I´m European.

My perception (without having any experience on US education) is that US education system prepares young adults to succeed, it has a more preponderant component on the how and focus on human relations inherent to success after studying.

Europe education is more keen to "theoretical" knowledge, more detail in terms of programmatic contents.

Also I reckon that Europe has been heading in the direction of US education.

In the end of the day, European academics and American practicality are complementary and have a lot i common.

This is the lousiest (also inconsequential) post I wrote this forum.

sorry again for my bad english!

About Kant, and how i think i can deconstruct his though (this is highly presumption, i reckon!)

In the finite/infinite universe antinomy (all antinomies are describe as a "big" Antinomiy). Either if it is or not finite, Kants' conclusions do not seem consistent.

- If it is finite, we still got a lot to discover, and there are no boundaries that divide the universe, it might or not exist something else (or Kant did not defined the universe correctly or does not defines boundaries correctly - there is no Canada beyond its' boundaries/frontiers);

- If it is infinite, is it obliged to be understood? Or more, can´t human perception development also not be infinite, and thus open the possibility that it might be understood? Or is it that Kant limits human understanding by its' mind understanding?

Continuing this line of though, have you ever read/considered Sartre, or Camus. Or even better, Henry Miller and Bukowski. Or going harder on Kafka, Dostoevsky and Goncharov?

Kant is so insipid...it is just formality...I´m sorry, just my opinion. And i think you are eager and full of life, and deserve other perspectives...
No disrespect meant ;)

BC, thak you for your post. Thank you for your difference. Most of all, than you for your sapient age...

Ok, i don't like him also.

I completely get your point. But, like I already said: he´s got something... He is the president of USA.

"

More or less. I don´t "fancy" Kant. I´m a Nietzsche and Heidegger guy :) I read the Critique of Pure Reason and truly i though he was taking steps beyond his knowledge. Don´t think we can assume unproved "truths" just because we write well and our thought is perfectly organized.

sorry for my English, it´s not my native language! And now i´have to agree with you, this is way out of topic :) ;)

No concerns. No harm done. It´s all good. I already like. I liked you when i teased you into discussion. I also assume a lot og wrong things, it might be another sign of my restless need to know.

Just to get this done, i´m not a Psychiatrists. I´m a Mathematician and Civil Engineer. I definitely don´t want you to kill yourself. I need you here, disagreeing with me, against me ;)

Einstein calculated black holes. Then he said, to a newspaper, that they could not exist, they were paradoxical.
Everyone gets confused by their own egos. I do no believe that paradoxes can exist off metaphysics. Bis belief can also be my ego getting in the way

I was just being an prick ;)

Yes, your conclusions are right, starting from the assumption that we completely understand the universe (or, as preferred, the universes), as space and time, filled with matter and dark matter.

But at this point we already know that the fabric of space-time is 70% filled with something with do know what it is, and if/when we find out, it might turn out to be just that we only understood 30% of the fabric of all there is.

The implication of dark energy is huge, it´s scientifically accepted/true that we don´t know what the f... is going on! ;)

Excellent point, as per Trump: great! From where i stand i maybe not be able to perform that exercise. Nevertheless, what i can do, and also I can accept others to do it, it to not be overwhelmed or devastated by personally perceived insignificance or also personally perceived fundamental significance. And on top, embrace my perceptions of values into the "battle field" and "fight" valiantly without become irrevocably defeated/offended in my existence.

Again, loved your point.

Sorry to disagree again :)
there are no paradoxes here, neither limits to reason/logic (they are limitless by definition). Only possibilities of time and/or size constrictions (for now...)

This thread is getting way off topic — Noah Te Stroete

Subject specific morality? :) :)

Janus, sorry for not using big words (i understand what you say and the meaning of the words you used), but i can only see only one question here: what is all of this? What I stated is that we don not have a definitive answer. There is nothing contradictory in wanting to know something and recognize that we do not know it yet. In fact they are mostly the same thing. If we´ll have a closing answer? Not one of my strong beliefs:

we may not have the time (as species) and it may not be finite (all of this, i mean).

Nevertheless, i´m the first to get on the ship that goes out for looking. Because, like i stated, i do not know. And if there is an answer i want it.

Good evening Robert.

