Perhaps we are taking the trolley problem too seriously in the comments. The trolley problem is not meant to be a model for analysis nor a relevant dilemma in all ethical discussions. It was a way to illustrate the objections a philosopher (Philppa Foot) had against certain ethical approaches. It is, at best, a thought experiment with many limitations.

Parenthesis. Just as in physics where you may find people supporting either quantum mechanics or general relativity; in psychology where you may find people more inclined to behaviorist, humanist or psychodynamic therapy models; you have ethicists (moral philosophers) sometimes divided between deontology and utilitarianism. If I remember correctly, Philippa Foot was trying to demonstrate these mainstream approaches loops/problems with this hypothetical scenario, as she supported a different school of thought other than these two (one called virtue ethics). Also worth noting that just as in these disciplines and many others you also find attempts to “reconcile” apparently incompatible ‘theories’ (or whatever the case), you find the same in ethics (moral philosophy).

Back to topic, the trolley problem has become a common meme, so I think it makes sense people modify it to illustrate the moral dilemmas they are encountering in the world. It may feel like the trolley problem is not the right thought experiment for some situations because it was not meant to be universal, as I said. Thought experiments are just tools, efforts to make apparent, in this case, the difficulties of moral decisions and the conflicting priorities in given cases (among other problems). Thought experiments should be adapted and created to serve this purpose, to help us illustrate these problems. To do it the other way around which would be categorizing in which thought experiment (and its alternatives) a given problem clicks is to risk a rigid or incomplete framing of a problem in favor of an unnecessary categorization/boxing.

So, the dilemma U.S. voters are facing regarding the support of the Palestinian cause their two main political parties show is not necessarily going to fit any thought experiment in record. We either create a new one, abstain from using one, or heavily modify a known one. It’s natural some people decided this. Descriptive? I’d imagine a new thought experiment would be more useful capturing the nuances of the problem while also simplifying the hypotheticals. Effective for communication? Well, that’s the strength of this: a well known meme has better chances at being shared* (and virilized) than a whole new thing of a more serious nature.

Edit: *and here I include shared, commented, discussed, etc.

Similarly, people interested in philosophy (and other theoretical stuff) might take a break and think of different things like “but how’s the soap made, anyway?”.

I disagree. Generally speaking, psychologists aren’t competent either. Psychiatrists at least know about the human body, its interactions, and psychopathology in depth. Psychologists study the things you mentioned, but many fail to study the biological parts and how deep psychopathologies can go.

Therefore, I’ve encountered many psychologists who think that all problems are caused by the environment, by inner (often cognitive) processes, etc. They fail to understand severe mental disorders such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, and regularly make one of two mistakes (if not both in different contexts): downplay the severity of psychosis and mania/hypomania or think the mildest symptom is psychosis or mania/hypomania.

Also, many psychologists I’ve known and seen lean into the antipsychiatry movement. This may not be a problem when treating, say, mild to moderate depressions of a certain reactive nature. They might advise not to take medication and, indeed, medication may not be necessary for these cases. But to do the same for endogenous recurrent depressions and, again, severe mental disorders is borderline clinical negligence.

Finally and in the same vein, many psychologists do not understand how dependent on the physiological are phenomena such as behavior and beliefs. They often picture our mental experience as mostly free, perhaps influenced by many factors (e.g., psychoanalysis), yet ultimately driven by ourselves. I disagree. I disagree not only because there are many scientific observations to the contrary, but because my own experience has been ever-changing by the silliest of things, like medication for physical illnesses, food, weather conditions, etc. Anecdote incoming: >!Traits that psychologists would try to explain away, treat in talk therapy, and solidify as part of my personality were mere consequences of the physiological and went away immediately after I stopped the causes. The average psychiatrist would find this obvious, while psychologists were often surprised.!<

If I may add, both psychiatrists and psychologists face a profound ignorance about the things they study. Psychology has tried to explain them, and in this effort it has created dozens of different and incompatible schools of thought (e.g., psychoanalysis, behaviorism, cognitivism, etc.). Psychiatrists are also at a loss in the definitive hows, and I should add there’s also dense theory behind it (it did not stop with Emil Kraeplin or Karl Jaspers). If you ask me, I wouldn’t consider one more scientific than the other just because one created more paradigms/theories; if anything, remaining observant and pragmatic sounds to me more scientific (in both disciplines), but that’s a whole new conversation…

This might sound pedantic, but it isn’t, it was actually naive: I expected a better environment in academia when I was young.

Why? Because academia is supposedly full of bright people, and I assumed they would be bright enough to be cooperative (because academia advances more when we are, and they supposedly love knowledge); unattached from superficiality (like judging people by their looks, money, etc., because they should know an interesting person can come in any “package”); relatively ethical (as bright people should figure out something close to the categorical imperative, although with unique details); a non-dogmatic, eager to learn and correct their ideas —over preferring recognition and pettiness— attitude (again, just because I assumed their intelligence must guide them towards appreciating knowledge and authenticity over much more ephemeral and possibly worthless things such as prizes, fame, etc.).

I was wrong, so wrong. It’s painful to remember how I felt when I realized it…

But I think the premises weren’t entirely off, I just imagined people much wiser and more intelligent than they are, myself included. Anyway, I fully understand why others are shocked too.

We don’t know if evil is relative, but you can follow the dilemma with different wording.

We don’t like our wellbeing and our ability to make our own decisions taken away from us. We suffer, which is something we want to avoid in general terms. It goes beyond humanity, as many animals also seem to seek the satisfaction of their will (being it playing, feeding, instinctively reproducing, etc.) and seem adverse to harm and to losing their life.

So… If we are such creatures, it’s natural we don’t like situations and beings that go against this. We don’t like volcanic eruptions when they’re happening with us close the crater. We don’t like lions or bears attacking us. We especially don’t like other humans harming us as we suspect they could have done otherwise in many cases. We simply don’t like these things because of our ‘programming’ or ‘design’.

Problem? There are a few. The first is God asks us to like him when he’s admitting that he is actively doing the things we dislike almost universally as human beings. That makes us fall into internal conflict and also into conceptual dilemmas. Perhaps due to our limitations, but nonetheless real and unsolvable to us.

Then you can argue that the way we are is designed by him, so why design something that is going to live, feel, think certain things as undesirable and then impose such things unto them? Let’s say I cannot say that’s evil, I at least can say it’s impractical as it will certainly cause trouble to his mission of accepting him (and following him). If that obstacle for us is part of the plan, that’s not for me to say, yet it is an obstacle in our view and experience. In human terms, all this might be classified as unfair or sadistic*, which is the reasoning in the guide and how you can follow it in this perhaps closer way.

Now, about this last part, while we can argue that *those terms arise from our own dispositions and might be different to other dispositions (aliens that do not experience pain, for example), is that enough to invalidate our perspective? Then what’s the place of empathy, which I am assuming is also a part of God’s gifts to us? What’s the place of compassion, as written in many religious texts of supposedly divine inspiration? If we need to carry our dispreference, displeasure, dislikeness—suffering—and not to classify it as necessarily evil when the gods impose it to us (as it is our judgment only), then why classify it as evil in other circumstances?

I hope I am getting my new point though. What this all seems to conclude is that if the lack of respect for the suffering of the animal kingdom is not worthy of being classified as bad (for whatever reason, here I argued that because this comes to be only by our characteristics/disposition); if, therefore, we cannot say a god is evil for going against our wellbeing and against our ability to make our own decisions, then I fail to understand many other things that tend to follow religious thinking and even moral thinking.

That would fall under the “then God is not good/not all loving”. You described it as if it were a privilege, but the capacity of evil causes indescribable suffering to us and to innocent beings such as small children and animals. If God lets all of this happen just because he wants some replicas of himself or because he thinks it is such a gift to be like him despite it, he’s an egotistical god.

Also, if he gets bored of pure goodness, blissfulness, and perfection, then it was never pure goodness, blissfulness, and perfection for him. Those things, by definition, provide eternal satisfaction. So he either never created that (evil branch again) or he cannot achieve those states even if we wanted to. If he cannot achieve those states even if he wanted to, if he lacks enjoyment and entertainment and has to spice his creation from time to time, then he’s not all powerful.

Also, many people argue the necessity of evil as a requisite for freedom. If God needs to allow evil so we can be free, then he’s bound to that rule (and/or others): not all powerful.

So… is our broken non-native English an advantage now (because one can tell we are real people)? Nice.

And we know what one specific viewpoint we’re talking about.

Dang it! I’m always out of the loop.

You’re thinking of April Jesus. This is December Jesus.

The thing is there are negative aspects in NPD and ASPD, and those can be overcome, so support for these disorders does not mean celebrating but guiding toward remission.

I am going to make some very broad strokes here. So no armchair quarterbacking me. I know it’s way more nuanced but I’m not writing an essay on Lemmy.

In general Western philosophies always have a “goal.”

I know you said it was a broad stroke, and that in general is that way, but I kind of disagree still. I think Western philosophy is about finding if we have a purpose and what is it, and many philosophers since Greek antiquity to today have answered they are skeptic of it existing or it being able to be known. From Pyrrho of Elis and Hegesias of Cyrene to Arthur Schopenhauer and Slavoj Žižek.

The word we are looking for is teleology (not to be confused with theology). It refers to finality, that there is a goal. Many philosophers did not subscribe to a teolology.

Your human life is to prove your worthiness.

