9:00 AM
a person who is guided more by practical considerations than by ideals.

@Kenshin figure out what works and do that. Leave the navel gazing to others.

but it isn't a complete philosophy to me
to know what "works" one must have a goal

user228700
@BalarkaSen I'd like to be able to think about it without any of it resulting in destructive thinking patterns but that is probably something I ought to work out on my own. I'll still read that book u recommended though.

because whether something "works" or not, depends on whether it meets the goal

@Kenshin why?

9:01 AM
@JohnRennie because if you dont' have a goal, how can you say if something "works"?
and to me the biggest philosophical qauesiton is what is the ultimate goal?

@Kaumudi Yes, do read it. It tells you what can happen if you dig deep enough into the flesh and blood of the human mind - exactly the kind of destructive thinking pattern you mentioned.

is it to seek happiness, pleasure, avoid pain, morality or what?
and for this pragmatism is lacking

user228700
@BalarkaSen I'll go in as deep as my brain will allow and work my way up from there, then!

why did you edit that I had a good joke

scary endeavor

user228700
9:02 AM
@Kenshin This is why :-P

we're all inhuman degenerates deep down

All of us have aims of different kinds. They can be as short term as getting through a work day or longer term as in passing exams. In practice there is a continual spectrum of such aims. Deciding your life has a GOAL, presumably written on a board in sparkling lights, seems to me an indulgence.

user228700
@BalarkaSen It is, yeah.

@BalarkaSen damn, rumbled :-)

user228700
9:03 AM
This summer is going to be wild.

@JohnRennie I agree with you that we all have different goals of different durattions but surely some goals are more meaningful than others
for example, surely it is better to have a goal to get a job, then to play video games in your mum's basement

@Kaumudi.H shall I notify the Chennai security services in advance? :-)

so if we acknowledge some goals are better than others
we must have some metric for determing what is "better"
and I want to know what this metric is
pragmatism doesn't tell me, but some other philosophies do try to answer this question

user228700
@JohnRennie No :-P The wildness will not spread outside of my own (already) toxic headspace. Damn, this Balarka has me talking about my toxic headspace and all :-P

sry

user228700
9:05 AM
:-)

i'm making an army of frankensteins from innocent teenagers

@Kenshin There is no such metric because there is no clear definition for what makes life better. There are some minimum standards that make life comfortable: somewhere to live, enough to eat, something to occupy you. Once you've met those standards anything further is own to personal choice.

user228700
@BalarkaSen Nah. This one's all on me.

@JohnRennie well what you have just said is a philosophy in itself
and it is distinct from pragmatism

Correct, and it's called pragmatism :-)

9:07 AM
lol pragmatism doesn't mean that you can do what you want after a certain point does it?

The ideal pragmatist solution is to kill off all sad people

so pragmatism is about meeting bare essentials then do what you want?

maximized happiness

rather than maximising happiness?

Pragmatism means choosing what works for you without worrying about some higher ideals that may be irrelevant.

9:08 AM
so "works for you" means what?
it feels good?
so it is hedonistic?
it doesn't have regard for others?
or do you mean "works for the community"
or is it a selfish philosophy

I think the key aim is to be contented. Happiness is transient, as is sadness, unless you have some form of metabolic disfunction.

My opinion is that pragmatism is part of a philosophy

@Kenshin Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course.

@JohnRennie you could be right, but this is different from pragmatism
being "contended" isn't necessarily a part of pragmatism
so what I was getting as is that pragmatism is only part of the story

user228700
@Kenshin: Existentialism

9:11 AM
ty Kaumu, hopefully this will solve all of my dilemenas

user228700
@Kenshin x'D I wouldn't be that optimistic, man.

My philosophy is self improvement

user228700
I don't know if that counts as a philosophy in its own right or what but that's nice.

well it is very similar to aristotle's philosophy on virtue ethics
the ancient greeks used the term "virtue" to refer to "excellence" rather than goodness
now the only constant in life is oneself
and a good philosophy is robust
so accumulating money isn't good, because money can come and go
but improving yourself will be robust (if you work on the right things)

Improving yourself can also go
All is meaningless I guess

9:14 AM
not meaningless no
because the otherside of my philosophy is the goal
and to me the goal is eudomonia or wellbeing

if you don't exist, you have no business improving yourself
because the whole thing's a fraud

apparantly all greek philosophers agreed that eudomonia was the ultimate goal
the only question is how do you get there
now your strategy for achieving it shouldn't depend too much on external factors (because you can't control these)

they had pretty weird ideas of what that meant, though

this is why self improvement is the most robust strategy for achieving eudomonia

Living in a barrel and masturbating in public isn't my idea of wellbeing
But there goes Diogenes

9:16 AM
rofl

user228700
I think I'm with W.H.Auden on this one: "We are here on Earth to help others; what on Earth the others are here for, I don't know"

Don't get too swept up by philosophy

yes @Kaumudi.H some of the best feelings I've had is from helping others

It's 2500 years old, if that was the secret to a perfect life we'd know by now
Don't fall for the memes

helping others is good but... it doesn't define me

9:17 AM
so improving kindness for instance is also self-improvement that falls under my phillsophy

@Slereah nah it can't help. it can mess you up tho
philosophy i mean

@Slereah I'm discovering the secret, in 5 years everyone will know the secret that I share with them

@Kenshin is gonna go through all of philosophy and every week he will have a new great idea on how to live his life
He's gonna read Thomas of Aquinas and suddenly Jesus will be the answer
Then it's gonna be hedonism
Then stoicism

lol

it all ends in hedonism

9:19 AM
Balarka has a point

I don't like to admit it, but the more I learn and think about philosophy, the more hedonism appaers to be the truth

Then dianetics
Surely I have too many thetans
All philosophical solutions to happiness sound good, that's why they're popular
Whether or not they work is another matter

The Hellbound Heart is a pretty scary story about what hedonism does to man.

Oh I almost forgot
Egoism
Kenshin is gonna read Atlas Shrugged, and bam!
He's entitled to the sweat of his own brow
Or maybe he will read the ego and its own
ALL IS MY PROPERTY

9:21 AM
egoist hedonism is the worst

MORALITY IS A SPOOK

bohemian hedonism still has humanatarian aspects - the happiness is for all!

@BalarkaSen It puts pins in your face?

@Slereah hooked chains rips you apart, and spills innards all over
altho that didn't happen in the book
Frank got transported to the cenobite dimension and tortured and got rekd

@Kaumudi.H I have watched the video on existentialism
I don't like that theory

9:23 AM
JESUS WEPT

it says that existence preceeds purpose basically

Well yes
purpose doesn't grow on trees

however the human brain isn't born blank
it is born with the ability to feel pain in response to some stimuli

If you're going by human instincts it's gonna be mostly about eating berries and having sex

and pleasure in response to others

9:24 AM
@Slereah +1

I mean, it's a fine life

@Slereah wrong
the human brain also has an instinct to think and solve problems
many gain pleasure from such activites, just ask @JohnRennie

Yes, the problem to solve is where to find berries

lmao

not just that

9:25 AM
Remembering where the good berries are
Well that's what it's for

the problem is also how can you ensure you will always have berries
and how can you ensure that you can have stability in life

now if you look at what "successful" people do

In the end it's all about berries

you will see that they are about ensuring lots of berries
@Slereah yes

9:26 AM
I hear Bill Gates has a gigantic vault filled with blueberries

but the point is, our berry seeking essence isn't something we choose it is a part of us
it is the whole point

yes.

in the end you get tired of earthly berries and look for cenobites

But that's not very informative on how you should live your life in the modern world

and they turn you into berries

9:27 AM
@Slereah of course it is

Because in the modern world, you have all the berries you want

wrong

food isn't the issue
Even poor people can get food, at least in the first world

we have more instincts than food

Sure, but which ones
Also those instincts aren't necessarily useful in the modern world

9:28 AM
the need to procreate (and hence desire for enough resources), the need for power (to ensure we can protect our offspring)

@Slereah no they lead to happiness

Well no

suppressing instincts is what leads to unhappiness

Because the instincts aren't made to make you happy

9:29 AM
the modern world, one is forced to work often in jobs they don't like to get food

They're made to make you reproduce efficiently

I think striving for happiness is a fine philosophy of life. I think it's incredibly naive but that's just me

@Slereah wrong, people desire happiness due to evolution

Yes, they desire happiness

achieving happiness leads to reproductive success

9:29 AM
that's to push people into doing something

they desire it, because those who didn't desire happiness died off

what happens after they do that is another matter

@Kenshin have you actually seen people who followed primal desires and looked for maximizing happiness? that's a whole crowd of 60's hippies, half of which died from drugs, a bunch of which became street beggars and scrounged for food, and some of them just reverted back to ""normal"" life
bohemian hedonism does you no good

@BalarkaSen do you consider accumulating knowledge to be a primal desire?

they openly recommended people to have LSD's and destoroyed the next generation

9:31 AM
Humans aren't made to be happy all the time evolutionarily speaking
Because individuals content with their situations did not thrive

@BalarkaSen I believe the human brain cannot be fullfilled if it is not intellectually stimulated
all needs must be met

that's why you get accustomed to your current situation

and then one must guarantee these needs for the future
@Slereah people are happy when they strive

Not necessarily.

