Comments

  • The Blind Spot of Science and the Neglect of Lived Experience
    You're just proving my point. Non-communication for the win!
  • The Blind Spot of Science and the Neglect of Lived Experience
    Possibly because you think like they do already. So you don't feel imposed upon. When scientists say "we", you feel included in that "we". Not everyone does, though.



    The irony of you projecting your own behavior on scientists...wonderer1
    Copy-paste examples.
  • Do we live in a dictatorship of values?
    You have to ask yourself the following questions:
    How free do you feel to express your opinion without facing direct or indirect sanctions?
    Is there enough room for controversial discussions, or are the outcomes of discussions already determined?
    Are certain values taken more important than others, such as those of one's own culture compared to other cultures?
    The answers show the degree of tolerance of a truly democratic society.
    Wolfgang
    For practical purposes, an initially democratic society will eventually develop into a more homogeneous one.

    It's simply not economically or socially viable to be different, unless one's kind of "different" can be monetized readily enough.

    Values are often used as weapons in ideological warfare to disavow the adversary. They can be used in any way and prostitute themselves in this way. They are then empty shells and have nothing to do with the values that have developed in cultures over years or centuries.
    /.../
    They are ideals that lack real ground and are easy to say.
    They can be used to silence people, they are traded like any other commodity.
    If you look at the so-called Western values from this point of view, they seem meaningless.
    Peace becomes a dirty word, and those who demand it are vilified.
    The West thinks that its interpretation of values is the only correct one and tries to impose them on everyone else.
    Of course.

    True values arise from the culture of individual societies, they are relative and must be linked to each other in a globalized world by being translated like languages.
    Rather, the solution seems to be for the world to become significantly less globalized, less connected.
  • The Blind Spot of Science and the Neglect of Lived Experience
    Image-from-iOS-26-1024x976-1-e1611927131807-660x559.jpg

    You think whatever I say that you think.
    You feel whatever I say that you feel.
    You did whatever I say that you did.
    Your intentions are whatever I say that your intentions are.


    Listen to pretty much any scientist, and this is what they are telling you, directly, or at best less directly.
  • How to do nothing with Words.
    So you're just going to let them win, without a fight, 3:0?
  • How to do nothing with Words.
    It's trivially true that when a person talks, they talk, and not society, or community etc.

    The question is how individual(istic) can a person be, given that they do not live in a vacuum.
  • What can I know with 100% certainty?
    what claims of certainty are you actually bothered with?Kizzy
    To begin with, everyday things.
    Such as an acquaintance accusing you of having done something, and ignoring evidence to the contrary. For example, an acquaintance (with whom I used to be on friendly terms years ago) accused me once that I called her. I denied, while she insisted that I was lying. Given the facts of the situation, I surmised that what happened was that her phone pocket-dialed me (she said she was backpacking and had her phone in her backpack and that it unclocked itself; this was back in the day of old Nokias that did all kinds of crazy things on their own). I wasn't around for that first call, but I returned it, and this was what she saw. It would be easy to just check the call history. But she refused to do that and instead insisted that I lied. The ease with which she accused me of lying!! And yet, who in the world would not side with her?

    Things like that happen all time. One would need to have a team of lawyers and a camera crew at one's side at all times.

    Secondly, metaphysical/spiritual/religious things. Like when people claim with 100% certainty that they know which religion is the right one (and how everyone who isn't a member of that religion will burn in hell for all eternity or some such).

    So you looked, right? I believe you...Its clear you accept/tolerate instead of refuse or ignore and become susceptible to problems when examples are poor and used wrongly to build a weak stance upon already incredibly unstable grounds, bounds, and/or mounds. This is the mound I am talking about,

    So far, I have not found a viable way in philosophy for dealing with such utterly and completely sure people, much to my dismay and loss.
    — baker
    , what does this even mean?
    Good luck with refusing or ignoring a claim made by someone who is in a position of power over you, like a police officer, an IRS agent, your boss, etc.
  • The Blind Spot of Science and the Neglect of Lived Experience
    Science is based on someone's particular, ideologically driven idea of human experience (or how it should be).
    It's yet another form of normativism.
  • Death from a stoic perspective
    I also think the "objective" attitude of stoics like Marcus Aurelius may be a form of dissociation, particularly concerning one's emotions.. seems unhealthy to me. I think it is better to address trauma rather than "objectifying" it.NotAristotle
    It seems a Stoic is unable to experience trauma in the first place, since a Stoic's outlook on life is such that it can accomodate whatever trauma-inducing hardship might come his way.

