If that's what you wish, let it be so. However! If you're willing to open up this back and forth toward a non-biased third party (myself at first, and of course any who wish to join, let us do so.)

What is your point, refuted or not, and what is his? Philosophy and yes even the most strict of disciplines, science itself, is about making mistakes and then learning from them. With this in mind, will you not continue?

Always! Now weather or not to you in said snapshot of circumstance.. is the question that many attempt to define such definitions upon/

Your views have been found acceptable, and you are free to go. — bongo fury

Oh, if only! A molecule of plague left untreated is as good as an entire world of it, removing circumstantial factors such as state of being and time. No, I'm in it for the long haul I'm afraid. And so are you now, whether knowingly or not.

... and is that one colour, or one each? — bongo fury

Assuming everyone's senses are calibrated the same.. it's one color. Merely different names or words (sounds) to describe it. And even if they weren't, it still is the same properties of what makes what we can perceive as different colors.. so would still be semantics. Kind of like how a door can be both an entry and exit while still never not being a door. It would seem as if you or the viewpoint your espousing attempts to argue that if someone uses a door for a single purpose (entry or exit) it is somehow not a door?

I've always viewed semantics as a distraction from real philosophy. No more than the concept of viewing one of two people arguing the same premise in two different languages, being any more or less correct or incorrect.

If I cut both of you, and you bleed, whatever word, phrase, or as it really is "sound" you assign to the color we all see, is not relevant. The lone exception being if the conical rods in your ocular system (eyes) are deficient or otherwise altered.

Perhaps as a cultural or social custom certain colors are either darker or lighter as far as common appearance. Then, of course, "your" color, that is to say your idea and preconceptions of said color, will be either of a slightly darker or slightly lighter hue than mine. That is about all there is to it.

↪Outlander
yes man-made systems. — Thinking

So, necessary? No. However if you have two places, one with law and order and one with rampant street crime, theft, looming war both civil and external, and no time at all for peace and being alone with one's thoughts.. well, where would you want to live? That's probably why you can live as a king in some countries where in others you're barely middle class with the same net worth.

Necessary is a dirty word. All a human needs as a necessity is air, food, water, shelter, and nominal entertainment to avoid insanity. All of which can be achieved being strapped down on a laboratory table. Of course, this is not ideal. Furthermore, when one sees what another has, if greater, one devalues or perhaps some would say begins to accurately assess one's own less-than-ideal (another dirty word) circumstance, and will no longer be content and thus require or "need" more. So as you can see, it's complicated. Folks want what they don't need, and so need what they don't want. Curious really.

You say the transhumanist vision “scares” you? Why exactly? — David Pearce

While I can't speak for Olivier, I can offer a plausible reason. Unlimited (or perhaps enhanced) pleasure could lead to unlimited (or enhanced) suffering, something that cannot be experienced as of yet. A person or animal can be tortured yes, horrendously even. I recall an old "king" used a method of coating his enemies in sugary substances, tying them to a boat, and sending them adrift in the ocean to be devoured, slowly, by insect larvae and vermin. Quite horrible, as were other forms of torture but nevertheless the human body has a limit to what it can take and will either shut down or succumb to traumatic insanity, thus alleviating the suffering. What Olivier's concern may be is that while you, as a decent person trying to help humanity by creating unlimited or constant pleasure without end, may be abused by those who wish to do the opposite and instead create unlimited and never-ending torment. As you say, the Darwinian life is a nightmare, and so, those who succumbed to it are probably more or less in charge. You wish to give them an indestructible sword, forged out of good belief and benevolence as well as the idea it will always be used for such, but he and others would protest that this is foolish.

Also, there are humane ways of harvesting animals for meat (instant kill). Outlawing of meat is unlikely to be agreed upon by any majority anytime soon.

For me, love is the ultimate sacrifice. It is the surrender of all of yourself - your health, your safety, your vulnerabilities, ego etc anything you could possibly offer for the well-being and prosperity of another. It is cherishing of someone or something with such high regard that you would put it all on the line to protect said thing. — Benj96

You're not incorrect. However, most love is myopic and counter-productive when espoused with primal emotion and in line with "one's jollies". What I mean by that is that which ultimately benefits you, emotionally, the idea of "sacrifice" is false, as doing so ultimately brings you a form of joy, pleasure, and euphoria, you would not experience if you had not done so. This lesser, youthful form is what I would call jollies. Only a proxy of, the illusion of not, merely looking out for number one, the self. Protection or sacrifice toward that or who elevates the self and provides for ones primal needs, is hardly a sacrifice at all, merely another vacuous self interest.

