Happiness Is a Warm Post: The Happy Thread

[Good Intentions]

Philosophy is turning out slightly gayyyyyy. I mean the futurity problem? Gayyyyer than gayyyyy things.

I had to Google that. It's a strange name, but determing just the right amount of concern you're supposed to give future generations is actually a big and important issue. I didn't know it's the type fo thing they teach undergrads at Vic, it's grad-level stuff here.

[C of heartbreak]

You mean like w/r/t resource usage, climate change etc? Yeah I can't imagine that'd be such a gay problem.

[Good Intentions]

Yeah, that's basically it. It's bloody hard to resolve. For one thing, it's really hard to know what it is that future generations actually need - half the time we can't agree on what it is we should provide ourselves, never mind people who don't exist yet. For another, it's also hard to guess how much of our help they might need, perhaps they solve all the problems we invisaged for them through better technology, aliens, or perhaps whatever we set aside for them is wasted as unimagined disasters strike them, and we're better of using it ourselves. And even if we were to decide how much concern to give future generations, we need to agree on what type of ethical approach best manages that. Classical utilitarianism, for instance, will never give you a reason to set aside anything for future generations, because they don't exist to have their utility measured yet.

It's grad-level stuff because it's the type of question you might need to squint a bit to appreciate the depth of. But apparently the folk at Victoria University in Wellington disagree with me.

[Anne the Man]

Whoa, slow down. I never said I didn't appreciate the depth or that I didn't find it interesting. I'm saying it annoys me, because the main argument we got taught, which according to my notes is called the futurity problem, is that future people can't blame us for fucking up the environment because if we hadn't done what we did they wouldn't exist. So by the same logic we should be grateful for WWII right now. Sorry, I should've made it clearer that THAT'S the gayyyyyyyy thing. The arbitrariness of philosophy annoys me sometimes.

This shouldn't really be in the happy thread. OT, look at this! http://www.lookybook.com/

[Good Intentions]

Well, it's philosophy, Anne, you're supposed to look at the argument and say whether it's any good. Perhaps you want to say no, which is fair enough, but you need reasons of your own. Me, I think it's a shitty self-serving little argument, and I'd like to make an analogy with another case: let's say a few other people and I are on a boat heading from one island to another, and let's say some guy, Sinker, scupples the boat by taking an axe to the bottom. We all barely make it alive to some outcropping of rock jutting out from the sea. We go 'well, thanks a lot, Sinker, YOU FUCKING FUCK!" and he responds "you can't complain, if you had made it to the other shore, you would have been different people, so the fact that YOU exist as you are is down to me, and my sinking the boat is blameless." Obviously he's full of shit. I'd like to know why this boat-sinking case is different from the nature-pillaging case.

I mean, there are people who make the argument you have given, and it's a defensible position, though neither of us like it. Working out your answers to them (since almost everybody disagrees with the nature-pillagers) is part of how you work out your own position regarding future generations.

I remember when my ex was doing a course on this, and she was furious at one of her classmates (someone doing a PhD in economics who was doing a lot of philosophy papers out of interest in the subject) who actually tried to honestly defend such a position like the one you mention. Her response was something along the line of 'you mean people actually think like this for any otehr reason than getting papers published?!'.

Me, I'm ecstatic at getting a chance to do this type of stuff on my feet in general conversation.

[Anne the Man]

I know phil is meant to teach you how to argue, but I hate how it always takes these exceptional, often completely ludicrous positions on something and treats them as the rule. Like when people talk about using the Golden Rule ('do unto others' etc) as a moral code but people always go "nooo, but what about masochists" as though that's a reason for discarding a rule which, if actually put into practice, would work pretty damn well for 99% of the population.

Also some philosophical debates that will have NO relevance to real life ever annoy me, like the one about "if a person is split into two people, and these two go off for 10 years and have completely different experiences etc, which one is identical to the first person?" It's interesting enough, but the arguments go around in circles, and you get to wondering, well gee, why don't these philosophers actually go out and DO something constructive with all this knowledge of how to argue already?

