I'm a trained human rights lawyer. People underestimate the good unions have brought because especially Americans are hung-up on the mob influence on the unions in the past. It's not representative of its history. — Benkei

Oh, then you should tell so --that you are an insider-- from the beginning ... I would have been more careful in the way I expressed my comment! :grin:

Yet, you have to do justice to me regarding the "income" part, which refers to a regular pay, whereas a compensation is just a special and occasional payment.
Besides, I don't know if even such compensation exists in most countries. Certainly, not in Greece. Where, BTW syndicalism is considered by many as a permanent ode to the evils of the Greek economy and development. Working for the state and knowning that it is very difficult to get fired, makes for lazy and incometent employees and workers. That is why Greece is so much behind in infrastructures, public services and facilities, etc. than other members of the EU.

OK. I understand that you have valid reasons for saying all that and that you have personally benefited from being a union member ...

the unions are not a guarantee for the worker's incomes if they go on strike. — javi2541997

Yes, this is the central idea, I think.

I learnt in this thread that it is obvious some unions are more effective than others. — javi2541997

Right. I learned about that too in the way! :smile:

Doesn't the union provide income during the strike? — Benkei

Benkei, my reaction to the payment of the members by the union was too absolute and so in part wrong. I referred to regular payment, income, as you said. I was also referring esp. to Greece. But as I learned on the road, in some cases and countries, there's a kind of compentation by the unions to the workers for their loss of income during strikes. And a compensation is a payment too.
Sorry about that, anyway.

unions generally pay their members during a strike. — BC

Maybe in some cases and countries. But this is not a regular pay. It's a kind of compensation.
Anyway, my reaction to the payment of the members by the union was maybe wrong. I meant regular payment. But a compensation is a payment too. So you are right.

I just came upon the following from https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/finance/how-to-survive-a-strike:
"Unions typically set up a strike fund to help members cope with the loss of income during a strike. Union member dues support the strike fund, and each union has rules about how much members can draw from it."
I guess that works as a kind of insurance premiums. Interesting.

I

The 'pros' and 'cons' list is not balanced. The 'pro' side is far stronger than the 'con' side. — BC

Maybe so. I have not weighed them on a scale. :smile:
I just mentioned that there are pros and cons, to show that unions are not always or necessarily the best solution.

I Google-translated the first para of the article. It seems that there is a kind of compensation from union funds for the workers for ther loss of income during strikes. But under certain conditions. Anyway, it's interesting.
Thanks for the ref.

in the Netherlands every union has money saved up for strikes to enable them to pay strikers — Benkei

I can hardly believe this. Have you any reference in which a Dutch union pays its members in the case of strikes? But even if this were true, it will be an exception. So, I save you the trouble of searching for such a reference! :smile:

think the best option would be to adhere to the duty of commission. I say this because like John Stuart Mill stated — Justin5679

John Stuart Mill, in the quote you brought in, speaks from an idealistic viewpoint. He talks about "liberty" and "necessity". Here we have a specific, real-life, actual case, in which the notion of "liberty" is not even involved. As for "necessity", well, if supporting one's family is not a necessity, what is?

The United States is not the best example of how unionisation works. — Banno

You don't know about the unionization in Greece! :grin:

In fact, only social democratic countries --real ones, not those governed by leftish (allegedly "socialist") parties, in alternation with rightist ones-- that is, European Nordic countries (Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and then Norway) are good examples.

The boss's weapon is fear, the union's weapon is anger.
I prefer anger to fear. — Moliere

I believe these two are incompatible with each other as to the direction and recipient of the effect (fear and anger).
Fear works against the employees. Anger --as I can assume from how you put it-- works against the company. So I can't see how you can select between the two ...

Unions are an essential element in a progressive and democratic society, and they are a vital protection for workers -- provided they are strong. — BC

There are cons and prons with labor unions ...

Pros
1. Unions provide worker protections.
2. Unions promote higher wages and better benefits.
3. Unions are economic trend setters.
4. Unions make political organizing is easier.
Cons
1. Unions require dues and fees that some workers do not want to pay.
2. Labor unions discourage individuality
3. Unions make it harder to promote and terminate workers.
4. Unions can drive up costs. (This works against worker salaries.)

