In my opinion definitely a need.

Most people need to work to survive.

Take away that need, and then you enter the world of the rich. They don't need anything.

So they need to find something to do with their lives.

Like I said, try visiting a homeless shelter, and a pet store. See if you are interested in helping animals or people. There is also the Red Cross.

Russell was not infallible. His two greatest fallacies were (1) thinking math exists outside of the human mind and (2) subscribing to atheism. Other than this, he is a good starting point for a newbee with his history of western philosophy. Better than Plato.

You really need to get up and go. Wallowing will just make things worse. You're not going to accomplish anything in bed.

Bed satisfies the need for sleep. Once you have slept enough you need to get up and do something.

I try to keep my list of needs short. Guess that makes me a Stoic like Marcus Aurelius, the most famous Stoic of all.

Needs:

1 - oxygen

2 - physical warmth & shelter from the elements

3 - sleep

4 - water

5 - food

6 - safety

7 - a purpose for living

Infinite is a rather vague word.

Is space infinite? This is a valid question.

Is the mind infinite? This is an invalid question.

Sorry, but that's how I see it.

Judaism and Christianity load a person with a ton of guilt from the get-go.

If you can avoid this brainwashing you will be infinitely better off.

If someone is a fanatic then the best thing is to keep away from them.

Intelligence is the capacity of the Mind to work through complex situations and come up with an appropriate response, yes. Good job. You are right.

How ?!

1 - get out of bed.

2 - take a shower, shave, brush your teeth and get dressed.

3 - google the local rescue groups in your agency.

4 - go to a pet shop and ask if they need volunteers.

5 - go to the local Red Cross and ask if they need volunteers.

He/she must be a good therapist then !!

Don't get side tracked on Plato's fantasies. They are as bad as religion is for deceiving people. And the problem with religion is that once you lose your religion then you ethics go out the window with it.

Children must learn many things. Here is a short list:

1 - How to play nicely together.

2 - Not to hurt anybody else.

3 - How to tell the truth always.

4 - Not to play with fire.

5 - Not to play in or near traffic.

6 - Boys should never hit girls.

7 - Girls should not hit each other.

8 - From Disney, if you cannot say something nice do not say anything at all.

9 - How to share their toys.

10 - Never to take anything that belongs to someone else.

11 - From DHS, if you see something say something.

12 - Always be respectful of their teachers and parents.

13 - The principal is your pal.

Do something. That will shake it off, yes.

You must be independently wealthy if you don't need to hold down a job of some kind. That is the only way I could imagine that you can lie in bed all day long like Descartes himself.

My solution to your situation would be to volunteer with some organization and make that your cause.

If I could I would try to help feral cats. I love cats. But there are other rescue groups you can join.

Charitable work tends to fall into 3 categories -- animal rescue, or saving the Earth, or helping people in distress such as the homeless. Which ever of these appeals to you most would be the best for you.

Depression stems from a lack of purpose. Once you have a purpose in life then you will become more enthusiastic about living.

I learned all this in grad school in marketing. The rich are a separate category of target markets and they have their own special needs. Since they have no need to work for a living they usually get involved in volunteer work.

Your list is a good starting point for fallacies. Ultimately you can consider all fallacies as simply appeals to emotion of some kind.

It is good to bear in mind that Aristotle is the first philosopher to compile a list of fallacies. He probably got his from the regular rhetorical practices of the Sophists in ancient Athens.

Today there are extended lists of fallacies available for us to refer to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

I support and subscribe to Russell's notion of putting Religion in its own separate box and treating it as both non-scientific and also non-philosophical.

Most religions have a component of ethics in them. But that's the only similarity.

Reality has a structure to it, yes, and it looks mathematical.

But our own mathematical models are no guarantee that we are even close to understanding it.

So our own invention of human-created mathematics is just an invention we use to come close.

This is all very pleasant and entertaining. But it is NOT where I would steer a novice to learn Philosophy.

A good graduate school thesis would be "how did Western Philosophy graduate from the idealism of Plato to the realism of British Empiricism?"

Perception is reality !!

Philosophy is supposed to free you from any dogmas and all brainwashing. With a skill set in Philosophy you should be able to free your mind.

Modern Philosophy is not an Augustine approach. We are not chained to a book translated out of ancient Greek and Hebrew.

Just want the newby to know that Plato is not the only thing. Indeed it is a big mistake.

I would not waste my time on Plato.

If you waste your time on every philosopher mentioned in history you would have a lot of knowledge about irrelevant and flawed systems.

Nihilism is a popular concept in Buddhism and Hinduism.

In Philosophy it is the opposite view of the Mind.

You can google "the mind in philosophy" or you can read Roger Scruton's book on Modern Philosophy and the chapter on Mind.

I'm not interested in sociology. I am interested in Philosophy.

Back to the original matter though, Russell teaches everyone to put Philosophy, Science, and Religion into 3 different baskets and keep them separated at all times.

You seem to be more like Augustine mixing religion with philosophy. He had no choice. He was under the thumb of the Pope.

You at least have a choice. You may choose Theism, Deism, Agnosticism, Atheism, Nihilism or any other -ism.

Most philosophers are Deist or Agnostic.

There is no justification for Theism or Atheism. These two are belief systems not supported by Philosophy.

