Western Materialism

[Rival]

???

Are you saying that Krauss would agree with such?

So far I have read 3 replies to my post with questions and not a single one gave a straight answer.
Now we are even going the way of Godwin.

This is going south very fast.
Soon I'll have to conclude that there are no proper answer to my questions.

I'm asking you why you think philosophy can't answer the questions!

This is a philosophical question that science can't answer, being undertaken by scientists.

Do you agree that the dilemma needs philosophical, not a scientific, solution?

The fact that you seem to take it as a 'DUH of course it's wrong' kind of question exposes your naïve view. It is not clearly wrong to many people.

Why is it wrong?

Do you seriously believe science can answer for human morality?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm asking you why you think philosophy can't answer the questions!

This is a philosophical question that science can't answer, being undertaken by scientists.

Do you agree that the dilemma needs philosophical, not a scientific, solution?

The fact that you seem to take it as a 'DUH of course it's wrong' kind of question exposes your naïve view. It is not clearly wrong to many people.

Why is it wrong?

What they were missing was imo what I like to call "universal empathy".
It's tribalistic thinking.

Morality starts from a baseline. That baseline by itself has no real rational basis. It's more of a humanistic agreement.
Well-being of all sentient beings is better then suffering. From there, you can reason your way through. Even on a scientific basis.

I don't see how "philosophy" or "theology" is going to solve such. Do you think nazi's didn't have any philosophers or theologians?
Do you think that the "problem" in nazism is not enough philosophy or theology?

Do you seriously believe science can answer for human morality?

Yes, to the extent I said from the beginning: provided you have an end goal in mind.
Where you want to end up is a choice. Science can then inform you on how to get there.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In order to maximise happiness scientifically shouldn't you just be off your tits on coke all the time?

I think you'll find that science is more then capable of informing you on the consequences of "being off your tits on coke all the time" and that it won't lead to a happy place. Or a healthy one.

Clearly you haven't thought that one through.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It was a joke, of course, but my main point is if you want to increase happiness scientifically you'd just turn everyone into super hedonists who would ruin society.

In other words, it's self-contradicting.
The reason you know it would ruin society is because you understand the consequences of drug abuse.
How are the consequences of drug abuse not part of the scientific domain?

Entire medical professions are in fact dedicated to dealing with only that problem.........

Most societies have decided that community happiness matters more, but without somehow heading into Utilitarianism, which is horrible.

The social sciences will happily inform you that your personal happiness as a citizen of a society is deeply intertwhined with the general state of the society you are living in.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

First we'd need a definition of happiness I suppose, but the pursuit thereof has been studied at some depth; Over nearly 80 years, Harvard study has been showing how to live a healthy and happy life

It seems the key to happiness is found in good relationships, nurtured through selfless behaviour.

That's kind of hilarious...............

So first I am met with ridicule when I say that science is a more then an adequate method to inform us on how to live your life to achieve the goal of hapiness, health etc...
And then you post a scientific study by an ivy league university that does exactly that.............


For real. Can't make this up.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

To be fair it does, at least in the sense that a medical school has compiled and analysed the data.

What other sense is there?

Isn't that quite literally what science is about....
Compile data, analyse, form conclusion, test conclusion?

 

[RestlessSoul]

I don't.



This again another vague statement that is neither here nor there.

Name those domains, explain why they are important in "how we live" to achieve our goals of hapiness, health, longevity, etc and explain how science is inadequate in providing us with the know-how to achieve said goals.


Note that I'm not saying there are no such domains. Perhaps there are. But I have a hard time coming up with examples.
It seems to me that in all aspects of the "human condition" to achieve such goals of hapiness, health, peace, etc... science has contributions and the ability to inform the path we need to take in order to achieve said goals.

Well given all the advances science has undoubtedly made over the last 400 years, and certainly in the last century, utopia musty be just around the corner. Just one last application of scientific principles to humanity's seemingly intractable problems, and we'll have all the peace, happiness and fulfilment we could possibly desire. If we haven't made the planet uninhabitable in the process.

 

[Rival]

What they were missing was imo what I like to call "universal empathy".
It's tribalistic thinking.

Morality starts from a baseline. That baseline by itself has no real rational basis. It's more of a humanistic agreement.
Well-being of all sentient beings is better then suffering. From there, you can reason your way through. Even on a scientific basis.

I don't see how "philosophy" or "theology" is going to solve such. Do you think nazi's didn't have any philosophers or theologians?
Do you think that the "problem" in nazism is not enough philosophy or theology?




