@Well, I mean, what did you make of it? — Manuel

Woah, you read it already? Ok, I’ll see what I can do… I would like to re read it though, especially since I need to gather my thoughts in order to make a decent OP. — Noble Dust

Can you provide one or two examples of the "significant figures" that it couldn't handle? — Pierre-Normand

a UBIK by Philip K. Dick thread. — Noble Dust

With regards to English, it is my second language, and even though I believe I have a decent grasp on the language, it should be relatively apparent in these kinds of high-level conversations that I am a non-native speaker. — Caerulea-Lawrence

Why I'd like to join is a bit similar to what Wayfarer writes in this post.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14024/meta-philosophy-types-and-orientations — Caerulea-Lawrence

My perspective on it would be to find others that want to harmonize not only different perspectives and insights, but also experiences, moral and everyday life as well. In that sense, my objective aligns with the concept of Intentional Community, but I am more focused on finding people that have a meta-vision with regards to their life, and have a longing for co-creating with others as well. — Caerulea-Lawrence

This is just wrong. Much work has been done in reshaping man's relation to the world and conception of himself from the point of view of the environment as a whole. This gives rise to an entirely new value system which is necessarily in conflict with capitalism and scientism. It is very little discussed on this site, because it has been successfully marginalised, sidelined and ridiculed to a great extent. But there is a philosophy of ecology, that is even called Deep Ecology, and much related material on the concept of wilderness, and Ecosophy, and all sorts of interesting stuff that the Man does not want us to talk about. — unenlightened

Daniel Dennett updated the quote 50 years later with - "90% of everything is crap. That is true, whether you are talking about physics, chemistry, evolutionary psychology, sociology, medicine – you name it – rock music, country western. 90% of everything is crap." — Tom Storm

Mary Midgley: Philosophical Plumbing — Banno

I think his view of Metaphysics is the only meaningful one. After all Philosophy's goal is nothing more than our efforts to produce wise claims about our world(etymology). In order for any claim to be wise it needs to interpret verified knowledge and reflect on the consequences of it. So by default Metaphysics provide solutions to questions and problems.
The best example of how good philosophy can be in problem solving can be found in Scientific Frameworks (Theories). — Nickolasgaspar

Carrier is an atheist and a materialist. I felt similar to you at times. But, overall, I liked what he said and found it interesting. — Art48

Carrier defends philosophy and makes several points I found very interesting. — Art48

There is much here that I agree with, but his criticism is guided by a questionable assumption, that the goal of philosophy is to address and solve problems, to contribute "new knowledge", to be useful in the narrow sense of problem solving. — Fooloso4

There are some people who treat others badly because they enjoy doing so. For example: compulsive and manipulative liars. In my own view, there is a lot of "evil" in such an act. I think being an asshole is more related to a lack of basic morals and education. — javi2541997

Let’s start with the golden rule which leads to a reciprocal relationship between two entites.

Scratch my back and I scratch yours kind of thing.

In this type of social exchange the benefits are mutual for both parties. So all well and good. — invicta

The dilemma here comes to the problem of Evil where one of the parties doesn’t hold their end of the bargain hence broken level of trust. — invicta

The question is can corporate or banking greed be stopped at all or should the government stay away from regulation.

In any case the Rich man will have so much money they won’t know what to do with it.

Question: what role should the government do to protect people on lower wages — invicta

Which is ironic, since we've held several short story contests. — Noble Dust

for those who might not know, Emotivism is the belief that the words "good" or "bad" refers to emotions that we have, not beliefs or true statements. — aminima

(1) if words like "bad" are supposed to express emotions, that we would predict that the stronger the emotion, the more "bad" something would be. however, in some cases this is not the true. for example, I think it is equally immoral to kill my mom than to kill a stranger, however, I have stronger emotions tied to the idea of someone killing my mom. — aminima

(2) the way we form moral judgements is more like how we form other objective belief's, and less like how we acquire emotions. — aminima

for example if I want to know if capital punishment is bad, I think about it, read about it, and talk to other people about it. this is exactly like how I acquire my other beliefs (like the fine-tuning argument doesn't succeed, or there's an external world), and not at all how I acquire emotions. — aminima

not at all how I acquire emotions. we don't read, discuss or think about what emotions we have, much less worry about getting them right. — aminima

Baffling. — Baden

I disagree — Hanover

Does anyone have a good recommendation on CS Pierce? On the one hand, his collected works are free in many places. On the other, they aren't particularly well organized and it's a 5,092 page PDF.

Is there a good "guided" tour that mixes the original writing with a solid framework for studying such a large body of work? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Good luck. — Manuel

Thought I'd quote this quotable quote. — Hanover

We want contact and intimacy with other creatures, especially our own species. We are curious, we wonder, even as newborns, about the sources of sounds and other sensory phenomena. These motivations are not driven merely by pleasure and pain, in fact we will aim towards painful experiences to satisfy our curiosity and social desires. All this in place before any grand narrative to distract or give meaning is put in place. In fact any belief system needs to engage with these motivations - and often channels them, judges them, gives rules to restrict them. It's not that your post is incorrect. These belief systems do do the things you say, but there is tremendous motivation in place before these systems are plopped on top of them. — Bylaw

There is a political reality that cannot be ignored. You can go on about how justice demands the prosecution of every prosecutable crime damn the torpedoes, and we can then end up with failed impeachments and acquittals followed by emboldened politicians who should have lost power.

