Take twice as long reading it than should be required. Thanks Quine.

I got that impression as well. As much as I enjoy writing good polemical rhetoric, it's a pain in the ass when someone writing a professional article does so.

Of course, there is no "endgame" in philosophy, no final solution. Anyone who expects such a thing is bound to be disappointed. — John

I think this applies to anything, really. I mean, what's the final goal of, say, astronomy? To capture every single star in the universe? To know everything about the cosmos? Is that even possible?!

Instead, practitioners of whatever are interested in small goals to keep our interest. Basically, life itself is one glorious waste of time. Philosophy is just one of the ways we pass it.

Now that I'm thinking about it more, it's really not that big of a deal, especially if you don't accept multiple universes. But if you did, you would just have to specify that what you claim is true is true in this particular universe because it may be false in another.

Presumably it would contradict certain modalities.

I'm sympathetic to the view, since it's central to trope theory, which I'm also sympathetic to.

I don't know if I quite agree with your definition of truth. I would say that what is true is what state of affairs obtains. A state of affairs makes truth by obtaining, a proposition bears truth by referencing this state of affair. Might just be some technical jargon but then again, just saying that "truth is what is there" isn't necessarily enough; I could postulate that unobtained states of affairs exist (even though I don't think I would). Or if we are to take on modality and wonder what universe you are referencing, this universe or one of the other possible universes (if we agree that possible universes do in fact exist). So for a general definition of what is true, perhaps yours works. But in a technical sense, I don't think it does.

Keep in mind that I'm not totally confident in my opinion on universals. I dislike the Platonistic "second world" of abstract objects.

Rather, these universals are more like particulars themselves, like tropes. Aristotle might have been a trope theorist by today's standards. They are the fundamental particles that allow matter to act in the way it does. All other universals, like the ones mentioned above, would merely be describing how matter acts. It's not that matter possesses these properties, it's that matter acts in a certain way, dictated by fundamental tropes, tropes that exist in the world.

I don't have a fantastic understanding of quantum mechanics, but from what I do know, these elementary particles all have an opposite (other than the higgs). It's almost as if they are just logically necessary and unanalyzable (whatever the hell that means).

Eh, you can have an opinion, no doubt, but it's somewhat less authentic. It's pretty vague; you ask anyone why they are alive today and you won't usually get a sufficient answer. People don't know why they continue to live. They just do.

I'm not sure what you could count as philosophy and what doesn't. But the unexamined life is not worth living. You only realize this once you examine your life.

I'm holding out on voting, but I think I'm leaning towards "yes". Yes, a life worth living is dependent on the knowledge within it.

I don't see this to be too difficult to defend. Let's be honest here; not very many people actually do philosophy. Therefore, most people do not realize the value philosophy can have in a person's life. To ask if one's life is worth living is a philosophical question. Therefore, since most people do not "do philosophy" (rather, they live meaninglessly), their life cannot be "worth" anything. I reject the notion that a life worth living can be independent of the subject's opinion of said life; it, by necessity, must come from within, not external.

To do philosophy is to actualize the self.

Interesting post, tgw. I, too, share your interest in meta-philosophy.

I can't remember exactly where I saw it, but to the Pre-Socratics (up to Socrates and including him, that is), philosophy was less of a discipline and more of a way of life. It was treated almost like a religion (albeit far more rational :P). You see a lot of specific Greek words that correlate to an idea, and these Greek words oftentimes represented ideals.

One question I have for you though is why you claim philosophy is necessarily spawn from this "pain". I don't particularly feel like I pursue philosophy necessarily and only because of some kind of pain, discomfort, or what have you. More often than not it is merely curiosity.

In which case, I think Heidegger's idea that anxiety is a necessary quality of existence and contemplation works better than the rather vague terminology of "pain". I feel anxious when I don't know something, which prompts philosophical thinking. I'm curious but alongside this curiosity is the anxiety that comes with uncertainty.

I heartily agree with you that philosophy cannot "know" anything...in fact it would be rather odd if our a priori thinking led to any new knowledge. Wittgenstein, like you said, hit the nail on the head in his quietism in that philosophy is meant to clarify and organize rather than produce new knowledge. Also, I believe it was Heidegger who said that the only things we can know are how to do things. A blacksmith knows how to smelt iron. That's knowledge.

Cool thread.

Then this whole talk of "pleasure" and "goodness" is just equivocation.

