And, it is that facet of human nature that worries me. It is reckless and insatiable, and needs to be controlled. Would you agree with my pejorative here? — Shawn

Hmmmm, I see your concern, and certainly agree for MOST people, but I think there is another aspect that leads to harm (I am not saying I have any clue what that is, but I will give a short argument why I am not convinced shifting from living for needs to living for wants is automatically negative).

The greatest deeds in history were wants not needs. Gandhi didn't need a hunger strike. To be fair the worst deeds in history were not needs either.

Hmmmm, I am unsure again.

I got it...isn't it our WANTS that separate us from the other animals? Still not necessarily a good thing...but maybe it is a defining aspect of humans. We may have to learn to deal with this side of ourselves as opposed to thinking we can eliminate it completely.

Can anyone chime in on the internalist account for the definition of a "need" contra a "want"? — Shawn

Probably good to get more philosophical perspectives...I think I approached this a bit more from a grammar perspective :grimace:

Yeah, it's interesting to note that the desire for money is often due to a want, and not a need, since needs are already de facto easily satisfied, given our socio-economics of satisfying wants.

What do you think? — Shawn

This may be your point, but this made me think that our society has so muddled the lines between needs and wants, that it is hard to really tell the difference sometimes. Take a 13 year old who has 10 friends and they all have xbox and playstation...they now NEED at least one of those devices or they may lose some friends.

Are you your thoughts, feelings, actions? — Xtrix

Yes. And so much more.

Where are "you"? — Xtrix

California.

Where is this "self"? — Xtrix

It's just a word. It has a definition. We often use words to summarize more complex concepts (like self).

I am not saying I don't somewhat understand your post modern semi nihilistic view here (that is like all of my academic philosophy vocabulary used at once, so I may be entirely wrong), but what purpose can it serve?

Does grass exist? If we get down to it, it is really millions of individual cells. Within these cells are organelles that serve vastly different functions. How dare we call ALL of this "grass".

Likewise for "soul," likewise for "spirit," "subject," "mind" for that matter. — Xtrix

But these are not all the same. By definitions, "subjects" and "minds" certainly exist. "Souls" and "Spirits" only definitely exist as metaphors or fiction (I am not saying they don't exist, but they MIGHT not). Similarly, based on definitions and usage, most of us know "selfs" exist...but, of course, they exist as concepts...but upon deeper inspection, most words only exist as concepts, just like the Grass example I gave above.

If you're defining "self" within a certain theory, and giving it a technical definition I'm not aware of, then that's different. I don't see you doing so. — Xtrix

Nope. Just dictionary and common usage.

it's hard to say whether or not we "believe" in something when we don't know what it is. — Xtrix

this works: a person's essential being that distinguishes them from others, especially considered as the object of introspection or reflexive action.

What "evidence" is there that there IS a self? — Xtrix

We both keep using "I" and "you". We are assuming selfs.

Correct, DMT will have that result. Other psychedelics can in the right settings, but DMT is a very reliable means of producing this effect. — DingoJones

Well I am getting a bit too old to go seeking these things out. Maybe an opportunity will present itself one day. I would still expect at MOST, a loss of the SENSE of self. I can't really wrap my head around what "loss of self" even means.

Id call that loss of memory and attention, not self. — DingoJones

And that is exactly what I am trying to tease out here. What EXACTLY is the difference?

That implies the self is present but otherwise focused. So I would say its not the same thing we are talking about. — DingoJones

How do you know that is not what is happening during drugs or meditation?

Interesting, please elaborate. — DingoJones

Based on definitions of words "I" exist. To claim otherwise is extreme, and I would demand stark evidence to entertain such a notion...just like I would for a supernatural entity. The only evidence I have against either is that I see no evidence of either. Honestly, I am not even sure what people mean...if you lose your "self" can I now destroy your body and this lost consciousness will exist elsewhere?

