The thing that gets me about humans having to leave Earth. Is the ridiculous amounts of money it would take to get us into space to colonize another planet and make it stable and productive enough to sustain Humanity. We could instead use that ridiculous amount of wealth to fix the fucking planet that's already at the right temperature already can sustain life and fix it first instead of going to a new planet fucking it up until we have to go to another planet how about we be responsible take care of what we have and then we can think about moving on to having something bigger. It would be like if you got your kid a car and they destroyed it by neglect. Then you going and buying them bigger and better car. That's not a rational response. Anyway that's my two cents

Who defines what right is? If it's impossible to know the goal then how can you ever achieve it?

A wonderful habit to have!

I'm wondering if you can do this on purpose. My French is very unemotional and theoretical, as I basically have to reverse-engineer sentences in it a lot of the time.

But if I read only Enlightenment works in French and never anything else, could I trick myself into making an "enlightenment thought" switch, like having a virtual machine inside another one?

I'm also learning Latin. If I read a lot of ancient Latin literature, will I get an "ancient Rome" switch inside my brain? Will it change my instincts in Latin vs French vs English vs Spanish? I know for a fact that I have found some books or short stories vastly more compelling in one language than the other (e.g. La Casa De Asterión is a masterpiece in Spanish. It's interesting and okay in English. Mistborn is a lot of fun in English. It is unbearable in Spanish).

I think the capacity to turn different moral intuitions on and off could prove astonishingly useful, and yet I rarely hear anyone discuss doing this on purpose.

Isn't that the point?

I can't speak to morality and its progression, but the fact that individuals have so many differences informing/influencing their language choices is why in linguistics we don't quite go so far as to make any assumptions of why anyone says anything or what they intend to mean. All we have is what is actually said and how it is said, and we can look for patterns and points of interest from there.

I've found myself mentally translating arguments in one language into my other to see if they still make sense.

Yeah! And also how much of it is purely about what we think is normal. My default "normal" things in Spanish and English are different. And therefore what a "sanctity" or "this is unnatural" reaction looks like in both languages will change. The whole thing runs on availability bias.

A lot of moral philosophy I have read is super reliant on reverse-engineering moral ideas from a combo of moral intuition and phrasing. And yet almost none of it is linguistically comparative. I have never read a philosophy paper that discusses language differences at length that is not about philosophy of language.

There are a few papers I read recently that seemed kind of incoherent to me, where I think if the author was forced to translate their own work into another language, they would realize the narrowness of their perspective.

We note "physics" & "philosophy" are functionally identical, yet only one is considered worthy of respect in academia.

It says a lot about how much of our day-to-day thinking is basically just our brain's autocomplete.

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?

Teraform earth.

That.... That was my point....

[deleted]

By truly bilingual I think they meant from birth or a very young age, and not 300 days on Duolingo.

I find that I feel a lot more gender dysphoria in English than Spanish, and I wonder if it has to do with the role of gender in the language.

When tables are gendered female, it kind of takes the edge off. It feels arbitrary. Compare in English, every instance of people gendering me feels like they're deliberately making some sort of point.

I am Spanish/English speaker (live in English-speaking country with Spanish-speaking family. Speak Spanish daily). I swear, I am legit more socially conservative in Spanish.

I can't tell if it's the environment I grew up in or the language, or what, but it is much easier for me to understand conservative thought if I translate it to Spanish in my head.

On the other hand, I am much more economically progressive in Spanish too. It's like my English brain is a socially progressive quasi-libertarian sometimes, and my Spanish brain is a brocialist that doesn't like to consider social aspects.

My "actual" political beliefs are broadly progressive on both axes, but my instincts lean more one way or another and I have to fight my instincts and rely on principled convictions more in some aspects in one language and in other aspects in the other language.

I also speak some French (very little though) and in French, my brain seems to lean more removed, all principle, no intuitions. Probably because I haven't spent long enough in a French-speaking place to associate a political philosophy outlook with the language.

Same with Spanish. But I prefer the emotion of Spanish. It's strong and beautiful at the same time.

Its very interesting. Which is why many Latinos like myself reject the whitewashing of our language with things like x. It's human and beautiful as is. And strong.

Wery interesting

[deleted]

As I became fluent in Australian, I became more sensitive to swear words until it became the same as in my native language.

However, this is quite handy, I can turn this sensitive of.

Agreed. The more you’re actively thinking about language production, the more I imagine you’d be engaging left-brain analytical processes often associated with utilitarian thinking.

Speaking in your native language, I imagine that right-brain, wholistic thinking would have more room to push people to a more deontological position.

I have about 300 days on duolingo. Hablo mucho Espanol, but trust me when I say I wouldn't be able to articulate my moral compass in Spanish yet, maybe a very streamlined and inaccurate version.

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch 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.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to 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.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

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.