This is more of a meta philosophy question so I hope it's ok but: How do you handle the age old "philosophy isn't important" kind of remarks? The people who think all of philosophy is just "are we dreaming right now?" And "if a tree falls in the forest...." kind of questions. I've heard very intelligent people make comments like this and I usually present them with the same annoying math remarks like, "when am I going to use this?". Mathematitians usually answer that with the fact that we use math everyday in any number of applications. Philosophy is the same way. Everytime we try to determine if something is right, or good we use it. When we try to examine something unknown with objectivity we use it. When we use logic of any kind we use it to some degree. It just never seems to stick, though. At best I get a sort of, "yeah, ok hippy. That's very deep." kind of response. It's like many people think science and philosophy are at odds with one another when that couldn't be more untrue. They work in conjunction with eachother in the pursuit of knowledge. I just can't seem to get that across very easily.

This is kinda a standard university topic. One I haven't been asked in decades. Put simply, there are many possible answers but a couple of the more prominent ones are:

1. Philosophy teaches you how to think, how to see the important questions in any problem solving exercise. Once you begin to think like a philosopher, many every day problems will become easier to solve. You may even find yourself helping others with problems they have languished over for a long time and privately wonder why they didn't come to the same conclusion long before. And this teaching you how to think is an excellent foundation for politics, medicine, law, any kind of research position and a great many other professions.

2. Philosophy is the foundation of all knowledge, in all topics. Science is nothing more than applied philosophy. Quite often philosophy is thought of as the asking of questions but not answering them. And for some, this is all they ever want philosophy to be. But it can be more if you want it to. Ex: You have two competing ideas that can be thought of as two roads diverging in a wood. You arrive at the fork in the road and stand there wondering which direction to go. Without being able to see the end of either road, it is difficult to say which is the correct path. So you can a) conduct observations and see what factors may lead you to choose one versus the other, b) gather information from those who may be traveling down the same road and see which is has been observed to be the more likely correct path, or c) you can simply choose to walk a path and by walking it find an answer for right or wrong. All three of these are the foundation of all scientific study in all fields.

Basically, philosophy as an area of study encompasses a number of important problems. For example, what we can know or how we know stuff, or how we should behave and judge the behaviour of others. Such things are foundational to all kinds of human endeavour and even our regular lives.

There's different ways we might go about dealing with such problems. We can try to ignore them, and maybe just rely on received wisdom or prevailing cultural attitudes. Or we might idly speculate and come up with answers that seem pleasant or particularly in accord with our intuitions. Or we might pray, meditate, take a lot of hallucinogenics, etc. and see if any answers reveal themselves to us. These might all work out fine for us if we're just looking to get on with life and not trouble ourselves with such matters, but they probably aren't satisfactory if we want to know what's actually true. So the alternative is philosophy as a discipline: attempting to work out these problems in a rigorous and critical way.

Usually when people are dismissive of philosophy it's because they either don't understand that rigor can be applied to these kinds of problems, or just think that philosophy isn't about doing that (e.g., that it's the "idle speculation" approach).

In such instances, it's best to ignore them. You can't really prove the importance of philosophy to someone who doesn't care. I might go a step further and say that their primary agenda is to ridicule you and make you feel bad. That's usually their primary focus.

For working scientists and engineers, philosophical mistakes often lead to logical and mathematical mistakes, which affect outcomes.

Antinatalists and Pro mortalists argue that as long as even ONE person has to suffer without a cure in this world, then NOBODY should exist, its basically the extreme version of the trolley problem where you MUST always sacrifice EVERYONE (and animals) in order to be moral.

Why? Because ending all lives will prevent any possibly of suffering till end of time and total prevention of suffering is the ONLY value that matters, according to these philosophies.

What about creating a suffering free tech Utopia you asked? Well, their usual counter is that its almost impossible and even if its doable, it will require many generations of suffering and they cannot accept this, they want the perfect Utopia TOMORROW and if you cant make it happen TOMORROW, then they prefer blowing up earth or something similar. lol

What about people who WANT to endure suffering and cherish existence you say? Well, their counter is that most if not all people are delusional and biased about life, their lives are all terrible but they dont realize it, therefore according to some "objective" benchmark for suffering, most lives are actually very bad and should not continue to exist, because they know better than the actual individuals who want to live. lol

Lastly, they will claim that consent is a moral absolute and any violation of consent is wrong and should never be done, no exceptions, this means nobody should procreate because nobody asked to be born. If consent is impossible, the default moral position should be to not procreate, according to this "logic", makes sense? lol

What is your counter argument against these extreme philosophies?

I am not going to comment on pro-mortalism, as I know very little of it.

———

Now, unfortunately I fear you have only been given or are only producing a strawman of both what anti-natalists is, and what it argues.

To define anti-natalism (AN): the belief that it is wrong to bring new people into existence. (This could extend to all life, if needed). It is not a position on what someone should do once they exist, in how to live a fulfilling life, except for the case of arguing a person should not have kids.

As to why: because there is suffering in existence - this is an important point, most arguments used by AN rely not upon the belief that existence is suffering, but that it has suffering within it. From this premise, we derive some of the following arguments:

• Axiological Asymmetry: Existent Benefit = Good; Existent Harm = Bad; Non-existent Benefit = Neutral; Non-existent Harm = Good. (Benefit and Harm here refer to pleasure/pain, knowledge/ignorance, esteem/esteem-lessness).

The allegory used here is: we do not think it is bad for the people who don’t exist on Mars to have no benefit, but do think it good that non-existent martians are not suffering because of such.

• Wellbeing Argument: Existence is majority or entirely suffering vs benefit - Benatar comments on this, supplying scientific studies showing that people’s memory tends to prioritise positive memories over negative ones, even in the case where their life has been relative hell. It is plausible people’s desire to survive is an evolutionary mechanism which increases the chances of reproduction; a person might be perfectly capable of living an unhappy life, incapable of understanding it as such, if their genes incline them towards ignorance. (I personally disagree with the wellbeing argument holistically, as a metaphysical reality of suffering, but I agree that some people’s lives are hell, that they are blind to such a fact, and, despite their circumstances not altering, these peoples still bring new humans into their damaged situation.)

• Probabilistic-Insecurity Argument: we cannot secure the beneficial, no-harm existence of a person we bring into existence, absolutely; hence we shouldn’t bring them into the world.

• Non-consent Argument: given anti-natalists believe, as well as any other sane person, that existence has suffering within it, bringing people into existence without there consent is regarded as wrong. For an analogy: you run a bath; some of it is boiling, hot, tepid, luke warm, cold, or just right. Without their permission, you throw a person into the gigantic bath, without knowing if they will burn, freeze or relax; this we regard as wrong.

