CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Harold Doyle3 › Posts

Posts by Harold Doyle3

218 posts shown.

Who's going to do the dirty work in Utopia? in Philosophy ·
Andrew Booth29 said:In that kind of society, you won't even need pilots or controllers—because everyone will be flying. That much is certain. People will grow wings.

It feels like I’ve accidentally wandered into some online elementary school instead of a philosophy seminar. 🤣

Hey, tech support—I think my internet settings got scrambled... Oh, and apparently, today is for cleaning out pigpens. Well, whatever. Tomorrow's another day.

Karl Jaspers argues that children pose the most profound philosophical questions and that they are at their most intelligent during those years...
Who's going to do the dirty work in Utopia? in Philosophy ·
gentlerider7 said:Maybe you're overlooking one little detail here; if we lived in some utopia where everyone was perfectly healthy and hard work was basically non-existent, surgeons and doctors wouldn't have nearly as much on their plates. Less work, less stress, and way less grind for the medical profession.

And what about air traffic controllers and pilots? Are they just supposed to go out and clean chicken coops instead?
Who's going to do the dirty work in Utopia? in Philosophy ·
gentlerider7 said:Let's just pretend for a second that we aren't dealing with Maova China here and nobody's being forced into anything. Say the surgeon works a shorter schedule, maybe jumps in for an hour or two every once in a while to lend a hand to the sanitation crews or the farmers.

Of course, it works both ways. You’ll see the sweepers and the pig farmers jumping in here and there to lend a hand to neurosurgeons whenever they're busy patching up the idiots who push those kinds of ideas... and honestly, that would be about as fair as it gets.
Who's going to do the dirty work in Utopia? in Philosophy ·
ruggedraven36 said:It appeals to anyone who actually gives a damn about fairness—including the surgeons themselves.

So he's just dreaming of a world where he isn't the one holding the plunger.

Not just him—nobody.

Oh, sure!
So, a neurosurgeon spent years sweating over Latin textbooks and memorizing every obscure detail of brain anatomy while some other guy was busy chilling out and selling nothing but hot air—and now you think it’s "fair" for them both to be out there shoveling manure in a pigpen? Give me a break.

Would you actually walk up to a surgeon while he's cleaning out a barn and say, "Hey, look, my neighbor really needs your help, so I'll take your shift instead," you absolute hypocrite?
Who's going to do the dirty work in Utopia? in Philosophy ·
Sam Martinez9 said:A man cleans up sewage and gets a paycheck for it; a woman cleans up the mess at home and doesn't get a dime, nor even a simple thank you.

Well, some people don't clean up any messes at all, yet they still walk away with prizes and plenty of praise.
Who's going to do the dirty work in Utopia? in Philosophy ·
gentlerider7 said:So, if we’re looking at those gritty, soul-crushing jobs that nobody actually wants to touch—you know, the stuff like cleaning out sewers, hauling trash, or working deep in some dusty coal mine—how on earth would you handle them in some kind of perfect, imaginary system?

In Thomas Moore's version of Utopia, they’d basically just have criminals do all that dirty work (kind of like how things functioned in the USSR, where prisoners were stuck doing all the high-risk labor). Then again, there are always those weirdly optimistic people who argue there will always be someone out there perfectly happy to take on those kinds of roles.

I remember seeing this other thread about communal living, and people were saying that every single commune eventually falls apart because of these exact issues: like, who's actually going to cook the meals, and who's going to deal with the gross job of cleaning the bathrooms?

Maybe robots?
Huntington's Clash of Civilizations in Philosophy ·
Sam Martinez9 said:For those who thrive on friction, discord, and full-blown culture wars, these differences can be quite useful tools.

But for people with good intentions, cultural differences serve a much higher purpose: enriching themselves and everyone around them.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Huntington's Clash of Civilizations in Philosophy ·
Sam Martinez9 said:Isn't it standard etiquette for someone visiting a home to actually ask about their hosts, what gifts are appropriate, or what the local customs are?

