Is stating obvious racial differences, like IQ, racist, etc? — stoicHoneyBadger

Stating differences no. Considering them bad/good, inferior/superior yes it is.

What if killing cats makes them happy? Of course, one should not go against his nature, but being hedonistic and doing 'whatever makes you happy' is extremely shallow. Ok, what if it is just eating ice cream and watching tv all the time? You might want to listen to some Peterson about responsibility and such. — stoicHoneyBadger

Pfffff.. Obviously I mean doing whatever makes them happy without harming other creatures. Didn't know I had to add that as you to get what I mean. I will know better next time.

Responsibility has nothing to do with what you describe here as what a girl or boy should do. Nothing at all. Not letting your girl do weight lifting if that makes her happy cause men wouldn't want her isn't responsibility. It is something else that I don't want to use the word. Same as eating ice cream all day and watching TV as you mentioned.
Of course you have to set rules to kids but your "set of rules" are what fuels racism into societies.

So you are operating based on some leftist constructs without even being able to fully argument or justify them. :) — stoicHoneyBadger

Not I am based on Logic.
Justify what exactly? That racism is bad??? Are you really serious? Well if you want me to justify that well no thanks I m not interesting. I don't wanna waste my time that way.

such as you wouldn't want to take your daughter to boxing and weightlifting. :) — stoicHoneyBadger

Yes. You wouldn't want to date a girl that looks like a dude. As weightlifting certainly gives you broader shoulders, be it your main goal or just a side effect. — stoicHoneyBadger

Just randomly picking these two ones.
Seems you have certain models set for what a man or a woman should or shouldn't look like and do.
If one day your son tells you "I'm gay and that's what makes me happy" would you still love him, support him and treat him the same?

My view is that genders of course have their differences but kids should be raised to be respectful and do WHATEVER makes them happy despite if that's social acceptable or isn't. Whatever fulfills their heart and Not whatever society "expects" from them to do.

Why are they bad, why should the societies overcome them? — stoicHoneyBadger

Well if you think that racism and its stereotypes isn't a bad thing and societies shouldn't overcome them, well I don't think I have much more to say then. I rest my case.

I'm sure that it wasn't your intention cause I have seen other posts of you and the way you express your opinions, but this one is full of racist social stereotypes.The "smell" of them is all over. Stereotypes that societies must and will overcome one day in the future. I have faith on it.

You seem like a clever person so I hope that if you go on digging yourself, you will understand it also one day.
By the way despite I find many of what you mentioned in that thread totally wrong, I think you will raise a social useful person in general. No one can be perfect at the end. The average outcome will be fine.

There is nothing "negative" or "positive" about being open or close-minded. — chiknsld

I see nothing positive in being close minded.

; it's like when someone tells you that you need to have "respect" for others. — chiknsld

Yeah you do.

I would say the best thing is to try to agree with people at first, at least so the truth can be uncovered. — chiknsld

Try to agree when you don't?

Talking about personal things like what attitude one should have, really doesn't get us closer to any analytical truth. — chiknsld

Being dogmatic in matters that haven't been answered yet, is the wrong attitude.
In general from your post, I don't see any common ground to our way of thinking.

The T Clark rule, one of many - If many informed and intelligent people disagree with an assertion, then it is not easy, obvious, self-evident, a priori, or common sense. — T Clark

Good rule.

Not that I agree for sure with quantum role in consciousness, but I find it an idea worth to be considered.
Quantum is one of the littlest form of matter we know that exists and runs into everything.Humans are made from matter also. So the possibility in every human-material aspect such as consciousness, quantum to have some role doesn't sound too irrational at all, when you follow that line of thought.

Neither makes it right of course, but it is an idea worth considering. That's all. Being so aphoristic about it as if you already know what consciousness is exactly and what is made of isn't the right attitude. Cause no one does yet and yeah, Consciousness is a damn Hard Problem. Maybe the hardest one.So we have to be open to different approaches also.

