The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
To post in this forum, you must buy and read the book. After buying the book, please upload a screenshot of your receipt or proof or purchase via OnlineBookClub. Once the moderators approve your purchase at OnlineBookClub, you will then also automatically be given access to post in this forum.
If your purchase has not already been verified (i.e. if you don't already have access to post in this forum), then please upload a screenshot of your receipt or proof or purchase via OnlineBookClub. Once the moderators approve your purchase at OnlineBookClub, you will then also automatically be given access to post in this forum.
No. Wishful thinking is wanting something to be true even though it is impossible. I might want to be young and beautiful again. That is wishful thinking.
I might want a war to end in peace although it isn't likely to happen.
In these and other examples of wishful thinking, there can be no should. The Truth of each situation is simply all there is.
This is a different philosophy from should haveness.
I believe you’re right. Thanks for the eye opener. Do you really think should and have’s “shouldn’t” exist?
The more I read Scott's book, the more I doubt the validity if should and should not. Whatever happened is history already and I can't change it by nattering on about should not have or should have Whatever. It is what it is. That is where wishful thinking bumps heads with reality.
It. Is. What. It. Is.
"Should" as a word has so many real-world applications. What will it be replaced with if everyone decides to adopt this idea? Thouights?
How about for the sake of daily living, we keep our language intact while understanding our philosophy on another level?
Apart from that, I see a confusing heap of linguistic cornflakes where our daily bread was once upon a time.
With a smile,
Juanita Carol McCoy Phelps
This is just my view. Words have emotional value, apart from their actual meaning. If one says something like, "I should eat less sugar" it conveys the meaning of having to do something but not really wanting to. Saying something like, 'I will eat less sugar" states your choice. So you'll feel happier with something you chose.
Leonie Vermaak wrote: ↑October 13th, 2023, 8:29 am
I am on #6 with you. I firmly believe everything happens for a reason. We might not always agree with what happened or happens, but whether a person think it shouldn't have happened the fact still remains, it DID happen. My favorite saying to accepting things we can't change is: 'It is what it is.'
I also believe everything happens for a reason, but I can't help but forget that I believe in this sometimes when too many bad things happen all at once. Things just sometimes becomes overwhelming and keeps you from your original beliefs.
Rahul Singh 29 wrote: ↑October 15th, 2023, 5:24 am
I think what is happening is happening for good and what is going to happen will happen for good. Always take good things from your life and experiences and learn from your failures and mistakes. Rest leave on fortune. We have no control over what is happening and what will be going to happen, we are just a part of it. May be it nature or some omnipotent being who is controls everything. I believe that whatever is happening is happening for good and we all have to play our role in it. The interesting thing is we can choose a positive role or negative but we cannot sit ideal and watch what's happening because if we do sit ideal no one in history will recognize us. So whenever you get chance to pick a side, choose your side carefully because history will remember your contributions, either in a positive way or in a negative way.
I absolutely love this! I try to learn from my failures or mistakes, I just can't help sometimes to dwell on them as well.
How do you address the challenge of moral nihilism, which denies the existence of inherent moral truths?
What role does emotion play in your belief in "should" and "ought"?
How do you reconcile conflicting "shoulds" and "oughts"?
What grounds do you have for your belief in "should" and "ought"?
How do you define what "should" or "ought" mean in various contexts?
Can "should" and "ought" be universally applied, or are they relative?
I read your question and I want to answer many of things but mostly 3rd question ..there is many things which should be happening to me like i should get a prestige No 1 medical collage in my country for my doctorate degree but i did get it.. But i accept it and moved on because to wish for something is natural bit of you cling to it then it can cause starting changes in your life and that can be positive or negative both.
How do you reconcile 'shoulds' and 'oughts' with human imperfection and fallibility?
Can 'shoulds' and 'oughts' change over time?
Do you believe that 'shoulds' and 'oughts' are universal or relative?
What is the foundation of your belief in 'shoulds' and 'oughts'?
How do you determine what 'should' or 'should not' be done in a given situation?
Because absolute truth may not be within the reach of human intellect, everything would have to be talked about in probabilistic terms. Should, ought, should have, and the like may not be practically transparent. We do not understand the causality equation completely; we don't completely understand why things are the way they are; "should" and "ought" have no room. In some way, I agree with Scott. However, there is no objectively verifiable "sign" that things are the way they are supposed to be or that they could not have been different.
Your perspective challenges the conventional mindset that often involves 'should' and 'ought' as moral imperatives or guidelines. Your emphasis on choice and acceptance aligns with philosophical views like Stoicism and certain aspects of existentialism.
I'll address your questions from the perspective of someone who does believe in 'shoulds' and 'oughts':
1. **Example of something that happened that "shouldn't" have happened:**
- A car accident caused by a drunk driver that resulted in fatalities. Many would argue it "shouldn't" have happened due to the preventable nature of drunk driving.
2. **Example of a person or thing that "shouldn't" be the way it is:**
- A corrupt politician who abuses their power. People often feel that those in positions of authority "should" act with integrity and responsibility.
3. **Example of something that "should" be happening right now but isn't:**
- Adequate global action on climate change. Many believe that governments and corporations "should" be taking stronger measures to mitigate the impacts of climate change.
4. **Things or events that allegedly "shouldn't" be the way they were/are within your control:**
- Personal actions like procrastination or neglecting one's health. These are often within an individual's control and thus subject to 'should' statements.
5. **Things that you can change vs. things that you cannot change:**
- Can change: Personal habits, career choices, lifestyle decisions.
- Cannot change: Past events, other people's actions, certain health conditions.
6. **Principle of fully accepting what you cannot control:**
- This principle is practiced to varying degrees by many, often influenced by philosophies like Stoicism or mindfulness practices. It’s a challenging but valuable approach to dealing with life's uncertainties.
7. **Saying something "shouldn't" be the way it is as speaking gibberish:**
- To those who believe in 'shoulds,' this statement might reflect a normative judgment, expressing a discrepancy between reality and ideal standards. It may not be gibberish but a way to articulate dissatisfaction or desire for change.
8. **Meaning of saying some unchangeable aspect of reality "shouldn't" be the way it unchangeably is:**
- It often expresses regret or a wish for a different outcome, even if it's irrational in the strictest sense. It reflects human nature's tendency to imagine alternate realities.
9. **Saying "2 + 2 should not equal 4":**
- This would be nonsensical, as it contradicts fundamental mathematical truths. In this context, 'should' is inappropriate because it's not subject to subjective norms but objective reality.
10. **Saying "That hurricane that happened yesterday shouldn't have happened":**
- This often expresses a wish to avoid natural disasters due to their devastating impacts. While we cannot change the occurrence of natural events, we might use 'should' to emphasize the importance of preparedness and mitigation efforts.
Your approach encourages a liberating mindset by focusing on what can be chosen and controlled, promoting acceptance and reducing unnecessary mental suffering. This contrasts with a more conventional view that often involves normative judgments and the desire to align reality with ideal standards.
Wow! I love this philosophy about life. I think when one agree that there is nothing that happened that shouldn't have happened will allow one to let go of much regrets and look forward to performing better. It is actually what it is.
It took me time to understand this perspective, think deliberately on it and accept it. So I agree with it. By focusing on choice and accepting what cannot be changed, you foster a more liberated and authentic approach to life. This mindset encourages personal empowerment and reduces unnecessary suffering caused by resisting reality.
While I appreciate the logic and clarity of your position, I wonder if there's a potential oversimplification. While it's true that dwelling on the past or resenting the present can be counterproductive, the concept of "should" might serve a purpose beyond mere judgment.
For instance, the statement "I should exercise more" could be interpreted not as a rigid obligation, but as a goal or aspiration. It might motivate positive change without inducing guilt or shame. Similarly, "This situation shouldn't be happening" could reflect a desire for improvement or a call for justice rather than a futile attempt to alter the unchangeable.
It seems to me that the key lies in how we use these words. If "should" becomes a whip to beat ourselves with, then it's undoubtedly harmful. However, if it's used as a gentle nudge towards growth or a tool for social change, it might hold value.
To answer your questions directly would require a personal exploration of my own beliefs and experiences. It's a complex issue with no easy answers. However, I'm intrigued by your perspective and believe it offers valuable insights into human psychology and behavior.
Now I have a different perspective of the word 'should' and 'ought.' It denotes actions that are meant to happen against all odds, whereas, most things that happen in our life are a result of our choices or the choices of those around. Why do they now have to be when the power to change them is in our hands?
This book has one of the most liberating philosophies I've come across. It's so refreshing to see someone challenge the pervasive "should" mentality that plagues our society. By focusing on choice and acceptance, the author offers a path to true freedom and peace of mind. It's a perspective that I'll definitely be incorporating into my own life.
While I appreciate the author's attempt to dismantle the concept of "should," I find it overly simplistic. Life is complex, and sometimes things should happen or not happen. For instance, people shouldn't harm others. Ignoring these nuances can lead to a dangerous disregard for morality and ethics.
was once upon a time.
