Philosophers do not re-invent the wheel, but rather try to build on what's already been presented by past thinkers. — L'éléphant
Like Aristotle and Plato, yes. But if that presentation obscures something, we should think about it anew. — Mikie

Not the way the hermeneuts would do it. As I said, philosophers try to avoid reinventing the wheel. If you believe we should think anew, you are essentially saying we should discard what's already been annotated, reviewed, argued, critiqued, and defended. In other words, we should discard what's already been theorized.

Should we come up with our own view from scratch? What do you think theories are? Made from scratch? No! There are axioms, ideas, and truths collected from past works that make up a theory.

I like to think of it as studying unconscious (absence) behavior as opposed to conscious behavior. — Mikie

So, you don't think the autonomic nervous system doesn't happen in the present? It's a system that works without us being conscious of it. Please try to give a better example.
Gravity is something we're not conscious of. We were told about it. But it's happening now.

When I saw the thread title, my first thought was as in communion in Christianity. The presence of spirit. — Punshhh

Yes, good catch.

They’re arguing about the tendency to treat presence as self-affecting presence to self, A=A. What is colloquially called ‘real time’ is treated as a metric placed over events. — Joshs

Please expand on this as I'm no clear on its meaning.

One way to open a thread on this topic is to define "presence" the way it is defined within the confines of philosophy. Philosophers do not re-invent the wheel, but rather try to build on what's already been presented by past thinkers.

So, metaphysics of presence as opposed to what? By providing this piece of information, it would be clearer to understand. And just to add to this understanding, the metaphysics of presence is a critique against the privilege that we put on the 'now'-- the world as we experience it in real time.

So what are they arguing about?

As trial and error, the probability of mistakes and bad outcomes is many degrees higher than the likelihood of good outcomes, so the thing must be closely monitored, caged to avoid letting loose the monster. However, since it is possible to make many many trials, the probability of discovering something good, eventually, is also quite high. The issue would be to define what "good" is in this context. Some would say, probably many would say, "we ought not interfere with God, therefore there is no possibility of good here", but that's an absolutist, exclusionary, and probably unrealistic approach. We already have GMOs. — Metaphysician Undercover

The experimental stage should be as important as the application itself when considering ethics here. Yes, many many trials are possible, but at whose expense? What happens to the subjects when there's an error? So, the ethical inquiry must be a continuous examination all throughout the stages of the project.

I do sympathize with the notion of "we ought not to interfere with God" because the underlying sentiment in this is the naturally given attributes or properties of things in the world before man-made things become normal. There are actually efforts throughout the world to preserve the unmodified flora and fauna for the next generations who would otherwise not experience the wild origins of things.

In other words, it is a kind of philosophy that destroys humanity. When you try to understand anything, you are turning not only that thing into an object, but yourself as well into an object. — Angelo Cannata

In a manner of speaking.

We ourselves are an object of inquiry. But it doesn't mean we are mere objects like rocks and chairs. I think there is a difference between referential -- we are the object of inquiry; and the practical objects we see.

I realize that rocks and things may not be what you have in mind. Objectification is. But if that is so, then objectification is more a political rather than a philosophical notion.

Okay, then we disagree.

Not sure why we’re talking about relativism or what it can or cannot say. We’ve already discussed the well-established relativist fallacy in this thread and dealt with it, I do not disagree with it.

I’ve been trying to explore anti-foundationalism. — Tom Storm

Understood.

How could there be any such thing in a temporal world — Janus

Which has been used as a counter argument many times before.
This is like saying, how could there be consciousness when we live in a temporal world?
Are you saying that the existence of consciousness is just a matter of people's cultures or an agreement among people? What about the existence of gravity? Did we just agree among ourselves that gravity is real, or does it exist independent of what we feel? (Here, I am making a parallel argument, given that consciousness or gravity is a topic of a different nature)

And I'm not saying there is no universal moral truth, I am deflating the notion of universal moral truth to a more human and less rigid scale. I am making an empirical claim for more or less universal facts concerning what humans everywhere value and dis-value. — Janus

Again, a repeat of the quote I made above. The universal moral truth, if you agree that there is such a thing, is independent of what we value or do not value. That the moral truth coincides or addresses the things we value is of a different discussion. Our upbringing and customs and traditions are matters of moral relativism, not objective morality.

When paired with AI-driven gene expression models, the possibility arises of dynamically editable DNA a codebase not just inherited, but upgradable. Researchers such as Venter (2023) have proposed synthetic “xenogenomes” for future human-machine interfaces, where artificial nucleotides interact with embedded processors to form hybridized bio-digital systems. This raises the possibility of DNA encoding both biological traits and computational logic. — Post-Human Biotechnologies: Toward Recursive Intelligence and Bio-Digital Identity

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the ethical implications of this new form of technology called biodigital convergence. — Metaphysician Undercover

For ethical considerations - whether the editing is done on somatic or germ cells, the first thing we would want to see is regulation of research and the eventual applications of those findings. The risk associated with errors. And it is even riskier with the inherited genes.
We have been repeating the mantra the 'end justifies the means' -- we may be hoping for the betterment of humanity, but the process leading to it should be scrutinized carefully due to the possible "catastrophic" results.

Of course, we would like to see gene editing to address the disorders passed down from parents to child. This should be one of the primary reasons why we should support this kind of research. But what happens if errors were made?

And upgradable? Are we now headed to creating a new population of athletes that are semi-bionic? (Just an example)

Examples of biodigital convergence should be provided.

1. pace makers
2. genetic manipulation to produce desired behavior or charateristics
3. wearable device such as timed insulin delivery
4. I would say targeted treatment for certain diseases

Are these good examples?

Anti-foundationalism isn’t the same as moral relativism. Relativism says what’s right or wrong depends entirely on culture or individual preference. Anti-foundationalism doesn’t make any claim about what is right or wrong; it only questions whether there are absolute, universal moral truths. It’s about how we justify moral claims, not about the content of those claims, so you can be anti-foundationalist without saying “anything goes.” — Tom Storm

Please see my post above in response to Janus as to why I disagree with your post.

In philosophy, the justification for any belief-- moral, scientific, or metaphysical-- is a warranted reason (not emotions or feelings) given in a claim or assertion. It is objective.

You said: Relativism says what’s right or wrong depends entirely on culture or individual preference..
This is a claim (see the epistemic meaning of a claim or assertion), which the relativist cannot make because it is self-contradictory.

@AmadeusD please see below for my response to Janus:

It doesn't have to be a universal claim, but merely an observation that no one has been able to present a universal truth, such that the unbiased would be rationally compelled to accept it. The closest we can get, in my view is the empirical observation that things like murder, rape, theft, devious deception and exploitation are despised by most people across cultures. The only caveat being that those things may be not universally disapproved of if they are done to the "enemy" or even anyone who is seen as "other". — Janus

I'm not sure we are on the same page as far as the meaning of universal moral truths. The working definition of 'universal', as I am using it, is that it is objective and timeless and its weight is measured as true or false. They're moral principles that are not restricted by culture, period, or societal values.

That said, I have explained that moral relativists -- which is what you're describing -- cannot then make a claim (someone else mentioned this @Esse Quam Videri) or a judgment (which, in philosophy is actually a proposition or assertion) that "there is no universal moral truth, only disapproval of despicable acts by most people across cultures" because this claim is an assertion, thereby contradicting their own principle.

Essentially you are making an assertion, the value of which is measured by the truth or falsity of your belief. That is why it is self-contradictory.

So, I think that any foundation which is not simply based on the idea that to harm others is bad and to help others is good, per se, is doomed to relativism, since those dispositions are in rational pragmatic alignment with social needs and they also align with common feeling, and also simply because people don't universally, or even generally, accept any other foundation such as God as lawgiver, or Karmic penalties for moral transgressions or whatever else you can think of. — Janus

We can't combine 'foundation' with relativism by virtue of relativism's subjective stance on harm, for example. Relativism denies the objective moral truth.

Foundationalism, on the other hand, is, at its core, an epistemic principle whose theory is based on axioms and justification. (I've already given the philosophical definition of 'universal' above -- not to be confused with 'the general or majority of the population).

What I am interested in here is whether it is possible to make moral claims from either position. I can certainly see how simple relativism makes it a performative contradiction. Hence the relativist fallacy.

Anti-foundationalists, by contrast, hold that we can still justify our views through shared practices, shared goals and reasoning, even if there’s no single universal truth to ground them.

For instance, morality could be seen as something that grows out of human agreements, pragmatic necessities and dialogue rather than absolute rules — Tom Storm

First of all, Tom, your OP makes a very good point.

But to @Janus -- you touched on the heart of the argument between foundationalism and other forms of moral arguments such as relativism.

The one thing that is always missed in discussions like this is that while the foundationalist view claims that there are universal moral truth, anyone who argued against foundationalism is also making -- though maybe not intentionally and without awareness -- a 'universal' claim, mainly that there is no universal truth and morality is based on cultural differences..

So a relativist has a conundrum -- how to make an argument against foundationalism without making a universal or truth-based claim?

Here is an example, as described by Leontiskos:

Then you're committed to the value of human flourishing and you think everyone should recognize your value whether or not they do. In that case you would seem to be a moral realist, someone who sees human flourishing as an intrinsic telos of human beings. — Leontiskos

Moral realism, just like foundationalism, claims that there are moral truths that are not constrained by one's culture, customs, or society.

Relativism is a peculiar position because it is a view one cannot hold without also claiming moral truth which is the very thing it purports to deny.

To juxtapose another moral claim -- moral intuitionists can actually make an argument against moral realism because the former is not denying that there is no objective morality, only that the discovery of moral truths is self-evident.

if you're in communication with people trying to burn down a hotel, and you're saying burn down the hotel, I'm not so sure this would be protected speech there either. — Mijin

You could get arrested or investigated. It's in the context of that moment.

Good luck!

Though it is for Christmas, here's the lunar new year good luck:

Did the OP abandon this thread?

I'm confused. Do we both agree that natural and normal are two different things?

how do you define it? — Copernicus

Natural in the sense that something is natural in a subject due to the subject's existing conditions -- negative or positive environmental factors. That's why it is trendy because its environmental factors could change after a period of time. A good example of this is the human life expectancy over 100 years ago compared to now.

Normal in the sense that it is undoubtedly in the scientific sense that homo sapiens is different from homo neanderthalensis. They cannot interchange each other as differences in cranial and brow bones are significantly different.

[Edit]
So to me, the definition of normal is one of a hard-and-fast condition in which the features or properties of a subject are the benchmark for measurement.

I just find that Hume's sceptical account of everyday causality, very true in itself, doesn't really take into account the advances of modern science, say like theoretical physics. — hwyl

You just pinpointed what is Hume's empirical observation -- it's not about theory or logical deduction. It's about an ordinary person's direct experience or observation at the moment.

So if that's your criticism on Hume's skeptical account of causality, then you're not disagreeing with him.

No one is ever average... — Banno

There is a pattern here in this thread. Rules are made up as we go.

I don't think normal is equivalent to natural (which resorts to central tendancy). — Copernicus

Normal has a scientific and critical foundation, often an organic, developmental, or evolutionary progression.
Natural is a trend in a given time period -- often studied statistically or probabilistic. For example, there is no 'normal' in life expectancy, only natural.

The driving force was disabled activists insisting that disability is not a deviation from the normal human body, but the consequence of social design. — Banno

I'm still having a hard time putting it this way. It's the same as saying that the infrastructure in place now is discriminatory towards and/or dismissive of people with disability. Or, the design itself makes them disabled.

But, to borrow a word used for workers, ergonomics is exactly the way we design things for the purpose of reducing or eliminating risk of injury based on the natural functioning of the human body.

Engineering and construction focus towards the functionality and usage by the average population. Which means the majority of the population should be able to use bridges, stairs, doors, roads, buildings, and vehicles with ease.

Is there an R?

This means that each word we say in a language is, on one side, understood because it is repeatable, shared, belongs to the system of language. But, on the other side, since each word, the moment it is used, becomes also a unique event, this makes it impossible to totally understand, because uniqueness means that we have nothing to compare it with.

Impossible to understand does not mean impossible to receive. I cannot understand your uniqueness, but still, in the event of communication, it flows to me and I receive it, beyond my understanding. — Angelo Cannata

I understand what you're saying about the uniqueness of person's subjective view. Yes, I will not completely understand being you because I cannot be you. Self-reporting is what receive from you and this is the limitation of my understanding about your being.
But as we all are in this situation, this is a philosophical question that has no solution. Similarly, since we all cannot step outside of our perception, then that question will remain unanswered.

But philosophy does not require that we have an answer for everything. It requires that we examine reality. So, we may just come up with findings to list, but not an answer to a question. Such is the status of subjectivity. We know what it is and we know that each person is limited by their subjective perception and opinions, but we are not required to get into the mind of that person.

Scurrilous?

It's about shifting the narrative from “what’s wrong with you?” to “what do you need to thrive?” — Banno

This is a short-cut to my reply.

"What do you need to thrive" is what our societies have been communicating by putting in place the regulations that help the disabled. This includes, financial and health insurance support, building codes, and workplace laws to prevent discrimination. The point of all these is to help the disabled thrive.

The authentic approach to this reflection lies only in our living witnessing the particularity of subjectivity. Its intellectual understanding, which as such belongs to objectivity, can only touch subjectivity as a contradiction of objectivity, — Angelo Cannata

Good meditation on the subject.

But I disagree with the use of the word contradiction when considering both the objectivity and subjectivity. The objective analysis is a critical thinking used to describe a whole bunch of philosophical questions including the problem of subjectivity. You may notice the elevated status of objectivity here. It is an analytical tool in philosophy to understand the ways of thinking.

Some consideration might give us pause here. A wheelchair user is not incapacitated by ramps, but by stairs. Folk with visual impairment can find their way around in spaces that are accessibly designed, but struggle in spaces designed for the sighted. So it’s not their body that is disabling so much as its interaction with its environment.

This has led to disability being seen as a gap between what a body is able to do and what it has been historically expected to be able to do, the gap between body and social expectation. — Banno

First, I do not agree with your use of the word 'historically' when referring to human anatomy. To say historically implies that it is a practice put in place. Like a history written based on the events that happened.

No. Humans found themselves in such a constitution that they created their environments to fit into this constitution. Nature created the human constitution. It is our choice to further discover that we can do 'much more' with ease and speed, without disabling ourselves -- for examples, removing our vertebrae so we can slither much smoother through crevices that would otherwise be prohibitive.

Second, I agree that the environment can be, not always, a hindrance to the disabled. (societies acknowledge this by creating building codes to make an environment accessible to the disabled).

The presumption that a disability is a deficit does exactly that, no? — Banno

It is a deficit but not in the sense of morals.

I wanted to say the word is solicitous but its definition doesn't sound like it matches the hint given.

SO a statistical average? And that provides an ought here?

Are you sure that's a good argument? How do we go from "you don't have a hand" to "You ought have a hand"? — Banno

Pardon me, but I didn't think you meant morally when you asked that question.

And why is the word normal in quotes? Is this a bad thing now to have normal standards? I think the anatomists speak without invoking the moral ought. If you were told that this baby has a tail, and according to the normal human anatomy, having a tail is an anomaly, why is that a moral/ought stance? I'd say, the doctor would probably tell the parents to get the tail removed. But then if the parents elected not to have it removed, then it should be respected.

I'm not quite sure this warranted a thread, but, perhaps showing my hand, you are vastly underestimating hte liberality of people in general about sex. You more than likely have friends who are absolute freaks, swingers, kinksters etc... but they respect you and so do not intrude on your lifestyle with theirs. A huge number of people are in this position. — AmadeusD

:sweat: lol.

For 'square' type of people I wonder how they ever 'do the do' and actually have sex. I think of very reserved Brits such as Richard Dawkins, or just the idea of the 'stiff upper lip' Brit in general and think 'how did they ever manage to loosen up enough to have sex?' — unimportant

Believe me, there are uptight introverts whose sex acts match their own personality. Are you a quiet personality and don't interact much? Then the way you are in bed with another person would mirror that.

Is there a defensibly “normal” human body? — Banno

The study of human anatomy is where to start. If you're missing an appendix since birth, that's not normal. But getting your appendix removed later on doesn't cause any anomaly in bodily functions. In the end, you'd be missing an appendix but that's because you had it removed.

I'm probably too corrupted to view it that way. But I like it. It's a completely different matter when others believe and continue to get burned. I sincerely feel sorry for them, but I can't help them either.

The idea of ​​this post is diagnostic. It would be interesting to hear other people's opinions on the existence of such a problem in society. I offered this perspective. Other contemporary philosophers offer theirs. Well, well. But sometimes it seems to me that all this is about the same thing. — Astorre

It would be hard for me to take a societal diagnostic seriously when it's coming from a corrupted view. Pardon me if the juxtaposition is unintentional in your post.

Societal problems are, on a regular basis, defined, analyzed, and remedied. If there was no such system in place, a society would quickly show cracks and weakness functionally.

The picture of the world that is still being taught today (I can see this from my children’s textbooks) looks roughly like this:

1. A problem has one correct answer.
2. Facts are objective.
3. The world is linear, comprehensible and obeys rules.

But the world we live in keeps showing us that something is wrong. Let me give some examples from my own experience. — Astorre

I get your OP. But I sense a dread and weariness in you, like a solo traveler in a jungle of information and online presence. Your example 1-6 are good observations, so long as your feet are firmly planted on the ground. I say this because the information out there can get to us fairly quickly with no filter. And that's the danger. Without us having a sensible mind and firm belief in something, we would all be swept away with the current.

This story is not about me deciding to shout “THE WORLD HAS GONE MAD” or accusing everyone of incompetence. I simply wanted to share my observations about how people like us adapt to all this. Based on what I’ve seen, I have identified the following groups: — Astorre

1. Retreat into denial and traditionalism: “let’s go back to the roots, everything was clear there.”
2. Try to stretch the old picture of the world onto the new reality. They argue and try to prove there is one single cause for everything.
3. Break down: anxiety, depression, apathy. And seem to remain in that state forever.
4. Go with the flow, no longer trying to build anything; this very flow doesn’t even leave time to think about anything. They surf the waves of uncertainty and stop looking for the “true cause” of everything.
5. Contemplate and write long forum posts or books like “The Burnout Society.”
6. Those who instead of the old Newtonian world built a new "solid" world of data, metric and "scientifically proven". They believe neither in God nor in progress, but in tests, randomized studies, effective altruism, AI safety, longevity studies.
8. Those who are looking for an explanation in numerology, astrology, or tarot.
9. Those who are developing their own ontology
10. Maybe someone else I missed. — Astorre

I wouldn't go so far as to confirm that the above are now the state of the world. To be fair, In some degree, people have been behaving like this for some time now. There's superstition, denial, feeling of defeat, stubbornness, dogmatism, and disbelief in everything.

But the stable and firm actions of those who are empirical and practical have continued to influence the world by producing cures for deadly diseases, structural codes for infrastructures necessary for our societies to function, and protections for the food and drinking supplies.

Take this with a grain of salt: have faith in those with a conviction to do it right with the world. It is true, individually, we are not mighty, but with a community of experts, scientists, mathematicians and statisticians, specialist, philosophy scholars, and sociologists who work during the hours we are asleep, we are in good hands.

Count the people you interact daily on a personal level: this is the size of your world and that's all that matters.

What are the bad pleasures according to Plato? Does this really depend on each of us and how we understand Hedonism? — javi2541997

If we follow Plato's good pleasure, then the bad ones are the vices -- where pleasure is mixed with pain, compulsion, deception, or obsession.
The popular "seven deadly sins" can be the examples.

If we are judging "evil" by the size of suffering, then we ourselves are misguided.

The means to an end is what we judge as morally reprehensible or morally good regardless of whether they are committed through the concentrated, legitimate power, or a boorish accumulation of blind adherents.

How can I think through a thought without breaking my own structure of thinking or undoing my own reasoning? — GreekSkeptic

You do not need to undermine your own reasoning if you follow Aristotle's method of deliberation. You do not even need to sacrifice your moral principles. Think of your goal first -- what is the end of your proposal? Then compare two or more alternatives or choices and weigh them against your moral principles or reasoning and against your goal. Third, think of the quality of your thinking -- is it good to you but offends others? Does it satisfy others but undermine your preferences?

There are no steps in thoughts. Some ideas might come to you sooner than other ideas. You're not assembling a machine where there's a user's manual to follow step by step.

It's not causation. It's memory retrieval. — L'éléphant

Could you expand on this? I have Thought A and then retrieve a memory so as to have Thought B? Why that particular memory? — J

Because of the operation of the mind -- thoughts are modes of thinking. If a thought can cause you another thought, are you not removing the mind from the equation?
A thought cannot cause another thought in the way that "causation" is used in philosophy.
You seem to think that a thought that can cause another thought is a starting point of an idea. If you think of an idea then another idea comes up, this thought that you said was caused by the first thought does not enjoy a particular hierarchy in the way actual causation happens. The mind is in control. It is also selective. A thought comes as a presentation from your mind. If further information is lacking or forgetfulness ensues, then another idea will come up.

Causation is physical. — L'éléphant

We can stipulate that, certainly. Do you think there's an argument for why it must be the case, or does it represent a kind of bedrock commitment to how to understand the concept? — J

Because causation is an observed phenomenon. That's why it is the case that it is physical.

The question is whether the movement from one thought to another is a type of causation, and if it is not, how should we describe this familiar experience? — J

It's not causation. It's memory retrieval. With unfamiliar people or territory, however, imagination is the source of continued thoughts.

Causation is physical. Causation is the true measure of empirical observation.

Then the difference between the environmental policies of let's say Trump's US and EU are hugely different. This all makes this seem to be a weak link as the US is one of the richest countries, but as with many other indicators, not at all with the best indicators (health, corruption, etc). — ssu

Correct. The article is suggesting that a targeted environmental policy would be the promising solution rather than looking at the link between wealth and environmental health.

Does that mean that philosophy is a fool's enterprise? No, its an ideal that every human being struggles with. We all have a bit of ego, and we all fail at thinking at times. The point is to get back up. Yes, the pressures of the world and yourself may have won today, but there's always the next day. Never stop thinking and never stop questioning even basic assumptions and outlooks. That is what pushes us forward. That is the purpose of philosophy. — Philosophim

Okay, good conclusion.

Not all of us will be thinkers. Solitude and thinking is a predisposition. That's why philosophy is always misunderstood. Yes, there is a point of thinking philosophically -- what is reality, what exists in the deepest analysis of the world, the meaning of what we say such claims, beliefs, arguments, and opinions. We want to know the truth and if truth is knowable.

These type of thinking is not an everyday activity that everyone cares for.

But gift-giving in and of itself, at least once a year, perhaps to commemorate a religious story of such, or perhaps just to do because "it is better to give than receive" or simply because yes people, especially kids, do enjoy receiving new and useful things, surely isn't immoral or otherwise something civilization and society would be better off without? — Outlander

There is actually a marked time when the Christmas tradition was commercialized and that's around mid-1800.

That said, no one is saying that give-giving is frowned upon. In fact, gift-giving has always been a part of the tradition. What I'm pointing out is that the sentiment in the past was the connection to the meaning of gift-giving and sharing. There were rituals such as singing, praying, arranging the table to with goods they made that celebrated the holiday. There were the lights outside the front door to signal the celebration.

Children were happy to receive gifts that were not marked by the manufacturer.
The point is that the affection and the emotion was for the Christmas itself not the brand name or who has the grandest gifts and decorations.