Oh come on, this is fun sometimes lol

A bit weak, but fair. I wouldn't assume I was either. I just think you're clearly wrong.

Are you sure?



It's always possible I am misunderstanding, but this entire piece

seems to speak to Quine essentially saying "This isn't a problem, because you can't shoehorn meaning in here for it to contradict (as to itself)"

The two aspects are known scientifically as the sensory aspect of pain and the affective aspect of pain. — Metaphysician Undercover

That does not actually seem to be the case. This seems a floated theory on how to get around some esoteric aspects of pain, so to study them. The paper is speculative and philosophical, not scientific. You can tell they are way off track, without even havign access to the full paper (your link does not provide this):

" How can one obtain an account of the experience of pain that does justice both to its objectivity (and thus its similarity with exteroception) and to its excess of subjectivity?"

The former is a misnomer. They are trying to conflate pain with damage or stimulus. They are clearly not the same, and so conflating same as aspects of the 'same' thing is erroneous. I see how this approach will be very helpful in treatment of pain, but it does nothing for our discussion best I can tell.

Notice, "unpleasant" is the defining aspect of pain — Metaphysician Undercover

No. No it's not. I have given plenty of examples which violate this definition. It is inapt. Pain is not inherently unpleasant. If that were the case, the examples i've given would not obtain. I think what you meant to discuss is discomfort. I tried to lead you here... Discomfort is inherently uncomfortable. Pain is not.

I wonder if you're aware of Samuel Sagan? If you are, perhaps this would be better as a DM thread.

I can only laugh.

Who could care about AN concerns? They are ridiculous given that there is plenty enough of pragmatic importance to be getting on with in our already extant lives. — apokrisis

So, you mean to say, you've been arguing with (i think) three people about antinatalism across two threads, and you don't care about, or understand the concerns of antinatalists? Interesting approach my guy.

AN would be the aesthetic pose in my book. I prefer to move on to the pragmatic meat of the issue of whether to have children. And how to approach life in general. — apokrisis

I don't think you're reading these responses.

Hyperbole. — apokrisis

Not in any way, whatsoever. The number of people who cower into an ideology that saves them from head-on dealing with the complexities and pains of life is far higher than the number of people who do not. This is not hyperbole, it just may be uncomfortable to confront. I am speaking here of religious people, New Age people and the like. It is not common to intellectually "raw dog" life, as it were.

You were arguing as if the “higher consciousness” of humans were something neurobiological rather than sociocultural. This makes a difference. — apokrisis

You may need to clarify as this is across threads, and I don't quite recognize anything here?

able to suffer — apokrisis

Therapy can’t address the source of the distress — apokrisis

Im not sure you're making anything of this. Humans are capable (in fact, predisposed) to suffer. Therapy can't make us inhumane. Okay?

But if instead you understand human consciousness as a socially constructed habit of thought — apokrisis

You'd be a very, very weird person to deal with. Bordering on nonsensical, imo.

then you can see how the inner narrative is something that can quite authentically be rewritten. — apokrisis

This sounds like Frankfurtian nonsense to me I'm afraid (not your fault, I'm sure - you'll have seen at least some of my responses to Constance illuminating why this is so, for me)). The two points you're trying to contrast aren't related in my view (in this discussion, anyway. Others, sure). The fact of self-consciousness has very little to do with (other than as a required premise) inner monologues. Our self-consciousness predisposes us to suffer. We have the ability to talk ourselves around. Okay. This is, again, not related to AN concerns or positions. You're talking about living people dealing with their already-extant lives. Not. Relevant.

This is the shift in mindset behind the positive psychology movement. — apokrisis

And you take this seriously, I take it, as opposed to nifty social trend designed to make money off people's mental health?

helping people realise they have internalised certain scripts and, if they want, they can rewrite them to better suit their own lives. — apokrisis

This is the majority of all therapies throughout time. This is not 'new'.

It is not the “gift of life” that is our unconsented burden. — apokrisis

Yes it is. Unfortunately, nothing you've said comes close to altering this position.

That which we could not help internalising as it was how we were treated, the circumstances of our early rearing. But that which we can grow out if we have a clearer idea about how the human mind is shaped. — apokrisis

The strange part about this exchange (again, not you... some free-floating attribute) is that I basically agree with this. Once alive, we can do all sorts of things to alleviate suffering. Some people genuinely enjoy a life with less suffering and more pleasure (as it were - that's a bit black/white). No issues with what you're getting across here - which is an argument against existential dread, or suicidality, or even defeatist attitudes of the living. It does not engage with AN concerns.

It seems you think Wittgenstein has a point, yes?

Edit: It would have been much better for me to mention paraconsistency here. The sentence is not paradoxical, but a lot of the ways in which this is the case, Russell has covered.

We infer what it literally means. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Which is incorrect, in the structure of the sentence. As has been pointed out.

That is an important point. RussellA should not resort to trying to change the context from "This sentence has five words" to "This sentence is false". — TonesInDeepFreeze

Teh self-reference remains in your reading, though. So, whether or not the sentence is referring literally 'to itself' (this should answer your query about a sentence wanting to say something above) or to "what it refers to" is not actually "up to you". You can't simply read it in a way which is false, but meaningful by adding meaning to it, without sufficient reason.

On it's face, it is plainly meaningless. I'm not sure you're actually ascertaining what this amounts to because it seems all you're wanting to do is have the sentence refer to itself. If it does, then fine, but RussellA has already covered that and your response does nothing for it.

I suggest you endeavour not to be wrong about everything

So you are here in bad faith. I had thought so.

So, you cannot handle things alone? Asking for help now? Ha ha ah! — Tarskian

But, to retort your nonsense: Nope. We would just both find you equally as risible. Sometimes, that's entertaining to enjoin someone to. The irony of you positing this, when you require a Cosmic dictator to accept the facts of life - is almost beyond humour.

Level with me mate - are you 19, having trouble getting laid?

Fuck Sartre. — BC

I'm sure he'd oblige, but I, for one, prefer your context.

what is it that I do not understand about my own source code — Tarskian

I solved it with a script. — Tarskian

By the way, where is your source code? — Tarskian

@Lionino I apologise, mildly but I thought you should have to read this page.

Concepts do not exist - that is, they have no material reality. — Vera Mont

Interesting. This, to me, is to say that there are things that 'exist' and 'do not exist' yet they are all extant... Can you see if you can make the language there work?

Until you're willing to read the legal reports, keep beating hte horse my dude.

prostitution is persecuted only when it is deemed a disturbance to public order — Tarskian

I assume you got this from the legal reports about rates of prosecution? (btw, prosecution is the word you're looking for here).

If not, you'll need to provide those statistics (preferably vetted by an external HR-type source) for me to take this seriously.

You ahve also ignored hte direct challenges to your obvious hypocrisy and cherry-picking.

Are you going to address any of the objections you've received, or just continue to ignore them? I have asked specifically if you're going to beat a dead horse. Are you?

Given you find yourself alive, is it then better to have a positive or a negative mindset about that fact? — apokrisis

You'll need to let me know what this has to do with AN first (i can save the time: It does not have more than an aesthetic resemblance to the issues AN wants to deal with). In the meantime, I think I can address the question your asking, noting it is a non sequitur from defending/objecting to AN.

is your situation going to be made better or worse if you believe your fate is in your own hands, or if you instead believe the hope has already gone? — apokrisis

I don't think the question is that easy. Having one's fate in one's own hands seems to overwhelm (literally) the majority of people to psychosis.

I don't think any mindset 'ought'. That seems an extreme move to make.

I said that a utopian vision depends on eliminating wealth disposition, skill and determination disparity — Vera Mont

Wealth may get us someway to equalizing these things, but they are not a good indicator at all. These problems will persist whether wealth even exists. Some will do, some will not do. That's the basis for the entire conversation, if one wants to think about it a bit further than 'wealth' which is a bit of a cop out when it comes to human behaviour.

LOL.

Oh brother. You don't understand the majority of what you've posted. I remember that zone well.

LOL, well fair enough!

Which, based on the description above, it is not. This, unfortunately, would use some logic of language chat, which I have very little interest in.

Suffice it to say, it wants to say something it can't, and so contains no meaning.

Likely, but it might also be that he's collecting epistemic idealism under hte same banner - in which case, equivocally, his statement sort of hits.

He's correct, as far as I can tell and am concerned at this stage. It is not a paradox.

You have to catastrophise the average life to make life itself seem always an intolerable burden and thus never justified in its starting. — apokrisis

You really, really do not. Your position is that of most people, even one's aware of hte burden of living so there are no surprises here. Just, not a lot of analysis.

I present you with a simple fact, and you answer again with a useless word salad. — Tarskian

You did not. You posted a popular, sponsored article which has been removed from the 'credible' list by more than one poster. You're going to beat a dead horse now too?

This is clearly not the case in Malaysia. — Tarskian

You're an ignorant werido. I have provided several local reports from legal experts to the contrary. You literally refuse to read them. You're a joke, my friend.

What's more, your meandering word salads won't make any difference whatsoever to the facts on the ground. — Tarskian

That you cannot understand plain English is sufficiently clear. You did not need to be so mean to yourself.

My position on the matter is otherwise perfectly clear. The government should not enforce matters deemed of moral self-discipline unless public order is at stake. — Tarskian

You're now doing the non sequitur. A quaint dance. Once again, no one will be taking you seriously on the back of this. Was that the goal?

:cheer:

I agree that if the sentence "this sentence contains fifty words" is inferred to mean that this sentence, ie the sentence "this sentence contains fifty words", contains fifty words, then this is not paradoxical and is false.

However, we are not discussing what the sentence "this sentence contains fifty words" is inferred to mean, we are discussing what it literally means.

And because not grounded in the world, if "this sentence" is referring to "this sentence contains fifty words", it has no truth-value and is meaningless. — RussellA

Why did it take 9 pages.

creates a caricature "natalist" — apokrisis

Agree.

caricatured anti-natalism — apokrisis

I think you're wrong, so I can't agree here. Your objections are linguistic in nature and do not affect his actual reasoning (though, I think he's not clear on his own tbh).

Not sure that any society was ever blindly natalist, or even anti-natalist, in the way schop requires. — apokrisis

They have, but under weird guises like 'economy' when in reality, they wanted a bigger army or whatever. It's never been a bare goal though, I'd cop to that.

unlike antinatalism. — 180 Proof

"troll someone else". Caricature of a thinker.

That outcome is called an "attractor" — Tarskian

So you're now confusing sociology, ideology, philosophy and mathematics. Gotcha.

When every syllogistic chain of arguments leads to the same conclusion, then this conclusion is simply inevitable. — Tarskian

You've not presented a single one to base this on. And, doubtless, your Ps will be entirely false, so what's your point? Syllogisms don't come from Mathematical concepts.

Therefore, I am absolutely not surprised that the South Korean feminist 4B movement comes to this conclusion. — Tarskian

You might be surprised to learn that it is hatred of men, destablising social structures, and avoiding populating the country are their reasons. These are terminal reasons (not to mention they are empirically utterly bereft of evidence for either their reasons, or their purported solution). These are reasons for ending the species, not for changing any kind of dynamic. If their ideology was taken up en masse, we are then in a situation where there are no babies. So, you're an anti-natalists? Very unislamic of you.

So, while you may not be surprised, it violates all the points you're making. If you're not surprised, I'd hazard a guess that once again your ideology is clouding your (obviously functional) reasoning and assessment mechanisms.

The West is terminally doomed. — Tarskian

"the West" is a delusion you are glomming on to to, again, support an unsupportable point.

If you hate the West, live elsewhere are shut the fuck up.

These gay bars, a multitude of them -- being openly advertised -- seem to be perfectly legal in Malaysia. How is that compatible with your gay-persecution hypothesis? — Tarskian

You may want to re-read all the replies to this erroneous posting, and your ridiculous conclusions.

I also note that you are now relying on 'legality' instead of 'enforcement'. This is because if you read the reports, you'd realise prosecution is rife. You are cherry-picking, and changing your position based on what it supports in your retorts. This is extremely bad thinking, writing and argumentation. First-year critical thinking courses would tie you in knots.

You haven't answered to what seems to be a glaring contradiction in your position on the matter. — Tarskian

You haven't presented one, so I'm not answering to one. This is a mistake on your part, not mine.

Deal with the legal reports, or don't.

there is no need to read your sources of propaganda — Tarskian

Right, so you're a religious zealot who refuses to engage with criticism, 'fact's or evidence. Gotcha brother. Could have said this at the start and saved me the time. I was 100% right - you are under the impression that high-level discourse is the same as low-level discourse, but it isn't. You are floundering here my friend.

How is that compatible with the following? — Tarskian

What you've posted is a popular article literally advertising specific bars in the area. It has nothing, whatsoever to do with the discussion. Either critique thos several legal reports but local legal experts, or move on. Posting a travel article which is sponsored is not credible. I think it's possible you're under the impression that the level of discussion on these things remains in the same place it does when one speaks from a theocratic position (i.e restrained by belief). This would apply to your beliefs that aren't directly related to your theology too. In this case, you simply 'believe' that things are OK for LGBT people in these places, perhaps because you need to, to reconcile your religious position, with the world around you and your apparently inherent moral code (i.e don't arbitrary criminalise same-sex relationships - yet Islam does, routinely, almost anywhere it gets the chance).

Is it just about any perceived Malaysian distaste for LGBTQ propaganda? — Tarskian

You haven't read the reports, so stop trying to have a conversation about htem. Read them and critique them, if you wish. Otherwise, please stop trying to talk about things you are plainly ignorant of from every conceivable angle.

I also note that you've just swallowed, without reflection, that the term "propaganda" is being used correctly. No. It is not. It is being used to label anything which is visible not heteronormative which is an strictly religious impulse in human history.
It would be better if you asked questions, clarified, and accepted sources and facts that go against your initial position. This should have been an opportunity to learn.

In Melbourne? I had a short foray in the area (intellectual area) and Melbourne was a hot bed at the time (circa 2010-2015). I still quite like the Thesophical Society Bookstore

They want to see someone else live out X and they make it happen. They force the hand. — schopenhauer1

Not true. Natalism is a population ethic concern and has to do with population growth. We no longer need people to 'have children' to grow the population. This 'guilt' can be lumped on a singular social functionary: The doctor.

I already said you can use what term you’d like. — schopenhauer1

Ok. But you're talking about an established population ethics concept. It would be more reasonable for me to say "pick a different term". THe one you've chosen is taken.

I was recently recommended a podcast hosted by Glenn Loury and John McWhorter. — Leontiskos

Talking Heads right? You might like McWhorter's book. A pretty good antidote the Kendi's, Crenshaw's and DiAngelo's of the world.

What does that mean? You were birthed. Does that force you to be a natalist? — apokrisis

You're reading backwards. Any parent that forces a child into life is 'Natalist' on that account there, but Schop is wrong about what Natalism is. He's wrong in his recent reply too, because that particular attitude is not capturing Natalism.

Unfortunately, it's worse.
Natalism is a population ethic concept, whereas AN doesn't apply to that set of concerns/issues. Using 'Natalism' as an ethical argument toward any small group, or individual is completely inapt and inhumane (largely).

You haven't. There would be evidence in your thoughts and there is none. I really did read all of your long post and found nothing, absolutely nothing of a working intellect. A lot of insults but nothing even remotely about anything these philosophers had to say. — Constance

You are now:

1. Mind reading;
2. Insulting;
3. Refusing to engage;
4. Doubling-down on your incredibly intense failure to be a functional interlocutor.

You are now simply lying to get past the points brought up to you. You haven't engaged a single work, and have (in three consecutive posts) fallen back on pure ad hominem. You are either incredibly dishonest, or incapable of understanding what you pretend to. Either way, go well.

Fair enough!

Sorry to bother you. — Relativist

Not at all! I was far more concerned that my reply would come off bothering to you :P

I would say you are explicitly incorrect, or are misusing hte term Fascism which is quite specific, and not just an indicator of violent governmental enforcement.

The U.S isn't even sniffing the arse of fascism currently.

Since "pain" in its scientific representation, is understood to consist of both of these aspects — Metaphysician Undercover

Can you perhaps lay out which two aspects you're referring to, in terms of the scientific understanding? I cannot see any room for the weird "pain in the toe" aspect in any scientific reading I've seen (I don't think!).

Do you agree that it is wrong to say that pain is simply a specific type of touch sensation? — Metaphysician Undercover

Not really, but I think pain from sensory input and pain with no sensory input are the same thing from different sources. The experience is the same. Seeing a shadow in the exact same shape as an actual image (which you can also 'see') might be analogy here. Maybe a slightly better one would be apprehending something's shape due to touch, rather than sight.
In any case I take it that you're trying to get out of me an admission of difference between pain the "Sensory input" and pain the "mental experience". I could probably be pushed. Onward...

"unpleasantness" inheres within the definition of "pain" — Metaphysician Undercover

This does not seem true to me. I think I have covered this earlier. I'm unsure I will go back over it, but a pretty darn clear example is BDSM behaviours or combat sport. For some, "pain" is literally an academic label for something they don't shy away from whereas for most, that is the case.

In the case of pain, unpleasantness is a defining feature, so one cannot feel pain without the unpleasantness, and so this emotional aspect is an "objective" aspect of pain, it is a necessary condition. — Metaphysician Undercover

I just think this is obviously wrong for reasons above, and elsewhere. I am less inclined to be pushed now :P

However, in the case of "pain", unpleasantness is the defining feature of that concept — Metaphysician Undercover

It is not (on my account/view).

We can though, separate the sensory aspect and talk about "pain" as an emotionally based concept — Metaphysician Undercover

It is (on my account/view) a different concept. Emotional pain, it seems to me, is actually a different but related mental experience. Perhaps, a bad one and hte unpleasantness in this concept seems to inhere, but I think you are wrong to conflate them and transitively apply this to "physical" pain. There are blurred lines - being emotionally struck can cause nausea for instance, but is that pain? I should think not. Discomfort.

And, the fact that "pain" as an emotional concept, is a true representation of the reality of pain, is evident from experiences such as phantom pain, and some forms of chronic pain. — Metaphysician Undercover

This, for me, seems to indicate exactly the opposite and represents an aberration in a physical signalling system. THe expereince remains the same.