    In contrast, an ordinary person whose outlook on life is sketchy at best, who doesn't have a developed philosophy of life, can readily become overwhelmed by life's challenges, thus experiencing "trauma".

    It's like the difference between a well-trained person and a couch potato: if they have to run for five miles, the well-trained person will do so with ease, while the couch potato will probably collapse before he even runs a mile.
  • Death from a stoic perspective
    I.e. memento mori, memento vivere.180 Proof
    Slaves live. But what does it mean to live?
  • What can I know with 100% certainty?
    Every time I see the title of this thread, I'm reminded of Oprah Winfrey and her "What I know for sure" column/book.
    https://www.oprah.com/spirit/the-top-20-things-oprah-knows-for-sure

    Apart from some philosophers, people in general seem to be completely sure of a whole lot of things.



    We do not actually KNOW anything at 100%.Chet Hawkins
    You vs. Oprah.

    The thing is that in everyday life, we mostly have to deal with Oprah-type people, people who are 100% sure of things. So far, I have not found a viable way in philosophy for dealing with such utterly and completely sure people, much to my dismay and loss.
  • Innocence: Loss or Life
    I would normally distinguish between thinking of yourself as a person in their own right and being or becoming a person in its own right.
    — kudos

    This seems to me like a distinction that isn't a difference. Can you explain this further?
    BC

    thinking that you're x
    vs.
    being x

    thinking that you can climb a tree
    vs.
    successfully climbing a tree

    thinking that you're productive
    vs.
    being productive

    thinking that you're a person in your own right
    vs.
    being a person in your own right


    Being x requires some type of evidence, often objectively, interpersonally measurable.
  • Innocence: Loss or Life
    No. Becoming a person in one's own right diminishes innocence.BC

    How Christian ...
  • Innocence: Loss or Life
    What's wrong about living a simple life without worry or anxieties, supposing those questions bring with them those feelings?kudos
    What is "wrong" with such a life is that one cannot choose it; it's not the result of deliberate action, at least not always.
  • Innocence: Loss or Life
    Anyway, where is this opposition between innocence and experience coming from?kudos
    Wishful thinking, possibly born out of incompetence.

    So, I'm interested, what type of experience qualifies as anti-innocent and what does not?
    It looks as if for many people, loss of innocence has to do with opposing one's elders or with the onset of sexuality of any kind.
  • Innocence: Loss or Life
    Because the cute little innocent child has discovered something that undermines innocence: He has become aware of himself and his measly bit of power. He doesn't have much power at all, but he can wield it; he can now say, "NO" to adults. NO! I won't eat that food. NO! I won't sit on the potty. NO! I won't go to sleep. Just that awareness of self, so essential to development, undermines innocence. And that's just one thing, Learning to talk undermines innocence. Learning to walk and run undermines innocence.BC
    So not being a cute obedient robot is what diminishes a person's innocence?
  • The Unity of Dogmatism and Relativism
    Interesting. So the idea is that the essential nature of being is beneficial towards all things?Tom Storm

    But I never understood how assuming a groundless ego leads to spontaneous compassion and benevolence.Joshs
    It doesn't; it's a doctrinal claim in those schools of Buddhism that contain the concept of "Buddha nature" (or the modernized equivalent of it).

    (I've replied to you about this before, but it looks like you've ignored it.)

    That said, compassion and benevolence have a very specific meaning in Buddhist discourse, insofar they are understood in terms of the Four Brahmaviharas, the Four Sublime Abidings. As such, they aren't simply thought of as the emotions or attitudes that people generally think they are. Further, their definitions vary, depending on the Buddhist school.
  • The Role of the Press
    No one knows anything about 'hate speech'. They know what makes them uncomfortable. It's a vaccuous concept that doesn't refer to anything that could be used interpersonally, unless you already agree on what Hate Speech. Which is tautological and entirely incoherent.

