In an empty way it probably appears that way to some. Kind of reminds me about how I show students they don’t really know how to read. They just ‘read words’ and think ‘now I know that,’ but usually they can barely explain/repeat anything they’ve just read. — I like sushi

That's one way of putting it. It seems to me that education is more related to what I say than anticipated. I guess an example could be how associative memory arises for people. It's not something that can be taught, and is rife with all this gibberish about the how the world works. As of recent I've taken it very seriously to analyze historical roots of words and neologisms rather than educate by a hard and fast format.

The leap from oral tradition, to writing, to audio/video has surely left an imprint on pedagogical approaches that are almost impossible to reverse. ‘Remembering stuff’ as opposed to ‘understanding stuff’ seems to be how modern education has gone (‘modern’ meaning over the past few centuries). — I like sushi

Plato sure said a lot about this.

As an example, if someone wishes to call a ‘hole’ parasitic I can get onboard with that. The issue remains the dividing line between ‘parasitic’ and ‘non-parasitic’. — I like sushi

That's where psychology takes place, or at least human perception. I just don't understand why anyone apart from a Platonist would state that. It just seems misleading or otherwise not accurate to describe it with regard to such a relation.

I’ve had a long obsession with the various types of antonyms and how people disagree about what is or isn’t a ‘relational pair’ or what is or isn’t a ‘gradable antonym’. What seems to be underlying the discussion is exactly this problem right? — I like sushi

Yes, with this I agree. I don't really think ontological descriptions are really accurate with invoking, what you describe as "relational pairs".

As in ‘interactions’ where humans imbue ‘objects’/‘items’ with characteristics - or rather as extensions of themselves in some way? — I like sushi

Well, I'm not invoking psychological issues with the issue just yet. I'm more concerned with places of gathering like the Library of Alexandria or National Archives, where the knowledge about differing subjects are gathered and collected for the masses. Which means, that there's perhaps more importance in the gathering and historical along with literary facts about a subject than appreciated by most people.

Wikipedia seems like just an extension of one's self for some nowadays, as does Google.

You’ll have to explain this too (bold), and how it relates to the topic.

This might continue, but it’s necessary for me. I’ll add what I can too in order to clarify what is under scrutiny. — I like sushi

What I mean by anthropomorphic understanding is to an extent the realm of intersubjective or subjective thought.

Also, where’s the justification for this approach? I’m suggesting one is required but I’d like to know if you have a reason and whether or not you can parse it. — I like sushi

The justification seemingly is in regards to trying to determine what is of value or accuracy when discussing such things. To give an example, it would likely mean that you would have to research a topic epistemically before discussing it with a peer or another person. The manner in which understanding differs about an issue, would be resolved by adherence to the subject in question by adhering to the epistemic knowledge gathered about it.

It ain't scientific socialism anymore, honey.

I think that I wouldn't say analytic philosophy is over; but, the linguistic turn is, and that might be somewhat confused with or associated with analytic philosophy...

Go fish.

Relations are usually causal and evident. The fact that the moon orbits the Earth is governed by the fact that the laws of physics determine it being so. Not, yet ready to talk about logical space, just yet.

It's pretty straightforward, no?

The fact that Santa exists is a fiction of sorts.

So too, Pegasus.

Do you agree that facts are what we say about a certain property or a certain relation? — magritte

Yes, I think so.

Ah, I think I see. Facts not things? Because Tractatus? — bongo fury

Pretty much. It's all in the OP about what I think is the proper thing to do when confronted with such issues as a non-denoting flaccid designator such as "Santa" or "Pegasus".

Btw I'm confused by your employment of "referent", "denotes" and "denoting fact"... please clarify? — bongo fury

I'm not sure I'll be of help here, as my use of "literary fact" or "historical factoid" might be interchangeable with "denoting" or "denoting fact".

So, to avoid contradiction, you will refrain from denying that 'Pegasus' refers? — bongo fury

Some information about Pegasus refers to literary factoids about "Pegasus", no? So, if something needs to be referred to, then we can phrase it as, the fact that Pegasus has "X" according to "Y" literary or historical fact, yes?

The issue is more to do with setting the grammar of existential statements out consistently. — Banno

If the only issue is about what the referent denotes, then stating the denoting fact about Pegasus seems elucidating, no?

It's rather simple as I understand it.

Quantification over domains of categories isn't hard to do for mythological creatures like Pegasus.

