It is uncontroversial that pleasure can lead to pain, and happiness to misery. — unenlightened

I agree with this. But I was looking for a practical or objective example. Your comment seems to be on the path of Plato's view, where pleasure depends on each individual and is subjective. I think the important fact is that Plato stated that there were "bad pleasures" in plural. Thus, a collection of actions or desires which are bad and conflict with the supposedly intrinsically good of pleasure.

There is a metaphysical distinction, sometimes made, between aesthetics and ethics. The principal difference is that "the good" of ethics is always sought for the sake of a higher end, a further good. Therefore there is always a reason why it is deemed as good. "It is good because...". On the other hand, the pleasure of aesthetics is sought for the sake of itself, there is no further end. This is known as "beauty", and there is no rational answer as to why it is good or pleasant. — Metaphysician Undercover

Interesting. What do you think, MU? Is pleasure related to ethics or aesthetics?

Plato demonstrated that pleasure is not properly opposed to pain. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, exactly. I get this from Plato. But I think it is a bit subjective when he debates about good, bad, pain and pleasure. It seems that pleasure and pain need to be experienced by the subject, and then they conclude if something is bad or good. For example, smoking. In my humble opinion, I think smoking is a bad pleasure (following Plato's points) but completely objective because it is scientifically demonstrated that smoking kills and causes cancer. Therefore, smoking is a bad objective pleasure that does not depend on subjectiveness.

If we take this as our guide, the highest good is that pleasure which is not at all opposed to pain, then the lowest good (most bad) would be the type of pleasure which is most readily opposed to pain. — Metaphysician Undercover

I can't disagree with this, but I consider it a bit ambiguous. What are the boundaries of pain and good? There are people who enjoy sadomasochism. Is this sexual practice objectively good or bad even though it clearly implies pain?

The Bridge on the Drina by Ivo Andrić.

his posts somewhat monotonous and off-point. — Banno

I love how you like stirring the pot. :smirk:

ICE — T Clark

Vanilla ICE! Clarky, this is my favourite flavour. :razz:

Relax guys; you're in a safe posada. :smile:

If you behave, there will not be any problem.

I met wonderful people here, like @Agent Smith and @karl stone, but it is true that they behaved weirdly, and the result was their banning. It hurt me, but I understood that we should respect the place if we want a harmony amongst us while we are interacting.

The banning tool is complex and often not welcomed, but it is necessary. Even the Principality of Sealand –where only two lads live–, has rules, standards and all. Why should the absence of righteousness be tolerated here?

Good! I am glad you took the time to learn my language. :smile:

Wow, another Hispanic fella? That's crazy.

If you post a thread in Spanish, it goes under that category, but it is not hidden. It appears on the main page. @fdrake allowed us to start threads in other languages; however it is not frequently used because the point is to have a common language for sharing our ideas, and the site rules clearly state that this site is English-speaking, by the way. :lol:

I sympathize with the rule that we've gotta speak english here as it helps with simplicity and clarity — ProtagoranSocratist

Exactly. It makes everything easier in terms of communication. :up:

So, you believe that humans have an infinite capacity for learning? — Oppida

Absolutely.

because if we do, should we pursue our full potential? or, more specifically, in what areas should we pursue our full potential, ideally? — Oppida

It depends on what you consider as a "potential". Each of us can show our potential in many different ways. However, this is not a limit to our ability to learn. For example, I have always been more interested in languages, law, literature, philosophy, etc. than physics or maths. For this reason, I always used all my potential to learn the first disciplines I mentioned, not the latter. But this is not a limitation to learning maths for me. It is just that numbers are not my cup of tea.

Say you're a carpenter and that a new machine has come out in the world that can do carpentry 10x as faster as you can. How would you feel? does the answer lie in the fact that you like or do not like your job? — Oppida

I understand your wondering and concerns. I also felt the same way you do right now, but I came to the following conclusion:

It's not the carpenter's problem if a machine comes out in the world that can do carpentry 10x faster. The problem is the world we live in. Most of the folks want efficiency and things done as soon as possible. But this is not new. The First Industrial Revolution swept a large number of farmers from the orchards, which was a terrible mistake. The goal was to teach the farmer how to use the tractor, not to replace him. A farmer has always been very proud of his job, so they carpenter too. These jobs are based on knowledge and experience, and a machine would hardly substitute them. Yes, a machine can do it 10x faster but with less quality. Ferrari and Lamborghini cars are handmade. :smile:

did they lose purpose? — Oppida

No, they just lost their jobs and it sucks when the unemployment rate increases.