Sophisticated does not mean 'better'. I'm not sure what more we can make of this other than describing the attributes. — Tom Storm

I didn't say better either. Just higher evolutionary stage than animals. That's all.
Same as I consider people with more self development at higher evolutionary stage also. Not better or that they deserve something more than others.But i agree with the way HoneyBadger described it.

I'm not sure what more we can make of this other than describing the attributes. — Tom Storm

Imo, if more people reached in higher self development stage. Be willing to give that hard fight with themselves, then our societies would be much better. And well here yeah, I do think "better" is the word.

Are you suggesting that what separates human animals from other animals is a 'higher nature' founded in some kind of spirituality? — Tom Storm

Isn't it? Not of course with any religious meaning of spirituality.
But can you say that humans are just animals and nothing else? Do animals have the human mental ability? Our fantasy, our critical thinking, our speech etc. And all that "Spiritual world" that our mind creates isn't what separate us from animals?
Not that we matter more than animals or we "deserve" more but we are higher in evolutionary stage.That's all. Nothing wrong to state it. Doesn't make us universally more significant than animals but it is just the way it is.
I can't accept seeing people as "just animals". We are more than that.

Evolutionary? How so? — Tom Storm

By becoming more Human than Animal. Growing your spirit reduces the animal inside us. Tames it.
Still most of our beliefs are more based in our animal nature than our spiritual one.

The thing is how far is someone willing to go that road of self development as you say. It is a damn hard constant inner fight with yourself, so we have to be lenient with people that don't dare to give that fight. I can understand that, though I find it wrong.
Personally I would be really happy if most people worldwide could reach to Stage 3 but unfortunately it's still Stage 2 in reality.

creating his own schools of thought. — stoicHoneyBadger

I would call that Stage 6 or the Final Stage.

In general your OP was really interesting, not long and clear. More or less I agree to most of what you mentioned.

I think the difference between a genuine care and virtue signaling is that a person can critically evaluate his believes, actions and their consequences. — stoicHoneyBadger

Nice.

Since the quality criteria here is the same at the both cases (Death), then the next thing we should judge-examine is the quantity criteria.And according to that:Yeah 1 death is preferable than 1+.Seems logical.
It is as simple as that, to my eyes at least.

So then, to what does it refer? — Banno

To the existential desperate human effort-need to overcome their end. Death is the concept.

Boring,' is not a label that should ever be applied objectively to any individual or group. 'Boring,' is always a subjective label and is nothing more than a circumstantial opinion. I — universeness

Sure it is. My personal opinion and nothing else.

His mental issues were not due to his thinking. — Christoffer

Most probably. But his way of thinking also affected them for sure and played its role, imo. Or maybe these mental issues contributed in his radical way of thinking. One way or another they seem to my eyes somehow connected. In Nietzsche's work sometimes you have the sense that he was "urging" himself to go "mad". To fall into the abyssus.

Philosophy today looks like this forum board, people trying to show how radical they are in thinking, but most do not have much to say at all.
28m — Christoffer

True story. Though it's 2022. Past philosophers had a vast sea to explore . They had a lottt to say. And damn they did.
Of course there is always something new to say, especially in social matters, but I hope you get my point. So I try to be lenient towards nowadays thinkers also. But yeah I agree, some of them who desperately try to sound "radical" are just full of shit.

Nietzsche was someone with a tremendous ability to question himself and everything around him. An outsider who wasn't afraid to question the status quo of ideas, because it was who he was to do so. But he also had the intellect to do so without falling into the temptation of biases and fallacies. — Christoffer

That's the exact reason why I find him the most honest one. That ability you refer here. But you see?Even great Nietzsche couldn't handle it at the end. He lost himself into the abyssus he created.

So we have to be lenient with people. It's not an easy task to criticize your beliefs and values. In fact it's the most difficult task of all. To shake your own self to the ground by questioning your beliefs and everything you hold for "sacred" . Causing an internal earthquake to yourself.

It's much easier to stick in your preferable "lie" and not seek for the truth,even if the process of seeking truth is what grow us bigger. I don't find it the right thing to do but I can really fully understand why most people don't dare to do it.