Or are you just losing your SENSE of self? I can deal with that. I can even accept that I lose my SENSE of self when I am unconscious (not always...I have been unconscious as far as any outside party was concerned and most of my senses were "off", but I could hear everything that was going on?? - Remember to tap out on time if you ever do JiuJitsu or Judo, haha).

I really would like to know, as to why people confuse needs for wants and wants for needs? — Shawn

Doesn't "need" and "want" just have to do with the "why"? You are referring to physiological needs, but need is just a word...it is a "need" if there is an attached necessity.

I want a baseball jersey.

I need a baseball jersey in order to participate in tomorrow's game.

I need food TO LIVE. (notice to just say "I need food" is largely meaningless unless we add the implied "or I will die")

Otherwise, I want food, is typically more accurate.

Or from a developed world perspective it could change to, "I need food or I will feel uncomfortable".

And I would say all of this is why these two words are often confused. We get lazy with our language.

When I have satisfied all my needs, then should my focus shift towards the entertainment of wants? — Shawn

That would seem to be human nature to me...whether we SHOULD is different, but it seems to be human nature that once we don't worry about needs we find other things to occupy our minds...things we like or WANT in our lives.

How do you go about satisfying wants if all your needs are met? — Shawn

However you want :razz:

It seems to me that at this point, that needs get redefined when they seem all satisfied, as the things we find it hard to do without. Such as, coffee, tea, pizza, etc. — Shawn

For sure. Instead of "I need food to live." It becomes "I need pizza for happiness." But if any amount of happiness is dependent on eating pizza, then I think "need" still works grammatically.

Interestingly enough, does money count as a need? — Shawn

As it is the most direct way (in our current world) of attaining the four needs you described, I would say yes as a shortcut. The long answer - we want money because it allows us to easily fulfill our needs. Or perhaps - Money is needed if I wish to obtain my needs without breaking the law?

Sorry if this whole thing is just the High School English teacher answer :grimace:

We all know that it is more meaningful to spend time on things like reading or outdoor activities than on playing video games or choosing luxurious clothes. — Rystiya

This is full of problems. I see no significant distinction between these four activities when assessing their "meaningfulness". Each of the four can be productive or informative, and each could be trivial. Why is reading a cereal box (reading) more meaningful than dressing up for a wedding or funeral (choosing luxurious clothes)?

Surely we could come up with infinite examples of "video games or choosing luxury clothes" that are more meaningful than "reading or outdoor activity".

And this does not even address the problem of what exactly you mean by "meaningful"? Isn't it possible that your "meaningful" is different than mine?

I guess Pfhorrest already said most of this. Oh well.

It maybe true that an external reality exists but how can we describe it? Once we start to describe it we rely on individual perceivers. — Andrew4Handel

I entirely agree. I am glad you got this thread going. I have always wondered what "loss of self" even means. At least here (the philosophy forum), I know the people will have put some thought into their position...so it is interesting to see their reasoning...maybe I can at least understand their perspective, even if I still disagree.

Its very difficult to explain to someone whose never experienced it. — DingoJones

Well I have experienced psychedelics. But no matter how far down the rabbit hole I go, there is always a nagging little "I' that never leaves. What the "I" is saying is "you are on drugs, don't get carried away here." I would think drugs would make it easier to identify a partial loss of self...the first step in losing the self would be forgetting you are on drugs. If I know I am on drugs, then "I' has not gone anywhere. If "I" am not on drugs, who or what is?

To be fair, I have never done...is it called DMT? I think that is the one that is supposed to be directly tied to the loss of self...maybe?

So now imagine when youre in the room you are the one working the machines, and when you return after leaving, you are surprised to find on the security cams that the machines work fine without you and the machines being worked/controlled by you was an illusion.
Its like that, if any of that makes sense. — DingoJones

Can't you have this experience just by drinking too much? You wake up the next day to find video of yourself dancing on a table that you don't remember? How were the machines operating if you don't remember operating them? Heck, even entirely sober, have you ever got in your car and backed out of your driveway, then paused and thought, how did I get here? Or any other thing that just happens on auto pilot while we are thinking about something else? Our brain can do a lot with minimal to no intention.

