Therefore, Earth is the "center of the conscious experience of the Universe", and the Ontological Point - Humanity. — Gus Lamarch

Point of view is necessarily from a single vantage point -- not many.
Multiple points of view can exist, but not in a single vantage point. This is a one to one relation.
Absence of evidence that there is another intelligent life existing in the universe, doesn't mean absence of multiple vantage points. The error here is, the impossibility of accessing or being in multiple vantage points is not being considered.

The whinger is an armchair warrior. It's a way of feeling a sense of purpose without expending so many calories. If so, then whinging might be the closest we can get to being a peaceful species. — frank

This is true, indeed. And we have around the world villagers and communities existing, living, using their skills passed from generations to create/produce items to be consumed within their communities. There exist skilled potter, basket weaver, ceramicist, furniture maker able to peacefully and quietly pass their time creating works of art and practical, functional objects that could last centuries. In the process of working with their hands -- and what better way to exercise the brain but with dexterity of fingers -- they are focused, in-tune with their being, meditating, and removing themselves daily from other distractions.

But oh, this is a life one needs to learn, to practice and embrace -- you just don't decide to settle in a quiet village, in a house or studio unpainted with synthetic paints (that you buy from home improvements stores) and quietly create. This requires generations. Okay, maybe I'm wrong on this account -- maybe one can actually adapt rapidly without requiring generations handed down to him. But to achieve it, you cannot force this kind of existence.

Bakunin never really gave a reason for why isolation is selfish. I re-read back the quote you provided, there's nothing there to explain why he thinks isolation is stupid. He just said it is selfish.

Also another example. Imagine a person who has been retired and then buys a house in the middle of nowhere and wants to live alone with their own circumstances. — javi2541997

Another example, yet it only begs what is being asked. They retired in the middle of nowhere because they want to live in the middle of nowhere. I hope this is getting to the point.

I'm not sure I've gotten an answer, in my opinion, except one wants to exclude the others in his existence. We can then ask, why does he exclude others in his day to day existence, it's cause he is not a sharing person, he is not an inclusion person. So is he not selfish at this point?

This somehow breaks the theory of Karl Marx of human is a social animal and is forced to live in communities. So here opens a tangent in the debate about if we are free of living in our own or we are forced to live with others because this is how ever works. — javi2541997

Yes, I'm not arguing against this. The question of why isolate oneself from the rest is a matter of looking within ourselves for answers, as it seems every a person asked this question, there seems to be no clear answer. Think about it. For example you say:

This action is not necessarily selfish or bad if it is a personal decision. — javi2541997

It is a personal decision, absolutely, but still does not provide an answer to why isolation? Could it be a rejection of something? And then there's the continued questioning which doesn't seem to go anywhere.
Not sure if I'm making this clearer.

Luckily my cat Nova is here to remind me to take the necessary screen breaks. :)
I find ethics the most fascinating philosophical discipline. Related disciplines such as sociology and psychology also spark my interest.

My honest wish is to be engaged in some lively conversations. Looking forward to writing with you! — TaySan

Welcome, TaySan! Good specialty combination.

This is a good way to take breaks.

Bakunin (I guess) thought that those people who don’t want to be with anybody and also not interact at all so not making communities is somehow selfish. — javi2541997

Not bad as a view. Interacting is sharing your thoughts and gestures with others. If one chooses isolation, the question is why. Not enough introspection regarding this point, I believe. Why would someone isolate himself from the rest?

Nevertheless, it surprised me why he thought being lonely for voluntary or personal reasons is considered as “selfish” then, he established that a selfish man cannot reach happiness. — javi2541997

I'm not sure whether he was equating "aloneness" to loneliness -- cause in ordinary understanding the two can be exclusively defined. One can be in the company of friends but still feel lonely. So, is it isolation that's being explained here? If so, I can see his point that voluntary isolation is selfish.

I seem to have the feeling that as the super-ego or some moral tendency defined as a good conscious concerned with truth or whatnot must find that they ought to reduce suffering in the world if they are to feel good with themselves as a philosopher. — Shawn

Do you not think that there aren't enough philosophers who had written volumes on social critique and human condition (economically, sociologically and politically)? In what way could we do more to reduce suffering without sacrificing the will of individual? I'd like to know. Just to give you an example, we have our very own @schopenhauer1 bent on anti-natalism.

You're welcome, but I'm mostly doing this for myself. This is fun. — T Clark

LOL! You embody the good man, indeed! :grin:

Can we not say the same thing about philosophy? — Garth

Sorry, Garth, but I noticed that quite frequently, when there's a social critique in the OP, the road always ends in this question. Heck it doesn't matter in what context (!)-- pin prick manufacturers haven't produced good pins lately, so how are people going to have great pricking these days!? .

