This thread should not be confused with global warming created by humans!

Fair warning.

The topic is a scientific one (albeit the philosophical implications). We ought to expect citation. It's standard practice. We're not interested in what you 'reckon' is the case with regards to climatology. — Isaac

No offense, but this is bullshit. Citation is only accepted here if what you're saying is relevant and/or accepted by thread participants -- sadly. Anyone could give a citation.

But I'll give my opinion to the conflict happening in this thread and the climate change thread. Tate went it and blew some crap out of the water by stating "We are in an ice age, guys." He is wrong and makes a good point all at the same time. In fact, we're in interglacial period. Which means, sooner or later, we're going to enter the ice age. But not yet.

The climate change thread in question is only talking about the man-made increase in CO2 for a very brief period in the natural history of the Earth, not the whole epoch of climate change to warrant bringing in the glacial/ice age period. Context is important here. If we're talking about the period between 1800 to 2021, this hardly warrants talking about the ice age. (You don't want the thread to turn into a comical exchange between "like-minded" people, do you?) Hence, even mentioning "are we turning the Earth into Venus" is laughable.

Over indulgence in a pet thread is a vice.

Some people could get carried away with overthinking about which is heavier -- a kilo of cotton balls or a kilo of rocks!

I do think a positive attitude, if not forced, can help make cancer easier to deal with emotionally and it can make it easier for friends and relatives to cope. Whatever that's worth. — Tom Storm

Amazingly, humans are equipped with an emotion monitor so that at the stage when the end is there already, the body sort of calms down.

As an interesting fact, doctors themselves are not immune to have this survival distress and equally would ask their doctor to do "whatever it takes" to save them, when they know what a "terminal" illness means and they believe it but would act opposite this fact nonetheless.

:up:

To ask this question for this topic is misplaced. Antinatalism is an ethics argument. As such, argumentation in the form of statements and reasoning will suffice. I think you mean to say that we need to provide mathematical proof to win this argument. No. If anything, that's a charlatan's way of weasling itself into making a point, but really it's just hiding behind numbers because they couldn't articulate their argument properly.

Why not point out the idea that this issue could not be won?

I am surprised about what her doctor said on the absence of correlation between mental attitude and cancer survival. I have heard the opposite said many times by doctors. — Olivier5

I'm not surprised. When the sickness is in the cellular level, no amount of positivity or fight would change that.

However, those who are physically fit have a better chance of surviving a heart attack. So, while heart condition could strike anyone, some people are better equipped with surviving an attack than others. I read this somewhere.

The crux of this question is how much value do you place on existing amongst others - of not being entirely alone? — Benj96

I wouldn't dwell on it. I wouldn't have a choice. But I would prefer not to be alone. That said, I would be the representative of humanity. I'd try to exist for as long as possible for winning this impossibility.

I know dead people do not think. So, the mind is gone. — Jackson

Sure.

Where is the human mind located? I do not know. — Jackson

Exactly.

What is the difference? — Jackson

Computers (including AI) have designated locations of each and every part. Humans can have experiential events, for example, dreams, where the storage is not found anywhere. Tell me, where is the mind located?

It is just another kind of 'consciousness,' or thinking. — Jackson

Computing, not thinking. Let's be clear on this.

This made me laugh. Thanks for posting it. Baden nailed it! Andrew was clever during the conversation!

This is an amusing thread. Credits to Athena. In my opinion, someone here already identified the ultimate test of what it is to be human. It's a very clever answer, but one that truly narrows all other traits/characteristics to this one -- because it covers also the moral agency of a person.

But in the spirit of sportsmanship, I won't identify who that is. For personal purposes, I'm scoring the answers. :cool:

All judicial systems fail sometimes. This is a case study in a UK failure: — Tate

Terrible. More power to Amber Heard.

Time for Newton's Flaming Laser Sword aka Alder's razor! — Agent Smith

Very well applied! To be honest, I've never heard of Alder's razor until now.
So, in essence, we do not dispute what can only be surmised.

We should really discuss how to handle questions like the will or freewill that isn't on par with empirical evidence. Often, I think, the dispute stems from incorrect application of method of examination: one person would challenge the existence of free will by literally asking for scientific evidence. Of course the other could not provide it because there's no scientific evidence of free will.

But, the lack of scientific evidence doesn't prove its lack of efficacy. And here is where philosophy could gain traction and win over the charge of falsity.

Is free will (existence/nonexistence) an empirical claim? — Agent Smith

No. Metaphysical/psychological claim. What does it mean? It means we can't measure it, nor conduct a scientific experiment to show proof of it. It could only be surmised.

The problems some people have with postmodernism are due to their plebeian mentality. — baker

Hahahaha! I've never laughed harder while on this forum. :lol:

Because proposition no. 8 and its implications don't seem to be in line with a materialist/physicalist/realist point of view. — baker

It's not my problem. I wasn't answering that issue. I was naming no. 8 for easy reference as to its relevance to the OP -- also given that the period is before 1905.

René Descartes’ famous quote: “ I think therefore I am”, expresses an idea that is often used to support the idealists’ position: we cannot doubt our existence. — Hello Human

If some are using the cogito for their idealist view, we should let them be. But the cogito is NOT a view of idealism. Descartes is a dualist.

You're an idiot. And I'm done talking to you.