I can't say you are wrong. But a loss of self seems to fail as the simplest explanation. It feels like claiming there is a god. A HUGE claim, with very limited evidence.

What the Buddhists will say is that we become "attached" to the "I," the "self," and that this is a cause of suffering. — Xtrix

I would guess they mean in more metaphorical terms. If I am attached to the idea of my own greatness type of thing. Otherwise, it sounds equally plausible to reincarnation.

I think that's a possibility. One watches a Buddhist monk burn himself alive and not move, and one has to wonder if there's something to this practice of "non-self." — Xtrix

I am less convinced. Soldiers and athletes block out pain regularly. Many women cry like babies when they bump their leg on a table and yet somehow give birth without going into shock. Mental strength? No question. Some sort of "loss of self"? Possibly, I just have no reason to believe it.

in the sense of recognizing a concept that isn't what we normally think it is — Xtrix

I can see some value here, but more along the lines of remaining agnostic to the possibilities, vs actually making a claim (there is no self) that would require evidence.

Well there is still something going on, an experience is happening but its not the “self” thats experiencing. When the “self” returns, — DingoJones

If "I" remember the experience, how do "I" know that "I" was ever NOT present? It feels like semantics more than a concrete occurrence?

but what we are and who we are have a long history of interpretations. — Xtrix

And what is wrong with summarizing these interpretations with words like "I" or "self"...otherwise we need to preface every opinion with a whole book of information that describes where this opinion is coming from. It is so much easier to say "I like ice cream" than to say "some entity with a unique consciousness that can only be shared with other consciousness in a very limited way, and this entity has existed on this place we call earth since 1981. The entity has been contained in a biological package. The entity has a brain that seems to be the birth place of this consicousness, but it can't be said for sure...and on and on and on, like ice cream".

Perhaps another way of phrasing it...what purpose would it serve to admit there is no self...? Would we act differently? Would we know anything new? Do we gain anything?

Have you tried any psychedelics or achieved a deep mediative state? In other words, have you actually done anything that would result in the loss of your sense of self? — DingoJones

I hope I can phrase this in a way that is not total gibberish...

Wouldn't it be impossible for anyone to be aware of it if they have achieved it? Only "I' know anything. If I lost my sense of self what would "I" be aware of...nothing because "I" would not exist. It is not like we suddenly have access to some overmind.

Isn't a "loss of self" really just a sensation of the loss of self that "I" am totally aware of?

I answered that. I do not know had the friggin "greatest" inauguration, and I do not care. — Nobeernolife

So then, when you said,

but everytime I partially checked some of those lists of lies, I only found distortions, misinterpretations or outright false claims. — Nobeernolife

You just don't check most of them? Why would it be difficult to admit he lied in this case? You don't even need to do research. Sounds like a type of derangement syndrome. I wonder if anyone has talked about that as an actual thing?

I do not know what your name-calling is about. I know the "mainstream" media slogan about Trump being a "liar", but everytime I partially checked some of those lists of lies, I only found distortions, misinterpretations or outright false claims. — Nobeernolife

Really?...what about this one:

Did DJT have the largest, greatest, best inaugural as he claimed - insisted upon? — tim wood

Just as running from the tiger is "interesting", so is sitting in the house, if your life is on the line. — TheMadFool

I find that hard to believe (I know it is 100% false for me personally, but that says exactly nothing about the population as a whole). It is not like it is the zombie apocalypse out there. We will see in a few months I suppose.

Wait, when did West Virginia learn to use the internet?

I wonder what could be more interesting than not dying? :chin: :mask: — TheMadFool

You mean what is more interesting than doing nothing?

Not dying is not necessarily an action, is my point. In the jungle, not dying means running away from the tiger. For the coronavirus, not dying means sitting in my house.

