordan Peterson and his sage Stoic being a bloke on an SSRI's eating tons of lobsters. — Wallows

Yeah I guess. This thread did provide me with an excuse to read some stoic texts again, so there's that. A bit selfish (shellfish? Ok, never mind) but hey, I got something out of it at least.

I hope the visit organized by Baden and other mods, of Massimo Pigliucci, will benefit his understanding on the matter.

So the mods are doing the whole guest speaker thing again? I remember sending out emails to several big names back on the old forum. Simon Blackburn was willing to feature, Martha Nussbaum wanted someone to come to Chicago and Noam Chomsky actually took the time to send a reply, stating he was busy (not particularly surprising... Worth a try though, right?). I also emailed Peter Singer but I got an automated response, lol.

Yeah, I think I'm gonna fold my chair and go somewhere else now. — Wallows

Prudent. I'm going to do the same. :)

No, Stoics also make the first - Socrates famously maintained that all wrongdoing was a product of ignorance and Zeno followed him in that belief.

Plus, depending on what assumptions one makes about the connection between reasons and motivation, they're not even obviously distinct claims - there's a long tradition of believing that what one takes oneself to have reason to do, one is necessarily motivated to do (seems to have been Socartes' view, for instance, and it continues to be held in some form or other up to the present day).

If that's true then any desires that prevent one from doing as one ought are themselves symptomatic of ignorance. — Bartricks

From Diogenes Laertius' "Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers" (ch. on Zeno):

"Amongst the virtues some are primary, some are subordinate to these. The following are the primary: wisdom, courage, justice, temperance. Particular virtues are magnanimity, continence, endurance, presence of mind, good counsel. And wisdom they define as the knowledge of things good and evil and of what is neither good nor evil; courage as knowledge of what we ought to choose, what we ought to beware of, and what is indifferent; justice. . .; magnanimity as the knowledge or habit of mind which makes one superior to anything that happens, whether good or evil equally; continence as a disposition never overcome in that which concerns right reason, or a habit which no pleasures can get the better of; endurance as a knowledge or habit which suggests what we are to hold fast to, what not, and what is indifferent; presence of mind as a habit prompt to find out what is meet to be done at any moment; good counsel as knowledge by which we see what to do and how to do it if we would consult our own interests.

Similarly, of vices some are primary, others subordinate: e.g. folly, cowardice, injustice, profligacy are accounted primary; but incontinence, stupidity, ill-advisedness subordinate. Further, they hold that the vices are forms of ignorance of those things whereof the corresponding virtues are the knowledge."

and:

"Now they say that the wise man is passionless, because he is not prone to fall into such infirmity. But they add that in another sense the term apathy is applied to the bad man, when, that is, it means that he is callous and relentless."


So. According to Diogenes Laertius, the stoics "hold that the vices are forms of ignorance of those things whereof the corresponding virtues are the knowledge". This isn't the same as claiming they held that "wrongdoing is a product of ignorance", or at least, I don't see it that way.
Your other claim, that stoics hold that "no one does wrong willingly", seems to be refuted by the notion that they hold the "bad man" to be "callous and relentless". Apparently they held that such folks actually do perform "bad" acts willingly. Seneca had first hand experience of such "bad men", since he knew Nero personally (cost him his life in the end).

No, read the quote again. Read what it actually says, not what you think it says.

Seneca seems to state that grief is a natural (another stoic tenet was that one should live in accordance with nature... Just sayin'...) response but that we shouldn't prolong our grief unnecessarily.

So, you just changed your initial claim into something else? You first stated that "a core Stoic belief is that wrongdoing is a product of ignorance", which then became "No one does wrong willingly, yes? That's a core Stoic view". Hmmm, suspicious. Like, moving the goalposts, suspicious. :rofl:

Oh. and this is what you stated in the opening post:

"As an example of the latter, take the view - often associated with Stoicism - that it is irrational to feel grief for those who have died.

Now, on its face that claim seems false. Someone who felt no grief for a loved one who has just died is not healthy. They have reason to feel grief. They are not a model of rationality, for they are either failing to recognise a reason to grieve, or failing to respond to a reason to grieve - a reason most of us recognise."

Seems like you claim that stoicism advocates that one shouldn't feel grief at all ("Someone who felt no grief for a loved one who has just died is not healthy. ". The quote I provided says otherwise.

Now, to be fair, here's what Diogenes Laertius states in his "Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers" (Life of Zeno):

"And grief or pain they hold to be an irrational mental contraction. Its species are pity, envy, jealousy, rivalry, heaviness, annoyance, distress, anguish, distraction. Pity is grief felt at undeserved suffering; envy, grief at others’ prosperity; jealousy, grief at the possession by another of that which one desires for oneself; rivalry, pain at the possession by another of what one has oneself. Heaviness or vexation is grief which weighs us down, annoyance that which coops us up and straitens us for want of room, distress a pain brought on by anxious thought that lasts and increases, anguish painful grief, distraction irrational grief, rasping and hindering us from viewing the situation as a whole."

So, yes, they hold grief to be an "irrational mental contraction". What the Seneca reference shows however is that their idea of how to deal with grief is much more nuanced than just never feeling any.

you just called me a halfwit, right? — Bartricks

Err, no. I called out your definition of stoicism as being less than 24 karat. Didn't say anything about you personally though. Besides, even smart folks miss the mark every once in a while. I'm pretty sure I said some stupid things in my time too.

Yes? So, as far as I'm concerned, that now makes you - you - a really rude person who can, with justice, be spoken to in a fashion that would be rude were it applied to anyone else. That's what I do. I talk to rude people - like you - in the manner you deserve.

Didn't you say: "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Then there's Ying - he does neither", earlier? Not exactly the epitome of politeness either. :rofl:

Now, again, stop attacking me - stop suggesting I'm a halfwit - and actually address the OP.

