Psychedelics are not without danger. They are very powerful and can exacerbate or cause mental illness. They can also do some really, really wonderful things. I've experienced both aspects and feel ambivalent about them. I generally don't recommend them to people. If you are inclined to explore such territories, you will go there of your own accord. I suppose it's like scuba diving or mountaineering. There are amazing things to see, but some people drown or crash on the rocks. Others find much of value. — petrichor

it seems like a shortcut for desired revelations about one's inner-life. — Shawn

This I admire most about this thread; I wonder the exact same. Turned out great btw, very highly intellectual and compelling non-biased descriptions of psychedelics here. Primarily by the quoted poster and @Joshs, IMO.

I guess to springboard off your question, if not add to it, particularly for those who have experienced psychedelics, is the profoundness really something that can't be experienced by reading or watching a really really good book or reading a good piece of detailed writing (something Nietzsche-level the average writer cannot convey in words)? I feel any physical experience is exactly that, a physical experience. Sure it's "crazy", surreal, mind-bending all that. But at the end of the day it's just a sensation overlaid by irregular thoughts overlaid by visuals. I'm sure I'll get the "no bro you gotta try it, I left my body and became God. I could hear colors and see sounds, bro" kind of verbal kitsch, but really, as an intellectual, if you can't put it into words you simply felt really weird and your making a big deal out of it because its something you never felt before.

So while I don't think its necessarily a "psychotic break" that perhaps is transient in nature altering your identity and concept of self, no different than a first time vacation or sightseeing trip would do if you lived in a small village your whole life, I think its a bit overblown simply based on the facts. People exciting themselves over a temporary period of irregular brain activity leading to a very base level change in perception that just so happens to barely constitute a "changed life perspective". Nothing a movie, in theory, couldn't replicate, if you truly immerse yourself into it.

It's the nature of business that partnerships go sour. You have to nail everything down in legal documents and even then, a former friend is likely to stab you in the back. Much better to go it alone. — frank

Sounds like you speak from experience? :chin:

--

But generally speaking, OP. The wisdom of the old ones ring true: "If there's a market for your idea, it's long been filled." In other words, everything worth doing has already been done, otherwise, it would have been done already. Sure, not 100%. But definitely more so than not, I'd wager. There's always niche and pseudo-"emerging" markets you can try to corner. Some do. Rarely does it amount to the vision of outright success one desires. But like they say, "you never know".

Example, I'm working on something like that now. It's a service, we'll say. Wanted to make it free to use, supported by ads. Let's just say, I'm starting to see why such services charge premium rates by the minute. What a pity too. It actually incorporates this forum as a minor functionality, that in and of itself could easily bring about hours of enjoyment and social enlightenment to all. I'm still working on it, however. Though it helps to keep a realistic mindset, especially when it comes to risking one's standard of living, and in many cases, livelihood altogether.

I'm hesitant to consider the listed reasons as rationalizations; but, regarding psychologizing the issue, I would like to know why people seek mood alteration? What's the reason why people want to alter their moods? — Shawn

Why do men seek pleasure and not misery? To keep on track with psychoanalyzing, well, because a happy life is a good one, no? Other than that, it's simply the way man is wired. Historically, if it makes you go "ouch" you avoid it and if it makes you go "ooh" or "ahh" or "yum", you go for it. Not much philosophy involved, really. Perhaps I'm being dense. There's also an aspect of discovery and "having lived", I guess you could even say not being "afraid" or "too mild-mannered and boring", something men fear to be looked upon as by their peers.

So, what are your thoughts about this situation? — Shawn

My thoughts on the "situation" are exactly this. If I was tasked with overthrowing a nation state, or fighting an army, if I could have one condition granted to bestow upon my enemy or targeted population, it would be for them all to be high. Very high. From there it'd be a walk in the park. That's an underlying concern I feel many miss but fortunately the government does not miss the mark on.

Why are drugs so alluring to some and growing in popularity amongst (quite a few) Americans? — Shawn

But more generally speaking, it's basically the only "instant mood change" available to man. Bills too high? Wife got you down? Dog ran away? Wife ran away with your dog and left you with a bill? Don't worry, get high! Heh, something like that.

All drugs are different of course, except for the fact they fundamentally (some more than others) alter your mind state. People want escape from their mundane often dreary lives, and what quicker way then to get high for a spell. Sure, rational men know it doesn't really solve anything, in fact can amount to problems piling up, but for the average folk, if it feels good, it solves a problem, and that is good enough.

Opinion - communism goes against human nature, so it can only be forced on people from above. — T Clark

While I don't disagree with you in principle, I feel compelled to ask: doesn't law and order as well? Surely the two aren't so terribly dissimilar in sharing similar qualities of being a "manufactured" or inorganic state of affairs, despite both also having relatable qualities of natural social cohesion and the resulting "values", virtues, whatever you wish to call the things that make a society a pleasant thing to call one's own? If I, absent of modern upbringing in any civilized society, feel hungry, or even not, and I see one of lesser or smaller stature than me in possession of something I wish to make mine, would I not be inclined to do so, whether by means of deceit or perhaps a bit more forceful of an approach?