I recall hearing that, there's a difference between not dying and living and in the spirit of this sentence, the priority now is not living but not dying and given that this restructuring of our priorities is a global phenomenon, you're right in saying that entertainment (circuses) isn't really a need. In a sense then we were under the delusion that entertainment was/is a necessity insofar as not dying is our concern. — TheMadFool

First, I think you have pointed out an interesting and potentially important distinction between "living" and "not dying". I mostly agreed, but may have minor contentions...

When not dying is a challenge, circuses aren't needed. But if we look at the current crisis, no one is struggling to not die. It is constantly on the brain RIGHT NOW, so people are not yet bored. But this will not last. People will get bored. It is not like they have to do anything to not die...in fact, everyone needs to largely stop doing stuff. I think they will get bored eventually.

If schools are back in session in the fall, I think there will be no major problems. If they are not, implying that there is at least one more year of this stuff, I think we will see the results of people getting bored.

They'll start going into existential crisis and say "What's the point of anything?" — schopenhauer1

Well we already know people start asking that question more when their basic physical needs no longer need much effort to take care of. I am suggesting that entertainment has eased this crisis, and a whole chunk of entertainment options has been removed...so how will people react?

A fish in a bowl swims around, eats, swims a bit more, checks out the castle, swims, swims through the plant, etc. — schopenhauer1

I believe the same thing that allows us to choose not to have kids (for example), causes us to be unsatisfied just swimming around the bowl...although I do largely agree, there isn't really more to life than that.

If Rome's survival depended so much on circuses, wouldn't that make the latter an essential for the former, a need as it were. — TheMadFool

Yes! that is actually part of my point (obviously not a very clear part, haha). I labelled food, shelter, etc as physical needs not to separate them from circuses as "needs", but to separate them as physical. Circuses satisfy emotional needs. But I agree with you that they are needs. And I worry about how people will begin to act when their emotional needs are neglected.

I saw a pretty good video about it yesterday that you might like: — Pfhorrest

Thanks for the info. I have read enough similar articles to mostly understand what you are saying. I am now totally fine with shutdowns lasting until August/September. However, if schools do not re-open then (implying that much of the economy is still shut down), I would bet that the massive economic impact is too much. We would be happy with only 10 million dead at that point. I think a 2-5 month shutdown could be survived with 4-10 trillion of created money injected into the economy to keep it alive. I don't see it surviving a year of shutdowns (none of the shutdowns are calling for that long...but they seem quite unsure of the end date).

Not to mention that after about 3 months, cabin fever could lead to some crazy ass behavior.

If I want to get involved in a discussion do I have to read every reply that came before me? It seems prudent in smaller threads, but when you pass a certain threshold of number of replies it seems like it just becomes really intimidating. — WatchingRook

Sounds like you have it right. I do my best to read MOST posts before jumping in, but people here are reasonable as long as you don't jump in the middle and start disrupting an ongoing discussion (beneath each reply it shows how long ago it was posted - if 5 people have been going back and forth in a thread for the last 3 days and you jump in responding to the OP from 3 years ago, it can seem out of place).

I also have found that the moderators (not me) are pretty consistent about giving warnings on behavior before anyone gets particularly upset.

Also some threads (for example: All Trump Conversations Here thread) have thousands of posts and are much more stream-of-consciousness type threads...so I doubt anyone cares if you have read many of those posts before chiming in.

However, the more serious philosophy type threads (which often have far fewer posts) probably assume you are reading most everything.

I am no expert around here, but the people running this website usually give responses on these types of questions. I noticed it had been a few hours, so I gave my thoughts. If no one else says anything, I think we are safe to assume my advice was mostly correct...hopefully it mostly answers your question?

Welcome to the forum :smile:

Blame the media for not shutting their materialist faces — Gregory

Hahaha. Seems fair.

From what I understand, China is already over the hump locally, and it's only been like three months, and they didn't take the drastic measures we are. — Pfhorrest

See, I am not sure I even understand what that means. Just because most people in one area have already had the disease, doesn't mean one person can't just start up a new epidemic in the next town.

