At the moment I am recuperating from writing the conclusion to several decades of meditation on a topic. Any good lecturer has a Q&A session after, lol. It seems to me people are more used to asserting opinions than asking questions. Well I am sorry it took so long to assert mine, but I do think I have something to say worth saying.

Actually, it is more of a theological solution to the problems of an empirical approach to Western religious doctrine. You could call it the 'Church of St. Thomas for rational skeptics' if you like, but there's not many people in it currently. Later )

I in no way understand what you are telling me. What do I approve of and what do I not approve of? I discuss what I think is rationally feasible, and I attempt to say other alternatives are possible at all points, making the text far longer than I would really like, but necessary because people start making criticisms without really understanding what I am saying in total. I really need specific examples.

I won't be able to get back to you until tomorrow, its bed time.

Wow! I would really like to see the original posts and comments there too! Thank you so much for summarizing them, please may I know the links too?

Im a little tired, Im going to need to rest a while, and consider your writing properly then. Im just writing to say thank you very much! Wow :)

Again,I am requesting specific examples of what you consider toxic. My narrative is as follows:

* There is substantial corroboration that he exists, and immense consequences even in society today. The extent of corroboration is greater than most understand, not having learned much about ancient times, as we know about them today.
* As rational beings, we can examine the specifics of events as they were reported, and attempt to resolve issues for rational skepticism, or to counter doubts in faith for believers, that do not create toxic destruction of good communities, and reduces the ridicule, replacing it with more compassionate consideration.
* the number of topics are indeed immense for which one can discuss specifics. I have focused on miracles, social changes attributed to the Holy Spirit, the extent of accuracy one may expect from surviving texts, and in them, so far: Jesus's siblings, his birth, and the immaculate conception. For this I examine not only what is written, but the choices in what was written, and what was not.
* Personally, I regard St. Thomas as a principal agent in our modern age, and just as he likely felt about the other disciples, I admire and respect other followers for believing in love and forgiveness so much they are willing to accept the scientifically impossible. Like he wanted to put his fingers in Jesus' wounds as proof, I do not know if there is an afterlife, but if there is, nothing ever will delight me more than meeting jesus.

That's what Im trying to say. I have asked you several times for examples of why you think my text is toxic, exactly, and so far you only elaborated on what you think about your own beliefs of toxicity.

I'm sorry, I am asking for a specific quote of my text to illustrate your point so I may consider how to write it better. I do not intend at all to destroy any community, in fact I admire and respect people for the strength of their beliefs that they will even accept the scientifically impossible. I fail to see how that intent is toxic. If I did not state it somewhere properly, I am asking for help to revise it, and I think, considering your criticism of me, that is a very fair response to you.

Why toxic? What is toxic exactly? Please provide example.

No one has expressed the conclusions I came to after several decades of thought on it, No one at all. So I am compelled to speak. Many Christians have not only expressed hate for what I am saying. Ive been excommunicated from a number of churches. At the same time, I get abuse from people wanting to dismiss the story entirely as being an idiot. Its been difficult to live with. I did rewrite the conclusion of my first post not to mention my objection, including instead some of what I had writte4n before in another essay 'The Passion, the shit sponge, and beyond' which you would not want to read because my description of the crucifixion has made a number of people nauseous.

Well thats the problem I have struggled with. I consider the skepticism, frequently expressed with snide anger, a real moral problem and inseparable from the cold facts you might prefer to discuss with discompassion.

well it seems to me I already said what you did in the second paragraph, in fact. I dont see what your comment adds to what I said. Apologies.

I dont feel your comment actually shows any appreciation of the extent of my own thought on the topic. I would have to ask you to read the first post, and the one immediately before yours, before replying to me again.

I'm sorry this is a little long, but I really think you will find it worth reading. MANY people are VERY eager to argue about whether Jesus was truly divine, but as far as I can find, no one has ever really thought through all the implications of considering his life in rational terms. Not to the extent I present below.

