• Agnosticism, sensu amplo
    ↪Bylaw
    Good points!
  • Intuition, evolution and God
    How long were you pulling the push door before someone rescued you? Two days, wasn't it? — Bartricks

    :lol: I never understood time. Can't answer your question.
  • Intuition, evolution and God
    I don't know what you mean. 3 is a conclusion and so to reject it you need to reject either 1 or 2 — Bartricks

    You're the very soul of clarity! Please, please, don't let me interrupt you. Carry on!
  • The Largest Number We Will Ever Need
    It's disgusting. — TonesInDeepFreeze

    Gives TonesInDeepFreeze 8 mg of Zofran.
  • Doing Away with the Laws of Physics
    I quite like where the OP is going with habit instead of law - using a different word can sometimes clear up a whole lot of confusion. A habit is autonomously developed, doesn't, like law, require a habit-giver à la a lawmaker/law-giver.

    Since nature is its own master, it can, if it wants to, with the right effort, change its habits (for the better). Maybe g should be 0.9 m/s2 - no more broken bones and cracked skulls in the ER. :snicker:
  • Is there a progress in philosophy?
    ↪180 Proof


    The idea behind subjectivity-objectivity is bias and how to obviate/avoid it lest we distort the truth/fact and fool ourselves and others in the process.

    Philosophy makes a big deal of objectivity and for the right reasons - we want the truth, we want to get to the facts, we want to know reality, not someone's opinion or fantasy.
  • Why We Need God. Corollary.
    Thus, the atavistic prevalence of group / wishful / magical thinking (i.e. faith) over defeasible thinking (i.e. truth-seeking); the cognitive priority of just-so stories over sound inferences. — 180 Proof

    I see. :up:
  • The Largest Number We Will Ever Need
    when one does not have sufficient knowledge then one should defer from making wild claims. — TonesInDeepFreeze

    The problem isn't me, mon ami - if a particular topic is conducive to wild claims then something's wrong with the topic. I have no truck with people who make claims that are far out.
  • What's the use of discussing philosophy without definitions?
    If it's an argument, the only requirement is that it be valid. Semantics is irrelevant and hence definitions are unnecessary and are stumbling blocks rather than stepping stones. Philosophy isn't philosophy sans arguments! Mic drop! :snicker:
  • Why We Need God. Corollary.
    Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là (I had no need for that hypothesis) — Pierre-Simon Laplace
  • Agnosticism, sensu amplo
    Wiki & SEP are your friends, just sayin'. :wink: — 180 Proof

    :fire:
  • A new argument for antinatalism
    ↪universeness
    :blush:
  • A new argument for antinatalism
    ↪universeness
    :lol:

    Antinatalism should be renamed as probeautitudonism and then perhaps it'll begin to make sense to natalists.
  • Why We Need God. Corollary.
    The same reason we need art – "in order not to die of the truth." ~F.N. — 180 Proof

    :fire:

    @Bartricks claims that, evolutionarily speaking, there needn't be any real reasons for beliefs though we think/feel there are.

    We are survival machines, not truth machines notwithstanding the fact that, in a way, the truth shall set you free.
  • A Theory That Explains Everything Explains Nothing
    Which theories are we talking about? — Cuthbert

    god did it — Banno
  • A new argument for antinatalism
    I hope you become more positive in your predictions of the future of our species.
    You might be a happier person if you tackle your hopelessness in new ways.
    Another hour will still pass, regardless of your decision to live through it with despair as your main companion or hope. Choose life, don't see life as a curse because despair will become all you are or ever will be.     — universeness

    I'm being realistic mon ami! You, on the other hand, don't seem to realize the full import of your statements - they're dangerous and you should be censored for the sake of our collective well-being! :snicker:
  • A new argument for antinatalism
    ↪universeness


    Point made, point taken. What I wanted to call people's attention to was that antinatalism isn't such a bad idea - it's a philosophy whose time will come in the next 3 - 5 decades when life will be hell (overcrowding, cut-throat competition, dog eat dog world. It's telling that these expressions are true even now, a time natalists say is not bad enough for antinatalism. Imagine the horrors coming down the pike :fear: :groan:)

    At the risk of coming off as a fatalist, I'd say the extinction of the human race is a forgone conclusion - the writing's on the wall. The choices on offer are not do we want to survive or go extinct; au contraire they are how do we wanna go extinct - there's the easy way (antinatalism) and there's the hard way (crimes against humanity).
  • Justifying the value of human life
    Perhaps this is as good a time as any other to mention The Value Paradox.

    Water is essential for life, diamonds aren't and yet the former is dirt cheap while the latter burns a hole in your pocket.

