I came to the conclusion that I, according to the Dunning-Kruger effect, have a severe cognitive impairment.

I was wondering about moral luck. As I fathom moral luck is a moral descriptor of either a Person's willingness to do something that has an unintended outcome (e.g. someone shoots into a crowd (morally wrong) and unintentionally hits an mass murderer hiding inside(arguably a morally good)) or an outcome that happens independently of any willing participants (e.g. economic growth trickle down (if it exists) actually I still find that particular example lacking, regardless- ).

What confuses me is the possibility of the negative version of those. By negative i mean can I declare a non-action (not simply abstaining from acting) a moral wrong/good?

A rather complicated example goes as follows (i appreciate if there would be a simpler less shitty one, but as of right now I cannot think of any): X has child Y. Y likes Ice cream. To give Y ice cream would brighten Ys mood, thus would be good. X is on the way home. Y is already home. Y spots an ice cream truck in front of the building. Unfortunately the truck leaves soon after. X did not spot the ice cream truck, therefore lacked the incentive to increase Ys mood by purchase of Ice cream. As X comes home Y states "It is bad that you did not bring me ice cream!"

I know it seems rather childish, but what do you think is it possible to blame for non-action?

coming up later today and tomorrow at 1500 CET, I and Streetli will be reading and discussing Bergson's laughter over Reddit Talk at Aristotlestudygroup

See you there.

The philosophy of leaving things better than you found them

"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in"

-Greek proverb.

I´m quite interested the philosophy, and i would like to live by it as much as i can, but sometimes I do find myself questioning if it truly fulfills me or if I´m just telling myself to do it because it makes me feel better. I also know i should not expect any reward, for following this philosophy is the reward, however I also struggle with that sometimes. I would like to hear your thoughts and opinions, and I would also very much appreciate any paper/book or quote reccomendations concerning this philosophy as a whole. Thank you in advance.

If the entire universe were rearranged down to every particle to be exactly the way it was in let's say Jan 1, 1950 would it still be the present day that just looked like Jan 1, 1950 or would it literally be Jan 1, 1950?

It remains for us to examine the spiritual element of speech ... this marvelous invention of composing from twenty-five or thirty sounds an infinite variety of words, which, although not having any resemblance in themselves to that which passes through our minds, nevertheless do not fail to reveal to others all of the secrets of the mind, and to make intelligible to others who cannot penetrate into the mind all that we conceive and all of the diverse movements of our souls. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_infinity

Can quantity exist outside of space and time? I was thinking about Anselm's ontological argument for god where he defines god as "that which no greater can be conceived". This implies that god is omnipresent across space and time (to be constrained in space and time would be an imperfection). If god is omnipresent in these axes then can he be quantified in any real way?

Any fool with a mirror can see into the future. Any fool with a gun can kill. Any fool with a tool can farm. Any fool with a broom can clean. Any fool with a job can pay taxes. Any fool with two hands can lift. Any fool with two legs can run. But most fools choose not to. Any fool with a brain can be a pawn. Any fool dumb enough to be a fool Can be a fool. A fool will seek power in the wrong places. A fool will seek love in a whore house. A fool will seek imortality among mortals. A fool will find death where he didnt seek.

I would like to know your thoughts about this pdf :) https://philosofer123.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/my-philosophy-of-life-6-18-22.pdf

I had a crazy idea I'd like to share.

I had before an idea for the description of the being as such: there's the One (Being), there's the Multiple (the objects we get through senses), but then there's Intermediate Categories. These are the categories you get when you abstract from a multiple: I'm a multiple; but I'm a man, that is a human being, that is an animal and so on until you reach the Being.

So, in this idea, the sciences are what happens when you select an intermediate category and describe it. The techniques are when you get one and try to open its possibilities. I won't go further, it's not well descripted yet, but imagine there's the obvious difference between poetry for poets and poetry for literature theory.

Ok but then... I realized I may have got into this idea because I actually live a situation in life that's very odd. I liked so many things since birth that I got commitments with many people and techniques. I had to move from city sometimes, so I always had to restart things, but as it was since childhood, as a child I decided never forget the best I got in each place (and people), and it's cute and so, but actually turned out into a curious situation.

I, for instance, right now need to be at the same time a poet, a programmer, a clothing seller and a teacher. You can't see how crazy it is, but it did got me many ideas about what is life, how it works, how looks, language and knowledge influences a carreer and a social cyrcle and so on. That's a very enriching situation. Still, pretty shitty, I got smashed by the weight and right now have to restart life. Still, carrying the weight.

