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.

One of the fundamental questions of existence: Why? For no reason whatsoever? Just a result of a vast near limitless universe where every possible combination of planetary factors, collisions, and lack thereof just so happened to result in a place where eventually every genetic variation possible occurred that just so happened to produce the only advanced, intelligent, thinking species that engages in complex thought and communication and have managed to master every frontier available to us as a result of random, nuanced evolution while, somehow, the closest match, supposedly one notch down is a wild, mute occasional-biped running around throwing fecal matter at one another? That just adds up perfectly fine to you, case closed, no further questions? Not to some. Which begs an explanation. Religion offers this explanation.

And of course for all the psychological benefits, if scrutinized from an atheistic point of view. It's helpful. So why not let people be helped?

the avoidance of pain will lead to being content in life — Shawn

Not to be churlish but surely you could have led with a better example to showcase Schopenhauer's genius and resulting effect on your life to those currently unaware. I can't say I find that specific mantra to be particularly dripping with profound wisdom. Makes me picture a warning label on an imported cutting board placed there by an overachieving translator.

On a serious note I'm likely less acquainted with him than yourself, but from a quick, nuanced read of his popular works and ideas, I have to say at least a few of them definitely seem to "leap out" at me as if he took exactly what I feel at times and put it into words I myself have yet to. Particularly this gem: "Life presents, in fact, a more or less violent oscillation between the two (pain and boredom)."

The man was clearly a genius, and like the old saying goes "ignorance is bliss", meaning I'm sure he was far, far from a blissful person - at least in a natural state but learned how to become content despite his likely (at times) burdensome intellect and resulting capacity to experience and understand pain and suffering at levels most are fortunately spared from - and in doing so helped others like him and those who aspire to be like him, fundamentally changing the intellectual world for the better in the process.

I'm sure not every single belief he held or declared is without some folly or shortcoming, some scenario where his wisdom would appear to fall short or otherwise be without any room for improvement or adaptation for the better. The world is a chaotic, violent place and those who fail to recognize this as a great and solemn truth merely delude themselves, I would say. Now, you could also say it doesn't have to be, at least it can be improved so as to make the world of tomorrow a literal world of difference by avoiding or rather properly dealing with some of the common behaviors, frames of mind, and patterns of thinking associated with overthinking about or focusing on the negatives of the world we live in. He seems to have found his own way to have done so, measurably and indisputably beneficial to others as well despite there being a seemingly overshadowing theme of pessimism to some readers. Some things can be simplified, others can only be oversimplified.

In short, the man had an idea and ran with it. It obviously resonated with enough people, in that era, and even in our own to have turned into something we're still discussing a good 200 years later. Sometimes we ask ourselves the wrong questions at the right times. Was he "right"? Should his beliefs be declared law of the land and mandatory in public education for the good of humanity as a whole? Perhaps. Perhaps not. What matters is, did his influence help guide you to become a better, more content, dare I say realized, human being or better still, did it help refine the image of the ideal person you can still be and have yet to become?

The first (and often last) types of societies were nomadic hunter-gatherers. There was no permanent housing, furniture, or storage as it was not needed or rather had no place in such a civilization. Once man was able to master the land and protect himself from the elements society progressed to an agrarian type where there was something along the lines of 6 months work farming followed by harvest followed by 6 months of winter where, depending on the harvest the society was able to continue. From there food could be stored and effort shifted to producing goods and infrastructure that finally had a place to reside for more than a season or couple of years. This was the dawn of the age of thinkers as man now had more free time and didn't have to carry around a spear all day completely enshrouded by a constant fight-or-flight frame of mind from dawn til dusk. This however still wasn't good enough as some harvests were unsuccessful at times and famines were a real and present civilization-ending danger. Those that did manage to survive became industrial societies as man now had means to produce food regardless of the elements or natural hardships slowly shifting the social dynamic from a solely goods producing economy to a service-based economy. Of course, the industrial age produced a need for something never required before: energy. Not counting horsepower and oxen plows. In ending one existential threat man has unwittingly unleashed another more drastic one: pollution.

Every nation on earth could come together tomorrow and end all war and legislate birthrates but unless we find a better source of energy or means of procuring it with less negative output, we would still be in hot water. Literally.

The science fiction type ideas of "nutrition pills" and cold fusion "limitless energy" would seem to be the Holy Grail of sustainability mankind is looking for. Paths to such such as lab-grown meat, insect based diets, and electric cars (still at-present ultimately powered by fossil fuels) are met with resistance. The microcosm is the same as the macrocosm. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. What would work for a small town of 500, can work for a country of 500 million, which can work for a world of 5 billion.

But to answer the question.

