The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion, Jonathan Haidt.

Thanks for the write up :100:

I have reading Peirce on my agenda, but I am reading Kant right now. I recall Peirce had a high regard for Kant and thought him as a "confused pragmatist". What are your thoughts on the value of reading Kant's philosophy today?

Causality is not perceived, it is concluded. — Philosophim

If you are going to turn that into shaky ground, you need some real world examples like how I can live without air or food. — Philosophim

Again, remember that I have not rejected the notion that causality is not applied to phenomena. The examples that you call "real world" are all subject to the conditions of space and time, i.e. they are phenomena. I cannot provide you with an example that violates this rule, because the requirement of doing so is not valid.

Most likely you will agree that things like color, taste and smell are subjective and do not belong to the thing in itself. I would like you to demonstrate why causality is different. To be sure, causality is inter-subjective, which grounds its objective validity. But independent of the human mind and its constraint of phenomena to space and time, is causality anything?

I'm waiting for you to give me an example of how a computer works without causality. — Philosophim

Well, I have already said, the phenomena of a computer, as a phenomena, evidently follows the rules of causation. That is not the point I am disputing. I am disputing whether these causal rules also apply to the computer, as it exists independently of human thought.

You should be able to explain your concept without using the word, and I will understand what you are intending to argue. — Philosophim

Roughly, phenomena is that which is perceived, or more broadly, that which can conceivably be perceived, as opposed to that which cannot.

But, I think I can reduce and simplify the discussion further: what reason do you have to suggest that we perceive causality (and not just infer it, or apply it as a rule)? I think it will be easier to move forward with our discussion once we get past this point.

But this was just exactly my point. Causality is applied in order to understand phenomena; it is not a phenomena itself. The operation of the computer chip is understood through the application of the principle of cause and effect. "Evidence" (empirical collections of data) is the wrong thing to ask for, since such a thing could not exist if it were not for causality itself.

What you need to demonstrate is that this causality has a reality in-itself, and is not just a function of the mind. Again, the computer chip as phenomena is understood through causality. But for what reason should we believe causality exists beyond this? You have simply taken it for granted that the conjunction of phenomena in successive time by rules has a valid application beyond these phenomena.

Scholasticism, Hegelianism, Hinduism.

But if I am blind, light still exists. My perception of it by sight is gone, but it is still around. This is evidenced by there being blind people in the world and light still exists. If you are going to go into solipsism, I decline as that goes too far out of the topic we are covering. — Philosophim

Not solipsism, transcendental idealism.

Unless there is a language barrier, I can't think of anything more plain to prove that causality exists apart from direct perception than that. — Philosophim

The objects that you describe cannot be described independently of a reference to the mind. They exist in space and time and are understood through the application of concepts like causality.

We do not experience causality! We experience phenomena, arranged in an order in space and time, and apply the concepts of cause-and-effect to these phenomena.

None of this entails that things only exist if they are perceived, or that there is nothing outside of our perceptions. But it does entail that the things that we perceive, as they are perceived, are nothing outside of this condition.

Why is that? Historically, elaborate metaphysical systems have often been used as a justification for an existing hierarchical political system.

All of this necessitates that causality, independent of the human mind, exists. You believing that the computers circuitry does not exist when you aren't looking at it is not good enough for the chip manufacturers who ensure you received a working product. — Philosophim

I got my degree in CS, I know how these things work...regardless, none of it necessitates that causality exists independently of the human mind. Rather, all it demonstrates is that our perception of computers always involves an element of causality.

There is the computer chip qua phenomena, which is conditioned by the pure sensible intuitions of space and time, and is understood through the application of concepts, one being causality; note that the computer chip qua phenomena is nothing when not considered in relation to them. Objects of perception are always in a relation to the mind, in that it is the mind that determines how the object is perceived.

The computer chip, as it exists independently of the human mind (qua noumena), is unknowable, i.e. it transcends the conditions of the possibility of experience.

the internet and the computer you use could not work if cause was simply a concept of the mind, and not an independent reality. — Philosophim

The internet and the computer I use are phenomena that are conditioned by the mental apparatus. Things in space and time have no independent existence outside of their appearance.