Ah, Hispano! qué bien! Habrá que hablar en inglés para entretener a otras audiencias. — Oppida

Sí. No se permite publicar en español. A excepción de una categoría reservada para ello que puedes consultar aquí: https://thephilosophyforum.com/categories/52/spanish-discussion

Im a little confused. What do you exactly mean by "infinite knowledge"? Do you mean infinite capabilities to understand? Maybe you think all knowledge is simply dormant within us? What about examples of the selfish and violent uses and also, explain what you mean by "only giving credit to artifcial things. — Oppida

Perhaps "infinite" was not a suitable adjective, and I should have said limitless. My point is, anyway, that our knowledge is intended to keep expanding all the time, and most of us seek wisdom and abilities to put them into practice. If something like AI exists, it is thanks to our vast knowledge. I can't imagine a fish typing on the screen of Gemini Google Assistant, for instance. The problem of our vast level of knowledge is that we sometimes do not know how to control/manage it.

This is why I think that instead of using our knowledge to do sublime things (oil painting or writing a poem), it is mostly used in violent goals: war, abuse, weapons, nuclear bombs, etc. It is obvious that the dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was one of the evilest and most unethical acts that humankind has ever recorded. However, the brains who created that weapon were actually pretty genius, with a limitless knowledge of science.

Imagine if we decide to spend all of our knowledge and energy on better common things. Do you think that water scarcity or food shortages would be an issue? Absolutely not!

Hola! Welcome to TPF. Enjoy your time here. :smile:

Say that, for instance, we humans are suddenly, magically implented with infinite knowledge; we are now omnipotent and omnisapient. What the hell would we be doing? there has to be a certain limit for our current brains to break trough, otherwise we'd get bored and simply go insane or at least thats what i -in a VERY summed up way- think of practicality, that it has to be present in some level. — Oppida

We already have 'infinite' knowledge, but we don't know how to manage it. Furthermore, our knowledge has been used in the most selfish and violent way ever imagined. We will not become bored. Particularly, one of the pursuits of humankind is to achieve wisdom and knowledge, and its importance was already pointed out by Aristotle and Ancient Greek thinkers. I could be wrong, but I feel like you only give credit to artificial things – either the AI or God. Perhaps (at least this is what I always thought), AI is just our alter ego. But the machine will never surpass our determination. As you pointed out, it will be hard to see if it is capable of discerning inside ethical dilemmas, for instance; while we can. Therefore, our knowledge is infinite.

Commenting here so I can come back to this discussion — AlienVareient

You can 'bookmark' this discussion by clicking on the icon of the star. It will then be saved in your "bookmarks" section, and you can check it whenever you want. In addition, after doing this, I think you will start receiving e-mails about the newest post of this thread.

Embers (often translated as Candles burn until the end) by Sándor Márai.

What is your problem with the word "sacrosanct". It is simply a concept that is too important to dismiss without good cause. However, it can be tangled with superstition involving the gods. But it can also be an understanding of a law of nature. Global warming caused by human activity is destroying life on our planet, and for me, that is too sacrosanct to ignore. I think we are more sure of this than we are sure of what gravity is. — Athena

I do not have a particular problem with the concept. It is just that I don't think it was well used in the context of the present OP. Your example of climate change and its consequences is good, but I can't admit it when we discuss the Laws of Nature when history taught us that knowledge (thanks to human progress) tends to change. Even Pieter acknowledged that perhaps "sacrosanct" is not the correct word to describe the law of gravity (for instance). I understand that "universal" or "symmetric" might be more accurate terms. Yet I also observe disparities here. The point is that "sacrosanct" is more related to divine or god-like arguments. It is acceptable as long as it does not contradict the fields of humanities and science.

In any case, I thank you for your contribution. — Pieter R van Wyk

:up: :up:

I also appreciate the exchange we had on this topic. I learnt a lot from you, Pieter. Until next time!

