Well spoken. I dislike Tom Cruise as a person because of all the scientology bullshit he spews, but that doesn't keep me from enjoying his movies. Friends of mine think the same thing.

Close minded dick if you can’t appreciate the art because of something you heard the artist did to someone else. Its just like meeting new people, if they are nice to you , you think they are a nice person, if someone tells you “no that person is a meanie and the worst” To me, the only interaction i’ve had with this person has been positive. I would be a idiot to just start hating someone because of what the other person told me. I wasn’t there when he was a dick, he wasn’t a dick to me therefore i don’t think he’s a dick .

You will eventually die regardless, that’s inevitable. The decision to make it later, rather than sooner, is a matter of preference. It might be a very strong preference, but it’s still essentially a preference.

As I said previously, just because we might all inherently want something does not mean that it is morally right. It’s not about what we want to do, or even what we are instinctually driven to do; it’s about what we ought to do. That ‘ought’ needs to exist as a thing in itself, and provably so, for there to be an objective morality. Otherwise, you’re just forwarding one values system among many.

It just seems contradictory when you apply the logic of the "non-separatists" to anything else. For example you can't like any product because people had to suffer/die in the production of that product. The computers we are both on involved slavery, exploitation, destruction of ecosystems, poisoning of water ways, caused entire regions of peoples to develop birth defects, cancers, brain abnormalities......

​

You can look at any product and find some kind of harm or ethical problems, so I don't understand why people fixate on just art.

I agree with all your points. The line between passion and insanity is thin, particularly in the scientific domains as people do tend to dedicate their lives to proving or disproving a set of details that could potentially change the whole direction of the field, at least in their minds.

That being said, I often see plenty of dismissive narratives spun by scientists about research worthy fields, and funding rarely goes where it is needed, if what is needed is well-being without commercial interest. You can see the results of lockdown on physical and mental health as an example.

Though scientific evidence for the efficacy of lockdowns in preventing the spread of infectious disease is poor, it was implemented by scientist consensus because Amazon and the like needed to scale their businesses, and cash was on the table. Did it help to prevent infection? No. Did it decrease the spread? No. Did it reinforce the introduction of variants? Probably, based on recent research.

All I'm saying is that in the name of being scientific, disasters have occurred time and time again, all signed off on by leading scientists in their fields pursuing the scientific method, while turning a blind eye towards the biases that may have introduced caution as opposed to panic and prevented them from making things worse. It might be worthwhile to actively seek out alternative points of view rather than to put blind faith in a single method that has no ethical framework, does its best not to consider ethics at all, and tries its hardest to avoid ethical "obstacles" in the name of progress.

Yes, the scientific method often get "initialised" by non-scientific means. What I see in my domains is often issues about "aesthetics", like searching for a theory that is pleasing to the mind.

However, while it is widely accepted that while those biais are useful for innovation and finding research directions, as long as you don't manage to distance yourself from those biais you should not expect other scientists to believe you.

The high standard of "objectivity" is a standard about creating a scientific consensus. If a scientist believe that something is right while another believe that something is wrong, and all they have are subjective experiences, then you're in a deadlock and none of them will change their mind.

Additionally, given the very wild and numerous beliefs that many individuals (even scientists) have, you can't afford the time to have unfructuous debates with all of them.

That's why the scientific community agreed that it was a better use of everyone time to dismiss ideas that are only backed by subjective experiences from the scientific consensus, but that doesn't mean it is banning individual research groups from following them (they're called "conjectures"). It's just that only recognising them when they reach a point where objective data is obtained.

And I have plenty of examples on my community of researchers that have some bug conjectures that are "crazy", and those conjectures are dismissed by the community if you're talking about "scientific consensus", but still accepted if you're seeing them as a "research project that might or might not eventually give some major results".

It's just that from the outside, peoples only see the "scientific consensus". And obviously the scientific consensus will dismiss wild claims because that's not where wild claims belongs: they belong in "conjectures" and "research projects".

I didn't agree with the article, but aside from the example mentioned of johnny Depp, it wasn't referring to anyone in particular.

I hate amber heard, and think she's a lot less likeable than johnny Depp. But I would say Johnny Depp was only exonerated of the crass made up accusations of heard. He is still "guilty" of having been in an extremely toxic relationship where both of them were violent and just vile. I've lost a lot of respect for johnny Depp since they've gone through all of it. He may not have beat her up or raped her with a bottle but he aired his dirtiest, stinkiest shittiest laundry for everyone to see. any normal person would now look down on him more than before.

Yea one of the most famous sad boi philosophers was famously a piece of shit irl. There's a story about him pushing a lady down a flight of stairs.

