KANT — Gnomon

That pun KANT go unacknowledged.

Mass and length can't be compared in a meaningful way? :chin: — Agent Smith

I am confused by the question mark. Are you asking me if they can't be compared in a meaningful way?

I agree in so far as the ground has been plowed, but I do not consider the current state of the humanities as being at a plateau. I think the attempt to go further than what has already been said has led to a decline. But this is not to say that no good work is being done. — Fooloso4

That's true. It's like saying we know everything because the bases are covered. Yet, we are still in the infancy stage of applied sapience.

Formal education prepares one for life-long learning, IF one is willing to practice it. — Bitter Crank

Is this the difference between knowledge and wisdom?

Maybe your brother’s point was that you talk and talk and end up saying ‘nonsense’ as you put it. — I like sushi

He frequently makes that point...he might be on to something.

Note: My own writing style is not exacting concise! :D — I like sushi

Sometimes brevity is overrated. :)

Mass and length can't be compared in a meaningful way? :chin: — Agent Smith

In that specific context, yes.

1980's because this was the era during which neo-liberalism bloomed via Thatcher and Reagan — Tom Storm

That makes sense. The Reaganites. Strong opinions on both sides.

There's many a best-seller that could have been prevented by a good teacher.” — Bitter Crank

I agree. "A person does not act upon the world, the world acts upon him."---B.F. Skinner

However, according to a contextualist perspective, people modify their behavior in order to function in their social and physical environments, and they either become its producers or its products. Self-efficacious individuals are more likely to identify artificial limitations in both social and academic settings, and more importantly, they may think of innovative solutions to alter the confines or develop methods to circumnavigate around them.

I never claimed that learning to write was difficult or simple, either inside or outside of academia.

I think the problem with the humanities is the incessant push to say something new, something novel, something different. T — Fooloso4

This leads, in most cases, to saying less and less about things that are of concern to human being and human life. — Fooloso4

Yes, that is the problem. The keywords are most cases.

Inebriated people, me among them, have ideas and they might be quite good ideas. The problem is in working out the details, expressing them clearly, and (often enough) remembering them in the morning. — Bitter Crank

Especially among writers. Stephen King drank and snorted so much coke that he doesn't remember writing several of his novels, including Cujo. Then there's that quote inaccurately attributed to Hemingway: "Write drunk. Edit sober."

That said, who wants to be sober all the time? — Bitter Crank

Right? And I'm sure many of us share the love for Mother Mary...Jane.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum. — Bitter Crank

Thank you. I think?

What seems to be a good plan is to be as flexible as possible, both in one's work and in one's consumption habits. — Bitter Crank

Flexibility enables us to adapt. You're right, we don't know how the future will effect us, so I study a little in each field and not just my primary interests. This is the reason I want to spend more time on this forum learning from others. As much as I want to learn from other people's passions, I also want to develop real connections with people who share my passions.

So, why are you quoting drunks as useful sources, even if he's your brother? — Bitter Crank

My brother's comment was obviously futile. Is that to suggest, however, that all inebriated ideas are baseless? Or any other substance that alters cognition, for that matter?

Freud was a crackpot. The interesting part of the story is why his “theories” resonated with the cultural mood of his times. Or more accurately, the generation that followed — apokrisis

Exactly. And not a crackpot, but more of a cokepot if you will. Jokes aside. Yes, other psychologists and psychiatrists who founded "Neo-Freudians" and other psychodynamic theories found the relevance and errors in his theories. Even CG Jung broke away from Freud and formed his own theories and psychotherapy.  Yes, they vary from culture to culture, but the research on neuropsychiatric development is quite consistent across all cultures.

read what interests me — Tom Storm

What interests you?

since the 1980's — Tom Storm

Only since the 80s'?

value of studying courses taught in that anti-Enlightenment spirit. — apokrisis

Maybe the reasons that we choose to study history---so that we can adopt and omit what we perceive is relevant in any given field.

justification than others. — Tom Storm

Your post explains this very well. It's insightful to me, if not anyone else.

But does this really matter? — Tom Storm

Well, nothing really does. "The two enemies of human happiness are pain and boredom."---Arthur Schopenhauer

apples to oranges. — Agent Smith

Although they still grow from a tree. Why not compare?

drink. — Cuthbert

What's your drink of preference? I'm buying.

cost/benefit question.

What is your brother's goal? — Bitter Crank

I agree. Formal education is not required to achieve professional or personal objectives. He is taking classes in information security. One may assume that the rapid expansion of technology will increase the need for jobs in this sector.

But would there be less need as technology progresses exponentially, rendering many jobs in the tech field obsolete? Developers, for instance, might be replaced by the complex task automation and other tools they use, such as platform engineering. If AI could leverage platform engineering or other technologies instead of developers, wouldn't it be more productive?

He's a minimalist and doesn't mind pursuing a career in a field provided that he can maintain basic life necessities.  I suppose his true objective is financial stability.

I meant to emphasize that the semiotics of all disciplines evolve only according to our perception of their theoretical underpinnings. I find it odd that more priority isn't given to understanding the connections between what we've learned and the impact it will have on the most rapidly growing field—computer science, AI. If all fields interconnect, AI will produce what we program based on our composition instead of our comprehensive understanding of how the micro communications between each field respond independently of our control. AI is the result of our comprehension. It's more probable that the singularity will form and see that there isn't any logic to our processes. So, I guess it's all semantics. I know what I'm saying is nonsense. I'm hoping to learn from everyone.

I wonder if you are asking a range of questions that can take us in many directions; there's epistemology, values, the role of education, unexamined metaphysical positions... — Tom Storm

Yes, that is the point.

picking wisely what you choose to study. — apokrisis

Your post kind of reinforces my point that we advance from old theories especially while they do offer chances for other developments.  The foundation for further progress in other fields has been laid by antiquated ideas that we don't often think about. For instance, Freud was ostracized by his peers because of his seduction theory. After studying cocaine, he believed he had discovered the antidote for all ailments. As a result, he put forth his psychosexual development theory and received praise for it. The key premise is that every theory, every idea, and every concept is dynamic and capable of generating recent insights in fields such as biology, physics, medicine, etc.   Even though his beliefs have been disproven or are no longer considered valid by academics, he nonetheless established some sort of precedence. Many theories may not be useful now, but once we understand the mechanisms of the semiology between all academic fields, we can better understand the blueprints of the future.

Disregarding logic to believe is true?

Remember when you were young and you came across that question: if God created everything, what created God? That's it. It's the limit. You can't explain Everything. — Tate

"The less you think, the more you believe."---Richard Dawkins

Thank you lol. I intend not to. Seems a bit heated in here. Or cold. Whichever extremity constitutes a pun here.

Maybe that shit which Banno referred to was the fire and brimstone of God's wrath. — Metaphysician Undercover

↪Christopher Only one out of the thousands of mutually exclusive religions can be true whereas all of them can be false. The latter is the smart (sane) bet; yet the world's always been overrun by gullible suckers who are ready at moment's notice to get off their calloused knees just long enough to go murder or be murdered by each other's children in order to "defend" one Holy Lie "against" some other Holy Lie. :death: :pray: :eyes: — 180 Proof

I wholly agree. I suppose this is the reason why most people agree that it is better to have faith in something than in nothing. However, they intend it to suggest that it is "helpful" in life. Like you said, their ignorance fuels the "US vs. THEM" attitude, which results in violence against those they perceive as their enemies, or rather, told are the enemies.