I agree. Now, I understand you better, Pieter. You explained yourself and argument more clearly.

But...

This demarcation then boils down to things that are time-invariant (the Laws of Nature) and those that are time-variant (the Rules of Man). — Pieter R van Wyk

This is where I still disagree with you. I don't attempt to force you to think like me, not at all. It is just that I cannot see why laws of nature are time-invariant. Perhaps a big number of them are, but there are also others which are not. Furthermore, laws of nature are a set of statements that predict a natural phenomenon. I see why you would think they are time-invariant. However, I would say that they are symmetric, because the existence of homogeneities of both space and time.

It might be a problem that politics are involved (in the Rules of Man) but it is de facto and cannot be erased. I would like to remind you of the following:
This is how we agree among ourselves how to interact with each other and with our environment. It is also how we agree amongst each other on how we are going to increase our wealth. It is even how we decide what is right and what is wrong - what is good and what is evil and what is just.
— Pieter R van Wyk

You are welcome to focus on whatever you want to - I am (in this thread) interested in a solution to the demarcation problem. If it is your opinion that the philosophy of law might provide an alternative solution, please share such a solution. — Pieter R van Wyk

Pieter, I do not want to share a solution. Honestly, I do not think it is actually possible. I want to express that important issues, such as "what is right and wrong" or "good and evil", have varying interpretations. Perhaps by using abstraction, we can reach a common understanding, but not necessarily a solution. Yes, I still believe that we can erase politics because it fails to facilitate debate. Right and wrong are intrinsically human, and it depends on the notion we all have of ethics and justice. I wish we all had an objective vision of ethics and justice, but because these concepts are universal, politics tends to interfere with our understanding of them.

Here's another awkward question. Is there a moral obligation to obey the law, whatever it may be? That means, where the law cannot be enforced, are we obliged to obey it anyway? I think so. Again, most people think that there are cases where it is legitimate and even morally required to flout the law as a protest - civil disobedience. I think that's right, where the law is repressive. But I wouldn't want to attempt a general definition of repressive laws. — Ludwig V

I think this is intrinsically inherent to laws. We ought to obey the law, because we want to live in a place where righteousness and order exist. However, it is not that easy, I understand. Some laws were (and are in some cases) repressive and flawed. There are countries which force their citizens to vote (Bolivia and Perú, for instance). I think their laws are repressive.

But this is not always the case, and there are laws which we ought to obey because the point is to reach a better scenario or solution for all. For example, the custom (which developed into treaties and laws) of maritime consensus. Thus, the coastline limitations, free-alongside-ship, the flag of the ship, etcetera. Most people (and countries) abide by these laws because they are beneficial and efficient.

Slightly awkward question - when there is a debate about what the law should be - think euthanasia as an example - is that settled by the law, or something else?I don't think the law can settle it. It's fundamentally a question of ethics or morality, isn't it? — Ludwig V

It is a question of ethics and morality, indeed. Perhaps, in these cases, laws can be understood as tools which help us to achieve the moral/ethical case. But I understand that it is more complex than what I am posting. First, laws (in most legislative countries) are approved by the incumbent government, and sometimes they are not liked or respected by the opposition or even a large part of the people. Second, and most significantly, laws must be followed; yet, this does not always occur.

However, this is where ethics can embrace law and act together (and viceversa). We need a system where we "force" (I don’t really like this word, but I can't think of anything better) the application of a law to those who don't respect it. I understand that ethics, morality, and law are very extensive, but paradoxically, using boundaries would help us get the results we want in each specific case!

So when you are sorting through many myths for God's truth, the most popular story will win. Not so different from scientists concluding what is true and what is not true by consensus. — Athena

Well, I think there are differences, actually. Science is not a myth; it conflicts with them. You take the principle of gravity as granted because empirical evidence and scientific research showed us so. I doubt there is no consensus on the physics of gravity. Furthermore, it is a tool that helps modern scientists to do other research. Perhaps it may be a big debate inside complex scientific debates such as quantum mechanics. But they probably agree with something: not labelling their discoveries as "sacrosanct".

However, I strongly agree that myths (Odyssey, for instance) can teach us valuable life lessons. Perhaps, Homecoming nostalgia/melancholia (Ancient Greek: νόστος, nostos) is a sacrosanct pattern of conduct inherent to human psychology.

