Well, correct. That is the whole point. The child doesn't need to exist to experience adversity, period. It would be wrong to expose someone to adversity, just so they can experience overcoming it. Even if the premise was true that, "overcoming adversity makes one stronger", no one needs to be exposed to adversity in the first place. It is wrong to make someone overcome adversity when they didn't need to. — schopenhauer1

So, does that make me an antinatalist? What if we lived in a world where every problem could be solved at the whim of science? Wouldn't such a life be mundane and boring to the point of not wanting to exist anymore? Isn't the whole premise of evolution about overcoming adversity? What becomes of "life" when we eliminate all adversity? We wouldn't be talking about "life" in the ordinary sense of the term anymore.

The question is if it is right to procreate a new person who will experience adversity. — schopenhauer1

Isn't that a tautology. If life consists in adversity, and no utopia can be achieved, then there really isn't any alternative for the unborn child. Some Spartan societies encouraged adversity and strife, along with Nazi and even communist societies with brutalism and stuff like that. That just goes to show you that some people think that suffering is an inescapable part of life. If due to this, you think that a better future is one where one doesn't exist is the right one, then I can't really persuade you otherwise. It's just it's based on a faulty logic of assuming what's right under circumstances that can't be fundamentally altered, such that life is.

Oh? — Bitter Crank

Do you beg to differ? Ketamine is going to become the new "soma", mark my words. It really is crazy that we prescribe Ritalin or amphetamine salts to kids. I have ADHD, so I would know...

Who are you to judge for someone else what is "adverse" enough for them, psychological or not? — schopenhauer1

We're you the first to commit this error with the Buddhist living happily, and some twisted entity telling them they ought to suffer more?

How do you know to what extent that person would want to experience adversity? — schopenhauer1

Well, I can't really say that they ought not to feel adversity. Without it I think it would be hard to achieve affective states like appreciation, compassion, and empathy. If I could I would like to be a kid again. It was such a happy time in my life.

How do you know there won't be more than small adversity but perhaps the possibility of undo suffering will occur? — schopenhauer1

I don't; but, isn't that just life for you?

If the navel-gazing Buddhist is likened to the potential child that does not need to exist (to be exposed to suffering/adversity) in the first place, then the person who comes along and figures that this navel-gazer needs to overcome adversity is like the parents procreating a new human into existence where they surely will experience adversity, and they will have to overcome it. Then, in Nietzschean fashion will claim that the point of living is to get stronger by overcoming life's challenges. This makes little sense if no one existed to need adversity in the first place. Don't take the analogy too seriously- it is simply to show the illogic of it. — schopenhauer1

I think it's a good analogy; but, based on faulty assumptions, as I've already stated. In general, life is getting easier nowadays. We tend to have more psychological problems nowadays than addressing fundamental needs like water, food, and shelter. So, this is where the Buddhist has all his or her needs met at a whim and can live a peaceful life. Are you thinking of becoming Buddhist? I would like to join an ashram; but, am somewhat unsure if I can just leave my mother. I like living with her. It's a pleasant state of affairs, to have someone that unconditionally loves you.

Yes, I agree it is. That is the whole point of the analogy. — schopenhauer1

So, what's the point with it? That existence consists only of pain and suffering? That's not true, given your fictional Buddhist living peacefully. Perhaps, taking my own interpretation here, that the Buddhist is indicative that we ought to pay more attention to how they lead their own life's if one wants peace and contentment in life.

What do you think?

I do not get what you are asking. — schopenhauer1

I'm not asking anything. I'm merely asserting that it is wrong to say that the blissful and happy Buddhist is unjustified in their simple existence. Demanding that they experience pain and suffering is some kind of twisted logic.

Did you read the whole post? — schopenhauer1

Yes.

The point of it is if someone feels the Buddhist needs to go through adversity, and thus exposes him to a situation of adversity, is this wrong? — schopenhauer1

Yes, it is. You are imposing your of some fictitious entities (twisted and sadistic) will on someone that does the things they do for the very reason you don't want them to do it? Isn't the contradiction apparent enough?