    They obviously don't, given the number of law suits journalists and institutions get into.
    AmadeusD
    It seems it has a lot ot do with calculated risks. It's seems likely that editors calculate that publishing something potentially problematic will still pay off for them even if it costs them a lawsuit.
  • The Role of the Press
    To argue that the press has a duty to provide only certain facts in order to protect democracy contradicts the idea that the freer the press, the more open the democracy.Hanover
    Actually, democracy itself rests on taking for granted that all involved will play by certain rules that protect democracy itself, which includes censoring one's own speech and behavior and those of others.

    The net result of using the press as a means to promote certain viewpoints only leads to a distrust of the press even when the press has their information correct. That's exactly what you're seeing now, where no one can speak outside their echo chamber because there are no longer any accepted facts across ideological boundries.

    This isn't to say there's such a thing as a view from nowhere and that objectively can be established, but balanced reporting, where competing viewpoints are presented would be the goal.
    I don't recall a time when a particular media outlet wasn't associated with a particular political option. Sometimes, this association is more obvious, clearly spelled out, other times, less so, but it's always there.

    Do you see the press as a legitimate political force, rightfully empowered to promote the good as the outlet sees fit, or do you see the press as having no objective other than the presentation of facts from various viewpoints, leaving to the reader the conclusions he wishes to draw?
    The press likes to present itself as being "objective" and "truthful". It becomes rather ironic when you see two competing newspapers have those concepts in their slogans, and then each newspaper writes views that are directly opposed to eachother.

    Would a European nation provide both sides of a Trump related issue or would that just not be necessary due to the homogenous view they might have on the topic?Hanover
    In 2020, several high politicians in EU countries congratulated Trump for winning the election and haven't recanted it since. Beyond that, there is a variety of views on the Trump issue.

    That is, is Swedish and French (for example) news more accurate, or is it just more predictably consistent with the promotion of those countries' political ideologies?Hanover
    There is no homogenized "French news" or homogenized "Swedish news" or some such. In every EU country that I can think of, there are newspapers that are pro-Trump, those that are against him, and those that are somewhat aloof.

    The problem is that once upon a time there were very few national news outlets, so entry into the market was difficult. You had to get your credentials and prove your worth if you wanted a microphone in front of you. Reputation was critical, so no outlet wanted to get their facts wrong or appear biased.Hanover
    We'd have to check on a case-by-case basis, but the situation probably varies by time period, country, and continent.

    What you describe is just one pattern for how a news outlet may establish itself.
    For example, another pattern is that the government (a monarchy or secular) provides an official news outlet which is the only one in the country, and this news outlet exists regardless of how well it does in terms of sales.

    Ethical reporting was a requirement for survival in the market.
    Rather, the other way around: those which survived were deemed ethical.

    Now all you need is a keyboard and you can publish to the world.
    Not at all. Getting heard nowadays is extremely difficult. Sure, publishing may be easy, but getting oneself heard is often impossible.

    What sells is what people want to hear. The ethics exist, but it's not critical to follow them. And so we're left with people just as likely to listen to me or you, regardless of what malice lurks in our minds, as they are to listen to those who have agreed to a code of ethics.
    But people, the potential readers, are not tabulae rasae, they are also not passive recipients of what they hear. They are not "the masses". They do not come to the news stand as naive little children.
  • Why populism leads to authoritarianism
    Nations do need some kind of homogenization starting from being equal citizens.ssu
    Equal??
    People are not only not equal, people generally despise the very idea of equality.

    I think you should watch more popular culture, reality tv, commercials (such as those for beauty products).

    I want to post the links to some popular commercials that will dissuade you from ever thinking about equality as something possible or desirable.
    (I won't post them for fear or legal consequences.)
  • Why populism leads to authoritarianism
    So why is populism something that doesn't support democracy and promotes typically strong leaders and authoritarianism?ssu
    Populism is, essentially, plebeian mentality, and plebeian mentality is antidemocratic, simplistic, black-and-white, thus authoritarian.

    It's not that the elites would have become corrupted; it's that (also because of democarcy), plebeian people, ie. people from low socio-economic classes have been able to attain positions of power (in politics, economy, education, art). These people have probably accumulated wealth and obtained higher education degrees, but they still are plebeians at heart.


