To paraphrase Aristotelian ethics, the more intelligent man tends to live a happier higher quality of life. That intelligence also takes the form of a heightened self-awareness in the meme, 'know thyself'.

But that doesn't preclude the likes of 'white collar crime' as you have, in so many words, might be suggesting.

On the other hand, too as you suggested, basic existential needs or values can't be ignored either. Using your metaphor, that's not to say folks who support country music and southern rock shouldn't endorse an idealistic virtuous life of love & peace along with the other simple things in life either... .

The art of living is being able to combine knowledge about the world (through science, engineering, religion, philosophy, psychology, etc.) with interpersonal and social skills and the various intrinsic needs that we have viz the human condition.

In this way, I would certainly caution against dichotomizing higher intelligence and basic existential/human hierarchical needs as them being opposing values. Maybe think about how one can integrate both values of living.

If so, is it as an object or a concept? — marcolobo8

Since Frege is basically talking about the logic of language (truth value) in his philosophy about Sense and Reference, the definition and/or concept of God would include words like; phenomena, ineffable, abstracts, super-natural, extra-ordinary, metaphysical, a priori, timelessness, cosmological, and so forth.

Common sense would suggest it's both an 'object and a concept [abstract]'.

Should humans respect these organisms as perhaps capable of borderline rationality instead of sending unfortunate animal souls to the dinner table en masse? — Enrique

If you study the theory of Emergence for example, it would support the notion that basically lower life forms are simply genetically coded to do thier thing through instinct. That would still provide for purposeful existence, amongst the animals in the kingdom for their consumption and survival.

One main distinction then is, self-awareness. To combine both instinct and self-awareness would suggest human conscious existence. And in that context, human consumption of particular animal life would still be relevant there. Are you saying it is wrong to kill an animal to eat?

The idea of romantic love existing in the animal kingdom is intriguing nonetheless. But my only point is that I'm thinking you would first want to draw the distinctions between genetically coded purpose and instinct, verses self-awareness in the human consciousness. (Or maybe consider the role of the primitive limbic system... .)

I think one important point there, once again, is the dangers of extremism. With some exceptions, I'm against most forms of extremism. Narcissism is arguably just an extreme form of selfishness.

'Care' can't work like that, although as above, I think the notion that we only really 'care' for ourselves is a modern narcissistic myth. — mcdoodle

Overall, your point is well taken, especially viz. charity/taxes. But just to get the nature of 'selfishness' out of the way, it seems to be hierarchical. Meaning, if we want to care about friendships, children, and other's, but in the process neglect ourselves, we would theoretically not live long enough to do all the caring that we wanted or planned to do.

I think this relates to the OP in that we can love, cherish, nurture and appreciate our friendships that we have; however, we supposedly need to learn to love ourselves before we can love other's(?).

In the end, I believe in the law of attraction.

23. November 8, 2019 - A federal jury has convicted Roger Stone, a longtime adviser to President Donald Trump, of making false statements to Congress, obstruction of justice, and witness tampering. The false statement and obstruction of justice charges have maximum sentence of five years each. Witness tampering carries a maximum of 20 years in prison.

Stone’s trial has also proved damaging for Trump. The government argued that Stone’s motive was simple. “Roger Stone lied to the House Intelligence Committee because the truth looked bad for the Trump campaign, and the truth looked bad for Donald Trump,” prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky said in his opening remarks to jurors last week.

Testimony Tuesday by former campaign staffer Rick Gates suggested that Trump probably lied to special counsel Robert Mueller about conversations he had in 2016 with Stone regarding WikiLeaks. Trump told Mueller in written answers that he did not recall “discussing WikiLeaks with [Stone], nor do I recall being aware of Mr. Stone having discussed WikiLeaks with individuals associated with my campaign.”

But Gates described a July 31, 2016, phone call between Trump and Stone, immediately after which Trump told Gates that “more information would be coming.” Gates also revealed that former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort told Gates that he intended to brief Trump on information from Stone on WikiLeaks’ plans.

I find it hard to imagine that a mother of an infant, for example, cares only about herself. How would you explain her care for the infant?

Hey Mcdoodle, so sorry for interrupting (and I'm hoping certainly Gus will chime in), but I couldn't help but to offer an observation to your question.

