A wise woman once taught me this - If the only way you can stand up for men is by putting women down, you're just playing the same game as the people you oppose.

People are not born equal. — Wittgenstein

But they are equal. They are all endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. Among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. To secure these rights, Governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

I've only read Revolt and Culture of Narcissm but feel an urge to get a deeper understanding of his insights. Looking at the long game here as I don't always have a ton of time to read. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I've read those and several others. I remember "Haven in a Heartless World," as being pretty good. As I said, I need to go back and reread.

I have been a fan of Christopher Lasch since back in the 1990s, just after he died, although I have not read his books in a long time. He was humane and pragmatic in his understanding of society. Non-ideological. Lower case "c" conservative of the front porch swing variety. Normally, I would be resistant to his psychoanalytic approach to history and sociology, but it worked for me. It made me think about how changes in society, in the family in particular, also changed how we think - actually changed the structure of our minds.

I guess it's time for me to pull out my old copies of his books to see how they have held up over all these years.

It is intractable that by being born we are forced into complying into a situation lest death. That is a moral problem, not a "get out of jail free cause we can't help it". It is callous to make others choose between X, Y, Z activities or death by de facto the very fact that X, Y, Z leads to non-death. — schopenhauer1

Although it is a common theme for you, I had not entered this discussion from the point of view of anti-natalism. Certainly I knew it was in the background. We've been through that before. No, I don't think it is a moral problem.

So that would be a straw man you are presenting to say we don't have to live in such a manner.. We are indeed social animals. — schopenhauer1

Not a straw man. People have lived as hunter gatherers or subsistence farmers for as long as there have been people. The need to eat is not a burden society placed on our shoulders, it is our existence as living organisms that does.

It isn't trying to be "high falutin" but rather, it is describing our situation in opposition to other animals who live more in the present and have inbuilt instinctual mechanisms.. Whatever the case with other animals, WE don't operate like that. Rather, we operate via self-imposed plans, goals, and expectations.. We choose to work. We don't "survive" in the manner animals just "survive". — schopenhauer1

This is just what I was talking about when I said "highfalutin." You're trying to turn our simple, straightforward, fundamental biological nature into an existential crisis. It's not fair! It's not fair! It's not fair! (stomps feet)

This is a very good post. Informative and interesting. I remember watching as Poland broke free from the USSR and communism in the 1980s, but I know nothing of the details of post war Polish history.

I wish I had something more substantive to offer than that.

So with my Pessimist philosophy, I have distilled the idea that Comply or Die is a feature of the human condition. Basically, this means that we either comply with the conditions we are situated in (socioeconomic in particular) or we will die a slow death due to not playing the game correctly or simply outright suicide (outright rejection of the game). — schopenhauer1

At bottom, it's not a social or economic issue. If you were alone on an island you would have to comply or die.

Holding off on what other animals can do (because people get caught up in the red herrings of animal psychology rather than my essential point at hand), individuals of our species must continually self-impose the regiment to do work, over and over to "get things done". — schopenhauer1

But we are animals. The constraints you're talking about are the constraints all animals face. You're just making them seem more highfalutin by giving them an existential twist. Metaphorically, you're complaining about gravity. It's not fair that it hurts when we fall down.

Are you familiar with Taoism? Jami's explanation sounds a lot like the Tao Te Ching. The main difference I see is that the Tao is impersonal while God seems to be personified.

I’ll offer that to “justify” means, at the very least etymologically, to make, else evidence, as just; i.e., as right, correct, or fair/good, and, hence, to evidence as true in many of the term’s commonly used senses (from conformity to what is real to the moral fidelity of being loyal/faithful to that implicitly addressed – be this some other, the ideal of objectivity or goodness, or something else).