So, talking about historical or literary facts about Pegasus, isn't as misleading as stating that Pegasus both exists and doesn't.

Pegasus is a mythical creature, hence pegasus exists as a mythical creature. But of course pegasus is not real, so Pegasus does not exist, too. — Banno

My point is that stating the fact that Pegasus exists already reduces the issue to stating it as a mythical issue. Hence no need for stating that it does or does not exist.

If we truly feared death, then we would all be focused on figuring out how to stop it from happening. — darthbarracuda

And, indeed we truly fear it. Look at the effects of the industrial revolution on increasing the human lifespan in Western democracies.

Towards these immaterial beings, does the fact obtain by precising it if and only if it is described as a historical account of its (to sound like Kripke) baptism?

@Banno, what do you think?

Calling a "hole" an ontologically parasitic entity seems quite Platonist. Whatever works though.

I contend that this is an epistemological issue since breaching ontological commitment beyond anthropomorphism is rife with nonsense and gibberish.

The nick though explains it. I still think binge eating cheese is a good way to get out of depression.

Tractatus-Logico-Philosophicus
Enchiridion
Meditations
Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy

Seems to me that pragmatism rests on extensional results rather than intensional results; is your point that pragmatism denies the intensional? — Banno

Somewhat, I'm not sure how else to specify this as. Pierce might have argued in favor of this, with James, otherwise.

On a side note, I'm puzzled by your use of "intensional" in the title - intensional as opposed to extensional; not intentional as opposed to accidental. Seems to me that pragmatism rests on extensional results rather than intensional results; is your point that pragmatism denies the intensional? — Banno

I don't know if you know Ramsey sentences well; but, he does make an important distinction between these things you mention.

I got the article here:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/05/04/the-man-who-thought-too-fast

Pragmatism says the meaning of a sentence is to be defined by reference to the actions to which asserting it would lead, or its possible causes and effects. Wittgenstein says that to understand language we ought forget about meaning and look at what is being done in our actual use of words. It's a subtle, but profound, difference — Banno

The difference, as I see it, is abound with the charges of psychologism of the latter Wittgenstein, whereas in another thread I raised the point that the norms of everyday life or the behavior of an individual accounts for the results of the use of words. This difference, as you point out, is a point in question for me.

Pragmatists generally reject the notion of truth outright and talk in terms of improved utility over time asymptotically approaching something that they deny exists. — Banno

Is this just a trend in behavior or again a established norm?

On a side note, I'm puzzled by your use of "intensional" in the title - intensional as opposed to extensional; not intentional as opposed to accidental. Seems to me that pragmatism rests on extensional results rather than intensional results; is your point that pragmatism denies the intensional? — Banno

I fixed it. It's now "intentional".

@Banno, what do you think?

Bruh, the calm is real.

Circumvented? As in prevented entirely or otherwise postponed for hundreds of years? Peace and civility. Purpose and prosperity. The more you look around the world and at raw human nature and conflict you get kind of a "gazing into the abyss" effect imo. All the corruption, greed, strife, envy, rage, indifference, and violence, compounded by the fact many people will simply scoff at any such scrutiny and say "that's life pal" or "that's just human nature", really makes you hope for something greater. — Outlander

It seems to me that things aren't as bloody and hellish as say perhaps 1500 years ago in the world.

I think times are at an all time low of violence and bloodshed.

Circumvented in the manner that to stave off death for as long as possible.

Also, supposing that one needs a specific motivation is kind of putting the cart before the horse, and indicates a mentality where, in that metaphor I used in my last post, the pipe drains rather than fills, so you need to find something to keep filling yourself up with. If we can instead let everyone have a pipe that fills them to overflowing, it's not a question of needing something to motivate you, because your motivation comes from inside: it's just a question of where you're going to pour your overflowing positivity, and anything at hand will do. — Pfhorrest

I was pondering over this and found a very apt description for what you describe on Wikipedia called the Hedonic Treadmill.

It seems to me that for the majority of people experience a deficit in happiness in that it cannot be granted easily or without any issues with regards to economics. Yet, it's my personal belief that throughout time, economics is finding a way to make happiness less scarce at affordable levels.

What do you think about the Hedonic treadmill?

I'd like to say briefly, that the recent economic situation of the world has been about economizing happiness to a great extent.

