What is other? — tim wood

Probably "Canine", but I doubt that dogs would know how to answer it.

Perhaps if you tried to achieve the bare minimum, I wouldn't have to try so hard to decipher bad writing. — Kenosha Kid

Ad Hominem will not take you anywhere.

still doesn't follow, and repeating it prepended with "undoubtedly" doesn't make it any better. — Kenosha Kid

We, humanity, are the only expression within existence of the concept of "experience".

We are the only ones able to consciously absorb information from the Universe and transform and/or shape it in any way we want.

"We are gods tied to a body eternally trapped in the present of existence."

However, this does not claim that the concept of "humanity" creates a sense of "centrality". What I say is that the individual capacity of the human being to consciously experience existence makes the "existential" center of the Universe, "Humanity" - the individual - the Ego - -.

My argument is simply logical deductive. So, if you disagree, feel free to make an refutation based on logical substance.

Cosmologically, planet Earth is the center of the Universe - if you don't know, the observable universe is a spherical region - centered on Earth - comprising all matter that can be observed from Earth or its space-based telescopes and exploratory probes at the present time. Its diameter is 8.8 × 1026 m -.

As I've said:

"You're not even trying"

Also the universe can be experienced. You're experiencing it right now. — Kenosha Kid

If something exists, but it cannot be experienced — Gus Lamarch

As in "It cannot experience itself".

You're not even trying.

I feel like the world is becoming flatter, less interesting, less diverse. — User34x

As Hegel would say:

"The course of humanity is the course of history: - It progresses, reaches the point of contradictions, and summarizes in a synthesis of both previous periods."

We are entering a second "Dark Age". That is why you perceive and are able to perceive these characteristics. During the fall, existence becomes much more present.

This is one of the hallmarks of calling out white privilege and racism – white people, particularly white males, go into emotional self-defence mode to protect themselves. Like children having too much ice-cream taken away, they cry and fight and throw tantrums to protect what they perceive as their birth right. They have a grief reaction. When one has privilege and they are so used to it that they think it’s normal, equality feels like oppression.

...that goes for sexism, too.

Black Women Confronting Racism and Sexism — Banno

This type of garbage is not worth discussing due to the following factors:

Doublethink;
Historical revisionism;
Victimism complex.

Your answers only strengthen my previous observation:

I honestly don't know how people take you seriously, or even, how you take yourself seriously:

- The great Banno, with years and years of forum! When he decides to create a discussion, it will be very engaging!

And then you copy and paste a link from the internet and write your opinion on 1 line. Philosophy at its best!? — Gus Lamarch

Remember "@JerseyFlight"? He just wasn't any worse than you because he spoke; You, on the contrary, are a silent plague.

Is the third supposed to follow from the other two? — Kenosha Kid

The logic is simple and direct: - If something exists, but it cannot be experienced, and there is something in this existing "something" that is capable of perceiving himself and perceiving the former, this "object" is undoubtedly the center of the first. Information does not leave the individual, but is transformed by the individual - its primary form is that of the Universe -.

Cosmologically and astronomically, Earth is the center of the Universe.

Therefore:

- Humanity is the existential center of the Universe;
- Earth is the cosmological center of the Universe.

- Until proven that there is life elsewhere and not only in our planet, my argument remains valid -

I know I'm not the center of the universe. But physically, I am the center, from purely my own perspective, looking out at the world and all other beings. The occasional angst I get is: Why am I the person who is physically at the center looking out? Is this about the "meaning of life"? I don't care about the meaning of life. I only wonder why I'm at the physical center of it, looking out. Do others feel that way? — Scott South

I have already expatiated on the subject extensively here on the forum and on the concept of "egocentrism", which proves that the Universe, yes, does have a center - one that, individually, is dispersed - and that the nucleus is simply the individual's perception within of existence.

Your doubts are not irrational, since they are founded on the rationality of egoism. What everyone forgets is that by applying dialectical metaphysics within the substance of reality, we are able to perceive the exclusive and unique existence, therefore:

The Universe exists;
"I" exist in the Universe;
"I" am the center of the Universe.

Stop wasting everybody's time. You were given some of the reasons why the article wasn't published. We don't care what you think of the reasons why it wasn't accepted or why you think it's necessary to argue against them. You can either fix the article along the lines fdrake set out and resubmit or drop it. — Benkei

You're a joke for a moderator...

