So if Buddhist teaching stopped at the first of these, then it would be pessimistic. — Wayfarer

True, but do you ever ponder if the four noble truths are actually true in modern day living? Had Buddha been born today would he arrive at the same conclusions?

True. But, if modern life gets on just fine with pain and boredom, and with it more and more ways to deny it, then in some sense does that mean we're getting better at avoiding philosophical pessimisim as a conclusion?

many would say that philosophical pessimism is justified by such fundamental teachings of Buddhism and Buddha himself.
— Shawn

And they'd be mistaken. — Wayfarer

Why is that?

I see. Yet, the way humanity seems to be progressing is that human nature doesn't seem to be as painful or full of boredom as you describe it.

If anything are we getting better at distracting ourselves nowadays from boredom? Pain sucks but, there's always legalized marijuana? :rofl:

Are you looking to enter an undergraduate or graduate program? — Artemis

Undergrad. But, potentially more once completed.

To what end? A teaching job? The outlook is bleak.The pursuit of knowledge? Then let your interests lead you to where they take you. — Fooloso4

I'm concerned about the issue of finding a teaching job after studying enough philosophy. I hear it's difficult nowadays. Why is this so?



Thanks for the reality check. I've heard this countless times before when I asked the question over at the old forum. Seems nothing new has changed. Humdrum.



I see. So, it's hopeless.

Actually, there is a deeper meaning to philosophical pessimism than what I have stated, or that follows from the OP somewhat.

It seems to me that life is unfair to the few who proclaim philosophical pessimism. Or that many would say that philosophical pessimism is justified by such fundamental teachings of Buddhism and Buddha himself.

Is it true that philosophical pessimism originates from unfairness, on our part towards (in example) animals or people born poor? I have rarely seen it portrayed this way, and yet it seems accurate, in my opinion.

It seems that you can't go wrong with Shiba, as long as Mark Cuban or Elon Musk tweet about it.

If not animal rights then perhaps stricter animal welfare laws?

Is that possible?

I'm sure some group of people will pump Shiba as much as possible.

What do you think is shiba the next rockstar? — TheQuestion

At the time I thought Monero was going to be all that;, but, Elon Musk started tweeting about Dogecoin more.

I'm sure the mountain is insurmountable.

What that argument is doing is applying causality to "nothing". If I say, "Nothing caused this to exist," isn't it the same as saying, "This thing that exists has no prior cause?"

"Nothing" cannot cause something. — Philosophim

I would state at this point that this new possibility negates the necessarily so conclusion that there must have been a first cause.

That's just my take on the issue.

Something of the sort that something came out of nothing. Such as the existence of the universe, for example, according to some physicists.

But, ex nihilo arguments would seem to contradict a first cause argument. Or at least doesn't constitute a first cause, does it?

I'm just basing it off the PoSR. The PoSR can only stipulate an X, with only empirical observations entertaining an alpha, no?

I'd say that there's a mistake of saying a first cause instead of a 'prior' cause.

Besides the Principle of Sufficient Reason can only (without appeal to metaphysics, or more concretely ', physics) posit a prior cause.

schopenhauer1 - we must all be mad "or you [we] wouldn't have come here." — TheMadFool

I'd be surprised if he wasn't a vegetarian. There is atrocious suffering in this world, all for the claim that something tasted 'good'.

Nietzsche — TheMadFool

Yes, the poor man went crazy after seeing a horse whipped too much. Empathy was very important for him.

Ahh, the old predator and prey argument.

Is that what's this about?

That was distressing to watch. :grimace:

Human will is the same as animal will. — Caldwell

How are you so sure?

Probably because they believe that their lives are worth more than those of animals.

Many people also believe that their lives are worth more than the lives of many other people. — baker

I suppose this is true. Unfortunate and sad.

Well, I think I understand why it would be dishonest to say that pigs aren't intelligent enough to care for their plight. Yet, that's so commonly accepted that they aren't worth concerning oneself over.

Why do you think so many people behave this way?

Who would have imagined that Keynes was right all along in the US.

The problem with these kinds of arguments is that they externalize the justification. — baker

I don't see anything wrong with that, do you?

In other words, such externalizing lines of reasoning shift the focus of moral justification outside, on the object; they are based on the evaluation of the inherent value or nature. At the same time, this evaluation itself is a matter of debate and far from settled. — baker

What kind of debate? I'm not sure I'm following the issue of externalizing the issue to blame or justification in comparison with any framework to operate with, which seems necessary to even begin discussing animal rights...

As simple as possible, both apply to subjectivity.

I always thought that understanding the nature of qualia is essential to understanding phenomenology.

If you want to branch out and incorporate intersubjectivity, then it seems as though one might as well include common features between participants and isomorphic attributes alike.

But, definitionally it seems to me that the greatest attribute between phenomenology and solipsism are related to subjectivity, qualia, and intension.

In other words, people should treat animals well because to do otherwise would reflect badly on the people. — baker

Yes, that's the point of the OP. Although when advocating for an animal (which isn't unusual) people tend to level their intelligence to our own.

Although one may mount the argument that being altruistic isn't a common assumption of humanity.

Ahh! There's so much to talk about this issue...

Is it true that only the logical positivists tried to reduce metaphysics to epistemology?

Why is that?

Yes, very difficult questions. I suppose one can boil it down to psychology, no?

I think you can mine your statement you made for a lot of information.

Why is there so much disagreement about Metaphysics if we all have the same or roughly equivalent epistemological concerns or knowledge about it*?

*it, being the World.

Kind of quizzical about what you think hereabouts, @Banno?

It seems that if we warrant that Manuel said, then we all ought to be in agreement about the World, simple? And yet, so much disagreement about so many things.

You can't do epistemology without a world, and a world makes no sense without epistemology. — Manuel

I don't know what to make of this. It seems profound and succinct.

What do you think about this, @unenlightened?

Philosophy as it remains is about values, not facts. — T Clark

That's actually a field of philosophy altogether, called axiology.

Then why only consider one religion’s God? Do you have in mind some God that isn’t tied to a specific scripture? — Michael

I only have experience with fundamentalists from the Christian tradition in defending God's existence. I don't think I would be able to have a peaceful conversation about Allah's existence with an Islamic fundamentalist.

Jorndoe's post was as good an answer that I could have hoped for:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/614606

Yeah, I anticipated this one.

If refuting God was so easy you'd wonder why so many people still take it as true. (Genesis and God)

Mind you, I didn't come into this thread as a religious person.

Then, assume YHWH, then.

Which one? Yahweh (Christianity), Allah (Islam), and the Demiurge (Gnosticism) doesn't seem to be the same person. — Michael

I'm hesitant to say YHWH, because it seems to me that some will laugh at Genesis and pass it off.

What do you think?

Does Christianity have something to do with Shawn's question? — Michael

I think, it can be supposed that the monotheistic God of the Abrahamic tradition is sufficient.

:party: