"Eleanor Rigby
Picks up the rice in the church where a wedding has been
Lives in a dream
Waits at the window
Wearing the face that she keeps in a jar by the door
Who is it for?"

I put right-wing for all four questions.

I understand and appreciate that most of the people in all categories are left-wingish. But they are AMERICAN left-wingish, and the left wing views in America would still be in the extreme right in 94 percent of the industrial countries.

Add to this that all totalitarian regimes, and hence, mistakenly, all socialist countries are considered right-wing according to the standard nomenclature of America, of which this is a website. So despite the most populous country, China, is extreme left-wing, in America the Chinese society is right wing.

Thisi s a distorted image, and the picture can't get out of the distortion, whether you view the topic with a lens made in America, Sweden, Japan, or Bangla Desh.

I also agree with everyone who has contributed to this thread.

a universe where every want can be satisfied is tantamount to a perfect world, no? — Wallows

What about wanting to want. A goal. A purpose. Something to aim for.

If have everything I want, I have no motivation to do anything, which is by itself not moral or immoral, or good or bad; but it feels bad. Stagnancy. Stagrob. (Rob being Nancy's husband.)
________________

P.s. i realize this aspect of the topic has already been discussed after the post I responded to.

A look of glass stops you
And you walk on shaken: was I the perceived? — csalisbury

What glass? And who is doing the looking: the alleged "poet",or the person behind that glass? Unclear, unexplained, meaningless straffle.

Did they notice me, this time, as I am,
Or is it postponed again? — csalisbury

Oh boy. The Big Ego. Do people notice anyone as he is? Even people in the focus of limelight don't get to be known precisely for how they are really. This "poet" expects too much. Narcissistic boob.

The children
Still at their games, clouds that arise with a swift
Impatience in the afternoon sky, then dissipate
As limpid, dense twilight comes.
Only in that tooting of a horn
Down there, for a moment, I thought
The great, formal affair was beginning, orchestrated,
Its colors concentrated in a glance, a ballade
That takes in the whole world, now, but lightly,
Still lightly, but with wide authority and tact. — csalisbury

A tooting of the horn makes this deluded person maxed out on self-adoration think some festivities are starting, at the first few signs of the evening arriving.

--------------

This stanza is more concrete and coherent than the second one, which was more concrete and coherent than the first one -- the signs of alcohol consumption and being under the influence of a mind-altering substance are dissipating.

I could be wrong for all I know. Then how does causation work here, with directionalities?? — Wallows

Personal resilience is a contributing factor. Lack of illnesses, or other influences that weaken the ego, is a deterrent for suicide. People in concentration camps basically survived because death is a threat to survival, and people therefore avoid death at all costs, only those kill themselves who:
1. experience suffering which they can't bear
2. experience such suffering and have no hope of getting out of it
3. have lessened strengths in their mental and emotional mechanisms to fight the feeling of "giving up"

So basically it's illness or other weakening factors, an extremely unhappy or painful existence, and hopelessness to get out of it, that makes a "good" elixir for suicide.

Think of it this way. Enjoy physical activity as long as your body will allow you to... . Then like in all other seasons of one's life, you can then learn /teach in order to give back, as you reeped the benefits of life's experiences.

Surely that's got to be gratifying, particularly if your giving back from a lifelong passionate hobby or interest. — 3017amen

Why are you giving me advice, @3017Amen? I haven't a complaint, and I am satisfied the way things are going... except of course with having to put up with the witless remarks of other users on this forum.

If there is a way to change it that you can learn, that makes it a kind of thing you can change. — Pfhorrest

Yes. Via learning.

There are things I can't change now, NOW, NOW, NOW, before the learning process of how to change it LATER LATER LATER. If I never embark on this learning process, I will stay in a position of not being able to change it ever. That is why I inserted what I said: people jump on the bandwagon, and learn to accept things they cannot change.

By learning to accept things I cannot change, I may miss things I can change, and NOT BE ABLE TO EVER CHANGE THEM, because I learned FIRST how to accept things I can't change.

There is a temporal process here, which is very important.

There is another thing that is very important: there are things now, really, without any doubt, that I CAN NOT DO. But if I learn to do the task, I CAN DO. Learning is an integral part of changing YOURSELF, not the things you can change or the things you cannot change.

This is not trivial, @PFHorrest.

I don't have any philosophical insights other than a sort of alternative-pragmatism. Meaning, I myself, replace therapy with hobbies and other recreational sorts of interests. Examples include anything that offers an adrenaline rush, endorphin high; riding dirt bikes, jetskiis, performing music, etc. and/or on the other side of the spectrum; meditation, hot tub, sunlight, boating, nude sunbathing, nature, etc... — 3017amen

I see your problem. You are made happy when engaging in physical activities. You are a matter-of-fact person, you calls them as you sees them, you probably live an honest and straight-forward life.

This is a problem for many who are of your disposition. Once the "fun" stops, all you have to fall back on is your thoughts, or socializing, or exchanging profoundly deep or very highfolutin ideas. Thjis is for the birds in your book of what makes life worthwhile living.

Abandon philosophy. Concentrate on sports, on sex, and on drinking and driving. In no time your life problem will be resolved.

As Nietzsche once said: 'To live is to suffer. To survive is to find meaning in the suffering.' — The Abyss

That is true. But not the only truth. Or not the only premise. Someone I know said something much smarter: "You can live without a lover, but you can't love without a liver."

You need to be more specific about what exactly you don't like. I can't discern it just from you mentioning "the premises of life." — BitconnectCarlos

Carl, that would be too easy. If he doesn't like something, and he tells you what that is, all you have to do to cure him is to say "stop doing that."

and learning to accept things you cannot change — Artemis

What about learning how to change things you cannot change now? I'd like that much better than the quietly desparate Stoic resignation to the status quo.

Not only that, but there are tons of things in life we try to change, unsuccessfully, although by rights we ought to be able to change them.

is there any philosophical insights for people who simply dont like the premises of life? — schopenhauer1

By premises you mean the living space, or the space dedicated for the operation of life?

Try redecorating your apartment or home. Pink is in this year. Chinese cherry tree blossoms are a hit.

Also, try to invigorate your personal landscape with invigorating invigors. Buy a new car, start a new hobby arranging flowers or spray-painting graffiti by numbers, and improve the looks of your spouse / lover. There is an exchange program for that now, too.

Don't eat ugly food. Avoid going to the toilet to do a no. 2 job AT ALL COSTS. Never leave your pets unattended for five months in your closed apartment.

the sun is still shining, — Wallows

Yeah, true. But I am smartin' where the sun don't shine.

This is a shining example of the force of darkness.

A nuke won't do any good against matter tightly packed together by the strong force, similar to that of a neutron star. T — Marchesk

Cixin Liu's aliens with advanced weaponry would scream and run in all directions when we introduce our deadliest weapon: THE HOUSE ETHICS COMMITTEE!!!!

Beware you scurvy dogs, Aliens!! (Is "Aliens" an alias? their name may well be Elias.)

Is this just a simple matter of death anxiety? — Wallows

The planet will self-destruct in five hours!!

Bolshevik Partizans are about to take over Linconl, Nebraska!

Polar-bear invasion!

The Great Dipper is precisely in a spot, where the North Star won't be in 200 thousand years!

If you are thinking of buying a house in Seattle, this is the time!!

Don't worry! Be happy! ( this is really scary.)

A triple agent works for himself.

Nils, did you actually understand the poem was saying these things? Would you have come up with these interpretations, if you haven't read the interpretations by others of his first two stanzas?

Honestly, now, no cheating.

The use of the term "proof" outside the context of mathematical proof is wrong and misleading, because the mere evidence itself could be wrong or misleading. Such evidence is never sufficient for the truth of a proposition, and therefore, does not satisfy the definition mentioned above for the term "proof". — alcontali

What about
"The earth is flat.
Yet I can circumnavigate the earth going in one direction constantly, and arriving at the same spot as from where I started.
Therefore the earth is not flat."

Do you think this is an invalid proof that the Earth is not flat?

Now think about it this way: I think. -- is there a way I could be wrong about it? I don't think? No, if I think, then I think. There are no two ways about it. You can't think and be mistaken about it. It is an absolutely true proposition, to the person who thinks. When you say to me "I think", I'm not convinced. But when I think, I know I am thinking.

Please try to understand that part.

Once you got that part, then consider that if I think, then somebody has to be doing the thinking. Could it be somebody else doing the thinking? I hardly think so. I can't mistake my thinking to be done by someone else.

Therefore the person who thinks is I. I am doing the thinking.

And as long as I am thinking, I can be sure I exist.

I really can't convince you, can I.

But that's okay. Because you haven't at all given any reason for me to not consider this as a proof.

------------------------------

@alcontali, you said something to the effect that in the empirical world positive proof is not possible, because all proofs hinge on evidence that could be wrong.

Please tell me what evidence in the foregoing explanation could potentially be wrong. I reiterate it below.

I claimed the following things as premises:

1. I am thinking. Is this wrong to claim it, for myself to believe it? I accept that for you it's possible to be false, but to me, it's not false.
2. If I think, I can't not exist.

Which of the two, from MY point of view, can potentially be false or misleading?

To me it's an absolute proof, but only to the person who does the thinking.

This is not a scientific proof; it is much bigger than that. It is the only proof in existence that is empirical, yet it has the strength of an a priori truth.

The Martians had their own version of explaining why there has been no contact with aliens.

The Martians were a bunch of Hungarian physicists under the leadership of Ede Teller, who worked on and built the H-Bomb for the USA. They were called the Martians, because they were obviously strange, and an advanced race (haha) of scientists.

Anyway, their upshot was that civilizations on distant planets learn to build H bombs, and then a strife will make them use them, thus annihilating themselves.

Remember, this was back in the Cold War period, in the 1950s, when global thermonuclear war was a real threat.

Today, so the experts claim, nuclear warfare is not going to happen by those who build and control these weapons, but by those who gain control suddenly and for a short time. I.e. terrorists who steal them.

Luckily, they are not easy to detonate. They require advanced skills to make them blow. Not like pulling a trigger on a gun.

1. "New breath in the pages" -- creative juices are starting to flow.

2. "New Sentences were starting up" -- the sentence-bubble. Sentence upstarts, with lots of people investing big money in sentences. Perhaps signifies the monetization of his poetry, what with the Pulitzer prize and other cash awards.

3. The dark summer... but it WAS dark, the whole summer. I haven't noticed that the sun was dark, but hey, I am just a loser poet. Two buts in one sentence, not good form, but he got the Pulitzer prize, you gotta admire that.

4. You can't wander away... and everyone, even the least attentive, shut up. Because something is going to happen. It's about time. Until now it was gibberish, but a guy who can make big money with gibberish is America's darling. You can, everyone can interpret something into nothing, you can take any jumbled and nonsensical string of words, and admire it by giving it meaning with blood, sweat and toil. And the guy laughs all the way to the bank, with no talent, nothing to say... he runs on his own reputation, and he can get away with murder, by forcing gibberish for poetry down your throat, and enjoying every fucking minute people shit out admiring words... because it's fun. I have to admit, he knows something I don't.

-----------------

Appreciating American poetry is a bit like interpreting the bible. The source document does not make sense, so you beat sense into it by imagining there is sense, and analyzing it for any clue of truth. You twist its words, like that of the Bible, you shut your eyes to not see the contradictions, you do your best to give meaning where there ain't none.

In the meantime, millions of honest, hard-working poets die of starvation and exposure, poets who write honest, good, rhyming poetry, whose works are overlooked, because this bastard, this untalented drunkard niemand, this fake of a crowd-pleaser hogs all the money.

thanks, PFHorrest, for the clarification.

A justificationist does not believe anything at first. A skeptic in the common sense of the word.

A rationalist believes everything. Accepting, inclusive, in the common sense of the word.

A justificationist will only believe that, which is shown to be justified or proven.

A rationalist will reject those beliefs, and those beliefs only, that are proven to be impossible.

