This is suicide. Are the other people happy that the newly widowed woman killed herself? Apparently so. Do they regret she did it? Apparently not. It was the social norm, it still is to some extent, even if officially illegal. — baker

That's on the surface for social appearances. It's sorta like people asking how you are and you're supposed to say "good".

Biological means living and life. Adding it to body, and describing a dead body as biological body is incorrect, confused and unintelligible. — Corvus

Incorrect, death is biological as it's the cessation of biological phenomenon. Maybe you're just stupid.

If you cannot demonstrate, explain and prove your own statements on others in logical and understandable manner, when asked, then your statements wouldn't be accepted as significant philosophical remarks or comments, but will be regarded as just your emotional blurt out on others.

To be perfectly honest, no one in the forum would like to read statements in that nature, when they are trying to discuss serious philosophical topics. It is just waste of your time and others' time. — Corvus

Like I said, there would be no point with you as has been shown when others attempted with you, so you don't really get to demand that of others.

I find it ironic to try to draw on some social pressure for your point when social consensus so far on this thread is that you're wrong. You cannot even see the contradiction in your use of biological.

I'm just taking your replies as seriously as they deserve to be (not at all if that wasn't clear).

That sounds like a typical mindless utterance from someone who can't reason. Tell us what you know about reasoning and dogma in logical manner. And explain clearly why my reasoning is not reasoning but dogma in understandable way, rather than just spitting out some emotional meaningless utterance. — Corvus

Well judging by your replies and exchanges so far there would be no point in doing so, which ironically proves my point.

I am just saying what my reasoning tells me. Better than quoting from popular media or claiming something is correct just because doctors and medical folks say so. — Corvus

What you're doing isn't reasoning though, it's just dogma.

You truly talk like an NPC, where everything in your life is simply what occurs, like you're watching a movie play out and you are just sitting around waiting to die. Also your take of 'no right or wrong, just consequences' says it all and I'm glad you actually hold no significant power in the world, because that's borderline psychopathic thinking. — Martijn

Again this is just you being myopic. I laid out the evidence and the proof that "choice" as we envision it is merely an illusion. Though just because free will isn't real doesn't mean one is waiting to die, I mean you can make the same point as if we have free will. We are all waiting to die, just deciding what to do until then. Also my take of "no right or wrong" is just reality. Just because we as a society agree on what actions are good or bad doesn't make them objectively so (not to mention attitudes change over time). In the ULTIMATE sense there are only actions and consequences and what matters is whether you can live with your choices. Existentialism also argues the same thing too.

The fact that makes you uncomfortable is irrelevant frankly, since that's just how life is. Existentialism is the school about how to deal with that reality.

So even though you are a depressed, infantile, brainwashed NPC, I still wish the best for you and hope you change your internal world and make the changes accordingly. Or don't, I'm just letters on a computer screen. — Martijn

The NPC line means nothing because your talking points are literally just the naive dialogue tree from someone who hasn't read much philosophy (you mention Stoicism but I doubt you understand what they mean as much of what I said is what they echo). I knew what you were going to say based on your initial comment about love making life worth living. That kinda shows me someone who hasn't thought hard about the nature of our existence.

Only NPC is you dude, and your replies prove that much.

Sadly your claim is still coming from appeal to authority or popular media. Your rant is devoid of logic and knowledge what the word "biological" means. — Corvus

You're the only one who doesn't know and you're not fooling anyone. I get that you might genuinely think otherwise but that means nothing.

Which 'certain' philosophies are you referring to? — Martijn

Buddhism for one.

Do you not choose how to respond to events? Are you dominated by your self, your emotions? Do you have to be offended if someone criticizes you? Are we even living in the same reality? — Martijn

You're creating a distinction you that seems to sit apart and is watching when that isn't the case. No one chooses how they respond to events, they respond based on what they know. We are living in the same reality yes, but as for subjective experiences no. As for being offended if someone criticizes, no, but you don't control whether you are or not.