(Source:https://www.hrexchangenetwork.com/hr-compensation-benefits/articles/pros-and-cons-of-labor-unions)

Employees in non-union workplaces can approach a manager or business owner directly and negotiate an individual wage increase, benefits package or contract. The option to negotiate directly can yield significant advantages for highly productive employees.
(Source: https://smallbusiness.chron.com/advantages-nonunionized-workplace-18433.html)

Doesn't the union provide income during the strike? — Benkei

Where have you heard that from?
Unions are paid by their members; they don't pay their members!

I wouldn't expect something less confusing and unnecessary complicated than this from Sartre! :grin:

I fully agree. :up:

The ratio of CEO-to-typical-worker pay soared to 399-to-1 under EPI’s realized measure of CEO pay, the highest ratio on record, up from 366-to-1 in 2020 and a massive increase from 59-to-1 in 1989. — Vera Mont

There are a lot of sectors in business world --besides companies-- where such an inequality --and even worse-- is happening, unfortunately. See what's happening in the world of sports, for instance: top tennis players, NBA players, top football/soccer teams, etc. They are 10 to 100 times the money their fellow players of the next category, who also try hard and play their guts out in every match. Totally unfair. In fact, a shame IMO.

There are also those cases in the areas ofcompetition, where some companies are using uses illicit practices --just reaching the limits of illegal practices-- that have made a lot of owners, like Bill Gates (classic case), billionaires and thousands other millionaires.

Things began to change for these communities in the 1980s, when American corporations began to outsource production and re-engineer their organizations to adapt to globalization. — Vera Mont

Interesting.

Millions of Americans struggle to get by on low wages, ... — Vera Mont

All this is quite sad, indeed.
Greece, I believe, is one of the worst countries in tax administration. As I said, I was a freelancer, and in Greece they hate this genre because half of them use to hide their real income. So, what they did and still do is to hit them with all sort of indirect taxes, discontinuing tax exemptions, etc. They don't care about the other half of them, who are honest and state their full income. On the other hand, although they tout every now and about hunting the big tax evaders (dodgers), who only become richer and better in dodging.
And I feel myself quite lucky that I have a pension, however small it is and which has not been upgraded since I first received it, about 6 years ago, during which time the cost of life has risen about 30%!

Managements rarely see it that way; rarely show reciprocal loyalty to the employees. It usually is very much an adversarial situation. — Vera Mont

I believe this is quite a biased view, and not a very reasonable one either, Vera Mont. Management works for the interests of their company. As with the blue-collar workers --I can't differentiate them as "employees", because managment personnel is among them too :smile:-- and it is the company that pays them too, so it's only logical that they are loyal to it. They have no obligation to be loyal to the blue-collars, but only to be fair, have good relations with them, and all that. Besides, the same applies to the blue-collars.

Anyway, as a freelancer in most of my life, I have a little only experience in working for a company, I had some disagreements with management, but never a feeling that they were adversial to me. The same thing also applied to my colleagues, as I could see and undestand. I have neither heard complaints --maybe one or two, from what I can remember-- from my friends and relatives against the companies that were and are working in,

You owe them a fair day's work for a fair day's pay - nothing more. — Vera Mont

Right.

it seems reasonable to suggest that conscious experiences are perceptual representations of information from the outside world — Apustimelogist

... and our inside world. We are also conscious of our thinking, feelings ... whatever happens in us.
Without taking that into consideration any analysis and description of consciousness is incomplete and leads to unreliable results and/or conclusions.

We can further motivate this representational view through the knowledge we have from neuroscience about how perceptual qualities are directly related to different physical stimuli at our sensory boundaries e.g. colors and wavelengths etc. — Apustimelogist

Such a kind of representation is unreliable and futile. Consciousness is not a physical thing --i.e. non- physical in its nature-- and it is not created by or resides in the brain or other physical means as Science falsely claims. The brain is only a link between consciousness and the outside world. As you correctly said, consciousness is based on perception (senses), as far as the external world is concerned, and for that to work. a brain is required.
A lot of neuroscientists today "admit" that and also the widely accepted by now hard problem of consciousness, which escapes from the vast majority of scientists.