Presumably into something that they prefer. I used this example elsewhere, but a rape victim might feel pleasure during the act of rape but still not find it "good".

Not unless they simply re-define what counts as pleasure.

I will be honest here, I don't know very much about quantum mechanics. But I'm interesting in purchasing a book on the philosophy of physics which will hopefully give me more information.

But anyway, quantum mechanics, as far as I can tell, is one of those areas of science that is filled with very smart scientists making very stupid metaphysical assumptions. It seems like it's one of the gray areas between strict philosophy and strict science. In fact, I might go as far as to say that theoretical physics, such as quantum mechanics, is philosophy that is built around empirical science.

One can desire something without feeling any pleasure in doing so. — Thorongil

Reminds me of Taṇhā.

Or, thirdly, one can feel both pleasure and desire simultaneously. — Thorongil

I think this would essentially be pursuing your passions. For example, you could desire to know more about something, and take pleasure in doing so.

What say you about this article and my argument? — Thorongil

I think your reference to "disinterested pleasure" answers this. I don't think a hedonist would count disinterested pleasure as "good". It is interesting, though, how the end-product, pleasure, could be seen as "good" while the process of obtaining pleasure is not good! Perhaps this is answerable by simply weighing the values and realizing that if you want to feel pleasure, there has to be some work involved, and if the pay-off is not redeemable then it's not worth pursuing this pleasure.

The Ego Tunnel by Thomas Metzinger. Great blend of philosophy and empirical science.

Pretty excited for this one. I think I might actually be able to participate, and it's a nice change from basic introductory books.

10/10

I'm perfect :D

I am going to start an arcane, tribal chant "Kuh-Wal-Ish Kid; Kuh-Wal-Ish Kid" in the hopes that it summons him from the ancestral realm. Current statistics puts the effectiveness of this chant at a zero percent rating, but it worked on my dog, so hopefully it will work here.

I don't think the person who has major unfulfilled desires is happy. I consider happiness to be contentedness and a lack of general suffering. A dictator who wants more power instead of "only being happy" is not happy to begin with. They aren't content with their current situation. Whereas a person who legitimately has no desire for these kinds of things is far better off than the person who is still under the influence of desire.

Because a person who is content with what they have and does not desire certain things is far better off and happier than a person who is stuck in rat race of desire.

Even if it isn't, (s)he isn't interested in pursuing any other goal. So what options does (s)he have? (S)he may be perfectly conscious that (s)he is not capable to fulfil his/her goal, and yet still pursue it, because the pursuit of his/her desire is the only thing of value (s)he has. — Agustino

Then it is the case that the person should re-evaluate their picture on life and temper some of these desires.

People want to be fulfilled. They want to have something they can look back on and say "huzzah!" about. I don't see how self-actualization is in any way incompatible with the basic tenets of compassion of understanding in Buddhism like the video I posted talked about.

Furthermore, it is perfectly conceivable that someone like Heathcliff is ignorant of his condition. A simple analogy will show this: a dictator may want, above anything else, to be in power and authority. But is this goal realistic and how much is he going to suffer (alongside other people) in his quest for a goal? Is this dictator ignorant of his capabilities and the repercussions it will have for him and the rest of the world?

Your criticism is basically what Nietzsche criticized Buddhism, and Schopenhauer for that matter, of: being nihilistic. He criticized them for rejecting the world and living passively. Which is a bad interpretation of either philosophy.

People want to be happy living a certain kind of life, they don't simply want to be happy. — Agustino

It is my sincere belief that this misguided desire to live a certain way is one of the fundamental reasons why the world is the way it is (that is, broken and unfortunate).

I don't have a problem with other people pursuing goals. I have goals too. If these goals cause them to suffer unnecessarily but they find meaning behind this suffering and would rather be accomplishing these goals then living passively, that's fine. I do that and so does everyone else. But as soon as these goals begin to harm other people is when it is not okay.

Interesting video I found that touches on the hierarchy of needs and also general happiness. Might be worth a watch.

I think I'd rather they remain private. — Sapientia

Pretty much me as well.

I've had drinking problems ever since I first started drinking alcohol as a teenager: binge drinking and drink-related anxiety in certain situations, — Sapientia

I worry that I'll slip off the edge and become an alcoholic or drug addict to deal with my anxiety. Not a pretty picture.

