wisedupearly wrote:

Thommo wrote:

And I expect you feel my reply was a touch on the flippant side, I'd suggest this might just be because "binge drinking" was included in the same list as "shooting people on the street" and that both served as a proxy for decisions which didn't maximise life expectancy. In reality there are lots of choices which have just as much rational basis but that do not maximise life expectancy. A pleasurable life of an average of 70 years may well be more "rational" than an abstemious life of 75.

Many alcoholics beat the statistical life expectancy. Are you going to claim that they had a pleasurable life?
Surely, you say, one bout of binge drinking is harmless. Maybe. Why would you consider binge drinking to yield desirable results? Because life is dark and depressing? Because we are all going to die and are just of organic sludge with no free will or control. Because your "friends" are doing it? Because they dare you to do it? Can't think of anything more rational to do?

I wouldn't. I would gently poke fun at the false dichotomy.

You should know this, because you're replying to a post where I explained that was what I was doing. You don't have to be an alcoholic to reduce your life expectancy through drink. If your point on this front actually breaks down to suggesting people are alcoholics because of Socrates and his legacy of intellectualism, then that is honestly, pretty silly. If your point reduces to saying that being an alcoholic doesn't make someone happy and often does harm, then ok, I'd agree, but that is an extremely trivial point, akcnowledged thoroughly by society and having little connection to any philosophy.

It seems like you're saying and have said a lot more, and that the questions about alcoholism are what sometimes gets called a "bait and switch", because you've advocated a strong claim (that any life expectancy reducing action is to be proscribed and is the result of Socratic Intellectualism) and defended a weak claim (that alcoholism is bad).

Binge drinking is having about 4-5 drinks or more. I'm not about to make any general claims about this other than to say that the amount of fun that people who have 4-5 drinks while on a date or out with friends have is reported to be non-zero by many individuals, and that the reduction in life expectancy for this is extremely small, although cumulative with greater density and frequency of binges. Different individuals may take a different stance on what the enjoyment to health trade off must be before it becomes a negative or positive.

Thommo wrote:

wisedupearly wrote:

Thommo wrote:

And I expect you feel my reply was a touch on the flippant side, I'd suggest this might just be because "binge drinking" was included in the same list as "shooting people on the street" and that both served as a proxy for decisions which didn't maximise life expectancy. In reality there are lots of choices which have just as much rational basis but that do not maximise life expectancy. A pleasurable life of an average of 70 years may well be more "rational" than an abstemious life of 75.

Many alcoholics beat the statistical life expectancy. Are you going to claim that they had a pleasurable life?
Surely, you say, one bout of binge drinking is harmless. Maybe. Why would you consider binge drinking to yield desirable results? Because life is dark and depressing? Because we are all going to die and are just of organic sludge with no free will or control. Because your "friends" are doing it? Because they dare you to do it? Can't think of anything more rational to do?

I wouldn't. I would gently poke fun at the false dichotomy.

You should know this, because you're replying to a post where I explained that was what I was doing. You don't have to be an alcoholic to reduce your life expectancy through drink. If your point on this front actually breaks down to suggesting people are alcoholics because of Socrates and his legacy of intellectualism, then that is honestly, pretty silly. If your point reduces to saying that being an alcoholic doesn't make someone happy and often does harm, then ok, I'd agree, but that is an extremely trivial point, akcnowledged thoroughly by society and having little connection to any philosophy.

It seems like you're saying and have said a lot more, and that the questions about alcoholism are what sometimes gets called a "bait and switch", because you've advocated a strong claim (that any life expectancy reducing action is to be proscribed and is the result of Socratic Intellectualism) and defended a weak claim (that alcoholism is bad).

I don't think wisedupearly would be making such a big deal about alcoholism without a tie in to how it hinders some elevated consciousnessness. It's gonna be like the WCTU on steroids. I'm not telling you this because I think you don't know. I think you do. It's possible that intellectualism is just another kind of mind-fogging ill effect in this kind of universe.

I mean: organic sludge?