There is the dichotomy between moral justification and factual justification - and there is equivocation between the two often enough - but to me they both yet pivot around the evidencing of X as just. — javra

You're right. I thought about that before I responded to the post. As I noted, in philosophy, "justified" is a word that is often used to indicate the extent to which the truth of a statement has been verified, or more accurately, the extent to which my belief is warranted. In particular, justified true belief is a commonly used definition of knowledge. Looking at the post it seems this is the sense in which Varde was using it.

truth and justification do not necessarily fall under the same category. — Varde

In a philosophical context "a justification for one’s belief consists of good reasons for thinking that the belief in question is true." As I noted, you seem to be giving the word a different meaning.

why is that, if you'd care? — Varde

Normally, justification is a process by which the certainty of the truth of an assertion is measured. An untrue claim would not normally be considered justified.

I think you are using the words "information," "data," and "justification" in non-standard ways.

A clear, well put together post. Welcome to the forum.

We start by knowing we are thinking and we are experiencing stuff. Well, in order to be thinking, we must exist.

Next, as far as we can perceive, our thoughts become our actions and these actions have a correlation with our experiences. This will be our foundation for our indictive reasoning.

Since our thoughts must exist, our actions must exist, therefore, IF our actions correlate with experiences, THEN our experiences are probably true. — Virus Collector

I think I get your overall point - you're describing a more or less formal process of induction. This part I don't get - You're trying to tie what you have to say back to the certainty of Descartes, but it doesn't work. I think, therefore I am, but that doesn't mean my experiences have any connection with an outside reality or even with a coherent internal reality. The same goes for my actions, if they are really even actions at all. If I even have a body.

Given this epistemology, we can inductively determine that there may be parts of reality we aren't immediately observing. We discover object permanence by repeatedly observing something coming in and out of our existence; if it continues to reappear after it leaves perception, then it probably exists.

BUT we still don't know HOW reality functions. So we use things happening repeatedly to assign truth probability to our theories for how reality works (this is the scientific method). — Virus Collector

Now we're stepping out onto dangerous ground - making factual statements about how people learn about reality. How much of what we know of at a truly basic level is based on induction. I'm not sure, but cognitive science may have something to say about it. We are not blank slates.

Therefore, we can conclude (deductively, this time) that information transmitted through other people has an inherently low likelihood of veracity without addressing the intentional and unitentional ways that the information can be made false (i.e. not corresponsing with reality). — Virus Collector

Problem is, almost everything we know above a certain level is based on what we've been told by others - all of science, history, current events, etc. What we can directly observe is severely restricted.

Again - good post.

A couple of clever songs about science. Chris Smither is wonderful. Dan Reeder is amusing.

Good, provocative, OP. Well written, if mostly by Auken and Wittgenstein.

Can you define without making distinctions? — Benj96

Here are two definitions of "define" from the web:

[1] To state the precise meaning of a word.
[2] To describe the nature or basic qualities of; explain.

Maybe instead of saying that you've mixed up "definition" and "distinction" I should say you have mixed up these two meanings of "define." As it says in the "Tao Te Ching:"

The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.

In this sense, it is naming that makes the distinction, not definition. Naming and defining are not the same thing. I don't think that's a nitpicky distinction.

However I don’t see what point there is in clarifying that words are not the real world because if we cannot apply language to the world we cannot gather communal information about anything. — Benj96

Of course we use language to describe and communicate the world to others, but the words aren't actually the world. Words are arrows pointing at the world. They say "See this. Look here."

If an object doesn’t have a name for its existence then what exactly do we understand it to be? In this way I think distinction and definition is synonymous. TVs have high definition images not high distinction images - although it could be used interchangeably because vision is the ability to “define” contrasts in light perception. To define is to distinguish. — Benj96

Again, I think you are mixing up senses of the word "definition."

Yes but show an image of a shoe to anyone and they will immediately Manifest in the minds eye the functions properties and nature of a shoe or their understanding of what a shoe is. They won’t think of “images” just in the same way that when you see a shoe you don’t think of “vision”. It is the subject not the medium of communication. — Benj96

I don't understand you're point. There are no two ways about it - a picture of a shoe is not a shoe. The idea of a shoe is not a shoe. "Shoe" is not a shoe.

