Oh, and you don't have to convince people - something doesn't become true just because people are convinced that it is. — Bartricks

If you have no aim to convince people of the truthness of your argument, then why on earth are you developing it?

Some ideas must surely be ideas we've already heard, no? When we re-hear those ideas, must 'philosophers' give them due consideration on each occasion, or may they say "I've already heard this one, and disagree". If the former, then it somewhat gives the floor to whichever ideas are repeated most, which seem inefficient at best. — Isaac

Must must must. What is it with this must??

Presumably a philosopher, as a lover of wisdom, will act wisely with his time and resources and won't rehash stuff. Nor get himself into exchanges that he reasonably predicts will bear little fruit.

Unless he has some good reason to do so. Like if he's uncharacteristically unexuberant, or he finds some old idea presented in a new context.

Why would a lack of objectivity preclude commonality. There's no objective 'best film' but that doesn't prevent people from collectively promoting the one they all agree is such. — Isaac

I suspect that commonality has to do with more than just some moral and epistemic egoists/narcissists discovering that they have something in common. No, I think they firmly believe that there is more to them considering some film to be the best one; that they don't think it's just a matter of their subjective preference, but that there is more to it: that the film truly, really, inherently, objectively _is_ the best one.

One indication for this is how they talk about it. They don't say, "This is my favorite film" or "This is the best film I've seen so far." No, they say, "This is the best film". And when pressed or faced with opposition, they say something like "You're entitled to your wrong opinion" or "You just don't don't know what a good film is".

Yep, probably. But not all ideas are in this category, surely? — Isaac

What do you mean?

My grandmother was a Catholic her whole life, and then renounced it in her 70's. Apparently, some idea had become so prominent to her relatively late in her life that warranted a dramatic change in her beliefs.
People can change, even dramatically, even late in life.

You don't need to believe that any differences between yourself and others must inevitably be their moral failures in order to negotiate with them. — Kenosha Kid

How does this refer to anything I said?

For the most part, people pursue their own interests rather than a common good.

Dismissing politics right off the bat! Yay!

To think that you can assume that you are right without having to prove it to others - without having exposed your ideas to open criticism - is the problem. — Harry Hindu

Why on earth should that be a problem for someone who doesn't believe in objective morality?

There is no such thing as an objective morality
— Harry Hindu
How can one do politics if one belives that?
— baker
That's the point. If you need a Big Brother, that's your problem, not mine. — Harry Hindu

My point is that if one doesn't believe in objective morality, then how can one hope to get along with others in the pursuit of some common goal (which is, presumably, what politics is about, ie. the pursuit of some common goal)?

I also don't believe there is objective morality, but I think it is of vital importance to assume and act as if there was objective morality. Otherwise, we're talking about a bunch of moral egoists/moral narcissists who will never be able to get anything done together.

I wasn't really referring to 'new' ideas. Very few ideas are new. The vast majority have been expressed before. So what about those? OK to categorise them, or do we have to remain open to them indefinitely? — Isaac

Presumably a philosopher is still a human and still in the process of learning, so to him, there are ideas that are new, even if someone else might have known those ideas for a long time.

You are a moral realist?? As am I, and I argue for this frequently. There are few takers on this as it requires a break with the familiar world. Unfortunately, what I consider the most penetrating reading is the least accessible.

Why are you a moral realist? — Constance

At this point, I am moral-realism-adjacent. I think most people are moral realists, but are aware that it is taboo to actually declare oneself as such, so they devise other moral theories in order to mask their moral realism.

For all practical intents and purposes, moral realism (in the form of moral egoism) seems to be the only viable way to be.

there is no such thing as an objective morality — Harry Hindu

How can one do politics if one belives that?

Assuming that people think a certain way because of how they look — Harry Hindu

What do you mean by that?

Permanently? Are they never allowed to reach conclusions about said ideas? — Isaac

Presumably a philosopher will stay open to new ideas indefinitely, so that any conclusion will, at most, be just temporary.

? Seems to be right there in the OP.
— Isaac

I'd say it is more a fundamental premise which contradicts the reasonableness of some of the other categories. — Pantagruel

Indeed, this is why a philosopher cannot be a politician, nor a politician a philosopher.
A philosopher is supposed to "give all ideas a fair shake", whereas a politician is supposed to take sides and work toward a particular practical outcome.

The topic of this thread isn't determining which is which, but just what's a good way to address people relative to their place on a spectrum of (dis)agreement about which is which. "A good way" both in the sense of a kind and respectful way, and also in the sense of a productive and effective way. — Pfhorrest

How can political discussion on an internet forum be productive and effective?

Political discussion can be productive and effective in, for example, a parliament or a board meeting, where the people involved actually have tasks to accomplish, their political discussion is supposed to lead to some goal (such as passing a bill, voting an official into or out of office, etc.).

But on a forum like this, political discussion is bound to lack this practical element, which, arguably, renders a political discussion into a philosophical one, so different rules apply.

