All basic primary instincts are a function of biology and can be modified once people finally begin to understand how the brain works. Just because something is "basic" doesn't mean it can't be changed. — YuZhonglu

I think that's possible in some cases, although not desireable in all. Parental nurturing instincts are a good thing. We should both aim to understand and foster such good inclinations.

Blabbing" implies incoherence or idleness or superfluity or that what a person is saying doesn't qualify as worthwhile. Your lack of understanding doesn't qualify or disqualify my commentary. — whollyrolling

Your lack of coherence doesn't make a good case for you not babbling.

Being a mother isn't some qualifier for higher knowledge, that's absurd. — whollyrolling

All sane parents know what I said is true.
Some non-parents don't know it (including you).

Your examples are beyond ridiculous.

Claiming someone is "blabbing" is not contributing to the conversation, it's just ad hominem nonsense intended to discredit what is misunderstood. — whollyrolling

It's not an ad hominem, since I've said nothing about you as a person. I also didn't claim you are blabbing. I stated it as a hypothetical possibility contingent on the purpose and content of your words.

What does being a mother have to do with this? — whollyrolling

Then you'd know that self-preservation is only one of the primal instincts. Protecting another or others can (for parents) be just as primal and instinctual, if not more.

My intent was to play on a colloquialism, something that I assumed everyone was aware of, "you think (everything, the world, the universe, etc.) revolves around you". — whollyrolling

I understand the colloquialism. But in the context of this specific thread, it takes on new meaning. Unless, of course, you're just blabbing and not actually contributing to the conversation?

It is a basic primary instinct to act to preserve the self, though it's not unconditional. It is tertiary, and I don't believe instinctive but optional and often very difficult, to act to preserve the species. — whollyrolling

You're clearly not a mother.

My guess (and hope) is that people mean "the universe seems to revolve around them", from their slightly skewed perspective. — Bitter Crank

You'll have to ask wholly if that's what he means. My reading of his post was that he thinks we all think it DOES.

I didn't come close to assuming or implying that — whollyrolling

You literally did. You said "all" humans think the universe revolves around humans.

It's narcissistic for me to think that I'm better at philosophy than the rest of you. It's also true — S

Dream on! :kiss:

That's correct, the rest of the world is "determined" by its own narcissism. — whollyrolling

It's narcissistic to assume we're all like you :P

But we're also genetically programmed to be social beings, so I think our very nature drives us in two directions.

It seems to me to be the case that human are self-centered. — Bitter Crank

I think that's probably true in a sense. We often act selfishly and think only of ourselves.

Few, however, would seriously maintain that the universe actually revolves around them in the way that the earth revolves around the sun.

Which doesn't matter because it only illustrates my point — whollyrolling

No, it's only a reflection on you. The rest of the world is not determined by your narcissism.

You highlighted a small portion of my comment and stated that you don't think it's true. You took it out of context, so now that you've replied I'm not sure what you're replying to, my full comment or your excerpt from it. That humans are self-centred has been demonstrated for thousands of years and i we have yet to demonstrate otherwise. — whollyrolling

You're proving yourself to be one of those self-centered persons right now.

Well there you have it. You don't even have to give it any consideration, it's not you though it may be others, specifically the person who so audaciously suggested it. — whollyrolling

Not sure what you'e saying here.

If you disagree, then maybe you can explain how your consciousness in particular is uniquely altruistic. — whollyrolling

I don't think it is.

Why are we all — whollyrolling

Speak for yourself!

Universe revolves around the human consciousness. — whollyrolling

I don't think that's true in the least.

Doesn't change the fact that you are and that you are thinking.

You realize Descartes already thoroughly tackled this question? Even the most ardent of skeptics comes to two irreducible facts: cogito ergo sum. You think and therefore you are.

Anytime :smile:

You're clicking the dots on someone else's post. You have to click your own.

The three dots under the post you want to edit and then the pencil. (In my opinion :P)

You need to reference the person you're responding to in posts here or it gets confusing. In my opinion.

Condense it into something understandable. I know that website and it's virtually unreadable. — YuZhonglu

It's just your opinion that it's unreadable.

It's MY opinion that if you can look at such an accurate website and get a general idea of what's being said, then you have no idea what you're talking about here.

I've given a partial definition of "fact." Give me your definition and I'll answer your question. — YuZhonglu

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/

Is it a fact that you strongly believe you have opinions?

Is it a fact that you have opinions?

No, I'm fairly confident in my opinion that all facts are just strongly held opinions — YuZhonglu

Is that a fact?

But the moment a human talks about reality, they're just expressing their opinion. When they say "fact," what they mean is "an opinion I'm really confident about." — YuZhonglu

Oh, so if I just think to myself "absolute relativism is wrong" then it's a fact as long as I keep my mouth shut about it?

Yeah, okay, I'm definitely not saying that (out loud).

Obviously you are assuming a definition of ideas such that they have no existence other than their occurring to us and then going on to tautologously conclude that ideas cannot be anything beyond our having them or knowing about them. — Janus

Yes, I am assuming the very much established definition of a common word.

I realize I'm pointing out the obvious. You're the one trying to redefine the word. Proving that definition is your job, not mine.

There is no one way to do philosophy, as long as all of those ways include thinking deeply about some aspect of ontology, epistemology, and axiology (which is about all there is).

That being said, there are more productive ways to do it. The tried and true method of the ancients is dialogue. And that's what we have here!

If your point only is that academia has disciplines labeled "philosophy" and "biology," then yeah, that's true.

My point is, that this is like the word "cat." We may commonly understand "cat" to be our little purring fur-angels (I like my cat, if you couldn't tell :P) but "tiger" and "leopard" and "lynx" are also kinds of cats, even though they are in some ways classified differently from house cats.

Thinking about it, however, I've been reconsidering my stance on the mere data-gathering parts of science. Those particular activities may not be very philosophical, but biology only matters and is able to do or say anything meaningful by subsequently philosophizing about that data. It's a central part of the discipline.

So, in assuming your conclusion, you assert. — Janus

You're going to have to elaborate more clearly than that.

You said "if something is just an idea"; I corrected it to read "if something is just our idea" — Janus

All ideas are our ideas. They cannot exist apart from cogent beings.

No, that does not logically follow. If something IS just our idea, then it can by definition not be more than our thinking. — Janus

So you agree with me.

By asking what it is, you are already assuming its existence — Daniel

I assume the idea of it exists. That does not mean the Ding an sich exists.

Your conclusion is not logically entailed, but we would need good reason to think that something which is just an idea could be more than our thinking it, believing it and/or knowing about it. — Janus

If something IS just an idea, then it can by definition not be more than our thinking.

I am saying the idea of those things exists. — Daniel

You're just all over the place.

I can't know something that is just an idea? If something is just an idea, then all it IS is what we KNOW about it.

What is a unicorn? — Daniel

For the love....I call troll.

If you know what something is then there is no need to ask yourself if it exists because it certainly does. — Daniel

I know what Santa Claus is, doesn't mean he exists....

Sigh. And we're right back where we started. Again, let's just agree to disagree. I'd prefer not to repeat myself ad infinitum.