schopenhauer1

Don’t throw more people into it. Nature will make people suffer. Therefore, I will make more people that will suffer does not compute. Not saying you’...

I’m more interested in the inextricable nature of being caught in this inescapable situation than how people are just “overblowing suffering” and shou...

Does anyone know what happened to green flag? I rather liked his discussions.

it is indeed a different ethic to believe one should force others to suffer because there is also good accompanied by that initial force. But indeed, ...

I agree with Schopenhauer here, however, let's not make it a self-fulfilling prophecy either and participate in it. Evolution might bring about suffer...

Not sure what you mean here.

But it is the Problem that is created and perpetuated. Is there no symbolic catharsis? The conclusion doesn't default to thus condoning and embracing ...

Also, combining Cioran with Schopenhauer's quote: Once dead, the relief is not had. No relief is had.

The problem is that this means the only way out is through. As I was saying to noAxioms, this itself is the Problem (big P). Creating the need for nee...

So I get what you're saying if we took Cioran too literally. However, I think there are layers to this quote. We have to follow the implication to the...

X amount of indefinite harm will occur for a future person who is not born yet. Some have argued that one is not "preventing harm" for anyone, as they...

At what point does a future person come into ethical consideration? Some have argued that because a person does not exist yet, that "that person" is a...

If something does not exist in the future, but could exist in the future on certain known conditions, does that future state of affairs have any ethic...

So some might say that a future event is in some sense not "real" until it actually takes place. Some might argue that these possibilities somehow, on...

The tree is in X position now, but could be in X1 position or X2 position in the future, depending on conditions (conditional state of affairs I guess...

Nice definitions. But are these possible worlds in some way real? X is X. X could be X1 or X2. Is X1 or X2 a thing? What are these possibilities? Also...

You’ve been arguing nothing these last posts and this last one now proves it. I’ve been waiting for you to stop responding since you started with your...

:rofl: oh really? How does this not fall under You’re just casually burdening someone to hunt food for you? How are you not arguing out of bad faith? ...

It's about necessity in whether or not to burden someone. When is it ever okay to burden someone a) without their consent b) when there is no dire sit...

WTF doesn’t count as an empty opinion to you? I just gave you the reasoning again and you didn’t address my response. That is bad faith argumentation....

But I did qualify it and explained it. Now, it seems you are just putting up some defense by incredulity as if I didn’t explain it in detail. Again, I...

No dude, that's not how ethics works. If you want to debate meta-ethics, cool, but not what this particular argument is about. It is arguing for a spe...

Yeah. It is ontologically not mediated by time and space.

Again, I was reiterating Schopenhauer and Kastrup's theory. But yeah, the idea of representation itself has to be accounted for, so in a way it "is" t...

So the problem with Kastrup is the problem I have with Schopenhauer's metaphysics. Why is there so much involved in this "illusion" of the representat...

I'm agnostic. However, I am weary of the hidden dualisms, Cartesian theaters, and homunculus fallacies found in most reductionist materialism / physic...

I'm sympathetic, but not necessarily in agreement :wink:. The problem I see with Schop with this is the architecture doesn't line up... Will || Forms ...

Schopenhauer had a quasi-Platonic idea of Forms that Will emanated and animated, but this just begs the question of whence these Forms, and why? It wa...

:up: Yep agreed. Both theories kind of lack the "why" to it though. Why this kind of architecture and not another kind? Why would a unitary thing be s...

Agreed. Living de facto relies on moral violation by the mere fact that we have different ideas of morality that will thus be violated by others we en...

There's your first problem. What of negative ethics which focus on not violating other's autonomy, and dignity, or refraining from what is harmful to ...

Kastrup would say that our perception is simply representing the world as if it was a certain way. The physical world is representation, not the thing...

Yes Yes, other experiences look like things. It isn't evident that everything is made of a couple dozen whizzing particles, but here we are. We do kno...

Giving burdens to someone in the name of giving them "good things too" has to be taken seriously. It is wrong to create situations of burdens that did...

Yes I understand that. Hence I said:

It is one method of answering the hard problem without going into granularity. One little grain of sand, or one little atom is conscious sounds odd. B...

This topic is meant for you since you display an example of it here so well. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14307/ad-populum-indicator-of-a...

Well that's a strawman based on a mischaracterization of the argument. I believe 180 Proof already addressed this though. You are bringing up every an...

Indeed I think that is a good dichotomy. On one side the ontological "thing" and the other, the epistemological "word". Information Theory ontologizes...

I must say I have a soft spot for the Cathars who believed the physical world a sort of prison, and whose belief of course was persecuted by a lesser ...

Which is layers upon layers of syncretic Greco-Roman mystery cults, gnostic ideas, and the appropriations (and taking out of context) of both Judaic u...

So what is Whitehead's "a unity of aesthetic appreciation" that can be immediately felt as private"?

That quote ironically is mimicking the very dichotomy that Shaviro lays out between Harman and Whitehead :grin:.

This is where it really goes deep. If anyone wants to add their interpretation of what is going on here between the dichotomy of Harman and Whitehead,...

Is internal intuition a false category when applied to objects that aren't animals?

Do Forms (in the Platonic sense) matter for objects to relate to each other? Certainly, I can see it in the Aristotlian sense. Attributes that can be ...

Oh gotcha gotcha. Yeah that's fine and all, but is this contra Harman here? In other words, I can take this to mean that you think there is a Platonic...

Well, it looks like Aristotle is railing against his mentor Plato here when he says that non-substance (qualities/attributes) can't be prior to its su...

Indeed I think SR would also do away with this distinction as a way of how the world relates. Object-object or relation-relation, perhaps. Ok, but you...

I like the use of "flatten" ontology. That is indeed what's going on here. Objects and their "relations". It's really the "relations" part that is tri...