Yet, I don't want to involve in politics telling me what to do with my wealth, so what should I do about it with regards to philosophy? — Shawn

That's a tough question. I'd say just do what your heart tells you, and try not to trip in the process. I think you'll do alright though.

Have fun, and good luck.

:up:

knowledge production and transmission is a social project. "New" ideas, inventions, art works, scientific discoveries, etc. are built on the advertent and inadvertent contributions of others. That takes away nothing from those who hatch new work. — Bitter Crank

Mm. Although I think a retention of individualistic thought should be somewhat prioritized, even if at times it's not necessarily possible. You need to know how to walk before you run, after all.

All in moderation...

I would disagree on the fact that all philosophy involves thinking, so long as we attribute thinking to be an individual endeavour. In fact, its fairly interesting to see that the more you read/comprehend philosophical books and what not, the more you indulge in their (their being the person who wrote the book) thinking, which eventually leads to a loss of personal inquiry, or personal growth. A little like a chess master vs someone naturally talented at chess: one is recognizing patterns/arguments and resolving them with tried and true logical pathways, the other is relying on his gifted logical capacities to guide him.

Now we're assessing if the observer has correctly recognised that 1 and 2 are occurring. — Isaac

I'd put my faith in the universe.

What has interested you in the past, John? Yet it apparently fails to interest you now: do you have any idea why? — Leghorn

I don't know; I think that's part of the question i'm trying to answer.

Well, I'm sure it'll come to me someday.

How are you handling your task of brushing the teeth of 7 billion people every morning and after each meal? Or, more literally to the word, if you buy a chocolate bar to treat yourself, each time you muster up enough dough to buy seven billion chocolate bars, one for everyone? :-) — god must be atheist

Well, assuming that everyone is treating another by how they would treat themselves, I would buy one chocolate bar, and then give someone else another. Then, by moral implication he would be forced to buy a chocolate bar, and give someone another, and then...poof! 7 billion people with one chocolate bar, minus one; someone has one extra.

So what does this someone do, with his/her extra chocolate bar? Well, like any sane man/woman, he eats them both. However! That does not follow the moral code, and is thus a moral failure.

How do we judge him?

Well, we think to ourselves, what if I had two chocolate bars, and was forced to eat both because everyone else had one, would I be liable to punishment? No! And thus, he is forgiven.

My resolution is to find something that interests me.

I realized a job is kinda like a relationship. It takes a whole lot of blood, sweat, and tears (hyperbole) to keep the flame of desire burning. One has to constantly reinvent oneself for your employer to pull out the golden handcuffs. — Agent Smith

Do we not constantly reinvent ourselves, day by day?

(I know that's a dumb retort, but still felt like asking it)

If you say that we are all equal because we all must conform to God's will, then we are all equal in duty. — Hello Human

Well, if we are all equal in duty, or something else, I don't necessarily see how that would belittle an equality of moral consideration. For example, death is sure to come to all, so why treat others differently?

moral consideration is actually useless in that case. If you have your own responsibilities and rights to some external source of morality, why care about other people at all ? Wouldn't it be more rational to look after your own moral worth only ? — Hello Human

Not necessarily, because in that respect I could not differentiate myself from others, morally. I'd be treating everyone how I would treat myself.

Basically, when I started with this

:

I'd say that for the case of simplicity, we should stick to deterministic terms. As in, cause-effect, more classical mathematics. — john27

It's to assume the fact that rain is the effect of "something". Water cycle, the earth, something like that.
So when I translate that fact into mathematical terms:

and the mathematical term 1+2=3 can be used to represent rain, specifically the number three, as an effect of something. — john27

It's to say that yeah, 1+2=3 doesn't actually encompass fully the fact that its raining; rain is much more complicated than that. But it's the same function, that is, the effect "rain" is just a bunch of other effects added together. In other words, It's just a simpler way of saying that rain is due to a bunch of effects. You could describe the water cycle mathematically for maybe a more precise translation, but this is honestly way simpler.

Let a=observer — john27

The observer here is to satisfy the fact that someone is saying "it". The observer, realistically, is the universe. I don't have the mathematical proof that the universe exists, but I'm sure its out there, so I just condensed that equation that is probably real, into a.

Therefore you get:

If the universe (a) recognizes that this addition of effects (1+2) is happening, he will say it is raining (=3)

Hence the universe exists, and there's only one universe (probably), the (a) is always equal to 1.

Hence:

ax(1+2)=3 / it's raining

or,

ax3=3 / it's raining

:heart:

Where I work, no one is considered indispensable. There's a long queue of people willing and able to fill my and my colleagues' shoes. No one precious I'm afraid; my organization is just a giant machine run with replaceable parts - if I "malfunction", the company simply recruits another person with the same qualifications and experience. — Agent Smith

No one considered, or does not appear, indispensable? In fact, after they fired you, they proceeded to recruit someone with the same qualifications and experience...That would denote a form of preciousness, in my opinion.