1. Either all things have a prior cause for their existence, or there is at least one first cause of existence from which a chain of events follows. — Philosophim

Third possibility: "causation" is a concept of the mind, and does not have any application to things as they exist independently of it.

Most of it is rigorous daydreaming; a pseudo-scientific posturing about things that cannot be known, usually with a surreptitious (right-wing) political aim (i.e. propaganda).

Metaphysicians are musicians without musical ability. — Carnap

To the flames! :fire: :fire: :fire:

It's fucked up, but well worth it.

"The Good Old Days": The Holocaust as Seen by its Perpetrators and Bystanders, Ernst Klee, Willi Dressen, & Volker Riess

Do you claim that this expectation is not well-founded? That it is not well-founded enough? That it is irrelevant? — Srap Tasmaner

Yes.

If it has already been demonstrated that it can be worthwhile to continue a life but that it cannot be worthwhile to start a life, then it is simply false, or rather unintelligible (like a square circle), that someone's life can be worth starting if they feel it is worth it.

No, I meant the usuals on here.

Life can be worthwhile to continue (i.e. finish gracefully), but it cannot be worthwhile to start, for reasons that you and I both know, and that everyone else also knows but doesn't want to admit. For a lot of people, life is only worthwhile if there are ample fresh recruits to the game.

Something I have been ruminating on a lot recently are the hoops and ladders that people will go through to justify things. In no discussion of antinatalism have I ever seen an argument for childbirth that was not utterly hair-splitting, counter-intuitive and difficult to understand. Determining the morality of something like this should not be such a mind-numbing matter! The fact that it is so difficult to give a simple and decent argument against antinatalism is prima facie evidence that antinatalism is correct. Like come on, we've had countless threads on this topic, that if it were false, you'd think by now that somebody would have finally vanquished the idea. Yet here we are.

People cobble together these bizarre rationalizations for things that are not rational. The responses we keep hearing against antinatalism seem to me to be fundamentally nothing more than post hoc justifications for emotional attachments to things that would go away if everyone stopped having kids.

What We Know About Climate Change, Kerry Emanuel.
Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky.

Thanks. I am most curious about the science behind climate change. I'm looking to polish my understanding of the facts.

Anyone have any recs for books on climate change?

I very much think Kant was extremely profound, but the dense verbiage used and the fact that he (often) did not refer to ordinary objects to elucidate a conceptual difficulty, makes it harder. — Manuel

Kant actually says in the Preface to the First Edition of the CPR that he eschews from using examples because it would make the text longer than it needed to be, and distract from understanding the whole:

As regards clearness, the reader has a right to demand, in the first place, discursive or logical clearness, that is, on the basis of conceptions, and, secondly, intuitive or aesthetic clearness, by means of intuitions, that is, by examples or other modes of illustration in concreto. I have done what I could for the first kind of intelligibility. This was essential to my purpose; and it thus became the accidental cause of my inability to do complete justice to the second requirement. I have been almost always at a loss, during the progress of this work, how to settle this question. Examples and illustrations always appeared to me necessary, and, in the first sketch of the Critique, naturally fell into their proper places. But I very soon became aware of the magnitude of my task, and the numerous problems which I should be engaged; and, as I perceived that this critical investigation would, even if delivered in the driest scholastic manner, be far from being brief, I found it unadvisable to enlarge it still more with examples of explanations, which are necessary only from a popular point of view. I was induced to take this course from the consideration also that the present work is not intended for popular use, that those devoted to science do not require such helps, although they are always acceptable, and that they would have materially interfered with my present purpose. Abbé Terrasson remarks with great justice that, if we estimate the size of a work, not from the number of its pages, but from the time which we require to make ourselves master of it, it may be said of many a book that it would be much shorter, if it were not so short. On the other hand, as regards the comprehensibility of a system of speculative cognition, connected under a single principle, we may say with equal justice: many a book would have been much clearer if it had not been intended to be so very clear. For explanations and examples, and other helps to intelligibility, aid us in the comprehensibility of parts, but they distract the reader, and stand in the way of his forming a clear conception of the whole; as he cannot attain soon enough to a survey of the system, and the colouring and embellishments bestowed upon it prevent his observing its articulation or organization - which is the most important consideration with him, when he comes to judge of its unity and stability. — Kant, Meiklejohn transl.

