Assuming people are actually able and willing to recognize when they start hiding in circular reasoning (or other logical fallacies but by experience, begging the question is most common):
Argument about matter being the foundation of reality. It’s not. And I’d start by questioning your understanding of the word “matter”.
Look into Waking Up app. Listen to the talks on psychedelics.
I literally cannot continue this conversation before we understand each other on the nature of wanting. Or like, I can… but we’d just keep going over the same things, reducing us both to just practicing intellectual wankery. And I have a feeling you have more self-respect than that, if you think that my argumentation is “unbecoming of an intellectual”.
And in any case we’ve been at this for 4 (very delighful) hours but this body really wants a different activity for now.
Pity, I had so much fun with this discussion. For that I thank you. Lemme know if you want to return to it later.
I’m not going to get into a discussion about justice with you before you explain what is an acceptable want and how it differs from a want in a controlled population.
“As to your second question, I’m afraid I’ll need for you to give me an example of something independent of biological, societal or cultural factors before I can answer that with any candor.”
The fact that you ask this from me specifically highlights the problem in your arguments. It is your view that necessitates the existence of something independent of biological, societal or cultural factors. I don’t think such a thing exists. I don’t think it’s possible to have a want independent of imposition. However when you say that “the notion of want is not applicable to a controlled population” as an argument against me positing that the guy in the comic is doing what he wants, implies that in your mind there is a “pure” want, independent of any imposition. You then refer to the rat as an example of consent, implying that a biological drive to survive is an example of a pure want. If you wish to make the case that a biological want is an example of a pure want, then I can say that the guy in the comic is following his biological drive to survive over any personal opinions on wearing pants - meaning a want is applicable to a controlled population.
How do you defend applying human idea of consent to a rat, but very conveniently for your own argument, refuse to apply oppressor to the hawk?
Simply restating a human-centric definition of consent doesn’t address the lack of consistency in your position.
The rat is neither consenting nor not consenting. It’s following a biological drive to survive. “Consent” remains a human construction. The rat isn’t arguing that it “should” not be consumed. And if we want the cycle of life to continue, some things must be consumed. Furthermore, if you want to say that the rat is displaying consent in nature, then you must also accept that it is being “oppressed” by the hawk. Meaning the rat is a “controlled population”, meaning as per you own words “The notion of want is not applicable to a controlled population.” And if you want to say that he hawk isn’t oppressing in the same way as a human oppresses another, then how is the notion of consent allowed for the rat? Consent requires agency.
Can you point out where in nature does consent exist independent of human minds? And can humans want anything independent of biological, societal or cultural factors?
Consent is also just a belief some people want to have. I’m not saying that it’s a bad belief to have, I’m in full support of it but that does NOT give me some divine right to impose the belief of it on others. We’re talking about wants, and that necessarily leads to a discussion on whose wants matter more. I am of the opinion that nobody’s wants are inherently (as in, outside human constructed narratives, cultures, norms) more valuable than those of others. I happen to value human well-being and respecting consent logically follows from that. However, because of exactly that I cannot impose consent on those who don’t believe in it. As such, I can only defend myself and others who agree with me against those who would try to impose their beliefs on me but I cannot go out and force them to obey me. This necessarily leads to the situation where I HAVE to accept certain results that may be undesirable in a realistic scenario. Including death in the hands of those that would oppress me. And that’s on me to do for myself - but that is also freedom for me to live according to my ideals without imposing them on others, Meaning, I accept that I can’t have the cake if I want to eat it. IT IS NOT EASY but it is what I have realistic power over.
I really don’t see how you draw that conclusion, except unless you consistently forget the wanting part where it suits you. A person really wants a pancake, they will support the system that gives them the pancake, even if the pancake is made from the flesh of newly born babies. They might be very unhappy about the babies but they want the pancake more than they don’t want the dead babies.