Thommo wrote:
If your point on this front actually breaks down to suggesting people are alcoholics because of Socrates and his legacy of intellectualism, then that is honestly, pretty silly. If your point reduces to saying that being an alcoholic doesn't make someone happy and often does harm, then ok, I'd agree, but that is an extremely trivial point, akcnowledged thoroughly by society and having little connection to any philosophy.

umm. Is it silly? Why do some people become alcoholics? A common reason given is that they kept drinking because their life felt like shit to them. This sounds exactly like a question for philosophy. Bad philosophy = bad view of life?

Yes. It is silly. Almost none of those people are intellectuals. Almost none know the first thing about Socratic philosophy, or live out its tenets. There is no apparent connection between the two things, and you haven't tried to actually argue rationally that there is. From there you've leapt not to it being a small influence among many, not to it being a large influence among many, but to it being the sole influence worthy of discussion. Each of these separate steps is a separate non sequitur - or to put it another way, irrational.

Addiction is complicated, it's a mixture of genetic predisposition, childhood formation, triggers, opportunity and all sorts of other factors inside and outside of an individual's awareness (and I refer to my early mention of respiration as an example of things that overlap the two - I can hold my breath, I cannot hold my breath indefinitely). To say that it's obviously just "bad philosophy" and that bad philosophy must be due to a Socratic view is beyond simplistic, it's risible.

And this focus on alcoholism, as I pointed out is already a fairly absurd restriction of your point for which this is merely an exemplar.

Thommo wrote:Yes. It is silly. Almost none of those people are intellectuals. Almost none know the first thing about Socratic philosophy, or live out its tenets. There is no apparent connection between the two things, and you haven't tried to actually argue rationally that there is. From there you've leapt not to it being a small influence among many, not to it being a large influence among many, but to it being the sole influence worthy of discussion. Each of these separate steps is a separate non sequitur - or to put it another way, irrational.

Let's be rational about this.
Yes, the vast majority of people know nothing explicit about philosophy. So, what do they know? Their years of schooling (enforced and codified) have taught them that society values them basically in direct proportion to their intelligence. Less intelligent = less worth (except when there is a war). The mass media tells them that the rich and famous are the ones that really count. The rich and famous love to bitch that being rich and famous is no assurance of happiness. But, overall, it is better to be on the top than on the bottom. This obsession with exam results, with intelligence, is driven the philosophy created by Socrates and Aristotle. The average person instinctively realizes that society does not value them so they unable to value themselves.

wisedupearly wrote:

Thommo wrote:Yes. It is silly. Almost none of those people are intellectuals. Almost none know the first thing about Socratic philosophy, or live out its tenets. There is no apparent connection between the two things, and you haven't tried to actually argue rationally that there is. From there you've leapt not to it being a small influence among many, not to it being a large influence among many, but to it being the sole influence worthy of discussion. Each of these separate steps is a separate non sequitur - or to put it another way, irrational.

Let's be rational about this.
Yes, the vast majority of people know nothing explicit about philosophy. So, what do they know? Their years of schooling (enforced and codified) have taught them that society values them basically in direct proportion to their intelligence. Less intelligent = less worth (except when there is a war).

No, I don't know this. I don't even think this. And I certainly wasn't taught this. I've never met anyone who was.

So I think it's plainly wrong to say that they were taught this. I also think that the object of this is plainly wrong. Footballers are "worth" a lot, but nobody thinks they are particularly clever. Artists, television presenters, politicians all would not be thought of as more intelligent than university professors, yet all have equal human rights, many are idolised, respected and loved more and many are paid much better.

The only thing I can think of that comes remotely close are certain findings in psychology which are taught at, what in this country is A-level (to psychology students, a small fraction of the populus) that show that people who have higher IQs tend to be more successful as measured by a range of variables (pay, life expectancy etc.) which is not common knowledge to most people, is not in direct proportion or nearly perfectly correlated and is not even claimed to be an expression of worth.

wisedupearly wrote:The mass media tells them that the rich and famous are the ones that really count. The rich and famous love to bitch that being rich and famous is no assurance of happiness. But, overall, it is better to be on the top than on the bottom.

