Carrier is an atheist and a materialist. I felt similar to you at times. But, overall, I liked what he said and found it interesting. — Art48

I can see why you and others would like what he said. I like meta-philosophy like his - philosophy about the nature of philosophy. I just didn't find his answers convincing.

Carrier defends philosophy and makes several points I found very interesting. — Art48

There is much here that I agree with, but his criticism is guided by a questionable assumption, that the goal of philosophy is to address and solve problems, to contribute "new knowledge", to be useful in the narrow sense of problem solving. — Fooloso4

I watched the first 20 minutes of the video, but I stopped because I disagreed with so much the presenter said about what philosophy is and should be. His understanding of metaphysics is much different from mine. Since that is the aspect of philosophy that is the most important to me, it made the rest of is points unconvincing. I also found his argument that science once was and still is part of philosophy technically true but trivial and irrelevant.

There are some people who treat others badly because they enjoy doing so. For example: compulsive and manipulative liars. In my own view, there is a lot of "evil" in such an act. I think being an asshole is more related to a lack of basic morals and education. — javi2541997

I'll revise my statement - Treating people badly doesn't necessarily mean you're evil, it means you're an asshole

Let’s start with the golden rule which leads to a reciprocal relationship between two entites.

Scratch my back and I scratch yours kind of thing.

In this type of social exchange the benefits are mutual for both parties. So all well and good. — invicta

The golden rule does not describe an "exchange of benefits." It's unilateral, a statement of personal value. You don't treat people fairly or kindly for benefit, you do it because it is the right way to treat people.

The dilemma here comes to the problem of Evil where one of the parties doesn’t hold their end of the bargain hence broken level of trust. — invicta

Treating people badly doesn't mean you're evil, it means you're an asshole.

The question is can corporate or banking greed be stopped at all or should the government stay away from regulation.

In any case the Rich man will have so much money they won’t know what to do with it.

Question: what role should the government do to protect people on lower wages — invicta

Most regulation is put in place to benefit the interests of propertied people - rich people and businesses. The banking system couldn't work without banking regulations. Airlines couldn't make money without the air traffic control system. The radio and television industry could not operate without FCC regulations. Arguably, the most fundamental regulations of all are those related to property rights. For them what's got, the only problem with regulations is when they help or protect them what's not.

There are very few institutions that can effectively stand up against other large institutions and the interests of property owners to protect those with little power. The government is indispensable in that role.

Which is ironic, since we've held several short story contests. — Noble Dust

I'm not really interested in writing stories. I like reading them; talking about them; and figuring out what they are, how they work, and how I experience them.

Went to library page on the web, downloaded "Ubik." As I always say at times like these - What a wonderful world we live in.

@Noble Dust, @Manuel, @Jamal

If you'll pick one particular book and give me a couple of days to read it, I'll participate. Preferably one that's fairly accessible. I don't promise I'll have much to contribute, but I'll see what I can do.

We've had some interesting discussions about art here, but we haven't really dug into lichicher.

for those who might not know, Emotivism is the belief that the words "good" or "bad" refers to emotions that we have, not beliefs or true statements. — aminima

I agree with the position you seem to be taking against emotivism, but there is significant scientific evidence to show that emotion has a major role in human thinking on all issues, not just moral ones. It would make sense to me if moral beliefs form in a manner similar to other beliefs.

(1) if words like "bad" are supposed to express emotions, that we would predict that the stronger the emotion, the more "bad" something would be. however, in some cases this is not the true. for example, I think it is equally immoral to kill my mom than to kill a stranger, however, I have stronger emotions tied to the idea of someone killing my mom. — aminima

I don't find this argument convincing. Whatever connection emotion has with reasoning, moral or otherwise, it is unlikely it would act in such a simple manner.

(2) the way we form moral judgements is more like how we form other objective belief's, and less like how we acquire emotions. — aminima

I don't know that we simply "acquire" either emotions or beliefs, but as I wrote previously, it would make sense to me if moral beliefs formed in a manner similar to other ones.

for example if I want to know if capital punishment is bad, I think about it, read about it, and talk to other people about it. this is exactly like how I acquire my other beliefs (like the fine-tuning argument doesn't succeed, or there's an external world), and not at all how I acquire emotions. — aminima

I think the process of forming beliefs is significantly more involved than this and doesn't depend only on rational factors.

not at all how I acquire emotions. we don't read, discuss or think about what emotions we have, much less worry about getting them right. — aminima

It is my understanding that aspects of emotions are learned. I think many people worry a lot about getting emotions right. It's a common psychological difficulty I suffered from when I was a teenager. It's a terrible thing.

Baffling. — Baden

Is it possible that Chat GPT or other similar program hacked into TPF and created Hoo and a chain of sockpuppets including all their discussions, posts, and other members responses to them just to undermine Green Flag's membership? It's my understanding that Dominion Voting Systems is a major sponsor of AI research.

