.

You don't appear to understand metaphor or colloquialism, so let me explain. I didn't mean that all humans are convinced that the universe literally circles around an axis literally at the location of their brain. 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".

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.

There may be psychiatrists who could prescribe something to make his "preaching" go away.

I didn't come close to assuming or implying that.

So does the propagation of an idea.

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

Which doesn't matter because it only illustrates my point, but in what way?

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.

See, this is what I'm saying in the other thread, some of your comments are entertaining.

I'm differentiating between obvious and overt because one has intent and one doesn't. Honestly I don't know how to highlight quotes yet, I'm fairly new to the site. I've read some of your entries and have noticed patterns, but I would need some time and knowledge of the functionality of the site in order to quote them.

You do philosophize, and don't get me wrong, I have no complaints about your character, and some of your comments are entertaining, but there is a definitive bias toward a religion of choice that is often voiced unprompted amid comments. There is a belonging to a collective that you express that implies you perceive not yourself but a group you belong to as an intellectual authority.

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

You're preaching, not philosophizing. It's not just obvious, it's overt. I see people doing this regularly with impunity from behind the veil of some religions but not others.

Why are we all so compelled to place ourselves at the centre of all things. It's as if the Sun revolves around the Galaxy, the Earth revolves around the Sun, and the Universe revolves around the human consciousness. Doesn't anyone think this is a bit skewed?

My existence is not mandatory as far as I have observed. It is an infinitesimal function of a greater whole and is wholly expendable.

It is a claim as a result of the brain, yes, but it is a fact independent from the brain.

Consciousness is a tool of microorganisms that we interpret as being our domain due to the nature of its function--self-awareness--which is mandatory for the fabrication of inorganic intelligence--a prerequisite to interplanetary, and in turn perhaps intergalactic, propagation of species.

They most certainly do. They exist in other humans outside the singular human, and apart from that in other animals, and apart from that in everything down to the smallest living organism, and apart from that down to the smallest subatomic particle. This body belongs to, and is comprised of, the constituents of its environment. To separate it as if it's somehow enchanted beyond the sum of its parts is both religious and absurd.

Observation is not generated by the brain, it exists outside the brain and is interpreted by the brain. It is a function of the environment to impress something upon the brain, not a function of the brain to impress something upon the environment. The brain is an aspect of the environment and acts accordingly via automated processes. There is no subjective reality; there is fact, and there is what the brain interprets--"subjective reality"--compulsion.

That just isn't true. The concept of "position" is available to even the most rudimentary organisms in an absence of "sensory perception".

Facts are not generated by brains. Opinions are generated by brains. Facts are observed by brains.

I asked "why" and found the results dissatisfying, but then I asked "how", and the world fell to pieces.

That's not even in the same universe with what I expressed here.

I didn't give a definition. What I offered is more an illustration of how they function in practice. The OP asserted a Divine Truth as to what the two, "classes" as you call them, were; so you're right, no one asked, but someone dictated. I'm responding to that dictation. The claim is not that one "class" is empty but that both are empty-on-demand by virtue of subjective reality.

If The State owns and maintains supreme control of the livelihood of The People, needless to say at gunpoint, then his comment is close to the mark--albeit semantically slightly inaccurate.

The bicycle wasn't invented yet in the year 0.

The answer depends on how much someone pays attention to it.

This is precisely the mode of thought that has polarized the political climate and stunted the education system in the West. Allow me to explain the difference: an opinion is something you're entitled to, a fact is not.

As much as we tend to ascribe "genius" to those among us we deem as excellent storytellers, it's precisely this that makes a good story: that a number of people latch onto it. I'm presently reading a book about this, though I'm not far enough into it to bring it to the table. There is a formula for storytelling, and it works again and again, but it's always the response of the readership that makes it what it is, and any "genius" is really either an accident or an innate talent for manipulating others.

Storytelling, much like music, much like painting, is a tool for drawing out emotions, good or bad. It's more often purely about feeling than thinking, and even when it's about thinking, it plays on feelings.