So a good place to start is with Jesus' four brothers. I will clarify the reasoning on this as I discuss the evidence, but regrettably, its likely they were half brothers. Later they were probably counted among his disciples, whose exact count and members varied over time, simplified as a total of twelve. But Jesus' father wasn't there, and Mary had to make money, so it's likely they were half brothers. That's NOT a nice thought, is it. But it's worth actually considering in more detail, because it has ALOT of implications. First there is the mention of them in Mark, the earliest and shortest of the gospels:

“(jesus) began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands? Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.” Mark 6:2-3

Hmm. Seems like they really could have been half brothers, doesn't it, the people in the synagogue being so offended? It must have become a debated topic VERY early in the church, and it is rather a signification of the true dedication of the scholars who worked on the gospels that the mention of his brothers remains there, and was not deleted. What a horrible thing to have to say at all. This is why I had to wait a long time before I could talk about my ideas. What can one say without making alot of people very angry, because it goes beyond debates about Jesus' nature, to include the feelings of many women who have found great consolation in praying to Mary. What can one say. Well, Mary certainly got alot of people praying to her. Hats one thing. Another thing is, Jesus had to be oldest son for reasons of claimed inheritance line.

And that approaches the issue of immaculate conception.

Well in preface to that, I have to say, I really do, its an awful thing for a woman giving birth not even to be allowed to use a pub table for it. Awful! One can console oneself that the innkeepers probably had reason to believe the child a bastard, considering the prior remarks in the gospels, so maybe one can find a little justification for them not helping a woman giving birth, but even so, what would Jesus have thought of that himself growing up? Its clear Joseph had money to pay for a room, because it says the pubs were full. There's no reason for the apostles not to say Joseph was too poor. Couldn't even one visitor even let Mary have a bed to give birth? No! We have the parable of the good Samaritan instead!

Anyway, however much money Joseph had, one thing he'd really want is not for Mary to give birth in horse shit, not to mention cow shit, goat shit, chicken shit, and camel shit.

At least camel shit doesn't smell so bad, when you burn it to stay warm.

Burning other shit smells horrible, and doing so makes a disgusting mess, and that's one Joseph would have had to do to keep Mary warm. I feel all the romanticism of his birth is nothing less than abominable, frankly, now that it has even extended to this deplorable illusion that children have to suffer under, that there is a Santa Claus, who could be viewed, in ancient terms, as a bizarre jolly God, now controlling 15~20% of the world economy--For nonbelievers, a new God not acknowledged as a God, because the old Gods were too hard to believe in any more. And for believers, too pretty a way for remembering the wise men (but not the camel shit) in gift giving, totally and completely dwarfing the appalling circumstance of Jesus' birth.

Then there is considering how Joseph was not with Mary all the time (and how Jesus could in fact have asked his father to bring scrolls from Egypt as presents, so the boy could learn more, we know he was an avid learner):

Now when (the wise men) were departed... (Joseph) arose and took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt; and was there until the death of Herod (Matthew 2:13-15

I am obliged to note that Jesus' time in Egypt may have been added to fulfill a prophecy that St. John then mentions; but WHY is it mentioned here that Joseph stayed in Egypt? It certainly inst necessary to the story that the church requires faith in, and one has to bear in mind all these words had to be painfully transcribed many times. The other main mention of Joseph in the texts indicate Joseph met Mary annually in Jerusalem:

Every year Jesus’ parents went to Jerusalem for the Festival of the Passover. When he was twelve years old, they went up to the festival, according to the custom. After the festival was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it. Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him. After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.” “Why were you searching for me?” he asked. “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?[” But they did not understand what he was saying to them.

...well..running away like that...that does sound like Jesus was saying Joseph might not have been his blood father, and was trying to figure out what Mary told him about the immaculate conception . again, what a horrible thought. We can discuss the immaculate conception more if you wish, they are not uncomfortable thoughts to me any more, but it could REALLY hurt the feelings of other people.

What a horrible thing Jesus had to live with, which is the other part of what I think about him getting hold of medical scrolls from Alexandria, and why he decided to do what he did in the first place. Most people would call it fraudulent and scoff at it. Well I thought more about it than they did. Perhaps it was fraudulent, but its certainly NOT something to scoff at. There you are. That's what I believe.