Irrelevant, has nothing to do with anything we're discussing.

wisedupearly wrote:This obsession with exam results, with intelligence, is driven the philosophy created by Socrates and Aristotle.

So you keep saying, and I keep pointing out that you have yet to present a single reason to think so. I don't see the value in repetition.

Exam results do not claim to measure intelligence. They attempt to measure education in a particular syllabus. There is the odd exception, like the SAT which correpsonds to IQ, which is an attempt at (but far from a perfect success at) measuring intelligence, but most countries do not have such an exam. The value that most societies place on education is the opportunity it affords the educated, and the economic and social benefits that accrue. Having measures of how successful attempts to educate have been is not Socratic, it's pragmatic (in the broad sense).

wisedupearly wrote:The average person instinctively realizes that society does not value them so they unable to value themselves.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that you are not in a position to speak for the average person.

I am asking for reasons to believe your assertions, not more assertions. Reasons to believe have the potential to be persuasive that more assertions do not. This, I think, is rational.

james wrote:
KIR no cunt on here has the balls to meet you

Try to remember that we are a rational forum not a dating site

I don't know why jamest thinks people would be frightened of me...I only got into trouble with the police when I was off the antipsychotics...

I doubt he believes it. It's more likely that if he creates a fantasy about you being a scary lunatic that no one has the balls to meet, he can insert himself into it as the gutsy maverick who don't care about no rules.

Wow. For the record, I'm not scared of any lunatic. Since that includes most of you...

See what I mean?

I'm pretty scared of the Dumf...and, well, kinda. Seems to me...I do vaguely remember somebody say a poster was lucky to live on the other side of the world from me at one point so it is perhaps not an entirely isolated opinion that I can be a bit frightening. When I'm off the meds I need and/or very drunk I think. When people refer to themselves as "God" that frightens me TBH.

surreptitious57 wrote:

james wrote:
KIR no cunt on here has the balls to meet you

Try to remember that we are a rational forum not a dating site

My interest in KIR is entirely due to him being an HONEST/OPEN victim of Westernism in 2018 UK, who actively seeks change. It's in my nature to help such people and to want to meet them.

There was a time when I would have helped you, but then I quickly discovered that you're nothing like that and have no interest in changing anyway except within parameters which YOU decide. That is, you're beyond being helped, so I choose not to bother.

Just don't dare any more, devoid of understanding, SIMPLY take the piss when I try to help people, because otherwise I'll stop thinking that you're essentially 'good' albeit devoid of intelligence and I'll just grab the first thing that comes out of the freezer. And that thing will go further than the sun shines, rest assured.

Keep It Real wrote:I'm pretty scared of the Dumf...and, well, kinda. Seems to me...I do vaguely remember somebody say a poster was lucky to live on the other side of the world from me at one point so it is perhaps not an entirely isolated opinion that I can be a bit frightening. When I'm off the meds I need and/or very drunk I think. When people refer to themselves as "God" that frightens me TBH.

Stop being an arsehole. My record here speaks for itself, and I consistently say that ONLY God exists. I have never, at any point, said that 'I', James, am God. Wake the fuck up to what's being said, or just stfu.

jamest wrote:Ultimately, anyone who advertises themselves as a human individual is a problem.
Regards,
God

I'm sorry if I took this too literally dude.

Keep It Real wrote:

jamest wrote:Ultimately, anyone who advertises themselves as a human individual is a problem.
Regards,
God

I'm sorry if I took this too literally dude.

Don't be sorry, just wake the fuck up and stop talking like a retard.

Keep It Real wrote:

jamest wrote:Ultimately, anyone who advertises themselves as a human individual is a problem.
Regards,
God

I'm sorry if I took this too literally dude.

Anyone with a brain would realise the implications and irony of my regards here. I'm not going to apologise to anyone who lacks the required credentials as I stated this within the philosophy forum!!!!

Please chill your tits.

Fallible wrote:Please chill your tits.

I'll chill mine if you chill yours.