Recent comments in /f/philosophy

Ok_Meat_8322 t1_izbtljz wrote

Reply to comment by iiioiia in How to solve moral problems with formal logic and probability by beforesunset1010

The example I used earlier was a utilitarian, who can use basic arithmetic to resolve moral dilemmas (such as, for instance, the trolley problem).

But this only works because the utilitarian has already adopted a particular ethical framework. Math can't tell you what values or ethical framework you should adopt, but once you have adopted them maths and logic may well be used to resolve moral issues.

1

Gurgoth t1_izbr0hb wrote

Reply to comment by iiioiia in The hard problem of metaphysics: figuring out if other phenomena exist in our universe that like consciousness require we bear a specific metaphysical relation to them - i.e. you can't know of consciousness without being conscious. by Gmroo

If claimed on reality, then metaphysics need not apply.

Those definitions came from Webster and dictionary.com. if those are controversial then I think the field needs to properly define it.

3

Gurgoth t1_izbq3xo wrote

Reply to comment by iiioiia in The hard problem of metaphysics: figuring out if other phenomena exist in our universe that like consciousness require we bear a specific metaphysical relation to them - i.e. you can't know of consciousness without being conscious. by Gmroo

Proof, not yet that's why we still deal with philosophy around this point.

However, we know humans are rooted in reality. That is testable in many ways. As our knowledge and capabilities have expanded we have been able to remove an increasing amout of things from the realm of philosophy. Just because we have not done it yet, doesn't mean that that it will not fall squarely into the realm of the physical

On the second point. We have no indication that it is required to use metaphysics to explain it. Therefore, investing in examining the brains capabilities and examining for a process.

That is where Occam's razor comes into play. Let's invest our efforts in what so know instead of positing ideas the dont exist without universal by definition.

3

Base_Six t1_izbiaeu wrote

Reply to comment by timbgray in Amia Srinivasan, philosopher: ‘We must create a sexual culture that destabilizes the notion of hierarchy’ by Logibenq

I think a certain degree of wealth-based hierarchy is unavoidable, but there's an inverse relationship between income inequality and happiness that's been documented in numerous studies. Part of our nature as biological beings seems to be a strong negative reaction to what we perceive as unfairness.

1

humewasrightallalong t1_izbclps wrote

Reply to Amia Srinivasan, philosopher: ‘We must create a sexual culture that destabilizes the notion of hierarchy’ by Logibenq

Amia stands in front of a wheel covered in words. She spins it.

'We must a create a. . . '

*Spin*

'. . . sexual culture. . .'

*Spin*

'. . . that destablizes. . .'

*Spin*

'. . . the notion of. . .'

*Spin*

'. . . hierarchy.'

I've got a BA and an MA in Philosophy and shit like this makes even me hate philosopers now. Tedious.

4

timbgray t1_izbc4bo wrote

Reply to comment by Base_Six in Amia Srinivasan, philosopher: ‘We must create a sexual culture that destabilizes the notion of hierarchy’ by Logibenq

Well, the wealth was created somewhere by someone, and the generic creation of wealth is ultimately manifest in our social hierarchies. Note the context of my comment was a response to a previous post. Of course, other factors impact our social hierarchies as well, our DNA being the most obvious example. I’ll also note in passing that ontologically competence is a hierarchy.

My basic point is that the majority of time, the vast majority, targeting “hierarchies” for almost any critical sociological purpose is aiming at the wrong target, because the fundamental cause of the general angst on display (which seems to be mostly self indulgence) is simply our nature as biological beings.

3

xRafafa00 t1_izb1ol1 wrote

Reply to comment by chesterbennediction in Amia Srinivasan, philosopher: ‘We must create a sexual culture that destabilizes the notion of hierarchy’ by Logibenq

I agree with your second paragraph, but I'd like to provide different reasoning - yes, certain aspects of body type are indicators of fitness and survivability, but that's only considered attractive in modern society. A few hundred years ago, skinny people were viewed as undesirable because they were poor and couldn't afford food. Now the people who can't afford healthy food are overweight. But being overweight isn't unattractive to everybody. Some people have unconventional "types". Some people have perfectly conventional types. Some have no type.

Her main assumption (and yours) about sexual hierarchies is that everyone has a type, and that statistics can effectively predict what everyone's type is. That's not true, as nobody has a purely identical sexuality as someone else, so no amount of statistics can predict what or whom someone is sexually attracted to. Widespread, uniform sexual selectiveness is neither the result of social pressure nor evolutional markers of fitness; it just doesn't exist. There simply is no widespread uniformity to sexuality.

Thing is, that's already widely accepted in western public discourse, especially within social circles that would be inclined to read this article in the first place. Basically, this article isn't philosophy, it's reaffirming the beliefs of its likely readers, while decrying a problem that is already in the process of resolving itself.

4

InTheEndEntropyWins t1_izazsuz wrote

Reply to comment by IAI_Admin in The world and other minds | Idealism leads to solipsism. Coherentism, rather than foundationalism, has better chance of reconciling solipsism with the apparent existence of other minds. by IAI_Admin

>Westerhoff argues that rather than holding that mind comes before matter in a foundational account of epistemology

This just seems weird and backwards. So what if if our conscious experience of the world is the first thing that we experience or know? That doesn't make it fundamental. It seems quite clear to me that the materialist understanding of the world has a much better model. The brain(physical) gives rise to conscious thought.

11