The basic argument is that if these were successful, there would be far more theist philosophers. — Banno

Not sure if you were being deliberately flippant, but I think this is a bad argument. There could be many other reasons why more philosophers are atheists than theists aside from it being that arguments for theism are unsuccessful. Recently there has been a growing resurgence of interest in, and appreciation of, medieval scholastic metaphysics; the proponents of which have provided demonstrations, that they believe, show that standard refutations of theistic arguments (usually the cosmological) are insufficient and depend on certain misinterpretations, or just flat out ignorance, of the actual arguments.

I think the idea is that the majority of philosophers are atheists not because atheism is correct, but because of certain historical events (et cetera et cetera) there is a climate of atheism within philosophy that more or less takes theism to have been refuted, and that because of this most philosophers simply don't see the need to really deal with it. While the majority of philosophers may be atheist, I am not sure if the same can be said about philosophers of religion, those who have specialized in studying these arguments. Within philosophy of religion there does seem to be a much greater appreciation (and understanding) of theistic arguments.

I don't mean to say that I personally believe in these arguments (I think metaphysics like this is basically propaganda for power structures and so I don't really see it as a worthwhile pursuit), so don't expect me to offer any defenses of them. I'm just making a point that if you decide to play the metaphysics game, I think you might be surprised to find that there are theists with sophisticated arguments that are not so easily refuted by the standard arguments you hear from atheist philosophers.

This question might be more suited to psychology than philosophy, but in general I am still chewing on the question as to why people don't seem to do more proactive matters to forestall their deaths, if they really do not want to die. Why are we so busy doing so many other things rather than trying to solve death?

I was reminded of a quote from one of my favorite novels, Journey to the End of the Night:

It looks like any man has things he is willing to die for, quickly and gladly. Except that a chance to die pleasantly, the chance he's looking for, doesn't always materialize. So he goes off somewhere to die as best he can . . . He sticks around on earth and everybody takes him for a jerk and a coward, but the truth is that he simply lacks conviction. He only seems to be a coward.

Robinson was not prepared to die under the conditions offered. Under different conditions he might have been delighted.

All in all, death is something like a marriage.

This particular death didn't appeal to him, that was the long and the short of it. — Céline

Basically, it seems to me that while people may profess that they do not wish to die, what they really mean is that they do not wish to die yet. But ultimately, everyone wants to die, everyone hopes for a pleasurable death, everyone looks forward to finally letting-go. The trouble is that dying right is tricky.

I don't mean to say that people only ever wish to die, just that in everyone resides a desire (among others) to die. This conflict of desires, of living and dying, may help explain why people simultaneously claim they do not wish to die, but yet seem to do the minimal to prevent it.

I have decided/matured to not want anything new, but to wear out what I have, even as I continue to take care of and maintain those things. I find the wear on things somehow, someway reassuring. As if when my boots go, then I ought to be ready. And the familiarity of those things keeps me grounded. — tim wood

Well put :clap:

Don't Be Evil: The Case Against Big Tech, Rana Foroohar

People seem to prefer giving up if the alternative is that they have to do work; at least until the problem is looming over them and it’s too late to do anything but regret not taking action sooner. — Pfhorrest

I think this is a very good point. It seems as though, while people may fear death, it is usually remote enough for them to ignore it, and even pretend that it does not exist. Death may be something people fear, but it is not the only thing they fear either.

n the Phaedo, Socrates says:

the one aim of those who practice philosophy in the proper manner is to practice for dying and death — Merkwurdichliebe

:up: Indeed, I find that to be one of the most memorable sayings of Socrates.

On reflection, of course, if there is no life after death we have nothing to fear. And, if there is, we have everything to gain. Unless we have engaged in actions that lead us to believe that we may be subject to judgement and punishment in the other world. In which case it would boil down to a secret fear of punishment. — Apollodorus

Partly agree. If there is torment to be found after your death, that does not necessarily mean you are being punished. For all you know, the life you are living is a temporary lessening of the torment that may have preceded and will succeed it. As if you are drowning eternally, and life represents a brief gasp of air before you go back under. A frightening prospective, in my opinion.