We don't choose what happens to us and yes, most of us respond due to heuristics, habit and so on. But you still have the power to change, to change how you respond, how you view yourself, and the choices you make. This is why breaking free from an addiction, for example, is not impossible, or leaving behind suicidal ideation, or to better deal with grief and loss: the list goes on. — Martijn

No you don't, you actually have no power. That's an illusion neuroscience destroyed and past thinkers couldn't have known. You cannot change how you respond, how you view yourself, or the choices you make. Those either change or they don't, your "Will" makes no difference. Breaking free from addiction is impossible for some, and for some it's not. Neither has a say on whether they will or not. Doesn't matter how long the list is, you choose none of it.

If you don't control your opinions, your pursuits, desires or aversions, then who does? Are we all just NPCs controlled by the hivemind? Is it not possible to detach oneself from desire, or to change political opinion, or to make drastic changes in life? — Martijn

There is no "Who" in control. What it is is the interplay of a variety of factors and influences that the brain automatically processes. You don't even choose what you sense as that's already done before you're aware of it. It is not possible to detach from desire (despite what some might say they still unconsciously have desire), but it is possible to change political opinion or make drastic changes, but YOU don't get a say in whether that happens or not. Either it does or doesn't, and that depends on history and surroundings.

And no right action.... Would you not mind if I were to abduct and torture someone's child? Would it be fine if I were to buy a gun and randomly shoot up a shopping mall? There is no right or wrong so nothing matters, there is no observer, no conscience, and life is utterly meaningless. — Martijn

I wouldn't mind but someone might. However that doesn't make the action wrong. In short everything you mentioned would be "fine", there'd just be consequences for it. However there is no such thing as a right choice, there's just consequences you can live with or not. Your rest doesn't follow. No right or wrong doesn't mean there is no observer or conscience, or that life is meaningless. That's not only a strawman but a logical leap.

Like I said you just sound naive, and possibly stupid.

Also funny how you say i'm deflecting or that i don't have 'counterarguments' but you keep calling me naïve and you don't elaborate on anything you're proposing. Again, which philosophies counterargue the first line of the Enchiridion? Neuroscience? Which scientific studies, what are they based on, what did they research and what is their validity?

You are free to believe what you want and live your life accordingly, but so do I, because I have the power to choose. — Martijn

I call you naive because you are making normative statements about life that are really just personal opinions. I also explained why they were faulty and why you were naive and predictably you deflected again. Neuroscience pretty much demonstrated that choice is an illusion, not only through optical illusions but also findings like the McGurk effect which shows your sensation is more an average and not direct sensation. Yet being aware of the effect doesn't mean you can stop it. Same with your senses. Your vision for example is just an average of the last 15 seconds of input, yet you cannot stop it. There is literally a wealth of data proving Stoicism wrong but you clearly don't care about that so why would I bother?

Buddhism also proves it wrong with dependent arising, showing that everything "you" are is just from somewhere else. There is no "you" at the core making choices and if you try to find it you'll end up with nothing. But it's a useful illusion.

Neither you or I are free to believe what we want or to live life accordingly, we never had the power to choose, that is simply a helpful illusion. If you never came across Stoicism you wouldn't be following it, and whether you were swayed by it wasn't you, rather it was your history, upbringing, and other factors.

It's adorable you believe you have choice and agency but that's what I meant by naivete. The idea of free will is something most philosophers grow out of after a few years, because not only is the idea untenable when you examine it but recent findings in neuroscience demonstrate as such.

Like I said, you're just naive.

You're severely depressed and are clinging to your depressed beliefs. Hope you can atleast see this in yourself. — Martijn

You're reading depression into it because you don't have a counterargument.

