Civil discussion of philosophically-grounded subjects. ()

headers Andrew Trezise | 7 Apr 2012 04:14 · /his/

<div><div dir="ltr">http://theygotskills.com/ofmgo.html<br>
</div></div>

<div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span">We employ them all the time in philosophy, sometimes explicitly only to find out the nature of our concepts or how we think about things, however sometimes it seems we use them to find out about the nature of more obviously 'mind-independent' phenomena.</span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span"><br></span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span">Time, Objects, Truth.</span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span"><br></span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span">I am no sceptic, I will assume that we can gather knowledge through such a &nbsp;methodology at least most of the time. &nbsp;But how? &nbsp;It seems that the construction of bizarre hypothetical, sometimes (logically/physically/metaphysically) impossible scenarios in order to illicit intuitive judgements won't obviously get us what we looking for--an accurate account of Time/Objects/Truth. &nbsp;This philosophical way of going about things needs some defense I think.</span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span"><br></span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span">So I ask you:</span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span"><br></span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span">Do you think thought experiments can tell us something other than about our own minds?</span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span">If yes, how?</span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span"><br></span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span">James</span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span"><br></span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span">Plus there is a really good, FREE and downloadable online illustrated and very accessible with many notes on how to read, version of Plato's Eurythro, Meno and Republic Book 1.</span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span"><a href="http://issuu.com/jholbo/docs/reasonandpersuasionfinaldraft/38">http://issuu.com/jholbo/docs/reasonandpersuasionfinaldraft/38</a></span></div>
</div>

All,

I've just been reading Riley's guide to On Liberty and he makes a
distinction that he believes Mill made between periods of society in
which some are critical, in which they denounce what has come before
and criticise the status quo, and others are instead organic periods
in which a new way of living has secured itself in the minds of the
people and this is then followed. Mill sees his Victorian life as
being in a critical period, the organic period having come before
being the utter domination of the church in all aspects of life.

Mill's principle of liberty seems to be aimed at overarching all such
phases, providing a compelling argument to thinkers of all modes of
society, and he does take account of this when he talks, in the text,
about the necessary evil of humanity coming to various conclusions
created through the clash of opinions in an atmosphere of complete
freedom of thought and expression.

My question to the list is, what sort of phase are we now in, if this
distinction is a reasonable one? Is it a critical or an organic one? I
have a suggested answer from me: it seems to be very much an organic
stage where the hegemony of a blunted form of liberalism and the
triumph of science as - in the minds of most - the answerer of all
non-personal questions blinds the minds of all in exactly the same way
as the church did to the value of continued scepticism and reluctance
to provide assent to any ideas.

Additionally, Mill's commentary on /his/ society's stagnation due to
everyone tending towards mediocrity under democracy ending in everyone
wearing the same clothes and doing the same activities rather than
following their inclinations seems to apply to today incredibly
strongly. Look at the masses trying to continually fit in with each
other, totally unable to see the futility of it all! And look at us,
who pretend at thought, and actually find ourselves slipping into
similar moulds: I liken myself to the philosopher, some amongst us do
the same with Science and Maths.

Agree/disagree; what phase are we in on Mill's definition?

S

--

-- 
Sean Whitton / <sean@...>
OpenPGP KeyID: 0x25F4EAB7

I've been meaning to start a discussion on this for sometime but now
I'll actually get round to doing so. And I'll try to keep up with the
thread for once too.

The taboo against incest has been called 'the universal taboo' before:
it is held by virtually every society known and a violation of it
results in the strictest of punishment. It's also remained pretty
static throughout time with the occasional exception resulting from
political games among the high born. There are very sensible
biological reasons for this: Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, enjoyed
along with relatives a deformed jaw, known as the Hapsburg Jaw, as a
result of generations of in-breeding to keep the imperial crown within
the family.

Today however there are far less such reasons. With contraception,
sexual intercourse and reproduction are in many ways separate
activities/processes. In any case, a child with a minor deformity, it
could be argued, is no worse off than a child born to a teenage parent
in a deprived neighbourhood with poor education and few prospects for
any philosophical schooling. To put it simply, biological advantages
to disallowing incest are either irrelevant or subordinate to other
related problems in modern times.

In defending the taboo, it could then be argued that the psychological
harms from allowing incest are so great that it should remain
something heavily frowned upon. Someone who sleeps with a close
relative finds their relationship with that relative permanently
changed; they find themselves questioning and regretting what they've
done (not from personal experience). But surely this is merely a
product of the taboo itself: without it, there would be no massive
sense of guilt such as is now associated with the practice. So this
can't be a good reason for maintaining a taboo.

I therefore put case that the incest taboo is entirely irreconcilable
with a society that values personal freedom. We have now realised that
homosexual behaviour should be allowed regardless of our own opinions
on it and historically this has received the similar condemnation that
incest continues to do. There are massive parallels between how that
practice was treated and how incest is: we are being entirely
inconsistent in condemning one but celebrating the other.

It's worth noting that I'm entirely leaving aside the issue of having
an age of consent here. Rape is still rape if it's your sister/brother
and they're under sixteen because of the issues of inability to
consent (a separate debate in which I am not sure of my own position).

Am I right; have I missed something?

--

-- 
Sean Whitton / <sean@...>
OpenPGP KeyID: 0x25F4EAB7

Happy New Year!

---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Obrien
Rofl Motivational Posters - http://www.roflposters.com - archnoma

<div><p>Though that you guys should take a look at <a href="http://concretetower.blogspot.com/2008/11/experimental-philosophy-as-explained-by.html">this</a>.&nbsp; <br><br>Although the man can't write he gives a good explanation of Experimental Philosophy<br><br><br>Hope PinC stuff over there is doing well this year.<br>James<br></p></div>

E-mail from Owen (he sent it to the wrong address). Amusing stuff.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:  <mailman-bounces@...>
Date: Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:22
Subject: Uncaught bounce notification
To: debsoc-owner@...