Therefore, if morality comes from something external to agents, then the question is meaningless because no agent deserves moral consideration. — Hello Human

Hm. In my belief, we tend to express morality to those who are incapable of morality( e.g, animals, plants, ants). This seems to be a question of preference, but does call into question that they are in some part, deserving of moral consideration. This illustrates a sort of "god" "subject" relationship, or maybe something a little less extreme, a "ruler" "people" relationship. Therefore, should it not follow that something besides a moral agent could conduct or inform our morality? (e.g we are all the same based on the universe, or based on death, therefore everyone is equal)

Though this does feel a little dejavu like :razz: — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I was trying to think of a witty remark to make about dejavu, but nothing came to mind.

Nevertheless, pleased to make your acquaintance. :party:

Thanks. :up:

The soundwave pattern of music cannot be thrown in a mathematical formula. Only short pulses of music can. — AgentTangarine

I don't necessarily think thats correct. Music is sound, and sound is illustrated by mathematics, therefore it should follow that you can illustrate music by math, and math by music.

I think it's the sort of new experience that reveals enlightenment. Like: "Oh, so this is what pain feels like..." and then you explore that sensation. Too much pain however, In my belief seldom reveals an enlightened force. Like you Illustrated, as long as you can put a sensation to use, it will contribute in some aspect to enlightenment. Pain without use is, pretty matter of factly, useless.

Hi. My name's John27. I'm just some dude. I try to be the best I can be, even if sometimes its a lot harder than it seems. Thanks for having me.

That sounds consistent. We'd need to see the demonstration of reducing "it's raining" to mathematical terms. — Isaac

Noo! Math, my worst enemy. :grimace:

Well, I'll try my best.

Before I start making stuff up, let's define what sort of parameters we're using. I'd say that for the case of simplicity, we should stick to deterministic terms. As in, cause-effect, more classical mathematics.

Rain is an effect. Rain doesn't necessarily need an observer to exist, but it might make future discussions more simple if we include one, that way the "it" part of the statement holds. so:

Let a=observer

and the mathematical term 1+2=3 can be used to represent rain, specifically the number three, as an effect of something.

So, ax3= It's raining.

Therefore if a=0, rain does not exist. However, because there is an infinite observer, the mathematical system of the universe, a will always equal 1, hence making rain always relate back to its independent fact.

I'm probably wrong, but I think someone a little more advanced in math could make it work.

Maybe. I think I like sushi mentioned this earlier. There are conceivably abstract systems in which we can know for sure what's true because it's declared to be so by the system. I don't see how these examples prove any kind of general case, it's easy to prove exceptions, harder to prove the rule. — Isaac

Hm, then what about this:

1+1=2 may be considered as both an independent fact and a mode of expression because it is relegated to mathematics. It's raining, however, is not because it is not constrained by a previous system. Therefore, if we constrain "it's raining" using mathematical language, it would be considered to be both an independent fact and a mode of expression.

It's raining can be translated into a mathematical term: hence, it is both an independent fact and mode of expression. Do that for every linguistic mode of expression you have some qualms with and boom, everything relates back to its independent fact.

I don't know...Tough question. In my opinion the best thing you could do for something is give them something they'll need, and for worst, probably ignore them. I think mental/physical isolation is responsible for a lot more pain than we give it credit for.

Although this is pretty relative as well I would think. This is just what I would do, had I been confronted with the situation.

Universe is real but we didn't know it exists for a very long time.
Therefore saying that something is not real because it does not exists is potentially false instead of factually false. — SpaceDweller

I think Leghorn meant to talk about this from a more unbiased point of view; that is we don't necessarily
decide what is real or what exists, it simply is or is not.

Doesn't this imply that there is an ethical aspect to self-improvement, undermining my basic account? More broadly, the virtue ethics I sometimes espouse is about the improvement of oneself; so on my own account is it an ethical position? — Banno

Huh. I suppose it could be considered then, as an ethical position...

Man ethics is confusing.

No, you're right. Each is an ethical consideration only in so far a it involves others. — Banno

Hey hey, look at who's learning :cool:

I may love food and eat so much I become obese. This seems a matter of personal choice, but it is a poor example for my children’s health; if I recline on another’s couch or sit in his chair I am prone to break it; and my obesity is likely to lead to a lot of medical conditions that burden hospitals and cost taxpayers money. — Leghorn

I may wish to be a pauper, but then I am not contributing to the economy by buying things, and the health of our economy is a moral imperative for the nation. — Leghorn

I may cringe at having a needle stuck in my body— and what is more personal than your own body?—but if I don’t get vaccinated, I put at risk the health of everyone else I come close to. — Leghorn

Well in all of these examples it is in relation to someone/something else, so you would have some sort of ethical position to not perform/perform these acts. However had nobody perceived these gestures, you would have no ethical standpoint to create morality because it would of became simply a question of preference.