On a side node, how is Stoicism contradictory? Sure their society was flawed as hell, justifying slavery and so on, but that doesn't mean the fundamental philosophical principles are misguided. The first line in The Enchiridion literally states that some things are under our control and some our not. The factors that are not under our control may still shape our lives, some in minor ways and other in major ways. Our only option is to choose how to respond to these factors. The other half is the actions we make every day, the ones we do hold control over: "Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions." — Martijn

The first line in the Enchiridion is technically not true, at least according to certain philosophies. It's also not true that you choose how you respond to these, that is already made up before you're aware of it. Recent evidence tends to show free will to be an illusion which renders the philosophy invalid. Though you don't need that to see the contradictions between the aims of stoicism and it's methods. But to the second point, none of those are in our control. Not opinions, pursuit, desire, aversion, any of it. You don't control any of that. You either feel that or not. Again choice is an illusion.

Master your own mind first, and then do the right action (regardless of outcome) to shape your life. We do not have full control, it's part of being human. If this offends you so much that you actively seek to end your own life then what can any of us say? None of us control your mind or what you do every day, only you do. — Martijn

This is part of the contradiction. There is no master, furthermore there is no such thing as a right action. There is no separate observer that can veto actions as they happen and there is no right action. Also you're deflecting, I never said I wanted to end my life but lack of control is often a reason people end theirs because it's a choice they believe they have. But your last remark is simply false, as that's not how reality works. "you" are not in control of anything, and modern neuroscience proved that. Everything we are and do is the result of everything around and before us, there is no you or choice involved in any of it. But these are nice illusions.

Again you just sound naive, which is what you say stuff like love is what makes life worth living.

Our actions are our behaviours and choices, the tiny ones we make every day to the larger ones we might make in life. Actions can only occur if we are in the position to make them, and this varies wildly between individuals based on countless factors, which is why every single unique individual has a different life. — Martijn

There isn't really evidence to show we have free will or make choices, also the Stoic philosophy is internally contradictory which is why I never took it too seriously. It had some good point but quickly became a case of want your cake and eating it too.

To say that one's life is 'what one makes of it' would neglect the second part, ergo every individual is a blank slate and all that matters are their choices, and the context of the first part, ergo the context is irrelevant because, once again, all that matters are choices. This is misguided because it would assume that every individual could live their dream life if they just 'made it' that way. People who suffer because they are born into war-torn countries, or born with uncurable genetic diseases or crippling handicaps, or those who are raised in abusive households, extreme poverty, and so on and on, just need to 'get it together' and 'fix' their life. It doesn't work that way. Why would anyone choose to live under these circumstances? — Martijn

No it's not, you just lack the ability to see it. It's ironic that you'd cited Stoicism but then go on to say life isn't what you make of it when that's what they teach. And yes ever individual can live their dream life if they made it that way, however it's not the dream you are imagining it to be. Yeah people born like that do need to get it together but not in the way you think.

This honestly sounds more like your failure in imagination than logical holes.

The truth is twofold: life just is, we have far less control over it than we think, and our current global society is extremely unfair, where a tiny minority of elites and a small number of companies are absurdly powerful, while billions struggle daily, with of course the root of evil - money - being one of the main pillars. — Martijn

That's not twofold, that's just one point.

The point of all this is to help you ease your mind. If you contemplate suicide, for whatever reasons you have right now, then reconsider because you do not have full control over your life. There is no 'winning' or 'losing' in life. There are problems in life, some of which can be solved and some which cannot, but there cannot be a singular problem wherein suicide is the answer. Even problems that will cause your near-term death, such as suffering from starvation, because dying from starvation is not a choice, and suicide always will be. — Martijn

Not having full control over one's life is honestly the biggest reason for suicide, a lot of people do it because they see no other option available to them. And there is a such a thing as "winning" or "losing" in life, it just doesn't always match what society says. And every problem has suicide as an answer. Starvation can be solved with suicide because you wouldn't be hungry anymore.

Honestly you just sound naive TBH. But then again you said love is what makes life worth living so I wasn't expecting much.

Great to see you still around. And I agree. Love is not all there is. — AmadeusD

It's nice, but there's more to life than just that. Life is what you make of it TBH.

Though I was wondering what your beef with Corvus was about. Sounds like defining death, which IMO has nothing to really do with the morality of suicide.

What do you believe the most significant difference is between people who love life and those who seek suicide? — Martijn

No idea.