Hmm, depends on what drug we're talking about and to what purpose. Those that create dependency and addiction are rightfully banned and shouldn't be taken. Those that have no medicinal use and promote the aforementioned, would be immoral to take. Drugs that have medicinal use, are being cleared for use for differing purposes, like MDMA for PTSD or Cannabis for psoriasis or Psilocybin for death-anxiety for terminally ill patients.

Anyway, I usually try and take a step back and ask the question, why are people taking these drugs for recreational purposes? Is it because they are curious or lack a meaningful life? Perhaps, the answer is psychological, and thus that needs to be addressed through the proper channels instead of self-inducing psychotic states or bliss. Fortunately, we don't live in a Brave New World, and don't need 'soma' to cope with the mundane and boredom that life may have.

My two pennies.

This person decides that the meditative Buddhist needs to stop navel-gazing and start living a "real" life — schopenhauer1

And here, I disagree. We don't live in fascist or authoritarian governments. The Buddhist is free to do what they choose is best for them. And, since they feel no pain or adversity, then what they're doing is productive for their own good.

I see a lot of musterbation, proceeding from that assumption that what he is doing is wrong and unjustified.

Quine would disagree, but the SEP entry on QML asserts that his criticism holds little weight nowadays.

Formally, there is no problem with it. I have never seen a philosophical criticism that was compelling either. — Snakes Alive

So, bear with my confusion! If we are to quantify over possible worlds then, we can only "measure" (quantify) counterfactuals by an accessibility relation to our own world. Therefore how can we assert something as necessarily true in all possible world's if quantification of modal relations (counterfactuals) is/are restricted to only our world?

I already posted this in a separate topic, but, my confusion hasn't ceased since.

What I found out was that "actualist" interpretations of QML (Quantified Modal Logic) tend to agree with this sentiment.

And, this is where I stumbled on the Barcan Formula, and then from there I started reading about de re and de dicto propositional attitudes. The Barcan Formula seems to support actualist interpretations of QML.

Then what do you think about quantification across possible worlds? Is it nonsensical to do so?

So, expanding on my topic about quantifying counterfactuals. I don't think they can be stated without adherence to a de dicto assertion of their existence dependent on our world. If that is the case, then de re assertions are nonsensical for counterfactuals.

I imagine Kripke would argue that the impossibility of de re counterfactuals only obtains for rigid designators. Of course, one might reasonably speculate that de re statements are a fortiori rigid.

This might help:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/31d4/81ec126c3baef191ea0990832bf81727de87.pdf

Abstract: The problem of counterfactual attitudes de re was identified by Ninan (2008) as a challenge for standard theories of de re. I show that once counterfactual non-de re attitudes are properly analyzed, trivial composition of such an analysis for them with the analysis of doxastic de re provides the solution to the problem. Thus there is no independent phenomenon of counterfactual attitudes de re, and therefore no problem as such.

What does that mean?

I'm not suggesting you start with anything more than quite small efforts. I picture you as being in your house most of the time. A worthwhile goal would be to go outside for a short walk every day. Do you do things of that sort? Do you have a yard in which you could mess around with? Plant some seeds, watch them grow. — Bitter Crank

I'm actually actively planning on growing pot in my mom's garage to pay off the mortgage bills and support my mom further. It is legal and not criminal, as it used to be since legalization took place.

I think it might be a great hobby that brings home the bacon. Other than that my days are filled with wallowing (something I am supremely good at), and posting on this forum.

One is about the report of the thing, the other is about the thing. Sometimes we talk about the report. Is that not the thing in those cases? — creativesoul

Yes. I'm quite confused. I was under the impression that rigid designators can only be talked about what is said, not the thing itself. The same or similar would apply to counterfactuals.

There are a whole host of ways to help other people. — Bitter Crank

But, depression! Blah, blah, blah, I can't because, blah blah blah, depression.