I was applauding you for pointing out that "hard solipsism ...must furnish further proof of how it came to be certain that other minds don't exist". — Pfhorrest

I don't remember saying this, but let's go with it. This is a rationalistic demand. Exclude only that which can't be possible.

However, it is also rationalistic to say "other minds may or may not exist; we don't know." This inherently carries the possibility that no other minds exist -- a perfectly acceptable proposition for the rationalist.

Hard solipsism never claimed that other minds don't exist... it claims that the self can't be sure of it either way.

I am still struggling with the term and the conceptual meaning of "hard solipsism". It is not something I have ever considered or came across. It's either solipsism or not ... hard or soft, is a boiled egg, not solipsism.

However, let's assume hard solipsism claims that there are no other minds, let's assume this is what hard solipsism means. Then it is not rational, since it has not accepted all possible cases that are not excluded, but I daresay it is not justificationist, either, because a justificationist does not believe anything that is not proven positively and irrefutably. It has not been proven positive to him, that other minds don't exist... he is not a justificationist. He is not rationalist. He is just being simply irrational. (NOT an "irrationalist". Hezus. Let's stop the buck somewhere.)

So hard solipsism is untenable - certainty on the matter is — TheMadFool

Maybe we need to see what you mean by "hard solipsism". Can you differentiate it for me from "solipsism"?

It's impossible to know whether the world is an illusion or not because our mind and our senses, the only access points we have to knowing the truth, are unreliable. So is everyone except you a p-zombie? Since you can't trust your mind or your senses, it follows that you can't know that either. So hard solipsism is untenable - certainty on the matter is impossible. — TheMadFool

Yes, certainty on the matter is impossible. Totally, wholeheartedly agree. But where do you see that hard solipsism is untenable? It is possible, so it is tenable. Sure you can't know whether you can trust your senses. But knowledge has nothing to do with what reality is. Because, precisely because, you can't know. Hence the "unsure" in the first place.

The kind of people employing radical doubt like Descartes does tend to be justificationists — Pfhorrest

Yes. Descartes also had a proof of god, an ontological proof. I looked up its wording somewhere, and it had a clause, something to the effect that "God made it, I don't know how, because god's ability to do this exceeds my meagre understanding compared to his." This was a cop-out, and it renders the proof completely meaningless and powerless. But people quote to me sometimes, deists and religionists, that Descartes himself proved that God must necessarily exist.

This I can't deny is justificationism.

But the Cogito Ergo Sum maxim is pure instant genius.

I applaud you for implicitly rejecting such justificationism, as your comment suggests that you think in terms of critical rationalism, the view that one ought to accept whatever beliefs one wants unless it can be shown that one must reject them. Which is the right way to think about things, because justificationism inevitably ends in nihilism, and nihilism is just giving up. — Pfhorrest

I am not sure if you are applauding the rejection of hard or soft solipsism, or of Descartes "cogito..." maxim?

Hard or soft solipsism is hard to reject, in fact, impossible to rule out. There is no test to test it, much like there is no test to test the opposite of it, which is that we experience reality directly.

There is no assurance either way. You or anyone can decide for himself or herself to believe in this or that, but ultimately the two are equally likely to be the true case (but not at the same time).

It was an imperative for Descartes to restore faith in his mind and senses and I think god's existence, being that god is truthful, allowed Descartes to do that - he came to the conclusion that he wasn't being deceived. — TheMadFool

Maybe. I don't read philosophy, so maybe you can back this up with quotes from his writing?

I think, however, that a totally different thing happened. Descartes happened on this thought, irrespective of his motivations or where he wanted to go or what he wanted to prove, and he simply marvelled at the truth of his own almost randomly thought-up creation.

I can't prove this at all. It's just that the creative thinking process starts with the creation, and then it embellishes it. This seems to have happened, it seems to me, to Descartes.

Frank, you answered @Coben with the ideas I wanted to tell him.

↪god must be atheist I think the issue may be in the realm of psychology. Those who talk about embodied life and consciousness are, in a sense, talking to themselves. They themselves have a clunky, pre-Maxwellian view of the universe and their struggle to free themselves of it without breaking down into Dionysian lunacy leads them to project out some primitive, superstitious interlocutor.

