[removed]

Earth with 30 billion people sounds horrifying no matter how you slice it. I really hope we stabilize below 10 billion.

Having been raised Catholic, I have enough guilt, thank you very much.

Impossible as in you have seen the future and know everything there is to know about future tech and science of world ending?

Or impossible as in your personal opinion based on limited knowledge?

In philosophy, we call this a false dichotomy. It's often used to try to make someone's position look more tenable by essentially saying that the choices are, do as I say, or face unspeakable horrors.

For instance, patriots do not destroy monuments or shrines or works of art. Look at the forces that destroy these things now, and you will see tyrants, authoritarians, anarchists and subversives. The Taliban blowing up statues of Buddha, the activists hurling paint at paintings, those who tear down statues because their regime doesn't want to be reminded of the past, these are not patriots.

Development is required for humanity to grow and thrive, yet it's described as desecration. The unspoken alternative being that humanity die off, for lack of land to cultivate into agricultural gain.

These aren't the choices and presenting the options here, seems to suggest that either the Earth will be "desecrated", and children killed, or people will have culture and civilization.

I think our time would be better spent reminding humanity to be careful how we judge progress, if it's clearly reckless and damaging. As humanity expands, space on Earth becomes less available and we should plan better for an Earth with 10, 20 or 30 billion people on it.

Further, the more we learn about renewable energy, reduced waste and recycling, the better we'll do exploring the universe outside of Earth.

One example I can think of would be the efforts to eradicate childhood disease through widespread vaccination campaigns. However I wasn't defending the position of the linked piece's original author, simply pointing out that identifying he is appealing to emotion doesn't make his position a fallacy.

I happen to not agree with Wells' suggestion for making it clear that economic costs are entangled with human costs through this particular Swiftian tongue-in-cheek measurement change, but agree with him thematically that the positivism of modern economic practice uses semantics and misdirection to obscure human suffering and moral breaches.

>the author is presupposing that some bad thing.... he's arguing that appealing to emotion can be an effective tactic for influencing human behavior,

To correct things that he's saying are wrong. "Publishing prices in percentage Child Lives Not Saved corrects a different gap in the information that prices communicate."

Really. It corrects this gap? The author is presuming a problem, in terms of child's lives that could be saved. There's no indication that a single child's life could have been saved and wasn't due to someone not donating to charity, at least in terms of quantifiable evidence. We can all postulate that with infinite wealth, no children would die who could be saved by wealth, but even then, given how charities actually operate, there's no guarantee of that.

So we're riding right past the part where we justify the metric of "child lives not saved" and presuming that children are dying FOR ONLY THE REASON OF people not giving money to the right sources. Couching things in this nature, is appeal to emotion. Literally, "think of the children!"

A more abstract measure, avoiding the fallacy, would be to propose all goods be priced in terms of popular social metrics like "bridges that could be built" or "parks that could be created" etc. Specifically claiming that children are dying due to the action or inaction of the consumer is pure tugging at the heartstrings.

As I see it, anyway.

Tell me about all the rational and ethically sound good done "for the children".

As we well know, productive and well-reasoned solutions often come out of base cries for our nebulous progeny.

An appeal to emotion fallacy would be something like, "I don't have an argument or evidence for this, but don't you just feel that I'm right?" This is not quite what the author is doing.

Instead, the author is presupposing that some bad thing (market externalities) exists, and then suggesting that consumers' emotions could be leveraged as a corrective force to that bad thing.

In other words, the author isn't appealing to emotion to make his argument, he's arguing that appealing to emotion can be an effective tactic for influencing human behavior, which I think is inarguably true.

"Questionnaire"
by Wendell Berry
How much poison are you willing
to eat for the success of the free
market and global trade? Please
name your preferred poisons.
For the sake of goodness, how much
evil are you willing to do?
Fill in the following blanks
with the names of your favorite
evils and acts of hatred.
What sacrifices are you prepared
to make for culture and civilization?
Please list the monuments, shrines,
and works of art you would
most willingly destroy.
In the name of patriotism and
the flag, how much of our beloved
land are you willing to desecrate?
List in the following spaces
the mountains, rivers, towns, farms
you could most readily do without.
State briefly the ideas, ideals, or hopes,
the energy sources, the kinds of security;
for which you would kill a child.
Name, please, the children whom
you would be willing to kill.

Okay, you've identified the author's appeal to pathos to be used as a corrective to the failures of logic to achieve ethical outcomes. Good for you.

> Then would you agree that pursuing what a good life is is also subjective?