As to his claims to godhood, if you read what I wrote you previously about my beliefs, you'll understand better that I totally abstain. Considering what he achieved, certainly he could have been, and as I say, how much more incredible would that be, if he achieved all he did without needing to break the laws of science that the Creator, if indeed a Creator exists, had established for humankind on this planet, the entropic center of the universe So I follow St. Thomas on it, who despite his skepticism is counted among the faithful. I'll know the truth when Im dead, and before then, I abstain )

Your assumption is right, he exist, but not to that extent, which been largely exaggerated. Maybe for different reason Political or power shift from here and there. But who knows, what happens then. Like some wise person once says we dint have proof he exist, but as well we don prove that he didn't exist. — B G Upadh

Well I can understand what you say about exaggeration. On the other hand, though, I do have to indicate there was a major change in social attitudes about him. It's difficult to believe that could happen either. I know the tendency is to dismiss it out of hand, but why? Why was there was so much change because of him, and him, specifically? Is it equally reasonable, in fact, to dismiss claims of the Holy Spirit at work as being more exaggeration?

thats some very intersting thought. Currently I am struggling with a parallel proboem, and I would very much appreciate hearing your thoughts on it as expressed in the first and last post here.

[url=http://]https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8180/is-christs-existence-a-fraudulent-myth[/url]

:)

Well the next post has alot in it. It really does. I;ll come back in a few days to hear what you think of it.

One reason the painting of jesus with a splinter and his four brothers was controversial is that it portrayed his humanity. Of course some people did not even like the thought that he could even get a splinter by mistake.

maybe its easier to find, Ill look too later, I hadnt looked for a while.

According to John's Gospel Jesus said with some clarity that he was God. — Ciceronianus the White

Well of course Ive thought about it. But also he never claimed he was THE son of God, he said he was THE SONE OF MAN, He said he prayed to his Father, and the funny thing is, the word he uses in that context means 'daddy.' Fundamentalists use this to say we should have a close personal relationship. Personally I think he missed his blood father alot, and alot of the things he said were distorted. Thats what I think, I cant prove it, I respect other opinions, and its one of those things about him we can never 'know' per se and it remains a matter of faith. Its taken me a long time to talk about it, Im not sure I talk about it as well as I should, but what really annoys me, actually REALLY annoys me, is how I usually cant talk about it at all without getting into hugely emotional arguments on one side or the other. So Im glad at least we can have a neutral conversation here!

I do feel it appropriate to respond about my own beliefs, I have to follow St. Thomas on it, I really do. i love his gospel too, which mentions nothing about historical events at all. Jesus said to pray, he was a beautiful man, so I do, it has helped me however ridiculous you think it may be, Regarding adamant assertions of Godhood, Its like Thomas said about sticking his fingers in the nail holes. When Im dead Ill know what the truth is. Until then, I kind of would love to see jesus in the afterlife, but I dont want Jesus suffer for my sins. I thought about this alot during services. and talked with priests about it, and I have to say, this position is very, veryalienated from BOTH sides of the religious divide.

If there is an afterlife, I really would have to ask God if I actually HAVE to ask Christ suffer for my sins. I cant think I can trust others to tell me what is right for me in that respect. So I pray to St. Thomas. Im not sure about the intercession of saints either, Im not sure if he really hears me, but Jesus says to pray, so I do, and I find it helful. Usually I have a laugh with my teddy about it afterwards. We have alot of fun together D

Assuming those Mark quotes in his Gospel were accurate, he was a carpenter with four brothers. I don't know about you, but I was brought up in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and we never heard about those brothers. I suspect that was because either the Church didn't think such things were important if they were true, or the Church was hesitant to tell its members that God the Son (who was also God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, depending on what person was involved at the time) had brothers. — Ciceronianus the White

Oh. Well it's an uncomfortable subject for the Catholics. Ive actually written some historical imagination on it to put it in context, but Im not sure this is the right place to share it, because its not really philosophical. But I do remember once seeing a controversial painting of Jesus with his four brothers, with a splinter in his finger. I cant find it. Do you know who painted it?

Well I would have to agree that some of the gnostic texts go way overboard, and I can totally understand why the church declared them sacriligous and destroyed them Others are very beautiful and its a great shame they were lost, just glad after so long some of them were found again.

It doesnt surprise my jewish historians dont mention him. He just wasnt an important person to them. I have heard some people saying, the fact they didnt proves he didnt exist. Well that means alot of people didnt exist, doesnt it.

