[deleted]

Why? Seem like they would fall in set natural and unnecessary.

I think the extrovert/introvert model is flawed. I think most people need to socialize, and get energized being around people, and the same people need alone time to recharge. I think that's just human nature. I know many people who spend all day on their computer, like myself, will say they're introverted because they're not out socializing, but the truth of the matter is, they do take part of online communities. They either socialize through social media, games, or they develop para social relationships. Take away their internet and you'll see how introverted they are once the withdrawals kick in.

I believe more and more people gravitate towards online interaction, because it's easier. You don't have to put yourself out there. You don't have to be vulnerable. It's safe and easy. You're satisfying a need, which neglects the growth of offline social interaction. Which is why so many people believe they're introverted, when in reality, imo, they just never developed the skills to make offline social connections.

Do you have anything to offer for those who feel that it's the childrens suffering that is the issue?

>Maybe I haven’t read enough Epicurean philosophy, but it does seem to me that it’s got a kind of paternalistic naivety regarding poverty you see in a lot of works by rich people which counsel moderation - they’re just sort of assuming the idyllic simple life of the commoners and imagining it must be nice to not have so many demands on your time and resources, without really understanding the experience of poverty or deprivation.

This seems to be my main gripe with people trying to resurrect ancient schools of philosophy to help navigate modern life. They seem to imply that there is some trans-historical (transcendental even) nature of things, while forgetting that Epicurean philosophy was essentially created by someone of unimaginable privilege in the ancient world. As such, it reflects the character of the ancient world and society, and simply applying it 1:1 to modern solutions isn't a very viable solution to problems.

> There will be agreement on morals claims the same way there is agreement on objective reality.

Except there won't be. Just off-hand you can find reasonable people who disagree about the morality of, say, the death penalty, abortion, eating meat, etc. And that's within one culture. If you look at other cultures, you'll see reasonable people disagreeing about things we agree on here - such as slavery, human sacrifice, marital rape, etc.

And anyway, "objective" is not the same as "subjective, but a bunch of people agree with me".

I feel like Epicureanism is bout to pop.

I don't think fate is the same as determinism. Doesn't fate imply some divine plan that has been set for you?

Yes, Epicurus was unusual in his era for putting forth a mechanistic, deterministic theory of the universe, governed by natural laws, not functioning pursuant to teleological "final causes" in the Aristotelian sense. The Aristotelian desire to describe the universe in terms of purposes and telos would persist in Europe until the early modern period.

I've started to believe that free will is simply a bad concept. It doesn't even make any sense. Its not that we have or don't have free will, but that it simply is a made up idea that doesn't actually refer to anything real.

The problem is that the self is itself an illusion, and free will is trying to determine if the the main cause of behavior is from within the self or not. Therefor any claim of free will - or no free will - will be completely arbitrary.

The article states that "Since the 1960s, gentrification has become ubiquitous" and that "So often, it’s not just rich people moving in – it’s rich White people".

I looked up the historical demographic breakdown of San Francisco: in 1960, it was 72.7% White and in 2020 it is 39.1%. The historical demography of most American cities follow this same pattern. "Non-Hispanic Whites made up 59% of the residents of Chicago in 1970, falling to just 31.7% in 2010". In Atlanta, Whites made up 48.4% of the population in 1970, 31% in 1990, and has risen to only to 38.4% in 2010. A few examples among many.

The author stating that Gentrification started in 1960 leads the reader to believe that there was massive influx of rich White people moving into these historically non-white urban centers but the exact opposite happened in the 1960s and 70s. Of course, as we all know this as White Flight. The author would be correct in stating that "Since the 1960s, gentrification has become ubiquitous" if they were to include non-Whites moving into White areas, but it is quite obvious that they would not assert such a thing. That is not how we colloquially used the word Gentrification. But this means the original assertion is factually incorrect. So why would they say such a thing?

It is done so to make the history of these events appear to cohere seamlessly with ideological priors, to make it easier to digest, to imbue passion within the reader to call for change. But history is a messy, fractal thing. By limiting ourselves to only a portion of history as to cohere seamlessly with our ideological priors we limit our understanding of such things. We must expand our understanding of such things as to craft better policy. This is philosophy subreddit after all, we have a love of wisdom.

In particular situations, such as the expansion of the tech sector in San Francisco, you have settled communities experienced a sort of widescale economic eviction. A rising tide is supposed to lift all boats but these peoples find themselves drowning under the waters of high rent. But it would be dishonest and unhelpful to place the blame solely on "rich White people" - the tech industry is very diverse and full of different nationalities. These are the people who are moving into these communities. The same kind of historical argument used on White people in these regards to gentrification doesn't work against Indian or East Asian software developers. This is a point to ponder, that needs to be addressed.

One could advocate for the continued expansion of public housing, demanding cheaper rent, asking for more funding for better public transportation all on their own virtues without having to consult with "History". I support all of these policies. I understand, zoning laws and tax brackets are technical issues and don't drive political action quite like ethnic revanchism.

I think my advice is if you genuinely want children, do your damnedest not to inflict intergenerational trauma upon them. I know VERY few who manage it.

Why not indeterminism?

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

>I don’t see how random deviation of atoms would cause free will. It would break determinism, but only so to cause random behavior.

It's easy to take random noise and turn it into meaningful results. Look at Perlin noise generators or how video games use seeds.

I can happily believe that true random 'swerve' of simple elements can be exploited by evolutionary processes to lead to a sort of 'weighted decision maker'. Couple that to consciousness and you've got free will.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Yes this is meta ethical constructivism. I will argue later on that was is objective is just shared subjectivity, so my argument fits into our normal notion of objective. People might actually disagree based on private reasons but I ask what they would agree to based on public reasons. There will be agreement on morals claims the same way there is agreement on objective reality.

ITT: people who have not read any Epicurean work, (no Lucretius, none of the Epicurean letters, no Vatican Collection, not even The Swerve…let alone contemporary scholarship)…and yet are enthusiastically opposed on the grounds of its “hedonism.”

[deleted]

[deleted]

I guess I see his use of atomic swerve as a generalization being made to justify his desired outcome, which is a universe, where humans have free will. So, I wouldn't see it as an insight based on intuition about the nature of the universe that ultimately proves to be precient. It looks to me like he starts from the assumption that humans have free will, and if he wants that to be true, it's gonna be a problem for humans to be made up of a bunch of billiard balls knocking around in a completely determined way. So his solution is just to say, but what if they don't do that. If the insight is pointing out, a discontinuity between deterministic cause and effect and free will, fair enough. Anything beyond that feels a stretch because if you don't want a deterministic universe without free will, and you don't want to ditch atoms entirely, you are only gonna be left with atoms that are not deterministic. So, the paradox kinda creates a problem for determinism that is partially explained by quantum mechanics (similar to plank lengths with xemos paradox). If that's the interesting part, fair enough.

Francesco Orsi makes similar distinctions as I do. Orsi (2015): Value Theory. Bloomsbury Academic. It gives some taxonomy, otherwise I don't think it's very interesting. Here is my take, but whether you think these are examples of the types of values really depends on your metaethical stances:

+ subjective and agent-relative:

John: Becoming a lawyer is better for me than becoming a clarinetist. I appreciate the better job prospects and payment in the long run and I'm not really sure I would continue to like music if I became a professional musician.

John: Bungee jumping is great, it's better than going on a hike.

+ objective and agent-relative:

It is better for John not to become a lawyer and pursue a career as a clarinetist. John would probably not even pass the bar exams and the profession would invariably burn him out. He doesn't have the personality for it.

Bungee jumping is horrible for John. Because of some traumatic experience as a child, he's afraid of heights. However, he isn't aware of that yet.

+ subjective and agent independent:

John: Basic democracy is better than representational democracy. At least, I'd much prefer to live in a direct basic democracy.

+ objective and agent independent:

For various reasons <long list of reasons>, basic democracy is vulnerable to disruption and representational democracy is much better.