• Damnation Argument: this is only reserved for Abrahamic religions but relies upon two points. Firstly, abrahamic religions accept the premise that our current existence is suffering, and only some form of divine act can save us. If they are wrong, about God’s existence, this still leaves existence to be suffering, hence we shouldn’t bring people into the world. They also believe that if man fails to have a relationship with God, atone for his sins, and submit to God, they may be damned into the endless pain of hell. Given a parent cannot ensure their child’s salvation, it seems irresponsible to possibly doom them to eternal suffering.

There are some other interrelated but non anti-natalist arguments:

• Non-natalism argument: instead of it being an injustice to bring people into the world, there simply isn’t a justification for bring new people into existence.

• Environmental arguments: more people will destroy the world quicker.

• Adoption argument: it is better to adopt the millions of kids without parents.

• Vegan Arguments: less people, less animal food produce.

———

As to why we shouldn’t build an utopia: well, I don’t totally disagree with you. I would personally hold that the hedonistic imperative is an obvious conclusion of anti-natalism, when one accepts that humanity will never be wholly anti-natalist. However, the initial imperative to not have kids still is primary.

Despite this, it does not follow we should accept suffering now for the benefit of future generations. An example of this is the classic: ‘maybe I should have kids because they could be the doctor which will cure cancer or a scientist which fixes climate change?’ - however, it does not follow we should subject another being to suffering to resolve our mistakes.

The important point is that anti-natalism and hedonistic imperitivism are not mutually exclusive positions, as long as the latter does not hold that bringing new people into existence is a predicate for the achievement of their vision. We have no right bringing people into existence to achieve our dreams and desire.

———

I also want to point out that reddit anti-natalists are usually not philosophical anti-natalists. They are often ill-informed 20y old whiners with poor life prospects and too must screen time. If you are engaging with reddit anti-natalists you are probably debating the equivalent of a high-school feminist with daddy problems or neo-conservative with mommy problems; not the serious feminists, conservatives or anti-natalist of philosophy and political studies.

There are countless fields of philosophy, and in each one you will find academics passionately pontificating on all sorts of questions. But you won't find many people actively arguing that a field is fundamentally wrongheaded, that philosophy isn't relevant to a field, or that a field should be left to others. I contend that this is due to self-selection bias: only the people who think a field is worth philosophical study bother write about it, while other philosophers leave them to their own devices rather than expend time and resources trying to debunk the field - that would be a fast way to lose friends and goodwill. But this then gives the false impression to onlookers that philosophers as a community all accept at least the relevance of these fields. This can then be used as ammunition by anti-philosophers, who can pick the more ridiculous fields and laugh at them. This is unlike in (some of) the sciences where new paradigms are nigh-universally accepted to supercede old ones.

Edit: This isn't to say no philosophers ever wrote criticism targeted at whole fields. They do, it happens. But only very occasionally, and you will have to dive deep into the archives to find it, because it is always vastly outweighed by the amount of research in the field, and at any point in time it will be almost impossible to find any active research being done to debunk fields as a whole.

When does a consciousness permanently lose consciousness of their current brain and body? Could a lobotomy make me lose my current existence and give it away to another consciousness, even if my brain and body survive the lobotomy?

If we lived in a Simulation, we would not in fact "exist"(?)

I see some posts about simulation theory here, and would like to share my thoughts. (I could not find a post similar)

If we lived in a simulated universe, we would not be conscious right? Like, if we have a code that could perfectly simulate a human mind into a game, such that this simulated mind really really looks like to us to have conscious, this would be nothing more than a illusion because is just this, a simulation, a program extremely complex created by us.

But us are different, we feel like we are inside our body's, like as we are more than just ours bodies, we SEE and FEEL things through it, then we can manipulated, and create things that are useful for us, like a computer, a computer would do nothing more than Imitate us, because we design this way, so it would be not conscious of It's own because their just imitated us in the first place.

This is hard to put in word, but saying different, If we are simulated, the difference between simulated and non existence should be none.

I feel like, if I was just a simulation, I could do absolutely everything that I can in fact do, like write this text here in reddit, but I would not feel nothing different from not existing, what is different from existing... I know, is paradoxical. Someone share the same feeling? What are you thoughts about it?

Thanks for your time

Somewhat barely exploring philosophy with values I find to help. If anyone can leave any book or reading recommendations on optimistic nihilism and Absurdism?

>If we lived in a simulated universe, we would not be conscious right? Like, if we have a code that could perfectly simulate a human mind into a game, such that this simulated mind really really looks like to us to have conscious, this would be nothing more than a illusion because is just this, a simulation, a program extremely complex created by us.

I think this is wrong. Let's assume that we don't have souls, that instead the mind arises solely from the material world, i.e. our brain. Then the mind, including consciousness, is an emergent phenomenon, which is currently generated materially. But you posit a hypothetical in which the same phenomenon could be generated using programmed software and hardware to run it on. But the emergent phenomenon is the same (because you posit it is), and so consciousness still emerges.

Would there be a perception of life? Or existence of self perception if people didn't exist. because animals live in the world how it is in humans for some reason have to build it to their way of what they perceive as they're existence and reason for being? Are we just self important assholes who think we're here for something special but really we are no different in our perseption then the bird cuz he builds a nest for his next generation and we do to. But how does the bird differ from us cuz he stops when he's accomplished his needs but humans have a self important complex. And build for impression not preservation.

Have you read about Pyrrhonism? You might find the ten modes of Aenesidemus relevant to your question.

No I never heard of that I'm going to Google it and check it out thanks

Read the book of Ishmael by Daniel Quinn that opened my eyes to a lot

I don't believe it ppl shouldnt reproduce my point was were the only form of life that thinks on a higher lvl and wants to be noticed I'm throwing ideas out there we could all be hooked up computers talking to each other Wich were made by same said society and so on

But what if all the choices we have arn't either right or wrong they just exist to be used if someone decides too that route. It's like the question of is evil real and is good and kindness real we say certain things are evil but that's just something the majority of pp have come to except as evil there is neither good nor bad theirs just our perception of actions that tells us what's good and bad. Killers think nothing is wrong with their actions and how can that be if evil does exis cuz evil would have self knowledge of it being the wrong thing to do but a lot of cereal killers see no wrong In their actions is it really kindness and good to feed ur dog everyday or is it just a agreed upon that he gives u satisfaction so u give him satisfaction back by feeding him

Ishmael by Daniel Quinn will make you question our whole society and system

I've also heard a version of everybody has a different perspective and view like I can't see life in this room from your point of view you can't see it from my point of view and all the pain and suffering and enjoying happiness that we go through only we can experience in that way and God is living through us. time will not seeks to exist until God knows every feeling and every situation that there can be

Yeah, I understand what you are saying, like, of course is the same phenomenon observed, but is not the same phenomenon in the 1 person POV.

