ther projects, such as 'knowledge of the universe,' or 'seeing how things hang together generally,' are only of extrinsic interest, that is, they are not interesting on their own terms, but only insofar as an arbitrary opinion decides to grant them interest relative to something else. — The Great Whatever

But that's not true. Plenty of people find them intrinsically interesting.

Why would the project of philosophy be to live well?

I wouldn't call that gorgeous. Interesting and different, certainly. It sort of reminds me of the Borg. Or beehives. It sort of looks like a forgotten temple one would stumble across in the jungle.

There is a fundamental disconnect with that way of life and the modern one: it's not a matter of certain contingent things about life being out of whack, but the values that determine what people think a life should consist of to begin with are so foreign to those interests that there's no connection. — The Great Whatever

What would that look like today, and what sort of values would foster that kind of community? Is this the kind of commitment Jesus demanded of his disciples? Leave your normal life and practice philosophy instead?

Also, it seems you think the Cyrenaics figured out most of the interesting philosophical problems, so how would contemporary philosophers improve upon that, in your view?

Right but I'm saying universals don't exist. We just have a THOUGHT of redness. — invizzy

We have a thought of redness, true. But then there are red things. Which is presumably why we think of red.

Why do we need to account for the concepts? Can't we dismiss them as false if we reject platonism? We can have false concepts right? — invizzy

Sure, but I guess the question is what do we mean we talk about the world using universals? If the universals are false, then what are we talking about?

As for antinatalism, the reality is that people are going to keep having kids, despite any philosophical arguments to the contrary. Some people here or there might be convinced to not bring new people into the world, but it won't make a big dent. So the alternative is to make a better world, if possible. Unless the antinatalist is thinking truly long term, and believes their arguments can win out over generations. I kind of doubt it, but who knows. Maybe future people will become bored with everything.

The good thing about nukes is that they're hard to come by. A nasty designer virus might have a downloadable genome that you can 3D print in the future.

I don't think you can end suffering in a generation. I don't know that it can be ended. Maybe the posthuman stuff is pie in the sky. Maybe not. I'm sort of on the fence. It's a mix of fanciful and feasible. Hard to disentangle what's realistic. Hard to ignore technological progress also. There's some technologies that are still immature, such as nanotech and 3D printing. It's hard to imagine what the world be like when the following is achieved:

• Mature molecular nanotech (this implies self-replication and nano-machines)
• Mature DNA engineering (CRISPR is a start in that direction)
• Deep understanding of the brain (full brain simulation perhaps)
• Very advanced computing (let's say we're half-way there, so maybe another 70 years of advances)
• Strong AI

If the above is realized (and there are other important technologies of course), then it's easy to imagine that the world could become a very different place. But who knows to what extent that ends suffering. There are dystopian scenarios. One can only imagine what a 22nd century warfare would look like.

If everything is a thought I'm not sure you run into the same problems. There is no platonic realm needed to explain where redness etc. is, it is just a mental realm. — invizzy

Well, you still need to account for why we have such concepts, and how they map onto particulars. I assume we use concepts such as redness because it makes sense of something about particulars (that some of them are shaded red).

I am a little confused as to the difference between nominalism and conceptualism. Is it that nominalism just sees universals as naming schemes and arbitrary groupings, while conceptualism is more a matter of our cognitive makeup that we see the world in universal terms?

Focusing on what's doable in the shorter term, I'm guessing that over the next century, things like mental illness will be much more treatable as drugs become tailored for the individual, and you have increasingly better simulated brain models. Those are still a work in progress, but we can expect results of human brain simulation at some point. The primary purpose of simulating the brain, or different regions of it, would be to further neuroscience and to create more effective treatments.

Well, do you think that an alien civilization 1 million years older than our own would still have suffering members? Will we, if human civilization lasts that long in some form?

What if machines are our progeny? Will they suffer? If the future of advanced life is machine based, maybe not? Then again, maybe machines need to be able to suffer to be fully alive? But then, why suppose that machines need to be anything like us? Some will be. Others will be very different.

What if we could bioengineer new kinds of bodies? One's that don't have mental illnesses, don't get sick, aren't shortsighted and foolish, etc?

Or perhaps an advanced civilization can upload their minds into virtual worlds to fulfil their deepest desires?

There's a lot of possibilities if we're talking the truly long term, and not ruling out anything which can be physically arranged (at least in principle). Our current civilization could be infantile compared to one that's been around a very long time. Even a million years is a drop in the bucket of deep time.

It's only an absolute in-so-far as it's a meta-statement applicable to different ways of life. It's not in the same class of statements as rules which apply within a particular way of life, but rather the very structure that governs ways of life themselves. — Agustino

Well, there have been more than a few societies who decided that imposing their way on others was not only okay, but necessary. The Romans weren't exactly live and let live.

As Wittgenstein has stated, and I agree with him, criticisms of ways of life can only come from inside. From inside a culture or a country, people can decide they no longer want a certain law/rule, and thereby get rid of it, by force if necessary. But it is wrong when somebody imposes things from the outside. — Agustino

Usually it is wrong to impose things from the outside (although, is that an absolute or something?). And it often has bad consequences, because nobody likes to be imposed upon. But on the other hand, at what point do we decide that we're all in this together on the same planet?

