I agree, but how long is "the present"? — BC

The present means now. Right here...no wait, now. No, now.... If there are people who are still living with injustice while others have unearned privilege, which you and I agree there are, those are the people for whom it should be made right. Not because of what happened 400 or 200 or 100 or 50 years ago, but because of what is happening now.

It may be another impossible moral calculation. But in terms of, par example, who is responsible for slavery, colonialism and the World wars the answer is not us who were not born then. — Andrew4Handel

I don't support payment of reparations for past behavior. It's not the injustice of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries that need to be addressed. It's the ongoing unfairness and privilege that remain today.

if we have some justification to believe that P and that justification is overridden by other evidence, then we still have some justification, it's overridden. — aminima

Sorry, that doesn't make sense to me. [joke] It seems wrong.[/joke] We can leave it there.

I guess I would ask exactly how you have knowledge of our common sense beliefs. Is it because they are useful? because they are true? — aminima

Are you saying that things that seem to be true as you've been discussing them are common sense beliefs? I don't think seeming and common sense are the same thing. I think common sense reflects our intuition. I don't think intuition is seeming either.

I'm having a hard time seeing how "seeming" equals belief. can you explain more?

I see belief and seeming are separate things. for example, in the The Ponzo Illusion it seems to me like the lines are different lengths, but I believe the lines are the same length. in this case, seeming and belief are two completely different things. — aminima

That doesn't make sense to me. If something seems like it's true, but we know based on evidence, or at least believe strongly, that it's not, do you really propose that we have "at least some justification for believing that P."

is this principle a good one? I think so because it's a simple response to skepticism. — aminima

I've been called and called myself a pragmatist. The pragmatic approach to skepticism is to do the best you can with an understanding of the uncertainties of your knowledge and the risks of being wrong. What more is needed?

it's important to note that "seems" and "seeming" here does not mean belief, and does not mean an inclination toward, or a feeling, it's an experience one has when one thinks of a statement. someone experiences that a statement seems true to them, just like someone experiences that an apple seems to be in front of them. — aminima

You say seeming does not mean belief, but it does. It's just a belief for which you don't have very good justification. Things seem plausible. Seem possible. Seem likely. Don't seem unlikely. That's just intuition - knowledge for which you have uncertain justification.

As with all justification, it all comes down to the consequences of being wrong. Is your justification adequate for the risk involved? Should I lend Aminima $5? Sure, they seem honest. Should I lend Aminima $10,000? I'll have to think about that.

Ethical judgements are more than just emotional reactions but you are treating them the same in your argument. — DingoJones

I haven't been making an argument. I've been expressing an opinion. Describing my feelings. That's all I intended to do.

I disagree. Anything can be justified with “emotional judgements”, therefore it is a poor metric for justification. — DingoJones

In this particular case, I don't need any more justification. It's an ethical question and I am using my ethical judgement, which includes emotional reactions. If I were trying to convince someone, I'd have to provide more, but I'm not and I don't.

Ok, but if you aren’t sure what a person is how can you know a corpse is still a person?
Aren’t you basing a conclusion (a corpse is a person) on something you aren’t able to even define (what a person is)?
At the very least it seems to me you should be no more confident that a corpse is a person than you are confident what a person is…no? — DingoJones

I acknowledge my reasons for objecting to using people in a vegetative state for gestation are based on emotional judgements, not rational ones. Is there anything wrong with that? Answer - no.

Do you feel the same way about opt out organ donation? — fdrake

No. That seems fine to me. I don't see that as inconsistent with my position on WBGD. Part of it is that I do see organ donation as vitally important.

Maybe. How do you define “person”? — DingoJones

I'm not sure exactly. Obviously, any living human being. Dead human beings? Not sure. Self-aware non-human beings? I'm not sure.

If hypothetically WBGD would be possible with a deceased body, would that change your mind about whether it's permissable? — Tzeentch

I'm against WBGD under almost any circumstances. No, I don't know what circumstances would make it ok. As I noted, that's not based on any facts, only on values.