If you sincerely care for the well-being of a child for example, you will not allow them to do what is counterproductive to their own well-being and overall progression simply because it makes them happy or what they believe is their own well-being and prosperity. If as you say, you cherish someone or something, you will set aside your self-serving interests (requited admiration, short-term happiness or bliss) for something far greater. If you are not willing to do this, to be sad yourself, or witness that which is cherished to be in a temporarily sad or less-successful state in order to ensure a much less myopic and grander form of well-being, well, you are and have never not been in love, but with yourself.

Compare to Socrates' famous saying: "the only thing I know, is that I know nothing". The entire story of humanity and innovation and discovery is about people believing things that were wrong, and then finding it out later. In a world still ravaged by suffering, ill-will, and contempt, why would this stop anytime soon?

The ignorant man believes that he is wise and knows all there is or at least all he needs to know. Not to be confused with the diligent scholar who knows he knows more than he would have without his academic pursuits and perhaps more than most.

A wise man believes there is more to know and more that is not yet understood. A mystic also believes this, yet seeks to narrow down, at least to a degree, where such knowledge can be found.

Where does pleasure from from? Does animal pleasure count? Why wouldn't animal suffering then? Animals won't kill themselves off, so what exactly are you proposing here. Why wouldn't life just re-create itself from whatever means it did in the first place? How can you be so sure life doesn't exist on other planets and so requires extermination there as well? Shouldn't we continue life so we can strive to become technologically advanced enough to exterminate all life as we know it across the entire universe? (I'm assuming that's your silent motive here :wink:)

It is a bit ironic you mention that computer was invented without any competition — IuriiVovchenko

I didn't mean without controlled, civil competition, a far cry from the days of cavemen and all out war. Curious times those days were. Who's to say what their purpose was in human history and why God allowed such monsters to rise to power, all we know is to avoid such atrocities in the future. After all, "when evil sees itself, it shall die".

Noted philosophers? After my initial introduction (from my favorite book "Philosophy for Dummies", largely mentioning Plato, Socrates, etc.) I tended to avoid reading works of others, If I come up with something worthwhile and "oh wow that sounds like what so and so says", all I want to be able to say is "How curious, never read 'em."

I wouldn't cast the die so quickly however, as far as the main argument for control being ethics. Do you think the inventor of the computer or Internet just "did it real fast" in between fighting off his fellow man and bashing them and getting bashed over the head? History tells us quite another tale. In fact, it would seem those who would stand steadfast by brute strength and domination over his fellow man when he can do so from his own might, if allowed to, would remain in primordial rags equipped with primordial weapons such as clubs and other blunt instruments. Whereas the thinker, who has no desire to dominate his fellow man but by output of his benevolent and sometimes innovative works that would help all mankind progress, and so would be dominated by such brutes without external intervention, clothes mankind is progress and prosperity. So I would ask you now, which of these is truly the weaker and pitiful amongst the two? By merely answering through the Internet, and on the computer, inventions that were forged by brain not brawn, the answer would appear to be quite clear.

Of course, control can lead to perpetual chaos, the kind that could never be achieved without control or civility if you will, alone. Perhaps these inventions made to benefit mankind will instead by usurped by the same brute force and chaos they sought to prevent or make irrelevant, and result in the perpetual enslavement of mankind. Such as the scientific formula that spawned the nuclear bomb. How ironic. If not tragic. Though I suppose, if those who choose or perhaps must live this way wish to make their move, it's better they do so now than before the brilliant may create something of much greater potential and destructive magnitude. How curious life here on Earth is.

Even chaos is a system. Everything we know, believe, or desire is the result of what is gathered by our senses and processed by our brain, neither of which are infallible to distortion, be it internal or external (bias, trickery or deception).

Or are you referring to man-made systems such as society and manners, educational systems, law and order, etc.?

