I like to believe in a semi-absolute way the value is more or less the same throughout. Now the personal attachment to certain lives aka people, beings, or "souls" even is where opinions come up.

Certain religions should be credited for an entirely psychological benefit. That benefit being, when you are told you have been created willfully and intentionally, it is a blessing personally bestowed upon you by someone or something much greater than you, and it can and may be taken at any given moment, therefore you should be thankful for each day when you wake up and before you lie down, it can be notably effective in softening the blow and both short and long term psychological effects of losing someone very close to you, even horribly. Then again the same could be said with a bit of spin on any form of belief or "comparison" I suppose. Pragmatic, nihilistic, and even combinations of both. "Imagine. We're on a giant blue marble with seven other planets, all uninhabited, hurling through space at millions of miles an hour, across the galaxy alongside millions untold other galaxies we've yet to know anything about. What a miracle. 'Not a bad life'", etc.

Edit: What I was going to continue on about before I re-read your post was the interpretation of "what is the value of human life to you (in general)?" As in, say, on this planet or in the universe or more broadly, etc. I was almost going to pose the caveat: compared to what? You can value nothing more than the life of a person, yet not view the potential (and inevitable) loss as anything more significant than a yawn or a sneeze. That kind of mindset typically involves some sort of religion or metaphysical belief (reincarnation, etc.). Somewhat tangential to the aforementioned idea of "human life in general" yet relevant to your definition would be say, imagine the most remorseless criminal guilty of the most heinous crimes, all of which were against you or your loved ones personally. You could hate him, wish for him to be executed, etc., but if we were to focus on that "human life in general", it would still have value. Basically there is the "spark of life" vs. "what one chose to do with it" ie. "the individual". I know you did say "a" human life which can seem to boil down to "what do you think about other people (or perhaps people in general, to include yourself)". Not sure if this is your intention.

Masculinity, as it is generally defined is a physically-reliant or at least centered concept, though it can be one of two things, often summed up by those who pride themselves on such as "not being a woman".

Essentially, it's what males often wish to avoid seeing in their female counterparts. Being lax with hygiene, and insisting on what they want to do in a rough, assertive, adamant manner, outside of the bedroom, in life and the course of a relationship ie. being the "dominant" one in the situation, relationship, or room.

It's about being assertive. It's also about being content with situations no matter how unfavorable, or at least not whining about or internalizing it and so acting adversely because of it. Which unfortunately too many men who rely on their size often default to while believing they're doing the opposite. Essentially, there's no way you can be "toxically accepting" as that's more about non-action or non-response to situations you're in. So I'd say for purposes of this argument it's about assertiveness. There's no such thing as "toxic femininity" .. is there? :grin:

I was raised to treat everyone as an equal unless they give you or otherwise present a clear reason not to. So. Let's drop the gender stereotypes for a moment and think. In a sentence, probably to the point where your being rude, abrasive, abusive, or in a word just downright sh*tty. Probably best sums it up.

You have heard of the attractiveness of "bad boys", right? — LuckyR

It's not a gender-specific thing in the broader sense. Let's think or assume for a bit. We're on a new world, with no weapons, technology, or knowledge, barely able to communicate by anything other than a grunt or yell. How did we manage to go from that to microchips, public services, and "Alexa, order more cat food"? Following social order and progressing, working (sure, sometimes, often even) fighting one another, but in the contexts of "groups" or "teams". Of course, throughout all of that, someone eventually came up with an idea that stood out of began to act in a way that was different than that of his peers. Hence innovation, discovery, and progress. Granted, 90% of "being different" turned out to be naught/purposeless aka "didn't go anywhere."

When a reporter asked, "How did it feel to fail 1,000 times?" Edison replied, "I didn't fail 1,000 times. The light bulb was an invention with 1,000 steps." "Great success is built on failure, frustration, even catastrophy."