This is from "What's Up Tiger Lily," a Woody Allen film.

On forums like this it is often necessary not to assume your take on some seemingly mundane concept/idea is the same as someone else’s. Then it is a matter of playing between being overly pedantic and overly vague. — I like sushi

Making sure our definitions are clear is especially important on the forum for the reason you note. Unfortunately, it's possible to be overly pedantic and overly vague at the same time.

For me, definition means to place separations/ delineations, limitations or parameters around a concept or thing which divides it into A “the defined” - the content within the parameters, and B “all other things” ie. “it” and “not it”. Definitions separate things by character or relationship to one another. By “contrast” essentially. — Benj96

You're mixing up definitions and distinctions. Definitions apply to words. Distinctions apply to things in general. Mistaking words for the world is a common problem with philosophy. I think I understand the point you're trying to make. We break the unbroken world, everything, into conceptual pieces.

If I take the word “everything” how do I define it? You cannot “divide” the concept of “everything” as it is parameterless. Any parameter to u try to place around the set/ content is also included in the set/content.

Similarly you cannot define nothing as it’s contentless. You can’t place a parameter around an empty set. — Benj96

I'm not sure I get what you're saying. Dividing "everything" is exactly what people do. Taoists have the concept of "Tao," which represents everything, undivided and unspeakable. The minute you speak about it you divide it. Is that what you're getting at?

"Nothing" is easy to define, as long as you're careful what you're trying to mean. It makes sense for me to say that a box has nothing in it, even if it contains air. It makes sense to say that interstellar space contains nothing, even if it contains a few particles per cubic meter and the quantum field.

Taking another tack, scientists see the universe as finite but unbound in three dimensions the way a sphere is unbound in two dimensions.

Another issue I see in defining is the idea of a good definition verses a bad definition.

A good definition is that which describes something discretely, that is to say it doesn’t omit any characteristics about said thing, it perfectly encapsulates the existence of said thing. Nothing is possible for that thing outside of its definition. — Benj96

I don't think that's true. A good definition is one that tells you how to use the word in speech and language in a way that makes you understandable. Words are ambiguous and vague. Definitions don't have to be perfect. Here's a good definition of "shoe" from the web - "A durable covering for the human foot, made of leather or similar material with a rigid sole and heel, usually extending no higher than the ankle." No, it's not perfect, and, yes, there are possible ambiguities. Also, the word has other, related meanings, e.g. horseshoes. But, all in all, it works.

Is a good definition then really one where no assumptions have to made? — Benj96

No.

What then do all the millions of shoes in the world have in common? Some are graphics on paper or in media, some are described concepts from peoples minds and some are on your feet but all of them can be defined easily by anyone as a “shoe.” — Benj96

Graphics on paper are not shoes, they are images. Images of shoes.

The most accurate definition of a shoe could be said to be “something”. — Benj96

In order for words to be useful, we have to be able to use them, but they don't have to be perfect. Language is full of ambiguities and vagueness. We have synonyms, homonyms, homographs, puns, etc. Generally it all works pretty well, which is the best we can expect.

I disagreed with a lot of what you wrote, but it's still an interesting thread about an important subject.

Thoughts? Is it interesting right? — javi2541997

Evidence there is no time travel I find very convincing - Where is everybody? Why haven't we seen any people from the future? To me, that's more convincing than any scientific speculation. In response, I've heard arguments that there can be time travel, but only to a receiver in the past, so you can never travel further back than the earliest time machine. In that regard - I recommend what I think is the best time travel film, certainly my favorite - "Primer." Cost $7,000 to make. Feels very realistic. Watching, I said to myself - Yes, if time travel is ever invented, that's how it would happen.

A book sounding similar to the one you referenced is "The Man Who Folded Himself" by David Gerrold. It also has someone interacting with different selves from different times and different timelines.