Just because you can extract DNA from the dead body, you insist it is biological body.
That is a claim which is devoid of logic and also linguistic coherence, which is incredibly silly. — Corvus

Uhhh, no. There is nothing devoid of logic, the dead body is still biological because it's organic material. Death and decomposition are still part of biology.

What I'm getting at (and which you and several posters repeatedly refuse to address) is how much a particular person's suicide solves _other_ people's problems. And how, in some cases, it is expected that someone would take their own life, even when said person does not experience any particular pain or profound suffering. — baker

The other odd part is that even those who claim to kill themselves out of some expectation to right a wrong still don't solve anything. The people who claim it does often are lying to themselves, because they still regret the loss of someone taking their life.

I've been there myself, a long time ago. I agree with you: I was being chertitable. The post got some facts right, but it was wrong in all the ways that really matter. Take care. — Esse Quam Videri

Hindsight is always 20/20, I see that now.

I also strongly agree with Unenlightened that love is what makes live worth living, yet I also acknowledge that millions of people right now struggle with lovelessness and loneliness because we live in a horrible machine-world that has no use for love. So many people are just looking for validation or security or intimacy and they miss the obvious truth that love is unconditional. Yet you can find freedom here also: you can love yourself, love life, love nature, unconditionally and perpetually, even if you feel like your life is not worth living for whatever reasons you bring up. — Martijn

Love does not make it worth living, I speak from experience.

Fantastic to hear. I admit to some concern when this thread continued and you hadn't posted for a while. Glad you're in a better head space. — Philosophim

It's something I've always felt, I never actually wanted to end it, not really.

Niki's post is itself not neutral. It frames all positive valuation as illusion, but exempts its own evaluative stance from that diagnosis. Calling everything "cope" functions no less as a coping strategy, one that protects the speaker from vulnerability, disappointment, attachment and loss. This is not a moral criticism but a philosophical one. The stance tries to cut a "view-from-nowhere" that human agents cannot actually inhabit. — Esse Quam Videri

I've actually lived that life for 10 years and it's the most fragile and weak position one could have. I say that having spent that time spreading that message only to have it easily dismantled in every space (even in one forum for psychedelic users, so if they're telling me I'm mistaken then I REALLY need to reevaluate myself.

Though I'll say having seen the original post saying it "gets a lot right" is being very charitable. It doesn't really get anything right, I say that from experience because I had a similar attitude for years and my reasoning was always torn apart when I tried to spread that view.

When I first read your reply I thought you were in a better state than before, and I was happy for you. Then it occurred to me that the missing word after "don't" would most likely be "see".

I take it you are no longer interested in answers to the OP, "to find a good argument against suicide". Some people continuing the discussion here, after its nine months lapse, are no longer trying to answer that; they are more intent on finding conditions in which they think suicide is justified.

It sounds like what you need now, more than philosophical wisdom, is prudent practical advice. May God lead you to good counsel to lift you out of your present situatio — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Yeah slight typo but no I don't actually want to end it, it just seemed like the quickest way to deal with my problems at the time. But deep down I know I have no real desire to end my life barring some intense circumstance.

After thinking about it it's not that I want to die, it's that I don't another way of dealing with my present situation.

The funny thing with all those questions is that it takes the 'me' (or in this post formulated as 'you', but for all intents and purposes the first person singular) as the self evident locus of agency. There is a 'me' and a 'not me' and then the question becomes, do I care for the 'not me' for its own sake or for the sake of the 'me' who is interacting with it. However, asking this question already implies prioritization of some kind of self independent of the relationships it has with the world. — Tobias

That's not really what I mean, more like wondering if such connections are possible. There's a difference between "everything is connected" and the emotional connection people share.

