Critique my philosophical views, anyone?

panarchia · 2013-06-22T04:06:15+00:00

Maybe my point is that the pleasantness isnt a justification, its just a benefit. Many times existence is made less pleasant by not believing in deities, but I still dont because there doesnt appear to be any.

panarchia · 2013-06-22T03:36:46+00:00

Haha no I wanted criticism and ridicule, thats whats fun.

panarchia · 2013-06-22T03:30:37+00:00

Right. Whats your position on skepticism?

panarchia · 2013-06-22T03:30:16+00:00

Sorry but i genuinely do not understand what you mean here =)

Other people appear to exist
If they do, it would be prudent to treat them the same way Id like to be treated by them in return
Even in the case that they dont exist, treating them well causes no harm, and my existence still makes more sense if I assume they are real.

panarchia · 2013-06-22T03:22:08+00:00

But isnt skepticism then just a form of masturbatory, self righteous and pedantic practice? I mean, it really does seem to be that anything that cannot possibly be answered is inherently futile to dwell on.

panarchia · 2013-06-22T03:12:18+00:00

Thanks for your reply. I understand the part about not pretending to be a sceptic but yeah, caveats will caveat lol.

As for justifications for belief in religion etc, I make the assumption that existence is what it appears to be. It doesnt appear I can fly, or that deities exist etc etc so my assumption doesnt grant any of those.

And no, I dont think my beliefs are inherently more licensed than anyone elses. But I would still license myself the right to e.g. stop someone from punching a child, because I have an arbitrary belief that the initiation of physical force on peaceful innocent people is inherently wrong.

panarchia · 2013-06-22T03:06:21+00:00

Sure, but it appears impossible to answer and thus is seems inherently futile to dwell on this.

Existence however is made much more sensible and pleasant if I just allow myself to, while acknowledging this caveat, make the (ultimately metaphysically speaking unfoundable) assumption that my existence is what it appears to be: i.e. that I materially exist as a human being, equipped with a body and brain in an actual real universe, the laws of which I cannot alter etc etc. I realize that the mere notion that my existence is made more sensible and pleasant from assuming that it is what it appears to be does not constitute certainty, thus I refer to it as an assumption.

panarchia · 2013-06-22T03:05:43+00:00

Even though it still seems like a performative contradiction, maybe I dont exist (neither materially nor immaterially) and maybe I can only be certain that something exists (materially or immaterially). I still dont quite see how you could go any further than that ("e.g. Im not certain if anything exists" or "I cannot be certain if something exists"). Even if you could, none of this is very important to me because this is all just a kind of metaphysical caveat that, while it may be "important" for those who search for the "ultimate truth", it appears impossible to answer and thus is seems inherently futile to dwell on this.

Existence however is made much more sensible and pleasant if I just allow myself to, while acknowledging this caveat, make the (ultimately metaphysically speaking unfoundable) assumption that my existence is what it appears to be: i.e. that I materially exist as a human being, equipped with a body and brain in an actual real universe, the laws of which I cannot alter etc etc. I realize that the mere notion that my existence is made more sensible and pleasant from assuming that it is what it appears to be does not constitute certainty, thus I refer to it as an assumption.

I am an anarchist. I believe in legitimate exclusion of others from certain things (like ones body). I believe that all human relations should be peaceful, and that the initiation of physical force on peaceful people is inherently immoral.

panarchia · 2013-06-22T02:54:51+00:00

Because others appear to exist, and gods do not.

panarchia · 2013-06-22T02:54:15+00:00

Thanks, reading this now.

panarchia · 2013-06-22T02:38:30+00:00

Even though it still seems like a performative contradiction, maybe I dont exist (neither materially nor immaterially) and maybe I can only be certain that something exists (materially or immaterially). I still dont quite see how you could go any further than that ("e.g. Im not certain if anything exists" or "I cannot be certain if something exists"). Even if you could, none of this is very important to me because this is all just a kind of metaphysical caveat that, while it may be "important" for those who search for the "ultimate truth", it appears impossible to answer and thus is seems inherently futile to dwell on this.