The Manhattan case is a case about misuse of campaign funds and falsification of records. It's a finance regulatory case.

Prosecute the man for calling the Georgia Secretary of State and asking for fabricated votes and stop with this diversion into whether Form 1876-b (I made that form up, so don't look it up) was falsified. — Hanover

Anyways, the point is that you have a narrative of why you clean the dishes. You have just taken the narrative for granted to the point that to you, it seems the answer was written on high from Moses as to why you must do them. — schopenhauer1

How do you know that? — schopenhauer1

Why do you do the dishes even if you don't like it? — schopenhauer1

Why is "it's just how the world works" connected with you doing a job you would not want to do? — schopenhauer1

Trump is slowly getting repositioned by the Democrats for a second presidency. Impeaching, indicting, or otherwise attempting to disqualify Trump from this election cycle is going to be seen as undemocratic and he'll become a martyr. — Hanover

Exactly, and you are LITERALLY displaying the point I am making in real time. — schopenhauer1

Of course I've done things I didn't want to do. Jobs that need to be done are not necessarily enjoyable. All worthwhile activities include aspects that are unpleasant. I don't see that as unfair or unreasonable. It's just how the world works. — T Clark

I ought to be patient with you, because you are talking to a projection. Seriously, though, your theatrics are misdirected. I'm glad for my friend and his happiness. We just lost touch. Such is life. It's just how the world works.

I don't owe you this clarification. It's a belatedly tolerant response to your indulgent misreading. — green flag

Motivation, as in why you continue to do something you might not otherwise want to do. The thing is, you are going to claim you have never done something you never wanted to do. Is that right? — schopenhauer1

We've been through this before. You tend to conflate what animals do and what humans do, and I don't even want to bother pointing out the difference in an animal that can use recursive linguistics to tell stories about itself and then buy into those stories, versus what animals do. — schopenhauer1

I just don't find this Taoist stuff compelling. In fact, if it was natural, we wouldn't need Toaism or anything related. We would simply BE. But we aren't. And so there in fact IS something in the way of that. I am saying that contrary to what dichotomy fiction you are purporting on me, the animals are living Tao. Humans are never doing so, and are always trying to get there. Hence TaoISM. — schopenhauer1

You keep saying that, but here you are using language, having a narrative of being angry and upset. Think about it. — schopenhauer1

Friend of mine tried to express the ecstasy of becoming a father. We've lost touch. He's got three now, a hard working man with the picket fence and kids he always wanted, even a wife who stays home.

To me it's more like people find some role (hero myth, ideology) that feels right enough and keep getting out of bed every morning, largely to avoid losing a job, a lover, a home. We cling to what keeps us safe and comfortable. This is to be expected. Moloch demands it ! Those whose source code doesn't have them building a nice little web end up replicating less or not at all. — green flag

Is "these systems are ultimately fictions" itself a fiction ? Even the most negative ideology may help the species or the tribe as a whole contribute to the heat death. Antinatalism is the hand of god. It is the thought of genocidal violence taken to the last extreme. It is will-to-power. Does it not cry out after all for the coming of heat death ? — green flag

However, unlike other animals, humans have the ability to separate our behaviors from our survival needs. We can choose not to work because we don't like it, we can choose to commit suicide, or we can engage in a range of other behaviors that have nothing to do with our basic survival needs. — schopenhauer1

Despite our general fear of pain and seeking of pleasure, we still must write narratives of motivation. Our behaviors are not fixed for these end goals but are tied to the conceptualizing-human mind in social relations to others. Every single day, every minute even, we have to "buy into" motivating ourselves with narratives...

...Additionally, humans generally fear pain, displeasure, and the angst of boredom, while seeking pleasures to distract from this angst. Aesthetic and non-physical pleasures become a built-in mechanism to deal with this fear. However, this also creates a need for fictions to explain why we must do anything, — schopenhauer1

So my theory, along with Zapffe's, is more about our essential "break" with nature. We use narratives/fictions to create reasons which give us motivations. That's how a conceptualizing animal with recursive language capacity parses and synthesizes the world- one in which social arrangements are paramount. — schopenhauer1

Some truth in that, but I am nowhere near as gnarly or arrogant as you — universeness

You offer your mere opinion, as if there was some kind of authority — universeness

I would disagree. In order to do classical mathematics or certain types of logic, one has to view it through the lens of Platonic forms (or some other non-mental, non-physical substance). There is no way to experience absolute infinity, for example. We can define it, but to invoke it as an object/property without constructing it, one would have to postulate or imagine some kind of realm in which it exists merely because it was definable. — Ø implies everything

What are some good arguments for ontological idealism? — Ø implies everything

Your curmudgeon approach to others — universeness