Capital "F" "Fate" is consciously determined by an outside actor in which said actions to determine said fate were performed willfully with the intent of such. Determinism is a school of thought or affirmation that, due to cause and effect, the nature of consciousness, and how we perceive the world with our five biological senses and physical brain, basically everything we "do" or "are" or think we are is essentially the result of something or someone else in one way or the other, somewhere down the line. A successful businessman? You were born with an apt mind for business and innate drive to succeed due to genetics passed on in which you had no say over. World champion athlete? The same. World champion panhandler who hasn't had a stable home or been sober for years? Also, the same. Etc, etc.

ie. "The jury will now decide your fate" vs. "due to the recently-revealed fact you are a eunuch, it has been determined the allegations against you levied by Mrs. Bronson are in fact, impossible, thusly, you are free to go.", etc.

I guess...... — Bob Ross

My reasoning is that you're looking for someone who is not only intelligent but content with themselves as a person, developed well beyond the child-like inner mentality and core persona of many "adults" that you seem to have little interest or connection with. My line of thinking is such a person would likely not be busying themselves trying to find a partner online but exploring the world or enriching themselves mentally in the flesh, as opposed to waiting idly by on a lackluster one-dimensional platform of lust and vanity, wouldn't you agree?

I must say this is surely a Lounge topic.

Also, stop giving me lucrative business ideas. It stirs a very troublesome aspect of my persona I have yet to reign in proper.

Hm. Actually. It looks like "intellimeet.com" is available for the dirt cheap bargain price of only $5,799 USD. Perhaps @Jamal can organize a community fundraiser. From there, it would be a pleasure, nay, the highest of honors, to be able to help make your dream a reality.

That or try either Barnes & Noble or your local library. Worth a shot, eh? :smirk:

Edit: Sadly, "intelligents.com" commands a bit more of a premium, sitting at a cool 15,000 USD. But surely they can be persuaded toward a lower, more reasonable number. Still a bit beyond my purchasing power at the moment, I'm afraid. Another day, perhaps. :meh:

I get his point, though. Perhaps it's my OCD but in essence, words kinda do have to mean something otherwise we don't have a discussion we have an unintelligible madhouse and non-discussion.

I understand how some might not consider, say, burping or passing gas as an art, yet another might. Similar to how a wall of used gum or business cards at a diner may or may not be considered the same.

But surely you would agree, some definitions are, as a strict matter of fact, wrong. There have to be. Unfortunately for those whom the burden of proof happens to fall on, art is one of those concepts where the lines are in fact thoroughly blurred. To take a liberal view, perhaps anything can be art, however nothing is absent of two things: human involvement be it capture or placement and an intended audience of which to view it. Would you agree with that?

So for you art has to be something 'special'? — Tom Storm


Yes! — Baden

Riddle me this, for the sake of defining art. What is "special"? Unique? Surely a blank piece of paper with a black dot squarely in the center is not what comes to mind when one thinks of "art". Or is it?

What if it's a single drop of blood, sweat, or tears from a person's last moment in life as he performed a valiant act of self-sacrifice saving an entire village from a deadly threat or attack? Surely that would be considered "special" and, due to its context, make it a worthy competitor along the lines of other great works. Symbolizing the lone nature of the sacrifice, one man, surrounded by the vastness of the world and the insurmountable odds around him, something like that, no?

What is an example of something "non-special" that attempts to masquerade as art? A simple outline of a circle is not considered "art", I wouldn't think? What would have to be added to that circle to make it qualify, to graduate from a mere diagram to something that can be considered "art"?

Yes, "designed to mock the world of art, and the snobberies that go with it." — ENOAH

Well, that definitely wasn't my point of contention or "indirect message" at all. Just an interesting documentary I thought you'd enjoy and perhaps others a bit less informed or impassioned on the subject writ-large might benefit from, and along with the DuChamp segment offering a point of discussion and insight as to the changing definition or accepted bounds of "what is art", etc.

Didn't mean nothing by it. :sweat:

As for singing being a talent as opposed to creative, I beg to differ. The creative interpretations by these presumably novices, is one of the things which moved me physically. — ENOAH

No, right on. As I said, I must've been barely an adolescent at the time I happened on a few episodes. Can definitely see it as falling under the loose category of "art" on that alone. :up:

Still, the various replies touching on the "intent" of the show being, at its core, a search for talent with the aim of financial motive, that just so happens to offer itself as an engaging and watchable art in and of itself (again, likely simply as to monetize literally every step of the process) seems relevant.

Marcel Duchamp — BC

Ah, I was hoping someone would mention Duchamp!

For anyone interested, especially the OP, as it seems rather relevant:



The whole thing is worth a watch IMO but FF to 5:00 for an excerpt on Duchamp and his role or "take" on art.

Is American Idol art? — ENOAH

After reading your well-thought out OP I must, at the risk of sounding like a dullard, remind that American Idol is an opinion-based talent competition at its core. It's format is artful, yes. i remember watching segments of it while young, I can't recall if "performance" was a factor in the acts, confusing it with America's Got Talent or similar programming where vocal talent was but one of many factors in the act, not a prerequisite at all. As in, I can't recall if one was expected or encouraged to dance, perform gymnastically, etc. in unison with their singing or if singing was in fact the sole point of contention. Singing is indeed an art form, if not in the way art is a discipline, similar to cooking or even something non-traditional like debate or insult-slinging. If it was strictly singing I'd personally consider it to be more of a talent competition than a performance art or exhibition act like ballet would be considered. Art generally requires creativity, something that would not be present absent of human involvement. Though this is challenged by modern art (see "The Lights Going on and Off". "Banana Duct-taped To Wall", or Martin Creed's "Work No. 301: A sheet of paper crumpled into a ball" for example). You can be the world's most talented and favored singer, but this doesn't require creativity as you could simply be reciting the work of another simply "matching the notes" with your voice, which admittedly is not something most can do and requires talent, but nonetheless can be compared to pushing a button when a prompter says to. I'd say?

