unenlightened gets thanked by name and he’s not even a moderator whereas jamalrob, Baden, and above all I get passed over as if we don’t matter. :groan: — Michael

I just wanted to say thank you to the moderator team, everyone included, — Wallows

What does that say about a cynic's mental health? — TheMadFool

The Cynic is rational in her own way. She has reasons. Virtue above all else.

What do you think about my previous post?

One thing that I should amend in regards to the OP, is that the Cynic doesn't do his or her "own thing" with a sense of non-conforming manner of rebelliousness or such. It's for the sake of virtue. This fact gets neglected by the masses and has led to the above mentioned negative connotations.

Do you know what? Based on that response, I don't think that this is going to be a constructive exchange. I think maybe I'll just leave you and your ingrained preconceptions be. — S

I think it is universally accepted that drugs that are habit-forming are bad stuff. Let's call a spade a spade, not a gardening tool?

Apart from getting and more importantly maintaining a job, I look forward to taking my mom on a trip to Catalina Islands on a cruise ship. Something affordable and fun.

We haven't had a vacation for something like 15 years. I think it's high time to enjoy some festivities at the sea.

Some drugs are more addictive than others — S

So, you agree that heroin, methamphetamine, and cocaine have no use to people due to their addictive nature? One doesn't just walk into Mordor unnoticed. It's hell to use those drugs even once.

Really cutting loose from the demands and commands of society may be a pretty dangerous thing. — Bitter Crank

We, Westerners, have the luxury to conform "society" in many cases to our wants. One can live in an ashram, or next to some pond near Walden without undue burden from what "The Man" wants.

If society withdraws its approval and tolerance from non-conformers, life can become wretched, or one might be terminated. — Bitter Crank

Yes, well we can catastrophize about circumstances changing; but, fortunately, we aren't talking about living in some loony bin like Waco, Texas. Of course, a lot of fringe people do decide to live on their own due to resentment from society. Think the Unibomber. But, I don't think that most people who decide to live on a farm away from people are in any way like that. Fortunately, not. Specifically talking about the Cynic here.

How many people are deliberate nonconformists, and how many are people who have decided to call their unhappy fate the result of their personal rebellion? — Bitter Crank

Is it really rebellion? Perhaps it's a rebellion from the insane society we live in? When is one justified in living away from people? I often think that you have to have a limited or very understanding family to resort to moving away from society and abandoning one's home or reinterpreting it in such a way.

I've always thought of myself as something of a non-conformist. In fact, in many cases I just didn't fit in (and didn't know how to fit) so declaring nonconformity provided me cover. — Bitter Crank

Cover from what? The pangs on one's collective conscious?

I'm in favour of self-restraint and intervention when the situation calls for it. — S

But, how? Drugs are addictive? How do you moderate their use on an individual level?

What's wrong with my original wording? — S

So, in my own words, you're the whole premise is that it's immoral to prevent one from being able to indulge in any drug because it's limiting one's freedom?

What don't you understand about it? I don't think I was saying anything particularly hard to grasp. — S

I'm a little slow. What was your point again?

@Banno

This paper delves into the meter-rule. Let me know if you find it of any use.

Are you a philosophy grad student? Sorry, I had to ask due to my inferiority complex on this forum of not being a formally trained philosopher but an auto-didactic.

Hey, @Snakes Alive, @Pierre-Normand, @andrewk, and @Banno

I found an enlightening text specifically in regards to Kripke's NN and the de re/de dicto distinction. Let me know what you guys think about it. It's a brief and very good text.

Here you go.

Yes, finding out the hard way, but that doesn't have to be the end of the world. You can learn a lesson and adjust appropriately going forward. It doesn't have to be rehab, addiction, or an alarming change in behaviour. That's just resorting to more extreme circumstances in an attempt to bolster your argument. — S

So, I have no idea what is your point here. I want to have my cake and eat it too? Usually, I don't know people addicted to drugs that can moderate their use over long periods of time. You have extraneous factors contributing to one's demise, like stress from a job that exacerbates drug use, or tolerance, or responsibilities conflicting with one's drug use.

Maybe in a perfect world, you get to have your cake and eat it too; but, I don't see this happening unless you're fabulously rich or some other factors.

I think that's true in most cases, but pragmatism isn't necessarily a virtue. We do all sorts of things that have no utility. An ethic of pragmatism sounds pretty dull. — Hanover

Yeah, but it's a realistic way to address the issue. Talking about what Kant would have wanted to Jeremy Bentham's satisfied pig doesn't lead us anywhere in the discussion, and we might as well talk with a wall or a book.

