EDIT: Computer games. They're a good antidote to depression.

"Really struggling" is 50% of the world's population.

Whatever I believe in is the natural, unvarnished truth. Everything others believe in that I disagree with is an artificial ideology created by brainwashed doofuses.

Oh ho ho ho ho.

Ideology is just a word we use to insult the beliefs we disagree with.

LOL. Alright. Then I have nothing against your position, so long as I get to rule.

Honestly, I believe everyone should make me dictator for life. I'm smarter than most of you and I'm more literate than most Americans. Who needs democracy when you can have a genius like me rule over all of you?

Oh ho ho ho ho. Is this what the OP is implying? If so I support it.

Why would anyone who believes in raising the economic situation of people at the bottom vote for Trump? He's done little except screw them over more.

Actually we do know when a person is thinking of the color red. There's a specific part of the brain that lights up. Check out this article:

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-neuroscience-of-comas-or-what-it-means-to-be-trapp-5966630

But terms like "spirit" are too vague. Like, I can potentially use a FMRI scanner to see if you're thinking of the color red. But there's no way to check if you're thinking of thoughts "This Spirit is Jesus Christ. Or maybe it's a big huffaluffudus apple." Etc. etc.

Good. Glad to see that you agree.

Let's put it this way: can you picture Socrates? Can you hear his voice?

Answer: Only if you imagine it. There were no video cameras back then. Any pictures of Socrates come from sculptures made by people 1000 years later, which may or may not be accurate. Any voice you hear when you read the stuff he writes is an invented voice that your mind fills in. Your mental representation of Socrates is different from the mental representations of the Athenians back then (who did see his face and hear his voice). Consequently, when you refer to Socrates in your posts you're referring to a different Socrates then them.

The people who executed him had every right [by their laws] to execute him. You're looking at it from the perspective of some dude 2000 years later. Regardless of whether they were right or wrong, the authorities had no choice but to kill him because of his actions.

Furthermore, the "Socrates" you're thinking of is different from the "Socrates" the Athenians back then were thinking of. So technically in your post you aren't even talking about the same person as the one we believe the Athenians executed 2000 or so years ago.

You can be right and still be an asshole. The two conditions are not related.

People form factions to fight other factions. Beliefs are necessary to maintain unity. Otherwise, everyone goes their own way, your side loses the war, and your sister, your mother, and your wife gets raped by foreign soldiers with large phalluses.

Even if Socrates had a point, he presented it at the wrong time and place.

Well, the Spartans at that point were trying to enslave them, so I reckon the Athenians had justification to hate the Spartans.

Granted the Athenians wanted to do the same to Sparta so it wasn't like the Athenians were any better. By that point of the war, no one knew why they were fighting anymore, except that neither side wanted to lose.

Athens at least had the decency to give him a trial. If he had shown up in Sparta with his views, he would have been stabbed on sight.

But very very good at war.

Athens was in the middle of a big giant 20-year long war with their mortal enemies (Sparta) and Socrates goes up to everyone and tells them they're fighting for lies.

It's like some dude in MidWest America telling everyone during WWII that maybe Hitler wasn't all that bad and that democracy is a lie.

Socrates was offered exile. It's his fault for refusing it.

They killed Socrates because he was acting like an ass.

Also, does anyone understand economics?

https://www.amazon.com/Behave-Biology-Humans-Best-Worst/dp/1594205078

Behave. By Robert Sapolsky. I believe every philosophy major should take at least one serious neuroscience class. This book is a good (and very readable) substitute.

Nothing's really happening. Some people are moving from South and Central America to North America, Trump is making a lot of noise but otherwise isn't doing anything to stop it.

Don't understand what the big deal is.

There is no elephant. It's actually a giant man-eating cake monster disguised as an elephant (the bottom is like that of an elephant. The top is a very angry cake).

If everyone is blind, how would anyone know that it's actually an elephant? The parable makes no sense.

The written evidence that everyone writes about spirit differently.

Christianity: Spirit is the Holy Ghost. Etc. etc.
Islam: No. It comes from the indivisible God.
Neuroscientist: It's a product of the brain.
Hinduism: It was granted to us from the Great Soul.

Etc. etc.

Consequently, since everyone writes about "spirit" differently, I conclude that each side is writing about a different spirit.

But again, see, in your post you're assuming each tradition is discussing the SAME spirit. But if every group writes about "spirit" differently, then maybe that's because every group is writing about a different spirit.

After all, that's what the evidence shows.

But see, that's the problem. You say "Buddhism is what it is." So what is Buddhism?

Write a one paragraph definition of Buddhism (no cheating). If someone else writes a different definition of Buddhism (which is likely) then why do you assume you're discussing the same Buddhism as him?

"This is what it is" is not an argument. No one points at a bridge and says "this bridge exists because it is what it is." Or at least no one serious.

But what I don't get is why we're even assuming the "same" words mean the "same" concept. For example, Bob posts a video explaining the "evils of Buddhism." Buddhist Tom sees the video and then denounces Bob for being evil himself.