I agree that there are very important tools for surviving. As sight or audition. Or speed. Or strength. Consciousness is, undoubtedly, an evolutionary advantage, handy and desirable.
How do you define consciousness? The aware of the existence of self? Or the ability to perceive the surrounding environment as a preponderant influence in one´s survival?
I believe that fear and self-awareness are, in some manner, opposites:

- fear: the acknowledging of potential life threatening outer stimulus;
- consciousness: the realization that one exists within constant outer stimulus, in order to improve its' chances of survival (allowing choices).

Fearful individuals might be more keen to perceive themselves as existing, has they more often apart from potential threats, and by doing so, begone to perceived thyself has subsets of existence.
On the other hand, other type of outer and non potential threatening stimulus can do the work: rain, odor of potential mates and food, same specie individuals.

it is not clear, to me, that fear is the spark, but for sure, after consciousness was settled, fear was an important enzyme for developing self-awareness.

Correct. And the answer is we do not know yet. Gravitational waves that have been detected point to the existence of an universe consisting in 3+1 dimensions (although not definitively). Big bang, inflation and forever-expanding nature of space/time is were we stand. Big rip? And then nothing: this entangles even more how it all started. But there is hope, 70% of the universe is made of dark energy - it is so called as it is, because scientists do not have a clue what it might be.
And acknowledging that we don´t comprehend most of it, it´s the best way to get there.

I like your ideas. Power came before money, way before. Power is, in essence, having the means to aim for immortality (it´s just a poetical manner to say that if you have power your genes will endure and sustain).

And power can be very strong and it can disguised itself in many ways, it has done that since there are records of human history.

But i like your ideas, you understand the system, and you feel compelled to defy it, and that is, like Trump would say it: Great!. But do you know why you think like that? -equal rights for everyone is not an allowed answer :)

Hint: Life main goal is to keep on going...

I can´t refute any of that, I´m keen to agree with you. But Trump is smart. Not cult, not a reader or artist, just smart. People do like him, he is the US President. Fact.

Also he is probably my "unfavourite" person, because he is the reflection of the opinions/thoughts(or absence of them)/culture(same as previous) of US population. Ignoring his preponderance might be more dangerous than acknowledging his outstanding ability.

As I see it, it all comes to banks, money, power. This is very zeitgeistish, i reckon. Politics are the show indeed, the bread to the people, the coliseum to us Romans. Everywhere in the world.

Also interesting is that the origin of the word "GOOD". It was said of the families/tribes/groups that held more possessions/lands/animals/warriors (before money existed).

Politics started well. Then GOOD things happen to them. As it does with everything. ;)

I agree. We are going the ants way ;)

The identity that matters most is one's identity as a human-being-becoming-a-person. We can be grouped into pairs, families, clans, tribes, interest groups, nations, and so forth. — Bitter Crank

Let me kindly spice this. Let´s say that I completely disagree with you, in a rational way. People get married to trees, so it kind of confuses me and my notion of person (who can be grouped?). Will my disagreement bother you in great manner? Do you think I have a point here? Or the natural rush you feel against my disagreement will impel you to illogical and nonsensical fallacies?

I know that this questions seem barely relevant, but the way mankind constructs it´s range of acceptances (and it travels real fast in our days!!) appear to me very decisively in the selectivity of futures generations of mankind.

And it also goes the other way: did you know that companies (and even states!) have quotes for hiring people according their race or creed, even if they (like you said) "group" themselves with people that are not the best fitted to perform the tasks they should? All of this in the name of "resolving and annihilating differences" - it is political correct to think so.

Imagine that we have a Savannah, and four lions. But only two gazelles. Imagine now that the lion community decides that lions with only 3 legs should also be entitled to eat a gazelle (in the name of equal opportunities and for the greater good). So, from the 4 lions, 2 lions with four legs will starve and will not have cubs, and the next generation of lions will, probably, have a higher number of lions with 3 legs. You see where it´s going. Can it happen that one day no lion can catch a gazelle? Is it extinction a possibility?

Now, think about today and how we humans are organizing our social environment, and how are we compelled to be flawless in doing the morally correct things.

Going back to the start (what a twist), you can political influence others to completely disagree with me (or because I´m wrong or because you, personally, can´t face the fact that you are less right than me), and in fernesin of constructed set of rules for good and evil (morality) set me apart and ensure that, in the long run, that my genes are not to be passed on.