But it's okay, we have enough talented posters who belong to this site (lol, I say "belong" as in not exclusively, of course) who are very capable of defending the establish.......the wisdom.

The good ones are users of the world. :blush:

Thank you for this topic, TC.

A good scientist has freed himself of concepts
and keeps his mind open to what is.

Thus the Master is available to all people
and doesn't reject anyone.
He is ready to use all situations
and doesn't waste anything.
This is called embodying the light. — T Clark

I like this.
I don't see this contradicting what I said previously, though -- the good ones are always responsible for the good and bad things happening in the world.

Although there is also a reciprocality. The bad man provides the good man with something too. — T Clark

There is no reciprocality in the true sense. If you look at statements 1 and 2, they're both jobs for the good man. In both statements, arrows point only to one direction. Better yet, the two statements are one and the same meaning.

So, my question is, how does one live in the face of this knowledge? Is life even worth living in light of this view? Or have I just created a false dilemma, a non-problem? — I don't get it

You have created a non-problem.
There are satisfaction and contentment in the world. Your diet of social media must have made you question this. Or something that made you believe this. There are people who actually shun spotlight and power.
You've heard the saying, evil takes residence in an empty mind, or something like that (not sure of the exact quote).

What is a good man but a bad man’s teacher?
What is a bad man but a good man’s job? — T Clark

It is always the responsibility of the good ones to take care of the good and bad things happening in the world.

I say it is, but pure empiricism cannot justify the claim that laws of nature are truly real. That's the problem of induction. — Dharmi

First, I think we need to nail down what we're talking about. Are we talking about scientific empiricism, or metaphysical empiricism, which might be called pure empiricism. We know there is gravity. We also know what happens without gravity.

But what does it mean to 'assume' a law of nature that isn't actually real? — Dharmi

That isn't actually real? In what way the law of gravity isn't real?

In other words, the problem is that we need to assume a "universal" constancy of a kind to be able to do science or live in the world at all, yet in pure empirical terms, no such universal can be known to exist. Because, by definition, empiricism only deals with particular objects and not universals. — Dharmi

Assumptions are good. They don't violate any philosophical or scientific principles. The issue lies in equating assumptions with the universals. Philosophically, we are given a license to talk, heck argue, about universality of things. Scientifically, we earn the right to make assumptions, or inferences, using experimentations and observations. Phenomena in nature works with regularity.

Nobody knows how thinking works on any level so I would disagree with their speculation. — synthesis

This is an assertion, which by all intents and purposes, claims to know something about thinking.
So, honestly, I can't agree with the above either. If we can't know how humans think, then civilization would never have happened. You said:

The reason is that none of these people is using a part of their brain that is asking, "What's next?" They are just "doing it." — synthesis

That, to me, is a claim.

And I agree that people do have faith in other drivers (to some extent) but what does that have to do with what we are discussing? — synthesis

A lot!

If we couldn't have faith that it's safe to drive on the freeway and that we will get to our destination safe and sound, we would not even normally try it. Those who love living in high risk situation would enjoy it, I'm sure, but driving is about safety and comfort. You said yourself :

Why do these miscalculations happen so rarely? How is it possible that there's such a great chance that you are going to arrive at the beach in one piece? — synthesis

Each driver is making an infinite number of driving decisions and everybody is just a micro-second or two from a lethal mis-judgement. Why do these miscalculations happen so rarely? How is it possible that there's such a great chance that you are going to arrive at the beach in one piece? — synthesis

I'd like to give credit to the first responders to this thread. Sorry if this sounds like a pun. hehe. But they have given good explanations as to why the above is so.

So, to summarize: two things -- engineering (modification and manipulation of our surroundings by our skilled and competent experts); and the discovery that driving has nothing to do with IQ, but coordination of senses and reflexes. This latter is why you'll see people whose right to drive on public roads has been taken away (which is not necessarily due to intoxication).

But there is a third component that is unwritten into the law of driving -- the drivers' trust and faith in the road and transportation stability and trust and faith in other drivers on the road. We just feel this. We take this trust for granted when we get into our car and drive off.

What are your economic forecasts of consumer behavior or economic tendencies due to the above information provided? — Shawn

Less ownership for long-term assets like homes, I guess. Portable consumer technologies might have already replaced the old-fashioned pride -- as long as there are good internet connection, unlimited data, and affordability of computers and cell phones.