Are we doomed to ever expanding-consumption and ever-expanding resource extraction and production? — BC

Not likely. We're far more likely to either be destroyed (or at least have society fundamentally reorganized or altered) by a cosmic ELE (extinction level event) or run out of resources to extract. To avoid coming off as tongue-in-cheek I will return to the following and suggest innovation has continued to grow at exponential rates, offering a shining light of hopeful possibility towards sustainability or at the very least a much longer road to kick the can further along. :smile:

According to Harry Frankfurter (the respectable late philosopher), the highest good seems to be 'love'. — Shawn

A solid statement to make, assuredly. But what is love in this sense? By most definitions it alludes to a feeling of admiration that transcends (is devoid of any and all or is otherwise operating outside of the realm of) logic. If this is true, how useful is such a quality in philosophy, really? Does it not make philosophical discourse into little more than a game of favorites based on transient states of favor not fixed in any deeper absolute truth or concrete value?

Well, I think the confusion can be mitigated about the quality of value by asserting that it exists in degrees of greatness, yes? So, if love is something we value, then I believe that it seems to exist in a category of its own. — Shawn

Value is certainly, in most cases, non-binary, I agree. I'm semi-artistic, but nothing at all in comparison to others. One can be a tad miffed at something just as one can be overwhelmingly infuriated, yes. A sign can be reddish-purple or flat out bright red. A person can be a bit misdirected and misguided without being flat out lost and bumbling around mindlessly, etc, etc. However, one cannot be "a little bit" pregnant, for example. Rough example but a valid one of a quality that is in fact binary or otherwise limited to a dual state of either "committed" or not. But for most conceptual things, I would agree.

Could there not be different types of a single value each with varying degrees, though? Take love, for example. There's platonic, romantic, and one other I believe. You could love someone as a brother but hate them as a friend, no?

I don't think the disambiguation or delineating what is good and what is of value is entirely a semantic issue. Again, if you want to go in this direction I believe in the very subjectivity of 'value' is to be associated with relativism or postmodernism if that's how you want this discussion to delve into... — Shawn

Just my personal difficulty in understanding the concept as I believe it to be intended, is all. Nothing more. :smile:

If you could replace 'value' with a single word, what would it be? Worth? (to whom?) Characteristic? (intrinsic and absolute or circumstantial based on social or environmental factors?) Something else?

I enjoy your threads as they're often brief and to the point, allowing even those ignorant of common philosophical models and -isms such as myself room to jump in and postulate from a beginner's frame of mind comfortably in between other mentally-taxing tasks. Looks like I may have gotten a bit over eager on this one, however.

What is good, though? Value as in, intrinsic quality but in a taxonomical sense, whether that quality is good or bad or neither. Something can have an extremely high value of "indistinctiveness" or ambiguity, rather, couldn't it? So, essentially traits and characteristics and their levels of is what "value" refers to here?

Seems easy to get lost in semantics. A critic might suggest why not have the study of the value of studying the value of a study of value while your at it. Or something along the lines of suggesting all philosophy relates to the characteristics or lack thereof of things and ideas as such is what constitutes a definition which is required for any form of understanding. Or am I way off here? What is your take, bearing those possibly warranted critiques in mind?

From a logistical perspective, opportunity for suffering, particularly absence or loss of factors that are not "givens" in life such as wealth, companionship, and health that without are likely to incur at least a modest amount of distress, far outnumber the possibilities for contentedness. Without a robust, spiritually or emotionally satisfying underlying philosophy guiding one's thoughts and actions, that is. I think so at least. Pretty sure it can be proven mathematically on paper as well, provided someone had the time. In short, there's a million ways for something to go wrong but far fewer ways for something to go right or as intended or planned.

Empathy in this world is often likened as a curse or burdensome quality, despite lack of it being the main definitive tenet of clinical psychopathy/sociopathy.

The average person worries about his or her self and those immediately around them that offer tangible benefit or utility - or, conversely - would incur some detriment or drawback if they were to not be around or to view the person in a negative light. You wake up, eat, say hi to your kids or pets, feel validated and useful to others, earn a living, go home without incurring serious bodily injury, experience pleasure, and repeat. This is a good life. At least, all that can be reasonably expected to consider oneself "fortunate". All well and good. Now, for those who happen to care about others the same they do themselves or who refuse to remain ignorant of what tomorrow could very well hold, not just for themselves and the homeostasis of their own detached social sphere, but others, life becomes a bit more burdensome. In short, ignorance is bliss.

In a simple, if not crude way, the following can be often observed in most all societies past and present. A good woman takes on the burdens of her children. A good man takes on the burdens of his household. A good leader takes on the burdens of all. If, as a good person of any position, suffering is not a constant dynamic in the back or forefront of one's mind, a persistent, ominous fog on the horizon, and a mere stone's throw away, that person is either extremely lucky, extremely foolish, or both. I'd say so anyway.

Furthermore, one man's good time is another's punishment. Intellects may enjoy a half-day museum or scientific lecture. Others may prefer a firm beating in place of such an activity. Introverted and extroverted come to mind and seem to be a reliable archetype of mental identity, more so than not. Some people could be perfectly content reading a novel in a room for days on end without seeing as much as a soul. Others might become depressed or even unhinged. Some people love social gatherings, being around people, or being the center of attention, etc. Others abhor the idea and consider it a chore they wish to avoid at all cost. Neither are without their distinct advantages and drawbacks. Still, something I like to tell others, if not as a shameless defense of my own social disinclination: "If you can't make yourself happy, how can you (or others) expect for you to make others happy". Seems fair.