No, law and philosophy are the subject of the Rules of Man. Politics are always involved. In any case, I do not think this negate nor refute my proposed solution. — Pieter R van Wyk

But it is a problem that politics are involved. The point is to erase them from the Rules of Man. I wanted to focus more on the philosophy of law and its consequences rather than on politics.

I am very careful, that is why I have defined the words I am using very precisely. You are quite correct that our human understanding and interpretation of the Laws of Nature has developed over the years. But, again, this does not negate nor refute my proposed solution. — Pieter R van Wyk

I am refuting your point in this case, Pieter. You claimed that the Rules of Nature are literally "sacrosanct". However, history tells us otherwise. Yes, I agree that there are some basic notions of physics and mathematics that may be sacrosanct. But the rules of nature change, as does our knowledge. For this reason, I would be careful of labelling something "sacrosanct". The term reminds me of religious dogmas or liberation theology, which we are against, Pieter. Don't we? :wink:

That works perfectly well if you are thinking of human laws. The "rules of man" has somewhat wider scope, which complicates the issue. Non-legal rules would, presumably, not the subject of Law or Philosophy of Law. — Ludwig V

I was thinking precisely about that. However, I don't know what @Pieter R van Wyk was thinking when he wrote the OP yet. :smile:

Non-legal rules can also be the subject of law and philosophy of law. For example, prostitution is not regulated (at least in my country), but it involves some non-legal rules. You pay for the exchange of sexual acts. Such an arrangement holds a "rule" for both the sex worker and the consumer, and I believe it can be seen from the perspective of the philosophy of law.

On the other hand, the Rules of Man is brought into being by politics ... or would this be philosophy? — Pieter R van Wyk

Precisely, the Rules of Man are the subject of Law and Philosophy of Law. Although politics can be involved, I do not see it as a part of the study of positivism. Furthermore, I think it interferes in the most negative and toxic way. Instead of studying the nature of the rule and its application, politics tend to twist it just to promote politicians' interests.

the Laws of Nature are sacrosanct — Pieter R van Wyk

Be careful with this! don't think there is something sacrosanct at all. Even more inside philosophy or science. A few centuries ago, folks considered that the earth was the centre of the universe as "sacrosanct" until Galileo and Copernicus showed up. :wink:

Wonderful. :up: :up:

I love pipe organ music!

Report to Greco by Nikos Kazantzakis. — javi2541997

The thing that surprised me the most in this Kazantzakis novel (which is autobiographical) is how he struggled with spiritual crises or existentialism. He tried to follow Christianism, and he even did a pilgrimage to Desert Sinai. However, he ended up disappointed with religion and particularly Christianism. I liked the book. It was a pleasure to read the personal goals, failures, disappointments, and lessons of such an amazing novelist.

--------------------

Now, currently reading: Spring Flowers, Spring Frost by Ismail Kadare.

Wow! This sounds incredibly magical and worthy to pursue. I don't know how to help you with Susan Sarandon's permission (perhaps @Jamal does), but don't doubt for a second that I will be by your side, friend. :cool:

But you are already super creative, Baden!

How can't you dare to re-enter? What would Wolfgang say in your absence? What about the short-story activity? You have always shown a tremendous skill in creativity there.

:up: :smile:

Joining here and becoming a contributor to The Shoutbox was one of the greatest decisions I made in the last few years.

Ten years already! Although I am not one of the Emeritus Fathers-founders of TPF, nor have I been here since the beginning, I embrace your feelings about the ten-year milestone. :smile: :party:

Over the weekend, almost seven million people in several thousand communities here in the US got together to celebrate our anniversary...among other things. — T Clark

I knew you would not disappoint me. :cool:

Gracias, señor. — 180 Proof

De nada, tío Proof. :cool:

Happy 10th anniversary, folks. :wink:

Only our "idea of" is unreal, "we" as in humans organisms/species are real. — ENOAH

What about the idea I have of humans as organisms/species? Is it too unreal? Furthermore, if I have something on my mind, I think this has to be real in some parts, because my consciousness has already given it some existence.