    It just seems that there's no antidote to populism
    There is: the traditional class/caste system.
  • How to do nothing with Words.
    Language is shared, and cannot be privatised. The thread is all about claiming the right to join the community of communicators while repudiating any responsibility or commitment to said community to put any value on honest and truthful communication. A special word has been coined for the proper community response to this immoral and illegitimate move — "de-platforming". In olden days we used to call it "sending to Coventry" presumably because Coventry was unspeakably awful. No one can, or should even try, to have a serious discourse with one who does not commit to making sense and speaking the truth as far as they are able.unenlightened
    But things have changed. We are now living in the modern age of hyperindividualism and practical solipsism.
  • How to do nothing with Words.
    But I still hold that the intentions and assumptions of the speaker the do not leave the speakers body and travel in the signs to be conveyed to some listener. The listener is faced with the sign only, and it is up to him to provide it some with meaning. The act of understanding a sign, considering it, giving it meaning, and so on, are very important acts in this exchange and I think they have been largely ignored (as far as I know), at least as it pertains to Speech Act Theory.NOS4A2

    No, they have not been ignored; if anything, they have been taken for granted, on account of taking for granted that people do not exist in a vacuum and that communication is not a solipsistic enterprise.

    Various theories of communication assume that communicators have a shared cultural and linguistic foundation, and that they have a concept of this shared foundation.

    You, on the other hand, appear to be interested in an (hyper)individualistic theory of communication in which no such assumption as above is made.
  • How to do nothing with Words.
    Framing it that way reminds me of Margaret Thatcher's saying, "society does not exist, only people and their families do." How does one separate such a bold claim of bourgeois supremacy over the functions of the state from the pre-linguistic space where the Sovereign Individual runs its cattle unfettered by the demands others? After all, they use many of the same words.

    The word "right" is interesting because it expresses a direct or straight quality as an adjective: "Right on time", for instance. When the term is used as "rights of individuals", the use is all about the boundary between the prerogatives of a common interest and what an individual can preserve against such interests.

    The thesis of the OP borrows from that latter use to deny the existence of what gave context for it.
    Paine
    Indeed, from other posts by the OP, I kept in mind that he thinks that society does not exist, in the Thatcherian sense.

    This is relevant, because one's political and sociological outlook will also shape one's theory of communication. For a (neo)liberal hyperindividualist, when two people appear to direct utterances at eachother, something else is going on than what a more traditionalist person might think goes on in such a situation. Examples of this abound in the way the OP talks about or explains the charges against Trump in the Trump thread.
  • The Nature of Art
    Believe it or not, I've complained in the past regarding the Philosophy of Law. I've wondered what it is, and what business it is of philosophers to attempt to explain the nature and purpose of the vast ocean of laws and the associated rituals employed in their applicationCiceronianus
    Similarly, many scientists and supporters of science take a dim view of the philosophy of science.
    Many religious people take a dim view of the philosophy of religion.
    Etc.

    A "philosophy _of_" something is a meta-analysis thereof. Obviously, there can be many meta-analyses of something, as there are many perspectives from which to look at something.

    So, art evokes feelings; it doesn't explain or analyze existence, or reality, or knowledge, or indeed anything and isn't intended to do so.
    On the contrary, it often does precisely that, and in a manner so concise that philosophy can't.
  • The Unity of Dogmatism and Relativism
    If you read the complaints of professors, two common concerns are that today's students are variously unwilling to challenge their own dogmas and that students embrace a sort of all encompassing relativism.Count Timothy von Icarus
    This is embedded into the educational system itself.

    People go to school both to change and yet to remain who they are.

    The educational system is supposed to teach people criticial thinking, yet, for all practical intents and purposes, people in the system (both the teachers as well as the students), know that the argument from power is the strongest argument. And then we're all supposed to pretend that this ain't so ...

    For Schindler, it's misology, the idea that reason and argument cannot be trusted.
    What else can a student conclude, when he bears in mind that the point of taking courses is to pass the exams, and this means answering exam questions in such a way that will most likely bring good grades, criticial thinking be damned.
  • How to do nothing with Words.
    It’s becoming more and more clear that people are searching for acts in the text and not in the actor.NOS4A2
    There are two extremes: One is the Skinnerian the-human-as-a-blackbox, stimulus-reaction kind of thinking ("He made me do it, I'm innocent"). The other is "stimulus is irrelevant; it's all up to what a person chooses to do with it" ("Nobody can make you do anything").
    Most people typically reside somewhere inbetween.

