There's a good metaphor that relates to elements in your post I've been made aware of. It's largely a theological musing however there are parallels that are not exclusive to the metaphysical.

You remember how in old stories (and later, movies) when people enter a supposedly haunted house everything's normal enough at first, save for perhaps a few odd occurrences or visions that are quickly shaken off with the skepticism of others. It's only when someone does or "unleashes" something the house seems to "turn" on them. Windows and doors close trapping everyone (and everything) inside. Anyone tries to break either there's an "unseen force" that stops them, often quickly and terribly. And if some do manage to get outside natural elements seem to make quick work of them.

Seems like pure, unadulterated horror right. The stuff of nightmares. Pure evil!

The idea that was suggested to me was it's not actually anything about the house that's evil, it's just been "enchanted" to seal a true evil that was locked away somewhere inside from ever getting out into the world if released. The people in the stories are simply random, unfortunate victims (or as is the usual case, responsible parties, be it by ignorance or not). They cannot be allowed to escape because whatever else is trapped inside with them can easily possess any one of them or even multiple.

Long story short, sometimes what seems to be scary or evil in the myopic eyes of a single individual who knows little more than what their own short life has taught them can sometimes be the sole thing standing in the way of a true, remarkable evil.

Wow that's a pretty big list. Animals are prone to at least half those things.. of course they are but they do not know why. Is that much different to a person a few hundred years ago who got sick but didn't know why?

Some animals show a sense of self-consciousness at least. Example, I read if you have a dozen dogs in a cage and one by one they are taken out and killed in front of the others, the other dogs will "figure it out" and start to panic.

Religion = way of life.

No ethnic or religious group in the past exists today as they did before and vice versa.

We're all just random people saying things and identifying as things, under one law or Constitution. It's when that fact is ignored specifically the belief some are magically immune from it and its effects is when bad things happen.

A tiger chases a zebra and doesn't know and care why — schopenhauer1

This I believe is the fallacy. The mother tiger offers zebra to the young. It is quite yummy.

If you want to talk about reality that is one thing, if you want to attempt to use reality to sneak in your idea of God, that is another thing. — JerseyFlight

What if I don't want to talk about your preconceived notions or idea of reality. No disrespect, I obviously don't know you but, who are you to think you know anything. I mean really. Lol. You know what you're told and little more I'm afraid. Same here, of course. It just seems like you need a good reminding.

Imagine being raised a few hundred years ago being told the Sun revolves around the Earth. I mean- by all understandable observation it does. That's reality. Until it was disproved.

You seem to be conflating my simple challenge for you to- not even challenge your own beliefs- but to simply accept the possibility in such a dynamic and chaotic universe, one may be mistaken. Just as one Nicolaus Copernicus did to a dark and confused society not 500 years ago. Nothing more. Why the idea of you perhaps being mistaken translates to "my idea of God" to you is beyond my own reproach. But not yours.

I'll agree there's shortsightedness somewhere in this interaction. Meanwhile. What do you mean?

What I get annoyed about is- he's just one out of at least 665 others (or 615 depending on your sources). Nothing would indicate any additional strength or power. It's just so random and really speaks volumes, nay, fills libraries, about the true nature of compassion and understanding of the Creator.

the stupidity of Christians — JerseyFlight

Surely you mean, religious people? If not, interesting. Kinda odd to just single out a certain dish out of an identical buffet if you ask me.

Faith is a belief in something that either is not or can not be easily proven. There are approximately 7.8 million scientists in the world familiar with complex theorems and formulas with access to priceless machines and laboratories to prove it. There are 7.6 billion people in the world. That means only 0.01 of the world population CAN directly prove anything we are told to be facts.

Have you ever seen an electron? A black hole? Witnessed nuclear fusion? Observed evolution? Performed carbon dating? Odds are you haven't. Yet we trust people who say they have and so have faith in the things we're told as facts. Sure "oh there's papers" - it's the same thing. Unless you can perform the experiments/observations yourself it's a simple matter of faith and nothing less.

nonsense. — JerseyFlight

What is nonsense really? A perfect system of eight (or nine) planets all rotating around a single star in near-perfect harmony and equilibrium? The idea of a planet with just the right amount of sun, oxygen, and life-sustaining elements to just barely be able to produce life that not only survives but thrives? If you base your definition of 'sense' on reality- numbers, facts, charts, and probability- you can call a thing nonsense, but we're living it, pal.

I'm trying to contact the Star People.

A true classic. Would you now? You enjoy life that much? I'd suggest perhaps it's rather favorable circumstance you enjoy more so than anything, which comes and goes.