It seems your ego is really resentful of your argumentative defeat in our last discussion.

But so be it: - To say that this forum has administration is as ridiculous as to say that Man is altruistic!

Mr. Wood, when the moderator uses such vile language and threatens exile or banishment, he is motivated by moral indignation, THE enemy of philosophy, never by pedantic considerations like “quality of OP”, or “lack of evidence”, etc, as you justly point out...

...and that indignation is directed against those who dare suggest that any class of human being is less equal than any other. No doubt about the equality of all human beings may be countenanced by anyone, and the correct response to such doubt is outrage by (almost) everyone, and threat by those who hold the power to effect that threat.

In previous posts in various threads I have attempted to explain the source of this phenomenon, reveal its roots in the origin of philosophy, and argue that nothing has changed since Socrates was put to death for the corrupting of the youth of Athens.

Let me just point out that, as I speak, a debate is being raised in the States about whether transgender students should be allowed to compete in sports according to their “gender”, or their “sex”, things that were synonymous until yesterday. There is an ongoing war between the traditional concept of nature, and the new one based on advanced egalitarianism...

...but he who espouses the former will be subject to censure...in society at large, but also particularly in this forum. — Todd Martin

The reflection of totalitarianism that arises from decadence and indecency is also visible in the attitudes of the "moderators" of this forum. It permeates everything.

"- But it is obvious that you can think differently! Exclaims a moderator. - Different from the others! Exclaims another, while everyone burst out laughing..."

Math PhDs 2017-18 in USA: 1,960 ... 29% women. — jgill

What the statistics show is not a "demonstration of lack of representativeness" of both sexes, but rather, that both sexes prefer, when given freedom of choice, completely different academic sides.

The act of forcing this "representativeness" of one of the sexes in some area, will only achieved this:

Representativeness.

Without any practical and theoretical power.

In summary and for the laity to understand: - Take better care of your own lives, and let others take care of - or destroy - their own.

But demonstrably, it does. That's a topic worthy of discussion. What is missing from the forum because of this bias? What voices are not being heard, what perspectives might they add, what anxieties might they elicit? — Banno

The concept becomes existing and self-conscious when people like you bring it up.

When you want a problem, you create it, but you never solve it.

The forum itself is a good - not great - reflection of how "letting people exercise their individual reflections" works and stabilizes the dialectic over the long run. The problem arises when you decide to state this:

At best, "...shouldn't..."

But demonstrably, it does. — Banno

Therefore, "Whereof one don't know how to speak, thereof one must be silent."

And I reserve the privilege of meddling in any conversation here. — Banno

I honestly don't know how people take you seriously, or even, how you take yourself seriously:

- The great Banno, with years and years of forum! When he decides to create a discussion, it will be very engaging!

And then you copy and paste a link from the internet and write your opinion on 1 line. Philosophy at its best!?

So, feel free to meddle in my conversations, I just tell you that the probability of this happening for a long time is minimal, since you will be unable to maintain a peace of mind.

It's an open forum. — Banno

Exactly: - It is a free forum, not a free discussion.

Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to overcome it when we can. Why are you treating it as an inevitability. — khaled

I do not, in any way, treat egoism as an inevitability, which is why I argue that today's human society, along with its psyche, is shaped in a completely different way from what existed when egoism was used and appreciated by individuals. The individual - negative egoists - choose to become this.

What I treat as inevitability are the consequences of human acts, which, directly or indirectly, will only be used for the exacerbation of the ego of the "self".

If we deny it, we will only see it as something negative, as a pejorative term.

If we accept it, we will only enjoy a future without more nihilistic shadows of "no purpose"; and, indirectly, we will reach the maxim of humanity - Man as its cause, means and ends -.

The starting point for the search for the true sense of the ego must be the following questioning:

"If I own myself, and in this existence, I can only be I, why shouldn't I, above all and everyone, worry only about myself?"