    Philosophy of language in a nutshell: the philosopher drifts from a clear and plain view of the human being into the muddled pursuit of sifting through his expressions.
    So how is believing that there is no society working out for you?
  • How to do nothing with Words.
    I would not have written this unless you had posted; that's all that we need in order to say you elicited this reply.Banno
    For a hyperindividualist like Nosferatu, this is unintelligible.
    From his pespective, he didn't do anything, nor did the words he typed do anything; you chose to reply; or well, you replied (somehow, whether by choice or not).
    (He does yet have to make his language fully consistent with his hyperindividualism, though.)
  • How to do nothing with Words.
    not my fault. You elicited the response. The force and content animated me.NOS4A2

    Oh dear, words did that to you!
  • Ten Questions About Time-Travel trips
    If you could go, would you go?BC
    Days and nights fly past, fly past. What am I doing right now, as days and nights fly past, fly past?
  • Climate Change (General Discussion)
    How fortunate we all are to be led down the shining path of empathy and compassion (and effectiveness) from an internet rando…who is exceedingly ineffective at teaching people about empathy and compassion, having never demonstrated it themselves. Do as I say, not as I do — always works great in teaching, especially on the internet.Mikie
    You and your imagination.
  • Climate Change (General Discussion)
    It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.Hanover

    But there's no shiny happy people around you.
  • Climate Change (General Discussion)
    The suggestion is to form an orderly queueunenlightened
    "An orderly queue" for what? Dying? To be executed?
  • Are citizens responsible for the crimes of their leaders?
    What if the trigger puller's mind consists of a heterogeneous mosaic of multiple, different will-vectors?Quk
    Which is often the case anyway. People have all kinds of desires, goals, impulses, and then they choose which one to act on.

    Which of the many will-vectors belong to that "single person"? And when the killer is caught, what part of this person has to get into jail?
    My reply was in response to the dichotomy between the leaders and the followers/citizens.
    In discussing responsibility in terms of war, it tends to be taken for granted that being a soldier is legitimate, and that for soldiers to follow orders is legitimate. But because of such taking for granted, we end up with just the kind of questions the OP does.

    While we're at it: Could this principle be applied to an entire country as well? Every person in this country represents one individual will-vector. The person itself is sort of a country too, containing many different will-vectors.
    What if we were to transcend the notion of country or nationality, and treat people as individuals? Because at the end of the day, it's that individual who pulls the trigger. Yes, the individual is subject to all kinds of pressures and forces and influences and is embedded in a socioeconomic context -- yet it is also the individual who decides whether to pull that trigger or not.
  • Climate Change (General Discussion)
    Can't you see what you're doing? You might have an opportunity to change something, but you're wasting it by indulging in your sense of entitlement over others and in justifying being mean to them. As opposed to devising a strategy that might actually work in producing change in others.
    — baker

    How do you know I'm not doing that?
    Christoffer
    Because you're sticking to your old guns.

    And are you doing anything other than acting as an apologist for the people standing in the way of fixing things? Answer me what's worst? Not standing in the way of necessary change or defend those who stand in the way? What's the point in that?
    ??
    I'm not criticizing you for being rude or mean, I'm criticizing you for being ineffective. Because I want you to be effective.

    You have some really strange ideas about my intentions here.

    This is why people who are apologists for those standing in the way of necessary change in society towards mitigating climate change should be viewed as immoral and they should be treated accordingly.
    For me, a question like, "How do you talk to someone who thinks that mankind will adapt to whatever comes, when it comes; so that this person will change their mind and act differently, more in line with planet preservation?" makes perfect sense, to you, it clearly doesn't.

    So I have no problem being harsh or mean towards these people and that's not an entitlement, that's just me having a working moral compass.
    But is being harsh to those people leading to the result you want, namely, an improved state of the planet?

    As I have said, trying to talk sense into them does not work.
    Given the strategies used so far ....

    It has been the strategy for decades. If they are uneducated, egocentric and acting like gullible idiots, then you can try and convince them all you like and they will still not budge.
    I think it should still be possible to talk to such people in ways that will get through them.
    It might just take more creativity and effort, and inventing new strategies.