So then I had to start thinking starting my life for real. It means having more than one life. I realized yesterday that's the empiric source of my idea of the Being. Because first of all, I'm at the same time all of these things and none of them. It doesn't feel like being an actor, because although I have to act differently in each place, I'm not pretending. For instance, the poet and the seller need to have two different personalities, but I'm both of them.

I'm venting this because this at first kind of break the sense of identity. Each "life" I'd need to have to take these things serious have even a nickname on their own. But then I realized these are intermediate categories, while I, the truth self, is something before all of this. It's either the whole of them combined, but that's the price I have to pay for existence (I actually don't really like/identify with any of these lifes, although I feel positively resposible for them), or this empty self whose only property is to be curious. I'm essentially curious, then, but that, in time, means having a body and leaving a track necessarily. Thus, the price comes.

I then thought, but that's out of the point: if there could be an afterlife where the curiosity, without body, can live by itself and get knowledge without a price, that would be actually pretty fun.

Are the arguments against objective ethics/morality, motivated by persons unable to deal with shame and/or thier previous bad decisions? Similarly, do you people that believe in subjective ethics/morality do so because it is easier to just do/say whatever they want if they don't get caught?

Just a quick thought. I might edit if I can better adjust or articulate what I am think. Thanks in advance!

I have a theory that space-time cannot be a hyper-cube of infinite volume, like in usual 4-axis representation where each axis is linear. Instead each axis must be circular, in a way. Like in computers, a limited data type is subject to overflow. Like in my noise algorithm, Ihave a 2D representation of "space" that wraps, there are also 3D and 4D ones. Space-time is 4D, supposedly, but it cannot be a hypercube of infinite volume. Like in my noise algorithm, where each edge of the square of "space" coincides with the opposite edge, In 4D, each cube of the hypercube would be on top on the opposite one. To represent coordinates logically, or operate on them in limited time, the data types must have limits. The main point is this:a linear spacetime of infinite volume does not have a possible logical representation (i think), so it can not be the truth. The implications of this are massive. And, it seems to be possible at the very least. Don't you think? Of course, this is just a way of speaking, time is not a line or a circle. But I think a circle is a more appropriate metaphor.

The Correct Theory of Epistemology

​

To have correct beliefs about the universe it is necessary to know how humans can acquire knowledge. Any being that can get knowledge must have a mind. A mind can know when something has changed or effected it. Anything that can effect the mind is something that the mind can be aware of. Different senses indicate that there are different sense organs, and effects in the world such as light and sound. One thing a mind is sure of is what senses it has. What is real and existent is what can effect the mind.

Humans can know about causality, and knowing how they can know this is needed in epistemology. A mind cannot exist without time also existing because all thoughts are a process with duration. Humans could expect or believe that causality would be violated which means how they are right about causality always being obeyed in the real world must be explained. There are examples that show that the human brain could accept violations of causality in Time Travel which is a concept invented by humans in fiction. The belief that causes are before effects is based on noticing certain changes in the world always are preceded by different similar changes where there is an increase of entropy. There are always usually some effects currently observable, so time always seems to pass for all humans. If a human were the only object in a universe it would seem that time were nonexistent. The ability for a mind to think causality is likely is no different from its ability to notice any other pattern. You could notice letters are always in alphabetical order as an example of another pattern. In both the example of causality and an order in letters a single direction is used and a single mental model. The direction is toward the future for causality and whatever direction the list of letters is read in. The single model is a "list" that must be read in a certain direction(otherwise the letters are not connected and random) and a single timeline or calendar for causality. Belief in causality is based on probability.

Everything in the knowable world has the common property that it can effect everything else in the world. Motion is something universal to everything in the world and space and time are connected to everything. Models can be universal because of how spacetime connects everything. The principle of uniformity of nature can be adopted when attempting to understand the universe. A model can be tested by seeing if there are any contradictions in it, and by testing its predictions. If you say x is true,and whenever x is true y must be true and y is found to be false than x cannot be true. A good example would be testing the model that says heaver things fall faster. A light thing should fall slowly, and the model also says a heavy thing should fall quickly. However if both are attached to each other the model predicts that it should fall faster and slower at the same time which is a contradiction. Another example would be the model that everyone has died. If everyone had died, then cars must not be driven since people drive them. You can observe cars being driven, and know that everyone has not died even if you do not see the people in the cars. The model of gravitation can be tested with the same method, and will always be confirmed. It predicts an asteroid not moving sideways and falling around the Earth like the Moon will instead hit the Earth with a different path. These paths observed in real life are very similar to the model. Gravity is confirmed.

