Philosophy

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/10432750

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/10431737

TL;DR: The internet’s evolution mirrors historical societal development. Transitioning from web2 to the social web and ultimately to web4 signifies a transformative shift akin to the end of the Middle Ages and the dawn of modernity, with the ultimate goal of achieving liberal democracy. In the style of the Dot Com Boom, the social web will witness the rise of influential digital forces, which will in this case be global collectives, shaping the digital and societal landscape. Web4, characterized by these decentralized collectives, offers the potential for positive change within the liberal democracy framework; with the possibility of reaching the actual end of history for homo sapiens and the entering of a new stage for humanity, in which a new form of human will emerge: the homo digitalis.

I think this question resulted from me having an argument with my gf. We want to go to a holiday trip, and she wanted to book a hotel via booking.com. We then got into a discussion, because booking.com repeatedly ignored privacy concerns and is conciously acting illegally in regards to privacy laws of the EU (for those of you who can read German, this link from a German privacy investigator explains it fairly well. In my opinion, supporting companies which consciously breach laws is unethical, because they willingly ignore the well-being of their customers for own gains. However, in this case it was probably unfair to gf to judge her for using this platform, as the negative impact done by her using booking.com is not enough to justify this as a morally wrong action on her end.

My question is where you draw the line what to ethically judge. What if (hypothetically) booking.com would support slavery and willingly sacrificed children to earn more money for their shareholders? What if they were very interested in animal abuse and liked Nazis? In this case I think I'd be completely justified to judge my gf for her using this platform, as she would then directly support inhumane and unethical practices.

Most of life, however, resolves in a grey area between "this is absolutely morally okay" and "this is terrible, anyone who supports this is a monster". And so I think your opinions on the topic of an ethical line would be highly appreciated.

Life is...well, it's something alright.
And one thing it is connected to is death.

.

Some of us fear death, while it gets others thinking about it and about topics circling it.
Fascinated about it all, even.

.

How much does philosophy touch the topic of morbid curiosity?

.

In case your appetite wakes up for more morbid curiosity, feel free to check out the new magazine that tries to be all about it!

cross-posted from: https://tilvids.com/videos/watch/52190b96-3443-483e-91ef-8b99edb3bd58

What would a largely deterministic society look and behave like? Would it be, as some imagine, a more merciful and just society, or as some others suppose, a veritable wasteland where lawless immorality, cruelty, and hopelessness reign supreme? In this video I hope to answer this contentious question and to bring some clarity to an otherwise esoteric matter.

Music: Adrift Among Infinite Stars - Scott Buckley

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/letstalkphilosophy/

Sources:

For this particular work I have taken much from the philosopher Spinoza, the psychologist Robert Sapolsky, and the Neuroscientist/philosopher Sam Harris. I have found their insights to be extremely helpful in clarifying my own thoughts on the matter and I encourage you to read or listen to their thoughts on Determinism and free-will.

Thought this would be interesting given the recent discussion on Robert Sapolsky. If you like this content the PeerTube channel can be followed directly from your Lemmy account at [email protected]

• https://piped.video/watch?v=4Stzj2_Rlo4
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Stzj2_Rlo4

Absolutely everything you think about yourself and the universe could be an illusion. As far as you know, you are real and exist in a universe that was born 14 billion years ago and that gave rise to galaxies, stars, the Earth, and finally you. Except, maybe not.

Other explanations for Boltzmann Brains did not require an 'inside-out black hole', for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain, so this inclusion came as a surprise to me. Not sure if it's necessary.

What baffles me about the theory: If it's true, and reality is (mostly, statistically speaking) imagined ... the physical reality could be anything. It could be very different from the reality we live in. But we created our models of the universe in this one reality we know, and the theory of Boltzmann Brains emerged from that.

So based on these physical models we arrive at the idea of BBs. But if this idea is true, the physical reality could be completely different.

Or what do you think?

Currently, reading Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Representation.

Has anyone else read this? If so, what are your thoughts on it? I just finished book III.

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/3172656

Couple of days ago I saw a post about on atheist community about a quote saying atheist can't base their morals on anything.

I commented that if religion didn't accept some premises like god, they wouldn't either. Some said I am wrong and downvoted me. So I decided to post here about to what extent can I be skeptical about premises, to see where I am mistaken (or commenters).

Before that post, for a while I had an idea that even the analytical truth/necessary truth (whatever you name it) like "a is equal to a" are premises which can not be proven (since they are the basics of our logic, which will we be in use to prove claims) even though they seem us to be true by intuition. They just have to be accepted to be able to further think about other things.

So my question is since we can question the correctness of basics of our logic and cant find an answer, we can not justify or learn anything. Also, there lays the problem of do we really understand the same thing from the same concepts, and does language limit us?

If I am mistaken, which is highly probable, please correct me and don't judge. I am not much of a philosophy reader.

I would really appreciate it if you could share some resources (video, article, book, anything...) about limits of our understanding, logic, language and related topics.

Thanks in advance...

"The six most incideous words in the English language are 'I don't care who started it.'"

I saw this post on [email protected]: https://lemmy.world/post/2387220

I got me in a philosophical mood.

Is it okay to burn a Koran?

On one hand, a Koran, a Bible or anything else "sacred" literature is paper and ink. And burning them is just disposing of said book. Children are taught at young age not to get provocated by provocators. Adults should be able to live with this principle.

On the other hand, burning is not the main reason people get upset when sacred literature is burnt. The whole burning ordeal is (usually) a symbol for hate. Hate should not be tolerated, and therefore it is wrong to burn a sacred books. It is imporant to make hateful actions illegal to prevent hate from spreading. If hate is allowed, then we are possibly facing hate crimes and violent actions towards minorities.

Burning a sacred book is not always about hate. It can also be a symbolical protest. In sweden, a few weeks ago, Iraqi man burned a Koran. According to news I read at the time of said event, the man justified his actions as a protest against Iraqi government. He was kept prisoner in his homecountry and tortured during his imprisonment.

Iraq is a theocracy. Amputations and even death sentence are used as forms of punishment. People are not equal and theistic law is above other laws. The country does not follow UN's declaration of human rights. These human rights are recognized all over the globe and should be held as standards for all.

If someone burns a sacred book to protest torture, amputations or death sentences, I think it is not morally wrong, but quite the contrary. Burning a book is a victimless crime. Forementioned actions of Iraqi government however are not.

Thoughts from an European atheist.

Im interested to hear your thoughts on this matter and hoping to understand this question from different perspectives.

Opinion: Who is the most underrated/under read Philosopher?

I will start... I find Aesop and the Fables to be underrated and wrongly pointed at simply for children. These stories can and must be applied to adult life to live a better and more virtuous life. IMO.

(Yes, I am aware that some think Aesop was potentially not one person, but many, and some question he even existed... like Homer).

Would love to hear what you all think.