But eventually, it did. Take the male peacock. It extravagantly stands out to attract a mate. Sort of like how an inventor tries something new and outlandish to create something new. If nothing happens, he looks foolish. If it works out, those who mocked and rejected him were the fools. There's that aspect.

More generally however, people, men and women, like excitement which is essentially disruption from the routine. Be it productive or not. Think of your favorite character from a movie, book, or TV show? Is he the timid yet wise banker, accountant, or manager keeping everything running and on track? Probably not. Odds are it's the crazy young guy yelling and blowing things up.

That said. The bad boy serves a purpose. There's a time and a place for everything. In society- specifically older ones were it the very notion of society and civilization was fleeting- the guy who didn't play by the rules, and whose actions could not be accounted for ie. "got away with it" often ended up with more resources. Hence continued on in the gene pool over those who perhaps actually tried to follow the rules that created the society in the first place. As some correctly say were just being lazy and trying to get out of work (and did) by leeching off the work of others. There's a balance, as you can see. Sometimes it's useful and moves a society or civilization, such as it is, forward. Other times, for example, say if you're on a ship and you're the "bad boy" who puts off his duties that happen to be vital to the navigation, the s**t will crash and we'd all die. That's why they were thrown overboard and eaten by sharks- hence the legend of the merman.

Do intelligent women ever find average to a little bit slow men attractive? — TiredThinker

Do intelligent men ever find average to a little bit slow women attractive? Sure. If they are. :grin:

It's an interesting question. Which can be answered or perhaps even at least expanded by the following: why is the "trophy husband" trope/meme/what have you far less common than the "trophy wife"? It's a debate with room for endless argument. Are men more vain than women (ie. the primal desire to have status in society, which is often correlated with resources hence survival)? Or are women more vain than men (again the same primal desire to have a strong provider, again correlated with resources/survival). It's an interesting debate no doubt. For those mature enough to handle it. I'll start. Why will this post, one that examines women as man's equal or perhaps even greater, be viewed as misogynistic by some?

Potentially more Lounge material but.. is it a tongue? lol. speech?

Edit: or words?

"There are many bodies, one consciousness" - Anonymous

And what if you did. You'd be bored of it already. Enjoy the mystery. There's really only two mainstream possibilities anyway, you either earned it (be it a reward or punishment) or it's just a random series of events of no real purpose. Can't go wrong with enjoying the mystery.

I would say that probably some of our ideas matter to us more than others, because they are bound up with the way we see truth. — Jack Cummins

If they do, perhaps you're courting the wrong ideals? Then again. People can be crazy. Not every mainstream idea turned out to be right or idealistic.

However, the whole question of the emotional relationship with our personal systems of belief was one which I was thinking about as I lay awake, unable to sleep last night, so I thought I might as well offer it as another one for people to think about. — Jack Cummins

What's honesty, adamance, or even life itself without passion really? Passion is not logic, it can be misguided, even detrimental to the ideals or truths you subscribe to or goals and purposes you wish to fulfill. If a belief is passed down or otherwise ingrained from upbringing, you'd be surprised how many men would rather be wrong, injured, or killed (even metaphorically) then allow the same to happen to a member of their family. It's a sense of honor we all have. Of course, like mentioned, not all beliefs or courses of action are wise.

It's not always the right choice to defend the material side by making any thing that doesn't seem very related to a material interpretation eitther a not-eplained-yet by science or a coincidence in the worst case — BARAA

I agree. I'm open to the possibility it's something metaphysical, supernatural, or divine. Just as much as I'm open to the possibility it's a trick your brain is playing on you. I'll be the first person here to suggest that humanity and the human consciousness is the result of divine action. Nevertheless, in a material world where we've been placed, it's our first thing to work with and so need not be ignored- completely at least. Beyond that, this is a forum where we prove or at least offer justification to our beliefs with logic and philosophical discourse first and foremost.