    If that leads to time running out to implement the necessary changes, then you simply have to just don't give a shit about them and just do what's needed.
    How are you going to "just do what's needed"? By abolishing democracy?

    It's that simple. There's no time to change the minds of people who actively fight against having their minds changed or being properly educated.
    I think they just fight against having their minds changed by the strategies used so far. Other strategies might yield better results.

    As an example, I used to work as a mathematics tutor. A highschool student came in to be tutored about linear functions. This was her last chance; if she would fail the next test, she would be expelled from school. The situation was dire. She was first tutored by an older tutor, I witnessed some of their sessions. It was clear right away that the student didn't have a grasp on fractions and rules for solving equations. Without mastering those basic things, it's impossible to do linear functions. But the old tutor insisted on working on linear functions with the student. They made no progress and he gave up on her, declaring her to be a hopeless case. The student was then assigned to me. We spent the summer learning fractions and basic rules for equations, things she should have mastered years ago. She passed the test, completed her education, even earned and master's degree.

    Your attitude is that of a teacher; a teacher's goal is to teach. My attitude is that of a tutor; a tutor's goal is to get the student to learn the subject matter, (almost) no matter what it takes.

    So politicians and industry people need to simply do things anyway, even if it risks losing votes.
    There you go, outsourcing responsibility again.
  • A Case for Moral Realism
    Uttering moral propositional statements can be used to control people -- for better or worse. My point is that just uttering them often has an effect, and a predictable one at that.
    — baker
    To state the truth is wise, even if people 'use' it the wrong way. You make your choice, and they make theirs. Deception to avoid them suffering or you suffering their bad choices, is just another bad choice, only. There are no real exceptions. If you think you have found an exception, then that is only a case where the utterance of the proposition was taken too singly, and represents only one or a few of the virtues. To utter a wise statement all virtues must be included.

    Example(s):
    Aphorisms of old and memes are not often wisdom. They are anti-wisdom. That is because of the conundrum you just underscored. That is statements are taken in isolation and defended with all strength. It is included in wise understanding of any virtue that that virtue in isolation or taken too far is actually unwise. But these posters of memes and aphorisms, they fail utterly and their utterances are failures. That is because they want to hang their hat as done on the single virtue they like, while simultaneously downplaying and poo pooing the virtue opposite that would bend this one back to real wisdom. Such is the nature of reality.
    Chet Hawkins
    I'll go so far as to say that propositional moral statements are used by people as tools to exert power over other people. As such, moral statements are treated as if they were truth-apt, even though the speaker himself might not actually believe they are. As in, instead of slapping someone in the face or hitting them with a bat, one tells them, "Be the bigger person!" or "It's wrong not to forgive", and it can have the same effect of getting the other person to be compliant and submissive.

    Not to get too Nietzschean about it, but if you look at the function of uttering propositional moral statements, it is precisely as described above. The simplest explanation is that there is nothing more to propositional moral statements but that they are tools for controlling others.
  • How to do nothing with Words.
    That’s what I am genuinely unclear about. Are they talking about acts I am doing, or about acts somehow derived from the words I am writing? Am I or is the utterance performing the act?NOS4A2

    I think your actual issue of lack of clarity is about acts. What constitutes an act? What is an act?

    An act is that which one does deliberately, intentionally, for some purpose. One hopes to achieve, accomplish something with an act. Thus, there are mental, verbal, and bodily acts.
  • Are citizens responsible for the crimes of their leaders?
    The main responsibility is on the one who pulls the trigger. Not on the one giving the command to pull the trigger.
  • How Do You Think You’re Perceived on TPF?
    Compliments are more challenging, not because we can't think of things, but because it takes us out of our comfort zones to be nice.Hanover
    Oh, I thought people came here to unlearn being nice.
    It's easy to be nice and to care.

    Anyway, I throw down the gauntlet. Only compliments.
    Lol, of all the idioms, you choose a martial one, and then invite compliments. It's as if you're categorically unable to say something without it being a double entendre. Don't repudiate it, it's a fine art.
  • Climate Change (General Discussion)
    I don't care if we lose thousands of polar bears if it means the promotion of human life,Hanover
    The promotion of which human life?
    All of it, or just your tribe's?