If you actually achieve to use depression as a tool to grow yourself bigger, you won't believe afterwards the things you will achieve.
I don't know if that makes you feel better but I always found people with psychological problems kind of "special". The actual potential they have deep inside them, is huge.
And I always found them much more interesting persons than the "normal" ones.Normal people are damn boring.

No philosopher exists in a vacuum. They all build upon the old, reshape and refine while laying the ground for future philosophers.

Philosophy is essentially like science, a process. To see only one philosopher is to see only one study, ignore citations and still define the whole of science.

We can say one of the most influential, one of the most prominent, but without everyone else, their work have no context and becomes essentially meaningless. — Christoffer

Exactly. Specifically with Nietzsche, I consider him as the most honest philosopher of all. And yeah maybe the greatest also. But it is just a matter of taste.Nothing else.
And in cases like that, words like "only" are forbidden.

If so, what is mystical about evolution? — Sapien1

This

. It's well known now that human beings have evolved from primitive fish. — Sapien1

What is the essence of what we call life,which makes that procedure possible.

I believe people should fight for what they believe in. They might be right, they might be wrong. The important thing is to try your damn hardest to act as you believe is ‘best’. — I like sushi

That's the real problem actually. What most people "believe" worthy fighting for is a bunch full of shit.
They don't actually even know what they believe and for what reason.They just believe what others told them to believe.

Do you think conscription is fair, moral/ ethical and or appropriate? — Benj96

No. How can ever be moral to enforce someone to kill or to be killed? And for what exact reason and nation are we talking about here?

For a total random fact that i was in my father's balls, and these balls happened to be placed in Ukraine or Russia or wherever?? So I have a "national duty" towards these Balls to risk my one and only life( that I haven't even asked for it by the way) as to defend a nation that I was randomly placed in and I have been told to hate my neighbor nation also?

And all these "heroic acts" for the shake of a bunch of filthy rich people who want to get even richer and they sell nationalism and pseudo heroism to the folk while they are smoking their big cigars! Are we serious here?

Long live the Cowards of all wars!

Idealism is (often) a continuation of religion through increased abstraction. — lll

Not that an idealist should be also religious,but that transcedental thirst is common to both of them. You are right about that.
At the end some people can't except that there is nothing more than matter and what our senses tell us. I consider myself one of them.Not sure if there is that "more" indeed though, but i can't give up my lust for it.

Even elementary particles need other particles to gain identity. Add to this the bare fact that the internal identity of those basic structures of nature can never be known apart from assimilating them to our own internal reality — EugeneW

And that's exactly one of the main gaps in materialism, where idealists arguments throw their punches at.

Is it that the focus given to physicalism is due because it is truly central to philosophical discourse — Kuro

Yes it is.The battle Materialism vs Idealism is the Major Philosophical Event. Imo, this question is in the core of human nature since its very beginning.

At the end it's the crossroad where all (or almost all) philosophical debates meet. Idealism is the hope for something Transcedental. For something "more" to exist(whatever that "more" could be). Materialism on the other hand, is merely based on facts,and that's why has an "advantage" on that fight. But idealists will never give up fighting for their hope so easily. Unless science brings something unquestionable one day.
Even materialists I think deep inside them have the very same hope also. To be proven wrong at the end.

Such a fight is normal to attend most philosophical thinkers. I would buy a ticket also.

What do you think the OP wants to discuss? — Agent Smith

Joe Mello.

Hahaha..You made my thoughts visual!

And only the science of Logic creates a metaphysical principle. — Joe Mello

Since when? Is it a new "principle" that you discovered or your German priest taught you that also??

Anyway the interaction with you is pointless. Your desperate need to believe in God made you mix everything and make an intellectual salad out of it.You use philosophy, Logic, science, the meaning of word "great" etc with the way it fits into your abstract "principle". But that doesn't make it right. Sorry.

Your way of thinking goes like "since science can't disprove my principle then it is the right one"! So whatever science can't prove wrong, It's then right! I hope you see how ridiculous that sounds.