So,in the end of your reply you suggested the phenomenon to be a coincidence — BARAA

I suggested both are possible, yet I did mention more often than not, it can easily be explained by what you deem "material" reasoning. Like many forums, individual case stories and situations are fundamental to many discussions, but the resulting discussion should not be limited to them.

It very well could be something divine, supernatural, or otherwise outside of the realm of this world and its logic- hence no longer philosophy.

Technically, the first mutated, mangled, haphazardly crawling thing that dragged itself out of the primordial swamp with its little mutated fish hands, probably due to being shunned due to said mutated fish hands, was a defect. What is your point, OP.

knowing exactly what was gonna happen in the next scene — BARAA

Scene? Pardon? :grin:

Premonitions aside, which do seem rather intriguing.. absent of anything "spooky", deja vu is more than likely just a quirk of the human mind. Similar to pareidolia (seeing faces such as on an electrical outlet). The mind is constantly looking for shortcuts, that's what causes hallucinations with hallucinogenic substances, they block certain senses/receptors in a unique way and your mind frantically tries to connect the dots absent of normal receptors. Saves time, and if you ask me is responsible for inventions and innovation. Cognitive dissonance is somewhat similar, being that if your mind is in an altered state (either physically, sensory, or argumentatively in something like a debate) it doesn't like being confused or otherwise "feeling that somethings wrong" so will default on what it's used to/knows/what has worked in the past.

What if what you "knew" was going to happen, didn't. You'd have just shrugged it off and probably never gave it a second thought let alone post about it. But it did. So it got your attention.

I mentioned this before, and I'm sure it's been touched on directly if not indirectly.. but something critical to consciousness is awareness of time (past, present, future).

You noticed a seed that has fallen onto the ground. You notice it begins to take root. You later notice another plant begins to grow where said seed has fallen.

Etc. Though, many animals exhibit this form of consciousness as well. An animal learns it can either get food by cracking open nuts, or that if you witness a fellow member of your species being killed or injured by something, if you don't react (fight or flight) it can happen to you, or some even say something along the lines of a squirrel storing nuts for the winter or a bear gathering up on fat for hibernation, though it is commonly argued the latter are more habitual/instinctual (genetic memory?) than conscious willpower. Who knows?

You need to be aware of a before state to be aware of a present state, and both are required to have any notion of a future state, which is where planning/decisions derive from, which is probably where invention and innovation comes from ie. you notice two objects that seem unrelated to each other say a fallen tree branch and a heavy object, than perhaps put two and two together, then you have a lever. But how deep is this really? Beavers build dams, birds can solve puzzles, and yes as mentioned squirrels know to store away nuts for the winter. Are these all forms of consciousness or merely habitual instincts or behaviors learned through generations? What is human consciousness, as in consciousness that is allocated/available solely to humans? A mere advanced form of this or something much greater we've yet to understand?

I think it means that no matter what other people can't feel what we are feeling or understand what we are going through, they can only look on. The same goes with us, we can never truly get into their heads or fully understand them. — Darkneos

As good of an interpretation as any. Though it is said at the end of the day we all experience or have experienced the same root emotions, desires, and fears, simply that as they relate to our individual circumstances, upbringing, preferences, and beliefs (what's warranted, what's tolerable, what's wise/the best course of action and what isn't) we each end up with a mindset and will (personal preference/opinion) that is as unique as our fingerprints.

Logic and psychoanalysis are very effectively in the right hands in not just understanding (or in the case of an investigation, creating a "psychological profile" of) an individual but offering them solutions or otherwise helping them solve or at least cope with problems using perspectives that they themselves may not have.

That or it's a reference to space aliens. Never leave out the possibility of space aliens.

Something this world is nearly devoid of, what people wouldn't know if it bit them in the arse.

Not raising a kid to follow your views or treating a woman with sincerity because you know it all comes back to what you want or need. These days it's little more than a feeling, typically primal and primordial in nature, chemicals and endorphins which together create a positive state of mind that alleviates a negative or darker state of mind or being. To those before us however, it was the only thing in this life that could give pleasure during pain and on occasion, pain during pleasure.