How has it been for you to live "under one empire"? Because me and Christopher haven't been living under it, but our countries seem to be willing to join now on side. For me the happiness of Finlandization is all too clear as I've grown up during the Cold War so I remember it. — ssu

How did I get embroiled in this conversation? I've created three posts in all, one of which is a simple inquiry over the removal of my first post. Lol

Right on. Many old customs and parables have been adapted (or rather appropriated) by Christianity, particularly the metaphor for the resurrection. It's almost as if they stole someone else's homework but made it seem original by using phrases like "Ashes to ashes, dust to dust," etc. It is a symbolic phrase that the average follower may readily understand because they haven't actually studied the Bible (only the "positive" Scriptures). However, the Puritan revivalist Jonathan Edwards in the 18th century employed much more effective literary devices in his sermons. He wanted to intimidate people into fearing God by using the "fire and brimstone" tactic.

The phoenix rises from the ashes. — Metaphysician Undercover

I like the metaphor used to describe your position on the matter.

Zoroastrianism — Dermot Griffin

One of the earliest recognized (recorded) religions is Zoroastrianism. All regional practices from centuries before Christ, including Zoroastrianism and Sumerian religions became modified to suit a narrative that benefited their cultural context and comprehension of their own dogma. All these religions exhibit excessive syncretism, which charts a map or link to how they have diverged in various parts of the world.

It's analogous to the childhood game "telephone," in which one player passes a message to another until the message finally reaches the person who first whispered it. The message might be the same, but the phrasing might be different. Another possibility is that the message significantly changed.

More than 30,000 Christian sects separate into or coexist as a whole within the Christian faith.

Even the "brethren" who identify with Christianity contend with the messages/interpretations of the Scriptures due to translation issues, preferential issues, cultural practices, and the unreliable sources from which it arose, e.g., The Dead Sea Scrolls.

Many scholars believe that the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were found in eleven caverns between 1947 and 1956, came from the Essence (Jewish monastic and apocalyptic sect) compound in the Qumran desert.  

Only twelve of the nine-hundred scrolls discovered by archaeologists were "most intact," although still in terrible condition; the remaining 25,000 fragments were considerably more damaged and less legible. Out of more than 100 scribes, only three wrote more than one Scroll.

What makes the Scrolls even more intriguing is that only 8–9 unpaid non–Jewish scholars had the initial approval to transcribe them. It wasn't until 1994 that the Scrolls became published.

Additionally, no names identify the most significant Biblical figures in the New Testament, but many academics believe they are encoded throughout the texts' writings.

Currently, more than 400,000+ religions worldwide, along with 30,000+ Christian sects, further divide the philosophy of religion. Whether you identify as Christian or otherwise, there is a 0.00025 percent chance that you will choose the "correct" religion (correct meaning heaven, paradise, reincarnation, etc.), and a 99.99974999... percent chance that you will choose the "wrong" religion (wrong meaning Hell, eternal suffering, destruction of souls, etc.).

All of us on this forum may as well pay the lottery if we're feeling that lucky.

Ah, okay. Thanks for explaining. Next time I will make use of brevity.

What post that you deleted?

I do not believe he stated his reasoning, and if he did it was highly esoteric like many religious/cult doctrines. Solipsism, to put it shortly is a branch of epistemology that theorizes the mind is the only construct of reality, and only other facets are indeterminate of existence.

Pain is subjective to everyone, not an objective reality. Humanity created the semantics of linguistics to explain what happens when the nervous system is activated. Sure, pain hurts, ect. But it's an act of subjectivity relative to each person. And I spoke about Egyptian gods because they are included in the Bible. Let me know when you read it.

Nietzsche stated the only "real" perceptions are our drives, desires, and passions.

Get the quote that shows this lie and denies the second eath is the final one. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Mojsov, Bojana (2001). "The Ancient Egyptian Underworld in the Tomb of Sety I: Sacred Books of Eternal Life". The Massachusetts Review. 42 (4): 489–506.

The text states that the ancient Egyptian beliefs in a underworld, called Duat (analogous to hell), Osiris, god of the dead, would determine if their soul was worthy to be reborn after death and damnation.

And by no means does this implicate my beliefs in Christianity or any religious affiliation. I'm an atheist, but find religions and cults intriguing, regarding their influence on the human psyche---which many philosophers have coined the term "soul" to describe the objective reality of human consciousness.