Recent comments in /f/philosophy

DeepspaceDigital t1_isw20y9 wrote

Reply to comment by ValyrianJedi in Philip Kitcher argues that morality is a social technology designed to solve problems emerging from the fragility of human altruism. Morality can be evaluated objectively, but without assuming moral truths. The view makes sense against a Darwinian view of life, but it is not social Darwinism. by Ma3Ke4Li3

Free labor’s cost is massive. Without a paid workforce you have very few consumers for your economy to serve so almost everyone stays poor along with slaves.

1

Cpt_Folktron t1_isw1t2e wrote

Reply to "In other words, an important lesson we can draw from Hans Blumenberg’s writings on myth is that the dangerous political myths of our own times as well as those of the past can only be countered by inventing new myths, telling better stories, and writing more convincing histories." by Maxwellsdemon17

"Stories, narratives, and myths give meaning to our reality."

No they don't. People endlessly repeat this vague claim without examining it. If anything "gives" reality meaning, that presumes meaning doesn't necessarily belong to reality. Sure, reality can create meaning, because stories are part of reality, but the meaning itself would not necessarily be a part of events themselves.

From this perspective, people attribute meaning to events post hoc—and it is implied that events do not have meaning in and of themselves. Meaning, from this perspective, only occurs in the mind. This comes to the fore later, when the writer states,

"As the world is in itself indifferent to human meaning, we need stories that connect contingent events to make sense of the reality we live in."

(side note, I more than mildly dislike when one persons speaks for all humanity in the first person plural)

Before I even get to why such claims stand on shaky ground at best, I want to address the people who will get totally hung up on how right they are about meaning only occurring in the mind. Stories and myths and narratives are not necessary for meaning even if you are one of those people who believe meaning only occurs in the mind.

Meaning, in the sense meant by people who take this stance, can still come from memory. It doesn't need a story. It doesn't need a narrative. It doesn't need a myth. Meaning, the most deeply felt intimate meaning, the meaning that a person lives, that they feel, which drives their actions, comes from memory, memory which doesn't need to be articulated, structured, made sense of or interpreted.

The mind and body know and "understand" pain, desire, etc., etc., without words. In fact, the ability to "understand" sensations without language makes language possible. Distress and pleasure don't need a representational medium to be important or meaningful. If anything, the relation would be the exact opposite.

I don't even believe this to be the case. I am only providing it for the people who are so entrenched in the hubris of materialist reductionism that they can only consider meaning as occurring in the mind (reserving the stance of ultimate truth teller for themselves while "discrediting" humanity as a whole).

It is obvious to me that meaning exists independently of the mind, and the mind gets closer or further from articulating that meaning through the life course. I won't argue this case. I will, however, point out how Blumenberg and the author use this sense of meaning when it suits them.

"The possibilities of constructing meaningful narratives from collective histories are indeed not infinite. At a certain point, stories and myths start misrepresenting or even abusing history. It is, therefore, important to determine when exactly myth becomes illusion."

He goes on to elaborate how myths become illusions when they lie, but if they are giving a meaning that does not actually exist except in the mind they are all giving lies. An underlying truthful meaning must exist, in reality itself, for there to be a distinction between illusory and true myths.

Do you not know that the truth, the simple materialist reductionist truth, the phenomenological truth, whatever takes your fancy, can be told in such a way as to give a false (illusory) meaning? After all, truth is never complete. People are not that smart. The very idea that I could even imagine such a truth is ridiculous. I can't even accurately imagine, in totality, what happens in a single city on any given night. Perhaps someone else has a brain that is that much more powerful than mine, but I haven't seen it.

Anyway, this is making my brain hurt. I've already done my eight hours of work today.

3

fjccommish t1_isvz7ny wrote

Reply to comment by rushmc1 in "In other words, an important lesson we can draw from Hans Blumenberg’s writings on myth is that the dangerous political myths of our own times as well as those of the past can only be countered by inventing new myths, telling better stories, and writing more convincing histories." by Maxwellsdemon17

Of course I do.

Life didn't spring from rocks. Whales and bananas didn't evolve from a single cell.

We never observe one kind becoming another. God created humans. They didn't evolve from a common ancestor with monkeys.