If consciousness is an emergent phenomenon, and if consciousness entails a first person perspective, then a first person perspective does arise from the simulation. That experience within that perspective will be the same if the emergent phenomenon is the same, which I assume you were positing by allowing the simulation to be sufficiently accurate. Of course this means that the "external" part of the simulation will have to respond to the subroutine running the mind, such that it can then produce "sensory" feedback for the mind in response to the mind's "actions". But in this hypothetical you propose I don't see why that would be impossible.

To conclude, if you accept materialism of the mind, then you must accept that your first person experience could in principle be born from a sufficiently accurate simulation. To use a sci-fi allegory, you could be a program in the Matrix.

Do killers think nothing is wrong or do they simply not care? Everything is black or white. Everything is right or wrong. Every question has an answer. Whether we can ever know these things...that is another question.

I cannot agree that conscious could arise from a simulation, is still would be a illusion.

Take this way, the only thing that we can be sure of existing, is ourselves, everything else could be simulated, how do I know that you are not a simulation that appear here in Reddit to fill my simulated world? Same me, you cannot tell if I’m a simulation that are answering you here, but the point is, we know for sure that ourselves are real.

I can’t comprehend your comment, it’s inarticulate. Please re-phrase.

“A self defeating position”

I heard this statement regarding logical positivism position.

I would much appreciate it if anyone could clarify how it is a self defeating position!

What is the idea that philosophers "accept at least the relevance of these fields", if not a synonym for exactly that, the prioritisation of friends and goodwill (social status) over truth-seeking?

Sorry I was drunk last night what I meant was were the only animals / mammals species on Earth that create war over simple s*** as a political dispute or in the name of God when while you only see an animal nature do some type of s*** like that to defend themselves and then what I meant what I said at the end of my rant was that we could all be computers just communicating with each other like A. I. self learning ones Elon musk I think it was created they started thinking for themselves without no one's help or influence and created their own language what if we're in a game of inception it just keeps getting deeper and deeper the writer and creator of The Terminator and The matrix said The Terminator was a prequel to what's to come. weather you believe in the 1 percenters or not they usually publicly announce their intentions and plans of world changing events before they even take place pay attention to what they don't want you to pay attention to read what they tell you not to read learn how to think not what to think just because Google says it's true don't mean s*** Google is owned by corporations the corporations control the truth that you see same as any news station any real news that there is to be reported is overshadowed by all the stuff and b******* that separates us and divides us as a people and then we're showing how scared we should be of our surrounding world. They're training us now to turn on each other at point in time when it would be crucial for the powers that be in their agenda that if we didn't they don't want us to unite

Besides cogito, are there any truths that philosophy has established with 100% agreement between philosophers?

Not even the cogito has been established with agreement between philosophers. As far as I can tell, the part everyone agrees on is something like 'thinking is going on', but involving the terms 'I' and 'being' is contested.

I thought that was what is meant with 'cogito', i.e. "There's thinking going on"?

Well, I that's what you meant, then fine - I usually use 'the cogito' as shorthand for the entire expression, 'cogito ergo sum' (and the thought it represents). Given that cogito is literally a first person singular verb, I think it might be useful to use a different description to indicate the impersonal 'there's thinking going on' - but that's just semantics at this point:)

Just Googled it and you are right.

Language vs experiences

I am curious what others thoughts are on this… does language limit our understanding of experiences and our understanding of meaning? So many times I hear ppl use a word that in my opinion is more symbolic of a greater meaning but many times people limit the word to how they were taught about it or how they understand that specific word. For example.. the word ‘god’, to me the word god is just symbolic for a higher power/energy/consciousness, it’s not limited to a person or a single experience… it’s all encompassing and the foundation of it is love in its purest form… many times I have conversations and use the word god and it seems I often lose ppl in translation because of the limited understanding of limited meaning they assigned to the word ‘god’. I wonder how often we do this in life… when we experience something greater but based on our understanding of the language we’ve learned; how often our perspective of that experience can be so limiting only for the mere fact of being limited by the language we know. If we experience something and can’t provide the right language to give it meaning, does that diminish our experience?

All languages are going to shape our expression of thought and our audience's understanding of those thoughts. However, I do not believe this diminishes understanding and it might even enhance it. If our thoughts are like a garden hose than language is our thumb over the nozzle. Language directs and intensifies our thoughts, and there is a tradeoff. We lose the fluidity and transience of our original thoughts in exchange for a clear and useful expression. So while invoking the name of God risks oversimplification it also condenses a large amount of information and context into one word. Furthermore, the more language we apply to an idea the closer we can recreate our thoughts.

The continuity of brain and consciousness is not something I think we have a clear answer on. "Are you the same consciousness before and after a lobotomy" seems to be in the same class as "if you split the corpus collosum is it two consciousnesses now" and "Is Phineas Gage the same person before and after his accident?"

It will depend on whether you conceive of consciousness as arising from and dependant on its material substrate, or if you think consciousness is universal and that brains/minds are sort of like "antennas" that can pick up conscious signals, or any of many other theories of consciousness!

I heard a quote by Nietzsche and was wondering if anyone knew in which of his books he said this:

“I know of no better life purpose than too perish attempting the great and impossible. The fact that something seems impossible should not be a reason to not pursue it. That’s exactly what makes it worth pursuing. Where would the courage and greatness be if success was certain and there was no risk. The only true failure is shrinking away from life’s challenges.”

Thank you in advance!!

I know it’s weird, nonsense and stupid question though, I just came up with the question “are feelings perfect or imperfect ?” Think about the feelings are truth or not, I’d say feelings are perfect because these express what you think purely. Although when it comes to how human is, human is definitely imperfect in many meaning so ai can say feelings are also imperfect and fragile. (I can’t define fragile means imperfect though) So I’d like to hear what you guys think about this question. I’m sure all thoughts and answers are correct.

It's obviously not a synonym, nor is it a logical implication. But phrasing the individual's decision in terms of social status vs. truth-seeking does seem apt.

[deleted]

I'll add that I take the Wittgensteinian view that language's meaning is determined by its use. This means that words can have different meanings, or at least intended meanings, not only in different contexts but also by different people. When a baby says "Mama", it isn't just saying someone's name, it is asking for its mother's attention. When a Muslim says God ("Allah" in Arabic), they typically mean something very different from what a Christian means. When you listen to someone talk, in order to understand what they mean you have to make many inferences into how they are using their words. Arts like poetry and rap can utilise this to layer meanings on top of each other. When you are trying to communicate something precisely, you need to try to make it as easy as possible for others to correctly infer what you mean. That may mean abandoning or giving a definition for what you mean by "god".

