Logic can’t tell you what the answer is, but it can tell you what it isn’t.

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

yea thats literally what logic is for – eliminating options until we are left with answers that cannot be discounted via logical reasoning

EvidenceOfReason

In this debate, philosophy Simon Blackburn, psychiatrist Iain McGilchrist and writer Beatrix Campbell discuss whether a consistent and logical worldview is either desirable or achievable. McGilchrist argues logic, while an important tool, is limited in its application. Not all truths are consistent, he claims, thus an insistence on logic and consistency is at odds with our phenomenological experience. Reason cannot ground our knowledge of reality, nor interpret it, but it can ensure consistency. Blackburn responds that a consistent worldview is vital. Logic might not be a means of discovery, but it provides a check against which to assess if the things we think we’ve discovered hang together. Campbell expresses a concern that an obsession with logic and consistency overlooks the reality of human society and politics, leading to the dominance of the market and the relegation of the individual.

IAI_Admin

No, it can tell you the reasoning used to get to conclusion X is unsound, not that X is a false conclusion.

generateblackdogs

Okay but… logically, if you have enough evidence it should support your theory not just eliminate everything else.

Ie: if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and floats like a duck, logically it’s a duck. Not, logically this information eliminates it from being a witch amongst a bazillion other things. (Monty python logic at its funniest does the complete opposite here)

Technically both are true, it’s logically a duck AND logically eliminated from the non quacking category of everything else… But wouldn’t it be logical to select the simplest valid answer than to seek a bazillion partial answers?

Sometimesokayideas

Even accepting the premise that a disqualification of some possibility can’t be an “answer” (it can), logic *can* give you (affirmative) answers, by ruling out all competing possibilities.

mywave

In the famous Allegory of the Cave, Plato foreshadows the effect of education being that a lack of it will degrade a society into oligarchies, democracies, and tyranny if the obligated philosopher doesn’t return to govern and to enlighten those who are most capable of becoming a philosopher.

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

So many people read the allegory of the cave and see themselves as the philosopher that breaks their chains to see the Good, rather than as the mooks that stay chained in and need an education. It’s like all the dudes in 1st year of philosophy who read Nietzsche and go “oh shit, he’s clearly talking about me when he’s talking about the ubermensch!”

Nopants21

The video is nicely done, but the narration is so dispassionate and monotone, it actually diminishes everything else. A little more variation in pacing, tone, and inflection would dramatically boost the overall product.

ragnarok62

**Abstract:** Book VII of The Republic begins with the most famous allegory The Allegory of the Cave. The allegory presents a mental visualization of the effect of education, and in exchange the lack of it, on society at large. Plato writes how not everybody can become a true philosopher but he believes that everyone has the capacity of seeing what’s more real than staring at the shadow puppets believing in that reality. With that, there are 6 stages to become a Platonic Philosopher.

>i. Imprisonment: We are all prisoners, shrouded in darkness and ignorance.
>
>ii. Freedom: We are freed from our bondage to “turn around” and see what’s more real.
>
>iii. Education: The hardest part of our journey is unlearning what we thought we knew. It is a steep relearning curve.
>
>iv. Curiosity: We want to go deeper into our relearning process and discover what is Good, Truth, and Justice.
>
>v. Enlightenment: We can now identify the Forms of Good, Truth, Justice, etc. everywhere we look.
>
>vi. Pity: We reason with ourselves that our enlightenment has a moral obligation to govern and enlighten those who are capable.

The Allegory of the Cave has been interpreted by thousands of people to mean many things. But one thing is for certain and that is Philosophy and Politics are inextricably linked together and Plato believes that the philosopher and the politician could either be a single person (The Philosopher King), or more realistically two separate people performing what they due best as an obligation to the state that raised them. Without this connection, Plato believes that any society will degenerate into worst societies including democracy and tyranny (Books VIII-X).

>This was my first time laying eyes on it. I honestly did not know how short it was due to so many analyses making the reputation proceed it, therefore I created a presumption that it was much longer. After analyzing the allegory myself and reading several other takes on it, I wanted to briefly read through one of the best essays I came across as it answers many of my own questions and develops a more mature perspective of Plato as a whole.

ZacharyVJ

There’s a special place in my heart for Plato.

_Spice_is_nice_

Why is democracy being put on the same tier as oligarchy and tyranny?

mytwocentsshowmanyss

An introduction to Philosophy of Games (with Prof Michael Ridge). It’s a new area in philosophy which deals with some interesting topics, such as whether violence in games are morally problematic, whether games are art, questions about transgender in sports, and the definition of play and games.

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

Is a couch a chair? Is eating good or bad? Can gamers say the gamer word?

Mainstream philosophers piss people off because Wittgenstein was right. The topic is frivolous, but not in the way they think, it’s made frivolous by the weird ongoing attempts to “decide” questions that don’t work that way, defining answers and creating camps that argue back and forth forever, instead of seriously and collaboratively exploring the topic.

bildramer

I have found this video incredibly frustrating. I wrote everything below the line while watching. I understand how this videol could appeal to people currently not already in the philosophical circlejerk, but I hated it so much.

——

You’re lacking a nice definition of “game” and “play”. I have no idea what you’re talking about when you use those words.

If I have a playful attitude when I brush my teeth, is it play? Can teeth-brushing be a game? In my experiments I’ve found that I brush my teeth better when I play it.

And what about spontaneous play? Children chasing each other around.

What about Wittgestein’s perception of language as play? Is language a game?

You have such a long portion talking about “What is art?” (A useless definition IMO) and absolutely none on “What is play?”‘.

The central theme of the video has almost no time in the video for itself.

And in the part of gameification. What is a non-game context? Can such a thing exist? Or is gameification the core feature of every game? Is gameification objective or subjective?

Can you work a game without playing it? Do it without experiencing it like a game?

You got so close to it in the utopia. In an utopic context everything can be a game, an if it can be a game then it can be a game now. So utopia is play all day every day. But can we play all day today? How? Can’t we live in utopia through experience?

I almost stopped watching. Chromosomes don’t determine testosterone. There are testosterone insensible XY-chromosomed people that have the fat distribution of usually low T people. Testosterone is the only indicator of testosterone. And if you care so much just measure it and get done with it. But honestly that should be up to the different athletic communities, so they can make their own rules, and play however they’d like.

The whole video feels kind of dumb to me. For example “The Olympics brings together nations”, but nations suck ass. They’re straight up horrible. So is gender.

You are a slave to abstractions. Free yourself from the burden of categorization, and just have fun playing tie your shoes in the morning.

Oh I hate you so bad. Why is the beggining of the video at the end?

Play can be scripted. For example in chess there are many scripts that are followed, and writing those scripts becomes part of chess. Openings. A meta-game of openings is played at the beggining of each high level match. And its choosing scripts.

Maurarias

I always view the philosophy of games best applied to their design since design philosophies can be logically explored in accordance to their virtue, vice, and effectiveness. This also is very (too) broad as there are big differences in competitive sports and video games, the latter of which are largely an entertainment medium. Art is beauty in the eye of the beholder. A piece of fruit can be art to someone if they want it to be. Why you like it or its perceived meaning to you is the philosophy. Also applying this to society and people means you need to illustrate understanding of the affected people and societies to accurately philosophize. Focus on one topic at a time for better output.

Most stuff in gaming is driven by data. Then as a philosopher you reflect on that data, like categorizing types art or art styles and seeing the correlation they have to sales in certain genres, age groups, or sexes, and try to thoroughly deduce meanings or reasons. If you are going to do, do it right, or there is no sense in doing it. Good luck.

Dezusx

James P. Cares wrote “Finite and Infinite Games” in 1986. The philosophy of games is not that new.

lemmybuscemi

Is there any sort of textbook around this? Or literature that guides these discussions?

Barricore

Thus Spoke Zarathustra is a text by Friedrich Nietzsche that discusses the concept of self-overcoming. Although vague, there are noticeable themes of value, good and evil, creation, and destruction.

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

I am looking forward to listening to the video and reading the work. I just lurk here so I don’t have much to add. That being said – why are so many people bitter about Nietzsche?

Edit: Thabk you guys for the replies. I’m a bit pressed for time at the moment, so I can’t right the thoughtful replies I would like to- but I wanted to edit this to both thank and say I’m going to listen to an audio book of thus spoke Zarathustra- The ops video was fascinating and I wanna keep understanding this.

BackgroundAmoebaNine

Themes of good and evil are not vague in thus spoke. He outright claims that good and evil are nonsense concepts that humans invented and believing in them is dragging us down.

It’s an incredible book with some of the best pro-sociopath arguments I’ve ever read.

lame_irl

Abstract: In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Freidrich Nietzsche touches on ideas of self-overcoming and the will to power without clearly defining them. This has led to multiple interpretations within the world of philosophy which has also lead to drastically different consequences in people’s lives. In attempting to find our own interpretation of self-overcoming and the will to power, we look at 2 different chapters in the text which place an emphasis on the assessment of values and our conceptions of good and evil.

marineiguana27

It has also a killer soundtrack.

smashmycomputer

I am way more interested in how Nietzsche, a student of Schopenhauer, denounced nihilism and believe human existence is meaningful enough to continue.

StephMujan

The peaceable kingdoms fallacy – It is a mistake to think that an end to eating meat would guarantee animals a ‘good life’.

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

Maybe I’m wrong, but small-scale sustainable animal husbandry isn’t the real problem, it’s the factory farming / intensive animal farming, right? So if humanity lowered it’s dependency on animal products, especially cattle products, that should have a positive impact on the environment. Or am I missing something?

Night_Manager

I don’t know any vegans who would argue that they think everyone going vegan would guarantee existing animals a good life.

Rather, what they’re trying to do is avoid the production of the *additional* 72 billion land animals per year who exist *only because* we eat meat, and the vast majority of which are factory farmed and experience extreme suffering for almost every moment of their lives.

restlessboy

In this debate, moral philosopher Peter Singer, applied ethicist Christopher Belshaw, vegan advocate Peter Egan and journalist Mary Ann Sieghart debate whether eating meat is hypocritical for those who claim to love animals. Singer argues it is hypocritical to love animals selectively – we cannot consistently claims to love animals while also supporting an meat industry the causes such poor quality of life among many animals. Belshaw disagrees that all animals are equal, and that our attitudes towards them can reasonably differ. Eating animals doesn’t, in and of itself, entail causing animals pain. Furthermore, it is wrong to claim that animals would universally enjoy a ‘good life’ were the human population to stop eating meat. Therefore, there is nothing hypocritical about eating meat and loving our pets. Peter Egan argues many of us are accidental hypocrites by virtue of a form of speciesism. Introspection into our love for animals will lead to the conclusion that we must love all animals equally. Sieghart argues there is nothing hypocritical about keeping pets and eating animals as long as they are treated humanely – and claims that some animals raised for food may well have a better life then creatures in the wild, so long as humane treatment is a priority. The panel go on to discuss our relationship with other species, and how this relationship might change in the future.

IAI_Admin

Huh? Who thinks that? Or even claims to? The statement reeks of straw man.

McSix

Animals in nature live as predators and prey. That is what they are adapted for.

What they do not like is confinement, fences, walls, etc.

They way we make them live is as much a problem as the way we make them die.

AlRedditore

In Support of a Fundamental Right to Die: an argument from personal liberty

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

Nothing feels more dystopian than not being allowed to die by the society you live in.

Woody3000v2

I used to do my moms CE’s for her nursing and pharmacy licenses ever since I was like 13, and euthanasia was one of the first subjects that came up on them. I didn’t know what it was at the time. Even then, after I learned about it, I couldn’t help but wonder who would be against that!? It blows my mind.

Dog is terminal? Put them down

Human is terminal? Fuck you, suffer.

ChemicalEscapes

**ABSTRACT:** In this article, I argue that the right to choose whether one lives or dies is the foundation of any workable concept of liberty, as one can not meaningfully be free if one is living by compulsion. If one is forced to live against one’s will, then one is effectively a slave to the ideology of society, given that one only has needs and desires to have to satisfy because society demands that we continue to stay alive in order to have needs and desires. I go into further discussion in the post about the role of psychiatry in suppressing and pathologising expressions of personal philosophy that contradict society’s unproven ethos that life is intrinsically good, and explain that the construct of mental illness is used to stigmatise those who refuse to validate life-affirming philosophies, and to silence these individuals through the force of stigma. I argue that each individual has a negative liberty right not to be interfered with by the state in seeking to end their own conscious experience.

existentialgoof

> My response to this: mental disorders do not have any empirical basis as diseases the way that physical illnesses do.

Yes it’s not the standard procedure of diagnosis but i’m not so certain this is the case, and i’m certain this won’t be the case as more advancements are made in science. aren’t there plenty of brain scans on on depressed people vs non depressed people which show empirical differences? The waiting period compromise seems abitrary and suspect. A great deal of fortune can be changed in two years or three years while nothing happens in 1, especially for younger people. I suggest this waiting period to be inversely related to the difference between your current age and expected lifespan.

