You may have noticed that people can and often do BS as they please about all sorts of things, well defined or not. — praxis

It's not bullshit. It's philosophy.

Don't get offended if I give a wrong account of your world view. — Yohan

All in all, it's a well-presented chain of thought.

Before we get started, I'll give my habitual spiel. I say it all the time, but I think it's especially important when we address your points. Here it is - The issues you are discussing - materialism, idealism, realism, and other philosophical approaches are metaphysical. They're not true or false, they're more or less useful in a particular situation. I was reading somewhere in the last couple of days - mathematicians tend to be idealists and physics tend to be materialists. Are idealists attracted to math or does studying math make you see things in a idealistic way? There is no doubt, for me at least, that both idealism and materialism are appropriate ways to look at things in some situations. Not in others.

What we see are only the appearances of things. When such appearances are mistaken to be the things in themselves, we become materialists. (Matter(appearance) is essence) — Yohan

I'm on board except for the word "mistaken." I'd change that to "interpreted" or "seen."

Concepts are maps of appearances. When those maps are confused for the things they map, that is Idealism. (Conceptuality/mind is essence) — Yohan

Ditto. Change "confused" to "interpreted as."

Logic can only eliminate falsehood. It disproves. It cannot explain what is but only what ain't. (I'm repeating myself...hmm). When logic is mistaken as positive rather than eliminative, you become a rationalist — Yohan

Again with "mistaken" vs. "interpreted." Are we talking about deductive logic? I don't know enough to comment more. Unless you're saying inductive logic is impossible. Then we can argue.

So then, how to "reach" essence?
The only path left may be intuition.

I believe every "path" uses Intuition, logic, and observation with different degrees of emphasis.
Spirituality emphasizes intuition.
Philosophy emphasizes logic
Science emphasizes observation — Yohan

I don't think this is wrong, but I think it is oversimplified. You also haven't defined what you mean by intuition, logic, or observation. As I've seen reading the posts in this thread, intuition means different things to different people.

As for "essence," it again is a metaphysical entity. Does it mean objective reality? The Tao? The dream of a butterfly? Information? Mathematics?

Good post.

Then, by extension, determinism isn't perfect! In other words, chance and free will are a possibility. — TheMadFool

Here's one of my familiar refrains. Determinism vs. free will is a metaphysical distinction. Neither is true. Neither is false. Either may be useful in different situations.

But one of the other things I would point out here is the “weirdness” of the situation where the random kinetics of the particles of an ideal gas is seen as the deterministic part of the story, and macro properties like pressure and temperature become the emergent accidents. — apokrisis

This is something I've thought about. I don't find the idea of determinism very convincing. To much of the world is too complicated to make that a useful way of thinking, e.g. the molecules bouncing around with a wide range of kinetic energies. On the other hand, the macro behavior, the pressure and temperature in the boiler, behaves in a very predictable way, at least as long as we keep it fairly simple.

Classicality emerges as the perfectly engineered limit of a more basic dichotomy where the non-linearities have yet to be tamed. — apokrisis

Are you talking about statistical mechanics, e.g. pressure arising out of the random behavior of molecules, or something else?

explanation being something that appears to run out regardless of the world view held. — AJJ

And that is metaphysics.

So it looks like the choice is between a view that forgoes further explanation and one that claims but can’t demonstrate its explanation. — AJJ

I don't consider the idea of determinism very useful in any but the simplest situations. Scientific generalizations, including laws, we develop describe how the world happens to work, not how it has to work. The law of conservation of matter and energy does not cause matter and energy to be conserved.

So, the probability that a law of nature will break down is nil? — TheMadFool

It doesn't have to be perfect. It only has to work well enough to be useful and understandable enough so we can figure the uncertainties. You use induction all the time.

My understanding is that chance entails lots of brute contingencies. Why does A happen and not B? It just does and it isn’t possible for there to be an explanation, since this would remove the chance. — AJJ

I think the determinists response is that each of the "lots of brute contingencies" is determined, even if we don't know what they are or how they are caused. In this view, chance is just another word for our ignorance of what determines what. I don't buy that.