I don't think the building (Moscow State University) is a beautiful thing, and yet it's magnificent and photogenic. — Jamal

Stalinist skyscrapers — Jamal

They’re not made to be good places to study or live or work, but just to project the power of the state. Magnificent, but inhuman—downright horrible. — Jamal

I find these statements curious. What makes a building "Stalinist"? Surely he wasn't the first person to come up with such an elementary style of architecture, that style being essentially a lack of one and laying bricks as they are in the simplest way? What makes a structure "beautiful"? You find these buildings "magnificent" and "photogenic", but lacking in something, "humanity" you refer to. Could you show some buildings that do quantify what you would call "beautiful" or "human"?

It seems the main difference is there types are "blocky" and squarish, lacking rounded curves such as Greco-Roman architecture incorporates. Curves are a bit pleasing aesthetically for a few reasons I could imagine. I heard once "there are no straight lines in nature" or something of that effect. Do the former-style of buildings therefore invoke a sense of uneasy artificiality, an alien structure that seemingly does not belong and exists only out of forced necessity? It seems, at least in my mind, the most stark contrast between the two types of buildings are those with rounded curves or more "personal touches" reflect the human effort, intelligence, and craftsmanship that went in them as opposed to mere angular blocks that could have been placed there by a machine without any human involvement whatsoever.

Just trying to better understand.

In a sense, it's an act of validation that the struggles and great suffering of those before us was not in vain. A form of immortality achieved by those who brought us the facts and findings we now take for granted in our everyday lives. Imagine the frustration of those who spent years and yes indeed even lifetimes struggling in a cold, dark lab foregoing the pleasures and desires of the flesh, even companionship and therefore the human experience as a whole, to produce the discoveries and findings they did. And those were the lucky ones who managed to achieve something notable during such a life. Many did not, though thankfully most at least contributed something to lay the foundation of works others did complete in theirs.

"The simplest schoolboy is now familiar with truths for which Archimedes would have sacrificed his life"
- Ernest Renan

Society and yes even humanity is a never-ending chain of knowledge and accomplishment, sprinkled generously with failures and drawbacks, which of course only sweeten the rewards we do find.

Education, or generational knowledge, is indeed one of the things that separate man from animal, I believe. Sure, squirrels hide nuts for the winter, birds crack open coconuts by dropping them on rocks from a great distance, beavers build lodges with a level of craftsmanship and engineering prowess that rivals that of most adults, but none of which compare to the vast repository of knowledge mankind has amassed over the generations.

Without education, the medium of all knowledge and understanding, what is life but a prolonged cruel and unusual punishment all sentient beings are sentenced to at birth?

Seems like a moot exercise in morality considering the course of human affairs in regards to technology and science: "if you don't do it, somebody else will anyway".

Interesting a dog invokes a sense of person-hood more so than say a fish or a plant. Is it just because they have complex nervous systems and mammalian brains that can emulate a form of consciousness we can detect, measure, and recognize as not dissimilar to our own?

How many dogs are we talking about? What kind of dogs? There are people who advocate for the eradication of supposedly violent breeds whose purpose has long since vanished in modern society, for the very same reasons but with an emotional modifier: the safety of *dramatic pause* the children. :gasp:

It's been the way of the world since time began that for one creature to survive, another must die. This, rightfully, stirs feelings of negative emotion in thinking, compassionate beings such as us and motivates us to strive for a better standard of living, such a thing we call 'society' that elevates us above the animal kingdom utilizing things such as innovation and creativity to satisfy our biological needs and desires as opposed to harmful, destructive actions such as theft and killing. Still, it can be argued that, absent of humans, animals kill other animals all the time and no intervention short of imprisonment will stop this. So, that's an underlying dynamic that probably needs to be recognized before anything else.

Earlier peoples hunted animals to extinction at times, unlikely for fun but for survival. Were these people "bad" for doing so? I don't think so. Foolish or perhaps ignorant maybe.

Your question has many dynamics and moving parts to it, so, could it perhaps be simplified to: "Is it wrong for a human being to take the life of an animal to survive?" Or does that remove or neglect certain aspects of your OP you wish to discuss?

I subscribe to the idea of a fallen world or society, at least. Not necessarily in the Biblical sense, though the two go hand in hand, rather a degradation of what was as far as morals, what is or should be important and desired, etc. Essentially crowned by the observation that all things that were once good and desirable are now being cast as unfavorable, and vice versa. Key example being people who are simply vitriolic and unhappy or bothered when others are unfettered by what would bother or upset them who never miss an opportunity to chastise and condemn, referring to themselves in a positive light as "blunt" or "honest" which while may be so detracts from an underlying purposelessness and unrefined level of character.

