so you're saying it's like masturbation? — Benkei

*sigh*
Now where did that come from ...

So it becomes a challenge of vocabulary and semantics to translate between the meanings of different perspectives of deeper wisdom.
— Pantagruel

Why would you bother with that challenge? — Isaac

Some people are naturally inclined to mediation and translation.

So we might as well try to learn all of the lessons that life teaches us. — Pantagruel

Life doesn't teach lessons. It's up to us to learn them.

benefitting who? If that decision doesn't benefit anyone, it's not a moral choice. — Benkei

Benefitting you. If you believe that producing children is evil, and you refrain from producing children, then you have successfully omitted an evil action.
It's possible to take pride in refraining from evil actions, to have a sense of dignity based on refraining from evil actions.

Have you distanced yourself from Buddhism?

I've actually found that by saving someone else people save themselves. — Tom Storm

Do explain and illustrate with an example.

As a man you should not complain too loudly about difficulty or pain, you should expect hardship and bear the burden, you should never use your physical strength to harm those weaker than you, you should use your strength to help those weaker than you, you should be the first to volunteer, et al.
/.../
My question is this: do you think that this version of masculinity has a place in the modern world? — BigThoughtDropper

Did it ever?
Was it ever practiced??

My question was about the system benefiting. Doing the right thing only benefits the corrupt system by making it less corrupt. That would benefit the system, but not the corrupt system. — James Riley

I think the OP meant "benefit the corrupt system" in the sense that the corrupt system benefits by not doing what they have otherwise legally obligated themselves to do, by finding ways not to pay what they would otherwise have to pay for, by perpetuating itself.

I'm having the impression the OP is implying that the corrupt system is being kept alive by wellmeaning, naive "good citizens" who are honest, humble, and obedient.


Take, for example, covid-19 vaccination. The system is telling us to be good citizens, to do the right thing, and to get vaccinated. But all covid-19 vaccines are currently still just experimental medications and health insurance does not cover the treatment of negative side effects of experimental medications. If you get negative side effects from the vaccination, you're on your own, and left to the mercy of doctors and their willingness to twist the facts a bit and say "Oh, but we're not sure it's from the vaccine". The companies making the vaccine are also not liable. They get to make money, but you have put your life on the line.

According to the official policy, the damage would be for them to pay for and they would have to ensure safety at work. Now they can blame you and wash their hands.

doing the right thing in a corrupt system benefits that corrupt system
— Tex

How so? — James Riley

Say that you're working in a construction company where the official policy is to report all damaged tools, all accidents and near-accidents. If the company is corrupt, you following the official policy will be bad for you as you will be held responsible and will have to pay for the damage and the accidents.

The whole meaning of materialism is that there’s no essential difference between people and things. — Wayfarer

Inasmuch does this view overlap with the concept of anatta, where do they differ?

Well smoking weed wouldn't be what caused the car accident and wheelchair harm. Pretty obviously it was something to do with the driving, possibly from the weed but not necessarily. — DingoJones

What are you saying? That the driver was a poor driver anyway, and smoking weed was only the final straw in their driving ineptitude?

Running people over isn’t a victimless crime, but smoking pot is.

People who smoke pot hurt themselves, so they are the victims, so smoking pot isn't "a victimless crime".

Also, people critical of smoking pot or its legalisation have to be critical of drinking alcohol or its legalisation first if they want to be taken seriously.

I'm critical of all substances and activities that in any way diminish a person's ability to drive safely.

I think you've failed to see the point. — Wayfarer

I was refering to this:

So the physical sciences, in spite of their extraordinary success in their own domain, necessarily leave an important aspect of nature unexplained. — Wayfarer

An 'ontological distinction' means 'a difference in kind'. I'm saying, there are differences in kind between mineral, organic, sentient and rational beings. In old-school philosophical parlance, they're different substances. Whereas the general consensus is, I believe, that there is only one substance, that being matter (now, matter~energy) and that organic, sentient, and rational beings are simply permutations of this single substance. That is what I'm calling into question.

Sure.
What do you think are the moral implications or the implications for a theory of morality for each of the views?

It seems to me that the reason we have an ontology, the reason why we list "what is there", is because this has bearing on how we relate to that which is there and how we justify our actions toward it.

