[removed]

[removed]

hell and morality of the creator

I want to start from the begining. I have heard people say many times that anihilation is better than eternal suffering I am trying to articulate my thoughts and feelings about anihilation. One part of me understands the statement, why anihilation is better than suffering but the other part does not understand it since anihilation is not exisntence, but absence of existence it can not be compared to neither happiness nor suffering. Can anyone present their thoughts about the subject?

[removed]

[removed]

I don't understand what goes against the laws of physics in my argument? Cuz you did reply to me and not the question right because it would make more sense if you were replying to the actual question and not my response?

"In philosophy only requirement is that your proposed argument have to make sense in context of the system of thinking that you have put forward. You generally can't really prove your point with observable facts in philosophy and even if you are somehow able to that just means you have gone beyond what is expected of you as that is not a hard requirement."

So the difference is that you set lower standards for aspiring philosophers than for aspiring physicists, and the problem is somehow with the field?

You said earlier you respect philosophy as much as physics, yet you appear not to give credence to philosophy as being as intellectually rigorous as physics when it comes to substantiating its positions with evidence - this is why you see it as being less definitive, appparently.

Yet even when philosophers prove their point - demonstrable evidence - you seem to think that's exceeding the expectations of philosophy... because people haven't practiced doing anything different.

Labeling anything a "natural science" is a difference made by people without explaining it - if you're just doing what somebody else told you to without understanding why, you're probably not a good guide, just an obedient one.

"Everything we think, say and do are biased so you are not in a position to argue what is logical or not."

Perceptions are biased; choices need not be. Your lack of ability and/or imagination in no way applies to others, so perhaps this perceived "impossibility" is just a limitation of yours?

This article starts out with a flaw with the careless usage of "morality" in the title and "ethical" in the subtitle. Perhaps this is just the fault of the author of the article rather than something from any actual study. But this switch of vocabulary relates to something that the article seems to reveal about at least one of the studies.

Morality is inherent and arises from or through the essence of one's being, which is very deep seated. Ethics, however, is a superficial construct that arises in the mind. The inspiration for, and the basis of ethics actually arise from inherent inner morality, but manifest through the ego-mind of personality which is acquired in life and evolves through life.

The the author asks "What defines who we are?" and speculates correctly that this definition must be at the core, the essential part of who one is, yet wrongly concludes that it must be one's moral center. The moral center, however, arises from who one really is, from one's essential being. Morals are not a mind game, they are representative of heart quality. However, as the Sufi teacher Hazrat Inayat Khan taught, "the mind is the surface of the heart and the heart is the depth of the mind," meaning that they are actually two aspects of the same thing.

The thoughts and feelings of the mind are primarily based upon what one learns in life through connections with things, other beings, and events, as well as reactions to and interactions with each of these aspects of life. People become identified with their developing ego-mind, and with their physical and emotional and intellectual self, and they live a life mostly out of touch with the inner essence of who and what they are, and thus out of touch with their heart's true wishes and desires, as well as remaining mostly ignorant of their true moral character. Yes, this gets into the spiritual aspect of who and what we are, which is sometimes stated as "we are spiritual beings having a material experience." But the standard scientific method is limited to studying only the mechanics of this material realm we live in and is forbidden from drifting off into the spiritual realm. So, as interested as psychologists might be in studying moral judgments, if they want to remain scientists, they will be prevented from studying the essence of morality.

Language is something we learn, along with the culture within which we live early on. This means that our native or primary language and culture are part of the more superficial aspects of who we are. All of this, though, is very deeply seated, very close to the heart, and much of it can be significantly influenced by the deep essence of being shared among one's fellow people. If one's initial development is bilingual and bi-cultural, then both languages and cultures would be of similar depth. Any other secondary language and cultural influences will, however, be learned somewhat later and therefore be less deeply seated, perhaps even quite shallow. This relative shallowness results in such later developments being further from the heart and more of the mind.

The deeper more heart-based aspects of one's life learning will be more fully embodied than later life learning will be. One will have deeper default modes of thinking, feeling and acting as well as of communicating, including language, as well as somewhat shallower modes that are more likely to be consciously chosen, if a situation allows for that, rather than defaulted to in one's general life. Because of this, the chosen modes, including language, will be less deep and more of a mind-based behavior than the deeply ingrained default modes that will be more holistic in nature.One difference that this hierarchical structure of learned behavior results in is that the closer one's learning and practice is to the heart, the more real it will feel and the more authentic it will manifest, whereas the closer one's learning and practice is to the mind, the more hypothetically it will manifest, because it will manifest more from the mind than from the heart. Whatever arises from the feeling heart will be based on one's morals, whereas ethics will determine what will manifest from the thinking mind. If one's ethics are very closely aligned with one's morals, there will be very little difference in what arises from either source. More likely, though, there will be significant differences between the two.

This most definitely comes into play in considering the moral dilemma known as the "trolley problem, which is entirely hypothetical, and therefore entirely a mind game to sort out rather than a real life situation one is facing. This does not encourage or even allow one to deeply consider at heart level how one would respond. If one were to actually become involved in such a situation, there would be no real time for thinking, because thinking takes too much time and one simply needs to act. Such actual action would come from within, automatically inspired and guided by one's deepest and most practiced values, meaning from closest to one's heart, which is entirely different from what is likely to come from one's mind if one has the luxury of time to think about what is happening. Likewise, reading descriptions and making choices is really no different, in that this is still entirely hypothetical and one has the luxury of time to think about what is involved, meaning this is limited to being a mind game rather than serving as a real life need to more automatically make a holistically derived choice according to whatever naturally arises based upon what is happening. Whether pondering the "trolley problem" or responding to descriptions of various scenario, the language (and corresponding culture) involved might have some influence only because one has the luxury of some time to think.

In automatically making such deep-level choices – quick, gut-level choices – a second language consideration is highly unlikely to come into play. No psychological test game, no hypothetical mind game, is meaningfully relevant to what a person would do in real life when faced with making real-time choices about taking action or about what sort of action to take. Any real life choice would primarily be made based on their deepest sense of their interconnectedness with other people in general, and also with the specific people actually involved. This choice would be made without involving much thinking in any ordinary language, it would be made from heart-based knowing and understanding, and it would be made very fast – much faster than a mind can think.

I don't know who is the we you keep talking about but what makes your words any different than "someone"? I am just going with what is widely accepted in acedemia. As for what makes natural science different from something like philosophy, in natural sciences you have to be able to demonstrate your findings in real life to prove what you are putting forward to be true. In philosophy only requirement is that your proposed argument have to make sense in context of the system of thinking that you have put forward. You generally can't really prove your point with observable facts in philosophy and even if you are somehow able to that just means you have gone beyond what is expected of you as that is not a hard requirement. Don't even get started with artificial label bullshit. Once you go there there is no reason to argue anymore as everything can argued to be artificial and it just makes the waters muddy. You are talking as something can't both be biased and logical. Everything we think, say and do are biased so you are not in a position to argue what is logical or not.

"Implying humans aren't also ~algorithm driven...."

No that's your interpretation. I was referencing algorithms that aren't humans.. hence the "AND NOT an actual human being" part of my comment.

>The thing that will be helpful in avoiding ecosystem collapse isn't going to be romanticism, it's going to be technology.

Technology, in addition to the good it has done humans, has done plenty of bad; it 100% created these problems. It is not going to solve them unless it is thoughtfully and mindfully designed, with a multivalent view of natural forces that does not reduce nature's enormous complexity to "problem->technosolution."

This is just mind-bogglingly naive thinking in 2022.

Tech is not our lord and savior. Tech people now understand that the ethics of tech involve mindful design and that the way that tech has been designed has frankly screwed us over.

>Take your example of pesticides: we don't spray them because we hate thepoetry of nature, we spray them because we need to be able to make surethat the food we're growing is going to be eaten by humans and notinsects.

And yet, if we'd had a more capacious and accurate and appreciative view of the complexity of nature's ecology, maybe we would have realized that dumping some of these very simple pesticides onto the land was going to have far-reaching consequences way into the future, like oh reducing insect biomass by orders of magnitude and destroying the pollinators we need to grow crops.

We do need better technology for our survival - technology guided by a love of nature, and that uses a desire for better human-nature relations as a point of inspiration.

>. It's a classic case of enlightenment values versus romantic values;we're not going to romance our way out of this, we're going to enlightenour way out of this.

If you actually knew what the Enlightenment actually thought about this -- and full disclosure, I do, I study the transition between the Enlightenment and Romanticism and have read hundreds of source texts from both eras -- you'd understand that the two movements were not binary but that the people who understood the limits of reason and technology best were often the Enlightenment thinkers themselves. Within their own time period, the most sophisticated thinkers among them were starting to understand that thinking of rationality and technology in salvationary terms was unbelievably simpleminded. They had their own version of a very laudatory view of Nature, having to do with natural harmony and natural law, and were (by the way!) very prone to glorifying Native Americans and using their lack of money, low tech, and closeness to nature as a means by which to self-critique European culture itself, but Romanticism actually sprung right out of their own critiques of reason and tech and the direction our relationship with nature was going, with the added layer of urgency the clear and present downsides of the Industrial Revolution provided. So yeah. Sorry. The Enlightenment provided the very critiques that the Romantic movement used as a launching point.

"Natural science" is an artificial label, a distinction without definition in this context.

To phrase it more plainly for you, what makes physics a "natural science" and philosophy... not?

Suspect it's merely the grouping conventions of the current educational system with which you are aware.

That? Is not logical reasoning - it would be bias... so we hope there is more to your position than "Someone told me so".

Scientific method? In simple terms Physics is a natural science and philosophy is not.

I think absurdism could be seen as the opposite of existentialism because instead of saying a meaning must be found for life it says life is inherently meaningless and absurd and finding a meaning is impossible. I am not sure what exactly you mean by opposite.

Philosophy is literally "the study of everything".

Physics is the study of how everything works.

They are both speculations rooted in subjective observations in an attempt to understand reality. That you feel there is a difference between these things is... curious.

What differences do you see in the two subjects?

Belief is a very powerful tool that humans have in their kit.

> Honestly, I'm convinced it must be some algorithm spitting out these headlines and not an actual human being

Implying humans aren't also ~algorithm driven....

Excess ambition of certain kinds can get one suicided in some cases. :(

> 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.

Sir: you are making speculative claims about the abilities of humans....there is surely some evidence that supports your claim, but there is far, far more that contradicts it. At least according to current standard operating procedures. If only it was possible to change standards....damn you laws of physics, why do you constrain us humans so!!!

I am extremely political actually. My main work involves attempting to abolish taxes and defending the thought of Ayn Rand.

Philosophy, for me, is a tool that involves using logical reason to promote and defend one's egotistical interests.

yes, the argument can be logical per se, internally coherent let's say, but if we "zoom out" taking with us the results and "update" our knowledge with that, the consequence is that epistemological objection.

you believe that reality is deterministic just because you are deterministically forced to believe so.

Logic does not give any additional value or to that belief, being logic reasoning nothing more than a deterministc phenomenon forcing you to that conclusion.

I believe I get what you're saying but I don't believe the argument is circular. Your criticism seems to be that you believe the argument isn't sound because it's a consequence of predetermination, not that the argument isn't valid per se. What I see in the argument is "everything is predetermined, I'm a thing, I'm predetermined," which by itself seems logical.

I think your objection is epistemological, you're questioning how you can know a thing is predetermined if your idea about that thing is the consequence of predetermination, am I correct?

Hi. I’ve been on an existentialism kick lately and I find it compelling and a lot of older philosophers and literary figures get labeled honorary existentialists (Dostoyevsky, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard,…). Almost to the point where it seems like anything could go under this umbrella if you squint hard enough.

Are there any particularly “anti” existentialist novels or philosophers? I’m not really looking for arguments against existentialism; more examples of works of philosophy or art as far removed from existentialism as possible.

If I were smarter it would be obvious. I’m guessing most any deeply religious work focused on heavenly rewards would fit the bill.

"All models are wrong, but some are useful"

• Demming

Because, if C Is true, it necessarly means that the process of going from PoD to P2 to P3 to C is also a phenomen governerd by the principle of causality.

So, essentialy, you're saying that everything is predetermined because you are predetermined to say so.

Which is logically invalid, circular.