Afghanistan needs such common vision. I propose a post-islamic, civilized (not religious, not tribal) vision for all Afghans. Invent a new national meta-narrative and sell it to the people. — DiegoT

I think I'll start a thread about the irreconcilable differences between Islam and democracy or whether democracy can exist with respect to Islam. I have a paper in a book that I want to address in regards to the issue.

moping — Hanover

*Wallowing.

I see. So, we are two parrots. :)

I will get a job.

I wanted to ask anyone interested in their thoughts about this assertion.

Strictly speaking, counterfactuals can only be de dicto, and not de re.

Is that true?

Well, is your desire to chart a path from what you find unacceptable "psychobabble" ? — Valentinus

Idk, these are just feelings that I have and have tried to rationalize into something seemingly coherent.

Strictly speaking, in terms of what you have quoted of my remarks, I am just rephrasing your observation that there is little satisfaction in only pursing material goods alone. — Valentinus

Well, yes. I guess you can say that you are saying what I'm saying in different words.

Have I misunderstood you? — Valentinus

Possibly. If you can expand on what you think are one's deepest needs, then that might help.

The automacy evident in consumerism or the "fetishism of commodities", if you will, points to a process that cannot fulfill our deepest needs. — Valentinus

Is this just psychobabble, or can these deepest needs ever be addressed?

Well I dont know you, so its hard to say whats best. Aligning my values with other peoples values doesnt make me happy, it makes me unhappy. But that's me. All I can offer is that if your having trouble aligning your values to other peoples values, maybe thats whats different about you and you might do better to just do your own thing. — DingoJones

Hmm. I think the natural response or the primary response to alienation is a feeling of bewilderment and feeling lost. I don't feel lost, or at least not as lost as I once felt I was. The feeling crystalizes in the process of individualization. Which, might be an interesting side issue to entertain.

hare what values you must with others to honor yiur social contracts but shed those values thst ferl burdensome.
Im probably not the best candidate to give you insight here, Rank seems to have ready answers for you though. :) — DingoJones

Thanks. But, doesn't the role or lack thereof of the duty or imperative play any role here?

It's a very nice post, Wallow, but why not pick at it? — tim wood

That is my only hope. That people pick at my posts. :)

In taking a "methodological approach," you're already presupposing a set of concerns and an entire argument about them. — tim wood

That's true. But, if you want to take a Buddhist slant, all that's left is pure awareness, when every prejudice, opinion, and rationalization is dissolved away.

Um, well, what does Wittgenstein say, if anything, about logic and symbolic logic including maths? I'm asking, not arguing. — tim wood

This piece of Wittgenstein's wisdom was instilled in his Tractatus-Logico-Philosophicus. I had a reading group on it and realized that I need to study logic with more rigor. Logic is the foundation of every rational inquiry. So, to end this paragraph with a soft tone, then I suppose if you were to really care about philosophy, then critical thinking and sharpening of it are pertinent.

If you're defining a region; i.e., that which falls within Wittgenstein's bailiwick, then so far you've indicated a region of concerns, but not ground or anchors. — tim wood

Can you expand on how you define what you mean by ground and anchors? I feel as though you're talking about certainty or ground-rock beliefs? Is that correct?

Bewitchment? Ok, but how does Wittgenstein break the spell - or does he? — tim wood

It's hard to systematize very personal reasons and inclinations into some clear and concise paragraph or two. I suppose one can say that Wittgenstein shows the way for the fly to get out of the bottle. The reasons why the fly is unhappy in the bottle can differ substantially for each person. Again, according to Wittgenstein, philosophy is therapeutic. And, boy did that guy have deep issues that he grappled with. Multiple suicides in a family, war trauma (undoubtedly), feelings of intense pressure to perform. Perfectionist tendencies, that didn't help at all also.

I've heard it said that the history of philosophy just is philosophy. — tim wood

Well, this seems to be a de dicto assertion. The interesting stuff starts when we engage in philosophy, de re.