Systems of progression are generally helpful. For example, someone who's never managed a supermarket of any size would probably be terribly inefficient or even completely incompetent performing the job of regional manager of a supermarket chain. While someone who has extensive knowledge and experience in doing so would be wasting their efforts managing a small corner store. You start small, become proficient, then progress to the next level. The core principle behind progression is not really a man-made system as it's found all across the natural world but many man-made systems incorporate it if are not derived from it altogether.

It's hard to be any more specific with such a broad term so open to interpretation imo. There's always room for improvement I'd imagine. Beyond that times change, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. If a system is not adaptable, dynamic, or flexible, one may arise one morning to find it has gone the way of the dinosaurs.. or Blockbuster, for example. :grin:

Wouldn't this create two classes of humans, dividing us, ie. enhanced and naturals? They will be smarter and more blissful yes, but what's to stop them from becoming incredibly stronger as well? Won't the stronger group (transhumans) oppress the other? How do we know "transformation" won't become mandatory? Take the pandemic, there is talk of non-vaccinated persons becoming a threat to public safety. Who's to say the natural human form won't be declared a threat by the enhanced transhumans due to its tendency to pick up diseases and be put into camps to live as the savage relics of a time now past that they are? Wouldn't this halt or alter evolution entirely, denying us the beauty and potential of what nature has to offer, the most significant being what created you and allowed you to know and believe all you do? Perhaps your naturally evolved form will solve this or allow you to come up with even better ideas. What would you say to convince those who hold these both non-religious and non-bioconservative views?

Echoing concern, if there is technological enhancement, won't this be vulnerable to hacking (smart cars can be hacked and controlled, brakes disabled, etc.) or man-made or natural EMPs? Wouldn't this device allow a transhuman to be murdered or "disabled" with no evidence?

Also, where does one draw the line between a human with significant technological/genetic enhancements, a true cyborg or laboratory experiment, and a mere robot/non-human abomination?

Best,

As Einstein said, "it's all relative". Nothing is perfect or absolute, only a fool would go about life with such a predisposition. However, some things are more rational or rather are closer to what one expects or demands of reality and the world around them than others. Knowledge, science, and logic has always been about testing the limits of pragmatism, or rather living by it, and seeking and testing it alongside long-held beliefs and ideas. Some theories produce greater works than others, this is the scientific process and perhaps the essence of pragmatism and maybe even ingenuity or possibly life itself. Who knows. Hm.. some may even say, the only non-rational decision one can make is choosing to blindly abide by, that is to say never deviate or rather consider the possibility of deviating from, what was rational or otherwise has worked in the past.

Again, who knows? That one shot you take in the dark may strike a target that is not present in the light of what is known or understood. Is this not how all invention and innovation came to be?

We live in a junk culture and food era... — javi2541997

I would argue we live in the "set it and forget it" age. No it started with just turkeys. Then it expanded to children (video games and TV/V-chip parenting). Then commerce (order nearly anything whilst sitting on your couch and get it delivered to your doorstep in no time at all). Then social interaction as a whole (social media, status updates, online dating, etc.). Now finally it may reach the last frontier, human anatomy and biology itself. I always knew that Ron Popeil was the Antichrist. I just never could prove it.

Why waste time learning anything? Just Google it bro. Why learn a skill or trade or how to do anything of use? Just call the guy, man. Etc., etc.

There is no world court, no impartial and non-biased scrutiny. — baker

Oh but there's greater. It just hasn't been implemented here yet. So, yeah you're right.

Or maybe that's an idle fantasy the losers tell themselves. Perhaps homo homini lupus is simply as good as it gets, and that's it.
Sorry, I'd like to believe you; I used to think that way as well, until recent events made me radically reconsider my stance. — baker

Could be. So circumstance dictates your reality. And if something were to work in your favor or ever begin to support the premise, you'd jump ideological ships yet again. Yeah.. that's typically how it goes here. Perhaps, as the song goes, we're all just dust in the wind. A man should be firmly grounded in something, even as the tides rise and fall. But to each their own.

Hate or hatred rather is merely the normal reaction experienced when one perceives something or someone that either has, is currently, may, or will, take away, disrupt, or corrupt what one loves or is in love with, be it life, love or anything in between. Unfortunately, most cases are terribly vain and counterproductive. What they often inevitably result in at least.

