Recent comments in /f/philosophy

rolyatm97 t1_j9hy4ri wrote

Reply to The harms of gentrification | The exclusion of poorer people from their own neighbourhoods is not just a social problem but a philosophical one by ADefiniteDescription

If you don’t think gentrification is a good thing, how can you think immigration is a good thing? The members of this community seem to be 1st or 2nd generation immigrants. They immigrated and changed a neighborhood. People see an opportunity to buy property in a nice neighborhood and move in. What’s the difference?

Gentrification is immigration plain and simple. You are either for both or neither.

26

Sohshi t1_j9hxbnp wrote

Reply to comment by Gloomy_Scene126 in Freedom is found beyond dualism : Frithjof Bergmann’s model of freedom from a nondual perspective. by Gloomy_Scene126

He was thinking long-term. We were reading "Limits to Growth" by the Club of Rome. He forsaw the collapse our culture is just now recognizing, offering practical solutions to resource scarcity and environmental degradation. There was always a practical foundation to being free. I'm sorry to say I didn't realize how prescient he was. btw - UCSC screwed him - promised him a job. He left his tenured position at UM to move to beautiful Santa Cruz. Then they rescinded the offer. Academic politics - ugh.

1

Purely_Theoretical t1_j9hx34u wrote

Reply to comment by contractualist in What Morality is Not (and why it's not the Repugnant Conclusion, Utilitarianism, or Libertarianism) by contractualist

The entire point of that paper is to give a libertarian justification for having concern for future generations. Namely it extends the lockean proviso to them. I summarized the paper in my first comment.

Therefore, libertarianism does not fail to account for future generations. This is your false claim and I have refuted it.

1

Koraguz t1_j9hvk1z wrote

Reply to comment by failure_of_a_cow in The harms of gentrification | The exclusion of poorer people from their own neighbourhoods is not just a social problem but a philosophical one by ADefiniteDescription

there are a lot of people that are unwilling participants and fucked over.
I don't think price gauging companies causing necessities to become expensive is willing, nor hedge funds helping skyrocket the cost of housing is willing either. and then there are the disabled who HAVE to push themselves past their limits to be able to afford to eat and live under a roof. also homeless and many that trip up in life and never manage to get back up because either a loan requires good credit, or there isn't housing low enough cost to get a single rung up, or jobs that don't want to have you because they want their graduate beginner positions to have more than 3 years experience.

If the option of not participating is homelessness and starvation, I'd argue most of us are doing it for survival, not because we are revelling in how nice it is can get an overprices coffee because every cafe wants to be Starbucks...

11

BernardJOrtcutt t1_j9hvf83 wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in Often mischaracterized as a rather debaucherous, hedonistic philosophy, Epicureanism actually focuses on the removal of pain and anxiety from our lives, and champions a calm ‘philosophy as therapy’ approach in pursuit of life’s highest pleasure: mental tranquility. by philosophybreak

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

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.

1

BernardJOrtcutt t1_j9hv9pq wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in Often mischaracterized as a rather debaucherous, hedonistic philosophy, Epicureanism actually focuses on the removal of pain and anxiety from our lives, and champions a calm ‘philosophy as therapy’ approach in pursuit of life’s highest pleasure: mental tranquility. by philosophybreak

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

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.

1

Gloomy_Scene126 OP t1_j9hv7px wrote

Reply to comment by Sohshi in Freedom is found beyond dualism : Frithjof Bergmann’s model of freedom from a nondual perspective. by Gloomy_Scene126

That’s funny because Bergmann’s theory would suggest that freedom has nothing to do with obstacles or enhanced choice, but rather it only has to do with identification and dissociation. Removing a day from the work week is like removing an obstacle or enhancing one’s choice to do what he pleases during the week. But if I am already identified with a 5 day work week, then I already feel free and do not need an extra day off. I wonder, then, what Bergmann’s rationale would have been for advocating a 4 day work week.

1

aecorbie t1_j9huntx wrote

Reply to comment by fibsequ in Often mischaracterized as a rather debaucherous, hedonistic philosophy, Epicureanism actually focuses on the removal of pain and anxiety from our lives, and champions a calm ‘philosophy as therapy’ approach in pursuit of life’s highest pleasure: mental tranquility. by philosophybreak

Could you please elaborate on how the argument “holds no water” other than stating that there are some who might disagree with it? I would appreciate it if you addressed the premises it’s build upon rather than broadly rejecting them.

Regarding vagueness of the words “good” and “bad”, you might have a point here, but I’d rather we got to the underlying virtue ethics after addressing more general problems one might have with those premises. As for the argument itself, however, I think even an approach as simplistic as negative utilitarianism (which I myself am not overly fond of, but I digress) would suffice to demonstrate the validity of my dichotomy in relation to the morality of having children.

4