The Grey Man
Well-Known Member
More seriously now, if seeing intellectual positions changed is a desideratum for you and you frankly disagree with a belief of mine (any of them, really), why don't you disabuse me of my error here and now?
I just write you off. Maybe you are some crazy genius who's thought up a whole bunch of stuff that I can't find anywhere else. I'm willing to take that risk, because I value my time too highly to waste it reading something complicated that could have been put simply.Consider also, reciprocally, that other identity of Schopenhauer which Chalmers and Tononi have not adopted, but which is the complement of the first in forming a complete image of the world: namely, that between what is known indirectly as the changes undergone by the organic spatial relations that thoroughly characterize the manifoldness of objects in space (that complex which Tononi calls “integrated information” and which Leibniz calls the “multitude dans l’unité”) comprehended by the subject in a transient act of cognition- the passage of time in Kant’s transcendental unity of apperception- and what is known directlyas the penetration of this cognitive space by a temporal willing. In other words, the second is an identity between what is seen extensively as a transcendent causal order, as the patterns manifest in the changes undergone by mutually individuated entities (māyā: the matter of natural philosophy, which is the expression of a universal through particulars, the revelation of a truth which is a sum of facts) and what is felt immanently and intensively as willing(duḥkha: the matter of art, which is the expression of universals through a particular, the revelation through facts of a truth by and through their more or less immediate- less or more physiognomic- stimulation of affect), that immensely revelatory element of experience which contemporary philosophers of the mind have all but ignored to flatter their misguided sense of objectivity and which, at its most intense, we call passion and suffering.
I don't even want you to read my previous posts at this point. Since I'm "definitely wrong", I want you to show me what's right, even if it's only on a very minor point that won't take very much of your time to ventilate. I like I said in that thread you quoted, "I would like to be told I'm wrong, convincingly." That's what all my content is about, including my posts here.I don't mean you any ill will, I just have no incentive to read your posts.
Jesus Christ that is a thick sludge of words.
Honestly I find it impossible to even begin wrapping my head around what you just wrote, not because it's dumb or anything, but just from the writing style. I'm not invested enough to put in the effort to decipher this.
See for yourself, control+f -> "."
You are packaging your sentences faaaar too full. It might make sense for you, because you have an intimate knowledge of what you're saying, but this doesn't feel like communication, it feels like you're gate-keeping people <200IQ from engaging with your posts.
That said, I like the gist I'm getting from a quick look over, so if you put some more effort into dumbing it down for us smooth brain normies, that'd be great.
I don't know how I can be any more clear that my goal is to stimulate discussion. I literally say it all the time: I don't write stuff just to hear myself talk, I actually want to know what other people think of Kant, Schopenhauer, double-aspect theories, and so on.1. you give the impression that you yourself are obviously not interested in having your mind changed, so that's 50% of the people involved in a discussion with you that aren't going to have their position changed
Point taken. The "Schopenhauer" thread was a special case because I was trying to do too much at once, cramming a whole bunch of concepts together so that there'd be lots to talk about.2. the way you write is pretentious and faux-intelligent. you use vocabulary in a way that makes your writing denser, rather than clearer. that's the opposite of good communication
I don't want to come to just any conclusion that pleases you, I want to come to the right conclusion. How is it that I botched my argument so badly? Enlighten me! It's all I want.3. your point in that thread is not even 'non-dualist' and there's plenty of 'non-dualist' ways to come to the conclusion that the way modern animals are consumed/treated is wrong - it doesn't even look like you understand your own argument
It's both. I want people to be challenged and to be challenged in return. That's the whole point.'convincingly' is a very vague goalpost that most people don't want to waste their time chasing
it comes across as a challenge rather than an open call for sharing ideas.
This is an uncharitable characterization of it. The word salad that is my "Schopenhauer" thread is an attempt to avoid posting a Youtube video and a couple of sentences, then fucking off. I'm not here to spectate.it sets up a social interaction that looks something like, 'you guys go out of your way to entertain me, while i sit here and decide if you're worthy'
Are you talking about me? I haven't gotten back to that thread because it will take a lot of time replying to everyone who quoted me and that is not the type of thing I'm up to doing just anytimeJust now, in the "Plant eating" thread, I denied the truth of dualism, animal (and, implicitly, human) rights, utilitarianism, and, consequently, all political theories based on their implicit foundations, while asserting the truth of dual-aspect monism, panpsychism and metempsychosis. Surely somebody's beliefs were contradicted there, and yet not a serious argument was deployed in their defence. If you would see your own or others' beliefs changed, why do you squander opportunities for a sincere philosophical debate, only to waste all these words on so much navel-gazing humbug?
Ok, I'll look over it more thoroughly when I have the energy. That being said, if I understand you correctly, I must say the objective aspect is controlling the subjective aspect. I mean, if my brain is identical to that of another person, she's gonna feel pain identical to me, because our systems function the same. Now, some humans can't feel pain for instance, but they can still feel stressed if being tortured. So there's a good chance they'll suffer emotionally even if their brain can't register pain. Which is still a type of suffering I'd say it's not ok to do to another person (or most other animals).No, no, no!
I did not interpret what you said in quotation marks that way, I did not even interpret it as something you said! How could I? It was in quotation marks! It was an ironic straw man argument of your own device! I "paraphrased" it, which is to say that I borrowed and modified your straw man argument to illustrate a point to Artsu which was quite different from that which it was originally intended to illustrate, marking very clearly with italics what I had changed! I did not skim any of your posts, I read them word-for-word! I am not detached from reality and I did not say that anatomy was irrelevant, I said that we were not having an anatomical discussion, but a moral one, so your anatomical definition of pain, which comprehends its objective aspect only in the case of human and animal bodies and not its subjective aspect, which alone confers upon it its special ethical import, was unsatisfactory!
Heh, I didn't read the thread, but did you just deny that truth, invalidate it based on your own criteria, or invalidate what the other person finds valid about it?Just now, in the "Plant eating" thread, I denied the truth of dualism, animal (and, implicitly, human) rights, utilitarianism, and, consequently, all political theories based on their implicit foundations, while asserting the truth of dual-aspect monism, panpsychism and metempsychosis. Surely somebody's beliefs were contradicted there, and yet not a serious argument was deployed in their defence. If you would see your own or others' beliefs changed, why do you squander opportunities for a sincere philosophical debate, only to waste all these words on so much navel-gazing humbug?
Yes, yes, yes!...if I understand you correctly, I must say the objective aspect is controlling the subjective aspect. I mean, if my brain is identical to that of another person, she's gonna feel pain identical to me, because our systems function the same.
Suffering is bad; the suffering of animals is bad. And animals do suffer. On this much we agree. I'm just trying to figure out what suffering is to see if minimizing it is a feasible goal. I'm leery of anatomical definitions of it because they restrict it to the particular bodies treated by anatomy, discounting the possibility that it may be a much more general phenomenon.Now, some humans can't feel pain for instance, but they can still feel stressed if being tortured. So there's a good chance they'll suffer emotionally even if their brain can't register pain. Which is still a type of suffering I'd say it's not ok to do to another person (or most other animals).
But still, in the case of mammals, we can make a probable estimate of how and if animals suffer based on their anatomy and seeing how they respond in real time. If animals lack those centers in the brain that humans lack when they don't register pain, we can infer the animals are suffering mainly due to emotional stress and not physiological pain, so to speak. Now, if that was actually the case, correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe we'd be aware of these mechanisms in animals (or lack of). Most probably.
To be more precise, I think Cartesian dualism is unfounded, rights are a fiction, and utilitarianism is inapplicable to reality.Heh, I didn't read the thread, but did you just deny that truth, invalidate it based on your own criteria, or invalidate what the other person finds valid about it?