Same thing as before.

You need to look back and atone for your past mistakes. You need to look forward so you can do the right things to be worthy. It is very little about being in the now.

I agree a little more with this, there are many Western philosophers preoccupied with ethics. But that’s why I think they were talking of different dimensions. It was not that existentially you should roam the past or future, that your mental activity should be there. It was about being responsible in the now for the future, and to be held accountable for your past. It was a morality thing, not a conscious/existential thing.

In this case tacos are the moment. So next time you’re eating a delicious taco. Spend that moment to be one with your taco. Concentrate on the smell. Then feel the texture as you pick it up. How the various colors interact with each other. Then as you bite off some, feel the textures in your mouth and how the flavors interact. Watch yourself, be aware of every time you chew. Remember there is no past there’s no future there is only tacos.

Hey! Go away with that mindful nonsense. If I do that, I spend too much time with a single bite and I cannot eat as much (/s).

I don’t know how to post images, but Google “Dinosaur Liberty Security” or “Dinosaur Freedom Security” and that’s what came to my mind.

SMITE isn’t a shooter, though. Overwatch 2 killed Overwatch and left an empty space. I don’t see a problem if two games (or more) try to fill it. I hope they are fun.

That said, it shouldn’t be Valve’s only focus if fans are expecting different games from them.

I thought it was him, William Whewell, in response to an almost rant from Samuel Taylor Coleridge about “natural philosophers” (today’s scientists) not deserving to be called “philosophers”.

I just googled it and found:

Coleridge stood and insisted that men of science in the modern day should not be referred to as philosophers since they were typically digging, observing, mixing or electrifying—that is, they were empirical men of experimentation and not philosophers of ideas.

[…]

There was much grumbling among those in attendance, when Whewell masterfully suggested that in “analogy with artist we form scientist.” Curiously this almost perfect linguistic accommodation of workmanship and inspiration, of the artisanal and the contemplative, of the everyday and the universal –was not readily accepted.

Yeah, that was the story I’d heard.

Another source says:

Coleridge declared that although he was a true philosopher, the term philosopher should not be applied to the association’s members. William Whewell responded by coining the word scientist on the spot. He suggested

by analogy with artist, we may form scientist.

It’s funny because nobody remembers S. T. Coleridge as a philosopher but only as a poet. I’ve read that his philosophical writings were like an eccentric and almost immature version of German idealism. The thing that haunts me is that famous F. Schelling is well read but often misunderstood, so if they both were part of the romantic movement and they were both close to idealism, it could be that they both suffer the same fate.

Anyway, I digressed. That was the story I knew. Basically, a gatekeeping poet separated philosophers and natural philosophers.

It’s even curious because there are rumours about men like Coleridge being “half-mad”, and recently there have been studies on it. It would be ridiculous (just as history tends to be) if an old mad poet had divided these branches of knowledge on a fit of bad moods.

I’m from the 90s and I’ve been catching some trends thanks to TikTok and YouTube. Exactly what you said, new videos and keep jumping to suggested videos. Also, read the comments, people often have recommendations (you can even ask and you’ll get some new musicians).

Or:

“Honey, I found some information that the world’s top scientists and doctors are ignoring/minimizing due to biases”.

That’s an interesting idea. Thank you!

Nicotine, caffeine, alcohol, methylphenidate.

Nicotine once. Friends at the time said I needed to try it to say for a fact I didn’t like it, and I didn’t like it. Then I learnt there are extremely rare cases of illnesses from just one smoke, so that advice was stupid, IMO.

Caffeine was a regular as I was self-medicating with it. Nowadays, I drink mostly decaffeinated. I wish there were more flavors and variety for it, though, at least a chocolate one…

Alcohol has always been an occasional thing for me, once or twice per year. I try to keep it that way because my family has a long history of substance abuse disorder.

Methylphenidate once. I borrowed it from someone’s prescription. I thought it would help me get energetic, euphoric, etc. Well, it was calming, and for the first time in my life my mind was quiet. It was so strange to be sitting with no turmoil, no direction of what to jump to do or even say spontaneously. It was just me and the silent room. Tranquility, so much that it was uncomfortable as it was new and not what I expected at all. Turns out I have hyperactivity and the medication turned it down.

If I were to say, I prefer uppers and I’m curious about substances like cocaine, but I don’t want to risk my health. I’m fine.

Before (unless intended otherwise). Imagine the case in which the paragraph continues…

Roy fell when we were walking. 😂 It was kind of worrying.

vs

Roy fell when we were walking 😂. It was kind of worrying.

In the first one, it seems that you are laughing about the fall being worrying. In the second, the laugh is about Roy, and then the next sentence reads in a more neutral tone, which was my intent.

Maybe it doesn’t look as nice, but to me it makes more sense.

We are already here.