You're correct in saying the "reality TV" stigma runs strong, for me at least. The "realness", behind-the-scenes drama, and human emotion of the show (something I believe is there for purposes of ratings and "interpersonal connection" and desire to watch it again more so than anything else) does seem to give it a pretense of being more than a simple talent measuring contest. But these factors are also present in other reality shows. Is "Jersey Shore" "art" as well for having all these factors minus the presence of any actual "art form"? One would likely say no. Bearing in mind many of the acts (I believe) were in fact written by the performers themselves, and perhaps even improv'd at times (though I can't recall) there's certainly an artistic quality to the final product. Perhaps it's my personal understanding of "art", in a non-discipline context where it is not defined as a measurable skill, but rather the traditional idea of art being a physical representation, be it on paper or on a stage where performers make a human pyramid, etc.

Just to look at things a different way, if we consider singing more of a talent rather than an artistic discipline, would a pie-eating contest be considered art? Likely not. More of a "live event". You could add all the things also present: drama, emotion, human connection, progression of character, overcoming of personal obstacles, etc. but would this not make it more of a documentary?

Though singing is commonly grouped in under "the arts". Combined with physical performance that certainly makes it a performing art such as opera or a play. By itself though, I remain uncertain. I guess in my head when I think of art I think of art as not just something "I myself am unable to do" and/or "any observable physical human expression (be it a painting or modeling of clay or man on a stage in a stationary dramatic pose for 11 1/2 minutes)" but, actually, that's exactly what I think of it as. Part of me wants to consider AI a hybrid artistic competition and documentary, similar to how if instead of singing it was painting. The subject matter would be art, but the TV show would remain exactly that, a TV show.

It's a good question. That's my take on the subject at least. :confused:

Sure. Of course, those who spend their time and efforts doing so often tend to find themselves with both significantly less time and resulting means of resource or ability to do very much at all in comparison to those who may be a bit more... shrewd in their daily activities and manner of conduct. Alas, 'tis the way of the world. For a time. :naughty:

All true. Didn't mean to oversimplify, I do have a habit of doing so, not intentionally, mind you. Still, I'd argue much of our core "driving factors" remain the same. Fears, desires, motivations, and whatnot. More refined, tailored to the specific going-ons and happenings of the modern world, existential anxieties and concerns of not seeing a tomorrow all but corralled to the back of one's subconscious, of course. But in essence, much of the same.

Certainly agree with earlier society, those fortunate enough to have such, being more connected with one another out of necessity of proximity to life-sustaining goods and services and other "tight-knit" circumstance contributing to the resiliency and defense of said society's existence, in contrast to the modern world and it's "just text me" or "add me on Facebook" norms of interaction.

the thrall of profound ignorance of, and helplesslessness before, the fact of imminent decay dying & death (i.e. mortality) and told themselves self-consoling fairytales and made propitiating sacrifices to 'good fairies for "protection" from evil fairies' as ritualized anti-anxiety terror management (i.e. religion). — 180 Proof

That's all well and good, seems to fill in all the gaps quite nicely and whatnot, but surely you've left out another just as equally profound line of questioning: Purpose.

Put yourself in the shoes of primeval man, or even modern man, a distinction I find to be quite fleeting at times. Why strive? To accumulate, to spread one's genes throughout the biosphere not unlike a common cold germ, experience pleasure and perhaps a bit of profound discovery and enlightenment (somehow), then hit the sack for good and all, knowing inevitably all one's worth and accomplishment will go the way of the morning dew on the grass blades of eternity? Surely there must be more to existence than that? Surely man's place in the universe is more than that of a glorified cold germ? Surely...! It would seem man has yet another unique ability to distinguish himself from the animals: uncanny ability to create purpose when there is none. Something from nothing, the hallmark of the divine. Ideological alchemy in the purest and grandest of ways! That and that alone is reason to believe, in at least the possibility, there is more to existence than can be known or is currently known in the course of man's lifetime. Perhaps? :confused:

... or as opposed to the truth: "I, the Lord thy God, shall condemn thee to suffer and die. :roll: — 180 Proof

Well that's surely harsh, no doubt. But are Man's decrees and punishments not both beyond on par but surpassing in both fastidiousness and cruelty? "Look at me wrong, I'll beat you up", "Take my overpriced new sneakers, I'll kill you", etc, etc. I could go on. We are of no moral ground to talk let alone compare. Absolutely none whatsoever.

I mean, imagine giving something everything they could ever want and more, literally paradise and perfection. No suffering, no harm, and it still not being good enough. It'd be annoying, wouldn't you say? ONE rule. Not ten, not twelve, not the thousands upon thousands of ordinance and code we have today. One. Again, annoying.

Besides, just to stick to the tale, since that's the subject at hand, the "happy ending" per se was "(but) God so loved the world he gave his only begotten Son so that Man would not die but have everlasting life". So, bingo bango, order restored. Happy ending. Cue the mariachi band. :up:

(Again, just going by the chronological "factual" order of the story, as that happens to be subject of discussion)

The serpent actually tells the truth in the story. — Tom Storm

I realize the majority of participants in this thread view this as a debate in fiction, but regardless, let's examine the tale a bit closer. The warning was "If ye eat from the Tree, ye will surely die", as opposed to "instantly die". Similar to how if you go outside in subzero temperatures or unarmed in a wilderness of wild animals you will "not die" as in, upon doing so, you will be just fine. But. Given time. You see.

