You offer "mind-independent thing" as an example? But isn't that that the definition of a particular? So you're asking "are universals real particulars?" — Michael

I'm not asking that. I'm asking whether they are something we cooked up as part of our making sense of the world, or whether they exist somehow independent of us. And if universals are something we cooked up, then the world isn't how we think it is. It's just a bunch of particulars. Which means our scientific understanding is wrong, however useful it may be to us. As is our everyday talk with all it's universals.

You have to say "X is(n't) a real Y". — Michael

"Particulars aren't real." You can certainly make that move. It's called idealism. So what is the Y for particulars if realism is the case? Themselves? Then that is the same for universals.

Yeah, but it's important to use words precisely in these kind of discussions, or mass confusion results. Realism in philosophy denotes mind-independence. Maybe they should have come up with a more technical term, since obviously dreams and hallucinations do occur. But then what isn't real under that usage? Unicorns happen in our minds as well. And culture. But nobody says they are real.

I imagined a pink unicorn, and that did happen (hypothetically speaking), but it wasn't real. That's the proper use.

Another way to frame the universal debate is to ask how God would view the universe if nominalism is the case. Because then it's just particulars, and our naming schemes would be misleading from the omniscient perspective. You might say that even though naming and categorizing things is very useful to us, it deludes us into thinking there is something more to the endless particulars we call the universe (the universal of all particulars).

We have the gall to say things like "the speed of light prohibits anything with mass accelerating to C". God would find are notions of laws amusing, I would guess. And our equations quaint. If God is a nominalist.

This is nonsense; neutrinos ( their effects at least) can be measured, as can time and space; that's how we make sense of these things. — John

Problem is, those are universals. You're abstracting over the entire cosmos to derive "space", and over all rate of change to denote "time", and the "building blocks" of "matter" to discuss "neutrinos".

The big problem nominalism has is how we can understand the world without using universals. You can say that space, matter, time, energy, laws, atoms, etc are just names for particulars, but that's not how they are used in science. Time isn't just a bunch of events, rather it's a dimension (another universal) related to space, influenced by gravity (again a universal), and driven by thermodynamics and how things were in the Big Bang.

You could probably say that our entire understanding is based on universals. It is our ability to abstract which allows us to reason, draw inferences, and conceptualize. That doesn't resolve the issue of whether and how universals are real, but it does demonstrate that they are indispensable to thought.

Start by asking what it means for a universal to be real before you ask whether or not they are real. — Michael

For universals to be real, they must have a mind-independent existence. That's what realism essentially means. X is real if it does not depend in some way on our perceiving or conceiving it. Dreams are obviously mind-dependent, as are hallucinations. After that, it gets controversial.

Are particulars real? If that particular tree does not depend on me or anyone else perceiving or thinking about it, then it is. But what about the term "tree"? Does that denote an abstraction which only lives in human thought and language? Then it's not real. It has no existence independent of us.

The challenge for the realist qua universals is to show how they could be mind-independent. Do they live in the particulars as Aristotle thought? Do they have their own "realm"? If so, how do our minds come to know about them? And so on.

In any case, it's not the job of an ethical doctrine to tell what to do: as I've argued, I don't think this demand even makes sense. — The Great Whatever

Sure it is, otherwise, what's the point in having ethics? That we don't always live up to our ethical standards is a different matter.

Nothing can tell you what to do, only doing something can make you do something. — Teh GreatWhatever

But it can and it does, otherwise I'd just do whatever the hell I wanted all the time without consideration for what's right. But I don't do that., and neither do most people.

don't think these are important questions. What matters is what you are going to do, not what you should do, since even if you resolve the latter, you won't have taken even a step toward resolving the former (since you can just do what you shouldn't anyway), which is all that actually matters. — The Great Whatever

Assuming that what I'm going to do isn't influenced by what I think I should do. Which it is, for everyone but sociopaths.

We suffer because we're animals with nervous systems.

However, I disagree with your assessment that pain is not suffering. If physical or psychological pain was not uncomfortable to us, than we would not have a problem with it. — darthbarracuda

Pain can be suffering. I guess it depends on the degree and the significance. I can feel discomfort going for a long walk, but I wouldn't consider that suffering. The net result is that I feel good. But if my car broke down in the middle of nowhere and I had to walk for hours when I needed to be somewhere, then it would be considered a greater discomfort. Not suffering per se, but an inconvenience I'd be upset about, at least for a little while, depending non how important being somewhere was.

Each day we deal with a lot of things; life is a kind of burden that requires meaning to keep going. So it is worthwhile to look into mitigating these kinds of experiences. — darthbarracuda

That's true. Life isn't ideal for most of us. The question is whether it needs to be ideal to be worth living, which sounds like a ridiculous standard. It can be worth living and problematic at the same time. The question becomes at what point do problems overwhelm a person's life and make it not worth living?

