Yes, we can. A baby inside the womb is alive. What is this nonsense? — Lionino

A baby is not inside the womb, or anywhere else, without conception. It doesn't exist; therefore it cannot be alive. That's pretty much the point ofcontra-ception. People really need to learn this basic stuff!

You have to learn how to use words correctly before starting an argument. — Lionino

Helpful advice. Please heed it!

A baby is not inside the womb — Vera Mont

The foetus starts after the nineth month and goes until conception. A foetus, especially a late one, can be called correctly a baby. A human the day before it is born is a baby, it just hasn't been born yet.

That's pretty much the point ofcontra-ception — Vera Mont

Contraception is preventing the fertilisation of the eggs.

None of that is relevant, however, it is just poor usage of language to cause confusion. Physiologically, besides small details such as eyes and lungs, a baby the day before it is born is the same as the day after it is born. Killing a foetus one day before it is born is killing a baby.

As is usual with some folks here, middle school content has been completely forgotten. If you have no clue what the difference between blastocyst and an embryo is, you should not raise your opinion on the topic. It is the same as the person stuck on y=2x+3 walking into the mathematicians' meeting to talk about differential equations.

The foetus starts after the nineth month and goes until conception. — Lionino

You didn't look at the tutorial - or a dictionary. Take another shot? Human gestation begins at the moment of fertilization (conception) and proceeds to delivery, typically 280 days - approximately 40 weeks or 9 months. During that process, the newly conceived human goes through three stages of development: germinal, embryonic and fetal.
People really, really need to learn this basic stuff in middle school - especially if they're planning to weigh in on a political position on the subject or have sex any time after puberty.

If you have no clue what the difference between blastocyst and an embryo is, you should not raise your opinion on the topic. — Lionino

My very point!

Contraception is preventing the fertilisation of the eggs. — Lionino

Bingo! No conception = no baby!

Physiologically, besides small details such as eyes and lungs, a baby the day before it is born is the same as the day after it is born. Killing a foetus one day before it is born is killing a baby. — Lionino

The small details, like eyes and lungs are completely formed two weeks before the projected delivery date, though a slightly premature infant may need a little more encouragement to start breathing and can take a bit longer to focus its vision. Premature babies - barring genetic defects and trauma - can survive without technological intervention 6-10 weeks before their due date; with medical help, premies as young as 24 weeks have a survival rate of 60+%.

So? Who proposed killing them? More to the point: where did you hear this nonsense?

Every Sperm is Sacred :grin:

Just as well the ova are not, or menstruation would be a mortal sin, as well as unclean. (That was a funny song, but a really awful movie.)

It had its highlights, but I agree that overall it was nowhere near their other films.

Technically procreating babies will eventually lead to their death
— schopenhauer1

Dumb. — Lionino

If you're worried about causing the death of a child, it is not. Don't start what ends in death. It's just taking your logic and applying it equally to the consequence of one's action.

No, it is not. You have to learn how to use words correctly before starting an argument. — Lionino

You willfully ignored what I said or just ignorant. That's okay, a lot of people can't seem to string together the basic fact that it is a political action. When you procreate a child, you are saying "YES" to certain outcomes for that child. You are voting for a certain "way of life", assenting to it, agreeing with it, promoting it, forcing others to follow it even. In fact, you can't do something any more patriotic than that. You wonder why procreation and declining fertility rates are discussed? Yeah, economics start to collapse without children to be monkey laborers to keep things going. But if you VOTE (procreate) YES, and force others into the system, you are voting for something.

I find this particularly interesting. How this might work.

I've often thought that a key reason people contrive families is to be distracted by an interactive domestic soap opera. — Tom Storm

There seems to be an aspect of control in this no? You want to control and direct a cohort and see the drama play out for your amusement.

At the end of the day, there is no relief, only sleep and death. Everything else is MALIGNANTLY USELESS as Ligotti would say (all caps included).

Someone lives for the quip at someone else's expense on philosophy forum, or the new book they want to read on "A Thorough Exposition of the Syntax, Semantics, and Meta-theoretical Foundations in First-order Predicate Logic with Modal Operators and Non-Classical Propositional Calculi: An Intensive Analysis of Completeness, Soundness, and Decidability in Formal Deductive Systems".

Just add Engineering, Programming, Advanced Mathematics, Physics, Soil Physics, Library and Information Science, Spectroscopy Data Analyst, Petroleum Geologist, Tribology, Actuarial Science, Metrology, Crystallography, Ocean Sedimentology, Nuclear Waste Management, Paleoclimatology, Bibliometrics, Combinatorial Chemistry, Geomorphology, Epidemiology of Rare Diseases.