Strange, but probably true. — frank

It is indeed, strange. Because I don't know what pre-Maxwellian means (other than existing prior to Maxwell House Coffee), Dionysian is another strange enigma for me, and I also don't know what "interlocutor" means.

So the only words you use that are more than one syllable, and they resonate with me, are "talking to myself", "lunacy", and "primitive". Bin der, done dose. Yep, familiarity breeds understanding.

You seem to misunderstand the concept of sharing, in the context that I am expressing it in. The concept of having access to other's thoughts directly, on an experiential basis.

It's like sharing a towel. If only you are able to experience a towel, you could declare, "I experience the towel, and therefore I am." If more than one people experience the towel, and they feel each other's experience with the towel, then they know what the others feel. Not just know, but experience.

Is it their own experience, and their own only? No. So if Peter uses the towel, and Fred experiences the drying feature of the towel, Fred can't declare "I am using a towel, therefore I exist", because he is not getting dry, he is just feeling the experience of another. On the other hand, Fred can declare "I experience the towel", and that can be a verification of his own existence for himself.

This is what it is. The big problem, of course, is that nobody knows if other people can and do share experiences or not. This is for those, who can only experience their own experiences.

What if I am lying? I can only lie to you and to those who are not me. To myself I can't lie.

You got it right, dead on, what I am saying.

Any thought truly shared by more than one person, and experienced therefore, is possible, and I have no way of verifying whether that happens or not.

I see no reason to accord matter by itself any special privilege to be a precursor for organism. If matter has been in existence since the beginning why can't organism have been with us since the beginning? In an infinite reality that would mean they both have always existed. — Barry Z

The problem with that is the periodic annihilation of all life in the state of maximum matter decay, and in the times of maximum entropy (no useful energy left) and another problem is the recurring big bangggggg. Life is definitely regenerated all the time, and it can be regenerated without it going totally extinct.

Blah, blah, blah. Blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah. Blah blah. Blah? blah blah blah.

Blah-blah.

To every rule there are exceptions. In fact, exceptions strengthen the rule.

A body is processes or activities and so 'body' is a reification. — Coben

You know how to completely mess things up, don't you.

Mind is not made of matter. The body is. Mind is a function of the body. You are denying this, and you are making actual material blobs into processes, which is outright false. It's like calling a brick a process.

Why, oh why do people put their religion before their reason? Religion can co-exist with reason, you don't have to deny the obvious in order to believe in a god. By denying the obvious, the religious create a resentment in the ranks of the reasonable. It would be much smoother if everyone was of the same faith, or else if philosophy was made into a secular endeavour. Neither is possible, I know, but it would level the playing field, it would remove humongous obstacles to agreement.

Because of solipsism it must be pantheism. — Wallows

I don't think solipsism is a proven thing. It is a possibility, but we don't know its value of probability. It goes from near zero to near one, but there is no indication where in that range of probability of existence or truth solipsism falls.

So yes, if solipsism were true, you'd be right (Maybe. I am too lazy to think tthat through.) But since you can't rely on solipsism to be true for sure, you can't also rely on god being a pantheid.

Actually, no. Even in a complete and unadulterated soliptic state of affairs, god wouldn't be panthetic. I'm hungry now, but will revisit this after I eat.

Pantheism? — Wallows

What you guessed would mean god dwells in this world; but he does not, according to @theMadFool: Because god is beyond time, beyond space, and beyond matter... that is, on the "other side", which is not this side, not this world. God's spacial, temporal and material existence excludes him from occupying space and happening in time in our spacial and temporal world. Which means he is in another world, so it can't be Pantheism, either.

↪god must be atheist sorry, it's hard for me to follow what you're saying. — frank

Either you are jesting with me, or else you have a closed mind. No problem, I will live with not having reached you.

Rene's conclusions about the status of the Cogito are the product of a mind limited to a seventeenth-century perspective — Pantagruel

You wish. His proof is as valid today as it ever has been.