Fast forward to today. Mankind has almost exterminated all life on Earth, multiple times, by sheer accident. So, I don't know. Sounds like it holds water to me. :smirk:

I personally don't know whether this is posted with mischief or my lack of 'fluency' is actually the cause of not performing a good discussion. — javi2541997

I think it's likely the chastiser believes you are not absorbing or fully understanding the deeper subtleties and "theme" or argument of certain complex, multi-faceted topics.

I consider myself highly proficient in English and there are many topics that I struggle to properly grasp in full on first read. Or in layman's terms, that fry my brain. I majorly use this site in betwixt other PC work and so have the main part of my brain "occupied" with whatever it is I am working on and as a result prefer simpler, shorter more general philosophy type topics like the ones @Shawn often posts. I look at my brain as something of a multi-range oven. Most life tasks and many threads here I can easily multi-task with "one burner" per se, however many require me to have to "clear the range" and intensely focus on specifically, word for word, concept by concept, to even begin to get a vague picture of. And even then I find myself having difficulty and the need to ask superfluous questions to make sure I'm even in the right ballpark mentally with what I conclude the poster is conveying or intending to convey. In short, don't feel bad. There are many high level discussions of concepts here that are difficult to understand, even by those who introduced them. Don't be afraid to ask questions. But also don't feel discouraged by the fact that some discussions will simply be at a higher level of understanding and proficiency than is currently possessed.

You define freedom as defiance to God. You are the serpent. :grimace: — BitconnectCarlos

Oh come now. I can assure you @180 Proof is far from the one who masquerades as an angel of Light. Far. :lol:

A bit stubborn, perhaps, we might not see eye to eye, but there's been nary a time I observed him speak with ill-logic or intent!

To rephrase his interpretation, let's frame it under the context of an old-fashioned parent, who has seen all there is to see, and more, and that of a fledgling child. The child questions the outside world, becomes enchanted in its delights and mysteries, wholly unaware of the pitfalls and dangers that he himself is unable to fathom! In the context of magic and lore, talking serpents, and whatnot, surely there are dangers man is not prepared for, despite his ability to convince himself otherwise. To judge a man for his own limitation, nay, to damn him, is what makes one a serpent in my book, I dare contend. :smirk:

And this is why my former English teacher was right again in his philosophy of "never discussing religion or politics with anyone" no matter how hard I pressed him on the two. :rofl:

magical quests for "immortality" — 180 Proof

Isn't everything a magical quest for immortality, when you think about it, really? We (people in general, not necessarily anyone reading) seek to prolong and yes even immortalize ourselves and ideas with medicine, philosophy, networking, friends, relationships, rearing children, science, sure it's of a different flavor but is it not all the same at the end of one's weary day? We wish to become more than we are or were the previous day, this is not anything mystical or bewildering or some sort of hocus pocus from a book, this is the real most unrefined nature of who we are as a species, to become greater and break free from our mortal shackles as most concretely and effectively as can be done. We have done this through intellectual evolution and philosophical intercourse with one another's ideas and identity on a level that truly transcends the physical into the metaphysical or spiritual, through scientific advancement, which all began from a simple "unrealistic" idea in one's mind! It's all the same, friend! I do contend. Religion gives man the blueprint for the impossible to become possible. Through simple faith yes often in a higher power but also indirectly in one's self and potential to continue on, to thrive, to grow, to take challenges and defeat with a smile and hearty laugh, knowing even in one's defeat and yes even death, seeds were left behind, be they physical such as writings, unfinished plans, half-built inventions, or conceptual such as ideas from those who perished hundreds of years ago that we discuss as if their authors were alive this very moment in the same room as us! All actions, even failures, become the most powerful stepping stones for future generations that remain strong, everlasting throughout the ages if we only have the will, the spirit to pioneer and truck on, knowing that while the body may die, the spirit, be it physical as religious texts purport or conceptual as simple observation confirms, truly does live on in others! This I believe is the essence of all great religion!

I'm asserting that if we aim to change course, i.e. switch the mode we're in (what we're doing right now) it changes the future indirectly. — Barkon

This seems, at face value, at least to me, to be lacking in the depth or profoundness you yourself may find in it.

Short anecdote - and I promise it's related - during a tragedy, religious leaders often attempt to console the grieving by stating "God has a plan" or "it was part of God's plan". Which I've often observed if not delivered in the most delicate and tactful of ways and timing, can actually become quite infuriating, unsatisfying at least. It makes one, at least internally. question: "Oh so if I decide to take out a knife and stab you right now, that's part of God's plan too?!" Point being, I think your premise needs a bit of "dressing up" to be as profound or satisfying to others as you yourself find it to be. :smile:

I'm not sure I understand your point. — Relativist

No worries there, me and @Patterner are of one mind when it comes to understanding the underlying premise of the thread itself! :smile:

I heard once an argument, based on determinism I believe, that in theory a supercomputer could predict the future if, as you said, every painful, excruciating detail of every physical and environmental aspect of a given thing could be known. So for example, a bridge built in 1957. If somehow a computer could know the exact composition of every atom in the steel of the bridge, it's exact number of vehicles traveled and their weight, as well as any environmental factors such as salinity of the air that affect corrosion or weakening of integrity, etc, etc. x1000 for every single other factor (of which it admittedly is virtually impossible to. though not technically impossible) it could be predicted an exact date and time when the bridge would collapse and by what type of vehicle, etc. If that makes sense. Basically in short, your statement of "everything is based on factors" such as the rock being pushed and if every single factor was known (force, resistance, etc) basically any movement, trajectory, or location could in theory be determined. I was just suggesting the modern presence of certain factors that truly cannot be determined (random computer generation or glitches in technology), similar but NOT like the flipping of a coin (I had a debate earlier which a person asserted a coin flip is in fact not random as, much like your rock example, could in theory be measured by force, friction, etc.) whereas a true random event such as random number generation or a glitch cannot. I think? That's all I was trying to bring up, at least. The introduction of modern technology that creates truly random outcomes not based on any measurable or observable factors prior to said outcome, unlike a coin flip or dice roll.