My concern relates to people only caring about 'their own' children and not anyone else's children. What do you think? In other words, it seems easy to love or care for your own, yet plenty of people could care less about other's... .

what I want to say is that everyone cares only about themselves, their friendships are but a functional structure that facilitates the acceptance of both their shortcomings. It is something we should embrace, and thank ourselves for building, because only then, affirming this ego projection, will the negative mass cease to be bad, and ultimately, to have rotten and short relationships ... — Gus Lamarch

Hey Gus, just a couple thoughts:

1. Relationships v. friendships- We are all interconnected. We need each other to achieve our goals. The guy making the meal at the restaurant; building the car, boat , guitar, making music, etc. has to exist for us to enjoy those things. You talked about music. I can play my guitar all by myself but what good is that? If nobody comes to the gigs, why should I continue play? I buy a big boat and live on an island. What good is that if there is nobody to enjoy it with? Are things in themselves, then simply a means-to-an-end? So it is through other's that we achieve those things, along with human goals, et al.. Life is about relationships.

Friendships on the other hand can be bitter sweet. They can hurt us in a bad way by enabling our deficiencies, or they can lift us up and be the catalyst for growth. Mostly, it is a little of both. In the end, it is up to us as to whether we learn positive lessons from all friendships. My glass half-empty friends make me glad that I'm a positive person. The person who is blind can teach us things and inspire us. And they also can critique our philosophies on life. So it's all good.

2. The virtues of selfishness is an Ayn Rand concept from years back. Mostly, she gets a bad rap, but her points are well taken. We are self-directed individuals hardwired to seek happiness. How should we then seek our own happiness (through friendships)? How can self-gratification be bad if altruism becomes selfishly pleasurable?

Good point. It is a little uncanny, after looking at some old footage of Nixon, how similar Trump acts when he gets defensive...

What the fuck does it tell you? — praxis

Oh okay.

What the fuck does it tell you? — praxis

Great question! Maybe start a thread on why people feel the need to swear all the time. Currently, cognitive science suggests swearing could be a sign of poor character, dishonesty, and other deficient social skills... I think Freud called it the phenomenon of parapraxis (no pun intended).

Yep, I see him and Nixon acting very similar...let's deflect attention away from one's wrongdoings and instead attack the process and throw in some ad hominem. He's his own worst enemy; he focuses too much on his image, crowd size, and all the other silly child-like behavior unfitting for a President of this great Country. MAEA-Make America Embarrassed Again.

It's about being able to examine the world using one's own ideas and applying it using relevant methods at hand. Other people's thoughts should be a jumping off point, not an end to themselves when it comes to philosophy — schopenhauer1

Nice! Personally, I kind of liken it to writing music. When an artist say's my influences are...that generally means that one takes a lot of relevant information and internalizes it making it their own. That, as apposed to simply regurgitating someone else's information all the time.

Everyone has unique perspectives and experiences to share. While certain things don't need to be overthought to be effective, there are absolutely truly novel ideas that can come from being willing to think outside the box as it were.

How the guy seems to conflate "existence" with the "present" is interesting. — Harry Hindu

Yeah, I thought it was interesting too!

One takeaway is the question of what does existence mean (verb v. noun)? The act or condition of existing. Very circular.

Generally speaking, I think of time as another abstract.

He has a tendency to drop the F-bomb when he gets angry, this from another thread:

"So that even the dumb fuckers can understand it. "

I'm not a prude by any stretch, but when a person posts that type of language on a public forum...well..it kinda tells you something... .

I think that's why Trump doesn't want to testify... Same thing with the Mueller report he chickened out... LOL

I don't know many people that believe their existence is absurd, illogical and irrational. Do you?

Yes, both yours and mine are, as I've suggested through conscious/subconscious phenomena.

Unless you can explain that otherwise... ?

People have chaotic conscious experiences all the time. — Pantagruel

Sure, and those chaotic experiences are what, illogical?

.

Any reason why? — NOS4A2

To exonerate himself, of course. I think Clinton testified during his impeachment...

Daydreaming does not equal not driving. — Pantagruel

Really. Consider Jack navigating the highway and is dreaming about the beach or a meeting he's about to attend. He subsequently crashes by running through a stop sign. He fortunately survives. He said he was at the beach in his mind. So, was his consciousness or subconsciousness driving the car?

