Hey guys- I’m wondering if anyone knows of specific write-ups or current philosophers discussing western society’s aversion to openly embracing the darker themes in life and mortality. For example, I’ve been trying to date. I’m in my thirties, no spring chicken, and I keep running into the phenomena of people who claim to still be unsure of future plans for children. This strikes me as odd because shouldn’t people be aware at this age there isn’t a whole lot of time to deliberate on something like that? So, it’s not that I want to read something specifically discussing that (although would be interested!) but more so it had me thinking about what philosophy minded individuals have to say about what may be considered arrested development in the modern age/ has anyone with far more credentials than I observed a similar pervasive attitude in the modern world of being unwilling to face the darker realities of mortality and integrating that?

(Note, the focus being on commentary that was made within the last 10-15 years. There are definitely the classics who address things of this nature, but I’m intrigued by what people say in the modern context.)

I have always thought that, statistically, out of 1000 conspiracy theories, it is simply impossible for all 1000 of them to be totally wrong.

Almost certainly a couple are 100% correct and another couple come closer to the truth than the official version.

We will never know which ones they are but we will have to keep this statistical element in mind.

Objective Reality

We tend to believe that physics describe the objective reality, in which our mechanisms of perception emerge, giving rise to perceptions and language.

But in fact, supposing that an objective reality exists, it has to go through the filters of our perception to be perceived, and language to be expressed in concepts and theories.

What's more: our perception is largely determined by the concepts we learn. And language is merely a consensus.

So the physical world, perception and language emerge and evolve together. None of them is real.

Remember when we believed that our planet was the center of the universe? It's now clearly false and a case of anthropocentrism, a cognitive bias.

Can you see a current instance of anthropocentrism?

• The belief that the laws of physics describe the objective reality, and that the physical world is the objective reality.

Now good luck with that :)

The power of intuitions

If you reject the value of primary and fundamental intutions (for example, I exist, the external world exists, it is composite, there is a "becoming in time" , there is a consciousness, an intentionality etc.). , in favor of some kind of all-around rational-scientific "proof"... we should ask ourselves first: why are we inclined to give more weight and validity to that proof, rather than to the primal intuitions?

Because we have a rational-scientific proof of the validity of the rational-scientific "proof? And What about a proof of the proof of the validity of the proof? And so on and so forth ad infinitum?

Nope, the reason is that the belief in the validity of the rational/scientific proof is itself a primal intuition, or rather, a corollary of the intuition that rationality has strong descriptive and explanatory power of reality (or that reality is intrinsically intelligible)

so... to deny all the other primal and core intuitions in favor of this other core intuition... well it makes little sense, I guess. Why would you do that?

As Husserl said "every original presentive intuition is a legitimizing source of cognition: everything originarily -- so to speak, in the flesh -- offerd to us in intuition is to be accepted simply as what it is presented as being, but also only within the limits in which it is presented there"

Science is pedantic and our lives are not actually improved by it.

We should not confuse the goals of living with the goals of observing. Living is about introspection and becoming who you ought to become. Regardless of how you rationalize what you ought to be, observation of the external is not supplementary to observation of the internal.

Life is full of distraction. These distractions are not limited to the things which keep you from your goals. Your goals very well could also be distraction. If you end your day not having learned something about yourself, have your learned anything worth truly knowing?

Learning about the world seems useful to the extent that we are the rational extension of nature. We came from nature, and we will return to nature. The only thing which separates us from animals is our ability to rationalize. We must learn about nature to learn about ourselves, surely, but we must not care only about nature; nature, as its own entity, will only take us so far.

We may solve practical matters pertaining to quality of living, but we never become better for it; our lives only become easier. There is nothing easy about being a rational being, yet we seem to want it to be. You're a fool if you believe life should be easy. If a man endeavors to learn mathematics, then he has a hard path ahead of him. He shall rise and fall at different points in this endeavor, but he shall always come out stronger mathematically. He may have learned how to problem solve, but has he actually improved his condition? Surely he has become a good mathematician, but has he become a good human? I'm not convinced the skills directly translate. This man may lack the ability to ask himself difficult and pervasive questions about himself--the questions that truly matter--despite his impressive mathematical achievement.

