Well a symbolic gesture is better than nothing isnt it?
Also, you seem mighty certain Trump will lose, i remember that kind of certainty the first time round. Aside from feelings and the notion only an idiot would vote for Trump this time around, what makes you so sure?

That in no way addresses my question. Was Israel at war with either of those nations, or at least military conflict of some kind? If not, it can hardly be considered making peace.
It seems like a symbolic gesture, which isnt a bad thing but its not really due the framing of making peace you have given it. (But I may be ignorant of certain facts that make this a more significant move towards a peaceful middle east, hence my question).

Arent those pretty much symbolic?

Are there any global industries that aren't? Corporate vision is amazingly shortsighted and insane considering they are supposed to be the best and the brightest, the “winning” people.

Interesting, thanks.

There are plenty of equally esoteric threads going on, but Ill concede theists have shitty arguments if thats what you mean. The line gets a bit blurry when the discourse has sunken into philosophical poverty like some of the current threads.

What makes you think that? (The Athenian exposure bit)

Perhaps its because the current discussions going on are so poor and the topics so uninteresting one is forced to look among the unliving threads for something to discuss.

I think people are getting what they want from my answers. — Gus Lamarch

Not if what they want is a clear answer. Maybe your right and everyone talking to you is a bad actor, but if you used some charity when considering why your message isnt getting across then you might also consider the possibility that people do not understand exactly what you mean. (Rather than having some shortcoming or bias that prevents them from doing so.)
If you then ask why they arent getting it you can consider that you might need to expand on your ideas so that they do, as opposed to just repeating the same thing you yourself notice they didnt get the first time.

This person is a proof of it. — Gus Lamarch

Well if that was proof, it would only be proof of one persons error.

Third time I quote myself here because people only read what agrees with them. — Gus Lamarch

I dont think people are picking up on what you are expecting them to. You might want to try expanding on what you mean, break it down, instead of just repeating it. Just a non-hostile suggestion.

Alright, thanks. Now im curious why you responded with such hostility lol
Did you think I was being disingenuous?

That sounds like most people, not just racists. Anything other than admitting they are wrong or that they dont know, ad hoc rationalisations etc etc, all very human.

Thank you I appreciate that.

Lol, no Im not. I was just curious about whether or not your adamancy about defining “god” before discussing has ever actually resulted in a definition that you were not atheistic about. I'm not sure why you are so hostile, it was just an honest question. No reason not to be a lady.

I think a good question for him would be:

Are you resentful that you''re not God? — Gus Lamarch

I always find it very rude when someone uses a response to me to actually be talking to someone else. Please don’t involve me in your squabbling sir.

No, I do not. Does that mean you will answer my question now?

Are there any gods that you wouldn't be an atheist about? Have you ever had god defined in a way you weren’t atheistic about (without the term “god” being a simple placeholder for something else like “universe” or “happiness” of course)?

You can see where I'm going with this. There are some great conversations out here, but there are also pages of pointless back & forth posts repeating the same things over & over and/or insulting and/or cursing out one another. Why? What does this accomplish? Do people get some sort of pleasure and/or satisfaction out of this? — EricH

The good discussions are had by those here for discussion. The other folks you mention arent here for discussion, they are here to soapbox, to vent their dogma, to expound on some pet argument and/or to satisfy weak/insecure ego. Also, some just cant seem to tell the difference between philosophy and therapy. So yes, its about pleasure/satisfaction, with a wide spectrum of what gives that pleasure/satisfaction. The hope is that most are here for discussion, but the discourse just doesnt bear that out.

Someone recently called me a bot. <Sarcasm> Oh no! That wounded me to the core of my being - I'm going to introspect for the next 6 months until I can figure out the errors in my thinking. </sarcasm> — EricH

Thats exactly what a bot would say :wink:

(and he extends this to the idea of treating beliefs AS actions. We can't tolerate certain beliefs and we must treat them as fait accompli actions. Interesting what happens if you apply this to his beliefs about torture,say) — Coben

Thats the first sentence of a paragraph, which explains what exactly he meant by that. Perhaps you disagree with it, but thats not the same as “dumb”.