Human and person are not interchangeable, are you wanting to say the braindead are human or persons? I would say they obviously human, but not a person. — DingoJones

I understand the distinction you are making between human and person. I meant to say "person" in the same sense you are using it. You and I disagree about whether or not people in a vegetative state are people. That's a matter of value, not fact.

why is WBGD devaluing people by treating them as a means to an end, but organ donation isn't? — fdrake

The quick answer is because it feels that way to me. So what's the longer, more considered answer?....I guess the question is why do I feel that way. I guess it's because the person looks just like a normal person who is asleep, unconscious, or comatose. The look like a person. They breath. Their heart beats. I think devaluing their humanity devalues all the rest of ours too, which is a dangerous thing for a society to do except, as I said, for something vitally important.

A stable platform, especially in the solidity of a personal sense of self, may be important for philosophical clarity... In that way, the idea of self may be a safe philosophical concept because it is neither grandiose or diminishing in its basis for a foundation for personal human identity. — Jack Cummins

I agree with this, but I don't think we only need a stable sense of self for philosophical purposes. We, at least I, need the platform of a consistent, reliable self to live our lives in a satisfying way.

Even if they are brain dead? Still a person? — DingoJones

What is considered a person is something that changes over time. Historically, foreign or primitive people have sometimes been considered less worthy of personhood than others. More recently, the idea of personhood has sometimes been stretched to include non-human animals. As I see it, we get to choose what we consider human. For me, people in a persistent vegetative state are still human. I think it's best for all of us if we see things that way unless there are vitally important reasons not to. I don't see providing surrogates for gestating babies as vitally important.

Aye. It's a sickening and horrifying idea. Though neither of those things mean it's wrong. — fdrake

Ultimately perhaps the referenced argument by Ber is stronger, but likely to be even more repugnant - the donor body isn't dead, it's in a persistent vegetative state. — fdrake

As I think about it more, what makes it sickening to me is also why I think it's, if not wrong, at least wrongheaded. Say what you will, my body is me. All those bodies in a persistent vegetative state are still people. I think it hurts us to act as if that isn't true. Treating people as means to an end devalues them individually and people in general. I don't get that same feeling from organ donation.

So. These are people. Show them respect. Don't use them. If that seems idealistic or romantic, I'm ok with that.

This is a really good discussion with a good opening post, even though I don't understand much of it. You're trying to trick me into learning about Schopenhauer.

I agree that in this case, it not worth our time to get 'bogged' down in discussion about the different contextual meanings between 'opinion' and 'taste.' — universeness

You can't fool me. You're pretending to agree with me, all the while trying to get me involved in a discussion about the words. It won't work.

To some extent the various terms are synonymons which depending on usage may be used to speak about the nature of inner experiences. — Jack Cummins

Yes, and I do think that these will differ from person to person. I'm sure the ways I use these words as described in my previous post won't always match how others feel.

Self is useful but it may appeal to the 'me' of egocentricism and in the context of individualism, and even the narcissistic aspect of seeing oneself in the mirror of others' perceptions in a social context. — Jack Cummins

I'm an American with the usual load of self-regard, but I think my understanding of my own experience, my self, provides a pretty stable platform from which to look out over reality without being rigid. If that makes any sense.

Well, that's just your opinion on the matter of individual taste! — universeness

I guess we could have a discussion on the meanings of "taste" and "opinion." Let's not and leave things where they are.

The only solution is to accommodate as many tastes as possible without compromising individual autonomy. — universeness

Not to be argumentative, but saying something is a matter of taste is not the same as saying it is a matter of opinion. Be that as it may, in either case I agree with your sentiment.

I like to listen to someone passionately talk about a book or song or movie that had a big influence in their life and I like to contemplate their reasoning as they present it. — universeness

To be honest, and I'm not trying to be provocative, I gave my daughter a copy of "The God Delusion" as an example of a really bad book.

