how do I change the discussion title ? — Hello Human

I just checked ... Go to the first page of your topic (discussion), click on the 3 dots at the end of the description and then on "Edit" (pencil). The title will appear within an input box at the top.

Since I have never edited a title of mine, and so I don't know if this actual works, if it doesn't, just add a note with the new title below it. (Most probably this won't be needed.)

I should change the title to "Presenting, Developing, and defending my views on morality" perhaps — Hello Human

Yes. This is much better! :up:
(I'll come back to this with ... my views on the subject ! :smile:)

Is Racism Natural? — Lil

Racism: "Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized." (Oxford LEXICO)

On the other hand, not feeling affinity or even feeling repulse for people of another race, is natural, but in the same way as you can also feel for people having certain characteristics or demonstrating certain behavior that repel you. So

I have voted "No", of course, although I believe that the answer to this question is so obvious that it almost has no meaning for me. But of course, I accept the 45% (up to this point) of the people who answered "Yes", since the is a democratic place. I only find it deplorable to feel that racism is natural. But I believe this is because most of them just don't know what racism actually means and don't care to look it up! (People in general rarely do that, esp. for terms that are commonly used.) And then, we have of course the racists themselves, who believe that racism is natural. What else could they believe?

Of course it is not immoral to be Boring. You only create boredom. Most people do that most of the time! :grin: Can you blame them for that?

If you would blame people of being boring what would you do if they are angry or sad, which are and create more negative emotions?

Your title and hence your topic "An Attempt at Establishing and Developing an Ethical Theory" contains the following flaws:
1) There are enough philosophical theories/systems, some of them well established. Why should one attempt to develop a new one?
2) First you develop something and then you establish it. (Re: Establishing and Developing)
3) You cannot develop an ethical system just like that (in a discussion). You can only provide your views on the subject of ethics.
4) Establish an ethical system in what way? Make it permanently accepted? What, via a discussion forum?

I've given you something to think and wonder on — Philosophim

Indeed. Thank you. This doesn't happen often to me!

I only capitalized "Being" because it's in the title. — Xtrix

OK. But I still find the question/subject ambiguous, since you did not agree with my "What does 'being' mean?" interpretation ...

You describe being as "apparency," as truth and fact, as persisting in time and agreed to be "real." There's a lot there to unpack! — Xtrix

:grin: I have the habit to clarify my thoughs as better as possible in the first place so thet there are the least possible misundestandings and doubts about them. What I have added after a first description are attributes of "being".

So being is that which is real, true, factual? — Xtrix

No, not at all! It is that which apparently is real, etc. My stress was on the word "apparency", since the beginning. It seems that dispite of all the things I said, I have not said enough to clarify that! :grin: APPARENCY: "The quality or state of being apparent". APPARENT: "Appearing as actual to the eye or mind. (Both from Merriam-Webster)

It sounds to me like what you're describing are substances with properties which we may agree upon — Xtrix

Right. Although I would use the word "substances"; it's too restrictive.

when you say "This tree is big," or "My name is Alkis," what we're asking about is the "is." — Xtrix

I said that the statement "This tree is big", contains two "is"es, existences: 1) There is a tree (it is implied) and 2) it is big. (1) refers to the existence of the tree itself and (2) to an attribute of the tree, which has its own existence, in a different context: "is big", implies that there exist trees that are big and/or that the attribute "big" itself has its own existence, in general.

But from all that, one thing is the most essential: That "is-ness" is an apparency of existence.

No, I am saying that we don't know. Perhaps there is an X for a Y, or perhaps there is not. — Philosophim

I see. So "X: represents an existent prior causality to Y" is an hypothetical element. So, we don't know whether Y exists or not and we don't know whether X exists or not. OK, there's no conflict in this, but also there's no ground where I can stand on. And maybe the same holds for Z and Alpha ... In short, everything is possible!

This for me is walking on thin ice ... Even worse, walking on the air; I get dizzy! :grin:

What I can do though is to try in my own way to prove or disprove your thesis: A first cause is logically necessary, which anyway, as I already told you, I find it quite interesting ...

Anyway, thank you a lot for your willingness to clarify things!