It's from this thread, there isn't much context it's pretty much the direct quote in all it's entirety.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/16203/does-zizek-say-that-sex-is-a-bad-thing

I think this is simply a pathological way of viewing the world, one hostile to human flourishing. Surely, it is better to be in a good marriage, based on love, than to be in a zero sum struggle for utility. That some people are able to paint everything in terms of "self-interest" is arguably just a sign of a sort of spiritual illness. This is precisely Dostoevsky's point in Crime and Punishment vis-á-vis the new social theories of his day. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I get that it's not a healthy view of the world, it's just more like wondering about the limitations of our ability to know and if the means such relationships and connections are more selfish than actually sharing anything.

Objectively 'sex' is masturbation by means of another body; beyond that we interpret the process of opening-closing this desiring circuit with any number of fantasies (i.e. projections), especially those which subjectively intensify (someone's) self-pleasuring experience. — 180 Proof

That's not really objective, that's just a subjective interpretation of what's going on. Also like someone else mentioned a contradiction. Sex is interacting with another you find attractive, you're not necessarily projecting.

Sex doesn't need to be violent either (it can certainly be gentle, even to the point of tantric acts which basically involves staying still after penetration), but some prefer that it is violence either consensually or non-consensually. — ProtagoranSocratist

Well from the page it seems he's using a different definition of violence.

Obligatory: "Yeah, well, he's famous and you're not, so..." — Outlander

I mean so is Donald Trump.

To say that "sex is violent because you are projecting a fantasy" to me is a strange argument that doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. Consensually projecting a fantasy, or projecting without expressing it, doesn't imply any sort of violence unless you're trying to change the other person in the process. — ProtagoranSocratist

It was weird when I read it, like you're cutting away their subjectivity by projecting a sexual fantasy onto them, which is a wild take on what's happening. I think it's more that the chemicals in you lead to that when you are attracted to someone but it's not really projection, you're attracted to them.

I'm mean you can take a look at what I asked but the answers are...well all over: https://www.reddit.com/r/zizek/comments/1o0v0iz/not_really_sure_what_to_make_of_the_stuff_ive/

Had Zizek posted that here without us knowing it him, he'd be ridiculed relentlessly. — Hanover

I asked the question on the sub reddit but the answers seem either vague or inconsistent.

This is an interesting idea but I am not sure I understand sex without fantasy. Who would ever consent to sex without fantasy, if consent implicates fantasy as present and operating? — Nils Loc

I'm not sure that's what he's getting at.

I think what it comes down to is that it depends on how it's used. This is where it gets interesting. — Jamal

Nope, across the board people do end up stupider for using it. Not every technology comes down to how it's used.

However, some people won't recognize this because the tentacles of AI have already trapped them. — javi2541997

Oh I know, it's already happening. AI is already a problem in schools and students are actively getting worse in critical thinking because of it.

Pretty sure there is a Dune quote that captures what's going on.

On AI progress; as I say javi2541997, I use AI daily to help me with work and personal tasks, as do my friends. Why don't you think it counts as progress? — Mijin

Studies have found that people who use AI have lower cognitive ability than people who don't, you're making yourself worse off for using it.

What are you two even arguing about? I recall you made the claim "we cannot argue about the meaning if life if it is not defined." Which he seems to consider subjectivity as sufficient, and you, perhaps, seem to consider it fitting a universal textbook definition — Outlander

That's pretty much what I mean, it's what you make of it. There is no overarching goal to life so you're free to do what you wish.

Do you mean this?: The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death. — MoK

That's a description of what life is not the meaning of life.

And I am asking you for the third time if you could please provide a definition of the meaning of life or what the meaning of life refers to. This is your thread, and providing the definition of things that you use when people ask for them is necessary for any constructive discussion. — MoK

The meaning of life is literally what it says, you have the definition already. What that meaning is depends on who you ask.

I don't know. This is your thread, not mine. It is up to you to explain what meaning refers to in a couple of sentences, a paragraph, etc. Saying that there are books on this topic does not resolve the problem. — MoK

I'm saying people know what the meaning of life means.

Quoting Freud is ironically more a disproof of your claim than anything else. He didn't recognize two different types, he guessed. Thankfully no one really buys that anymore. — Darkneos

It is, much of what Freud thought turned out to be wrong.