I've read enough to encounter for myself the encounter of ideas, enough to know that many so-called insights are in substance reactions to something, borrowing strength, as it were, from that which they oppose, and in particular lacking strength to stand independently. I take Descartes and scholastic realism to be a thinker and a thinking, each of which had their day, but that now belong to the history rather than the current concerns of philosophy. — tim wood

Yeah, some ideas persist over time just because they are so profound. Like the cogito or Kant's conception of reason and it's a critique.

In my opinion, it would be worthy instruction if you could lay out one example of such a question or problem, and its dissolution, it it has been "dissolved." — tim wood

Wittgenstein argued that he had dissolved all the problems of philosophy through his Tractatus and Investigations. All, not any in particular. Pragmatism is (in my opinion) a specialized extention of what Wittgenstein had to say, so you might want to consider their linguistic analysis.

Wallows: One of the ways you ARE different from many people is that you are drilling deeper into the reality of your life than most people do. It's a risky exercise. Do it anyway, but pay attention to #5: make connection with other people. Sorry, the cure for alienation isn't quite as simple as plugging in a toaster. — Bitter Crank

Thanks Bitter Crank! I try and dig safely. One of my dreams was getting lost in a forest alongside a mountain. The shortest pathway through that mountain was through it. Haha.

1. Egotism and selfishness are in our genes. — Bitter Crank

Yet, compassion, altruism, and acts of kindness exist. How does that supplant your position on our genes?

2. Just because people want more stuff doesn't mean that not wanting stuff will make them content. — Bitter Crank

Then they ought to appreciate more! Appreciation for all the things that we hold dear leads to happiness.

3. You are not all that unique. "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation." (Henry David Thoreau, American Transcendentalist) — Bitter Crank

Sad, and true.

4. The Human Condition is, in fact, a sad state of affairs a good share of the time. — Bitter Crank

This is your bitterness speaking. We do keep on living and try our best to make other lives less miserable than our own. Those very acts of kindness and charity, are perhaps the sole defining characteristic of human beings.

5. Alienation is a wretched feeling. Making connections to other people is the antidote. — Bitter Crank

Should I join an ashram? I'm seriously contemplating it as some solution to my malaise... I wish I could move to India and live in the presence of the Dali Lama.

Try answering. If Wittgenstein is your answer (god alone knows how!) then make your case. — tim wood

I shall try. So, taking a methodological approach to the concerns of philosophy, which can only take place in the form of language and communication, then the forefront runner in trying to tackle the issue of how philosophy ought to be done is best discovered through Wittgenstein. Circular you might say.

Wittgenstein provided us with the tools as to how to analyze language and its use. The fly trapped in the glass bottle is elucidating because we tend to use language in all sorts of befuddled ways. I'm no authority on Wittgenstein; but, if philosophy is meant to be therapeutic, which philosophy is essentially existential or originates from existential questions like "Why?", then I don't see how else to describe it than pointing someone towards what Wittgenstein had to say about our bewitchment with language. Still, circular you might say...

It is a peculiarity of philosophical activity that the investigation of the nature, tasks, and methods of philosophy constitutes a most important part of the whole enterprise. Every 'revolution' in philosophy involves essentially a radical change in the conception of philosophy itself. Therefore, I am apprehensive to assert that philosophy progresses in a linear and dialectical manner. The most recent "event" in philosophy is undoubtedly Wittgenstein and what he had to say about language. So, contextually speaking, if we seek to understand what the heck is going on in philosophy, then we must acquaint ourselves with how philosophy was reinterpreted by past great thinkers that introduced a paradigm shift.

If traditional philosophy is characterized as different attempts at answering various philosophical questions then Wittgenstein's philosophy may be characterized as a systematic questioning of the questions themselves. Wittgenstein was reported to have said that he didn't solve philosophical problems, but rather dissolved them. And, if the sake of resolution is clarity, then the complete dissolvement of these questions is what is sought after, which has been elaborated by Wittgenstein himself to such great lengths.

