So, I believe that throughout history people have every right to be paranoid or skeptical. — Shawn

Yes, I'm not going to argue against that, except to note that in the derogatory sense, paranoia is a mental condition that entails some disconnection from reality - not a rights issue. Because we absolutely need to trust others every day to conduct our lives, and because we know that there are bad actors, trust goes along with distrust, and is never absolute, after infancy.

But I maintain that bona fide, as honesty and trust, is what makes any cooperation at all possible; without it, the individual is completely isolated and communication is impossible. even deceit becomes impossible because no one is listening, except for the physical deceits of feints and camouflage, etc.

And the solitary man does not survive.

If you live in Ukraine or Gaza, I can understand, but even there... war is also a cooperative affair.

what should one do about this lack of congeniality in the main stream media? — Shawn

Call it out, rebut, complain, argue, present evidence, demand truth and honesty. Look for the honest actors in the media.

Well there is a saying that only the paranoid survive, which I see fully fleshed out about how we arrive at our decisions based on the current information we have. — Shawn

It is a false saying. Only the cooperative survive in a species such as human that is highly social and highly cooperative. We have to trust each other, even to interact as we are doing right now, otherwise our words would have no value or meaning. One has to start with trust and then be wary of deceit.

I go to the shop, I pay for my food with a card, and trust that the whole human system of bank and card readers and so on works fairly and that the food is fit to eat, and so on. I trust that the bus will tae me home in good order, and at the time on the timetable or thereabouts. One does not notice all the everyday interactions that one relies on to live, but notices the exceptions which are the scammers and cheats. Call them out, call them out, but don't lose your trust in humanity.

I know that it's no longer the times of the Roman Republic; but, seemingly bona fide interactions are hard to come by outside of the law and jurisprudence system(?) — Shawn

Bona fide is the sine qua non of communication.

Therefore every response to your op confirms performatively that bona fide interactions are the rule, not the exception. This is necessarily the case as the lie is necessarily parasitic on truthful communication. At the point where one cannot ever trust the response, one stops asking even such paranoid meta questions as this one.

I am a vegan and have been so for 18 years. — Truth Seeker

Gooder than God. :lol:

I'm sorry. I already said that, but I hadn't realised your total fragility. Just ignore me, and I'll do likewise.

I didn't proselytise. I responded to what you said. The word proselytise means "to induce someone to convert to one's faith" - that clearly is not what I did. — Truth Seeker

No you didn't. I didn't reference the Bible, you did. You responded to a dog whistle like a fanatic because I made a joke that involved the word "God". Other religions are available.

That's not justice. — Truth Seeker

Of course it is. IF God made you, he fucking owns you. Go talk to your breakfast about justice and convince it it wants to be eaten.

Don't proselytise dude, it's considered uncool on this site. And if you want to argue about the Bible, do it with someone who takes the Bible seriously - that's not me!

How is doing what I like the same as justice? — Truth Seeker

My garden - my rules. Slugs and caterpillars are sent to hell, and philosophers get fresh vegetables in due season. When you make a universe, you get to set the rules. You don't let your creation boss you about.

Like I suggested to Mr Bee: since climate change denial and spamming this thread with stupid bullshit doesn’t warrant a banning, the ignore list feature works brilliantly. — Mikie

Yeah, but I'm not trying to convince myself, but to prevent the world from drowning in bullshit for the sake of the community. All that is required for the lie to triumph is for truth tellers to be silent.

Imagine some world of the future where people are picking up the pieces from some cataclysm and they develop a collective. No one owns anything. Everything that's produced is pooled and shared. I'm wondering about whether this is something that dwells in the human potential or not. — frank

Respect for personal property is not enshrined in nature, it is established cooperatively in human societies. In an emergency, the government will requisition whatever it deems to be required for the protection of the people, and that limitation to ownership will also be cooperatively established. It seems hard for some to understand that one cannot have ownership unless others recognise and respect that relation.

Folks might like to read 'The Dispossessed', by Ursula K LeGuin, for a plausible imagining of a cooperative anarchy.

There are some who argue — Jussi Tennilä

There are some who argue that the moon is made of blue cheese. Just say "NO".

While extreme weather due to climate change is on the rise, Matt Devitt, chief meteorologist at Wink News in southwest Florida, says that’s not what’s behind the uptick in falling iguanas – and in turn, the increase in falling iguana warnings and recommended protocol. Instead, we’re hearing about it more frequently because iguanas aren’t native to Florida and their population is beginning to surge.

"The iguanas were brought over from Central and South America in the 1960s and '70s, but the population was limited then," says Devitt. "They’ve exploded in population over the past decade, which is why people are starting to notice what the cold does to them."

Do you read your own sources at all, or is the headline enough for you? Here is a marginal population way outside its normal range and barely surviving until the climate had sufficiently warmed for them to thrive, and now they have become noticeable. But fool that you are, you think this is some kind of counter evidence. What a pathetic idiot!