It strikes me watching as I sometimes do old films that everyone in the film and all listed in the credits are dead. And we can watch films from before 1910 of city life, the bustle of downtown or the train station with an arriving train. And all the vanities, hopes, joys of all pictured, dead. Draw what lessons you will. — tim wood

Yes, I do the same thing as well, it is a good memento mori.

I think death is oftentimes frightening if you are attached to things in the world. Viewing old films and realizing that everyone in it is dead shows that attachments are in vain.

I am reminded of Zapffe's analysis, that humans find themselves in a universe that is incapable of satisfying their spiritual needs. Humans naturally have attachments, but these attachments are temporary and will eventually vanish with death. While humans can modify the way they think about attachments (e.g. Buddhism, etc), this is ultimately not a natural state. Just as an example, I will vacillate between accepting (and even looking forward to) death, and clinging to my attachments. The ideal scenario would be to undergo something like death (so I no longer experience various burdens of life), but somehow keep in my possession the things that I care about. Which is just impossible.

What I am trying to say is that we may not know really whether we fear death until it looms before us in an immediate way. — Jack Cummins

I think you correct in this, similar to what @Pfhorrest said earlier. Unless death is at your doorstep, it can seem almost unreal.

One thing I think sometimes gets confused with death is aging. Even if someone like Valerie Solanas, or David Sinclaire (author of Lifespan: Why We Age – and Why We Don’t Have To), is correct that we can eliminate aging, we will never eliminate death. Everyone will eventually die.

Although aging certainly has many drawbacks, I think that one of the silver linings is that it gives a certain structure and predictability to life. People plan their lives out in accordance to how much time they roughly estimate they have. When people die "from old age", it's not really surprising, because it was expected all along. And while people do sometimes die early, it's not the norm.

If aging is eliminated, then the only way that people will die is if they suffer some traumatic accident, or they kill themselves. And unless graceful suicide services are made available to people, death will become the sudden vanishing of a person. Here one day, gone the next, with no foreshadowing. Everyone who does not commit suicide will die in a sudden traumatic accident.

One of the biggest problems I have with using technology to communicate is that it attempts to blend all of society together, kind of like a homogenising force, and spread out all of humanity onto a flat disk, like spreading butter on a piece of bread... — JohnLocke

In order words, technology circulates the myth of the "average" man (who does not exist), and each person is then compared to this average, which is often used to determine their value.

but that act of communication in this new style has many indirect consequences and the most obvious one I worry about most is ORIGINALITY. — JohnLocke

Indeed :up:

So, humanity, while likely being increasingly technologically efficient, will not be as individually creative in the Renaissance sense of true creativity, but rather this sense of creativity will likely come from computer assisted and thus replicable algorithms insofar as to diminish and obscure individualism in society. — JohnLocke

Yes very good point :ok:

I guess human beings will be thought of as kind of like pieces of replicable code — JohnLocke

Correct, humans are programmed to be a certain way, to think a certain way, to do things a certain way, etc. Technique (more broad than "technology") aims to find the most efficient way of doing things, and in the process it destroys everything else. The right way to do things is the most efficient way, according to technique, even if this means removing individual creativity and autonomy.

Thoughts...? — JohnLocke

Aside from what I wrote previously, you really need to use paragraphs. There are good ideas here but it's very difficult to understand when it's just a massive chunk of text.

If you have not already, I recommend reading Jacques Ellul.

Paranoid schizophrenic, attempted murderer and radical feminist Valeria Solanas wrote:

All diseases are curable, and the aging process and death are due to disease; it is possible, therefore, never to age and to live forever. In fact the problems of aging and death could be solved within a few years, if an all-out, massive scientific assault were made upon the problem. This, however, will not occur with the male establishment because: ... — SCUM Manifesto

If Solanas is correct to say that aging and death can be solved (or at least postponed a great deal), why is it that we are not more focused on solving it?

I think there's a few points to be made about this:

• I take being self-sufficient as not necessarily entailing surviving all by oneself, but can also include being part of a small social group in which everyone is truly involved with making decisions.
  
