You made the same comment with the same list back around page 5 or 6 of this thread — T Clark

:lol: Sorry for cluttering your thread. I have a very poor memory, consider me as Dory from Finding Nemo.

Should I delete my post?

Absolute power corrupts absolutely?

Why is God, then, omnipotent and still good? Aah! Omnibenevolence is necessary to check power on such a scale.

Doesn't God remind you of the 3 arms of government: judiciary (all-good), executive (all-powerful), and legislature (all-knowing)? A loose fit perhaps but there's an uncanny resemblance. Maybe God is just politics taken to a new level.

People who are theists are closet-monarchists. I always felt there was something to how popular monarchy-themed movies are in the west (Lord of the rings, star wars, Disney princesses, etc.) and let's not forget how girls get into a tizzy when the hear the word "prince" (UK) and how every one of 'em wants to be a princess.

We all love a philosopher king Socrates.

It's not. It can be though. People can be many things.

In art there artist license. Some may choose one way to do something whilst another another. Some will prefer one way to the other. I would caution confusing discrimination with taste, or taste with discrimination - especially when others wish to stir things up and sell articles and/or force a political ideology in against the intent of the artistic/creative endeavor — I like sushi

I dunno. I still feel there's more going on than meets the eye in the arts (movie industry). Sinister goings on that is. In cynical mode, do be careful.

Wikipedia's break down of metaphysics

1. Ontology
2. Identity & Change
3. Causality
4. Space & Time
5. Necessity & Possibility

It appears that metaphysics is the study of broad conceptual frameworks with which we make sense of our world.

I guess we could call metaphysics pre-science, not proto-science. Meta-science.

It’s not racist or sexist to change the gender of fictional characters. — khaled

It's not!? :brow:

Perhaps this :point: cross-gender acting will prove a point or two.

I would not describe it as a 'perfectly good real opportunity.' — Paine

Yep, it's real but we can conceive of a better deal (heaven); Christianity/other religions step(s) in and annoounces that heaven is real, it's just that you have to die to get there and not only that you have to earn it, pay for it with good deeds.

As you can see, the moment you think of the this and now as not ideal, you open the doors to Pascal's wager. You can't have one without the other. Hence, my statement, "perfectly good real opportunity".

Not sure if I am on board with your apparently low opinion of monkeys — Janus

:lol: :monkey:

I guess it was a choice between not being sexist (cast a woman) & not being racist (cast an Asian). We all know how that played out.

Funny, I was just wondering the other day how white women were once treated (almost) like blacks (limited freedom) and yet we have racist white women.

If I were to be cynical, what the casting director did was call a feminist and an antiracist, put them in a room and asked them to decide who should play the Ancient One in Dr. Strange, and quielty slipped out. Casting director: Let 'em fight it out while I make my getaway.

Divide & Conquer. Simple & effective mil strategy.

I would not describe it as a 'perfectly good real opportunity.' Perhaps you are aware of this, but Nietzsche specifically called out Pascal as the poster child of how a great talent can be misled by morbid ideas (more in N's notebooks than actual books).

On Nietzsche's side, one is risking a lot. The desire for certainty is not any kind of promise it will be met. Honesty is the wager.

On Pascal's side, the wager is not even a gamble. There is nothing to lose if you shove your chips across the board. The casino is an illusion. You are not here. — Paine

.

Pascal's wager.

Risk-seeking.

In accounting, finance, and economics, a risk-seeker or risk-lover is a person who has a preference for risk.

While most investors are considered risk averse, one could view casino-goers as risk-seeking. A common example to explain risk-seeking behaviour is; If offered two choices; either $50 as a sure thing, or a 50% chance each of either $100 or nothing, a risk-seeking person would prefer the gamble. Even though the gamble and the "sure thing" have the same expected value, the preference for risk makes the gamble's expected utility for the individual much higher. — Wikipedia

Risk-aversion.

In economics and finance, risk aversion is the tendency of people to prefer outcomes with low uncertainty to those outcomes with high uncertainty, even if the average outcome of the latter is equal to or higher in monetary value than the more certain outcome.[1] Risk aversion explains the inclination to agree to a situation with a more predictable, but possibly lower payoff, rather than another situation with a highly unpredictable, but possibly higher payoff. For example, a risk-averse investor might choose to put their money into a bank account with a low but guaranteed interest rate, rather than into a stock that may have high expected returns, but also involves a chance of losing value. — Wikipedia

It looks like people are gambling with their lives; in monetary terms, as per the US federal government, that's $10 mil per head.

William Lee Bergstrom (1951 – February 4, 1985) commonly known as The Suitcase Man or Phantom Gambler, was a gambler and high roller known for placing the largest bet in casino gambling history at the time amounting to $777,000 ($2.44 million present day amount) at the Horseshoe Casino, which he won. — Wikipedia

William Lee Bergstrom's bet is just one-fifth of $10 mil.