So might makes right. Some people become the winners, some the losers. — baker

It makes right if it benefits you. Conquest, besting or outwitting another, or otherwise doing something you would not wish to be done to yourself, etc. If not, it's wrong. Criminal activity, terrorism, cheating, etc. Hypocrisy is a pledge one takes and a lifestyle one embraces, one that can be sustained with adequate numbers and resources, but if ever placed under impartial and non-biased scrutiny won't stand for much.

We've all won things, we've all lost things. Unless the winner decides to flip the game board over, perhaps out of fear, you just try, try again. Or perhaps you mean in the context of peoples and nations? Eh, the same applies. Unless you live in a dictatorship, of course. Which is the equivalent of flipping the game board over after a single victory.

It goes without saying that the winners are happy, convinced they are living worthwhile, meaningful lives.
And that the losers, the underdogs are not. But they still live, somehow, they keep going. — baker

Right so peoples and nations. A man without a conscious is no man at all, just another beast of the Earth. They will busy themselves with worldly pleasures, material pursuits, and other vain pastimes until they expire, at which point another will surely take their place. Going through the motions of life absent of a conscious or empathy for one's fellow man, what do you have? A purposeless, transient being who knows only to steal, kill, and destroy. One who will never truly know the finer things in life that do not come with a price tag or physical value, for he will be too busy defending that which does, with mind, body, and soul. A life with little more compassion outside of that which serves the self.

Sure in a war scenario the losing party may experience great hardship, perhaps constant torment or even torture if not death. This is unfortunate. Not much redemption can be found in such a case. Save for the existence of a God and the knowledge, though often fleeting, that one will be rewarded for his good deeds and sacrifice, and so others punished for their misdeeds and disregard for human life. In which case, regardless of absolute existence, one knows they're right and with every breath and ounce of motivation they can muster, serve a cause greater than any enemy force on Earth. For the enemy will seek to demoralize, by refusing to be so, you fight the good fight, and show the enemy that the very enemy of God, is the man in the mirror.

Besides. A cycle of violence is exactly that- a cycle. It doesn't end. Power is a pendulum, not a single stone tablet unchangeable. No winners have never been losers, and no losers have never been winners. Why would either have a motivation to make war if this was not true? We see "reality" as set in stone and able to be fully comprehended when in fact it is mere circumstance, a snapshot or photograph of how the state of affairs happens to be in that moment of time. Sort of like how we thought the Sun revolved around the Earth and those who disagreed were charged with heresy. Or like how the idea of men flying through the skies, communicating messages halfway around the world in an instant, or breathing underwater was pure and utter insanity. Things change. Those who are unprepared, complacent, or set in their ways, have the most to lose. Pride comes before the fall.

Is putting people into a situation where they have to produce in order to survive, its own exploitation of people? — schopenhauer1

Uh I don't think the alternative was any more humane or non-exploitative. You have something I need, or want even, I take it. If you stop me, I stop you. Not a fun time to be alive. Of course.. it's much of the same even today just with agreed upon.. limits. Usually.

Beyond that it seems to me that not everyone can be a great philosopher, scholar, scientist, teacher, professor, doctor, engineer, architect, etc. That is to say, if everyone is a rich genius then nobody really is. So, some will rise above and their talents will produce works that speak for themselves which will in turn make others actually desire them to be in an elevated social position above theirs. Be it a doctor, builder, scientist, what have you. So the rest of us have two options: work or just try and kill each other and see who survives thus granting the survivor(s?) more resources to do as he pleases. The first option sounds more preferable, especially if you're not very big.

Based on Earth physics? We assume everything works on Earth the way it does elsewhere. It makes sense that it would. But so did lots of things that never came to fruition.

I mean, is there some huge waiting list or..? :smile:

Why not just say that giving up is bad and to take that to heart? — FlaccidDoor

Cognitive dissonance/bias. In one ear and out the other. Humor or other forms of entertainment, performance, or ritual can bypass the conscious mind to carry a message. We experience and are told many negative things we either don't like, disagree with, or otherwise wish did not happen or were not said. We all have an intrinsic psychological gatekeeping response, one that may be hypersensitive or perhaps even non-functional altogether due to excess hardship one experiences. If you tell a little kid he looks stupid and is dumb, he'll probably cry. Now an adult, shouldn't. He may be upset, angry, or even discouraged, but the ideal response is to just be annoyed or even better, tickled. I suppose it's a form of psychological homeostasis in a way. The mind doesn't like being confused or being wrong, so it seeks to correct it following what it knows has worked in the past. Which generally is either an emotional response, or simply ignoring it as a falsehood.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/smarter-living/why-its-so-hard-to-admit-youre-wrong.html

The human psyche is both an incredibly powerful and disturbingly frail thing, depending on how it's used. And what it's been through.

Do those items in particular have much meaning? Or are they a random set of tools? I feel like I heard oi this before but I can't put my finger on it. — FlaccidDoor

They have purpose. They're not random, per se. It's reminiscent of many Eastern philosophies that allude to true wealth and happiness is from detachment from pursuit of material goods and the superfluous without going so far as to deny your own human needs and basic nature.

The gardening tools function as a means to till the Earth and produce sustenance for your body, while perhaps doubling as a blunt instrument for hunting. They could represent ingenuity and the concept of utility, that everything has a purpose, some large, some small, some known, some unknown. While simple tools are not unique to humanity in any way, the ingenuity that allows us to create tools that do distinguish us from the animal kingdom is not to be forgotten.

The paintbrushes function as a means to keep records, archive events, and express creativity or personalization and preference unto the world around us. It represents man's unique ability to not only change his own world but create new ones, if not in the context of art and stories.

The half-drunk bottle of vodka functions as a source of enjoyment, reward, pleasure, excitement, and entertainment. It makes the good times better and the bad times tolerable, if used in moderation and not abused. It could represent the nature of man to enhance himself to better enjoy or even cope with life and its many ups and downs. It could also represent medicinal qualities being antiseptic and an antibiotic and a symbol of man's progress and history of introducing natural elements into the body to improve quality of life and health.

The pair of dice also functions as entertainment, excitement, leisure, and joy. It represents possibility. The chances and the unknown, the give and take, the good and bad, the desired outcome and the undesired outcome. It can be used for games of chance that illustrate that possibility, much like life, can make one richer or one poorer. Like the vodka, if used in moderation and not abused, it's a must have.

The harmonica, like the last two items, are closely related to entertainment, leisure, and the like, but while introducing a form of artistic and creative value. A skill to master and hone, for music truly is the universal language, that which soothes the savage beast inside us all. It represents this and much more.

The blank sheets of paper however, well. That's for your heart to decide :)

Not all who wander are lost, only those who insist they know exactly where they are at all times.

Most people would probably make fame and influence or official position, even slight, a requirement. So a published philosopher who has people "talking about him" or a professor at a university who is paid and produces students who are apt in philosophical concepts and processes when they were not before. Can you teach philosophy without being a philosopher? I suppose, after all that's why there are lesson plans.

On that last bit, the idea of "results", as undefinable as that may be in philosophy. You can teach someone to think logically, ie. logic 101, etc but that in and of itself isn't philosophy only a way to go about it. If you can successfully make someone see things, or at least the possibility of things, in a way they did not before... of course is that just persuasion? I like to personally think philosophy should have some positive effect on human society, culture, and life so I incorporate the idea of that in many things. But is that not just motivational speaking or rationalization or some may even say "look at the bright side" distraction? Depends who you ask for sure.

We all engage in philosophy throughout our lives, sometimes without knowing it. We often call these moral dilemmas or even simply the decision making process. You drive by an abortion clinic and you see people holding up signs or perhaps you watch a news story about cloning or artificial intelligence.., you may begin to ponder things such as right and wrong. This doesn't make you a "real philosopher" though.. yet it could spur your transition into becoming one. The journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step after all.

Basically like someone said earlier, a serious, prolonged, non-passing interest and engagement in the philosophical process. You can be a "real" philosopher without being noteworthy. Not to some people of course.. I guess their argument would be, why wouldn't you be? :p

A mood ring with the simple instructions of "do the opposite of whatever this says". That or a box of Trump hats, they'll figure out the rest.