Freud recognized two different types of processes, the preconscious, which contains thoughts that can easily become conscious, and the unconscious proper, which holds repressed material that cannot be directly accessed.

Quoting Freud is ironically more a disproof of your claim than anything else. He didn't recognize two different types, he guessed. Thankfully no one really buys that anymore.

What kind of answer to "what is reality?" are you looking for — 180 Proof

The two you posted.

Well, that's mostly my position too, for the most part, but more as someone who also has sympathies for pragmatism. But I remain curious and open to most arguments. — Tom Storm

I used to care about the answer too much until I realized I had no idea what I'd do when I got there. I forgot how to "live" life and was more obsessed with answers than the process.

That last one I found funny, as if there is a burden of proof for suggesting there is NOTHING supernatural. For me I might fall into methodological naturalism if only I have yet to meet a better tool than science for discovering things about the world. I know it's not perfect but so far people who claim to hate it don't got anything nearly as reliable or successful as it.

That first post though I couldn't really make much heads or tails out of, except for the parts about "intuition" and trying to eliminate misconception and what is "not real". The first part isn't really possible because intuition is sorta how philosophy starts. The other two are more like chasing your tail in practice.

Same with the idea of "illusions of knowledge", it's more accurate to say knowledge evolves not really that there are illusions of it. Also not aligning our expectations with reality is how humans advanced this far, so it doesn't really cause suffering per se. Planes likely wouldn't' exist if humans did that, among other things.

What is reality? — 180 Proof

Oh I almost forgot, neither of those links answered the question or had anything to really add to it.

No, I’m saying that a particular view is simply on the menu. If you can’t tell the difference between a statement that contextualizes an idea within philosophical discourse and an ad populum argument, then we’ve got bigger problems than the nature of reality.. — Tom Storm

Seem more like you're playing loose with popularity when it suites you, that's the problem.

It’s very much part of the current thinking of writers like Francisco Varela, Evan Thompson, Eleanor Rosch, and Shaun Gallagher. What evidence do you have that it has fallen out of favour? I don’t think it was ever “in favour” as such, just part of the philosophical menu. The Blind Spot: Why Science Cannot Ignore Human Experience by Adam Frank, Marcelo Gleiser, and Evan Thompson has been a significant topic of discussion on this site for a few years. — Tom Storm

I don't think science ignores human experience per se, but rather new discoveries tend to pull more and more of that ground from philosophy.

I mean I've heard of that book but looking through it read more like misunderstandings than any real argument for human experience. I mean just looking into neuroscience you can find how much of our experience of reality is illusory in a sense, vision comes to mind. What you see is more your brain predicting what might happen based on past data while correcting for errors if it's wrong. You don't notice this though.

As for consciousness, strong evidence points to a neuroscientific basis. Doesn't matter if you guys talk about it often on this site, doesn't make it accurate.

The blind spots are closing.

Indeed and I am unsure what reality is meant to be and whether it can be known. Which is not the same thing as saying it cannot be known.

What is reality? — Tom Storm

I would say reality is "this" (gestures around myself), so far haven't really encountered a better view.

Though the question of what is reality is much less important than how to live IMO. Even if I had a solid answer the bigger problem would be what to do with it or my life after the fact.

Kinda reminds me why Buddha never answered questions on what is "reality" and such because it didn't really matter. I kinda like his stance.

I said it's an orthodox philosophical view that reality can't be fully known. I'm not saying this to imply it's popular, but rather to point out that it's an established position for us to contend with. It's on the philosophical "menu" and not, as you seem to think, something that is automatically ridiculous just because science seems to work.

Anyway, we seem to be talking past each other. Take care. — Tom Storm

When you say something is a standard view you're implying a degree of popularity, even the context of your post showed as such.

That's not really what I'm saying at all. There is a difference between "we don't directly engage with reality" and "reality cannot be known". Again science it a strong argument that we don't have to directly engage with it to know it (which would explain why it's findings frequently go against our intuitions).