Personally, I would always make it a point to check in, seek advice on what people enjoy, what they dislike, or any dietary restrictions—you never know if someone might be diabetic or something similar. And yet, I see my fellow Americans, people who have lived in the same city their entire lives, completely ignoring this.

It strikes me as quite absurd when my neighbor’s business partners show up with alcohol as a gift, considering the man is a recovering alcoholic who hasn't touched a drop in over a decade.

I also watched a documentary about China where Europeans were visiting Chinese families, and they made sure to do their homework beforehand regarding customs, proper behavior, and appropriate gifts.

Consequently, that interview feels less like a misunderstanding and more like a deliberate attempt to trigger a clash of civilizations.

Only if you're crashing the party uninvited. If you're actually invited, then it's on the host to vet the guest. They carry the risk here.
Sam Martinez9 said:Isn't it standard etiquette for someone visiting a home to actually ask about their hosts, what gifts are appropriate, or what the local customs are?

Personally, I would always make it a point to check in, seek advice on what people enjoy, what they dislike, or any dietary restrictions—you never know if someone might be diabetic or something similar. And yet, I see my fellow Americans, people who have lived in the same city their entire lives, completely ignoring this.

It strikes me as quite absurd when my neighbor’s business partners show up with alcohol as a gift, considering the man is a recovering alcoholic who hasn't touched a drop in over a decade.

I also watched a documentary about China where Europeans were visiting Chinese families, and they made sure to do their homework beforehand regarding customs, proper behavior, and appropriate gifts.

Consequently, that interview feels less like a misunderstanding and more like a deliberate attempt to trigger a clash of civilizations.

Imagine showing up with a platter of bacon, sausage, and pork rinds, only to realize halfway through that the hosts are vegetarians. Then you just have to sit there and pretend the pig ate the gift meant for them.
Sam Martinez9 said:Isn't it standard etiquette for someone visiting a home to actually ask about their hosts, what gifts are appropriate, or what the local customs are?

Personally, I would always make it a point to check in, seek advice on what people enjoy, what they dislike, or any dietary restrictions—you never know if someone might be diabetic or something similar. And yet, I see my fellow Americans, people who have lived in the same city their entire lives, completely ignoring this.

It strikes me as quite absurd when my neighbor’s business partners show up with alcohol as a gift, considering the man is a recovering alcoholic who hasn't touched a drop in over a decade.

I also watched a documentary about China where Europeans were visiting Chinese families, and they made sure to do their homework beforehand regarding customs, proper behavior, and appropriate gifts.

Consequently, that interview feels less like a misunderstanding and more like a deliberate attempt to trigger a clash of civilizations.

Well, that's definitely something worth celebrating!
Sam Martinez9 said:Isn't it standard etiquette for someone visiting a home to actually ask about their hosts, what gifts are appropriate, or what the local customs are?

Personally, I would always make it a point to check in, seek advice on what people enjoy, what they dislike, or any dietary restrictions—you never know if someone might be diabetic or something similar. And yet, I see my fellow Americans, people who have lived in the same city their entire lives, completely ignoring this.

It strikes me as quite absurd when my neighbor’s business partners show up with alcohol as a gift, considering the man is a recovering alcoholic who hasn't touched a drop in over a decade.

I also watched a documentary about China where Europeans were visiting Chinese families, and they made sure to do their homework beforehand regarding customs, proper behavior, and appropriate gifts.

Consequently, that interview feels less like a misunderstanding and more like a deliberate attempt to trigger a clash of civilizations.

I think the Golden Rule applies perfectly here. Don't treat them in a way you wouldn't want them to treat you, and don't show up with something you wouldn't want them bringing to your front door.
Huntington's Clash of Civilizations in Philosophy ·
frozengardener7 said:I recently finished reading Samuel Huntington’s famous book, Clash of Civilizations—admittedly a bit late—and it really got me thinking. However, I feel everything I gathered was more vividly elaborated upon in the documentary "All Being White in Barking," which essentially visualizes everything dear Sam set out to carry out himself.

Do you think multiculturalism is actually successful in the West? Can different civilizations truly coexist? In theory, this all sounds beautiful and, above all, humane (and that is my stance—HUMANELY speaking—so please don't hit me with any racist elaborations), but does it actually hold up in practice?

