Knowledge and power don't mix. People are free to choose but their choices, in this issue, must be ethical. — TheMadFool

This response is ambiguous. I'll ask again. If you could, would you put restrictions on others being able to have children? Yes? No? You don't know?

Well, taking tests, arguing on the forum and playing Trivial Pursuit are all actions too, but it seems to me that I can just sit here and know things - like Paris is the capital of France, or the acceleration of Earth's gravity is 9.8 ms^2. — Harry Hindu

Sure, and I acknowledged that. I also said that is not the normal way knowing works, at least not for me. It's not the important way that knowing works.

What does it feel like to have thought you have knowledge of something but now realize that you were wrong? How do you "know" that you ever possess "knowledge"? — Harry Hindu

That's one of the reasons I don't like to think of knowledge as a collection of facts that you know or don't know. As if Newton didn't know gravity because he didn't understand the physics of black holes. Thinking of knowledge as a structure allows you to incorporate change without having to throw the whole thing out and start over.

Of course people are free to choose. That's not the issue. It's about the ethics of having children and clearly, if you don't want your child to hurt anyone or get hurt, both of which are inevitable and unethical, then people should NOT have children. — TheMadFool

If you had the power, what restrictions would you put on people being able to have children?

Self-evident is synonymous with intuitively clear, if intuitively clear means 'clear to our rational intuitions'. 'Self-evident' does not mean what you say. It means the same as 'evident to reason' (and, as that which is evident to our reason is made so by the fact we have rational intuitions that represent it to be the case, self-evident is also synonymous with 'clear to our rational intuitions').
But we don't need to get into one of those pointless discussions about how words are used. For I agree that it is indeed self evident that if all As are Bs and all Bs are Cs, then all As are Cs (for this is something our reason represents to be the case) — Bartricks

I came across this in another thread. I think it provides a pretty good explanation of what you mean by "rational intuition." I've never really liked the idea of self-evidence except as, maybe, a moral statement. "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." As far as I can tell, it just means "seems to me," which is fine, but not enough.

well supported by our rational intuitions — Bartricks

This is the heart of the matter for your approach, isn't it? I don't know what a "rational intuition" is, or at least I don't know what you mean when you say it. You've presented it as a black box without showing us its moving parts. Is it the same as self-evidence? I don't think it is self-evident that if I am morally responsible, then I have free will. That's an assumption, almost a definition. I don't think it is self-evident that I am morally responsible. That's a value judgment, one I share, but also one I recognize for what it is.

So, what is a rational intuition?

The information flow is too large. The speed is too high. People are not that “busy”. We are looking for solutions to protect ourselves against all this information. Most people in a subconscious mind, some conscious. I investigate whether freedom of speech cannot be at the source of all this information. I recognize that we have instruments and technologies that were absent a few decades ago. But all these resources must be fed. Freedom of speech seems to me to have a large share in feeding all this resources. It seems to me that the right to speak, the evolution, is seriously underestimated. We have focused solely on the aspect of freedom; Discharging and spreading our emotions and thoughts. This comes with a weight. A volume. An energy. — Roel

I think you are mixing two issues here - freedom of speech and information overload. I can see that they might seem to belong together, but I don't think they do, at least not in the sense you've spelled them out.

The information we're being overloaded with is, mostly, not speech. It is mostly controlled by the privileged, in particular business interests. It can be and is being used to control people, primarily to make money and gain power. You say it takes effort to avoid all the information we are bombarded with, but that doesn't really bother me. I wonder if it's because I'm older and grew up when it took much more effort to get information.

In another thread, I've been talking about a body of knowledge that people develop - a structure of interlocking information, memories, and experience that allows us to make sense of the world. My body of knowledge was fully developed before computers, the internet, cell phones, and other information technologies were fully developed and distributed. Maybe having a fully developed sense of my own understanding of the world has made it easier for me to handle all the information we have available now. I have to admit I love it. I feel like I have the ability to take in what I want and can use and reject or avoid what I don't find useful. It feels like being a kid in a candy store.

Speech is something different. At it's best, freedom of speech is a way to distribute power to those with less. Maybe one thing the cascade of information has done is to wash out and cover up those voices. Made it harder to be heard. I'm not sure about that.

If you want to be loved unconditionally, that's bad. You shouldn't want to be loved unconditionally. — Bartricks

Why in the name of Bullwinkle J. Moose would it be wrong to want to be loved unconditionally? It is the greatest gift any person can give another. I don't expect or even want my children to love me unconditionally. You see, I love them unconditionally. That's another gift - to get the chance to love someone that way.

I get the feeling you probably don't love your parents unconditionally.

Ah, so he's one behind his hero in the procreation stakes. I've warmed to the Grateful Dead a little as I've gotten older. Back in the 60s I didn't like them at all, but did like their "sister" band: Jefferson Airplane. — Janus

Just to be clear, I have no idea whether TS has children or what their names are. I make up most of the stuff I write on this forum.

You can reject antinatalism until the cows come home, that won't make it false. — Bartricks

Anti-natalism isn't true or false. It isn't even right or wrong or good or bad. It is the argument as normally presented that is disgusting. It's the hatred for humankind that is implicit that sickens me.

You mean "gives a shit"? Or understands.....what? — Janus

It's sort of a little joke. @Terrapin Station loves the Grateful Dead. He named his three kids Jerry, Bob, and Phil. And Phil is a girl!

You're living in a dangerous world full of dangerous and evil people - if you want to be loved do your best to cultivate loving relationships with those who are already around, but don't summon into being vulnerable, innocent people so that you can be the centre of their attention. — Bartricks

This is the anti-natalist argument, one that I find contemptible. Full of anger and bitter hatred for the world and people in it. Nothing is more mean-spirited, graceless than this. It makes me feel sick to my stomach.

Who gives a shit about Jerry Garcia's procreative proclivities, though? — Janus

@Terrapin Station understands.

You don't need to go over this. I easily loose track from my main subject. Saying: it's going to be naively difficult for me to join a meaningful discussion on this lovely forum. It's better to realize this myself before someone points it out... — Roel

What is your native language? Are there forums in that?

Also, judging from what you've written so far, I think your voice would be welcome here. Better good thinking than perfect writing. I can understand it may be too difficult.

So now that there is about zero chance of it happening, I have at my command a fairly cohesive body of personal experience, literary and historical reading, and much broader interests, that I would make a very good teacher. — Bitter Crank

I tell people I've gotten to a place where I'd finally make a fairly successful 17 year old. Which is good, since that's the place where my personality has hid out for 50 years. I kept trying till I got it right. I still wouldn't make a good teacher.

My English is way to limited to type comments on this forum. — Roel

I can see how it would be frustrating, and there are some grammar issues, but you expressed your ideas clearly and they made sense.

I'm very verbal and not particularly visual, but sometimes I'll get a sudden flash of a visual image that will send me off in a new intellectual direction. When I write poetry, which is very seldom, sometimes poems come to me in a single visual image. Then all I have to do is write them down, which is often easier said than done. Those are my best poems.

It's a doorstop. — Hanover

Or a doorknob. Or a wall.

In evolutionary terms, the positive feeling associated with knowledge and truth is "adaptive". — Gnomon

I'm not sure if you are proposing it, but I am extremely skeptical of evolutionary biology or sociobiology. Looking for correlates between specific genes and specific behaviors seems wrongheaded to me.

Unfortunately, that feeling of certainty may sometimes reward maladaptive behavior --- as in the dilemma of fanatical faith in one scripture versus another. Which is the true guide to salvation : obedience to Allah, or love for Jesus? Both sides on this question feel confident that they are on the correct course toward their heavenly reward (survival of the fittest). But at least one of them must be wrong --- and maybe both. — Gnomon

I don't think many people's bodies of knowledge, including committed religious believers, are made up only, or even primarily, of religious elements. There are religious scientists, engineers, doctors, plumbers, philosophers, cashiers. Religious people care about baseball, cooking, their families, politics. One of the problems, challenges as the cliche goes, of living in a heterogeneous society is trying to find common ground. I've never found that to be particularly hard. In my experience, it's harder here on the forum than it is out in the world.

So a reliable (adaptive) body of knowledge must have some validation beyond the subjective intuitive (dopamine) feeling of fitness. — Gnomon

Maybe you've misunderstood my use of the word "fullness," which seems close to your "fitness." It's intellectual, perceptual, spiritual as much as it is emotional. It all fits together.

Of course a body of knowledge can't be unconnected from the outside world. A small portion of what makes up the structure comes from science. The great majority does not, including things we think of as facts. I knew about gravity before I ever knew about "gravity." I knew about philosophy before ever knew about "philosophy." That doesn't mean that news of the detection of gravity waves isn't interesting and may not change the way I think about the world. Then again, it probably won't change it that much. My day to day life is lived at human, Newtonian, scale.

The BoK of Faith is immutable. The BoK of Skepticism is adaptable to changing conditions. Which is the better resource for truth depends on whether the world is evolving or static. — Gnomon

I think that's a very, very oversimplistic way of looking at things. Even though I come from science and engineering and have no particular religious beliefs, there are aspects of my BoK that have more in common with religious believers than with so called "rational" or "scientific" believers. I guess maybe you'd call them spiritual understandings, although I wouldn't. I see them as just as intellectual and justifiable as pi * r^2.

I'm glad you brought this up, Matias. It's a subject we normally avoid. — Terrapin Station

Did you know that Jerry Garcia had four children? I'll bet you did.

Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, Nixon's southern strategy, Donald Trump — T Clark

By way of history - After signing the CRA in 1964, Lyndon Johnson said "We have just lost the South for a generation." Boy, was he wrong.

9. [political example] — csalisbury

In case there is any doubt, these are intended as serious contributions. Very stream of consciousness based on impressions from your list.

• Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, Nixon's southern strategy, Donald Trump
• Proteins interacting, membranes developing, enzymes spontaneously forming, chemical cycles starting, life
• The derivative of e(x) = e(x)
• In German, "faust hand schuhe" = fist hand shoe = mittens
• Jawbone in fish evolves into ear bone in primates.
• In the beginning was the word, The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
• Irony, Emergence, Unintended consequences, Chaos theory, Serendipity, Self-reference, Entropy

Actually, the last line started out as my attempt to find a common theme in your list. Then it struck me it might fit in as an entry. I don't really think "entropy" belongs. I just wanted to make myself look smart. You should put "entropy" somewhere in every post that involves science.

Knowledge for me brings with it many feelings--of expertise, self-confidence, relief (when I come to know something about myself that was unconscious previously), euphoria (when my knowledge produces the results I was seeking), and delight when I see that someone else has understood the knowledge I shared.

Knowledge for me has everything to do with feeling. They are inextricably bound together. — uncanni

I think the things you mention are part of the fullness I was talking about.

don't call me "old chap — T Clark

"Old man" would be ok though, because, well, I am an old man.

Your insights and contributions to realology are awaited with real bated breath. I'm already turning purple, so please hurry. — unenlightened

This is a serious attempt to address the issue you've raised. Well, no, I guess it's really not. Maybe semi-serious. Pseudo-serious? Quasi-serious? Quantum serious?

Sorry old chap, it appears I beat you to the punch in my edit. — S

Yes, but I got to use "perspicaciously." And, in a paraphrase to Leslie Nielsen, don't call me "old chap."

Maybe expand on your point a bit. — Baden

But, but...lift doors can still look or function like a wall, when closed.
There needs to be a button, a knob or a key to open any such 'wall'. — Amity

I like this, instead of expanding the point, you've redefined one of the main elements of the question. And that, my friends, is what we call "philosophy."

Yes. And a slug is just a tiny, toothless snake. — S

Or, a tiny toothless cat with no arms or legs. I can keep this up all day, although that may not be fair to @BeanutPutter.

Perspicacious - who cares what it means. It's fun to say. Better yet, imagine Sylvester the Cat saying it.

A cat with arms is a fucked up cat. — Hanover

But a cat without arms is not. Unless it doesn't have legs either, in which case it is a snake, as Professor @S has so perspicaciously noted.