Hume's coup de grâce, delivered mid-18th century. I don't know what the fuss is all about! Determinism is predicated on the laws of nature but the laws of nature have no leg to stand on. — TheMadFool

Apparently you haven't gotten the word. Hume was full of it. Of course induction works. This is probably not the right thread to discuss it further.

Well, that's the naive argument. In practice, it can't be known in priciple. Which doesn't mean that the process is not determined. It is. — Zweistein

The pragmatists rebuttal to this is that if a specific outcome is not predictable, even in principle, then it is meaningless to call the phenomenon determined. I think this is a good way of looking at things. This argument can be extended to include phenomena that are completely impractical to predict accurately, e.g. the winner of the 2024 Super Bowl. I think the dice example is somewhere in the middle - highly impractical in most cases, but not impossible.

And this is all before quantum mechanics and chaos theory are taken into account.

For example, we propel bicycles by pushing on their pedals, but that requires specific circumstances (wheels on the ground, you on the seat, chain hooked up, etc). Nevertheless, that is indeed how we propel bicycles. To say that this isn't how we propel bicycles because if the chain weren't there it wouldn't work would just be silly; there's nothing in the claim that this is how we propel bicycles that purports this to be sufficient. — InPitzotl

Wonderful. Something I can quibble about. I love to quibble and nitpick. When they were first introduced, bicycles did not have pedals, chains, and gears. They were propelled by foot, much as a scooter or skateboard is.

That is a quibble, but it also says something about facts.

I really like the way people look, especially when they make an effort, especially clothing and hair. I often comment to both men and women, although women wear interesting and attractive clothing and hair much more often than men. If I'm going to say something to a woman I don't know, I sometimes say "I hope you don't mind if I say this..." Then I say something like "I really like your dress," or "Your hair looks great," or my favorite "I really like the color of your hair." I love hair color, the wilder the better. I saw a woman with short hair dyed bright yellow. I said "I love your hair, is that it's natural color?"

Almost all women I've talked to have reacted well to this kind of approach. For many, most, I can see they appreciate what I've said. I don't remember ever getting a negative reaction. I always make it clear by the way I approach that there is no ulterior motive for my comments.

I'm sure it helps that I'm 69 years old.

Perhaps it depends on how you say it and what you mean when you say it. according to my experience if you love someone they will look beautiful to you regardless of whether they have the kind of looks that are generally associated with being highly physically attractive. — Janus

There are two types of women, and, I assume, men 1) beautiful and 2) beautiful if I loved them.

It's a minute before midnight here, 59 minutes past midnight where you are. And he's still not banned! — Bitter Crank

@AlienFromEarth

I'm glad. I was in a bad mood yesterday. When I saw how upset he was, I knew I'd gone too far.

I think that's going to do it. We'll see you later.

i don't know about being hostile, I'm having fun. — AlienFromEarth

The moderators here are a bit trigger happy about getting rid of those who send out what are known as "low quality posts". I think yours meet their standards. I predict you won't be here long. We'll open a pool. I'm down for midnight. Any takers?

She might be evil, if that's the case, get away from her. However, if she was only expressing anger due to frustration with something, and only meaning to take control of the situation, then what we would say about her behavior is that it was a MISTAKE. — AlienFromEarth

You wrote:

Anyone who commits an evil act, is pure evil. — AlienFromEarth

I covered this already in the OP, — AlienFromEarth

No, you did not.

so you live in a cave? — AlienFromEarth

You're new here, and you're kind of being an asshole. We already have at least one member who thinks philosophy is mostly insults and condescending remarks. We don't need another one. Play nice.

The definition of evil: That which intends to unjustifiably harm innocent people. — AlienFromEarth

My wife has a bad temper. Sometimes, with very little provocation, she will say things to me and others that are very hurtful. There is not doubt that she does this intentionally. That cruelty is not reflected in other aspects of her life.

By your definition, I guess she's evil.

This is a very useful thread. It demonstrates how philosophers can take a relatively simple phenomenon and turn it into complete bullshit. The truly impressive part is that four or five people have accomplished this in completely different ways. I'm overwhelmed with admiration.

What the fuck? Self-organization! What does that even mean in this context.

I haven't been keeping up to date with this thread because I was gone for the weekend. Reading through the posts now, I see you've been doing a good job standing up for a down-to-earth understanding of art. My opinions match yours pretty well, but I don't know if I could have spoken for them as well as you have.

Sorry if I'm unkind, but here a reminder of what real poetry is like, not this crap personal doggerel.

The Telephone - Robert Frost

“When I was just as far as I could walk
From here to-day,
There was an hour
All still
When leaning with my head against a flower
I heard you talk.
Don’t say I didn’t, for I heard you say—
You spoke from that flower on the window sill—
Do you remember what it was you said?”

“First tell me what it was you thought you heard.”

“Having found the flower and driven a bee away,
I leaned my head,
And holding by the stalk,
I listened and I thought I caught the word—
What was it? Did you call me by my name?
Or did you say—
Someone said ‘Come’—I heard it as I bowed.”

“I may have thought as much, but not aloud.”

“Well, so I came.”

As you may have guessed by now, I love Robert Frost. He has a reputation as something of a misogynist, but I love the way he portrays women and relationships between women and men in his poetry. I think this may be his most romantic poem. Willing to be convinced otherwise. Not particularly philosophical, so I'll put in the final verses from "Two Tramps in Mud Time."

The time when most I loved my task
These two must make me love it more
By coming with what they came to ask.
You’d think I never had felt before
The weight of an axhead poised aloft,
The grip on earth of outspread feet.
The life of muscles rocking soft
And smooth and moist in vernal heat.

Out of the woods two hulking tramps
(From sleeping God knows where last night,
But not long since in the lumber camps.)
They thought all chopping was theirs of right.
Men of the woods and lumberjacks,
They judged me by their appropriate tool.
Except as a fellow handled an ax,
They had no way of knowing a fool.

Nothing on either side was said.
They knew they had but to stay their stay
And all their logic would fill my head:
As that I had no right to play
With what was another man’s work for gain.
My right might be love but theirs was need.
And where the two exist in twain
Theirs was the better right — agreed.

But yield who will to their separation,
My object in living is to unite
My avocation and my vocation
As my two eyes make one in sight.
Only where love and need are one,
And the work is play for mortal stakes,
Is the deed ever really done
For heaven and the future’s sakes.

Gives me chills whenever I read it.

Only when love and need are one
And the work is play for mortal stakes.

Damn, damn, damn.

Hey, Marco, get lost.

Cool to hear someone describe it this way, as being creative is so commonly only associated with the arTIST. — praxis

I often find myself making a distinction between craft and art. Is a pair of exquisite, hand made shoes an example of art or craft? I tend to go with the latter, because the experience isn't just aesthetic, but must also be practical and be located in a lineage of other such traditional artifacts. Is a great and talented chef an artist or a craftsperson? We often throw the word 'artist' around as a type of free-range compliment - the barista down the road from me is called an artist by people in our office, etc. — Tom Storm

I wanted to respond to this since praxis' post was in response to mine. I remember in an earlier thread about art, I waxed rhapsodic about the passion I feel for writing technical specifications for earthwork construction projects. I don't know if you've ever read any Tech Specs, as we call them. They are the driest, pared down, compact descriptions of the work to be performed you can imagine. And they are very important. A bad set of specs leads not only to an improperly constructed project, but also to claims and lawsuits. A good set, in the hands of our intrepid engineer, provides a legally enforceable guide to what is expected from the contractor. I love them. I love writing them. I love going out into the field and discovering the mistakes I made.

Not to overstate things, but my mind and all my creativity go into writing Tech Specs and preparing Drawings for these projects. Don't you think that all Einstein's intellect, imagination, and creativity went into his 1905 relativity paper? Darwin? There you go. Me, Einstein, and Darwin in the same paragraph.

I have written poetry. It's something I enjoy once in a very long while. Writing poems is not the same thing as writing Tech Specs. It feels like it comes from a different place in me. Civil engineering, in general, is not art. I guess not craft either...I don't think physics or evolutionary biology are either art or craft. I guess my conclusion is that what makes art art is not creativity or imagination. It's something else.