Thanks for the notion of the fractal relation of a day a year a lifetime. :cool: Sisyphus' amor fati. — 180 Proof

:up:

What Nietzsche rejects in the expectation of an afterlife is that it avoids our responsibility to decide for ourselves what to value or discard in this one — Paine

Yep. Throw away a perfectly good real opportunity for an infinitely better but imaginary one. Reminds me of Pascal's wager.

to live so completely and mindfully as if it each day is a whole lifetime — 180 Proof

This touched a chord. It resonates with me and as chance would have it I have something to say about it.

In the book Jurassic Park, the mathematician Ian Malcom talks about fractals and he gives an example - cotton prices. The graph for cotton price variations for a decade looks exactly like that of a year, a month, a week. A lifetime = A day.

What did I do today?

Awoke, washed up, went to work, returned home, slept.

What would I have done for my entire life?

Ditto!

Sisyphus & Eternal recurrence!

By the way, thanks for explaining Nietzsche & Camus to me

:ok:

This is entirely non-responsive to my post. — Hanover

Unresponsive $\rightarrow$ Coma. :lol:

Dear ol' Mother Earth aka Gaia is telling us in the sweetest way possible, "help yourself."

[...]Let’s be clear. The planet is not in jeopardy. We are in jeopardy. We haven’t got the power to destroy the planet—or to save it. But we might have the power to save ourselves. — Ian Malcolm (Jurassic Park)

Trying to explain things is basically the best way to understand them I would say. Even if you make a hash of it you can at least build on your next attempt.

I really don't see how talking about the physics definition of 'work' fits into this specific topic? — I like sushi

Physics offers a different perspective to the issue of work. It's likely that I'm not completely on the mark but whenever we fail to understand something well we immediately, instinctively, look at the time. It's 5:30 AM where I'm at, the year is 2021 (I think).

I'm reading the novel Jurassic Park by the late Michael Crichton. In it the gigantic T. Rex is a problem no doubt but its the much smaller Velociraptors that are the real killers; heck, even the Procompsognathids manage to put a child in hospital.
— TheMadFool

Rhetoric only hurts if the audience takes the bait. Work is necessary to survive. But the assumption is that this is good in the first place. You immediately end the conversation to question this necessity of life or life itself by saying it’s juvenile. Bypass all thinking and just tar and feather. — schopenhauer1

I was once in the past a boy, once a girl, once a tree
Once too a bird, and once a silent fish in the sea — Empedocles (Metempsychosis)

Empedocles, when he was a tree, just sat there, rooted to the spot, and did absolutely no work at all. Technology and its progenitor, science, to the rescue I presume.Artificial photosynthesis - just sit there under the yellow glow of our sun and breathe. Everything will be fine.

Explain then. I must be more foolish than you. — I like sushi

I don't think I will. It probably doesn't make sense.

I'm reading the novel Jurassic Park by the late Michael Crichton. In it the gigantic T. Rex is a problem no doubt but its the much smaller Velociraptors that are the real killers; heck, even the Procompsognathids manage to put a child in hospital.

I see but consider physics.
— TheMadFool

Not exactly on topic. So nope. — I like sushi

Really? I must be seeing things.

The value of a human life = $10 million. We're all decamillionaires.

Because no one is a set of numbers. We have to constantly adjust and readjust, so yeah, 'nebulous' rather than 'rigid'.

To say we lack a measure for work is nonsense. We have multiple ways to measure work (and if we mean work in a 'nebulous' sense or not). Economics is about - roughly speaking - getting and distributing 'resources' (which can be literally anything that is of value to someone/something).

We measure everything by the immediate and long term cost/requirement (be this money, time, expertise and/or whatever else including physical energy).

As we're CLEARLY talking about paid work then if we reduce our hours we reduce our wage (assuming we're doing the same job) unless whoever you are working for is willing to restructure the payment system. — I like sushi

I see but consider physics.

$Work = Force \times Distance$

$Force = mass \times acceleration$

I'm sure that in between these two formulae, time will emerge as a poor metric for work. I don't know how exactly but just a guess. Would you mind giving it a shot?

Well, not really. We pay some people more not merely because they work more. We pay some people more because they are good at what they do. In economics (not necessarily mere 'finance') efficiency is key.

The problem is generally that people get 'comfortable' and expect comfort to be the normal state of affairs for human life. Then they demand these 'rights' for free. — I like sushi

I don't know if I agree but suffice it to say we, as you claim, have some idea what work means and how it's to be measured although it seems rather nebulous. Give it time, we'll get there.

Hence why I am an anarchist internally (at odds with any authority even my own) and generally conservative outwardly, because I've lived enough to realise things are more complex and silly than I did when I was younger so it is sometimes best not to shake things up 'out there' and rather do it 'in here' (my head/myself) and it will bleed through anyhow.

Of course I fail all the time and stubbornly refuse to adhere to what other people do as what I should do because that is how things are done :D — I like sushi

Inner chaos, outer order. :up:

:up:

Nietzsche' eternal recurrence vis-à-vis Camus' Sisyphusean nightmare scenario. How do the two relate?