Fuck it dude. You can mine the fuck out of the minutia and it still won't get you out of the MALIGNENTLY USELESS dilemma.

Still worshipping Algos I see :)

Still worshipping Algos I see :) — I like sushi

See here:

Someone lives for the quip at someone else's expense on philosophy forum — schopenhauer1

• Law of Moses (Torah) c1000 BCE
• Sharia (Quran) 632 CE — 180 Proof

According to Islamic doctrine, the Quran is a retransmission of the Torah+Gospel without alterations (especially alterations to the Gospel). The two sides of the equation are not supposed to be (substantially) incompatible.

Good timeline, but it was the move to make the code of ethics attributed directly from a singular God of the Universe, who wants humans to act a certain way, that is the innovation (aka ethical monotheism). — schopenhauer1

The idea is that the true code of ethics is preprogrammed into our biological firmware ("provided by God").

Unfortunately, we grow up in the filth of a degenerated society which indoctrinates us into adopting dangerous deviations to our true biological firmware.

If we assume that societal degeneracy and depravity only go upward, the earliest written snapshot of society and its moral rules will give us the most accurate record of what morality is supposed to be.

In fact, we would be better off with a snapshot from the hunter-gatherers that we once were, but they were not able to read and write. So, even though they knew the proper biologically preprogrammed moral rules, they were not in a position to transmit them to us.

If you wait -- later in history -- until people have already become farmers, their society may already be too degenerate to provide us with a usable template.

The Torah is a snapshot of a society that was somewhere in between hunter-gatherers and farmers, i.e. nomadic shepherds. Just like the Torah, the Quran sticks to early nomadic shepherd morality.

So, if you are somewhat aware of the fact that you have inadvertently adopted the filth and degeneracy of contemporary society, and you want to know the truth about our biological firmware and what the true moral rules are that we are supposed to follow, then you can use these ancient scriptures to reprogram yourself away from modern degeneracy, filth, and depravity.

At the end of the day, there is no relief, only sleep and death. Everything else is MALIGNANTLY USELESS ... — schopenhauer1

As daoists, epicureans, pyrrhonists, spinozists, absurdists et al know first-hand: humor & creativity, friendship & compassion also provide "relief" during the often tedious intervals between "sleep and death".

However you wish to interpret the relationship of the Torah & Quran, they are clearly not "the oldest records of moral rules" as you've claimed (and also they are subsequent derivatives from pre-Mosaic/non-divine sources).

However you wish to interpret the relationship of the Torah to the Quran, they are clearly not "the oldest moral codes" as you've claim (and they are derivatives from pre-Mosaic/non-divine sources). — 180 Proof

We are talking about nomadic shepherds who were not yet embroiled in the nascent depravity of farmer society. There are older codes but these people already had cities surrounded by farmland. They cannot be trusted because in their case the ongoing degeneracy had gone too far already.

Our very best bet would actually be the morality of the hunter-gatherers. As I have already mentioned previously, these hunter-gatherers could not read and write. So, they were unable to transmit to us their moral rules.

The nomadic shepherds were still close enough to the original hunter-gatherers, and they could apparently read and write in order to transmit to us the true moral rules of humanity. In my opinion, in practical terms, that is our best bet.

There seems to be an aspect of control in this no? You want to control and direct a cohort and see the drama play out for your amusement. — schopenhauer1

I think this is often the case.

Fuck it dude. You can mine the fuck out of the minutia and it still won't get you out of the MALIGNENTLY USELESS dilemma. — schopenhauer1

I certainly see this argument. And many people don't even get the distraction of the minutia, the quips, the empty achievements.

As daoists, epicureans, pyrrhonists, spinozists, absurdists et al know first-hand: humor & creativity, friendship & compassion also provide "relief" during the often tedious intervals between "sleep and death". — 180 Proof

Yes. Do you think this requires a type of courage?

Yes. Do you think this requires a type of courage? — Tom Storm

Absolutely. The indispensible virtue. With courage, cheerful-defiant pessimism (e.g. Nietzsche); without courage, resentful-defeatist pessimism (e.g. Schopenhauer) – singing the blues :death: :flower: or crippling anxiety :cry: :sad: , respectively.

:up:

Aiming at Utopia ...

Regardless, the chaos side is rather pointless in isolation, and I suppose that would be rather obvious, although I would love to hear a meaningful dissent to that, mostly, I admit, to shoot it down in turn.

The thing about chaos is, if there are no rules, there is no real way to proceed, other than whim, desire, chaos. I suppose you could claim that that is the only real rule, that there are none.

But there is staggering evidence to the contrary amid all of existence. Rules abound and that should be obvious. And it is my assertion that all 'natural law' is only and always tied to morality.