No alternative decision could have been made given that specific set of factors. — Relativist

What about playing the lottery and having one's life changed by a random computer algorithm? Or a computer glitch that affects a streetlight causing a collision or death?

This thread turned out to be much more readable and robust than I thought it would. :smile:

Imagine? Try being a woman in sub-Saharan Africa.

Been there, done that. No thanks, OP. Hard pass. :up:

And no not in some distant past, I mean right now as you're reading this.

As well, I'm sure has or will be mentioned, people like to be rewarded for their contributions. If you're a raving intellect, and perhaps your peers have ostracized you or even worse, or perhaps you just don't consider them worthy of benefiting from your intellect, you become very disinclined to do anything but what can be called "quiet quitting", which as an intellect even your bare nearly-unconscious minimal effort far exceeds that which is "sufficient". So you live a quiet life, finding peace where you may, often in the bottle of a drink, and like always, because of the dregs of society, that society fails to progress. Or perhaps you have a bitter personal rivalry between a social better or even the leader for I don't know what's the classic, misappropriating your beloved, often due to circumstance outside any involved parties control (say the person was simply born larger than you and as a result would defeat you in a fight and due to the benighted nature of the society views that as some sort of character or quality of identity and great metaphysical worth and value instead of the transient happenstance it is, or perhaps is simply wealthier due to being born into a position, etc), and you don't want him to take credit for your work of exponentially improving the society, or something like that.

Whereas in this modern "free market" ownership type system, you can effectively work for yourself, make what you need to make, copyright it, make it private or closed-source, earn your money, and shoot even fly the coop to go to an entirely different nation or land and benefit them, leaving your doubting peers in the innovative dust and darkness they so desperately tried to sentence and prescribed unto you. So it works the way it is, sure there's some downside, but it's the only way you're going to get work out of certain people. So again, literally, "it works" :grin:

I don't think there's anything establishing that indulging in sexual desires dominated political, social or economic decisions in antiquity, or influenced them in any significant sense. — Ciceronianus

Perhaps a better way to put it would be the following. The culmination of all human relationships (a man, no matter if it be a leader, a merchant, or an unskilled laborer, and his life companion) is influenced predominantly by... who you find attractive ie. who you want to have relations with. All decisions made are impacted and influenced by, if not in part, by what the person's significant other thinks. So sexuality is an omnipresent factor in every facet of activity or thought by default, if not in the background after being the sole or principle "cause" for setting up, basically every form of non-platonic relationship. So to expand on that, let's remove every person who already has a romantic partner, without forgetting sexual indulgence or attraction was at minimum a significant factor in establishing that relationship to begin with and as a result every act or failure to act that occurs after that point. So, no matter what position you are, a political leader, a relatively well-off merchant, or struggling laborer without such a partner, it is not unreasonable to suggest, you want to find either A.) a wife or B.) an attractive partner to have by your side to feel complete and not lonely. Fair? So, you will likely work to make that happen, be it as a leader either freeing up your time perhaps neglecting your job or perhaps bringing glory through conquest or some sort of socially-praised act that is likely to result in obtaining such a person. Or as a merchant, you might wish to open up another shop or start selling items that single women might buy so as to again, produce a result or environment where it is more likely for you to obtain such a person based on, sexual desire. Even the struggling laborer, why does he work? To eat and sustain himself yes, but also to be able to support and thus encourage the likelihood of finding, a romantic partner, to satisfy his sexual desire. Or perhaps it can be romanticized yes, absent of overwhelming physical desire, perhaps any one of these individuals just wants company from a fellow person, to raise a happy home and bring glory and honor to his family, those before him, and his empire. Guess what? 9 times out of 10 he's still going to prefer his partner to be sexually attractive to satisfy that primal urge every man and woman has, an urge that left unchecked will also 9 times out of 10 override logic or better judgement at least on occasion, often at the most unfortunate times. All is fair in love and war, after all. This is the "bulk" of my argument: Unchecked sexual desire makes logic and judgement go out the window like NO other thing can! No it is not "established" or "announced" when a man kills another man out of jealous rage, but also 9 times out of 10 there is a woman involved, which means the act was ultimately brought about by sexual desire.

So, not to get personal, it is none of my business, but I doubt you or anyone reading has not acted or chosen not to act based on the likelihood of said action or inaction resulting in gaining the attention, admiration, or affection of the desired sex for reasons beyond being a nice person. And we're intellectuals. So double or triple that for the average, especially relatively-uneducated citizenry in older times. Imagine if, instead, every action or inaction that affected other people was based on what is best for oneself and others intellectually and morally, instead of what appeases one's primal sensibilities, an appeasement that as I said earlier easily becomes confused with the Great virtues and values in life such as love, honor, etc.

I'm not even personally agreeing or disagreeing with anything, I'm sure you're right about what your asserting, I just find your reply as I happen to interpret it as glossing over a few very important underlying dynamics that seem to suggest, absent of education (theology or morality of any flavor), man is not first and foremost guided if not largely influenced by primal desire, the most prominent (or overlapping, universally connected? ie. likely to influence other emotions) of which being sexuality. I would find that a very difficult claim to defend to say the least.