I´m 40 years old (probably older than all of you), and what I perceive is that we humans, both individually and socially, are getting much more sensitivity to differences. And also overreacting to their existence.

I think this is not a such unimportant subject as you might think. And, off course, I state this with most respect and zero intention to offend.

(just the cherry: personal provocation by opposite ideas between great minds has, historically, given birth to important conclusions and added up knowledge).

I´m trying my best... ;) (sorry for my english)

https://www.push4words.com/post/of-the-concern-in-being-good

I truly think if people get disagreement personally, in what concerns subjects like the ones that are being discussed here they should first train themselves to accept that humans are often wrong or incomplete (i mean in the discussion of philosophy subjects, not in a personal level). Socrates got that a long time ago. Also sometimes we tend to get emotional about this things, because we love ourselves, and manly our intelligence. And that´s ok. But i believe that it is also important that we understand that there are others like us, tat will battle us hardly, like there is no tomorrow. And this, even if it doesn't look like at first sight, is extremely important in our development as thinkers.

I understand. That´s why I purposed the topic! :)

So we should open a topic, no? We could call it " On the concern of balance the need for recognition and the need to be different". What you think?

conflict is a conflict: opposition, battle, differ, diverge, disagree. And for the record, i don´t see it necessarily as a negative thing. Like I said, I like it. From discussion, if endured and persevered, normally results increase of knowledge.

Also for the record, If I was American, I would not vote for Trump.

But i also like your tendency to search conflicts. We can do that to if you like. :)

I meant that he understands people. He got the votes, did he not? So, so many flies can't be wrong, right? ;)

I think Trump is very smart.

Of course, all this is the cursed human tendency to normalize and standardize.
You see, life tries everything, what endures, endures, all the rest is given up on. I know it is terribly cold and unemotional, but it is what it is. Parallel to this, and also human, the fear of difference.
The point is that the brain is extremely complex, and just now we scientists and psychiatrists are getting to unravel the first layers. There are, indeed, defects, that can be corrected.
But it´s not the psychologists way, today everyone is defected, in need of correction. Psychology is the just modern day fortune teller or witchcraft.
We have a long way to go in truly understanding the brain.
Did you know that if Einsteins' brain was analysed by modern models it would be immediately sent to an hospice?
Also we must consider the hypotheses that the brain is not equipped to understand itself, as "security measure" :) .

What do you differ from?

I like this subject. It is indeed wonderful this life. And this is my argument.

You got where i was going to. The point, and the fact, is that we do not know, right? ("I think therefore something is."). And then it all falls into faith (personal belief). I agree with you, more, i also believe that everything we perceive somehow exists, but i´m not completely sure. When I say all is pointless is that meaning can´t (in my faith) be achievable.

Some chose the GOD explanation (it is simple and it works, the guy up there pulling the strings), others go with nothing, others go with the pursuit of it, even knowing if it is out reach.

So, Descartes was Descartes, Nietzsche and Heidegger didn't agreed and Sartre was in loved with the fact that he did not knew. If any of them where right? Can´t tell you. Not yet ;)

Ok, i will develop a little more. Epistemology concerns, like you stated, what humans perceive. It does not mean that what humans perceive is real. So, eve if Descartes perceives he thinks, does not mean it is so. Also, existence, in its' essence, does not relieves it self from the possibility of not being.

Something exists, not because he thinks, but because he perceives he thinks. His perception of existence (and also ours) may not be real. And I could go on ;)

Anyhow, this is pointless, right?

What if nothing exists? Then first come the notion, the concept, and only then the word (philology/etymology), that supports epistemology, right? ;)

Good day to all,

The only fact about where it all started (if it has started) is that we do not know. And probably we will never will. And that is, undoubtedly, the greater issue: how can our existences, extremely equipped to be praised as superiors and illuminated, can deal with this? We can´t, we will never will, and it is this duality that impels us to search further. My faith (and please remember that faith is, by definition, not subject to logical and formal counterarguments) is that human time will not be enough to get a final answer.

(Important note : I have read all about black holes, dark matter and energy, gravitational ripples, string theory, inflation, quasars, Sartre, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and also Harry Potter)

I also would like to discuss the registered tendency that intelligent people have to do not being able to relate to others.