Omne ignotum pro magnifico.

Thinking/thought may not live up to the hype surrounding it or am I missing something? What if it turns out to be disappointingly simple, as simple as peeing for instance?

:zip:

I really appreciate ancient philosophers - they managed to get so much done with so little to work with. A true philosopher is at home in 2022 BC as he is in 2022 AD - the armchair is all he needs.

should cheer everyone up — universeness

Shhh! I design ships that float for only and exactly 5 seconds! :lol:

No Blitzkreig, only the Germans knew how to pull that off. Winter is fast approaching and deep snow has always been Russia's trump card.

@schopenhauer1 should chime in. He says life is a game we're forced to play and the theme is Sophie's choice and variations thereof. This world seems designed for those who don't give a flyin' f**k about right & wrong i.e. it's meant for sinners, not saints.

If all there is to this world is this world, the existence of a(n) (omni)benevolent god is doubtful.

I could be miles off the target, but it seems as though politics is about economics. How good/bad an economic policy is either makes/breaks parties/governments/campaigns. Oui mon ami?

More like a ven diagram than a spectrum — Merkwurdichliebe

Why, may I ask?

Agrippa's/Münchhausen's trilemma.

There are only 3 possible ways of proving a proposition p.

1. Infinite regress (... justification for the justification for the justification for p)

2. Circularity (p, ergo p)

3. Axiom (p)

All 3 are unsatisfactory (1 never ends; 2's fallacious; 3's exactly why logic was invented)

Responses from dogmatists.

1. Infinite regress [Infinitism]

2. Circularity [Coherentism]

3. Axiom [Foundationalism]

It from bit! Précismént!

I meant more we are a passive consumer of technology rather than its creator. You can support it, buy it, service it. But you probably didn’t design or invent it. Nor can you really understand all the technology that went into it. Hence my example of the internet and all its innumerable parts. — schopenhauer1

I get what you mean! We're, in a sense, being led by our noses!

Zeus/Indra = Electricity

:chin:

That’s one of the main complexities of human nature. The aim of surviving when we were born to die. — javi2541997

Conatus (re Spinoza).

:lol:

:up:

There's a long queue of mathematicians outside the physics department.

God new life. — introbert

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. — Albert Camus

@Gnomon

With information we can start from scratch and build any damn world/thing we fancy (the sky's the limit); that is to say, if you're a monist, information is the best foundation (arche).

You are but a spec in this technology — schopenhauer1

A cog in the great machine we call the universe! Work, work, work, die! We're replaceable parts; momma nature doesn't care about us because she can always create another human being just like/better than us. Si?

Nothing has changed.

Is it not absurd that there are beings who have an innate desire for meaning living in a world devoid of one? That's like bringing a baseball bat to a basketball game? We'd be the laughing stock of the world, nay, the universe! :lol:

Bias isn't limited to, isn't just, emotions. Plus, emotions have their own role to play in our experience of the world.

Some asteroids aren't round!

From the scientists who do this "real and not real" shows a misunderstanding of QM. It doesn't say nothing is real — Darkneos

:ok:

Some folly, however, is significant folly. Remember, padawan: the path is often the goal, the journey is the destination. — 180 Proof

Mashallah! :clap:

The sun is round, the moon is round, the planets are round. Why should the Earth be flat? :chin:

Shhh! It is though!

Well said!

Lol - I write left-handed. Same as your compliment — GLEN willows

:lol:

To strive to attain the unttainable is folly, oui mon ami?

I don't think so — 180 Proof

Quantum physics says something more, that the real-unreal dichotomy is old, outdated, and useless.
— Agent Smith

Not really. — Darkneos

Why? Isn't it obvious that at quantum scales real vs. unreal is unhelpful, especially since these notions are defined at human scales?

S = subjectivity
O = Objectivity

Subjectivity-Objectivity Spectrum
S-----------------O

The mission goal is to tend towards O via dialectical MAD (mutually assured destruction) as subjectivity's trademark is dissent (This town ain't big enough for the both of us); when it comes to objectivity, reject/deny at your own risk.

O seems unattainble, we must perforce retreat towards S.

Why would owning things not satisfy? — Tom Storm

It does (for some, nay, most). It is the way it is!

What if we are tools? We seem bewitched by telos, even killing ourselves when we can't find one. We're sentient tools/machines!!! :cool:

Well, a lot of studies claim that the universe is expanding. — javi2541997

Indeed!

Quantum physics says something more, that the real-unreal dichotomy is old, outdated, and useless.

Certainly not with my posts — GLEN willows

With every post I'm afraid. Your penmanship though is really something!

Are you really sure? — javi2541997

Who is?

:cool:

You need to finish what you start! — universeness

I can't do everything now can I? Nevertheless, a good point mon ami, a good point.