I voted no. Not that I wouldn't, I just prefer the community here, as well as the traditional forum platform. Nothing seems to be "missing", at least nothing that PSE would offer. I'm sure like all communities there's great minds and contributors there as well. Based on very little I conclude people who sign up for TPF are 100% focused on philosophy whereas on the StackExchange network many of the participants who clicked "join StackExchange Philosophy mini-site" from their exhaustive list of profound topics likely might have only a passing or casual interest in philosophy or were just bored.

Also, possibly somewhat of a Lounge topic. Still, welcome to TPF!

I think you give sex far too much importance, as did Paul and others did after him. — Ciceronianus

It could have been sorcery or addiction to shopping or marijuana or drunkenness, that was my point it wasn't what happened to be the most life-controlling it was the fact that it was. Whether the majority of society "viewed" it as good or bad or casual or not, I'm merely referencing the biological fact it's the easiest form of influence over a person's life, be they man or woman. I get your argument the person who engages in casual sex often and is in no short supply begins to view it as little more than reading a book or completing a puzzle, just another thing that happens, of no more significance that a cloudy afternoon or running into a neighbor at a local market, easily, as you're suggesting "the least important thing in the world and couldn't be further from the forefront of daily thought in one's mind", because it has already become a background controlling factor that has quietly influenced nearly all decision and indecision from as early as the person can remember despite, if asked, their honest belief of the opposite. That was my assertion, at least. The insidious nature of over-indulgence of the flesh and it's quiet, subtle as well as not so quiet and subtle controlling grip over man's destiny and most consequentially, society itself, whether it manifests as a conscious urge or theme one recognizes and responds to or has quietly become part of one's identity and character or community zeitgeist without it consciously being in people's minds as "important" or "occupying", ie. the measurable effect and influence remains pivotal whether or not it is viewed as such or even pondered at all, similar to unconscious bias.

If we threw away everything or better yet were forbidden by law to use anything invented or that came about as an invention by way of a person who's view we didn't share, well, that'd make for mighty simple living now wouldn't it? :grin:

What are your main disagreeances or suggestions for alternate interpretation you think could lead to greater understanding or utility of his works in the simplest most direct way and why?

eg. Debater A believes when Wittgenstein claims/makes reference to X it alludes to Y, while I believe X is actually a case against Y in favor of Z... etc, etc.

You can't convince everyone of your view. If it's not well-received, one might consider that ought be the end of it. If you're right or have something to offer the discussion those involved are choosing to ignore, their loss, no? You can lead a horse to water. No need to beat it to the death if it's not particularly thirsty. :chin:

The old society had some good ideas. You would be permitted to have children if and only if you performed some legendary task of heroics or invented something society-changing or happened to be selected by random lottery. It was a privilege one earned voted on by those who proved their worth and intellect, not a right. If not, you were free to have a wonderful, dignified life, unless you broke the law, in which case you were banished to the wilderness, a de facto death sentence, but not always. It was going quite well actually. Until, through lack of foresight, enough of the banished managed to survive and became numerous enough to overthrow the ruling society. And here we are today. War, suffering, overpopulation, and all. Perhaps order will be restored someday. Until then, here are some, a bit more pragmatic, thoughts for your consideration:

Suffering, being a pronounced, elevated, and prolonged state of undesirable emotion or sensation? Many types of suffering are self-inflicted or otherwise easily-preventable. This would require removal of free will and personal autonomy in favor of government mandate over what a person can or cannot do and say. This would lead to more suffering, whether or not it ultimately reduces suffering writ-large. Other forms of preventable suffering, and biologically-related suffering (hunger, thirst, exposure to the elements, etc.) become equally as complex to solve. A scenario or thought experiment I like to go to that seems reliable is the "last man on Earth" scenario. What if, everybody, and everything other people invented, were to disappear, right now? No one to blame for anything, the world is literally yours and yours alone. Would you still not only eat by the sweat of your brow? Have dangers such as finding and maintaining shelter, avoiding predators, and sheltering from natural events or disasters, and even being entertained and not losing one's sanity? As you can see, it's not so simple. Sure as a result of the progress man and society has made, all efforts and struggles across the board should be lessened as in this case society is not the sum of its parts, but something far greater. Still, a world without suffering, is a world without personal choice and excitement, as if there is no risk for negative, there is no purpose or appreciation for the positive.

Inequality is another one. People will always be unequal in some way. There will always be someone stronger, someone smarter, someone happier than you, regardless of if we were all born with the same "starter class" as if beginning a new fantasy RPG. Because life is not an RPG, it's life. The cosmic role of the die decides whether or not we are born tall, short, strong, meek, or even disabled as well as into a rich or respected or large family or abandoned at a stranger's doorstep. That's why it's life. It goes back to the classic socio-economic questions: Should we cease rewarding people for being productive and ingenious and would this not weaken a society that does so where other societies that do not get ahead and advance in all ways, inevitably gaining the means and eventually rationale to overpower the former? Do we completely devalue the responsibilities of creating life to a "meh. I feel like having a kid today. Other people will take care of it so, I don't have anything else planned today, guess I'mma go do that now" attitude toward life itself leading to inevitable overpopulation? This would only increase suffering.

One man's punishment is another man's cruelty, and yet another man's mockery of justice. Goldilock's and the Three Bears, one bowl too hot, one bowl too cold, and but one just right. Some say punishment is too severe, some say it's not severe enough. If someone accidentally kills your child through no intent ie. drunk driving or firing a gun during New Years, you will likely opt for the severest punishment even if you discovered the perpetrator was suffering or perhaps experienced a similar loss whereas an outside observer especially one who never felt the same pain or is ineligible to (does not have a child) may wish to be more sympathetic as "it could happen to anyone and was a freak accident", etc. Even in a wholly fictional "perfect" utopian government and resulting system of justice with zero corruption, racial, social, or economic bias, something ran by an AI for example, it still can't be everywhere at once. Evidence can still be erroneous or erroneously produced (placing fingerprints or other evidence, or people flat-out lying in unison). So like most negatives in life they can only be greatly reduced, unlikely to be eliminated altogether. Such attempts to have done so only resulted in unfathomable amounts of suffering before ultimately leading nowhere.

Death is part of life. Health and safety is a factor. Again, requires government mandates and restriction. Should we imprison people found smoking or eating fast food more than 3 days a week in order to prolong their own life? Outlaw extreme sports or hobbies such as scuba diving, skiing, or mountain climbing? You see where it becomes difficult. Again, a world without suffering is a world without personal choice.

A fun thread. Possibly more Lounge material but interestingly similar to something I discussed with others before.

I believe it was called "Royal madness" or "King's disease" where a ruler who seemingly has no struggle, challenge, or any of the normal hardhship or monotony that reminds us we are human begins to think one of the following:

- He's not real (whether he died or went to an after life where he is being rewarded or perhaps in some sort of coma or dream

- Nothing else is real (similar to the cases above, seeing as any item or experience that is known to exist can be presented to him nearly immediately without question, also by the fact a monarchs' Will becomes the highest Law, he might begin to notice things that exist only in his mind seeming to manifest in the world around him without his "saying" or "doing" leading one to believe in the possibility he is in fact in some sort of simulation, this is the most powerful of the "symptoms")

Not dissimilar to something like this:


However to remind you as a valued newcomer of the rules of engagement one might call them, do check out this thread when you have a moment. Doing so ensures you make the most of your time here as well as that of others. Cheers. :smile:

sex-hating — Ciceronianus

I'm rather certain his disapproval and concerns lie in the greater more generalized danger of over-indulgence and the effects it can have on not just people but entire societies when one allows his or her life to become warped and inevitably controlled by intrinsically purposeless (albeit enjoyable) pursuits, recreational sex naturally being the most dangerous, likely to sway individuals both rich and poor, be they strong or meek, morally-upright and pious or not. It rightfully holds such a reputation as it (sex for pleasure) is often confused, especially by the young or uneducated, with being among the Great qualities and pursuits in life man strives to achieve: love, health, honor, and family. In societies where these formerly great values have become corrupted, the victims of that society then begin to view mindless whoredom as the pinnacle and sought after sum or culmination of all life purpose and effort. It is in no short part because, we, especially when young or uneducated, tend to view sexual relations as the ultimate form of personal acceptance, and as a result the ultimate form of worth or value, and conversely, the ultimate form of rejection and worthlessness. This corruption, this animal-like social dynamic man has been given the tools and intellectual capacity to leave behind as the first upright mammal left behind his former place wallowing in the dust of the Earth is what he valiantly tried, and succeeded for a time, to prevent.

So like most things, it was not the thing itself, but the principle behind it, in this case the lack of one, the dangers of blind indulgence, corruption and destruction of intellectual and moral values, and the resulting tendency of these things, especially when conducted in unison, to destroy societies and as a result end entire civilizations writ-large.

You will, then, be good enough to make clear exactly what does happen when I - or anyone - reads a book. — tim wood

I see his point. Your saying by allowing the written words and stories of those much like yourself to enrich your life and instill the values they were meant to instill and have instilled unto those who were presently involved in the story, you yourself are now effectively part of that story, or at least able to gleam a sufficient amount of experience and culture from said tales to a comparable degree of those who lived in/during said times and to place yourself within the story as if you yourself were there. He is saying that's still more living vicariously, a lesser depth or dimension than that of those who the story was literally about or involved chiefly due to the fact such tales despite any level of detail and depth of perspective will always fall short to that of a person who was born and raised in such a time as that was literally their reality and all they've ever known from birth til death, a reality that cannot be "visited" and "unvisited" the way we can choose to read or not read a book and so remains more of a cultural enrichment or immersion activity similar to a trip to another country as opposed to full on cultural transcendence and ultimate understanding.

led the world in conquest — Lionino

Sigh. I'll bite.

So that's a good thing now? What if someone "conquests" you of your wallet and blood pressure levels by way of a stabbing on your next morning walk? Don't call 911 or bother other people now. Make sure you lay there and die with honor following your principles to your last breath lest you survive and live a life of shameful hypocrisy upon discovering the shocking revelation seldom reserved to only the most profound of intellects (and most ten-year-olds) that doing bad things might actually be bad after all. :smirk:

The strategy of the weak, because it is weak, is to demonise the consequences of the strongest, even though the weak, if it were in the position of the strong, would have acted much much worse. — Lionino

All true. Though, one might ought to think twice before assuming which side of the divide one truly belongs to. Those who can remain consistent in their virtues and values despite hardship, remaining a product of themselves despite difficulty, who avoided being molded into monsters by the world around them, instead mastering their own life and level of contentedness without succumbing to the worst of human nature and all that is universally detestable: greed, theft, deception, violence, indifference, dishonor, and savagery are the strong, not the other way around. But as you say, it is the strategy of the weak to convince themselves and others otherwise. A winning one at that, it would seem. :smile:

Besides. There was probably much lying, deception, and other means of dishonor, not to mention sheer luck. Furthermore, being stronger than a person, which again has yet to be established, does not make others weak other than by means of a one-off snapshot comparison. This is a common phenomenon often observed in those with deep-seated inferiority complexes and related neurosis, doomed to a life of psychological projection, constantly seeing their own inferior qualities they desperately wish to conceal from the world and themselves in others, manifested as inability to avoid condescending feelings upon observation of others. And anyway, me thinks you confuse quantity with quality. A common mistake. As well as that last assertion of being "much much worse" being little more than an out-of-left-field claim of baseless conjecture.