Another really good book, dealing with paradoxes piled on paradoxes, is "One Day All This Will Be Yours" by Adrian Tchaikovsky. I also find this one very convincing in describing just how far time-travel paradoxes could go.

Time travel either exists or it doesn't. If it does exist, it is a physical phenomenon, not a theory, therefore Occam's razor doesn't apply. The existence of time travel is not a metaphysical question, it's a question of fact, no matter what "disturbing consequences" it may or may not have.

I understand that it may be compelling to argue how my current belief in the health and environmental impact of meat consumption may be wrong, and if you would like to argue it go ahead. But for most, I would prefer to assume my beliefs to be true for the purpose of the argument. — Louis

We need more well-thought-out and clearly written original posts like this one. Other than that, I think your opinions related to the health and environmental consequences of veganism are incorrect, so I won't comment further.

Welcome to the forum.

Philosophy A Visual Encyclopedia — Agent Smith

Went on Libby library app, borrowed book, looked interesting, put it on list of gifts for next Christmas. What a world we live in now.

Thanks.

I'm currently reading a children's book on philosophy. — Agent Smith

What's the name of the book?

There's a reason capitalists are obsessed with state capture - i.e. effective control of government and its regulatory apparatus - because they know very well just how much they are dependant upon the state for their continued survival. — Streetlight

This has always struck me as true. Most government regulation is for the benefit of business. Banks couldn't run without banking regulations, but don't stop me from driving the world into economic ruin. Don't make me pay to provide safe workplaces. Don't make me pay the real cost of the products I manufacture, the chemicals I dump out behind the plant.

When people with money complain how rich people pay more than their share of taxes, I think - with government, rich are rich and poor are poor; without government, everyone's poor. Wealth = property = intrusive government.

I base my responses (to you) on the history of your conduct, with me as well as with others. I base it on observations. — skyblack

Then your best action would have been to ignore what I wrote, but you wanted to be all snooty and stuff. Just as your best response now will be to ignore this post. I'm curious whether you can do that.

Thank you for sharing those ideas — CraigAten

Welcome to the forum.

That bait may work on amateurs, but better people than you have tired to glean from me.So far they have been unsuccessful. An absence of deception, is a pre-requisite for any genuine, sincere, and serious inquiry, all of which NA in your case. — skyblack

Again, my comment was sincere and responsive. I believe the things I wrote and they contradict some of what you put in your OP. I don't see how you can consider that baiting. You set out some assumptions for the discussion. I commented that I don't think some of them are valid.

During my initial days in this forum, when you had come to me with your baits, i had told you, it is not my job to educate you or anyone else.Nothing has changed in that sentiment.

As for the silliness of the first paragraph in your post, my attitude towards the usage of my time and energy, in responding to objections (provided it stems from genuine inquiry, NA in your case), is pretty well documented. So you won't get any rebuttals. All i will say is, carry on. — skyblack

So, what you're saying is that you don't have a good response to my respectful and responsive comment so you'll ignore it.

Aesthetic sensibility and contemplation is perhaps the only means that the layman [short of a whole-man] has, to be free [even if temporarily] from this horror that he/she calls living. When we say “only means”, we are excluding the self-forgetfulness [ that comes from the use of drugs, alcohol, sex, religion, pursuit of knowledge, pursuit of wealth, affiliations, and the numerous egoic pursuits we have devised to escape from the inherent pessimism that affects all ], asall of them have side-effects. — skyblack

There are a lot of people here on the forum who think it is self-evident that everyone lives a life as described by Thoreau - full of quiet desperation. I keep having to tell them that it isn't true for all of us. It's not true of me and others here and in the world in general. Some of the things you have listed as ways of forgetting - sex, knowledge, and friendship (what you call affiliations) in particular - are not that at all. They can be a necessary part of a full satisfying life. Appreciation of music, visual art, literature, movies, and television can also belong in that group. And philosophy. Aesthetics is not some special, wonderful way of escaping our despair. It is, as are the other members of the group I've described, a way of increasing our self-awareness.

what constitutes a correct aesthetic experience — skyblack

I'm looking forward to finding out if I am doing it correctly.