OK, one more little try.

Evolution relies on what you call 'mistakes' as you well enough know. And the rate of copying 'mistakes' evolves itself because 'error correcting genes' are also a thing. Thus 'mistakes' or as I like to call them 'variations' are more common in some parts of the genome than others.

they will likely push for equally reckless solutions like geoengineering. — Mr Bee

Find Lagrange Point On eBay
Fantastic Prices On Lagrange Point - Shop From Great Retailers On eBay. Find It On eBay. Everything You Love On eBay. Great Selection, Great Prices.

L1 is the one I want, between sun and Earth, and some of that space blanket reflective stuff. It's that bad right now that I want to do some reckless geoengineering If we start to get cold, we can roll up the blanket later. I wonder if they deliver?

If a gene is copied correctly then there is no mistake. If it is copied incorrectly then there is a mistake. — Truth Seeker

"Exactly", I will allow, but "correctly" implies that the gene was "correct" in the first place, which by hypothesis it never was.

Flaws imply design. You might want to put that to your mechanical chat-buddy, which appears to have a few design flaws of its own.

Every species came into existence as a result of genetic mistakes. — Truth Seeker

You do recognise that this is strictly nonsensical. don't you? There can be no mistake unless there is a plan. :scream:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/21/monkeys-mexico-heatwave

The tropics are becoming uninhabitable. Expect the refugees to be called 'economic migrants' or worse.

If I didn't have a duty of care to others, — Truth Seeker

Sounds like faith. :naughty:

Sorry, I have been winding you up. It was not a serious comment in the first place, I was just amused by your religious phobia.

What divine justice? How do you know that there is a "divine justice"? What about everything that has ever happened is just? — Truth Seeker

Divine justice is usually conceived as tautological. Think "I made the world and I make the rules, so I can do what I like." Tautologies, of course, do not require evidence; whatever happens in the world is evidence of Divine justice. You, for example, will probably come to a bad end for asking such an impertinent question. Or, if Divine justice is tempered with Divine mercy, you may be forgiven. This is the great thing about God, it explains everything, and by looking at creation one can discern His character. It is so useful to any thinker who, when asked impossible questions can happily respond "God knows!"

If the past still exists, why can't we visit it and change it? — Truth Seeker

a) That would be tampering with the evidence and divine justice forbids.
b) we don't have the time, because we are always busy being present.

Which theory of time is the most evidence-based? — Truth Seeker

Whatever is evident is given as the present; this can include present memory of the past and, allegedly, the more rare foretelling of prophecy. That is all the evidence.

But when I try to discuss with another member of a serious topic, the interlocutor accuses me of not having a great level of English instead of focusing on the main topic of the OP. I personally don't know whether this is posted with mischief or my lack of 'fluency' is actually the cause of not performing a good discussion.

I wish I could know. I want to improve and maintain 'fruitful' discussions. — javi2541997

Let me say immediately, that I find your posts very often fruitful and improving; actually those are more roles the same thing, I think — the fruit of a discussion is surely a change of mind for the better. And having to try and communicate with one who is struggling a little with the language forces one to be more simple and clear if possible, which is always a good thing, but also makes one rethink for oneself ideas that may have become stale.

But my first thought, reading the above, was that there is an unfortunate tendency to make a discussion into a competition. It's not exactly mischief, but it does tend to undermine what I see as the purpose of discussion. To the extent that one aims to win, one has lost sight of the proper function of communication, which is the development in the community of truth and understanding.

It is easy to score points against someone who is less fluent, and 'prove' them to be wrong. But such behaviour does not look good to anyone else. It looks cheap and egotistic, like beating a novice in chess. I once tried to write some philosophy in French, and it came out like a treatise for primary school, but not a very good one. So I have great admiration for anyone who tries to communicate seriously in a second language, because it is hard enough in one's native language.

In general, I don't think there are special rules that apply to discussion that don't apply to other interactions; respect, kindness, honesty, an intention to both teach and learn as much as possible. Sometimes. as has been pointed out, silence is the best expression of that, but universal silence would be unproductive, and that might suggest that popular threads need more silence and unpopular ones more posts, but other times silence can indicate that there is not much (more) of value to be said.

The Barber of Seville shaves those who don't shave themselves.
Who shaves the Barber then? — jorndoe

The barber of Seville sports a fine manicured beard, or else he shaves himself. Still no paradox.

To produce the paradox, the op needs rephrasing.

"The (male) Barber of Seville shaves all and only those men who do not shave themselves."

This Barber. who might be called @javi, or Jose, or Juan, some such throat clearing appellation, can only shave himself if he does not shave himself, and if he does shave himself, then he does not. Even the Spanish have some difficulty with learning to do this: British barbers regularly cut their clients throats instead and dispose of their bodies in meat pies, to avoid this sort of difficulty.