I believe that I have successfully argued for the use of torture in any circumstance in which we would be willing to cause collateral damage (p198)

Given what many of us believe about the exigencies of our war on terrorism, the practice of torture, in certain circumstances, would seem to be not only permissible, but necessary. (p199)

What is it about that you think is dumb?

I dont know that it would factor in per say. It may or may not, the society good be nihilistic, or the individual not nihilistic. All depends on each specific instance, thats why I mentioned that before. Its too complex to make general statements or conclusions.

I would say yes to that. Until it evolves out of us humans will always express individuality, in fact id go so far as to say that its only the conformity to society that weakens this natural instinct of individuality. I think it does that on a scale/spectrum. Certain societies will be better or worse for the sense of individuality.

The individual's existence is already an eternal battle against the external environment. I don't see a "truce" being made between the individual and the collective. — Gus Lamarch

I think I can agree with that.

Its that the concept of individuality doesn't make sense - to me - when applied to a completely hegemonic population, without religious, cultural or social differences. It seems to me that the individual "dies" when an absolute truth has been completely reached and everyone believes in it. — Gus Lamarch

I think by definition the individual “dies” in this complete hegemony, but only because you defined it so. Am I misunderstanding? It seems like you are essentially asking “if there was an environment with no individuality would there be any individuality?”.

Well thats an example of someone trying to get others to express individuality, not Majorians self expression of individuality. You asked whether or not someone can be an individual in that specific society, not whether an individual can change that society. In the latter, its more a question about how a populace changes or doesnt change regardless of the environment, where as in the former its the reverse: can the individual resist the environment?
So I think you are juggling two questions here. I Believe what I said initially about individuality stands, but to the second question about a populace/society changing their absolute beliefs I think its much more complex. Psychology, habit, adversity, the power/influence of the would be changer, desperation or prosperity of the populace, the structure or content of the absolute belief...there are so many factors Im not sure it can be reduced to a single, widely applicable answer. Its going to depend on the details, the specific instance.

Of course, in so much as an environment is able to be opposed/ignored by each individual within it.
Im not sure where the conundrum lies here...if the individual subscribes to a social environment, they subscribe to the level of individuality permitted by that social environment, if any. If they do not subscribe then they have no restrictions on being an individual. If the person subscribes but doesnt always follow the rules, then they have individuality proportionate to the degree to which they go against or ignore the environment. Finally, if they subscribe to the social environment but privately (mentally or otherwise) exercise individuality then they are able to be individuals to whatever extent they are able to have privacy (of thought or otherwise).

Thats true, there is always resistance from that crowd. I guess I more mean people who are against certain intellectuals who aren’t necessarily the fringe left. Harris is often attacked with strawmen, accusations of racism and bigotry with no basis, misrepresentations of his political views etc. People will straight up lie in attempts to smear him...they so despise him that they can justify dishonesty. I see it with others too, like if you disagree with the person you have to hate them and do whatever you can to discredit them regardless of its legitimacy. Ezra Klein is a good example of this with Harris, even though Harris let it get to him it was clear to me Ezra wasnt arguing In good faith and I know from other exchanges that Ezra knew he was misrepresenting Harris.

I agree with you, I think Harris is a very good communicator. Id say his job is a public intellectual, if that term means anything.
People hate him though, so the clarity of his points gets lost in the emotional reactions he provokes in people. There are a few of these public figures that are like that, the mere mention of their names taps into a ready waiting mob that feel like they need to tear him down.

Before answering your question, I would remind that not to be a "genuine philosopher" isn't negative or condescending (perhaps in our times it would be the opposite). Being a "philosopher" is as loose or even looser than being a historian. — ssu

I understand, I was just curious what your criteria was.
From what you posted, it seems like you just mean a professional or working philosopher?

What makes a philosopher “genuine”?

Which one of his works was that in?