Case examples:

Positive "bluntness":
Person A: "You're going to die if you keep drinking like that."
Person B: "That was mean."
Person A: "Just being honest."

Purposeless "bluntness":
Person A: "I don't like your clothes. You look stupid."
Person B: "That was mean."
Person A: "I'm a blunt person. Get on my level."

Etcetera...

Social floors or depths are often now painted as ceilings or "bare minimums" to aspire toward instead of the undesirable states of being to be avoided they always were by those who are confined to them.

Still, others offer a valid point. Any adult who cries over spilled milk or the slightest criticism for example is likely doomed to bring preventable hardship, struggle, and even mortal danger to themselves as well as those close to them. School of hard knocks I guess.

"If you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes into you." - Nietzsche

It's a fine line to walk. Easiest thing in the world to bring someone down, a literal dried piece of excrement on a sidewalk can do that. But to lift someone up, make a person smile, and give purpose to the self-proclaimed purposeless? That is what takes ability most either do not possess or find too difficult to achieve and live by, what separates a true leader from his or her peers.

There is a brief summary at the link provided in the OP. — Philo Sofer

Thanks, will definitely check it out. Just noticed you're a nearly decade long veteran here with only a few posts. It'd be nice if you posted more. A shame to think what we've been deprived of all these years. Looks solid. Best of luck whatever it is you decide. This world certainly needs more thinkers.

I'm still leery of PDFs.

What's the main takeaway? Live and let live, don't try to change the unchangeable, stop and smell the roses, that sort of thing?

"It's all relative." - Albert Einstein

Good can mean beneficial as in bringing one (typically the speaker) benefit, good can mean morally satisfying, pleasing, or acceptable. Often both, but not always. I take it to mean "Pleasing" as in "this pleases me", which seems to fit basically every moment or use of the word "good". Which as you can imagine carries no grounds in morality but personal sentiment alone.

Police: "Your husband just died".
Person A: "Oh no! How will I ever go on?!"

Police: ":Your husband just died"
Person B: "Yay, I'm rich! I mean, oh no."

I take it this thread is meant to be explicitly about morality. In which case varies wholly on the underlying facts of the situation, facts which are never guaranteed to be known in full by those who assert otherwise, even with their life.

So, absent of religion, one might circle back and cast what is "beneficial" to the speaker, as a strictly cellular being as "good". Say, if I eat food and do not starve, that's good. However, if I get cancer and face certain death, that's bad. Anything beyond that is pure speculation and personal preference, in the aforementioned context, at least.

An armed gunman attempted to rob an Amazon delivery driver, who in turn shot and killed him.

https://www.whio.com/news/local/alleged-armed-carjacker-shoots-killed-by-ohio-amazon-delivery-driver/HLD7ROJHWBE2ZOQBDIHLMTPLTM/

Thoughts? :chin:

However, atheism couldn't possibly gain you any divine favor, and therefore it is irrational to hold atheist beliefs. — Scarecow

Sure it could. Organizations receive donations from people they've never heard of all the time.

CON 2: My proposal would ruin the human connection.
Numerous studies have shown that a healthy mother-child connection is quite important for early cognitive development. — Scarecow

Not necessarily. Surely you don't mean to imply a non-biological mother and child who did not know otherwise would not bond or somehow almost supernaturally bond to a lesser degree?

You could easily establish a human connection with caring individuals, ideally those who cannot bear or otherwise have children themselves and consider said work their life calling, for example. Religious based groups already do basically everything in your OP. (with mixed success, of course)

Sorry just had to point that out.

A fantasy one does not enjoy? Is such a thing possible? :chin:

I don't suppose the word fantasy as the best fit. A fear of loss of control and enjoying the experience, perhaps, but it would be more of a fear or concern as opposed to a "fantasy" if they do not explicitly enjoy the thoughts of doing so. No?

Evil is a tricky concept in philosophy, some say it simply doesn't exist as a strict absolute. But short of that crowd I would say it's far from bold to suggest the actions you're describing, as well as the thoughts thereof would be considered such by most all people.

Let's use the term severely socially undesirable. That has absolute definition if not in relativism and covers everything from rape and murder to tailgating and abusing grocery store free samples.

Are they inherently such? There's definitely something atypical about them, that's for sure. Maybe their heads just screwy, for lack of better wordage. Similar to schizophrenics or those who suffer from severe tic syndrome such as Tourette Syndrome. Some basically can't help insulting people and even picking up weapons and gesturing with them as to harm someone. I'm no doctor but it's almost like a normal brain has a compartment for everything that is "wrong" or "socially unacceptable" and most people are able to accurately store, identify, and avoid such behaviors or actions whereas those with the ailment are the opposite, as if the "compartment" is forced open or the border between such is non-existent or dynamically shifting by no control or effort of their own. If that's accurate they're not purposely that way, per se, right?

A drop of wine in a vat of sewage is still a vat of sewage. A drop of sewage in a vat of wine is now a vat of sewage. The good, innocent person being the drop of wine, and the vat of sewage being any number of those of sound mind and judgement who chose to take a life for purposes of pleasure or monetary gain or similar benefit including placating one's severely disturbed mind, childlike emotions, and inability to function as a mature adult.