I feel you when it comes to the obsessions. I can be a fun person to hang out with, but as soon as I get an obsession I tend to lose a lot of my vitality and zone out.

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of this whole "anxiety" thing. It is very irrational, circular, and debilitating. I'm in the middle of an obsessive compulsion that is quite bad. Pretty much all you can do in a situation like this is hold on for dear life and hope it ends relatively soon. I suppose the storm over the ocean can't last forever, but damn is it particularly vicious this round.

An emotional argument stems from emotions, not logic.

it is to make an emotive argument, that doesn't suffer from logical inconsistencies, that might be persuasive. — Reformed Nihilist

I'm not sure if that's possible.

In which case, so what? So what if the commonly-accepted form of god is showing him as benevolent? That doesn't change the fact that this god would be malignant!

If everyone in North Korea thinks that Kim Jong Un is a benevolent god, and then it is shown that, oops, turns out he's a jerk, does that mean Kim Jong Un doesn't exist?

Welcome to the forum, Reformed Nihilist!

I'd say that as much as these so-called "New Atheists" claim to be logical and rational, they are merely using emotional heuristics. Now I turns out that under further analysis I found that I agree with the general term "atheism", although I'm not some retarded "gnostic" atheist as so many teenage rebels like to proclaim. It would seem, then, that the "New Atheists" are right but for the wrong reasons, at least in my opinion because I think atheism is correct (but I don't know it is correct).

As for your argument, it seems to me that you are basically arguing for putting up the middle finger to god. If god exists and has an eternal plan for the universe, that would be extremely nightmarish. But the fact of the matter is that if we are to take Pascal's Wager (which is problematic by itself) to be true, then it would only make sense to worship this god. It surely is easy to rebel against this totalitarian god but that's not going to do much for you when you are suffering eternal torture in hell; it is a rhetoric device meant to appeal to the emotional thinking of most people. Giving god the middle finger, deserved or not, is hip, rebellious, and "bad-boy"-esque.

Not to mention that this does not actually argue against the existence of god, it just shows that this god would be a dick. Just because this god would be malignant doesn't mean this god wouldn't exist. (although I'm under the impression that no gods exist).

In some ways the computer-brain analogy may be extended to incoherency.

But it's worth noting that the parallelism of many modern day computers is commonly seen to be that of the brain. Parallel computers can compute things that a serial computer would struggle to do so.

Got a source for that? I don't doubt you but I'd like to have an actual citation.

Is it? I don't have any sources on this and given the background of Aristippus it seems like he would be referencing the human condition more than political identity.

Gotcha, my mistake.

I think you're a little confused on the Realism vs Anti-Realism debate.

A Realist believes that it is possible, even if it is difficult, to obtain true depictions of reality.

The Anti-Realist argues that we are hidden behind a veil, which at the very least is held up by the apparent transcendentalism of reality, i.e. if it is impossible to access reality, then it is impossible to verify that what we have constructed is true.

it seems fatuous to claim citizenship in the whole world. — Bitter Crank

I think the "citizen of the world" tends to be existentially motivated than specifically politically motivated.

Some "citizens of the world" I have met seem more like parasites viewing the whole world as a potential host. — Bitter Crank

I suppose this might be true of some. But I think a "citizen of the world" might say that they hold no allegiance to any political entity. They might reject the idea of having a government that you arbitrarily swear loyalty to, usually only because you were born under their jurisdiction.

Perhaps cosmopolitanism in this context is not the appropriate term, rather, it should be global anarchism.

We see ourselves much more as "one world" than we once did. Or maybe like an ocean liner without life boats: Different classes on board, but if the ship goes down, all go down with it. — Bitter Crank

Hence why I think the first step to a cosmopolitan society would be to recognize our existential similarities. We are all human. We are affected by more or less the same things, like you said about global warming and pollution. We all experience pleasure and pain. We all exist in a short time period on a rock in space. After establishing an existential brotherhood, humanity as a family can begin to put away their differences and work together.

Its inversion was espoused by Aristippus of Cyrene: I am an alien everywhere. — The Great Whatever

We're talking political identity, not existential identity.

Sure. Cosmopolitanism is the idea that all humans (and presumably animals as well) belong to a single global community, with shared values, morals, etc. Having such a community seems to me to be a great way to stop international conflict.

But how realistic is this idea? Is it even possible to have a worldwide community? What are the obstacles in the way of a cosmopolitan society? Is a cosmopolitan society even preferable?