It's also a question of who doesn't want the imposing. Would American slaves before the Civil War have welcomed a foreign power putting an end to the institution? What if the foreign power had the means to flip things and put blacks in power to subjugate the whites? Then would the blacks be resentful of the foreign power, or become close allies?

Therefore, I realise the importance of respecting different ways of life and different cultures so long as they respect mine. My land, my rules, your land, your rules :) — Agustino

That sounds good and reasonable and all, and it is for many things. But then you have things like female circumcision, child soldiers, genocide sometimes, and what not where your land is some people in the land treating others very badly.

As a parallel, I can say your house, your rules, but if I found out you were beating and doing terrible things to your spouse, children, or roommates, then I will be motivated to take some sort of action.

Of course that parallel can fail because I can just get the police involved in your case, whereas it might take a war in the case of a sovereign country, and all the fallout that comes with that.

So whereas I might wish that Western values could prevent genocide or the use of child soldiers, to do so would be very bloody and messy. Unless those values can be spread in a non-violent means. And that's where I become less relativistic about things. I do want to people to be told that female circumcision is wrong.

False. It is to say that the better plumber is to be MORE respected than the worse plumber when it comes to plumbing only. — Agustino

That tends to happen naturally anyway. Are you just promoting meritocracy? Flesh that out for other aspects of life in addition to work. How is the superior plumber treated legally?

Amazon produced the first season of a tv series based on a Ray Bradbury short story where the Axis won WW2. It's called 'The Man in the High Castle', and it's set in 1962 in an America divided between Nazis Germany and Imperial Japan. As such, you get exposed to a different set of values promoted by those societies, and the dissidents living in it. It's interesting, if grim.

The biggest value in those societies seems to be promotion of the state apparatus. Individual lives (unless you're high command or Emperor) are to be sacrificed to the state. And of course all those lives not deemed worthwhile are either subjugated or exterminated.

I will agree with Augistino in one sense. Societies do determine what the fundamental values are. I happen to grow in a society where equality, justice and tolerance are promoted. But I could have grown up in Sparta. So from an absolute point of view, how does anyone say which values are best? That's kind of disturbing.

As it stands though, the West has the power and influence to remake the world in their image, and so those values are the ones which will win out. I say that's good, but with an understanding that it's my modern Western preference for those particular values. And also with an understanding that China could change that equation in the future. And as the rests of the world modernizes and makes it online, the balance of influence could shift.

If I want to become moderately rich, a "free and equal" society is good. But if I want to become immoderately rich, extremely rich - then such a society places more constraints on me than its opposite. — Agustino

I don't know. Seems like the tech billionaires did alright for themselves. Bill Gates was the richest person in the world for how long? How influential are companies like Google and Facebook?

Better in any of these ways. Not better in absolute terms, since there is no way to decide if the best plumber is better than the best lawyer — Agustino

But in most societies it's already the case that people can find all sorts of ways to end up better off than others financially, in terms of status quo, or other ways. A free and equal society gives people the most opportunity to do this, whereas more stratified societies tend to put barriers in place for ambitious individuals born to the wrong class, ethnicity, gender or circumstances.

I will be treated as a social outcast, with whom no one wants to be associated with. So therefore, this is necessarily intolerant towards me, since it acts as a way to marginalise me. — Agustino

So you think people should be required to socialize with you even if they can't stand your views? I think people should be free to socialize with whomever they want.

Well, it's inevitable for some people to be better than others. — Agustino

Better than others in what way, though? Athletically, intellectually, better at making money, better at exploiting and manipulating, being more beautiful, being the right skin color, being born to the right family, etc? How are you going to define the criteria for who is better?

Who do you think deserves to be considered better?

Being treated equally means that you can express your opinion freely without legal consequence. Some people might not like you for that, but they are free to dislike you or to challenge your opinion. You're not being oppressed just because you end up with a minority opinion that most people dislike.

Who are you to claim so? — darthbarracuda

I don't think a coherent philosophical argument can be made for the objective existence of inherent rights. The best anyone can do is invoke God, and that will only get you as far as people believe in God. And even then, God doesn't seem to bother to enforce those rights, so ...

However, I disagree that these are fundamental values and intrinsic rights. — Agustino

There isn't any such thing, except as we decide there are intrinsic rights. My opinion is that deciding there are makes for a better world for everyone in it, so we might as well act like there is such a thing.

He just has strong opinions, particularly when it comes to politics, and calling him a "Commie", even in jest, is a conservative meme that will be seen as a battle cry.

This well end well. *Pulls up chair, waits on Landru to join discussion.*

No -- time doesn't rack up either. We live within a moment. — The Great Whatever

So what the hell does it mean to live well then? We might live moment by moment, but we're constantly thinking about the past and the future, and we make choices based on that.