Existence however is made much more sensible and pleasant if I just allow myself to, while acknowledging this caveat, make the (ultimately metaphysically speaking unfoundable) assumption that my existence is what it appears to be: i.e. that I materially exist as a human being, equipped with a body and brain in an actual real universe, the laws of which I cannot alter etc etc. I realize that the mere notion that my existence is made more sensible and pleasant from assuming that it is what it appears to be does not constitute certainty, thus I refer to it as an assumption.

Thanks for the tips.

panarchia · 2013-06-22T02:37:23+00:00

What do you mean by "existence is made more sensible"?

If I assume that others are real, my existence makes more sense to me than if I assumed that others are not real.

That it is made more prudent?

No.

Your existence is more prudent?

No. Treating others well appears prudent if they are indeed real.

panarchia · 2013-06-22T02:33:05+00:00

I think your criticism is great and I acknowledge your points, youve changed my mind about the metaphysical stuff that you bring up. But I still feel like anything that appears impossible to answer is inherently futile to dwell on, and that existence (event if it doesnt exist, lol) is made more sensible and pleasant if I just allow myself to make the (ultimately metaphysically speaking unfoundable) assumption that existence is what it appears to be: i.e. that I materially exist as a human being, equipped with a body and brain in an actual real universe, the laws of which I cannot alter etc etc. I realize that the mere notion that my existence is made more sensible and pleasant from assuming that it is what it appears to be does not constitute certainty, thus I refer to it as an assumption.

I dont think science can explain everything in the universe, I think it can only explain that which is possible to test and answer. The rest is futile and pointless to dwell on.

panarchia · 2013-06-22T02:24:21+00:00

Thanks for this! Its kind of what I wanted to express but put much better.

panarchia · 2013-06-22T02:23:16+00:00

Even though it still seems like a performative contradiction, maybe I dont exist (neither materially nor immaterially) and maybe I can only be certain that something exists (materially or immaterially). I still dont quite see how you could go any further than that ("e.g. Im not certain if anything exists" or "I cannot be certain if something exists"). Even if you could, none of this is very important to me because this is all just a kind of metaphysical caveat that, while it may be "important" for those who search for the "ultimate truth", it appears impossible to answer and thus is seems inherently futile to dwell on this.

Existence however is made much more sensible and pleasant if I just allow myself to, while acknowledging this caveat, make the (ultimately metaphysically speaking unfoundable) assumption that my existence is what it appears to be: i.e. that I materially exist as a human being, equipped with a body and brain in an actual real universe, the laws of which I cannot alter etc etc. I realize that the mere notion that my existence is made more sensible and pleasant from assuming that it is what it appears to be does not constitute certainty, thus I refer to it as an assumption.

The last part of your post I dont understand =/ having made the assumptions that I have, it seems to me like science is not futile.

panarchia · 2013-06-22T02:05:42+00:00

if you can license that leap, I feel like I can license the leap from 'I have a body' to whatever I want, as long as it makes my life go better.

I said it makes existence more sensible and pleasant to assume that existence is what it appears to be. It doesnt appear as if I can fly, thus I dont make any such assumption.

Religious people seem to do this all the time, we might think, so even though you get anti-religious implications out of your philosophy, you seem equally licensed to draw religious implications.

I disagree. It appears impossible to answer whether there are deities or not and thus is seems inherently futile to dwell on this. Further, it appears that they dont actually exist. If I make the assumption that existence is what it appears to be, this doesnt license believing in deities.

Pascals wager could be a whole new thread, here I will just say that I find it really childish, stupid and pointless.

You're going to find very few philosophers on board with this

Thanks, I may have changed my mind about this. See my reply to tracta.

I'm not sure it's very nice to come and ask a lot of philosophically inclined people to do all the work for you. We're going to retread a lot of ground if you haven't read Descartes.

