Recent comments in /f/philosophy

Symboliboi t1_j3iagqz wrote

Reply to comment by Excellent_Fig3662 in The intersubjectivity collapse: a collapse of the network of unspoken rules that hold civilization together based on the subjectivity of minds that have created it, due to introduction of vastly new minds that lead to unpredictability of agents amongst each other. by Gmroo

You don't think a "collapse" of everything down into a problem with equality, justice and intelligence is a bit... limited? It seems like you would inevitably miss something and likely recreate the problem you were trying to address, simply because you have acted as if you have found the absolute truth which you almost certainly have not. I would agree those three things are important and have always been problems, but it seems to me that we don't have the required understanding to truly fix these issues in an adequate way.

10

Gmroo OP t1_j3i6imo wrote

Reply to comment by Excellent_Fig3662 in The intersubjectivity collapse: a collapse of the network of unspoken rules that hold civilization together based on the subjectivity of minds that have created it, due to introduction of vastly new minds that lead to unpredictability of agents amongst each other. by Gmroo

I don't deny issues of inquality, but this is simply not the topic here. And you've brought no argument regarding the actual content of the post.

17

klosnj11 t1_j3hz5es wrote

Reply to comment by ShalmaneserIII in Anna Alexandrova, a philosopher of science at Cambridge, argues that a “science of happiness” is possible but requires a new approach. Measures such as “life satisfaction” or “positive emotions” can be studied rigorously. An underlying variable of “happiness” cannot. by Ma3Ke4Li3

But what does it really mean when they say they are happy? Is it the same as other people? The experience may be completely different, and we wouldnt know.

At least with pain, there are some near-instant biological responses we can measure for scale.

Chefs and coniment manufactures dont know how to make a "good mustard" as such a thing does not exist. They know how to make a mustard that appeals to the most customers. They know how to make a mustard that they feel compliments particular other flavors. They now how to make mustard that wont give you a stomach illness. But if there was a "good mustard" there wouldnt be so many varieties. People like different things. And how mustard tastes feom person to person is, in many ways, immeasurable and subjective.

1

ArmchairJedi t1_j3hyfrt wrote

Reply to comment by apparition13 in Anna Alexandrova, a philosopher of science at Cambridge, argues that a “science of happiness” is possible but requires a new approach. Measures such as “life satisfaction” or “positive emotions” can be studied rigorously. An underlying variable of “happiness” cannot. by Ma3Ke4Li3

Isn't something being more/less subjective... going to, itself, be inherently subjective?

3

TheAxiomOfTruth t1_j3hxzz3 wrote

Reply to Anna Alexandrova, a philosopher of science at Cambridge, argues that a “science of happiness” is possible but requires a new approach. Measures such as “life satisfaction” or “positive emotions” can be studied rigorously. An underlying variable of “happiness” cannot. by Ma3Ke4Li3

Hot take: Our focus on maximising happiness (or some analog to it) is the wrong approach. Minimizing unhappiness is more pragmatic. The reason being unhappiness is quite easily measured or at least the conditions which might cause it are. For example hunger, disease and poverty. And is more easily directly treated: food, medicine and money.

146

Excellent_Fig3662 t1_j3hxzob wrote

Reply to comment by Gmroo in The intersubjectivity collapse: a collapse of the network of unspoken rules that hold civilization together based on the subjectivity of minds that have created it, due to introduction of vastly new minds that lead to unpredictability of agents amongst each other. by Gmroo

What you science fiction here already exists in reality through inequality. Well nourished and cared for minds are going to automatically have an advantage against materially deprived and disadvantaged minds. Your science fiction provides a narrative escape from reality, doesn’t deal with reality at all, doesn’t live in reality. Mass suffering is already taking place because of inequality and superstition.

5

ConfidentIce3968 t1_j3hxed0 wrote

Reply to Anna Alexandrova, a philosopher of science at Cambridge, argues that a “science of happiness” is possible but requires a new approach. Measures such as “life satisfaction” or “positive emotions” can be studied rigorously. An underlying variable of “happiness” cannot. by Ma3Ke4Li3

A devastating factor of our mind is to harbor fear of failure. Fear of failure is the hardest obstacle keeping you from success and happiness. If you embraced failure then you are unstoppable in achieving your life’s endeavors.