Besides, there's few lessons to learn that aren't conveyed throughout history, some just take a little time and effort to uncover.

Or do you mean like a quote or several or an existing story or tale or a brand new one? Can it be something I made up on the spot?

If so it would be about a man of average or less than average stature and upbringing who worked hard, and despite several timelessly relatable setbacks, came out stronger than if he would not have faced them, eventually becoming a success in business and relationships. Oh and that we're all related to him or something. But distant enough so as to not change one's way of thinking too greatly. It should also have ninjas.

That or the blueprints for the perfect Utopian society. It would be in a box labeled as such. The person who opens it in a hurry will peer in wide-eyed then just look confused and say "All that's in here is a couple of gardening tools, a few paintbrushes, a bottle of half-drunk vodka, a pair of dice, a harmonica, and blank sheets of paper".

Shall we revisit the Psalms, wade knee-deep in the blood of David's enemies, to see that there is plenty of justification for hostility and violence in the Bible that believers in Jehovah can draw on? — baker

David, fictional or not, represents a person, someone who begged and cried to a higher power while he lost everything he knew and perhaps even more. If you experience a hardship or criminal offense toward your person today, or perhaps toward your nation, and you seek justice, you are no different.

Does a jaywalker hope there's no oncoming traffic?

Just kidding. It depends on the person I'm sure. Many atheists were once devoutly religious and due to one or more events or discoveries (typically referred to by them as "growing up" or becoming "in touch with reality" or other phrases that cast negative light) are no longer. There's an incredible amount of filth, absolutely horrific, disgusting and revolting things that would make even a nihilist pacifist want to go out and kill a man happening all around the world right now as you read this. Perhaps even closer than you may think. It doesn't become an unreasonably discouraging argument to just say "look around you and ask yourself, is this what you call the work of a loving God" .. or something like that.

It probably depends more on whether or not that atheist has been a good or bad person. You could be a good person, and hope there's a God despite believing that there isn't. That would be pleasing to find out I'm sure.

So, the assertions or belief rather of my concerns or criticism would be of the following points:

Well before we get to that let's engage in the age old practice of questioning one's semantics. It's not without purpose mind you.

What is a weapon? Something that can or is made to harm someone? The differences are stark. A shield for someone can be leveraged to create quite a harmful impact on either the opponent or yes even the wielder. Let's assume a weapon is an instrument created for no purpose other than to injure ie. a sword or firearm.

We're back to the mainstream arguments of if someone wishes to do harm they will. Be it via a knife, vehicle, or chemical compound or just.. their own arms.

So what is your proposed solution to this?

I think you might be drunker than I at present so, I'm just going to let someone else point out the many.. many flaws in your presumptive logic.

The main takeaway point being that you actually hear about them. :cool:

I think it comes down to the idea that there are a small percentage of people that will do everything (lie, cheat, steal, etc) to get ahead. — synthesis

Small? Lol. Nah, that's "the everybody" .. we just get to live on the illusion we're good people propped up by those who engaged in illegal acts of murder and robbery with no concern of repercussion (some with full knowledge of such) toward those who would come after. In a philosophical angle it's the hedonic treadmill why we are no longer satisfied with things we didn't deserve yet someone with nothing can find happiness if left alone. Who are you to think you can suddenly now shy away from evolution and Darwinism, survival of the fittest, God is non-existent or otherwise does not punish immorality and abandonment of all you were given. The pact was sealed in the blood of the innocents. The die was cast, the bed is made, if there is no God you win. If so.. well, you wouldn't have to worry for long. Or maybe so. In either case, it's only what you deemed was right, let that never be forgotten. You will not however, corrupt or persuade others who may still be saved with your myopic drivel any longer.

First, I'd like to congratulate you on having the most intriguing screen name on this site I've come across to date.

Also,

The point of a government is to enact the will of the people using its might, resources, and governmental status. There are things due to the nature of an open society not every citizen can know, operate, or have access to. If the government literally only has the funds to "maintain it's own existence" .. and not do anything else .. well that's kinda not how government works. Why would something that doesn't do anything of purpose need to exist in the first place?

