Things can definitely slowly get worse.

Look at what happened/is happening with industrialization and climate change. Not all effects are immediately apparent from every cause.

And notice I said “set down a path.” I don’t mean wipe out all resources in an instant. We are set down a path to harvest all the oil, this won’t happen over night, but once that supply dwindles there will be significant negative outcomes.

Nah, if you attempted to harvest all resources you would see a significant collapse of many ecosystems which would have immediate effects

I think Kieran Setiya makes Stoicism out to be the philisophy of the doormat. Did I miss something or did this piece say a whole lot of nothing? Was there a take away?

Stoicism is perhaps the most misunderstood philisophy of the modern era (aside from maybe Existentialism). Stoics were rationalizing emotion. Problematic as that may be, you can have a discussion on this, but they were not stifling emotion or avoiding emotion, they were attempting to tackle the problems that arise from irrational emotion (in order to live the good life).

Anger to Stoics was always wrong, and the most rational emotion is love. It is misleading of Setiya to say that Stoics argue we should stifle grief. Also misleading to cite James' take on Slaves in the American South as a reaffirming source to this notion Stoics just ... take it.

"Rail against even things you can’t control" - Yeah Stoics would disagree. But there is nothing to say Stoics would passively take whatever comes. In the case of slavery in America; a Stoic icon would be Harriet Tubman, a Stoic anti-hero John Brown. Praise whoever you want, and argue the case for which hero is better - just stop misinterpreting Stoic thought.

In the end Setiya makes a rather unprofound claim it is best to sometimes help people with grief by saying " “I hear you” — rather than a solution to it. " and how ironic because what could be more Stoic?

Ramble over. I appreciated the read, I just hoped for more out of someone who teaches at MIT. Am I wrong here?

No. You can set down a path of harvesting all the resources for temporary improvement and then fuck over future generations.

Great book called “the consolations of Philosophy” echos this sentiment. Great read.

[removed]

Computers in the future could become sufficiently advanced that the processors in an average home computer would be capable of running an AI program that is conscious. The only barrier is what hardware is widely available.

[removed]

"Our moral obligation is to improve the society we live in, not the ones to come." - why not both?

Agree - but that is my point that now you are not creating artificial intelligence in the form of a program that can be run on any computer, you are building artificial life - the 'network of physical processors' would be where feelings reside.

To grok my point about what a computer is - watch this thing: computer made of people. or this: https://xkcd.com/505/

How would you write a program that ran on that computer that had feelings. And before you object that its too simple - all computers are just faster, more complicated versions of this.

[deleted]

Code itself may not be capable of feeling, but code in combination with a network of physical processors that mimic organic brain structures could conceivably feel.

When the premise shows assumption...

"Suffering" is only inevitable if one has expectations about how the future must unfold, and then adds emotional investment to that imagined scenario.

Looks a lot like a child's hurt - "the future can be this and only this and if not, anger/pain/fear" may feel emotionally real, yet it is seldom fact.

If I write something that feels, its not in the code. What you described - a 'configuration of matter' - yeah maybe we could build that. But its not just information. That's what I mean about it being 'artificial life'.

Does a competent designer build a home for "now" without considering tomorrow's needs?

I think it is plausible that the truth value of the proposition varies according to the particulars of the situation - but, if we were to assume otherwise (that it has a constant value), we may then not insist on the necessary level of quality to realize it...and from that, many downstream negative externalities could manifest (due to a cultural tendency to dismiss the potential need for high attention to details).

I think this (admittedly crude and imprecise) theory could go a long ways to describing the nature of modern day politics and culture in general, and in turn: the less than ideal state of affairs on the planet, that everyone hates but seemingly no one can do anything about.

Frames do not need to be true to be useful. You can collect frames for thinking and put them on like sunglasses to look at a question from differing perspectives. This builds out a tool kit to be used that allows seeking optimal solutions to whatever challenge is put in front of you.

Let's be specific "the customer is always right". This is a frame. A small phrase or idea to guide how to approach a circumstance. Is the customer always right? Obviously no. Is it beneficial as a business to treat every situation as if the customer is right, even when they're not? Yes. A bad experience converted often results in the most positive reviews. Good marketing for more business. Thus the frame is useful without being true.

Your brain has a control panel. You're a robot, complete with levers and buttons connected to your brain that can be pushed. Is this true? It doesn't have to be to be useful. You can learn what creates motivation to focus yourself.

Philosophy is a warehouse filled with frames for thinking. When you're stuck the warehouse provides additional options to try on to see if it gets you un-stuck from the problem at hand. Can keep trying on a new frame until something works.

It sounds too simple but in a very literal way you can shape your experience with reality using frames. As an experiment imagine you're sitting down and looking out at your room through a pair of VR goggles. Imagine it's all computer generated and you're piloting a giant robot interacting in this space. Next time you have lose an item and can't find it try this framing. When there is an object sitting right in front of you you can't see, shifting into the VR world frame makes it possible to see the lost object in front of you. It's disconcerting that the trick works. Who knows what reality is actually made of. We can't know that. But it's a level up in that reality to learn how to put on and take off frames.

With regard to black pill material. To my opinion those are the works of poor frames. You can pick up and put on other frames to program your brain into other modes of thinking. Get unstuck. Frames can be constructed into a personal story. A personal narrative or motto that guides your actions. This builds an operating system you can control to program your brain. You find a narrative motto in Navy SEALs and many organizations to guide behaviors in a productive way. If you do not choose to construct a narrative for yourself a fraud will give you one. Manipulative frauds usually craft these as a mental prison, a feature beyond your control which takes away your agency. Breaking out of that mental prison is as easy as opening the door by writing out your own narrative. You can author your own operating system. This is another level up.

I understand the logic here and would probably concede a few points if I heard your argument fully. However, many people have children and I believe that puts skin in the game, so to speak. Most people are not solipsistic and have at least some degree of empathy for others, even if they don’t know these people or these people aren’t even born yet. Think about student debt for example. Some people may want their student debt payed off, but they don’t think it’s right that other taxpayers are paying their personal debt. These taxes would be raised in the future as well. I think there are actually a ton of actions people take because they are keeping one eye out on the future. Think of the principle as to why problem go into debt or make investments. They’re expecting a bigger reward at the end. I think ethics can operate on a similar principle, if not one to one. I would argue if people threw out any sort of personal investment in the future would destroy the present as people would simply do what they need to do to get ahead, future be damned.

Sorry this was a bit of a ramble

Maybe the good has been the enemy of perfection all along :/

Glad to have you 🙂

The saying is basically kicking against any "well it wasn't/won't be perfect, so don't even try," so yes. But specifically the saying is to demonstrate that given the choice between doing your best and failing, or doing nothing at all, your best is still better.

Considering how shortsighted and inconsiderate we are as a society, and, say, how 70% of wildlife has been eradicated in half a century, this doesn’t seem like an actual problem. In fact, this article and sentiment seems profoundly harmful.

I don't understand. Do you mean perfectionism?

> The real practical value of philosophy comes not through focusing on the ‘ideal’ life, but through helping us deal with life’s inevitable suffering

Isn't this what philosophy in general teaches? I'm not familiar with other cultural philosophies like African and Latin American, but my understanding is that both Western and Eastern philosophies acknowledge the harsh reality of life and give prescription on how to live in harmony with that fact, while building a better life than at present. I don't see philosophy teaching how to live an "ideal life". Even then the notion is debatable because someone else has their own different definition and understanding on how to live life.

Yeah no this is just wrong.

Literature and storytelling is about liberating yourself from past and current emotions and struggles by discovering someone do the same.

Philosophy is purely about idealizing the world. That is philosophy. Anything liberating is comedy, literature and traveling.

This is what happens when females do philosophy for long periods of time. They start bringing their problems to the Preacher