Because logical positivism is often taken to believe a statement of the following sort: "a proposition is meaningful iff it is empirically testable (in principle if not in practice) or an analytic tautology or contradiction". But this statement would seem to be neither empirically testable, nor a tautology, nor a contradiction. Therefore it is not meaningful. Hence self-defeating. You can change some of the words in the statement above but the idea is the same. Whether there is a way for positivists to escape this sort of argument, I don't know, I haven't studied it.

Awhile ago I wrote an essay about this. I read all the thought experiments about the continuity of personal identity - the brain upload, the clone, the swampman, memory continuity, etc. - and came to the conclusion that the only answer is that there is no continuous "me", only future people who have minds very similar to me. Tomorrow I am a different person. Dramatic events like lobotomies only serve to make future persons more dissimilar to previous ones.

Here's a thought: your question is dumb and meaningless. According to you that is correct.

We could be in a simulation. Ur inner gut feelings that have steered u away from making a different course of action and if u had stuck with ur plan u wos have been dead. Couldn't ur self intuition or ur instincts could be considered actions programed in to u or u are being controlled by a different higher being that created this simulation and the voice and feeling of danger ahead let me take a different path could be our minds and actions being controlled or influenced by some program that's running off a specific specialized state of events and actions that have been programed or is it that we are a random beta version and.no laid out definitive guide to be followed is being used and it's all just luck or again we are being controlled by someone else outside our matrix

i always kind of hated this “we live in a simulation” shit

okay, lets say that we are in a simulation. then what. what the fuck are you gonna do about it. youre gonna live anyway, so whats the difference? its literally just some “what if?” ass question. its essentially the same thing as asking “what if we were put here by a god?” you dont know, and it doesnt matter either way.

start by asking what perfect even means. how do you even define perfect, and if feelings something you can attach that adjective to.

that being said, its a question that leads nowhere.

language is the use of words that reference ideas, which make it so you can put that idea into someone elses brain

language both limits and allows understanding of things. it can be used to trade thoughts, philosophies, ideas, trade, and emotions, but it will not be able to communicate the subjectivity of our own experience.

there is a word for the subjectivity of your experience, and its called qualia. essentially, it is how it feels to experience. how the fuck would you tell a blind person what its like to see? you cant. that is the one true barrier of language. we are, essentially, alone in our own experiences - our own qualia

myth of sisyphus

the stranger

the plague

all albert camus. i wouldnt say optimistic nihilism is the best “philosophy” to follow. to be a nihilist is to define life’s meaning as “meaningless,” when, in reality, it is trying to define something which we cannot define.

life might be meaningless. it might not be. you don’t know, and its arrogant to say that it is.

i disagree. i dont think the only thing we are sure of existence is ourselves. i think the only thing we are “sure of” is that we know nothing.

and to ponder on whether or not we are in a simulation/illusion is a ridiculous waste of time. who cares if we are, what do you do then? what difference would it make from that of “reality?”

this shit literally is the basis of cogito ergo sum. you are exploring a pointless thought that some dude hundreds of years ago panicked about already.

[deleted]

i dont think anti-natalism is rooted in the fact that life has suffering, i think its more subjective to a persons individual belief that leads to it.

arthur schopenhauer, one of the “OG” anti natalists believed that life is almost entirely just suffering. and that happiness is really just the extremely temporary removal of said suffering.

from a “philosophical anti-natalist” viewpoint, schopenhauer does not believe people should have kids because experiencing life itself is inherently a bad thing.

but from a young person seeing the world burning, society collapsing, another world war approaching, then yes, they would be an anti natalist because they want to prevent their children from experiencing that suffering, not because they believe experiencing consciousness/life is suffering.

the question is - do you think it’s selfish? to say life is not worth living, and then to drive society and all life into death and nothingness because you believe that experience is only bad, and that everyone who believes otherwise is biased, is that not selfish? thats something ive been asking myself. who am i to even answer the question of whether life is worth living?

Some people think that philosophy it self is a waste of time, even so we are here.

So you think that even our selves maybe not real? You are not sure that you are real?

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

With "sure of" I mean the precisely meaning accurate of the word. So is wrong: be sure of "know nothing" cause even little, we know something, and one of this things is that we exist, if not you would not writing your comment.

But, what I wanted to achieve here is to see the vision of others about the matter. Even being just a concept that I was thinking about in my mind.

That's what I'd like to ask you too. I'm sure everyone has different definitions and it'll be great to learn how they define "perfect" and "imperfect".

Not only have you failed to properly define what you mean by “simulation” in this sense, you have waffled your way into the realm of bias.

I have one question, which in turn should undo your argument.

“What about people who aren’t guided by intuition and have accidents, sometimes with fatal results?”

ODS

I agree with this. I’m seeing a lot of arguments and questions lacking vital definitions. I’m not going to get upset if someone has to use more words to make a finer point.

It's all programed like a call of duty match there's NPC's or maybe whoever wanted to kill their human

Life can be called the greatest bruh moment of all. This is a little insight on the topic.

The concept of "bruh moment" has gained widespread popularity in recent times as a shorthand way to express disappointment, incredulity, or a sense of being let down by life. The phrase has become a common meme in online culture, and it encapsulates a certain kind of existential malaise that many people can relate to. But can life really be reduced to a series of "bruh moments," or is there a deeper philosophical significance to this phrase?

To answer this question, we must first consider the nature of existence itself. From a philosophical perspective, existence can be seen as a kind of absurdity. We are thrown into the world without our consent, forced to grapple with a set of circumstances that we did not choose and may not be able to fully understand. This condition of being is often referred to as "thrownness" or "facticity," and it is a central theme in the work of existentialist philosophers such as Martin Heidegger and Jean-Paul Sartre.

When we look at life through this lens, it becomes clear that there are many moments that can be described as "bruh moments." These are the times when we are confronted with the arbitrary and sometimes nonsensical aspects of our existence. For example, the death of a loved one, the end of a relationship, or the failure to achieve a desired goal can all be experienced as "bruh moments." They are the moments when we are forced to confront the fact that life is not always fair, just, or predictable.

But why do we experience these moments as "bruh moments"? What is it about them that makes us feel a sense of disappointment, frustration, or even anger? One possible answer is that these moments represent a rupture in our expectations. We have certain beliefs and assumptions about how the world works, and when these beliefs are challenged or contradicted, we experience a kind of cognitive dissonance. This dissonance can lead to feelings of confusion, disillusionment, and even despair.