Vice or virtue aside the "will of the people" which is the majority of what people want and need shall be enacted, enforced, and made more easily possible or otherwise brought into reality per statutes of the Constitution.

Of course I speak in the context of a government by the people and for the people, ergo, it is elected individuals doing what the majority of citizens want. Now we can talk about corruption all day .. but that aside, the individual citizen who can't be "unelected" or will otherwise face no accountability for failure or unscrupulous actions or activity isn't deterred by transparency in the same way an elected official who does need to succeed in the court of public opinion to get reelected is.

Does anybody in the West still want to be free? — synthesis

Freedom is having the ability to lose it.

Something like a skill, trade, or craft takes time to hone and master, which requires work, effort, and time. Knowledge too. A studious pursuit of knowledge either in philosophy or science is truly never complete or "finished". It requires a lifelong pursuit and commitment. You can take downtime and even give up, but somebody else from another nation will do what you neglected or were too lazy to do if so.

You can see what happens when the greatest generation is told "hey guys.. great job. you no longer have to do anything anymore .. ever". That sounds amazing. True victory. Then just sit back and watch. Absent of discipline, knowledge, and structure even the salt of the Earth will turn scum of the Earth in a few generations flat. Happens every time. That's what's happening here, I fear.

Not everyone wants to succumb to the complacent degeneracy sipped from a poisoned chalice of ancient triumphs no one can even remember or even actually knows for sure happened.

Funny I was going to post "there's no 'I' in team".

Meaning the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the slightly less many. We agree to vote, not vote to agree.

If a cause is deemed wrong or offensive the logic behind it should be self-evident when brought up to the public through an action or awareness campaign or committee. However, just because you believe something is evil doesn't mean it's not a lesser evil. That is to say every point has a counterpoint. A popular and powerful one being "it would cost (you) money" such as mandating all food product be organic and cruelty-free or something.

I still don't know if he was a theist or an atheist and that's what scares me. :sweat:

"Defining Morality in a Reality with no Foundation" — SteveMinjares

There is a foundation. Imagine you when you were six years old. If I punished you, spanked you, or otherwise made you feel bad, you knew it was undesirable, warranted or not. We all have the foundation of morality inside us from birth. Even now as an adult, you know what causes pain, suffering, discomfort, or irritation. Don't act like it's some obscure concept that is up for debate.

Is meaning purpose? Or is purpose meaning? If existence has no meaning or purpose (whichever you err on the side of) how does that relate to an object created of variable purpose such as a rod, tube, pipe, or carbon filament? It has meaning to have purpose, however that purpose will vary depending on what application it is used for. If such objects are argued to have absolute meaning or intent of use rather, then of course they do. And if not, their purpose is to have meaning or rather their meaning is to have purpose, of which they do, just of variable definition and practice. Just as one man's definition of success in life is not necessarily the same as that of another, the idea of purpose or meaning becomes subjective in an absolute way.. does it not?

Would someone tell me how religious people explain this without defying physics. — scientia de summis

Sure, if they could. But they can't. That's why they're religious. Your ancestors were the same of other scientific reactions and happenings they couldn't explain. How far you've come. Or perhaps.. you've reached the arrogance and devaluation of the mystery (ergo joy) of life they hoped for you to avoid. Congratulations.

In even shorter: fast and unstable wins the race. It wins many races, that's for sure. I'm not sure why you're so inclined to frequent a place that holds the opposite in high regard, frankly. Or, perhaps that's exactly why you do.

Why is it that a boy raised on a remote island somewhere can find joy in building sand castles, collecting shells, and watching the clouds or the tides rise and fall, when a boy raised in a mansion in upstate New York always needs a new video game or iPhone every month?

Why are some men's favorite time of day just sitting around by a fire and telling stories, perhaps playing games either in or kept score by simple marks in the sand, just socializing with others, while for some, doing so would be a chore they'd pay to get out of.

The hedonic treadmill, perhaps? Probably. Perhaps we're all just chasing shiny objects at the end of the day, in an effort to feel more alive and human in an inhumane world. Perhaps, it is the shiny objects that chase us, gradually robbing us of our humanity. Does a man drink a can of beer until it's empty? Or does the beer drink the man until he's empty? These are the questions we need to ask ourselves. Before too late.