If you think about it, the Jews would have had very good reason to say there was this false sect and he didnt really exist. They were losing their own as converts. I think they just decided not to say anything at all. And I have to say, the technique of thinking about what writing we have DOES NOT say is a very powerful technique. Very powerful. Its worth practicing )

I can point to my own experience. No one else suggested he used lost scrolls about medicine to impress people. No one else said he intentionally induced a coma by sucking on a shit sponge. I never heard anyone even say it was a shit sponge. Thats what it was. Thats why it was there. No one hought it through. After 2000 years I cant imagine why. Moreover, I talked with a couple personal friends about the romans having no guilt. They were astonished. They said it was an incredible observation and agreed with me. I talk to classical depts in universities. I moight as well be throwing mud at a wall. Im not important, they say, if I want to write about it go to the bursars office and buy a phd. Well there you are. Thats what I have to say about it.

I would have to agree that hermeneutic technicques do not seem particularly scientific to me either, lol, but thats what they way they are. You know when you reach the fringes of knowledge, one has to use alot of conjecture and so on. I have the same thing about string theory too.

On The Nature of ANCIENT ORAL TRADITIONS

When I described all historical documents from the time, I mentioned that Plutarch's Lives, (ca. 200 AD) contained oral traditions dating back to the birth of Alexander the great (July 356 BCE). I should have added that it is one of the few secondary or tertiary sources on Alexander the Great. Earlier written accounts of Alexander the Great are entirely lost. Plutarch combined the lost texts with oral traditions into one seamless discourse.

In the current day, it's natural to assume that oral traditions were less reliable than written texts. For example, one frequently voiced criticism of the gospels is that they were written down long after the actual events, starting with the Gospel of Mark, first written down between fifty and a hundred years after Christ's death. If one puts oneself in the shoes of historians of the time, one sees a different perplexity. Should a historian rely on written text more than oral tradition? In the current day, one needs to understand the methods of oral tradition at the time, in order to understand the perplexity.

My father's mother and her siblings, who moved to the USA to escape the Russian Pogrom, often practiced the same oral tradition with me when I was a child. Also in those days, TVs were black and white, and had few channels. So once a week, after dinner, my grandmother would start telling a story about the family's past to all the guests. My grandmother's brother and sister would sit listening, occasionally interjecting only a few words. At first my great aunt would interject short corrections if she said something wrong, or a question if my grandmother said something she was not sure about. My grandmother would back up in the story and retell it, until my great aunt approved. So they corrected each other's memories, this way, in oral traditions.

Every couple of years, my grandmother would retell the same story, remembering and emphasizing the corrections from last time. Over the years my great Aunt had to make less and less corrections, instead interjecting small elaborations, with a big smile. My Great Uncle's role was entirely different. He would sprawl on the sofa, pretending to be dozing, surreptitiously watching to see if the guests were bored, if necessary jumping up and saying "hey, that's enough stories for one night. You can tell us the rest next time. let's get an ice cream cone" or the like.

So that's an oral tradition from me, hahaha, about oral traditions. Families like my Russian grandparents, as well as churches in groups, have been telling stories like that for 5,000 years. With other listeners correcting the storyteller's mistakes, they were repeated with a far greater level of accuracy than most people of the current day appreciate.

In ancient times, historians writing new texts would combine oral traditions with written texts. First there is a question of how much the written texts might contain mistakes or deliberate errors. And there remains debate on how many of the oral traditions were added to the bible as we know it today, Maybe scribes would sometimes add pieces of information they heard from other places, thinking it better than the written copy they had.

When the early church fathers formalized the current canon of the New Testament ca. 350 AD, there were already differing versions of the scrolls written up to 300 years earlier. The older surviving scrolls took priority when the Testament text itself was formalized, only using newer scrolls if originals had decayed too much to be readable, either on the scroll edges or entirety. At least a dozen main sources, in total, had been handing down these texts separately. For example the Gospel of Mark came from Egypt, because that's where Mark went after Christ's death. There were newer copies of Mark's gospel all around the Roman Empire, some together with other original gospels. Then newer copies of original gospels from other places also made it back to Egypt.