Immigration law and policy is a status quo issue.

All nations limit entry. This suggests there is nothing wrong with it, although on its face it is a populorum justification.

Unlimited entry creates a security issue and also a burden on the taxpayers issue. This suggests that limited entry is justifiable on the basis of the welfare of the citizens. So I will go with that as a good justification.

Numbers of new entrants is a macroeconomic issue, plain and simple. How many new entrants can a national economy afford to accept? This is just a number crunching issue.

Nihilism is the exact opposite of Mind. It is a proposition. It is not a proof.

Sounds like a contradiction to me.

"We know that Tim does not achieve Heaven therefore the argument fails."

You have lots of different questions rolled up into one. And this clutters the matter. Try uncluttering it.

Good vs not good is an ethical issue.

Pain vs pleasure is an Epicurean issue.

Etc.

You must learn to phrase your questions in a more neutral manner.

Right now you have loaded the question. This is a fallacy according to any list of fallacies by any philosophy organization. A loaded question is a form of affirmation of the consequent or even shifting the burden.

Constant change is one of the proofs of God by Aquinas.

There must be One Thing that never changes. That thing is God.

Roughly quoting.

You really need to read Russell's book.

Precisely right -- as you age you become less concerned with death since it is inevitable for all things and all persons. As you age you realize that death is inevitable and that it will happen to you sooner if not later. And ultimately the afflictions of extreme old age make death a gift especially as you consider the ancient Greek myth about Tithonos who shrank to the size of a grasshopper with immortal old age.

Philosophy considers the metaphysics of death and the ultimate fate of the mind after death.

Philosophy gives us the understanding and wisdom to face death with courage. Death is something we accept.

Even more puzzling is the metaphysical question of what were be before we were born? And the most logical response is that our minds existed before birth as well. This creates the least contradictions and dilemmas. We are already immortal. We simply dispose of our bodies when they grow too old to function anymore. We most likely have no beginning, even as the God of Aquinas (the First Cause, etc.) and the God of Aristotle (the Prime Mover) has no beginning.

I agree with you. However for a new entrant into the world of Philosophy I believe that Aristotle is a much better starting point. That was my main point.

Plato's system of Philosophy has many fallacies which a novice would probably not be able to recognize. That's why Plato is hazardous as a starting point.

The best thing about Plato is that he was the mentor of Aristotle. However Aristotle saw through the mistakes of his teacher himself and set out to refute them.

"... a sense of realness" is NOT reality.

Reality follows patters which we can infer through scientific observation and measurement.

However the math that we humans have invented to approximate it is not reality.

Is that enough yet?

Be careful about confusing religion with philosophy.

If you don't yet know the difference then a good book to read is Bertrand Russell's book "History Of Western Philosophy."

You have mentioned several religions. I have mentioned none.

I am talking about philosophy not religion.

Plato's books on The Republic are a classic, however not very useful.

Plato himself was frustrated with Athens and with democracy due to the execution of his teacher Socrates. Socrates was charged with corrupting the youth in his school with notions that there was no evidence for Zeus and his Pantheon. The ancient Greeks were very religious and superstitious and they feared that to leave Socrates unpunished would be to offend the Gods.

But the Athenians gave Socrates every chance to escape punishment by exile. Socrates was simply stubborn and decided to stay. He should have left. There were plenty of islands in the Aegean where he could have resettled. Miletus is the classic example.

Anyway that is the background.

Plato wrote his Republic to mirror the Spartan government, only instead of being ruled by two kings Plato invents a philosopher-king. The idea is ludicrous.

As Machiavelli and Nietzsche later explained, government is the will to power and nothing less.

So Plato is pretty much a big waste of time. Even Aristotle would agree with me on this.

If you are starting from scratch I would recommend Aristotle.

However in universities they start with a survey of the history of Philosophy such as that written by Bertrand Russell. If you read Russell's book just beware of his prejudice in favor of atheism. Don't be deceived by it.

I always vote early and by mail.

I voted only for GOP candidates for the U.S. Senate and only for DEM candidates for the House Of Reps.

I want divided government back. If Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell cannot agree on legislation then I do not want it to pass.

My wishes have been fulfilled. The Senate is still in control of the GOP and the House has been taken over by the DEMs.

What about you? Did you vote? Were your goals achieved during the midterms?

You have no proof of what you fear, therefore your fear is unfounded.

As Roger Scruton himself points out, death has happened to everyone and everything for millions of years. Therefore one should simply accept it.

It is best to simply forget. If you can also forgive that is more noble.

Revenge is never appropriate unless you are talking about evicting a person from your circle.

And if you think you can succeed in evicting them from your business then that is also appropriate.

But nothing more personal than that.

A dangerous question to ask.

As I recall Hamlet was pondering this while on the point of suicide.

Aquinas' God has placed us here for some purpose.

To void that purpose by one's own hand is defiance of that God.

To make an enemy of God is the greatest failure a person could commit.

While I do not fault anyone in extreme pain facing terminal death to end their own suffering, I would say anything short of that would be a moral crime and in defiance of God.

I would say that Philosophy should remain a pure art and not be corrupted with money.

Philosophers are normally professors or teachers or mathematicians or something else by profession, and Philosophy is their adjunct profession. That's how it has always been for thousands of years since ancient Greece.