With that way of thinking also you could support anything at all.That there is a life after death and say "oh science can't prove it wrong, so I m right" or I don't know, even that flies were once human beings in another planet but they were "bad" and God transfered them to Earth and condemned them to stick into shit! Can science prove it wrong?

Generally I don't have a problem at all with theists but your arguments rape Logic. You could easily just say "guys this is my opinion or simply what I believe, let's discuss it" and it would be totally fine with me.
But setting principles?? Pfffff.. You sound dogmatic with no evidence at all and with dogmatic people I do have a problem indeed. Even atheists dogmatics.

Anyway this was my last response to you. I see you got many "friends" here with your fancy entrance into the forum. So I will leave you to them. Take care.

Show me a scientific discovery where a scientist combines things and creates a totally different and greater thing. An ice cube is not it. — Joe Mello

So what? That makes your "principle" right?? Wtf?Show me a scientific discovery that proves what you are saying then, if that's how it goes. What kind of reasoning is that?? Don't you see the logical gap here?
Sorry but since science can't prove or disprove your hypothesis, makes it a simple opinion,despite how much you don't like it. Science set the principles not you.

No combination of lesser things can create a greater thing without something greater than the greater thing added to the lesser things. — Joe Mello

That's an opinion. Not a principle. And since we can't prove it or disapprove it via science it will remain one. Welcome to the forum.

Well I am saying you can always be responsible for whatever you are aware of but that does not mean you are to blame for it. — unenlightened

Whereof one is unaware, thereof one is not responsible. — unenlightened

Sounds fair.

Now you know my foibles though, you would be well advised to reassure me that your comment was just a queer eye'd sartorial appreciation, or some such. — unenlightened

Well I m not sure what you are asking me here to reassure you about. That you aren't blaming the victim? If that's what you ask me, we'll then no you don't and I never got this meaning about your previous post either. Or are you talking about that supposing "paranoid guy" that would confuse my opinion as a crush on his girl??

In any case, my example was one of many cases as to demonstrate that you can't always be responsible for what others will think and do about you words and actions. Just to point out that there are many grey zones.
At the end we can't be inside anyone's head and predict all the outcomes that our words and actions will bring to him.

I don't see how one can maintain that we do not influence each other's thinking by our speech and other actions, in which case we are partially responsible for each other's thoughts. — unenlightened

We do influence others by our actions and words. I don't object on that. But the crucial word here I think is "partially". We can never be sure what others will think on their own head by our actions or words and we can't always be held responsible for that.

For example in cases like that

I call you an idiot, and I am responsible for what happens next, which is you having an angry thought and maybe saying something unpleasant back to me, or kicking the cat, or whatever — unenlightened

Yeah it's crystal clear that I m responsible for calling you that way and what follows next. But not all cases are like that. There are many many grey zones where things aren't that clear.

For example I tell you "I like the way your girlfriend dresses" and then your mind goes "oh so he has a crush on my girl?! Oh damn that mother fucker and he was supposed to be my friend. Fuck off I will teach him a lesson". Am I responsible for that other person's complex that leaded into his thoughts and possible actions? It's not always clear the line of responsibility I should take for others thoughts and actions.

Ok now I got what you mean. But I m not so sure about that part

that in communication, we become responsible for each other's thoughts. — unenlightened

I m responsible for what I say and do, not about what others think. If for example express a simple opinion and someone gets offended cause he is idiot, lunatic or his mind is fucked up in general am I responsible for that? Can I predict or control anyone's thoughts while I communicate with them?

responding to the world responsibly - which is to say, with the intention to make the world better. — unenlightened

What if someone doesn't have the intention to make the world a better place? He doesn't harm anyone but just mind his own business not giving a fuck about improving the world? Can you blame him for not doing that?

Personally I don't think I could blame him. At the end can we expect from anyone to be a "hero" and save the world? Or care about it? What I do demand from everyone though, is not to harm others with their attitude and cause problems to others lives intentionally. That I demand it,but caring to make world a better place? Hmm..it would be really good if he did but not bad either If he didn't, imo at least.

