/r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | December 26, 2022

Submitted by BernardJOrtcutt t3_zvnq0i in philosophy

Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread. This thread is a place for posts/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our posting rules (especially posting rule 2). For example, these threads are great places for:

  • Arguments that aren't substantive enough to meet PR2.

  • Open discussion about philosophy, e.g. who your favourite philosopher is, what you are currently reading

  • Philosophical questions. Please note that /r/askphilosophy is a great resource for questions and if you are looking for moderated answers we suggest you ask there.

This thread is not a completely open discussion! Any posts not relating to philosophy will be removed. Please keep comments related to philosophy, and expect low-effort comments to be removed. All of our normal commenting rules are still in place for these threads, although we will be more lenient with regards to commenting rule 2.

Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here.

125

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

CarousersCorner t1_j1qqe4f wrote

What (in everyone’s opinion) are some good foundational philosophies for living a good, upstanding life?

7

DayliteMag1234 t1_j1rclen wrote

Assume innocence.

6

CarousersCorner t1_j1rezcw wrote

I feel like this is a very big thing that a lot of people struggle with

3

DayliteMag1234 t1_j1rsz16 wrote

I try, but I regularly fail.

1

CarousersCorner t1_j1t6uds wrote

I do as well, and much like an addiction, your first course of action is having the self-awareness to k ow you do

1

bagofthoughts t1_j1qvm2y wrote

A good upstanding life is a subjective matter that will need to find some grounding to deconstruct on the philosophical plane.

One option is to consider the perennial competition between collective success vs individual gratification, among human societies, which lays the basis of a lot of ethical direction.

A human is like a crazy efficient optimization machine that encodes not just its own learnings but also experiences gathered over many many generations. Some injunction of nature vs nurture is implied here, which I'll keep myself from getting into.

Anyways, so an individual needs to optimise both for self (the short-term) and also for the society (the long-term). At the same time, each one of us is traded cards we can play with.

One of the best strategies that can be employed to attain a fruitful and fulfilling life is the one that lets you use your cards to the maximum positive effect.

A number of traditional philosophies seem to offer a solution in mindfulness, self awareness and acceptance as a means to move forward efficiently. What this means is that, one lets oneself be directed by a balance of thought and action, that avoids you from becoming too reliant on your egoistical motives. This seems like a rather difficult thing to explain in a few words, so I'll leave it there for you to explore further if you find it interesting enough.

5

CarousersCorner t1_j1rerqq wrote

I really enjoyed this answer. It definitely serves the purpose of the question!

1

Ytar0 t1_j1r22o8 wrote

For me, compatibilism, combined with different existentialist ideas, helped me get a perspective on my own emotions and a better grasp on how to lead/control them (or in most cases, how not to be affected by them). It made me realize that no one is directly responsible for anything, so take everything with a grain of salt, and it made me, for better or for worse, get a gigantic (hidden) ego lol. I have always been pretty content with my life, but these ideas really hammered it in. So yeah, do tell if this is useful at all :)

5

CarousersCorner t1_j1rew49 wrote

I’ll do some reading on compatibilism, for sure. Who would you suggest I start with?

2

Ytar0 t1_j1rffhj wrote

To be honest with you I’ve never really bothered to read many of the original philosophical works on these topics, I much prefer to use sites like the stanford philosophy encyclopedia, they also have a page on compatibilism. (Many related pages as well!)

3

infestedgrowth t1_j1snhx6 wrote

The most important thing is always be aware of the self, and how others perceive you. Always be thinking of why you’re saying what you’re saying, and how it will effect the perceiver. Understand you are a product of this world, and everything you know is because of you’re own personal experience. We’re all individuals on this magical plane of existence, and nobody really knows any more than that for sure.

4

CarousersCorner t1_j1t6zhb wrote

Wonderfully articulated. Thank you for this. It’s interesting; examining one’s “self” through the perception of others. It makes you really consider what you’re expressing, and how you go about it

1

Nee_Nihilo t1_j1rbo8v wrote

Believing that human rights are the minimum love which we owe to other people. And that therefore, if we don't love them at least that much (honoring their intrinsic rights), then we are criminals.

3

stijnvboxtel t1_j1rmitu wrote

Socrates: be curious and know that you don’t know.

3

CarousersCorner t1_j1t6s0e wrote

I have a minor in philosophy, and the classical philosophers are my favourites

2

yeah_yeah_therabbit t1_j1s12um wrote

‘The Dude abides.’ -The Dude

“To abide something is to follow it, to obey the rules. But when The Dude says it, he doesn’t mean being a square or listening to the man. When you abide, you go with the flow. You accept life as it comes. And if there’s anything that The Dude will always do, it’s go with the flow.”

1

SlowJoeCrow44 t1_j1qrwt9 wrote

I don't think the causation runs in that direction. I don't think one can philosophizing themselves to becoming a good person. I think that we only use philosophy to justify our bad actions or support oit good ones after the fact.

1

CarousersCorner t1_j1rejv7 wrote

This is an interesting idea. I guess I was kind of asking a complicated question in too simple of terms. As an example, someone could have a base life philosophy of stoicism, and model their actions based on those philosophical principals

1

Key_Revenue3922 t1_j1sgb7d wrote

David Benatar’s antinatalism

I have been listening to David Benatar a lot lately and have been reading in his books. Benatar is an antinatalist and argues that life is not worth living. I have engaged mostly in thinking about Benatars argument that the bad outweighs the good in life (by a large margin). This is what I would like to weigh in on. Benatar uses three measurements of human wellbeing (the three most established ones) and argues that by any of these standards the good outweigh the bad. These three alternative measurements of human wellbeing are: the objective lists theory, hedonism and desire theories. It is my understanding from what I have read that none of these theories are widely accepted. They all have their problems, which I choose not to get into.