I suppose a collapse of society and a "man trying to feed his wife and kids" changes the scenario. Somewhat. Maybe you're old and dying of cancer and the man trying to rob (and kill you if necessary) is young and I don't know, genetically or intellectually gifted, and can yet contribute to the world of tomorrow in ways you no longer can- or something.

Sure, if men were psychic and you could somehow know the man trying to kill you would somehow go on to pioneer a cure for cancer or something one might be inclined to let him live or allow oneself to be killed, not sure why the two have to be mutually exclusive. Personally, I'd at least give him a fair crack under such a scenario.

Or take a different scenario. Let's say you happened to have inherited a vast amount of generational wealth from a family you found out accumulated such wealth from less than honorable means and a large mob of angry villagers has breached your legal property line, nearing your dwelling. You also have a mounted military grade mini-gun for some reason. What do you do? What to do indeed. "Sin is a matter of perspective", some claim. While doing the sinning and not on the receiving end, naturally.

As interested as I am in philosophy, in recent years I've taken the "go my own way" approach, purposely choosing to neglect reading established philosophers and their related philosophies so as to foster a sterile environment in which I can develop my own, free of influence or persuasion from others (likely based on what was already done, but allows me to enjoy a sense of pseudo-originality regardless). What comes to mind would be "the trolley problem", which doesn't seem to line up exactly considering one's own life is in danger in your line of scenario versus the life or lives of others. To my understanding people generally get their sense of morality from a few main sources, most choosing only one. Dogma (absolute notions, typically derived from religion or the idea of a higher, supernatural power), social contracts (everybody must adhere to some sort of standard in order to bring about a greater quality of life and reduce suffering and anguish), or personal relativism (golden rule, treat others as you wish to be treated, if it hurts me, it would hurt another, therefore, don't do it because ... it's wrong?). Or some haphazard mess of two or more. In some primitive nomadic cultures devoid of science or modern medicine, a broken arm or leg was an easy death sentence. I believe there was a ceremonial cliff or volcano where one would defenestrate oneself if able, or have it done by the group, typically without immense anguish due to a prevailing belief of being "reborn" whole at a later time, or as a bird or something. I can't recall. The reason I bring that up is there is a social aspect where one can become too much of a burden to the point the society suffers or even risks collapse. A modern case would be a violent criminal or dangerous mental invalid, etc. It is generally immoral to imprison someone who is not guilty of the charge of consciously committing a crime, however if the person is a dangerous invalid who would otherwise seriously injure or kill others, not doing so would be immoral. Stuff like that. In short, depends who you ask I guess.

Pain. And lot's of it. Generally some sort of loss of valued property or as it is in many cases, life.

The mind is a wonderful if not fickle thing. Cognitive bias especially when compounded with a lengthy history compromised of life choices and philosophy that essentially has ended up playing a major role in the constitution of one's "identity". In short, people don't like to be wrong, because the brain doesn't like to be wrong. "If it ain't broke don't fix it" is an operational aphorism shared by both the conscious and unconscious mind, it would seem. People would rather convince themselves it's not raining despite being soaking wet if they felt strongly enough and had the ideological motivation to do so. Similar to the arguments made by those critical of religion, I suppose.

it might help. But we have the additional problem that we don't tend to agree in the meaning of most of the words we discuss. — Manuel

Exactly my point causing , which is causing chaos in the field. — Abhiram

So, take "truth" for example. The average person or textbook definition being that which is not false. Truth would be I am writing this reply on my computer and you are now reading it. Factual and absolute events. Of course one could say, seemingly humorously if not annoyingly, "what if I'm not reading this at all and I am dreaming" or something frustrating to that effect ie. solipsism. It's a valid avenue of thought and eventual discussion. Annoying as it may be. So how would one go about trying to "pin down" something as abstract and therefore open to interpretation as "truth"?

Perhaps one would start with "social truths" as in, the way a given society thinks, granted as dynamic as it can be. Slavery was once the social norm. Therefore, it was "right", in fact, a sign of success. Now, it is wrong and a sign of a depraved and psychotic individual. Stealing and lying is wrong because it damages the social fabric. This is a social truth. Or is it? How about something more concrete, such as a mathematical truth ie. 1 + 1 = 2. Who could disagree with that? It's essentially a scientific truth such as if flame touches your skin the cells in your skin will burn and die. These are absolute truths that perhaps could change (enter science fiction or some sort of futuristic mad science transformation surgery or something).

So there are ways to best begin to attempt to find common ground. Factuality, observation, root concepts based on what we know for a fact we all have in common, things such as sight, sound, smell, touch, sensation, the fact we have a body, the fact that pain is.. painful and largely displeasurable and is both consciously and unconsciously avoided such as a non-conscious reflex of instantly retracting one's limb from a scalding hot surface, or breathing, etc. Of course, every body is different. So. In a way these concepts already exist. But for some reason, at least it would seem, their usefulness in intellectual concepts of any advanced degree seem to be limited and fall short of adequate meaning or multi-faceted proposition.