• The city is a luxury trap, promising all sorts of conveniences and comforts, but with the cost that you sacrifice your dignity and potential. Being brought up within a city domesticates you, you are hooked to technology just like an alcoholic is hooked to booze, and you have never been taught the skills, let alone the discipline, to be self-sufficient. Even if you recognize the problems of technology, it's extremely difficult to get out, it is nearly impossible. You are like a bird with clipped wings. There is no rehab center that you can go to, and basically everyone will try to convince you to stay ("go to therapy!", "it's not that bad..." etc), because they are also hooked. You are crippled and you can never take back up the same sense of life that your undomesticated ancestors did thousands of years ago. This is why some anti-techies refer to those who try as "feral", and honestly most of them are fucking weird.
  
• Kaczynski has written an extensive critique of anarcho-primitivism (here), in which he accuses them of being completely out of touch with reality:

The myth of progress may not yet be dead, but it is dying. In its place another myth has been growing up, a myth that has been promoted especially by the anarchoprimitivists, though it is widespread in other quarters as well. According to this myth, prior to the advent of civilization no one ever had to work, people just plucked their food from the trees and popped it into their mouths and spent the rest of their time playing ring-around-the-rosie with the flower children. Men and women were equal, there was no disease, no competition, no racism, sexism or homophobia, people lived in harmony with the animals and all was love, sharing and cooperation. — Uncle Ted

• Living without a technology is more difficult after the technology has been introduced than before. Life thousands of years ago without technology was not a walk in the park, but it would have been easier than it is today.

Two radfem classics:

Intercourse, Andrea Dworkin
SCUM Manifesto, Valerie Solanas

With any kind of major technological development comes the inevitability of it being misused. People with good intentions will make discoveries, craft new technologies, and then try to institute policies that will aim to limit the use of this technology for only benevolent purposes.

The problem is that policies are not enough. The cat is out of the bag. The only thing policies can do is delay the inevitable. There will be consequences, and they will be catastrophic.

The motivations of most scientists and technologists are selfish, though they may pretend to have altruistic motives and may even delude themselves into believing this. If they really did care about the consequences, then they would not participate in the enterprise. The collaborator of a dictatorship may justify their actions by saying that they were "just following orders". Similarly, the scientists may justify their research by saying that they were "just following their curiosity" or that they merely developed the technology, and that they were not the ones to misuse it. Not very convincing.

In the future, there will be genetically modified humans. They will out-perform non-genetically modified humans, and there will be a new hierarchy in which the GM humans are at the top. Those with money will be the first to benefit, as they will be able to afford the treatment. Those at the bottom may never receive the treatment, and it may become a tightly-guarded secret that helps those in power remain in power. If it does become available to everyone, then human reproduction will fully transform into the manufacturing of people, the perfect solution for the population factories called cities. Humans will no longer be the result of a natural process, but rather a product that is manufactured in order to be consumed for its labor by the city.

There seems to be a strong correlation between depression and the ideology of “following” one’s heart. — Ladybug

I'd wager that depression (aka an urban neurosis) is caused primarily because the depressive has all of their essential needs met by simply filling a slot in society and obeying commands. Creative and independent activity is usually something one does in their spare time. Most importantly, a socialized "individual" is not really an individual, but a helpless domestic captive of a population farm, one who cannot take care of themselves and who cannot exist independently from the city. From birth, urbanites are bred to believe that being an individual consists solely in being "unique", rather than the more fundamental quality of being self-sufficient.

Things have become so abhorrent that people need to take "vacations", or buy a shit ton of crap to "fill that void", or find "support groups", "therapists" and "medication" to help them cope with their unnatural condition. Some commit suicide, some turn to substance abuse, some commit crimes and get sent to prison, because what the fuck else can you do?

Modern man's potential is truncated and crippled in order to feed the factory. The depressive feels the yoke tight around their neck, but doesn't know how to do shrug it off. Because they have been bred to be helpless and dependent, they likely will never be able to escape, and they will live their entire lives in a cage.

I figured you'd appreciate the schop, he's pretty dope

That's three people who have said Outlines of Pyrrhonism. I have it on my shelf, but I have not read it yet. I'll have to read it soon.

Dune - Frank Herbert. — counterpunch

Agreed, what a great book.

"The Last Messiah", Peter Wessel Zapffe — 180 Proof

Not quite a book, but certainly a profound read.

It Can't Happen Here, Sinclair Lewis — 180 Proof

Just finished this, thanks for the recommendation. What a fantastic read.

The Meaning of the City, Jacques Ellul

The Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius.

Whenever I flirt with anarchism or throw shade at the government, for example, someone always brings up roads and bridges and how a state is necessary for infrastructure, the implication being that only man in his statist form can flatten ground and lay asphalt. — NOS4A2

I think an even deeper assumption is that only man in his civilized form can possibly live as he was meant to live; that other ways of life are savage and regressive; that only a sedentary, agriculture-based lifestyle amongst billions of other humans is the right way to go about living.

Of course technological progress entails centralized statecraft. Only a state can possibly provide the organization needed to facilitate the aims of technique. Technology and statecraft go hand-in-hand. The state is only a consequence of the development of technique (being a technique in itself). I believe that it is naive to think it can be otherwise, as if one could reject the state but retain "the rest" of our techniques.

Rejecting technique entails rejecting the state. Rejecting the state alone is just myopic.

Reality is just kinda like, whatever, dude

I'm seeking out those who disagree with this proposition: Science is a good thing, to see what their arguments are. — Banno

Science is used for evil, and most scientists do not know and/or care (or they would not be scientists).

Without the scientific research of modern psychology and sociology there would be no propaganda, or rather we would still be in the primitive stages of propaganda that existed in the time of Pericles or Augustus. Of course, propagandists may be insufficiently versed in these branches of science; they may misunderstand them, go beyond the cautious conclusions of the psychologists, or claim to apply certain psychological discoveries that, in fact, do not apply at all. But all this only shows efforts to find new ways; only for the past fifty years have men sought to apply the psychological and sociological sciences. The important thing is that propaganda has decided to submit itself to science and to make use of it. Of course, psychologists may be scandalized and say that this is a misuse of their science. But this argument carries no weight; the same applies to our physicists and the atomic bomb. The scientist should know that he lives in a world where his discoveries will be utilized. Propagandists inevitably will have a better understanding of sociology and psychology, use them with increasing precision, and as a result become more effective. — Jacques Ellul, 'Propaganda' (1965)'

Our entire much-praised technological progress, and civilization generally, could be compared to an axe in the hand of a pathological criminal. — Albert Einstein, (1917)

In 2009 the AAAI (Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence) held a conference that dealt with the dangers posed by the development of artificial intelligence, and as possible remedies the participating scientists considered "limits on research," the confinement of some research to "a high-security laboratory," and a "cadre" that was to "shape the advances and help society cope with the ramifications" of artificial intelligence. It's hard to tell to what extent all this was a public-relations effort and to what extent the scientists actually believed in it, but in any case their proposals were hopelessly naive.

[...]

In any case, however sophisticated the propagandists' arguments may be, everything relevant that I've seen in the media up to the present (2016) seems to indicate that most scientists' thinking about the social and moral implications of their work is still at a superficial, or even juvenile level.

[...]

Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak thinks that "robots taking over would be good for the human race," because they'll be "smarter than us" and will make us like "the family pet and taken care of all the time." — Ted Kaczynski, 'Technological Slavery' (2019)

A Short History of Progress by Ronald Wright begins with asking this same question using Gauguin's words. It's not a bad read (though not groundbreaking or anything like that).

Anyway, the romantic image is that we lived as savages for thousands of years, until we discovered how fire and seeds worked and created civilization based on agriculture, and have been progressing since with the ultimate aim being the mastery of nature.

The actual evidence paints a different picture though, that of civilization developing arbitrarily and non-linearly, mostly based on environmental pressures. Early on, ruthless protection rackets, organized by petty warlords, kept people working the land and having plenty of babies in population-farms called cities. Without having real goals to fulfill by their own effort, people turned to various other secondary activities. Over many generations, people became domesticated ("civilized"), and as a result their ability to take care of themselves has atrophied. People require the assistance of an elaborate social structure that tells them what to think and do, which renders them care in exchange for assimilation into and maintenance of this structure.