You lost me, how do those things connect to your other posts? There is alot going on in that last post, but Im not sure it relates to what im saying. — DingoJones

I'm essentially, trying to align my "values" with other's to dispel the alienation and find my place in the world. So, I shared my values, and even showed what I went to college for. What do you think?

The question of this OP is, what, for you, are your anchors in your thinking-about-thinking, which is what I take philosophy to be? Or another way, when you're done, how do you know you've done anything other, or more, than merely entertain yourself? — tim wood

So, this is a great question. To me, philosophy is essential, as Plato described to shine the light into the cave and reach a higher understanding of the world, and perhaps more importantly, ones-self. I see this manifest in elucidating the workings of how we learn to use and operate language, a la Wittgenstein.

I know you like Kant, and so do I. I think his work really was a Copernican revolution in philosophy. What are your thoughts about what Kant did and how it relates to Wittgenstein?

It's interesting that you narrowed down this discussion about "values". I think this is worth expanding on if you don't mind?

What do you value? I value freedom and liberty. I also value peace and prosperity. I went to college to study economics some 4-5 years back. I can't say I got anything out of it, and don't know how to guarantee prosperity without adhering to rational self-interest. I'm stuck in this American mentality and profess it to some extent that people ought to choose what they think is in their best interest. But, if I were to have kids, I'd probably micro-manage their lives...

Thoughts?

Well, you said you were different. If you reflect on exactly how, you can begin to live according to whatever standards suit you. — DingoJones

So, this is essentially Nietzschean perspective. To create your own values, yes?

It seems like right now you are burdened by some social programming that doesnt suit you. Get rid of it, and the disphoria should go along with it. — DingoJones

But, the alienation persists. What do you do about that?

You wont be alienated from everyone, at least I find it hard to imagine you cant relate to anyone at all. — DingoJones

That's true. I feel closest to Buddhists and the like. I'm actually contemplating in the back of my mind to join an ashram.

Social contract theory has a decently accurate wikki entry to get you started. Its basically a simple way of viewing the kinds of interactions you are talking about but without the baggage of sweeping principals that humans burden each other with. — DingoJones

But, alienation essentially rips apart the social contract we are born with. How do you prevent that destructive urge to rip it apart?

There is security in those burdens for some, but perhaps you are the kind of person who doesnt get much out if it and are in the process of realizing that. — DingoJones

What do you mean?

Its ok to not feel connected to that stuff, you should embrace the alienation. — DingoJones

But, the feeling is dysphoric. Marx talked about alienation from the means of production. What about simple alienation from humanity?

It will liberate you to live according to your own values, and you can figure out for yourself how you want to and to what degree you want to be connected with the rest of mankind. — DingoJones

That's actually true. But, as much as I love and hate Schopenhauer, one cannot live in a perpetual sense of alienation for too long. Can you?

I recommend social contract theory to start. — DingoJones

Oh, that's interesting. So, please expand so I can learn from you on it.

"We have enough. We are satisfied. I can live with one car instead of two. I do not need luxury toothpaste. Eating meat twice a week, instead of seven, is enough for me." — Tzeentch

:ok:

Yeah, it has become weaponized.

You really should ask and look how absolute povetry was eradicated in various countries, how countries that have been poor have gotten more affluent. And we've seen the biggest reduction in absolute povetry in the World during this era. Even if charity is a good thing, seldom has some voluntary charity been the answer in eradicating povetry historically. — ssu

Then what has been the deciding factor in reducing absolute poverty? Economics? Thanks for providing those statistics. I guess, my point was that charity is a strong factor, maybe not the deciding factor.

With the Betrand Russell quote, well, just what concrete solutions does it give? Because that is what we need, concrete answers to real problems. Usually people aren't happy with the answers at all. — ssu

I don't know the grand solution to all our problems. I doubt ol' Bertie knew either. But, public engagement with problems would be the only thing that comes to my mind.