Certain philosophers, such as Kant and Plato, believed in transcendent ideas, beyond the material world. — Jack Cummins

There are a few distinctions people either don't acknowledge or consciously bear in mind when throwing around terms like absolute, reality, and the "material world". Our understanding of the material world has never been constant for long. A long time ago, all we saw were stars and heavenly bodies. It was not known with absolute certainty there was "a universe" beyond the ground upon which we walk. Before microscopes, it was unlikely the idea of anything smaller than a grain of sand existed. Numerous examples continue this theme.

I'm not intimately familiar with many philosophers beyond Socrates, and even what I am familiar with is just the stuff everybody knows. Transcendent ideas beyond the material world, that includes and encompasses the fact that we are in a constant state of ignorance as to its true nature evidenced by scientific innovation and discovery even at times in history where great progress was made and treated as such (first irrigation systems, early medicines, Industrial revolution, etc) would seem to be something a little metaphysical even spiritual. As in, even the (unproven) idea of ghosts and spirits are still.. physical as far as we would ever know or experience them. So it's hard to say. Where is the line between the material world and a transcendent reality beyond the material? Quantum mechanics and the idea of multiple universes? They are still physical and material... just not in a realm or plane we can access or experience. Right?

Placing cruelty first, the most evil of all evils, is incompatible with the faith of the zealot. — Banno

That. Or it means you were pretty darn sure you'd succeed... wouldn't want to be caught on the opposing end of that dynamic. However, seeing as history is written by the winners anyway, the most virtuous could be caught up in said dynamic regardless of their virtue or cruelty.. as some people like to attest.. "damned if you do, damned if you don't."

Besides, what is cruelty, really? Allowing a child to grow up in a broken home, more or less alone? Perhaps. Though, if said caregiver knew they wouldn't be around to raise them, an argument can be made that provided the child ended up growing up with "grit and gristle", able to fend for themselves before adulthood, and able to withstand the torrents of pain, despair, and loneliness without losing hope or at the very least purpose.. compared to babying someone who in this world truly has no such luxury and would find this out in due time... assuming both facts are known, what act would really have been the most cruel?

I had a dog once. Truly a great friend who got me through many a rough patch in my adolescence. As I got older, life got hectic, things got crazy. One day while I was busy working at home, I noticed he seemed to have been in the same spot for several hours. When I came up to him I noticed as he attempted to rise to greet me, his back legs buckled and could not support him. I was unsure as what to do. Veterinarian surgery was not an option at the time, and the consensus was it was probably time to put him to sleep. I had a gun, and could have asked the vet to do it humanely. Both possibilities anguished me. I waited for some time, purchasing a few items to allow him to walk around more or less the same. He survived for a decent amount of time after. But was he happy? It's a question I don't particularly care to ponder.

Exactly. It's not about if something is this or that, rather if there is something that is not rationally this or that. If there weren't so, scientific discovery beyond the caveman experience of snow = cold, fire = hot, pain = bad, pleasure = good, would have never been achieved.

Yes. The only reasonable solution is to create more doomsday devices capable of destroying not just entire regions but entire continents. Ergo, if every person is allowed to have one in their home, we end all war/conflict/hostility/negativity completely. It couldn't be more obvious.

Plants communicate with each other. In a lesser way, don't magnets do as well? Being being subjective of course, sure.

As both concepts are each on the opposite side of the same spectrum, when a civilization approaches the limit, they eventually should reach the other side — Gus Lamarch

How's that? If I activate a blast furnace used in old smithing, or take an old volcano, if it becomes hot enough it will eventually become freezing? Or if I place a frozen pizza into a subzero freezer it should eventually burst into flames?

