I would argue that this boom is a result primarily of liberalism. Leftism was left in the dust because it fosters stagnation. — frank

By "liberalism" do you mean a belief in progress? Seems to me that capitalism and industrialism are the primary drivers of progress. Maybe capitalism, industrialism, and liberalism in this sense are so closely intertwined that it's difficult to separate them.

I propose that in general, human societies that maximize individual satisfaction and empowerment will become stagnant. The mechanism is not so much a deadening of ambitions by satisfaction, but by a loss of a society's ability to marshall resources and labor toward a small number of goals.

On the other hand, a society that concentrates its wealth, rendering most of the population dependent for survival on a few, will naturally exhibit technological progress in proportion to that concentration — frank

You have not expressed any value judgement about the differences between a satisfied, stagnant society and a progressive society with wealth concentration. From my point of view, a society with satisfied people is the best outcome. Maybe you're asking whether continued, long-term satisfaction is possible without progress.

Good, well thought-out post.

When enough people defined the Earth as flat, did that make the Earth flat? When enough people use the word, "god", does that make god exist? The words you decide to use does not make it so. It just makes it the words you use. If not, then there would never be such things as lies and mass delusions. — Harry Hindu

Words mean what people say they mean, what they act as if they mean. Calling the Earth flat doesn't change the meanings of the words "Earth" and "flat." A biological man who defines herself as a woman doesn't automatically lose her penis and testicles, but that probably isn't what she wants. She probably wants to be seen socially as a woman. Whether that's a good thing for society to allow that is open to debate, but it is something that can be accomplished by changing the dictionary.

Hold Back This Day - Ward Kendall — Gladiator of Truth

I hadn't heard of Hold Back This Day, so I looked it up. Most of the reviews I found are in white nationalist publications/websites. You won't find much sympathy for those views here on the forum. Most people who follow that path quit or are banned pretty quickly.

It is reality denying. It is unscientific. It prioritises peoples mental states over reality. We don't apply this "logic" in many areas of life. — Andrew4Handel

Be that as it may, that's the way things are. Bitch and moan. Gnash your teeth. Repeat after me "Hell in a hand basket," "Why, when I was a boy..." My prediction - this will all die down fairly quickly. It will not longer be fashionable to be transgender. Those who are left will be those with true gender dysphoria. Keep in mind that I'm almost always wrong when I make this kind of prediction.

I'll be satisfied as long as children are protected from making decisions that have serious consequences and are hard to reverse.

It isn't from a scientific perspective. How has it become so accepted as a concept? — Andrew4Handel

"Woman" and "female" are words and can be redefined any time standard usage changes. If enough people accept people born as biological males who identify themselves as females as women, then they will be. That battle is being fought vigorously on the political, legal, and social front right now.

There is a recognized psychological diagnosis - gender dysphoria - in which a person born with one biological sex feels as though they are the other. It's certainly debatable, but recognizing them as such is not necessarily unreasonable.

It certainly hasn't gone that far yet, but the legal and social differences between women and men have become less prominent, less important during my lifetime. On the other hand, there are still times when the distinction is very important, e.g. women and men often have to be treated differently medically. Even so, It's not as big a deal what people call themselves as it once was. Some people, maybe even I, might say "Who cares." Others, maybe even you, might say "I care a lot."

Exactly the kind of response you expect on this issue. — Andrew4Handel

I suspect it was exactly the kind of response you were hoping for.

Without The Philosophy Forum, and publications like the NYT, NPR, PBS, et al to contain this bubbling cauldron of controversy, bloodbaths would be a daily event. That might be a good thing were there adequate ideological oversight and guidance by the Central Committee, but alas there is not. — Bitter Crank

Come on. You know the Philosophy Forum has a bimodal membership structure. One group, including you and me, are old coots who wonder what's going on with kids these days, because when we were young things were much better and now it's going to hell in a hand basket. This group rarely if ever leaves their houses, apartments, or old folks homes. The other group is depressive, reclusive younger people who live too much in their own heads. This group rarely leaves their apartments or parent's basements.

Whatever happens, the Republic is safe, at least from us.