We are, for whatever reason, deeply dissatisfied in our lives without heroes and monsters, without comedy and tragedy, without mysteries to solve or enemies to vanquish, princesses (or princes for the PC police) to save, and we seek these either in fables or in reality. Where it doesn't exist we create it. A "good story", as far as I can tell, is one that accomplishes any combination of these constituents while simultaneously generating a sense in its reader or listener that they're participating in some way.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to invite or tolerate vitriol or bigotry, I'm just sharing my view. In fact, I understand why you might, as moderators, ban certain dialogue. If word got around that your site was a place that anyone, even bigots, could express their views, it would likely lead to the site's downfall. This drives my point home. I'm correct about this, and the entity called "social media" is incorrect.

It's not my intent to rock the boat or to draw out your negativity, I'm expressing a view as was invited in the OP of this thread. Why would anyone invite feedback from others and then try to ward it off if it doesn't fit their own view?

We're discussing a topic here, why are you implying that my side of the discussion is unwanted on your site based on a self-centered and skewed perception of my view. I'm not wrong, and you mentioned the popularity of the web site, not I. You're throwing out a red herring here, "right" or "wrong" has nothing to do with popularity. You seem irritable.

Whether you bring this specific person back to the site or not isn't my concern, I'm not trying to convince anyone to do so. You are the moderators, that's your judgment call. You opened the floor to feedback about the decision, so I'm providing some.

Is philosophy not by its nature intended as a medicine against ignorance?

I've had buddies all my life whose political or religious views, as well as my own, were bitterly disagreed on at times. There used to be an ability to sit across a table in a coffee shop or a pub (examples of public meeting places) and throw up hands, sigh, reply sarcastically, raise voices, disagree vehemently, but get ideas heard and cheers afterward, with friends and often strangers.

I've had many opportunities to converse with ignorant people, racists, sexists, morons, quacks, etc., and they were represented by a diversity of whichever demographics people want to throw them into. I have gained more within myself at times by checking my values and opinions against those of ignorant or even violent people than conversing with people who subscribe to mainstream ideologies. Philosophy isn't a popularity contest, and your comment about the popularity of the web site demonstrates a concern for drawing in quantities, not qualities of conversation. In referring to the popularity or growth of the site, you've emphasized my point.

Philosophy is defined, in the only trustworthy dictionary online as far as I'm concerned, as "all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts", "pursuit of wisdom", "a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means", "an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs", "the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group".

How is anyone ever going to find wisdom by excluding what is by "gut feeling" or by "social acceptance" perceived as its opposite?

I think there's a fine line between trolling and just having ideas other people don't want to hear. I think there's a fine line between expression of controversial ideas and what is considered by a few to be "hateful". I haven't observed much of the dialogue in question in this case, but it seems to mirror a trend on social media to shut down instead of listening to what might be considered "vitriol".

I am a huge fan of Nietzsche, and this is somewhat ironic because I often disagree with his philosophy, but he had a certain eloquence that can't be denied and his sometimes caustic opinionating doesn't completely detract from the radiant truth in some of his assertions.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that unless people are willfully and frequently obstructive and appear to want absolutely no place in rational discourse or an atmosphere of some semblance of civility, they should be permitted to speak their minds. If anything, caustic or controversial ideas serve as a guiding light which should catalyze self-assurance in a healthy mind.

A philosophy forum should be all-inclusive to achieve maximal diversity of input. Otherwise, it's just a clubhouse you built for you and your buddies.

.

Please define "an atheist". Please also explain how, by the definition of atheism or "an atheist", you can lump all "atheists" together in any way apart from that they do not believe in gods.

.

As long as entertainment placates the masses, what does it matter? We'll all become drooling dependent morons one way or another and end up in chambers full of gelatin like the matrix.

I have a question, why are clinical psychologists/psychiatrists such failures at compassion and generally failures as human beings with more mental issues than the patients they treat, and why are they so arrogant while simultaneously so confused about the nature of their profession?

Present company excluded, of course.

Everyone has a massive ego. I'd say staying or leaving is a flight of fancy.