The question I have for you at this point is, "does (4) deserve to be part of our notion of weakness, or should it be cast out as unnecessary?" What is good about (4) in relation to the other three we have here? Just another reminder that these four don't constitute and exhaustive list, only what we've managed to cobble together here. — kudos

I have to admit I have to read most of your posts more than once, because I can't follow your train of thought.

The topic of weakness is something I myself am keenly interested in. I wouldn't frame it in the way you do, though, but in terms of looking into the idea of might makes right, like I did in several of my threads.

I think the salient point of weakness are its moral implications, including actions based on them. If a being is weak, does this mean that it is not unjust to destroy it (simply on account that it is weak)? If a being is weak, is it possible to wrong it, to commit an injustice in regard to it, or is any act against such a being justified?

I used to play some amateur soccer. I liked the dynamics of the game, the tactics, the precision. But I never could relate to other players' obsession with winning. Why they were elated when they scored a goal, or why they were depressed when they failed to do so.

If they are in it for winning, then why bother with soccer and with the rules by which it is supposed to be played?? Why not just get into a fist fight and settle the score once and for all??

Doing sports, or politics, for that matter, when what one really wants is a fist fight, makes sports or politics a sick joke.

It requires enough faith in people that you can allow them to discover their own way.

Every generation faces challenges to that faith. People who want to destroy that faith abound. You're an example of a person who's never had that faith.

It's not for everyone. That's for sure. — frank

Wow. Just wow. Jesus.

to accept loss — frank

You speak like a right-winger. Formulating things in terms of winning and losing, while caring nothing about the problems at hand that politicians are supposed to solve.

It doesn't appear to me that you understand what democracy is. You have to have the emotional maturity to accept loss. — frank

Eh?

Where is the "emotional maturity" of doing politics primarily or even solely on the level of whose will prevails??

Again: Define "suffering". — baker

The general AN position is against 'suffering' which we all understand (no need to redefine the word). — I like sushi

Actually, not having a precise definition of "suffering" is part of the problem. Often, it's understood so broadly that it becomes a meaningless term.

Either way it's nice to see people thinking about stuff like this even if some of it makes almost no sense to me and what I say makes almost no sense to them

It's interesting for me to see what people say on this topic. I have some background in Early Buddhism, so it's easy to for me to think about suffering, but I can now better appreciate people who don't have such a background and how they approach the problem of suffering.

It's difficult to keep this discussion distinct from the antinatalism discussions elsewhere. I'm trying to avoid critiquing arguments in favor of antinatalism, and focus on why it's unpersuasive. Maybe this post makes it clearer how closely connected I think our experience of moral life is to what we find persuasive in moral discussion. — Srap Tasmaner

In some ways, antinatalism is, basically, a stunted Buddhism, or even more a stunted Jainism. Both of these religions question the project of life itself and seek or propose an end to it, on account of suffering.

Antinatalism is putting forward some ideas that can, to some extent, be found in those religions, but antinatalism does away with most of the other ideas and practices of those religions. This is one of the reasons why antinatalism has such a poor persuasive power. It doesn't have its own metaphysics, nor much of a system of ethics, except for that one aspect of not brining new people into the world. Their idea of not bringing new people into this world kind of "floats in the air", only loosely connected to some ideas of injustice, suffering, hardship, but without any concrete underpinnings -- which, however, a theory would need to have if it successfully wants to go against the flow of life as it is usually lived (the way Buddhism and Jainism go against this flow).

What AN ultimately does is question the project of life itself, and this is scary itself. But it's not much more than Buddhism, just taken to a practical level. — schopenhauer1

I've been waiting for you to mention Buddhism.

The resemblance between AN and Buddhism is very limited and merely superficial. You formulate that idea nicely -- "What AN ultimately does is question the project of life itself". So does Buddhism. But Buddhism goes about it very differently than AN, and most importantly, Buddhism proposes a way out of suffering -- while alive. Also, the reason why a category of Buddhist practitioners doesn't engage in sex (and thus doesn't produce children) is not motivated by the desire to not cause an injustice to potential future beings, but out of a general committment to not indulge in sensual pleasures. In contrast, AN still pursue sensual pleasures; in fact, they see the whole point of life in them.

Many people think in black-and-white terms. They are not interested in understanding things, but in taking sides. So even when they read a (would-be) philosophical text, they do so with an intention of taking sides. If it turns out that they can't do so easily (because they agree with some things in the text, while disagree with others, and some they don't understand), they take this as a cue to oppose the text/the author.
— baker
How do you deal with such people? — Wheatley

You throw rocks at them, or shoot Hellfire missiles at them, whichever is more handy for you. Barring that, you leave their presence.

You've got to hide your love of wisdom away.

I'll say this: Your way of describing philosophy can be very useful for communication on the Philosophy Forum, but there's no god-like figure that can decree that this way is the correct way of doing philosophy. — Wheatley

Hence this should be the preferred method of philosophizing:

The request for clarification remains cogent. — Banno

It depends on how it's formulated.

"You're not making any sense!"

vs.

"I don't understand what you mean here. Could you explain it a bit more? What is the relation between your A and B?"


But I suppose no self-respecting philosopher would ever utter the latter, at least not meaning it genuinely.

My memory commands me not to desire or fear too much as things are happening as they do with or without my influence on their happenings. — Shawn

That's not a Stoic stance, although it's a stoic one.

In regards to Stoicism, and this will come off as trite; but, modern day living is taxing on the Stoics mind. — Shawn

No, that should be: Living is taxing on the modern stoic's mind.

The problem with so many modern-day stoics is that they are just that, stoics, with a lower key. They have abandoned the metaphysical underpinnings of Stoicism, which, however, are of vital importance for contextualizing Stoic ethics, making them actionable, without too much difficulty and regret. In contrast, the modern stoic lives in a cold, indifferent universe, believes it to be chaotic at some basic level, and he sees himself as a product of this universe. No wonder he has a lot of troubles and is apathetic.

One cannot believe in modern science and still be a Stoic.

What do you think is the reason why most people, even very educated people, seem to have difficulty engaging with ideas that challenge their views? — thesmartman23

1. They see no use in those ideas.

2. They see no use in the challenge.

3. They don't want to accept the challenge as proposed by a particular person (but maybe they would if it were done by someone else).

4. They don't want to accept the challenge as proposed at a particular time and place (but maybe they would if it were done at some other time, some other place).

In such a system, what matters the most is whose will prevails
— baker

Yes. Believe it or not, democracy is about power. — frank

Then you shouldn't fret when Trump and co. win.

Once you hold that what matters is whose will prevails, you can quit the pretense of being intelligent and just grunt.

He'll ride in on a flying pig and open the world's first fission reactor. — Wayfarer

Sorry, but as always, you underestimate him and the support he has.

I'd prefer that by "democratic", the EU would follow the will of most of its participants when it comes to policy. — Manuel

And let right-wingers win?

Here’s an interesting challenge concerning Joe Biden. But the challenge is for you, not him.

See if you can watch this entire compilation video of Joe Biden’s love of hair sniffing. — 0 thru 9

Oh god.

Would you think it’s wrong if someone genetically engineered a severe disability into their child? Because in this case, similar to the birth example, at the time the act is done there is no one to suffer an injustice by it. Yet it’s clearly an injustice no? — khaled

When do you believe that life/personhood starts? At conception, birth, 18 years of age ...?



Suppose there would a Lebensborn kind of maternity camp for prospective mothers. A new building, ready for use, and a couple of buses of women of childbearing age on the way to said camp. These women are already pregnant, or intend to become pregnant at said camp (which has all the facilities necessary for that). Schopenhauer2, resentful of the maternity project, poisons the drinking water at the camp with a poison that would make the women abort, become infertile, or give birth to defective babies. Yet he gets caught, as Hilda the Chief of the Maternity Ward catches him in the act.

What injustice did Schopenhauer2 do? Remember, the women are still on the way in the buses.
He committed acts against public health, he committed attempted manslaughter, attempted grave bodily harm. But he did not commit manslaughter, murder, or grave bodily harm. The law has a special category for _attempted_ criminal acts. And this is the extent of Schopenhauer2's injustice, nothing more.

You would like me to think that this state of affairs is somehow off the table as far as evaluation. I don't see how. It is good that X prevented a baby from being born in horrible conditions. — schopenhauer1

The only person who benefits in any way from this is the antinatalist.

Antinatalists are people who seek happiness in life from other people not being born. Antinatalists get an ego boost when other people aren't being born.


Which is a rather shitty way to pursue happiness.

But the alternative strikes me as far worse; allowing nonsense to propagate. — Banno

Nonsense isn't like weeds, so that once you pull or dig it out, it would be gone for a least a while.

Nonsense is something far more systemic, complex, eluding direct action.

I a lot folks dismiss ideas because they claim it lacks "clarity". The assumption seems to be that if an idea, or concept, is not easily comprehended it is therefore dishonest. There are some issues with this line of thinking. — Wheatley

Many people think in black-and-white terms. They are not interested in understanding things, but in taking sides. So even when they read a (would-be) philosophical text, they do so with an intention of taking sides. If it turns out that they can't do so easily (because they agree with some things in the text, while disagree with others, and some they don't understand), they take this as a cue to oppose the text/the author.

Again: Define "suffering".

So far, it seems that you're focusing on life's hardships and equating those with suffering.

Where do you draw the un-crossable line between human weaknesses and animal ones still remains a mystery. Surely it would be unbelievable to say humans and animals are the same thing, but it would be equally unbelievable to say we share nothing in common with the animals when there are some obvious similarities, depending on your religious beliefs. — kudos

It seems the problem at hand is of a more general nature (and has nothing to do with animals, or comparing humans and animals). Namely, it's that it is hard to meaningfully, comprehensively define "weak" and "strong", while at the same time, both these terms play important, even vital roles in how we understand the world and ourselves.

There is a fundamental instinct that humans have regardless of their social personalities. "Weakness" is a relative social term, which may or may not play a role in an instinct that would kick in a given situation. — Caldwell

What instinct?

Please re-read the below quote again, and see how the switch from animal instinct to "weak relative to their potential" happens. Is there not a fallacious argument here?

In natural predator-prey relationships if a predator is so strong a hunter it proliferates and the prey population declines, their group gets equally wiped out. Would you say in this sense that weakness is necessary for survival, and thereby there is some good in weak people just in lieu of the fact that they are weak relative to their potential?
— kudos

This isn't an argument. It's two sentences, the latter of which is a question. A syllogism yet needs to be derived from this, and doing so requires some discussion to clarify the premises (as I've been asking all along ...).

How did you determine that someone who gains philosophical truth must educate the others? — Tom Storm

+1

Then I think we were talking about different things, and what you said was not relevant to the point that I was making, which you replied to.

I was talking about knowing a cause (God for example), through its effects (the physical world He created). We have no capacity to directly observe the cause, but we can observe the effects, and infer the necessity of the cause. If you cannot relate to this way of knowing God, I could switch it for an example from quantum physics. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, the way to know God is not the way to know tables and chairs, or atoms, or anything else.

Remember, we started with this:

We know God through His effects, the reality of physical existence, but we cannot see Him directly as the cause, His existence is inferred.
— Metaphysician Undercover

No. Every self-respecting Christian has a personal relationship with God. — baker

You started with the example of knowing God. But God is not known through its effects. God is supposed to be known directly.

How can you possibly know it's pretense?
— baker

Because "knowledge" in the epistemological sense is justified, and "justified" implies demonstrated, which means shared with others. So if an individual claims to know something, but what is known cannot be demonstrated, or shared with others, it is not "knowledge" in epistemology, which is where the accepted definition of "knowledge": is derived from, and it is therefore just a person claiming to have knowledge, which is not real knowledge, but a pretense.

Monotheists frequently demonstrate their knowledge of God with other monotheists; they form an epistemic community.

Do you think that because monotheists can't/don't/won't demonstrate their knowledge of God with just anyone, or, in this case, you, this means that they are pretending?

Remember, in Plato's cave allegory, the philosopher, having seen beyond the reflections, toward understand the true reality, is compelled to return to the cave to teach the others. Without doing this educating, the person would just be someone assuming I am right about reality, and they are all wrong about reality, and such a person would not be a philosopher at all, but a poser.

Again, monotheists are sharing their knowledge outside of their epistemic community as well. It's called proselytizing. It's hardly outrageous to expect that the audience does some work as well.

I’m saying ‘suffering’ is actually what gives life value. No suffering is a zombie life without emotion. — I like sushi

Interesting!

@Wayfarer, what do you make of this?

But we are responsible for procreating - and we could stop or at least wonder why we do it; we can actually consider reasons for and against. — ToothyMaw

So the 'responsibility' is no more valid a point than 'procreating'. We have a sense of responsibility tied to our procreative abilities. I cannot see how it can be argued that these are separate to the point that one is on a pedestal but not the other. — I like sushi

As long as the people involved don't decide on which narrative to go with, there is confusion.

If we go with the "selfish gene" narrative, then we cannot consequently talk about responsibility or anything else that is conceived of as being subject to a person's will.

If we go with the personality narrative, then we cannot consequently talk about the genes, selfish or otherwise.

Those two narratives are mutually exclusive.

Patronizing me clearly brings you a lot of pleasure ...

:starstruck:

If there were someone who knows, how could she demonstrate her knowledge such that everyone would be able to see that in fact she does know? — Janus

Why everyone?

Can you explain?

Lack of consensus doesn't mean that nobody knows; but it can mean that only some know and others don't.
— baker

Maybe my language was sloppy. It doesn't mean nobody knows. But it also doesn't mean somebody does.

How would we know? — Tom Storm

It depends on why you want to know whether someone else knows or not.

No dichotomy! I didn't intend anything like you think I did. I said that we can know ourselves better with the added benefit of science. That doesn't obviate the need for self-examination. I wasn't referring to the question of others knowing me at all. — Janus

"Knowing yourself better with the added benefit of science" _is_ knowing oneself on other people's terms.

I won't go into what they are but the thesis of this thread is that stoicism presents itself as a constant struggle (in my experience) with analyzing what is important to control in one's life. — Shawn

In discussions of S/stoicism, the point is often made that one needs to distinguish between what one can control and what one cannot control.
However, I do not know any reference to this in the writings of the ancient Stoics. Could you post it, please?

every day affirmations of Marcus Aurelius or Epictetus. — Shawn

Could you please post a link to those?

I'm interested to hear about other terms, or sets of terms, that have a habit of stagnating discussions — I like sushi

Rational, rationality.


Irrational, iirationality.

In short, the EU has a long way to go to become democratic. — Manuel

I wonder what you mean by "democratic".
It seems you mean something like "being voted into a position of power, as opposed to inheriting it or usurping it".

This is how democracy works: prior to the American civil war there were five different parties that claimed to be anti-slavery. Only one party was pro-slavery.

The result was that anti-slavery energy was scattered at best and divided against itself at worst.

Lincoln gathered all the anti-slavery parties together and thus won the presidency. — frank

No, that's how a polarized, simplificationist two-party system works. In such a system, what matters the most is whose will prevails, not what the issue is about or how well it is being handled in terms of economics, logistics, and such.

But indeed, Americans tend to call that "democracy".

Plurality of parties usually means there's either no pressing issues to deal with or there's apathy about dealing with the issues at hand.

Typical American response.

Again, no. A country has to deal with dozens of issues at any given time, most of which require some creativity, ingenuity. A dichotomous two-party system kills that creativity, ingenuity.


In the example of slavery: this was an issue on which two camps were possible at the time, in those circumstances, so there were party A, B, C, D, E who were against slavery, and party F who was for it.

But on some other issue, such as gun ownership, those parties couldn't form those same two camps, but, for example, A, B, F on the one side, and C, D, E on the other side.
While on the issue of women's rights, they could be divided in three camps, A, B vs. C, D vs. E, F.

There's a reason why there is a mutltitude of parties: because they do have different views, different programmes, which only partly overlap, and overlap differently on different issues.

The difference between old-school European politics and American politics is that old-school European politics approaches political communication as a means to solve a problem, a constructive exchange of ideas so as to jointly come up with the best solution of a problem. Whereas American politics is all about persuasion, persuading others of one's view, the prevailing of one will over another.

From what I've seen, Americans tend to be this way in general as well: "Either you're with me, or you're against me. Either you see things the way I do, or you're wrong/bad/defective. (But look, I'm so nice that I sometimes even let you have your wrong opinion!)" This is more pronounced with Republicans than with Democrats (although Democrats are still firmly in that dichotomous way of being). And this doesn't pertain just to how they handle politics, it's about everything, from cosmetics, to cooking, to the meaning of life: that same dichotomous mentality.


What you see as "apathy" in EU politics is actually putting the solving of a problem first, and placing the desire to rule as a distant second, or further down the list. EU politics is like a brainstorming session and teamwork to implement the best idea.

You must've missed it: I referred to genomes (genes) with no mention of "those who feel immortal". — 180 Proof

It's people who reproduce. People make the decision to reproduce, or not. It's not that their genes somehow run the show.

to make room for descendents. After all, genomic self-replicators self-replicate or perish: without mortality, I think, natality would not be sufficiently urgent or adaptive in nature (for vertebrates). — 180 Proof

Ergo, those who feel immortal, who have a sense that their life will somehow go on forever, have no biological desire to reproduce. Ha!


A sense of one's own immortality, a sense that one's life will somehow go on forever needn't be a sign of megalomania; it can be a sign of feeling desperately trapped in one's situation.