One of the biggest problems in epistemology is beliefs/models that are false but seem true. Most religions are examples of these. Religions are believable because they say significant things about morals, and events in the past which cannot be tested with experiments. It is difficult to know all predictions that result from beliefs and to know all evidence/observations that would count as a test of them. Religions contain many beliefs, and it would be impossible to think about a whole religion rather than small parts of it which makes them harder to test and more believable. Many people simultaneously believe that God can account for everything, and that religions say something significant about how they should live. These two beliefs contradict each other, and the problem of not understanding a whole model prevents most from seeing this. God could not account for actual morals if the morals of a religion were wrong, and this could be used as a test. However most people think no matter what happens God could have explained it meaning a religion is non-falsifiable and does not say anything significant morals. Models or beliefs that explain many things like religions should be separated into easily understood claims that can be tested. People often believe what they wish were true rather than what is true, and this makes them happier. Beliefs you wish were true should be doubted and seen as potentially wishful thinking. For most people it is equally impossible to test quantum mechanics as it is to test religion because most people are not intelligent enough to imagine a Hilbert Space or to remember every single experiment that tested Quantum Mechanics.

Ethical beliefs are seen as knowledge by many people. Ethical beliefs come from peoples emotions being seen as something universally important. Is pain bad in outer space, a place with no humanity? Pain does not exist there, and ethical beliefs do not apply there. Not everyone's happiness has a large effect on everyone else's which could make it seems that ethics are not real and ethical nihilism is true but considering all of humanity as moral agents and summing up the happiness of all humanity is possible. In the future ethical beliefs which are incorrect should be replaced with an awareness of everyone's natural empathy, it effect on their happiness, and the most economical way to create the society that everyone would prefer to live in with the greatest aggregate/sum utility. The idea that values are universal and not particular to human beings is not true. Ethical systems are similar to religions, pure mathematical systems, and philosophy which are sort of hallucinations. Morals seem to be a different type of thing that needs different explanation for how humans can acquire knowledge of them, but they are actually false beliefs based on applying ones own emotions to the whole world incorrectly. Once it is understood how humans often fail to accurately get knowledge about the world it shows how they actually get knowledge.

[removed]

Morality and concept of heaven

Heaven in christianity(catholic and orthodox) is not only beyond concept of morality, ethics but also immoral in some sense. Imagine a situation: you have killed a person, normal human being, who you surely know did not go to heaven, therefore is in hell, suffering, (imagine how great their suffering is, imagine it from christian perspective, (christ says that a second in hell is unbarable) )How can u even have a will of going to heaven, when u know that because of ur sin, crime someone is suffering for eternity. What would u do as christian? You would repent and try your best to go to heaven. does it sound immoral? of course it does and it is in some sense.

[deleted]

Definition of knowledge

The classical definition of knowledge is "justified true belief", that is, a person knows a proposition if the following conditions are met. 1 - The person believes in the proposition. 2.- The proposition is true. 3.- The person is justified in believing the proposition.

However, there are counterexamples where all 3 conditions are met but there does not seem to be knowledge.

Suppose you see on TV how your team won a soccer tournament. So you think they won, it is true that they did, and you are justified in believing it, because seeing it on TV is a good reason to believe it, therefore you know that your team won.

Now suppose that the television station made a mistake without your noticing and instead of broadcasting this year's game, it broadcast last year's replay, in which your team also won. So you believe that they won, it is true that they did, and you are justified in believing it, because the reasons why you believe it are the same as in the previous case and we had said that they were good reasons, however it does not seem that you know that they won this year, it was just a coincidence that your team won both times.

So we have to change the definition of knowledge, what seems to me the best solution is to add the following condition. 4.- The person does not have any false beliefs relevant to the proposition. Where a belief relevant to a proposition is a belief such that if you did not believe it you would no longer be justified in believing the proposition.

So the counterexample no longer works. The false relevant belief is that the game you saw was this year's tournament, if you had not believed that, you would no longer be justified in believing that your team won this year, so the fourth condition is not met and therefore you do not know that they won.

