I think it's incorrect to say here "just because we do not or cannot perceive it". We do perceive objective reality, but it's only a perception. So, we really do not know objective reality. What we do know is our perception of it.Objective reality must exist independent of subjective reality. Just because we do not or cannot perceive it, does not mean it does not exist. — Gnomon
There are two different mindsets here. One, those who call out government programs and public statements as propaganda are the anti-manipulation group. They believe that anything coming out of the government's proverbial a$$ is propaganda that is designed, as you said, to manipulate and spread falsehoods. The other mindset is the public officials themselves, or their cohorts and supporters, whose work tries to avoid being labeled propaganda because of again, of the image it projects -- manipulation and falsehoods. So, the term propaganda is only used by the anti-nation or anti-government.In the current state of the term ‘propaganda’ it is a fair assessment to state that ‘propaganda’ in colloquial terms is general framed as something intrinsically tied to patriotism/nationhood?
If this is a fairly reasonable statement then is propaganda then to be assessed as ‘negative’ in that it is a means to manipulate and spread falsehoods? — I like sushi
Infinity was first posited by Anaximander. The apeiron as the first principle is boundless. The first principle meaning the "beginning of everything". So, beginning here doesn't mean a start (a bound), rather infinity is the beginning and we couldn't posit anything prior to infinity.What is the history of Infinity? I know it exists at least for the sake of math, but has anything ever been to indicate that anything about it goes on forever? — TiredThinker
Yeah, true. That's suspect -- all within 2 weeks. But, again, I think the allure of physicalism/materialism is that it is easy to grasp, and therefore easier to talk about. You have a strong foundation with physicalism. I mean, at least the rebuttal you're up against are manageable.This question, this one, this one, this one, this one, or not to forget this one or this one. All asked within 2 weeks. Conspicuous! Seems a popular subject. Why would that be? — EugeneW
Nothing impressive. I've seen jugglers on bike circling around a tight circular platform.That's him there, riding a unicycle while juggling. — Wayfarer
I can only take a guess. Physicalism/materialism is an interesting view in metaphysics and philosophy of the mind -- it is anti phenomenology and idealism. So given this brief description, your argument could take you very far as there's enough material (no pun intended) there to support your argument.Is it that the focus given to physicalism is due because it is truly central to philosophical discourse, or is it just an accident that occurred by coincidence due to the interests of the forum's userbase? — Kuro
I reject this. Sorry, Athena. Books and writings came about because of enlightenment, not the other way around. And no, the life expectancy at 35-45 was overblown. There are many philosophers and historians in the ancient times that lived through their 70s and 80s.I want to say is, we went into the Age of Enlightenment when enough people got old and had the ability to communicate with each other in large cities. Leasure time and the ability to own books and write letters would be vital to this. The Enlightenment could not happen before these advancements. It sure could not happen when the life expectancy was 35 or 45 years because people died before having enough knowledge to be enlightened. — Athena
If you need help, will you reach out?In truth, this has been a horrible whore of Babylon, constant, endless mutilation, and attack, and I can't withstand it any longer. I'm really begging for them to stop at this point...
All over with completely, 100%. — Wosret
Okay I get that. Thanks.Life is always a transition from one phase to the next, always in pursuit of righteousness. — Hanover
Yeah, I dig stoats.Nothing much, just dancing and attempting to raise the true savior of my world. Tis the noble stoat. — Wosret
I agree, reason without emotions is a machine. I don't know about Putin. I think what's happening is a bloop and a blast --The Enlightenment is about universal knowledge and raising the human potential. That is a wonderfully romantic idea, isn't it? We are working towards more humane wars and the possibility of no wars. Putin doesn't see things this way, but I think NATO does? If global warming made the winters in Russia more pleasant, perhaps that would improve our relationship with Russia? Not all things about reason. Emotions are important too. — Athena
The Enlightenment, a philosophical movement that dominated in Europe during the 18th century, was centered around the idea that reason is the primary source of authority and legitimacy, and advocated such ideals as liberty, progress, tolerance, fraternity, constitutional government, and separation of church and state.
Oh big time!Thinking is very hard. Articulating the problem explicitly allows one to contend with it more readily. Pleas and prayers are the first step to facing the problem head on and bringing the power of rationality to the fore. Meaning, when we feel a situation is hopeless often we just need to break it down into smaller problems and attend to the one/s that are easiest to articulate. — I like sushi
Humans give meaning to the universe. We assigned emotions to things.Or, you can choose to believe every thing is where it is for some purpose and live your life that way. — Hanover
Good point. Boredom afflicts many people in the low economic status. And yes there is bias that goes on about boredom. If you're poor, you can't complain of boredom because "why don't you go out there and find a job or find a way to enrich yourself just like how the rich people do it."Boredom has a bad reputation, and people generally don't think of it in terms of suffering. In fact, it seems perverse to think of boredom as kind of suffering. It seems to be the privilege of the rich and the idle. — baker
Okay I have no objection to this. We're on the same page. I'm only citing those examples that have been proven to be sensible. The calm before the storm is true -- you feel it in the air.Common sense is accepted without question. We believe it just because we hear it all the time. — Athena
I can assure you that the universe has no meaning or emotion.That's how cruel the universe is: it tears apart our delicate souls. — Agent Smith
My post is purely out of socio-political reasons. Consent is attached to that notion. But if you want to talk about obligation of parents to unborn children, that's a different issue. Honestly, I can't think of a way to "apologize" to those born into a bad situation. The only thing that I can think of is the liberty of individuals to happiness, which is in the constitution of most, if not all, nations. This right to happiness includes forming a family and bearing children. Now of course we do have laws to protect the children from harm -- which is obvious to everyone. So, I'm not sure what else to say about that.Yes, this is a common objection that I find objectionable. Since there is no person prior to existing for whom consent can be obtained, it is okay to do X which may lead to future outcomes for a person who actually will exist..