No I agree with you. Forum has been a bit toxic of late.

That surely has something to do with it, we are social creatures and thats where it all comes from. Once we soar on the wings of reason, thats where things get interesting ethically.

That coincides with your brand of egoism. Im more of a social contract guy myself, and I dont much buy into principal based ethics. I think you are right about tactical compassion as the basis or origin of morals, but there is also a strong biological basis in empathy as well. Its not tactical to have compassion for an injured child or animal for example. (Well, not necessarily anyway).

Ok, I understand. :up:

if you think about it, moral value must begin when the ability to suffer begins, in regards to NU, right? So in regards to abortion, it is wrong to kill as soon as the foetus is sentient. — JacobPhilosophy

I think you are correct, under NU suffering is the qualifier for moral agency.

However, If one were to reject NU, and merely believe that it is wrong to cause suffering, this would surely justify murdering new-borns, wouldn't it? I'm reinforcing this concept as it do not like it as an outcome and I struggle to figure out how to avoid it. I often see a suffering-less death as equal to never having been born in many regards. — JacobPhilosophy

Well a newborn can suffer, so again that is only part of the calculation made under NU. You must also consider the net happiness.
It seems like you reject NU but do not want to reject it. Is there some reason you think NU is what you should be subscribing to?

Well you would make a utilitarian calculation on the babies net suffering and net happiness. Under NU you would first consider minimising suffering and then look at the net happiness.
Im not aware of a strictly Utilitarian/NU precept about when someone is considered a moral agent.

Btw I know I am embarrassingly ignorant, but I ask questions in order to gain a deeper understanding, so forgive me. — JacobPhilosophy

Nothing to forgive, asking questions is the essence of philosophy in my opinion.

maximising pleasure is a consequence of minimising suffering. How can it be immoral to not bring pleasure to an individual? This seems irrational. When ethics are concerned, we do not feel that it is unethical to decide not to cause pleasure, but we find it unethical to cause suffering. Therefore I feel it seems irrational to say that "potential pleasure" being restricted is a reason why it is immoral, as the same argument can be used for not conceiving in the first place, and nobody says it's immoral to use a condom. — JacobPhilosophy

Then you are rejecting NU, and your initial query about NU is moot.
Also, NU (and just Utilitarianism) isnt about maximising pleasure, its about maximising net happiness (As a primary precept of Utilitarianism and a secondary precept of NU).

In addition, it could be argued that the pleasure of the parents is increased, as they no longer have the child that they didn't want, and the child experienced neither pleasure nor pain, so therefore it is ethical. — JacobPhilosophy

The child not experiencing pleasure or pain isnt enough for NU, NU demands that after considering the minimising of the childs suffering you must then consider maximising net happiness of the child. If you do not, as you have not dine here, then you violated NU.

If you do not want to make that consideration and speak of general ethics then you can also just go ahead and not make the minimising suffering consideration as well since as you’ve noticed it doesnt make much sense when you operate in that precept alone.

I think you misunderstand NU. Its true that it is primarily concerned with minimising suffering, but that doesnt mean it has no other precepts. NU is also concerned with maximising happiness just like normal utilitarianism, its just a lesser priority than minimising suffering. So while murdering newborns might be ok under the primary precept of NU, it violates other precepts of NU. (Many of which come from utilitarianism, but NU directly references maximising happiness as well as minimising suffering none the less)
So you arent using the proper metrics of NU when you conclude its ok to murder newborns. Once you do, murdering newborns is no longer ok under NU.

You sure can be thick headed. His point in repeating that same thing in in response to your repeated question is his way of of saying “sorry Timmy, your use of “fuck you” has ended my desire to converse with you, Timmy”.
Its obvious he has retired even the small amount of cordiality he has in his responses to you. Should be obvious anyway, but you relentlessly carry on as if you haven't poisoned The well with 3017amen. Why do you do that?

Howd I do @3017amen? That pretty much sum it up?

Well ok, but there was more to what I said than just that.