If both are in the end, the samething, what if this ideas are nothing more than humanity's way of accepting the entropic end of existence by creating of the illusion of choice between the "perfect good" and "perfect evil"? — Gus Lamarch

What if indeed. Well, then they are. Lol. Nothing long and drawn out about it really. In more traditional terms, utopia vs. dystopia one means generally perfect with little complaint and the other means generally ineffective with much complaint. Though the idea of "too much of a good thing" comes to mind. We need a little rubbish and imperfection in our lives, a little strife, angst, anxiety, and struggle. A few hurdles too. After all, without, where would passion come from? All of which is easily and readily available by just reading the news, history, looking around beyond our circle of trustworthy, civilized people every now and then.. which of course can be balanced by the incredible progress made in modern society vs. that of times long past, the dark ages, primitive times, etc. It's a balance, perfect in a way. Yet imperfect in others. Oddly enough, some say these are the best times with the least amount of global suffering ever achieved. Though of course, the same could be said, factually too, of any time in history. :grin:

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...?

The husband has obviously done immoral and unvirtuous things and he is responsible for those indeed, but is he morally responsible for her suicide? — Matei

I like this question. It's interesting. Approached in a non-biased manner.

The husband in question sounds to be a person lacking any and all notions of self-control ie. a child. However, the women sounds to have roped herself into a lifelong commitment with something, a man in this case, without truly "testing the waters" and seeing what kind of person he is, essentially, as you said "loved him" ie. deciding the entire fate of one's life based on petty emotion (ie. tingles in the pants, masquerading as love from the heart)... ie. also a child. Yet, who failed to raise her as a woman with dignity and discernment? Another child. Though we don't know her circumstances nor those of her father. Maybe life was hectic and there was due cause, reason, and purpose proper upbringing and related discernment was absent. We don't know!

Long story short, nothing the Global Church State cannot and will not fix. Coming soon by the way.

Logic 101 seems to be as good a place to start as any. If A = B and C = B then B = A = C.

I'd imagine the role of both would be quite traditional and of the respective namesake of each. The teacher is there to teach logic, ensuring students avoid common logical fallacies, and the students are there to learn.

Coding is a good medium as it simultaneously requires and teaches analytic logic.

Nick Bostrom's simulation hypothesis raises the serious prospect that what we perceive to be reality could, essentially, be running on someone's laptop. — Zaneemia

Who in the actual f- ... anyway. As was stated by thousands of philosophers across thousands of years before in theories each more unique than the last, not to mention countless religions that essentially state the same thing, there is more to this reality than the life and death we experience. I guess, obviously since we are aware of computers now they could and would naturally be part of the whole thing. Sure.

Assuming the beings simulating us would have evolved through natural selection (if they're not simulated themselves), it seems likely that they have similar tendencies to us - including vindictiveness & rare sadism. — Zaneemia

I.. uh.., sure. Why not assume they wear blue hats and red shoes while we're at it. It's just random. Also, "like us" is a major quantifier. We (as in modern humans) = barely got off the ground hardly a century ago after fighting with each other who happen to look a little different or speak differently. They (beings that create technology so advanced there is no difference from it and reality = Not the same. Not at all. Not by a long shot. Not even by a million years. Literally. So. Pretending this wouldn't be invalidated completely... yeah let's just continue.

Regardless, it still seems like a nasty possibility & I'm wondering if people have thoughts on this topic? — Zaneemia

Nothing nastier than how it was and would be otherwise. No thoughts. Other than, why not smile for the camera and, as all religions essentially encompass: "don't be a ****.

While we're on the topic of truth and lies, who are you Benji? :lol:

You always ask these drive-by questions of, on occasion philosophical depth, yet I nary a time recall you participating in an in-depth discussion. Not to say I have often either, I leave my little input and continue on. Just curious. I'm sure others reading have a latent curiosity as well.

But in the meantime... I'll present the obvious albeit clearly arguable answers.