So, could be a useful read then for those who are not already aware of the difference. — universeness

I certainly have no objection. Many people disagree with me on this. On the other hand, would you suggest someone watching "Plan 9 From Outer Space," or "Biodome" with Pauly Shore in order to learn what a good movie is like.

I kind of skipped classic Hollywood westerns (there are two or three that I like) and went straight for Sergio Leone's spaghetti westerns. — SophistiCat

I've watched dozens, scores, hundreds of westerns at the movies and on TV since I was a kid. Back then, when I thought of actors, it was always John Wayne. "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence" was a big favorite of mine. But in terms of westerns that really stand out after all this time, Sergio Leone's are the ones I remember best.

I don't know much about Taoism. Have you read Capra's Tao of physics?
If you have, was it worth reading? — universeness

As I've said many times before, one of the biggest causes of disagreement on the forum, and in philosophy in general, is people mistaking physics for metaphysics and visa versa. The tenets of Taoism are metaphysical principles. The tenets of quantum mechanics are physical, scientific principles. Reading "The Tao of Physics" many years ago was one of the first times I became aware of the difference.

I was responding to your more general point that it's more important to discuss the substantive issues involved than focus on, and probably get bogged down, in debate over what the label 'metaphysics' might or might not encompass. — universeness

As I see it, one of the main causes of pointless discussions here on the forum is the failure to define terms at the beginning. If you want talk about what "consciousness" means, that's fine. But if you want to talk about specific issues related to consciousness and the discussion gets bogged down in arguments about definitions, it's frustrating. When I start a discussion involving metaphysics, I try to be very explicit about what I mean. Even when I do that, I have to struggle to keep the discussion on topic.

I was merely stating that heated debate about what the term encompasses IS substantive imo, and I have not yet got 'fed up talking about it. — universeness

As I noted in my previous post and above, people who are interested in discussing the meaning of "metaphysics" or any other term should do so. I have no issue with that.

I think the wise passage you quote is better understood with more context ... — 180 Proof

I tend to default to the Stephen Mitchell translation. That was the one I got started on. I like the Gia-fu Feng and Jane English version too.

I've been thinking about this and I've changed my mind. I have no problem with taking organs without active approval as long as the policy is well publicized and families are given a chance to change their minds if that's possible. I don't think that should be true of a gestational donation. I'm leaning in the direction of banning those altogether. When I die, take whatever you want and burn the rest. But the idea of my body sitting there for nine months with pumps and feeding tubes gives me an upset stomach. Yes, I know it couldn't happen to me, notwithstanding the paper's author's science fictional male pregnancy fantasy.

That started me thinking. Keeping a body alive for nine months would very expensive. If it weren't covered by insurance, only rich people could do it. Probably very rich people. In my state, Massachusetts, it is a requirement that insurance plans cover fertility treatments, including in vitro fertilization, but surrogacy is not covered. I certainly wouldn't want insurance plans to be required to pay for this type of "treatment."

A religious dogma is a fossilized form of the original organic worldview. — Gnomon

This from the Tao Te Ching, Verse 38, Stephen Mitchell translation:

When the Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is morality.
When morality is lost, there is ritual.
Ritual is the husk of true faith,
the beginning of chaos. — Lao Tzu

I broadly agree, but 'what the word means,' IS a very substantive issue imo. God, science, universe, metaphysics, transcendent, sophist, liar are all words whose contextual meanings are crucial. Depending on what meaning people take from such words, it often cascades into what actions they take in their lives. — universeness

I was talking specifically about the word "metaphysics." It's a subject that is important to me. I'm interested in metaphysics and want to talk about it. I'm not that interested in "metaphysics" and I'm tired of talking about it. That doesn't mean others shouldn't.

I am aware that there are possible clear attempts at definitions of soul, mind, spirit and self. However, while these may be interesting and useful, I am interested more in how such definitions and concepts inform the understanding of consciousness on a philosophical level. What do you think about the various concepts in the understanding of consciousness? Which of these concepts are more helpful or unhelpful in the twentieth first century climate of philosophical thought, especially in relation to the mind-body problem? — Jack Cummins

I would add identity, ego, psyche, and perhaps heart to your list.

