Recent comments in /f/philosophy

dudertheduder t1_j7h451v wrote

Yeah its really easy to fully understand on a graph. X is your skill, Y is the difficulty... Too easy for you? No flow. Too hard for you? No flow....juuuuust right? Flow.

7

TopRamenBinLaden t1_j7h2tf5 wrote

Yea video games and music are two areas where I have personally experienced flow state. Rythym games are super good for that. I have been in a similar state playing Beat Saber and Guitar Hero as well. I also get into that state when I am improvising on guitar. It is always a fascinating state, where you feel like your body just knows better than you do.

12

Eruptflail t1_j7h2gny wrote

The other thing is that flow states are very hard to achieve in competition against others or very unpredictable things. If you're a top athlete competing against top athletes, you're going to have a very hard time entering flow states because they're challenging you constantly. Even then, entering a flow state then may cause you to commit major errors because you're not using metacognition. You're only reacting.

3

Caring_Cactus t1_j7gumva wrote

Self-esteem relates to one's confidence to evaluate and manage their emotional experiences in relation to the self, self-worth is what keeps self-esteem stable. Having high secure self-esteem would mean a person has a more congruent self-concept in recognizing what is within and outside their control, and when they narrow their attention of focus to what is within the moment they can then enter these optimal mental flow states.

5

Kayyam t1_j7gryaz wrote

61

Saadiqfhs t1_j7gr6c2 wrote

Can you want someone to fit into a box and believe in love?

I look for people that fit my schedule, someone with the same work and social schedules, as well as life goals timelines. But isn’t love communication and willingness to change? By creating a strict criteria of what needs to happen for a relationship to work am I keeping myself the possibility of finding out what love truly can be?

2

Gondoulf t1_j7go4o9 wrote

Here's the second phrase of the Wikipedia page you sent : "Currently the adaptive advantage of sexual reproduction is widely regarded as a major unsolved problem in biology". Please don't say it's "bollocks" when it's clearly not clear, and stop with the passive-agressive statements. Now that we know that question of sissiparity is not solved ; the philosophical question can take place. About the whales and the other argument, I was referring to that kurzgesagt video on cancer and whales ; where they do posit the screening system argument and the other which was "more cells, more cancer, but cancerous cells can also get cancer" but now that the research has been made clear on that recently, I understand my lack of knowledge in the whale's cancer departement.

1

GrandStudio t1_j7gnmao wrote

There is no end of history. Utopia is not a destination. The author is talking about transcending our scarcity mentality -- a state that is far closer than we realize -- and the recognition that we cannot compete and self maximize our way to peace and prosperity. We are, as David Deutsch has said, at the beginning of infinity in terms of human explanations and problem solving. A new story of collaboration and abundance that uses markets to allocate resources, builds on self-interest to sustain and continue progress, provides basic survival necessities, and frees all of humanity to follow their gifts and make their dent in the universe -- that is the infinite engine of human progress that we can and must build.

3

Psychobert t1_j7gn8ok wrote

Asking without judgement at all, but why dangerous? When I’ve felt what I think is flow it’s always been associated with what could be a physically dangerous activity, but I’ve always felt completely in control of that one activity.

2

Psychobert t1_j7gm8lr wrote

Was just thinking that. I actually bought “The Inner Game of Skiing” on my way to my first ever skiing holiday. Once I got the basics, the sense of flow as I linked turns was incredible. I’ve experienced the same paragliding and sailing, but never when in the office for some reason..

3

SvetlanaButosky t1_j7glo6j wrote

That's the thing, they dont care about the numbers, they will say its not worth it and annihilation is the only moral thing to do, because as long as we cant 100% totally prevent suffering for all living things, then life is not justified.

They dont care about asymmetry, its the perpetual existence of suffering that they focus on, unless we could give them a guarantee that suffering will be eradicated for all living things in the next 10 years or something. lol

1% or 99% makes no difference to them because they want 0% suffering, if they cant get zero, then they will continue to advocate for total annihilation.

Is this philosophy convincing enough for most people's moral intuition and valuation of existence?

2