No, I'm not saying pursuing the good life is subjective. You aren't listening very well. People can have a great many opinions about something and be wrong. There is a difference between opinion and knowledge. The fact that people disagree does not necessarily mean that the topic is subjective. It may also mean that one or both of them is wrong.

Saying that the good life is as objective as it is subjective nonsense, it's a contradiction in terms.

I'll also note that apparently we've moved the goal posts. We went from speaking about how philosophy, as a general thing, ought to be primarily focused on the acceptance and management of adversity, while I wanted to point out that even if this was true (I don't think it is) it doesn't make any kind of sense to say that philosophy has nothing to do with the ideal.

And now we've got this line that this is all based on the concept of yin and yang, which like, nothing you have said has much to do with that at all, and certainly doesn't help explain why you think philosophy does not deal with ideal and should be focused on the management and utility of adversity.

This is just the "appeal to emotion" fallacy. Not even dressed up. Just... here it is.

From certain Eastern philosophical and Stoic perspective, attempting to rid adversity is a fruitless endeavour and one should come to terms with its existence as concept. But neither schools of thought would recommend anyone to deliberately subject themselves to extreme adversities. Running every morning or working in a job under tight schedule is not the same as being in abject poverty or slavery. There are certain adversities that are more manageable which builds character.

> If philosophy is for helping us deal with whatever comes it's primary importance cannot be in the managing of adversity.

Good fortune is as unpredictable and random as facing difficulties. Some philosophies, namely Buddhism and Stoicism, cautions people to not be spoiled by good fortunes, because I think we both know that this could lead to the person being complacent. Philosophy could also teach to re-shift one's perspective and continually be pro-active to resolving problems that could be reasonably managed.

> Then we have people who differ on what makes the ideal life objectively worth living. And if you're saying some people think the good life consists in raising a family for them, but they don't think doing so will result in the good life for others, we are talking about preferences, or something smaller than the good life, not the good life itself.

Then would you agree that pursuing what a good life is is also subjective? That is basically my point. Defining good life is as objective as subjective. I am just positing my views based from Eastern concept of yin and yang.

I’m still to new for this and like half of this flew over my head, I’ll return someday.

[removed]

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

>Idk how to reply like that.

While creating a reply comment, select the appropriate text in the comment you're replying to. Use the pop-up menu to choose "Quote". Or, just type a 'greater than sign' (>) and then type or paste the text you want to reply to.

>And nonetheless our consciousness is just a physical part of the brain.

I'll presume you meant 'emergent property' rather than "part", and ignore the attendant question of whether an intellectual abstraction qualifies as "physical". The issue then is whether consciousness is an integral aspect of the [human] brain or is an epiphenomena (an inconsequential side effect). Survival is not the foundation of philosophy, it is merely a prerequisite for philosophizing. The substance and topic of philosophy are all those aspect of existence beyond mere "survival".

>I’m trying to get to absolute root of why?

In POR this (both the question and the answer) is identified and described as the ineffability of being. The conundrum you face is familiar to every four year old and their parents: questions of "why" can only be answered by statements that might satisfy either party, but never actually resolve the issue (teleology) because that answer in turn can simply prompt another query as to 'why?'.The approach conventional science and religion uses is referred to in POR as "turtles all the way down".

>I suppose the necessity of my thoughts and conclusions hasn’t bin a concern of mine.

It really should be. And I think it actually is, or you would not be here trying to discuss philosophy. The necessity of your consciousness is the absolute root of "why".

>The cat is still dead even if we do not know it is dead.

You are simultaneously misrepresenting the truth of the gedanken and misunderstanding the philosophical implications of that truth. The cat is not dead until the superstate of being both alive and dead collapses to a finite state of either living or dead. Your assumption (which seems reasonable in reality but is physically incorrect in terms of quantum mechanics and Schrödinger's Cat,) that it is dead even if we do not know it yet, is inaccurate. Schrödinger's cat isn't dead until you open the box to find out whether it is alive or not.

>The presumption of our awareness having any affect on the universe is backed by the same reason as magic

Up until you start talking about that damned cat, meaning you are referring to quantum physics rather than biological organisms, sure. But metaphysical uncertainty is real even outside of the spooky weirdness of QM. It's just easier to be in denial about that until the empirical experiments and math of physics makes it undeniable, forcing you to confront it's reality. You say your awareness cannot have any effect on the universe, but that assumption is backed by the same reason as a baby who thinks that things stop existing when they can no longer be seen.

The resolution to all this requires an unconventional perspective, which POR provides. The effect of your consciousness only needs to have a minuscule impact on the universe in one very particular and specific case in order to have an effect on the universe. It does not have to be a general effect or affect, as in "magic", to be real. That one real and necessary absolute root of being, where your consciousness can change what happens in the physical universe, is self-determination. Since the conventional approach you are relying on for your thinking can only explain self-determination as "free will" or an illusion, your approach fails, because it is neither.