[Good Intentions]

On your first point, well, in philosophy discussions people often defend positions they'd never even consider outside of them, which is partly the point of having such discussions but often annoying when trying to show where there is a problem. I had a talk with some physics students a few months ago, about what philosophy of science is all about, and they ended up telling me that it's perfectly obvious that electrons don't actually exist, that science is all about making up rules which turn out to have useful results, that science doesn't attempt to say what is true about the world, only to suefully approximate it. I managed to make them snap out of the illusion that it's so obvious when I pointed out that their response would ahve been far different if, before having the discussion with them, I went up to them and said 'you guys know that there's no such things as electrons, right?'. The joke is that they were defending as obviously correct the position I hold, and I went out of their way to consider the opposing view, but that's because I'm a sap for this stuff.

Your second point, well, philosophers flock to problems like moths to a flame. It's boring writing about stuff everybody agrees on, so they're always running around looking for places where the way we commonly think about things don't work so well. Figuring out such cases is what philosophy is for. And normally there is a way where the resulting conclusion has bearing on how we live: resolving the identical twins case means we learn something about what we think 'personhood' is, which is pretty important in things like considering future persons (futurity problem and things like abortion) and laying out things like human rights.

[jebreject]

(I've started using the term gayyyy semi-ironically cos my friend does it all the time and it catches. It's non-bigoted if it has lots of Ys at the end.)

Please stop.

[sassymcassface]

i'm happy because i made muffins last night and brought them to work and people seem to really like them.  i've gotten told twice that i have made their lives less shitty.  go me!

[Bernard]

I know phil is meant to teach you how to argue, but I hate how it always takes these exceptional, often completely ludicrous positions on something and treats them as the rule. Like when people talk about using the Golden Rule ('do unto others' etc) as a moral code but people always go "nooo, but what about masochists" as though that's a reason for discarding a rule which, if actually put into practice, would work pretty damn well for 99% of the population.

Only, it wouldn't work at all well for 99% of the population. 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' means never treating people as they'd want to be treated, only as you'd want to be treated. I'd hate it if my mother spent all her weekends with me, because she'd love it if I spent all of mine with her. I'd hate it if my husband bought me a new pair of running shoes because he'd love a new pair -- running makes me feel sick. I would be, and am, incredibly annoyed by the people on my friendslist who post long-ass screeds about their annoying causes and don't stick them behind a cut, while they seem to welcome it. This isn't exotic, hypothetical stuff, it's everyday life.

[jess]

(I've started using the term gayyyy semi-ironically cos my friend does it all the time and it catches. It's non-bigoted if it has lots of Ys at the end.)

Please stop.

Agreed. And while you can say it without intending it to be anti-gay (which I have no doubt that you are, knowing you enough), you can't just declare it to not feel discriminatory/offensive/homophobic to your audience because you add extra y's, so if you care about not coming off as a bigot, well, I'd recommend nipping that habit in the bud. And you can't change the fact that reason you're using it in that context stems from homophobia originally even you personally aren't intending to be homophobic. Again, yyy's don't suddenly divorce you from that.

And since that's not particularly happy, and this is the happy thread, I'll had that it's gorgeous outside, and even though I've been feeling crappy (physically) lately, walking to work in the sun this morning, with it warm but not even close to hot out, was re-energizing and lovely.

[Bernard]

(I've started using the term gayyyy semi-ironically cos my friend does it all the time and it catches. It's non-bigoted if it has lots of Ys at the end.)

Please stop.

Also, while you may find 'gayyyy' hilarious or something, I don't, I find irritating and moronic. Another Golden Rule failure.

[The_Tourist]

i'm happy because i made muffins last night and brought them to work and people seem to really like them.  i've gotten told twice that i have made their lives less shitty.  go me!

they are pretty tasty.

you're lucky you left the second bag at home.

[jess]

I know phil is meant to teach you how to argue, but I hate how it always takes these exceptional, often completely ludicrous positions on something and treats them as the rule. Like when people talk about using the Golden Rule ('do unto others' etc) as a moral code but people always go "nooo, but what about masochists" as though that's a reason for discarding a rule which, if actually put into practice, would work pretty damn well for 99% of the population.