    Value and Price don't correlate as well as we'd like them to. Perhaps a feature rather than a bug. The takeaway: Costly doesn't imply valuable.
  • A Theory That Explains Everything Explains Nothing
    ↪Banno
    That clarifies a lot. Merci!
  • A new argument for antinatalism
    ↪universeness
    Do the math.

    1. There's a certain limit to the number of peeps the Earth can support which is a polite way of saying if we don't act soon we'll become mass-murdering cannibals.

    2. Look at the populatiom growth rate.

    Question: When do we reach critical mass and set off pandemonium?

    The only One solution is to have 0 children or a maximum of 2 (China's one child policy is an examplar of how to deal with overpopulation).
  • Is there a progress in philosophy?
    ↪180 Proof


    :up:

    No philosophical debate has been resolved to the satisfaction of all parties - there's theism and there's atheism, both thrive and this, quite obviously, can't be because both are objectively true (~◇). That however doesn't mean we can't objectively decide which of two opposing ideas is true - it can be done, but not now and I don't havta spell it out why. Ad interim our worldview is gonna havta be subjectively determined, oui monsieur?
  • A new argument for antinatalism
    My hunch is that antinatalism will make complete sense in about 3 - 5 decades. Antinatalists just wait it out...natalists will be hunted down and hanged from the nearest tree for being part of the "conspiracy" to cause unimaginable human suffering by encouraging and precipitating a population explosion that exceeds the Earth's carrying capacity. :snicker:
  • Political fatalism/determinism
    I see fatalism as the belief that no matter what you do, a given outcome will, like it or not, occur. So, it matters not how many choices you're given, all of 'em have the same result.

    If the fatalism were true, it would be both liberating and frustrating at the same time. The upside, we could do whatever pleases us because our actions are pointless and the downside, bad events are unpreventable.

    Why would someone be a fatalist? Is there any evidence that supports such a belief?

    The story of Oedipus Rex comes to mind. The king (the dad) tried to obviate a prophecy and yet the steps he took made the prediction come true. Had he not done anything, the same would've happened. The king was helpless - he was in zugzwang to use a chess terminology (all moves ended in defeat).
  • Should philosophy consider emotions and feelings?
    A. Heart-Mind (Xin)
    1. Mind (Thinkers)
    2. Heart (Feelers)

    B. Body
    3. Body (Workers).

    We've managed to offload most physical work, part of our minds (basic logic) onto machines. In other words, we're soon gonna shed our abilities as workers and thinkers and what'll remain with us is our emotions, we'll all be feelers. Then a symbiosis will occur and the age of cyborgs will dawn.
  • All in One, One in All
    Well, it feels right to say that opposites make sense i.e. are imbued with meaning only with respect to each other (one can't exist without the other). Thus, from a dualistic perspective, we must take both (all) or neither (nothing) - it's impossible to decouple a thing from its opposite herein meant as a thing and its negation. Mutual dependence ensures that both live or both die. In this sense, OP, the many two are one. :snicker:
  • Why does religion condemn suicide?
    Well, if suffering is self-caused (karma/east and you sow what you reap/west) then death (Algos' alterego Thanatos) must be too, oui? We're all committing suicide then, right?
  • Justifying the value of human life
    Tintin was just a bottle of wine for Captain Haddock, the incorrigible alcoholic, to be "uncorked" and drunk! (re The Cigars of the Pharaoh).

    Jokes aside, I'd say we're not exactly being pampered here - look around and smell the shit! Whoever our creator is, s/he's abandoned us on this deserted island we call Earth and left us to fend for ourselves. Going by our nature - :naughty: - I'd wager we're not gonna be rescued anytime soon. :snicker:

    Anyway, value isn't exactly something that seems justifiable objectively i.e. don't expect everyone to go "yes, you're absolutely right!" Speaking from my own experiences which isn't much, I 'd say rarity or uniqueness is what confers value; mathematically, the value of an x is inversely proportional to the probability of encountering x. Are humans rare? Rare enough I'd say - which animal can rollerblade into the path of a semi? :snicker:
  • Intuition, evolution and God
    ↪Bartricks
    :smile:

    Ok, ok. You win, but not because you're right but because you're bullheaded!
  • Deserving and worthy?
    ↪Bartricks
    :brow:
  • Deserving and worthy?
    I don't see that.
    For it to be reasonable to expect a certain outcome is not the same as thinking the outcome is deserved. Given how the clouds look I expect it will rain shortly. That does not mean I think rain is deserved.
    In your example it is the fact a person has expended some effort that makes them deserve something, not the fact what they have done will likely yield a certain outcome.     — Bartricks

    That's it! Effort spent then is exactly what people intuit it to be - an investment - and it goes without saying everyone most expect a return (break even or profit).