More broadly, I've wondered in the past if there are actual aspects of fundamental reality that are only grasped by speakers of specific languages through words and expressions in their respective languages... — Noble Dust

Not to be dramatic or self-important, but this "Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis" is exactly the same idea that I've felt intuitively for years without any special knowledge of the subject; I had never heard of this specific hypothesis before now. I have no expertise or argument to use to back up this intuition. — Noble Dust

A week or so ago, you and I discussed the Whorf hypothesis. I commented that it was controversial, but that there seemed to some substance. I've been reading "The Language Instinct" by Stephen Pinker. In the front of the book he spends several pages explaining, with backup, why the whole idea is bologna.

Incidentally, it interests me how often the question 'what is good art?' is often mistaken for the question, 'what is art?'. It’s as if a work can only be classified as art if it is 'good' - whatever that means. Which is why you might hear some person fulminate about Jackson Pollock - ‘That’s rubbish, my 8 year-old does better work!’ and all the usual inchoate cliches about the decadent and bereft qualities of modern, non-representational art. — Tom Storm

This makes me think of what Robert Pirsig said about art in "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance." He said "Art is high quality endeavor." I used to like that, but now I find t doesn't represent what I want to say about art. Art is something, not just a quality of something. That's what I like about your and @praxis's way of seeing things. There can be low quality art. Bad art. I think that's important.

There used to be a Museum of Bad Art in Massachusetts. I never visited. It's closed now, but it still has a web page:

http://museumofbadart.org/

Orson Welles, who I consider to be one of the great artists of the 20th century, stated in an interview (was it with Dick Cavett?) that he was one of those people of whom - 'I don't know anything about art but I know what I like.' - applies. If it's good enough for him... — Tom Storm

Charles Montgomery Burns on the Simpson's said "I'm not art critic. I don't know anything about art, but I know what I hate."

Art is not the possession of the few who are recognized writers, painters, musicians; it is the authentic expression of any and all individuality. Those who have the gift of creative expression in unusually large measure disclose the meaning of the individuality of others to those others. In participating in the work of art, they become artists in their activity. They learn to know and honor individuality in whatever form it appears. The fountains of creative activity are discovered and released. The free individuality which is the source of art is also the final source of creative development in time. — Tom Storm

This is a bit too close to Pirsig's definition of art to me. I'm a pretty creative person. During most of my adult life, the primary place that came out was in my work. As an engineer, I did many things that I thought showed my individuality, creativity, but I don't think any of them were art. They were generally technical reports. They required as much of my creativity as the poetry I've written did.

Art is simply what people put on display and call art. — Tom Storm

In an earlier discussion of art a couple of years ago, we were thrashing around with what it meant. None of the responses really worked for me till Praxis wrote this:

If art is anything an artist presents as art then anything can be art, and by extension, anyone can be an artist. This is true, in my opinion, but all it really means is that presenting something as art is essentially offering an invitation to view something aesthetically. We may or may not have the ability or choice to do so. In any case, claiming that something presented as art is not art is a refusal to view it aesthetically and does not mean that it's not art. — praxis

I found that really helpful and I think it matches your view and expands it a bit.

I find this a really interesting subject and I've thought about it a lot. Once, while visiting a contemporary art museum with a visual artist friend, we got in a discussion with one of the museum guides about what art means. I took the position that art doesn't mean anything. My friend and the guide didn't buy that, but I've thought about it more since then and I think it works. Here's my formulation - art is something manmade which doesn't mean anything beyond the experience it gives you. Here's the example I generally give. It's about music, but I think the same thing applies to other arts. It's from "October Light" a book by John Gardner. It's long, so I've got it hidden.



I don't think this contradicts Praxis' view. I like them both.

Proof brings with it the air of certainty, which is what Olivier5 and @T Clark both crave and fear, since it gives some support o their scientistic views. — Banno

This is not an accurate characterization of my views.

You are behaving dishonorably on the forum.