We're too afraid, and we always have been, of ourselves. We all possess insecurity and doubt, yet we seem to want to ignore it. I know that I have. We are so preoccupied with superficial means that we forget about the true ends. The issue, however, lies in that people don't want to, or know how to, address it or do anything about it. People are content living by the masses and going through the motions we've been told to go through. Do you possess no unique insight into your own life? Are you really an individual? Do you even believe in your own ideals? or are they someone else's handed down to you? We don't even know what is and isn't a distraction, anymore. *note, there is not necessarily anything wrong with this, but this kind of life leaves me, personally, unsatisfied and I think it leaves many others (who don't even understand why) unsatisfied, as well.

You ought to strive to become this individual person. You ought to understand what makes you tick. If you can't stare your insecurities and flaws in the face now, then when will you? when you're old and gray and have but a few years left? When will you decide it's worth trying to live a meaningful life?

Perhaps you're happy, and that's wonderful. I'm happy, as well, but that does not mean I should stop trying. You must always keep trying. The moment you stop trying to become better is the moment you stop truly living. This is my philosophy.

Let me make an important distinction here: your life is made up of belief. You don't know anything besides what you perceive life to be. This isn't solipsism, this is your everyday reality. You ought to know yourself, as the Oracle at Delphi said (basically). We all have our own paradigms which we follow, but how blindly do you follow them? or do you understand why you perceive the world the way you do? Do you let pedantics govern your life? That is, is your life one distraction after another, or do you ever actually focus on you? Understanding what is and isn't a distraction is difficult and, I find, very unsettling. It's worth a good think.

I believe that we ought to live in a constant state of both teacher and pupil. We must learn from and teach others as well as ourselves. We have, within us, every capability of uncovering truth. If we want to understand the point of nature (and of God, if you're into that), then look no further than within. What comes from nature shall go to nature; what comes from God shall go to God. We must not proclaim to know what we can't, yet we must continually question. This, I believe, is the essence of the socratic method. We may not ever truly know, so we should not act like we're even capable of knowing. We may only seem to understand approximations against the immensity that is knowledge, but we will never know. We ought to exist to experience, not to understand.

my discussion starts with the teleporter problem. Would you experience the world the same way after teleporting your body somewhere else?

In my opinion in both cases teleporting or walking, you are just changing space/time coordinates and everything else stays exactly the same, therefore you should percieve and experience the world the same way as before. Teleporting is effectively just like walking somewhere. Dematerializing at one point of space/time and rematerializing at another point in space/time. (if you meet your friend at the market there is no physical diffrence if he walked or teleported there)

Let's say you are able to create a perfect clone / copy of your brain with all the synapses and energetic conditions including your experiences and impressions and then immediately die after.

Do you think you get to percieve the world the same way you did before your death but from the point of view of your clone or do you think perception itself would end for the original you? (since you effectively just changed space /time coordinates again which is exactly like teleporting)

What happens if you both stay alive, it is most likely impossible you will be able to percieve the world from two diffrent points of view. (there is arguably no connection between you and the clone anymore from the moment after cloning and you and the clone immediately start to differ while both keep percieving from their point of view)

It seems paradox, because teleporting and keeping your perception seems to be possible in this example, while cloning which is teleporting in a way and keeping your perception appears to be logically impossible.

(I personally conclude neither teleporting / cloning while keeping your perception can ever be possible since it is paradox)

What do you think?

I remember reading something that was comparing different forms of control in society. I think it used Western media controlling narratives as an example of more subliminal control, and then compared to something like the subjective enforcement of hard-coded rules in potentially the USSR. I want to say it may have been Zizek as I think there was some humor to the comparison pointing out the irony.

I was wondering if this rings a bell for anyone because I am having trouble finding it.

[deleted]

[removed]

What Life is.

The prevailing physicalism of the modern era describes life as a system. A system is defined a set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network.

However, to define life as a system is try to explain with something that needs to be explained.

A living thing is understood as a being whose parts work together for one goal, which is the sustainment of the whole organism. In this sense, the parts comprise truly one being, as this principle that unites the parts is intrinsic to the organism.

However, a machine is not a one being as much as a heap of sand is not a one being, as its goal, function is imparted from the outside. Its principle of unity is extrinsic, its unity is in the perceiver's mind, not in-itself.

Therefore, we can say that a machine is only a metaphor, something that resembles life but not quite.

If this is the case, why are we defining life based on the thing that life is giving meaning to? This does not make sense.

Question about consciousness and subconscio

Ok so basically some friends and me are arguing over this philosophy topic everytime we see each other and we can't get up with an agreement.

So the topic is about our consciousness and our subconscio. I will refer consciouness as CN and SC for subconscio for the remaining threat.

So the example we can't figure our head around is pretty simple and stupid but in my opinion has a deeper/wider meaning behind it. I recently read Martin heidegger's book about his take on CN and SC and kind of agree with most of his points.

But enough talking around here is the example. Imagining a person is totally straight. Can this same person decide for himself that he wants to be homosexuel all of a sudden without having any interest in such a relation before?

I know I know stupid example but I think it's kind of interesting on a wider scale. The question that brings up is can you willingly by thinking about it put a thought from your CN in your SC. Can you trick yourself by persuading your own SC willingly?

The definition about our CN and SC and there range is a hard topic to discuss as every philisopher in history has their own thesis about it.

We can put this example into a simpler relation. If I willingly want to get to sleep earlier and proceed doing so every night my body will earlier or later adept to that circle and I will get sleepier earlier. So I willingly changed my SC into putting a thought in my CN over and over again.

If that works on a small scale like that. Does it work on a larger scale aswell?

To get back to my first example. It's not the biggest thought in human history I just think it interesting thinking about being able to trick our SC to want something even though we didn't want it in the first place - manipulating our own thinking of life on our own.

Closing words: We get manipulated by the media or other people everyday. Either on a big or small topic about our life. But that all happens unwillingly. So to sum up this threat: Can you willingly change your subconscio?

Maybe I am totally wrong in this topic and stupid. I didn't study philosophy - just enjoy reading old philosophers and discussing about topics like this. Looking forward to hear your opions on this or to make me look like a coward ;)

Cheers,

Regarding the nature of perception: Can you detect infinitely small movements of, for example, someone's hand? Can you think "I'm gonna look at his hand until it has moved"?

Perhaps I'm sniffing at Zero's paradoxes which claim that motion is impossible.

Regarding the, “natural state of man.” What would the natural state of humanity be? What morals would be bind ourselves to and what social contracts would be formed? How?

The particles that make up the door can be closed or open depending on the observation…

What is truth?

I remember pontius pilot saying this in the bible. I think its a underrated part of the story. Anyone got a idea of what truth is?

I wonder whether a particular line of reasoning against the multiverse theory is effective. I don't have a background in physics, so I may well be way off here (in which case I'd be grateful if people explain why), but as far as I understand, the idea is that certain parameters in our universe happen to be just such that matter and life can exist in it. This would be incredibly unlikely to happen by chance. Therefore we probably exist in one of the many universes in existence, and predictably, in one that happens to have conditions for life to exist. Therefore, there are most likely multiple universes.
The usual retort in case of such theories is to say that they are the case of selection bias: people argue, for example, that intelligent design must be true, since it is incredibly unlikely that our solar system has exactly the parameters for intelligent life to exist. However, that's just selection bias: since we are here to ask questions, of course it is true that conditions happen to be hospitable to life where we are. We may well have been asking such questions on Mars, or in another galaxy, and then it would be necessarily true that conditions were hospitable to life there. So what you would have to be saying is: it is incredibly unlikely for conditions anywhere to be hospitable to life, which is just not true, given the myriad of stars and planets in existence.
However, this doesn't really work in case of the multiverse: while it is true that since we are here to ask questions the universe must have had the conditions for life to exist, what is unlikely is for the only universe to happen to have both conditions for life and life as there are many more configurations of physical constants in which it wouldn't. So to level an analogous objection, to say that it is not surprising, you would have to assert the same conditions - that there have been multiple shots at a universe, so to speak, and one of them happened to have these exact parameters and it is the one we are in (again, predictably). But that is exactly what the multiverse apologist claims.
People have found the idea of the multiverse problematic since it may well be in principle unverifiable, which does not go well with our understanding of what a scientific theory must be. However, it seems to me that this particular objection is like an objection to those mathematical spoof proofs that show that 1 = 0: sure, you can just dismiss the conclusion, because 1 does not equal 0, but what is also true, and perhaps more interesting, is to find a mistake in the proof: if the conclusion is unintelligible, there must be a mistake.
So, what I think is the mistake is our misunderstanding of what can or cannot be 'surprising'. Because we may say: it is very surprising, if there is only one universe, that it happens to have these very parameters. But what is surprise? The practice of surprise language is such that something is surprising when it disagrees with our background models. If I have a model 'all swans are white', then seeing a black swan would be surprising. If I have a model 'heavy objects fall towards the ground when dropped from high altitudes', an object not doing that would be surprising. There must exist a model for anything to be surprising. Otherwise, black swans, or levitating objects, would be just there, nothing would be surprising.
And what I think is the background model in case of surprise about parameters of the universe is that they should be random. If they were allocated at random, it is very unlikely for a single allocation to result in precisely such parameters that are hospitable to life. So then to rescue that model we say: there must have been multiple allocations. But, why assume such random allocation? I think we are groundlessly generalising from our everyday practice: when no-one deliberately arranged something to be a certain way, the results usually appear random to us. And thus we say: well, if no-one arranged everything that ever existed with deliberation, the result should be random. But this transitions a practice to a context it is not designed for. It is the same mistake as when a question of 'what is the purpose of everything?' is asked as a supposedly logical question. Purposes exist in localised contexts: the purpose of going to school is to get an education, the purpose of buying food is to eat. But the purpose of everything is an incoherent notion since there is nothing in principle outside the system that could be a candidate answer. And in the same way, to say that 'since nobody has deliberately arranged everything that exists, it should be random' misapplies the useful picture of intentionality and presence of patterns we know to be useful within the universe to the whole universe, which is not a context in which we know or could know it to be useful. So the model against which surprise arises is flawed - when we fix that, and accept that we cannot know whether there is some RNG-like process behind every universe, we lose the framework to be surprised by the particular parameters our universe displays and thus lose the need to postulate multiple universes.