How would you best attempt to start laying these "ground rules" or "constants", if I understand your desire correctly? It interests you, so you must have thought about it enough to at least throw a few things at the wall and see what sticks, no?

Since we're posting videos.



Somewhere in the above video there's a brief synopsis along the lines of "Art is beauty. Beauty takes many forms beyond the stereotypical and expected ie. a flower or a warm summer's day. The greats before us knew this world was full of horror and tragedy, and so as artists wished to redeem these misfortunes and give solace in that which is detestable through beautification, one of the founding concepts of art." Something like that. It's explained much better in the video. Worth the watch, if you have the time and interest in the subject.

"The Game". A 1997 seldom-known, underrated gem starring Michael Douglas.

Only 50 minutes in, but I have to say I like it a lot. And I quit drinking so that's not just my "everything is great because it exists, therefore is intrinsically fascinating" mindset talking either.

Part surreal, to the point its almost supernatural or mystical, without being any of the two whatsoever. Lot of people in power pulling strings and creating scenarios that are virtually impossible, yet nothing is left unexplained. Psychological thriller, I guess. Not directly heavy on the philosophy but many subtle and indirect touches on philosophy of mind, will not disappoint someone watching it solely for the philosophical value, I'd wager.

Ethics is not, at least in the way one might be encouraged to go all out philosophically on, part of the work environment. You are guaranteed a reasonably safe work environment free of unwarranted mental or physical burden based on protected factors that are listed in whatever Constitution is in place or effect at the time, unless the job requires it (ie. you can't sue a private 911 dispatchers office for becoming "burdened" or "traumatized" by listening to people get violently killed all day, for example).

You got people who are essentially gender-blind commenting on a new blouse you purposely purchased solely due to its aesthetic appearance being likened to that of a literal rapist in some cases. Not cool.

You should be at your station or location doing your job. If you don't like someone, don't talk to them, aside from work-related necessity. Harassment or actions that contribute to distraction or non-productivity or "actions not in line with company culture" (I love that phrase, let's you fire immoral people for any reason at all) should be reported to HR and if not addressed may constitute a legal grievance that could then continue on to a legal claim.

"People are people. Wherever you go, there you are. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree."

You can't "force people to be good". Believe me, I've tried. There's a job, there's clear and absolute procedures, there's policy. You sign a waiver agreeing that you understand all of the aforementioned and furthermore agree to abide by them and acknowledge you can otherwise be fired at anytime for any reason other than factors outside of one's control (race, gender, religion, etc.) as protected under the Law. If you are a person of sound mind and body, fully capable of being a civilized person, you get paid, and subsequently don't have to starve. It's that simple. Nobody is going to spoon feed you as an adult. It's not inhumane. Humanity has nothing to do with it. You could be the only person on Earth and you would still have to work, likely much harder, to eat and survive. At least in (most) modern work environments if someone makes a mistake that causes injury or death you could sue and never have to see your coworkers again. Not a bad state of affairs, eh? Progress. That some people unfortunately take for granted.

I don't see how you get from "you see it" to "it must be governed by something". That's a big step which is completely unsupported. — Metaphysician Undercover

Fair enough. I suppose.

If you observe something, sure, perhaps it could be an illusion. A puppet of a man looks like a man. A mirage of water looks like a body of such. Neither are truly as they seem. But eventually there has to be something, some concrete principle or law other than what would be the only other option "randomly changing nonsense" or some sort of Twilight Zone.

Vision requires functionality of a sensory organ. Think about that. If it is not governed by healthy functionality, it is not to be trusted. Makes sense?

How is this not blatant contradiction to you? How would you be "reporting" something, if you are not saying it? — Metaphysician Undercover

Again, I recommend taking a step back from your world view and looking at things from a different angle. I see (I think) the A-B logic your suggesting. How could you suggest something if you then say it cannot be pinpointed. What is 0? When you think of it? I leave open the possibility of semantics, as you surely must as well. It's not the same as saying, for example, "the door is open, therefore it is closed". Let's start from there. Surely an absolute object (a physical door) cannot be in two states at once? This invokes Schrodinger's cat. Which reminds me I need to check on mine. But yes, the door can be open or closed for someone wishing to use it for its intended or expected purpose, but surely, there very well might exist other purposes where a closed door is actually an open one and vice-versa. Not trying to be cheap with you here but sometimes the simplest explanations are often the most, not only profound, but encompassing.

One of the rules of this thread is don't be rude, so I will refrain from calling you autistic. — Lionino

Happy to remind you of what your desires are, as I see you recently edited the post to now include after the fact. Free of charge this time. Lighten up. It's the Lounge. :razz:

I neither like nor appreciate how you awkwardly and clearly randomly placed your fork in the position it is exhibited in. It's as if you were some alien who has no concept of what consumption of food is and is simply required to convince others you are capable of eating or regularly practice the routine of such. Or introducing the concept of a fork to some forgotten race of people somewhere.

