Stack Exchange
log in

acb1516

 Discussion on question by Speakpigeon…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
ac15
Sun 17:24
sometimes no, see some of the examples at queenisnaked.blogspot.com/2021/01/utterly-stupid-quotes.html
 

 Discussion on answer by keshlam: Focu…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.meta.stackexc...
ac15
Jun 27 08:10
some cases of conjoined twins might be edge cases too
 

 Discussion on question by Vakus Drake…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
ac15
Jun 25 09:39
"I'm not convinced one could actually get meaning from either art or philosophy, if you knew that everybody you interacted with or were even aware of would always consider what you were doing a complete waste of time.": time to talk to more neurodivergent people, maybe :)
ac15
Jun 25 09:39
survival instinct is evolutionary, of course, and aspiring for "meaning" and "purpose" looks like so too (perhaps take a look at maslow), but it's not so clear to me how it interacts with one's culture... perhaps it does more strongly for "common" people, and more weakly for the artist or philosopher, but who knows; anecdotally, notice that very well-off and successful people can and have also been deeply depressed
 

 Discussion on answer by keshlam: Does…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
ac15
Jun 18 08:00
@Syed in some such horrible scenario, would you bet the next number as belonging to {16}, or to N\{16}?
 

 Discussion on question by Syed: How i…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
ac15
Jun 16 21:47
+1, laughed a lot
 

 Discussion on question by Miss Unders…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
ac15
Jun 14 00:58
peter atkins seems to agree with @SimonCrase, in his 1995 "science as truth": "I consider it to be a defensible proposition that no philosopher has helped to elucidate nature; philosophy is but the refinement of hindrance."; see also his interview at fivebooks.com/best-books/peter-atkins-emergence-understandin‌​g , especially the answer begining with "Moral philosophy is useful; political philosophy is useful."
ac15
Jun 14 00:58
does "immediately recognizing the tree of all life as being a single organism" mean "discovering evolution by natural selection"? because that took a little while...
 

 Discussion on question by Groovy: How…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
ac15
Jun 12 03:33
@Groovy in terms of practical matters, i don't think one can do much better than jo's answer, and in terms of internal peace of mind, than olivier's; maybe add that after the war, kuku should engage in civic and political discussions with his fellow citizens and their representatives about their armies, martial laws, courts, and stuff
ac15
Jun 12 03:33
mr. delulu considers himself a rational and objective being [whatever the latter means], contrary to all evidence and history of his species...
 

 Discussion on question by David Gudem…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
ac15
Jun 4 01:02
I’m voting to close this question because it's a rant disguised as a question
 

 Discussion on question by Michael: Do…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
ac15
Jun 2 00:43
@DavidGudeman that's absolutely disgusting and queerphobic, mods please take action
ac15
Jun 2 00:43
i highly recommend you take a look at latour's "on the partial existence of existing and nonexisting objects" if you haven't already
 

 Discussion on answer by Jo Wehler: Do…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
ac15
Jun 2 00:43
@ScottRowe there are at least some objective cooking laws one must follow, or else their soufflé will collapse
 

 Discussion on question by Stefan: Can…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
ac15
May 31 15:38
@keshlam it seems your comment is truncated/not written in full
ac15
May 31 15:38
it seems pretty obvious that it is possible to devise some (formal) theory(ies) of morality based on some set S of axioms, and go from there, but, just as obviously, people are going to question S
 

 Discussion on question by RJ.: The mo…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
ac15
May 28 19:36
to see that "do no harm" is not quite 'absolute', consider modern plastic surgery, cosmetic dentistry, limb-lengthening/height surgery, etc., which can be quite invasive and irreversible
 

 Discussion on question by Ashish Shuk…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
ac15
May 3 09:29
I’m voting to close this question because it's creepy and disgusting
 

 Discussion on question by Ashish Shuk…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
ac15
May 1 11:00
question is too broad; the 'obvious' short answer is "no", but neuroscience and philosophy of mind are huge
 

 Discussion on question by Syed: If we…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
ac15
Apr 28 07:20
@ScottRowe to "just shrug and walk away" seems kinda un-philosophical/un-scientific in spirit
ac15
Apr 28 07:20
as Jo's answer bellow hints, the analogy goes further down to "Why couldn't non-living matter give rise to living organisms?"
 

 Discussion on question by J Kusin: Wh…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
ac15
Apr 23 20:22
@philipxy i understand, and i agree it's often nice to try and tidy up things a little, but sometimes people feel and work better with their office desks a bit messy ;)
ac15
Apr 23 20:22
@philipxy when i think a question is not good, i just downvote and/or vote to close it, and just leave it be; no need to stress over such things :)
 

 Discussion on question by ac15: Is re…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
ac15
Apr 22 19:34
@MichaelHall the use of 'public' here means something a bit more specific, as in plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/#PubRea
ac15
Apr 22 19:06
so that values and reasoning purely based on/extracted from holy books and scriptures are not 'public', whereas writings of secular philosophers might be, or might not be
ac15
Apr 22 19:06
@MichaelHall (1) it's clearly possible to use public values and reasoning such as freedom and equality to propose, elaborate, vote and implement a law such that "both husbands and wives should be able to unilaterally divorce each other", so no abuse here; (2) regarding "Because both [holy book and writings of a secular philosopher] are simply sources of public moral code", the use of 'public' here is specifically following rawls (see more on the linked SEP article)
ac15
Apr 22 15:57
@MichaelHall if you don't think that's an abuse of democracy, i'm afraid i have nothing more to tell you, sorry
ac15
Apr 22 15:55
@DanielSchilling you say "the answer is 'yes, of course'*", rawlsians say "not necessarily, maybe not"; the questions in the body are mainly to inform the reader about where the title question comes from, but it's very easy to cook up some variation with the form "in a direct democracy, where everyone votes on every law/policy, if voters were to act..." if one wants to
ac15
Apr 22 15:51
(3) the question is obviously about philosophical conceptions of democracy, and if they are in principle compatible or not with some such behaviours/motivations/actions
ac15
Apr 22 15:51
@keshlam (1) i'd guess "theism is not necessary for moral realism" and "classical first-order logic is more often than not useless in non-mathematical contexts" are examples of uncontroversial, well-known things; (2) if "defending a traditional value" can be done in terms of public reasons and values alone, then it probably isn't religious oppression
ac15
Apr 22 10:55
@MichaelHall consider an example like "a democratic government passes a law that 'a husband may unilaterally divorce his wife; a wife cannot unilaterally divorce her husband', with all due procedures, and (part of) the justification is 'because holy-book says this is how it should be'"; would you recognize such a thing as an instrumentalisation/abuse of democracy?
ac15
Apr 22 10:49
@keshlam do you know if "Instrumentalizing is, unfortunately, participating" is uncontroversial?
ac15
Apr 22 05:07
@CriglCragl the linked section of the SEP explains the notions (i wouldn't say it provides 'definitions' of a clear sort), and they do happen to not include (purely) religious views; regarding 'no true scotsman', yes, i'm aware it may look a bit like this, i had in mind points as "if a political actor bases their decision making mostly or solely on their religious views, they wouldn't be truly participating in democracy, but rather instrumentalising it, or even abusing it", but opted to not include them in the text
ac15
Apr 22 05:07
@gs do you reckon it would be better to remove the rawls example, leaving a more generic instruction/illustration like "According to Author A, adopting such-and-such a conception of democracy, it is/should be the case that..."?
ac15
Apr 22 05:07
@DavidGudeman i really don't know if rawls is considered a moral realist of some sort; in any case, the quote is just meant to illustrate that an informative, well-referenced answer would look something like "According to Author A, adopting such-and-such a conception of democracy, it is/should be the case that..."; maybe i'll edit it
ac15
Apr 22 05:07
@ScottRowe some people cannot afford to have no interest in politics and democracy
ac15
Apr 22 05:07
@keshlam i'd say "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood" is qualitatively different from "[...] all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights [...]" even if their consequences or outcomes are similar
ac15
Apr 22 05:07
@keshlam (1) it's obviously meant in the sense of "of interest to philosophy as socially institutionalised and practised" (2) the question focuses on religion because it seems to be qualitatively different among general ethical systems (3) i'm not interested in the tyranny of the majority problem, and even in cases where the religious portion of the population is less numerous than the non-religious portion, the present question still stands
ac15
Apr 22 05:07
@NikosM. if you could please elaborate on that as an answer, it would be nice :)
ac15
Apr 22 05:07
@keshlam besides Rawls, i've been pointed to Habermas as being interested in this sort of issue, so it does very much seem to be of interest to philosophers
 

 Discussion on question by Syed: Do ex…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
ac15
Apr 20 23:50
probably not, cf munchhausen/agrippa
 

 Discussion on question by BlueInfinit…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
ac15
Apr 19 17:14
@Him Hume probably would goodreads.com/quotes/…
ac15
Apr 19 17:14
compare and contrast en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruistic_suicide
 

 Discussion between infatuated and kes…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
ac15
Mar 25 12:10
@NotThatGuy regarding "what even is a non-physical thing? What does it even mean to say something isn't physical?", i think the simplest example of "obviously" non-physical things that people entertain as existing would be the natural numbers; i don't know much about the "where it exists, how it interacts with the physical" part though
 

 Discussion between causative and Dcleve

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
ac15
Mar 23 14:11
@Dcleve i seems to me that "whether a tragedy play brings one to tears" is observable in much the same way as "whether eating some peppers causes such-and-such reactions", whereas "does guernica say something meaningful?" is more akin to "does this spicy food taste delicious?"
 

 Discussion on question by lee pappas:…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
ac15
May 3, 2024 11:30
you're forgetting at least burali-forti + berry/richard... also, there are typing errors on top of parsing errors on the 'principle'
 

 Discussion on question by Isaac Domer…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
ac15
Apr 12, 2024 09:02
this is not even not even wrong
 

 Discussion between user66697 and ac15

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
ac15
Apr 11, 2024 11:33
hey, @user66697, i really don't know what's going on, swear
ac15
Apr 4, 2024 23:30
don't worry ^^
ac15
Apr 4, 2024 20:32
and then i liked the question about reasonableness and morality :)