When the historians working for the first Christian Emperor, Constantine, were frrst formalizing the New Testament contents, they faced a different problem than any other historians to that day. In the past, there were scant records and story collecting from oral traditions was a difficult task, requiring much travel. But for the New Testament, there were too many texts and copies. There was ten times as much different content as in the current New Testament, and another order of magnitude of different copies.

So oral traditions were not included. There was no room for them in the size of the New Testament as it is now, the bible is already enough scrolls to fill quite a fair-sized truck. Instead, Constantine's historians found the oldest written texts from different places, tracing their lineage through the churches that kept them, and their congregations, back to the original disciples. So there were no oral traditions added or substituted to the New Testament at the time it was formalized.

Even so, there was a period of oral tradition, varying between 50 and 150 years for each of the gospels. Many have criticized this lack of reliability, with a ridiculously large majority stating the entire New Testament was total myth. One of the cultural facts I omitted in my last post was that oral traditions were remarkedly reliable if you compare them, for example, to the continually conflicting accounts of political events on TV broadcasts over the last decade or two.

well the exact definition has changed over years.

When sufficient corroboration has been accumulated, then hypotheses about an abstracted rule for those hypothesses can make a 'theory' I (an abstracted rule for group of hypotheses) 'true' in a general sense, although there can still be exceptions.

For example, consider whether water could spontaneously jump out of a glass. So the probability of that happening is more than the age of the known universe so they say, its generally true that the water wont jump out the glass, although its still considered a simplification, because in the field of quantum mechanics, its false.

thank you very much for the references. I have been rather buried in the Nag Hammadi, working on a new English version of the gospel of Thomas which maybe you would particularly like also, because it makes no mention of any historical events at all, and simply recounts his teachings in a new way )

it's also pretty certain that Lucius Flavius Silva led a legion to Masada, given the remains of temporary castra and an encircling wall around that place, not to mention the remains of the giant ramp that eventually provided access by elements of the legion. — Ciceronianus the White

oh ok. There is almost nothing on the subject by comparison in terms of documentation. What we have are rather good archaeological ruins whence events were reconstructed. Unfortunately Jesus was a carpenter and didnt make piles of earth a thousand feet long.

thanks fo rthe info. What's the subject?

I think since Wittgenstien in particular, it is philosophically naive to expect that there could be a universally accepted definition of a moral judgment, other than it being a moral judgment, usually but not always negative, for those who actually agree there is such a thing as morality in the first place.

well, considering there are going to be about 22 million people unemployed this week, I had thought at least a significant percentage of people would think, hey great, now I can read that book I always wanted to read. I havent seen anything like that at all. All the frontiers of change are pretty well used up, and the people who could have done something about it, like the people who are running companies, have not shown any responsibility to maintaining their corporate communities. they regard paying for retirement a responsibility of their employees, and have no cash reserves to keep employees on payroll during difficult times. Instead its all ended up in stock, which has greatly benefited executives, but not really provided any sense of community to the rest. What I observe is a reversion to tribal attitudes with employees treated as virtual and disposable slaves, who then find their own tribes and bicker with each other about how wrong theyve been treated but not agreeing what to do about it. And a total abscission of responsibility for global warming in the USA, which now appears the only significant remaining force for change.

When I got a Commodore 64 at 21,. I saw enormlus potential, and it was true, clock speeds went from 5mhz to multiple ghz while I was working, creating enormous changes in society. But now it feels like everything is exactly the same as two recessions ago, like a vinyl record stuck on a groove, except theres more people who dont know what to do with themselves and the world has to keep inventing new things for them to do. Security and the war against terrorism worked for a while, but now we pretty much ran out of terrorists too. and people, pressed against the walls of life by their own vacuity, are reverting to infighting and increasingly hostile tribal behavior. And the problem I see is, there is nothing, nothing at all, to reverse the trend for the si gnificant majoroity. Thats what I observe. I have taken my blog offline, no one did anything except make rude jokes about headlines, and canceled my other social media accounts/.

I would suggest a reading group here, but Im sad to say someone else would have to run it. Im not really good at moderating all this tribal behavior. I always found I could rely on other people to do that before, but now it seems there isnt anyone left who can do that, everyone's got sucked into this 'they are wrong, what fools they are, and how right I am jajajaja' thing.