I agree with most things otherwise though and enjoyed reading.

disapointingAsianSon

I am not a Libertarian, but rather a far left Liberal/Progressive, fighting for those illusion goals of equality, healthcare, education, economic security/safety nets, etc. That being said, I agree with your analysis and your perspective. I do not believe that these arguments are somehow only for those who think differently than I, and DO believe that the freedom to die (especially within the framework you suggest) is a reform that should be addressed by all parts of a society. I will be adding more comments at a later date, once I have let your perspective permeate through my thoughts. Short version: I absolutely agree with 99% of what you are presenting. (I’m rarely 100% sure of anything!) Thank you for this clear analysis of the issue. One of the best I’ve encountered.

Doover211

In Support of a Fundamental Right to Die: an argument from personal liberty

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

Nothing feels more dystopian than not being allowed to die by the society you live in.

Woody3000v2

I used to do my moms CE’s for her nursing and pharmacy licenses ever since I was like 13, and euthanasia was one of the first subjects that came up on them. I didn’t know what it was at the time. Even then, after I learned about it, I couldn’t help but wonder who would be against that!? It blows my mind.

Dog is terminal? Put them down

Human is terminal? Fuck you, suffer.

ChemicalEscapes

**ABSTRACT:** In this article, I argue that the right to choose whether one lives or dies is the foundation of any workable concept of liberty, as one can not meaningfully be free if one is living by compulsion. If one is forced to live against one’s will, then one is effectively a slave to the ideology of society, given that one only has needs and desires to have to satisfy because society demands that we continue to stay alive in order to have needs and desires. I go into further discussion in the post about the role of psychiatry in suppressing and pathologising expressions of personal philosophy that contradict society’s unproven ethos that life is intrinsically good, and explain that the construct of mental illness is used to stigmatise those who refuse to validate life-affirming philosophies, and to silence these individuals through the force of stigma. I argue that each individual has a negative liberty right not to be interfered with by the state in seeking to end their own conscious experience.

existentialgoof

> My response to this: mental disorders do not have any empirical basis as diseases the way that physical illnesses do.

Yes it’s not the standard procedure of diagnosis but i’m not so certain this is the case, and i’m certain this won’t be the case as more advancements are made in science. aren’t there plenty of brain scans on on depressed people vs non depressed people which show empirical differences? The waiting period compromise seems abitrary and suspect. A great deal of fortune can be changed in two years or three years while nothing happens in 1, especially for younger people. I suggest this waiting period to be inversely related to the difference between your current age and expected lifespan.

I agree with most things otherwise though and enjoyed reading.

disapointingAsianSon

I am not a Libertarian, but rather a far left Liberal/Progressive, fighting for those illusion goals of equality, healthcare, education, economic security/safety nets, etc. That being said, I agree with your analysis and your perspective. I do not believe that these arguments are somehow only for those who think differently than I, and DO believe that the freedom to die (especially within the framework you suggest) is a reform that should be addressed by all parts of a society. I will be adding more comments at a later date, once I have let your perspective permeate through my thoughts. Short version: I absolutely agree with 99% of what you are presenting. (I’m rarely 100% sure of anything!) Thank you for this clear analysis of the issue. One of the best I’ve encountered.

Doover211

Be prepared to change your worldview. The more confident we are about our beliefs, the more our brains ignore contradictory evidence, leaving us lost and blind in an echo chamber of confirmation bias.

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

The wonderful thing about confirmation bias is it exists in all aspects of human behaviour and thought. I read a study on the presence of Confirmation Bias in archaeology, and they identified confirmation bias in their own paper on confirmation bias in archaeology…. it is all the way down.

We are basically hard wired to play up evidence that agrees with our position, and we generate positions almost instantly. Being able to dismantle confirmation bias is… futile, but essential at the same time…

Fighting it on the internet is probably the most utterly pointless activity in existence.

Warning: this post is subject to confirmation bias.

Uneasiness

Are you sure about that though?

BaldSandokan

Is this why more intelligent people tend to be less confident in their knowledge than people who aren’t? Is this not similar to the Dunning Kruger effect?

CitizenJustin

Spend 5 minutes on Twitter and that’s all the proof you need. It’s quite sad

dtv20

I mean, this is also a form of confirmation bias.
Believe the facts, be able to change as the fact change, you can be wrong, it’s not bad being wrong.

Hakaisha89