The individual is nothing without society, completely helpless. The behavioral difference between modern man and his ancestors is akin to the difference between a dog and a wolf. Humanity is defective and aberrant to the natural order of things. The future just involves more and more programmed social behavior, where people will become less and less free and not even realize it because they have been manipulated into accepting servitude.

Read Ellul.

Interesting points. WRT artificial intelligence hiding its existence, I think it's a fun idea, but I do not seriously think that any digital computer-based machine has the algorithms capable of doing that. Digital machines are really good at maintaining near-perfect memory and obeying rigid instructions very quickly, but there are still things that they are really bad at, like visual recognition and interpreting jokes or metaphors (re: The AI Delusion). And this is not just a god-of-the-gaps like argument because it doesn't seem like they ever will get good at them (unless they have monumental resource requirements). IMO, that an AI has secretly developed complex "intentions" and "goals" that it deliberately hides from researchers just seems highly unlikely (as unlikely as octopuses splitting the atom) unless we see a totally new computational paradigm ("analog", "field"-based re: The World In Your Head).

What about a civil war that fractures the country into smaller factions? Would ICBMs be relevant?

I think an AI singularity is science fiction. I don't think it's ever going to happen, at least not that man-meets-machine technological apotheosis :lol:

Yeah I think it would be preferable if people stopped trying to make everything about love and happiness or whatever and just admit that life is full of anguish and suffering and bullshit, and that you're expected to deal with it even if you fucking hate it; and that while nobody asked to be born, nobody really cares if you wish you hadn't been, because they have their own crap they have to deal with and don't have the time or patience to listen to people whining about their misery. At least they'd be honest.

Can the pratictionner of philosophy be dogmatic ? — Nzomigni

NO, and there is NOTHING you can say to persuade me otherwise.

Allison's Kant's Transcendental Idealism has been phenomenal, albeit dense.

By every conceivable standard, there's more choice and more freedom today than in the past with some fluctuations here and there. There's also more choice and freedom in western social democracies than the Anglo Saxon affair often touted as an example of individualism. — Benkei

At the same time though, I would argue that technological advancements have significantly impacted freedom. Mass surveillance, rapid communications and transportation has made effective resistance/avoidance of the state far more difficult.

Sure in the past there were regimes that did not respect the notion of human rights, but it was easier to evade it. The enforcement of state policy was not nearly as effective as it is now.

I dunno what you mean.

:up:

All things wrong with antinatalism:

• Antinatalists (god they're so fucking annoying)

I feel entitled to want my death or misfortune to diminish the well-being of loved ones. I don't think I'm entitled to want them to suffer on my account. There can be diminished well-being even in posthuman paradise – although death and aging will eventually disappear, and posthuman hedonic dips can be higher than human hedonic peaks. — David Pearce

I'm having a hard time imagining what a hedonic dip would be like that did not involve some form of suffering. How do I remember that times were better without being disappointed with the present moment?

I don't want the people I care about to suffer either, but if nobody cared if I were gone, that would be a very lonely existence. Loneliness that would have to be eliminated with technology. Companionship would not be genuine. If you feel sad when a loved one is gone, that is good, it is good that you feel bad, because it means your relationship was genuine.

It seems like authentic, genuine experiences may not be possible in a world without suffering. Things would no longer have any weight or meaning. Which of course would be a negative feeling that would need to be eliminated. The importance of meaning would be lost, and nobody would even care.

Thank you for responding. I have another question.

If humans were to abolish all forms of suffering with technology, as you say, I think the only way of fully accomplishing this would be by constraining the limits of consciousness itself. Just like in the early dystopian We, people would have their imaginations removed, or carefully adjusted so that they could only ever imagine pleasurable things.

I know that you could reply that a concept and the affect it invokes are distinct; that there is no logical relationship between them. That goodness/badness are like different colors of paint being applied to a neutral gray.

In which case, humans would be incapable of feeling negative feelings regarding things we usually find important to feel negative feelings towards. For instance, the death of a loved one invokes sadness. Would technologically-enhanced humans feel sadness?

What about other feelings, like that of accomplishment, that require some degree of struggle beforehand? Would there be an "accomplishment pill" that people would take when they want to feel accomplished, or a "love pill" when people want to feel loved (even if they have accomplished nothing, and have nobody to love)?