That dilemma is not all that relevant to me.

Whether it's anarchy or oppression, it's the result of the collective behavior of individuals. I can't and don't want to decide for others what they must do.

I can however look at these systems and ponder their nature, and whether I want to live my life in accordance to their principles. — Tzeentch

Yep. Your position on the issue is not as radical as some have made it out to be. What happens when we grow up? Regulations/rules ease from being 5 years old and being 18+ years old. It's just that people are irresponsible with their freedom and hence laws.

I suppose we could say that we lack a measure for work and time is just a surrogate marker.

I assume you mean 'maturity'? — I like sushi

About right.

This is where the whole Marxist idea gets messy with reality.

Is doing a job for 3 hrs worth the same as doing a job for 5 hrs if paid hourly? Should jobs be paid equally or not - how/why? — I like sushi

I think this problem is related to the one about age. Is time a good measure of age?

While I can understand the injustice/suffering aspect of the workweek, I'd lke to point out that good coordination among people, organizations, government bodies, etc. could actually reduce the workweek to fewer days. If you can carry out a task in 3 days, why work for 5 day? Kairos (timing) is what I'm talking about and not Chronos (time).

Emit conservative values and infuse yourself with anarchic values. — I like sushi

:chin: Life is, after all, a masquerade ball.

I would say so. Regulations, when broken, are met with punishments. In the case of state law, when one resists these punishments because, for example, one disagrees with being punished, the punishment will become more and more severe with incarceration as the end station.

As such, law is based on coercion and, in my view, clearly imposition. — Tzeentch

Without laws, anarchy. With laws, oppression. How do we tackle this dilemma?

Are you familiar with the doctrtine of eternal recurrence that N proposed as the antithesis to depicting life 'here' as some kind of test for another life? The idea is not presented as a desiderata. It is presented as an unavoidable medicine if one is to reject the other pharmaceuticals on offer. — Paine

So Nietzsche scorns religion's offer of a better afterlife. Basically one-bird-in-the-hand-is-worth-two-in-the-bush logic. I like that. To Nietzsche religion is an empty promise, a scam as it were that's defrauded people by the billions of a life they have by dangling before their eyes an afterlife that's so good to be impossible to resist and, before I forget, there's an element of threat (hell) for those more cautious with their $10 million (the worth of a human life).

But by your own hypothesis this is not true. unenlightened is enlightened; he just doesn't realise/hasn't realised it. In which case, unenlightenment is a 'mistake' that one is continuously making. — unenlightened

What's the difference between not having a gun (when you need it) and not knowing you have a gun (when you need it)?

:chin:

That's exactly my point. Without emotions we die. Sentimentality asides. — TiredThinker

Yup.

Did I point that out? — Tzeentch

I thought you did. it seems implied.

I don't think impositions made by the rulers or electorates of democracies are justified. — Tzeentch

I get where you're coming from. Is regulation just an euphemism for imposition? :chin: Dysphemism is appposite too and somewhere in-between hides the truth.

Don't limit your options. It's better to be enraged and get an additional adrenaline boost for your muscles (fight/flight response) than feel nothing and get injured/killed. Asterix' magic potion, Druid Getafix' concoction, may have been adrenaline.

While more than one map depicts the territory, fact-free, or merely conceptual / imaginary maps, such as "metaphysics" do not. The map of "Middle-Earth", for instance, is useless for navigating around North America (or any other actual continent) because it does not correspond to any actual truth-makers (i.e. empirical facts). Likewise, as distinct from physics, "metaphysics" has no "explanatory power" – is not theoretical (re: "ToE" :roll:) as pointed out ↪180 Proof – and, at best, provides only conceptual-paradigmatic or methological criteria for critically interpreting, even creating, theoretical (formal or physical) models. — 180 Proof

Yep, metaphysics - goes beyond the empirical/verifiable/falsifiable, the domain of science. A map's accuracy vis-à-vis the territory is assessable (science) and metaphysics includes, inter alia, the analysis of such maps. Metaphysics then is the study of the models we create of reality, it doesn't seek empirical verification for it makes no empirical claims.

I'm not sure you and I are using "theory" the same way. I don't see a scientific theory, e.g. general relativity, as a metaphysical entity. They have truth value. For me, the scientific method is a metaphysical entity. Perhaps that includes the methods by which theories are developed and verified. I'll have to think about that. — T Clark

:ok:

How do we know YOU are not suffering from some psycho malady? I don't care. On this text-based forum, I'm interested in the reasonableness of your expressed ideas, not your mental health. Besides, an ad hominem attack on an ancient philosopher, who remains a major influence on Western thought after thousands of years, is (or should be) beneath you. — Gnomon

Asoka (King, Mauryan Empire): I'm going to abdicate my throne, give away all my wealth, shave my head, wear a simple robe, and beg for alms.

Asoka's wife: You must be mad!

Asoka: No, I'm buddhist.