Also, the trends in dwelling have moved towards simpler, smaller, cheaper alternative: moving back home to parents, living in cheaper neighborhoods, or renting or buying cheaper apartments or houses. It's the always-connected to social media and people that has become the standard. No longer do people feel deprived because of lack of expensive possessions, but a lot of people couldn't care less what brand of clothes or shoes people wear.

Then how can anybody be content (or happy) in such an imperfect world? — synthesis

I think we're losing signal here. What's a perfect wold to you?

If you agree with this, then my point was, by having "made peace with them [sources of unhappiness]" you have now removed any obstacle to achieving "happiness" and are now on the path toward it. At the very least making it considerably more reachable. — Outlander

But you are skewing what we call happiness by equating "made peace with" with contentment. A dying person goes through stages of the process of dying -- the final stage is acceptance of the inevitable. This is not happiness.

The focus on the nuclear family has eroded the larger network that earlier families have provided, at least in where I live (in Finland). This still can differ from family to family.

Add to this that many don't have children and a lot more are single than before, and you have a genuine problem of basically loneliness, which comes to be a bigger problem at old age. — ssu

Okay, I agree. These are issues we must take into consideration. But going back to the point, given a choice -- do we want to take care of old people in our own homes, or allow the business of care providers to do it? A lot of what goes into the care of the elderly is compassion and kindness -- money cannot often buy these, especially a business who must make a profit.

Much of this is a matter of definition, but contentment can exist without happiness. Take the person who can have a number of serious health issues but has made peace with them. They can be content, but not necessarily happy. — synthesis

I disagree. Rationalization is much a strategy to remedy a situation. "Has made peace with them" is not gonna cut it for this happiness -- this is not contentment, but acceptance when all else failed.

Oh my, where to begin.

First off, I'm happy to know that our members responding to this thread embody this:

What you call contentment I think is a mature understanding of happiness. — Pantagruel

I will not quote them all, but the above should make my point. One cannot have a feeling of contentment without at the same time being happy. But often, I think, we have a misplaced understanding of happiness. By misunderstanding, I mean, we might for example, call infatuation an instance of happiness, or the high we get when we are in a fun activity (clean and dirty, both, lol), when we're at a party that lasts all night, during holidays when we're shopping, getting together with families, and eating our favorite holiday food. These are not cases of happiness. But short-lived enjoyment that we can benefit from, from time to time.

Happiness is a long-term situation, it's a mature understanding of the state of affairs and how nature works, it's acceptance of all this with a feeling of "I'll be okay" or "I'm okay with it". When you reached this moment of acceptance of your condition, you have contentment, and you are 'happy'.

Of course no one says to accept a wretched condition -- if you find yourself in this situation, please do something to get out of it. Contentment requires work. Don't just accept your situation, work on it, until you can honestly tell yourself "I'm okay".

"What's the biggest lie you were conditioned with"

Intelligence is set.

I actually thought that the debate would be more about whether people are actually able to rise beyond self interest. But, so far no one has challenged that but just queried the whole question of whether it is just a feeling. — Jack Cummins

Talks of compassion is not one for debate. As the replies here show and perhaps in your own personal experiences prove. No one argues against compassion -- but compassion, first and foremost, arises out of empathy -- so feelings here is important. If you could expand your understanding of action to go with compassion, you must include not doing something, in some cases. Not giving up, not performing harmful acts, not changing anything in the current situation because the current situation works., etc.

If could please explain how self-interest go against compassion, that would be helpful.

We all hope that when the end comes, we still will be sharp in mind and have some ability to take care of ourselves. — ssu

We have studies to turn to for topics like this. If you look at profiles of people working well into their 80s and early 90s -- by working, I mean, gainfully employed -- you'll know this is real. So all is not bleak.

People can have only plans what to do, but not the will to implement them. — ssu

Pretty common. So, part of our preparation before we find ourselves in old age situation is to have the will to live and plan accordingly. You don't have to have a lot of money to achieve this -- but sharpness of mind and willingness are definitely a must.

I remember my great-uncle, a former ambassador and a career diplomat, decided with his wife that simply staying at home, going to the supermarket was starting to be too exhausting and hence they went looking for a care home and found a nice one. Then they invited the whole family and relatives to see their now living quarters, basically a normal small flat with their furniture from their old home. I think their success was to make the change before either of them was in too frail condition. — ssu

They are lucky to be able to do this. But many in their old age have a lot less to work on. I guess, we should add that, when old age comes, often the old people are at the mercy of their family members, not the other way around.

I believe that it has been thrown away, into the rubbish bin of philosophy ideas, just when we need it more than ever. — Jack Cummins

I believe it hasn't been thrown away. But compassion is often done in silence -- not broadcasted. It also very often, if not always, starts on a personal (individual) level.