Benatar goes through each one of them and “proves” that the negative comes out on top. As for hedonism, according to Benatar, there is more pain than pleasure in life (I think he says even in the best life). For example, there is such a thing as chronic pain, but there is no such thing as chronic pleasure. There is also a tendency for people to underestimate how bad their life is. They remember and anticipate positive things, something known as an optimism bias. In objective lists Benatar suggests that in anything we put on the list we always score pretty low. For example, if knowledge is on the list, there is always going to be way more that we don’t know. If a long life is on the list, well, he says, “a life of 80 years is much closer to zero than to a thousand”. In the desire fulfillment theory Benatar argues that there will always be more desires that we don’t fulfill then the once that we fulfill.

My problem with this is that the weighting system seems arbitrary. How do you measure pain versus pleasure in a human life? How do you know that the bliss of a person’s romantic escapade is outweighed by the pain they experience struggling with decease in later life? How do you know weather the pains of a frustrated career goal is outweighed by the happiness of great friendships? I don’t think you do. As for objective lists and knowledge I also think that it is only a relative truth that we know “little”. We know more than any other animal on the planet. There is an infinite amount of knowledge that a being could possess. Human beings place themselves somewhere on an infinite spectrum when is comes to the knowledge that they possess. It is only relatively “little” or relatively “a lot”. Benatar’s desire fulfillment argument I think can be rebutted in the same way as the objective lists argument. I am not even sure it is true that most of our desires remain unfulfilled. But my overall point about Benatar’s analysis about “the human predicament” as he calls it, is that the weighting system that he has set up is arbitrary. If you want to arrive at the conclusion that life is not worth living than you set up the weighting system in such a way so that the negative outweighs the positive or vice versa.

6

wolfe1jl t1_j1sqp4k wrote

One a desire is fulfilled we are ultimately unsatisfied by its fulfillment and either move the goal post by creating a new desire to fulfill or attempt to repeat fulfillment process. Both create a hamster wheel for us to run both lewd to the experience of some pain. IMO antinatalism works if someone accepts that the whole of who they are are just there desires and behaviors and cant exercise control over these things. It also falls apart if we view pain as just something bad or to be avoid and not merely as an unavoidable human experience that is universal. Pain appears to me as neutral because the pain being experienced must always be made relative to the one experiencing it, as it could be good if it eliciting beneficial changes and growth. But perhaps if we view pain as the best way to learn something (fear learning) it may actually be good if viewed this way.

1

Key_Revenue3922 t1_j1togi8 wrote

>Pain appears to me as neutral because the pain being experienced must always be made relative to the one experiencing it, as it could be good if it eliciting beneficial changes and growth.

Thanks for your reply. Benatar addresses this point and he says that even if pain has instrumental value, because it can lead to positive change, it is still pain. He is interested in weather the totality of pain or pleasure is more in the course of the whole life.

It seems from your reply that you have arrived at the conclusion that there is more pain than pleasure in life. How did you arrive at that conclusion.

1

wolfe1jl t1_j1tvg7x wrote

Interesting. Well I came to this conclusion by thinking on what pain is. Pain has a dualistic quality to it consisting of physical and psychological aspects. It’s by this dualistic natural that I conclude it must be the only truly universal experience meaning that humans can always recognize physical or psychological pain across cultures. From this point the only other thing that has a dualistic universal quality to it that I could think of was light. Once I started to correlate the two idea of pain and light I began to understand that pain shouldn’t always be avoided and is a necessary part of our universe as it could be a source energy or entropy from the change and growth process or something else. But I realized it is indeed universal and it’s due to pains intrinsic qualities that there will be more pain then pleasure, but pain being more abundant then pleasure also makes sense if the of goal of this place is the accumulation of wisdom via the application of having experiences and adding those experiences to knowledge. Which I believe can’t be achieved without a first person perspective. Hope that was at all understandable of how I arrived to my position. I assumed antinatalism was a a bleak out look of what the universe is where I would say my outlook is not that at all even though it appears I have arrived at very similar conclusions.

1

bextaaaaar t1_j1shegt wrote

Do most myths and scripture across religions emulate / symbolise the conscious journey played out and interpreted by baby in the crib from its caregivers, and throughout it’s life from infancy to end of life?

6

wolfe1jl t1_j1snxi6 wrote

I think all world religions are first for the people in the time and place it was formed via some person who has leveled up or become enlightened to the true nature of our universe. This is why the meta message of the main world religions are roughly the same and speak to being born ignorant to our true nature and that we should all endeavor to figure it. Once this becomes apparent then it becomes obvious how we are to act in this world and treat others. So I would agree with your statement.

3

mantarlourde t1_j1r37ge wrote

Is there a field of study focused on describing all philosophical systems in terms of cold hard math, evolutionary biology, and game theory? Seeking the ego death of humanity, thanks in advance.

5

HelicaseKaustav t1_j1rw1ef wrote

Read Felix Guattari’s “Schizoanalytic Cartographies.” But it definitely requires you to read Deleuze and Guattari’s “Anti-Oedipus” and “A Thousand Plateaus” first in order to even begin to comprehend it. Not for a casual, but D&G changed my life, and did really well to distill everyone from Freud/Lacan to Marx to Nietzsche, and finally reconcile them with ancient Eastern philosophy (not explicitly, just my realization)

2

ExactClub8513 t1_j1rdnfq wrote

Why does Stoicism sound so much like Pacifism. The more I read the more pacifist I feel like. Also when Nero ordered death of Seneca why didn’t he protest. Is it not stoic to go against wrong?

3

pshurman42wallabyway t1_j1rizp0 wrote

Some places are always cloudy, others clear; some have light pollution, others none. Whenever I can see the Milky Way, I feel so small and insignificant in the universe, dwarfed by the awesome power of the elements.

What impact could the night sky have on the general philosophical trend of a city or area? Do people who live where they are unable to see the stars view the world differently from those who see them nightly?

Inspired by this cartoon: https://www.reddit.com/r/GetMotivated/comments/zvn7qi/image/

3

crack__head t1_j1s0a4h wrote

I think this is my first post in r/philosophy…

Anyhow, I’m just going to respond to the second example post. I’m currently The Stranger by Albert Camus and jumping in and out of Critique Of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant, and I plan on starting Are Prisons Obsolete? by Angela Davis after I finish one of the other books I’m reading.