Thanks again for your time. Hope, it helps.

Check out Gilles Deleuze on what he thinks about philosophy. I think it will help you see that real philosophy is rooted and looks at the real world in very concrete ways and should be no means be confined to the academically trained. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYBXOpI4tbU

Idk how to reply like that. But Part 1 I believe memory would be the most important part. And nonetheless our consciousness is just a physical part of the brain. Survival is still the foundation all philosophy comes from. We just seem to focus on the why and quality of parts.

Part 2 I’m trying to get to absolute root of why? In all actions. I suppose the necessity of my thoughts and conclusions hasn’t bin a concern of mine.

Part 3 The cat is still dead even if we do not know it is dead. The presumption of our awareness having any affect on the universe is backed by the same reason as magic

Part 4 Thank you for the recommendation and time. It is very appreciated

> They are measured mostly by listening to the subject who exists physically and communicates using things in this universe. They can also be measured using various methods such as MRI.

measure: ascertain the size, amount, or degree of (something) by using an instrument or device marked in standard units or by comparing it with an object of known size.

> There is none. Is this a requirement somehow?

See above.

>> Where are they located, precisely (not approximately).

> in the brain.

See bolding.

>>> Causes of what?

>> The end state of reality as it is, as opposed to some other end state (one that people would find more appealing, and perhaps complain about less).

> I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

Causality isn't really covered in Western curriculum/ideology.

> So you are claiming nobody should seek medical treatment for anything related to the mind? That medicine itself should have no role in the treatment of any kind of mental illness?

No, that's your interpretation.

>> I suspect that is not the only thing that is going on (here I am referencing the "just" in your sentence).

> it doesn't surprise me that you suspect things.

Nicely played! ;)

>> For "causality": People complain about the consequences of it, passionately and endlessly, but never the causes themselves (beyond cartoonishly simplistic misrepresentations, the contents of which are largely seeded into our minds from largely unknown sources).

> What do you mean by the cause of causality?

If I steal your bike and you punch me, my stealing your bike is plausibly the cause of you punching me.

> Again I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

> OK. But I fail to see the relevance in this discussion.

See Western curriculum above.

>> I do not agree that we should be taking things away from doctors and hospitals, and I also do not believe that they can (or do) only treat the physical and the material.

> But you claim all diseases of the mind are supernatural and therefore should not be treated by medicine (i.e science should stay in it's lane) right?

Please quote the specific text from which you have extracted this specific assertion.

> Again I don't fail to see the relevance. Are you saying that because some ideas were controversial at some stage and are accepted today that means any or all controversial claims are actually true?

No, it demonstrates how relatively smart people can be dumb on an absolute scale. That this is not easy for you to discern may demonstrate how people have difficulty cognitively navigating between the two scales while considering a single idea.

> We are trying. It's been difficult so far though.

It would be interesting to do a crowd-sourced causal analysis of the problem!!!

Thank you for this.

My own insights often lack the force of authority, because I am untrained in philosophy. What knowledge I have of it came entirely from my own curiosity and my ability to read.

This has firmly placed me in that camp that finds philosophy not rooted in real events to be so much vapid tail-chasery. I could be (and often am) confused for a Trumpist for my scathing invective at high-left omphaloskepsis. For this I am exposed to an effect treated briefly in this article: the weak attack not the powerful, but the vulnerable.

>In contrast, the Fullerites advise patience and forbearance: Painful as it may be for us to suffer Donald Trump and Boris Johnson, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Liz Truss, Jim Jordan and Nigel Farage, we are told, the pain is worth the potential next state that it makes possible: A truly pluralistic society where a monopoly of Truth no longer holds and where true and fair competition between ideas is possible

I agree. I'm even starting to see the popularity of this position grow in academic political philosophy circles with the current interest in Machiavelli from people like John McCormick, or in the anti-oligarchic philosophy of Camila Vergara.

The "pre" Post-Truth era had, as the background ideology, an aristocratic republican justification; let the "best" citizens - those who know better - tell you how things really are. Instead now we're seeing a re-ignited interest in a more democratic kind of republicanism amongst political philosophers, which I think reflects the sentiments of non-philosophers alike.

The post-Truth era is dangerous for sure, but it also is opening up the possibility of something constructive and positive.

[removed]

It would really end the suffering, but I rule it out because it's almost impossible to happen. Like I rule out the idea of ​​everyone stopping having children, it's something that will never happen.

The only solution I see is for the majority to seek to help the minority.