Elsewhere, Kant also says that it is the deserving right of other minds to elucidate his transcendental philosophy in this secondary aesthetic way. He also remarks that examples can be more easily criticized and thus turned against the theory, so it is best to avoid accidentally exposing your theory to criticism that can make it appear to be false.

Darkness at Noon, Arthur Koestler

Medication + therapy first. Then philosophy.

I got pretty close to offing myself several years back, some people here might remember my first posts in the old forum...I didn't need philosophy, I needed a balanced neurochemistry. Thankfully I managed to get things more or less in line, though it took years.

Philosophy is only helpful if you have the capacity to form rational judgements of it, otherwise it's dangerous. Very easy to put people over the edge, after which they're liable to do something stupid and hurt themselves or someone else. It's why I try to be gentle to people online, even if they get on my nerves; you never know what they are going through and what role your words might play in their fate.

A Clockwork Orange, Anthony Burgess.

My intention was to formulate a simple argument that demonstrates the absurdity of believing that suffering is the only moral end, in order to stimulate discussion over what other moral ends there might be. I believe this argument also demonstrates the absurdity of believing that suffering is always the highest-prioritized ethical end.

I am of the opinion that no real ethical theory can be as formulaic and dogmatic as this. Ethics is guided by a plurality of different, sometimes contradictory, prima facie duties, re: W. D. Ross. Reducing suffering is one of these duties, and is one of the strongest ones, but neither it nor any other duty can lay claim to having ultimate priority.

A "solution" no doubt but ignores another possibility: Life + no suffering. That's the boo-boo unless...life + no suffering is a contradiction. — TheMadFool

I will grant that there is no logical necessity between having a life and suffering, however I think it can be reasonably assumed that any real life (not imaginary) will inherently involve some degree of suffering.

"Not flourish and not suffer" simply does not belong to the highest (or any) moral end as prescribed by NU. — 180 Proof

The Wikipedia article lays out that reducing suffering is the first priority and priorities to maximize happiness (and other criterion) come after. — Saphsin

I am unsure I understand what is meant by "first priority" and "come after"; I am taking it to mean, pursue this end as much as possible, before pursuing any other end. These other ends only become relevant if there is more than one course of action that reduces the same maximal amount of suffering.

Consider two options:

A. End all lives immediately and simultaneously, and thereby end all suffering.
B. End all suffering after one second from the present, and promote flourishing for everyone else immediately and simultaneously after.

An NU would be obligated to choose option A, since reducing suffering is the first priority, is this correct?

If a third option were given:

C. End all suffering immediately and simultaneously, and promote flourishing immediately and simultaneously.

Then an NU would be obligated to choose this option over A, because now there is more than one option that reduces the same maximal amount of suffering, but one of them also promotes another end, that being flourishing.

I will grant that the definition of negative utilitarianism in premise 1 may be imprecise. The argument can be modified so that it refers to any ethical position that holds that minimizing suffering is the only moral end.

The chief purpose of the argument was to demonstrate, in a simple manner, that there are other ends involved in ethics aside from the minimization of suffering, in order to generate discussion over what these ends are. To this discussion you have already contributed one:

prevent and/or reduce suffering of the living while they live (i.e. flourish) — 180 Proof

What do you mean by "flourishing" exactly, and why is it better to flourish and suffer than to not flourish and not suffer?

Inside the Third Reich, Albert Speer.

Agreed, I think autonomy is at least one of the other major ethical concepts that may come into play in this case. Disgust with the monstrosity/banality of the personality required to do such an act would be another factor I would propose.

Fundamentally though, I think it has something to do with a violation of the sacred. What is it that is sacred, and why is it sacred?

