For example, matter being completely destroyed would be evil. But an atom breaking into electrons, that then interact with other atoms to create something more than an atom alone, is a greater existence and therefore more good. — Philosophim

Would this mean, then, that true evil is impossible, per Law of Conservation of Mass?

Do we allow new interactions, inventions, ideas, and existences? Then we are good. — Philosophim

Does that mean if we disallow cruel or violent (albeit new) interactions, inventions, ideas, and existences we are evil? Surely not?

--

Example. Going with the premise. Say, in the not too distant future, man has advanced in warfare and weaponry birthing the existence of a bomb whose yield would destroy the entire planet. Say it is somehow known, this weapon would inevitably be used. Would a hypothetical contagion that wipes out 99.9% of life on Earth thus preventing said weapon from ever being used not be 'good' in such a scenario under the above circumstances? According to this premise, it would, as it prevents a larger decrease in quantitative existence. Or wouldn't it?

No, they absolutely do not. All ethicists talk fundamentally in terms of what is good, bad, immoral, moral, etc. — Bob Ross

I caught that too. Was going to edit to reflect what I meant at the time: "The large majority of philosophers produce non-religious works and, in my opinion, 'evil' is a categorically religious construct better (and often) substituted (or otherwise equated) with more pragmatic and secular wording such as 'inhumane' or 'unethical'." You are correct. Honestly thought this thread would've been moved to the Lounge by now. Apologies. :smile:

What you described here is pyschology, not ethics. What one likes doesn’t matter when one is trying to decipher what the concept of good is: either there such a think as ‘being good’ or there isn’t—who cares if you like it? Even in the case of moral anti-realism, their concepts of good are themselves objective (albeit they refer to something non-objective). — Bob Ross

This is correct, also. I emboldened the part that highlights what muddles the waters for me when it comes to the subject. Perhaps it may help someone similar. My understanding being: one 'likes' not suffering, suffering is virtually in de facto agreement by everyone to be unethical, ergo, the relationship between human ethics and what the subject of the whole matter's preferences are (what is liked, what is disliked, the fact inflicting suffering is unethical, etc.) is not without noting. It appears my focus is on human-centric ethics or ethics in sole relation to humanity as opposed to a larger "ultimate" Good that would be the same whether humanity exists or not.

But who grants this rights and dignities? — Matias Isoo

Religious people naturally believe such rights are divine, and even non-religious people nod to a similar concept (albeit divorced of any actual divinity) in the common usage of "God-given rights". What's relevant is not who or what granted it, but who or what enforces it. Which at the time is every non-isolationist nation who partakes in modern society and the free trade and travel that comes with.

To avoid a non-answer, I suppose in pragmatic terms it is granted (and more importantly, enforced) by the regional government. Not to say out of sheer good will or higher understanding, mind you, often for the reasons mentioned (trade, travel, inclusion and to no lesser degree, protection with/by the rest of the world). A bit of a shaky foundation in any sort of objective sense, sure. But nonetheless the way of the modern age. It's "what we have to work with". Wasn't always that way, and for all we know might not always be. But for now, it's reality. No different for all intents and purposes than say, gravity. Sure, people commit crimes and violate the law, some even get away with it. But more so than not, the rights and dignities of persons are enshrined with notable attempts to protect such in stable, developed countries.

I suppose it can be noted, from a strictly worldly view, it's ultimately a human construct, no different than declaring a particular color "the best color" and enshrining such a judgement as law of the land. So it's a bit poky, given thorough philosophical scrutiny, admittedly. Basically, the majority of people got together and decided "You know, life is better without everyone running around killing everyone" and made such a perspective into law. Unless you are chained to a floor or wearing an explosive neck collar that will detonate upon leaving whatever country you're in, you willfully accept and participate in the base, most fundamental laws of that society, those laws being along the lines of human rights to life and dignity. You must. Otherwise you will be imprisoned or penalized upon being found guilty of acting in such a manner that violates these laws, or so the law prescribes.

How can we defined something ethical or unethical if not by a set of rules?
Do you have your own set of rules? Or do you follow a already establish set? — Matias Isoo

Therein lies the debate. What is good? What is ethical? Why? Who says so? Absent of any sort of theistic source, such concepts seem to logically fall into the category of subjectivity. Along the lines of "it is because we say it is", which admittedly leaves much to be desired for the objectivity seeker. De facto understanding and social norms seem to emerge as a sort of "guidance" (what makes me go "ouch" will make another person go "ouch", we have laws that say you cannot make another person go "ouch" for that is despised and socially-viewed as criminality by the majority).

None of that is very satisfying to the person seeking a concrete non-theistic answer, of course. So, the options appear to be either "good and ethical does not exist, except as opinions, which are ultimately no more correct or incorrect or right or wrong than the next" or "goodness and ethics are based on the will of humanity writ-large supported by objective things such as what is harmful or destructive to human beings or human societies versus what is pleasing and beneficial to them".

Personally, I follow the law, as I live in a modern, developed society that, at least on paper, purports to protect the dignity and rights of all human persons coupled with my personal intuition of what feels right or wrong based on empathy (ie. What if that person were me? How would I like to be treated? Etc.)

Be advised however, I've been reprimanded, several times, for my purporting to link "ethics" with "human nature" or "evolution". Apparently, that's an unsound belief not rooted in any sort of intrinsic or objective reality. Enslavement of persons, for example, was once a social norm. Justified by things such as "another empire would have just killed them" or "they wouldn't have survived on their own" or "our slaves live better lives than most nobles of Empire B, we did them a favor helping them avoid the inevitable fate of enslavement by Empire B whose slaves are physically abused for pleasure, whereas ours are not", etc. While any number of those claims may not only have been true but factual as far as a better outcome for the enslaved, humanity has evolved to do "one better" and eliminate slavery altogether (for the most part, human trafficking is very much alive and well).

Basically, I'm just calling it how I see it. With the belief that while I may not be satisfactorily answering all of your questions, I may be offering some sort of guidance toward the path that does contain, or will lead you to, the answers you seek. At least, I'm hopeful of such.

But how can we define something inhumane or unethical if we do not have bad/evil establish? — Matias Isoo

Inhumane is an absolute. That which is detrimental to or grossly inconsiderate of a human person. A human person being an intelligent albeit vulnerable organism that can experience and (generally) has a desire to avoid pain while seeking contentment, comradery, and purpose. That which denies or deprives the humanity and perceived natural rights of a human person.