@Slereah perhaps you are confusing happiness and pleasure
I agree that pleasure is a transient emotion
but happiness can be prolonged

9:33 AM
Also please note : not everyone is the same mentally
A variety of mental processes is also useful on an evolutionary standpoint
Because different mindsets have various efficiencies in different conditions

YEs, people may be happy with different things
but my point is, one should seek happiness

well yes

thus the meaning of life is to do what makes you most happy

Well no

@Kenshin to some extent, gathering knowledge is human instinct, yes. but i do think justifying knowledge with pleasure is naive

9:34 AM
Because "meaning" is an abstract term
You don't have to

You don't have to do anything
but this is about what you should do to maximise your welllbeing

Yes.
So your idea is that to maximise happiness, you should maximise happiness
I mean
That's not wrong

lol

@Slereah I think one should maximise happiness
because happiness is the ultimate good

What does "good" mean

9:35 AM
the ultimate goal

What is a goal

the thing that makes everything worth doing

@Kenshin well, what even is wellbeing? i can easily imagine someone spending a life trying to have a stable, happy life but being haunted by questions they did not answer in that process

To give an example, I may ask you why you do action A over action B
and you might have a reason

striving for happiness is perfectly fine, but it does not define life for many, many people

9:36 AM
many don't strive for happiness

user228700
@BalarkaSen Why..?

but what else is there apart from it?
the ultimate reason for doing anything should be happiness
otherwise perhaps a mistake has been made

Yes, but

happiness is our objective function

That's a fairly empty statement

9:38 AM
I agree with Slereah here

You don't really prescribe how to achieve this

why is it

Most people will strive to happiness

but some don't

Sure, but even then

9:38 AM
some will do what they think is "ethically" correct

The real issue is how to do it

yes
so you agree with hedonism tho?
happiness is the ultimate objective
once we've established that, then we look at how it is achieved (which I also have a theory for)

why? what for? why would i want to be happy?
i can choose to be unhappy, just to justify my choice
and justifying my choice is not seeking pleasure out of it

@BalarkaSen Is that why you went in math

See @Slereah ppl can argue with my "empty statement"

9:40 AM
it's just... whim
there are many many emotions working behind a human brain
@Slereah lel
well i guess

yes but when I say "happiness" I mean optimal emotional wellbeing
so I mean eliminating all negative emotions

i can maximize whim instead. that's not equivalent to maximizing happiness, however you twist it

and attaining the good ones

What if it's not possible

what is negative? what is dark is just bright to me

9:41 AM

user228700
...nobody will ever achieve this utopian state of "optimal well being".

what is good? it's your choice of meanings man

@BalarkaSen whim maximisation is a strategy but the strategy doesn't feel as good as happiness so why would you wish to maximize whim?

What if it's a probabilistic issue

@Kenshin I don't want to feel good! That's the point!

9:41 AM
@Kaumudi.H good, otherwise we'd have nothing to strive for, nothing to do

What if you can be happy for now at the risk of future unhappiness

@BalarkaSen why not?

you are justifying hedonism with hedonism! I want to justify whim because it's my whim.

@BalarkaSen hedonism is a postulate, you don't justify it

but then if it's a postulate

9:42 AM
it is self evident

We can always argue
well no
Plenty of people have argued against it
Hence not self evident

if it's a postulate then it's just one of the ways to live life
i can come up with ten thousand many

Something self evident would be inarguable

yes Balarka is arguing about it now

user228700
@BalarkaSen I have no arguments against this but why?