The attached message was received as a bounce, but either the bounce
format was not recognized, or no member addresses could be extracted
from it.  This mailing list has been configured to send all
unrecognized bounce messages to the list administrator(s).

For more information see:
http://mail.philosophy.silentflame.com/mailman/admin/debsoc_philosophy.silentflame.com/bounce

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: owen hughes <mr-driller@...>
To: <debsoc-bounces@...>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 11:21:51 +0000
Subject:
man is born free and everywhere he is in chains

moar chains and moar chains and moar chains

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Stmz0n1o13o

________________________________
Get Windows Live Messenger on your Mobile. Click Here!

--

-- 
Sean Whitton / <sean@...>
OpenPGP KeyID: 0x25F4EAB7

<div>
<p>Oh I don't know, I did wonder where bird flu came from...<br><br></p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 7:50 PM, Jonathan Hall <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:jonathan.hallfamily@...">jonathan.hallfamily@...</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote">

<div>
<div><span>I agree with 
Siddhartha - the questions about condoms need and "irrelevant" or similar. It 
isn't like there's a risk of pregnancy or STIs.</span></div>
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="Wj3C7c">
<blockquote>
  <div></div>
  <div dir="ltr" align="left" lang="en-us">-----Original Message-----<br>From: 
  <a href="mailto:debate-bounces@..." target="_blank">debate-bounces@...</a> 
  [mailto:<a href="mailto:debate-bounces@..." target="_blank">debate-bounces@...</a>] On Behalf Of Siddhartha 
  Gandhi<br>Sent: 26 October 2008 00:50<br>To: 
  <a href="mailto:debate@..." target="_blank">debate@...</a><br>Subject: Re: [DebateList] A questionnaire for 
  one of my seminars<br><br>
</div>I filled it out, but I have a few 
  objections. There were a couple of questions about condoms that had a black 
  and white yes-no more-less answer - I chose one, but if there was a third 
  choice saying "it's irrelevant" then I would choose that. I also didn't like 
  the answer 'Having sex with a cooked animal should be legalised'. I don't 
  think it should be illegal for the sake of being illegal (obviously it's not 
  going to be enforced), and the connotation of the answer seems to suggest more 
  than just the legalization. <br><br>And ....please send out your results / 
  explanation, once you're done.... <br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 5:40 PM, James Robson <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:sceptile.trainer@..." target="_blank">sceptile.trainer@...</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote">I 
    think this does rather deserve some semblance of an explanation, if<br>only 
    because of raw 
    curiosity.<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>The 
    Debate List<br>&amp;<a href="mailto:lt%3Bdebate@..." target="_blank">lt;debate@...</a>&gt;<br><a href="http://mail.lists.silentflame.com/mailman/listinfo/debate_lists.silentflame.com" target="_blank">http://mail.lists.silentflame.com/mailman/listinfo/debate_lists.silentflame.com</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
The Debate List<br>
&amp;<a href="mailto:lt%3Bdebate@...">lt;debate@...</a>&gt;<br><a href="http://mail.lists.silentflame.com/mailman/listinfo/debate_lists.silentflame.com" target="_blank">http://mail.lists.silentflame.com/mailman/listinfo/debate_lists.silentflame.com</a><br><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>

<div><p>It would be great if you could take 3-4mins to fill this in for me, thanks.<br><br>It might be disturbing for some of *very* delicate sensibilities, but I shouldn't think so<br><br><a href="http://concretetower.blogspot.com/2008/10/questionaire-to-settle-point.html">http://concretetower.blogspot.com/2008/10/questionaire-to-settle-point.html</a><br><br>Feel free to pass it around.<br><br>James<br></p></div>

Whilst doing some research for a debate tomorrow I thought about a thought experiment I read a while ago in
'the pig that want to be eaten'. It was basically is pain bad, and seen of a suffering if the agent involved
has no memory of it and no precognition about it. So they don't anticipate it and have no memory of it, only
the discomfort perceived at the moment of occurence. Would it be ethical to conduct minor surgery if this
state of mind could be simulated? Do certain animals have any preconception of pain or any memory of it? If
so is it then more permissable to inflict it on them?
_________________________________________________________________
Make a mini you and download it into Windows Live Messenger
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/111354029/direct/01/

This debate seems to have got horrendously side lined into a science vs. philosophy vs. english face off.
Lets bring it back to the original subject; the distinction between mind and body. If you want to debate
philosophy vs. other stuff please rename the thread.

As to the original question said what is the distinction between the mind and body (i.e. specifically the
brain). My initial response to this is would be to question what the mind actually is. Is there such thing as
a single entity that we call a mind or is it an illusion constructed from the perception of the many
fragments that form our personality?

Tom/Mitch/any other aspects of my personality

(apologies if you have received multiple copies of this message but it doesn't seem to send properly)
_________________________________________________________________
Win New York holidays with Kellogg’s & Live Search
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/111354033/direct/01/

Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun

		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

1	April 2012
1	November 2009
5	June 2009
6	May 2009
23	January 2009
4	December 2008
57	October 2008
4	September 2008
20	August 2008
2	July 2008
47	June 2008
143	May 2008
44	April 2008
40	March 2008
8	February 2008
34	January 2008

(no subject)

The Validity of Thought Experiments

Critical vs. organic periods

Incest

Happy New Year! Lets make it Motivational Posters themed!

Experimental Philosophy

Fwd: Uncaught bounce notification

Re: A questionnaire for one of my seminars

A questionnaire for one of my seminars

Pain

Mind and body (actually about mind and body now!)