This discussion started out with a relevant comment about a priori knowledge that 2+2=4 or some such, and while that point is still on the table, things have certainly evolved into a side discussion (for which I’m massively grateful since you’re at least trying to hear me out). I don’t know if mods here are in the habit of splitting off side discussions. I see such sidetracks happening in many lengthy threads, so I suspect it isn’t site policy to split. Some sites split topics given even a hint of discussion not directly related to the OP. — noAxioms

For what it's worth, the original discussion about a priori knowledge has mostly played itself out. As the original poster, I have no objection with you carrying on your discussion here if that's what you want to do.

Compare humanity to all other living things that exist, or perceive at least. Everything else that lives has some kind of role to play, no matter how minor, on Earth at least, everything fits nicely in and has an underlying purpose. Everything that is, except humans. Take away an animal or plant and ecosystems and complex systems collapse. Take humans away and life and the world flourishes. — Laila

Welcome to the forum. This is a well-thought-out post. Well-written and clear.

I think the problem with your proposition is that you are judging the purpose of non-human living organisms based on human values. Excluding God, there is no one around but us humans to ascribe purpose to anything. If we weren't around, nothing would have any purpose or value.

Stewardship of the environment means protecting the living world for responsible and sustainable human use. Perhaps ironically, the only way to achieve that is by acting as though the world has value independent of us.

So, to the question “What came first, the universe or the laws of physics?” I would answer “The universe.” — Art48

Agreed. Sorry, I can't think of anything to add to what you've written.

And now for a bit of humor. A couple in New Jersey are conducting an experiment to solve an age-old question. The husband ordered a chicken from Amazon and his wife ordered an egg. — Art48

Welcome to the forum. [joke] A warning, only Hanover and I are allowed to try to be funny here on the forum. Check the Site Guidelines on the first page.[/joke]

I don't follow why this question is meaningless.

The question is often asked if God is all powerful and good, then why is there is evil in the world. That seems a reasonable question. — Hanover

Good point. I went back and forth about whether to include that.

I think the limitations in paradoxes are ones of language and conceptual clarity rather than god/s. — Tom Storm

A paradox shows the limit of language, not the limit of being. — unenlightened

I agree. This is an example of what is so annoying about a lot of the discussions here on the forum. People build boxes with words and then can't get out.

Can God construct a rock so heavy that he can't lift it? — Cidat

Here's some more meaningless questions to go with yours:

• Can God cause itself to cease to exist?
• Can God violate the laws of the excluded middle or non-contradiction?
• Can God make 1 + 1 = 47?
• Can God count to infinity?
• Can God end evil?
• If there's a God, what's with William Shatner?

(A)nd those who've spent too little time wandering through old villages and dusty towns in non-secular, under-developed countries / failed-states. — 180 Proof

I don't think it's fair to judge what under-developed countries might have been based on how they are now, after 400 years of imperialism.

And fierce resisting. — Hillary

Disagreeing does not constitute "fiercely resisting."

Everybody who doesn't see the nightmare-like character of western civilization has or been brainwashed to sufficient extent, or paid well enough to shut up. — Hillary

This is not an argument.

People have been wiping out other people for time out of mind. — Paine

Including followers of Confucius and Mohammad. Eastern history is as blood-drenched as western.

This is a western, science-based forum, my friend... Accurate as your panopticon vision is, it will be met with fierce resistance, as the above comments show. Two of the comments pointed to the Eden story. Which in a modern interpretation could be viewed as a paradise that got lost after biting the apple of scientific knowledge. A knowledge compared to which the knowledge of good and bad shrinks into insignificance. — Hillary

The "above comments" you are referring to are generally respectful and responsive. Reasoned disagreement is not "fierce resistance." You are just reinforcing Eskander's fantasies of martyrdom. Trying to ride on his moral, moralistic coattails.