Yes, one of the greatest living philosophers certainly doesn't challenge their mind enough

I was talking about empathy in the rules of distribution not in the case of accidental charity to which we should not leave our distribution in any case.

Surely all kind of authorities ”give” all sorts of things or make me ”deserve” them of which both seem arrogant and narcissistic, if not transparently calculated.

lol what? If everyone was charitable it would get rid of these problems

Franz Fanon is an interesting one in this context. When he wrote the Wretched of the Earth, it was in the context of colonialism. It was effective because it's solution was simple, to end colonialism kill the colonizers.

I'm not sure how well that applies in the current context because something like "Eat the Rich" has to be far more nuanced than the Bolshevik movement to really help people.

He was a boozy beggar who could drink you under the table.

One could look at some of the religious philosophy of shinto as being a way of connecting that sense of gratitude and a less human-centric veiw of nature. Shinto doesn't have an afterlife like heaven or hell, rather your spiritual stuff sort of breaks down and returns to the world because the world is all there is. There are hidden aspects of it but the afterlife is all around you so the idea of how one treats their environment becomes not something that you use and one day abandon for something else when you die but this is essentially all there is.

In a way that acknowledges the closed system we live in a lot more than a lot if western philosophy/religion does as the idea that we either live on in a separate disconnected realm or cease to be entirely after death doesn't capture that sense of responsibility one might have to previous generations to maintain the world as a living recycling system or to preserve it for future generations. How we conceptualize our connection and dependance on the Earth for our continuation is often subverted in our fantasy storytelling by the existence of other worlds or an eventual escape into space. In a way it feels akin to a denial of death as a very present danger but on a level of our species.

We are thematically made uncomfortable by both our complete dependance on these finite spaces and by extention the idea that we may be failing in a collective responsibility. "To hell with you I got mine" is a very common attitude of a very individualistic type that washes one hands of those anxieties by limiting one's care of something to their immediate personal use.

> But many scientific models are based around philosophical theses.

Not really? Philosophy of science certainly informs science, but it's still philosophy.

> In sociology for example, the ground concept for the tragedy of the commons to work , is the assumption that humans rather act in the way that they have the most individual utility, rather than acting in a way that makes everyone benefit from it.

Economics is not really sociology, but nonetheless utilitarianism is just a constraint you put inside a game theoretical model. Whether that applies to the real world in a given situation is a totally different thing.

> What is beneficiary for the collective is always better for the individual (pareto optimum).

The principle you are talking about is enlightened self-interest.

Pareto efficiency can totally mean "less" for a given single individual (and again, it's just a super handy tool for theory.. there are no imperatives in science)

> This entire theory though is an excerpt of reality that ignores its causes and consequences, it is based around metaphysics.

Ethics is metaphysics, by all means.

> Philosphy itself may not be scientific, but it influences sciences a lot.

Nothing to add there (except perhaps that there's still too little of it).

But put aside the criticism specific to that particular video. Even if it's buried inside a wall of text (and that's the recap) dialectics in this sense is just a disingenuous way to claim a win by dispensing with logic.

>What benefits are even cooperatively produced so that the distribution of them can be dependant on the participation in cooperation.

You live in a country, do you not? That country forms a massive, but closed, sharing network. A large group. The people who live in a country are usually entitled to generous benefits of one kind of another just because they are its citizens. People from outside that country are not seen as entitled to those same benefits.

The Golden Rule applies (I think) any time we see ourselves or a loved one in another, perhaps a stranger. So it could be any kind of empathic situation of equivalence.

Rich people and poor people do empathy in different ways. If you like, you can read my article about it here: "Empathy and socio-economic class". Turn to page 169.

I agree that shame can be a weapon (used by wicked people). Honour? How about honour in our own eyes? That depends on our own behavoiur.

Opened at Live Aid, too.

https://thebestnotes.com/booknotes/illustrated_man_bradbury/Illustrated_Man_Study_Guide15.html

> On a rocket hurtling through outer space, Hitchcock and Clemens discuss Earth. Hitchcock no longer believes there is such thing as an Earth, and whatever evidence Clemens cites - dreams, memories, the sun - are dismissed as not being good enough. Hitchcock has determined to be practical and rely only on the evidence immediately available to him. Clemens ignores him and basks in his memories. Hitchcock warns that wallowing in memories will only hurt and he won't be hungry for lunch; later, he is correct and reminds Clemens of his prediction. Hitchcock then questions whether or not the stars are real, since no one has ever touched one.

Not to be pedantic, but both of these characters are shitty at logic & epistemology.

Humans seem unable to reliably distinguish between belief and knowledge, often including philosophers who have substantial academic knowledge (I know this from going to tons of philosophy meetups). It is a sad state of affairs....but then also: an extremely beneficial point to be starting from!

Not trying to defend him at all. Just trying to say that the brilliance of his philosophy in contrast with his collosal moral failings is hard to explain. I know it's a cliché to say humans are complicated, but I struggle to find another way to put it. Just wanted to confirm that I think he is a reprehensible and disgusting human being for what he did; further, it's made even worse by the fact he never outright repented his actions either.

I'm missing the part where advocating for animal rights is part of the status quo if clearly the world isn't vegan?

>Humans are complicated

I think that's a bit of a cop out. The man was a nazi sympathiser and if your anecdote regarding his mentor is true then the man has no redeeming quality whatsoever.
Adhering to the nazi ideology isn't just something you do out of habit or because it's customary to do so.

> Have we done any analysis on our process for determining who is an expert on epistemology? Have we done analysis on that analysis?

Not that I know of!

See how bad of a spot we're in? And yet: no one does anything.

> > > > It's epistemics all the way down!

True...but this does not mean the problem is intractible, or the state of affairs cannot be improved upon immensely. On an absolute scale, we have no idea where we currently sit - in fact, what knowledge we do have indicates that things are very, very bad.

> > > > (You might enjoy the short story No Particular Night or Morning by Ray Bradbury.)

Ah, thank you , will check it out!

Ah yes, because animal rights are so status quo...

Is this satire?

>alternative

Why not both?

> Are the conclusions epistemically sound? > Has a competent epistemic analysis of the various claims even been done? [As an aside: does it not seem more than a little strange to you that among all The Experts that guide us, nowhere are (genuine) philosophers to be found, particularly those who specialize in logic and epistemology?]

Have we done any analysis on our process for determining who is an expert on epistemology? Have we done analysis on that analysis?

It's epistemics all the way down!

(You might enjoy the short story No Particular Night or Morning by Ray Bradbury.)

I love this idea and wish it were espoused more. If the real value of the goods or services were reflected in the cost, people would think a lot more about how they spend their money. Sure, many people might have to deal with less material goods, less luxury, less stuff...but the overall benefit might be that we don't completely render the planet unliveable in so short a time frame.

He literally does not say it cannot be changed. He just says that random individuals can't do very much to change it.

How do people like Warren Buffet or Bill Gates lobby against those things?

The telescope is demanding spectral and electromagnetic information from the cosmos

Oh my god, is that why he's a reference in FF7?

It seemed clear to me from context that people were comparing Singer to other affluent westerners and/or other philosophers who write about inequality. Again, not to the sort who lack disposable assets.

I mean, the current admin did just two of the largest infrastructure and clean energy spending bills in history. Hard to say that isn't getting anything useful done...

This subreddit is really really really anti-capitalist. If you push back even the slightest on any kind of critique related to capitalism here you will get swamped with downvotes.

I would argue that this kind of anti-capitalist mentality is the root of many deranged philosophies.