We can of course point out the boiling frogs thing. Oppressive systems gradually increase discomfort, but they stay within the realm of human capability of adaptation. The pancakes didn’t start off as babies, they started off as normal pancakes, then animals, then perhaps some human matter, then old people, then sick people, then just people, then babies. However here too you still operate within what people want. And most people don’t want to be shaken out of the trance where they’re constantly just comfortable enough to tolerate the (often abstract) negatives that enable their life. If they did, they would.
… I mean this isn’t really a conversation about pants but I truly don’t care about nudity. I’m from a culture that isn’t anywhere near as neurotic about it as certain others. I still prefer some kind of covering on the privates though simply because I don’t want ball sweat, urine traces, fecal matter or vaginal discharge on my things.
Yes.
So I have I.
Some people really do just need to burn down the pancake factory and then get upset that they can’t get the pancakes from that factory anymore. There’s a certain country doing exactly this right now. Some people just need to learn by experience.
At every point people can always want whatever they want, but that doesn’t mean it can come to pass as it may not be in the realm of possibility. I could want to go to the moon right this minute but it obviously isn’t going to happen. A person about to die in a prison cell may want to get out but that’s probably not going to happen. They are free to want it and by that, they necessarily also want to suffer from the perceived lack of freedom. Or, they can want what is in the realm of possibility, and have their wants met. Prison or the mundane existence of earth’s gravity, you have the option of wanting what is possible or what isn’t possible. Wanting the suffering of the lack, or enjoying what is given. But neither I nor anyone else can make someone want what they don’t. I can just point out that there are options and it’s on the individual then to then weigh if the options are truly in the realm of possibility for them - I can’t make that choice for them either.
I’m not sure how this point has any relevance to this discussion. No one brought up demands.
I’m just trying to rephrase “can’t have your cake and eat it too” as I’m starting to suspect that idiom is either too… abstract or too worn out to really land for people anymore. Maybe both. If you want two mutually exclusive things, at least one of your wants will necessarily go unmet. If you don’t want both mutually inclusive things, you’re in for a bad time. Wanting what isn’t the realm of possibility will lead to suffering. Not wanting the unpleasant but unavoidable part of something you really want will also lead to suffering.
Extrapolate a bit why don’t you? If a group of people create a space with certain rules, it is a “public” space for people who agree to follow the rules.
People are not animals. You have opted into being controlled. There’s plenty of ways out but people generally want the benefits of living under certain control more than they want freedom.
You can’t resist a system and simultaneously demand the right to enjoy the fruits of that system. Like I said, the more you are willing to tolerate inconvenience, the freer you are. This includes acceptance of anything from having less luxury, to acceptance of premature death. Everyone is absolutely free to live in accordance to their tolerance - they have no choice in the matter.
It’s not actually, it’s exactly as simple as I made it. Enough people wanted to violently coerce. Not enough people wanted to resist.
You are right that in your space you are free to be pantsless and as such I wouldn’t impose my presence and sensibilities upon you. In fact I would defend your right to be pantsless in your space. However if you decided to come to my space, I would insist on pants - failure to comply would be you imposing your wants on me without consent, putting your wants above mine. If you think that I should be okay with you being pantsless, why? Who are you to tell me how to live my life? Why aren’t you accepting people living differently from you? Me not wanting pantslessness in my presence only impacts you if you force yourself into it.
oppressive systemic forces that dictate the society he lives in necessitating him having one or else his access to material necessities be threatened.
The fact that the society was built to work like this shows that enough people wanted it more than they wanted something else. Why should one individual’s wants matter more than the wants of a collective? Isn’t that just you trying to impose your wants on everyone else?
You know, I feel like I see a surprising amount of people on Lemmy who have stepped out of the basic materialistic view. It’s encouraging but also a bit bizarre. There seems to be a weird subsection of people who are able enough computer nerds to not be scared by the interface here, but have actually looked into some pretty deep philosophical stuff (though some definitely have just done enough psychedelics). I include myself in the weird subsection of course but I really didn’t expect to see as many others here as I have.