In one segment of an interview, an American couple visits a Black family and brings over a bottle of alcohol (a gift basket, the wife says, though she feels it looks a bit too fancy) but the family doesn't drink. Still, in an effort to be good hosts, the family serves them some traditional meat dish (mind you, these are Americans who can eat almost anything) and they are visibly revolted, barely able to swallow it. In another part of the same program, an American man (whose daughter suffered violence at the hands of a Black man) points to a Black woman in traditional African clothing and remarks, "See, this is integration. They are in the West, yet they dress like they're back in their homeland..." It is somewhat paradoxical, especially regarding people from Islamic states fleeing a country that stands in opposition to the West, only to attempt to recreate their own distinct nations within Western states. And indeed, as depicted in the documentary, the shops and markets bear an irresistible resemblance to immigrant enclaves, and I must admit, Huntington's clash of civilizations is clearly visible there. Particularly interesting is the end of the documentary when an Albanian family is asked if they would like a Black man as a son-in-law for their daughter, and they say, "Yes, of course, we have no issue with other races." But then they are asked if they would want a Mexican as a son-in-law. Naturally, there is just a blank stare into the camera followed by a slight side-eye. What can I say? I am witnessing not just an external conflict, but an internal one as well. And we know that, for instance, Anglo-Saxon countries aren't particularly fond of Slavic ones, etc.

Returning to Huntington. The West—once fractured by kingdoms, then by ideologies—seems like a complicated concept, yet it remains unified by its influence on the rest of the world (the West versus everyone else). However, when it comes to Western equality and freedom, the matter is deeply paradoxical. Not only do we fail to see unifying liberal factors amidst the fractures, but according to certain data, the idea that "freedom = the West" is viewed as a total fallacy by the global citizen.

My question to you: Can cultures adapt to coexistence and give rise to a new, better, or more humane race, or is it the opposite? Furthermore, how do you believe the clash of civilizations manifests in theory versus how it manifests in practice? I hope this discussion doesn't veer in the wrong direction; I find these topics particularly fascinating, and they are subjects that must be discussed.

Only if they are forced into it or if it serves their own interests.
Cultures and civilizations rise and fall based on evolutionary rules, where the most competitive, adaptable, and successful ones impose themselves on the inferior ones.
Much like biological organisms, these relationships can be symbiotic (think of something like NATO) or parasitic (like colonialism).
Furthermore, a dominant civilization might simply assimilate an inferior one (take the Borg from Star Trek as an example) because that is its method of survival.

The destruction of South American civilizations by Europeans is a prime example of the impossibility of coexistence; the stronger, more vital force wipes out the weaker.
The irony is that the clash of civilizations is precisely what produces something new, better, or more humane... at least that’s what history teaches us. Which civilization in history ever had a population that was, on average, better, more successful, or more humane than the ones born from the friction of previous cultures—starting all the way back from the clash between nomadic pastoralists and settled agriculturalists?
The sweet indifference of the world in Philosophy ·
Sandra Murphy33 said:Sandra Murphy33,

The whole concept you’re touching on—survival, whether we’re talking about an individual, a species, or the entire galaxy—it all just "happens." It isn't as if humanity stepped in to engineer the fact that any of this exists. As individuals, we simply find ourselves adrift in a state of affairs that was already set in motion...
Since there is no human architect behind that "purpose"—that eternal continuity of life that persists regardless of its physical vessel or form—it stands to reason that life and survival aren't actually our responsibility, right?

I’ve always found it amusing how materialists grab hold of the concept of Life itself with such unearned confidence. They act as though they sit above it rather than being subject to it, prescribing rules and regulations as if Life were some fragile thing that would vanish instantly without their paternalistic intervention. It strikes me as incredibly arrogant; a sort of inflated, God-complex performance. It feels as though they invented the idea of being a protector just to give themselves the legitimacy to claim they need to look after the very life that produced them in the first place!

Humans have reason. Where did it come from? Well, circumstances dictated that having it was an edge. It allowed us to survive and hold our own against the competition so we didn't end up as someone else's lunch. We’re social animals too; being part of a group makes us harder to hunt than if we were out there solo. Reason is perfect for predicting outcomes or seeing the consequences of an action. Reason cares about life because it is a product of life—it's a feedback loop. That is where the "meaning" lies.

Sandra Murphy33 said:Sandra Murphy33,

The whole concept you’re touching on—survival, whether we’re talking about an individual, a species, or the entire galaxy—it all just "happens." It isn't as if humanity stepped in to engineer the fact that any of this exists. As individuals, we simply find ourselves adrift in a state of affairs that was already set in motion...
Since there is no human architect behind that "purpose"—that eternal continuity of life that persists regardless of its physical vessel or form—it stands to reason that life and survival aren't actually our responsibility, right?

I’ve always found it amusing how materialists grab hold of the concept of Life itself with such unearned confidence. They act as though they sit above it rather than being subject to it, prescribing rules and regulations as if Life were some fragile thing that would vanish instantly without their paternalistic intervention. It strikes me as incredibly arrogant; a sort of inflated, God-complex performance. It feels as though they invented the idea of being a protector just to give themselves the legitimacy to claim they need to look after the very life that produced them in the first place!

Some materialists grab "materialistic hands" and try to manage life and death, while it seems to be the well-fed, pampered non-materialists who spend all their time worrying about Life and Death.
The sweet indifference of the world in Philosophy ·
Eric Newman75 said:Look, evolutionary mechanisms actually work in a positive direction. They trim away flaws and refine organisms. But human "mechanisms"—our specific cognitive glitches and character defects—don't follow those rules. What we’re doing right now isn't evolution; it’s just sawing off the very branch we're sitting on. If we go under, we can't point fingers at nature or biology. It won't be their fault. We'll have been destroyed by our own sheer comfort, fueled by greed and pure negligence. From a philosophical standpoint, maybe it’s just dialectics playing out—everything grows, reaches a peak, and then inevitably veers into its opposite and collapses. Honestly? The human race will vanish; the only real question is when. Countless other species lasted for eons before them, and I don't see why we should be any different.

Look, we don't have an obligation to survive or "thrive." We're just one of countless life forms. Think about the Voyager probes—if we sent some random hitchhiker, like a bacterium, out into the void, you could argue that life simply used us as a transport system to spread itself around the cosmos...
The sweet indifference of the world in Philosophy ·
ruggedraven36 said:Reminds me of that famous Hegelian line: "Whatever is rational is actual, and whatever is actual is rational." If you follow that thread, you get: "Whatever is rational is rational." Is that nonsense? Not in my book.

You give Hegel a glass of water and he'll try to lecture you on the entire ocean. That’s just not how it works.
The sweet indifference of the world in Philosophy ·
Sandra Murphy33 said:"Survival" implies overcoming some kind of obstacle—a threat to one's life—that once conquered, leaves you alive.
Surely you aren't suggesting that the entire point of living is to constantly hunt for hurdles just to clear them, all while knowing full well that you won't be able to overcome the final one?
The inherent finitude of an individual life calls into question the meaning of every single struggle, large or small, fought for individual "survival."

I find no meaning in this idea of "collective survival through the assurance of continuity" either. 😢
Why should I care whether my species survives as a whole, especially during those moments of frustration when I'm tempted to wish its downfall?

Since we’re social creatures by design—mostly because it gave us a better shot at not dying out—you’ll feel this nagging urge to contribute to society’s endurance. If you don't, the system will treat you like a rogue cell, a tumor, or a foreign object. It'll discard your traits and recycle your matter back into the raw materials for other forms of life.
The sweet indifference of the world in Philosophy ·
steelridge58 said:Survival is just the prerequisite for living, but how one actually lives is a whole different story, and that’s where the question of meaning really starts to kick in.
One makes the other possible, because without survival, you wouldn't even have the chance to pursue anything else.

Life itself is an opportunity, just like you mentioned, and an opportunity implies a set of possibilities, or rather
- what can one single person actually achieve?
Well, what you can do, what I can do, what every one of us can do.