It's not clear what is going on here. What does it mean to say a bat has an identity? That the bat knows who it is? That Baker knows it is a bat? What is it you think is taken for granted? — Banno

The being.

Suppose the bat does not have an identity - that that make it OK to inflict pain on it?

This is moot, because if one assumes that something doesn't have an identity, then one also assumes that it doesn't/cannot feel pain to begin with.
When you chop would, you don't think "Oh, I'm inflicting pain on this log of wood". It simply doesn't occur to you that a log of wood could feel pain. Descartes thought that animals were much like logs of wood in this regard.

And this assumption about the lack of an identity or a diminished or damaged identity is the justification that people give for slitting throats, throwing stones at, hitting with sticks, and so on.

For example, a commandment says "Thou shalt not kill", but people who profess to abide by said commandment may see no problem in slitting the throats of cows or burning alive the members of another tribe. Because for them, "Thou shalt not kill" only has meaning in reference to (valued) members of their own tribe, while every other being is deemed necessarily lesser (and thus, it's not actually possible to commit a crime against it, even if one were to slit its thorat).

If identity is attributed, then can't it be attributed to a tree or a rock?

Of course. Consider, for example, works of art or craftsmanship, or even just ordinary cars: these things have an identity attributed to them, with a unique serial number. And while there are generally not assumed to be able to feel pain, there is a big issue when it comes to damaging them.

There's a big difference between breaking rocks at a quarry and hitting the Great Star of Africa with a hammer.

So do they have moral standing because they have an identity?

Without an identity, they wouldn't be eligible for moral standing.

Aggression is normal, but this thread is about a specific kind of aggression with a specific kind of motivation. — Judaka

Hold on. Are you also saying there is a kind of aggression that doesn't have a specific motivation?

Life, however, is not like being caught in a trap. — Isaac

So what, you're God?

For some (many?) people, life is like being caught in a trap. You can say that for you, it isn't; but for some, it is.

Most libertarians believe that there are certain things that are illegal that should be legal because they are victimless activities. Smoking weed is a perfect example of the kind of activity they normally have in mind. — TheHedoMinimalist

Does marijuana use affect driving?

Marijuana significantly impairs judgment, motor coordination, and reaction time, and studies have found a direct relationship between blood THC concentration and impaired driving ability.7–9

Marijuana is the illicit drug most frequently found in the blood of drivers who have been involved in vehicle crashes, including fatal ones.10 Two large European studies found that drivers with THC in their blood were roughly twice as likely to be culpable for a fatal crash than drivers who had not used drugs or alcohol.11,12

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/does-marijuana-use-affect-driving

Smoking weed is not a "victimless crime".

How do you feel about being run over by a pothead and ending up in a wheelchair for the rest of your life?

I can flick you off, call you any name I wish, and insult anything about you or how you are and you can't call a cop or pursue legal action for that alone — Outlander

Actually, you can, at least in some jurisdictions.

Or would you say what it's like arguments are necessary here? — Manuel

I am afraid that they are.

In the absence of a binding system of morality, concepts such as "consciousness" have to carry the moral load.

An ontological distinction means there’s a difference in kind. But these distinctions were discarded along with many other elements of Aristotelianism by modern science, which tends to try and explain everything in terms of matter-energy. Nagel elaborates his point in more detail in his 2012 book Mind and Cosmos where he says that:

The physical sciences can describe organisms like ourselves as parts of the objective spatio-temporal order – our structure and behavior in space and time – but they cannot describe the subjective experiences of such organisms or how the world appears to their different particular points of view. There can be a purely physical description of the neurophysiological processes that give rise to an experience, and also of the physical behavior that is typically associated with it, but such a description, however complete, will leave out the subjective essence of the experience – how it is from the point of view of its subject — without which it would not be a conscious experience at all.

So the physical sciences, in spite of their extraordinary success in their own domain, necessarily leave an important aspect of nature unexplained. — Wayfarer

To me, the difference at hand is about actually eating an apple, and describing/analyzing/explaining the eating of an apple.

Which is better, more relevant? To eat an apple, or to describe/analyze/explain the eating of an apple?

Neither are the point at hand though, which is the argument for hard antinatalism. — Isaac

"It's evil to act on evil intentions" -- this seems to be the basic argument for AN here.
"To intend to procreate is to set a trap for another person. Setting a trap is evil. To procreate is evil."

Yes, ?

What would be constant here? what would be using "What it is like to be RogueAI" in the same way as you did before? How was "What it is like to be RogueAI" used in the first place?

There can be no such continuity here. — Banno

Are you familiar with the Buddhist concept of anatta?

Wouldn't being in a completely dark cave and using a rock to try and find out where the walls are be akin to a kind of echolocation? — Manuel

Of course, some blind people use such rudimentary forms of echolocation.

Sure, it could well be the case that bats have experience. There's no way to tell that I know of. I don't think this should necessarily raise ethical concerns about treating bats badly or anything like that.

But it does raise such concerns.
Look at Descartes and the like:

In 1647, Rene Descartes exploded biology wide open by theorizing that the body was merely a mechanical instrument. The soul was what gave consciousness, and it resided somewhere in the pineal gland. Unfortunately for the neighborhood dogs, Descartes also theorized that only humans had souls.

If animals were soulless, they were just machines. Therefore they didn’t feel pain—they only acted as if they did. So therefore, it was okay to cut them open and experiment on them. And Descartes sure loved a good experiment.

By his own account, Descartes happily sliced open dogs and stuck his finger into their still-beating hearts, marveling at how the valves opened and closed around his knuckle. But the madness doesn’t stop there. According to some biographers, his first vivisection was an attempt to discover once and for all if animals had souls. And the animal he chose to practice on was his wife’s dog.
/.../

https://knowledgenuts.com/descartes-dissected-his-wifes-dog-to-prove-a-point/

Any account of consciousness has to account for its moral implications.

This does not mean the bat is not conscious, it could well be. Maybe it's on the borderline between consciousness and pure instinct. I think part of Nagel's point in choosing a bat is precisely to show an edge case. — Manuel

He explains his choice:

"I assume we all believe that bats have experience. After all,
they are mammals, and there is no more doubt that they have
experience than that mice or pigeons or whales have experience.
I have chosen bats instead of wasps or flounders because if one
travels too far down the phylogenetic tree, people gradually shed
their faith that there is experience there at all. Bats, although more
closely related to us than those other species, nevertheless present
a range of activity and a sensory apparatus so different from ours
that the problem I want to pose is exceptionally vivid (though it
certainly could be raised with other species). Even without the
benefit of philosophical reflection, anyone who has spent some
time in an enclosed space with an excited bat knows what it is to
encounter a fundamentally alien form of life."

He can't know, not because of any failing in his capacity to observe, but because knowing does not fit here.

It's not that there is a something it is like to be a bat, but you cannot observe and understand it; It's not event that there is not something that it is like to be a bat; It's rather that we cannot even determine if there is a something that it is like to be a bat. — Banno

Okay.

What is added by calling it "subjectiveness"? — Banno

A taking for granted of another being's identity, ie. that is has an identity, that it is an entity with some permanent characteristics, that there is a continuity to it. One such is taken for granted, it makes sense to talk of "what it's like to be a bat".

You come to the right idea here, but for the wrong reasons. Talk about physics, chemistry or physiology is distinct from talk about desire, intent or understanding. All that paraphernalia of subjectivism is quite unneeded here. — Banno

Talk of consciousness has to do at least two things: it has to satisfy the scientific standards of analyzing consciousness in terms of chemistry, physiology, and such; and it has to address the moral and legal implications of however consciousness is conceived of conceptually (hence the paraphernalia of subjectivism).

one gets told that there are things one cannot understand. One is excluded from some group. Some thusly excluded people handle this by downplaying the importance of said group and its expertise. Some do it by playing it up.
— baker

Yes, probably. Neither of which have any bearing whatsoever on the question of whether that group were correct about ttier esoteric knowledge claims. — Isaac

Of course, but that's not my point. I'm saying that the relevant point here is how one deals with such exclusion. How does one deal with unknown things, things currently unknowable to one, things currently undecidable to one. How does one deal with ambivalence and uncertainty.

One of the meanings of "rational" is 'proportional', 'in ratio'... Adepts in some esoteric discipline spend a lot of time discussing those esoteric topics, and within that reference frame, their discussion is rational.
— baker

Sounds plausible. Unfortunately no-one is using that heterodox meaning of 'rational' in this discussion so I don't see how it's relevant.

"Rational" is one of the most debated terms. I refer you to Elster's classic Sour Grapes: Studies in the Subversion of Rationality.
Like I said earlier:

If you want to limit the meaning of "rational" to a particular flavor of secular academic discourse, then you should recognize this as a matter of your choice, not a given. — baker

Maybe, but I was referring to the specific use schopenhauer1 made in his kidnapping for a fantastic game example. No-one harmed at all, but 'dignity' trespassed upon by ignoring the kidnaper's will. — Isaac

In this case, it's about the intention, and it's the intention that is evil. Setting a trap is already evil. The fact that nobody got trapped so far doesn't change the intention to set the trap, it doesn't undo the evilness of setting the trap.

Again, the focus on intention applies only insofar as people really carefully think through why they want to have children. (But which they usually don't seem to do, so the point is moot.)

Time 1: No state of affairs exists where a baby is in a net that I set in the sand, hidden.
Time 2: A baby is in now in the net.

Time 1 caused the violation at Time 2. — schopenhauer1

So this is about procreation as entrapment: To procreate (here meant broadly, to conceive and carry a pregnancy to term) is to set up a trap for another being. The evil is in doing so intentionally.


I think this is actually a good enough point, but I don't think many people will be convinced by it, because when presented by this argument from entrapment, they could (secretly) be operating out of a belief "Others have done it to me, so I'm going to do it to others, as revenge" -- an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
It could be that for antinatalism to be more convincing to such a population, you'd need to first find a way for those people to forgive their parents for giving birth to them.

But being in a net is a bad thing, so we're talking about harms here not dignity. — Isaac

To be harmed is to lose one's dignity.

To me this accessible to anyone aspect puts some distance between the idea and strict esotericism. — j0e

Why? Could you explain?

If you can reference the article, that might help. — schopenhauer1

The article is written from a perspective favoring Tibetan Buddhism. This is a relatively small Buddhist school, but probably the most popular one in the West, due to the visibility of the Dalai Lama.
The Buddhist concepts spoken of in that article are specific to Tibetan Buddhism, or, at most, to Mahayana Buddhism at large. But this is not all that Buddhism is about, and it certainly isn't the Buddhism of the foundational Buddhist scriptures, the Pali Canon.
So it's hard to comment on the article in any detail without going into doctrinal differences between the various Buddhist schools (which is just too much for a forum thread like this).

How about considering that aggressiveness is simply normal for people?

If meat eating is supposedly normal for people, then so is aggressiveness. It's already considered normal at least in sports and politics, two major areas of human interactions.

Not an extensive list but I think it is important to remember that people may be acting in a certain way because it feels good and is emotionally rewarding rather than assuming it is deeper than that. I think this kind of thing is worst in high school and then most people gradually grow out of it as they get older. I see a lot of younger people getting drunk on these feelings but others' treatment of them is not necessarily reflective of this. Instead, they're seen as passionate or immature, which they might be but it may not be the ultimate cause. — Judaka

If only!

When the president (an elderly man, at that) of a major country calls the president of another major country a "killer" and that "he has no soul" -- what is that? What example is it setting?

Be a good person but don’t waste time to prove it.[/quote]
I suspect this is supposed to mean something like 'be a good person, but don't try to change the minds of those who think you're not a good person'.

But I have to say, that based on the comments to date, there seems little awareness of the 'esoteric/exoteric' distinction in the history of philosophy. — Wayfarer

Rather, the assumption seems to be that such a distinction doesn't exist or isn't justified.

So, either way, it is not within the province of philosophy
which should be, in principle at least, open to anyone with the requisite capacity for valid rational thought. — Janus

One thing I find peculiar about those that might be called "sages" is the way they can incorporate, contextualize Western philosophy.

For example I've seen Buddhist teachers incorporate, contextualize Western philosophy in a way that Western philosophy doesn't incorporate, contextualize Buddhism.

Agreed. At least with the mechanic you can see if your car starts. I suppose a person could get high on the aura of a guru and their 'car starts' in that sense (because they believe, through their projection), so that's why I like the 'works whether or not you believe in it' criterion of science/technology. — j0e

The 'works whether or not you believe in it' criterion of science/technology works only for things, not for persons. That's not much of an achievement. To limit one's life to things that 'work whether or not you believe in it' makes for an impoverished, zombified existence.

I like the quotes and the topic. I think it's understood that Pythagoras was a cult leader of some kind, and that Plato might have had a secret doctrine. I find it very hard to believe that the Epicureans did, given what I've read of and about Epicurus, and I couldn't find any confirmation of it. — j0e

Oh, that's easy. Someone who teaches moderation in enjoyment (sic!) must have a secret doctrine. Preventing the pursuit of enjoyment from devolving into brute hedonism requires some special insight.

If the knowledge is esoteric then rational discussion of it is pointless. — Isaac

One of the meanings of "rational" is 'proportional', 'in ratio'.

If both of us lack knowledge, say, of advanced mathematics, but nevertheless try to discuss it, such a discussion is necessarily not rational, it's not in proportion to the field of expertise of advanced mathematics. And it's pointless.

It's similar with "esoteric knowledge". Adepts in some esoteric discipline spend a lot of time discussing those esoteric topics, and within that reference frame, their discussion is rational. An outsider, however, cannot rationally, meaningfully participate in such discussions.

For example:

If you want to limit the meaning of "rational" to a particular flavor of secular academic discourse, then you should recognize this as a matter of your choice, not a given.

I don't mean to be disparaging of sages but I find it rather implausible that there could be knowledge that only a select few can get a handle on. Of course, the fact that I find mathematics near impossible to comprehend works against me is not lost on me. Maybe there is such a thing as knowledge that only a few chosen ones can fully understand. — TheMadFool

The idea of there being a knowledge that only a few chosen ones can fully understand is mostly not offensive, as can be seen in the way people are generally nonchalant about their ignorance of and inability to understand, say, advanced mathematics, the engineering of building skyscrapers, or the tuning of musical instruments.

A proposed exclusivity of knowledge does generally become offensive in matters that concern man's basic sense of morality, epistemology, and issues of "the meaning of life". The idea that only a select few should be able to discern correctly what is morally right and what is wrong, or how to know "how things really are", or what "the meaning of life" is -- such an idea gets to us, we cannot be nonchalant about it. We tend to feel offended by notions of exclusivity in this domain; or we feel hopeless about it and life in general.

Yes. The assumption which I keep raising that Wayfarer and other apologists keep repeating is that because science (or materialism) doesn't deal with esoteric issues, the alternatives must somehow therefore do so.

What arguments like yours show is that they don't do so either. Nothing does. Except perhaps art, in a subtle way.

As Wittgenstein said "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

And as Ramsey (even better) added "..and we can't whistle it either."

@Wayfarer here is just trying to whistle. — Isaac

If a tone deaf person criticizes music ...

So one gets told that there are things one cannot understand. One is excluded from some group. Some thusly excluded people handle this by downplaying the importance of said group and its expertise. Some do it by playing it up.

Nothing. "Don't stick your nose into things that are none of your business" should be the motto.
— baker

Right! And that would be a good look from the outside, a selective group that guards its secrets.

This is where the guild theme becomes useful again: If you're a member of the guild of, say, candle makers, out of professional deference, you're not going to indulge in assumptions about those in the guild of horseback saddle makers. (Ideally, you wouldn't even have the time to do so, being busy with your own craft and all that.)
— baker

I agree, but consider the original context, in which an ambivalent saddle-maker can't resist trying to win the respect of the candle-makers. — j0e

But that's the real issue here, isn't it (or one of them)? The demand for recognition, for respect.

I'm trying to isolate the difference between working hard to obtain some manual skill or traditional education program and working hard to obtain a mystical 'something' that insiders call 'knowledge.' Granted that subcultures can create their own lingo that only they understand as participants in lifestyle , what are outsiders to make of their claims? — j0e

Nothing. "Don't stick your nose into things that are none of your business" should be the motto.

This is where the guild theme becomes useful again: If you're a member of the guild of, say, candle makers, out of professional deference, you're not going to indulge in assumptions about those in the guild of horseback saddle makers. (Ideally, you wouldn't even have the time to do so, being busy with your own craft and all that.)


Sorry, have to go for the day.