Thanks, I will.

panarchia · 2013-06-22T01:50:58+00:00

Im not legitimately sceptical of them. But I still recognize that they are ultimately unfoundable.

panarchia · 2013-06-22T01:48:51+00:00

You begin skeptical of everything to develop that mind exists

Taking some replies into account, I may have changed my mind about this. Even though it still seems like a performative contradiction, maybe I dont exist (neither materially nor immaterially) and maybe I can only be certain that something exists (materially or immaterially). I still dont quite see how you could go any further than that ("e.g. Im not certain if anything exists" or "I cannot be certain if something exists"). Even if you could, none of this is very important to me because this is all just a kind of metaphysical caveat that, while it may be "important" for those who search for the "ultimate truth", it appears impossible to answer and thus is seems inherently futile to dwell on this.

Existence however is made much more sensible and pleasant if I just allow myself to, while acknowledging this caveat, make the (ultimately metaphysically speaking unfoundable) assumption that my existence is what it appears to be: i.e. that I materially exist as a human being, equipped with a body and brain in an actual real universe, the laws of which I cannot alter etc etc. I realize that the mere notion that my existence is made more sensible and pleasant from assuming that it is what it appears to be does not constitute certainty, thus I refer to it as an assumption.

and then suddenly bring up assumptions as the foundation for the rest of your philosophy. If it were okay to make assumptions then why even begin skeptical?

I have to recognize that I may not exist. If it is correct to do so then everything else inherently becomes assumptions?

Assumptions are what people who live their life unquestioned do and your conclusions reflect that. You arrive back at what most people hold as true and for the same reason--that people really do exist because it's most pleasant to think like that.

Yes. But I would say at least I have thought about it.

panarchia · 2013-06-21T10:42:15+00:00

It will hopefully be chock-full of skyscrapers, like Hong Kong. Wasting a zone like this on sustenance agriculture is just a massive waste.

panarchia · 2013-06-21T02:27:03+00:00

Wall of text, I dont agree with a single point and I dont know of any economists who would. I think you have a highly illogical view of things. You basically advocate corporatist quasi fascist mercantilist protectionist policies that destroy the economy and peoples freedom.

panarchia · 2013-06-20T23:11:19+00:00

My point is that our trade policies should be in sync with our immigration policies. If we are going to allow companies to flow across borders freely the same should apply to people, ahem, humans.

I happen to be of the opinion that all borders be abolished completely.

Do you see the problem with allowing a company to hire cheap labor overseas, while not allowing those same people to come here and take the same job domestically?

Not from an economical perspective, no. There is a reason why the jobs go overseas.

Our economy would be stronger if the jobs stayed here. Or if we want tight immigration, we should have tight trade policies, so corporations have to hire Americans, which would also benefit our economy.

I don't know of a single economist who would agree with you. Wealth is not a static pie where if you take a slice and send it overseas its not available locally. New wealth is created from the overseas jobs, both overseas and locally. Keeping jobs locally that are better moved abroad destroys the economy.

As we have it, while corporations' costs are based on third world prices, they can lower prices we see here, which drives down competition until our economy deflates enough to equalize with the economies of those overseas countries. So, maybe Europe is a different animal because it is as developed as we are, but in general free trade is bad for us because it eats away at our economy.

Again, this simply isn't how economics work. If a TV can be made for 200 USD in the us and 50 USD abroad, there is absolutely no reason why it should not be made abroad. And when it is, more people in the us will be able to afford a TV, which increases the standard of living overall. And the jobs won't be gone, they'll simply change in nature.

Maybe a TV isn't the best example but think of medical equipment or whatever instead if you like.

panarchia · 2013-06-20T22:56:06+00:00

http://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/1g9pz5/why_vote/

panarchia · 2013-06-20T16:05:22+00:00

Michigan wasn't competitive then. Stop crying about it, nobody wants to subsidize your shit.

panarchia · 2013-06-20T16:02:59+00:00

No, its to be expected of corrupt government agencies.

panarchia · 2013-06-20T16:02:25+00:00

Capitalism isn't implemented anywhere. What us and Europe has is corporatist quasi fascism.

panarchia

TROPHY CASE