It's akin to witnessing someone utilizing a household floor vacuum on their driveway near the sidewalk. Unusual. If nothing else.

By the side of the plate, scooping up a morsel or piece of chicken, at the top of the plate horizontally, sure. But not this unforgivable anomaly you have cruelly sentenced all who click on this to endure.

The quoted passage here is completely nonsensical. It makes a statement, "there are natural laws". Then right after saying this he states "that can clearly not be said". How is one to make any sense out of this other than to see it as blatant hypocrisy: "what I just said cannot be said"? It is utterly ridiculous if it is supposed to be presenting something serious, because it shows itself as false, by itself. — Metaphysician Undercover

I get you 100%.

But step back for a moment and think some. From a different angle than accustomed or comfortable. From your "natural law", perhaps it could be said. "Things exist". This is a fact. Do you know how a thermonuclear fusion reactor works or how a solar system functions in every excruciating and implicit detail? Likely not. You see it, it must be governed by something, hence its existence, which is the key proposition here, true or not. Simply reporting a fact "that can clearly not be said" may refer to a relative state of affairs and absolute accurate assessment of a given situation not an absolute limitation for all knowledge or context of it. The first man who observed fire, for example. It clearly exists, it clearly has laws, but at the time, for whatever reason, also, simply could not be explained. That's one possibility.

I can relate to your mindset, I feel yours and mine are more similar than they are different. What is natural? Preexisting? Since when? For all time or due to a recent change? The waters seem to follow the moon. This is a natural law. What if the moon did not exist or where to vanish? Then this "natural" law can be changed thus validating the claim that what "exists" may cease to or otherwise change and therefore cannot be pinned down with any degree of absoluteness ie. "cannot (or perhaps should not) be said/declared". No?

You would be wise to listen to this poster, OP.

Though I have found most philosophers have a tinge of morbidity, if not full on appreciation for dark humor and, horror, basically. In which case, go for it.

IMO, socialism only works with physical borders (walls or geographic boundary that makes it difficult or impossible for someone to "wonder" toward or "casually" go to in efforts to seek nonreciprocal benefit at the expense of those who labor to provide it). Hand in hand with some sort of religious authority that instills the non-mandatory value of a hard day's work and eternal reward as well as social value. "The land of milk and honey" sounds nice. So long as someone provides it for you. Eventually, it never works due to the fact it's logistically unsustainable.

The Kingdom has seen better days, to put it lightly. I personally believe it's Biblical and the darkest before the dawn before... something happens. As to the implicit nature of this "something" I can't seem to muster. Like most things, time will tell, eh?

There have to be "reasonable" dogmas, despite there being rare exceptions that are of little use and nothing but irrelevant distraction from a larger truth.

People don't like being tortured and killed, for example. That's a pretty fair tenet that modern law and decency is hinged upon, surely. Sure there's some who might enjoy it, perhaps mentally or physically ill-equipped in an unfortunate way that thankfully most people are not. What of it?

Sure, if you happen to enjoy something 99% of people do not. That's relativism, I suppose?

There's concepts we refer to as realistic, rational, and feasible that cut out the fat so to speak and place us all on as a better path. Wouldn't you agree, @Count Timothy von Icarus?

People tend to review most of their life decisions once this hits home. — AmadeusD

Decisions are easy to reconcile, little more than footprints on the beach before the daily tide rolls in. Indecision, however, is what drives men to madness and can haunt one's very soul forevermore.

When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything." — unenlightened

Like what? Wasting away needlessly toiling in A dead world where everything, no matter how grand or monumental, flesh or stone, will inevitably decay and crumble to sand, for no purpose other than to do so for the sake of having something to do? Mindless pleasure that decays the mind? Grandiosity and a feeling of power over others that grows old faster than a piece of fruit left out in the hot sun? Yeah, no thanks pal. Keep your atheism. It is neither needed nor welcome in this land.

(would be my reply to the author of the quote in question)

Good thread. Not surprised to see the level of emotion and effort being expressed here. After all, people struggle to come up with a question more profound than the most basic: "What is life, after all?"

Likewise it takes more than mere imagination to create great works of philosophy. — Janus

Generally agree. But for sake of debate (it's own point): "You [can't help but] always admire (be fascinated with) what you really don't understand." - Blaise Pascal

Rings true, no?

Certain philosophies do seem to have less than tangible/measurable goals than others, yes.

Philosophy of law is pretty clear, to know Justice as intimately as a man knows a woman. Philosophy of mind or religion is naturally a bit more abstract and open to interpretation. I'd say so, at least.

You can lead to a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Everything is open to interpretation. Solipsism for example, I would call a non-philosophy and more of what should be a clinically recognized mental illness, however it follows all (if not most of) the rules and seems to be derived of a valid, fundamental question (what is real, what isn't, how can we be sure, etc.).

It seems to be more a means to an end not an end itself. Or something.