My favorite philosopher is Angela Davis, at least at this point in time — granted, I’m a philosophy novice. I was fortunate enough to have an incredible Ethics teacher last term, and I fell in love with all of the readings we did, especially Davis’s Are Prisons Obsolete (we only read a portion) and Kant’s Metaphysics Of Morals. I’m heavily considering adding a double major of philosophy to my economics major.

3

bluntisimo t1_j1sc1ia wrote

at least you will be able to manage the little money you will earn.

1

-Wonderer- t1_j1sdd48 wrote

The Stranger left me in disbelief. Enough to attempt a poem to summarize it. I don’t write. Wasn’t sure how to feel about Flowers for Algernon by the end of the book. Guess I’ll be adding your books to my list

1

Capital_Net_6438 t1_j258qv9 wrote

Welcome to philosophy!! It’s wonderful spiritually even if not financially :-)

1

[deleted] t1_j27h6cv wrote

[deleted]

1

senorDerp911 t1_j2dtbum wrote

As long as economics and finance are justified by human greed your considerations of helping other humans is worthless. Now you say cultivate but it seems that you will be imposing your reason for your own reward. That reward, perhaps could be nice words of recognition, perhaps a best economist of the year plaque, etc. Your own greed of wanting to help is nothing more than just another flavor of individual greed.

0

oeilgauchedefectueux t1_j1sghhr wrote

Does « No word is farther from the truth than when spoken » make sense?

3

wolfe1jl t1_j1sof0l wrote

If you view the physical universe farthest from the one true source that all things emanate from then speaking a world gives it a physical manifestation moving that spoken word farther from the one true source. Viewed in this framework of the world I can see how this statement might make sense.

2

senorDerp911 t1_j2dr52m wrote

Everyone loves their individuality yet no individual matters in the whole. People are not in this world to help the societal group they live in, they are in this world to exploit their individuality until they reach a point where they are looking down the societal group. You are here to be better than your neighbor you just mask your individuality with different traits that you learned just to reach your individual goal.

Everyone loves their individuality but we fail to see that we aren’t free thinking individuals. Your individuality depends on others and the environment.

You lost your individuality the moment you gain consciousness.

3

ridgecoyote t1_j2estao wrote

Josiah Royce said the moral purpose of society is to create and foster strong individuals and at the same time, the moral purpose of individuals is to create a strong society. We are sadly getting worse all the time on both sides.

2

Saadiqfhs t1_j1qcvx8 wrote

We are destined for a meta world, but are we also destined to rebel against it?

I am huge fan of the matrix and fan of the idea that no matter how comfortable a simulation is, humans will always rebel against it. But now seeing that reality inching closer and closer I wonder: Will we rebel against a cyber world or beg for it? With humans in such a state of depression in reality I wonder if given the option to rebel against the system, will humans choice reality over fiction?

2

panonius t1_j1r1z28 wrote

I don't see a realistic scenario where people would be kept in a matrix like simulation without informed consent.

In my opinion, the matrix-ish simulation will either exist as entertainment or something to keep generation ship passengers from going mad or to keep them from forgetting how to function on a planet.

3

kiwifuel t1_j1qvs2t wrote

There’s always friction. Life is always changing. There is no clear line between reality and fiction.

1

bumharmony t1_j1tusmb wrote

If you ask a matrix chatbot whose mission is to blur that line further.

1

Froads t1_j1qd7si wrote

What is moral relativism according to you?

2

Cartesian_Circle t1_j1qklnj wrote

From an ethicists standpoint...

Moral relativism is simply the position that the truth of a moral claim is dependent upon the belief of either the person (individual relativism, sometimes referred to as subjectivism) or the majority of a culture (cultural relativism).

Let's say Sally has an abortion. Under individual relativism if Sally believes abortions are okay, then there is nothing wrong with what she did. It doesn't matter what anyone else, nor the majority of the culture she is within believes. Under cultural relativism if the majority of the culture believes abortion is okay, then what she did is okay. However if the majority believes abortion is wrong, then she acted immorally.

As a side note, relativism in a moral sense is distinct from relativism in a anthropological sense. Anthropologically relativism is just committed to the idea that different cultures have different beliefs, e.g., Culture A believes abortion is murder while Culture B believes abortion is okay under certain circumstances.

10

xStayCurious t1_j1qgfsj wrote

I've been thinking about this recently because I don't think I have a good understanding. I feel like I understand the textbook definition but not how it applies to real life. It's generally defined as "understanding that morality is not fixed/objective, is malleable, and changes throughout time/cultures" etc, however, I feel like I often get roped into a discussion wherein a party is trying to convince me that if I think someone from Culture A is being immoral AT ALL then I can't possibly adhere to moral relativism. I believe that you can accept that different cultures have different means of measuring morality without FINDING those things moral. You can observe their units of measurement without adopting them, if you will.

2

Nee_Nihilo t1_j1rbg8c wrote

The absence of moral absolutes or absolute morals. Also the opposite of objective morality.

2

ConnieDee t1_j1rp3is wrote

For an entertaining read that looks at this question from the standpoint of mid-century philosphers, see "Metaphysical Animals"

2

hecaton_atlas t1_j1r2li3 wrote

What would classify as philosophy? Would anyone be able to claim any sesquipedalian passage of words as "philosophy"?

2

Zeebuss t1_j1rve8c wrote

To me a philosophical statement is any one about how someone should live life. It could be a statement about lifestyles, morals, good vs evil, priorities, choices, etc.

It's a broad definition, but I take philosophy very broadly.

2

-oRocketSurgeryo- t1_j1s000r wrote

Anyone here appreciate Habermas? Is there an active subreddit or forum that discusses his work (possibly in a larger context)?

2

wolfe1jl t1_j1suhvw wrote

Never heard of this but after doing some reading about it I can dig it!! Does he discuss or purpose a universal idea or experience from which all spoken conversation could be built from? I have a theory around this idea. Thanks for sharing!

2

-oRocketSurgeryo- t1_j1sv630 wrote

Habermas covers a lot of topics. He was part of the Frankfurt School when they were active. The Frankfurt School were very interesting and worth looking into. What I like about Habermas is his critique of how the legal system, the economy, and modern bureaucracies have become overgrown, autonomous and self-referential and now crowd out basic human communication and social life. It's a helpful lens for understanding a lot of the alienation we see today.

2

wolfe1jl t1_j1tvr93 wrote

Seem like accurate critiques. I have been wondering if we are living in late stage capitalism and if silent quieting is the beginning of the workers revolt? Have we begun to realize after sitting at home during the pandemic that we aren’t supposed to just spend our lives in cubicles in order to earn money so we can buy stuff we don’t really want or need?

2

Danix2400 t1_j1s37vq wrote

Is there a philosophy of life where evil is the answer? Not that I want to follow lol, but this question came to me. There are many philosophies with an optimistic (or virtuous) conclusion to view life, and other more pessimistic views, but I've never seen one that being evil is the answer.

2

Aimfri t1_j1s71an wrote

You might be interested in what some fans call "metaphysical satanism", which is a kind of gnostic pessimism developed in the works of the band Deathspell Omega. Think Georges Bataille throwing a party with Schopenhauer and Jon Notveid. They take Satan as figuring a cosmic principle of destruction, and then infuse that thought into every aspect of theology and politics. In a manner of speaking, evil is their conclusion, yet not in a monolithic, edgy teenager kind of way.

If you're interested, check out the lyrics to their two most recent albums, The Furnaces of Palingenesia and The Long Defeat.

2

bumharmony t1_j1ttt2f wrote

Satan is not evil per se. There is no water proof explanation of evil in the Bible. He does not just obey and serve God. It would be circular to think that everything diverging from the status quo is automatically evil.

Break the loops and fill the pig holes.

0

Aimfri t1_j1tz6ey wrote

Yeah, you definitely read what I wrote.

1

bumharmony t1_j1u17dy wrote

Destruction of what? Pinatas? improbable societal orders? What? To destruct is a verb that requires a subject and an object.

It is so silly that theology can not take even rudimentary ethical critique. I guess that is why it is called belief. But even belief must be feasible on the level of following a coherent set of rules.

0

Aimfri t1_j1u86m5 wrote

I can't have a civil discussion with you if you keep attacking half-baked strawmen and not reading anything others say. I haven't even started making a point, I just provided some references as a conversation starter with a very succinct summary, and you already are trying to burn everything around you to the ground. There are inevitable generalisations in a Reddit comment of a few hundred characters. Have you considered they could be just that - simplifications for the sake of brevity - and not fallacies left open for you to play such a childish game of refutation?

1

bumharmony t1_j1u8jkt wrote

Lately there have been several threads about evil in ways that do not at all tease the whole conception. This is one of them. I was replying to the thread, not your personal reply.

1

Aimfri t1_j1ugld6 wrote

The fact that you pinpointed the words "destruction" and "theology", in a second answer to a short comment that featured them prominently, says otherwise. Reads more like you tried an easy jab and don't feel like owning to it if taken seriously.

1

infestedgrowth t1_j1smxuz wrote

Evil as a nature is itself, evil. The opposite of perceived good. So in itself, evil, can never be good. They are opposing ideologies, literal opposites. As long as you’re a good person with morals, evil will never be the answer. Evil may be the answer for an evil person, it may be the most logical/reasonable solution, but it’s still wrong.

2

bumharmony t1_j1undk3 wrote

So if a person assumed to be evil and a person assumed to be good did the same deed would the deed itself be affected by the person doing it or would the deed in itself be good or bad, or morally right/wrong?

1

infestedgrowth t1_j1v7foq wrote

I don’t believe a person is involuntarily evil or good, what you do is what I would consider evil or good. A good person can do something evil and they’re less of a good person. Just like an evil person can become good.

1

bumharmony t1_j1vglu6 wrote

Is it the deed or the essence of that person good? Becoming good refers to the latter. Right?

1

infestedgrowth t1_j1vgwnj wrote

Both but the essence of the person is fluid and can be changed by any number of personal experiences. Deeds themself are or are not, they can’t be fluid. It’s either a good thing you’re doing or bad. Really it depends on the motive of the person.

1

bumharmony t1_j1vui62 wrote

In the case of satan his persona seems to be fixed to be evil. So I was asking if satan can do good deeds and would it make any sense to call him evil then.

As far I remember satan is most importantly an accuser not doing so much evil deeds. So he is being his own advocate huh?

1

wolfe1jl t1_j1ssxt4 wrote

It’s called capitalism lol

2

Danix2400 t1_j1stvr8 wrote

I think I see capitalism more as pessimistic rather than evil, but I get it lol

1

poopyhead234 t1_j216amp wrote

how is it evil?

1

wolfe1jl t1_j217d8b wrote

It’s main mechanism is the pursuit of profit. This done via the exploitation of things. Cheap labor cheap raw materials etc etc. This model will consistently produce evil.

1

Relative_Lock4958 t1_j1tfkx6 wrote

Schelling’s Freiheitschrift ‘freedom essays’ touches on evil in deep and I’d say, rather unconventional ways. He elevates evil to a status, unlike any philosopher before him in the western canon. While, evil, is not ‘the answer’ for him. It’s a part of the equation that in the least must be accounted for, if not incorporated into, the very idea of freedom itself. This work isn’t what I would call a ‘philosophy of life’, however, because the question of evil having absolute importance to the possibility of freedom in his eyes, then it might qualify. Although, as a warning, this work is enormously complicated and obscure. From the scale of the book, being, I don’t know, 60-75 pages? It’s probably the most dense book I’ve come across.

2

machinbakin t1_j1sccji wrote

It depends what you mean by evil. Many people have a different concept of evil. But I would say that yes it does work, for some people being evil works. But I would say that being evil is not an absolute thing just like being good all the time is not one either.

1

senorDerp911 t1_j2dsbr4 wrote

Evil is not a scientific aspect. It’s a religious aspect.

1

gagalahad t1_j1tqgfe wrote

Thoughts on the book “Philosophers: Their lives and the nature of their thought” by Ben Scharfstein? I just picked up a copy and wanting to start reading soon.

2

sp0oky1e t1_j1u48xj wrote

if we all behaved according to immanuel kant, in the categorical imperative, this society would be a lot better. think about it. if we behaved only doing that what 95% of the human majority would do, we’d be in peace

2

Pheonix7719 t1_j1yc5i4 wrote

Kant has some flaws within his ideals, for example if there was a bank robbery and a security guard is hidden and you do know his position you are obligated to answer upon being asked to snitch.

I think a better way of life would atleast be to find its purpose, for if we do not have one then our existence is merely shallow and meaningless. And as such, and until one does and is convinced of objectivity (via by reason, comparaison, doubt and deductions) one must treat his fellow human the same way as he would treat himself, to respect boundaries and in that way it would be extremely peaceful.

1

hobond t1_j25hibm wrote

I think you miss a point in Kant's ethics. Snitching in that position is seen to not be considerable by majority of people. Kant acknowledges that and insists we shouldn't be proud of not snitching and accept that we lied. Basically we should stay humble and know that the ideas are definitely not less important than the actions.

1

Pheonix7719 t1_j25i11b wrote

Snitching is telling truth, yes Kant does say that an action can only be righteous when it can be used as law governing people by satisfaction of the majority for its implementation however that doesn't nullify argument that you can lie, as honesty is given as vital.

1

hobond t1_j25le9t wrote

Sorry, I've just noticed that I messed up the sentence but I guess you get the point. All I'm trying to say is that society and human nature is always on view in Kant. So the "vital" is kept as an admonition. They represent a world view.

1

anonymousbabydragon t1_j1w53d3 wrote

My brother is minoring in philosophy at BYU so we’ve had a couple of discussions about different things. He believes that everyone should adopt an altruistic mindset at all times because that is the only path to true happiness. Arguing that it isn’t necessary to think of yourself and by thinking of others you will have a joy and fulfillment that you can’t get elsewhere.

I disagree with that view point because there are negative consequences with that line of thinking and because fulfillment/joy can be achieved without that mindset. I think it isn’t necessary to frame your life through what value you provide others because society doesn’t need you to self sacrifice to survive. Most people want belonging and to be a valued member of a group so they will act for the good of the group by virtue of their place in it. By thinking of yourself as an actor in others lives you rob yourself of a more stable foundation. I think in order to be part of a group you must be an individual first.

I’m curious what others thoughts are on the topic.

2

SinsidiousNME t1_j1xvzzt wrote

I agree with you in the sense that you cannot help and make a difference in other people without first making a difference in yourself, but why would you be creating change in yourself in the first place if not only to improve the lives of those around you. Are you not being altruistic towards the people you spend time with or interact daily with if you are trying to better yourself? Wouldn't the idea of being individual only exist because groups exist.

2

anonymousbabydragon t1_j1y0evx wrote

See that’s a good point, but I feel like that’s more a way to justify being self centered at times. Because to me your actions aren’t altruistic just because the intention is there. You’re delaying an altruistic action until you are able to cash in on it. There’s also the chance you never fulfill that intention. I may also just be misunderstanding things because I only have a basic understanding of philosophy.

1

SinsidiousNME t1_j1y2rfo wrote

To be altruistic is to be intentional, no matter what altruistic action your doing you still have motivation. So selfishness is purely an opinion of other people as everyone is motivated internally and everyone carry’s out actions because they chose to. Selfish- lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.

2

anonymousbabydragon t1_j2b67cl wrote

I guess where I sort of have issues with isn’t that someone’s doing something selfless. I think that’s great it’s more that I don’t believe in a mindset that means trying to never think of yourself. It goes back to the individual being part of a group part I mentioned earlier. If you never learn what you want and what makes you motivated I think you will fail at being someone that has the foundation and confidence to succeed within a group. I don’t think the self is evil. I think most of us are born good and with good intentions for our community. We are instead taught how to act and feel. In saying we need to forget ourselves we’re implying that we are somehow bad or wrong. That is not true. We are good and if we are believed in by ourselves we can arguably accomplish more altruistic things then someone who thinks it’s necessary to forget oneself. Why can’t we be both caring about others and ourselves? Why do we have to distinguish one as being more worthy of our love and attention?

2

SinsidiousNME t1_j2c0p56 wrote

I don’t disagree with the point about distinguishing between one being more worth of love but individuality is really only existent because of group thought. Everything you have ever learned was a linguistic depiction of reality or events told by someone else. There is one human knowledge that is constantly growing that you can choose to learn from and eventually build up on if you focus on a field of study and make some discovery. I believe in subjective morality and that it is ultimately learned unless genetic conditions. Although it’s utterly impossible to have a definitive answer on morality at all in my opinion

1

senorDerp911 t1_j2ds39y wrote

People suck off historical philosophers and glorify them. Glorification of anything is the first step of turning on your humanity. They were just people thinking.

2

slickwombat t1_j2e1o9e wrote

You can't mean people in general, since most people don't seem to be interested in philosophy or philosophers. What do you have in mind, and what do you mean by "glorification"?

1

-Badman- t1_j1sbz5u wrote

I'm having trouble reconciling Spinozist metaphysics (Natura Naturans and so on) with how Deleuze adopts and treats it in a seemingly prescriptive (albeit unspecific) way. How do we act freely if everything is determined by Nature?

Does anyone have any recommended reading on this topic? Or just any enlightening comments? Thank you.