Please fill me in on what I am missing, but logically, the disease is still super contagious, and it still exists in china, and over a billion chinese people still have not had the disease, so if we (they) stop the measures to reduce the spread, it will just explode again...right?

I really feel stupid on this topic, because each time I hear an explanation from a smart person (yes, you and most people on this site count), it seems incomplete or ignoring some elephant in the room.

a few riots and a couple deaths will please everyone just fine — darthbarracuda

Seems inevitable if the next 6 months is similar to the last 6 days.

What I'm just saying that precautions can have some effect on our manners, which I think has also negative consequences. — ssu

Well that all makes sense. but to flip perspectives, as someone who is often uncomfortable in social situations and definitely has some personal space issues, "social distancing" just means I am no longer rude when I step back from a close talker :smile:

So we don't need to wait until there's a vaccine before things can go back to normal, just until we get over the hump of the curve. Once the number of new cases starts going down (even if just because there are fewer people who haven't gotten sick yet left), we don't have to worry about slowing its increase anymore, and can go back to normal knowing that the medical system won't be overwhelmed by those who depend on it. — Pfhorrest

Well I was typing out a long response to your previous post in this thread, but this paragraph gets right to the stuff I have been thinking about a lot...so I won't bother you with the rest of my ramblings.

"Getting over the hump" seems like it would take a good deal more than a year or two? When you say "even if just because there are fewer people who haven't gotten sick yet left"...won't it take years for most of earth's population to catch it? Especially since measures are being taken to slow the spread?

What on earth makes you think they'll be closed down indefinitely? — IvoryBlackBishop

Because IF the closures are to "stop the spread" (that is what I seem to be hearing), it seems they can only be stopped when there is a vaccine, which is supposedly a year away...so we may need to consider the long term effects.

Nah.

In truth it's called simply cabin fever: "Cabin fever refers to the distressing claustrophobic irritability or restlessness experienced when a person, or group, is stuck at an isolated location or in confined quarters for an extended period of time." — ssu

I can buy "cabin fever" for a couple weeks (not so much for a year or two). However, if I recall, the term "cabin fever" arose because people do some crazy ass shit in those conditions (like suicide or just walking out into a blizzard). So that seems to be a little support for my position.

Perhaps one problem will be that we will learn "social distancing". We'll adapt things just like with medical personnel (even before the pandemic) that you don't shake hands. Shaking hands can become something rude or an issue you don't do with strangers. And your personal distance kept is longer. — ssu

So we just use personal distancing and stop shaking hands? When do we stop all the current shutdowns and JUST do that? Because now, many things are just closed. Are you suggesting the current quickness to shut everything down will go away?

There will be circuses only some appreciate, New forms of art — Gregory

Indeed. Unfortunately, they can only be viewed by the four people that can fit in the room at any time given appropriate social distancing.

I am being snarky, but trying to point out that these new forms of art would need to entertain the masses, not just a few people.

Circuses will be foregone and survival will continue by the population, as long as they realize that it is needed for survival. — god must be atheist

I have my doubts about this. People do many things that hinder their long-term survival (I don't mean species long term, I mean individually - people will take strides to ensure their survival TODAY, they will do very little to help their survival in 20 years).

The moment the word gets out that the rich get access to more entertainment than they, all hell will break lose. — god must be atheist

I feel the cat is out of the bag for entertainment. We don't need to see rich people having what we don't, WE HAD IT last week. I am not convinced that the world will just go on more walks and have more sex and that will solve that. Undeveloped nations will have fewer problems as people are already used to similar entertainment conditions. Also, anyone who has to struggle to survive is less likely to feel bored.

