Comments

  • What characterizes the mindset associated with honesty?
    If it bothers you that I'm labeled with a disability, and that I outperform you in most ways.Vaskane

    Yet you can't have an ordinary conversation with ordinary people.
  • When Does Philosophy Become Affectation?
    The flower has four petals regardless of what you suppose.Banno

    Much of what people call "petals" are actually bracts.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bract
    Since it's the season, what you see in a poinsettia, those Christmasy bright red things are bracts, not petals.
    Just so as to be botanically clear.

    This difference between bracts and petals is another good example of how our perception of things is socio-culturally shaped.
  • When Does Philosophy Become Affectation?
    Ah, if only we were in a court of law. I would object to your "response" as being unresponsive, and I think any Judge in the external world would sustain the objection.Ciceronianus
    Exactly. You're thinking like a lawyer, not a philosopher. Except that we're at a philosophy forum.

    But in this unhappy, imperfect universe we must make judgments without the benefit of absolute knowledge, on the best evidence available at the time we make them. And we do, in real life, if we're wise.Ciceronianus

    But must these judgments amount to a certainty that justifies burning people at the stakes? For a lawyer, perhaps, certainly.

    People who are not lawyers and otherwise not in the business of professionally judging others, can get by just fine without pronouncing definitive judgments upon others, and can instead live with tentative.



    Have you ever thought that those children in pre-Renaissance painting actually were little adults? Or just that the artists who painted them thought they were?
    That was actually the prevailing belief back then: that children are just like adults, only smaller. The belief was that children were only quantitatively different from adults, but not qualitatively. (I read somewhere Kant believed children cried because they were angry because they couldn't use their bodies properly yet.)
    In the 20th century psychological theories of cognitive and moral development put forward the idea that the differences between children and adults are in fact qualitative.
  • When Does Philosophy Become Affectation?
    Ask yourself when you last acted as if there were no other people, no things, no animals, i.e. nothing other than yourself.Ciceronianus
    The psychological equivalents of solipsism are narcissism and egoism. Which are fairly common, and appear to be on the trajectory to becoming virtues.

    When did you last believe, and treat, people you see across the street from you as if they were only, e.g., 6 inches tall because that's how they appeared to be when you saw them, and thought that they became 6 feet tall when they crossed the street to speak to you?

    When did you last ponder whether the car you're driving was in fact a car having the characteristics of a car as you understand them to be, or instead something else you can never know (if, indeed, it was anything at all)? When did you last question whether the office building in which you work remained the same building, because it looked one way when you entered it in the morning, when the sun was out, but did not look the same as it did then when you left it at night?

    Chances are you never did anything of the sort.
    Actually, children do such things, according to Piaget's theory of cognitive development. :)
    It covers also issues of perspective, object size, object permanence.

    Object permanence is the understanding that whether an object can be sensed has no effect on whether it continues to exist. This is a fundamental concept studied in the field of developmental psychology, the subfield of psychology that addresses the development of young children's social and mental capacities. There is not yet scientific consensus on when the understanding of object permanence emerges in human development.
    /.../
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_permanence


    I don't say certain philosophers are hypocrites, or even that they're disingenuous when they contend that what we see and interact with every day without question isn't real, or can't be known, but when what we do is so contrary to what we contend, or what we contend is so unrelated to what we do as to make no difference in our lives, I think we have reason to think that we're engaged in affectation.
    Western philosophy has affectation built in as a feature, in the assumption that an argument can somehow "stand on its own", regardless of who is making it; "a fallacious ad hominem" is considered a pleonasm, as if every argument against the person is automatically fallacious.

    And so we have a whole philosophical culture of people saying things they don't mean and that aren't meant to be taken seriously, at least not by everyone.
  • When Does Philosophy Become Affectation?
    Does the world have any kind of coherence at all without us providing a point of view and the language to 'demonstrate' the relationships we see?Tom Storm
    How could we possibly know?
  • Convince Me of Moral Realism
    What do you mean here by "responsibility"?
    — baker

    Responsibility for what you say and do; to answer for it, to make it intelligible, clarify, qualify, be read by it, judged by it, held to it, make excuses for it, etc. That words not only do not stand outside of the circumstances in which they are spoken, but that an expression is an event that has an afterwards, to which you are tied.
    Antony Nickles