I think it might be better to let @Banno answer this question though. He's the expert.

Oh, sure - why not? But that's not an ethical position. — Banno

I guess not.

What I want to know is whether bits of our prehistoric minds can be recovered by exploring the human mental world. We could extract, study, and display them like we do with dinosaur skeletons/fossils. — Agent Smith

That would be neat. I would probably start with exploring memory; can't get anymore time-travellely than that.

I see your point, but I don't know...It seems a little too complex for me to apply practically. Personally I just think people should be nice to themselves, even if it doesn't necessarily have any logic behind it.

But why ought one seek a happy/fulfilled life? — Banno

Because I like being happy. Is everything all right?

Because a happy/fulfilled life is the wish of all human beings. That is the point of ethics. I think we can agree on that.

Banno, The choice to not exercise is not exempt from morality... People do, and should, at times, be morally obligated to their well-being. It is not simply a question of preference. Is this not self-evident?

Sometimes you have to base your ethical behaviour relative to another, other times you have to be your own moral agent.

For example, how could you care for something ethically that has no brain? Well, you use what you know. How you like to be treated. You could kick it down the street. But ought you?

Ethics concerns "ought".

Addressing this to your title, there is a difference between "Is life equal?" and "Ought life be equal?"

Can you see that? — Banno

I agree with you that ethic concerns ought. My argument concerns your point of differentiating preference from ought. While yes in certain circumstances you must reference your moral character to that of another, in other contexts you must align the two.

Same as with people: from the noises they make. — Banno

If only. However, In my belief it's rarely so simple.

Rubbish. The interests of the animal count. That you wish to be arse-fucked does not excuse your arse-fucking a pig. — Banno

But how can one know the interests of an animal?

Animals can be included in the others to which one may relate. ow, have you something to say? — Banno

I would believe this to be false. if you were alone with an animal, your point of reference to treat the animal morally would be yourself; hence making yourself a moral agent. In other words, you're really only treating the pig how you would treat yourself. A moral mirror.

I suppose, since you are avowedly mediocre, that you don’t hope to enlighten us with your superior wisdom; and I suppose that since you can apply what you already have that you don’t seek any extra wisdom from me or anyone else in here... — Leghorn

I guess I'm more or less here to admire.

maybe you are incorrigibly mediocre. Maybe, when you live long enough to finally experience great adversity, a crisis in your soul, you will take it in stride and “go with the flow” and admirably adapt—but it will only be because you really don’t care that much, not because you were able to apply any great principles of wisdom to your plight: — Leghorn

Perhaps. This raises an interesting question; if an object cannot/does not attempt to conform to the universal constant (the soul), would he be applicable to it (have a soul)?

I suppose in the viewpoint that a body contains two parts: its physical self and its mind, the mind is more or less regarded as something ethereal, unconstrained by the practicality of the world, which would seem to point as to how the mind eludes the palaeontologists. My question is, if the mind is ethereal, how can it coexist with the body?

If there's a context in which 1+1=2 is false, then 1+1=2 is false (in that context), otherwise the prior statement is itself false. 1+1=2 remains true in other contexts, and there's no context-free 1+1=2 that represents the really real expression against which all others must be measured. — Isaac

Yes, but there is no context in which 1+1=2 is false. It is true in every context. Therefore, The independent fact and the mode of expression are the same.

I don't see how. If there were no speaker, why would the content refer to anything at all, surely, if there were no speaker, the content would be as yet undetermined? — Isaac

Because 1+1=2 exists, regardless on whether I have said it exists or not. For example, I could find 1+1=2 in nature by taking two sticks and putting them together to make a pair. I think I have said earlier that the content that I am referring to does not rely on me to exist.

I'm not suggesting one must refer to them as different, only that one could (as things stand). Your argument relied on assuming that they were the same. I'm just saying that such an assumption is not a logical necessity, so you ought have a means by which you justify it.[/quote]
— Isaac

They may well be the same, but since they are not the same by logical necessity, you'd have to provide an argument to support your position — Isaac

I'll be honest, I have no idea what you're talking about. At one time you are saying that my assumption requires a logical necessity, but earlier you had stated that they are not the same by logical necessity. I don't know, I can't wrap my head around it.

Though, I can give a logical necessity as to why one must refer to them as the same.

1+1=2. I think we can agree on that. The mode of expression dictates that my content changes according to its context. Therefore, it is a possibility for me give a context that allows 1+1=2 to be false. However, that is false; 1+1=2. And hence, the mode of expression is false. But when we talk about 1+1=2, we can never use it in a context that allows 1+1=2 to be false. Therefore, we always use the independent fact, and hence, the "mode of expression" and the independent fact is the same.