"Let them eat cake" will become "let them watch football" when "they" (the poor saps) are completely fed up by ceaselessly watching Little Rascals and Brady Bunch reruns in their free time. There will be no football to watch; revolution will break out. — god must be atheist

Hahaha. Nice comparison :grin:

What I wrote in the previous post is pure psychology. In economic reality, the circus will come back to town the moment it gets a chance. Circuses, much like the movie industry and sports, are a particularly apt instrument to channel cash from the pockets of the everyday working stiff to the pockets of the rich and famous. — god must be atheist

I agree. But, when "it gets a chance" is very much the question right now...it seems the chance won't exist until the vaccine does, but if that is 1-2 years away, I am not sure the developed world will maintain order for that long.

Another circus act is trading illicit circus drugs and dancing girls. I have been out of that entertainment venue for too long to have any real knowledge of its operative and functioning diversity and dispensity. But I am now curious how they work under the circumstances.

In other words, (for the meeker in spirit) : do hooking and selling street drugs still continue under the new rules? — god must be atheist

I would definitely expect the black market circuses to grow significantly in the absence of state condoned circuses.

Half the world is not going to die from the corona virus. — Gregory

I believe you are correct. This thread was inspired by the coronavirus, but it is not about the coronavirus (although the coronavirus is a great current example to use for analysis).

I used the "half" number to suggest that even if half the world's population would die, I am not thoroughly convinced that life will just go on without "circuses".

Those are good points. I guess I was thinking of it as belonging there because that's the facet of education that I've focused on in my own essays, but yeah, there is learning to be done in every field. My first thought is that perhaps philosophy of education spans and intersects all of the fields, in the same way that history (which you'll note is not depicted on that chart) spans and intersects all fields. And really, much of education in any subject just is learning the history of that subject, getting caught up on what has already been studied so far, so those seem to fit together well. — Pfhorrest

I was thinking about this after I said I thought education fit into every area. My objection may be accurate but insignificant at the same time.

Toward the end of section one you say, "To that end, philosophy must investigate questions about what our questions even mean, investigating questions about language;what criteria we use to judge the merits of a proposed answer, investigating questions about being and purpose, the objects of reality and morality respectively; what methods we use to apply those criteria, investigating questions about knowledge and justice; what faculties we need to enact those methods, investigating questions about the mind and the will; who is to exercise those faculties, investigating questions about academics and politics; and why any of it matters at all."

If I am understanding this correctly, it sounds like philosophy is about analyzing the best way to analyze a particular field...well if education is about analyzing the best ways to teach and learn a particular field, there is at the very least a massive overlap. So while I am not suggesting that, education=philosophy, "philosophy of education" may be redundant when compared to "philosophy" - even the meaning "love of wisdom" sounds related to education.

I did define fideism when I first used it in the book, back in the chapter Against Fideism. I do try to avoid making people look up unusual words, but I also assume that people are reading the whole thing from beginning to end. — Pfhorrest

ah, I thought of that after I wrote that, and meant to add that I had not read everything :up:

Yeah, that is intended to be representative of all of philosophy, though of course many of those sections could be further subdivided, especially the "Knowledge & Reality" and "Justice & Morality" ones. I would put philosophy of education in the "Knowledge & Reality" section, as education is about the institutes of knowledge (and a later essay in the book is even titled On Academics, Education, and the Institutes of Knowledge). — Pfhorrest

Hmm, I am unconvinced by that placement of philosophy of education. Why does education belong with physical science more than ethical sciences? Why does it belong with knowledge of reality more than acquisition of language? All six domains seem to include specific subjects that are taught and learned, I don't see what makes one section different in respect to education?

If this is not something you want to get into, I can accept that I may be a few classes behind, don't feel as though you must explain. And as I think about it, I am not coming up with any more philosophies that I can't find a place for. So I am just stuck with this education one.