Question: Why does Tom assume Bob is referring to the "same" Buddhism as Tom? Buddhism is a very large and vague religion, with many different practices and beliefs. After watching Bob's angry video on Buddhism it's just asreasonable for Tom to assume that Bob is referring to a different Buddhism then Tom and then shrug his shoulders and say:

"Well, Bob must believe in a different Buddhism than me, and its obvious from his video that Bob hates his personal concept of Buddhism. This man, Bob, must have a lot of self-hatred in his soul."

And yet this almost never happens. Why?

But you're just making up percentages. How did you get 25%? Perhaps the correspondence is closer to 2%, but each person is assuming it's at 90% or 80% or 41.27782%.

Your answer makes no sense. Even if we assume two people's similarity of concept can be measured on a linear scale, what does it even mean for two people to have "25% correspondence" on a topic?

So, then, if we don't know if we're thinking of the "same" spirit, then how would we ever answer the thread's question?

In other words, let's say I provide an adequate explanation to the OP's question. "This X is the true spirit." Ok fine. Let's pretend you agree.

But then, how do we know we're thinking of the "same" X? Maybe each of us is thinking of a different X, but is instead calling it by the same name.

They assume there is something sufficiently constant about the USSR or America to use these terms.

At what point is this assumption inaccurate? For example if two people have completely different mental representations of America, then doesn't that mean each person is thinking about a different America?

Again, if there are NO common denominators in two people's mental representations of a word, then why do we assume that when each person uses that word they're referring to the "same" concept?

But when I think of spirit, am I thinking of the 'same' spirit as you?

In order to argue about a topic (e.g. Is "America" good) your brain has to have a mental representation of America. For example, if Bob says "America is evil", then what Bob is actually saying is:

"I have some memory of America and I interpret this memory as EVIL."

Then when Tom counters with:

"But America is actually good. YOU'RE evil."

What Tom is actually saying is:

"I have some other mental representation of America. It differs from yours and I think you're wrong."

But if both Tom and Bob have different mental representations of America, doesn't that mean that each person is talking about a different America (but call it by the same name)? Tom is talking about Tom's representation of America and Bob is talking about Bob's mental representation of America. Since these representations are not the same, then in effect each person is talking about a 'different' America.

A broader question: Why do we assume that if two people use the same "words" they're thinking the same "concepts?"

Here's a question: when two people argue about "USSR" or "America," are they arguing about the same USSR or America?

Perhaps the reason they argue so much is because each side is arguing about a different USSR or America (but call their mental representations by the same name).

@ Whollyrolling and Gnostic

The reason you can't come to agreement is because each of you is arguing about a "different" religion.

Your argument can be summarized as thus:

Person A: I have this concept of religion and it goes like this: etc. etc.
Person B: I have this other concept of religion, and based on this concept I say you're wrong.
Person A: No, my concept of religion is more true than yours.
Person B: You believe that only because you suck.

Etc. etc.

In other words, the two of you are just talking past each other. Each of you is arguing about a different "religion" [i.e. each of your mental representations of religions are different, so in effect you're not even arguing about the 'same' religion], which is why the two of you will NEVER come to agreement.

Oh ho ho ho ho.

No, beliefs and knowledge ARE the results of physical processes of the brain. Zombies and dead people don't have beliefs.

The feeling of spiritualism is a physical process of the brain, too. Ants don't get spiritual. Why? Because they don't have the brains for it.

There is no thing as it is. Any belief is the result of physical processes of the brain. No brain = no truths.

No one who is serious points to a bridge and says "this thing is as it is." Pointing at a belief and saying "this thing is as it is" is just as silly.

Evolution ISN'T dog eat dog. It's more like dog eats cat. Notice how jaguars generally don't attack members of their own species. Nor do cats, dogs, monkeys, or apes.

Intraspecies relationships in evolution are defined by either cooperation or apathy. Interspecies rivarly is generally where things get violent (dog vs rabbit, jaguar vs ape, etc.)

"Objective Truth" just means "I'm really really sure this is correct and if you don't agree with me you're dumb." "Subjective truth" is more like "I'm pretty sure this is correct, but feel free to disagree.

Assange would be a lot more credible if he could reveal some Russian or Chinese secrets.

Yes, exactly. Demonstrating your perceived superiority and proving my point.

That's because you're condescending and no one likes you.

https://www.axios.com/china-jd-warehouse-jobs-4-employees-shanghai-d19f5cf1-f35b-4024-8783-2ba79a573405.html

Amazon is outdated. JD and BABA is the future.

It doesn't matter as long as you stand (not sit). I've actually designed it (monitor, keyboard, and mouse on pedastal) so that when I use the computer I have to stand. The next step is to get a treadmill, but I haven't done that yet.

I'd rather walk.

I get philosophical by getting angry. Otherwise, it's a waste of time. Discussions are more fun when everyone's a little hairy.

I would like to point out that most of the manufacturing of the future will be fully automated (Ai manufactured and AI designed). We won't even need human workers anymore.

Marxism has nothing on that. It's a 19th century philosophy designed for a 19th century world. But it's the 21st century now, baby!