I disagree — Hanover

This is an image of a tardigrade. I've decided to use it as my new smiley face temoji. Temoji - that's short for T Clark emoji.

Does anyone have a good recommendation on CS Pierce? On the one hand, his collected works are free in many places. On the other, they aren't particularly well organized and it's a 5,092 page PDF.

Is there a good "guided" tour that mixes the original writing with a solid framework for studying such a large body of work? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes. This would be helpful for me too.

Good luck. — Manuel

Thanks for the recommendations.

Thought I'd quote this quotable quote. — Hanover

You and I often agree when we're not trying to prove who the biggest smarty-pants is.

We want contact and intimacy with other creatures, especially our own species. We are curious, we wonder, even as newborns, about the sources of sounds and other sensory phenomena. These motivations are not driven merely by pleasure and pain, in fact we will aim towards painful experiences to satisfy our curiosity and social desires. All this in place before any grand narrative to distract or give meaning is put in place. In fact any belief system needs to engage with these motivations - and often channels them, judges them, gives rules to restrict them. It's not that your post is incorrect. These belief systems do do the things you say, but there is tremendous motivation in place before these systems are plopped on top of them. — Bylaw

Good post - good ideas, well written.

There is a political reality that cannot be ignored. You can go on about how justice demands the prosecution of every prosecutable crime damn the torpedoes, and we can then end up with failed impeachments and acquittals followed by emboldened politicians who should have lost power.

The Manhattan case is a case about misuse of campaign funds and falsification of records. It's a finance regulatory case.

Prosecute the man for calling the Georgia Secretary of State and asking for fabricated votes and stop with this diversion into whether Form 1876-b (I made that form up, so don't look it up) was falsified. — Hanover

I think you're right about this indictment in particular. This is not the crime justice should be going all in on.

Anyways, the point is that you have a narrative of why you clean the dishes. You have just taken the narrative for granted to the point that to you, it seems the answer was written on high from Moses as to why you must do them. — schopenhauer1

I already told you that I need a narrative to communicate the situation to you, but I don't need one to motivate myself, which was the point of your OP.

Now I'm really done. No, seriously, I really mean it. For sure this time. La, la, la, la, la. I'm not listening. I'm going to turn my computer off now.

How do you know that? — schopenhauer1

Sorry. That's enough. I'm all done.

Why do you do the dishes even if you don't like it? — schopenhauer1

Because it's part of a job I do enjoy and I can't complete that without doing the part I don't enjoy.

Why is "it's just how the world works" connected with you doing a job you would not want to do? — schopenhauer1

I've done a lot of worthwhile and enjoyable work in my life. All of it included aspects I didn't enjoy. If you like to cook, you have to wash the dishes. If you want to design the cleanup of a contaminated property, you have to figure out the budget and get the client to agree with it. This is where you and I always run into a wall. It's not unfair that life includes a bit of pain and unpleasantness.

Trump is slowly getting repositioned by the Democrats for a second presidency. Impeaching, indicting, or otherwise attempting to disqualify Trump from this election cycle is going to be seen as undemocratic and he'll become a martyr. — Hanover

I'm not sure your right, but I fear you might be.

Exactly, and you are LITERALLY displaying the point I am making in real time. — schopenhauer1

That's not true. Your OP was about how people use narratives to provide motivation. What does that have to do with me saying:

Of course I've done things I didn't want to do. Jobs that need to be done are not necessarily enjoyable. All worthwhile activities include aspects that are unpleasant. I don't see that as unfair or unreasonable. It's just how the world works. — T Clark

I ought to be patient with you, because you are talking to a projection. Seriously, though, your theatrics are misdirected. I'm glad for my friend and his happiness. We just lost touch. Such is life. It's just how the world works.

I don't owe you this clarification. It's a belatedly tolerant response to your indulgent misreading. — green flag

I'll admit to being theatrical and indulgent if you'll admit to being condescending and pompous.

Motivation, as in why you continue to do something you might not otherwise want to do. The thing is, you are going to claim you have never done something you never wanted to do. Is that right? — schopenhauer1

Of course I've done things I didn't want to do. Jobs that need to be done are not necessarily enjoyable. All worthwhile activities include aspects that are unpleasant. I don't see that as unfair or unreasonable. It's just how the world works.

We've been through this before. You tend to conflate what animals do and what humans do, and I don't even want to bother pointing out the difference in an animal that can use recursive linguistics to tell stories about itself and then buy into those stories, versus what animals do. — schopenhauer1

I think we probably agree it won't be very fruitful for you and me to spend a lot of time bashing things we already know we disagree on back and forth.