The anti-dote for compassion is abuse or others taking advantage of this notion to get what they want. Sometimes, you hear someone utters "I feel used" or taken for a ride.

I don't understand why philosophy is mentioned here as something to criticize.

Explain yourself first. — TheMadFool

Define complexity, please. Examples do not replace definitions.

Usually it isn't an option that they decide not to take. Without an ample welfare net, the family in general has a far more important role to the individual. I think that this basically is because of necessity, not only because off the differences in culture. — ssu

To be fair, I think the test ultimately should rest on choices available, then we could see how differences in outlook reflect on how people treat the elderly. One family may have the resources or the means to put an old parent in a homecare, but they refuse to do so and decide instead to take care of the parent.

Honestly, to me, the best choice is for the old loved ones to spend their days with family -- yes, to the busy family it could be an inconvenience or emotionally taxing -- but what happened to skills? How come, we put so much importance in social skills in the workplace, we try to be in our best behavior, participating in social gathering, smiling, being nice and sharing; but when it comes to family members, it's an option to be mean or abusive, it's conditional love?

I also hope that we think about our pets as family members.

Gravitating many-body systems are chaotic in the technical sense. — SophistiCat

I didn't know this.

What's silly about it? A black & white photograph is simpler than a color photograph. More parts, more complex. Less parts, less complex. — TheMadFool

Sorry, Fool, but this is painful. Aren't we defining complexity with abandon here?

In quantum mechanics it is not possible to derive a single outcome from a given cause but it is possible to derive a single cause from a given outcome. At least that's how I understood Kenosha Kid's claim that QM is backwards deterministic. — litewave

There is another issue, often ignored, about determinism. And that is, determinism is actualism. This is simply a misunderstanding. We can talk about determinism in a phenomenon without having to prove its actuality. The maximum speed of a curve on a roadway is provided to avoid skidding. The sharpness of the road affects how fast you can drive without skidding -- not skidding is the point here. Our cause is sound because skidding does not happen.

Hopefully I'm making sense here, if not, it's my limitation in ability to explain, not the example, so if anyone can expound on this, I'd appreciate it.

Gravity is chaotic! — SophistiCat

Do you mean unstable?

There are vaccines being developed in the MRL to protect against this very affliction. :cool: — jgill

Surely some of us don't need that vaccine. haha! :blush:

I want to know WHY people choose to go on. It's something I wondered about, why do we take life as a good thing or a given but when someone wishes to die they are "sick". What if they just don't want to do this dance anymore and are just tired. — Darkneos

The will to live. Or what @unenlightened alluded to.

The default stance is that we go on living. So, if our thoughts deviate from this default, we want to know why, what treatment to use. Animals have a built-in "will" to live -- have you seen a dying cat that still tries to climb into the litter box? After the organs start to malfunction and the cat no longer could relieve itself -- it still climbs into the box to relieve itself. It still wants to do its routine, the routine the cat has known for a decade or two.

Even machines want to live forever, believe it or not. I'm using 'want' here in the sense of capability. Clockwork didn't become a household name cause of time-telling. The parts just work together in harmony to avoid stalling. The manufacturers, who are humans, want their machines to live forever. A simple can opener mounted on a wall can function perfectly for 200 hundred years, if maintained.

I don't know man.

There is courage, there is selflessness ( as opposed to self-absorption), there is appreciation for little things. When I found out that olive trees can live up to 200 years old, and that pineapple guava tree can live up to 150 years old, I thought of keeping a property in the family forever -- cause if the property is sold, those trees would be cut down for sure, and that would be a tragedy for me. So, I took over that property to ensure those trees will live their life span.

Vaugueness and Lazyness are both properties that can support philosopher. — Don Wade

I disagree vehemently! Vagueness is a normal feature of philosophical discussion, laziness is not.

Within the realm of philosophical discussion, we can avail ourselves of various treatments for vagueness -- vagueness frequently appears in epistemology and metaphysics. But, laziness is a human condition that existed prior to philosophy and exists outside of it.

many thanks, any idea how i can extend this to 800 words? I'm new to college and had to take extended leave because of my illness and I've no idea whatever about logic — gagandeep

Ah, logical arguments are necessarily concise, but use 1) definitions--"to organize things is to physically arrange them by date, color, usefulness, etc. "

2) set parameters or restrictions (so you're not casting a wide net -- If you're cooking for yourself and family members, it's one thing; but if you're cooking for a large number of people, or people you don't like, then it's a stressful situation)

3) of course, use introduction to set the tone, what you're about to discuss in your essay, etc.

That should easily be 800 words.

But I can't teach you logic -- ask others. You can easily prep by googling how to talk in logical terms.