The more interesting issue imo is the justification for premise 4. Can it be clarified, what it is that makes premise 3 morally repugnant? Remember that clarity should be achieved with simplicity of explanation; anything more just contributes to the confusion.

And they are unlikely willingly to give up what you have given them. — Srap Tasmaner

It is conceivable that a person can simultaneously have a desire and also desire that they do not have this desire, e.g. an alcoholic who wishes they could stop drinking, a depressive who wishes they did not have the instinct to live, etc. Simply having a desire does not entail being appreciative of having this desire.

The Drowned World, J. G. Ballard. Holy shit what a novel.

If there is an end to history, it would be when there isn't anything else to do. When a civilization exhausts its possibilities, when there is nothing left that is new.

Just speculating here: in a few centuries, science fiction will cease to be a genre; all of the possibilities explored in these books will either have been accomplished, or found to be impossible. And then what? Humans will endlessly live out their lives from year to year, decade to decade, century to century, without originality or spontaneity, generation upon generation of tepid languishing.

There are good reasons to believe that YHWH is actually Yaldabaoth the Demiurge, a malevolent deceiver-god that wants you to think he is all-powerful and has to capacity to send you to Hell for all eternity if you don't follow his rules to the letter. Turns out, you are already in Hell and Yaldabaoth is trying to keep you in it...don't drink the kool-aid holy water! Escape the cycle! No kids either!

The Fascism This Time, Theo Horesh.

Also Heart of Darkness, Joseph Conrad. Cannot read it right now, the copy I got has so many notes on every page that it's impossible to focus on the story.

Why is it so difficult to pin down what makes a life good? Why is it the case that countless pages have been written on this topic (in philosophy, poetry, literature, psychology, self-help handbooks, spiritual guides, etc)? Does a person really need to go read so many different and contradictory books to find "the meaning of life", happiness, success, etc?

Just as the common skeptical objection to religion posits that, because there are so many different religions that are mutually exclusive to each other it is more likely that all of them are wrong than one of them right, it can be said that every attempt to define what a good life is has failed to accomplish just that. Who is right? The Stoics, the Epicureans, the Christians, the Buddhists, the Transhumanists, ...?

After years of reading this sort of literature, I have come to the conclusion that, while many of these traditions can be helpful in alleviating burdensome parts of life, no single tradition has been successful in demonstrating that actual possibility of a good life.

For life in general to be good, it should not be necessary to read all of these books to learn that this is the case. The process of doing so is not a search for answers but a search for a solution, as life is not a question but a problem/predicament to be fixed. Only when life is viewed as an essentially burdensome problem does the search for solutions make any sense.

That's cool, had no idea you had that deep of a background in RPGs.

I played 5e off and on through college and afterwards; I was a DM for a Star Wars 5e clone for a few months until I got burnt out. The idea of playing D&D for me has always been better than actually playing it, in my experience. Maybe it was just the group I was in, but it usually was tedious and often boring; the food and the company were the real reasons I went. I would have my characters make impulsive decisions just to get things rolling and otherwise just sorta sit there and wait for my turn. I (vaguely) remember spending my 21st playing 5e with liquor integrated into the story, that was enjoyable. Designing my campaign was more fun, I put a lot of effort into making interesting stories, puzzles and encounters, but ultimately it ended up being too much to maintain.

I'm not playing any tRPGs right now, maybe again some time, idk. I grew up playing computer RPGs, I sometimes play them now but not very often; TheGreatWhatever once told me that he thought computer games were "chore simulators", I thought that pretty apt. Books are infinitely better.

Wait, so let me get this straight:

• Journalists, with no expertise in the field they are reporting, can publish inaccurate articles, and may even do so intentionally?
• Scientists, like any other human, enjoy attention and money, and can lie or mislead other people to get more of it?
• Bureaucratic organizations inherently try to perpetuate themselves, and may falsify or misrepresent information to do so?
• Most people do not and cannot understand all of the technologies around them, and so defer judgement to a class of people called experts, the members of which may or may not have moral integrity?

:yikes: