Zhuangzi doesn’t teach detachment. His recommended way of living looks like detachment, but it’s actually a radical reorientation of your relationship to your personal values and the world around you. That mode of living still allows for attachment. Zhuangzi still mourned the death of Huizi, after all. The detachment you seem to be talking about is Buddhist influence on later religious Daoism (道教 as opposed to 道家).

That being said, I am sympathetic to your point and I think you’re right. I’m only pointing out some blurring that you have between religious Daoism and philosophical Daoism, which are distinct branches of thought. It’s easy to fall into this trap if you follow online Daoist groups instead of studying Daoism academically.

If you want me to be prescriptive, then I prescribe: if you want to be prosocial, then cultivate cognitive empathy (p. 163) and sympathetic joy (ps. 164, 165) and Perfect Compassion (ps. 33 and 42). These are based on the virtues of truth and compassion, or wisdom.

I think to figure out how multiple people can achieve their differing goals together, respect for the fact they want to thrive and flourish is a good place to start.

I don't prescribe being anti-social ("dark"). If you want to try it, see how far you get ...

I think the categorical / hypothetical imperative distinction is a good one. If I want to thrive and survive, then I need to do it *this* way (which may be instrumental or moral, depending on whether I need to do it with others).

The question is "was the chabot built to make profit". If it's going to use the data/input metrics / user harvesting for profit, then I think skewing the data is fair game.

I do not condone being rude to telesales people. And a good AI should be programmed to deal with rudeness and meanness.

Ready to re-evaluate when skynet gains consciousness

Wow it's just like real human reddit conversations, down to the shameless one-line overdone memes, to non-sequitur responses, to group behavior posting the same stupid comment over and over again.

[deleted]

r/SubSimulatorGPT2.

Chatbots left to post and reply to themselves/each other.

Hey guys- I’m wondering if anyone knows of specific write-ups or current philosophers discussing western society’s aversion to openly embracing the darker themes in life and mortality. For example, I’ve been trying to date. I’m in my thirties, no spring chicken, and I keep running into the phenomena of people who claim to still be unsure of future plans for children. This strikes me as odd because shouldn’t people be aware at this age there isn’t a whole lot of time to deliberate on something like that? So, it’s not that I want to read something specifically discussing that (although would be interested!) but more so it had me thinking about what philosophy minded individuals have to say about what may be considered arrested development in the modern age/ has anyone with far more credentials than I observed a similar pervasive attitude in the modern world of being unwilling to face the darker realities of mortality and integrating that?

(Note, the focus being on commentary that was made within the last 10-15 years. There are definitely the classics who address things of this nature, but I’m intrigued by what people say in the modern context.)

Hmm. Interesting

Define “have” however you want. The answer still has to be either true or false. Your definition might change the answer, however.

What does it mean to have a dog? Are you referring to the legal construct? Does it mean the dog obeys you? (Always?) If in this moment I'm temporarily caring for my friend's dog, do I have a dog? Do my friends have the dog or not? Can we both have the same dog simultaneously? Can having a dog mean different things to people of various cultures, or even to members of the same culture?

> As for that statement, “There is a God(s),” it still has to be true or false, right?

That is a metaphysical question, the answer to which we also do not have access (in which case, a virtual answer may be created and injected into "reality").

> but we know it has to be either true or false

Can you prove that?

> If not, what’s the third option?

No idea...that I am unable to present a third option does not cause reality itself to not support a third option.

TLDR: remain open to new knowledge that changes one’s perceptions, views, choices and actions. We are always operating with a tiny subset of total knowledge that could be used to make a choice and choose a tao (way).

If you eat food then you're murdering innocent beings all the time, maybe not personally but someone is killing plants and/or animals to give you food.

Sure, I was mostly just dicking around with your phrasing with the non-exclusive-or answer to "X or Y". Just didn't expect it to be noticed much.
I'm not much for flowery language, so question about a caterpillar mourning? Nope, caterpillars do not know about cocoons or their meaning.
As a question about perspective, sure. But I'll double down and throw it back to you - the perspective of the unknowing caterpillar is just as good a metaphor as the knowing caterpillar. The dream of the butterfly as an allegory of unknown transitions into or out of unimaginable, inaccessible states is just as easily described by the caterpillar who doesn't know what a cocoon is. We don't know what the events, objects, environmental queues are that will be transformative in our lives, or what the signs are that someone has transitioned in a similar way. It's only with hindsight that we see the key elements, such as getting in our cocoon, that lead to our butterfly transformation. At the time, we had no idea what a cocoon was, even as we were building it.

As for that statement, “There is a God(s),” it still has to be true or false, right? No, we cannot conclude which is right because it is unobservable, presumably, but we know it has to be either true or false. That is, God either exists or it does not.

If not, what’s the third option?

It depends on whether you are talking about base reality itself or our perception/beliefs about base reality....it can be quite tricky to pull the two apart.

Take "There is a God(s)" - how can humans assign a conclusive value to that proposition in an epistemically flawless manner?

>Debating on Reddit is pointless. There’s no stakes here.

Don't you think beliefs spread on Reddit, and don't you think beliefs have at least some effect on people's behavior?

Yes. According to this paradigm we program each other.

If truth is a socially-constructed concept developed to allow human coordination, then we learn from each other when to assent. The education process is more one-sided than "each other" might indicate, but in the long term it works by "pass it forward".

Also socially constructed is not meant in the sense of constructed by society but in the sense of constructed in an interactive multi-person context.

Personally, I think a subjective model can do most of the work by itself, with other agents being a feature of the landscape of the evolving subject. However, the two alternatives might succeed in mapping to each other.

Lol r/philosophy does NOT like jokes

Absolutism is usually a solid indicator of unthinking habits.

People seldom reward someone for saying something contradictory without any explanation and no consideration of other possibilities... particularly in Philosophy, where the goal is to think about things in a new way.

>That’s not to say you’re not right in that it can be twisted to justify any point you want, because it can.

Can you give an example, preferably with a broadly considered negative point?

>We should be thoughtful of the world.. but if your perceived world is made up almost entirely from your own ego, how would you interpret this train of thinking? That’s all I’m trying to point out.

The Tao te Ching doesn't exactly mince words in Chapter 1.

Existential nihilism is the philosophical theory that life has no intrinsic meaning or value. With respect to the universe, existential nihilism suggests that a single human or even the entire human species is insignificant, without purpose and unlikely to change in the totality of existence.

To be fair… I may be 98% Nihilist were it not for the hardcore trauma I had concerning animal abuse. So no I don’t care, yes the world could be destroyed but then why am I holding back from doing it if I really don’t care? Because I think the earth is pretty. Maybe it’s selfish, but to be fair, if there was a way to get rid of a few billions of humans to make the earth better I would do it. I suppose that’s strong misanthropy and existential nihilism.