Would the removal of all forms of negative feelings include feelings that are important for morality? I can imagine a situation in which blissful slaves work constantly, die frequently, all with a happy smile and no sense that what is being done to them is wrong. How would we be compassionate? How would we feel guilt?

Hi David, forgive me if you have already explained this (in which case could you direct me to where you did?), I have a question for you.

Do you believe that there are limits to the extent in which a person is ethically obligated to get involved on someone else's behalf? Do you think there comes a point in which a person is justified in saying, "not my problem"?

Cirith Ungol's songhas the lyrics:

Sometimes I take a look at the world
And sometimes I take a look at the girls
I'm just a spectator, I don't get involved
I've got too many problems of my own to solve

It seems to me that the common-sense intuition is that, while suffering is indeed bad, there are limits to how much a person is obligated to try to reduce it, and furthermore, that it is more important to not increase the amount of suffering in the world than it is to reduce it. It at least initially seem like we have some degree of freedom to be a "spectator", so that some things are just not our fault, and we have no responsibility to make things better (although it is admirable if we so choose).

What are your thoughts on this?

I frequently skim discussions, without really paying attention to all the points being made; but I stop when I see an insult, not just because it's usually funny but because it indicates that someone feels very strongly about this particular point, and that perhaps I should examine it more deeply. I think insults are useful in that regard, they aren't always just rhetorical flourish, they direct our attention to important details.

If there was a sticker that let people label their ideas as important, everyone would use that sticker on every single idea they had and it wouldn't mean anything. But a well-crafted insult demonstrates intelligence and makes people pay attention.

I think sometimes ideas are tangled up with the way people are, sometimes you can explain (or try to explain) why someone believes what they do based on who they are as a person, which circumvents the play-by-the-rules logic you mentioned. "Only a loser would believe xyz," etc.

Ultimately it does seem that the majority of the time, insults are just bullying, just people making themselves feel superior by putting other people down.

I think sometimes it's perfectly acceptable to call a spade a spade. If someone's being stupid then they ought to be told they're being stupid, and sometimes an effective way to get that point across is by shaming them and making them feel bad. It may not always be the nicest thing, and sometimes it could be considered bullying, but I think there are legitimate cases in which it is 100% deserved and what should be done. "That was stupid, and you should feel bad" works when they realize it really was stupid.

Also started The AI Delusion by Gary Smith.

The Rebel, Albert Camus

Thanks for replying, David.

Only technology (artificial intelligence, robotics, CRISPR, synthetic gene drives, preimplantation genetic screening and counselling) can allow intelligent moral agents to reprogram the biosphere and deliver good health for all sentient beings.
Global warming? There are geoengineering fixes.
Overpopulation? Fertility rates are plunging worldwide.
Famine? More people now suffer from obesity than undernutrition. — David Pearce

I don't want to come across like some neo-Luddite who hates all technology, but:

Reprogramming the biosphere etc could result in it being dependent on the technological infrastructure. And if this infrastructure fails, then the biosphere will be unable to recover on its own. I think about a business who has nearly its entire operations digitized in the cloud; when those servers go down, the business is screwed. Though perhaps you could provide some examples of geoengineering fixes that don't have the possibility of catastrophic failure.

With respect to famine, the fact that obesity is more common then undernutrition is an example of technology solving a problem, only to introduce another one.

I share some of Jacques Ellul's reservations about the effects of technology. But only biotechnology can recalibrate the hedonic treadmill, eradicate the biology of involuntary pain and suffering, and deliver a world based on gradients of intelligent bliss: — David Pearce

Could you elaborate on these reservations you share with Ellul?

Jacques Ellul himself was deeply religious. [...] But science promises the most profound spiritual revolution of all time. Tomorrow’s molecular biology can identify the molecular signatures of spiritual experience, refine and amplify its biological substrates, and deliver life-long spiritual ecstasies beyond the imagination of even the most god-intoxicated temporal-lobe epileptic. — David Pearce

I am not religious or spiritual myself, but I think Ellul's critique of technology can be evaluated independently of his religious beliefs.

Would a super-rational scientific soma really be spiritual? What do you mean by spiritual here?