Unethical is somewhat also of an absolute. That which directly or indirectly denies or deprives a human person the rights and dignities granted to personhood. Or causes something to that affect for sentient beings ie. chopping down a rain forest or over-fishing a species to extinction or near-extinction. I suppose you could say ethics is like humaneness but covers all that is sentient or can directly or indirectly affect that which is sentient.

More objective absolutes such as the above are often used in favor of "evil". They are synonymous, however. To most, at least.

Philosophers tend to avoid use of (or for that matter, even belief in) the word and its prescriptive concept of "evil" over more objective and easily defined concepts such as "socially-destructive" and "willfully inhumane and unethical".

What, assuming you are like most people, would you not like done to you, and why? What has humanity throughout thousands of years lived and fought wars and died to prevent? And on the other hand, to preserve? These are your starting points.

(Note: I will likely catch some flack for implying an intrinsic connection between ethics and human history/evolution. Let's instead use "desire" or "widely-held will" of humanity. Many human efforts and wars were to simply prolong an existing state of affairs, whether or not that state of affairs is based on "goodness" or "evil" ie. protecting a society propped up solely through perpetual conquest and exploitation of other innocent people, for example. With that exception, things like safety and predictable production of goods. Things that contribute to an environment that facilitates the greatest flourishing of human potential that minimizes things such as suffering, strife, crime, unpredictable violence, existential dread, etc.)

I don't see the relevance of your post to either the OP topic or my posts. — 180 Proof

Odd.

OP: We are at a historically-unique crisis.
You: We are not.
Me: Oh but in some ways we are.

Seems rather straightforward. :confused:

No matter. We both eagerly await OP's appraisal of our respective opinions on the matter of the uniqueness and severity of modern crises and whether or not a sort of Renaissance could occur. :ok:

Well, just that many would disagree with your initial premise for the reason(s) stated is all. Nothing contentious, just if you don't acknowledge other people's perspectives and why they hold them, regardless of their overall factual nature or relevance, your concerns will likely fall on deaf ears is all. Which will often undermine the efficiency of any related action or goal you're trying to accomplish or establish.

I agree with you in principle, just as far as the end or major decline of life on Earth, I'd much rather trust the universe alone without having the warring nature of man or malfunction of his systems to be added to the mix is all. Wouldn't you?

Nothing new in this sort of "end times" anxiety except for the historical circumstances and particulars. — 180 Proof

Oh, how I'd love to believe that. Surely the nuclear dynamic has some footing? I suppose one could simply say "at any time an asteroid or GRB (gamma-ray burst) could strike Earth, either totally or partially, levying the power of a dozen nuclear weapons; this was true 50,000 years ago, 1,000 years ago, and remains just as true this very day". But surely the idea of a human finger being all that stands in the way from what could very well result in planetary nuclear desolation is at least mildly concerning and a new dynamic found only in the past century? :chin:

It may be that so much in life and history was of great dramas, but so much has changed with technology. — Jack Cummins

So true. Particularly about the nuclear aspect. No longer will the largest scale of war possible be fought by ground troops with potential to decimate only localized, contained areas leaving the majority of humanity unaffected. Now, the pursuit of war has much higher stakes. If a major world power decides to use a nuclear weapon, and they do not successfully disable all non-allied nuclear response, there is a real potential for the end of all human life on Earth, at least, a collapse/reset of all first-world civilization resulting in levels of both severity and widespread proliferation of suffering never seen before. Frightening stuff, really. Truly game-changing, yes.

When you speak of how the increasing use of aids such as mobility scooters people don't need to be able to walk much, it shows how far people have begun to expect longetivity. — Jack Cummins

That it does. As well as the fact that less is required, through relatively now-cheap and easily-produced innovation, to live a dignified life with basic needs met without natural incentive that once decided who survived, who did not, and to what quality of life. My implication being that, absent of struggle and toil, man becomes lazy and unmotivated to do much of anything, including contributing to the overall well-being of his society and that of his neighbor.

But, this may not continue as life in the first world countries becomes impoverished and tougher. The first world countries may become like the third world gradually. It is likely that the flourishing of the first world was only possible due to the exploitation of the developing nations. — Jack Cummins

Anything is possible, sure. However, when it comes to most technologies and innovation, whether for better or worse, "the cat is already out of the bag", so to speak. The first computer took an extraordinary amount of time and resources to construct, taking up an entire wall of a medium-sized room. Now, you can likely pick up a used smartwatch from a Goodwill bin that has triple the computing power built by less than a dollars worth of materials. The overarching theme behind invention is, in many ways, a story of facilitating one's laziness. Sure, more of maximizing one's effort and time in order to greater advance one's life and that of his society, blah blah. Point being, even cheap and relatively outdated technology and innovation all but eliminates the "old world struggle" or "unquenchable human spirit" that one previously needed in order to live any sort of quality existence. Again, all things considered, it makes "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" seem all the more, not just rational and tolerable, but wise.

The third world countries are also seeing a cost of living crisis. It comes down to the problem of energy resources and sustainability. — Jack Cummins

Another great point. The restless, determined spirit of man is at times a foolish one. Those who play it safe, finish last, the stubborn man says. Yet such self-assurance begets recklessness, which is seldom without consequence. Asbestos in housing, lead in paint, being notable examples off the top of my head. Who knows how many persons were irreversibly affected by such "progress".

The world is like a garage where everyone has their car running. It's argued that the actual human impact is less than feared in comparison to natural events such as wildfires, volcanic eruptions, even cosmic radiation, etc. I'm not a scientist, but I do air on the side of caution religiously. The less pollution is irrefutably better for all that lives. One would hope for some sort of "miracle energy", similar to cold fusion or something of the sort (I don't keep track of such). Of course, one knows what that would mean. Man's eternal pursuit to weaponize anything and everything that can be made to serve such a function. Hopelessness is easy to find oneself ensnared by, admittedly. But who knows. Maybe it'll all work out just fine. :grin:

'violence, hatred, toxic culture and politics, and domestication of the masses due to consumerism and corporate greed have led the world, and especially America, to a tipping point. And yet, for all the world's problems, despite the seemingly hopeless place that we find ourselves in, there is always a chance for a new start'. — Jack Cummins

It seems to me there are many, much more dramatic, cases of all of that in just about any given time in history, some place or land with a person astute and aware enough to make such a musing.

Whether or not information overload gives us a skewed perspective or whether that perspective is in fact accurate and was just never part of the zeitgeist (awareness) of the average person before the advent of the modern information age is also something to consider.

Sometimes, not necessarily in this case, it's better the devil you know. Life on Earth has always been full of hardship since time immemorial, the idea of an entire planet with thousands of different peoples, languages, and cultures in varying states of progress having everyone in it getting along at all times borderlines absurd, unfortunately. Though yes, progress can and is being made. That alone should be enough to inspire hope.

This leads to the question of is it the end of civilisation or is there potential for transformation? Is the idea of transformation mere romanticism or have people become too engulfed by nihilism? I am asking about the nature of values underlying politics. — Jack Cummins

I'd highly suggest a mere regression of human nature or refinement is the furthest thing from an "end of civilization", even writ-large.

It's a curious thing, really. The more time people have not securing their next meal the more time they have to complain about things that never seemed to bother them very much before. Seems to me like a predictable pattern present throughout history. Civilization forms from a traveling group of nomadic peoples when a land suitable for long-term sustenance is found. Permanent settlements are built, goods are produced, innovation begins, man becomes entertained with the arts and sciences (Jersey Shore and Angry Birds being modern albeit lowbrow derivatives). From this point on the pressing concerns of pre-Industrial man begin to fade to distant memory. No more (or significantly less) worrying if an enemy party will raid one's home and pillage ones goods and women and children, less worrying if one would not survive the upcoming winter or harvest due to heated dwellings and storage of food, etc, etc. Instead, something new occupies his daily thought: Excess. Frivolity. "First world problems", as some call it. Before long he forgets how even to survive the hardships he once faced easily, completely vulnerable if they were to suddenly reappear and become ones living reality once more. In short, man becomes comfortable. Too comfortable he begins to make his own discomfort, almost by some cruel trick of fate.

Alleviation of poverty and proliferation of quality education seems to be the golden ticket as far as improving a given society in the long term in the modern age. Poverty leads to stress at best, crime at worst. Poor education leads to poor choices and lack of opportunity to have a function in a rapidly changing world of technology and innovation.

There's always potential. But nothing is incentivized anymore. Before, fitness and having many children was incentivized by nature, if you planned to live to old age. Morality and kindness to one another was incentivized by the omnipresent zeitgeist of belief in a vengeful god who punishes wickedness Now, you don't even have to be able to walk to ride a mobility scooter through Wal-Mart and get a month's worth of groceries. You can be as vitriolic and cruel to an old lady on the street if you'd like, provided no codified laws are broken. Some of these distinct changes in society are not necessarily bad things, but they all have unintended consequences.

Why should you or I or anyone else value “sustaining society” more than our own comfort or advantage? — J

Arguably, the two are explicitly linked. Unless you can drop someone, right now, in the middle of a desert or jungle with nothing but say a knife and a spool of thread and they can live to their fullest comfort and advantage as their desire dictates, that person, including their comfort or advantage, is contingent on that particular society's sustainability. Perhaps not to a perfectly symbiotic degree, no. Perhaps the person is unusually well off, walled off behind a castle with its own self-contained agricultural and social microcosm and would remain unaffected if society were to disappear. That's not most people, however. While I understand the emphasized point in your inquiry to be "why should one value sustaining society more than one's self", as in possibly neglecting one's own well being for that of a neighbor's, I still think that for most people "no man is an island" rings true, particularly in one's darkest hour. Meaning, for the average person, if society suffers, so will they; ergo, in the most selfish flavor of logic, while it may not mean doing squat for anyone at all, to at least not hinder or hamper such well-being serves one's own self interest as well. In which case, helping others can in fact indirectly help oneself, which advances comfort and provides advantage (arguably). As to what degree, it certainly depends. Some people who don't have kids or don't care for the future well-being of their own (the "here for a good time not a long time" or "just looking out for number one" type) being notable and common exceptions.

Still, the sentiment and implications of your inquiry as I understand them ring true. There may not be a strictly logistically rational (directly beneficial) reason to value the well being of society more than one's own, however the average person who is dependent on society more than they would like to give credit for (infrastructure, utilities, grocery stores, relatively-safe streets free of war) would be wise to do what is in their power to ensure the longevity of said society, if not just for the time they or anyone they consider "in their self interest" is alive.The shortsighted aside, most people today consider the things society and society alone offers (power, roads, public services) as "bare necessities" and would either not survive or be comfortable and have advantage without.

That, to me, is a genuine ethical question that can’t even be posed until, as @Banno points out, we stop thinking that some naturalistic fact about human beings or evolution is going to contain the answer. — J

I'd have to argue that the nature of a subject is not only highly relevant but paramount to any sort of matter related to said subject.

I don't see any argument as to it being an unreasonable place to begin, at least. Are our desires and as a result, will -- and to an extent, identity -- not based on, or at least in constant entwinement with, our own nature? Sure, a functional and civilized modern-day adult is miles above his deep primal nature in virtually all his affairs and doings, but that doesn't mean he doesn't feel the same emotions and desire to act on such inclinations as one who is the opposite, at least on more than nominal an occasion. I agree there's better places to look and any "solution" derived solely from the aforementioned is shortsighted and above all likely to be ineffectual or otherwise just "not true" ie. superficial.

I'm trying to suggest it's more of a "this is what works because we have reached the (perhaps not THE ultimate, but a penultimate of sorts) pinnacle of mastery of understanding of the world and sociology with the work of every great mind and result of every study basically at our fingertips" kind of point in humanity, as opposed to simply "we evolved as social beings, so social engineering and preservation of such will either make or break us". With this new dynamic, a dramatic paradigm shift in understanding of the human experience and "condition" has been made that goes beyond "how our bodies and resulting natural inclinations work and why" unto an almost metaphysical "understanding of the soul", in a manner of speaking.

It just seems to me if your goal is to facilitate the well-being, comfort, or advantage of say, a habitat of polar bears, one would not go wrong with hiring a polar bear expert with a library of books about polar bears, than say a botanist with a litany of botanical literature, is all. Having extensive background knowledge of a subject would seem to produce a greater likelihood of reaching beneficial determinations than operating without one or refusing to check highly-relevant and applicable information as if its just needless rubbish of no value. Ethics is dishonored by suggesting it's "linked to evolution" or a simple matter of "what always was" or "what everyone thinks", I agree. I just feel many topics and subject matter that might seem vastly different to one another actually have many common threads that can lead to greater understanding.

Basically, I didn't quite mean to suggest "ethics is based solely on human nature/evolution", it just seems to be incredibly relevant, to me at least. Why do we pay a masseuse top dollar to perform an action that would otherwise be assault and battery as well as pay even higher dollar for someone to prosecute someone who actually assaults and batters us? Because we are vulnerable beings who can feel pain and can be injured or killed by certain actions, which I do believe would have to be considered facts of evolutionary nature. It has its relevance. Do you see where I'm coming from with that?

(Apologies if this is backtracking or the discussion has advanced, I'm rather interested in this line of thought. I also take it there are three definitions or usages of "good" floating around in this discussion: "wise", "pleasing", and the one I was focused on, "moral"/"ethical".)

That's the right response to the OP. — Banno

But, why, perhaps is what Questioner (and to an extent myself, if not for purposes of discussion) may wonder. It seems self-evident, sure. Well, tell us why. Naturally I find the reasons plain as day, as I've posted, but for the sake of philosophic inquiry and higher understanding, make the argument, why not?

that we have evolved to do something or to prefer something simply does not imply that we ought to do that thing. — Banno

I can understand that. It's human nature to take and covet and much worse, that is true. However in this case, "being a team player" is not simple evolution but long-crafted social institution that has advanced greatly so over the millennia. We have new understanding of psychology and sociology that seems to offer near-empirical evidence as to what builds and sustains societies that last and what factors, behaviors, and deviations lead to their collapse. Being of high social regard for pleasant demeanor, selflessness, and going above and beyond means more people will have your back, in a simple cost-benefit analysis sort of way. On the inverse "no one wants an untrustworthy person around" is another simple yet relevant example that seems to stand the test of time and type of society. Bear in mind I was partly answering the OP with a possibly misconstrued notion of it seeming to ask: "Why should we not do bad things" as opposed to "Why should we (go out of our way to) do good".

Because people have collectively spent thousands of years to eradicate that which ails and plagues us ie. "is bad". Through social orders and institutions, wars and alliances, science and chemistry, and good ol' fashioned blunt instruments. You do not want to be on the other end of humanity's collective thousand year offensive.

One doesn't have to. But if one wants to, you know, live, it is highly recommended.

I suppose you mean, why do anything you don't have to or aren't legally obligated to. That's a fair question. In business, it's all about accounting and running a tight ship, no room for pesky things such as empathy, trust, and warmth. That's why societies have laws; you stay in between the lines and your business remains your business. Of course, people love supporting companies that at the end of the day seem to "have a heart", whether they have generous employee policies or donate to charities, because at the end of the day, we are all human and involved in this crazy journey of life together. You never know when it might be you who is under the bus or suddenly not well off, knowing people who don't mind lending a hand just makes society a better place to be, which makes the workforce more productive, and ties into national security as well. It's a neat little package that all makes perfect sense, really.

How does free will relate to circumstance? If you were born before the advent of technology or perhaps even books, you don't have access to on-demand entertainment and the like, and so, you do not have a choice but to be bored for prolonged periods at a time. If you're born in the middle of a desert continent in times before efficient forms of travel, you might have the will to go swimming, but such will is wasted as it would basically be impossible.

I have the freedom to hold "will" for or against anything, but if my circumstances or other factors do not permit, such will is essentially in name only, rather matters not and for some intents and purposes may as well not even exist.

I'm sure most if not all people have the will to eat something they find tasty for their next meal, however based on many factors ranging from finances to mobility, may not ever occur.

"I think therefore I am" comes to mind for some reason. Say someone is born with a genetic deposition to, I don't know, be incredibly prone to anger or is perhaps unable to "feel" as typically imagined ie. does not feel emotion the way most do (is a sociopath). They still have the capacity to have a will to further their understanding of what and why people feel the way they do and perhaps can, distantly, grasp the concept if they put enough effort into it. Someone with a theoretical hardwired anger problem can, if done fervently, will themselves to be mellow and easygoing. It's just significantly more difficult.

If you have a neuro-typical brain, your "choices", thoughts, or "imagination" is your will. Seems free enough in the closed confines of one's own head, of course that doesn't mean if I will to do 1,000 pushups I'll be able to actualize said will into the real world.

I recently obtained some fresh catfish filets from my local supermarket the other day. I chose to add said foodstuff to my "cart" because of the following reasons to the best of my knowledge: A.) A TPF moderator suggested to try catfish. B.) I was fond of catfish growing up and haven't had any for some time. C.) I recently engaged in tasting different kinds of fish and posting said dishes in the Shoutbox and happen to enjoy doing so. D.) There are only about 5-6 different kinds of fish available at this supermarket with said fish happening to be in stock at the time of my order. So many things are responsible and relevant to each of those reasons, each can be analyzed and as a result produce dozens and dozens of further side reasons/cause and effect chains to the point they can no longer be kept track of or reasonably assumed to be actual contributing factors. Regardless, I still could have easily removed the catfish and opted for salmon instead. The fact my local supermarket doesn't have prehistoric Acondylacanthus fish in stock and I happened to have wanted to try some, or any other sort of cause-effect dynamic outside of my control, shouldn't be a deciding factor in whether free will exists or not. Does it?

Many things outside our control can limit our final actions and their ultimate outcomes, but will is desire and while the reason one may desire one thing and not the other is likely based on a torrent of things outside our control, even before we were born, one still has the agency to determine the difference between what was expected, what actually occurred, and whether or not the latter serves or opposes the original, free desire or thought, and to what degree.

What advantage is this? :eyes: — fdrake

It was one of you guys who I read say something along the lines of "what I tell/teach/do with my students is..."

Academic background, I presume. :cool:

Hope you've voted! :smile: — Amity

There ya are, one vote. :up:

I probably wouldn't write one, my essay skills have yet to evolve from early grade school (Paragraph 1: Introduction; Paragraphs 2 - 4: Three supporting reasons, Paragraph 5: Conclusion). Former English teacher once said to me: "Everything to write about has already been written, there is nothing new, only clever rehashing." He teaches philosophy at a major-ish university, last I was aware. I'm sure a few people here more intrepid than I could give him a run for his money, however. It'd be nice to see what gets submitted, that's for sure.

Other than that, got to remember running a competition requires a good amount of time and coordination. I assume many of the TPF eldership have somewhat busy personal lives, holidays not helping. Except for Jamal. We all know he's just wandering around trying to find more meat to velvet.

Didn't there used to be an "Articles" link at the top of the forum or did I imagine that also? Good idea either way. Pretty sure fdrake would just win every time though. He has an occupational advantage from what I've gathered. :eyes:

because the only case in which this life exists is if the act is done. — Hyper

So, 3.5 billion or so people of the opposite gender vanished overnight? That's a thinker. I suppose life must carry on, sure. Even if trapped on a desert island with no reasonable chance of rescue or similar would make one ponder the same: Would it be worth it? Even if a newspaper somehow washed up ashore notifying you of an all-out world war with major cities being destroyed leading you to reasonably believe you might possibly be the last cradle of humanity, it still leaves much to consider.

if they do end up having a baby and that baby is deformed, then is that still a reason not to have it? Life is better than no life. — Hyper

It's willful engagement in behavior that is likely to produce an unsafe condition of elevated likelihood for birth defects. "Life is better than no life" would not be a way to justify drinking alcohol during pregnancy or competing in a boxing competition while pregnant. Why would it be any different in this scenario?

Go on. How does this make one re-examine our place in the world, one's concept of self and identity, and elementary philosophies of truth and reason? Does it at all?

As somewhat of a non-traveler these days, for all I know, the entire world outside of my tri-county area may not exist. Of course, I know this to be false. I have friends in other parts of the world, I've traveled to places before, I can track shipments for packages that travel to and fro as well as watch live webcams of places. But for many practical intents and purposes, it's like the world outside our own little spheres of interaction may or may not exist.

I doubt I'll ever step foot in the White House, for example. So, at least for my existence, it's as if the place does not exist, never did, and never will. Yet it does, surely. Might I ask: is Schrodinger's cat involved here in any way? :smile:

Suppose when people say "real" or "fake" they mean something that exists in the manner in which we do, that can either be touched, felt, observed, or otherwise "experienced". There was a thread here about (or touching on) such differences between "existing" and "real". I forget the relevant quote at the moment but something along the lines of "unicorns are imaginary, but exist and are real". I've likely butchered the original quote in my misrememberance but it was something along those lines. Reminds me of the proofs thread where something can be factually false whilst simultaneously being valid and sound. A bit hard to grasp and easily dismissed as nonsensical.

Not really philosophy more text-specific analysis, but if it's permitted.

Generally, a person can identify as whatever they please. Certainly schools of thought, ways of life, and religions hold doctrines that one must adhere to or accept to be considered a true follower or not "hypocritical." "Problem", per se, is that, like most things, different people agree and disagree on different things, hence, in this case, why certain religions have unique denominations, often a result of what was- in many cases, at first- a small splinter group or movement. Christianity is no exception. Protestants believe one thing, Baptists believe another, Catholics, another still- to the point others have stark disagreements where one views the other as "simply wrong". I believe a few "popular" disagreements are works-based salvation vs. faith-based salvation, per-tribulation Rapture vs. post, etc. One who believes one thing and not the other generally views the other person as "lost" or, again, "just wrong" or even not a true whatever the title or group happens to be.

Whether or not Christ was raised from the dead (physically, hence the purported visual apparition allegedly witnessed by followers) seems to me like an incredibly minor detail based on the underlying context of Abrahamic faith (which again different followers hold different beliefs as far as what the purported Messiah is, signifies, and functionally "does") If I'm not mistaken, Jewish prophecy states the Messiah would be a military leader who would ensure them a victory against their enemies. Christianity states Messiah (literally messenger), as exactly that, a messenger who gave men a heavenly decree that the Old Testament is no more, and those who follow the god of Abraham have new (more lax) laws to follow, as well as, well, to put it casually, something of an "update" that mortals are now allowed in Heaven provided they meet certain conditions. This, if I'm not mistaken, is a change from the way it was before as Heaven was previously reserved only for angels and divine beings (and possibly those who God "likes", I guess, not sure- but based on the doctrines of the faith an all-powerful god can in fact do anything, so, yeah.) If I'm also not mistaken, Jews generally believe Jesus was not the prophecized Messiah and was either A.) a liar and/or B.) just some guy trying to make everyone feel better. Which means they await the true Messiah who, as they believe, has yet to come.

To your point, you are a Christian if you believe in Christianity, the idea Jesus existed and, presumably, was the son of God, and/or by extension (though again depending on belief the two are not mutually-exclusive), the foretold king/prophecized Messiah foretold in Jewish texts. You could be a "bad" or "untrue" or "lost" Christian, I suppose, why not? To answer your question one asks the opposite: what is a non-Christian? Typical answer being someone who "doesn't believe in the Bible" or that Jesus existed and performed all or most of the purported doings and activities alleged, whose word is the Truth, believes such, and strives to live as Christ (rather, God via Christ) commanded or stated one should. (You can believe in all of the above, but reject the idea, and live in willful opposition to the alleged new ("Christ's") commandments, that would make one a non-Christian).

Basically, Jews and Christians ultimately believe in the same Messiah, one just believes the other is wrong. Christians believing the ancient scripture was fulfilled and as a result anything commanded or proclaimed by Jesus is divine and eternal law, Jews believing said prophecy has yet to be fulfilled and nothing has changed from when God purportedly gave Moses the Ten Commandments to before the day Jesus was born to now (and naturally as a result Christians are misled, at worst damning themselves and those around them or at best wasting their time). Kind of the same as what they believe of them.

To put it casually: was it the real slim shady or not? Therein lies the only divide between Judaism and Christianity.

Personally, I believe in a compassionate, all-knowing God. Which means God obviously knows that people are pretty dumb. If you're a good person, and there's a Heaven mortals are allowed to reside in, you'll probably end up there. If not, mankind is pretty boned any way you slice it.

(The reason I call this non-philosophy is because the ultimate goal of your question is a result of what a purported text or school of thought ultimately resolves to. It's an explicit yes or no, 1 or 0 binary based on explicit, static information [whether the information is true or false is not the issue] and nothing more. Meaning, logically, the answer remains the same whether or not you are a devout Christian or an atheist who views this as a discussion on par with what Santa Claus' favorite cookie is.)

Hi,

Fascinating thesis and congratulations on your professional success in higher education, and by the looks of it, life itself. Assuming I live long enough, it'd be an honor to reach even a nominal fraction of said status in life myself. And I consider myself religious. :grin:

I've been following along, somewhat latently to the best of my ability (which isn't particularly note-worthy).

Might I ask: Could it be said that to sufficiently provide an acceptable answer to the following example in your thesis: "We might reason that the freedom over one’s eyes is less important than the freedom to live, but the question is how much less important. Five times? A hundred times? A thousand? Presumably, there is a number, and it seems unlikely that it would be morally correct to blind the world to save one life, but it is not clear what that number is.", would be considered a total or partial solution? Or is there perhaps a greater, singular hypothetical question/example that more fully encapsulates the essence of the conundrum? And if permitted, a second: what would you say would be the closest opposite of freedom consequentialism?

Regards,
Outlander

(Just some personal ramblings here, feel free to disregard. It's often stated that "it's the thought that counts". For example, say a person who, unbeknownst to me, is about to commit a heinous mass murder happens to be just about to walk by my house. I, completely unaware of said person or their intentions, decide to myself, "Hey, I'm at my wits end. I am contemplating self-harm. But before I do, I want to take one innocent person with me. I will harm the next person I see." before opening my front door and engaging in said action. Said action is performed, I, again, unbeknownst to me, just prevented a historic mass shooting without realizing it. Freedom consequentialism would say I did the right thing by choosing to do what I knew to be wrong, is that correct?)

the prospect of a female president — 180 Proof

This I think has more relevance than is being gave credit for. Not saying it's fundamentally sound or logical, but during a time where there are at least three "hot" international conflicts (soldiers and civilians actively killing or being killed), with several brewing on the back burner, people tend to find more confidence in a boisterous male persona when it comes to their safety and national defense and well-being. Again, not saying it's right, it's just how people largely tend to think, consciously or otherwise. Arguably rooted in biology, which affects the mind more than many care to acknowledge or hold ability to recognize.

Moreover, how did the American public react when Bill Clinton's affair was uncovered? Some thought he was a national disgrace, a "pig", per se. Others found him more relatable as a result and proof of democracy's function that the most powerful man in the world is "just like us", imperfect, prone to temptation and folly, and is not in some untouchable near-godly class. What about when the order to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki was given? Some consider that the worst atrocity against human life in history, rivaling if not surpassing the Holocaust.

It goes back to an ancient school of thought, a near-primal division, a form of culture and indeed "religion". Do we accept that we as human beings are imperfect and not only capable of horrors and sleaze but prone to them and in fact happier when we engage in these things and any sort of "morality" or piety is a lie that will inevitably collapse in on itself and serves as nothing but hindrance to human potential? Or do we realize that, like children, we have natural faults and tendencies that need to be corrected, perhaps constantly, so that we can reach a true and greater purpose and contentment as not just a society or civilization but as a species writ-large?

It's easy to have one's morals and values spun around and turned on their head by even a single isolated incident such as a heinous murder or debilitating accident, say in the course of being a good Samaritan and helping a stranded motorist, but should single isolated incidents or persons really serve as permanent indicators and premonitions of the entire future and destiny of mankind? I think not. They can certainly dramatically alter a particular society's zeitgeist overnight to the point it becomes unrecognizable, but I'd humbly suggest such an event does not dictate the declaration of a society let alone a world being "post-truth".

As far as Trump specifically, I've noticed he seems to moderate his actual behavior a bit better when he's actually in office as opposed to campaigning. He's an entertainer first and foremost, which seems to go hand in hand with politics. People have a tendency to be frustrated and like to hear their frustrations being echoed by the highest levels of power. Pandering 101. Additionally, there's an unfortunate bias among most people where we tend to believe if a person is being aggressive or callous it equates to being truthful. Which makes sense as the average person deals with a plethora of problems and frustration in their daily lives (work sucks, bills too high, goods and services too expensive, etc.) and they themselves often view their own instances of politeness as obligatory and not genuine. Like many things, only time will tell. Hope I'm right.

You act as if this is your first election.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SleazyPolitician

Q. “How do you know a politician is lying?” A. "Their mouth is moving."

Or day on Earth, frankly. :smirk:

You're dealing with ingrained human nature, to benefit oneself over that of another. Deception and unscrupulous behavior is a form of survival. You can't honestly tell me if there's one dose of medicine that doesn't belong to you, that you have means to procure, and there's two sick children, one being your own and the other being a stranger's, you'd "do the right thing", even if said medicine belongs to said stranger. Go ahead, lie to us. :smile:

You have a great point, it's an ancient debate indeed. We love to take the moral high ground and insist anything to the contrary will lead to the destruction of society itself- until push comes to shove and it's you or yours on the chopping block of life. Sadly, such is the way of the world.

But basically they are bad writers! — Swanty

Well, show the world how it's done then, champ. If you purport to know what is bad, creating what is therefore "good" should be a cake walk. Let us know when it's done, eh? There's a short story competition coming up I believe. Knock it out of the park. :up:

There's nothing wrong with writing a story and including captivation/entertainment in your work. It shows how the writer reached his or her conclusions or views and perhaps where they may have erred or glossed over pertinent and related ideas or criticisms. The chronically impatient have little use or business in philosophy, IMO, despite needing it the most.

It's relatively easy to pry open the eyes and beget further inquisition and engagement to a person half-asleep with even the faintest of light. Reminds me of a quote I read in fiction: "Many a warrior follow the path of the dragon. Perhaps such warriors are attracted to doctrines of few words."

I, and I'm sure many others, don't mind, even prefer, going on a lengthy and unyielding journey into a great mind (provided one has the time and will to do so, of course). Besides, you can find summaries and outlines online or as study notes in most lectures.

Pity. Smart guy. A certain vitriol about him, but, such seems to come standard and be par for the course for any well-traveled intellect on this hectic journey we call life. Any guy who can understand proofs has a leg up over me. If only I had reached out to him, as I was going to after noting his return from his two-month posting hiatus about the importance of restraint and self-control. Someone, or something, once told me: "Control yourself lest ye be controlled."

Ah well. Can't win 'em all. Glad it wasn't me. :lol:

I am pointing out that those in power are among them! — Clearbury

In a democratic society they can be removed. In a structure-less society, there is no process for doing this, at least not one that would last for very long as, devoid of morals, such is the default state of human will unrestrained. If the majority of people wish to target a minority group in an anarchy, they can do so much more easily and without any form of overarching legal repercussion than in a structured society with codified human rights.

What governments do is allow some of those who enjoy violating the rights of others the opportunity to do so on an industrial scale. — Clearbury

They also facilitate justice and due process to those who do, something not possible in an anarchy. Sure a rogue totalitarian state would not. That is a real concern, the concentration of power to a single individual or office. That is a bad form of government. There are good forms of government where law and order and justice for all is manifested, imperfectly, but more so than a system where it's not even entertained. I find your above quote similar to saying "Food poisons people" simply because some types of food product are bad or improperly prepared therefore "all food is bad". Not so, friend. Not so.

Tendency towards optimism: we have a positively distorted perspective of our lives in the past, present, and future. — Benatar article

Well with all due respect to the benighted scholar (bear with me while I bring up other people again), thousands of years ago the average person had to deal with threats of invasion, plagues, an abundance of disease, terrible low-quality shacks, frost-filled winters and/or brutal, sweltering summers, no cold drinks, sorry excuses for nutrition, terrible corruption via class discrimination perpetrated by unscrupulous "upperclassmen", bloodthirsty highwaymen, torture chambers as prisons, just to name a few things modern man no longer has to face. So, pardon me for saying but, yes, modern man has a correct perspective of optimism in his daily life. Why shouldn't he? We live in some sort of futuristic heavenly utopia, if someone from said time in history could step through the doorway of time into our own. It's easy to forget how fortunate we have it now. You've never been in love before? Never had "the best day ever"? Sure you have! You can't tell me in your best moments in life you weren't as giddy as a schoolgirl with all the optimism of a starry-eyed young prince. Things happen, we grow older, see the world for what it is, rather become aware of what we were once ignorant of, and it weighs heavy to those intelligent who think and feel, of course. That doesn't mean great delights and better times are not yet to come. I mean, again, look how far civilization has come. There's nothing "distorted" about factual categorization and accounting of positive development.

Adaptation: we adapt to our circumstances, and if they worsen, our sense of well-being is lowered in anticipation of those harmful circumstances, according to our expectations, which are usually divorced from the reality of our circumstances. — Benatar article

So basically, the hedonic treadmill. A noted phenomenon, yes. What of it? I still double down on the "failure to see positive possibility and future change (even if it not be enjoyed while one is alive)", despite the odds being less than favorable in many a circumstance.

It's a cruel and unforgiving world largely governed by primal nature where the selfish and abominable seem to come out on top time and time again. I'll give you that. And yet, a world full of warmth and bliss, for those fortunate. Not everyone who achieved these rewards did so by ill-begotten ways and means. What of them? It's not an unreasonable belief to hold life as "more trouble than it's worth", not unreasonable at all. But you can't honestly tell me you didn't have at least a few moments or experiences you're glad to have had, can you? Of course not.

Suppose the code was deleted mistakenly, and all your hard work was wiped out? — schopenhauer1

That would be quite awful, yes. I do keep backups but I get your point. I would be sad. Angry, distraught, the works. Thankfully, or regrettably (not sure), much of my time was spent "figuring things out" and learning along the way so reconstructing it wouldn't be as daunting as one might envision. But I get your point.

Anyways, strife can be found anywhere, just as much as joy. Pursuits of joy are temporary. That's the point of Schopenhauer makes of goal-seeking, attachments, and all of it. — schopenhauer1

Joy is often short-lived, yes. But that is no reason to abandon all pursuit of desire. I could be terribly mistaken but I'd otherwise bet you have a great many things to be thankful for, things others would kill for, even if these things are relatively common to the degree you have lost (or never had) appreciation for them. Perhaps you should bear in mind those around the world who have things much worse off than you and not let your relatively good fortune to have been in vain. Ironically, Schopenhauer had a goal and attachment to write a book, several I'd imagine, so that's kind of an interesting position to hold. I suppose it remains valid if you really want it to.

Sure, the simpler a life one lives, that is to say the less social affairs one has, the less room for drama or unsolicited burden. Why the choice of the word "withdrawal" though? Why not enhanced engagement in one's inner focus, self-betterment, and private works in the comfort of willful solitude? I suppose if one craves socialization, as most normal people do, at least every now and then, it is a willful, conscious act of deprivation. It doesn't have to be. I can't think of the PC version for the following quote so I will just say it does the mind and soul (or psyche) wonders to occupy oneself with true vocational purpose. Example, I have an ungodly amount of computer-related work to complete this season. It brings me joy when I complete a portion or bring a functionality of the software I'm creating to fruition. It also brings me joy, when I'm feeling a bit burnt out staring at thousands of lines of code for hours or get stuck on a particular area or simply need a break to tab over to TPF and see if there's a reasonable entry-level discussion that interests me enough to participate in, like this one. It's about finding balance.

By reducing food to the bare essentials, we liberate ourselves from the cycle of indulgence, craving, and dependency that distracts us from a clearer, more tranquil state of being. — schopenhauer1

Do we really? Willpower begins and ends in the mind. It's about setting reasonable goals and limitations you can expect yourself to follow through on, I'd say. For lunch today, I plan to bake a frozen fish filet. Nothing fancy, by any means, but nutritious enough to provide my body what it needs to focus and feel well enough to complete what I have in front of me. Food is an interesting thing as nutrition should be part of what one includes "bare essentials" for any sort of quality existence. I could easily open a packet of tuna and a roll of crackers and call that lunch. Nothing wrong with that. Perhaps you mean excess and extravagance, such as a three-course meal with lobster, buttered potatoes, and desert, for example. Or whatever one's "favorite" foods happen to be. Diet and fasting have been purported to yield benefits physical and beyond of course, so you may be correct. I still hold the mental component to unhealthy cycles of physical action or inaction to be paramount, regardless if whatever the physical object of ones concern is in reach and easily-accessible or not.

The ultimate step is complete abstention from food, moving beyond mere limitation of intake. Eating fuels the Will’s endless cycle of craving and satisfaction, tethering us to desires that perpetuate suffering. By choosing abstention, we reject this cycle altogether, severing our dependence on physical needs that only serve to bind us to the body's relentless demands. — schopenhauer1

That one's a bit too esoteric for me I'm afraid. Sounds a bit fatal, frankly. If that's what it takes to reach your desired state of being, I'd question your sense of reason in regards to what you want out of life and how to best go about obtaining such.

