How could you know that? — dimosthenis9

Not everyone here is unhappy, but there are a lot. You can know that by just reading what they write. People here are pretty open about their lives, worries, and problems.

Come on, so you say that we are totally unable to control our acts?? — dimosthenis9

Of course not. I only said that logic is not the mechanism by which most of our decisions are handled. As I noted, very little of our mental life is taken up by logical or conscious thinking.

It's about realize what is wrong and right mostly for you. I strongly doubt also that people without logic live such happy lives. — dimosthenis9

I didn't say people who use logic extensively are less happy than people who don't, only that I don't see people who spend a lot of time in self-reflection as happier than others. On the other hand, I think a case could be made that unnecessary self-reflection does make you unhappy. That's just based on an impression. I don't have any specific evidence.

If for example I have a psychological urge to revenge someone by thinking Logically and realize that it will just give me more troubles and nothing else and I won't gain anything at all, it will not only slow me from doing it but at the end I just won't do it. — dimosthenis9

This sounds like the process I described - the motivation comes from somewhere else. You call it a psychological urge, which makes sense. Then logic can come in to moderate, guide, or stop that impulse.

That Logic is our strongest weapon as to filter all these things that we have the urge to do and clarify if they truly are good for us. I don't say that Logic generates our acts. Not at all. But that Logic is the best filter for them and we always have to use it. — dimosthenis9

Again, you seem to be describing the same process I did. You do bring up a question I haven't addressed - is logic the best method to guide our actions? I say "no," or at least "not necessarily." If it works for you, good. It doesn't work for me and many other people.

Logical conclusions are only to clarify right and wrong and consistency in the arguments or claims, but they will not cause actions or decisions or beliefs of the people who are using it. Only psychological motives and wills will decide their decisions, beliefs and actions. (based on the logical conclusions). i.e. with the right conclusions, they can still make wrong / bad decisions and vice versa. — Corvus

I agree with this.

There are many cases of people making up false logical propositions which are full of fallacies and just a pile of nonsensical mixture of contradictory sentences jumbled disguised as some sort of complicated logical statement. These are psychological traps to lure the others for parading their shady messages or endeavour to impress you for their intellectual superiority, which must be ignored at prima facie. — Corvus

There are plenty of examples here on the forum.

Good post.

Logic isn't the cure for everything but for sure is what can lead people in happier lives. — dimosthenis9

And yet, here you have a philosophy forum full of unhappy people.

I see Logic as the only reason someone has on his life. And how he can affect it. Using Logic to react in all circumstances for a better life. It's his only tool as to rule over his life. — dimosthenis9

Billions of people lead happy lives without depending on logic. Logic can't lead you anywhere, it can only, sometimes, maybe, slow you down or stop you, change direction a bit. The will to act, intention, comes from somewhere else.

I see as one of the greatest problems that people (both in general as society but as individuals also)find extremely difficult to think Logically. I don't mean about beliefs or whatever but I mean in pure logic terms for their own personal benefit. For example racism is a matter totally out of Logic. In any terms there is no racist argument that can stand against Logic simply! But millions of people think like that. And I can mention hundreds other examples of out of logic thinking! — dimosthenis9

Very few of the decisions you make, the actions you take, the attitudes and beliefs you hold are mediated by logic. They're not necessarily illogical, more likely non-logical. Most of what we know we don't know in the sense that we can justify it logically. The world we inhabit mentally is one that we have built up starting and infancy. Much of it is non-verbal and non-conscious. Logic is the gold paint on the ball at the top of the flagpole. That metaphor is not logical.

Good post.

My enjoyment of math did not stem from that experience. — jgill

Maybe you learned something about the relationship of mathematics with the world. Maybe not.

Sure, I've noticed the appeal of early rawness, but I've also noticed the appeal of later refinement. Is one more valuable than the other? — Noble Dust

It doesn't happen to everyone. Paul Simon. Bob Dylan. CJ & VSB. Bob Seeger did what more musicians should do - said what he had to say, made the money he needed, then sat down.

Roots music, bluegrass, and much of folk are country music.
— T Clark

In my mind those genres preceded country. — Noble Dust

Are you serious? Jimmy Rogers. The Carter Family. The Stanley Brothers. Hank Williams died in 1951 if I remember correctly. These are not the musicians I really like - I like Lyle Lovett, Robert Earl Keen, Guy Clark, Son Volt, Chris Knight best.

You say your favorite works from your favorite authors were their earliest. Were they also the first works of theirs you read, or no? — Noble Dust

No, the early books I'm talking about were not necessarily the first ones I read. In fact, generally they weren't. A writer's first book, a songwriter's first song tend to have something raw and immediate about them. The artist is trying to figure things out for themself. Beyond that, even when an author's later work is still very good, often they eventually run out of whatever it was that kept them going. They've done what they do so many times the blades get dull.

With musicians there is also the band factor - often the lead musician goes off to a solo career. Although it may be true that they were the driving force behind the band, their new work doesn't have the same spirit. I could never listen to Lennon and McCartney songs written after the Beatles broke up. They really sucked.

I like folk and roots music (hell I even like bluegrass), — Noble Dust

Roots music, bluegrass, and much of folk are country music. You can't judge rock based on Crazy Joe and the Variable Speed Band and you can't judge country based on a lot of the crap on mainstream country stations.

In case you haven't guessed, I will be mentioning Crazy Joe and the VSB a lot in my future posts.

So, putting all of the pedagogy and math trails aside, what exists within philosophical discourse that promotes this way of seeing? The closest I have seen in my research is "embodied mathematics" (e.g. Lakoff/Nunez). — Paul Fishwick

I am a civil engineer. There is nothing I ever did that "embodied" math for me like taking surveying in college. Trigonometry, measurement and measurement error, statistics, planar and spherical coordinate systems, mapping, precision. I came out of that class with the sense of holding the world in my hands with mathematical tools. Related ways of studying math in the world - orienteering, map making, drafting, CAD. A lot of this stuff can be done without formal surveying tools.

Beyond that, the class that most helped me see the world in mathematical terms is probability and statistics. When I did statistics, I could feel the universe around me, fighting me like a spinning gyroscope as I tried to turn it . And calculus too. When you do calculus, you can feel how the world changes. I loved partial derivatives - like strings pulling on the world to make it move. Each piece of the world attached with a network of strings.

Sorry - these are not philosophical tools, although they do teach philosophy as much as they teach math. And they teach physics as much as they teach either.

On the contrary, Clark boycotted the forum for a long period in protest of a banning, if I recall correctly. — praxis

Not a boycott. I just didn't want to hang around with you guys for a while.

I don't need a wager to know you are a conformist. — Protagoras

I'm starting a pool on @Protagoras - how long before he is banned. I put $5 on noon tomorrow EDT. Anyone want to throw in a few Euros?

And yet they preach about politics and human rights! — Protagoras

[irony]Yes. I agree completely. Unfair forum moderation policies constitute human rights violations.[/irony]

Why shouldn't one stand their ground if they know they are being wronged? — Protagoras

Because people with real courage pick their fights and risk something important. Life is full of little slights and disappointments. When this is all over, you won't be a martyr, you'll just be another member of the Boys in the Banned and you can read bad things about yourself in the "Bannings" thread from your perch in the afterlife.

You don't understand do you?

It takes courage to stand up for what is right.

Your flippancy and excuses express your character. — Protagoras

It's just a forum, and one you don't seem to like very much. The worst that can happen is that you get banned. It's not courage if you risk being mauled by an arthritic, toothless dog.

The irony of a forum full of people debating and talking about ethics, empathy and human rights,and then only two people showing any courage to say," hey this is not right. We can see he wasn't an emotional poster".

Or are all your ethics abstract?
It's how you treat issues like this that expresses your character. Otherwise you are just talkers and echo chamber partisans. — Protagoras

What courage does it take to speak up for someone banned? Answer - none. People do it all the time. Actually, I'm a bit jealous that you're going at it so hard. That's usually my gig.

With respect,that doesn't make sense. How can someone be on the radar for two years? — Protagoras

By the way, you are on their radar now. Seriously.

So the lil shit finally wore-out his welcome? Good riddance. Like a stubborn STD, that self-fellating troll will be back soon with a new handle and the same old schtick. Only Protagoras can stand 3017 and ass-licking like P's is very hard to find online or off, so he'll have to come back. Btw, ignoring them has amused me to no end from thread to thread. Fuckin' douches. :smirk: — 180 Proof

I'm not really surprised that @3017amen was banned. His posts were generally not very good and were rarely responsive. On the other hand, his contributions are as good or better than lots of other more popular members.

As for his civility, or trollishness, or whatever, he treated people at least as well as you do. And no, I'm not proposing you be banned. You are a valuable and entertaining contributor to the forum. And the little kid is cute.

This is probably most evident in idioms, as it is often misleading to translate them word-for-word. — baker

My favorite is "tout le monde," which, in French, literally means "all the world." Idiomatically, it means "everybody," even if I only mean everybody in the room.

I am 40 years old and I am certain at this point that if I stayed 40 years old for 20 years I would get less done than if I were 20 years old for 10 years. It just seems like a waste of resources to live after the body feels half dead already. Lol. Any thoughts? — TiredThinker

I am 69 and I've been retired for two years. When I was still working as an engineer, I was much better at what I did than when I was 20, 30, or 40. I was also paid a lot more. That's the fight - to keep your effectiveness balanced with your cost. I think when I was 66 I was often more productive than people half my age, even taking into account my pay scale.

I'm just as smart as I was when I was 30. I'm much more experienced. I've seen everything before five times. Perspective makes you better at what you do, unless it's something physical that requires a young body. My body can't do the things it used to. I made an appointment with a physiotherapist today to deal with hip pain. But I don't feel "half dead."

I'd go along with that too, but don't downplay it on that account. Don't forget 'esctacy' (not the drug!) stands for ex- outside of 'stasis', normal state. So the normal state, or the default condition, is colored by shall we say many less-than-optimal mind-states and inclinations. But 'were the doors of perception cleansed, then we should see everything as it is, infinite', said Blake. — Wayfarer

It was not my intention to downplay it. The kind of awareness I'm discussing is something I value very much. At the same time, it is important to me that it be seen as continuous with everyday experience, not off somewhere in the clouds. The metaphor I use is that it is right here, now, just above my shoulder. I can only see it in my peripheral vision. If I try to look directly, it disappears.

In Yogic logic, increasing one's self awareness to encompass the universe is a way to reach a higher reality. One can do this by identifying with the universe.

Might sound crazy to some, but then who in their right mind would argue that they are not an element of the universe? — Pop

I see the experience you describe not as a view of a higher reality, but as increased awareness of the reality we live with every day.

This is a really good post. It made me think about lots of things.

In his essay "The Task of the Translator", Walter Benjamin makes a fascinating distinction between what a word means, and how a word means. — StreetlightX

The idea of translation has always been interesting to me. It seems that translating a document, especially fiction or poetry, would be harder than writing it. And yes, the difference comes down to how meaning is expressed, but it's more than that. Maybe getting the literal meaning would be relatively easy, but how to get that to match the rhythm, tone, connotation, and feeling of the text seems impossible. Then again, I guess all that is the meaning.

I think this is relevant, not sure - my children were involved in a French immersion program in elementary school. From kindergarten through third grade, they were taught entirely in French so that they became fluent quickly. We went to France when my daughter was seven and people thought we were from Quebec. What struck me then and still fascinates me now is that it feels like when you get two languages, you get two minds.

For Benjamin, the differences between languages are, at base, differences between how words mean. That is, what any one expression means can remain identical between languages, but what differs between them is 'how' a particular language goes about "meaning" (taken as a verb). — StreetlightX

I'm not sure if I agree with this. Maybe I don't get it. Maybe it's this:

if we take language as a way of meaning, rather than as that which 'has' meaning. Wittgenstein himself says as much: "What expresses itself in language, we cannot express by means of language" (4.121): sense or meaning is always anterior to language, even as it is expressed 'in' it. Hence the famous mutual exclusivity of 'showing' and 'saying': "What can be shown, cannot be said" — StreetlightX

I've been thinking about what "meaning" means for a while, especially in the context of what art means. I've come to the conclusion that art doesn't really mean anything. It's one of a class of things the experience of which is their only meaning. Music is another. This is a (long) quote from "October Light," a book by John Gardner. I've used it before. I'll hide it so I won't scare people away.



My conclusion - "meaning" means putting things into words. There are many experiences, communications, that don't mean anything. For me, this is the essence of Taoism.

But if language itself is a way of meaning, then languages - in the plural - are similarly varying ways of meaning. — StreetlightX

I think this is what I meant when I said having two languages is like having two minds.

I may have gone a bit off topic. If so, sorry.

This is a really good post. You took my complaints about theism arguments and opened them up, broadened them in a way that's really helpful. You also put into words things about these types of arguments I have thought a lot about but haven't been able to articulate.

Have you seen the "Can God Make Mistakes?" thread?

I wasn't proposing it was an argument against God's existence, just a paradox/contradiction. — Tom Storm

It's something of a pet peeve with me. Anti-religion activists like Dawkins and Hitchens use it to cast doubt on the existence of God. They claim their arguments provide a rational case against God's existence, but, as I noted, it says nothing about it.

I can understand why the existence of evil or hell could lead someone to reject religious beliefs. Since this is a philosophy forum, I just wanted to be clear what it does or does not demonstrate.

You're right, I was only talking about the God of Abrahamic religions, where goodness is a trait of God. — elucid

If you're saying if God is not good then God does not exist, that doesn't make sense to me.

My first question at religious education class when I was 8 - If God is good and ever forgiving why is there a hell? — Tom Storm

How can a good god condemn people to infinite suffering in hell for finite offence/s. Infinite punishment will always exceed just punishment for finite offence/s. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Out of all the arguments I have come across, this one makes the most sense. — elucid

This is not an argument that God doesn't exist. This is an argument that God is not good.

D) one has not formed an opinion because one has not considered the issue (lack of belief)

Position A is (amongst other things), theism. B is atheism. C is agnosticism, and D pig ignorance, which for the remainder of this post, I’ll ignore. — Banno

I'll give an upvote for including not having an opinion as one of the ways of addressing the existence of God, even though you don't include it in your further evaluation. That's not an option normally considered.

Preferred pronouns are in the latter category. Not worth an inch of column space whilst children are starving. — Isaac

Yes. I agree. I also think if you take care of financial, security, and opportunity issues, the rest will take care of itself.

Do you think there'd still be such a need to facilitate social change if we actually addressed disparities in education, resources, opportunity and wealth? — Isaac

I still believe these must be tackled, perhaps in bold new ways. It's not likely to be readily achievable for a range of reasons. — Tom Storm

What more would be needed, what more could possibly be achieved, beyond addressing "disparities in education, resources, opportunity and wealth?" That is the problem, the whole problem, and nothing but the problem. Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying.

Boy, I'm pretty disappointed with the debate so far. No one has just sat down and stated what their position is and why they think it is a good way of looking at things. Absent that, all their comments just feel like ideas floating in space like grapes in a Jello salad.

From remarks like that, the Vienna Circle arrived at the conclusion that metaphysics is meaningless nonsense. — Wayfarer

And yet "The sense of the world must lie outside the world," is a metaphysical statement.

Just as well, because goats are notoriously bad at racing. — Wayfarer

This is a misconception. A goat, Zev, won the Kentucky Derby in 1923, admittedly in the slowest time ever of 4 minutes and 7 seconds. Before the 1924 derby, Churchill Downs changed the rules so that only horses could run.

Following up on @Wayfarer in trying to set the meanings of some of the terms in the debate, these come from Wikipedia:

Substance dualism, or Cartesian dualism, most famously defended by René Descartes, argues that there are two kinds of foundation: mental and physical.[8] This philosophy states that the mental can exist outside of the body, and the body cannot think. Substance dualism is important historically for having given rise to much thought regarding the famous mind–body problem.

Property dualism asserts that an ontological distinction lies in the differences between properties of mind and matter, and that consciousness is ontologically irreducible to neurobiology and physics. It asserts that when matter is organized in the appropriate way (i.e., in the way that living human bodies are organized), mental properties emerge. Hence, it is a sub-branch of emergent materialism. What views properly fall under the property dualism rubric is itself a matter of dispute. There are different versions of property dualism, some of which claim independent categorisation.

Here is Hanover's explanation of property dualism::

there being a single thing and it will be called “matter” I presume, but whatever it might be called does not matter. It is a monistic goo that offers the underlying substance of everything, much like that flat white paint you buy that is then taken to the counter after hours of bickering to have just the right color mixed in. The property dualist explains there are two main colors in the world, not surprisingly called (1) minds and (2) bodies. So you see what has happened is that the substance dualist claims to have two different buckets of goo, yet the property dualist claims to have two different buckets of the same goo, just with different coloring in each.

Hanover hasn't defined substance dualism yet. He doesn't speak of it highly, given that it's his job to defend it. He says it "succeeds where property dualism fails to account for the conceptual coincidence, or interaction, of ideality (mind) and reality (body)." but he also says it's "anachronistic."

As an enlightened follower of Lao Tzu, I am clearly a monist, which isn't on the table, so I don't have a goat in this race. I will say, just because I always say it, both substance dualism and property dualism, and monism for that matter, are metaphysical concepts. As such, they are neither right nor wrong, only more or less useful in a specific situation.

If they are successful in their career and happy, how can this possibly be classified as ill mental health? — baker

I was successful in my career and I've lived a good, if not always happy, life. I was also diagnosed with a mental illness - bipolar disorder. Having a mental illness doesn't make you less human and doesn't necessarily take away a desire for happiness. It also doesn't mean you aren't responsible for your actions in the same way anyone else is.

Oh come on, do you really believe that your average Wisconsin Christian is examining their beliefs and studying the philosophy underpinning them more rigorously? This is not an "atheist" or "scientist" thing: most people don't have a solid philosophical foundation for what they believe, and probably shouldn't tbh. — Kenosha Kid

This makes sense. It's silly for us to expect most people to live with a need to examine everything in themselves and their world just because we do.

This is a needlessly hostile and condescending post and discussion. You should remove it.

T Clark may be right that metaphysics can be thought of as what is useful. I only add that if something is useful then an aspect of your belief must have some tenuous connection to the nature of the world, as in existentialism, Daosim and different traditions say something about the world which is not captured by our physics or other sciences. It just can't be proven. — Manuel

That's not what I said. I said particular metaphysical concepts can be judged based on their usefulness in particular situations. "Visions of the world" are such metaphysical concepts. It's true, Taoism is a vision of the world and a metaphysical concept, but so are objective reality and the scientific method.

This tangent could go on for a long time and it's off topic. We should leave it here.

so there's no categorical "denial" of anything in my anecdotal observation. — 180 Proof

Thanks for the correction to my assumptions.

Never heard of him. Looked him up.