You can see the flaw in that right? — schopenhauer1
The notion of consent is a socio-political notion. So, yes, it is talked about in the world of philosophers, not just Schopenhauer's. There's actually an argument about the formation of a society, say a first society, where adults gather together to talk about the rules and laws. Well and good. But then, after this society is formed, there'd be babies born into this society without the benefit of providing their consent, so what to do if you're one of those babies who become an adult and find that the society you live in, whose rules you didn't consent to, is disagreeable to you.My own addition is that by being born at all we are forced into a socio-culturo-political agenda (lest suicide by slow or fast death). Solution: Griping and self-understanding (consolation through shared Pessimism) and not forcing others into the agenda (antinatalism). — schopenhauer1
Uhm, I think I didn't make that clear. The examples I gave are scientific facts, but we act like they're common sense. There's a scientific explanation of the calm before the storm, moldy and sour foods, and looking both ways so we don't get hit by a car because the speed of the vehicle is a lot faster than our speed of avoidance.We agree those are not examples of scientific thinking, right? They are knee-jerk reactions done without much thinking — Athena
Not necessarily. I mean, are you just talking about romantic feeling of love? Or are we still in the romanticism movement? The attitude that predominates the 18th century? Where a young mind is filled with hopes, and dreams, and goodness, and yes, courage?Romantic thinking is not really thinking either. — Athena
Okay I give you that. Early on in life, people have romantic vision, and as they get older the romantic vision becomes impractical or unrealistic. Then finally, they see that life is about suffering and hardships -- so they join capitalism.this too is a romantic vision of sorts.. It's not the romantic vision of a dictator but of the idealistic parent hoping for some sort of Platonic stability that doesn't exist. — schopenhauer1
Okay, I think you're wrong. Don't walk away with a broken heart.Somehow that breaks my heart. Good day. — Agent Smith
I freakin' do! :starstruck:↪L'éléphant
So, you don't believe that the law of attraction holds? I agree. Imagine it were that simple to find happiness. — Agent Smith
Thanks.As for the OP, a novel take on prayer and wishing wells. :up: — Agent Smith
In the New Thought spiritual movement, the Law of Attraction is a pseudoscience based on the belief that positive or negative thoughts bring positive or negative experiences into a person's life.[1][2] The belief is based on the ideas that people and their thoughts are made from "pure energy" and that a process of like energy attracting like energy exists through which a person can improve their health, wealth, and personal relationships. There is no empirical scientific evidence supporting the law of attraction, and it is widely considered to be pseudoscience.
I think this is an incorrect understanding of romanticism. On the contrary, being lost in the romantic view of the world is like wearing rose-colored glasses all the time. One fails to see the ugly side of existence -- that there are undertakings that are impossible to achieve or that there are things that require suffering and hardships. If you actually read the writings of the romanticists, you would think that people living in that world are childlike or immature, forget about innocence. There are failures in life.The positive spin it gives to what are normally considered the bringer of misery and pain (war being the archetype) leads to people willing to kill & die (for a cause). This, I'm led to believe, is akin to brainwashing/mind manipulation of the worst kind ever. :smile: — Agent Smith
I voted for this because the universe is not bounded. The everything is the universe. We gave meaning to time, but without us, it has no meaning or existence at all. But -- there's decay! How about that. Stars die out.The universe is an infinite cycle of expansion and contraction. The beginning is equal to the end. — Benj96
Yes! People actually pray for facts, for the actual reality. That's why I put this in epistemology because we treat our own prayers and wishes as part of our knowledge about the world.You don't go around praying about unicorns after all, you pray about what really matters to you. — Garrett Travers
It is, right? When visiting a person who is ill, people leave words of encouragement and well wishes. Even those who do not believe in prayers.it’s possible the prayer is a kind of therapeutic process. — Average
Good read from the link. Thanks.I don't buy into these things literally of course, but I do have this instinct of refusing to say or think bad thoughts for fear that I'll think them into existence. — Hanover
Yes, just reading those words make me feel it. I literally sent that thought to someone living abroad at the time when I couldn't reach him. And I felt at the time that the stronger you will it, the stronger it would get to the person.Be strong!
Do you feel the strength now within you? — Hanover
This is too graphic. :)I'm assuming you had to meet a partner (assuming in your case a husband), go through a sort of dating/courting/falling in love process, decide to create new people in the world and raise them a certain way, be able to provide for yourself and family with some sort of job in the broader economic system which allows for things to survive.. — schopenhauer1
We shouldn't think that thinking scientifically means thinking logically. Common sense works too. No we do not think scientifically at all times. I made that clear in my thread about praying and wishing. But, in our day to day affairs, we've learned to treat scientific facts as common sense facts. The calm before the storm makes us stay inside the house and wait for the rain. We don't eat food that had gone sour or moldy. And of course, looking before we cross the street saves us from getting hit by vehicles.Yes, but how many of us think scientifically? Scientific thinking is empirical and religious thinking is not empirical. Understanding human values is not empirical thinking and our opinions are not empirical thinking. Even those who do think empirically do so only once in a while because it is very energy-consuming and we are running on automatic most of the time and rarely really think about anything. This is a problem for democracy and education can resolve but it is not. In fact, some states have laws preventing thinking. — Athena