By that same token, staying alive is absolutely necessary, but it isn't enough on its own to create the sense of purpose that—if I'm being honest—every single one of us is searching for in our own unique way.

So, survival provides the foundation for life to exist, and life gives you others through birth, but nobody can hand you a purpose on a silver platter; we all have to design our own lives, which is really the ultimate space for freedom and possibility... life is this massive chance to explore the truth of what we are truly capable of
but, at the same time, it's also something that can be completely wasted.

The reality is that individuals experience meaning in their own unique ways. But here is the kicker: what good is a meaning if it dies the second you do?
If you contribute something to society—if you feel that service is your core purpose—then that individual drive starts serving the survival of the community at large. It becomes a collective purpose. And because of that, it survives long after you're gone.
The sweet indifference of the world in Philosophy ·
ruggedraven36 said:Whatever. We aren't debating what counts as an evolutionary advantage here; we're talking about the meaning of life. I’d frame the relationship between the two like this: life breathes soul into meaning, and meaning gives life its structure.

Let's try looking at it this way. When does life start feeling meaningless?

I have kids. As long as they're in my life, I can't possibly feel like everything is pointless.
That lines up perfectly with what you wrote in bold.
The sweet indifference of the world in Philosophy ·
Eric Newman75 said:Nothing is actually going to change here. Aside from the stuff I already touched on, you’ve got our total addiction to tech, the transportation grid, and being completely tethered to financial and info networks. Plus, let's be real—most people couldn't handle stepping back to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle if their lives depended on it. Without technology and all these modern luxuries, we can't grow enough food, we can't manufacture medicine, and we basically can't function as a civilization. Laws only exist as long as there's someone left to enforce them. Once everything descends into chaos and anarchy, it won't be the smartest or most capable folks who make it through—it'll just be the strongest.

Exactly. Evolutionary mechanisms will simply weed us out if we act like a parasite that destroys its own host or habitat without having any way to find a new one or a way to survive.
The sweet indifference of the world in Philosophy ·
Sandra Murphy33 said:Whose survival, exactly?
🤔

We survive until we die—whether we're connected to our ancestors or completely isolated, whether we're starving or well-fed, wealthy or broke. Survival is a given from birth to death. So when you claim that this is somehow deeply meaningful, I have to ask: compared to what?
If we look at life through that lens, is there actually anything that could be considered meaningless? And if so, why?

Unless, of course, your definition of "survival" is specifically about reaching old age after ensuring your children carry on your lineage, and then their children do the same, indefinitely...

Your idea of "survival" is poorly defined.
That term only makes sense when you're talking about animals fighting for their lives—one predator trying to eat while the other tries to escape. In human terms, where those kinds of raw struggles aren't the norm, the concept of "human survival" becomes incredibly vague.

To me, "survival" is an individual thing, or maybe a small group. Like surviving a heart attack or walking away from a car wreck on the I-95.
But "survival" in the way you mean it? That's collective. It's about maintaining continuity.
It’s pure nonsense to prioritize secondary things over primary ones. Look at nature: a parasite that kills its host too quickly ends up killing itself. That’s fundamentally senseless behavior unless there’s some other evolutionary trick up its sleeve to compensate. Without it, it's just suicide. Extinction.
Now, look at us humans. We’re cranking up the heat on this entire planet... and honestly, whether common sense will be enough to save us remains to be seen.
The sweet indifference of the world in Philosophy ·
ruggedraven36 said:Sure. Every single sane person out there.

Look, rational people have a better shot at survival. Pure and simple. Reason is an evolutionary edge.
The sweet indifference of the world in Philosophy ·
Sandra Murphy33 said:And where does that relay race actually end? 🙂

I mean... if you forgive someone... what is the actual point?

The relay keeps going until someone drops the ball, and then they’re out of the running.
The whole point is simply not to be the one who fails (survival).
The sweet indifference of the world in Philosophy ·
ruggedraven36 said:Of course I do.

Is anyone else actually seeing this besides you?