Thank you.
Unfortunately, I cannot follow easily the analyses by and about the mentioned (and other) philosophers anymore, as I could in the distant past (when I had the patience and eagerness to study them). :sad:

I think the title is not very clear: "Being" with a capital raises questioning and ambiguity. E.g. "What does 'being' mean?" would be something more concrete and could be easier discussed. So, I will stick to your first clear-cut (to me) question:

"What is 'is-ness'?" — Xtrix

This is a quite interesting question and subject, and certainly debatable in this place!

I would describe "is-ness" as apparency of existence. It refers to something that apparently exists as true or fact. It persists in time and we agree upon that it exists, i.e. it is real for us.

Two examples:
1) When I say "My name is Alkis", I state that the name "Alkis" exists and this is how I am called. Usually such a statement is not disputed and we expect that the other person agrees! :smile:
2) If I say "This tree is big", I state that 1) a tree exists somewhere near and that 2) I consider a fact (true) that it is big. However, either of these two premises can be disputed: one may disagree that it is a "tree" (he would call it a "plant") and/or that it is "big" (he may found it "medium-size" or even "small").

We can see that personal agreement (and thus reality) plays a key role in what is and what is not.

(The description of the topic is quite long, and I don’t want to get involved more in it. Yet, I believe that my "selective" reply covers the subject well ...)

Y is an object that we believe has an X, but we do not know if it does — Philosophim

But you have established that "X represents an existent prior causality to Y". So, if we know that X exists, how can we not know that Y has an X?

The contradiction is well and alive! :smile:

I am sure you have something else in mind but maybe you have not described it clearly or correctly ...
Whatever is the case, I believe that the issue, as it is described, is too complicated and does not offer
for a comfortable analysis or discussion. It cannot be followed easily or walked through with confident steps (sound arguments). Moreover, the object of the topic, that is, what is to be proven, namely that "A first cause is logically necessary", is lost in the road, i.e. it cannot .

If I were to describe such a subject , would try to do is as simple as possible, with every premise (step) as clear and definite as possible, i.e. leaving as much less room for ambiguity as possible, and it would follow something like the following scheme. (This is a "classical" style. There are also other ones.)

1. I will try to prove that {object}
2. Assumptions
2a. Assumption #1
2b. Assumption #2
...
3. Logic/arguments
3a. If both #1 and #2 are true, then {conclusion #1)
3b. If #1 is true but not #2, then {conclusion #2)
...
4. Final conclusion that proves the object

Then the whole thesis could be evaluated by someone else, who can agree or disagree at any point. If he disagrees at any point, then of course he should not continue. If, on the other hand, one reaches at the final point (4) and agrees also with that, that will mean that he complete agrees with the thesis.

Wow! Not responding to any of my replies to two topics of yours!
Re: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/616706
Re: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/616744

:down:

Good.

Interesting topic! I have, however, quite a few questions/reservations on the whole thesis ...

1. Either all things have a prior cause for their existence, or there is at least one first cause of existence from which a chain of events follows. — Philosophim

Doesn't the second premise imply the first one? Wouldn't each event in a chain of events have a prior one that is its cause? But this is not important. What follows is!

Y: represents an existence that has an unknown prior causality.
X: represents an existent prior causality to Y. — Philosophim

I assume that by "unknown" it is meant that Y has a prior causality but it is unknown, and that unknown causality is represented by X, rather than it does not have a prior causality or that it is unknown whether it has a prior causality or not. The reasons I assume that first meaning are:
1) It is the most obvious, as it stands by itself.
2) Any of the other two cases would lead to a conflict or impossibility: that of X representing an inexistent causality.

Z: Represent an existence caused by Y. — Philosophim

OK, this doesn't add anything to the situation at this point, except the fact that Y has at least one "child".

Alpha: A Y existence that is identified as having no prior causality — Philosophim

I see a conflict here, since I have established that Y does have a prior causality, so Alpha cannot be an instance or existence of Y, since it has no prior causality!

So, it seems that things get stuck here. Is there a 4th interpretation for Y "having an unknown prior causality"? Because I showed that the other two meanings cannot apply because then the definition of X could not stand.