Or said in a proposition: he was driving and not driving.

Appreciate the reply. I think it's real simple, he should allow them to testify. In fact, now that you mentioned Clinton, Trump himself should testify just like Clinton did... .

Okay gotcha. Let's start with this.

Driving while daydreaming, and sleepwalking thus:

Jack is driving and not driving= true or false statement?

Jack is sleeping and not sleeping= true or false statement?

Please, you may re-word the phenomenon anyway you like to make it logical.

Yo NOS4, Just a real simple obvious question. I know you're a Trumper till death, so maybe you can tell us this:

If Trump is innocent, why won't he allow both the subpoena'd witnesses and documents exonerate himself? It only adds to the other articles in the impeachment, of obstruction of justice.

So you go around telling everyone, you don't exist. When someone you greets you, you say: "Hey man, you don't exist and I don't exist." — ovdtogt

Ha! No, I go around telling everyone that they should be humble because they cannot prove that their own existence is purely logical (consciousness breaking the rules of non-contradiction).

This makes no sense to me at all. Why is consciousness illogical? — Pantagruel

Because it breaks the laws of non-contradiction (I.E., driving while daydreaming, sleepwalking...).

Yes. If one believes they themselves exist, they would then believe in the illogical. Because, consciousness is, in itself, illogical (how consciousness/subconsciousness functions together). Not to mention all the other metaphysical phenomena... .

So the statement : Cogito Ergo Sum (I think therefore I am), is in that sense illogical and/or an existential absurdity/tautology.

Considered by the person who is doing the considering.

So are you saying 'Jack is a newlywed' is a false statement?

That begs another question (viz being and becoming/the paradox of time); here's another limitation of language a priori:

Jack is a newlywed.

Oh really? Was Jack a newlywed in the past, present or future?

...when would it be ok to believe in a some thing that, is considered absurd, illogical, irrational, etc.. anytime, sometime, never?

Then what do you mean by being asleep and being awake? Why use two different terms if they actually mean the same thing? What is the purpose of having two terms to refer to the same event? — Harry Hindu

Great questions!

My first thought it reminds me of 'Vagueness' in LEM logic or bivalent qualities:

This apple is red.

Upon observation, the apple is an undetermined color between yellow and red, or it is mottled both colors. Thus the color falls into neither category " red " nor " yellow ", but these are the only categories available to us as we sort the apples. We might say it is "50% red". This could be rephrased: it is 50% true that the apple is red. Therefore, P is 50% true, and 50% false. Now consider:

This apple is red and it is not-red.

In other words, P and not-P. This violates the law of noncontradiction and, by extension, bivalence.

So, my first thought is that I think it is partly a result of the limitations of language (a priori), human phenomenon, and natural unresolved paradox (Godel theorems).

In other words, we don't have a term for saying that things are in an indeterminant stage or in a contingent stage or gray area. In the case of the apple though, you could describe it as 'mottled' and get by with resolving the contradiction. But how does one get by with resolving sleepwalking?

One cannot be awake while being asleep. — Harry Hindu

Just to break it down slowly, that would not be correct. Because, a person is in-fact awake, while being asleep.

The sleepwalker's eyes are open but may appear as a glassy-eyed stare or blank expression and pupils are dilated. They are often disoriented, consequent to awakening: the sleepwalker may be confused and perplexed, and might not know why or how they got out of bed; however, the disorientation will fade within minutes. They may talk while sleepwalking, but the talk typically does not make sense to the observer.

It occurs during slow wave sleep stage, in a state of low consciousness, with performance of activities that are usually performed during a state of full consciousness. These activities can be as benign as talking, sitting up in bed, walking to a bathroom, and cleaning, or as hazardous as cooking, driving, violent gestures, grabbing at hallucinated objects,or even homicide.

Jack is a married bachelor" is meaningless because it doesn't refer to anything real. When you assert two opposing qualities about same entity you arent saying anything meaningful about that entity. — Harry Hindu

HH, forgive me for interrupting, but I find the subject fascinating. It's possible, when Creativesoul has said "Contradictions are not meaningless" that it speaks to human phenomena.

For instance, consider the two statements:

Jack is a married bachelor
Jack is sleep-walking

It's important to consider the simple difference's between objective and subjective truth(s). Some truth's are more subjective than objective, and vise versa. Both are good, depending on the context.

Otherwise, as creativesoul suggested, I could assert I saw an invisible pink unicorn, an alien from another world, and so on. And I can also say I was sleep walking last night and don't remember a thing I said and did. Those instances would suggest another kind of truth.

In other words, how would one know that they are sleep walking in the first place(?).

As far as reference material, you can shoot me a PM anytime...

didn't consider mathematics as abstract thought. I just googled the definition and used their interpretation as the basis for my argument.

I do consider mathematics as a kind of fundamental law of nature independent from human experience. — ovdtogt

Someone correct me, but mathematician's played around with numbers as an abstract exercise long before they applied it to the real world (?)

In any case there's all sorts of abstract phenomenon some of which we're doing right now in this forum through abstract thinking. It's primarily a result of self-awareness in consciousness. Many examples we covered range from music theory, various forms of human sentience/innate properties of our consciousness (wonder, intuition, will, beauty, love...), and to a lesser degree, using metaphor, analogies, thinking out loud, or anything that takes us from the concrete to the abstract.

So to that end, back to mathematics, we don't need arithmetic to build a roof truss or to evade falling objects in the jungle. Yet we can use a formula for the laws of gravity, as well as calculate rise and run to determine roof pitch. And so from the physical world we can describe the concrete in an abstract way through mathematics only. (And as an ancillary note, we don't need abstract music theory abilities to enjoy listening to music.)

Some have argued that mathematics is an abstract metaphysical language...

Yep, with all due respect his book is a waste of money. Another irony of sorts as you point out, includes denial of Being. If he could explain consciousness, then why couldn't he reconcile self-awareness and Being (?)

Some philosophers feel like the more words they write, the more it somehow justifies their position as being a convincing one. Sure, one needs to support and make the case. But when I see a lot of extraneous explanations in order to basically deflect and circumvent the real answers to the questions, it's a red flag!

As Einstein alluded, Dennett being an atheist, I think he has an axe to grind.

A lot of good points everyone's making; I hope I can add a couple more.

In the spirit of arguing against old worn-out paradigm's I submit the following.

1. This business about a belief in unicorns is a red herring. Unicorns may in fact exist in another world. The absurdity of unicorns is no less absurd than our own conscious existence that cannot be logically explained. Cognitive science says consciousness operates together in an illogical manner (conscious and subconscious cognitive abilities). How do we square that circle?

2. In Christianity, Jesus had a consciousness. His consciousness is assumed to be irrational, just like our consciousness. Dying for someone else, is irrational. Love can be irrational. Any metaphysical phenomenon is considered outside of the domains of logical existence. This is one reason why Christianity is so relatable. It's not solely an a priori logical concept. It's also partly an a posteriori irrational experience. A phenomenon.

My point is that rather than fear the irrational, one should embrace the irrational as evidence in support of their personal relationship in the Christian faith.

If the non- believer or skeptic wants to argue that all of life is rational, that their own conscious existence is rational, and that the world ex-nihilo can be completely explained rationally with no mystery or paradox, ironically, it will only serve to diminish their case in support of any alternative rational belief system. As if irrationality could or does not exist. Ask the skeptic if he/she can rationally explain their own existence. If they can't (which we know they can't) then where's their argument?

In the end, the concept of Faith has, of course, other secular or rational/irrational implications. Faith in one's abilities, faith in one's employees, faith in one's creativity, faith in one's loved ones...

But what is the concept of rationality and pure reason? What is it's sole purpose? Does it explain everything? Why did Kant conceive of the Critique of Pure Reason? What is abstract metaphysical phenomena? And finally, someone explain consciousness!

...well, of course the old debate over whether mathematics' has an independent existence or a human invention, rears it head again here:

We know mathematics is an abstract feature from consciousness
We know mathematics describes concrete things-in-themselves (does not explain the nature thereof)
We know mathematics describes things that are unseen (laws of gravity)
We know mathematics confers no survival/biological advantages

Just like other abstract phenomena in consciousness (metaphysical/sentience), can one infer an independent will of sorts, that is causing this unique sense of (self)awareness(?).