So did James make a bigger lie? — Benj96

Depending on what one defines as bigger and what defines as a lie ... it's a toss-up. A lie is a lie. An inch over the line is not the same as a mile over the line, or is it? Is, in a social setting of abnormals in an abnormal fallen society (sorry, "modern day life" as the majority like to call it), considering you are told and raised to tell what are lies by pure definition, is doing so actually a form of truth? To many it is. The poor fools. Meanwhile, who could say.

Is it altruistic to want to give other people life experiences that we have had, and in what way is the altruism affected by the knowledge that no matter what we do all experiences may ultimately be unique? — TiredThinker

Perhaps so, but not nearly as altruistic is wanting to give other people life experiences that one has never had. Provided they're positive, of course.

If you have to ask, whatever it is that you were planning on doing.

Is it always wrong to interfere with autonomy or can it be right under certain conditions? — Tom1352

I can think of a few scenarios. Essentially, when pursuit of prolonging or perhaps even expanding one's autonomy presents great risk toward one's anatomy! Of course, few who like to play king, queen, mommy, or daddy often care much beyond ensuring there are no new kids on the block. Not that they care about their survival really, simply put, "better the devil you know."

he was suspected of being Jake — fdrake

I guess you need context for this not to make you laugh out loud. :lol:

I mean, to be fair there's not many views to hold and styles to express them.. but if you know you know I guess.

Wittgenstein beat his students — Brett

Lol. Hey teachers used do that allover. Meet "Ol' Spanky" the paddle. You either teach them actions have consequences in a controlled, safe manner or life will take over that role for you, and it can often be fatal.

Nietzsche despised sick people ... Mill condoned colonialism — Brett

I'm not saying either of these things are good. Just, are you willing to coddle up with a plague victim or give your house back to whoever lived there before and live on the street? No? One quickly loses the ability to chastise and weight of argument toward what inclinations or rather beliefs behind inclinations one himself would have done. Sure, it's now passive vs. active (ie. plague is virtually non-existent/we have vaccines and as far as nations and borders, someone already did all the hard work for you). Still, just like one who uses medical research from Josef Mengele should not criticize him... Well, more broadly speaking in regards to these flawed philosophers you mention, you learn to separate the art from the artist.

Which makes me wonder if it’s possible that philosophy has nothing to do with life or how ones mind operates. Like I said, it’s as if philosophy is attached to the mind inorganically, that it’s completely alien to what we are. — Brett

It can be a tool to unleash new methods and avenues of discovery, not just in debates, concepts, and other non-physical ideas but even science and innovation. There are quite a few parallels between how thoughts and ideas form and interact with one another and the physical world in which we dwell.

Is philosophy good for us? — Brett

I like to think so.

In the early stages of society, there was likely much more physically demanding and exhausting labor in a man's day than today, which is often just driving in a modern air-conditioned vehicle to an air-conditioned office and sitting, typing on a computer for 8 hours or so, then driving back home. That's why we have gyms. Early to bed, early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise. That or try some melatonin. Or giving your wife equal treatment every now and again, It'll work out.

It's pretty simple. Like in coding. You have a standard variable that has a static value that can be changed. When you call this variable you get the value. The variable has always been equal to the assigned value, until changed. Seeing as you left the fortuneteller or the fortuneteller in question has yet to "consult" .. whatever it is they do, neither persons have information of the updated value of the original variable.


Therefore, you will now have...


Not so complicated really. Not how it usually works of course.. but not impossible.

"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
- Sherlock Holmes

So, what isn't the self or the present or whatever you wish to define? Why not? You could, in theory, use the answers of the prior two questions to begin to narrow down the answer to your root question.

If you set out do something with specific intentions, and fail to accomplish your goals, you are technically a failure. — Brian Gomes

A bit one dimensional. It makes you nothing other than you were before said endeavor, with the exception it can be said you indeed "failed" in the scope of that one specific endeavor. If I experience an injury it doesn't make me "an injury", now does it? Granted, some words used today are useful for grounding a person in the spirit of improvement and betterment of one's self as well as encouraging them to gain more knowledge and better understanding of said failed endeavor before attempting it again. We've all lost or otherwise failed in something or another. We've also all won or otherwise succeeded in other things. Why should one or even many failures or successes be internalized as a defining characteristic of one's true self? What if I lose a game of chess, yet win two. Or even lose five and win five. Is it a matter of numbers of occurrences or simply the most recent outcome you believe, technically, defines a person.