You are also free to treat people honorably.

Stop, Marco

Are you chasing after Truth? After a more complete understanding of Reality? After happiness? — leo

For me the search is for greater awareness. Of the physical world. Of myself. Of others. Reason and truth are just one path, one that can easily be misleading. Any path to greater awareness can be misleading. Which is why it's so easy to get lost. Which is why we are searching.

I was thinking about this some more. It seems to me that consequentialism and deontological ethics are more about figuring out who to blame than how to decide how we should behave.

Are there deep philosophical problems? — Srap Tasmaner

In my experience, philosophical questions considered "deep" are usually those where people fail to recognize that the issues are metaphysical rather than part of our everyday existence and experience.

In ethics there is a great divide between two schools of thought: — Wheatley

There are more than two schools of thought. How about "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Easy to understand. Easy to apply. You don't have to figure out what the consequences of your actions will be before you can judge right from wrong.

Related to that there is "Follow your heart." To philosophicate it a bit:

When the heart 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.

This is a slight mangling of Verse 38 of the Tao Te Ching as translated by Stephen Mitchell.

Both of these principles arise out of the understanding that humans are social animals. We like each other. We want to do well by each other.

I think your comments on comparisons to building codes are spot on, — Wayfarer

I was thinking about that after I wrote it. Even if there were codes for genetic engineering, I'd still be worrying. The uncertainties and consequences of being wrong are too great.

I’m saying there’s a clear distinction between ‘artificially engineered’ and ‘naturally occurring’. Yes, there’s already been millennia of artificial breeding via animal husbandry, as you point out, but that doesn’t involve the direct molecular manipulation of genetic material so as to deliberately create mutant strains. So I think a distinction can be made there as a matter of principle. — Wayfarer

As an engineer, I think it's accurate to call animal husbandry a form of engineering. That doesn't mean I don't understand the distinction you're making. It's kind of the difference between designing an addition to an existing house and designing a development which involves the clear cutting of 500 acres and building new houses and condos. As a civil engineer I can tell you that the engineering and permitting standards for the latter are nowhere near adequate to prevent serious unintended consequences to nearby properties, downstream waterways, and local animal and plant life. That's something we see all the time. How much worse would this be for something as novel as the new genetic technologies. As inadequate as the current design requirements for civil design, at least there are codes and professional standards that apply. For genetic manipulation, there are none.

Nature doesn't create novel life forms? — StreetlightX

One difference is that animal and plant husbandry create "novel" organisms that will fit into a particular existing environmental niche currently filled by a very similar organism. As we've seen from our recent problems with invasive species, dropping a truly novel organism into an existing ecology can have disastrous results. I don't see this as a conclusive argument against this type of genetic manipulation, but it's worth taking into account.

Jurassic Park Redux — Wayfarer

Forgive me for a quibble which may not be particularly relevant to the issue at hand. Mammoths and Mastodons both have been extinct for about 10,000 years. There's probably a good chance they could mate and produce fertile offspring with modern elephants. Dinosaurs, on the other hand, have been extinct for about 65 million years. Their closest living descendants are birds.

I didn't much like the JP movies, but I do remember my thought when I first heard about it was "That's really cool." I feel the same way about what they're thinking about doing with the mammoths. Which isn't to say that I don't understand your qualms. I see our growing ability to manipulate the genetic makeup of our species and others as a step out onto very thin ice.

People come up with all sorts of models to understand themselves, some more mainstream than others. "Conscious and subconscious", Jung's archetypes, Left brain right brain, whatever the Yogis were doing (I'm just not familiar with it), etc. My question is whether or not these concepts are discovered or enforced, because they never really seem to cleanly translate. — khaled

I think there are a couple of characteristics of the approaches you're discussing that relate to the question you've asked. First, the philosophies and psychologies you've identified are focused on the human experience of the human mind. Second, and related, they are also generally associated with a specific practice, e.g. meditation or therapy. If you take a look at branches of psychology that don't have that focus, e.g. cognitive psychology, cognitive science, psychology of language, developmental psychology, etc. you'll find that things are less chaotic.