Shawn why do you bring this topic of philosophical pessimism up every so often in this forum? I am the only one who identifies as one here so it is oddly pointed, even if broadcast to "everyone". — schopenhauer1

As you say, the topic was directed at everyone and didn't have anything to do with antinatalism, go figure.

I'm hoping to start some reading group around Philosophical Pessimism.

I think it would be rewarding to have one oriented around that.

Any takers?

Whose pessimism is being overcome but at what cost and to whom? — 180 Proof

The question seems incoherent. As I posted elsewhere, pessimism is an attitude. So, for some pessimists who view reality with dukkha and all the suffering of the world or even the senseless samsara that we undergo, until we break through the karmic cycle, then no matter what kind of progress technology has to provide they probably wouldn't change their attitude. I say it is an attitude because Buddhists don't fall into that mood for example. Furthermore, it also seems that if what the Philosophical Pessimists profess as hard truths or brute facts about reality, then doesn't that make their point universal?

And yet dukkha remains despite the high-tech hedonic treadmill of modern mass consumerism and televangelism. — 180 Proof

Yet, the Buddhists didn't just advocate complacency with dukkha, they professed non-attachment to desiring things or goods that we hear from self-help gurus from the Eastern tradition.

Existential dread, my friend, of which pessimism is an expression, is the ineluctable condition to be endured and not a (technoscientific) problem to be solved (by "progress"). — 180 Proof

Progress, as defined wouldn't solve the issue but alleviate the degree to which it is apparent in ones condition.

Well, I just wanted to raise the issue of positivism as the antithesis of Philosophical Pessimism. In that positivists seem to have a strong desire to alter brute suffering and lack that some of us have experienced in our daily lives.

The new age positivists label was directed at entrepreneurship and huge stores of money in Silicon Valley to alleviate said lack and suffering, through technology.

@Joshs, what are your own thoughts about rational egotism and how facilitating it is dependent on governments?

Perhaps better question would to ask of a modern police force integrated to a central government? — ssu

A self policing government sounds pretty cool, but, isn't that called fascism?

We have always experienced 'authority,' even in tiny groups. — universeness

Is that really true? I can't imagine any authority imposed on prehistoric homo sapiens other than satisfying basic needs such as food, clothing, and shelter.

Even if this were true how would it help today? — Tom Storm

I think it's interesting to advocate libertarianism from an evolutionary standpoint. If homo sapiens needs governments and enforcers of the law to promote its own welfare, then it's a moot point. In other words, are governments and police forces inevitable from an evolutionary perspective? Is the question incoherent or is there any sense to it?

Did Plato glorify the historical Socrates or himself? — Amity

Given the stature of Socrates and the link you provided, I don't see how else to describe Socrates as a man with incredible integrity. This fact should answer the question as to why Socrates didn't abandon Athens and possibly be called a hypocrite* by his enemies.

* Or a sophist.

Well, Socrates was a man on a mission and his best student took the gauntlet after his death and glorified him like none other. Didn't Socrates die a noble death?

Well, I might be wrong about my previous comment with regard to continental's like Sarte or Camus.

Maybe...part of our story-telling... :chin: — Amity

Plato is unique in how his Socrates, whether he was factual or not, is the narrator. I haven't seen any other philosopher apart from Plato that utilizes any narrator or narration in their works.

I've been wondering how you and others read or would re-read any of Plato's Dialogues as literature.
For example: How to Read 'The Symposium'. — Amity

A work of fiction; but, a different kind of fiction? Maybe philosophy is a different kind of fiction... :chin:

The problem I see is in generating desires including dissatisfaction towards a model of infinite growth on a planet of finite size. — Andrew4Handel

Yes, dissatisfaction is valued quite a bit to any company invested in legacy products. Advertisers make their money from not always promoting superior products or more efficient products. On the other hand, Google made a quarter of a trillion dollars off of advertising in 2021. People on a fixed budget don't have the luxury to spend money on their preferences towards which good best satisfies them. Then again one has to consider the fact that our populations are so large that the target audience can return the cost of advertising from their purchases.

If the topic is to be about the downsides of advertising, then I feel comfortable to say that advertising targets human biases, opinions, and irrationality moreso than those in the marketing business are willing to admit. Then again they are protected by the nature of the free markets.

Can you expand on this? Are they using a model or rationality taken from psychology or philosophy? — Andrew4Handel

There's a field of economics that specializes in this area, called behavioral economics. Last time I was at college to get a degree in behavioral economics you would have to take quite a lot of classes in cognitive science.

So, I'm assuming the majority of modeling done is empirically based on consumer behavior. The concept of rationality is taken from psychology or cognitive science rather than philosophy as far as I understand.

