Absolutely. And though the conflict is actually between frameworks, it might be waged as a contest between facts. — Srap Tasmaner

I don't think a 'framework' is the appropriate way to specify this. It seems much more to do with models, rather, no?

What work does "I know" do? — Ennui Elucidator

A very vague one, until specified.

As Wittgenstein might put it, it would seem queer to doubt someone is in pain based on ostensive displays of behavior indicating them being in pain.

But, yes I don't think it would be possible to doubt yourself that you are in pain. It's rather bedrock at this point.

However, we can justify to ourselves and others that someone else is in pain, i.e., by observing their pain behavior, so there is an important difference. — Sam26

Why the talk about 'justification' when this fact of being in pain can be discerned from behavior?

I don't see how a 'pain' can be justified. A pain is experienced...

the set containing the attributes of a good life — darthbarracuda

What are those?

the set containing the attributes of a bad life — darthbarracuda

And what are those?

But regardless, your objection fails to refute point 5. — darthbarracuda

Point 5 demands a necessary conclusion to allow it to hold true, which has not been specified. However, the fact that some people with 'bad lives' turn out to have children with good lives disproves this necessary premise.

The hypothesis of what constitutes a good life from a bad one is too vague to evaluate or determine for the rest to follow.

Modally, no...

:ok:

Coherentism alone is circular, mostly formal without necessarily corresponding to empirical facts (i.e. the world). — 180 Proof

Kind of a caricature of what I described. Point being those accessibility relations...

Kripke comes to mind wrt. accessibility relations...

The model towards which that kind of philosophical practice aspires might be considered in terms of phronesis, practical wisdom. In Buddhist philosophy, there’s a term ‘yathābhūtaṃ’ which means ‘seeing truly’ or ‘seeing how things truly are’. In Greek philosophy that was exemplified by the sage, ‘ The Sage was the living embodiment of wisdom, “the highest activity human beings can engage in . . . which is linked intimately to the excellence and virtue of the soul”. — Wayfarer

Im somewhat weary of pitting the intellect or higher cognitive faculties against the passions as per Buddhism or Zen arts or ignorance and lack of knowledge. I say this as an aspiring Stoic-pragmatist though, so I might come off as a hypocrite.

'Phronesis', nowadays, would be best exemplified by what profession or behavior? Is it really all about, teaching?

Indubitably living longer is a goal anyone would want, eventually available to have as an option. So, I don't quite see why that basic stipulation of Transhumanism is not desired??

Look it's a straw man!

I agree. So, what's wrong with living longer?

And there was me thinking it referred to the Cool-Aid Acid Test. — unenlightened

I don't think you can pass a test on acid...

Funny straw man here. Transhumanism isn't only about hedonism.

Solving death has always concerned me. 70 years of life ain't enough for me.

Full support. David Pearce posted here not that long ago:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/categories/35/david-pearce

Nah, I'm not talking about intersubjectivity or how objective facts are.

As of late it seems to me that the world is the totality of properties at work.

It's a valid question once you read others about how does knowledge become pertinent to the status of fact-hood. Just wondering whether it's the case that only properties of things are facts.

The Stoics propose "a way of life", not just "therapy". — 180 Proof

But, the founders of Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy explicitly attributed ancient Stoicism with their logic to their method of/and therapy.

This seems fascinating in how Stoic logic became a way of therapizing people, no?

As we see in the later Wittgenstein as opposed to the earlier, thinking straddles the saying and seeing distinction. Here he came to see the importance of conceptual seeing, "seeing as". — Fooloso4

Could you elaborate on this last part of "seeing as"? I haven't really read that much about it.

Every human endeavor is enabled-constrained by agency, no? — 180 Proof

Just out of curiosity, what would you say about self-immiseration or optimizing agency in regards to Stoicism?

So, yeah, philosophy is therapeutic since it informs a person on how to deal with reality in the most rational way possible; philosophy, despite being speculative in some respects, ensures that we don't lose touch with reality, something the non compos mentis are awkward at. — TheMadFool

But what about reality needs so much explanation? Arent these thoughts counterproductive to living or achieving satisfaction? I mean, if happiness is what is commonly assumed as most important then, why do we flounder at it so much? Why can't they teach about this in academia?

I can see how philosophy might help us by offering more useful models of considering the world and better ways of managing uncertainty and fear. This could count as therapeutic. — Tom Storm

If wisdom arises from experience over time then are we just concerned with knowledge or at a more fundamental level something akin to satisfaction or even survival? What do you think?

Could be that some philosophy is a self-immersating habit, while some of the rest is a cure for the first. Like bad music and good music, bad food and good food. — Zugzwang

That's kind of a personal preference. How do you evaluate any of that?