I just don't find this Taoist stuff compelling. In fact, if it was natural, we wouldn't need Toaism or anything related. We would simply BE. But we aren't. And so there in fact IS something in the way of that. I am saying that contrary to what dichotomy fiction you are purporting on me, the animals are living Tao. Humans are never doing so, and are always trying to get there. Hence TaoISM. — schopenhauer1

Yes, I thought it might not be a good idea to bring Taoism into this, knowing it is not a well understood or accepted way of knowing things. I was right, although I do think it provides a good reflection of human nature. Again, I think your sour way of seeing human nature and behavior undermines the credibility of your views.

You keep saying that, but here you are using language, having a narrative of being angry and upset. Think about it. — schopenhauer1

I'm not angry or upset at all. I went back and reread my post. It was polite, respectful, and responsive. I tried to make sure I left out any provocative language. I've always tried to treat your ideas with respect, even though I strongly disagree with them. It's true, all verbal and written communication is narrative, but communication is not motivation, which was the primary substance of your OP.

I am a liberal Democrat and I think Donald Trump was a very bad president and is a very bad man. I have no doubt he broke the law in important ways. Still, I think this could easily turn into a be careful-what-you-wish-for moment. To me, it's certainly nothing to celebrate.

To me, it would make more sense to just indict him for his actions on and before January 6, 2021 rather than this charge. Yes, I know the crimes are in different jurisdictions.

Friend of mine tried to express the ecstasy of becoming a father. We've lost touch. He's got three now, a hard working man with the picket fence and kids he always wanted, even a wife who stays home.

To me it's more like people find some role (hero myth, ideology) that feels right enough and keep getting out of bed every morning, largely to avoid losing a job, a lover, a home. We cling to what keeps us safe and comfortable. This is to be expected. Moloch demands it ! Those whose source code doesn't have them building a nice little web end up replicating less or not at all. — green flag

This is startlingly condescending. I think it shows your lack of respect for people who, apparently unlike you, find satisfaction in daily life, family, work, and other aspects of our humanity.

Is "these systems are ultimately fictions" itself a fiction ? Even the most negative ideology may help the species or the tribe as a whole contribute to the heat death. Antinatalism is the hand of god. It is the thought of genocidal violence taken to the last extreme. It is will-to-power. Does it not cry out after all for the coming of heat death ? — green flag

Such pompous arrogance.

However, unlike other animals, humans have the ability to separate our behaviors from our survival needs. We can choose not to work because we don't like it, we can choose to commit suicide, or we can engage in a range of other behaviors that have nothing to do with our basic survival needs. — schopenhauer1

I think this is an artificial distinction. Animals can also behave in ways that don't directly impact basic survival needs. They play, wander around exploring, and spend a lot of time napping. They hang out with their families. I'm not saying animals are the same as humans, but you are exaggerating the differences.

Despite our general fear of pain and seeking of pleasure, we still must write narratives of motivation. Our behaviors are not fixed for these end goals but are tied to the conceptualizing-human mind in social relations to others. Every single day, every minute even, we have to "buy into" motivating ourselves with narratives...

...Additionally, humans generally fear pain, displeasure, and the angst of boredom, while seeking pleasures to distract from this angst. Aesthetic and non-physical pleasures become a built-in mechanism to deal with this fear. However, this also creates a need for fictions to explain why we must do anything, — schopenhauer1

I don't think this is right either. Human motivations include more than just pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain. Calling artistic, recreational, and other non-instrumental activities "built-in mechanism to deal with fear," may be true for you, but they aren't for most of us. You and I have had this discussion before. Your vision of human nature is darker and less hopeful than mine is.

It is possible to act without intervention by narratives. Much of the point of Taoism is learning how to act spontaneously in line with our true natures. It is called "acting without acting." It is understood as the true source of human motivation. Narratives interfere with this rather than supporting it. Narratives don't generally promote action, they are more able to put the brakes on, to stop us from doing what our natural inclinations indicate. A lot of narratives are also post hoc additions put on to explain to ourselves why we did what we already did.

So my theory, along with Zapffe's, is more about our essential "break" with nature. We use narratives/fictions to create reasons which give us motivations. That's how a conceptualizing animal with recursive language capacity parses and synthesizes the world- one in which social arrangements are paramount. — schopenhauer1

I'll say it again. I don't think this is true, or at least not necessarily true. It's "seems to me" psychology/philosophy and I don't think it represents how people actually feel or behave.

Some truth in that, but I am nowhere near as gnarly or arrogant as you — universeness

You are just as arrogant as I am and significantly more gnarly.

You offer your mere opinion, as if there was some kind of authority — universeness

As I noted, I am the official Voice of the Spirit of Philosophy here on the forum. Only one other member has been graced with such a lofty office. That's @Noble Dust, who is the Mayor of the Shoutbox.