As I was sitting in my chair,
I knew the bottom wasn't there,
Nor legs nor back, but I just sat,
Ignoring little things like that. — baker

Definitely philosophical. I guess it's Platonic idealism. He sat in the ideal form of the chair, not the chair itself.

What has always troubled me is what would be conceived to happen if the star ship was travelling at the speed of light. — RolandTyme

According to the equations of special relativity, if a massive object such as a spaceship were to travel at the speed of light, time on the ship would stop from the point of view of observers at relative rest. The mass of the spaceship would also increase infinitely.

You need a wife old man. — Mystic

If you highlight text and then push the "quote" button that shows up, it will show up in your post with a location tag. Then we can tell to which specific post and text you are responding to.

Alternatively, if you push the arrow "reply" button on the bottom of the post you want to respond to, it will put a tag in your response showing which post it comes from.

Either one of those will make it easier to keep track of the conversation.

Good call. — Banno

Do you guys read the posts on this forum? There's a lot of mezza-mezza stuff and a reasonable amount that is interesting and worth responding to. Then there's maybe 5 or 10 percent that are really great and 30% that's pure crap. Not talking about you Banno. It's the other guys - yes, I'm referring to you. And about 15% of the members contribute that 30% crap. And that's a pretty good ratio. There's plenty to read and respond to. It's fun and interesting.

If you want to play gurus, there is a whole web-net of places to go, just not here so much. — unenlightened

Eastern philosophy is still philosophy. I consider myself as the true guru of the Philosophy Forum.

To the moderators, and everyone — Jack Cummins

It was not clear from the title that this discussion is about bannings. The moderators may not have looked at it. Hey @Baden, @StreetlightX - what's up?

I didn't like this when I started it, but the rhythm works really well. It made me pay more attention. I thought the "but and if" format was strained and pretentious, but I got into it more and more as the poem went on. It feels like a gentle poem. Dealing with contradictions without jamming our faces into them. Without saying "What about this? What about this?"

And how exactly does the fallacy of division apply to Matt's argument? — Need Logic Help

I think I've laid out my argument pretty clearly. I'll leave it at that.

What if you say that you like ALL fruit, I mean, and not tomatoes, and then find out that tomatoes are fruit. — Need Logic Help

You're making this a lot more difficult than it needs to be. Logic is supposed to be a tool to help find the truth, not a game to find the most obscure, trivial, and convoluted examples possible.

This is from Wikipedia:

A fallacy of division is an informal fallacy that occurs when one reasons that something that is true for a whole must also be true of all or some of its parts.

An example:

• The second grade in Jefferson elementary eats a lot of ice cream
• Carlos is a second-grader in Jefferson elementary
• Therefore, Carlos eats a lot of ice cream

That's a good point. How do you think that the first premise could be more clearly stated? — Need Logic Help

X cares about every aspect of objective logic.

I think the problem here is that the statements are being made in everyday English. When I say "I like fruit," it doesn't necessarily mean I like absolutely all fruit. I really like green vegetables - brussel sprouts, cabbage, lettuce, green beans, lime beans, spinach, cauliflower, broccoli. I don't like okra or broccoli rab. Those are both perfectly reasonable statements for me to make.

“P1: X cares about objective logic, P2: X does not care about Y, C: Y is not included in objective logic” — Need Logic Help

How about this

T Clark likes fruit. T Clark does not like apples. Therefore apples are not fruit.

I guess the question is - does the statement "T Clark likes fruit," mean that he has to like all fruit or just fruit in general.

Here's a very philosophical poem, by Wallace Stevens — Ciceronianus the White

I really like that. I've been meaning to read Stevens. I have to be in a special mood to want to read poetry.

I can sit here and explain hundreds of different reasons as to why life is better right now then it has been for thousands of years and how lucky i am to be here right now and yet still be depressed and look at the world and think of the future and be negative and knowing that the problem is just my perspective because i was raised wrong and knowing that i still can't change my perspective almost as if there's "me" the experiencer abd then there's "me" the giver of feelings and the 2 are separated yet held within the same mind abd can some how disagree with each other . It's so odd how the human being is multifaceted — MAYAEL

I understand what you are saying. One of the reasons I think that my unhappiness is at least partially biological is that it is so out of sync with everything I know and feel about the world. Intellectual and emotional resolution, acceptance of that kind of contradiction is required from a mature mind. Sometimes the way things are are just the way things are.