    Responsible to whom? Answer to whom? To make it intelligible, clarify, qualify, be read to/by whom? Judged by whom?
  • What characterizes the mindset associated with honesty?
    If that’s your vibe /.../AmadeusD
    I'm high functioning on the spectrum.Vaskane
  • What characterizes the mindset associated with honesty?
    People also like 'standing up to the man' etc.. and these misguided emotions often land people in prison.AmadeusD

    So what are you really saying? Might makes right?
  • Convince Me of Moral Realism
    /.../Those are facts of our human condition, but outside the realism/anti-realism distinction, which is just the desire to avoid our responsibility for our acts by making it about just doing what is right, what we “ought” to—made certain (apart from me) by “facts”.Antony Nickles

    What do you mean here by "responsibility"?
    Legal responsibility?
  • When Does Philosophy Become Affectation?
    I'm not sure if "on trust" is entirely accurate. I think it would be more a case of making a judgment based on the weight of the evidence, which may be indirect. What's the probability that everyone without the problem would lie to us, or be mistaken?Ciceronianus
    It's not about others lying or being mistaken.
    My personal example here is that I have a non-dioptric vision problem because of which I can't see some optical illusions, among other things. I remember back in school when other students and the physics textbook were talking about those optical illusions, and I just didn't see them. It's a peculiar situation: other people visibly express emotion over something, are excited, and I don't even see what they're talking about. It was an alienating experience, that's why I remembered it. How does one make sense of this feeling of alienation?
  • Is nirvana or moksha even a worthwhile goal ?
    The problem has more to do with how it's projected or sold as a goal to everyone, which included myself. I firmly believe it's incredibly unhelpful and even harmful to become a Buddhist for the purpose of attaining nirvana. It's akin to studying maths to win the fields medal or solve one of the 7 millennium problems. I can almost guarantee disappointment to anyone who does this.
    — Sirius

    It's 'projected and sold' to those who want to it to be, of which there are many.
    Wayfarer

    It's often 'projected and sold' in a decontextualized manner, especially socio-economically decontextualized. Eastern religions are often being presented here in the West as something one can and should do on one's own, alone, in the midst of a socio-economic environment in which those Eastern religions are alien, while the Western socio-economic environment is actually often even hostile to those religions.

    So it's not merely the seeker's own fault, his greediness, his "spiritual materialism" or "spiritual consumerism".

    Many Western people interested in Eastern religions are trying to do something (such as "attain moksha") for which they have no socio-economic basis, and they aren't even aware of this lack.

    Older, more experienced "seekers" owe the newcomers the courtesy to make them aware of that, so that they wouldn't waste time.
  • Is nirvana or moksha even a worthwhile goal ?
    If you want me to be completely honest. I have felt and do feel the diminishing returns thanks to my depression.Sirius
    That's not the recognition of diminishing returns I'm talking about. I'm talking about someone who works hard in order to be able to afford the proverbial eating, drinking, and making merry, and who realizes that the eating, drinking, and making merry don't compensate for the hard work needed in order to be able to afford the eating, drinking, and making merry. I'm talking about people who, for example, one day realize that they need to work for an entire day in order to earn the money to be able to go to the cinema, and that the pleasure of watching the film doesn't outweigh the hardship needed to earn the money to be able to go see the film.

    I know what is it like for nothing to satisfy you, not even an hour long meditation session, medication, a dedicated study of the religious scriptures of all major world religions does the job for me

    Why am l bitter ? Cause the medicine l was given didn't cure me of my illness.
    Who gave you that medicine?

    In the Hindu system, for example, you'd need to be some 75 years old, having accomplished everything a person is supposed to accomplish in this world in terms of raising a family and building a business, and only then could you even begin thinking about "moksha".
    In the Buddhist system, you're supposed to either ordain as a monastic, or live as a productive lay person. And it's only as a monastic that one might think about pursuing nirvana. Everyone else is supposed to be busy earning money in as ethical a way as possible.
  • A Case for Moral Anti-realism
    I think perhaps, I would say, the correct sentence structure (in this particular context) for a realist then, would be "I think xyz about, what I think, is London".

    But i do think the force of habit is strong enough to explain why realists talk in those absolutes anyway.
    AmadeusD

    No, the force of habit might make them say "I think", but the absolutism is central to them.

    "I think xyz about, what I think, is London" is unintelligible to a realist.
  • A Case for Moral Anti-realism
    Because at the end of the day, they do. It's what makes them realists.
  • A Case for Moral Anti-realism
    Questions of morality are about what everyone should choose.Banno
    Only on the assumption that everyone is equal.