It's like the difference between having to work a job you hate to make ends meet, and having a career that you love. Doing work that you're passionate about will not always be easy or pain-free, and it can have it's own disappointments, but if you love it, it will be worth it to you. But a meaningless job (other than for money) can be soul crushing, and any discomforts you face doing it become very undesirable.

I agree with BC. It's not pain or the striving of the will that causes suffering, it's when you lose purpose and become hopeless. It's the feeling that life is meaningless and filled with remorse, or what have you.

What constitutes winning?

What are we doing here? Feuding, arguing or sophistry? — bert1

Actually I have a better answer. You can think of it as verbal sparring. People sharpen up their positions going toe to toe with each other. And in the process, they learn.

What are we doing here? Feuding, arguing or sophistry? — bert1

So many questions! Personally, I like to argue topics that interest me. Feuding happens sometimes with certain posters as a result. Particularly if you're always arguing opposing views.

It's still informative, and sometimes I'm forced to reevaluate my thinking. Also the shock a Landru or a TGW gives the system can be enjoyable.

Was it? How do you know? — bert1

Really? That's answering a question with a question.

How is it possible to correct a question? — bert1

Easy. You tell the person they asked the wrong question, or phrased it incorrectly.

I don't care what most online discussions are. — bert1

So you expect people to be different just because the topic is philosophy? (That's a rhetorical question).

Doing philosophy is exactly an exchange of of information and viewpoints. — bert1

Is it? Is that what professional philosophers do? Or do they also advance their own positions?

An exchange of information is wikipedia or SEP.

So, lets try again,

What constitutes winning? — bert1

I already gave you an answer. You don't like it, okay. *shrug*

Also, I'd like to point out that your question was an attempt at defending your position by pressing mine. But I didn't really ignore your question. I just corrected it by emphasizing the try part, which is what people are doing when they argue, whether online or in person. It's not like anyone is keeping score, but people still argue their POV.

LOL, because your question missed the point, as does your complaint. Most online discussions aren't simply an exchange of information and viewpoints (how very "AT"), rather they are informal debates between different positions and/or feuding posters, which involve all sorts of strategies.

I said "try to win", since I'm referring to your average contentious discussion anywhere online. Try, because there isn't really winning, not in the official sense, but posters can declare themselves the winner, and they can gain reputation amongst other posters. Or it could just be a matter of telling oneself that attacks from the opposing view point were fended off.

I would say the essence of arguing is trying to win the argument, usually because you think your position is right, and the opposing one is wrong.

In which case they are not doing philosophy and have no business on a philosophy forum. — bert1

Maybe you miss the part where people like to argue.

I maintain that there is no feeling of 'life being worth living.' That's something you can say, but not feel. — The Great Whatever

Is that like saying that there is no feeling of being in love, but just something you say?

Anyway, I do feel it and I say it to myself when I do. And sometimes I feel the opposite.

Shouldn't it worry you that precisely where the issues matter most, your ability to think about them is the most facile? The solution is to invent a magical realm within your head where your opinions control reality, and everything you say or think is beyond criticism? — The Great Whatever

But I don't need to do that to feel like life is worth living. That stems from how I feel, which admittedly I don't always feel good about life, and I can't say for sure on the whole if it's worth it to me, but sometimes it certainly is. I would say based on observation that some people would feel that their lives were worth it overall, despite whatever rough patches they went through.

Why are you under the impression that whether you disagree with something has anything to do with whether it's true? Notice that the following is an invalid inference: — The Great Whatever

Because you're arguing about the subjective state of other people. You're claiming that life can't be worth living to them, even though they disagree with you.

And what kind of feeling is that? Is it sweet or sour? — The Great Whatever

Feeling good, interested, motivated, like life has a purpose, looking forward to things, enjoying other people, etc. It could include joy, flow, intense interest, or just feeling like things are going well.

Of course they don't always go well, so then it's a question of do they go wrong enough to spoil the good feeling about life? Does it become hopeless? Burdensome? Depressing? Then it stops feeling like it's worth it.

I am saying that opinions are impotent. If they were omnipotent, as you say, then I could simply have the opinion that my life was perfect, an that would make it so. Yet life has real problems. Does your opinion about whether you are suffering control whether you are Clearly not. And clearly your position that it does is bizarre. — The Great Whatever

Fortunately, I never made such an argument. Yeah, life has real problems. We suffer at times. Okay. The question is, does that make life not worth living? The pessimist says yes, but other people disagree. So what makes the pessimist right? Maybe I disagree that problems and suffering necessarily make life not worth living. Who are you to say otherwise for me?

Then nothing. Who cares if you agree or not? That means nothing. We are doing philosophy; we care about what is true, not who agrees with it. — The Great Whatever

So you think there is an objective, universal truth to be had here? That's very odd for someone who values the Cyrenaics.