It should be obvious, but some ethicists do treat life as if it had a scoreboard, which is the only thing I can see that would make the notion of 'maximization' make sense here. — The Great Whatever

What I was thinking with the OPs question is that, if one is a hedonist, how might one go about having as much pleasure as they can with as little suffering? And of course there is a time element involved, where the hedonist is planning on how they might make choices or structure their life to accomplish that. It's not about keeping score, although it certainly helps to have more pleasurable memories. There is also a satisfaction with life element. The happy hedonist planned well and maximized their opportunities for pleasures while minimizing pain (perhaps in the form of negative consequences). They can feel good about that.

So for example, a hedonist might ask themselves if habitual drug use will bring them the most enjoyment, but then they might calculate that the negative consequences would make it not worth becoming addicted.

Apparently you find it difficult to make that distinction. I kind of feel sorry for you that you are unable to commit to an emancipatory view of the world, and are stuck on some abstract rules of debate as if politics were a game. — Landru Guide Us

I just think the kind of rhetoric you're using is very divisive. The other side using the same tactic. The result is to polarize people. But hey, if it wins elections, right?

The narrative here is that the US is in the thrall of NRA paranoid gun nuts who hate democratic values, not to mention minorities, women, workers, etc. It happens to be true, but that's besides the point. The point is to never mention guns without this frame. — Landru Guide Us

Jesus man, this is not promoting a healthy democracy. I get it that the other side decided to play mean and dirty in their interest of power, but this kind of framing doesn't help. It divides people. It polarizes. The problem with your average conservative is that they hear too much of that crap on their radio and TVs. Then they end up thinking liberals are their enemies, and an evil amongst them that needs to be dealt with somehow. That goes nowhere good.

Are you arguing that the exploitative, boorish, knownothing positions of conservatism aren't evil, or are you arguing we're not allowed to call it that? — Landru Guide Us

No, I'm arguing that you call them that for the same reason conservatives call you evil.

The sanitized NRA version of a militias being citizen soldiers is pure historical dreck. The 2nd Amendment was about one thing - southern slave owners killing and exploiting blacks. Your narrative is nonsense. — Landru Guide Us

Ah, so a controversial issue and it's entire history can be boiled down to just one thing.

The best scholarship shows that — Landru Guide Us

By best, you mean the scholarship that boils it down to one thing.

Energy use is expected to double by 2050, so renewables would have to do more than replace the current demand. They would also have to meet the demand of the developing world plus adding 2-3 more billion people.

Excoriating evil in words is good for the soul and the first step in defeating it in practice. — Landru Guide Us

And it's also good for making the opposition look bad. If we're on the side of righteousness and those evil, selfish, greedy bastards are out to drink our children's blood, well then, we don't need to bother with their side of the matter. We can just dismiss it.

How issues are framed determines how they get argued. — Landru Guide Us

Yes, indeed it does. As is so often the case with controversial issues. So let's frame it as good guys vs bad guys.

The gun issue should be framed as the freaks and fetishists against rational normal Americans who want to go about their business without worrying a gun nut will shoot them. — Landru Guide Us

Not, it should be framed as people have a different understanding of the second amendment, which has to be balanced with what to do about the problem of gun violence.

The second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms only in the context of a well regulated militia. — Thorongil

Does it? How has the Supreme Court and constitutional scholars traditionally understood the issue? You make it sound like it was well understood to just be in the context of maintaining a well regulated militia, until the most recent court. But individuals have retained the right to own guns long after the US had an official military.

It is useful, and I was wondering how universals might play a role in the debate over scientific realism. It sounds like Kantianism is a strong version of conceptualism. I wonder if scientific realism requires universals or tropes to be part of the world. Does the issue ultimately go back to how we are able to make sense of the flux of experience?

I understand that you accept that facts, and that theories have to be formulated by minds. Nevertheless, the theories that have been formulated state there is this deep time before us. I take that to mean evolution is true in that it really happened, as opposed to it just appears to happen to creatures like us with our particular senses and cognitive abilities.

Furthermore, you're posing a false dichotomy between Kant and science - the Critique of Pure Reason is not creationism or religious dogma. Kant was an empirical realist, he wasn't trying to undermine science. — Wayfarer

I'm not saying he wasn't, but you stated that the view from nowhere is impossible for us, and yet science posits deep time in which there were no human minds. And what happened during this deep time is what led to human minds being able to connect axioms about that past. You also stated that the world outside of us is unknowable, but again science has quite a lot to say about this unknowableness. We weren't there in the Big Bang or when life first got going, but yet science says that's what's crucially important to us being here in the first place.

You have to bracket all that and add the caveat, as it appears to us. Or as it is correlated to us. Which is odd, because it appears to us that there was all this stuff happening without us, and most crucially, we wouldn't be around if not for all that. But if philosophically we can't say what the world is like without us, then those scientific theories are prima facie wrong without caveating them. It only appears to scientists that our existence depends on Evolution, etc.

Are you trying to say that people who disagree with your position are evil?

Well, I can almost always be having more pleasure or pain than I currently am. So I don't understand what hedonism is supposed to accomplish ethically. What, am I not to figure out how to have more pleasure and less pain?