You'll have no answer to that. And that same silence, that is cold as the void, is everything you need to know to see that:

1 > ∞

So, what I am saying is that I don't think that you need be concerned about your article not being 'accepted' because it is on the site. People have only to log into the Section on Articles Submitted and your article on Egoism is there, waiting to be read. Also, on my phone, the font is clearer than the one in the official articles section. — Jack Cummins

The quality of my article had already been brought up by the comments in the discussion about it. The point is that I would like to "make it official" in the forum, as a mere symbol of "registration".

However, as I found in the refutation of the administration's arguments, the forum is biased, and contrary to the plurality of ideas. It was great that these points were made explicit.

I hope that less people are deluded by the false proposal to leave their thoughts public, that this forum sells to its users.

The forum itself is very good. It is its structuring compounds that rot it from the inside out...

About a month ago, Hippyhead had ideas that the whole site should be altered with the articles being the main one. I strongly disliked this idea because I thought that it would set up a system where the people with accepted articles would be seen as of higher rank. I said to Hippyhead that I didn't like the whole idea of article submissions because it set up a power dynamic of people having their work accepted or rejected. — Jack Cummins

More than 10 articles have been submitted for approval by the administration since the "articles" tab was created. However, the only one to be "accepted" and published was- as expected - written by one of the administrators ...

If this future to the forum was to be adopted, it would perish.

If you seemed willing to address the issues I've highlighted I'd be more willing to provide you with further feedback. The essay has structural problems; why are you arguing what you're arguing? Tell us! And tell us why it matters! It should be relatively easy to tell what you're arguing about and why it matters, from the essay, even if I don't understand the terms' intricacies. You need to give readers a desire to buy in to study your work, you get closer to that by being clear. — fdrake

You, as you normally do, completely ignored my last answers about why I use the "romantic" style to write my works:

(1): The search for understanding what the writer wants to pass on, is the total and unique responsibility of the reader. I do not write a guide for lazy children who are unable to read a text, and do not seek to interpret its true meaning behind the words recorded there.

(2): The article, and more importantly, the subject discussed in it, must be exclusively important to its writer. The article, after being finalized, exists and is published. It will be captivating and seek its readers, among those who truly seek to study and reflect on the subject treated in it. The text is a record of information, not sharing it. The transfer of knowledge and ideas arises from the spontaneous interaction of another individual with the content of the article.

(3): The text must be a reflection of the writer himself and therefore must be clear to its own writer; the text must be objective so that the writer can more easily express himself;

What you, like everyone else, decide not to understand, is the point that my writings are not for others, but for me. The text exists, therefore, obviously that it can be read by someone else. If that other individual is interested and seeks to reflect, or even refute my view, great! The last thing I want, are the opinions of those who do not want to understand what I say. The point of having it published in the "articles" sections is only that it has the potential of being read by those who want to read it.

appeal to nature. I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad thing to do that — fdrake

the philosophical content touches on an obvious case of the naturalistic fallacy — fdrake

I have to say anything else for this bit?

put it in your article. — fdrake

My article does not exist to defend itself against attacks. It exists to express a hypothesis supported by an in-depth studies in history, language and culture:

You write a work;
The work is attacked;
You write a defense for your work.

Do you understand now, how the philosophical dialogue between writers is built?

The "University", or as the ancients called it, "the Academy", had never been a place of impartiality. The goal has always been to teach those fortunate, what went according to the intellectual absolute of the time - classical age: moral and tradition, medieval age: metaphysics, and dogma, modern age: reason and logic, contemporary age: knowledge gnosticism, and revisionism -.

And contrary to what many claim, Universities work much more easily and practically when they are homogeneous in thought and purpose.

Something that wants to defend and express to everyone, ends up defending and expressing nothing.

A few of the reasons: — fdrake

How ironic is the fact that you were the spokesman chosen - by you - to explain why my article was denied. Your ego was so frail, that you felt obliged, in some way, to prove to me - and to yourself - that somehow, you still have power. Again, you prove me correct, and you, wrong.

The argumentative style was overblown, lots of grandstanding. — fdrake

That is called "romanticism" and was used extensively by the majority of philosophers between the 18th and 19th centuries. If a reader of my article fails to interpret the vision being presented there, he should not be reading a philosophy article; let alone be in a philosophy forum.

you talked around points without making them clearly. Say what you'll say, say it, then tell us you've said it. Tell us why what you're writing about matters. — fdrake

The individuals who have "read" my article most likely do not know how the creation and structuring of thought works in an article. If they don't happen to know, Hegel had already created the three divisions of the demonstration of an argument:

Thesis;
Antithesis;
Synthesis.