1

Relative_Lock4958 t1_j1tedxb wrote

Pardon the brevity of the response, but, perhaps, I can touch on the ‘cliff notes’ to this subject as there is certainly much more to be said here, and I will undoubtedly leave lacunae. Now, I cannot speak to Deleuze, however, regarding Spinoza, it depends on what you mean by ‘act freely’. If by this you mean, ‘free will’ in the sense of the supposed ability of humans to make choices/actions independently of any antecedent -then, the answer is, you cannot, ‘act freely’. For this would still fall under the ‘imaginary’ form of knowledge within Spinoza’s epistemology. That is to say, the knowledge that one would have of the ‘notion of freedom’ would be a deformed one, of sorts. Strictly speaking, the only one, or thing, that can ‘act freely’ in an absolute sense, is God or nature. “that thing is said to be free which exists solely from the necessity of its own nature, and is determined to action by itself alone" (EID7). nature/god is the causa sui. The cause of itself I.e dependent upon nothing else, nor anything outside itself. Unlike a human being, who is dependent upon things outside itself and antecedents before itself.

For the human agent, the way to ‘act freely’ if one follows, or at least provisionally accept Spinoza’s argument hitherto, one would find freedom in increasing/expanding our ‘joy’=‘power of acting’. We do this by coming to understand the ‘adequate causes’, that is, the necessity of things within nature, or God. Naively, the answer is, the more you understand the adequate causes of things the more one ‘knows’ and from this increase in knowing, we are more able to ‘act’ freely in the first place.

As I said, I’m no expert, and no doubt much more could be added here, but, I hope at the very least this may shed some clarity on your query.

Moreover,the subject of Freedom in Spinoza is a deeply rich and fascinating subject with varying degrees of scholarly discordance.

If you are looking for a supremely clear, erudite and authoritative account on Spinoza, I urge you to read essentially any book by Steven Nadler.

https://philosophy.wisc.edu/staff/nadler-steven/

However, for your seeming immediate purposes, his book entitled: Spinoza's 'Ethics': An Introduction (Cambridge Introductions to Key Philosophical Texts), is likely the way to go. I cannot think of a better ‘trail guide’ to take into the magnificent labyrinth of the Ethics.

Happy reading/learning, and remember: “all things excellent are as difficult as they are rare”. Cheers

2

-Badman- t1_j1ufed3 wrote

This is great, thank you for this. I'll make sure to read what you recommended. Also, thank you /u/wolfe1jl for you help as well.

1

wolfe1jl t1_j1sskvg wrote

If we believe the whole of our consciousness is just the sum of our desires and behaviors and react accordingly to the internal and external stimuli of the world our ego then we only have the illusion of free will. Ie if you know some one who has a “temper or “short fuse” and you know what to say to set the person of or lose control they are acting in a pre determined way. However someone who chooses how to respond to something because they have recognized that the only thing that is in our control is ourselves is now acting freely or exercising there free will. This is why all world religions speak about start by looking within in order to understand our true nature and work on gaining mastery over ourselves. There was a phrase at the entrance of the Temple of Delphi which read, "Homo Nosce Te Ipsum," which means, "Man, know yourself, and you will know the universe, and its gods."

Finally nature at least in the view of these philosophers does not have awareness and thus has no ability of free will and must act in a predetermined way.. At least this is how I would interpret what these philosophers at trying to say at this point in my own journey.

1

CEOofGazoozle_biz t1_j1xsroz wrote

Is there an anti art community that I could join?

1

Merciful_tofu t1_j1ynjw7 wrote

About the Halting Problem and Determinism

Disclaimer: For people that never heard of a deterministic Turing machine (DTM)[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine] or the Halting Problem (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem) the following might not make much sense.

  1. DTMs are a theoretical mathematical formalism that describe a system that is intrinsically deterministic. I say this because at any given point of the calculation, considering the configuration, tape content and DTM state we can exactly say what the next configuration/ tape and state will look like.

  2. The Halting Problem is an example how some Problems that can be defined for this deterministic theoretical formalism are undecidable.

  3. The very nature of the Halting Problem being undecidable implies that something in the formalism is indeterministic. (?) My thought is that if the formalism was completely deterministic, we would be able to decide the Halting Problem for all possible problem instances.

Dear big brains of Reddit: What do you all think about this? Is this an example of how a deterministic system can be indeterministic, or does undecidability imply something different? I am looking forward to your thoughts!

1

PTIChick t1_j21wn73 wrote

Philosophy Professor made us do a presentation on Marxism, ended up making an apologia of Capitalism. Professor countered with starving children. Way to get me to check my privilege.

1

Helda-Coccenmehand t1_j21wq0t wrote

My weekly quote to ponder:

The rise of the day, the fall of the night. Day after day was a lot of the same. The burning spear of my life is not a real problem, but I think it is worth the effort. For the good and bad, I love it all together

1

vsmolyakov t1_j225ap9 wrote

"Look within. Within is the fountain of good, and it will ever bubble up, if thou wilt ever dig." -Marcus Aurelius

1

Capital_Net_6438 t1_j257nt0 wrote

The teacher in the surprise quiz paradox announces on day 1 that there will be a surprise quiz this week, which has 5 days. The paradox involves an argument that purports to show the impossibility of… something. Sometimes the argument is explained as trying to show a surprise quiz is impossible. I don’t think that works for reasons I won’t belabor.

The argument could also be taken as trying to show knowledge of a surprise quiz on day 1 is impossible. So suppose for reductio that the student knows on day 1 that there will be a surprise quiz. Suppose that at the end of day 4 there has been no quiz. We assume if there’s been no quiz by a certain point, then the student knows that. So at the end of day 4, the student knows there’s been no quiz. And therefore, it would seem, he knows there’ll be a quiz on day 5. But a quiz that is known to happen on a certain day is not a surprise. Therefore the quiz can’t happen Friday.

Then you go through the same process for the other days, ultimately proving the quiz can’t happen any day. And therefore the student doesn’t know there will be a quiz.