What do you think of this solution? Does it look good to you? Or what do you think is the solution?

Logic cannot disprove free will in favor of hard determinism

The big, ancient question: can free will and deterministic causality coexist?

We can trivially answer:

A) yes. I perceive causality, I perceive free will, this is what is offered to me originally, in the flesh and bones, and this is it.

However, several people would answer:

B) no, because deterministic causality and free will are not LOGICALLY compatible.

A first B1) argument usually looks like this.

If all reality is governed by the principle of causality, and therefore if every phenomenon/event is pre-determined by other phenomena/events, according to well-defined physical laws, then this will also necessarily apply to the person/subject's actions and thought: therefore there is - there cannot be - no room for free will.

This formulation seems to me to be a classic circular reasoning (therefore fallacious, or at any rate tautological) in the sense that it implicitly assumes the very thing it seeks to prove: the premise (all reality is deterministically causal) already contains the conclusion (if "ALL" reality is deterministically causal then necessarily the actions and thoughts of men -- which are part of reality -- will also be deterministically causal).

Therefore,we will have to opt for a B2) variant.

We start from the observation a of a "weaker" and less dogmatic causality (we observe the existence of causality without assuming from the premises that "everything is always causal," otherwise we would fall back to B1). And let's say that from this premise we can come to LOGICALLY affirm its incompatibility with free will.

It's not important which logical steps might lead us to this result. Let us simply assume and admit that from X (I observe causality in the world-of-things) -we can develope an impeccable logical reasoning -> and in the end conclude Y (there is no free will, because what we call free will - our thoughts and actions and decisions - is causally pre-determined).

However, a corollary of Y is necessarily that the very activity of "impeccable logical thinking/reasoning," is also totally subjected to causal pre-determination. And not only with regard to the development of the reasoning process, but also with regard to its very "use" as a instrument to resolve the present question. I was going to write "with regard to the methodological choice to use logic to solve the free will problem"... but at this point to speak of "choice" would be paradoxical, wouldn't it?

Now, this corollary tends to be warmly welcomed by supporters of determinism. Logical reasoning (like mathematics, moreover) is used as a method of inquiry, it develops and it comes to its conclusions **by virtue of invincible necessity ** (not choice or discretion).

And THIS is what - according to some - makes this method "certain," secure and reliable.

But doesn't this also ultimately make B2 circular?

Let's examine a classic example of flawed circular reasoning:

That God exists corresponds to the truth. Why? Because the Bible says/proves that.

And why would the Bible be reliable?

Because the Bible is the absoulte and Word of God (it's "God's intended key to understand the world".)

Reformulated and adapted:

That Reality is totally deterministic, with no room for free will, corresponds to the truth. Why? Because Logic says/proves that.

And why would Logic be reliable?

Because Logic is the necessary instrument given to us by the deterministc Reality (it is the key of interpretation direclty and invincibly imposed on us by Reality itself)

This is the criticality underlying the totality of pan-deterministic systems.

How to evalue the knowledge one acquires from them, insofar as it cannot be conceived that the prefaced introduces a novative/modifying element within the pre-given configuration of the system?

Hey,

Are you familiar with Descartes and his meditations on first philosophy? So do you remember where he goes into how people come to know things they've never had access to, like perfect beauty? So do you remember his argument about not being able to know a thing from the negation of that thing?

If you're familiar with this argument can you break down why you can't come to know a thing from the absence of that thing? I remember understanding this when I first read the book but now that I'm thinking about it years later I don't seem to have the argument lined up in my mind. Can you help? I did a quick Google search and I don't see any exact references and explanations of this line I find interesting.

Thanks in advance.

Hi. I’ve been on an existentialism kick lately and I find it compelling and a lot of older philosophers and literary figures get labeled honorary existentialists (Dostoyevsky, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard,…). Almost to the point where it seems like anything could go under this umbrella if you squint hard enough.

Are there any particularly “anti” existentialist novels or philosophers? I’m not really looking for arguments against existentialism; more examples of works of philosophy or art as far removed from existentialism as possible.

If I were smarter it would be obvious. I’m guessing most any deeply religious work focused on heavenly rewards would fit the bill.

hell and morality of the creator

I want to start from the begining. I have heard people say many times that anihilation is better than eternal suffering I am trying to articulate my thoughts and feelings about anihilation. One part of me understands the statement, why anihilation is better than suffering but the other part does not understand it since anihilation is not exisntence, but absence of existence it can not be compared to neither happiness nor suffering. Can anyone present their thoughts about the subject?

Good day. I watched this YouTube video from then & now https://youtu.be/C5mf_G-U8nw. What do you think of it is equality natural?

I have an answer for the question "Is free will real": Since the time we are born, we are exposed to repetivie behauviour: waking up, having breakfast, getting dressed etc. At some point, these actions become almost completely instinctive, like if they were completely unintentional and separated from real will. We should also consider that, if you feel like you have no free will, It means that you realized that you have no complete control over your brain or body. And this also proves that the mind is different from the brain.

should we satisfy our desire? Yes, it's justified

Note that "desire" here is in a narrow and neutral sense, like more delicious food, more money, not the scope that more killing or salves.

Nowadays, people often complains that "Life sucks, I'd rather like to be a primitive". Just like Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi mentioned in his book Flow,

When Cyrus the Great had ten thousand cooks prepare new dishes for his table, the rest of Persia had barely enough to eat. These days every household in the “first world” has access to the recipes of the most diverse lands and can duplicate the feasts of past emperors. But does this make us more satisfied?

It seems that satisfying ours desire hasn't made us happy, so what't your argument onto this one? Should we satisfy our desire? My argument as follows to this is positive.

To answer this question better, let us presume that the only goal of our life is to get more happiness. But what is happiness? It's hard for me to define to meke all of us accepts it and that's also unnecessary. Like many democracy, There are many concepts that we couldn't make a perfect defination, but it won't hind us from discussing such topics. Just like [elephant test], It's hard to explain but you know it when you feel it. Since the goal of our life is to be happy, thus, if satisfying desire can bring us happiness, then, we should satisfy our desire, vice versa. Hence, the question here is that whether satisfying desire can bring us happiness?

Obviously, that is not a simple question, but we have a good way to seek the answer. Probably lots of people would accept the view that modern life is the result that human losing themselves in satisfying their desire like more food, more safety, faster transportation and so on, so we have the Agricultural Revolution and Industrial Revolution and the current life. This argument is just like Yuval Noah Harari has stated in his book Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, and he even argues that the Agricultural Revolution is the biggest fraud in history. Therefore, if we want to know whether we should satisfy desire or not, we just need to look at the two kind of life, the modern one and the primitive one. The one appeals us most wins and will be our answer. Of course, it's impossible for us to reach a perfect agreement, there always will be majority and minority, and the choice of majority is not always the truth, too. But out of the conviction and respect to the democracy and human reason, I argue that if the majority prefer the modern life, then it will be feasible for us to satisfy our desires.

So, here comes the key question, which life style do we prefer? The modern one or the primitive one? I think that most of us prefer the former. We don't want to sleep on a tree or in a cave, neither the fight with wild animal nor the fear of being eaten. That's right, I haven't surveyed everyone on earth, but if I was wrong, as the primitive life is more attractive, then why only a few people choose to live in the jungle or the wild island, people in New York obviously can afford the flying tickets. In fact, when people do choose to live like a primitive, they just do it for fun, they won't persist years after years. Some may argue that, we are adopted to the modern life, so it inappropriate for us to decide which one is better, it is just like asking a addict if he wants more weed and LSD. All right, let the primitive choose. In fact, the dice is already rolled, they choose to "give in" the desire, so you see this post on Reddit today. They may still argue that the primitive are shortsighted, if they can see the negative outcome caused by satisfying the desire in long run, they may probably choose another road. I have to admit that this is a strong rebuttal, but I have two replies want to make. First, we don't have the ability to foresee things in thousands years or even dozens years. Secondly, if they have a time-machine and they just see the modern life, then why is it impossible that they would hate the initial choice? They may be totally attracted, too!

So far, we have proved that the modern life is more preferable than the primitive life, thus we have proved indirectly that satisfying our desire is justified.

BTW, I also analysed why some people always complain about the modern life in this blog post, if you are interested, please go ahead. The post is written in Chinese and you can read it with a translator like Google.

BBTW, I am a Chinese senior student who is about to get a bachelor's degree of business management in 2023 and I want to study philosophy(especially the political one) abroad like a international student for one year in 2023 or 2024. So I'd appreciate that if anyone can help me with that goal, you can contact me here or Via the e-mail.