I would disagree. In order to do classical mathematics or certain types of logic, one has to view it through the lens of Platonic forms (or some other non-mental, non-physical substance). There is no way to experience absolute infinity, for example. We can define it, but to invoke it as an object/property without constructing it, one would have to postulate or imagine some kind of realm in which it exists merely because it was definable. — Ø implies everything

I think you and I are using the term "idealism" with different meanings. When I say "idealism" I mean philosophies similar to Plato's. From Wikipedia - "In its most basic fundamentals, platonism affirms the existence of abstract objects, which are asserted to exist in a third realm distinct from both the sensible external world and from the internal world of consciousness, and is the opposite of nominalism."

Am I using the word wrong? Anyway, whatever language differences we are having, I think you and I agree that seeing the world through Platonist glasses, as described in Wikipedia, would be useful for mathematicians.

As an aside, there was a movie that took up this issue - The Discovery - with Robert Redford and Jason Segal. In it, a scientist proves there is an afterlife, which leads to a lot of suicides. I haven't watched it. It is on Netflix.

What are some good arguments for ontological idealism? — Ø implies everything

I'm not what anyone would call an idealist in the philosophical sense, but I do see value in using that kind of approach. In order to do math or logic, you would have to be able to see the world through idealist lenses. Also, although I am mostly drawn to pragmatic approaches with a bit of materialism mixed in, I often find myself drawn to more idealist elements - honor, human rights, fairness, kindness.

Your curmudgeon approach to others — universeness

It's an odd thing for you to call me a "curmudgeon." First, I don't think being one is necessarily bad. Every forum should have a few. And then, of course is the whole pot/kettle/black thing. One of the things I like about you is your feisty, argumentative attitude. You're as much a curmudgeon as I am.

I just wish you'd stop disrupting threads with irrelevant comments.

Your ad hominems expose your own "lack intellectual integrity". — 180 Proof

I don't think what I wrote was an ad hominem argument. I always get confused and people misuse the term all the time. I wasn't making an argument at all. I was pointing out your and @universeness's habitual disruptive misbehavior.

Thanks! — Raef Kandil

No need to thank me. It's just part of my job, my duty, my privilege, my calling as the Voice of the Spirit of Philosophy here on the forum.

Stevenson is a hot-button issue. Shouldn't have brought it up, and won't do so again on this forum, as so many people find it upsetting. — Wayfarer

I respect your position and your desire to keep the discussion fruitful.

On the other hand, I don't really care if they're upset. Their lack of intellectual integrity really pisses me off. Even that wouldn't bother me if they would just stay off threads where they can't even buy into the basic parameters of the discussion. Not every discussion about religious issues has to be about whether or not God exists or whether or not there is evidence God exists.

Believe it, don't believe, it doesn't bother me, but you can't say 'there's no published evidence'. That is the only point I'm making. — Wayfarer

People like @180 Proof and @universeness are just here to disrupt other people's discussions. They have nothing substantive to add and refuse to play fair by, as in this case, rejecting evidence without looking at it.

I assume that you would accept, that YOU have your own standard, for what you consider valid evidence. — universeness

Yes, I do. I haven't read the information @Wayfarer references. As I said, I'm skeptical, but I can't reject the evidence without looking at it. I must admit reincarnation is not something I have a lot of interest in. You, unless I misunderstood your post, also haven't looked at the evidence. Previously, you wrote:

Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality. You won't be surprised to read that I wear that badge with pride. — universeness

If that were true, you wouldn't reject the evidence Wayfarer describes out of hand without looking at it.

Sure he does. The point I keep making - seems to have slipped by - is that checking what a child says about a remembered previous life is an empirical matter, unlike astrology. I don't expect anyone to believe it, but I do expect that this distinction is intelligible. — Wayfarer

You've said this before - They say there's no valid evidence, you show them some, and they say the evidence can't be valid because it demonstrates something they know is not true. It shows hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty on their part. I am strongly skeptical of reincarnation, but I don't exclude any possibility because of my intellectual prejudices.

Here's something I thought you might be interested in. Someone sent me a link to a very well-written summary of the Tao Te Ching on an interesting Substack website called Superb Owl. The guy who runs it has a very broad set of interests. Here is a link to a literary analysis he did of several novels and plays using Chat GPT.

The Shapes of Stories with Chat GPT—Investigating classic literature with a Large Language Model

Same thing.

A new study examines all robust, available data on how fearful we are of what happens once we shuffle off this mortal coil. They find that atheists are among those least afraid of dying...and, perhaps not surprisingly, the very religious.
— Study into who is least afraid of death — Banno

From the study:

...over half the research showed no link at all between the fear of death and religiosity. — Study into who is least afraid of death

My working hypothesis is that they are more christian than atheist. — Banno

Perhaps more prejudice than hypothesis.

But... it might end at any time, which after 76 years won't be like the lost opportunities of people dying before they have found their way in the world (which takes 20 or 30 years). — BC

Yes. Too late for us to die young.