Stop quoting and put things in your own words, otherwise a) it is not clear that you understand at all what is in the quote and b) it is not clear whether you endorse what is in the quote.

Don't tell me what to do. Well, I mean, you could try, but it won't get you very far. :p

As for my understanding of stoicism, well, lets just say that I'm not wholly uninformed,. Copies of the works of Epictetus, Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, Diogenes Laertius and the "Outlines of Pyrrhonism" by Sextus Empiricus (yeah the sceptic; books 2 and 3 deal with stoic epistemology, one of the few sources where you actually get to read about that since the texts dealing with the groundworks of stoicism by Zeno of Citium and Chrysippus of Soli have been lost to the mists of time.) grace my bookshelves. I also have a book which contains all the anecdotes and extant fragments of Crates of Thebes ("Die Weisheit Der Hunde" by Georg Luck. I also have a copy of "The Cynic Philosophers: from Diogenes to Julian" from the Penguin Classics series, but that one isn't nearly as complete as the book by Georg Luck. Anyway, Crates of Thebes was a teacher of Zeno of Citium, but you knew that already, right?). In any case, I certainly wouldn't call myself an expert on the school, but I'm more informed than your average run of the mill guy off the streets I guess.

And when it comes to endorsing the quotes, and stoicism by extension, no, I don't agree with stoicism in most cases. Scepticism and cyncism are more to my preference when it comes to hellenistic philosophy.

Was I wrong - half-witted - to say that a core Stoic belief is that wrongdoing is a product of ignorance?

Yes. As in, you're wrong about that being a core belief of stoicism (they also pointed to other causes like greed and being ruled over by emotions; stating that the stoics boiled the entire issue down to just ignorance would be a gross oversimplification). Not making any claim on you being a halfwit or not. That's not for me to decide.

Was I wrong to say that a core Stoic belief is that grief is irrational?

Yes. Like I said, Seneca has works explicitly dealing with the grief that comes from the loss of a loved one.

He literally states:

"I am grieved to hear that your friend Flaccus is dead, but I would not have you sorrow more than is fitting. That you should not mourn at all I shall hardly dare to insist; and yet I know that it is the better way. But what man will ever be so blessed with that ideal steadfastness of soul, unless he has already risen far above the reach of Fortune? Even such a man will be stung by an event like this, but it will be only a sting. We, however, may be forgiven for bursting into tears, if only our tears have not flowed to excess, and if we have checked them by our own efforts. Let not the eyes be dry when we have lost a friend, nor let them overflow. We may weep, but we must not wail."
--Seneca the Younger, "Moral Letters to Lucilius", letter 63

Didn't I post this one already?

Yes, and I don't see how this is a modal argument (the size of the universe wouldn't be relevant for that). His language here is sloppy, but he is, I think, alluding to something like a Boltzmann Brain situation, where through a random fluctuation of particles it could happen that certain words are spoken, immediately followed by something like a "devil" materializing in the vicinity. In a large enough universe, so the argument goes, this is almost certain to happen somewhere, some time, thus providing a specious verification for the existential claim. As it happens, though this wasn't what Popper had in mind, a multiverse (the actual, not the modal kind) would have served just as well for his argument. — SophistiCat

:up:

Damned if I know. — Ciceronianus the White

Same here.

I suppose this is another way to describe the divide between the traditions.

https://existentialcomics.com/comic/146

:rofl:

I think it's pretty clear that he is making an ontic claim - he says so himself (it's a "purely existential" statement). — SophistiCat

What? The claim that the universe is infinite/sufficiently large? He's not referring to that. He's saying that the devil summoning thing, "like all existential statements", "in an infinite (or sufficiently large) universe" is "almost logically true". He also states that, "according to my criterion of demarcation it is excluded as non-empirical and nonscientific or, if you like, metaphysical...". He's highlighting a problem with the logical positivist account of demarcation (verification principle), which he hopes to sidestep with his own criterion ("I hope this example will also provide a reply to the often repeated criticism that it is perverse to exclude purely existential statements from empirical science and to classify them as metaphysical").

He is tilting against the windmill of probabilistic confirmation, and I don't see how modal logic could possibly help him in that.

Sure (not being sarcastic. here). In any case, I was talking to ovdtogt, who stated:

Isn't he just speculating on the Multiverse theory that postulates an infinite number of copies of You exists. This can make the logical conclusion that a probable copy of You exist also?

and:

I am not postulating on 'possible worlds' but on the existence of an infinite number of Universes.

which isn't what Popper was talking about.

What games do you like? What are your favorite games? — Wheatley

-Dodonpachi
-ESPGaluda
-1944: The Loop Master
-Giga Wing
-Raiden Fighters Jet
-The Last Blade 2
-Street Fighter Alpha 3
-Ultra Street Fighter 4
-The King Of Fighters 2002 Unlimited Match
-Capcom vs SNK 2
-Crusader Kings 2
-Jagged Alliance 2 1.13
-Sim City 4 with NAM
-Disgaea 5
-Baldurs Gate series
-Fallout 2

Diogenes of Sinope would be making tons of cash as a Youtuber...

Crates of Thebes and Hipparchia of Maroneia would get fined for public indecency.

Thanks Ying for taking the trouble to post Popper's argument. — TheMadFool

No problem. :)

Yes. Well that would not work as all 'possible worlds' would still have to adhere to the basic laws of physics. — ovdtogt

The whole talk about "possible worlds" isn't an ontic claim, here.

don't think you've quite understood my argument. I am not postulating on 'possible world' but on the existence of an infinite number of Universes. — ovdtogt

Yeah I got that. Popper was talking about "possible worlds" in the context of modal logic though.