And in my article, I made it a point to make this division explicit for the reader by using subtitles for each part of the argument.

the essay was poorly formatted and layed out on the page. - eg your use of whitespace+linebreaks and numbered lists in p 1->6. — fdrake

Jamalrob specified to me that the formatting was not important given the fact that if approved, a whole new formatting would be directed to the article, so I let me write and structure the article in a way that seemed most appealing and academic to me.

the philosophical content touches on an obvious case of the naturalistic fallacy without addressing it. If you're going to do something like naturalise morality, you need an answer to why it's not the fallacy. — fdrake

It is these points of dubious tendency that make me discourage having my writings published here.

The naturalistic "fallacy", here, in your "justification", proves vacant of support and foundation.

You'd previously submitted it as the original post of a thread. — fdrake

The discussion had taken place without the knowledge that it was necessary to publish it - the article - in the specific section for articles.

The rules and guidelines are not explicit and are left in the background. Anyone unaware of how the forum works - like me, when I decided to post the article - would have no idea what the rules are for submitting an academic text.

I'll provide more examples of the points if you like. — fdrake

I am grateful if you can give me more material to show to others how the intellect of the forum administration is biased, impartial, and incapable of plurality of thoughts. Feel free to submit more.

Seems rather cynical to argue that that’s the only motivation behind not being dogmatic with your views..... — khaled

What you mistakenly call "Dogmatic", in reality is an "Affirmation based on extensive research".

Egoism is the human nature, and it can be studied and proven to exist by language, culture, the individual psyche, and history.

Philosophy cannot be realized when thoughts are based on mere opinions without any research basis - which, ironically, seems to be the rule of the participants in this forum -.

Hey Gus, can you titrate that down to a short sentence of two so I can understand what you are trying to say? — synthesis

"Those who know they are egoist, however, do not accept their nature, eventually destroy the worlds of those who know and accept what they trully are" - This is the story of humanity.

I don't agree but in any case, the insight has stayed with Ori after he has sobered up. It's very odd to stipulate conditions which must obtain before philosophy can be done, even odder to not consider a view because of what state the person conceived it in. — bert1

I will never understand the thinking of the masses of defending the consumption of something that is toxic to their own existence. Perhaps it is an ego-suppressed suicide attempt? Or maybe you just don't get the point because you don't want to.

In any case, continue with your debate of "pseudophilosophy". My participation in this "discussion" is over.

What do you mean? You're not allowed to have insights when drunk? — bert1

Philosophy is only philosophy if reflected in a conscience that is counscious and fully aware of its existence. Any kind of mental stimulation induced by toxic and hallucinogenic products is not of a philosophical character as they were not conceived of the "self" own initiative.

belief — Jack Cummins

What makes "belief" if not your faith?

certainty — Jack Cummins

What makes "certainty" if not your certitude?

in order to be free to rise into the skies. — Jack Cummins

Who in the end will be free to rise in the skies? Certainty? Belief? Concepts? or Yourself?

What is the purpose of love? Where does it come from? Is it needed? — Benj96

"Love. - All dissertations on this subject always start with the same question. What is love? But this time, by myself, I will start with another question, a question that seems more fundamental. What makes Man create this concept, feeling, emotion - categorize it as you prefer - of affection? Oh! What more brings hedonistic wealth and personal accomplishments than convincing another individual that it belongs to you and that you belong to it? And what makes human beings act like that? I will tell you in a clear and good tone, your "Owness". Not who you sternalize and who you think you are. Your ego decides that."

I am not wishing to deny the importance role of egoism as expressed by Gus Lamarch — Jack Cummins

This is not a problem in egoism. Jack, what you - and everyone else that can't be "I" - don't understand is that egoism, if transformed into virtue, and equivalent, in purpose, the individual human ability to reach the heavens is limitless, but only if we embrace with true feeling to ourselves; our own essence; our own; the ego.