Our boy Arthur Schopenhauer

Here are some examples on Philosophy of Science tangentially related to biases and world view:

1. Richard Rudner argues that it is impossible to separate science from human/personal biases because scientists are human. Their biases impact their entire point of view. https://www.jstor.org/stable/185617
2. Thomas Kuhn talks about how science evolves and how the things that we, as a society, consider facts change and evolve. Famous phrase: Paradigm Shift. https://www.lri.fr/~mbl/Stanford/CS477/papers/Kuhn-SSR-2ndEd.pdf
3. Paul Feyerabend speaks on Scientism, which is "the belief that science has the answer to all meaningful questions" (source). I can't find a PDF online but the book is, "The Tyranny of Science".I want to add that despite the connotation that philosophy is fighting against science when discussing scientism, it only focuses on the OVER-reliance of science. Not simply just the use of science as being bad.

There are excellent philosophy of science intro books that are relatively short and jump around to introduce cool ideas and explain how science has evolved.

Here is one: Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction by Samir Okashhttps://philpapers.org/rec/OKAPOS

Science used to be called 'Natural Philosophy'. It was born from Philosophy. It is very thorough in its processes, similar to science, but mainly deals with conceptual/abstract issues. I would argue that Philosophy is a vital part of any academic category as it helps expand perspective and still maintains a high bar of accuracy to be taken seriously.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Argue your Position

>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may 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.

There are infinite possible deities and faiths. If the premise is that one must believe in the correct one to be “saved”, there is no point, since there is no evidence to distinguish between said infinite possibilities.

Also, since we are positing that belief could save us, why should I not hold the belief that atheism will allow my consciousness to remain in another reality, or even simply another place in spacetime? Naturalism does not deny the infinite possibilities wrought by the unknown. (Well, the answer is shown in the first paragraph, but in case that didn’t convince you).

But let’s get serious now. You present a logical progression of propositions in order to support the final one. I think you’d agree that in order for such a form of argument to hold up, P1 must be true. However, it is simply a baseless assumption. There is no reason supported by evidence that any belief, atheistic or not, has any effect on what happens to consciousness after death.

I've taken to going out of my way to avoid learning about artists I enjoy, if possible. Even if I wind up liking the person it colors my take of the art. When the creator is anonymous or just not known to you it's a simpler interaction

When you consider how important the meaning of words and the limits of languages are, and how it’s ramifications manifested geographically over history, this becomes especially clear. In order for philosophy to propagate fully it’s authors intent there must be a semantic agreement with the audience. In addition, language procures and inhibits our ability to shape intuition into coherent thought.

But if man were not interested in said insight why did he pursue it? The discussion here is whether or not the categorization makes sense, not whether it was used in the past. To me, to pursue something implies an interest, it’s tautology. But I guess we just have a semantic disagreement.

I disagree with your conclusion. I don’t think a piece of media can be toxic via the moral standing of its creator. If the content itself is toxic, then sure. To separate the art from the artist is to analyze and experience the thing itself in the moment, not the information attached to it such as it’s origin.

Now if we’re talking about supporting someone bad by buying their stuff then sure, you shouldn’t do that. I just wouldn’t frame it as the piece of fiction itself being bad. Consider piracy.

Take a great piece of fiction, say, Crime and Punishment. Now let’s say that it was actually written by Adolf Hitler. Will that shape your subjective experience of it, potentially even making it completely unpalatable to you? Yes. However, does that make it a worse piece of art? I don’t think so.

But how do you refute the objective and universal nature of biological needs?

We are genetically compelled to fulfill our biological needs, its literally mind and axiom independent, it doesnt matter what we believe in, we still have to obey our biology if we are sound of mind.

So any moral values developed from biology should be objective, right?

Its not like we can do anything else, we'd literally die if stop fulfilling our biological needs.

Because you either fulfill your biological needs or you die?

That's a very strong and objective "right".

In fact, its so strong that we cant even stop ourselves from wanting it, its in our genes, the biological need to survive and spread.

Even people who "wanna serve god" must have their biological needs fulfilled, they wont be alive to serve god otherwise, lol.

Isnt this the most objective standard/reference/right thing to do?

Its literally axiom independent.

Yeah.. it struck me that it's a bit strange to read a philosophical article telling us how to Hate :)

Also, i think it's worth mentioning that at least Johnny Depp seems to have been thoroughly exonerated in his trial, and that the offender instead was the woman

Can cultural perspective not be the focus of philosophy? I wrote a book on exactly that called On the Nature of Values, which is still available on Amazon. Essentially I had unresolved lines of thought after studying philosophy at uni.

[deleted]

:|

:'(

Confusing adjectives for nouns, common child L.

we're all kids. adults are an illusion