Besides. Along the lines of what the episode suggests, what if you become trapped in a cave or sunken ship underwater?

The idea of such an entity making a deal with a human being seems obscenely cruel. Beyond taking candy from a baby. Hardly any worse tyranny could be imagined.

Imagine having "some immortality". You'd probably be able to get someone "a little bit pregnant" while you're at it.

I can understand that argument, because no other animal has made such an impact on Earth as humans in terms of intellectuality, and no animal can produce thought to our level. — dimension72

What if an ancient race of dolphin monkeys existed and built vast civilizations and interstellar craft capable of exploring the multiverse- took one look at us humans- laughed, cried some, decided to toss us a few microchips and religions- then left. So that we would not be belittled by their awesomeness.

You couldn't disprove it.

You'd have to determine whether you mean in its originality as in its formation or what some people consider it to be today. We really would not know one, the other, or anything in between. It comes down to people reading words printed on paper by men of unknown origin and intent.

Even assuming the translated text is original (enough) and accurate- the widely held interpretation(s) from it could easily just be that.

Plus you always have the simple liar.

Prevents hypothermia/exposure. Some people are .. excitable? "Hotheaded"? Not to say lacking all self control just .. it would increase .. incidents.

They're also like carrying bags you don't have to hold. Which is neat. You can do all sorts of things with your average minimal outfit. Signal for help, cheer on a team, set a fracture, tie off a blood vessel, fend off an animal attack, neutralize an assailant, all sorts of neat things really.

In short, no, however with some folks you'd simply appreciate it.

Are you actively being the best "you" you can be, actively working towards becoming so, or have done so tirelessly?

If not, you should care about beneficial criticism, even if you do have to extract it from vile toxicity after the fact.

People who live the way you describe are simply not grounded in something greater than themselves or any one other person or even group of people. Be it religion, science, family, morality, faith, or simple lack of it, you need to pick a reliable place to stand on and keep your footing. You sound young. Good for you. Believe it or not, you'll miss these times later.

Anyone willing to share their mentions/comments ratio? — Banno

0.67

Can we get the ought of post quality from an is of mentions/comments? — Banno

Encouraging responses is far from post quality. If one posts vague, confusing, easily refutable, or simply provocative things their ratio would be quite high, wouldn't it?

Also, whether or not I directly reply to a topic (without quoting) or quote part of the OP is solely based on if I'm in a state of mind where I need what I'm replying to to literally be in front of me to avoid losing focus. Which is a toss up depending on the time of day (or complexity of the post). Basically, it may not be a reliable indicator of too much.

Edit: Never mind. Replies to topics produce a mention. Lol. See that's what I'm talking about. :grin:

In other words, Scanlon is proposing that the potential ramifications our projects may have on people can be ignored so long as we at least try to mitigate them, and so long as our collective desire for the project is deemed worthy enough to proceed. — darthbarracuda

Try- meaning full, concerted effort from a professional. Not just some guy saying "yeah sure".

Deemed worthy- again, in-depth thought and analysis from a professional in whatever field the project is in. Not just... some random careless juxtaposition of spur of the moment interest.

From the phrase of "What We Owe To Each Other" alone I'd say... we owe the effort we would expect from others. Which is difficult to ascertain as there are hundreds of factors that are no longer center stage that give us not only the things we have but the ability to do certain things today. It's the thought that counts is a good compromise.

I think it's a problem in all the Nordic countries. — ssu

Nah. It's about respecting the cultures, customs, and social norms (including language) of another person's home. Besides. Those are pretty much just frozen prisons anyway. No one should want to migrate there. It would be hazardous and unsafe for any agency to even consider that as a place to do so. Especially if they can't survive the elements on their own without government assistance.

You don't come into Africa from another land trying to convert people to your religion and make them speak your language because you think it's "better" or "right". Oh wait, people have and do. That's where the majority of modern day conflicts that kill millions of Africans stem from. Meanwhile, no one talks about that. Interesting, no?

The Americas are different seeing as others were there first.

I'd tell you OP but I wouldn't know how to prove it. :grin:

Eh. Reliable (enough) verification typically by means of evidence. Right?

The first reply to the thread is what I'd go with. And so, the more things that are proven as a(n) (exclusive) result of said proof, the more likely it is.

Am reading it now mate. Don't think I'm trying to knock it either just to do so or because I think everything modern is garbage. Just, you're clearly a smart dude and so wholly capable of breaking it down for someone with a simpler mindset to comprehend or rather "get the gist" of. What conclusions could be jumped to if they don't consist entirely of bare bones logical points? What else is there to even discuss devoid of explicit logical points?