Then you bring up Postmodernism when it's criticisms of science (which I understand but....) don't really hold. They can call it language games and models and things like that but time and again the results speak for themselves. It never claims to have perfect knowledge of the world and acknowledges it could all be wrong, but we currently don't have a better method for understanding reality, and this one is working really well. Shockingly IMO.

Really just seems like you give up when called out.

It may be that I don't understand what you mean by "external world." If you mean by it the world we're part of, I don't know why you call it "external." External to what?

I certainly don't think we can't know the people and things we interact with every moment of our lives. What reason is there to think I don't?
Judging from our own conduct and how we live our lives, none of us actually doubt their existence or believe we don't know them. Claiming we nonetheless can doubt their existence or can't really know them is insist on a difference which clearly makes no difference. — Ciceronianus

External to one's perception, or in the case "mind independent". In other words the opposite of solipsism. An external world means a world that exists outside your head (not a dream for example or some hallucination). It doesn't depend on you to exist. Solipsism argues (unfortunately rather effectively) that we cannot be sure there exists such a world and it could just be a figment of our imagination.

Yeah none of us doubt it but we can't really demonstrate it to be true, it's just an assumption we make.

Yeah, just like physicists "can't agree on" the ontology of quantum physics, and yet ... :mask: — 180 Proof

That's a bit more complicated.

It's interesting how you consistently interpret this wrongly. To say that the external world cannot be known is by no means the same as saying there is no external world. And I am not committed to either. I am stating that I have sympathy for a constructivist view, which resonates with other philosophical schools. — Tom Storm

It might as well be saying there isn't one if it cannot be known. But again it's not really true that it cannot be known. Kant might have thought that but that doesn't make it so.

That's an ad populum fallacy. Philosophy is not a popularity contest. — Tom Storm

It's not ad populum fallacy, also you're the one who claimed it first by saying it's a standard view yet when I say it's not suddenly it's a fallacy. Though I would argue philosophy is a popularity constest.

I am also saying that I have sympathy for the view that reality is a human construct an act of embodied cognition and that we don't experience it directly. — Tom Storm

I don't, sounds like a looney thing to think, especially since embodied cognition has fallen out of favor due to it's flaws (and evidence against it).

You're dead in the water until you learn to read others with more care. — Tom Storm

That might be more you than me, I've got their words yet you want to insist it's something else.

There are many arguments against this notion. Let's just take one of them: the very success of science itself depends on models, abstractions, and instruments that mediate our experience. What we have are theoretical constructs and measurements, not unfiltered access to reality. — Tom Storm

Not a very strong argument given the results pretty much speak for themselves. Either we are accurately contacting and modeling some sort of external reality (more or less "accurately") or we've just gotten lucky that everything works out. Occam's Razor would seem to favor the former.

Of course, you might ask, who cares what the postmodernists say? And anyone can use that approach to dismiss any school of thought that doesn’t please us. — Tom Storm

TBH yeah, who cares what they think? There hasn't been anything really useful out of that school but just undermining things (or trying to).

Postmodernists would go further and argue that 'success' is a socially constructed standard: science’s predictive power doesn’t show us reality as it is, but only that our current frameworks work within the language games and practices we’ve built. In other words, science is one way of making sense of the world, not a privileged window into some mind-independent truth. — Tom Storm

Doesn't really alter the results though, science so far has been our best method for understanding and shaping reality so that criticism kinda falls flat. They can dress their complaints all they want but they don't have anything better or more consistent so........

Ordinarily I'd give that more credence but given the success of science at what it does it's about as close to mind-independent truth as we're gonna get. There isn't much reason to think it doesn't show reality as it is (despite what postmodernists argue, and their protests aren't worth a hill of beans). I'd go further that it's not a language games thing anymore.

Maybe their just bitter because they don't have a better method, that's what it sounds like. I'm not saying it's perfect, but I can't argue with the results. Maybe they should just quit while they're behind, those arguments might have held water back when it was just Natural Philosophy, but not now.

