schopenhauer1

Things "relating" to one another does not entail qualitative aspects, unless from the start, that is your metaphysics.. aka panpsychists. That is fine...

And this exemplifies the immorality I am talking about.. My answer is the same:

In other words, Wayfarer, I see a sort of dominance here of the people who get their way when they like the status quo... They will justify it by sayi...

Good point. That’s because dissatisfaction is the norm. It’s harder to pinpoint what permanent satisfaction is like. Everything is so based on struggl...

Nice red herrings there.

And one can't do otherwise. Hence morally disqualifying system/existence.

Succinct, but to the point. I like it.

You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you get what you need. And this "need" I find to be a problem.. If it simply means "need...

Thank you for the nod. I don't just write something and not defend it. I do try to rebut objections, even if people think it unsatisfactory. I write i...

So what would you say instead? We don't see red? We don't have emotions? Why would you deny that we have "inner aspects" of "what it's like to be..."?

Existences can be characterized as good or bad.. not just people. If you lived in hellish conditions at all times..you would call it bad. If as part o...

So are you saying people wish to have other people's preferences thwarted to have these things (love, friendship, loyalty, etc)? If so, more evidence ...

See, your preference for my killing myself is not met. I would have agreed prior but I think that this isn't true anymore even on the face of it.. If ...

The whole claim is that this existence contains a considerable amount of preferences not met. And if we are to get empirical about it, it isn't just n...

Right, which is why I said it was odd he seemed to be providing this claim (that matter has inner aspects/conscious aspects). We know inner aspects ex...

You said: You are the one who seems to be saying "material" has "what it's like" (inner aspect) qualities. I am only working with what you are giving....

Just seems like more ways to justify suffering. I’m not on board with that. This particular thread is saying that if preferences satisfied are a moral...

Really? Where? Preferences like meeting supply and demands presuppose other preferences like how society goes about doing that. The point is that an e...

Don't know what this means or looks like. Sounds vaguely transhumanist.. unless you mean we all be empathetic. I am all for empathy, but at the end of...

True enough, but then we would come to conclusions like panpsychism which normally isn't considered materialism.

Well yeah, obviously this is a main question and what I meant by: If it is, then scientific methods have set up inquiries into why qualitative things ...

Do we need Marxism for this non-estrangement to come about?

:up: Yep. See my similar response here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/699747

@"Bitter Crank" Also, along with this it should be said that we can't just start collectives from the "ground up" in some commune-like society because...

I don't think there are as many people who are "happy" as you think. From 2013 but still: But anyways, taking away the empirical aspect here, what is ...

Forcing you into a game and telling you to play better is not an answer, just a dodge.

That is why I start from the root cause. The root is birth itself. You know this. I know this. The penalty of birth is life, and then death. It's a pe...

Why is that framing the problem based on a category mistake? There exists qualitative aspects to things. This exists in what we know (ourselves), more...

Good start..

But it is not simply by fiat that we "choose to respond".. We respond within environs and situatedness that is already laid out for us in the form of ...

Thanks for at least acknowledging my position as a valid one! So this "squishy middle-ground capitalism" (as I'll call it), is also wrong. There is so...

Well, I'll just dialogue with myself then.. I find this passage interesting from SEP article on Karl Marx: And that is basically what I am positing.. ...

@"ZzzoneiroCosm" is there ANYTHING from those sources you have to discuss then?

YOU posted about Marxism... Why don't YOU post some passages from MARX??

You're fuckn ridiculous then.. Then wait till you're done and don't post anything. No use saying anything. You don't have anything to say, yet you pos...

If it's a reading group then select pages, passages that you specifically want to discuss. Don't just say, "Here are books.. read this corpus and get ...

Dude, you made a whole thread to read something. That isn't doing anything on a forum like this. I should make a thread too.. "Read Schopenhauer".. So...

I understand it enough.. The species-being notion that we are working for humanity and that will be enough to clean toilets and do paperwork, and make...

Yeah but why are non-relations necessarily experiential, other than we know that experience exists in animals?

Right, but then if one can just "will" their way to unalienation, Marx's WHOLE PROJECT is wrong as far as his specific Marxism. And I don't think that...

It seems foolish to say there is no "inner and outer" but maybe prove me wrong. It's as if someone said, "I do not see colors" when they clearly show ...

Yep, I agree.

Then this is foolish. The fact that you "see" a color is the question. Why is there "seeing of color", and not just neurons firing and wavelengths of ...

"I" see red. That's all you need in my book to confirm an inner aspect (other than me actually getting inside your head).

It's the most immediate thing.. Unless you ARE a zombie.. you DO have "what it feels like" aspects (tastes, colors, thoughts, emotions, motives, goals...

Ok, but that isn't his main point.. THAT there is an inner aspect is the problem at hand, not "How is this inner aspect different than mine". The diff...

But of course, this doesn't explain much either. It just posits that the "inner aspect" is spread around to everything. It is a position.. an Idealist...

I don't think that was his main point that we can't know what it's like to be a bat. Rather it is the idea that there IS a "what it's like to be a bat...

It's all saying the same thing.. which is basically.. X (object process) from the "inside"/metaphysical is experiential and outside is "objectified"/v...