With that in mind, there's a nuance to note about who benefits from this situation the most, meaning the rich and powerful. It seems to me that money can indeed provide for happiness if not realize it in the extension of one's life-span.

May I ask for your opinion, @David Pearce?

You must have missed in the post you replied to where I explicitly dismiss cryogenics. — 180 Proof

Yes, well that's the best I found on the internet. It is mostly according to their statement "vitrification".

I'm unsure if I understand you again, but I didn't mean to suggest that living longer will automatically make anyone happier (though relieving death anxiety is something that could make people suffering from it happier). Making people happy just to be alive is a separate thing from enabling them to continue to be alive. — Pfhorrest

I'm not sure. I think I'm brining into focus the issue of knowledge of living longer, going to college at 40 or resuming a job at 60... These are the unknowns I'm trying to grapple with in regards to how life would look like for some person with a 200 year life-span...

Also, supposing that one needs a specific motivation is kind of putting the cart before the horse, and indicates a mentality where, in that metaphor I used in my last post, the pipe drains rather than fills, so you need to find something to keep filling yourself up with. If we can instead let everyone have a pipe that fills them to overflowing, it's not a question of needing something to motivate you, because your motivation comes from inside: it's just a question of where you're going to pour your overflowing positivity, and anything at hand will do.

Learn things just for the sake of learning them. Accomplish things just for the sake of accomplishing them. Teach others for the sake of teaching, and help them accomplish their goals too, just for the sake of helping. Reach out to harness all the resources and information of the universe, and then spread them far and wide to everyone else too. That project is probably infinite, but even if it's not, then you can just rest contented at having finally "won at the universe", and look back happily on all that you've learned and achieved, contented forever after. — Pfhorrest

All true, but that's just hard to find an occupation that would be inherently rewarding, apart from perhaps book reading, education, and work, which are paramount to life, no?

I'm not sure I understand you correctly, but the point is very much to enhance life, yes. To make life feel worth living, and to enable people to continue living it. — Pfhorrest

I'm hesitant to say that living longer isn't going to automatically make you feel happy; but, rather that long term plans of living that do not incur death are going to be hard to determine whether one wants to pursue new things.

Death anxiety is quite a strong motivator, but, once you eliminate it, what do you think would be the new prevailing motivator to pursue in life?

https://www.alcor.org/

Do you think there's a duty to reduce deaths in the world due to aging or does this entirely rest with the individual?

Whaddaya mean? The Malthusian Trap — TheMadFool

Sorry, I just don't believe in the Malthusian Trap.

I think the issue is perplex. In some manner antinatalism doesn't need convincing, as much as living longer also doesn't need convincing, and yet as you say the natalists inherent the Earth.

What do you think about the relationship about evaluating life itself for the antainatalist and transhumanist?

Is the human ego so intent on continuing indefinitely? — Jack Cummins

That's an interesting question. Is meaning important to continue living a wholesome life, I think, yes.

I’m personally hesitant to be an early adopter of any new technology, and especially hesitant about invasive medical interventions, but if the time comes that it’s either risk a new technology or die, life is worth the risk. I just hope I live long enough to get to make that choice. — Pfhorrest

This sounds very much like a sentimental assertion, or a coin flipping problem. Isn't the issue then to enhance life rather than obey norms about how it happens or proceeds?

However, the connection between transhumanism and natalism isn't quite as straightforward as one might think. Immortality is quite obviously going to lead to a huge space/resource crunch - how many people can the earth sustain (carrying capacity of a habitat). Both antintalists and transhumanists may want to stop procreation but obviously for entirely different reasons. - for one, it's too painful, for the other it's overcrowding. — TheMadFool

I'm not too sure if the Malthusian explosion is really a phenomenon that humanity would experience if overcrowding occurs, whatever that means.

Antibiotics & public health infrastructures since the late 1800s, for instance, have been doing the job (e.g. average life expentancy has at least doubled, IIRC, in less than a century). Sterilized obstetrics, family planning, eugenics, cryogenics, early cancer detection, etc since the middle of last century. The only "problem" is humanity's impatience with how gradual developments are and so far the lack of "radical breakthroughs" for solving "the death problem" once and for all. — 180 Proof

Out of psychological curiosity, do you think this is an unconscious process in the field of medicine, that people want to live longer, yet docilly accept death as an eventuality? I mean, I know that the great transformation of the industrial era resulted in this doubling of lifespan; but, what's inherently driving it forward?