Postmodernism is better when directed at the arts, politics, things like that, but when it comes to science it just ends up looking weak. Again the results speak for themselves, we're kinda past "language games".

Yes, we created the concept, but we don't know what it refers to! — MoK

Yeah we do, again hundreds of books have been written on it.

See the comment, perhaps, more in the tradition of phenomenology or a more constructivist orientation, for which I have sympathy. It does not match your interpretation that there is "nothing and it's all in the mind". — Tom Storm

But that is what is meant especially since it started with "The external world that cannot be know" by their own words. Your assessment is still incorrect.

I do not think it is clear that humans make direct contact with a world external or transcendent to our interactions and cognition, which is a perfectly standard philosophical position, whether you are talking about Kant, Heidegger, or the more prosaic Hilary Lawson. To quote the lesser known philosopher, Norman Bates, "We're all in our private traps." — Tom Storm

It's actually a minority position among philosophers. Most generally regard there to be a world outside themselves, Kant merely said that we don't directly perceive it. Heidegger was kinda nutty on that end. The private traps kinda loses it's teeth when you realize he said that to other people which like means he thinks there is a world outside him (also the character is fictional).

But given the success of science it could be reasonable to say we do directly make contact with it. Albeit indirectly and it's approximations they're too consistent to default to instrumentalism anymore.

More or less it's a position you have to accept to get anywhere in philosophy otherwise you're dead in the water. Without external reality philosophy is rendered moot.

I don't understand. If someone finds they've been trapped in a fly bottle of their own making, they're free of it. Their metaphorical eyes have been opened (the fly bottle is of course only a metaphor as well). They're to be congratulated, not denigrated. — Ciceronianus

But according to you there is no out as in the external world isn't known.

Finding the way out of the fly bottle means there is no "external" world-- there is no world separate from us, in other words. We're not observers of the rest of the world; we participate in it interact with its other constituents every moment of our lives.

So, being free of the fly bottle doesn't mean one accepts the existence of world "external" to us. One accepts, instead, that there's a world and that we're a part of it. — Ciceronianus

But there is an external world, otherwise there is no way you could be part of it. It would not exist only in your head or a dream. We are BOTH observers and participants of it, well that's the assumption anyway. Like you said, the external world cannot be known for certain so it could just be in your head.

Being free of the fly bottle, ironically is just flying into another one, as one cannot know if there is a "World out there" and it's not just a figment of the mind. Ergo, nothing to participate in.

I don't think that's the right reading of his post. See ↪Ciceronianus last post. — Tom Storm

It is, especially since it doesn't seem like they understand what they are saying with "External world" in air quotes. Suggesting it cannot be known means there is nothing to be a part of since it's all in your mind.

External world and reality means there is a world to be a part of that does not depend on you for its existence. I feel that much should be obvious to gather from what I'm saying.

Only if you're still buzzing around in the fly bottle. Once out, you may dare to think about, e g., your interaction with the rest of the world as an organism in an environment of which you're a part, and with others. But for those who like being in the bottle they've built, they may continue to indulge themselves. — Ciceronianus

But again that would require there to be an external world, one which you doubt is true. You see how that doesn't really add up?

There is nothing to say that you being "out" would lead to thinking of you as an organism interacting with the rest of the world. Again philosophy often contradictions that notion as that would still be being in the bottle. Getting out of the bottle, ironically means accepting there might not be a world or others with which you are a part of.

But is it truly unfair to suggest that perhaps just because someone finds what one values in life to be false they're suddenly "a fly trapped in a bottle?" Surely that's dehumanization, an ego run amuck that only finds value in one's life choices and mindset by comparing anything different to something insignificant. Isn't that sad? A cry for help?. Love corrects. Hate condemns. Real talk. :100: — Outlander

Not really, comparison is what we do.

And, to MoK's credit, it's not like any animals are going around fat shaming or judging one another by their economic value or political views. Or are they? — Outlander

They do, well not for that but shame is a thing in social animals.

I like this — Tom Storm

It's self refuting if you think about it. Like if there is no "External world" that kinda renders philosophy moot.