I assume that the argument is supposed to deduce this or that. I.e. it’s not just that certain assumptions make certain consequences likely but that they follow logically.

The argument fails at the step that says the student knows on day 4 there will be quiz on day 5. It’s a rudimentary mistake. Just b/c he knows on day 1 that there’ll be a quiz it doesn’t follow that he still knows on day 4 that there will be a quiz. It’s not in general true that knowing something one day will guarantee that you continue knowing it later. There’s nothing in the argument to make one think the student’s knowledge does survive changing circumstances here.

The exercise is meant to deduce something. No principle has been presented to suppose the student’s knowledge must survive in this case. So the appropriate response is that the argument does not establish what it set out to establish since there is no reason to credit its critical inference.

But…

At the end of day 4 the student thinks back and remembers believing on day 1 that there would be a surprise quiz. We might wonder whether the student knows on day 4 that he knew on day 1 that there would be a surprise quiz.

Suppose knowledge is true belief in internal and external circumstances conducive to knowledge. The student is special. He will know something in this context iff the proposition is available to be known. The student’s internal and external circumstances on day 4 are conducive to knowing whatever he knew on day 1. So it seems the student should know on day 4 that he knew on day 1 that there would be a surprise quiz.

Knowledge that P at t entails that P is true at t. And being special, the student knows the entailments of the things he knows. So he knows that his day one knowledge entails that it was true on day 1 that there would be a surprise quiz.

It would seem that if the student knows p (that he knows on day 1 there will be a surprise quiz), knows p entails q (that his knowledge on day 1 that there will be a surprise quiz entails that it’s true on day one that there will be a surprise quiz), then he knows q (that it’s true on day one that there will be a surprise quiz).

Now we have that on day four the student knows it was true on day one that there will be a surprise quiz this week. That seems to get us back to the student having the impossible knowledge that there will be a surprise quiz on day five.

That’s where I’ve been stuck for a while. Maybe we can say there’s no guarantee that day 1 knowledge will lead to day 4 knowledge of day one knowledge.

1

[deleted] t1_j26zhc1 wrote

[removed]

1

Capital_Net_6438 t1_j28qpoi wrote

As a fan of logic, rejecting logic isn’t an option for me.

Suppose we don’t assume anything about anyone’s knowledge on day 1. And suppose, as is usually the case, that we’re considering proving a surprise quiz is impossible. Then it surely does not follow that a surprise quiz can’t happen on day 5.

The argument is supposed to go that at the end of day 4, the student knows there’ll be a quiz on day 5. But he has no idea really. We didn’t build him having knowledge into the setup at day 1 and therefore he won’t magically have knowledge at day 4. The assertion that he does have knowledge at that point is totally unsupported.

So of course if we don’t assume anything about the student’s knowledge in the setup there could be a surprise quiz on day 5. Day 5 comes; a quiz happens; and the ignorant student says - “wow, I didn’t see that coming.”

1

[deleted] t1_j28uzg2 wrote

[removed]

0

Capital_Net_6438 t1_j2994dl wrote

Thanks for the clarification.

Seems like the surprise quiz paradox isn’t unique in illustrating the flaws of formal logic from your perspective. So ideally one would bracket those in thinking about the SQP. Perhaps the paradox isn’t so paradoxical for independent reasons.

On the kk situation, I’m thinking maybe the student doesn’t know on day 4 that he knew on day 1. I feel totally fine resisting the inference that his knowledge has to survive the change in circumstances. Why shouldn’t it be similarly unlikely that his knowledge of knowledge survives? As the student thinks about things at the end of day 4, the argument has given little assurance that he’ll know that he knew. He should think on day 4, “huh, maybe I never knew.”

One way to think of this is that the student knows that he knows in general. If he knows p at t then he knows that he knows p at t. That’s probably an assumption the student needs. And his kk knowledge is no more guaranteed to survive the changing circumstances than his knowledge.

1

Hour-Necessary2781 t1_j2bqa7i wrote

So does psychology determine a person’s philosophy?For example, are nihilistic people more likely to be depressed or are they depressed because of their nihilism?What about there political ideology’s/ religious values?

1

ridgecoyote t1_j2etawi wrote

Well to be fair, when Neitzsche said God is dead, he wasn’t celebrating the fact. It’s more like he was going “oh shit what are we going to do now?” And yeah, a lot of us are in that position

2

Danker_123 t1_j2d5xmt wrote

Should a young person whom is sick but able to do light work be on social welfare? While on social welfare, choose to stay at home as he is provided by social welfare

1

senorDerp911 t1_j2drpc7 wrote

Sure. Why not? The only problem would be when the social welfare chain reaches its end and the young person gets to realize how the system wants it to be chained.

1

Geagg427 t1_j1s6yj4 wrote

If there were two guys on the moon and one of them killed the other with a rock would that be fucked up or what?

−1

ProfessionalPause122 t1_j1q463b wrote

Any alien believers in the chat? I’m sure most of you are aware of the Nimitz encounters or Roswell or whatever else have you.

I’ve been searching for a while for post-disclosure philosophy but haven’t had much luck. I mean I didn’t look too hard either but I don’t think much of it exists. I guess I’m a fairly big hippie so I started investigating the phenomenology of conscious experience and altered states of conscious experience, the likes of Terrence McKenna, Aldous Huxley, philosophies descending from Nietzschean thought, Schopenhauer, Eastern spirituality and Buddhism but no reference to the new paradigm that must urgently be assessed and understood.

From my experience, UAP phenomenology research is the subject of tremendous ridicule, the scientists want nothing to do with it for fear of their status and careers and philosophers don’t seem to care. Anyone out there who cares?

−2

Canadianacorn t1_j1q9965 wrote

I find much of it interesting as an artistic expression, but I don't (personally) find that line of though overly compelling as a philosophy. I've brushed up against these ideas (if I'm interpreting your post correctly) through Philip K Dicks work and through some of the spiritual side of Jung.