It would be good if we this impasse is cleared! :smile:

(Re: Phenomenology and the Mind Body Question)
:up: Great topic and excellent description; very eloquent and purposeful! :up:
— Alkis Piskas

Thank you!! :smile:

:up: Great topic and excellent description; very eloquent and purposeful! :up:

I have well established views on the subject of mind-body but little knowledge on the subject of Phenomenology. This is maybe the right moment and an opportunity to study it! I will then come back here! :smile:

Anti-vaccination sentiment (as it relates to COVID19) is tied to suspicions about the origins of the disease and the profitability of vaccines, as well as fears about it's safety. — frank

"COVID-19 anti-vaccination" is just what is says: being against COVID-19 vaccines and vaccination. For whatever reason. Anti-vaccination may be related to suspicions about the origin and whatever else about the disease itself, but they are different things. The latter may be referred to as "COVID-19 conspiracy" or "Suspicion of COVID-19", etc.

The totality of everything we can possibly be aware of — Benj96

Exactly. This is how our reality is created. It is created and carried by our consciousness.

No single individual can know for sure the true reality only their own rendering of it. — Benj96

Right.

we do not need to concern ourselves with whether God exists. — Bartricks

So, for the second time, you are referring to an imaginary "God"!

You don't understand either the simple thing that I am saying above or what you yourself are saying. Well, the first time this was funny but now it's sad.

No, 'imaginary' is not included in the definition. — Bartricks

I said "in my list". And my list was: "Christian? Hindu? Islamic? A personal 'God' ... or any other imagined, constructed 'God'?".
OK?
Google "imaginary god" (1.6m results) and you'll see why I put it in my list ...
As for your definition, I don't thing it exists. There are hundreds of definitions and now one says "a person who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent". And, BTW, I didn't want to comment on that in the first place, but ... "person" ???

So, I advise you to look up "God" in Wikipedia.

I also advise you, before starting a discussion to study well the key terms involded in it, e.g. "God".

OK. An imaginary "God" then. (It was in my list! :smile:)

Is Social Media bad for your Mental Health? — TheQuestion

An quick, offhand answer: It depends on how one uses them, if one is gullible or sophisticated, if one has sound judgment and in general, on how one deals with information.
And it certainly also depends on one's age! :smile:

But I can elaborate on the subkect ... (I didn't have that in mind at start! :smile:)

Don't forget that "social media" are an extension of "live" socializing.

So, certainly social media are not bad for mental health. They can be so, but they can also help/improve one's mental health!

Is social media making society more mentally ill? — TheQuestion

Now the focus is passed from the individual (which actually is the subject!) to the society.
Well, a society cannot me "mentally ill"! Its members only can. So, we are speaking about the average mental health of the members of a society.

One has to look here for statistics on criminality, suicide, mental hospitalization, etc. I don’t have such data but I think that unfortunately they are on an upward trend in all sectors. Social media may be responsible in part for that, but I think that the continuing and long economic crisis is much more responsible.

On the other hand, we must also look at the positive side of social media:
- Socializing in general is much increased. People, esp. young ones, can enjoy social contacting much more and easier than in the past, esp. those who were not getting easily out of their homes.
- Socializing makes one more extrovert, which is generally considered as a good thing.
- People's knowledge in much increased, because with the social contacts one learns new things.
- People's intelligence is increased, because one has to dial with more and diverse contacts, and communication is certainly an enhancing factor of intelligence..
- And more ...

So I don't know if the negative and positives sides compensate for each other or one of them outweighs the other ...

What is the difference between Emotional Health vs. Mental Health? — TheQuestion

(Loosely and "arbitrarily" defined-described)
"Emotional health" means having mainly positive emotions and control over them.
"Mental health" includes "emotional health" plus: having control over thoughts, being rational and able to solve problems, and acting towards a better survival for yourself and the others.

how do you differentiate the two when practicing cognitive hygiene? — TheQuestion

They don't have to be differentiated. They are both necessary for "cognitive hygiene" (however one defines this term). Simply because they help each other and can harm each other.

What "God"? Christian? Hindu? Islamic? A personal "God" ... or any other imagined, constructed "God"?