For me, these words are synonyms, although many would disagree. Some of that disagreement comes from the fact that, as you noted, each word arose in a different context from people with a different understanding of human nature. I am sympathetic to the viewpoint that all of these phenomena are illusions which humans create so we can talk about ourselves in an objective way. As I say, I'm sympathetic to that view, but it's not how I think in my daily life.

As with all synonyms, the words have different connotations and can be used in different situations. I have a very strong sense of self and "self" is the word that feels most personal to me. It's the word for how it feels here inside. "Soul" and "heart" are words I use when I'm talking about the human capacity for empathy, sincerity, and positive human values. "Mind" I tend to use when I'm talking about human intellect. ""Identity, "psyche," and "ego" I use when talking about myself and others in a more objective way. I see them as psychological terms. Of course, my usage is not always the way others use the words and even I don't follow the usages I describe always.

any resemblances between that ancient philosophy and Enformationism is primarily in its non-theist*1 explanation for the ups & downs of the world. However, the "dialectical monism" description does fit the opposite/complement notion of how Energy & Entropy work together to produce a dynamic world of myriad forms. — Gnomon

You find philosophical approaches which parallel Taoist principles in many places, including western philosophies. Kant's noumena are a good example.

Taoism is practised as a religion in various Asian communities. Its theology is not theist (even though some communities do worship Laozi as the attributed founder of the religious doctrine), and has more affinities with pantheistic traditions given its philosophical emphasis on the formlessness of the Tao. — Gnomon

I disagree with this, although many others, including many with more expertise than I, do agree with it. Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu, the two primary sources for Taoist thought, mention God, but almost in passing. For me, Taoist thought is a philosophy, not a religion. It is true that later interpretations did become, as you note, a polytheistic religion with some magical beliefs.

Have at it! — fdrake

This is a great discussion. I don't have strong feelings either way. Not to go on a tangent, but one thing bothered me. This from the article you linked:

Whole body gestational donation offers an alternative means of gestation for prospective parents who wish to have children but cannot, or prefer not to, gestate.

In a similar vein, would you feel differently about this if the organs were used for cosmetic surgery rather than surgery that is medically necessary.

Fine, I can live with that, although I think the term metaphysics is more overburdened than is suggested by the quote above. This was raised in a very well structured thread by T Clark in The Metaphysics of Materialism. I stand by the posts I made in that thread, on the topic of metaphysics. — universeness

Thank you. You're right about metaphysics being overburdened. Most discussions end up spending most of their time arguing about what the word means rather than discussing substantive issues.

Great post. Am I wrong, you seem to be participating more in the actual discussions here on the forum rather than just thinking up new ways to torture us. You've had some really interesting things to say.

A while later, I noticed that they were drifting apart until they parted their ways. I've reached a dead end, what went wrong? Why did it not sustain? For both me and anyone else who knew them, it was ideal. — RBS

In my experience, people want and expect different things from their friends than they do from their romantic partners and different things from their romantic partners than they do from their spouses. They are often usually not even aware of those differences. Because of that, lots of things can go wrong at the transition points between levels of attachment. If there are significant conflicts, it would take a really strong friendship to hold things together.

It all gave me the impression that this wasnt a discussion for you. It seemed like you were annoyed and sorta fucking with the source of your annoyance. If you were actually interested in a good discussion you would have listened better, or so I imagined. — DingoJones

I feel strongly about my points because I am angered by the level of disrespect that religious beliefs are shown here on the forum. As I tried to show in my posts, I think it is not justified. At the same time, I think my arguments were reasonable and civil. I intended that they be responsive to your points. I'll try a bit harder next time.

Didn't impress me, but it was a long time ago. — Jamal

But once I've read it I'll be able to toss off an authoritative "Didn't impress me" during conversations about detective novels.

I haven’t read any detective novels except for Chandler, Dashiell Hammett, Conan Doyle, and Georges Simenon. — Jamal

I think I'll try Hammett.