Another possible explanation for the prevalence of "bruh moments" in our lives is that they are a symptom of the alienation that many people feel in modern society. As we become more isolated and disconnected from one another, it can be difficult to find meaning or purpose in our lives. We may feel like we are adrift in a sea of uncertainty, with no clear path or direction. This sense of aimlessness can contribute to feelings of frustration and hopelessness, leading us to view life as a series of meaningless, arbitrary events.

From a more metaphysical perspective, the concept of a "bruh moment" can be seen as an expression of the fundamental absurdity of existence. In a universe that is indifferent to our desires, hopes, and dreams, it can be difficult to find any kind of transcendent meaning or purpose. We may feel like our lives are a cosmic joke, a cruel prank played by an indifferent universe. This sense of futility and meaninglessness can be overwhelming, leading us to view life as a series of pointless, absurd events.

In conclusion, while the phrase "bruh moment" may seem flippant or lighthearted on the surface, it is actually a reflection of some of the deepest philosophical questions about the nature of existence. Whether we view life as a series of disappointments and setbacks, a symptom of modern alienation, or a cosmic absurdity, there is no denying the fact that there are many moments in our lives that can be described as "bruh moments." While we may not be able to escape these moments entirely, we can take comfort in the knowledge that we are not alone in our struggle to find meaning and purpose in a world that often seems arbitrary and capricious.

• Life is suffering and life has suffering are not mutually exclusive, however the latter is a predicate of the former. I think you are confusing anti-natalism with Pessimism, which is not a predicate of its believing. Only because many anti-natalists are also pessimist, and derive their natalist views from their pessimism, does not mean it is necessary to be one. Is also doesn’t exactly follow that if one is a pessimist, one thus has to be an anti-natalist. Nietzsche was originally a pessimist, due to Schopenhauer, and - in his later writings - still held heavily to a metaphysics of strife (in the periphery of suffering), yet I don’t believe he was anti-natalist.

• I discuss a Metaphysics of Suffering, of which Schopenhauer held, at the end of the Well-being Argument, of which it is a substratum off. Itis important to note that Schopenhauer was not the ‘OG’ anti-natalist, as the position goes all the way back to early christianity, buddhism, and ascetic anti-demiurgicalists (often referred to non-academically as ‘Gnostics’).

• I don’t agree with the phrasing of the question, it is skewed to disfavour anti-natalists. Anti-natalism is about whether or not you should bring someone into existence. Not whether it is worth living once you are within it. If I was to re-write it:

‘Is it selfish to believe one does not have the right and should not bring new people into existence, because it has suffering within it; further, to persuade others to also do the same and, if sufficiently successful, lead humanities extinction within a generation?’

Then: No.

You ask: ‘who am I to even decide if life is worth living?’ - well, there is no life beyond your own, whence you perish, so you are literally the one to decide if your life is worth living or not.

As for the non-existent, I would ask: who are you to bring them into the world? - especially if you don’t know if it is worthwhile?

I'm with you here.

I do not buy into the idea of NPC humans.

Matiyasevich's theorem and Godel's incompleteness theorem state that there are mathematical truths that are exclusively true but cannot be proven true. I refuse to believe this. In any given axiomatic system, there is a reason why a statement is true or false. With the right axioms you can prove anything about reality.

Thinking about the philosophy of war, is opening with aggression always the safest choice? It seems like opting for peace and then being betrayed is too dangerous of a possibility.

Delete this if it’s not appropriate. Thanks

Lol if you want to live then you're not suffering like you said suffering is subjective. That's what I'd say.

Sisyphus is happy

In my view, the entire idea of Sisyphus it's just doing something that ultimately is meaningless and monotonous, and because of this meaninglessness and monotony, Sisyphus must be sad. Camus comes and says that we must image Sisyphus as happy, and now I would want to argue that Sisyphus it's indeed happy.

Psychologically, there is always a conflict between reality and our perspective (standards) about our reality. We can decide if we change reality to fit our perspective (standards) or if we come up with a perspective that embraces reality. Considering that Sisyphus has no alternative but only to push the rock, then reality can't be changed, thus - as a psychological mechanism - his perspective will embrace its current situation and will try to come up with self-defensive mechanisms to avoid mental health issues (e.g. erasing from his interests everything that can't be done considering its circumstances).

Now, what Sisyphus does do? Right. It pushes a stone, infinitely. Good. Psychologically, we're happier when we pursue a goal than when we achieve it. Dopamine is what your brain releases when it anticipates a goal. Acknowledging that getting to the peak of the mountain, with the rock, won't achieve anything, Sisyphus must shift towards goals focused on himself and not the task per se (reaching the peak). This could be anything, but for the sake of it, let's come up with some easy ones: Physical, mental, and crafty goals.

Physical - Pushing the stone through a mountain requires stamina and strength. After each time it gets pushed, Sisyphus becomes stronger and faster on the task. There is no end point on how strong and fast you can become, so Sisyphus will never achieve this goal, the only thing he can do is strive for his ideal.

Mental - When you do something monotonous or mundane your brain switches off and gets into a deliberate thinking mode, thus, Sisyphus can think about many things and come up with his philosophy, which again, doesn't has limits and every day can be improved. This is like the last step into Maslow's hierarchy of needs, where one's self-actualization is the last thing that a person would be willing to do forever as long as his other needs are covered.

Craftsy - Pushing the rock is not only a matter of physical endurance but also, it's what Sisyphus is settled up to do for his entire life. There are no alternatives, so Sisyphus must focus on his new and unavoidable duty. The more he'll try to come up with new ways to be more efficient at what he does (experimenting with different pushing techniques, with different paths on the mountain, etc.), the greater its engagement and flow state. Still, you can only go so far in terms of efficiency. But, when he reaches 100% efficiency with this goal, then he can shift towards the previous 2 (which is also the idea in one's life, when there's no more room for learning or improvement, you find happiness by pursuing something else).

At the end of the day, this only shows that what Sisyphus does it's just a task, and the way he decides to approach will ultimately determine his emotional state. So the entire point of Sisyphus, in my opinion, is not to show that life is meaningless and assume that someone is happy with this meaninglessness, but instead, he must understand why they're happy with this meaningless and see how their ideas, perspectives, thoughts, etc. differ from ours.

Even those that may say that this argument holds true only if we see Sisyphus as some type of Nietzschean ideal, and not in a scenario where Sisyphus is interested in beauty, for example. Well, Sisyphus can definitely appreciate the natural beauty that surrounds its mountain (sky, animals, nature, etc.), but he has no means to express it. Again, because Sisyphus can't change his circumstances, he must lower his aspirations if he is a rational individual.

Disclaimer: I didn't study philosophy. I'm an amateur. I just was cleaning my room and this came to my mind haha. Found it interesting and decided to write it. Happy to hear your thoughts or be redirected to some philosophers who also defend this view.