I've participated in these discussion groups for decades and it never fails to amaze me how attached people are to their own thinking (when deep down inside they know they have no clue). — synthesis

The example given here by Synthesis, blatantly reveals what I call the "Negative-Egoist" - those who do not accept their most intrinsic principles and values in their individuals because they do not want to categorize themselves as egoists - the same ones that instead of transforming themselves in their own motivations and goals, decide, out of resentment, to infer their bitterness - unconscious as well as consciously - on others - -. Lamenting it or not, with God or without, nothing changes the practical truth that the overwhelming majority of all humanity was, and remains being beings consumed by the most dread and evil blight of all:

- Resent that you'll all be redeemed!

(when deep down inside they know they have no clue) — synthesis

This, the Christians called Satan, the Atheists, Nihil, and God, Humanity.

Thank you Gus. — Monitor

You're welcome.

You need to quote sources. Plagiarism isn't allowed here even if unintentional. — Baden

This is how you talk to people @fdrake. Thank you for clearing this point @Baden. It will not happen again.

It is philosophy and it's not a delusion. — bert1

It is only philosophy when you're fully conscious, otherwise, is mysticism or anything other than philosophy...

You might credit Wikipedia for most of that — Monitor

And you might credit me for being the first one to bring you this topic...

"The property, is the ownership of that who has power" - Max Stirner

a real philosopher — Ori

Subjectiveness at its best!

When you less expect, you'll be creating a religion...

Next time, do not post "pseudophilosophy" and then maybe we can discuss. Good day/night.

move along dude — Ori

Sorry if I unmasked your false epiphany and showed you it was just the effects of alcohol acting on your mind.

You don't know how I got interested in the topic when I first read the title. But it is difficult to start an argument and take it seriously when your first words are a description of your misuse of high amounts of alcohol.

This is not philosophy, but the delusion of someone under the influence of drugs...

Today I got drunk — Ori

had a sort of existential epiphany — Ori

It was not one.

The problem you have with my argument is twofold: a) you don't understand it, b) it's a proof of God. — Bartricks

Your pride only strengthens my philosophy, so continue with your false arguments with your false proof of God...

'concludes' — Bartricks

conclusion — Bartricks

Your mistake is to stick to the substantial concept of "conclusion".

Something "absolute" cannot be the conclusion of something, only the premise, because if it turns out to be the conclusion, it is no longer absolute.

Your argument is stuck in the cycle of irefutability:

A, therefore B;
B;
Therefore, A.

But as I say:

"Someone who does not want to understand other visions will never understand."

'concludes' — Bartricks

conclusion — Bartricks

Your mistake is to stick to the substantial concept of "conclusion".

Something "absolute" cannot be the conclusion of something, only the premise, because if it turns out to be the conclusion, it is no longer absolute.

Your argument is stuck in the cycle of irefutability:

A, therefore B;
B;
Therefore, A.

But as I say:

"Someone who does not want to understand other visions will never understand."

Oh no, the coin hit the fish tank, cracked the glass, the water shorted the electrics and blundering about in the dark I squished flippy! — counterpunch

:100:

Finally people have evolved and proclaimed that even your opinions are dead. They have given you the right to remain silent until you are reeducated. Don't try and hide; just shut up. There are no safe spaces for you if you insist on arguing. God is dead, philosophy is dead, and now your opinions are as good as dead. It is just a matter of time and education. You have the right to remain silent. Be happy for that. With your attitude you could be eliminated or canceled out. If you don't believe me, watch the trailor to the movie. Only the opinions of your big brother matter. All additional thoughts will be canceled — Nikolas

The same belief that brought prosperity, peace, and individuality to the Western world had destroyed its very foundation by its own perverted decay...

We live after the "Pax Romana", but I'm still not sure when:

Beginning of Commodus's reign - 180 AD -;
Beginning of Septimius Severus's reign - 193 AD - ;
Ending of Severus Alexander's reign - 222 AD -;
Start of the Crisis of the Third Century - 235 AD -;
Start of Diocletian's reign - 284 AD -.

But one thing is certain: - The "Dominatus" is already inside us and consuming us. There is no more difference between "Princeps Civitatis" and "Dominus" as much as "Respublicus" is frowned upon as "Rex".

One must accept the darkness as quickly as possible, so that a new day will emerge...