−2

fjccommish t1_isvz0ar wrote

Reply to comment by TFCSM in "In other words, an important lesson we can draw from Hans Blumenberg’s writings on myth is that the dangerous political myths of our own times as well as those of the past can only be countered by inventing new myths, telling better stories, and writing more convincing histories." by Maxwellsdemon17

If you found a pen on the ground, you'd agree it was created. Life is far more complex than a pen is, yet many think life came from rocks.

The universe is infinitely more complex than a pen, yet many think the universe exploded from nothing, nowhere, never.

Complex things have creators. The creation proves a creator.

1

robothistorian t1_isvtyz7 wrote

Reply to comment by iambingalls in "In other words, an important lesson we can draw from Hans Blumenberg’s writings on myth is that the dangerous political myths of our own times as well as those of the past can only be countered by inventing new myths, telling better stories, and writing more convincing histories." by Maxwellsdemon17

A more accurate link in response to my question would have been this.

Regardless, thanks for your response.

1

Redrumdream t1_isvogr4 wrote

Reply to /r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | October 17, 2022 by BernardJOrtcutt

Trolley Problem modification 3 tracks 1 lever: Degrees of immorality when it comes to killing

I was having a discussion with a friend about the levels of murder and morality.

This led to the thought:

If one is decides they are going to kill yet they kill fewer people than someone else, then they are still morally wrong but "less bad."

Some thoughts from the discussion

  1. Killing 1 is morally better than killing 5 and both are better than killing 100 etc

  2. A modification to the trolley problem

There is a trolley on the tracks and there is 3 separate divisions. Track A is empty. Track B has 1 person on it. Track C has 5 people on it.

A lever that defaults to the neutral position controls the rails and can be pulled halfway or all the way with more effort, but once released goes back to the original position.

  • By not pulling the lever the train stays on track A and no one is hit. -Pulling the lever half way and holding it changes the trolley to track B killing 1. -Pulling all the way changes the trolley to Track C killing 5.

If someone pulls the lever halfway are they "less bad" than one who pulls it all the way? Is "bad" even a spectrum? If so is it always a spectrum?

Any insights on this?

0

silverback_79 t1_isvgnms wrote

Reply to comment by cattywompapotamus in "In other words, an important lesson we can draw from Hans Blumenberg’s writings on myth is that the dangerous political myths of our own times as well as those of the past can only be countered by inventing new myths, telling better stories, and writing more convincing histories." by Maxwellsdemon17

Thanks for the summary. Yes, a whole lot of nuance is needed to get a proper view of history.

2

OrsonWellesghost t1_isvfa87 wrote

Reply to "In other words, an important lesson we can draw from Hans Blumenberg’s writings on myth is that the dangerous political myths of our own times as well as those of the past can only be countered by inventing new myths, telling better stories, and writing more convincing histories." by Maxwellsdemon17

The author missed a perfect example of a political myth becoming an outright lie in the rise of the Christian Right in the US. The way, for instance the parable of a “judgement day” in the New Testament becomes an actual, physical event people believe will result in them being whisked away to some perfect place before the world’s destruction.

6

ShalmaneserIII t1_isvf90e wrote

Reply to comment by BowlerAny761 in "In other words, an important lesson we can draw from Hans Blumenberg’s writings on myth is that the dangerous political myths of our own times as well as those of the past can only be countered by inventing new myths, telling better stories, and writing more convincing histories." by Maxwellsdemon17

It'd probably work as long as people remembered they have to do heroic things to be a hero, rather than just being awarded it as a right.

2

cattywompapotamus t1_isvf01i wrote

Reply to comment by silverback_79 in "In other words, an important lesson we can draw from Hans Blumenberg’s writings on myth is that the dangerous political myths of our own times as well as those of the past can only be countered by inventing new myths, telling better stories, and writing more convincing histories." by Maxwellsdemon17

I think it's more a matter of emphasizing historical details selectively. There is more history than can be written, so the choice of which information constitutes relevant history is a reflection of values. For example, A People's History of the United States was an unprecedented book for it's time because it examined a familiar historical chronology from an uncommon perspective. Both ways of telling the story are true, but with contrasting emphasis.

