|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2010 : 22:25:57 [Permalink]
|
| If I had heroes, Hitch would be very high up on the list. |
 |
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2010 : 11:55:43 [Permalink]
|
Kil.....
Your example of Hunter Thompson in the context of self-destructive behavior is interesting. Hunter certainly was the poster boy for living life on the edge and is an excellent example for the rather compelling argument of chfcrsh and yourself that states that a short life well-lived may well be superior to a long life that is humdrum.
After Thompson's death, several of his close friends in the Woody Creek neighborhood stated that Hunter had said for years that at some time or another he had to experience the thrill of the "ultimate gamble", i.e. suicide.
The psychologist Paul Roberts states:| In fact, as researchers are discovering, the psychology of risk involves far more than a simple "death wish." Studies now indicate that the inclination to take high risks may be hard-wired into the brain, intimately linked to arousal and pleasure mechanisms, and may offer such a thrill that it functions like an addiction. The tendency probably affects one in five people, mostly young males, and declines with age. It may ensure our survival, even spur our evolution as individuals and as a species. Risk taking probably bestowed a crucial evolutionary advantage, inciting the fighting and foraging of the hunter-gatherer. |
Whether or not smoking as a risk-taking activity fits into that syndrome I don't know, it seems unlikely that it would convey an evolutionary advantage.
I enjoyed your view of the cost benefit analysis of smoking. Do you feel that Critical Thinking taken in the broad definition, and Logic, taken in any definition, have any place at all in the cognitive process of making value judgements like whether to smoke or not?
With regards to an evaluation of the use of alcohol as compared to the use of tobacco, it seems to me that there is a much higher variance in individual tolerance to alcohol than to tobacco. It appears that most medical authorities seem to be more condemnatory of smoking than drinking; although resistance to adverse effects seems more frequent among drinkers than smokers. I have yet to hear that a "little" smoking may be good for you, although there are a number of studies that a "little" booze may be OK, health-wise. What's a "little". Aye, there's the rub.| I know that smoking is a bad choice. And I keep trying to stop. But I am completely aware of the risks involved. It's a stupid addiction. But it is an addiction. I make no false claims about smoking. I don't defend smoking on the grounds that it will magically do anything for me. I'm aware of the risk and I am concerned about it. |
| Cognitive dissonance does play a role if you have actually convinced yourself that the negative consequences of smoking will more likely happen to other smokers and not to you. That again would be an example of not thinking rationally. As critical thinkers we should try as best we can to not lie to ourselves. |
Let me ask you two specific questions in response to your statements above.
1. Do you conciously use a cost/benefit ratio analysis when you reflect on the fact that smoking is harmful and when you feel you want to stop?
2. Do you feel that you have rationalized and "lied to yourself" when you continue to smoke after considering the consequences?
(I wasn't clear if your comment was in the abstract or you were relating personal experience.)
My personal experience when I was attempting to quit years ago was "no" to #1 and an emphatic "yes" to #2.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 08/10/2010 : 12:17:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Whether or not smoking as a risk-taking activity fits into that syndrome I don't know, it seems unlikely that it would convey an evolutionary advantage. |
It's the behavior of "risk taking" that Paul Roberts seems to say conveyed an evolutionary advantage, not any particular behavior that entails risk. For example, sky diving doesn't provide an evolutionary advantage, but the genes for taking risks - including sky diving - did, once upon a time.
Seems to me that smoking is rewarded through different biochemical pathways than risk, anyway. High-risk activities reward through adrenaline. Smoking through nicotine. Do those cross paths anywhere but in a teenager's bedroom when his parents are home and awake? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2010 : 14:16:43 [Permalink]
|
At this point, Ricky, I would like to step off the witness stand for a moment and ask you a question. What is your point? Is it:
A. A purely Davian dissection of the parsing and minutae of argumentation, or is it-
B. a statement of position that the practice of smoking, like the practice of using street drugs, is not necessarily a bad thing and those who are opposed to it cannot really offer good and sensible reasons not to smoke,or..
C. If you have an entirely different purpose in mind than either of these, I would appreciate a statement of it. |
I must say, that you think the first two of these choices are reasonably possible put me off from responding for a while. My purpose is to oppose the view point that an activity such as smoking (or eating greasy burgers, or riding roller coasters, etc...) goes against skepticism.