There are many who live their lives taking various recreational drugs throughout their lives (not me, by the way) and live happy lives. — Hanover

Yeah; but, if you asked the few of them that don't feel addicted to them if they could live their lives without the drugs, then they'd probably say yes, also. So, save the money!

I know when I've done too much. — S

Usually, you find that fact out the hard way, with habit-forming drugs. Or your closest friend tells you to need to sign up for rehab over your benzodiazepine habit. If you're lucky, your family will notice a change in behavior and they might chime in also.

It's an individuals choice how many times - 0,1,100. — Drek

OK, but we live in a world where we usually have some responsibilities and duties to perform, like work or education. Habit forming drugs, even cannabis to take your example of talking about pot, has been shown to lead to poor academic performance. Don't take my word for it, just look at some statistics. I'd be fine with smoking pot, after your 25, due to the sensitivity of the developing brain. I'd be fine with taking LSD once a year to recollect on how it went by in a different mindset. I guess, what I'm getting at is moderation is key here. And, in regards to non-habit forming drugs, then that's fine. Stuff that I mentioned, like heroin, meth, or cocaine, are habit-forming drugs, and ought to be left out of the discussion. At least, I have no idea, what use they have, either spiritual or practical.

I don't agree that they can't be be taken more than once. — S

Fine, then. How much is enough? Once, twice, a hundred times? I think, that once you get the message to put the phone down, as they used to say back in the 60's.

I disagree. — S

So, on what grounds do you disagree? That satisfying an urge (again what's the urge all about here?) to take a drug isn't morally impermissible? I already stated that some drugs can be tried once, especially psychedelics, which are non-habit forming. Though, I would urge someone to try and do it in controlled settings, always. Although... I've read of horror stories about some people becoming paranoid for prolonged periods of time due to them, so again "controlled-settings".

You seem to disagree for sake of disagreement (hurray freedom!). If that's so, then I don't have much to add to what I already said.

I don't get what you're trying to say here. Is it that you disagree or agree? You've indicated both as far as I'm aware. And nobody is a nutjob for making mistakes. And drug taking is a mistake that can be forgiven if done once; but, not more than that.

I thank Wallows for toughing it out in a tough world. — Nils Loc

Wallows just rolls around in his shit all day long, and sometimes thinks he can post something philosophical. It's a simple and good life, as the Cynic would tell you.

That's the pinnacle of his joyous life. I digress now.

The problem is that you don't articulate a specific principle here that determines morality from immorality. — Hanover

I don't think that's what I'm trying to imply here. My point exactly, if you care, is showing that drug taking isn't pragmatic if you want a framework to work with. If cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin have no utility in the long run, and that money can be saved to going to the movies, where you can save the experience in your mind, then that's the better alternative in my book.

My own (past) drug habits, were the source for me talking about medical benefits here. I have ADHD and used to self-medicate with various stimulants. In the long run, they were detrimental to my health and welfare. So, if you need a drug, then go through the proper channels to obtain them for your needs. I really don't think drug taking is only about satisfying a curious urge. I tend to think they are mostly derived from some psychological issue.

Yes, and for that same reason, let's ban skiing, sailing, abseiling, skydiving, rock climbing, scuba diving, racing, rugby, bowling, reading, sewing, playing video games, going to the cinema, discussing philosophy... — S

This isn't even comparable. Doing heroin, meth, cocaine, and other drugs doesn't even fall in the same category as "skiing, sailing, abseiling, skydiving, rock climbing, scuba diving, racing, rugby, bowling, reading, sewing, playing video games, going to the cinema, discussing philosophy..."

That it's a popular opinion doesn't mean that it's anything more than that. I'm entirely on board with those who would urge extreme caution with those kind of drugs because of that risk. But that's all it is: a risk. Not a prophecy, guarantee, or foregone conclusion. — S

But, what's the point, again? To fill a hole in one's soul? To escape from reality for a brief while? Again, it's a psychological and sociological issue here.

You're confusing your own opinion for something more than that. You are not sufficiently equipped to determine that no one can get anything good out of it. You would have to know details about the lives and circumstances of so many people in so many situations that it's just not possible. — S

What medical application does snorting cocaine or doing meth have? None. So, let it be prohibited is what I think is the best option.

It's an example of loaded language. — S

It's loaded for good reason, though.