Well I had to think about it, but it seems obvious now, the WORST consequence of Trump has been granting the moral permission to be rude about other people all the time.

Apparently most people havent noticed, that unless people are asking for money, virtually all people do online is insult others these days, except one minor exception: publicity media fan groups and party political groups, in which, unless one totally agrees with everything presented, one gets banned. Either one is not allowed to argue at all or no one is interested unless you're rude.

It used not to be like this. People used to be able to talk kindly to each other even when they disagreed. It just seems not to be possible any more. Just about anywhere about anything, including here. The most annoying thing is, even people who dont like Trump are behaving just like him too, so its difficult for a rational person to do anything.

Well that was my final thought. I have respiratory health problems, quite alot of pain, and probably will not be around much longer. My family are delighted. They call to find out if I am dead yet so they can get my estate, so now I have to hire an attorney to protect myself from my family too. I was thinking of shortening the process by suicide but thankfully it appears covid19 will do that for me. Apparenlly alot of people have real probllems accepting death is a natural part of life. I thought forums like this were meant to help with that kind of thing, but they've just become about bashing other people. t. Hope you all have a very nice day.

Its all my fault. I should never have invented Twitter. Really people should just ignore the man. Instead a gigantic proportion of the USA population have taken to emulating his insults etc thinking its funny. Or they are even more insane and take him seriously. He just tries to aggravate people on purpose and make fights so he drowns out everything else. I got so fed up with people playing partisan politics instead of pulling together in the face of a global health crisis, I am just taking myself offline entirely. I deleted my websterver, and social media accounts first. Next I am closing down all my site registrations. No one has had a sane conversation with me here since Trump got in. Im closing this account next. At least the democrats made a failed impeachment to stop him starting a nuclear war, turns out it was not necessary, but it was a good gesture.

Good bye.

qwhich is not an answer to my question and not funny either. Its exactly the kind of comment which I am talking about. I dont know whats goine wrong with the world, but I rather decided to just get a gun and blow my head off. I had enough of it. Its not even possible to have any kind of rational conversation even here with out some total buffoon with a mind of a middle schooler and the humor of what, well, nothing really, having to chip in and demean everything. Good bye.

I think I've been very clear. I want to know how the twin case is supposed to provide us with evidence that time is relative.
— Bartricks
What in the world does "time is relative" mean? Or more accurately, what in the world do you think it means? — tim wood

Actually Einstein has a very philosophical answer for this. When a child asked him to explain his theory of relativity, he replied "you know when you are in a class and watching the clock, and the five minutes to break last forever? But then the break is 30 minutes and you think it's over in a jiffy? That means you understand my theory, which only says, time is only meaningful in the perception of the observer, who is now you, so now, what time is it? It is time for you to go and play :) "

I actually had a bit of a revelation recently on why I like Monet's haystacks so much, in the middle of thinking through ideas of color, so here it is.

Primary in the perceptible electromagnetic spectra is the color of the chloroplast's photosynthetic mechanism. We are attuned to see this vivid green most of all, because that mechanism is how plants create and sustain all life on the surface of this planet. The hues around the green of growth are therefore most frequently easiest for animals' eyes to see, and nature is therefore dominated by peculiar evolutionary developments, such as flowers and fruits with tones around the color of chloroplasts, to attract and encourage animal life in the most bizarre forms of symbiosis, to propagate the seed of the sedentary plant.

A special wrinkle on perceived color is that objects do not appear to be the same hue and brightness in different lighting conditions, because of their different qualities of light absorption, reflectivity, specularity, opacity, and detail resolution at different distances. If the object also emits light, its color changes under different lighting conditions in an entirely different way, because the primary colors are different—Green instead of yellow for emitted light. Yet we normally are unaware of how objects change color in different conditions and unconsciously project whatever we know the color would be under uniform light without optical-processing artifacts, unless we consciously make the effort to consider environmental conditions. Additionally we don't actually see color at all if is dark, and instead slowly see monochromatic shadows with a secondary light-preceptor protein in the eye, commonly called visual purple; but we do not think the objects are different colors when it is night, even though that's what we actually see. Monet's Haystacks play with the changing of color's appearance at different times of day by emphasizing those tonal variations, engendering a dynamism to the paintings that might explain their meaningfulness to us. Moreover, the eye's edge-perception mechanism enhances nearby neighboring colors along their borders, but merges them depending on distance and lens focus in amazing ways that fauvists, pointillists, and other modern-art schools explore with rather more brute force than renaissance masters such as Michelangelo and Van Dyck.