I refer to a process of study not philosophy itself, the "lack of respect" as you put it assumes I dont have any without any mention or proof. — Tiberiusmoon

The title of this discussion - "How do you think we should approach living with mentally lazy/weak people?"

QED.

I am a mentally lazy person myself — James Riley

As am I.

the question will not be set up to prove something. It will be set up to understand. And people will often be amazed at what the process reveals. — James Riley

It has struck me that it is often the clarity with which a question or idea is presented that is most important. More important that the answer. There's a quote that I really like. I can't remember it or who said it, but here's a paraphrase - Clarity is so unfamiliar it is often mistaken for truth.

As a result you can find yourself living with people who are simple in thought who don't give the extra effort to think from a philosophers perspective. — Tiberiusmoon

There are many people who are not "simple in thought" who are not interested in philosophy. The lack of respect you show for others is either 1) not philosophical or 2) a good reason for people to avoid philosophy.

Well “space” means “there is nothing there”. So I’d think what you want to imagine is just a world with all objects taken out of it, plenty of space, but not much else. I don’t see much difficulty in that. — khaled

No. Space does not mean there is nothing. First off, space is something. It's expanding
. Second - physicists believe all of space is permeated by a quantum field.

But I don’t get the point of the second thought experiment at all. Ok, I’m isolated in a classroom and I must have drank way too much because I start saying things about describing the whole world using nothing but the contents of the room. — khaled

I was worried this might be ambiguous. When I said "the world" I meant the essence of reality, the thing philosophers are searching for. Ontology. That's the way Kafka was using the word. I should have been clearer.

Hmmm. But if nothing exists, doesn't that include me (you) as well? — Manuel

Of course, but me not existing is not hard to imagine. The idea that nothing could exist is.

W.S. Merwin tackles some phenomenology: — Valentinus

Are you talking about the Frost poem? I never really knew what that was about. I just like the way it feels in my mouth. The parallelism. The sense that we grow out of the unity of the world. Recently I came across some lines in the Tao Te Ching that reminded me of it strongly. From Derek Lin's translation of Verse 28:

Know the masculine, hold to the feminine
Be the watercourse of the world
Being the watercourse of the world
The eternal virtue does not depart
Return to the state of the infant
Know the white, hold to the black
Be the standard of the world
Being the standard of the world
The eternal virtue does not deviate
Return to the state of the boundless
Know the honor, hold to the dishonor
Be the valley of the world
Being the valley of the world
The eternal virtue shall be sufficient
Return to the state of plain wood
Plain wood splits, then becomes tools
The sages utilize them
And then become leaders
Thus the greater whole is undivided

The idea of returning is important in the Tao Te Ching. I'm not sure whether or not he is thinking of it the same way as Lao Tzu. Probably not. But still ...

I completely understand
I think I have a genetic disposition for it or something because I love life and I have an amazing wife and kid but there are times where I'm not sure if I can make it 5 more years and everything makes me bittersweet sad and then there are times that I'm not effected by anything and im like Thor in life emotionally. Certain time phases in life seem to be correlated to these "dips" in life happiness/ satisfaction — MAYAEL

It's funny. I answered @unenlightened above before I read your post. You said just about exactly what I wrote in my response to him.

The rhetoric of the day demands that this is a single bio-machine that has gone wrong - an imbalance of chemicals in the brain. — unenlightened

There is no doubt in my mind that at least some of the unhappiness I have felt in my life is organic, biological, maybe genetic. Based on temperament, attitudes, beliefs, outlook, feelings, circumstances, I was meant to be happy. I am living the life I was meant to live. I have a great family. I am one of the most fortunate people in the history of the world. I like people. I think the world is a wonderful place.

But I think it is the sensitive among us that manifest the sicknesses of society, like canaries in the coal mine. — unenlightened

That may be true of some people, but I don't think it's true of me.

Isn't this the thought that comes to mind when someone tries to think about how it was before birth for each of us? — Manuel

I don't think they're the same, at least not for me. Mine is less personal. It's not that I don't exist. It's that nothing exists. But...but...but.... Blew my mind again.