Lists.
Other people's petty gripes.
Other people.
Everything.

Yes, your grand-grand kids will have to live like cavemen but at least they're not dead! — Benkei

I'm even luckier — my daughters seem to have chosen not to reproduce, so my grandchildren will never die.

Are humans naturally polyamorous or naturally monogamous? — Benj96

I'm on the fence myself, — Benj96

Pervert! I hope the fence consented at least! :scream:

Meanwhile, this is a question that Google can do a better job of not answering properly than any number of amateur philosophers.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2019.00230/full

Maybe let them buy their way off the eligible list with charitable donations. — Vera Mont

Yes of course. The price being to reduce their wealth by charity to below the threshold.

The whole idea of a lottery is to create, normalise, and popularise inequality. Hence the term "winner". How about an anti lottery, where a random multi-millionaire is selected each week and his entire fortune is divided amongst the population?

In other words, what we see in a mirror is an optical illusion? — Gnomon

Assuredly not! As this paper by a famous mathematician demonstrates.

The prosecution rests>



Take anything you want from me — anything!

If you want to be fulfilled, you must first empty yourself, otherwise there will be much overflowing and spillage.

Here is a quote from a link on https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15210/the-idea-that-changed-europe/p1 from @Wayfarer

Also fascinating is Gillespie's detailed analysis of Rene Descartes and Thomas Hobbes. The latter is usually depicted as an atheist (or his religiosity dubious at best) and his philosophy as chiefly political but Gillespie believes him sincerely religious (if not exactly orthodox) and reveals the underlying metaphysical concerns behind his thought.

And so Gillespie says, even in modern times, we are bequeathed with a similar wrestling between humanity's political ambitions (the expansion of freedom) and the inability to reconcile this with science's inherent determinist worldview. Likewise, in the post-9/11/ confrontation with Islam (which makes a brief appearance at the end) we are again confronted with the fideism and absolutism of Islam which sees the West's assertion of individual autonomy as a challenge to God's omnipotence, for whom our only response ought to be obedience.

Here is fundamental point of Gillespie's thesis

"… the apparent rejection or disappearance of religion and theology in fact conceals the continuing relevance of theological issues and commitments for the modern age. Viewed from this perspective, the process of secularization or disenchantment that has come to be seen as identical with modernity was in fact something different than it seemed, not the crushing victory of reason over infamy, to use Voltaire’s famous term, not the long drawn out death of God that Nietzsche proclaimed, and not the evermore distant withdrawal of the deus absconditus Heidegger points to, but the gradual transference of divine attributes to human beings (an infinite human will), the natural world (universal mechanical causality), social forces (the general will, the hidden hand), and history (the idea of progress, dialectical development, the cunning of reason)."

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/707174301


I include it here just to exemplify an (unattributed) Hegelian influence. (unattributed in the review, that is, the book itself is surely more forthcoming?)

Anyway, connections, connections, and I'm planning on coming back to this thread properly shortly - when the planting season and decorating season is past its peak.

If you think that the effort to discern the universal nature of philosophy is not a philosophical enterprise, then you are certainly deceiving yourself. :wink: Thus it always appears simultaneously as the malady, and its own homeopathic remedy.

I will simply suggest that illusion arises as a possibility from the existence of vision, but that does not make blindness preferable. Likewise one can deceive oneself if and only if one can also possibly be honest with oneself. To be open to both possibilities is to already be a philosopher.

But I disagree that the relationship between yeast and sugar has anything to do with valuing. Same with organisms valuing breathing - that is not valuing — Fire Ologist

That's acceptable. I draw the line as low as I can. If you want to draw it higher, so be it, though I would appreciate some indication of where the line is for you and why it is there. For me it is simple, Yeast absorbs sugar and expels CO2; I do the same. Sugar was the foundation of the British Empire and was the main stimulus for the slave trade; sugar is highly valued in human society. So I conclude that yeast is not all that different from humans in terms of its valuation of sugar. I have not actually consulted a yeast cell on the matter.

But conclude the human is nothing special? — Fire Ologist

Oh no, I did not conclude that! Rather I left folk to consider what is special; I am glad you have engaged. This is a perennial question that, the more one examines nature, the harder it is to articulate an easy answer. Apes, orca, and ants show intelligence and social cohesion and communication, various species use tools, care for their young, and so on.

Personally, I rest, for the moment, with the observation that I am human, and so human values have special value to me. We are born into dependency, unable to feed ourselves or navigate the world, and because we depend for our lives on being valued by [m]others, our concern for human values is vital.