As for the rest and larger part of your description, as I said, it is based on an incomplete if not false view of consciousness and, by extension, our experiences, or "experiencing", as I prefer to call, which refers to a dynamic process.

Hi!
Nice topic!
I have answered "scabbing", taking of course into consideration the reason for scabbing you have mentioned.
I believe this is the most rational thing to do, and any rational person who is honestly answering to this poll should do the same. Because the question is not about "idealism" and it is easy to answer in favor of striking if you are young and/or immature and/or don't think of how such the situation would be in real life if you actually were to decide for yourself in such a situation and you were facing the conditions mentioned in the description of the topic.

There is also a very important other reason: Your group is not your colleagues or the syndicate alone, which you have to support by going to strike. Your group is the whole company you are working in, and mainly the owner and the management. Because it is them that are paying you so that you can support yourself and your family. So, you owe them more than you owe to your colleagues and the syndicate.

in my experience, when a quicker route to understanding is available, it is often wise to take said journey. — Bret Bernhoft

I certainly agree. Shortcut or "longcut" knowledge is not a criterion. The first can sometimes even be more valuable than the second. There's a lot of "condensed" knowledge in some philosopher's sayings that proves much more valuable, useful and truthful, than the conclusions one can reached to by examining a subject thoroughly, which, in fact, is not a guarantee that one can "get to the bone" of it.

If knowledge or any piece of information is valuable and/or useful, depends on whether it "works" and covers the subject or solves the problem for us or not.

Now, we must certainly notice that there are a lot of exceptions to the "unearned wisdom". A basic one is for any kind students in any kind of subject. In these cases one learns much more by working hard if it is needed for solutions to problesm and answers to questions. In these cases, the journey is more important than the destination. And, if one uses "unearned wisdom" often, one will develop a lazy thinking and an inability to solve problems and answers to questions by oneself.

In a society where govenments try to tell you what is true and raise you into believing what you believe, in a world that is ever more dividing, when we're looking at news or whatever is going on around us, how do we know what to believe in? — Hailey

Maybe "believe in" is a little too much? It actually means to have faith or confidence in the existence of something. OK, I assume you mean just "believe".
Now, it is well known --since the antiquity-- that politicians lie. So believing everything they say it's naive, at best.
Then, who else is known to be lying in public on political and social matters in general, and in fact in greater scale? Isn't journalists?

What we believe or not has to do with our likes and dislikes, our biases and prejudices, our ability to think critically, and other factors that act as "filters" to our reception and processing of information.

As far as I am concerned, none of them has made me (in my adult life) and cannot make me believe anything. Especially "raising" me. If I believe something or not depends on a lot of things.
And, if I consider an information important enough, and I have doubt about its truth, I try to cross-check it, online or offline. That's all I can do.

Hi, Thanks for your always kind words. :pray:
All these are only ideas. You too have offered very interesting and challenging ideas, as well as a new perspective based on Japanese wisdom!

But why philosophy anyway ? If a person is happy who needs it ? It’s often recognized that life is suffering and ignorance is bliss but are these just convenient aphorisms or is the truth somewhere in between? — simplyG

Hi. I guess these are the "more than one questions" you are talking about, right?
Well, I will answer thoroughly the first of them, as I cansider it more important. Besides, it's already a topic by itself.

Why philosophy?

It is certain that each one has one's own reasons for doing or being engaged in philosophy, although there must be some common grounds among people. I also believe the same applies to science, art, athletics and other human occupations and hobbies. We can observe passion and devotion in any of them. We can also observe simple pleasure, enjoyment, even fooling around.
Now, someone can be seriously involved or engaged in philosophy --meaning hard study, etc.-- for different reasons. Someone might do that as a quest for knowledge or because one loves "philosophizing" -- reasoning, argumentation, mental and spiritual development, and so on. Someone else might do that for one's career as a philosophy teacher. Someone else might do that because one wants be part of a philosophical elite club. And so on.

Now, I believe you are talking about the first case, i.e. one "does" philosophy for oneself as a quest for knowledge and personal mental and spiritual development, in general.

My personal experience in this has been the following: although I loved philosophy since my college years, I was never really engaged in it, I mean as a "philosophical thinker", a philosophizer. I was read a lot, a lot of books and got involved in Eastern philosophy, more for reasons of self-improvement, as a self-help endeavor. Then, for a very long time --about 35 years-- I had almost nothing to do with philosophy, except from some sparse thinking and reading about philosophical matters. But in 1980 I started to study the mind and got involved deeply involved in this field for 5 years, theoretically and practically (self-help activities). It's only when I joined Quora (2017) and started answering questions in subjects I knew well, including philosophy and the mind, that I started to "think philosophically". And then I also joined TPF, about 2 years ago, that the plane really took off! What was the key in all that: writing. By writing I was clarifying my thoughts by putting them down, in front of me, face them, evaluating them, distilling them, making them solid. My reasoning --esp. critical reasoning-- my awareness and my reality of the world as well as myself have risen to new levels, little by little but on a stable basis.

This is "Why philosophy?" as far as I am concerned! :smile:

***

Question no. 2: If a person is happy who needs it?

Based on my own experience, philosophy can be very helpful to a person who is in bad mental state, as I was in 1976. A book by the Indian philosopher Krishnamurti, "The Only Revolution", had changed that state dramatically. It was also my initiation to Eastern philosophy which I studied for more than one year.
But, as I described above, the reasons wants to be involved in philosophy, in one way or another, do not have to do esp. with one's mental state.

***

Question no. 3: It’s often recognized that life is suffering and ignorance is bliss but are these just convenient aphorisms or is the truth somewhere in between?

My opinion is that aphorisms of the type "ignorance is bliss" are much worse than convenient: they are harmful. They are used by oppressive people who want you to be a docile, submissive being, listening only to them. We all know about the Christian "Have faith and doubt not". I think it's disgusting.

As for suffering, just saying that "life is suffering so you must accept that" is equally harmful. One must offer real help to mitigate if not eliminate this suffering. This is what Siddhartha Buddha did with his preaching. He didn’t say "Believe in God and you will be saved or cured" or "Have faith" and all these totally unacceptable "advices".

Sp, the truth does not lie somewhere in between. The truth lies elsewhere! :smile:

But why philosophy anyway ? If a person is happy who needs it ? It’s often recognized that life is suffering and ignorance is bliss but are these just convenient aphorisms or is the truth somewhere in between? — simplyG

Hi. I guess these are the "more than one questions" you are talking about, right?
Well, I will answer thoroughly the first of them, as I cansider it more important. Besides, it's already a topic by itself.

Why philosophy?

It is certain that each one has one's own reasons for doing or being engaged in philosophy, although there must be some common grounds among people. I also believe the same applies to science, art, athletics and other human occupations and hobbies. We can observe passion and devotion in any of them. We can also observe simple pleasure, enjoyment, even fooling around.
Now, someone can be seriously involved or engaged in philosophy --meaning hard study, etc.-- for different reasons. Someone might do that as a quest for knowledge or because one loves "philosophizing" -- reasoning, argumentation, mental and spiritual development, and so on. Someone else might do that for one's career as a philosophy teacher. Someone else might do that because one wants be part of a philosophical elite club. And so on.

Now, I believe you are talking about the first case, i.e. one "does" philosophy for oneself as a quest for knowledge and personal mental and spiritual development, in general.