I guess in my mind, there are greater scientific arguments to be made against this line of thought than there are philosophical arguments for it. That said, I respect that there is a philosophical discussion to be had around paranormal issues, and while I don't share the fascination, I'd never want to take it away from anyone else.

6

ProfessionalPause122 t1_j1qgceo wrote

Entirely fair about what you’re saying but there’s just some things I cannot come to terms with and don’t understand. Let me preface by saying I believe understand your perspective and the perspective of the general sceptic. I put myself In your shoes. But, I am genuinely curious. Wouldn’t you, in fairness, agree that if our planet was being visited by an extraterrestrial intelligence, we would have something of a philosophical obligation to enquire and understand the phenomenon? If there were any chance of it being true, shouldn’t we investigate, like how we investigated god? I’m just a fuckin idiot but my special power is logic.

Today, UFOlogy is a science first and foremost I would argue. It is data driven. It’s no longer the public that is espousing the potential of an extraterrestrial phenomenon, it is in fact the US government. The pentagon released the Nimitz encounters story and 3 videos to the New York Times in 2017. You can find all this on Google. It’s no longer stupid fucks like me talking about it, it’s our governments, who, let’s be real, they would be the only people who know about this besides anecdotes from an unfortunate few.

I would argue that philosophy has some catching up to do with science.

1

Canadianacorn t1_j1qjkzg wrote

I'm not trying to talk you out of your position. I respect anyone who engages in rational thought on any given topic.

When I look at UFO/alien visits, I'm struck by two things.

First, Occam's Razor (as an example) would tell us that the argument that requires the least assumptions should form our starting point of investigations. The explanation for most UFO incidents would seem to have terrestrial explanations that, to me, require little assumptions compared to the large assumption that foreign living beings are visiting us. So I try, as a sceptic, to start my investigation assuming these phenomena are of "ordinary" origin.

Second, in the absence of any clear evidence, I struggle to imagine any conclusion about alien life that I can develop that isn't built on speculative premises. Having no clear body of facts, I can build no compelling conclusions.

Because of these two premises, I hold that any rational investigation of UFO is so rich in speculation and assumption, it can offer me very little certainty. And while exciting and sometimes compelling, I am personally forced to relegate it to entertainment rather than philosophical examination.

I'm a total amateur in this field though. I have a few undergrad courses and a lot of personal study, but I am hardly philosophically literate yet. Still a fun thought exercise!

6

wiltnotwither t1_j1qvm13 wrote

"explanation for most UFO incidents would seem to have terrestrial explanations"

The thing is, the most recent reports released by the government, (which I believe the person you are replying to is referring to), stated that while (something like) 98% of UFO reports did have plausible terrestrial explanations, (something like) 2% of them had none. With even the most rare explanations being discounted by leading experts at NASA, the Pentagon, etc.

That is the new piece of information that has revitalized the discourse. I'm a skeptic, but I am personally still waiting to hear the rational counter­-argument to that particular point, that can bring us back to Occam, so to speak.

5

HammerAndSickled t1_j1tglfn wrote

“We don’t have a current rational explanation for this phenomena” doesn’t mean “it was aliens/God/ghosts/anything else made up,” it means “something caused this and we don’t know what.” There’s no need to involve aliens there, and no scientific approach would consider aliens a possibility without a presupposition of aliens existing.

1

ExceptEuropa1 t1_j1scinc wrote

I understand that the UAP topic is not for eveyone, and I respect that, but to me this seems like an interesting question.

I lurk around r/UFOs and I follow some hardcore scientific YT channels that do not shy away from a scientific approach to the UAP phenomenon, despite this not being their main topic. As prime examples, I point out to "Dr. Brian Keating" and "Theories of Everything" channels. Again, we are talking about classically-trained and mainstream physicists, and not about supposed abductees or conspiracy theorists. So, the notion that UAPs have something to do with paranormal stuff or sci-fi is outdated.

Assuming the UAP phenomenon is not real, then it is a social/psychological phenomenon. As such, isn't it reasonable to devote philosophical attention to it? Along this line, the work of religious studies professor Diana W. Pasulka, "American Cosmic", is quite interesting and might provide material for philosophical questions.

On the other hand, if UAPs have anything to do with non-human intelligence (NHI), then I'm sure there would be immense and sudden philosophical interest. So, I ask: Isn't speculation justified before we have definitive proof of NHI? If not, what can we say about questions regarding God, consciousness, and other topics for which we either lack hard proof or a precise definition?

Judging by the large number of exoplanets in the habitable zone that have already been catalogued, the idea of a Universe with no NHI is becoming harder to support by invoking Occam's Razor to deal with this topic. So, while I welcome the sincere and pragmatic response of u/Canadianacorn, I believe that there might just be interesting (and why not important?) philosophical topics concerning NHI. An analogy with the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence would not be perfect, but it would show us that it is worth pursuing philosophical questions concerning something that is yet not known to be possible; in this case, conscious machines. Whether or not we will build such machines one day (I work in the area and I'm not convinced that we will), laying the groundwork for a possible positive answer seems warranted. (I'm not talking about ethics of self-driving cars, which are a near-future reality, but about sentient machines.)

I'm still skeptic about UFOs and the like, but in the interest of (i) asking the radical questions that philosophy is responsible for asking and (ii) laying the groundwork for a reality that might manifest itself very concretely in the near future, I believe the attention to NHI (and, by association, UAPs) is meritorious. Sure, it will not find wide acceptance in philosophical journals, but that's more a statement about the way the publication market works than about the topic itself.

1

NewbiwanKenewbi t1_j1s7cve wrote

(too deep for you) As you are reading this your mind is making associations in order to determine whether it's worth while to continue reading. Without infringing on your free will I invite you to explore a concept that is difficult for the imagination to grasp. Everything you have done has led you here. This is the x that is marked on the treasure map. All you have to do is dig where you stand. But you won't. You think it's hard work and way too deep to dig and probably not worth it. It's not calling to you and you're just passing through.

−4

Davismism t1_j1spnlh wrote

Definitely the right thread for this post.

1