Yes, to the extent I said from the beginning: provided you have an end goal in mind.
Where you want to end up is a choice. Science can then inform you on how to get there.

Nazism is a philosophy.

I think you're missing the point a bit. Philosophy's aim is not to answer questions in a black and white fashion with provable fact, as science aims, but to answer questions well enough where science cannot. This includes ethics, justice and so on. From what I can gather, you have a humanistic view, but this is also a philosophy

 

[Rival]

In other words, it's self-contradicting.
The reason you know it would ruin society is because you understand the consequences of drug abuse.
How are the consequences of drug abuse not part of the scientific domain?

Entire medical professions are in fact dedicated to dealing with only that problem.........


The social sciences will happily inform you that your personal happiness as a citizen of a society is deeply intertwhined with the general state of the society you are living in.

I'm taking you up on your vague notion of 'happiness'.

My eating Blue Stilton right now makes me happy, to some degree, it satisfies hunger with a pleasant taste.

Not all enjoy eating mouldy cheese.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I would be very careful, though, of suggesting such a generalised suggestion for everyone. Schizoids, for example, would not be happy with this.

Schizoids have a mental disorder.
And the only reason you even know about it, is because science analysed and diagnosed it.

Nobody, including science, is saying that there is one path for all leading to the same thing. Especially not for people who literally and by definition are outside the norm on the account of them having a mental disorder which puts them so far outside the norm that the word "abnormal" even is appropriate.

The same goes for people with asperger syndrom, mongolism, schizofrenia, borderline, etc etc etc etc.
In the school where my kid goes to, there are special directives in place for children with asperger for example. All with the goal of making them feel good in their skin, to be able to develop in spite of their challenges, in order to like going to school and not feel left behind, etc.
Then there are also special schools for those children who's autism is of such a degree that "normal" schools can't provide them with the care and attention they require to be able to do the same.

All that is a direct result of scientific inquiry. No "philosopher" or "theologian" dreamed this up. If it weren't for science, we wouldn't even know what autism, schizoids, schizofrenia, borderline, etc is.

We see many people who do better alone, or, for perverse reasons, are better off not pursuing social relationships.

Indeed. And thanks to science, we actually understand why. In fact thanks to science, we also know how we can still move them to still partake to a certain degree which benefits them in the long run also.

Given what science also tells us about the diversity within human neurobiology, I think we ought retain caution.

ow, science? Not philosphers and theologians?

 

[PureX]

In other words, it's self-contradicting.
The reason you know it would ruin society is because you understand the consequences of drug abuse.
How are the consequences of drug abuse not part of the scientific domain?

Entire medical professions are in fact dedicated to dealing with only that problem.........


The social sciences will happily inform you that your personal happiness as a citizen of a society is deeply intertwhined with the general state of the society you are living in.

That's not the issue being discussed. The social sciences will also show that social parasitism works quite well for a clever social parasite. So it becomes a moral issue which of these modes of being we will choose. Collectivism results in the most good for the most people, but parasitism results in the greatest immediate good for the individual(s) that practices it. And so nearly all humans end up vascilating between these modes. And unfortunately they oppose each other, rendering them both ineffective relative to the other.

It's a dilemma that science cannot resolve for us because science is amoral. We have to choose for ourselves whether we will live and thrive as members of a collective, or as patasites within the collective. So far humanity has not managed to resolve this question, or the problem of their cross-purposes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In truth there is, I suspect, no simple solution to the complex problem of being human.

Probably not.

The matter at hand however is: which is better suited to at least attempt at tackling the problem... science or philosophy / theology?

Science has my vote. For, what I would think, are obvious reasons.

 

[Rival]

Schizoids have a mental disorder.
And the only reason you even know about it, is because science analysed and diagnosed it.

Nobody, including science, is saying that there is one path for all leading to the same thing. Especially not for people who literally and by definition are outside the norm on the account of them having a mental disorder which puts them so far outside the norm that the word "abnormal" even is appropriate.

The same goes for people with asperger syndrom, mongolism, schizofrenia, borderline, etc etc etc etc.
In the school where my kid goes to, there are special directives in place for children with asperger for example. All with the goal of making them feel good in their skin, to be able to develop in spite of their challenges, in order to like going to school and not feel left behind, etc.
Then there are also special schools for those children who's autism is of such a degree that "normal" schools can't provide them with the care and attention they require to be able to do the same.