Why not just opine that my life is great, and make it so? Why does anyone have problems at all? — The Great Whatever

I never claimed that anyone could do that. I have said that whether one finds life worth living or not is a feeling. If I consistently feel that life is worth living, then it is for me. That's my opinion on life based on how I feel about it. Or it could be more complicated than that, where it sometimes feels worth it, but sometimes not. In that case, I don't know what the truth is, if there is such a thing.

Because we're talking about how an individual values their life. Sure, the pessimist can point out the bad things about life, but what if the individual doesn't agree that those things overwhelm the good in life such that it would have been better to not be born? Then what? You're saying that this person is valuing their life incorrectly because they view the bad differently than the pessimistic position.

I can't see how you can be right for someone else here, unless you can show that their words don't match up with their psychological profile over time, or something like that. But that's not an easy task. You would have to monitor that individual on a regular basis, and somehow get accurate reports.

Maybe life isn't so bad for some. Maybe they don't feel like they suffer that much on the whole. The good outweighs the bad and all.

A value judgement is being made. What else is it but an opinion? My life is worth living or my life is not, or it's a mix between the two. It's an opinion I form for myself. What else could it be? You think a logical argument can determine the value I give my own life? Absurd.

Sure, the pessimist is right about those problems, but the big problem for their position is that a judgement is being made about the value of life, and that sort of thing is up to the individual. The only retort they can give is to deny that individuals are really being honest with themselves when they say that life is worth living to them.

That's a really weak argument to make. It's one thing to say that one's own life isn't worth living because of X,Y,Z. It's something completely different to say that therefore it isn't worth it to me. Because just maybe X,Y,Z doesn't make my life not worth living. Who is the pessimist to say otherwise? They can't determine life's value for me. That's ridiculous.

The pessimist is arguing that everyone is the same boat here living lives where they would have been better off not existing. But not everyone agrees with that. If a person finds their life worth living, then the pessimistic position simply doesn't apply to them, whether they're stoical about X,Y,Z or whatever. The point is that those problems aren't enough to make life not worth it to that individual.

Exactly. The pessimist seems convinced that the rest of us are lying to ourselves because we don't agree that life is so awful. But that's a really poor argument to make. How can anyone else possibly tell me how I feel about life?

If there is a world, then there is a problem of perception. Get rid of the world and you can dispense with the problem of perception. Problem with that is most people consider it insane to get rid of the world. So you end up with drastically different starting grounds to argue from.

I guess it would be. It's just something interesting I heard on NPR.

But you can read their stuff and see they aren't. — The Great Whatever

Only if you happen to agree that there is no world.

The form of the good, primarily. But maths is good. — unenlightened

One could flip the cave allegory so that the forms are the shadows on the wall, and our experiences are being in the sunshine. So it's the philosopher (or the scientist) who is in the cave. Consider that the forms, be they mathematical, the good, or universals, are abstracted from experience.

The philosopher concerns himself with the contemplation of the forms. — unenlightened

Mathematical?

So the real question is how viable is the theory that language provides a mechanism for disparate parts of the brain to communicate which otherwise wouldn't?

But I think the idea here is that language allows us to form associations which wouldn't be possible otherwise. Somehow, it allows different regions in the brain to communicate in a manner they wouldn't be doing, linking together disparate concepts. The various phrases Shakespeare made popular illustrate that nicely. A bird might understand left of blue, but it can't comprehend the notion of a fool's paradise (just to pick one randomly - perhaps it would be better to pick a more concrete one since birds understand neither fools nor paradise).

Pain cannot be fought. At least that is my reading. The dishonesty of the stoic is in presenting a solution to pain. Nothing helps with pain. If there is pain, there is no means by which to endure it or mitigate it. It must be cut-off entirely. It must not exist. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Depends on the pain. Is it the pain of running an ultra-marathon, or is it the pain of losing a child? Is it the pain of trying to meet a deadline for a project you've poured your heart into, or the pain of not being able to follow your dreams?

Seems to me suffering is not the result of pain necessarily, but what accompanies the pain. Is it accompanied by purpose? Is the pain under your control? Do you retain a positive attitude after breaking your leg, knowing that you'll be able to walk again in a few weeks? Of course it depends on how great the pain is. Probably a lot harder to be positive under torture, or seeing people die. It's also harder to remain positive if you don't expect to walk again, or don't expect the pain to go away.

If someone tells me that life isn't worth living because we experience pain, then my response is how much? A headache doesn't make me wish I never lived. Being stretched on the rack probably would. Being disappointed at not getting something I want doesn't make life seem pointless to me, but being stuck in deep depression does.

I think the Stoic is right up to a point, but I'd change it from being indifferent to being in the right mood, or having the right attitude toward normal life, which may not be under the individual's control. Just pointing out that how a person feels about things can greatly effect how much they think life sucks. Or at least it does me. Waiting in traffic is only mildly annoying when I'm doing fine, it becomes near unbearable when I'm very tired and highly irritated.