I would be glad if you could direct any other critiques towards the post, and not independent of it. — PartialFanatic
What I want to propose is that there are two different ways of doing philosophy. There are those who do philosophy through discourse. These folk set the scene, offer a perspective, frame a world, and explain how things are. Their tools are exposition and eulogistics. Their aim is completeness and coherence, and the broader the topics they encompass the better. Then there are those who dissect. These folk take things apart, worry at the joints, asks what grounds the system. Their tool is nitpicking and detail. Their aim is truth and clarity, they delight in the minutia. — Banno
The discourse sets up a perspective, a world, a game, an activity, whatever we call it. The dissection pulls it apart, exposing its assumptions, underpinnings and other entrails. Perhaps you can't have one without the other, however a theory that explains any eventuality ends up explaining nothing, and for a theory to be useful it has to rule some things out. — Banno
This system blends mysticism, idealism, quantum theory, and hierarchical metaphysics into a unified doctrine — Dogbert
that is per the defining characteristic of the premise: having trust in our rationality. — PartialFanatic
Oh okay. I mean, you have a fundamental disagreement with the premise of the article. I did not author that premise, and it is what I am using to refute a sub-argument of it. — PartialFanatic
Don't gaslight me into thinking that the world outside is doing perfectly ok, and it's just me who's suffering in this synthetic world. — Martijn
There is a great disagreement between the naturalist(-materialist)-atheists and theists about free will. The naturalist would go to lengths to argue for the evolutionary chain and deny free-will as life is caused deterministically. The materialist would deny any immaterial consciousness and lead again to the denial of free-will, in support of determinism. — PartialFanatic
We have a chain of evolutions directed towards a purpose. A single purpose because of which we are rational. Without this purposeful directing of our reason, we would not have a reasonable mind. — PartialFanatic
Put simply: free-will is only real if we have both the option to be rational and to be irrational. If we are rational because we were purposefully directed, then we simply could not have had the capacity to be irrational. Following this, one may concede to the argument that we do in fact have the capacity to be irrational despite being directed towards rationality. — PartialFanatic
If we are rational, we must know the clear distinction between right and wrong. — PartialFanatic
Although I do still believe there is inherent suffering on Earth, the amount each human suffers on a day-to-day basis is different based on an innumerable amount of factors, most of which are beyond our control. — Martijn
Staying alive is work. A living organism that does nothing will wither and die eventually. We all need energy, nourishment, and rest. Try to stop sleeping and see where it leads you, or starve yourself intentionally, and you will die. I am talking at the deepest, fundamental level at which life works in our universe. It's a rebellion against entropy, which is fascinating and beautiful in my opinion, but also harsh. — Martijn
Every day, millions (if not billions) of living organisms are killed to nourish others (mostly humans), — Martijn
Those who experience suffering first-hand, especially at a young age, typically awaken much earlier to this harsh truth. If your life is all pleasant, easy, and fair, then life seems like paradise. Until your parents pass away, or your best friend silently leaves you, or your partner cheats on you, and then you don't know what to do, because your worldview was shattered. — Martijn
This is also why creating a genuinely fair, just, and meaningful world is so important. Humans are intelligent, cooperative, adaptive, and creative enough to create a world that is in accordance to our needs, where we genuinely care for each other, we don't discriminate, we don't condone violence or racism, and so on...
...Why don't we create a world where we are free again: free to love, to be ourselves and to be different, free to create meaningful and beautiful art, and free to explore the wilds again. Why can't we return to our legacy..... — Martijn
But we now live in a competitive free-for-all, and it's been absolutely disasterous to our spirit. It is not normal that millions of people suffer from mental illness, or physical health issues like obesity, or the immense loneliness that so many feel, or the disconnect and agitation between the sexes. — Martijn
Pain is not suffering but i'd classify it as some part of it. If you injure yourself physically, don't you suffer physically aswell? Pain can be a broad concept but I was mostly referring to literal or physical pain, like injuring yourself in a literal sense. — Martijn
deluding ourselves that life is always fair and nice. — Martijn
Today, I would like to discuss a concept prominent within philosophy and religion: the nature of suffering. I'd like to share my view on this concept and would love to hear different perspectives, where others may agree or disagree, or point out my blind spots. — Martijn
There seem to be three layers of suffering: inherent, literal, and mental. I shall delve into each of these in this post, to explain what I mean by these 'layers.' — Martijn
Life is fleeting and often a struggle for most animals and other life forms. Survival means struggling, competition can be brutal, we all grow older, weaker, and more fragile over time, and death is inevitable. — Martijn
Literal suffering mainly refers to pain or external events that literally harm you. — Martijn
Unlike the other two forms of suffering, mental suffering is fully within one's control. — Martijn
Here in the West, we don't teach this to our children, as we instead teach others to not bully, or to rely on authority figures to solve problems. In truth, this enables weakness and a victimhood complex, and it leads to disastrous consequences like suicidal ideation in teenagers. — Martijn
Many people have children due to their biological imperative, which is all too reasonable, yet we seldom question the deeper motives. Do people desire to have children to leave behind a legacy, or create purpose? — Martijn
Projection!
That's smart ass for you started it! — karl stone
If you're so smart how come you never figured out that science is true, or that Earth is a big ball of molten rock? If you're so honest, why can't you admit that's valid and relevant? I don't expect you to answer, but maybe one of your followers can tell me! — karl stone
I should have said that. — Fire Ologist
How would you go about determining who understood you? — frank
No, no thumbs up. Its not a good thing. Disagree with me! Show me were I'm wrong! — Banno
Is Damasio's idea an hypothesis, as your quote says, or a fact, as you claim? — Banno
Is Damasio's idea an hypothesis, as your quote says, or a fact, as you claim? — Banno
Well, yeah, but . . . at the level of the Tao, of course all the boundaries and categories are arbitrary. — J
I'm suggesting that rational processes and emotions could be discriminated either as actual physical events, or as "two sides of one coin"-type events, with only conceptual discrimination. — J
Antonio Damasio discusses the connection between feelings, reason and the body. His hypothesis is that the three are completely interconnected and that it is impossible to discuss the functions of one without realizing that the other two play a role.
I don't think jumping to the Tao level is much of an answer, since it would settle any question whatsoever about discrimination, and we're wanting something more specific. — J
In explaining everything, the Tao explains nothing. There's still the work to do; we still carry water, gather wood. — Banno
That's why this:
Everything in our minds is a blending of cognitive and non-cognitive states.
— T Clark
contributes nothing. — Banno
Antonio Damasio discusses the connection between feelings, reason and the body. His hypothesis is that the three are completely interconnected and that it is impossible to discuss the functions of one without realizing that the other two play a role.
A possible middle ground might be that there are no "entities" called reason and emotion, and that we can separate them only conceptually, not physically. — J
There's no conceptual work to do here? — Banno
But what of the issues raised in ↪Hanover and ↪Banno? — Banno
sushi
Everything in our minds is a blending of cognitive and non-cognitive states.
— T Clark
As ↪J says, how do we know? Let's aim not to make pronouncements but to map out the territory - what part of — Banno
In his book, Descartes’ Error Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain, Antonio Damasio discusses the connection between feelings, reason and the body. His hypothesis is that the three are completely interconnected and that it is impossible to discuss the functions of one without realizing that the other two play a role. This is an important idea as for centuries, scientists considered the body to be a separate entity from the brain.
In response we could point to the same dog at a young age, a prime age, and an old age, noting differences in speed. We might point to differences in speed within the same litter or breed. We might point to differences between breeds (size, breeding purpose, etc.). We could easily infer that given the way that speed varies over an individual dog's life and between dogs of the same breed, therefore speed will also vary between breeds.
This is obvious, but I want to say that scientificity is not a great deal less obvious. — Leontiskos
It seems to me that, given your substantial notion of science, pluralism among the sciences will not hold. — Leontiskos
do we agree that the field of molecular physics fulfilled your criteria better in the 20th century than in the 19th century? — Leontiskos
It's just the idea that that difference between 19th and 20th century molecular physics is also possible between different contemporaneous sciences, and in all likelihood inevitable. Scientificity ebbs and flows within fields and between fields. — Leontiskos
I have been trying to raise the elephant in the room: Does "scientific" mean anything at all? (Or else "more scientific" and "less scientific"?) Does "pseudoscientific" mean anything at all? Is there any strategy for learning that is not scientific? — Leontiskos
Yeah, please, don't nitpick it apart! — karl stone
I have been trying to raise the elephant in the room: Does "scientific" mean anything at all? (Or else "more scientific" and "less scientific"?) Does "pseudoscientific" mean anything at all? — Leontiskos
Unless we want to say that science has an end which has nothing to do with determining what is "ontologically" true? — Leontiskos
I recall Steven Pinker stating that we justify beliefs using reason, but we form them based on our affective relationships with the world. — Tom Storm
Miriam Schleifer McCormick has made some interesting suggestions, the substance being that we would do well to treat beliefs as an emotion.
The idea sits in a nuanced understanding of emotions as a blending of cognitive and non-cognitive states…
…I’m interested in the idea of a blended state, where a belief is seen as consisting of both cognition and feelings. — Banno
My assumption was that this meant there simply is no truth (or falsehood) as to positions about what really exists. For example, historical anti-realism. The position: "the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776" would be a position about what exist(s/ed), right? — Count Timothy von Icarus
I'll be honest, I don't think I can fathom a psychology where this question isn't going to virtually always be massively informed by what someone thinks is true. — Count Timothy von Icarus
doesn't "effective" here just mean "producing the result we currently desire?" — Count Timothy von Icarus
Right, but what do you mean by "there are no true ontological positions?" Maybe I have misunderstood. — Count Timothy von Icarus
People have always been pragmatic, engaged in bracketing, put more fundamental questions aside to focus on more pressing concerns, etc. I think the shift I am referring to is much more distinct, i.e. the claim that truth itself is "pragmatism all the way down." That "true = what gets me what I currently want." — Count Timothy von Icarus
they do not think techne (arts for achieving ends) exhausts the human capacity for knowledge. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Like other great thinkers of the Axial Age, these thinkers are skeptical of doctrines and the capacity of language to convey truth. But I do think this is quite a bit different from something along the lines of: "there is no Tao," and so "by Tao, we just mean what is in accordance with what we think works." I do not understand from these thinkers that there is truly no way to be more or less in line with nature—that wu wei can be consistent with whatever we currently think is beneficial. — Count Timothy von Icarus
What I call good is not humankindness and responsible conduct, but just being good at what is done by your own intrinsic virtuosities [Te]. Goodness, as I understand it, certainly does not mean humankindness and responsible conduct! It is just fully allowing the uncontrived condition of the inborn nature and allotment of life to play itself out. What I call sharp hearing is not hearkening to others, but rather hearkening to oneself, nothing more. — Chuang Tzu
Ok, but are they truly effective or ineffective? I think the ontological question is going to worm its way back in with more complex cases. — Count Timothy von Icarus
A question that rears its head when we define truth in terms of usefulness is: "but is anything truly useful?" — Count Timothy von Icarus
without a clear notion of truth — Count Timothy von Icarus
without a clear notion of truth, I don't get how one questions this sort of political influence. — Count Timothy von Icarus
"no true ontological positions, only methodological ones," seems to posit methods without goals or ends. — Leontiskos
But disciplines and arts have ends; goals. There are no methods without ends and goals. — Leontiskos
I would say that once we understand the meaning and also etymology of "method," we find that the idea doesn't make much sense — Leontiskos
I meant to say earlier, I quite like this idea. — Srap Tasmaner