4 ms·

What I mean is: solving problems is good. Solving scientific problems is good, solving moral problems is good. If you do not think solving problems in general i

by dotsam 3y ago

What I mean is: solving problems is good. Solving scientific problems is good, solving moral problems is good. If you do not think solving problems in general is good, you will not think solving the killing animals moral problem is good. The only way to solve problems is to create knowledge. We need to create good explanations of what is there, what it does, and how and why. The only we know to create knowledge is through creatively guessing things and checking our ideas against criticism. To solve the moral problem of whether breeding and killing animals to eat is wrong we need a good explanation of consciousness, and whether animals are conscious, and if they suffer. We do not have a good explanation of consciousness or suffering yet. Any ideas we do have we can improve upon, endlessly. Edit: I should emphasize that we can never be certain that we've really 'solved' any given problem: we could always be wrong. This is why we should always be open to criticism and better ideas.

throw0101c 3y ago
> What I mean is: solving problems is good. Solving scientific problems is good, solving moral problems is good. If you do not think solving problems in general is good, you will not think solving the killing animals moral problem is good. Not necessarily universally: one can have a philosophy / worldview where dealing with your problems is a way to spiritual enlightenment and getting rid of the problems / suffering prevents you from achieving higher spiritual / intellectual levels. > Gnostic cosmogony generally presents a distinction between a supreme, hidden God and a malevolent lesser divinity (sometimes associated with the God of the Hebrew Bible)[1] who is responsible for creating the material universe. Consequently, Gnostics considered material existence flawed or evil […] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism Any worldview (Buddhism? Hinduism? that treats the material world as 'bad(-sh)' or an illusion would be 'susceptible' to this line of thinking.
- dotsam 3y ago
  Even gnostics have problems they have to solve in their day to day lives, and the only way to solve them is by creating knowledge. Appeals to the supernatural or dogma are bad explanations, and they should be criticised and improved upon. They are bad explanations because they are not hard to vary, and can be easily modified or replaced by any other supernatural or dogmatic entity or force without affecting the phenomenon they are supposed to explain. They are essentially arbitrary and unfalsifiable assertions that do not increase our understanding of reality. Also note, you never get rid of problems, there are always more. New knowledge creates new and better problems. Running out of problems would itself be a problem.

by dotsam 3y ago

throw0101c 3y ago

> What I mean is: solving problems is good. Solving scientific problems is good, solving moral problems is good. If you do not think solving problems in general is good, you will not think solving the killing animals moral problem is good. Not necessarily universally: one can have a philosophy / worldview where dealing with your problems is a way to spiritual enlightenment and getting rid of the problems / suffering prevents you from achieving higher spiritual / intellectual levels. > Gnostic cosmogony generally presents a distinction between a supreme, hidden God and a malevolent lesser divinity (sometimes associated with the God of the Hebrew Bible)[1] who is responsible for creating the material universe. Consequently, Gnostics considered material existence flawed or evil […] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism Any worldview (Buddhism? Hinduism? that treats the material world as 'bad(-sh)' or an illusion would be 'susceptible' to this line of thinking.

dotsam 3y ago
Even gnostics have problems they have to solve in their day to day lives, and the only way to solve them is by creating knowledge. Appeals to the supernatural or dogma are bad explanations, and they should be criticised and improved upon. They are bad explanations because they are not hard to vary, and can be easily modified or replaced by any other supernatural or dogmatic entity or force without affecting the phenomenon they are supposed to explain. They are essentially arbitrary and unfalsifiable assertions that do not increase our understanding of reality. Also note, you never get rid of problems, there are always more. New knowledge creates new and better problems. Running out of problems would itself be a problem.