Some, such as Randian objectivists, believe any argument on the nature of color should end there, unless it serves some material purpose, such as selling lipstick, to which the limited effectiveness of our visual range is only an irritation. Yet most complain not of the massive act of domination on our visual perception by our association with Regnum Plantae, instead considering the visual spectra only with pleasure, for of all the benefits that plants engender to animal life and human experience, color perception is one of particular delight. Such delight may or may not be a property of the object, depending on one's metaphysical view, so scientific explanation alone is not sufficient (for those who say delight is obviously not a property of the object, that's not what a buyer thinks at an art auction, so it's not so simple).

I studied philosophy at Oxford for three years and tried to figure out what I was meant to have learned for the next 40 years. If there had been degrees in computer science back then, I would still be mowing lawns for a living.

Im sorry I dont really have much to dsay about religion, except, God has a very bad sense of humor.

Yeah.

To declare this general as a legitimate target and not be considered assassinated by other countries, wouldn't they have to hold an international tribunal and declare him a war criminal? I don;t know the details of that, but it seems to me it doesn't matter what his past history in Iraq was, nor does it matter what he was plotting to do (it's not as if the USA doesn't make plans to attack Iran too). He's now a leader in Iran, and killing him pre-emptively sets a horrid precedent. At least Milosevic had already been declared a war criminal by the International court in the EU.

So we can bludgeon around the world and kill anyone we consider a threat? Who's next on the assassination list?

If this is what we do, this raises some serious concerns about the poison attack on Kim Jong Un's brother or whoever it was. Can we do so covertly and blame another country too?

STOP THE PRESS! STOP THE PRESS! STOP THE PRESS! STOP THE PRESS!

Iraq votes to expel US troops from country after Qasem Soleimani killing
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/iraq-votes-to-expel-us-troops-from-country-after-qasem-soleimani-killing/ar-BBYDpcA



Let me try to express this in terms the USA can understand:
GOP to Iraq: "Killing-Iran-leader-when-we-are-not-at-war-with-Iran-is-NOT-ASSASSINATION! We-are-the daleks-and-you-will-obey-or-we-will-EXTERMINATE-you!"
But wait! Doctor Who is here! "Halloo! So what's all this then? Total world domination again, hm?"

I find this especially funny after all the people complaining how Iran has been evil because it is an ally with Iraq, so therefore we are entitled to violate international law. And now OUR OWN PUPPET GOVERNMENT wants us out of Iraq, which they really have to do to keep peace with their neighbor! Which we can't complain about, because we gave them right to rule and assassinated someone there.

And it's exactly how politics work in the Middle East.What a dumbass thing to do, Mr President.

Anyway, sorry to interrupt. Back to your regular programming....

I wouldnt consider Thailand a particularly poor nation, although as costs there are the much same as in the USA, and income is as you say is half as much, the standard of living is rather atrocious. However it has very little to do with the OP, lol.

I looked on the Web, but I find nothing about the USA stating intentions to rejoin the Paris accord except by democratic presidential candidates, none of whom stand a chance after the senate gop majority votes down the impeachment and Trump goes on about how innocent he is for the next five years. With the majority of Americans not knowing impeachment is a political process and not a real trial they will believe him and he will win. Realistically.

t has most likely nothing to do with absolute level of income. If it did, then marriage should be almost non-existent in very poor countries, while that is clearly not the case. — alcontali

That's true, but people in the USA have this in-built sense of entitlement that has long been fulfilled, leading them it to expect more. But capitalist exploitation of resources is hitting a wall as every possible avenue of exploitation is used up, so the progressive improvement over the last 150 years is breaking down. People in poor nations also have a sense of entitlement but don't really expect more.

'Material reality' refers to 'the physical world' in philosophy, for example, 'dialectical materialism.'