Besides, there are instances of non-completed endeavors (with the exception of time-sensitive, numerically measurable goals ie. losing 20 pounds before Christmas or being able to add 50 pounds to one's weightlifting max before the end of Summer) that are far from failure. For example, perhaps I inspired others who will accomplish said goals in a way better than I could or would be comfortable risking at the time. Perhaps I discovered said goals were not as useful in the long term as was first believed or that they were even detrimental.

Perhaps, the only true failure in life is failing to learn from one's failures. And perhaps the only true success in life is learning to take one's inevitable losses gracefully when they do occur, and one's successes with a sense of gratitude absent of all pride. Not everybody can do it, you know. For does all success in this life not come with a poisoned chalice of complacency, dooming all would partake from it to an even greater and insidious failure? One that disguises and manifests itself as the opposite? Perhaps these are just mere words of encouragement for all who may benefit from them- the afflicted, the downtrodden, those without hope. Perhaps not. Who's to say.

To put it briefly or vaguely, many concepts you can't have one without the other. They sometimes do more than simply complement or contrast each other, rather are essential for each other. These terms and concepts, specifically what they truly are or mean have been debated since the dawn of man. Both in the courts and on the battlefield.

Liberty to do what? To live as I please? To take either directly or indirectly that of another for my own jollies? Liberty to be authority or authority to have liberty? Etc.

Hierarchy based on merit? Or natural hierarchy (ie. I'm bigger/there's more of me than you so tough nuts. Unless you invent something that can level the playing field)

Status quo? Depends. Where am I at on it. :lol:

Etc, etc...

I’m more interested in what you hoped to accomplish by posting this rather than whether or not it’s true. — khaled

Nothing slingshots an offbeat cause quite like a good martyr. "He died for this ... so we.. we must live for this!" *hoorahs of the crowd*

Nothing turns common folk against the king like seeing one of their own put to death.

Do you think that Trump is the reincarnation of Christ? — Maw

Personally, no. Though I don't see why it would be impossible. The same for the random guy who delivers your mail or perhaps waits your tables. According to scripture, Jesus was not aware who he was until he was in his 30s or so, when he was in the temple and stated "the prophecy is fulfilled". He was purportedly, obviously from the most widely known detail being born in a manger, born into a family of neither wealth nor nobility. One could argue, being born as a billionaire mogul would in theory only stifle such a realization, being a man as well subject to temptation, fear, anger, lust, etc.

Nothing, as it is generally used, often has a context in which it can be contrasted to and therefore defined. Ex: I spent all my life's savings on cheap beer and and even cheaper women, and now I have nothing! Or, I got drunk and forgot to renew my insurance policy and also left the oven on, my house was destroyed and I now have nothing! Etc.

Nothing could exist in theory. Perhaps in a vacuum devoid of all gases. Though, if you insist darkness being the absent of light is in fact something, perhaps nothing is unobtainable. How encouraging. :)

Many probably view it as more of a thought experiment or mental exercise in logic than a statement of absolute fact. How do I know my keyboard is here in front of me? Because I can see it, touch it, and interact with it. Though I could do the same with the mansions I live in while I dream. But do they exist? I sure like to think so. :)

Political opinion may be subjective but logic- specifically demonstrable real-world examples and statistics or factual data- are not. Care to list a few examples?

A man who desires to do evil and does good is not a good man. Just a failure. — Brian Gomes

Where caution should be heeded is acknowledging the circumstance or trials in which the failure occurred. Not everyone goes through the exact same things under the exact same circumstances.