4

ReindeerBrief561 t1_j3hvre5 wrote

Reply to /r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | January 02, 2023 by BernardJOrtcutt

I’ve been pondering the meaning of life and had a realization I found quite interesting. The function of humor is an inverted expression of life’s meaning.

One of the leading theories on the mechanics of Humor is the Benign/Violation Theory which proposes that humor arises under the condition that a benign situation and a situation of violation occur simultaneously. A benign situation is characterized by order and predictability, whereas a situation of violation is characterized by chaos and unpredictability. Thus, humor is the coalescence of Order and Chaos.

A framework for the “meaning of life” can be structured from the themes of chaos and order as described by Jordan Peterson and the description of the ego’s domain by German philosopher Max Sterner. These themes come together to form a rudimentary definition of “ordering the chaos of one’s domain”. Essentially, finding solutions to the problems one cares about in no specific manner. While all existence contains a blend of chaos and order, life’s meaning is determined by the separation of Order and Chaos.

I posted this but it got taken down as not being substantial enough (I think) and would appreciate any help as how to make this a main post. Thank you

2

bonafacio_rio_rojas t1_j3hvhdn wrote

Reply to comment by ShalmaneserIII in Anna Alexandrova, a philosopher of science at Cambridge, argues that a “science of happiness” is possible but requires a new approach. Measures such as “life satisfaction” or “positive emotions” can be studied rigorously. An underlying variable of “happiness” cannot. by Ma3Ke4Li3

I would think the person describing their own qualia would only be better than anyone else in describing it, but not making accurate assessments of their happiness (without taking time for introspection, at least).

1

lilemphazyma t1_j3hrmnl wrote

Reply to Anna Alexandrova, a philosopher of science at Cambridge, argues that a “science of happiness” is possible but requires a new approach. Measures such as “life satisfaction” or “positive emotions” can be studied rigorously. An underlying variable of “happiness” cannot. by Ma3Ke4Li3

It is foolish in the first place to regard happiness as chiefly important or our primary goal/purpose. Placing your happiness as your primary goal will almost insure your unhappiness

0

Excellent_Fig3662 t1_j3hqonp wrote

Reply to The intersubjectivity collapse: a collapse of the network of unspoken rules that hold civilization together based on the subjectivity of minds that have created it, due to introduction of vastly new minds that lead to unpredictability of agents amongst each other. by Gmroo

This really seems quite ridiculous and sensationalist to me. Major emotional emphasis is placed on the word “collapse.” The real problem is going to be what it has always been, lack of equality, justice, intelligence within the social order.

41

BernardJOrtcutt t1_j3hpx20 wrote

Reply to Anna Alexandrova, a philosopher of science at Cambridge, argues that a “science of happiness” is possible but requires a new approach. Measures such as “life satisfaction” or “positive emotions” can be studied rigorously. An underlying variable of “happiness” cannot. by Ma3Ke4Li3

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

6

GETitOFFmeNOW t1_j3hkbn4 wrote

Reply to comment by ShalmaneserIII in Anna Alexandrova, a philosopher of science at Cambridge, argues that a “science of happiness” is possible but requires a new approach. Measures such as “life satisfaction” or “positive emotions” can be studied rigorously. An underlying variable of “happiness” cannot. by Ma3Ke4Li3

I'd be curious how happiness researchers would rate my happiness since I'm in daily, almost constant low level pain that zaps my energy and my ability to experience the world of active people. I also feel shitty, physically often due to POTS. I've been sick for at least 35 years.

But I've got a bunch of challenging artistic pursuits I can do from bed or my house. I'm in a happy marriage, I have several close friends and my mood is good. I'm also free of most of my family who have been unsupported and even hostile since I fell ill.

The main factor that may have nothing to do with the rest is a good mood. I'm very lucky. I'm not sure I have anything to do with that except for eliminating as much stress from my life as I can.

3