9:43 AM
it is evident, but silly people will argue about anything
Words are insufficient to describe the subjective feeling of happiness
So I can't use words to explain why "happiness" is better than "whim"
but I know myself that happiness is better than whim
by definition of what I consider to be happiness

@Kaumudi.H "Whim"? :) It's pretty consistent, if you do it this way, actually. But I can write pages about why I choose to do certain actions even though it leads to unhappy consequences.

so if Balarka thinks "whim" is the best feeling, then for him, "whim" is happiness

plenty of people have acted in ways directly contrary to their continued happiness
How do you explain this

I think anything I write here to justify my actions is going to be overly simplistic.

Also as I said, evolutionarily, individuals don't act in the way that maximize their happiness

9:45 AM
@Kenshin I do not think whim is the best feeling.

@BalarkaSen then why do you act in a way that isn't the best feeling?

It's either 1) maximizing survival of their genes or even 2) random processes

You're just seeing things through your happiness glass
@Kenshin Because I want to do it.
I want to defy happiness.

user228700
@BalarkaSen I'll be damned. If u do write about it and feel that u can share, please do. I've been thinking about the same thing for a terribly long while now.

YEs, but you must understand that a good feeling is its own reward
what is the reward for "whim"? There is none. So surely a reward is better than no reward?

9:46 AM
@Kaumudi I think pretty much literally whatever I say is going to intersect with what's in Notes.

If you think no reward is better than a reward, then there is something wrong

user228700
@BalarkaSen Notes?

The first part of Notes is the philosophical journal that boot-started existentialism, actually.
Notes from The Underground

user228700
Ah, do u mean that book? I've forgotten the name of it. Will have to look it up in the transcript...

user228700
@BalarkaSen AH, yes, thanks.

9:49 AM
Aaaanyway

@Kenshin I think no reward is perfectly fine to me. On the other hand you could argue the reward in whim is the ability to defy rewards itself. It's far too complicated, and you're oversimplifying stuff.

@BalarkaSen Apparently there's no direct link between the Grassmanian bundle and the sphere bundle

It's an infinite concatenation of logical consequences.

A human brain includes an emotional component (limbic system) and a newer rational component (pre-frontal cortex). The rational component has the ability to forget about the emotional component and act on "whims", but this is meaningless, nothing is gained. If the rational component acts to benefit the emotional component, a subjective gain is felt when ahppiness is achieved.

But it still seems that the Grassmanian line bundle still only has a section if $\chi = 0$
Do you have any idea why

9:50 AM
@Slereah Huh.

Steenrod does the proof for that on $S^n$ but not in general, I think

Evolution agrees with me. Those who act on whim will die sooner than those who act on maximising well being.

What's a section of the Grassmannian line bundle? A choice of a 1-plane distribution on TM, right?

Well no, it doesn't
@BalarkaSen yes
Evolution, especially in social species, will make you act to preserve your group

Not if you act on whim

9:53 AM
That in turn gives you a vector field on M (the unit vector on each 1-plane aka line, modulo choice of Riemannian metric)

Hence you can totally sacrifice your own happiness for the survival of others

If you act on whim your group won't be preserved

So by Poincare-Hopf, chi(M) = 0

@BalarkaSen Not necessarily

@Slereah actually people get happy by making sacrifices for others

9:53 AM
Line bundle doesn't give a direction
@Kenshin that's an assumption

@Slereah it's an observation

Is it

@Kenshin I'll die if I want to, thank you very much. :P
Survival is the least important of all my philosophical worries

@BalarkaSen buffet said to 'In order to succeed, you must first survive' this applies to philosophy

Not in all philosophies

9:55 AM
Yes I'm not a philosopher
I don't care about proving wrong the thigns I know to be wrong
such as acting on "whim"

I care about living the best life ican

you do, and you're fine

Then stop going on the internet to argue

9:56 AM
I'm talking about how to live the best life

I'm pretty sure that will not do much for that

@Slereah if M is orientable, it does, actually.

@BalarkaSen BUT WHAT IF IT'S NOT

hrr

9:57 AM
Klein bottle is $\chi = 0$
And not orientable

I guess you pass to the orientation double cover?

But then this isn't the klein bottle anymore

every manifold is double covered by an orientable manifold. pass to that, and pull the line bundle back there. if the euler char of the double cover is zero, euler char of your base is 0 too
@Slereah yeah but note that if M --> N is an n-fold cover then chi(M) = n*chi(N)

Ah yes, that is good to know

so since torus has chi = 0, klein bottle has too
p sure that works

9:59 AM
So I guess that a vector field on the double cover translates to a direction field on the projection to the klein bottle
Hence a section of the Grassmannian