In your opinion. — S

I think, there is a consensus among people, and even users themselves, that smoking crack, doing meth or doing heroin does one no amount of good.

The harder stuff is more risky. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's worse. Is skiing more iffy than bowling? The former is more adventurous, the experience more exhilarating. These things are about what risks you're willing to take for recreational purposes. — S

No, I don't think it's a matter of preference if that's something you're trying to imply. There's nothing good in doing any of the substances I mentioned in the above. Not even once.

Resort? — S

Well, yeah, "resort". What else do you think I mean or ought to say?

There it is again. Resort? — S

I don't know, there really isn't anything meaningful about taking meth or indulging in crack. Please keep in mind that I live in California, where weed has only recently been legalized, so I'm pretty open-minded with regards to smoking weed. I don't smoke it because I value what my psyche has to tell me at night when I dream, and weed interferes with that. I also get weed anxiety, so the high from THC is unpleasant for me. I'm all for CBD though.

The harder stuff is iffy in my book.

Maybe a lot of drug takers lack a meaningful life, but it only reveals your prejudice to ponder that question specifically of drug takers. — S

What prejudice? I merely am asking what is the reason one has to resort to XYZ to have a fun time?

Are you talking about the domain of individuals? — Snakes Alive

I guess so. What is it?

The issue you're talking about is that the Barcan formula's validity makes it impossible that worlds accessible from a world have 'larger' domains than the world from which they're accessed: in other words, domains don't 'grow' across accessibility relations. This is fine, however, not because of commitments to modal actualism, but because to think that distinct worlds are associated with distinct domains in the first place is a mistake. — Snakes Alive

So, when we talk about possible worlds, and specifically make stipulations about counterfactuals, then we are restricted to the domain of the actual world? Does that make sense?

One can make a logic this way, but it is probably a bad idea. There is just one domain of individuals, and it is not anchored to worlds to begin with. — Snakes Alive

What do you mean?

The validity of the Barcan formulae follows independently from ordinary, independently plausible semantics for the universal quantifier and the box. If one objects to it, one had better have a pretty good reason, and I'm not aware of one. — Snakes Alive

I believe the point I'm trying to make is the following and bears some semblance to the Barcan Formula in restricting the domain of truth-aptness to the actual world (note that the range can span to an infinite amount of counterfactuals, whilst the domain can be restricted to the actual world):

I can stipulate a possible world where an event might have happened otherwise; but, the framing condition for doing so, to sound technical, will always be restricted to the world where the stipulation was made with respect to that event or state of affairs. A roundabout way of positing counterfactuals.

What's your take on the Barcan Formula?

Accessibility relations hold among a set of worlds – it doesn't matter which one is actual, and the standard modal logic does not even mark an actual world. — Snakes Alive

This depends on whether you are an actualist or possibilist for QML.

he whole point of the modal logic is that any arbitrary formula can be evaluated fro truth or falsity relative to any world. And once you have a semantics for counterfactuals, you can plug this into your modal logic. — Snakes Alive

Again, I am professing an actualist interpretation of QML. If you assume my position then Counterfactuals can only be truth apt relative to our world. This is an assumption that I understand applies to both actualist and possibilist interpretations.

I don't see how it was not boiled down from the beginning. The analogy wasn't meant to be hard to make between the two ideas of the Buddhist/adversity potential person/adversity. — schopenhauer1

Forgive my slowness. At least I finally got the point.

Not really, the story was to illustrate the point. The point has always been, there is no need to create adversity for someone else when that person did not need to experience adversity in the first place. — schopenhauer1

We don't know that. That's a presumption. If that is how you feel about it, then so be it.

If by entity you mean the person who is forcing the Buddhist into adversity, and by life you mean the people who are procreating the potential person into existence, then yes. — schopenhauer1

So, I see we boiled down the issue.

Then isn't that a straw-man or a simple overgeneralization to state things that way?

No you're still not getting it. The Buddhist is like the non-existent/potential child. There was no need for it to be forced into experiencing adversity when they didn't need to. — schopenhauer1

So, life is the person or entity telling the person that they need to experience life "in reality"?

That person who forced the Buddhist into adversity was not doing the right thing. — schopenhauer1

So, you're creating a straw-man out of the Buddhist in that they are leading their life the way they are due to adversity?

I am not claiming anything about how existence should be, other than that. — schopenhauer1

Well, that is a lie, based on your OP. Life consists fundamentally of adversity. And, you have demonstrated with the Buddhist analogy that you don't think he or she is justified in living without any adversity.