Just imagine the clouds formed those shapes by fluke. Are you being talked to? — Bartricks

What does that have to do with whether or not "our faculties of awareness are wholly the product of unguided evolutionary forces?"

Sorry, I got past the point, yeah, human emotions are one of the most significant abilities we have. It's a must for survival : D and other stuffs... But emotions also create the barrier for us to actually understand the real event.. — n1tr0z3n

The mind is an incredibly complex system of interacting processes. Emotions are deeply embedded in that system. They can't be separated out. On the other hand, yes, I do understand what you're saying.

, if that's what you believe, then what would you call the thing that's out there? Something absolute? Something that is only interpreted without any points of view or difference, something that has to be absolutely true, which as a matter of fact, we change, because of our perception. Is it simplistic? Actually? — n1tr0z3n

Let me be clear first - I think the question of whether or not there is an objective reality is a metaphysical question. By that I mean it is not a matter of fact. It's a matter of our assumptions - what Collingwood calls "absolute presuppositions." For many of the things we do in life, assuming objective reality makes sense. In others, it can be misleading.

That's an introduction to my favored understanding of underlying reality - the Tao as discussed by Lao Tzu in the Tao Te Ching. Are you familiar? When I say I favor it, it means I think it is the most useful for me. The Tao is just as much a metaphysical concept as objective reality.

If our faculties of awareness are wholly the product of unguided evolutionary forces, then they do not provide us with any true awareness of anything (including that). As we are aware of some things, we are not wholly the product of unguided evolutionary forces. — Bartricks

I'm not sure I understand your argument. You say:

If our faculties of awareness are wholly the product of unguided evolutionary forces, then they do not give us an awareness of anything — Bartricks

I believe this is not true. I won't justify that, I'll just look at your justification for making your claim:

Here is my argument for the truth of the first premise. Imagine some clouds form into shapes that appear to spell out "there's a pie in your the oven". Are you being told something? No. If unguided - by which I mean, unguided by any agency - natural forces produced those shapes in the sky, then it was not imparting information to you. It was just pure fluke that, to you, the clouds appeared to be trying to tell you something. They were not 'trying' to tell you anything, for they are not agents and so are not in the 'trying' business. — Bartricks

In you premise, you talk about our faculties of awareness being created by "unguided evolutionary forces." In you justification, you talk about events in the world being created "unguided by any agency" without any reference I could find to the creation of our awareness. I don't see how this justifies your premise. I read through the rest of your posts also, but couldn't find clarification. What did I miss?

A different take on the same issue. Is it your position that Darwinian evolution is an "unguided evolutionary force." I think that brings us to the question whether natural selection can be considered a guiding agency. I know that was a controversial question back in the early days of evolutionary theory. I don't know the status of that question today.

Another question - to what extent does your argument hinge on the belief that the physical and functional basis of our faculties of awareness is too complex to have been created by natural selection and other physical and biological phenomena?

A couple.

I'm sure this is a common one. It's blown my mind when I try to get my arms around it since I was a teenager. Still does. Imagine nothing. Really nothing. No one to know it's nothing. No space, not quantum vacuum. Nothing. Not anything anywhere. No things. No where.

I'll start the next one with one of my favorite quotes. If you've read many of my posts you've seen it before. I end up using it every week or so. From Franz Kafka:

It is not necessary that you leave the house. Remain at your table and listen. Do not even listen, only wait. Do not even wait, be wholly still and alone. The world will present itself to you for its unmasking, it can do no other, in ecstasy it will writhe at your feet.

In my thought experiment, I'm in a nondescript room. Say 10 feet by 15 feet. Concrete block walls painted beige. Linoleum flooring. Fiber ceiling tiles with low intensity inset lighting. Everything I remember from an elementary room classroom. No windows. A single door I've agreed not to open unless really necessary. There's a comfortable chair, a table, and paper and pencils. The air is comfortably warm. If you're wondering how I'd eat and pee and other science facts, just repeat to yourself "It's just a thought experiment, I should really just relax."

I am me, with all my memories and knowledge. I'm here on my own free will with no coercion. I'm looking forward to this. It's fun. My job while I'm here - create and describe the world just based on what I can observe in the room with no reference to anything outside the room or any understanding I have of the world outside.