Withdrawal is preventative, but also a statement about not allowing oneself to inflict harms upon others. The key is to ensure that any contact is purely transactional- just enough to meet the basic requirements of existence, without letting it spiral into further emotional entanglements. — schopenhauer1

Different strokes for different folks I guess. It is true many eastern religions and other forms of thinking hold value in solitude or "cutting oneself off from the world" ie. the monks of olde. It's just not feasible for most people in modern society who aren't exceedingly well off. You can remove the object of temptation but the underlying "unwellness" (if that's what you consider such) would undoubtedly remain, at least in some form, wouldn't it?

It is unpopular because the minute we accept that we are animals, dualism, ego/spirit, anamnesis, eternal truths, heaven, hell, and immortality all vanish into the illusions that they are — ENOAH

I'm afraid I don't follow. The large majority of philosophers do not subscribe to the idea of most if not all of the concepts you mention, so this can't be the source of their reasoning at all. Besides, what is an illusion, really? Something that can't be proven to be a substantial thing in its own right, not dependent of some other process or source. What is love? Friendship? Respect? These things by the aforementioned descriptors are but illusions too. Yet they drive men to madness, war, and on the opposite end provide comfort, purpose, and belonging. These things are regarded as substantial entities in and of themself, regardless if they be "facades" of biological workings or mere social constructs, by philosophers and non-philosophers, theists and atheists alike. Is this not so?

Can a single violent crime (ex. the rape of a loved one) initiate a feedback cycle of violence in a community due to the natural need/impulse for retributive justice (tit for tat). — Nils Loc

Also to add, you can make a person or group of people believe anything with the right preconditions. A simple example would be framing a person for murder by placing an intimate item or lock of hair (if for some reason the person had unusual hair) at the scene of the misdoing. Oldest trick in the book. And in the heat of passion, fueled by a combination of horror, sorrow, and rage, even the mildest of men won't hesitate to ask questions second. Imagine being the framed, quietly minding your own business and some psychotic loon, or several, tries breaking down your door. You will also likely not hesitate to ask questions second, for there would be no time for any other course of action.

This stuff happens often. Not to mention flat-out lying. Some people thrive on chaos. It goes back to their upbringing. I've seen all kinds. Some for the attention, some for the sense of power/control, some for the "freedom" found only when all guardians are occupied, some for the sheer entertainment of it all. The list goes on.

Civil enforcers play many roles, but a major one is separating the belligerent parties until everyone is calm and no longer operating on pure emotion, their wits return to them, and facts can be made known.

It just doesn’t follow from any of this that we require a master. — NOS4A2

But when has a man with any worth ever not had a master? From birth, from walking, from basic reading and writing, to basic mathematics and scientific formulation, from learning to operate modes of transportation to being taught how to operate basic job equipment, to learning advanced skills. None of this could be possible without a greater more experienced person, whether that person is in the flesh or in the form of words in a book. I suppose one could take the trial and error route, at the expense of one's own safety and more egregiously that of those around him.

People don't like being constantly supervised as it feels restrictive, even if said supervision and apparent restriction prevents severe consequences. As well, people with great life experience and wisdom don't like having to spend their time babysitting every person who tumbles into existence. So it's a mutual dynamic that a man should become self-sufficient and able to govern his own household and immediate affairs. While there is no "master" in free and open societies, I feel it could be argued that biologically or by evolution, humanity has an ingrained "spot" in the brain for a figure of guidance and administration, be it a parent as a child, a teacher as an adolescent, or a supervisor as a young employee. Whether this spot is filled by the primal "bigger and stronger" person simply for the fact they happened to have been born bigger and stronger, or the wiser more experienced person for the fact society values virtue, wisdom, and effort over static physicality. We have a choice who we follow in structured society. It's a beautiful thing, wouldn't you agree?

There's a lot to be said on this matter. Or, one could just watch Lord of the Flies and call it a day.

A NatGeo documentary, even. People like stability, and to a lesser extent predictability. Makes much more sense to pay a predictable set amount (in taxes/insurance/etc) than for everything one owns including one's life, spouse, and offspring to be on the chopping block/proverbial table each day. No one fights a war with the intent of perpetuating conflict in the event of victory. Classic case of "the grass is always greener". "Far removed from conflict, the closer one gets to his treasures, the less they shimmer." But by all means, I hear flights to remote regions of African jungle are reasonable. You're welcome to try it out, if you'd like.

Yet that is what the state does. So yes, the state can protect our basic rights, but it cannot use force and the threat of force to fund such an enterprise. — Clearbury

The problem here is the complete omission of those who would not only defy your basic rights, but use -- not only threat of force -- but force, willfully and in many cases gleefully. Often times for the sheer joy of it absent of anything to gain or rectify ie. "for fun". This is the dynamic of the world we live in. So, your options are a structured society where disputes can be solved in a court of law and grievances can be made known socially enacting real social change, or you can have the same threats of force and use of force, with no accountability or avenue for recourse on your part whatsoever. Any sort of attempt to reframe this unchangeable dynamic is simply dishonest.

As if that is the sum total of our achievements…. — Wayfarer

Beavers practice architecture, ants practice agriculture. Both cannot do this if the environment does not allow them to. Humans on the other hand, through inventions of safety gear, weather-resistant infrastructure, and scientific achievement, can. This is a core differentiator between human beings and non-human animals, I believe? Was human intelligence a fluke? Is it somehow limited only to mammals? Otherwise, according to the theory of evolution, provided enough time is given, other animals would logically one day reach comparable levels of intelligence as human beings, would they not?

We are organisms, that much is certain. "Animals" have different socially-given distinctions (wild, domesticated ie. livestock, companion animals ie. dogs, cat, etc.). When a man calls another man an "animal" that is usually due to a display of non-intelligent, primal-driven, often violent behavior, indicating there is a knowable distinction between human beings and other organisms, whether this is exclusively a social-construct or something a bit more foundational is, rather appears to be, like stated earlier in this discussion, subjective ie. a matter of opinion/utility-dependent.

Password reset email shows up for me, too. :confused:

Try sending yourself an email or check your storage space/settings. Add infoatthephilosophyforumdotcom as a contact/preferred sender or to your email client's whitelist. One of those should do the trick.

One of those weird "live for no reason" audio streams, but very relaxing. Seems to have been consistent for the past few days. Very soothing, especially with standalone speakers. Good to unwind or perhaps even focus. Depends on the person, I'm sure.

For the life of me I just can't get into anything non-instrumental that has vocals, something telling me what to think or how to feel or otherwise intended to create a specific scenario in one's head when I'm not drinking or driving somewhere.