Nah, I don't mean that any serious thinking counts as philosophy, just that the faculties needed to do philosophy are the same faculties that constitute personhood. Those same faculties can be applied to things other than philosophy, though all at least tangentially related to it in the ways elaborated on in this essay. — Pfhorrest

Ok, I think I get this. We all have the ability to do philosophy, but that is not to say everyone uses this ability? There needs to be intention? Sorry if I take everything you say and try to put into dumber words...that is just how my brain confirms it is understanding...but I would guess it often leaves something out from the original message.

a decent chunk of the population has little interest in philosophy, but I don't think it's out of any kind of inherent disinterest, but more out of a feeling of overwhelm and helplessness. — Pfhorrest

That would fit my experiences, so it seems reasonable. I think helplessness explains the frustration I am seeing more than boredom would.

I suspect that for a whole lot of people, the task of examining their own thoughts and feelings is like that. They take a peek in their own mind, see a huge mess that they can barely begin to even comprehend never mind to improve upon, get stressed and overwhelmed at the very prospect of beginning such an enormous project, and "NOPE!" out before even beginning it, because they have more important things to do like relaxing enough tonight to get to sleep early enough to be awake enough in the morning to do their job well enough to keep getting paid enough to keep paying their landlord to let them stay inside their home instead of getting kicked out onto the street.

For most of them, I imagine, even that chain of implications is too daunting to think about, and just "relax enough to get to sleep" is about all they've got the mental strength left to handle. This isn't their fault, but the fault of the harsh world we live in, and I believe that if people were less traumatized by life, far more of them would be inclined, and able, to do things like philosophy. — Pfhorrest

Seems good analysis. And you even said "far more of them would be inclined" as opposed to "everyone" or "the majority" so I can't even argue that I think it would not be that many.

Thanks for the answers. I think I just about agree with everything except the placement of the philosophy of education. Feel free to straighten me out if you want, but I will not be freaking out if you just want to move on.

despite however hard one might want to eliminate mistake making from human rationality, then mistakes will inevitably be made. — Shawn

That is a much simpler way of saying it :up:

Kinda scary? — Shawn

It would be, if I wasn't so deeply conditioned to human fallibility :grimace:

Given a sufficiently long enough interval to analyze all the potential iterations of a game, then a human being would become no different than a hyper-rational computer.

True or false? — Shawn

I would say false. Let's say 50 years was enough time for me to view EVERY iteration possible in a chess game. Unfortunately, by the second year any normal human is already forgetting large chunks of the first year.

Am I missing something?

And a quick google search has the number of iterations in a chess game somewhere between 10 to the 111th power and 10 to the 123rd power, so 50 years is not going to be enough. (and "Go" is vastly more complex...more iterations than atoms in the universe).

I once memorized the periodic table for shits a giggles...yes, I am a real fun person, haha. After 3 MONTHS of totally ignoring the table, I was already forgetting portions. I am sure there are people with much better memories, but I have never heard of THAT much better.

Overall, I don't think you are wrong, just that, currently, humans are not capable of such feats. And our inability to memorize the totality of anything even a little complex (if we are counting chess or Go as complex, surely war or economics are vastly more complicated?), is why game theory would hold some applicability?

There is no question in my mind that you understand game theory better than I do, so if you feel my analysis is missing something related to the small details of game theory, feel free to let me know.

@Pfhorrest

Ok. So first off, it was understandable :smile:, and that is the most important thing as far as I am concerned. From the novice perspective, there were words (not many) I had to look up (like fideism), but that seemed fair. Otherwise you would be defining terms the whole time, so it seemed ok to expect a little effort from the reader.

I thought the first section was kind of a fun way to define philosophy. I am not sure I ever felt the need to know what philosophy is in relation to other fields, but it does give a more complete definition to a term that is often quite nebulous. It was also just interesting to view philosophy relative to those different perspectives.

The second section on progress in philosophy made sense, and I have to say that, for the novice, examples are wonderful...when you say, "Rather, philosophical progress is made by devising useful methods of answering questions about those things, and consequently the related issues of the meaning of such questions, and the importance of those questions", I am fairly confident I understand but after the scientific method example...totally clear and even confirmed that my thoughts were right, so the more specific examples like that, the better (for me, I am not sure if things like that would just bore more knowledgeable philosophers).