Morality is based solely on the existence and persistence of objective moral truth. Our lot is only to grow in wisdom, which means first acting and failing to understand, then understanding, and then perfecting that understanding which includes preferring or desiring that which is objectively GOOD, ... ONLY. You can do a treatment of ANY virtue in exactly the same way I just did awareness/understanding and it would remain an accurate treatment, in line with objective moral truth, the GOOD.

ANY AND ALL specifics we discuss that are 'relatable' colloquially are NOT the best way to get at the truth. The emotional math that leads to a perfectly understood system reinforces itself in terms of acceptance. I suppose what I mean by that is that once you know a moral or believe it, you can still break it, but you suffer more knowingly then. Immoral actions after that point are bad intents in formation, deontological failure, which is a deeper kind of failure than consequential failure that is not intended.

Of course, all roads or choices contain a balanced consequence due to this objective moral truth. It means that the only punisher is YOU, yourself. The only rewarder is YOU, yourself. God or truth (synonymous) is just love, the system, truth, that sets up this trouble of free will, and the only thing in the universe, the burden of choice.

Since all roads can and do effectively lead to the GOOD, it would seem to be easy to follow any of them. But, it is not. Continual choices that are not closer and closer to the one best path (from where you are) will corrupt you and tend to repeat as addictive patterns. So, it is chaotic (desire-side) delusion that tempts us to believe that any old path is fine. Nihilism adds in its fear-based denial of meaning to further delude us. And the most harsh of all truths is that DESPITE understanding even a single moral choice remains the hardest choice to make in all circumstances. And that is exactly how it SHOULD be. The worthiest aim is Utopia or perfection (synonymous).

But Utopia is extant. It is only ours to choose or not, and by degrees, on a scale, not black and white. We should realize that arrival at the perfect Utopia is not very probable, but it remains the only truly worthy goal. This it is unwise indeed not to aim at Utopia.

We should realize that arrival at the perfect Utopia is not very probable, but it remains the only truly worthy goal. This it is unwise indeed not to aim at Utopia. — Chet Hawkins

Utopia is possible only if other people also strive for it. They won't. It is not useful to be bothered with what other people do. You can only control what you do yourself.

A legitimate moral rule is such that you still benefit from keeping it, even if everybody else breaks it. It allows you to create a personal utopia for yourself, regardless of what anybody else does.

The ancient moral rules of the nomadic shepherds are exactly like that. They do not require anybody else to follow them, for you to benefit from these moral rules.

Modern moral rules are not like that. That is one of the many reasons why they are not legitimate. They tend to dwell on all the "rights" you have. True morality is not about having "rights". True morality is about the obligations that you voluntarily accept.

The thing about chaos is, if there are no rules, there is no real way to proceed, other than whim, desire, chaos. I suppose you could claim that that is the only real rule, that there are none. — Chet Hawkins

If there were no rules, or chaos, the universe could not organize itself into galaxies, nebulae, suns and planets, compounds, molecules, life forms. From the laws of physics comes all that we are, all that we know. Chaos is not something we can experience. We experience disorientation, confusion, occasional temporary states of befuddlement. Chaos is not something we can see in the world. We witness occasional temporary states of disruption and disturbance in nature and our own organizations; transient events that interrupt the prevailing order. With our very limited access to information, we fail to predict the course of all events in the universe. These observations, the busy human imagination exaggerates into a big, noisy concept like 'chaos'.

People make themselves and one another miserable by looking for and by creating the anomalous state, the disruption of order; by breaking down the reasonable and sustainable organization of things and communities, by upsetting the functional relationships of people and their environment.

But Utopia is extant. — Chet Hawkins

It does certainly persist as an idea, a possible goal to achieve. And - carpers and whiners notwithstanding - many humans are fortunate enough and aware enough that between sleep and death, they experience fulfillment, pleasure, comfort, affection, satisfaction, amusement, surprise, awe, even moments of ecstasy. No wonder these happy people wish the same for their fellow humans and strive to bring it about.

We should realize that arrival at the perfect Utopia is not very probable, but it remains the only truly worthy goal. — Chet Hawkins

Just so.

I certainly see this argument. And many people don't even get the distraction of the minutia, the quips, the empty achievements. — Tom Storm

I like that "get" here can be taken two ways:
1) They don't "get" to have these distractions.
2) They don't "get" that these are just distractions.

If you meant it so, clever. If not, still fits.

Absolutely. The indispensible virtue. With courage, cheerful-defiant pessimism (e.g. Nietzsche); without courage, resentful-defeatist pessimism (e.g. Schopenhauer) – singing the blues :death: :flower: or crippling anxiety :cry: :sad: , respectively. — 180 Proof

@Tom Storm

Masking the reality with heroism is yet another coping mechanism. Nietzsche's performative resilience is existential gaslighting and a dismissal of what is the case.

Masking the reality with heroism — schopenhauer1

Neither claiming nor implying such, how does "heroism" equate to "masking the reality" when a hero is usually someone who defies reality, fatally risking herself, rather than someone who denies reality? :chin:

Besides, I don't see what's wrong with, or dishonest about, cultivating any "coping mechanism" that actually reduces fear and harm more than it increases them.

At the end of the day, there is no relief, only sleep and death. Everything else is MALIGNANTLY USELESS...
— schopenhauer1

As daoists, epicureans, pyrrhonists, spinozists, absurdists et al know first-hand: humor & creativity, friendship & compassion also provide "relief" during the often tedious intervals between "sleep and death". — 180 Proof

No "existential gaslighting" or "performative resiliance" – the fact is, schop, there are philosophies of defiance ("unselfing") such as those mentioned above contrary to sophistries of denial ("suicide") like fideism, anti-natalism or nihilism. :mask:

Yes, poor people in the US go to SE Asia for the better price, BUT rich people from SE Asia go to the US for better quality.

BUT rich people from SE Asia go to the US for better quality. — LuckyR

Better quality of what?

Neither claiming nor implying such, how does "heroism" equate to "masking the reality" when a hero is usually someone who defies reality, fatally risking herself, rather than someone who denies reality? :chin: — 180 Proof

Creating a false narrative cannot solve the problem of suffering. We must first recognize and understand the inherent suffering at the core of life before any meaningful action can be taken.

It is simply a realistic acknowledgment of the malignantly useless aspect of existence, as described by Ligotti, which includes suffering and the futile pursuit of meaning. From this recognition, we need to build communities centered on catharsis and empathy across all walks of life. Such communities would foster a universal understanding among those who suffer and a collective commitment to not impose these burdens—or the "forced project" of existence—on others.

The Nietzschean emphasis on transforming suffering through willpower and attitude prolongs the system of suffering by shifting the burden onto the sufferer. It employs a gaslighting trick, suggesting that the suffering isn’t inherent/structural and that it’s a result of the individual’s failure to reframe their pain. This approach implies that it is the individual who allows suffering to persist, rather than addressing the deeper, structural causes of that suffering.

Philosophical pessimism, as I have laid it out, encourages the development of communities based on real understanding and support, rather than superficial optimism.

We rebel against a whole host of things:
Public policy
Bigwigs in power ("corporations" the "elite")
The economic system
Consumerism

Yet the biggest program we are supposed to accept is the "project" of life itself? This is amounts to rebelling against the biggest project/structure of them all. I see no problem to do this as we often do with any other unjust system.

"Those who lack the courage will always find a philosophy to justify it." ~Albert Camus

The Nietzschean emphasis ... — schopenhauer1

Stop with the strawman, schop. My counter argument emphasizes the following

As daoists, epicureans, pyrrhonists, spinozists, absurdists et al know first-hand: humor & creativity, friendship & compassion also provide "relief" during the often tedious intervals between "sleep and death". — 180 Proof

as I've pointed out in my previous post which your (& T. Ligotti's) special pleading evades. To wit:

there are philosophies of defiance ("unselfing") such as those mentioned above contrary to sophistries of denial ("suicide") like fideism, anti-natalism or nihilism. :mask: — 180 Proof

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/925895

Creating a false narrative cannot solve the problem of suffering. — schopenhauer1

Yeah, like e.g. "anti-natalism" (i.e. destroying the village (h. sapiens) in order to save the village (h. sapiens)) – I agree, schop. After all, "suffering" isn't a "problem to solve" but rather an exigent signal to adapt one's (our) way of life to reality by preventing foreseeable and reducing imminent disvalue/s. :fire:

Better quality medical care. Medical "tourists" aren't folks with lots of money available to spend on top notch care.

A lot of people do some basic research and find out that the so-called "top notch" medical care in their own country is massively overpriced, not actually any better than some foreign alternatives or both.

One only has to look at how ridiculously overpriced basic meds and procedures in the US compared to other western or foreign equivalents.

Many people are now waking up to the realisation that they can spend $5000 at home or have a 2 week holiday and get treatment for $3000.

Of course there are some cases where the equipment is not available - but rarely the knowhow.

After all, "suffering" isn't a "problem to solve" but rather an exigent signal to adapt one's (our) way of life to reality by preventing foreseeable or reducing some imminent disvalue/s. :fire: — 180 Proof

I would even go so far as to argue if one is against suffering one is against life. Suffering is not 'bad'. I imagine a great number of people here 'suffer' when reading philosophical works, or 'suffer' as they struggle to express their ideas.