It creates conceptual "bricks", that do have substance, though perhaps little, that someone is supposed to use to perhaps build a house or bridge to a desired location that would have otherwise not been possible or of greater difficulty than without. Now, you can build a cheap, shabby, and even dangerous house or bridge if the bricks are not placed in ideal order by someone who doesn't know what they're doing. Or, you could feel high and mighty about being able to seemingly defeat any opinion you don't agree with by talking around it with fanciful magniloquence that seems to add up perfectly, if not just in one's own mind, and leave the person your speaking to dumbfounded to the point they forgot what they were doing. To each their own. Some are builders. Some are on a personal or selfless quest for knowledge. And surely, of course, some do indeed just like to hear themself talk. Guilty as charged. :smile:

My dear friend, I believe I can explain. As it so happens, the site owner, Jamal, being the humble and selfless (if not at times inconsiderate) person he is enjoys making use of the Shoutbox to announce site-wide changes as opposed to hogging up valuable discussion real estate space as would occur if done so in the form of a new announcement thread or "sticky", as it were.

I believe you will find the answers to all your questions in this Shoutbox post, here.

Or to be quaint, check the Lounge! :razz:

↪Paine
Never true? I've used it and meant it. — Tom Storm

Interesting for sure. Perhaps, where respect that is due, mentioning it superfluously becomes a mockery. Does it not? My kind, smart, sir, @Tom Storm :joke:

There's no such thing as a free lunch. (Tell that to the guy in school I bullied)

It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings (though perhaps the one I had in mind simply was not fat enough)

Lightning never strikes twice. (if that were the case anyone with the towering symbol of ignorance that would be a lightning rod should be tested for mental illness)

You reap what you sow. (perhaps I planted a very long-term flowering plant at a second home a squatter dug up shortly after and planted something else and, after having him shot by police on my return, I reaped something else)

It's best to let sleeping dogs lie. (Perhaps they were friendly and joined me on my daily walk and ended up mauling a would-be robber to death)

I could go on really.

Biological men are much more likely to have nefarious motives than biological women. — RogueAI

:rofl:

Oh no, my inexperienced friend, let me assure you, men are simply more physically, and as a result socially, capable of carrying out nefarious desires. Perhaps it can be argued men are traditionally greater thinkers (though the margin between those who are and aren't is quite large) ie. more likely to get away with immorality thus lessening the fear of getting caught thus increasing the desire to act on said desires, be it so out of intrinsic biological nature/adaptation or simple social status and resulting education.

Unfortunately this thread is likely doomed to be a political discussion instead of an actual philosophical one, so I will bow out.

I find this whole topic incredibly divisive and prone to abuse, intentional and otherwise. Some men are more "traditionally masculine" than others, often physically, sometimes in other ways. Just because someone is an "effeminate" male in contrast to another male does not mean they need to start thinking if they're actually a female and need to consider having their genitals removed and taking permanently mind and body altering drugs. That's predatory abuse, bullying, and frankly downright ridiculous at face value.

It is documented many trans people, before any procedure, suffered from some sort of mental illness. No one just woke up one day and said to themself "Wow I just realized I was supposed to be born with a vagina". Not a one. My point is sometimes people with a documented high risk of mental illness who are burdened with self-diagnosing any alleged "ailment" or whatever the scholarly medical term is for "being born the wrong gender" are reasonably likely to possibly be incorrect. Therefore it can be argued blind, forceful pushing of the idea on someone who later chose such an operation is abusive and illegal.

I'm a bit of an alternate thinker mind you so I believe when there's money to be made, it shall be. Insurance scams run rampant in the 21st century. At the expense of innocent, vulnerable people.

So the rules need re-writing. Why is this not in the lounge? — Banno

Perhaps OP neglected, perhaps for an unavoidable reason such as time or other constraints, what his philosophical views or belief(s) as to why this ties into philosophy. Allow me to do so.

Since the dawn of man, there has been woman. The social order, simply if not tragically simplified into two: patriarchy and matriarchy. It is a known fact, as things are now (though perhaps may have been different in the past) the average male is of higher muscle mass, higher endurance, and, this is where scholars differentiate, of higher mental fortitude or ability to handle stress and anguish, whether or not due to the proven fact menstrual cycles affect the brain and induce higher levels of rage, aggression, or perhaps on the opposite end, lower levels of tolerance and the chemicals (dopamine, serotonin) that make a person feel "okay" or "at ease".

These facts in mind, what are the social consequences of allowing someone who is advantaged by never having to ever once experience such a scientifically noted phenomenon? Any at all?

Perhaps even more importantly, how will this affect society, the social construct we call "the world", and what potential for abuse (or perhaps benefit?) is allowed or denied as a result? These are the questions people wish to know, yet often fail to ask. So, lead on OP, what do you think?

Edit: And even further, I suppose one could extract the following debate. Does one who naturally has greater ability hurt or perhaps strengthen and encourage those who, on average, have less? (Allegedly)

An excellent question, OP! Excellent indeed.