My personal experience in this has been the following: although I loved philosophy since my college years, I was never really engaged in it, I mean as a "philosophical thinker", a philosophizer. I was read a lot, a lot of books and got involved in Eastern philosophy, more for reasons of self-improvement, as a self-help endeavor. Then, for a very long time --about 35 years-- I had almost nothing to do with philosophy, except from some sparse thinking and reading about philosophical matters. But in 1980 I started to study the mind and got involved deeply involved in this field for 5 years, theoretically and practically (self-help activities). It's only when I joined Quora (2017) and started answering questions in subjects I knew well, including philosophy and the mind, that I started to "think philosophically". And then I also joined TPF, about 2 years ago, that the plane really took off! What was the key in all that: writing. By writing I was clarifying my thoughts by putting them down, in front of me, face them, evaluating them, distilling them, making them solid. My reasoning --esp. critical reasoning-- my awareness and my reality of the world as well as myself have risen to new levels, little by little but on a stable basis.

This is "Why philosophy?" as far as I am concerned! :smile:

Along with shared subjectivity, there is also exclusive subjectivity e.g. only I know the contents of my dreams and what thoughts and recollections occur to me. — Truth Seeker

Of course. Otherwise, if subjectivity were always "shared", the expression "shared subjectivity" would have no meaning, would it? :wink:

OK

"Shared subjectivity" (quoted) gets 9,300 results in Google. "Shared reality" (quoted) 317,000. :strong:
:smile:
I didn't say that "shared subjectivity" is wrong, anyway ...

As for QM .... I pass. :smile:

My statement: "It is possible that what I perceive is either a dream or a hallucination or an illusion or a simulation and not objectively real." does not invalidate my previous statement: "I am 100% certain that I am conscious." My experience of being conscious makes me 100% certain that I am conscious when I am conscious. I don't experience this when I am unconscious. — Truth Seeker

You mean, when you are conscious, you are conscious indeed. But how do you know that you are not dreaming or hallucinating? You may be dreaming or hallucinating at any time. And you wouldn't know it if you are.
But this is stretching the point a little too much. Let's simplify it and assume simply that you are indeed able to know that you are conscious. This is more pragmatic. Otherwise, we would be living in a consctant doubt!
So, OK, I agree with your statement that you are 100% certain when you are.

About quantum indeterminacy, etc. I'm not quite knowledgeable in this area. Physics are not my strong point. Yet, I know a few things, like Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which reinforces the position that we cannot be 100% certain for anything. Although, I don't know in which cases and how microcosm agrees with macrocosm ...

there is such a thing as shared subjectivity e.g. we can both see the Sun and the Moon. So, the Sun and the Moon exist in our shared subjective world. Most humans would say that the existence of the Sun and the Moon is an objective truth because every human with a functioning visual system sees the Sun and the Moon when they are visible. — Truth Seeker

"Shared subjectivity" ... Interesting expression. Never met it or thought about it. I personally use the expression "shared reality". But I agree with the way you described it.
It's good that you brought up this point, since a shared reality is an agreement about something, a common viewpoint, etc. And this is where I use to say, that common reality is the closest we can get to absolute reality. The more a reality or agreement about something is common among people, the more solid that reality is. And this is good enough. We don't need more. :smile:

BTW, its's interesting to see that the above apply also to the individual him/herself. The conflicts in us that we are experiencing, are disagreements between different thoughts or ideas in our mind. They act as opposing forces fighting with each other. And on the contrary, lack of conflicts make for calm and harmony. In such cases, our reality is more solid and we are closer to 100% certainty. :smile:

I am 100% certain that I am conscious — Truth Seeker

I assume that this applied at the exact moment you were composing this topic. Because you cannot say "I am conscious" in general, i.e. with no time reference. So, since we are talking about 100% certainty, we should also be as exact as possible in our statements, whether these are applied to being, having or doing.

It is possible that what I perceive is either a dream or a hallucination or an illusion or a simulation and not objectively real. — Truth Seeker

Right. This is the first thing that came to my mind. And see, you are bringing it up yourself, invalidating therefore your first statement, i.e. that you are 100% certain that you are conscious! :smile:

I have no way of knowing this with 100% certainty. Given the fact that I cannot know with 100% certainty what is objectively real — Truth Seeker

Second invalidation! :smile

how can I know what is morally correct with 100% certainty? — Truth Seeker

Now, this makes it much more difficult to talk about 100% certainty, since morality is something relative and can be defined in a lot of different ways.

How can we know if macroscopic determinism is true or false with 100% certainty? — Truth Seeker

I think that now we lost --at least I-- the ball!

The more abstract the ideas the certainty of which we are querying, the more difficult is to establish its degree, esp. 100%. And the opposite, the more concrete and easily definable they are, the easier and more exact will be our estimation of their certainty.

Yet, the problem does not lie in concreteness or abstractness. It lies in the nature of knowledge, however we define it: "acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles" or "justified beliefs" (as some people like to describe it), etc. And the question of the topic becomes "Is there absolute knowledge?"
Because if I could have this absolute knowledge, then I would be 100% certain, wouldn't I?
And if we are talking about "absolute knowledge" then we are also taking about "absolute reality".

So, here's where views split. Mine is that "reality is subjective". (I have talked about that extensively in various occasions, but I won't do it here too.)

A proposition is true or it is false. A proposition cannot be neither, and it can't be more of less true, unless we're talking about complex propositions where some percent of the atomic propositions that compose it are true and some false. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Normally, this is true. But there may be cases that a proposition is ambiguous, or incomplete in some way, as I explained. So in these cases --and in general, if a proposition is ambiguous-- we cannot decide about its truth or falsety. I didn't say that a proposition must be always absolute (i.e. non-relative) or precise. Indeed, in philosophy, logical statements is not as precise as in Math.

The following examples will maybe make my point more clear:

• Is the statement "Scorpions have a sting" true? You will most probably answer "Yes". Wrong! "I mean Scorpions the band!" :smile: (Contextual characteristic)
• Me: "I am older than you." You: "But we have the same age!" Me: "Well, I am born one month erlier than you!" (Precision characteristic)

I have never liked this explanations though. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I know. Most people don't, as I have mentioned at the end of my message. :smile:
I like to give as many examples as possible (w/o tiring the other person.) The prove points better than staying with abstract ideas and theories. People rarely do the first; they usually do the second. As if it is "safer" that way.

After all, does any proposition about who will win the 2024 election actually have a truth value yet? — Count Timothy von Icarus

A prognostic cannot be true or false. Only what exists or has happened or is happening can. A prognostic is about possibilities and probabilities. It's a guess. One has to wait the situation that is prognosed become an actuality --i.e. true-- or not. Isn't that right?

This is a good opportunity for me to mention what I thought I should, which is, that philosophy does not actually deal with "truths" as an end product, even if truth is considered a central element in philosophy (according to SEP and other). This might shock a lot, but I believe they have to consider the following:
A truth is a fact or something in accordance with fact. A truth can and sometimes has to be proven. Philosophy does not actually prove anything. And when the words "proof" is used, it is used figuratively rather than literally. Philosophy proposes, positions itself and it shows (explains, describes) why things are what they seem to be and how they work. Take e.g. Descartes' "Cogito, ergo sum". He didn't prove the truth of this proposition, he describes why this is so. If he did provide a proof, then there would be no ground for doubt or negation about it. In their turn, those who object to that proposition could not and didn't prove it is false. They also provide explainations and arguments why this proposition does not work. The don't and cannot provide a proof that will render this proposition false.
Proofs belong to Science. Philosophy uses Logic --which does involve truth-- but only as a means. Not as an end.

In fact, all the examples I provided in my previous message where based on logic but they actually didn't have anything to do with philosophy or --if uou like-- they didn't refer esp. to philosophy! :smile:

Interesting topic.

There's no single thing that can be called "truth". There are different kinds of "truths" depending on what you are examining and from what aspect you are examining and wish to find if it is true or not. And the best way to get an idea about the concept of truth is to start with how the terms "true" and "truth" are applied to situations in life and compare it with its opposite, which is "false", "lie", etc. From there one can generalize to have a better idea of the concept of truth.

So, e.g. if I say "My name is Alkis Piskas", this can be true from one aspect and false from another. It is true that it is my name in this place --I have registered to TPF with that name. Everyone knows and agrees with that. It is a fact. What it might not be true and a fact, though, would be the case that this is not my real name, i.e. in life, the name one can see in my ID card, etc., but it is only an alias name that I use in TPF.
So, we can see already that "truth" is contextual.

Now, if I say "I am not young", it will be true but it won't show my age. Neither would, if I say "I am old", which is also true. What age must one have to be considered "old"? So, another characteristic of "truth" is that it can be relative. I might also specify that my age is between 62 and 68, which may be true but it would still leave out my exact age. Then I could say that my age is 66, which may be true, but it still does not indicate my exact age which can be any of the 365 days of the year I was born in. And then we have the hour of the day and so on.
So, another characteristic of "truth" is precision.

Then, I may suppose that I know well my exact age, the day and hour I was born. This would me that I know the truth about my age, wouldn't it? Well, what if I am too old or my memory fails me for one or the other reason? Even if I feel I know the truth, I'm actually deceiving myself; I have an illusion about my own age. (Of course I could check my ID card or passport or other pertinent document and find out my exact day of birth, but why should I do that, since I "know" my age? :smile:)
So another characteristic of "truth" is that it is subjective.

And I will stay on this last point, asking a question that we often meet in philosophical discussions: "Is there an objective truth?" (Or some version of it.) Maybe, a more common question is "Is there an objective reality?" Because we often see the terms "reality and "truth" be used alternatively to mean about the same thing. And this brings me closer to the question "What is reality?" For me, reality is what we agree to exist or have happened or is happening. Reality is agreement. It is true and real to me what I consider as true and real. The same thing applies to you. And if we both have the same or a similar viewpoint about something, it means we have the same or a similar reality about it and we more or less agree regarding that something. And on the contrary, if we have a different viewpoint about something, it means that we have a different reality and we disagree about it. This of course is too simple for most people to grasp! :smile: Joking, I mean, to accept.

I could go on, but I think I have covered the subject. Don't you?

OK, Bob. As I said, I don't intend to continue this thread.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to participate in this topic.

Philosophically, a proposition is a statement that is truth-apt and not merely something “suggested to be considered, accepted, or done”. — Bob Ross

From Dictionary.com we read about the meaning of the term "proposition" in specialized fields, that are included in philosophy:
Rhetoric: A statement of the subject of an argument or a discourse, or of the course of action or essential idea to be advocated.
Logic: A statement in which something is affirmed or denied, so that it can therefore be significantly characterized as either true or false.
Mathematics: A formal statement of either a truth to be demonstrated or an operation to be performed; a theorem or a problem.

And, from https://homework.study.com/explanation/what-is-a-proposition-in-philosophy.html, we read: "A proposition in philosophy is the statement or conjecture which can be analyzed for its truth value."

(Emphases are mine.) Both expressions "to be" and "can be" refer to a future action. In fact, these definitions are not much different than the what I discribed earlier. They are only focusing on specialized areas and actions. Of course, since the basic idea the essense of the term "proposition" is present to all of them, in common as well as specialized areas.

See, you don't make a proposition for the sake of the proposition itself, and just forget about it.

You can also look it from another aspect, as far as the term "fact" is concerned, which is the central element in your discussion: Can you fit this term in any of the descriptions of the term "proposition"? There's nothing there to remind us of or refer to facts, is there?

A proposition can be about the past (e.g, “bob went to the store yesterday”), present (e.g., “bob is eating”), future (e.g., “bob is going to eat”), tenseless expressions (e.g., “bob went to the store on Friday, December 23rd, 2022 at 5:55 a.m.”) — Bob Ross

Nothing of these is a proposition. They are just information about things that happened or happen are are going to happen. That is either facts (past and present) or expectations (future). There is nothing in them that proposes anything. We can't say, e.g. " I propose that Bob went to the store yesterday”, or "I propose that Bob is eating” or "I propose that Bob is going to eat”. They all sound ridiculous, don't they

OK, we can go on forever if you keep trying to milk the bull.

I have explained to you the difference and incompatibility between a fact and a "proposition" more than --I believe-- anyone would have the patience to do ... But my patience is over.