Society instructs us that if we peer deep inside our hearts that we will eventually find what makes us happy. It almost seems that a magical inner voice informs us of our desires, hopes, and dreams. Our emotions dictate our lives. Also noted, throughout modern society, depression runs rampant. — Ladybug

As someone on anti-depressants who also has spent more than 50 years learning to be more self-aware and follow my heart, I think depression and spiritual searching are different, separate, but not necessarily unrelated. If that makes sense. I don't know where my depression comes from. Probably something organic, maybe even genetic. On the other hand, I think the world is a wonderful place. I like people. I'm smart and my intellect leads me toward self-awareness and a way of life with openness and without fear. So, is my spiritual search a search for a solution to my depression? No....Wait, yes...

The idea that my fingers begin moving and then I retroactively begin to experience the sensation of choosing seems backwards to me, and given the reaction to the paper, many other people as well. — Count Timothy von Icarus

As I wrote in my previous post, in my personal experience, my volition arises in a part of my mind that is not directly accessible to my self-awareness. When I act on that motivation, it is just as much me acting as it would be if I became aware before I acted. I am just as responsible for my actions as I would be otherwise. Part of what I call "me" is hidden the way the innards of my computer are hidden.

Many people do not experience their minds this way. They see consciousness as the guy driving the bus. I would say that represents a lack of awareness of what is going on inside themselves. They would disagree.

I suppose it's not spooky if you don't go in assuming that you make a decision first, and then act. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes. This is what I was writing about above.

Self awareness could be an accident of evolution, but my strong guess is that it serves a function for long term planning. Certainly it is hard to explain how humans make such long term and complex plans without self reflection and recursive feedback acting to steer things at some level. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think it's reasonable to think that self-awareness could arise through natural selection for the reasons you've described. It may even be likely. On the other hand, it could have evolved as a byproduct of some other structure in an incredibly complex brain and mind. I often skeptical of interpretations where there is a one to one correspondence between a structure or capacity and natural selection.

He's an interesting writer. I bought Life's Solution in a rush of enthusiasm about 8 years ago, but it's a very technical biology text, requires a pretty high degree of bioscience to absorb. But, philosophically congenial to my way of thinking. — Wayfarer

I read Stephen Jay Gould's book about the Burgess Shales, which Morris studied. I enjoyed it, although it is not as easy to read as much of Gould's writing. Apparently Morris disagreed with much of what Gould wrote. A central theme of Gould's evolutionary writing was contingency. As he wrote, if we rewound the tape of evolution and started over, we would get a very different world. Morris, with his interest in convergence, apparently thinks evolutionary outcomes are predictable, at least in a general sense.

Are you familiar with Simon Conway Morris? That's his speciality. — Wayfarer

I just checked Wikipedia for Morris. A lot of good stuff about convergence, including a separate website.

If you drop the assumption that these two aspects are identical things, then the fact that the awareness follows the initiation isn't surprising at all; it would almost be surprising if it weren't true. — InPitzotl

This has always bothered me too. What's the big deal?

Sir Hanover — Hanover

Poet, presidential candidate, goatherd, philosopher. Is there anything he can't do.

I hear you. I don't share the poem's sentiment particularly, it's just one of the more memorable poems about death. — Tom Storm

The closer I get to death, the funnier it seems. There's also that feeling of vertigo you get when you stand close to the edge of a great height.

Changing the subject, this is from "Aunt Celia, 1961" by Carl Dennis:

People will tell you there are many good lives
Waiting for everyone, each fine in its own way.
And maybe they’re right, but in my opinion
One is miles above the others.
Otherwise it wouldn’t have been so clear to me
When I found it. Otherwise those who lack it
Wouldn’t be able to tell so clearly it’s missing
As they go on living as best they can
Without complaining. Noble lives, and beautiful,
And happy as much as doing well can make them.
But as for the happiness that can’t be earned,
The kind it makes no sense for you to look for,
That’s something different.

Pretty bleak. As I've gotten older, I've felt less and less this way, for what that's worth. I think it started changing when my father died in 2001, when I was 49. It brought my family together in a way that had never happened before. That change continues.