That is a strawman. — Andrew4Handel

So. Are you willing and able to work and live with people who have strong differences in opinion from you?

I am saying you are being complacent by thinking your beliefs are compatible with others. — Andrew4Handel

I'm 70 years old. I've lived, worked, played, and talked with many people in my life who I had strong differences of opinion with. I have almost always found that we could figure out ways to get along just fine. It so happens that I find your anti-natalist beliefs distasteful. There would be no reason for that to cause conflict between us unless one of us tried to inflict our beliefs on the other.

I am an antinatalist and there are increasingly large numbers of us now. We think it is unethical to have children and don't seek to perpetuate humans. That is a radical stance. And most antinatalists are not half hearted about it. — Andrew4Handel

So I guess you're saying that you in particular are not willing or able to work and live with people who have strong differences in opinion from you. And so you come here to whine about all the conflict in our society. It's hard to feel sympathetic.

Your pronouncement would sound a lot more authoritative if you were still The Baden.

If you were (a) God for a day, what would you do? — Benj96

I'd change the whole punishment and reward system. No more hell, if it exists. Instead, all of us would have to experience all the pain and unhappiness we have inflicted on others. For some good people, that wouldn't take long. For Hitler, maybe it would take millions of years. For me, 27 years, five months, two weeks, three days, 17 hours, 33 minutes, and 42 seconds.

It would be run like "Groundhog Day." You keep reliving it until you finally get it right. Then what? I guess send you back to life and let you try again.

I do not think atheists and religious people have compatible worldviews and end goals. I am an agnostic and my views are incompatible with both groups. To me the issue of whether you believe in an after life makes a big difference. Also whether or not you believe in free will or materialism. Or are capitalist or communist. — Andrew4Handel

This is not true in my experience. Whatever their politics, religion, philosophy, or other characteristic, humans always have more in common than in opposition. Just about everyone wants security for our families, the ability to make important decisions about our own lives, good education and medical care. I get along well with people who appear very different from me on the surface. There are people of good will everywhere.

homo sapiens are about 2 million years old. — Agent Smith

As I understand it, the correct number is 200,000 years. Some pretty close relatives were there earlier. The last common ancestor between humans and chimpanzees is estimated to have lived between 4 and 13 million years ago, depending on how it is defined.

I've taken my part in this discussion as far as I can. Let's leave it at that.

How is hope - or hoping - an intrusion/weakness or distraction? — Amity

That's how I experience it, how it feels to me. If we're looking for an explanation of that, I think what @unenlightened wrote is a good one.

I am not saying people don't appear to set and achieve goals, sometimes with the zeal of an addiction. I'm not saying that people can't be determined. I am just not convinced 'will' holds up to being fetishised or understood as a transcendent, transformative virtue. — Tom Storm

Temperament, personality, attitude - whatever you call it - I've noticed that some people are much more willful than others. More forceful, persistent. What's a nice word for stubborn. I have friends I call "people of will." I am as far from that as you can possibly be while still breathing. The Tao Te Ching is all about surrender of the will. I guess you could say it's a difference of style, but I think it goes deeper than that. I think at least some of it is built-in biologically, genetically.

I don't think any of this necessarily contradicts anything you wrote.

They do not experience life as we do so they can not have the consciousness we have. — Athena

I don't see that.

'Volitions' (i.e. more veto than volo) are only infrequent interruptions in involuntary systems, reflexes & habits (i.e. embodiment). — 180 Proof

Are you saying that will is useful to stop us from doing something rather than motivating us to action? If so, I think I agree with you.

What is it that you think 'hope' is that means you feel you have to stop doing or eliminate it? — Amity

Part of it is what unenlightened wrote:

One projects oneself into the future, and identifies with the imagined future self. Thus hope and fear arise together as acts of imagination - one fears the worst and hopes for the best. — unenlightened

And part of it is that I experience them in similar manners. They both feel like intrusions, weaknesses, distractions; causing me to pay attention to the wrong things.

In the real world, those fleeing people believe there is a better reality and those in the Hell dome would believe their reality is the only one. — Athena

Here we are in our own dome imagining, inventing, hoping for, fearful of something outside of the world we experience every day. Why wouldn't people in the hypothetical domes described in the OP do the same?

That is what I was trying to catch in my intro - intending to do something is a choice, but there can be obstacles to enacting a choice. To what extent one is or isn't prevented by obstacles is where it becomes a question of will. — Pantagruel

I agree, this I would say is the operation of habits. As mentioned though, will can also be internalized towards the modification of our own habits. Which can also be more or less difficult. — Pantagruel

Thoughts? — Pantagruel

A couple.

First a question - how is will different from intention?

In my experience, most of our actions are unwilled. Not that they are inadvertent, but that they arise without conscious or rational thought.

Nice. — Tom Storm

Thank you.

What is the status of treating common sensical language as the correct interpretation as philosophy done correctly. Anyone? — Shawn

So if someone holds their hand before them and expresses doubt as to it's being real, one is entitled to ask what they mean by that doubt - are they asking if it is a fake? a hallucination? a prosthetic? The question drags the supposed argument back from the metaphysical. — Banno

Banno and I discussed the meaning of the word "real" in a recent thread. In that discussion, I wrote the following:

I don’t think the idea of “real” has any meaning except in relation to the everyday world at human scale. Reality only makes sense in comparison to what humans see, hear, feel, taste, and smell in their homes, at work, hunting Mastodons, playing jai alai, or sitting on their butts drinking wine and writing about reality. Example - an apple is real. — T Clark

So I guess I would say that it's not ordinary language philosophy that is needed, it's ordinary experience philosophy. The more we talk about philosophical questions that have no relation to the way people live their lives the less value our ramblings have. That's why I hate the so-called "Trolley Problem" so much. None of the 50 or so billion people who have lived since trolleys were invented have ever found themselves in a situation like that and if humans are around for another 10,000 years, none of the billions yet unborn ever will.

Apophasis — 180 Proof

Thanks. I remember you talking about it before.

Why do you want to know, Apophatboy? — Janus

Yes, that went over my head till you clarified. Thanks.

Why do you want to know — Janus

Maybe that's the best way of defining irony - by talking about what it's not. — T Clark

How could you really fuck up? — DingoJones

Yes. Famous last words - What could possibly go wrong. Problem is, if you change anything, you have to change everything.

So would you say him as God would not be all knowing and would make mistakes along the way that ought to be corrected? — Benj96

If you made me God and that didn't include my foibles, prejudices, and values, it wouldn't really be me anymore.

Please ask Banno. — Agent Smith

I'm asking you. You wrote it.

I'd probably try to fix it and remove the diseases and design flaws and weaknesses and predatory behaviours which abound in this current wonky, barbaric 'creation'. — Tom Storm

You would just fuck things up. Anyone would. I hope there's a reset button.

I would like to tender my Apology. — Agent Smith

How is this relevant?

There's also irony in the methodology of writing fiction. — Christoffer

Are you saying that all fiction is ironic? Let me think about that... Is it ironic that we know a character is not real while they have to act as if they are?

Your post reminded me of a movie - "Stranger than Fiction." In it, a man, played by Will Ferrell, finds that he is living the life of a character in a story being written by an author, played by Emma Thompson. They meet and discuss the plot and how it is affecting the man's life. A pretty good movie. Amusing. I guess that's dramatic irony, although in this case, the character knows things the author did not intend for him to know. Which brings up "The Truman Show."

There's another kind of irony. I'm not sure whether it would be considered dramatic irony or not. That's when a character, narrator, or plot device draws attention to the fact that this situation is artificial, e.g. if a character turns to the audience and makes a comment like Puck in "Midsummer Night's Dream" saying "What fools these mortals be." Or in "Blazing Saddles" where the characters ride out of the story and into the movie studio. I remember a great TV version of "Nickolas Nickleby" where a group of characters from the book look down on the action from above and make comments, including people who have already died in the story.

In that regard, are all musicals ironic?

I’m surprised that no one has so far stated this obvious definition: “Irony” means “having the quality of iron”. For example, “The Iron Age was very irony”. — javra

Yes...well...

“The Iron Age was very irony”.

Yes, this to me can be an ironic comment — javra

Perhaps I should have specified we are talking about a noun, not an adjective. Anyway, is your example irony? I don't think so. Maybe that's the best way of defining irony - by talking about what it's not.

Hey, @180 Proof, what's that word for defining something by talking about what it's not?

Sarcasm makes use of mockery whereas irony does not. — javra

Sarcasm is often ironic, but doesn't have to be. It only has to be nasty.

You described Irony as directed inwardly. — Gnomon

I see irony as an experience, something mental, not as an objective or physical event.

I don't quite feel any of those definitions are sufficient.

The disparity of intention and result; when the result of an action is contrary to the desired or expected effect.
— T Clark

That happens all the time and is not remarkable. They all seem to be missing a reflexive element that differentiates ironic disparity from any old mundane “The best laid schemes o' mice an' men / Gang aft a-gley.” — Vera Mont

As I noted in my post, the definitions miss something I think is important.

I was taught (falsely perhaps) that in America the only people to understand irony and use it well in humour and art are the Jews. There is definitely a cultural aspect to its use. — Tom Storm

She has radical and continuing doubts about the final vocabulary she currently uses, because she has been impressed by other vocabularies, vocabularies taken as final by people or books she has encountered...

...Insofar as she philosophizes about her situation, she does not think that her vocabulary is closer to reality than others, that it is in touch with a power not herself. — Tom Storm

I recognize that other people think about the world and use language differently than I do and I don't think my language is more in touch with some sort of absolute reality than others. But that doesn't cause me any doubts about my language. I guess I don't see the irony in this. Maybe I'm misunderstanding.

Success is as dangerous as failure.
Hope is as hollow as fear. — Tao Te Ching - Stephen Mitchell

These have always been two of my favorite lines from the Tao Te Ching. I've never had any trouble dispensing with hope and understanding why that is important. Fear has always been my problem. Hearing they are the same has always given me hope. Oops.

Why should Logical positivism be itself justified? It's a method or system, not a statement or argument. Only the latter can be justified and prove to be circular, — Alkis Piskas

I agree with this.

The FCC already maintains some regulatory control over the airwaves because it considers them public property, but, even then it is very limited. — Hanover

I hadn't even thought about the FCC and similar agencies. Problem is, as you note, government has an ownership role in the airwaves that it doesn't with the internet.

Your opinion? — jasonm

Logical positivism is a metaphysical position, not an empirical fact. It represents what R.G. Collingwood called an "absolute presupposition." According to Collingwood, absolute presuppositions are not true or false. They have no truth value. They are more or less useful in particular situations at particular times. This makes sense to me.

I recognize this is not the discussion you are interested in having, so we can leave it there.

So, my point is that if we wish to extract the good from free speech, instead of treating free speech like a holy rite, we have to have institutions that are willing to enforce rules on that speech (much like our world class mod team here). — Hanover

I'm not sure how this fits into the discussion. It seems like governments in the US are turning toward more regulation for social media sites. I've heard that there is some talk about treating them as public utilities like the phone, electric power, gas, water, and sewer utilities. This would allow the government to have a role in how they are operated and who can have access. I don't know how I feel about that.

Makes a big difference to me. Specific details aside - one's an act of nature which could not be prevented. The other was a cruel and deliberate act by a human, designed to harm others and therefore, for me, more difficult to come to terms with because of its malicious intent and the possibility of its prevention. — Tom Storm

I recognize many people feel the way you do, but all I really care about is what we have to do to keep people safe.

“…we have strictures against killing innocent people; and we have strictures prescribing equal opportunity. These principles are grounded in reason and subject to rational debate. . But justice also requires passion. We don’t coolly tabulate inequities—we feel outraged or indignant when they are discovered. Such angry feelings are essential; without anger, we would not be motivated to act....Rage can misdirect us when it comes unyoked from good reasoning, but together they are a potent pair. Reason is the rudder; rage propels us forward.” — Joshs

I disagree with this.

So a car slides off the road and injures the passenger, the cause being low tire tread, a truly unfortunate event.

A mile away a speeding drunk driver injures another passenger to the same extent.

Do you not see how the first instance will not be reduced from societal anger and outrage but the second will? — Hanover

What benefit is derived from endorsing societal anger and outrage? On the other hand, it seems reasonable to me that the negative consequences for an action should be proportional to the responsibility of a person for the results of their actions. You and I would probably agree that the drunk guy is more responsible for the accident than the other driver, so their punishment should be more severe.

You jettison emotion as if it were not a critical component here. Emotion is is that which moves and motivates, the word itself referencing motion. That is to say, if you don't care, you won't do anything about it. — Hanover

If people I care about are hurt, what difference does it make whether it was something evil or just unfortunate? If a tornado kills 10 people, I care enough to act without blaming anyone. Why is 10 people being killed by a terrorist bomb different, at least in terms of the proper attitude required to make an effective response?

If we are speaking of therapeutic responses to victimization, I'd suggest forgiveness over bitterness and anger. — Hanover

I agree.

I’d be interested in comments about
1) the thoughts/theory presented
2) any experiences while practicing the meditation — Art48

tl;ra. Too long, read it anyway. I like this presentation. It's mostly consistent with how I see things. Perhaps you are a bit too definitive, certain, about what goes on in people's minds. A few thoughts:

Although I acknowledge the distinctions you make between internal and external, I don't really experience them that way, at least not strongly. I can recognize the difference if I look, but normally, they coordinate seamlessly.

In fact, we possess no special sense which detects chairs. — Art48

This may be true for chairs, although I remember reading somewhere that where we draw the lines to create objects may be structurally determined, at least partially, e.g. a lot of our experience of color is determined by the structure of the eye and the characteristics of the rods and cones. There are probably other things for which there are inborn "knowledge," e.g. it is my understanding even babies can recognize human faces and voices.

The ego is essential for survival; without a sense of self, there would be no reason not to cross a busy highway. — Art48

I don't think this is necessarily true. I assume animals, at least most of them, survive very well without egos. In some eastern philosophies, there is an understanding that our ego is an illusion. In Taoism there is the idea of "wu wei," action without action. Acting from within without intention or rational consideration. I think it would be reasonable to call that acting without ego.

Of the two views, the outer view is more pervasive. — Art48

As I noted, this isn't true for me.

As a little boy, I attended a Saturday matinee as a local movie theatre which had a water fountain in an alcove in the wall. The alcove has mirrors front, left, and right. The left-right mirrors reflected each other, giving an appearance of a series of mirrors going off to infinity. The point is that some self-referential processes naturally tend towards infinity. Another example is when a microphone picks up the speaker output, amplifies it, and sends it back out the speaker. The self-referential of the sound systems amplifying its own output naturally goes to infinity. It doesn’t reach infinity, of course, but merely creates the high-pitched feedback whine indicating the electronics are at their limit. — Art48

I like these images. I think your description says something important about how consciousness works, although I don't have any specific evidence for that.

Eventually, if my mind stills sufficiently, I have a moment where awareness is aware not of sensation but of itself. Awareness aware of itself...

...Awareness aware of itself. Pure awareness in the sense of awareness absent sensation, like a mirror in a dark room. — Art48

Seems to me this probably isn't true, although I'm not self-aware enough to be sure. For me, awareness is just awareness. I'm aware of whatever is there to be aware of. I don't think what you call "awareness of awareness" is any different in kind than all the rest.

As I said, good post and a good idea for a thread.

Moral condemnation versus punishments aimed a deterring future antisocial behavior are not mutually exclusive. That is, it is possible that the condemnation will result in deterrence and it is also possible that we can both morally condemn and additionally offer pragmatic solutions to deter the behavior.

If we do believe certain acts are immoral (and you indicate you do, in particular those that do not lead to a safe peaceful society), I don't see why it would be inappropriate to call it immoral, condemn it, and declare it bad if it in fact is. From there, I would agree, we now need to decide how to resolve the issue, but I don't see why identifying it and calling it what it is is a incorrect first step. — Hanover

Moral condemnation is easy and cheap, but I don't think it has any significant role in achieving the practical goals I identified. I would go further - I think it distracts from effective action. In order to effectively deter and prevent the harmful actions we want to address, it's necessary to come to an imaginative understanding of our enemies. In practice, that can come dangerously close to empathy. We have to be able to see our adversaries as people in order to combat them.

I don't have any criticism of people who judge and condemn those who have harmed them. I just don't think it does anything productive beyond helping them deal with the situation emotionally. There's nothing wrong with that, although I don't personally find any satisfaction in it.