I would say that a ‘fact’ is a proposition of which its content appropriately agrees/corresponds to reality — Bob Ross

A proposition is something that is suggested to be considered, accepted or done. It clearly refers to the future. A fact on the other hand refers to something that is present or in the past. These terms/concepts are incompatible with each other. They cannot replace one another.

I'm afraid that you must choose a term/concept other than "fact" for your posit. It will be much better than altering its meaning to fit your posit. Don't you think?
From what I could understand from your description, maybe the term/concept of "thought" will do ....

There is no such thing as a moral fact, even in the case that they do exist, which is simultaneously a fundamental obligation; that is, the core principle which commits oneself to the moral facts, in the case that they exist, is necessarily a moral non-fact. — Bob Ross

A fact cannot be moral or immoral. Not for the reasons you are stating but by definition.
A fact is something known to exist or having occured. It may come from something that has been committed, but this is irrelevant; it does not define it. Facts can be also regarded as information, knowledge. We cannot say that an information or knowledge is moral or immoral, can we?

What can be moral or immoral is an act, a decision, speech, behavior, etc., i.e. things humans do. (Sometimes, lack of action (omissions) can be considered as immoral, i.e. when we should do something but we don't.)

Based on the above, and since "facts" are a central element in your description, I'm afraid I can't go any further, since it makes not sense to me. Sorry about that. :sad:

Nice!
And you used the right word: "motivated". It's the key to all knowlegdge and excellence. This is very evident in school, where the majority of students are bad in some areas, esp. in Math. No motivation. They have no use of Math. During the whole duration of the school. And Math teachers --in most cases-- ignore this vital factor or they are not even interested in creating such a motivation to their students. And then, they expect from them to excel in Math! What an irony, if not a stupidity!

'd go one step further and say you have to know how to use philosophy in your everyday life in order to really be able to say you do philosophy. — T Clark

Good point. One must always have examples in life regarding a philosophical truth and be able to apply it in life.

... And after about 10 years one would be able to say, "Well, I know a little what philosophy is about."

I started really learning philosophy in college, by taking a philosophy course for one semester, which was optional for and irrelevant to my studies (*Business Administration"). The teacher was the brother of Iannis Xenakis, the known modern composer, and the whole course was about the stoic philosopher Epictetus. I was very lucky, because I gained so much by learning about a whole system of philosophy (stoicism), and a way of thinking about life and the world, that I was so thirsty to learn more so, in that same semester I read about 10 books from other philosophers of the same period. Then I read, read and read pages after pages, books after books from all kinds of philosophers and philosophical schools ... I also started to have my own ideas about mind, ethics and life.

You don't learn philosophy by browsing books and philosophical texts, like wetting your feet before starting to learn how to swim. You start to learn how to swim by swimming.

You learn philosophy by studying whole books by one philosopher and then by another one and so on.

A couple of years after I graduated I started to study Eastern philosophy. I must have read about 40 books or so from all major Hindu philosophers. And I had read and listened to almost all the works of Krishnamurti. I could really think like him. I could then say for myself that I know about Eastern thinking. Because this is what is most important in philosophy: philosophical thinking, not philosophical knowledge. You can know about all the philosophers of the world and what they have written, but if you don't know how to actually think philosophically --in the same way one does in mathematics-- it's all on the surface. Very little useful. It's encyclopedic versus operational knowledge. And to operate philosophically is to think philosophically.

OK.
(BTW, AI is very well defined. It's not an abstact idea. It's a concrete, scientific term. I told you to get acquainted with it, but ... who does? People prefer to ignore what AI really is, ttrat it as an abstract idea and make speculations with it.)

When I say "Base Reality" I do not purpose that there is a definite physical reality in which I exist, I am, instead, pointing more to a thought or an argument. I am incapable of witnessing any sort of base reality but I am not incapable of inferring its existence. — vanzhandz

If you cannot define what "base reality" is, how can you witness it? :smile:
It's like saying "I cannot know or feel how it is being in love, whatever that is". See what I mean?