My last scenario is the 360 turn to hatred — obscurelaunting

Most probably you mean a 180 turn, because a 360 turn doesn't change anything: you get back to the same point where you were! :smile:

As for "love does not exist", well 1) look up the word in a good dictionary and 2) think of of all the cases where you feel love, not only the ones in which love refers to protection and survival or personal gain or any selfish purposes.

Sorry but this is too shallow a view. No effort is needed at all to change it ... :meh:

After posting the present comment, I found out that I have already responded to your topic!
Anyway, you can ignore this second response, but it's quite different from the first one and ypu might find some interesting things in it. :smile:

an observer is not external to reality. — Benj96

It would be good if you defined "reality" so that I (we) can fit your description of the topic, as well as your concepts and views, in the right perspective. For example, I agree that the observer is not external to reality, but I don't know if "reality" means the same thing to both of us.

For me, reality is generally what we agree it exists. More specifically, it is a "world" that we are constantly building throughout our whole life, based on everything that we can be aware of, directly (through our perceptions, experiences, thoughts, feelings, etc.) as well as indirectly (information we obtain from external sources), and which we accept as true, actually existing or facts.

So, not only the observer is not external to reality, but reality cannot exist without an observer.

is there any objective discernible difference between the state of observing and the state of being observed — Benj96

1) Observation is not a state but an action or process. It is also an ability.
2) What is "being observed"? If it is an object, e.g. a tree, we certainly there's no meaning in saying that it can be in a state of being observed, is there?
So, we cannot do any comparison here ...

To others I am a part of their objective observable universe — Benj96

Do you mean that the others see you as an object, as matter, as body? Does this also apply to me who are "talking" to you remotely, w/o have ever seen your body? Of course not. You are much more than a body!
And then, their "objective observable universe"? Reality, which is formed by observation (among other things) is always subjective! We can both stand in front of a tree and observe two different things! Imagine how much difference exists in non-physical things --personalities, ideas, beliefs, views, etc.-- between two persons!

Indeed, I can see that that you have made quite a few assumptions that I believe need reconsidering ...

Is there a general philosophical concept that successfully describes why symbolic things have emotional meaning to an audience as opposed to the creator? — TheVeryIdea

Emotions do not have meanings.
A meaning basically signifies what is meant by words, ideas or actions.
A meaning is an implied or explicit significance or an important or worthwhile quality, a purpose.
Nothing of any of the above can be applied to emotions.

Emotions have impacts.
We do not create emotions. Emotions occur. They are the effect of thoughts, which may be created consciously or unconsciously (from the subconscious).

Symbolic things may have an emotional impact on some people and not on others. A painting showing a mother holding her baby in her arms can symbolize affection, and it may produce an emotion to some persons but not to other. The creator of the painting might had no emotion whatsoever in the conception of the subject and during painting. His emotional involvement or absence of emotion regarding that painting is totally independent from the effect it may have on others.

The emotional effect symbolic things have on a person depends on his personality, his memories, his experiences, in short, his whole life. But since the lives of people have a lot in common, i.e. people having common experiences, some symbolic things may produce common effects to a lot of people. Example: A gun, a kiss, a flower, a color, and so on.

]By "symbols" I am thinking of those things within an art work that draw us in and with which we make an emotional connection.
Some art works, music, paintings, photographs, etc. have significant meaning to some people — TheVeryIdea

The meaning of symbols, as of everything else, refers normally to a mental, intellectual process. The word "meaning" means roughly "what words, ideas and actions signify to us". So, we cannot talk about "emotional meaning". We can talk instead about "emotional impact or effect". And we can also talk about "symbolic meaning".

Moreover, we cannot talk about "making an emotional connection" with anything. Emotions occur. They are effects. We can respond emotionally, we can have an emotion as a result of something (thought, action, event, image, sound, memory), etc. but we cannot make an emotional contact or connection with something. These are important points for your topic.

Therefore, the title of your topic ("What is it that gives symbols meaning?") refers to a mental and not an emotional process and thus it is irrelevant with your description of the topic which is based on emotions.

But your title has itself an important flaw. The question of the topic "What is it that gives symbols meaning?" is based on a wrong assumption: that "something" gives a meaning to symbols. A meaning can only be created, exist and given only by us. When we ask e.g. what is the meaning of a word, we have to think about it and retrieve it from our mind, either from memory or by analysis and reasoning. And that would be the meaning of that word for us. It may be also what other people have in mind, in which case we talk about a "common meaning" or an "agreed upon meaning".