No for me. I refer you to the "On Antinatalism" post but if you don't want to scroll through 40 pages for me, here is the gist of it: — khaled

I hope this isn't just going to turn into just another anti-natalism thread. I like the way @Matias has framed the question and I'm hoping people will spend some time with that. Obviously, anti-natalism is part of the mix, so I'm not suggesting it be excluded.

See this:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/321588

I'd let @Baden respond, but he may just ban you without doing so.

I know no science but if an electron collapses in an improbable place does that radically alter what's probable after? — csalisbury

Well, you know a little science, as do I. Together we can be dangerous, or at least ridiculous. Now @StreetlightX, you stay out of this. It is my understanding (hush now Streetlight!!!) that some people think that the same processes that may make an electron suddenly appear in "empty" space may be the same processes that lead to the creation of the universe.

8. Oysters, irritation, pearls. — csalisbury

@S, irritation, insults.

Just imagine what playfulness means to you in taste for life - in way of being. We need to know that there are internal echos and our imagination is the key to getting out of it. — Perdidi Corpus

Not sure if this is what you're talking about or not. I'm a smart guy, but there are a lot of people smarter than I am. Even one or two here on the forum (No, not you @S). On the other hand, I'm one of the most playful people I know. There have been a few other playful people here too (No, not you @S). I think that playfulness adds a new dimension to intelligence. It helps you make connections where other people don't and it adds flexibility to your thinking.

Is that what you're trying to get at?

It's 84.25%, actually. — S

Let me recheck. I have a computer program that searches the forum and does data analysis ................ .............................................................................................................................................................................................Yeah, I guess you're right. Thanks for the correction.

I've got a few broad areas to compare this to. One is professional skills - I'm a contract tech writer and doc systems guy who works in many different workplaces. There are heaps of knowledge demands in those environments - first of all, the systems you're meant to be writing instructions for (currently for example a CRM for a health insurance company); but then the knowledge of all the tools that you need to turn out the knowledge, and also knowledge of the systems you need to publish/make available what you write. — Wayfarer

Yes, this ties in with my discussion of the BoK I've developed with my work. That is my primary effectiveness as an engineer. I see connections that others don't. Everything I know is one single unified whole. I started to write "unified hole."

But then, the other areas in my life are philosophy/spiritual practice (which are interlinked in my case) and musicianship. They're both disciplines that are kind of vocational, i.e. you have to devote yourself to them for years or even your whole life, and you get to plateaus, ridges, troughs, depressions, deserts, and so on. — Wayfarer

Yes, and I think this is in line with what @Bitter Crank is getting at. Values, morals, feelings, skills, talents, preferences, loves, spiritual experiences, and peace/ liberation are all part of my body of knowledge. Yours too I guess. In my career, my responsibilities as an engineer and as an advocate for my clients permeates everything I do. One of the reasons I've loved the forum is the chance to hone one important part of my intellectual life - bring it more into focus as described in the OP.

Not dying is insufficient. Wisdom does not necessarily grow with age. There are stupid, arrogant senior citizens who were stupid, arrogant junior citizens. — Bitter Crank

Yes, of course, but I did say "or at least knowledgeable." And with knowledge often comes some perspective at least, even among bozos. But then, I think maybe I like people more than you do, even with you Midwestern communitarian background. That's probably not true. Maybe I'm just more patient.

No, I don't think I am cynical. But one definition of a cynic is "a disappointed idealist". I have an idealistic streak, — Bitter Crank

I have a friend, about our age, whom I worked with for a long time. Both of us came in to work early and we would have discussions about politics and social issues. We had a reputation for being cynical. When he mentioned that, I told him he and I were the least cynical people I know. I think you fit into that pattern. We believe what we've been taught about the way things are supposed to be.

Crackdowns all over the place. Which underlines one of my theories about progress: it can always go into reverse, so we should not think that todays gains are forever. — Bitter Crank

Please don't see this as an attempt to stifle where you're taking this discussion. I'm enjoying it. Can you try to tie this in, briefly is fine, to the feeling of knowing/body of knowledge theme a bit.

It's not drastically different. Anyone with extreme enough views about climate change will agree, and anyone who is already an anti-natalist for different reasons already expressed umpteen times will agree with the conclusion, and the rest of us will have the exact same opinion on the matter which has also been expressed umpteen times before, and can easily be looked up. — S

I agree with @Matias, this is very different from the anti-natalism discussions. His approach is from a different direction and is more human and humane. And since when doesn't "already expressed umpteen times" apply to 84.23% of the threads on the forum. There are 473 threads on free will active right now, all started by The Mad Fool. I counted them. See, my scientific, quantitative approach to philosophy is much more valid than yours. "Umpteenth" indeed.

What do you think: Is it ethical to have children? Does this decision - if it is a decision- have political implications?
Or is this a private and personal decision that is nobody's business (except those individuals who combine their genes to make a new human being ; and maybe their families)? — Matias

This is a very thoughtful and even-handed presentation of our choices. Yes, and well-written. I have three children and I am happy with the decision my wife and I made to have them. My brother, on the other hand, is more like you. He and his wife decided from the very beginning not to have children and he has lead a more adventurous life than I have. That's not an argument for not having children. It's as you say, I was meant to live life in one place. I've lived in the same house with the same woman for 40 years. That is part of who I am as is having children. My brother is not like that. His not having children is a reflection of who he is, not really an instrumental choice.

At times when I think maybe I need a justification for having children I think of it this way - having children is an act of community, an act of faith in my neighbors and fellow women and men. It brings people together. And, although this is not in any way a valid justification for ignoring whatever ethical issues there are with having children, I have a strong conviction that the universe is a better place for having my children in it.

Here is evidence that this is different than other threads about the ethics of having children - I have been willing to lay out my feelings and understanding of the issues. I would be reluctant to do that on an anti-natalism thread because I know it would hit a brick wall.

I can relate to what you wrote there. Knowing is, like everything else, primarily an experience. I've long thought thatknowing that is a form of knowing how, and thatknowing how is one kind of knowing by familiarity. An example of knowing by familiarity, which is experience, feeling, is the Biblical "...a man shall know his wife" and "they shall become as one flesh".

There is another way I like to think about knowing. too. We know with our bodies, we know with our feeling, we know with our intuitions, and we know with ideas, conjectures and investigations. So, knowing is knowing with. There are many, many ways to know the world with our bodies, our feelings, our intuitions and our ideas, conjectures and investigations. — Janus

Yes, and, for me, the important part is that is it is all happening at once. It's not one little fact and one little observation - it's everything I've ever learned or known happening now. It's the fitting that matters - new stuff has to fit in with the old stuff or 1) the new stuff doesn't work or 2) the old stuff has to change.

Not only are we deluded, we have been deliberately and elaborately deceived. Somebody will say, "well that just your new myth". No, it fits too many other pieces in too deep a way. So, knowledge about history doesn't necessarily feel good -- I don't like knowing "I drank the Kool Aid willingly". — Bitter Crank

Your narrative feels like what I was describing, the development of a body of knowledge, in your case a political/historical one. It had a visual feel to me, I saw flashing images of history. Layer on layer. All you have to do is not die and you can't help but get wise, maybe, but at least knowledgeable. Mine feels similar, although you have a more cynical view of our society than I do. Maybe "cynical" isn't the right word, maybe disappointed, betrayed.

Like many others, the events that constituted my political awakening were the Watergate hearings. I wasn't cynical before or after, but that was the first time I was really exposed to that kind of information. It took place when I was living away from home and college for the first time. I had a great job in a book warehouse full of communists, gay men and women, feminists, socialists, black power supporters, and bikers. I was pretty naive.

Now, all my life feels like it is happening at the same time. Everything that has ever happened to me, that affected who I am, is happening now. That's part of the feeling of knowledge I was describing. I feel the weight of that experience every minute.

Especially Siegel relates to what you're getting at here, in case you're curious. — Artemis

I took a look and ordered from Amazon. I'll see if he has any insights that will be helpful for me. Thanks.

Schtick? — RogueAI

Mild rhetorical jibe. Maybe I should be ashamed of myself.... Nah, I've done much worse.