Are your words and actions not the expression of your thoughts? Mine are — unenlightened

Yeah of course they are. But I think the actual question of the thread was about thoughts on their own and their content.Not what we do with them. But if we are responsible for what comes into our mind.About what we do with them of course we are responsible for.

Every awareness in the world is responsible for the world it is aware of. Here is a challenge; what is your response? — unenlightened

I m not sure I got this.I guess it's a rhetorical question.

as though one would only be responsible for things one could totally be in control of, which is nothing at all. It is fairly obvious that one is socialised and indoctrinated and educated in ways one has no control over. but one is still responsible for what one does with the fascistic fundamentalist bullshit one is immersed in from birth - who else is going to deal with it? — unenlightened

Well yeah, but there are things that we are totally responsible for. Many others not.Our words and actions are some of them, but thoughts aren't.

You mention ".. then someone would be responsible to whatever totally be in control of".Well no. Even if he has "some" control in anything (not necessarily totally at all) then he is also "some" responsible for that .How big is that "some control" decides also how big his part of responsibility would be.

But with thoughts there isn't that "some" even. You have totally no control at all over their generation. They are "enforced" to you from your unconscious mind.
To filter them, ignore them, judge them and so on via your consciousness mind, then yes you are responsible for that. As to lead in your words and actions.
But for their birth or for their content, well no I don't think anyone should be held responsible for that. Despite how crazy or sinful might be. No one should be considered responsible for anything that has totally none control over it. It is unfair, imo at least.

I am responsible for my posts; and I am also responsible for all the posts I think better of and do not post. This means i am responsible for your replies too, in the same way that I am responsible for my children breaking your window, or becoming fanatics and starting a war. There is no end to my responsibility; I am responsible for every starving child and every idiot politician. I should be more careful.

I am my brother's keeper. — unenlightened

Man, that was a weird post. Not really relevant with the topic either .Since it would fit better to an discussion about responsibility in general, I think. Surprised since your posts are always to the point and your opinion interesting.

I was reading it all that stuff for responsibility and thinking one after another "okay, so about thoughts?.. Ok, and thoughts?.. Hmm okkkk man tell me about what you think about thoughts responsibility?? Are we or not responsible for them?Just tell me!" and at the end you left me with my dick in my hand.You are definitely responsible for that.. Hahaha
.

why is that the wrong approach? Why, clearly, the wrong one? — Garrett Travers

Stated it already in my previous post. Never used the word "clearly" though.

Epicurus was a great philosopher indeed. And it influenced other minds as he was influenced by other minds also.
But being dogmatic about these issues and using words like clearly, for sure, SINGLE, one and only etc isn't the right attitude. There is nothing "single" in these matters.

The movements you referred as Epicurean effect were influenced and mixed with many other movements and schools of thought all these years followed Epicurus. So you can never praise only one for that. They are general achievements of the global humanitarian tank of thought. It's more complicated.

We are responsible only for our words and our actions.
Our thoughts can't be controlled and many times are forced to us via society, environment, the way we grew up, friends etc etc. We have no reason to feel guilty about our thoughts, despite how crazy or sinful they might seem. Unfortunately though,that guilt plays a crucial role for many people who develop mental disorders.

We can't tame them, neither we generate them on our own. We are on charge though to which of those thoughts we will turn into words and actions. We are responsible only when we "pull the trigger". Then yes.

If M-Toe, or T-Bone J, or Pamela Lee Anderson says something, at least for five minutes the entire world will hold as much weight to it as to the words of Marcus Aurelius (the latter, a bit longer.) — god must be atheist

That's folks fault though, not any Pamela's.
And exactly cause the average spiritual level of humanity is still at low level, that's why the "concept of cancel culture" will get fucked up as many other similar concepts throughout history. But it will also bring some good. As everything bad always entails some amount of good. Any kind of change has both sides.

The problem with cancel culture: small and large "sins" or "crimes" are both treated in an unforgiving way. — god must be atheist

That's exactly all the juice of all that cancel culture discussion. And its main danger. It absolutely glorifies Hypocrisy,the way it is executed.