Anyway, since I got involved in this, and after having described the essence of and relation between "symbols" and "meaning", I can pass to the subject of art ...

When we are talking about the "symbolic meaning" of things, we mean not what things represent for us, instead of what they commonly mean literally. We say, for example: a white dove symbolizes peace, the eagle is a symbol of the United States, the lion is a symbol of strength, flags are symbols of countries, and so on. Symbols need not be commonly recognized as such, as in the examples I just given. We often create symbols of our own. Some things symbolize, represent, have a special meaning for us regarding some other things, persons, events etc. in our life. We can call these "personal" symbols.

And now I can now talk about emotion, by simply saying that any thing can create in us some emotion. It can be a simple thing, like a shiny green pebble: it can remind us of a beach we have been in the past. Or a more complicated thing, like a ship: it can remind us of a trip we did. We can say they these things act as "symbols" that represent special things in our life. And their remembrance may create an emotion in us, which can range from barely noticeable to very strong. In this case, we can call them "emotional symbols".

The subject can be expanded to a considerable degree, but I better stop here! :smile:

never thought of emoticons for the purpose of EQ — SpaceDweller

Emoticons are used "to express a person's feelings, mood or reaction, or as a time-saving method."
So, they are actually a kind of EQ substitutes, since they help recognizing emotions from wtitten text, where it is difficult or impossible for EQ to do so. (Before them, we were using exclamation marks to indicate strong feelings and sometimes short words, like e.g."sig, sig" or "sniff, sniff" to express sobbing and crying sound.)

Faking emotions, hypocrisy and lying make the recognizing of actual emotions impossible sometimes.
— Alkis Piskas
This is where psychology can help — SpaceDweller

Indeed. That's why I said "One must also be taught and trained to do that."

this works even online where we don't see face reactions — SpaceDweller

Certainly. Nice to bring this up! :up:

Most important factor is time needed for interlocutor to respond — SpaceDweller

Right! Nice to bring this up too! :up:
In fact, sometimes psychological testing relies on that: You can evaluate the person's reaction based on response time only in real time. Otherswise he has all the time not only to think about but also to "construct" his response.

what does "behind keyboard" mean?
— Alkis Piskas
we are literary behind a keyboard which is needed to write posts — SpaceDweller

OK.

Imagine we discuss this stuff in live, we could better exercise our EQ — SpaceDweller

Certainly.

Right! :smile:

it's not straightforward to recognize emotions of others: — SpaceDweller

It's not easy for people to even recognize their own emotions!

People with high emotional intelligence can recognize their own emotions and those of others — SpaceDweller

About so. A high EQ is apparently needed to recognize others's emotions. But it's not enough. One must also be taught and trained to do that. I have been.
Recognizing one's own emotions is not that difficult if aso one is taught about it and trained on how to do it.

One more thing: The conditions in which one is trying to recognize emotions plays a hige role. Recognizing emotions in live (having the person in front of you) is mush easier than trying to sense or dig out emotions from written text This is why emoticons have been invented! :smile: It might also be difficult to recognize emotions even over the phone. In most cases, it is necessary to observe the face of the person and also hear his tone of voice.

And one last (for now at least!) thing: Faking emotions, hypocrisy and lying make the recognizing of actual emotions impossible sometimes. There are "talents" in this area (besides what acting schools and seminars teach! :grin:)

***

BTW, what does "behind keyboard" mean? I couldn;t find it in the Web.

BTW #2, what does all that have to do with my "Imagine all this taking place in a live discussion"? :grin:

tip: use the . button on top. — Wheatley

Thanks for the tip. I know about that. But this is if you want to mention someone, which will involve a notification from TPF to that person, etc., and I didn't want all that. The present case is already a mess! :grin:

Alkis, I think the poster might have been referring to my post above, — Michael Zwingli

So, to summarize: I asked a question to the @TheQuestion (the poster), then @god must be atheist replied to me instead of him, then I replied to him, and then @Michael Zwingli (you) replied to me instead of @'god must be atheist'! Imagine all this taking place in a live discussion! :gasp: ... :grin:

Now, I assume that by "the poster" you mean @god must be atheist and that he confused you with the OP. Well, that's funny too, but not as much as the above! :smile:

The OP clarified that later: In business — god must be atheist

Thank you for replying at the place of the poster, @TheQuestion to whom I addressed my question and who is responsible to clear up this issue and who, BTW, has never done that, as I realized after looking at all the posts in this thread. (You could at least save me some time and refer me to the appropriate post ...)

tend to be more successful — TheQuestion

"Successful" in what?