Some people say science and technology has been destructive in its progress because it has allowed us to suddenly over exploit the environment to cater to peoples short term desires which is not sustainable in the long term. — Andrew4Handel

It would be unfair to label blame on science or technology. I don't think it makes sense to do so at any rate.

Is the model of rationality one that only considers individuals short term goals and selfishness or does it encompass the idea of humans having long term goals and not needing instant gratification. — Andrew4Handel

In terms of what? A lot of economists are no longer preoccupied with Keynes in saying that in the long run we are all dead.

I get the feeling economics relies on treating people like objects and like they are dispensable and interchangeable and that we need to have children to create a steady flow of workers. — Andrew4Handel

Economists treat most people as rational agents, not as objects. I believe that most people are treated fairly as workers, even here in the US and moreso in progressive states like New York or California with higher minimum wages. Whether workers are dispensable is arguable. Again, where I live there are quite a few laws prohibiting discrimination and biases from causing an employer from firing some worker. The rationale is simple, you perform your duties and you get payed for doing it, as long as the company is producing something profitable.

I am not sure that people and their psychology should be manipulated like chess pieces. — Andrew4Handel

There is some truth to this in the marketplace of goods and advertising. The amount of money from advertising is collosal and sustains companies that compete with other companies for the same products. For example, Google makes makes most of their money from advertising still. Yet, companies like Toyota don't make their money by appealing to customers based on presenting their product as more psychologically appealing than a Ford car.

I don't know if you are wrong, but I disagree as I don't see "philosophy as a way of life" as a persecuted cauae — 180 Proof

Well, certainly Socrates was condemned to death for examining the lives of others and himself.

It seems to me that Socrates did die for a cause... Yet, it would be hard to pin down Socrates as ideologically driven to do so, or am I wrong on this?

Of living the philosophical life as he did.

Philosophy as a way of life, with Socrates...

I only wonder because he died for a cause...

It should be highlighted that disrespectful behavior towards mods will earn you a ban.

The word "good" is mostly used to indicate a satisfactory level or degree of something, based on commonly or generally accepted standards. It is applied to both quality and quantity: Good food, good joke, good essay, good news, good health, good friend, ... — Alkis Piskas

Well, instead of running in circles, what does that something mean?

@Banno, for the sake of the thread can you expand on the open ended argument in reference to what implications it has in the domain of discourse wrt. to ethics?

@Baden

and for his inept arguments. — Banno

On this I only agree.

I criticised him for both his personality — Banno

You can't criticize personalities online, only attitudes. And it's not like we're talking about Donald Trump either.

Yeah, you think your more logical because of your IQ.

:chin:

I just wanted to point out the tu quoque fallacy that everyone thought that y'all be committing to a much higher degree than Bartricks himself.

Y'all be full of shit, was his guiding motto as it appears.

Close this taco stand already. Too much diarrhea from the tacos.

Excitable Richard.

He was one of those Gassadini1 guys.

I was sure he had a phil degree; but, didn't quite get the whole other stuff.

Those are some heavy thoughts. Thanks

Non-naturalism is a form of what's known as 'objectivist' metaethical theory. 'Objective' in this context means 'exists as something other than subjective states'. Moore positively rejects the idea that morality could be made of our own - or someone else's - subjective states, for that would be to reduce morality to something else.

And Moore himself was a realist. A 'realist' about morality is someone who thinks morality exists. That is, moral objects and relations are real. — Bartricks

But, see the quote by Banno above. It clearly states in the SEP entry that:

Moore’s non-naturalism comprised two main theses. One was the realist thesis that moral and more generally normative judgements – like many of his contemporaries, Moore did not distinguish the two – are true or false objectively, or independently of any beliefs or attitudes we may have. The other was the autonomy-of-ethics thesis that moral judgements are sui generis, neither reducible to nor derivable from non-moral, for example scientific or metaphysical, judgements; they express a distinctive kind of objective truth. Closely connected to his non-naturalism was the epistemological view that our knowledge of moral truths is intuitive, in the sense that it is not arrived at by inference from non-moral truths but rests on our recognizing certain moral propositions as self-evident, by a kind of direct or immediate insight. — SEP

To say that something in inherently intuitive (such as morality in Moore's case) seems to indicate that what moral claims represent are at least very subjective states, that are commensurably agreed upon. Do you think that's something correct to state?

They're smarter too and can learn tricks. :smile:

Yep, talk about nasty shiet.

A pig can be a great pet. A goat however just asks for food.

It would be a perfect world if we made do with satisfying our appetite from wild pigs instead of growing them for meat in farms.

Well, here's a goat and a pig. The goat is a voracious animal; but, a pig can be more.

The struggle is real:

https://youtube.com/shorts/ZeO3KEG5XZg

A humdrum!