All that is a direct result of scientific inquiry. No "philosopher" or "theologian" dreamed this up. If it weren't for science, we wouldn't even know what autism, schizoids, schizofrenia, borderline, etc is.




Indeed. And thanks to science, we actually understand why. In fact thanks to science, we also know how we can still move them to still partake to a certain degree which benefits them in the long run also.


ow, science? Not philosphers and theologians?

Uhhh.....

We have developed notions of disorders such as melancholia before science was even a concept.

That disorder was noticed by philosophers.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well given all the advances science has undoubtedly made over the last 400 years, and certainly in the last century, utopia musty be just around the corner. Just one last application of scientific principles to humanity's seemingly intractable problems, and we'll have all the peace, happiness and fulfilment we could possibly desire.

And we are back to argument by juvenile ridicule with borderlining strawman.

If we haven't made the planet uninhabitable in the process.

Just FYI: science has been warning us for over a century that we are making the planet uninhabitable.
Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius actually warned of the danger of carbon emmisions in 1896

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nazism is a philosophy.

I think you're missing the point a bit.

Yes, you have totally lost me at this point.
It started by me asking what Krauss is missing by not caring about "philosophy" like you would like him to.
You then asked me about nazi's and what they were missing with their inhumane treatment of humans, implying it was the same thing as what Krauss was missing.
And that in a larger point about philosophy 'vs' science.

Now you say Nazism itself is philosophy.

So yeah, I have no clue anymore what you are trying to say.
I'ld suggest we start again by returning to my initial question about what it is that Krauss today can't do or understand which he could do or otherstand if he would care more about philosophy... But I have a feeling the outcome would be about the same.

Philosophy's aim is not to answer questions in a black and white fashion with provable fact, as science aims, but to answer questions well enough where science cannot. This includes ethics, justice and so on. From what I can gather, you have a humanistic view, but this is also a philosophy

In other words....... in philosophy you can end up with answers like "jewish lives don't matter, just throw them in gas chambers and use them for science experiments" all the way to "all human life matters".


Sounds very useless.

 

[Rival]

In other words....... in philosophy you can end up with answers like "jewish lives don't matter, just throw them in gas chambers and use them for science experiments" all the way to "all human life matters".


Sounds very useless.

I give up.

 

[RestlessSoul]

And we are back to argument by juvenile ridicule with borderlining strawman.



Just FYI: science has been warning us for over a century that we are making the planet uninhabitable.
Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius actually warned of the danger of carbon emmisions in 1896

It’s hardly straw manning, to point out that science has given us both the H bomb and the iPhone. And that, faced with all this creative and destructive potential, it’s up to us to decide what to do with them (and the waste their production generates).

But I get it; you’re a True Believer, filled with the passionate intensity of the zealot. There is only the One True Faith, and apostasy must be smashed. Good luck with that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm taking you up on your vague notion of 'happiness'.

My eating Blue Stilton right now makes me happy, to some degree, it satisfies hunger with a pleasant taste.

Not all enjoy eating mouldy cheese.

Not sure what you are on about here.
"Hapiness" is not vague. Hapiness is pretty straightforward. It's the combination of feelings of joy, fullfilment, a sense of belonging, etc.
In short: where positive emotion outweighs negative emotion.

To an extent, what triggers these states of mind are unique to every individual, but there's also serious overlap with various universal aspects in most humans (and yes, talking about the norm here - so not about those outside of said norm like shizoids, although this applies to them to an extent as well).

I challenge your claim that Blue Stilton is what puts you in a state of happiness.

If your loved one is dying of cancer while all your friends turned their back on you while simultanously losing your job and also all your life savings due to a bad investment... no amount of Blue Stilton is going to bring you joy. You'll cry all over it instead.

Happiness is not achieved with but a single thing. It's more like an equation with many variables. And many of these variables are shared by as good as all humans. These variable can be, and are, determined scientifically. Are they not?

 

[Rival]

These variable can be, and are, determined scientifically. Are they not?

No, because we cannot quantify qualia.

I would still enjoy the taste of cheese regardless nuclear war.

And in fact, people have often used small pleasures to help dealing with bigger problems, i.e., tea drinking. That's definitely in my culture.

 

[Augustus]

That's great, but it doesn't answer the question(s) in the post you are replying to.

Yes it does. Both the quote and what I wrote after it.

That you don’t understand why they answer your question is probably connected to why you had to ask it in the first place.

A start:

Theory-ladenness - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org