Ok I see now what my difficulty with the categorization may be. You're looking at it from an American perspective for the most part I guess. In my country, and most of European Countries, we don't have a two-party system. We have 5 "main-stream" parties and a couple of extreme parties at either end, who have to form coalitions to form a government. So "agrees with you politically" is not a simple black or white matter usually. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, absolutely. In European countries, things are not so either-or or black-and-white as in the US. Although there is a less or more visible trend toward such a simplification and polarization of political life in Europe as well.

Putting people.that you don't know into groups. — Harry Hindu

At best, it's just a useful heuristic for navigating social life more easily.

In order to understand capitalism, you need to put aside your socialist sensitivities.
In capitalism, people are expendable. It's about living for an idea, even if the person living for that idea dies in the process.

No because this is a question of the origin of the intention to punish. If a parent punishes out of loathing it is toxic but if they punish out of protection/ fear or concern for their child’s wellbeing - ie loving punishment then it may be appropriate. — Benj96

Parents and teachers can come up with all sorts of justifications for beating kids up ...

You're the one making an argument in favor of antinatalism.
That means you have to find justifications for why people should not have children, and you have to find a way to convince them of that.

So, both parties - Christian nuns and Muslim women - have been brainwashed. How? — TheMadFool

You think wearing a minskirt and high heels is _not_ a case of _not_ being brainwashed??

I don't mean to suggest that we should treat the truly ridiculous ideas of the "other side" as legitimate like that, but only that we shouldn't treat the people as enemies merely for not having made up their minds about them, because that then frames us and the undecided as enemies, as so inclines them to whatever side is opposite ours. We should be clear in our view that those ideas are not worth consideration, but we should convey that in a way that's more like warning a stranger away from a path they may not have seen the dangers of, and less like attacking an enemy for daring to even consider going down that path. — Pfhorrest

The middle group, AKA the "fence sitters". A decidedly derogatory term. These people are a liability because they are undecided, so it's no wonder they get considered enemies.

We should be clear in our view that those ideas are not worth consideration, but we should convey that in a way that's more like warning a stranger away from a path they may not have seen the dangers of, and less like attacking an enemy for daring to even consider going down that path.

We, we, we. There's that us vs. them rhetoric.

Do you personally know what it's like to be that "fence sitter"? I do. Your style so far is not inviting me to get closer to your side.

Are you familiar with the anti-psychiatry movement?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-psychiatry

Because most people don't want to live such monkish lives of self deprivation. — Bartricks

Well, you're the one making an argument in favor of antinatalism, so you have to find a way around people refusing to live monkish lifestyles.

"sigh" ! You found the Concept of Anxiety ORIDINARY?? Not possible. — Constance

When one grows up as the only non-Catholic among Catholics and is bullied by them, and tries to make sense of it by reading a lot of Catholic literature, one begins to consider many things as ordinary that other people probably don't. It's a long sordid tale.

One cannot be interested in Buddhism and think Kierkegaard is a bore.

Oh, I took to Buddhism because it promised enlightenment, and I thought that once I'd be enlightened, I'd be able to figure out which religion is the right one, specifically, whether Catholicism is true or not. Needless to say, that didn't work out so well.

There has to be a radical misunderstanding somewhere.

Probably because I don't approach religion with self-confidence and in the hope to find a solution to existential problems.
Which also happens to be why moral realism makes so much sense.

How on earth is wearing a minskirt and high heels a case of _not_ being brainwashed??

has been, well, brainwashed. — TheMadFool

Who hasn't?

Maybe I haven't produced anything great because I am just not unhappy enough? — Bitter Crank

Or because you're just not an artist? :p

Why is so much fiction about unhappy people? Because unhappy people are more interesting. As Tolstoy says in the first sentence of Anna Karenina, "All happy families are alike, but every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." It's a more satisfying experience I suppose to produce works of art about unhappy people

Oh, the drama, the horror!

Don't you find it unsettling that unhappy people seem more interesting? Why is that?

Happiness, success, predictability, pastel prettiness, etc. make for a very dull story. A good story needs some grit, failure, dark color, misery... to contrast against the sunshine.

But why? This expectation about what makes for a good story could be a case of life imitating art.

And where is that sunshine anyway?

What movie has described this scenario already? — Raul

Tolkien's conception of the elves fits the bill.

One hundred years is a mere blink in the life of an elf.

A lot of art (all categories) has been produced by people who were/are known to be happy, pleasant, normal, decent people. And a lot of great art has been produced by people who were/are known to be screwed up, unhappy, abrasive, abusive people.

Sometimes knowing the biography of the artist helps one understand and appreciate a work, sometimes it doesn't. Some people want to prosecute the artist for any moral deficiencies they can find, and other people are content to not turn over every rock, looking for shock value. — Bitter Crank

I think that in part, it's about the mystery of art:
How is it that a thoroughly screwed up person can create works of art that people are so delighted with?
How is it that a perfectly decent middle-class person can love the art produced by a decadent and poor artist?
How is it that one can feel both compassion and contempt for a protagonist of a novel?
And so on.
One of my literature professors said that happy people don't produce great works of art.


One of the reasons why some people are so eager to learn about the artist's personal life is because through this, they hope to justify their fascination with his artworks, or else, overcome this fascination and write it off as inappropriate.

What's the difference?[/quote]
The difference would be salient if either of them would feel oppressed by their outfit.
Quite likely, neither of them do.

Rebelling against social norms is for teenagers.

Further from your link:
/.../
Several other writers and scholars have challenged the evidential basis for Cohen's and others' views about Dodgson's sexual interests. Hugues Lebailly has endeavoured to set Dodgson's child photography within the "Victorian Child Cult", which perceived child nudity as essentially an expression of innocence.[88] Lebailly claims that studies of child nudes were mainstream and fashionable in Dodgson's time, and that most photographers made them as a matter of course, including Oscar Gustave Rejlander and Julia Margaret Cameron. Lebailly continues that child nudes even appeared on Victorian Christmas cards, implying a very different social and aesthetic assessment of such material. Lebailly concludes that it has been an error of Dodgson's biographers to view his child-photography with 20th- or 21st-century eyes, and to have presented it as some form of personal idiosyncrasy, when it was a response to a prevalent aesthetic and philosophical movement of the time.

Karoline Leach's reappraisal of Dodgson focused in particular on his controversial sexuality. She argues that the allegations of paedophilia rose initially from a misunderstanding of Victorian morals, as well as the mistaken idea – fostered by Dodgson's various biographers – that he had no interest in adult women. She termed the traditional image of Dodgson "the Carroll Myth". She drew attention to the large amounts of evidence in his diaries and letters that he was also keenly interested in adult women, married and single, and enjoyed several relationships with them that would have been considered scandalous by the social standards of his time. She also pointed to the fact that many of those whom he described as "child-friends" were girls in their late teens and even twenties.[89] She argues that suggestions of paedophilia emerged only many years after his death, when his well-meaning family had suppressed all evidence of his relationships with women in an effort to preserve his reputation, thus giving a false impression of a man interested only in little girls.

You wanted to give up the bad habit. So, you're good as per intensionalism. — TheMadFool

Would you say that in the process of giving up the bad habit, you always had control over your intentions and your intentions were exactly what you wanted them to be?

If you ever relapsed, then clearly you didn't have control over your intentions. If the only thing that stopped you from acting on the bad habit was some external circumstance, then clearly you didn't have control over your intentions.

A more skeptical person would suspect that something isn't right here.

However, if you would like to open the descriptor of "natural" to include any event which leads to any death, then yes, those who die from collateral damage would be considered, as per your interpretation, as "natural selection", however, once that has been allowed, everything would fall under said category and it would become effectively useless as a descriptor. — Book273

Hardly any word/concept has been so debated as "natural".

Why should social forces that are at work in human society be somehow not natural?
If, say, women pick the prospective fathers of their children by how much money they earn, then how is this not natural selection? It's just the human variant of when a female peacock hen chooses a male with splendid plummage.

No contradiction there — khaled

Happy people fuck up the planet, and that's okay?

The mental action of desiring to help someone doesn't automatically lead to a particular verbal or bodily action.

There is an element of choice inbetween. You can have the intention to help someone, and then you can choose from many possible options what you're actually going to do in an effort to help them.

I was just quoting the first noble truth. I know it’s not meant to be taken literally. — khaled

No, the First Noble Truth says "There is suffering", not "Life is suffering".

You think the average human isn't miserable??
— baker
Yes. And they seem to agree when surveyed about it.

They are enlightened?
— baker
Not necessarily. Just not miserable. Heck, happy on average even, as it turns out.

Then do reflect how come these, on average, happy (although unenlightened people) whose company is not conducive to suffering have made the planet the mess that it is.

Yes, but that's beside the point. Most people aren't going to live such lives, nor are they morally required to, and if they did then - for most people - such lives would contain far more undeserved suffering than pleasure. — Bartricks

Why would such lives contain far more undeserved suffering than pleasure? Can you explain?

You are seeking to make an argument in favor of antinatalism. If you want to argue that not having children is a good thing, then you need to explain why is it wrong for people to be unhappy without children (ie. why it would be wrong for them to refuse to live a celibate monastic-style life).

I'm seeking to bring about sustainability, with the minimal possible change in any other respect. I'm not a revolutionary. I want the powers that be to be able to get on board, because time is short. The window of opportunity to prevent disaster is closing quickly. — counterpunch

I agree. But I don't see how your attitude is conducive to inspiring others to change.

It really matters that we have the correct approach - and less energy is not the right approach.

What do you mean by "less energy"?

Stop eating meat, cycle, second hand clothes, stop flying, insulate homes - it goes on and on.

For many people, such changes are too much to commit to within some foreseeable time frame. This is the reality of change.