5

ShalmaneserIII t1_isvet2u wrote

Reply to comment by SomeInternetBro in "In other words, an important lesson we can draw from Hans Blumenberg’s writings on myth is that the dangerous political myths of our own times as well as those of the past can only be countered by inventing new myths, telling better stories, and writing more convincing histories." by Maxwellsdemon17

Myth might be a better term.

There are plenty of things that are useful for a society that aren't absolutely true- "All our citizens are equally important", or "We have a common purpose."

All these things are helpful since they distract from the frequently true statement, "We'd be better off if you guys were disenfranchised, enslaved, or dead."

3

blobbyboy123 t1_isvemtu wrote

Reply to comment by doccharizard in "In other words, an important lesson we can draw from Hans Blumenberg’s writings on myth is that the dangerous political myths of our own times as well as those of the past can only be countered by inventing new myths, telling better stories, and writing more convincing histories." by Maxwellsdemon17

Like it or not i think we are always influenced by stories and myths. If we believe we are not then these stories shape us, so the best method would be to embrace the fact and consciously take control of the story we live in.

1

AndyDaBear t1_isvel6a wrote

Reply to comment by Ok_Meat_8322 in Science Denialism Is a Form of Pseudoscience - Massimo Pigliucci by CartesianClosedCat

I am sorry, but to me it comes across like you are pushing a false dichotomy.

Specifically it seems you insist I either:

  1. nod along and say "yes" to your own language about what this moral obligation is including elastic concepts like "normative obligation" which I suspect you will eventually let me know the meaning of after I pre-agree to it.
  2. Reject that there is any moral obligation of honesty in science, other than of course the one that you wish to keep control of defining.
2

OrsonWellesghost t1_isvd928 wrote

Reply to comment by doccharizard in "In other words, an important lesson we can draw from Hans Blumenberg’s writings on myth is that the dangerous political myths of our own times as well as those of the past can only be countered by inventing new myths, telling better stories, and writing more convincing histories." by Maxwellsdemon17

For history to be comprehensible, it still has to be presented as a story, with principal actors, cause and effect, and typical story structure (beginning-middle-end). The story of how the Allies won the Second World War is one example. It’s essentially a myth in the sense that it gives direction and meaning to our history, even if it doesn’t have flying cows or demigods.

7

lucaruns OP t1_isv2gd0 wrote

Reply to comment by BillBigsB in On Reading Literature as Philosophy by lucaruns

Thanks for your suggestions. I will use the example of Camus to answer your question at the end of your comment, as I am most familiar with the reasoning behind his decision to write both philosophical essays and fiction to convey his points. The fiction, for him, is like a complex thought experiment to express his ideas more clearly argued in his philosophical works. The Stranger was written at the same time as The Myth of Sisyphus, and I believe that the fictional work in the former aims to make up where his discussion of the allegory of Sisyphus falls short, primarily addressing how a man conscious of the absurd might live a human life, and it adds further nuance to that as well. I am aware that you would probably not buy this example, as you reject the existentialists and nihilists (and I am assuming the absurdists, as well). I cannot speak about the fiction of Machiavelli, Rousseau, and Nietzsche, though I have read some of their philosophical works. I would assume that they wrote fiction for similar reasons to Camus, mainly to flesh out their philosophies in attempted aesthetic portrayals of the human experience.

​

What this really boils down to is that I wrote a short essay that should have been a book's length. Also, of course I didn't think that any claim I was making in my essay was new. I wrote a rhetorical essay, not an academic one. I'm obviously not educated enough to write it alongs the lines of academic discourse, so I didn't bother. I am genuinely glad that you responded to it, though, because I posted this essay on this sub with the intention of stimulating further discussion on the topic I skimmed the surface of. I want to learn more. My essay might come off as annoying to many of the people on here, but their frustration with my essay provoked them to come into the comment section and contribute to the discussion. I guess it's a bit polemical, but I still wrote the essay in good faith. From what I've learned so far in my life, I genuinely believe that philosophy and literature often go hand in hand. I am still seeking challenges to that view, and I expect it to develop and change over time. I'll read and think more about the Platonic rejection of literature and look into some of the texts you reference. Thanks!

3