180 Proof

:up:

Entropy-states are relative to one another (re: before / after). A lower degree of disorder relative to a higher degree of disorder.

Lower (past / before) and higher (future / after) entropy state (e.g. a hot cup of coffee is the past / before entropy state of a cold cup of coffee).

:100: :fire:

Psychologically, not thermodynamically.

Now is a point and points are imaginary.

An existing person? Then yes, that existing person can have future states.

It's not relevant. "Future states" of what?

I don't even know what your ramble means.

Your "14 year old daughter" is an existent person who warrants (your) moral concern. Inexistent persons (e.g. Samwise Gamgee, the not-yet-conceived / ...

We know, I suspect, by our fear, disgust, hunger-thirst, lust, anger reflexes. It's the embodied continuity of autobiographical memories and social co...

:fire:

:chin:

We know enough. The so-called 'moral justification' for antinatalism fails because it's implicit premise of 'moral concern for inexistent persons' is ...

Yes. That's good. :up:

I wasn't sure. I agree with you but I'm arguing that there isn't any morsl concern warranted by inexistent persons.

I don't see the relevance of the distinction. You've lost me.

So there is not now an existing person who warrants moral concern, but only some hypothetical / imaginary – inexistent – person like e.g. Frodo Baggin...

I need to reread the essay once or twice more before I comment. As an attempt at establishing a logical foundation for "logical language" (in a subseq...

:smirk:

A teddy bear is a "loved one" to a child (and some teens / adults). And try telling a group of "Cheese-heads" tailgating out at Lambeau Field with win...

~A = A contradiction. (A = A tautology.) ~A v A excluded middle. A = B identity.

So not an existing person. No moral concern. No moral justification for antinatalism. Thanks, schop1. :up:

I don't see why either if what you mean by "a person" is an existing person.

No, they are interrelated, or mutually reinforcing. Adaptive habits. NB: Wisdom is, I suspect, mastery over (any or some, many or all) maladaptive hab...

Tell me what you think warrants ethical concern. To my mind, only an EXISTING sufferer warrants ethical concern.

:pray: :rofl: :clap: :up: @"schopenhauer1" – Big whup! The already born suffer yet almost always do not suffer continuously or so acutely that they ca...

Yeah, so I cleared up some ambiguity by pointing out that I've been misinterpreted. Try again, context matters.

:up: Category mistake. Incoherent (re: relativity of simultaneity). :lol:

I.e. a misinterpretation.

A story depicting an adult male conversing with and taking orders from an imaginary friend is "best ... for mental health"? :chin:

No. This is a tautology. A non-tautological identity is A is B.

A lot of counter-intuitive facts disturb such anthropomorphic naïveté (e.g. inhabiting the surface of a spinning round planet moving around a sun that...

:up: Contra your OP: avoid Anthropomorphic fallacy × apply Mediocrity Principle × remember 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, etc —> Shit Happens (i.e. struct...

To my mind, methodologically speaking, materialism (facticity, data) is a subset of physicalism (modeling) which is subset of naturalism (explanation)...

Well, then it is not science (Popper et al), is it?

As a metaphysics, it's arbitrary, even scientistic. However, as a methodology (criterion) for eliminaing "nonphysical" concepts from the construction ...

:up:

As usual, another (Dunning-Kruger) OP you cannot defend without either vacuous sophistry or vapid evasion. Poor old Batshitz, wasting everybody's time...

I'll answer when you have answered this https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/717206 .

I cannot say it any plainer than I already have. A direct question derived from your OP.

I haven't, not that I'm inclined to read the "argument" you mention. I try not to splash around in somrbody else's mythological (superstitious) bathwa...

My point is , it''s not "justified".

:up:

I've no idea what you're talking about. I neither claimed nor implied that color-signedness "serves no function". Also, what you say about "love" is a...

And what you call "fatalism" I call futilitariansm.

Describe how "immaterialism" – contra perceptual time-lag – accounts for the e.g. doppler effect or light-velocity constant. Thanks. :roll:

We love people we do not have a "connection" with e.g. celebrities, authors, leaders, the dead, etc. We also love inanimate or abstract objects e.g. s...

That's not what I'm arguing. I'm not arguing this either. :chin:

No one chooses the historical moment or the place or family or culture-language/s or social class in which one is born. No one chooses their ancestry,...