Only, it wouldn't work at all well for 99% of the population. 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' means never treating people as they'd want to be treated, only as you'd want to be treated. I'd hate it if my mother spent all her weekends with me, because she'd love it if I spent all of mine with her. I'd hate it if my husband bought me a new pair of running shoes because he'd love a new pair -- running makes me feel sick. I would be, and am, incredibly annoyed by the people on my friendslist who post long-ass screeds about their annoying causes and don't stick them behind a cut, while they seem to welcome it. This isn't exotic, hypothetical stuff, it's everyday life.

That then brings up the issue of interpretation and application, like when you say the Golden Rule, how specific are you being? Maybe it works if you mean treating people more generally with consideration, respect, kindness and empathy, in that you would have to consider their specific needs, respect those, and treat them kindly as they would interpret kindness, in that when you think about it, that's what most people want others to do for them, even if it then leads to a list of more specific acts. But if you interpret it very literally, like in Bernard's example of what someone might do, then it falls apart pretty quickly, since you can in fact lose some of that empathy and respect. Which perhaps adds to the potential importance of discussing the issues, since a potentially good idea can quickly become a more problematic one, or even vice versa, depending on how it is interpreted and applied.

[Maaik]

"You wanna go see the Shins with me?"
"No way man!  Those guys are totally Asian!"

"I think our bus is running late again."
"Man, that is left-handed as hell.  I will be late to work."

"Those pants are really Caucasian, bro."

"Man, straight FUCK this astigmatized-ass shit!"

[C of heartbreak]

I'm gonna start using astigmatized as an insult. It'll be ok because I have astigmatism.

[sassymcassface]

i'm happy because i made muffins last night and brought them to work and people seem to really like them.  i've gotten told twice that i have made their lives less shitty.  go me!

they are pretty tasty.

you're lucky you left the second bag at home.

if you eat them all i'm going to take a bath with your receiver.

[dieblucasdie]

Where this breakup is concerned, I'm not on the Tourist's side.  I'm not on sassy's side.  I'm on the muffins' side.

[Doctor Bob]

Dibs on the bath.

[The_Tourist]

Where this breakup is concerned, I'm not on the Tourist's side.  I'm not on sassy's side.  I'm on the muffins' side.

it's the obvious choice, really.

they're the peanut butter banana muffins greg nog (?) posted the recipe for.

[sassymcassface]

Dibs on the bath.

if you are talking about my bath, it is flaking so much paint that i think i have lead poisoning.  it makes it an exciting bath.

[ellaguru]

"You wanna go see the Shins with me?"
"No way man!  Those guys are totally Asian!"

"I think our bus is running late again."
"Man, that is left-handed as hell.  I will be late to work."

"Those pants are really Caucasian, bro."

"Man, straight FUCK this astigmatized-ass shit!"

No, you have to add the extra letters on the end to make the words non-bigoted, comme ça:

"You wanna go see the Shins with me?"
"No way man!  Those guys are totally Asiannnn!"

"I think our bus is running late again."
"Man, that is left-handedddd as hell.  I will be late to work."

"Those pants are really Caucasiannnn, bro."

"Man, straight FUCK this astigmatizedddd-ass shit!"

Otherwise they are bigoted.

[Ignatius]

if you eat them all i'm going to take a bath with your receiver.

Wait.  Is this threatening suicide as a consequence of "you ate all the muffins?"  Or is it just threatening destruction of property?

[sassymcassface]

if you eat them all i'm going to take a bath with your receiver.

Wait.  Is this threatening suicide as a consequence of "you ate all the muffins?"  Or is it just threatening destruction of property?

i think it's both.  also the threat of a huge mess he'd have to clean up/explain.

[The_Tourist]

if you eat them all i'm going to take a bath with your receiver.

Wait.  Is this threatening suicide as a consequence of "you ate all the muffins?"  Or is it just threatening destruction of property?

destruction of property. it's the newest/shiniest expensive thing i have. she usually threatens my records.

but i wouldn't doubt the alternative. she's very serious about her muffins.