Animal Ethics Media Recommendations

Hi everyone! I’m currently looking at the area of animal ethics and would like to know if any of you have any recommendations of media for me to read/listen/watch. Any podcasts, films, books or other related media you would recommend?

Thank you!

Are there situations in today's world where it's impossible for a person to consent to the social contract, if following a "a contract must be consensual in other to be legitimate" theory?

I'm thinking about a situation where someone is born in a country where something they do or something about how they are is illegal.

For example, a situation where a left-handed person is born in a country where left-handed people are considered evil and locked in sanatoriums. In order to be able to consent to a social contract, one has to have the option to be able to agree to it without be coerced. The person would have the option to either consent to the authority of their state (and be locked in a sanatorium), or to leave their state. However, in today's world all territories that allow for human subsistence are the property of states. If they left their country, they would have to live the territory of another country. Other countries might not allow them to become citizens (due to their citizenship laws), or might share laws that force left-handed people in sanatoriums. Wouldn't this situation be a situation where there are people to which no state is able to have legitimate authority?

Another example that is much more likely would be one like this. Someone wants to do something, but no countries a person can become a citizen of allow them to do it. For example, the person is in an interracial relationship and is unable to marry their partner in any country, they want to have an abortion but it's forbidden everywhere, or they smoke weed and the consumption of weed is forbidden in all countries they can become a citizen of. Since the entirety of the Earth's resources that are necessary for human survival are taken up by states, the person would be unable to consent to the social contract of any country, as they would be coerced into giving up their liberty to (marry their partner/have an abortion/smoke weed/walk), having no other option if they want to survive. Therefore, no countries would have legitimate authority over them. What is it that stops this from being true regarding today's world

I have a philosophy question and am hoping for some input. I would appreciate citations if possible.

I am currently renting a house with a group of people in Mexico. We had an agreement that before leaving the house we are all meant to check the doors and windows to make sure the house is locked to prevent theft. We also all understood that leaving the door open could result in a theft.

A couple of days ago a door was left open and someone broke in an stole an iPhone from a bedroom.

1 Person didn’t know the door existed but didn’t verbally ask if doors were all closed before leaving

1 Person left the door open (in a part of the house with no traffic) and didn’t tell anyone before leaving the house earlier in the day

3 People knew of the door but didn’t check it

Whose responsibility is it to replace the phone? If so - why is this?

I feel that we all hold equal responsibility to replace the phone because we all share responsibility for ensuring the house is safe. Others feel that it should only fall on the person who has their phone stolen, and others feel that most of the responsibility should be on the phone owner but would be willing to contribute something to replace the phone.

Any insight is appreciated!