Philosophy Now Forum

Not all unnatural human behavior is deleterious: e.g., penicillin v pneumonia. Nor is it the case that all unnatural behavior is adventitious: formula v breast milk. Science is not the sine qua non of unnatural behavior, either good or bad. It is mankind’s perception and utilization of science that ...

John, contrary to your thought, space is random.

I enjoy reading this thread. But, 27, sorry for asking this, but I am unsure about your phrase, “(ex. laws)”. Do you mean to say “e.g., laws”, “former laws” or something else all together? I dunno. Thanks.

Best radio drama of all time was Orson Wells’ on the invasion of New Jersey.

BTW, I’be heard it said that inquiry, once begun, never ends (forgot source).

Satisfactory to whom , though? It's one thing to satisfy oneself...but ethics inevitably impinge on others. I may be content to feed only my own children, and feel perfectly justified; but my nephew is still starving, then, and so are my friends, and so are my neighbours and my fellow citizens... a...

Well, how does one know when one has "thought hard," versus when one has "overthought"? And if one is going to denigrate thought per se , upon what is one going to rely? I’d wager that no one can answer these questions. That may be. But that's the point. You can't say, "Don't overthink" if nobody h...

It is generally accepted that thought produces behavior. It follows that unnatural thought produces unnatural behavior. What is unnatural thought other than psychosis? Does this mean that the concept of extinction, or near extinction, of the species is psychotic? No, it is not unnatural to be wrong ...

thedoc wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 12, 2019 3:12 pm

The real question is what is "natural" or "unnatural" behavior for humans.

Although defining natural & unnatural behavior is an important first step, the real question remains what is the cause of unnatural human behavior.

Actually, “Don’t Overthink” was serious and non-collective. But we have got past that by now. Well, how does one know when one has "thought hard," versus when one has "overthought"? And if one is going to denigrate thought per se , upon what is one going to rely? I’d wager that no one can answer th...

OK, OK. I understand what you mean. But I think that this border isn’t necessarily true. One just takes a guess as to where an ethical border should be (or makes an estimate based on a belief that such and such a percentage of his possessions and income would result in a satisfactory ethical border...

I had in mind to set aside the border crisis per se, in order to settle the more general question about ethics: how does any of us "set borders" around our personal ethical responsibilities? We have to, of course, but how do we do it rightly? So that's why I was using the "whom do you feed" analogy...

Aren’t we really looking for how it feels to have an ethical border? I think not. There are many things one can "feel" that are just not true. If anyone thinks that's not so, then remember your first crush? How did that work out? But the feelings...weren't they there? Of course they were, and very ...

I am assuming the other options you suggested, from dartboards to "don't overthink" were offered in jest. Yes and no. It is my claim that an individual’s border is a matter of feeling, an individual’s sense of what’s right. If that border were a rational matter, why has no one come close to offerin...

I had in mind to set aside the border crisis per se, in order to settle the more general question about ethics: how does any of us "set borders" around our personal ethical responsibilities? We have to, of course, but how do we do it rightly? So that's why I was using the "whom do you feed" analogy...