Come on Lio, I read your posts. You're a smart cookie. Surely you can do much better than that. Surely the good readers of TPF deserve better than this pseudo-intellectual juvenile hoodlum talk you're peddling and granting us the displeasure of having to ingest this Thursday morning. :smirk:

And I'm all for Europe. But what I won't stand for is having Her represented by such a poor, shortsighted, poison-welled, empty-headed excuse of a defense of integrity and value. Again. Do better.

Where did THIS come from (and it is not a question of causality)? — Constance

This is an interesting question. I was going to suggest something along the lines of "fear is a result of memory or a bad experience, whether or not that experience actually happened to you or was simply created in your mind by another or even yourself". However this is not true as an infant can be made afraid by loud noises or startling them or something of that nature. Is that really fear though? Surely not the same depth as the fear a grown man might feel if a letter from the IRS or a policeman shows up at his house, but is it perhaps the same essence ultimately or something completely different? A curious question indeed.

My, are you on a roll today, @Constance. :smile:

Perhaps, linking the two examples, fear is a physiological response to one or more stimuli, either active (say, a loud noise or the sudden, unexpected presence of a possible danger) or passive (a thought or possibility on one's mind that has the potential to become disastrous), that causes a distinct feeling of unease due to the possibility of loss of control or well-being? :chin:

Basically, what you said.

the oldest discovered, and possibly due to the destructive sands of time, discoverable proto-language is Proto-Afro-Asiatic — Lionino

:up:

We learn new things about those before us near every day. Sadly, or perhaps not, some things will remain lost to the ages.

The point is this: if the world were simply as a scientist describes it to be, that is, an ethcailly neutral place of quantitative descriptions and systems of quantitative pragmatic categories, then there would be no religion for there would be ground for it. But this is not the world. Science cannot quantify ethics (notwithstanding Bentham's hedonic calculator, essentially a quantification calculator") because ethics is a qualitative issue. The world is not reducible to science's quantifications. The world is the source of all value, and because of this, the world presents the very possibility of ethics; therefore, the world IS an ethical "agency". It IS the transcendental source of ethics. — Constance

Huh. Interesting take. A few follow-ups, just to clarify any confusion I and perhaps others may have as well:

"Science cannot quantify ethics"

Surely that depends on what one chooses to define ethics as. In a simple definition of what is largely perceived to be right or wrong by a given social majority based on absolute factors such as human suffering, malaise, and distress compared to comfort, pleasure, and contentedness, again, more so or "as the majority of normal functioning humans respond and demonstrate", it most certainly has some form of measurement or quantification. How could it not?

"The world is not reducible to science's quantifications"

So what is "the world" in the absolute most definitive and concrete form of understanding? Surely not the physical planet we reside on but "existence" or the Universe, rather one with sentient beings capable of identifying themselves apart from others and their environment as unique entities that have free will to perform or not perform certain actions? Something like that, no?

What I want to say is, to even reach the precondition of being able to talk definitively about something, be it a physical thing or a conceptual idea, one must in fact, have a solid understanding of the thing in question, or in simpler terms "know what one is talking about". So, while it may not necessarily be :reducible" to the given quantification or standards of a given science, it surely has to be well-defined by concrete definitions and boundaries that enable it to be discussed and declared as "this or that" as opposed to something else. In short, it has to be, perhaps "reducible" is not the ideal term but rather "indisputably definable" in some way that effectively does enable it to be discussed and declared as having quality X or not having quality Y, etc.

"The world is the source of all value"

I think this is an interesting claim for reasons I will attempt to explain. You mention just as logic itself requires a brain but discussing logic itself does not require discussion of the brain itself. Imagine, if you will, a world devoid of all sentient life. Where would ethics fit in? Where would value fit in if there is no one to value or be valued or be ethically treated or mistreated? Some might argue WE as sentient beings, rather consciousness, is the source of all value. Sure we live in a physical world and as such we value physical things required for survival, but does your above statement not have some correlation to your previous example of how discussing logic, which requires a brain, does not require discussing the brain itself?

Example, what if, somehow, right now, the two of us were in a non-physical world with just our consciousness floating around in some metaphysical vacuum with no physicality anywhere, like ghosts or something. I could value your company, I could value your insight, I could value the fact I'm not alone or even simply that I am self-aware and thinking (I think. therefore I am) even if the "world" as it is commonly understood were to vanish, could I not?

What a fascinating thinker you are! I greatly look forward to your reply. :grin:

what are the necessary conditions for a problem to be an ethical problem? — Constance

Condition A.) Involvement or presence of a sentient being and Condition B.) the possibility for that sentient being to be impacted by the action or inaction of another sentient being through no action or declared will and intent of their own (ie. against their own will or sans consideration/input).

It is incredibly broad and open-ended, yes.