It's just another reminder of how bankrupt philosophy really is. — Hippyhead

Political pseudo-philosophy at least. :P

When it comes to anything political, we're all just really playing game of thrones and want to rule the world. Take it from someone who lost it all- just be open with it. Or.. perhaps not, eh? Ha. "All warfare is based on deception". It's an ugly game, with no real winners. Not for long anyway. Eager to return to actual philosophy as well.

The US caused a Russian pipeline to blow up in retaliation for some attempt at infiltration. — frank

Is this Alex Jones talk or do you have a link to this? I can say I'm whoever from wherever acting under whatever, and do something to make people turn against one another, doesn't mean it was so.

I'm pretty sure nobody in the US government cares about real Russians and their political challenges. — frank

Look at it this way, if they don't, somebody else will. So, it makes sense to be considerate. Such as said scenario would be. When you devalue empathy and compassion toward one, you devalue it for all.

Not really no. — Benkei

Well, how so? Leaders are dealers in hope, which of course isn't or doesn't have to be some kind of material gain be it better infrastructure of just more money in your pocket at the end of the week. Unity and faith in one's own life and being to instill a sense of purpose is great- crucial even. But it only goes so far? Would you vote for a leader where you stand to lose something or otherwise cut established gains or would you vote for one who declares the opposite? It's about who can do what's best for the people and unless he or she is going to be a motivational speaker every day, it usually revolves around some sort of benefit or gain. The idea or possibility, at least.

the USA will start unjust wars because money is the predominant influence in its politics — Benkei

Erm, isn't that all politics- anywhere? Lol. It's not funny it's really rather tragic but yeah.

The Iranian regime is a relatively small group of gangsters holding the Iranian people prisoner. — Hippyhead

Eh to be fair many people have either said or thought that about their own governments at one time or another. Why do I have to pay taxes? Why do I have to go to jail for such and such? I've said it before, and though this quote isn't mine: "the utopia some wish for is actually a dystopia of the worst kind".

the Islamic State was then effectively crushed. — Hippyhead

Any such group was always irrelevant if you're concerned about religion and statehood,. The entire ME and yes now even parts of Europe is and has always been an effective "Islamic state", that grows in territory, wealth, and power with each passing day. I'm not one to say if that's good or bad- shoot who knows, maybe they were right and we were wrong. Personally I subscribe to there being a possibility where "no ones wrong", of course not everyone will get behind that and the money and pride sure isn't there. Especially when people from alleged groups or sides do things to one another, forgiveness seems easy in theory- til you're actually on the receiving end of a major grievance. Either way, former Christians (whose ancestors swore their successes/conquests and future ability [or inability] to hold onto them were contingent on their faith in God) are becoming less and less religious and globally aware, becoming more atheist, while others become the opposite. It's just what's happening.

What in the Heavens is whatever you said and do you stand by the concept it is not a byproduct of God? A useful one perhaps but yes.

Nope, never. Manager usually fires those who don't abide by stated policies which include non-harassment. Is this a 2nd or 3rd world country you're describing? If the latter, thank goodness for the miracle of internet! If not, get that complaint form going to the head office.

Are you describing information from co-workers in a setting which you have ( i suppose) little choice to be in or a social media posting which you explicitly subscribed to/viewed? Just curious

The most ridiculous or grotesque person available — Ciceronianus the White

Takes one to know one. Does it not? Vanity is the preferred lens of the true fool, not by birth, as we are all ignorant at such a time, but through life when challenges and lessons, rather the merit and wisdom they bring forth, are traded or dismissed for mere pleasantries of the senses.

Any thoughts? — Tristan L

Why would any thoughts or replies constitute a unique and individual thought or reply from again, a unique and individual... individual? What difference would a rebuttal or refute you post yourself after changing your mind or perspective have from me or another? Or... are there even such things as 'me' and 'another'?

So what is your argument against a basic income? — unenlightened

A person who does something useful or worthwhile or creates something of the like should be rewarded. Most work or have compulsory education because they need to do so in order to live.

Nothing is given for free. If you eat something it's because someone either raised crops or cattle, and had to deal with the hardships/setbacks associated with it. You can't have someone sitting around doing nothing and getting stuff while someone deals with the stresses and hardships associated with producing said stuff and gets the exact same. It doesn't make any sense. You have to be rewarded for your effort or to many people that effort would be in vain, at least it wouldn't be something anyone would want to do. With joy and not out of spite, and if so, without those two, you never know what you're going to get...

UBI sounds like a great idea, in theory, if the world were as it was, groups of peoples with numbers under a few hundred thousand who can explore, cultivate, and lounge around as they please. Unfortunately, we live in a world of 8 billion. Not to be unexpected, the pleasures of fraternizing were too great to be resisted. However, that was back when your community or people would inflict harsh punishment on you for neglecting your offspring. Now, you just offer up for adoption or the State to handle your progeny if you're "unable" or unwilling usually (and that's 90% of most cases). That's what they wanted so that's how it is. So. You work. Simple, really.

You can have an economy with UBI where everyone works if they please (which most won't). Meanwhile, your next door neighbors may actually instill or rather correlate their currency to work and effort. Over time, which one do you think will hold more value? See the Zimbabwean dollar.

We know pleasure feels good instinctively at birth. Good food, becoming pleasantly dizzy, etc. There's nothing really philosophical about that with the exception of "life is about pleasure" which again, is hardly anything that requires any thought as by all definition it doesn't. More of an anti-philosophy really. Sure you could come up with greater ways and means to achieve selfish pleasure but that's hardly philosophy.

so the only real evil is to knowingly tell a lie — Dan Hall

I think I was in 6th grade at a new school, for troubled students. The classrooms are windowless as were the doors, so turning off the light switch was a funny yet understandably dangerous thing people would do on occasion. We were about to go to lunch or something and were lined up more or less by the door. Someone flipped the switch. Once the teacher turned the light back on she demanded to know who was responsible with the ultimatum that we would stand there and miss whatever if nobody fessed up. Selflessly or perhaps in a state of hunger I said "It was me" and was told I would face later punishment for doing so. After that I kind of backed out softly like "I was just saying that to get the line moving". Nevertheless I was not believed the second time. As I walked to the back of the line I eyed each of my peers intensely. Was I 'evil' for doing that?

fae — TheMadFool

Fae?

having even participated in some terrorist activities — TheMadFool

Uh, I know how the victims of any said incident would feel lol. That's the thing about insults and put-me-downs. They either have a basis in reality, some merit, or remind you of an area in your life/attitude you need work on or they don't.

I agree or at least want to agree that much of the suffering experienced in life is preventable or at least able to mitigated but a life with no suffering, angst, or worry is hardly a life at all. There'd be no passion or excitement. I'm sure you mean more of the former sentence than the idea of there being "none whatsoever" as a possibility.

Which one am I? A child or a fool? Or am I both? I'm not kidding. An answer will mean a lot to me. — TheMadFool

As I've yet to have the pleasure of becoming acquainted with you I would not know. Is your name ironic?

This contradicts your previous statement. — TheMadFool

How is that?

A stoic thinks of "suffering as a [necessary] part of life." — TheMadFool

Only a child or fool doesn't.

I would've come to the exact same conclusion had I been living 2000 years ago - poor sanitation, rampant disease, ineffective medicine, wars, plagues, corruption, and, for people like me, no air conditioning. — TheMadFool

Well the good news is 2,000 years later we at least managed air conditioning.

I can't see myself living anywhere else — healing-anger

Ok. Lol. Yet there's no reason you easily couldn't. Eggshells abound apparently. Sounds like a match made in heaven to be honest. I'm sure you'll figure something out.

the intellect can only be challenged by another intellect but effectively even that is of no consequence. — Judaka

If so, what gives any 'intellect' of any persuasion or level any meaning beyond itself? Feeling, as the OP states?

The human race is so small and insignificant and in x amount of years we will all be forgotten and nothing, in the end, will matter at all. So why does it matter? — existentialcrisis

Well apparently with your omniscience you qualify as some sort of god so there's that. /sly

Is about truth I believe, not knowledge. — TheMadFool

What is "truth"? Is assembling cars by hand the only way to produce an automobile and move society forward? In the 1920's that answer would be yes and the truth. A century later is that method now obsolete and automation the better way to do so? That answer is also the truth. Yet both were and are still knowledge.

Perhaps I'm not understanding it correctly. Would you be so kind as to define both "instances of knowledge" and "criterion for knowledge". The first seems to imply some absolute (whatever that means) prescription for what is and what isn't. And if so that's great. No need to even discuss anything. The latter also yet indirectly seems to do the same. What are your definitions for the two? Is an "instance" of knowledge something that works and is proven to be solid enough? What is a criterion then? Prescribed knowledge (again from who knows where) of what something is? Why would anyone subscribe to a criterion if it can't or wasn't proven to be reliable beforehand? It doesn't matter what word "X" uses to describe a "tree" per the details you described, it's more of a semantic reference. Whether or not a "tree" is a "tree" because something not a tree happens to fit the description perfectly (say a faux model of a tree or an illusion/mirage) the point is hardly lost.

Edit: it's a bit late. more than likely missing something from your post, but, I just want to confirm this isn't a simple argument of semantics. Which many 'philosophical' disagreements turn out to be. Seeking clarification, thanks.

You can't 'invade' a democratic nation open to all- rather, that'd be stupid. Unnecessary.

To be fair, historically, the largest genocides of unique peoples have always been perpetrated by, themselves. As can be shown in the region of the world we're talking about. Sunni vs. Shiite, I believe.

Uh. You wanna.. add a bit more content to your first post perhaps to include your thoughts? (this is a very high class place, not presumptuous, just if it were a dining venue it'd be jackets required, no caps)

Well so the story goes all life came from water. No planet can sustain life without it really. We drink it, obviously. It forms mountains, beaches. Allegedly God killed everyone alive with it one time. It's pretty universal come to think of it.

That's why there's pragmatism, which is course isn't flawless nor does it aspire to be some absolute golden standard. It's just what works. Probably where the whole "if it's not broke don't fix it" saying comes from.

It allows plenty room for improvement. Was assembling cars by hand the fastest, most efficient method to do so? We now know it wasn't. But it worked for the time and few people complained. Of course, when better methodologies became available they were utilized. You even seem to suggest, we really can't hope to achieve much better than I described. Here and now, of course.

Yes. Not at first, not right away, and not by intent of design or nature of pursuit. But yes. The only question is for who. And due to the nature of science and technological innovation, can be one of the few true toss ups we have today. Of course, like responsible procreation, just because you stop and act responsibly doesn't mean everyone else will. And so, becomes an inevitable and necessary evil of a sort. Something of a race to oblivion I suppose. You learn to make the best of things.

You don't want to have an event that turns a place intended for the best minds and souls to come together to better themselves and others in the process into a thing where people just show up for the free stuff and leave or otherwise lounge around until the next bone is thrown while others actually contribute. It's not fair to the productive. Same argument as the insurance, really.

I suppose the question all debaters of any flavor need to ask themselves this Hallow's Eve is: "how can one be certain the utopia one seeks isn't actually a dystopia of the worst kind?"

Now if you'll excuse me I have to send my young children to stranger's houses unsupervised in sparkly clothes to consume items of unknown origin. All on a night associated with heavy (oc)cult activity. Seems legit. I mean it's no crawling around in the woods with the subconscious hope of running into a fully grown man dressed in a bunny costume who beckons you to follow him somewhere but whatever. Aren't our holidays great?

"We" is the free world. And yes, it is a stated assumption that we want a just world — Paul Edwards

What is free? Free to be drunk all day and rot our insides and become a burden on our society? Free to be the vilest person one can be (within confines of the law) and viciously insult, degrade, and belittle those who may be going through more than you could imagine or perhaps even handle if the tides were to change and drive them to depression, suicide, or even acting out on others? Or just making society and public an all-around shitty place to be? Free to subvert the nuclear family or natural family unit into a haphazard partnership leaving children to grow up socially-malformed with no sense of right or wrong beyond what little lessons, morals, or values they were exposed to? Free to worship the darkest of forces (all while refusing to acknowledge they exist) that not only encourage but demand humanity be the worst they can be toward one another (tactfully and within the law). Newsflash. At this rate, the idea of what is 'just' or proper/"normal" is rapidly declining and without external guidelines may continue its downward spiral.

instead of dismissing this world as some sort of purgatory that we just need to accept. — Paul Edwards

And what if it is? Not to just "accept" but to rise above and beyond. Which calls for leaders to "speak softly and carry a big stick" .. in hopes of guiding all toward a higher morality.

Ok, there is another assumption I have that dictators are enslavers while ordinary citizens like myself are not. Would you like to see video of Saddam's goons cutting out someone's tongue? Can you not see a difference between that and using an iphone? — Paul Edwards

Sure, that's a sovereign leader (again, an individual, one bad apple) committing human rights abuses which should be punished swiftly and appropriately. I mean, and I understand, that act you describe was probably for a non-heinous "crime" ie. speaking out against the government/blasphemy/something of the sort, and that is shocking. However, if it wasn't, what difference is that between putting someone in the electric chair, injecting them with lethal poisons that kill them, or otherwise incarcerating them or like it was back then hanging them.

Indifference is the gateway sin, the root cause of all suffering men experience in this world. Sure, the average man, shoot maybe he's even an exemplary man who goes above and beyond his social commitments/contract, that's great. Is pushing a button that kills a person in another room that's labeled "free hugs" much different in terms of concrete real world effect from someone who presses the same button if it were properly labeled?

(for the record I'm more or less- I think- on your side as far as the arguments you claim to represent. Just, anything based on substance can be refuted wholeheartedly and convincingly so I'm just playing a sort of devil's advocate here.)

We — Paul Edwards

Who is this "we" and what gives you a duty or even a right to "construct" the world we all share in your image of justice? Idealism is great, however after not much uncovering you may find your "responsibility to protect others" is derived from little more than to protect oneself from public backlash or war crimes. Which I find the term an ironic hypocrisy as it implies large-scale killing of peoples is permitted "so long as you do it quickly and without too much suffering" ... seriously who on Earth comes up with this crap?

state-slavery — Paul Edwards

Without mutually agreed upon rules and codes of conduct (and they were by your ancestors, just they didn't have their minds and souls rotted by mind numbing television, convenience, and social media), and those rules and codes being enforced in an open and free medium with real repercussion when not followed, people enslave each other just fine. If you mean the modern first-world we live in where a wheelchair-bound man can work a dignified job and be just as successful as someone perfectly gifted in physique and health, is 'state-slavery' then *whip sound* back to work.

we could simply nuke all the slave states — Paul Edwards

Lol. Again with this we business. If the majority human populace, not during the enlightened period but the ignorant periods of the past and today (which have so much in common it's eerie) had their way and controlled the armed forces this rock we live on would've been a smouldering, fiery crater devoid of all life a long time ago. Let us be thankful that's not the case. I guess.

Just keep using your top of the line iPhone manufactured by drearily underpaid workers and eat your fresh produce picked by the same while continuing to demonize and fix a noose for these imaginary slavers that seem to exist everywhere and anywhere but in the mirror.

So where do we go from there? There's no organic components nor any recognizable sensory or "feeling" nodes so... if we're on that tangent why don't we just ponder if raindrops are sad when they fall from the clouds, or that the grass gets angry when we cut it. I mean, at least they have organic, intelligent cells. Does a magnet get angry when we introduce another magnet of opposite polarity? Is an electromagnetic generator "happy" when it produces current? It's all the same physics, so where are we supposed to draw the line?

What is it about mindless circuitry that infatuates some folks so? Wait. Unless....

You're on a computer right? Phone at least. Run a systems diagnostic or "CPU health" test or something of the like. It doesn't "feel" anything it only reports, when asked. Rather, instructed.

You'd need a robotic body with millions (if not more) of nanowires crisscrossing every single surface to be able to report to the main circuit board (brain) to be able to encompass any sort of "feeling" which again is little more than a systems check. Example, the right arm is slightly dented or damaged, etc. You'd have to program an entire AI to give it a "mood" in response to being in a less than optimal state, which defeats the purpose of robotics/tools in general. My toaster is kind of dirty. What if it was sad and so decided not to toast my bread properly? That's not why machines were introduced, otherwise we'd just use people.

A robot is an inorganic creation that isn't alive ie. has the essence/evolutionary capacity the human brain has. It's either a (depending on form) circuit board or figurine operating from a base system of 1's and 0's. It performs pre-programmed functions and nothing more. Now, sure, you could program randomness into it and its operation, but that's all it really ever would be. Perhaps there's other forms of AI I'm not familiar with, where the "randomness"/"mood" parameter fluctuates according to stimuli/circumstance or perhaps yes even "qualia". Similar to a human, in it's earliest stage it was around (and capable of observing) say a mountain range or beach and so "prefers" or is "happy" around the same scenery. It's still a creation following code/script/circuitry. Of course... there's an argument the human brain isn't much different. Again, one has a clear creator-creation relationship the other... is what we're debating about.

I'm simply suggesting that we are not in a position to say with absolute confidence that a robot, as described by TheMadFool, cannot/does not experience 'qualia'. — ChrisH

If it does, it is because it was programmed to. Who programmed us to? The question many will pass off as rubbish and a red herring, and that few wish to answer.

Does qualia = sensation? An experience that the mind perceives that is apart from the normal state of nothingness or the norm rather (whatever that may be)?

My cat experiences 'qualia' when I rub her on the head I'm sure. When I first got her and turned her into an indoor cat, she left some 'qualia' on my bed when i was absent for 2 days and didn't change the litter box. Both she and I exhibited some consciousness in some way shape or form in this exchange of 'qualia'.

I guess, to ask the obvious, what is 'qualia'? What isn't and why isn't it?

There's a green lighter next to me as I type this. Bright, lime green. It's a striking image, object rather that seems to jut out from the background. As a person with a human mind and relatively functional sense of sight, it's just my neurons/synapses rendering a scene of high contrast, which catches the eye inherently. Yet I know I am me, a person, and that object is an object, a tool for my use. Is this not consciousness? If not, what is?

Basically, if we as humans really evolved here along with everything else in the same time period, side by side, why don't we see birds, dolphins, or other animals with (semi) advanced civilizations as well? Or something mildly representative of the evolutionary process. It goes from barely recognizing oneself in the mirror (reflection test) and simple tools/puzzle solving (birds and some mammals) to full blown metropolis, thermonuclear fusion, circuit boards, and space travel with NO link or reasonable midway point in between. It's just bizarre. To say the least. Is that similar or a part of what you're asking? It's a fair question. Mighty fair indeed.

There's a such thing as comfort in logic and reason ie. when the two go together, often with some form of morality- and there's inane adaptation to a mentality that is- at any given moment- outside of all three. So long as one is "on top" or otherwise "right" in ways of social or personal superiority. These individuals are fine, so long as they abide to the larger system, that encompasses and provides for higher reason and understanding irrespective of personal position. That said, if you're making references to the "comfort" that is found in religious philosophies, rather "holding the feet to the fire" to those who hold comfort, solace, or confidence in a position -any position- that either isn't or cannot be proven or disproven here and now... I fail to see the "big deal" so to speak. We debate with those whom we deem debatable.

If one can deal with what they dish out to others and expect them to deal with as normal, I suppose there's little to be concerned about. It's the circumstance that others who deal the brunt of what others deal, and the great circumstantial fortune (temporality) responsible for those being able to do as they do being removed or reversed is what most forget, and so seals the fate of those who do not repent. Which is how it always was. It's when those predetermined, insistent, or otherwise damned to do and suffer from a reversal. attempt to convince others whose fate is undetermined that doing so is "normal", "right", or otherwise "predetermined" in attempt to damn them as well, is when Others speak and act. This is 2020 in a nutshell.

Portions of the Old Testament, like those I quoted, are generally ignored by most religious figures today. — Ciceronianus the White

Technically, Christianity is about retiring the Old Testament and heh christening a new one. Kinda like "yeah it happened but we don't really do that so much now" .. take that how you please.

We need scientific thinking, not religion. — Athena

What a brilliant idea Athena .. maybe soon we'll be able to make bombs that can blow up entire continents instead of just regional areas. I mean, according to Darwinism if you're smaller or weaker or less intelligent than myself, I just about have a duty to consume, eat, kill, or otherwise "assert my superiority over you" and if I do so, that's just helping the human race. To not do so is to leave us all handicapped.

There's no reason you can't have both.

To be fair I can't think of a single religion that doesn't cast non-believers as something less than positive or equal. Otherwise, there's no reason to be in the religion. Non-Christians are "lost sinners", non-Muslims are "infidels", most others are "non-believers".

Suppose you could call it (not the religion but how the human brain works) "mob mentality". If you're outside of the mob, you're bad. Lol.

Right. And all things being equal. Well, yeah. Must be doing something right, eh?

Well I mean... that's not as you wish it to be perceived I'm afraid. Musical artists are one out of not only thousands but millions even. Some succeed, and that success is based on something.

So, long story short the odds of rolling a single number 50 times in a row is less than not. We're hardly at odds here it would seem. What's your deal?

Anything could happen. You insist that out of 3 dice rolls, rolling the exact same number all three times is just as likely as any other scenario? So, rolling a die 50 times and getting the same number all 50 times- in a row- is just as likely as not? How come it never happens then.