    In practice, there are usually multiple standards of morality. E.g. "Members of group A hold it is immoral to kill a member of group A, but not immoral to kill member of group B." "It's wrong to lie, except to outsiders."
  • A Case for Moral Anti-realism
    It's subjective in the sense that it's people who are talking about its existence.
    — baker

    I think it goes further. It's subjective in the sense that it is an artificial label upon something that has no conformity to the label other than in the mind of a subject who has accepted the command to apply the label to that plot of land.
    AmadeusD

    But for a realist, this makes no sense. For a realist, statements with "I think ..." or "From my perspective ..." are, at best, expressions of less-than-truth. A realist will not utter them (other than, perhaps, merely by force of habit).
  • How to define stupidity?
    And this is the kind of attitude that gets trumpism elected. Ser.
  • A Case for Moral Anti-realism
    So what is there that is the opposite of "subjective", if we take this as a definition? What could be objective? Because there is nothing we could list here that is not by the very fact that we list it being talked about by people. And that would make everything subjective.

    Can you give a better explanation of the distinction between subjective and objective?
    Banno
    I used the term "subjective" earlier in that particular context. Like I said:
    Objectivists and moral realists talk as if it's not they, persons, who talk, but that when they open their mouths, The Absolute, Objective Truth comes out.

    There are people to whom sentences like this make perfect sense:
    "It's important to make good decisions; this is to say, not to decide merely in favor of that which is subjective, to one's liking, but to decide in line with what is true, what is objective."

    Like, IIRC, you said, people tend to think (and wrongly so) that the line between subjective and objective is sharp and easy to demarcate.

    I'm not a fan of the terms "subjective" and "objective". I think they are for the most part used for purposes of judging people, and for dismissing some people.
    Some pairs come to mind:
    good -- bad
    righteous --sinful
    objective -- subjective
    informed -- uninformed
    etc.
    Depending on one's ideology, one uses the latter word in the pair for dismissing others. When a religious person wants to dismiss someone, they do so by calling the other person "sinful". When a scientist wants to dismiss someone, they do so by calling the other person "subjective". Etc.
  • When Does Philosophy Become Affectation?
    What can be more natural to us than how we live, how we actually interact with the rest of the world?Ciceronianus
    Cunning.
    Man is cunning.

    And I refer here to the double meaning of the word "cunning", which in the beginning didn't have the negative connotation it tends to have nowadays.
  • When Does Philosophy Become Affectation?
    With a bit of help, we can see UV.Banno

    With a lot of interpretation.
  • When Does Philosophy Become Affectation?
    People who have significant eyesight problems generally know this is the case. Someone nearsighted will come to understand that what appears blurry to them at a distance won't appear blurry when closer to them, and as they live in an environment with others with no such problems, will come to know that they have a problem others don't have. Someone blind will come to know others are not. I think it's unlikely that the nearsighted and the blind will conclude that all are nearsighted and all are blind.Ciceronianus

    Speaking of vision problems: There are vision problems that are impossible to correct or compensate for with various devices. Such as color blindness, or certain depth vision problems (because of which the person cannot "see" some optical illusions). Unlike a person with dioptric problems, such a person never has the chance to experience what it would be like to see "normally". Instead, they have to take on trust that there is something wrong with their vision, and they need to compensate deliberately, both cognitively and behaviorally, in order to function in a world designed by people who mostly don't have such vision problems.

    The salient point here is that sometimes we have to take it on trust that there is or might be something wrong with us, or that we have a blindness of some kind, even though we can at best recognize this blindness only indirectly. This having to take things on trust is a significant vulnerability.
  • When Does Philosophy Become Affectation?
    course, people will generally make concessions of weakness, fault, or deficit when it comes to small or trivial things.
    But they are unlikely to believe (much less openly admit) they might be blind in some way that matters.
    — baker

    I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people admit they can't smell an intruder like a dog.
    Hanover

    Not having senses as acute as those of some animals or technological devices is common to all humans, so nothing special. There's no threat to one's ego to admit to such deficits.

    But who would even consider that they might not know the truth about God, or about some moral issue? Even people who style themselves as "seekers" are actually still completely sure about everything.
  • When Does Philosophy Become Affectation?
    We see in most cases exactly what we should see, being human. If that's the case, why is it that what we see isn't really what's there?

    When we say we can't know what the world really or actually, I think we make certain assumptions, the primary of which is the assumption that there is something that is real behind what we experience which can't be determined. Something hidden from us because of our nature. It's a kind of religious view, perhaps.
    Ciceronianus

    Of course it's a religious/spiritual view. Religions/spiritualities start from the premise that _ordinary_ people don't see things "as they reallly are". (To which the religions/spiritualities then offer their solution: "Follow our religion/spirituality and then you will see things as they really are, and then you will be happy/content/self-actualized/self-realized.")
  • Convince Me of Moral Realism
    Decide for yourself.Wayfarer

    The whole point of objectivism or realism is to go beyond decision-making altogether.
  • When Does Philosophy Become Affectation?
    @Hanover
    Of course, people will generally make concessions of weakness, fault, or deficit when it comes to small or trivial things.
    But they are unlikely to believe (much less openly admit) they might be blind in some way that matters.
  • A Case for Moral Anti-realism
    If you accept moral realism, it's not because of any argument. It's just built in to your assumptions about the world. There is no good argument for moral realism. That there are moral truths does not show moral realism.frank

    In fact, "having reasons of justifications for accepting moral realism" would undermine the whole project.

    But I think it's possible to pose as a moral realist. Perhaps most people who appear to be moral realists are in fact posing as such.
  • A Case for Moral Anti-realism
    "London" is a subjective term?Banno

    It's subjective in the sense that it's people who are talking about its existence.

    Objectivists and moral realists talk as if it's not they, persons, who talk, but that when they open their mouths, The Absolute, Objective Truth comes out.
  • A Case for Moral Anti-realism
    You have a gut feeling that moral realism is false.Michael
    No. My gut feeling is that there might be a misnaming going on.
    I suspect that some people merely pose as moral realists because it is often advantageous to do so.

    Neither has empirical or self-evident rational justification.
    I'm not sure about this. I revise my earlier statement that it's my gut feeling against theirs. I actually allow for the possibility that they might have a knowledge I don't have.

    There is an objective, mind-independent, inaccessible fact-of-the-matter.
    How do you know this?
  • A Case for Moral Anti-realism
    @Michael
    It's my gut feeling against theirs.
  • A Case for Moral Anti-realism
    But it patently is not a state of affairs, and at very, very best, a description of one. What state of affairs outside of the mind indicates that command is universal? As far as i know, realists don't make absolute claims to a state of affairs, by noting a perception.AmadeusD

    For realists, "perspective" only exists to mean 'not knowing the truth, but merely having a perspective'.
    If realists would acknowledge perspectivism as valid, they would cease being realists.
  • A Case for Moral Anti-realism
    Possibly.

    Do you claim that it is unreasonable to claim to know that something is false because their “gut feeling” tells them so?
    Michael
    Yes. Because guts aren't reasonable.

    Moral realism is actually metaethical authoritarianism/egoism.

    Issues of morality are inevitably about how people treat eachother. If one person says, "This is the truth and all else is wrong" and then punishes everyone who thinks otherwise, then that's simply authoritarianism.
  • When Does Philosophy Become Affectation?
    I think it's unlikely that we are not blind in some regard we don't know about.Hanover

    It seems unlikely that many people believe this.
  • A Case for Moral Anti-realism
    People can belive falsehoods?Michael

    How does a moral realist know something is false? Because their "gut feeling" tells them so?
  • A Case for Moral Anti-realism
    @Michael
    How do moral realists resolve descriptive moral relativism?
    How do moral realists explain that different people have different ideas about what is right or wrong?
    How do moral realists explain that some people believe that murder is wrong, but some other people believe that murder is not wrong?
  • How to define stupidity?
    @180 Proof You people already elected him once. Do you think the rest of the world (and perhaps even some Americans) have forgotten this? Do you think you can just move on from that, as if it never happened? No, it will take a lot to (re)gain trust after that first election. You'll have to prove that electing him the first time around was some perverse cosmic glitch, unique, and not an expression of what America really is.
  • A Case for Moral Anti-realism
    And why can’t it be that one such state of affairs is that we ought not harm another?Michael
    It is one state of affairs among many. Now what?
  • Does Religion Perpetuate and Promote a Regressive Worldview?
    The thing is that you're not distinguishing between my words and your interpretation of my words. You're conflating the two.
  • Does Religion Perpetuate and Promote a Regressive Worldview?
    *sigh*

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-message


    Can you formulate what you want to say in the form

    "When Baker says [insert what you're referring to], I [Tom Storm] feel ____ / think ____ ."