Question: Do we have to read Derrida as a Paltonist to make sense of his decidedly anti-Platonist agenda? — Agent Smith

Hah! Good point.

See Miller quote.

Also, I'd like to ask for you also to provide citation for your explanation of deconstruction. I'm not picky, just provide some published source. Thanks.

But deconstruction doesn’t need external grounds. — Joshs

Wrong way to put it. Deconstruction demonstrates there is no external source of the truth of our claims, rather

what grounds any element of meaning is memory , history , a formal basis from which I intend to mean something. But the catch here is that in intending to mean what I mean , I alter that history , memory , form. So each element of meaning rests on a ground that it alters , and both of these features take place at the same time( form and content , memory and change. — Joshs

Do you see why I charge skepticism? Our traditional belief is that what we write as history, for example, is based on some objective measure of truth. But deconstruction critic says that there is no objective, external support.

According to his profile and my experience Streetlight hasn't been a moderator for some time now. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Good. I didn't notice.

I disagree with Miller’s account of deconstruction. — Joshs

No contest with your disagreement with Miller's explanation.

I have been describing skepticism in terms of the impossibility of transcending the rift between our representations of truth and meaning , and the world itself. Is that your notion of skepticism? — Joshs

Yes, and this requires more explanation, of course. When deconstruction claims that we really do not have grounds upon which the truth of our literary writings rest, this is the stuff that skepticism is made of. There's more, but I've been overposting here already. :joke: :

Note: grounds here means external foundation upon which truth is based on.

BTW, you yourself cannot even provide an explanation

Again, let Streetlight provide an answer to a reasonable request.

Awww. Stop this nonsense already. I took Derrida for one semester. I used Miller because he provided an authoritative explanation for what I needed. Streetlight is not happy with that. I asked him to explain what deconstruction is. What he wrote was blarbled confused paragraph which did not clarify what deconstruction is.

My wanting him banned as a moderator is because he couldn't provide clear explanation of what he claims to know -- twice! He is a moderator after all.
Jackson's request is reasonable. Streetlight asked for a quote, I provided one that's written by Miller.

When Jackson asked for support of Streetlight's knowledge of deconstruction, this is what Streetlight said. Seriously? A simple request and his answer is this.

What proof can you provide that you are worth one moment of my effort? — Streetlight

Jackson's request is reasonable. Let Streetlight respond please.

I wonder what it was like for Derrida to inhabit the quotidian world with the potential burden of all those complex ideas. I feel thankful to be shallow, poorly read but generally phlegmatic, if uninspired. — Tom Storm

Down to earth comment! There are better philosophical tools to critique ideas/written texts -- we don't need to use deconstruction.

I did. I provided Miller's explanation. I defer to his writing. Unlike you who provided blarbles on deconstruction. You have no idea what you're talking about. I'm sure you read it, though.

Now, deal with your own self and learn how to read and come up with your own ideas.

Grow up.

You should be banned as a moderator.

↪L'éléphant
It's a quote that has nothing to do with skepticism, and it's not from Derrida. — Streetlight

Are you really a robot? Can't think for yourself. I say that's skepticism based on my thoughts of what skepticism is. I don't care whether he claims he's a skeptic. His criticism is a form of skepticism.

When I say I'm putting in my critique as skepticism, I don't need Derrida to agree with me. I'm not here to point out that Derrida is a self-proclaimed skeptic. I am here to point out that my conclusion about his ideas led to my criticism that his is a form of skepticism.

That's the quote. From a high quality writer -- Miller. Anymore questions? Oh yeah, you can't digest what you read.

You have proven yourself time and again that you can't...digest what you read.

Worse are those who have read and claim that they understand Derrida then when put to the test, they write blarbles.

Same peanuts and nuts.

I suppose. There's no telling when deconstruction ends, and when his critique on phenomenology begins.

I'm not sure if this is meant as a compliment or a snipe. — Tom Storm

Derrida, too, must acknowledge that the ground upon which his criticism is organized is on non-existent ground. Miller is pointing out the irony, or the parallel, if you will.

Thank you for your input.

To all,

I have copypasted here a passage from J. Hillis Miller as to what exactly the deconstruction is. Please read and if you have any doubts as to the strength of this explanation by Miller, please look him up. Also look up Julian Wolfreys.

Deconstruction as a mode of interpretation works by a careful and circumspect entering of each textual labyrinth. The [deconstruction] critic feels his way from figure to figure, from concept to concept, from mythical motif to mythical motif, in a repetition which is in no sense a parody. It employs nevertheless, the subversive power present in even the most exact and ironical doubling. The deconstructive critic seeks to find, by this process of retracing, the element in the system studied which is alogical, the thread in the text in question which will unravel it all, or the loose stone which will pull down the whole building.

The deconstruction, rather, annihilates the ground on which the building stands by showing that the text has already annihilated that ground, knowingly and unknowingly. Deconstruction is not a dismantling of the structure of the text but a demonstration that it has already dismantled itself. Its apparently solid ground is no rock but thin air.

The uncanny moment in Derrida’s criticism, the vacant place around which all his work is organized, is the formulation of this non-existence of the ground out of which the whole textual structure seems to rise…

(J. Hillis Miller, Theory Now and Then, 1991, 126.)
Credits to Julian Wolfreys, Deconstruction – Derrida, 1997