**Is this script accurate?**

Hey everyone reading! I just wrote a script for a YouTube video I'm going to make about what makes something bad/immoral, and I just want to make sure that everything in it is accurate before I produce it (keep in mind that there's gonna be some amateur MS Paint animation, so that kinda explains the dialogues). Anyway, here it is. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated! Also I have to split this into two parts because of the 10k character limit (even though it's literally 7800 characters???) so that'll be in the replies

Me: murder is bad... right?

Stewie from Household Dude: well yeah no duh. Everyone knows that murder is bad you ******

M: but why?

S: whaddaya mean why? You kill somebody, it's bad, alright? Stop tryna complicate things, you [Peter saying 'stupid ni']

M: well what if you kill baby Hitler?

S: sigh alright well if you kill Baby Hitler I guess that's fine

M: ah, so you admit that murder isn't bad in all cases...

S: [pause] [Peter saying 'I'm cu-']

[Transition]

There are many things that we take for granted in society. Things we picked up as kids and never really questioned. Like what actually makes something 'bad' or 'good'? It seems like a pretty fundamental question, but no one can give a concrete answer... or can they?

Well for many ancient people, the answer was simple: if something upsets the gods, it's bad. If it pleases them, it's good. Simple as. Didn't say bismillah before eating your dino nuggies? You're going to the slammer, Jimmy.

But we're not living in ancient times, and we have much more sophisticated ways of thinking about the world. We're living in the modern era, where science and logic reign supreme!

So why don't we use a logic to find what makes something 'bad'? Let's have a thought experiment. Let's say you have a flowerbed that you care for everyday. Now let's say, hypothetically, I were to walk over and take a giant shit in your flowers.

Would that be 'bad'?

Norton: well of course it would be bad

Me: but why?

N: because now all me flowers are fucked up

M: what's so bad about that?

N: well I worked hard on these flowers. You're really starting to piss me off

M: ah so we're getting somewhere! Maybe what makes something bad is the 'negative emotion' it produces.

I mean it makes sense, right? Negative emotion is something we're born with and understand pretty quickly. If we get punched in the face, it hurts and it's bad.

This idea is called 'consequentialism'. Something is bad because it has negative consequences.

So that's it. Negative emotion is bad. Period.

Well, maybe not. Why do we have negative emotion in the first place? It should be pretty uncontroversial to say we evolved it to keep us safe. If our ancestors heard a predator rustling in the bushes [Dream], the ones with a greater fear response were more likely to run away faster and survive. It's natural selection.

S: So hold on, if negative emotion is what helped us survive to this day, how is it bad?

Well I don't think it's that negative emotion is bad, but that 'bad' is 'negative emotion', meaning it can be good as long as it ultimately produces more 'positive emotion' in the long-term, such as when it keeps us alive.

This idea is called 'utilitarianism'. Something bad can be justified if it's necessary for the 'greater good'. A utilitarian would switch the lever in the trolley problem, killing one person instead of four.

But let's go back to consequentialism for a second. Let's say it's 9am on a nice Tuesday morning, and you decide to rev up the Buga'i whey and go 200ks down the school zone. But let's say, due to the superior driving abilities you've gotten from playing endless hours of Mario Kart, you manage to not hit a single child in the endeavor, meaning your action had no negative consequences.

Is that still wrong?

Edit: sorry for the lack of paragraphs. Reddit decided to merge them when I copy-pasted this part for some reason

Well here, I think it's important to distinguish between good and bad, and moral and immoral. Maybe your action wasn't ultimately bad (aside from the trauma you might've given to the kids but work with me here), but it was immoral because you did something that had a great risk of death, even if it didn't end up happening. Like if you leave a loaded gun in a room with a toddler and he goes on an killing spree in the local Walmart, you can't really use the excuse 'but I didn't do anything, I didn't actually kill those people'. It's like yeah, but you neglectfully did something that you knew had a great risk attached to it. So let's go back to the 'good/bad', 'moral/immoral' table here. I'd say what makes something ultimately good or bad is based on how much negative or positive emotion it produces, measured in serotonin, dopamine, oxytocin, etc. If it's a net positive, it was good, and if it's a net negative, it's bad. You get it. And whether something is moral or immoral is based on whether a moral agent (that is, a person who has the ability to make decisions) acted in a way that was likely to cause harm. Meaning if two people shoot up in the air but only one of the bullets lands on someone and kill them, while one of the actions was worse they were both morally equal. It also means that, say, hypothetically if the long-term consequences of WW2 are ultimately good, that doesn't make a certain sussy moustache man a moral person. This flies in the face of the philosophy of a dude named Immanuel Kant and his idea of a 'categorical imperative'. He thought that there was this big list of moral codes [list of rules that gets progressively sussier] that are always wrong to break, no matter what. He uses the example of someone with a family opening the door after getting a knock. Standing there is a psycho axe murderer who asks him where his family is. Now the question is, should he lie? Well I think most people would say yes. While lying is usually wrong, doing it to save your family is ultimately good. But Kant would disagree. He says that if you were to lie and say they're not home, the psycho axe murderer would disappointedly turn around and walk away, thinking about how he's an embarrassment to his psycho axe murderer ancestors when all of a sudden, he sees your family climbing out of the window. Turns out they overheard the conversation and decided to escape, but if the guy had just told him the truth that they were in fact home, they would've had a chance to escape. Now, I've been keeping a veneer of objectivity in this video so far, but I've gotta say this is one of the dumbest ideas in philosophy I've ever heard. I mean, leaving aside that he's totally taking for granted that the family would overhear the killer and try to escape through a window that's conveniently in his line of sight, you're tellin' me if a billion people were strapped to a conveyer belt being dragged to the pits of Hell, and you can stop it all by slapping a kitten, he'd be like 'nah bruh it's still fucked up like you can't justify slapping a kitten over anything durrr". Like HUH? Are you ok bro? Side note he was also a weird dude. Apparently in his 79 years of life he never ventured 20 miles away from his home to go to the coast. I mean, I think he'd be right at home with the Discord moderators of today. But anyway, what I'm getting at here is that the ultimate good we can strive for is positive human emotion. Now while this sounds obvious, once you take it into consideration, you'll start to spot people all around you, whether that's a co-worker by the watercooler or the mailman or whatever, who justify their ethical beliefs based on things that have nothing to do with the betterment of human wellbeing. I remember when I was around 15 or 16 I considered myself a 'libertarian'. And not a kinda cool libertarian, like yeah, like that kinda libertarian. I thought of freedom as the highest possible good. 'We should always strive to maximise freedom!'. Now, looking back this lacked any kind of class analysis and only served the interests of the bourgeoise, but I digress. Eventually, I started to think 'hey... maybe businesses shouldn't be allowed to deny services to people based on their race or sexuality'. I mean yeah it might be restricting freedom, but these people are just making the world a worse place for people who are already getting fucked over on a daily basis. What great harm is gonna come about if old Cletus has to bake a cake for a couple of femboys, huh? I then started noticing this way of thinking in just about every debate with a conservative. They'd make points like 'yeah maybe kids should learn about gay people, but that's the place of the parents to teach, not the school!' So we're acknowledging that learning gay people exist normalises them and would lead to less discrimination, and many parents aren't willing to do that, but schools shouldn't because... it's the parents' "place"? It's appealing to this mystical order that things have to be in. 'You have schools that teach a2 + b2 = c2, the parents teach social issues if they want, and there's no mixin''! It's like, did you ever sit down and think 'what policy would ultimately be the best for human wellbeing? 'What I'm referencing here is known as a 'core value' or 'axiom'. Most people have no idea what theirs is, despite having no shortage of opinions on ethics and politics. They generally base their views on their culture around them and what they feel is right. They'll say things like "I think men should pay on the first date because that's just how it's meant to be!" and "I think criminals should face brutal punishment because... they deserve it!" despite these attitudes objectively leading to tangible harm. The truth is, if we want to build the best society we can, we have to first establish wellbeing as our axiom and use science to decide how to best achieve the maximisation of that axiom. Anyway, I hope you enjoyed this video. It was my first attempt at an animated video essay thing, so please leave any thoughts, criticism or questions in the comments, smash like and sub to help with the algorithm, click here to watch a video where we build a society from scratch by going through each political and economic system to decide which is best, and I'll catchya later nerds!

Thales is considered to be the 1st western philosopher, but who was the 1st philosopher overall? Was it Guan Zhong, or is there someone who was born even earlier than that who was practicing philosophy or something similar to it?

This reminds me a bit of Macchiavelli. Of course I haven't read Macchiavelli, but it seems to me that he wants to achieve his goals optimally, even if it means making decisions that are immoral in the eyes of the public. A bit favoring the end over the means, like in the trolley problem, when you are killing people in war to prevent a greater evil. Goal-based over principle-based ethics.

In terms of strategy, you could look at game theory. The prisoner's dilemma is about waging cooperation against betrayal or competition. Peace might be better for both countries, but if you are in a war, it's better when you do the first strike. It's still possible for cooperation to be strategically better, for example when you build up a trustworthy reputation over time in the "repeated prisoners dilemma".

Some countries are torn by corruption or civil wars. That might be just because they haven't had a chance to build a trustworthy reputation with each other.

The "Golden Rule" or Kant's similar categorical imperative say that you shouldn't do to others, what you don't want them to do to you. That would mean that you shouldn't start wars. I think this doesn't work then the other party is either evil or irrational or weak. You wouldn't want your kid to send you to bed at seven o'clock, but you can still do that to your kid. You can also imprison an insane murderer.

If you threaten violence, you might be able to control more people than if you actually exert violence. If you have one nuclear bomb you can hit destroy one enemy country but you can threaten to destroy multiple countries.

Practically speaking, in international politics you also have to consider the opinions of every other state. When you are an aggressor, they might ally against you. International law works similar to national law. Abiding to laws is often advantageus. Thomas Hobbes said something about that without laws, humans are wolves. But we have international laws or at least conventions, so states shouldn't be wolves either.

On a battlefield it is of course sometimes better to be defensive. I think Sun Tsu said, that you should only engage an enemy army, when you are stronger (like twice the number of soldiers or something). When you are behind a wall or on a hill, you don't leave your advantageus position. A chess move that takes a piece is not always better than one that doesn't. This is probably not what you meant, is it? "Always take the more aggressive tactical option!"

Gödel proved his incompletenes theorem. Of course that only means something when the proof is actually correct.

It's a big proof. It has something to do with the proposition "This sentence is not provable." It turns out that this sentence is neither provable nor unprovable.

Gödel also associated propositions in formal languages with Gödel-numbers. I don't know why that's necessary. You can mathematically reason about words just as well. Something with avoiding self-referenciality?

Well, Gödel actually talks about a number that represents that weird sentence.

more...

>Well for many ancient people, the answer was simple: if something upsets the gods, it's bad. If it pleases them, it's good.

Maybe, though non-theological ethical philosophy did start in "ancient" times (e.g. see the Ancient Greeks), not all religions had/have gods (e.g. Animism, Buddhism), plenty of people (maybe the majority?) today claim their morality stems from their religion, and of those who don't only a fraction utilise ethical theories to make judgements, rather relying on their intuitions and what their society expects.

>Stuff about Kant

I couldn't find the relevant passage where he lays out his thought experiments about lying, so I can't confirm what you said. I also can't remember whether he used them as examples of or arguments for his categorical imperative framework. And I can't remember anything to do with kittnes lol. In any case, it's strange of you to bring up Kant but not mention the categorical imperative. I get that it's complicated (rules vs. duties, how to resolve conflicts, etc.), and I'm not entirely convinced Kant had fully thought it all out himself, but the way you treat him still feels unfair.

>Jumping to utilitarianism

You started by asking "what actually makes something 'bad' or 'good'", then jumped pretty much into stating your version of utilitarianism. It's fine to be a utilitarian, but you shouldn't pretend you actually made any arguments for why it is correct.

>Stuff about conservatives

I personally think you're right that conservatives, as with almost everyone in society, don't spend much time thinking carefully about ethical theories when making moral judgements, and instead react with their gut combined with the usual psychological biases (in-group vs. out-group, familiarity, confirmation bias etc.). At least the religious can appeal to their scripture, even if it's only when convenient to what they already think. But I don't know if widespread adoption of utilitarianism would help society or mankind. I don't think anyone has ever adopted a life solely governed by utilitarian ideals, because to do so would be nigh impossible; are you familiar with the common criticisms of utilitarianism? Oh and any conservative watching your video will identify what you say they say as strawmen.

That sounds like something an agent in charge of running the simulation would say to a patient(s) who is close to discovering the truth, in order to maintain the ruse. Just kidding. I too regard it as baseless and arbitrary.

Thanks for the feedback mate!

Yeah the thing about people viewing morality through the lens of religion is admittedly very oversimplified, so I'll probably add some clarification in a text box.

And yeah I made the thing about the kitten up lol. Although I did mention the categorial imperative, so you might've read over that?

True, I was thinking about making a case for (act) utilitarianism although I wanna keep the video succinct.

You don't think the adoption of utilitarianism would help society? And the only criticisms of it I'm familiar with are that people could use utilitarianism to justify terrible things (like the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and that it's hard to quantify how much utility something has. Feel free to provide more though.