In the third section, your martial arts metaphor made it easy to understand the big idea.

Since you are trying to improve your writing, feel free to ask me any questions where you are looking for thoughts on portions that I did not address.

I am not sure if this is the place, but I did have a couple questions after reading that essay (just let me know if I should save them for another thread...probably not too difficult of questions though).

First, I like the way that hexagonal chart comes together, but is that supposed to represent all philosophy? Or just showing the correlation between a few of the major philosophies? Most "philosophies" I can think would fit into one of the categories, but say, 'philosophy of education' doesn't seem to fit anywhere...and I would assume we could think of a few more?

Now this portion may seem a bit harsh, but I think you will have an answer that shuts me up...

You say that all that is needed to 'do' philosophy is personhood, and the potential topics are vast...does this mean that ANY serious thinking counts as philosophy? I guess that is reasonable, but seems a bit weak? (not sure if weak is the right word, vague? incomplete?...??)

On a related note, you mention an important aspect of philosophical thought, "This reflexivity allows you to look upon your thoughts in the third person as though they were someone else's thoughts that you were judging, allowing you to assess the validity of the inferences you make, and so to do logic, to tease apart the relations between your various ideas." I have social problems that I think very much stem from me doing WAY too much of what you describe here. That being said, I have also found this reflexive analysis of our own thoughts to be so repulsive to many people that you can actually see pain on their faces when they are challenged to explain their thinking. Does this suggest a decent chunk of the population just has no interest in philosophy because they have very little interest in the "why's" of life?

Analogously, think about chess for a moment. Given that chess is the oldest game in human history, and given that it is deterministic, then through enough iterations it can be demonstrated that both players, given a sufficiently long backlog of past historical games, are going to face situations where winning becomes... impossible.

What is left to entertain is simply a mistake committed by either player to ensure victory. Since both players, given enough iterations, become hyper-rational, then winning becomes impossible, and the game looses its "fun-factor".

I believe the analogy can be demonstrated for ANY deterministic game, and thus, game theory has been refuted for any deterministic game. — Shawn

You have a point. But your point holds up much more with tic-tac-toe than chess. For chess, a computer could possibly "memorize" the nearly infinite iterations of the game. But a person would never get there. Now to be fair, more experience with the game leads to MORE ability to create a stalemate, but unlike tic-tac-toe where 2 reasonably informed people will ALWAYS end in stalemate, chess would at best OCCASIONALLY end in stalemate, because no human could memorize every possibility. And if I remember correctly, the game "Go" has far more potential iterations than chess, so it would be even less possible to know enough to consistently reach a stalemate.

No where is it implied that air travel means all international trade. — boethius

Ok, I was being too literal again (if ALL international travel is stopped then ALL trade is stopped). I can certainly accept that was not your position.

It does seem the terrified attitude would eventually lead to a shutdown of trade (schools in the US are close to all closing...it seems business would follow soon after), and few people seem to consider just how dependent the world has become on international trade..

However, everything you said seemed reasonable and I appreciate you taking the time to lay it out for me .

@Pfhorrest
I am reading it now, but I know I am not going to have time tonight to actually give a decent response. I will get to it in the next couple of days though....so you will have an opinion from the novice perspective :smile:

Yes. In some ways I feel more free, like I'm not abiding by societies expectations of how I should behave. I feel like the need to be sane is a way of society keeping us in line so we can be controlled. Society wants everyone to be sane, but sometimes, I think, it is in the interest of the individual to experience some insanity. — Wheatley

Interesting. That is kind of how I have felt, but wasn't sure it applied to un-medicated insanity.

yet I see the fear in other people wanting me to act "normal". — Wheatley

Hmmm, my experience is often the opposite. I FEEL like a crazy person, but everyone tells me how "normal" I am acting...likely connected to the fact that I have always had a "the thumb that sticks out gets hammered" attitude toward life, which means I have tended to physically conform, even when my brain is having none of it.