Skepticism, like science, is a tool that tells us what is and what is not. They do not tell us what should be. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2010 : 17:30:11 [Permalink]
|
I think bngbuck has unwittingly brought us to a discussion of Sartre, and specifically The Myth of Sysiphus, though admittedly through and odd route that perhaps is only clear to the twists of my own grey matter.
Buck suggest that the only logical thing for any human to do is to maximize years of life, and by taking any risk we are effectively courting, if not committing suicide. . . in odd opposition Sartre stated that the only serious philosophical question is suicide, and then went on to answer that in this absurd life, it is better to live than to off oneself if only just to rage against the dying light. He applauded Sisyphus not for sitting idly by and protecting himself at all costs but rather for his ability to engage in his absurd task with gusto.
To an absurdist point of view there is a critical flaw in the reasoning of bngbuck and it is strangely something like Pascals Wager. BNG assumes that engaging in [certain] activity contains risk. However he fails to stipulate what is being risked. Death , it is a certainty, so not actually being risked. Shorter potential duration of life? Possibly, but again not at all a certainty, and so it comes to a personal value judgement.
The only certain way to avoid all risk would be suicide. Not killing oneself outright automatically makes one take some risks inherent in trying to live...as absurd as that may seem. So according to bngbuck the next logical step (once we have decided to live) is placing the duration of life as the most important purpose of living. However bngbuck does not explain how he has arrived at this conclusion and how it is the only possible logical conclusion. But we must ask, does bngbuck lock himself in a bubble, in an atmosphere controlled room, where all possible threat of death is minimized? If not then he has taken more than the minimum required risk to extend his lifespan. How does he justify such an action? Only only possible logical answer: personal value judgement. bngbuck has decided that engaging in some aspects of life are worth the risk of an earlier demise. Yet, like a common zealot he tries to deny this same decision making to others. Sartre would be happy with the absurdity of it all.
I take it one step further than Sartre on the one side and near polar opposite to bngbuck on the other. I was born with nothing but this absurd life, I choose to live that life. To paraphrase Tom Robbins: My individuality is all, all, that I have (and it is only on loan). There are those who barter theirs for security, those who repress it for what they believe is the betterment of the whole society, but I prefer to be one who nurtures and rides it, in grace and love and wit, from peculiar station to peculiar station along life's bittersweet route. All along accepting that life is risk, and that I have nothing to lose. I started with nothing and that is certainly how I will end. The rest if just borrowed time.
Absurd as that is too.
|
| Edited by - chefcrsh on 08/10/2010 17:34:25 |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2010 : 05:07:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chefcrsh
If I had heroes, Hitch would be very high up on the list.
|
His writings and words are the deliverance of those who have yet moved past ignorance and abandon superstition, also for those who continue to fear the unknown and seek comfort in faith based fantasy vs provable reality. I too admire the man. SS |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
| Edited by - sailingsoul on 08/11/2010 05:09:09 |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2010 : 08:38:10 [Permalink]
|
Please accept my apology, I meant Camus not Sartre but got myself mixed up somehow....
Originally posted by chefcrsh
I think bngbuck has unwittingly brought us to a discussion of Sartre, and specifically The Myth of Sysiphus, though admittedly through and odd route that perhaps is only clear to the twists of my own grey matter.
Buck suggest that the only logical thing for any human to do is to maximize years of life, and by taking any risk we are effectively courting, if not committing suicide. . . in odd opposition Sartre stated that the only serious philosophical question is suicide, and then went on to answer that in this absurd life, it is better to live than to off oneself if only just to rage against the dying light. He applauded Sisyphus not for sitting idly by and protecting himself at all costs but rather for his ability to engage in his absurd task with gusto.
To an absurdist point of view there is a critical flaw in the reasoning of bngbuck and it is strangely something like Pascals Wager. BNG assumes that engaging in [certain] activity contains risk. However he fails to stipulate what is being risked. Death , it is a certainty, so not actually being risked. Shorter potential duration of life? Possibly, but again not at all a certainty, and so it comes to a personal value judgement.
The only certain way to avoid all risk would be suicide. Not killing oneself outright automatically makes one take some risks inherent in trying to live...as absurd as that may seem. So according to bngbuck the next logical step (once we have decided to live) is placing the duration of life as the most important purpose of living. However bngbuck does not explain how he has arrived at this conclusion and how it is the only possible logical conclusion. But we must ask, does bngbuck lock himself in a bubble, in an atmosphere controlled room, where all possible threat of death is minimized? If not then he has taken more than the minimum required risk to extend his lifespan. How does he justify such an action? Only only possible logical answer: personal value judgement. bngbuck has decided that engaging in some aspects of life are worth the risk of an earlier demise. Yet, like a common zealot he tries to deny this same decision making to others. Sartre would be happy with the absurdity of it all.
I take it one step further than Sartre on the one side and near polar opposite to bngbuck on the other. I was born with nothing but this absurd life, I choose to live that life. To paraphrase Tom Robbins: My individuality is all, all, that I have (and it is only on loan). There are those who barter theirs for security, those who repress it for what they believe is the betterment of the whole society, but I prefer to be one who nurtures and rides it, in grace and love and wit, from peculiar station to peculiar station along life's bittersweet route. All along accepting that life is risk, and that I have nothing to lose. I started with nothing and that is certainly how I will end. The rest if just borrowed time.
Absurd as that is too.
|
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2010 : 14:35:28 [Permalink]
|
chfcrsh.....
| Buck suggest that the only logical thing for any human to do is to maximize years of life, and by taking any risk we are effectively courting, if not committing suicide. . . |
Goodness gracious (also holy shit!) Chef, what an extreme extrapolation of my lifetime viewpoint of risk-taking! I certainly never intended to state or imply that "the only logical thing for any human to do is to maximize years of life, and by taking any risk we are effectively courting, if not committing suicide." Risk-taking is an important, perhaps essential, part of living life instead of just existing. And I certainly did not mean for anyone to infer that I feel that all risk taking is suicidal.
From a purely personal viewpoint, my own life is emblematic of my true view of risk-taking. Growing up in Colorado, I skied aggressively and well (ski patrol) for over 40 years, breaking a leg and seriously damaging both knees at various times. I jeeped ("quadding" in today's teminology) hundreds of miles of dangerous, cliff-hanger old mining roads in the Rockies. I piloted a small plane (Ercoupe, then a Piper J3) for many years in, out, and around the Rocky Mountains, the aircraft having a substantially lower flight ceiling than the 14000 foot peaks I was flying in. I risked my life in many ways for many, many days - just for the adrenaline kick of it.
And I have (still do) made, and lost small fortunes repetitively, betting on my entrepenurial skills or the vagaries of the various major securities markets. Today, at 82, I am actively day trading in precious metals, about as risky a financial activity that one can undertake outside of Las Vegas - done my share of that, too. Hardly a life lived in a bubble!| by taking any risk we are effectively courting, if not committing suicide. |
I did not in any way imply that "any" risk taking is courting or committing suicide. Obviously, the riskier the behavior the closer the risk comes to a definition of suicide. One cartridge in the cylinder of a six-shot revolver used in a game of Russian Roulette gives exactly a .1666 chance of death - thrilling, but not erectile; five cartridges gives a .8333 chance of a successful offing- hooo-eee! stand back or get wet!; six cartridges is suicide. Move over, Hunter, here I come!
But I was speaking of a conscious choice to smoke, fully understanding the health risks involved and the nicotine and social camaraderie "boost" reward. "Suicide" is obviously hyperbolic and over the top on my part. Having had a great deal of experience in the smoking habit, my personal, admittedly subjective view is that the "pleasure" derived from practicing the addiction is greatly outweighed by the pain that it has caused me, and the fact that smoking has certainly shortened my life by exacerbating, and possibly causing, coronary artery disease!
Admittedly, my view is highly individually biased. My father died of lung cancer brought on by excessive smoking, also my wife's father, my wife's sister ditto, her aunt the same fate; and I had 6-bypass heart surgery at 69 and currently, in addition to coronary artery disease, I have a congestive heart failure condition - all of which were strongly cigarette smoking correlated, according to all of the cardiologists I have consulted over the years.
I am completely aware that my unfortunate life experiences with the tobacco addiction is not any kind of valid evidence for a broad generalization. But that much death and destruction does get one's attention and, admittedly, it has made me a little crazy - all right, batshit bongo - on the subject. If you got 'em, smoke 'em. And I sincerely hope you are a lot luckier than I was!
Flying an underpowered, low fuel capacity, minimal service ceiling aircraft over topography with extreme thermal uncertainities and rapid wind direction changes is weighing a hell of a kick against significant risk of serious injury or death. If my physical condition would permit certification today, I'd get my ticket back and do it all over again, but with a much more powerful aircraft capable of flying over weather (and mountaintops). It still would be fairly risky activity. If tickets to visit, stay, and return to and from the moon were available at a price I could steal, beg, or embezzle, I'd leave tomorrow!
chf, I really do largely agree with your concept of burning life's candle wherever the wick protrudes, and I would argue right alongside you on a debate platform extolling the virtues of staying on the outside of bubbles. Particularly if I were still young, dumb, and full of cum instead of old, cold, and beginning to mold!
In any event, it is a truly delightful change to be criticized as a milquetoastian wuss.....| So according to bngbuck the next logical step (once we have decided to live) is placing the duration of life as the most important purpose of living. However bngbuck does not explain how he has arrived at this conclusion and how it is the only possible logical conclusion...... |
although it is almost comically wrong; rather than the dreary old mantra of all my irredeemable violations of the various and sundry cardinal sins of constucting straw men (also presumably straw women),transplanting goal posts, painting herrings various shades of red, making arguments ad panton, and generally committing most of a very long Swindlers List of Fallacies. I probably have earned a place in Guiness for maximum multiple committment of logical fallacy in Internet posting!
Dave, Dude and several other of the rigid Critical Constructionists have persuaded me that as a Critical Thinker I would make an excellent sideshow barker; so, as I hang my head in sorrow at my inability to think, it is some consolation that at least I am succeeding in being a pathetic old wuss. Thanks, chf, at least my considerable failings in areas outside of Criticized Thinking have not gone unnoticed!
|
| Edited by - bngbuck on 08/20/2010 16:49:04 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2010 : 15:06:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
I probably have earned a place in Guiness for maximum multiple committment of logical fallacy in Internet posting! |
Don't think so highly of yourself. The loons over at Uncommon Descent have you beat by orders of magnitude. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2010 : 17:39:30 [Permalink]
|
From the subject himself:
"All the time, I've felt that life is a wager and that I probably was getting more out of leading a bohemian existence as a writer than I would have if I didn't," he said in an interview that aired Friday. "Writing is what's important to me, and anything that helps me do that -- or enhances and prolongs and deepens and sometimes intensifies argument and conversation -- is worth it to me. So I was knowingly taking a risk. I wouldn't recommend it to others"
"But you would do it again?" Rose asked.
"Yes, I think I would," Hitchens responded. "I've had to reflect on this, of course, a lot recently, and trying to imagine doing my life differently and not ending up mortally sick. But it's impossible for me to imagine having my life without going to those parties, without having those late nights...without that second bottle." |
The huffpo appears good for something after all...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/17/christopher-hitchens-desp_n_685021.html |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2010 : 18:58:07 [Permalink]
|
I thought I'd post this as an FYI and update on what he's been up to of late. SS
(In part in case the link goes away)
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. – Stricken with cancer and fragile from chemotherapy, author and outspoken atheist Christopher Hitchens sits in an armchair before an audience and waits for the only question that can come first at such a time.
"How's your health?" asks Larry Taunton, a friend who heads an Alabama-based group dedicated to defending Christianity.
"Well, I'm dying, since you asked, but so are you. I'm only doing it more rapidly," replies Hitchens, his grin faint and his voice weak and raspy. Only wisps of his dark hair remain; clothes hang on his frame.
The writer best known to believers for his 2007 book "God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" has esophageal cancer, the same disease that killed his father. He is fighting it, but the 62-year-old Hitchens is realistic: At the very best, he says, his life will be shortened. |
|
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
| Edited by - sailingsoul on 09/20/2010 18:59:23 |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
Christopher Hitchen’s cancer
