Your subjective experience is sound. Plain and simple.

No, that is sound. — Terrapin Station

Based on what else, other than a consolidation through interpretation?

That's the thing though. That's not sound. That's what you interpret as sound. Just like how you interpret a bunch of pixels as a picture.

Because sound is relative to the observer - otherwise it's just vibrations.

It produces sound, but the sound is inaudible.
So, is it silent?

Does a falling feather produce noise - is it silent?

Can specifically human mind understand the intentions of another abstract mind of unlimited thinking power, given human gets enough time? — IuriiVovchenko

Maybe.

interact with an ad — praxis

There we go. :up:

To be clear, are you saying it wouldn't be silent in the same way a feather wouldn't be silent?

Don’t let the sophist’s casuistry convince you that you can be arrested without committing a crime. That’s arbitrary arrest. — NOS4A2

Consider that you find yourself amongst a crowd of protesters. You're not one, but are detained anyway for interrogation, simply due to being in the wrong place at the wrong time - coming home from school.

This has happened. Where is the crime?

I didn't mean you in particular, but people in general.

Simply, you are your world. It is what you see, hear, feel and so on. So if there is so much more and better, why reduce it all to a depression - a hole - a grave?

Depression is in due to impatience; you want it now, but it takes time and so you slouch in dissatisfied boredom, and give up. And once you stand under for a bit, it'll sink in and you'll understand.

You're rushing through life, shakingly focused - barely making out some certain end and with all your attention - panic. Everything else suddenly appears to lose meaning, though it's just you ignoring it in favour of some distant noise that reverberates through you.

It's a whole lot of tension for nothing, precisely because you try to rush through rather than float by.
A blurry mess and beyond it, life.

And compassion? That's just patience.

I won't be taking any flights, going to the doctor, or engaging pretty much anyone's services,in your world. — Janus

Do you mean that in regard to the possible inconsistency in working hours?

In its normal use, the meaning of the verb "exist" implies that illusions do not exist. — bobobor

What illusions imply are deception and deception is achieved through selective information i.e limited perception. For instance a bottle of vodka actually full of water; you won't know at first glance.

So, that in tow - how does 'exist' imply that illusions do not exist? Maybe you're implying they don't exist in the sense of being misleading from the whole picture, but then 'exist' wouldn't be the right word.

Substance is aspatial and atemporal. — bobobor

That's a problem. If there is no space, where's the substance? That's considering that the substance itself comprises its own space or space of self.
If it's atemporal that could be in due to covering all timeframes, with the inability to shift between them; so it would be temporal but incapable of fluctuation.

What do you think?

Being infinite, it cannot have finite parts, and being indivisible, it cannot be measured. — bobobor

I'm not sure how he arrived at that conclusion, but it doesn't really follow.

Take it as you may, but even infinity is divisible and spells out 'in finity'.

Do you believe that some countries are illegitimate in that they took someone's land with out permission? — Purple Pond

Some countries were forcibly made up by splitting an existing country in order to weaken it and ultimately destroy.

And today the denizens of these countries, stubborn donkeys that they are, refuse to acknowledge this and continue on pretending.

History repeats itself, I guess.

It also means, that the everyday world as perceived by the senses - including all the finite moods - is an illusion. Save for the one and only substance, Spinoza is a metaphysical nihilist. — bobobor

How does this infer nihilism?
There's nothing that says that the purported illusion doesn't have a purpose.

You could be detained as a suspect and suspect doesn't necessarily mean perpetrator.

All your posts thus far are biased and spiteful in regard to something.
Time to face the music.

Or the tree could be very far away.

They could be.

They're angles. Latitude and longitude.

That in tow, propositions in regard to certain attitudes aren't about the correct attitude but a working method; matching angles to compose a flat and/or straight path.

How's the method of wallowing working for you?

There are no unobserved' silent falling trees in the forest — fresco

Are you observing the silent falling trees in Iraq, right now?

Now if it is sometimes argued gender is different from sex, this leaves additional question marks as to categories. — Fine Doubter

It is. You can be a masculine woman i.e tomboy and/or an effeminate man i.e bobcat.

My own notion is that early hunter-gatherer peoples got the idea that a pre-enactment of a hunt would help the real one, giving rise to the concept of a magic ritual. — iolo

You're off course.
Magic has to do with calculus.

That's a stretch.

A rabbi is teaching math and asks his student:
- Moses, how much is 2 + 2?
- 2 + 2 makes four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten... - answers Moses.
- Wait, wait, wait! Now, you remember this from me - 2 + 2 makes four, five, six, seven at maximum!
Eight, nine and ten in the Armenian school, next door.

Interesting fact: the name ‘Jupiter’ is descended from an indo-European compound name ‘dyaus-pitar’ meaning literally ‘Sky Father’. — Wayfarer

Are you sure?

You're biased against bias, not immune. So your own statement works against you.

Not a good start.

I am grateful to die.

What have you seen?

You pedantically whine about pedantry. Please stop.

This forum is impossible... it's a load of guys trying to be more pedantic than the next. — PhilCF

And your closing sentence is completely wrong. — PhilCF

In to the closet of irony I lay these bones.

You're a religious text, major?

Thumb through Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics and then give me the name of a Philosopher who did it better. — PhilCF

Perhaps you mean 'championed' ethics? — Shamshir

Really?

It doesn't make any difference what word you use. — PhilCF

Then why not rewrite your title in to 'Who was the bigger shoehorn'?

I've been down this path. It mainly starts with believing that happiness is supremely good, and needs to be attained over all else. — Wallows

Happiness doesn't need to be attained, but savoured.

The pursuit of happiness over all, denies happiness - as the pursuit of victory over all denies enjoyment from playing.

having wasted my high school years on electric guitar — Wayfarer

If you still play, do you still go for electric or acoustic?

Every single major religious text that is not interpreted by man confirms it. — PhilCF

Could you supply a quote of this confirmation?

He certainly wasn't - not even amongst the Greeks. Hippocrates who precedes Aristotle had installed a certain code of ethics for physicians to uphold - a code which he took from the neighbouring tribe of Traks.

So ethics were certainly a subject of thought and discourse long before Aristotle.

That said, will you elaborate on the other bit?

Socrates was known as the “First Philosopher” — PhilCF

That would be Thales, and even that's a stretch.

He also pioneered ethics and that the greatest virtue comes from moderation (an incorrect thought, but we will not focus on this now). — PhilCF

Very doubtful. Perhaps you mean 'championed' ethics?
Also - please elaborate why the thought is supposedly incorrect.

He did this because he knew that if he ran, if would prove that everything he had taught us would be undermined. He would be undermined. He knew that the soul was immortal, and that he’d led a “good life” - what on earth did he have to fear? Therefore Socrates not only taught us how to live, but also how to die. — PhilCF

Are you sure? Maybe he was simply old and tired.

I think it could be argued that life is detrimental to peace. — jajsfaye

Is or can be?