Can someone summarize any new/relevant ideas presented in a sensical fashion without avoiding any potential admittance they have no idea what they read? Thanks. Just trying to learn here.

Personally, I don't read works from modern day philosophers. Any ideas I have I can safely call my own, or at least derived from the masters. No modern rehashes. I imagine many use philosophy forums in the same fashion.

Edit: The OP stated he is not only expecting but eager to learn from rebuttals. Just looking for a bare bones assessment of the premise(s) upon which action can be easily done. Sigh. Guess I'll read it. But for the record. This doesn't count. :grin:

Also, any mod reading may consider not only what's his name's sentiment along with my explicit acknowledgment to go ahead and remove our entire interaction for sake of relevant discussion. Thanks! You're welcome for the bumps.

What one's State Machine is, becomes that way through a concrete material social process, there is no way around this, and it makes a huge difference when it comes to the way we view humans and approach education. — JerseyFlight

So, nurture vs. nature. All of a sudden I just feel all world suffering and poverty fading into oblivion due to this revelation... if only we thought of this sooner. Come on. What does he say beyond that timeless argument?

This papers deserves serious replies. — JerseyFlight

Yeah so does the lowliest person asking how you're doing. If you're responding on a basis of betterment of the human condition.

It provides the foundation for an up to date discussion. — JerseyFlight

Well maybe it does dude but if you can't even describe to me here what it's about I mean... how do we know you're not just bamboozled by mentally satisfying jargon? Why is it so foundational. A six year old can describe in relevant enough detail why something is interesting. Why won't you?

Well, do your best.

Describe the first stage then the next. From your perspective. Neat thing is your interpretation may be completely independent of the intent of the author.

What's his "point" or points, basically?

What do you know or have reason to believe now that you didn't before reading?

Would it be possible to add a short summary in the form of bullet points? Oh, that's right. Yes. It is. Could you please do so? Thanks!

Typically with others. Do you have this difficulty, or is it unique to the individual?

You are a conversationalist. You can adapt and blend in as needed. You enjoy the diversity of others, you learn from those different. The differences aren't so bad, and the similarities steady bonuses. You can make short term associates and "friends." Maybe have a flirt, a date or two. But it ends there.

How common is this? — Cobra

The trick is to not be so interesting. Works every time. I don't mean that in an elitist way either. Some people just don't like what you have to say, regardless on whether or not it's "logical", "right", or would benefit them tremendously. Basically don't treat every random place you go throughout your day like it's the Pantheon- a world of refined learning and morals where every person is eager to spontaneously break out in immersive debate on truth and morals. It's not. You just go about your day, do what you're there to do, don't seem too rushed, and you're fine. You don't have to "adapt and blend in" like you're putting on some other persona- you just realize not everyone wants to hear what you have to say lol. Simple.

The thing you seem to be talking about is seeming incompatible long-term with the philosophically disinclined ie. you'd either bore them or they'd bore you. That's not a problem. "Hey how's it going - what's going on", talk some, do what you need, "alright catch up with you later", and go about your business.

What actually complicates things is when others know you're either successful, rich, etc. Then you're in real trouble. New places where nobody knows who you are will be the only respites in such a life. If you can avoid the temptation. Eh, I know a few people. :grin:

Same gender is fine. You start getting to know someone you either reveal directly or indirectly you're not antisocial just an introvert. You don't go out much and are usually content/busy with (well.. as an intellect you should be busy often) such and such. Rule of thumb is to avoid religion and politics. Treat their statements with an imaginary "I think/I believe/It seems to me" in front of everything they say, and just include one of the three in anything you say to them that seems to conflict with their mindset. "I like/prefer" this .. or "if you do it this way, you get... (insert new logical benefit that outweighs original benefit)." Simple.

Chicks. Eh. Good luck. It's always tough when you start to care about a person and want to help them. Some people are stuck in their ways. Old habits die hard. "Girls just wanna have fun" they say. At best you just maintain casual friendships with a few you like, hang out every now and then, and make sure they don't fall into unhealthy relationships, behaviors, or thought processes. As well as not seeming like "just a friend" or gay. Lol. Like I said good luck. You be that guy who can crack a joke, take a joke, and occasionally say something insightful that makes you think. Best you can hope for. Oh you mean actual relationships. Just find someone you can tolerate and vice versa who cares about the same things you do. Get to know them well, first. You'll thank me later. Again, I know a few people. :grin:

I will say, many people may be smarter than you may give them credit for. Even if it is in a narrow-minded, myopic, "me first" kind of way.

TL;DR: If someone annoys you it's probably for a reason, also, There's a reason why the male is called the groom.

Too broad, a couch satisfies your definition. — TheMadFool

Well we're being a bit one-dimensional at this point. You know what a chair is.

"A piece of furniture typically designed for seating a single individual usually accompanied by a backrest and/or armrests."

But it begs the question. Does an object get it's properties from the creator of the object or those who observe it? You could sit atop a parking meter if you'd like. That doesn't make it a chair. Does it? Basically, the broad definition of "something you sit on" doesn't quite hold up. Think the above definition is the most widely accepted one.

A chair without backrests or armrests is just a stool is it not? Which is a type of chair... yes?

A chair that seats two or three qualifies either as a bench or loveseat or full-blown sofa if wide enough, and depending on cushioning/upholstery. Right?

What is an object? Beyond physical and nonphysical (ie. a literary plot device), an object generally has a purpose or function. Which is usually either strict utility (ie. a pocketknife) or aesthetic (like an ornament or work of art). These days one usually incorporates some of the other.

Perhaps... an object that does not function in a utilitarian sense is simply not said object. Yet. A tiny replica 1-inch chair say for a model home is still a chair. It can't be used as one, yet we aesthetically see it is and so would call it a chair. Interesting thread, OP. At least, the questions I've been able to gather from it.

Do people get some sort of pleasure and/or satisfaction out of this? — EricH

Uh. Yeah dude. Lol. An unfortunate fact of society sure- and not just modern society- yet at least shows those who post here haven't lost touch with the world that surrounds them.

Someone recently called me a bot. <Sarcasm> Oh no! That wounded me to the core of my being - I'm going to introspect for the next 6 months until I can figure out the errors in my thinking. </sarcasm> — EricH

Maybe not 6 months, just because a guy makes an observation of questionable intent doesn't mean he was doing so to "wound the core of your being" lol. Iron sharpens iron. Critique either has a point or it doesn't. Did it?

If I'm having a back & forth discussion with someone and I see that the conversation is just looping around and/or going nowhere, I politely back out and say "I will give you the last word". — EricH

You can do better. Unless you're debating with a person of much less intellect than yourself (and who's fault is that really) - you need to be able to quickly and on the spot come up with alternate views of thinking or wording even to show the person what they're missing in your logic. Examples are powerfully effective tools to accomplish this. Compare and contrast. Like a mental Venn diagram. Who knows. They may have a point you're missing as well.

Unless the person is just rude and hostile. They show their own faith and satisfaction (or lack thereof rather) in their philosophy and life choices. It's about the crowd or others around. Not so much the individual. Depending on the age- mental and biologic- of the crowd doing so can "show weakness" or lack of ability to prove your point. These days. Which may or may not be important in what you're trying to accomplish. Most with juvenile mindsets don't really amount to much therefore it's not really of much consequence you convince them of such and such. Then again. We live in an age of democracy. Mob rule is a scary thing.

Corporations are destroying the world (biosphere) and should be done away with - in the West this process has been helped by the co-opting and failure of Representative Democracy. — Philip Rhoades

At the behest of people. If I have a corporation that doesn't sell or do anything- why would you give me money? You wouldn't. It'd cease to exist. It's human greed, nothing more, nothing less.

As Human Rights, every person on Earth should be entitled to shelter, nutritious food, clean water and an education that will allow them to explore the full potential of their lives. — Philip Rhoades

Embracing idealism and perfectionism is a sure way to reach neither. See behavioral sink.

So, if that is my position - what is now my appropriate "-ism"? - does an appropriate one even exist that does a decent job of describing my current world view? — Philip Rhoades

Well since you only said maybe. You sound like an incredible person with a fascinating background. And. If you'll excuse me. A bit naive. You want humans to create AI overlords (guardians, sorry) while anticipating some sort of human extinction? Would that really be wise? They'd (presumably) survive and when the natural processes of Earth either restart life or otherwise create the next wave of humans who know how to do little more than beat and rape each other ... these AI's will see that with their "sense of morality" and forever enslave them ensuring there will never be another modern human again. It makes sense, really. :grin:

It's still just a program that follows code, whether it "decides" what actions to partake in or not it's still a one-dimensional, split-second calculation devoid of any true intelligence.

Not knocking any technophiles here simply stating that since it's a program it's code can be changed with no effort at all. Even a simple 1 or 0 value assigned to hostility and humans.

Jeez. So there was no point in living other than selfishness. Sorry for other people who bring them joy. Same thing. Meanwhile plenty of other people find joy in helping others and yeah perhaps themselves in the process. I suppose the selfishness aspect cannot be avoided. Still. One looks better than the other.

I imagine you start listening to online posters who think they know what happens after you die- who for some reason reject the idea of other's versions as an absolute falsehood even though neither have ever been there.

Bearing in mind death is the end of life- which is the real death? One that can be experienced and witnessed here and now via pessimism or a simple unknown? You tell me. More importantly, you decide for yourself.

My main question is for those that do not fear death or dying. What comes with the peace? Is there anything to follow? — Cobra

Very interesting premises here. The beauty in life is all you see, yet you don't seem to have any explicit attachment to it. I gather you've had a rather pleasant existence. Nothing you'd like to get done, people you'd like to look after, causes or purposes you'd like to help champion or at least contribute to.

What do you care about in life, OP?

I may or may not be your intended audience. I don't "fear" death or dying per se as much as I would view it like getting caught in bad weather on the way to somewhere important. I would seek to avoid it when possible with a high degree of care. And would be rather annoyed in the process. At present at least. Crap to do, you know.

Interestingly enough the Bible seems to make proving it impossible. Not a mystery with a bit of thought but interesting nonetheless. Passages such as there will be those who do great and wonderous things, miracles, etc. but they are misleading. As well as the bit in Revelation that states no one shall add to it.

The premise of your OP seems to have nothing to do with Christianity specifically but rather applies to all religious texts. Nothing that nobody saw today can be known. Even extends beyond religion it would seem. On the topic of resurrection from a spiritual/metaphysical standpoint it isn't uncommon. It was alleged to have been performed by Jesus as well. Others have done this through what is said to be darker means ie. necromancy or "lichs". And of course from a scientific lens, there are things like zombi powder or nerve toxins and the like (see Romeo and Juliet). To a person living in times before our own any such act would in fact appear to be divine.

Point being I'd like to see an argument specific to Christianity that doesn't simply apply to all religion across the board.

I think what people are forgetting is that many people are basically "passable" for the other gender in the right clothes/or with makeup/or other factors (shaved, etc).

Not every woman or man has a.. notable chest. Or well-defined chin or vice-versa. Some women are muscular or otherwise have large arms. And some men do not.

Some men have soft facial features and some women have strong, defined features.

Some men don't take life too seriously and have playful, submissive, some would say "girlish" personalities whereas some women are quite the opposite.

Bearing these facts in mind along with the idea that bisexuality is (or at least was- it's definitely spoken of less) still "a thing" .. it kind of casts a new light on the whole debate.

And if it doesn't you should ask yourself why.

Some dudes with soft features (not too pronounced chin vs. a well-defined female's) look pretty hot in drag with their hair done. That's not a statement that reflects anything of myself they are simply indistinguishable from a very attractive female model. The chin/jawline is usually a giveaway. Some females with short hair/baggy clothing do pass for men as well. I recall an instance where I was embarrassed to mistake one for the other but saved myself by saying "sorry I don't have my glasses on" :grin:

Seems like a social construct based on general human sexuality made into a big deal for unknown purposes.

I just think the motive's of people who advocate for the idea of homosexuality while remaining silent about the idea of bisexuality should be looked into a bit further.

Sure. Now living to fight another day or to reach a position where you can actually do something about it is far from ignoring anything. It's really the only smart thing to do.

What is the average bloke going to do seeing someone wrong or injure someone on the street? Stop the person? Perhaps get shot in the process while not actually stopping anything and resulting in not only their death but the victims' as well?

It's not an easy choice in and of itself but when held to a backdrop of realistic outcomes it becomes ever so tolerable.

They share one core philosophy: suffering is part of life and is unavoidable.

The differences are:

Buddhism: suffering can be reduced by detachment to worldly desires.

Cynicism: suffering defines life and it may or may not matter, therefore, blah.

Nihilism: none of it matters, therefore find/interpret joy or dissatisfaction as you will.

Sam was clearly biased against religion for the bad that it is done — Malcolm Lett

Guns. Science. Medicine. Governments. Nuclear fusion. Every bad thing that stemmed from these things... they all have one thing in common. People. Human nature. Where does he live? Is he willing to give up everything including territory that was procured as a result? Nice try, Sam.

Well... I don't want to disagree at all but under a logical, philosophical lens... just because something should be doesn't automatically mean it does. Think that would sum up any criticism nicely.

Besides, even under religious pretext, there's other avenues. Reincarnation. Somewhere bad. Or very unfortunate.

I agree dude just we're kind of not following explicit logic at this point. Which is a no-no here.