With the “self” creating its own values with words like “self” as in “I value coffee”, values need not relate to anything else but the self, which is like the rock which values nothing. — Fire Ologist

This is where things get complicated, and I skated over it with 'infinite value'. And it is where we leave nature for the landscape of thought. The self, I would say, is a structure of thought that distinguishes I from not-I. (It is always the small words that contain the deepest philosophical difficulty)

This means that the simple "I value coffee." is actually ambiguous between a factual behavioural statement of this individual's habit in relation to coffee, and a description of this individual's self-understanding of its habit in relation to coffee.

It is in the ambiguity that one can then reflect on one's own value to oneself, and conclude that oneself is necessary to any value whatsoever, and is therefore of infinite value. But notice that this is pure thought, not limited by physicality. And that is why it can also become inverted, as Vera pointed out above. The negative value of suffering is also infinite.

And any suicide doesn’t value breathing at all.
— Fire Ologist
Or values something - e.g. the cessation of pain - more highly than breathing. — Vera Mont

But neither is 'true' in the sense of representing a matter of fact.

And any suicide doesn’t value breathing at all. — Fire Ologist

You or they may make the claim, but they will be contradicted as they make it by the fact - that they are breathing as they claim not to value breathing.

That’s not what valuing means. — Fire Ologist

Yes it is. In order to make it an exclusively human affair, you would have to define it as an entirely cerebral and verbal affair, whereas it is commonly experienced as visceral, even where it concerns such elevated topics as poetry or music.

We can value anything, and everything, or nothing. — Fire Ologist

I disagree with you here. One can claim to value anything or nothing, certainly, but try not valuing breathing, and not only is it very difficult to stop breathing, so that one discovers the value rather quickly, but if one should succeed to the point of losing consciousness, the organism will automatically start breathing again as soon as the bullshitter becomes unconscious.

The value of a single human life?

I believe the individual experiences and safety of every individual on the planet is equal. And I strive for the safety and security of my own life and those immediately connected to me with an unwavering urge for my appreciation for life and it's right to exist.

And I believe that is universal. — Gingethinkerrr

I agree. I think you are right. But we are not done there, let's try and ask why it is so, and look at each word and elucidate. Let's try and persuade everyone else, that we don't just believe for no reason but that this is a true moral principle that we all should live by.

I'll start with "value". 'Value' is a relational term; X values Y. Straight away, it seems we are necessarily talking about a living thing as X. So, yeast values sugar; dung beetles value dung; birds value worms; I value a morning coffee. But a rock values nothing, it is all the same to if it crumbles or melts or falls in the sea or falls into the sun.

So life is the source of values. One might suggest that an individual life has infinite value to itself, as the source of all its values. So far so good, but what makes humans so special? I'll leave it there for now.

I think this answers very clearly what is and what is not possible in this regard.

–—

And brought into the official record by the Orange Turd's own lawyer, who drew attention to the epithet and insisted on the naming being made explicit.

And then tried to use it to claim a mistrial. Whose side is she on? Trump's of course, but Trump is his own worst enemy. Trying to shame a porn-star is like trying to spice up a chilli pickle.

Does life have any potential to be anything beyond suffering, or is that too much of a pessimistic stance? I cannot see life as anything other than this, but it could also be something that we simply create out of life. — Arnie

Well to be alive is to be sensitive, and to be sensitive is to be vulnerable. That which lives must die. As I get older, I find myself subject more and more to aches and pains of knees and feet and stomach and so on.
There is certainly no shortage of suffering, if one sees the news, or spends a little time in a hospital, one can feel overwhelmed by it. But I think that suffering is pain compounded by rejection, the attempt to escape, and fear of continuation. Athletes speak of 'the pain barrier', as something to be overcome as a necessary step on the way to excellence. This attitude, that accepts pain, and moves towards and through it serves to greatly reduce suffering, by making pain a price one pays willingly for some other thing, which I will call "love".

You may have heard that love hurts, and that is true, because to love is to be sensitive and vulnerable, and to be so willingly. One is painstaking in the service of that which one loves; one takes the trouble and suffers for one's art - or one's wife, or one's sport, or in my case, my garden.

if these workers aren't forced then it maybe a good thing that teenagers and old people can work if they want to or the pay is attractive enough to them. — boethius

Maybe it is a good thing! Maybe it's a good thing if the Russian economy is collapsing.

the point of my little lecture about the unemployment statistics is that if you need to resort to the argument that low unemployment is some "great tragedy" that has befallen the Russian people then that's pretty much scraping the bottom of the barrel of available gripes. — boethius

Well the point of your little lecture looks a little weak. I have now given three sources indicating a bit of a labour shortage to a critical labour shortage. I haven't mentioned the floods, that were not very well coped with, or the refinery repairs and defences that are happening very slowly, and I haven't gone into the details of population statistics that exacerbate the dual effects of war casualties and emigration of workers.

The real difficulty that I see is that the population is not enthusiastic about the war. There's no doubt there's some 'dig to survive' around, but not much 'dig for victory'.