How do facts obtain as true?

That question is what I wonder about facts...

'm very much an admiring student of Witty but I don't philosophize as treatment in order to be rid of "the need" to philosophize. — 180 Proof

Let's rephrase the question, then. What's so important about philosophy? When all the questions of philosophy are answered, what's left is psychology, no? Maybe another way of me saying this is to ask, what are you trying to rid yourself of by practicing philosophy?

Why is "unlearning self-immiserating habits" so important?

Sorry, I only speak American.

I don't think Hadot proposes "therapy" ... — 180 Proof

Then, what is proposed in the realm of thought that Wittgenstein said as, philosophy as therapy?

From my readings of Hadot, I came to the conclusion that he advocated an active form of life in accordance to virtue...

"Therapy"? — 180 Proof

Yes, quite so.

Reflectively reason towards (i.e. think) better, more probitive, questions and inquiry. — 180 Proof

This is interesting due to a couple of things I mentioned. In my mind, to 'reflectively reason towards' means a type of comparison of, values or means towards an end. In other words, the need to comparatively think about the need to evaluate or even examine ones relation towards a salience point is quite interesting in my view.

I mentioned in response to Manuel that this endeavor encourages a pragmatic use of evaluative or even a system of logic proposed (therapeutic) use of logic (like Stoicism).

"Who do we ask?" Dead thinkers (i.e. history always is, never was); the living are just too distracted by their own biased — 180 Proof

Yes, well none of them did it therapietically like Hadot.

Nevertheless I think what you ask is impossible without stipulating the often unique situations that make us attracted to one person over another. Therefore what I say about person X or Y being the correct person to listen to is unique to me. As Z or A is unique to you. — Manuel

Initially, given the OP was becoming incoherent, I want to address this situation myself. I think, in my case, I have spent an inordinate amount of time addressing philosophy dialectically on a forum as perhaps you do.

I think of the issue axiologically (a personal meditation over ones values) as well as an even more important question of how one ought to reason reflexively about these relations logically . Some people express this, in my astonishment, with attitudes, like cynicism, or optimism, nihilism, or even pessimism, which are rather illogical... Hmm.

Having thought to myself deeply about the existential logic of one's needs in relation to a world of wants (if one removes needs and wants what else is there??), I aquatinted myself with Stoicism. The recent revival of stoicism has been interesting to read about for many reasons. It encapsulates and gives a practical guide (literally by Epictetus called, the manual "Enchiridion" as to how to perceive our needs and wants). Using Stoic logic one finds a practical use of logic in how to perceive the world of needs and wants to describe ones situation relative to it. Stoics bring up the use of attributes, aversions, and disprefered needs and wants.

From this stipulation of logic, one (with adequate training and time spent studying it) learns to discern impermanent 'wants' from the more important concerns over what one should devote to controlling, be it dispreferred, non-attributes, like 'status' or 'fame' and so on. After one conducts this method of living in accordance with nature, as per Stoic logic, I would tend to think life becomes more enjoyable and if not happiness, then at least equanimity can be attained.

National boundaries are suffocating science.

This is seen with the lack of agreement around the world as to the per ton cost of carbon emissions on the environment (the world vs a nation), and on the flip side with the joyful events happening in the EU as to a collectivist effort to enhance science with such projects as CERN or ITER and a carbon tax.

The downside is that Europe is paying a heavy cost to pay for the technology needed to tackle climate change first, while the US picks off which technologies to adopt for their own situation (that eventually will persuade the US).

China can mass produce as much as it wants but only Europe is truly preparing for a new economy and will likely have significant returns in their investments in the future.

But back to point, consumption with self leads to destruction might be one way to say what it says. That's a most general statement at least. — Hanover

I'm puzzled to think that this is true, regardless as to whether this was once thought as true.

Why would you think that, that is true? Is that a hallmark of narcissism?

Actually it takes place with respect to thought...

Self -concern and self-love, writ large, would be envied by those with equal self-concern, but without self-love. — unenlightened

Is this a feature of Narcissus? That he possessed self-love? Does it translate to a positive of narcissism, rather than a negative?

Narcissus?

That was a nice read. It strikes me as odd that psychologists would designate the etymology of narcissism to Narcissus.

What do you think?

I believe that this is a much more complex phenomenon than what can be stated on a forum. You might like the link above.

I believe that Narcissus wasn't necessarily insecure. I mean, who isn't insecure nowadays? My understanding is that Narcissus was simply expressing self-love to a greater extent than route aggrandizement or excessive self-esteem. What do you think?