The "unreal" is human consciousness or "mind," representations displacing the real aware-ing with desires, emotions, perception, ideas, etc. — ENOAH

So, according to this, our idea or image of reality may be biassed by our perceptions or emotions, which might mean that it is actually non-real, right?

Being, just is. — ENOAH

How can I be myself without consciousness? My being can exist, but I think the mental concept or awareness of existing is also required.

So how does the phenomenological exercise get you to that, Real consciousness? It can't. But it gets you so close it becomes at the very least, the dream of a possibility. You only access real consciousness when you're being real consciousness. — ENOAH

I think this is very intriguing.

What do you mean by "real"? Because, reading carefully this paragraph, it seems that there could be non-real/hallucinatory/dreamlike consciousness. If this is the case, how can we distinguish? I believe that our ego is always real based on your definition of reality, but at times, our consciousness may not be. There are multiple situations where Cogito is located, but it is challenging to find out which of the different versions of myself is actually real. I do not think reality is dependent upon consciousness.

I've added the note: NO AI-WRITTEN CONTENT ALLOWED to the guidelines and I intend to start deleting AI written threads and posts and banning users who are clearly breaking the guidelines. If you want to stay here, stay human. — Baden

Well-put! :up: :100:

Honestly, the decay of some empires is a good example of how you used it. However, I personally think that the economic shrinkage came afterwards, and it wasn't a cause of Roman Empire decay. Furthermore, according to a large number of historians, the decay was produced by many things, but most importantly the division in half of the empire in the early 300s AD.

You claimed that the economy of the Roman Empire stopped growing and then decayed. But this only happened to the Western Roman Empire, while the Byzantine Empire (Eastern Roman Empire) endured until 1453 – the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Empire.
So there had been many more causes and reasons for why those empires decayed. Subsequent territories underwent significant and gradual economic growth. Look at Italy or Turkey, for instance.

I have never claimed that economic growth is infinite. I know that it can shrink at some point. But, in general terms, both GDP and GDP per capita gradually grow in most of the modern economies.

However, suppose that instead of starting its decline in 180 AD, the Roman Empire had continued to grow its GDP at around 3% per year (a growth rate which most modern economists would be happy with) until the present day, a period of 1845 years. The total size of the Roman economy would now be 4e+23 times larger than its starting point, or if you want it in more traditional notation, 400000000000000000000000 times larger. So all things considered, it's probably a good thing that the Roman economy began to shrink when it did. — Peter Gray

Could you please share your thoughts on why you believe economic growth might need to stop at some point? You claim that otherwise, it would not be logical that, if the Roman Empire never ended, its GDP would be around 4e+23 times larger than its starting point. The Roman Empire expanded into a lot of territories, and a large population was involved. Thanks to its power and economic stability, the Roman Empire was the main promoter of civilisation. I can´t see how effective to the Western world was the moment when Roman economy began to shrink. Furthermore, there are some countries whose GDP has grown exactly that percentage since their creation, like the USA or modern Japan.

Maybe we could say gradual economic growth rather than perpetual, because I guess you see it as inconvenient since there is nothing that can last forever.

What I’ve learned in comparing the forum with a.i. is that, unfortunately, the majority of participants here don’t have the background to engage in the kinds of discussions I have been able to have with a.i. concerning a range of philosophers dear to my heart, (such as Husserl, Heidegger, Derrida, Deleuze, Gendlin and Wittgenstein), especially when it comes to comparing and contrasting their positions. — Joshs

I include myself in those who don’t have the background to engage in the kinds of discussions you seek. I joined this site to learn and exchange my ideas with the rest, and fortunately, I always felt welcome here. However, I understand that philosophers with a high background like you want more substantial analysis in the threads. It is comprehensive. I am sorry on my behalf.

As long as I see it, this is not about preventing the use of AI by most of you. It is obvious that a large number of members actually use it every day. I think I also use AI because QuillBot proofreads my grammar before I post here, but it doesn't think and write for me. This is the whole point: avoid threads and posts which are likely to be written and developed by ChatGPT or other similar AI. What I learnt in this forum is that dialogue between us is very important, and thanks to this, I learnt a lot. Otherwise, if I wanted to trust more in an AI, I would have used Google since the beginning before joining here.