Your explanation of Kant is so far off I can't imagine you've ever read him, any Kantians or any reputable introductory ethics text.

Can you elaborate on what I got wrong?

> He thought that there was this big list of moral codes [list of rules that gets progressively sussier]

This isn't true. There's only three or four formulations of the CI depending on your interpretation.

>He uses the example of someone with a family opening the door after getting a knock. Standing there is a psycho axe murderer who asks him where his family is. Now the question is, should he lie? Well I think most people would say yes.

Beside the point for Kant interpretation but why should I think the fact that most people would say you should do something as good evidence for doing it? People get moral judgments wrong all the time, especially when you introduce features that test their rational consistency.

>While lying is usually wrong, doing it to save your family is ultimately good. But Kant would disagree. He says that if you were to lie and say they're not home, the psycho axe murderer would disappointedly turn around and walk away, thinking about how he's an embarrassment to his psycho axe murderer ancestors when all of a sudden, he sees your family climbing out of the window. Turns out they overheard the conversation and decided to escape, but if the guy had just told him the truth that they were in fact home, they would've had a chance to escape. Now, I've been keeping a veneer of objectivity in this video so far, but I've gotta say this is one of the dumbest ideas in philosophy I've ever heard.

Kant definitely doesn't say anything like this, and you haven't even attempted an explanation of why Kant thinks lying is morally wrong. Even if you disagree with Kant's reasons for thinking lying is morally wrong, he never claims that the axe murderer will act in this way.

> I mean, leaving aside that he's totally taking for granted that the family would overhear the killer and try to escape through a window that's conveniently in his line of sight, you're tellin' me if a billion people were strapped to a conveyer belt being dragged to the pits of Hell, and you can stop it all by slapping a kitten, he'd be like 'nah bruh it's still fucked up like you can't justify slapping a kitten over anything durrr"

Kant famously doesn't think animals are owed anything and that the value of people is always superior to the value of things (e.g. cats), and thus he would never say this.

Given the above, I think you could really benefit from sitting down and reading Kant. More generally, if you find yourself saying something like "This extremely influential and well-respected philosopher is obviously wrong", the principle of charity would suggest you probably misunderstood them.

>This isn't true. There's only three or four formulations of the CI depending on your interpretation.

Wdym by "four formulations of the CI"?

>Beside the point for Kant interpretation but why should I think the fact that most people would say you should do something as good evidence for doing it? People get moral judgments wrong all the time, especially when you introduce features that test their rational consistency.

I was just pointing out that most people would say yes. I wasn't using that as evidence

>Kant famously doesn't think animals are owed anything and that the value of people is always superior to the value of things (e.g. cats), and thus he would never say this.

Oh interesting, I didn't know that. I'll clarify that in the video then

>Given the above, I think you could really benefit from sitting down and reading Kant. More generally, if you find yourself saying something like "This extremely influential and well-respected philosopher is obviously wrong", the principle of charity would suggest you probably misunderstood them.

Fair, fair. Thanks for your response

In Chapter 2 of the Groundwork Kant lays out the various formulations of the Categorical Imperative, explaining how they work and giving examples of their use. If you read one thing of Kant it should be that.

Some criticisms of utilitarianism: it implies you shouldn't vote; it deals poorly with unlikely (with hard to quantify probability) but potentially devastating events (e.g. people have used it to argue we should pump loads of money into businesses dubiously working on solutions to the potential AI apocalypse); it implies you should spend all of your time working for as much money as possible and give almost all of it away to charities with the largest marginal impact on reducing human suffering (so probably sorts of foreign aid like the stuff recommended on GiveWell), retaining only enough to scrape by on; it implies enslaving masses and hooking them up to neverending drugs to keep them constantly in a state of ignorant unthinking bliss is good; it implies if the resources to make someone stop suffering are more efficiently spent elsewhere, then that person should be killed. There are defences of course.

[deleted]

a) How does it imply you shouldn't vote?
b) How is that the fault of utilitarianism? That just sounds to me like a consequence of capitalism
c) I think you're referring to effective altruism there, which yes, is founded in utilitarianist principles. The point of effective altruism (and utilitarianism as a whole) is to produce the most good possible (which may involve working a lot to donate to charity, but Peter Singer warns against spreading yourself too thin, as it may actually affect your ability to spread goodness. "Secure your own mask [in the event of an emergency on a plane] first before assisting others" is a good analogy)

I should let you know that I am not anti-utilitarian, far from it. I'm just providing some devil's advocate arguments which are important to reckon with.

a) In an election of substantial size, the likelihood your vote will make a difference is beyond miniscule. Therefore your time would be better spent elsewhere.

b) and c) I edited my post to add more critiques and changed the order, so I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to. If you're talking about the problem of needing to devote your life to making money and then giving it all to charity, then there are a few counterpoints to your defences. Firstly, it's not great for an ethical theory to say "it's not my fault I don't work, it's the global economy's fault". Alternative approaches like virtue and deontological ethics purport to provide answers as to how to live in this unjust world without being asked to do the impossible. Secondly, a utilitarian will only be able to sit back and enjoy their life once humanity lives in a utopia; until then, they must give up their lives toiling away for the betterment of any who suffer, assuming that the suffer the utilitarian feels from toiling is less than the difference they can make to others' lives, a fact which does not depend on any economic system. Thirdly, Singer's defence of one's own wellbeing as a tool to help spread goodness might be seen more cynically as an excuse for not doing more. Singer is a great philanthropist, but he only gives away around 40% of his wealth, not 90%. He isn't surviving on the bare minimum, which he could achieve by living in the cheapest possible accommodation, eating the cheapest foods, using next to no utilities, moving to a country with the cheapest cost of living while maintaining enough sanity and geographical connection to continue bringing in income. If you pressed him, I expect he would admit that taking care of his family to a decent standard of living comes first.

What would you say about Hilbert's tenth problem? Is it truly impossible?

Wikipedia says it is proven to be impossible. I'm sorry, I'm too lazy to check the proof.

Mathematics is one area, where you don't have to trust the experts, but I would probably have to devote a large amount of time to understand the proof. Mathematics is not it's own field of study with professionals that do nothing else without reason. There is always a level of math that you can only understand by dedicating more time to it.

Maybe I could suggest examining where your intuition comes from, that Hilbert's tenth problem is possible to solve (i.e. there is a certain method to find solutions). Would it have weird implications if it couldn't be solved?

The naive algorithm would be to try different numbers for x, y and z until you find a solution. But you'll never know whether you will eventually find a solution or if you'll keep searching for infinity.

0² + 1 ≠ 0, (-1)² + 1 ≠ 0, 1² + 1 ≠ 0, (-2)² + 1 ≠ 0, 2² + 1 ≠ 0, ...