    Nonetheless, I'm not entirely off the mark if one realizes that effort is just a kind of cause, an effect is anticipated. However, there doesn't seem to be a cause-like consistency to the effect (bad things happen to good peeps and good things happen to bad peeps); to that extent the concepts herein discussed are non-causal.
  • Defendant: Saudi Arabia
    It's quite a paradox that the Saudi ethos, by extension the entire Middle Eastern Islamic mindset, can be both so open-minded (witchcraft) and so narrow-minded (witchcraft).

    I thought when in Rome do as the Romans do was a Western saying. It probably saved countless lives - we should somehow make this meme go viral in Saudi Arabia.
  • On the Existence of Abstract Objects
    ↪Art48
    All I can say is this: The perfect-imperfect distinction feels relevant. Even if it's the case that no abstract object exists that has no association whatsoever with the physical world, it has to be highlighted that abstract objects tend to be/are perfect while their physical counterparts are imperfect. The perfect man/woman/deer/shoe/whathaveyou is a (pure) thought - we won't find these entities in the world.
  • Reductionism and holism
    ↪Gnomon


    As always, much obliged for the informative reply.

    The classical physics of the macroworld is inexplicable in terms of the quantum physics of the microworld - the former is deterministic while the latter is decidely not. That's holism right there, oui monsieur?
  • Deserving and worthy?
    when we judge that a person deserves something we are not judging that they will be caused to have it. If we were, then the judgement that Roger deserves x but is not going to receive it would be incoherent. (Yet it clearly is not)

    Desert is evaluative, meaning that to judge that a person deserves something incorporates a judgement that it would be good if they received it.     — Bartricks

    I concur! My example-based argument was specific to only one type of deserving/undeserving. Looks as though it can't be generalized.
  • Intuition, evolution and God
    ↪Bartricks


    Ok, ok.

    Let me summmarize, as best as I can, your argument.

    Evolutionarily speaking, there doesn't havta be real reasons for believing/doing something even though you believe there are.

    What follows?

    You claim that the belief that there are real reasons to believe or do something is debunked. It's, to put it bluntly, just convenient/useful/healthy to believe that there are real reasons to believe or do something even though there are none.

    If so, any argument you make, which quite naturally requires you to furnish reasons (duh!), is going to fall flat on its face owing to the fact that according to you there are no real reasons. How can you say there are no real reasons to believe anything and with the same breath provide reasons to believe you? You're drinking from the very well you just poisoned! I'll call 911! :snicker:
  • The Death of Roe v Wade? The birth of a new Liberalism?
    Perhaps a more realistic option of this idea is all men should have vasectomies unless planning to have children. The reality is people don't always plan their activities. — Tom Storm

    Good call! I prefer chemical means (noninvasive) over surgical ones (invasive). The late Alan Turing was chemically castrated for his homosexuality. He probably hadta report to a designated clinic for regular injections of some kind.

    Why should it be women only who shoulder the responsibility? Men need to step up to the plate.

    Come to think of it, quite odd that not much research has been done on male contraception.
  • The Death of Roe v Wade? The birth of a new Liberalism?
    Many rape victims are scared to admit it, so the amount of abortionion requests for rape pregnancies will likely be diminished in contrast to the actual quantity of rape victims that would request abortion if shame were not a factor. — Merkwurdichliebe

    I'm sorry to hear that. Nevertheless, it appears that some women are piggybacking on rape victims, shooting from their shoulders as it were, to make a case for universal abortion rights. Only rape pregnancies should be aborted if the victim wants to. Normally people against whom no crime has been committed can't avail the services of the criminal justice system, oui?
  • The Largest Number We Will Ever Need
    No, set theory does not say that there is a proper subset of a set such that the proper subset is the set. Set theory does say that there are sets such that there is a 1-1 correspondence between a proper subset of the set and the set.

    This is another example of you running your mouth off on this technical subject of which you know nothing because you would rather just make stuff up about it rather than reading a textbook to properly understand it.     — TonesInDeepFreeze

    :lol:

    I know so little about physics or cosmology that I can't answer that. — TonesInDeepFreeze

    Too bad! I had high hopes, expected more (from you)!
  • Is there a progress in philosophy?
    Since when? — Joshs

    Aporia, when was that? Just follow this thread until it dies a natural death and report back.
  • The Death of Roe v Wade? The birth of a new Liberalism?
    Contraceptives fail. Rape happens. — Michael

    Contraceptive failure rates are negligible and most pregnancies that are aborted are not due to this reason. It shows (some) women have no respect for life.

    As for rape pregnancies, what are the stats on that? I'm fairly certain that only a handful of abortion requests are for rape pregnancies.

    In other words, your rebuttals fall short of their mark.
Home » Agent Smith