If you think there's a problem with the argument, use your extensive knowledge to highlight it. — Bartricks

The error is getting to the conclusion. If we are talking of the same God, it cannot be comprehended by mortal minds, therefore, any conclusion about it, it's not about it, but of something else.

"God is absolute, therefore, this phrase is not about God, because if it was, then God was not absolute, therefore, it would not be God."

I think you're seeing Plotinus everywhere. — Bartricks

But of course! Your argument is completely identical to that of Plotinus - even if you had never heard of him -.

Your conclusions were made more than a 1000 years ago, and we now know that they are wrong.

God. Reason is not strong in this one. — Bartricks

Agreed.

It is a conceptual truth that a mind who exists and is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent 'is' God. — Bartricks

Your premise of "God" is very similar to that of Plotinus and his "One":

"there is a supreme, totally transcendent" One ", containing no division, multiplicity, or distinction; beyond all categories of being and non-being. The" One "" cannot be any existing thing ", nor is it merely the sum of all things, but "is prior to all existents"."

The problem is that your concept of "God", filtered from all cultural and regional interpretations, only refers to the "Absolute". And as Plotinus had already stated:

"Once you have uttered 'The One', add no further thought: by any addition, and in proportion to that addition, you introduce a deficiency."

Therefore, your conclusion that "God" exists, concluded that something exists, but the possibility of it being "God" is non-existent because your thesis is existing and capable of being conceived.

So we're not egoist anymore because we're sedentary? — Raul

Please, do read my article "Egoism: Humanity's Lost Virtue".

Could you expatiate on why my article was rejected - simply for a better assessment if it was my demerit during the development process, or if it was something from the administration -? — Gus Lamarch

Thanks for the answer.

Ufff... the Homo Sapiens did not evolved to live in a nomadic society. Evolution is about survival, it doesn't dictates whether you're nomad or sedentary. Being sedentary has just proof being more successful in surviving. Civilizations and the high standard of culture we have are here thanks to sedentarism, you are the son of sedentarism.
Are you saying this because of any romantic-bohemian nostalgia? Or you would like us to go back to nature as chimpanzees? — Raul

I do not claim that we should return to a primitive way of life. The point I make - and that you'll only understand if you read my article posted here on the forum - is that the human substance - egoism - was lost with the advent of agriculture, which, consequently, ended up creating the methods that would eventually be used against ourselves - hierarchy, dogma, stratification, religion, etc ... -.

Obviously, the current human would not be able to adapt to a return to the nomadic life of our ancestors. The point is that sedentarism killed the nature of Man - egoism was destroyed.

Quoting myself:

"With the development of agriculture, and therefore, of the sedentary process that would soon follow, the human being, being a natural egoist, would create purposes that would not only facilitate the advance – technological, social and cultural – of his civilization, as they would evolve intellectually, however, here I focus on the fact that all men would be able to fulfill their individual desires without any restriction or denial of when, how, and where to conceive that same purpose; with the first steps of civilizatory development, Man still had some poor hope of being able to be his maximum, however, at some point in the past – I hypothesize that between 10,000 BC and 7500 BC. Between the end of the Neolithic and the end of the Chalcolitic – in some society in an embryonic state, the concept of hierarchy had been created, and I believe it was developed – Hypothesis A – by people who were of the resentful masses who had not accomplished their purposes and who seeing the accumulated power of some of the members of their community, who had been successful in the individual mission of the purpose, concluded that in order for them to be successful – the weak – the strong – those who could achieve individually – and their ways of thinking – placing the individual ego as the greatest virtue, for they had already conceived the idea that human nature was egoist, but in a way that becomes productive through virtue – outside the concept of power, and thus creating a structure capable of stratifying the population and making the control of whoever achieved this “consummation of the ego” be ordered, or – Hypothesis B –, the community elite – the victorious, good, strong, conscious egoists – became aware of the fact that without a structure, society – and its population – would be able to realize themselves individually, and one of these achievements could lead the elite to be removed from their post as elite, causing them to create the organism of hierarchy to remain in power, and by means of doublethinking, distort the basic virtue, egoism." - Gus Lamarch, 2020, Egoism: Humanity's Lost Virtue

I'll try to keep that in mind when evaluating your posts from now on Gus. — Pantagruel

Thank you.