Since I have already done it, I will "patronize" you a little more, by advising you to stick to the facts instead of using "adjectives" ... (I say this in good will! :smile:)

ou agree with me that metaphysical positions have no truth value — T Clark

Of course you are confused. Because I, personally, didn't agree with that. What I said exactly was, "Indeed, most references agree that that physicalism is a metaphysical position". But that was just in introductory remark! I presented then my position, very clearly and with a lot of details and references. Which, as it seems, you have obviously ignored, even if it shows a thorough work, which obviously takes some time to compile, as well as a considerable interest in your topic.

So, instead of commenting on my position itself, you choose to comment on my introductory remark. OK, I said what I had to say. Now, I can ignore the issue ... :smile:

a metaphysical position is not a belief. It is not true or false. — T Clark

Of course. Not only it isn't but also it can't. There's no such a thing as a universal, absolute or objective truth. As an opinion cannot be true or false, in general. It can only be true and only for its owner.

I can use mathematics (idealism) to address questions in physics (physicalism) — T Clark

You need not be an idealist to use Math or a physicalist to use Physics. "Using" and "being" are totally different kind of things. There may be a connection between them, but only sometimes, not always.

And this is what I forgot to notice in one of my previous replies: You are talking about using rather than on being. You said, e.g., "I use physicalism when I'm doing my engineering act - F = ma. Perhaps idealism when I do math....".
I don't have to be a materialist or physicalist to talk about, examine, treat, etc. my body. If I take medicine for some body condition, it doesn't mean I am a physicalist. As I don't have to be a dualist or spiritualist to handle my feelings (fear, anger, etc.) or be happy.

In short, what I use or do does not define what I am or believe in. (Although sometimes it does! :grin:)

I see how you use the term "physicalist". And indeed, most references agree that that physicalism is a metaphysical position and also that it's opposite is idealism. I, on the other hand, I am based on official (standard) dictionaries, esp. when I am discussing about basic philosophical terms. (I prefer them to encyclopedias because they are too verbose and complicated. That is why it is difficult to refer to them in a discussion.)

So, from Oxford LEXICO:
1) Physicalism (Philosophy): The doctrine that the real world consists simply of the physical world.
2) Idealism (Philosophy): Any of various systems of thought in which the objects of knowledge are held to be in some way dependent on the activity of mind.
3) Materialism (Philosophy): The theory or belief that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.
4) Dualism (Philosophy): A theory or system of thought that regards a domain of reality in terms of two independent principles, especially mind and matter (Cartesian dualism).
5) Spiritualism (Philosophy): The doctrine that the spirit exists as distinct from matter, or that spirit is the only reality.

From the above, I can see that
1) The meaning of (1) is almost the same as that of (2).
2) The contrast between (1) and (2) is not at all obvious. I can hardly see them as opposite positions. So I have to leave (2) "out of the equation", since it only complicates things.
3) The contrast between (1) and (2) is much more obvious, but of course. Yet, I can't tell that they are opposites.
4) The meaning of (4) is very close to that of (5).

Conclusion: One cannot be both physicalist and dualist or spiritualist at the same time. In other words, one cannot say that everything is physical (matter, body) and also that that there are things that are not physical (mind, soul, spirit) at the same time. It is like saying that sometimes I believe I am only a body and other times I believe that I am something more than a body (i.e. there's a non-physical part in me). Of course, one can believe both, but then he is in conflict!

Some other people here on the forum are strongly influenced by science. Others don't appear to be — T Clark

Right, it depends with whom one has interacted and the topics that one choses to discuss ...

I am not a physicalist. At least not always. — T Clark

Not always? :chin: