As an abstract question, which one do you think is more selfish? Life or Death? — griefkebab

I'd say the differences between one who lives to avoid death and one who dies to avoid life are infinitesimal at best. Of course, last I checked I was still alive so it's clearly a biased answer.

"No warning, no hesitation - these are enemies!" A model of clarity, simplicity, decisiveness. — tim wood

Rash judgement has been known to create an environment ripe for mistakes.

Take the Alamo, for example. When sorely needed reinforcements arrived in the dead of night they were mistaken for enemy combatants and shot at, at least one wounded.

Ontology = pragmatism? = that which can be proven.

Metaphysics = that which can not necessarily be proven here.

Science = applied ontology/pragmatism?

Thoughts?

Stephen Hawking doesn't "live on". That's kinda what brought me to this point. — Random Name

Doesn't he? We're still talking about him. Children who have yet to be born will continue to know and learn about him for the foreseeable future. Perhaps it's not the same.

Though, everything he chose to call important and dedicate his life to and contribute to, changing forever, will again forever have his mark on it. Everything he did or thought and "legacy" will indeed live on and this is an absolute fact. The afterlife or "soul" is a discussion independent of this that is generally not smiled upon in philosophical debates due to it's nature of faith or "no proof". Which is the only way to ensure people go to the right place- you don't judge a potential employee by their actions if they're surrounded by cops- you see how they act when they think there's nobody watching and will not face consequences.

And everything I've ever thought, everything I've ever done, any "legacy" I might have tried to create will be rendered moot — Random Name

Oh God. Not this again. "I only do things to benefit me". Eh. Don't want to seem trolly or hostile but... yeah. Exactly. Don't live life with your hands out trying to grab every single thing to put in your little mortal pocket. You can't take it with you.

Meanwhile look at Steven Hawking. He did something with his life, he changed the world for others not just himself. And so he will live on as long as humanity does.There's a lesson there.

Know/knowledge and criterion. We all "know" (right?) what these words mean. But they can hold meanings some support and others think are either overly-complex or even oversimplified. Or you can just be lazy and call it splitting hairs.

1. What do we know? or What is the extent of our knowledge? — TheMadFool

We "know" what we're told. Empiricism apparently. Fire- hot. Snow-cold. Pain-bad (at least for the individual) and so on and so forth. Let's call these common sense for now, from which I believe the term was derived from. The extent of our knowledge is simple- or rather can be determined simply. What you can and cannot answer and if answering can point to sufficient and logical enough reason. ...even if that "reason" is "cuz someone told me so" lol. Or I suppose the ultimate "I saw it (at least) once."

Hi @TheMadFool just to simplify a few things for those who haven't been following closely or are otherwise pleasantly dizzy, few questions or statements that anyone can derive one from.

Criterion? Sounds like some super hero who instead of saving the town and beating up the bad guys just makes everyone take an annoying test instead. Criteria, basically? Standards for something ie. a logical/factual floor to stand on? A reference point that is "true" or rather more likely to be true than false and more likely to produce something useful (neither including nor excluding the idea of "pragmatism").

My question would be how sure are you that semantics don't play a role here? Do you believe every word open to interpretation in Chisholm statements were interpreted by you in the manner as they were written or intended? Knowledge may or may not be absolute. Basically, an "absolute truth" or something- anything- that is simply less false than another view can constitute knowledge.

Then you could never have two "twos" either. Math is math. Acknowledge his mathematical disinclination and move on. lol

Someone who say I don't know cured cancer or saved a monastery of devout monks from barbarians deserves a place to lay his heroic head. And perhaps his kid should as well. And theirs. And maybe even so on. However somewhere down the line, even after a long while. The great, great, great, great (continue this as long as you please) grandkid eventually just does nothing and turns into a degenerate sociopath... and say along the opposing line one of the former barbarians ends up being a wonderful person and even shining beacon of decency... eh. Up for the people to decide it would seem. Let's hope they do so properly.

If the moment escapes me where I have the opportunity to express what appears to be the real truth against false notions, would you say that I have ultimately still won the war but lost the battle? — kudos

If the opportunity is not present it's simply not present. There's really nothing to go on about. Separate the art from the artist. You don't make the truth the truth you simply possessed understanding of it. Basically there's no "I" in truth lol.

Or maybe you would say that passing up such an opportunity is always unwise, immoral even. — kudos

Eh, depends. How relevant is this truth and what are the benefits or rather consequences toward those who it would or would not effect? And is it really that big a deal? Do they deserve it? How do you know you're even correct? If you think you know the answer to even one of the aforementioned i'd say it's safe to say it's a truth others will or at least can discover on their own.

Do you mean vocally? Or simple incoherence? If it's incoherent verbally it'd be incoherent mentally. Otherwise you could just write it down.

Edit: Thread title seems to be asking a different question. In a free and open society ordinary citizens have only one duty, to follow the law and by extension abide by whatever constitution is present. There are certain obligations, some being more important and pressing than others. Example, having a job or some means to support yourself or rather not passing on the opportunity to grow prosperous, experience whatever national dream or ideal is sought after, and otherwise have a piece of said pie worth talking about. Truth rather "truth" in the lower case is based on circumstance and- contrary to those who base not only their own self-worth but entire identity on would never admit- can change in an instant. Truth, as in Truth, is constant. It is not something that can be known absent of faith by it's very nature and definition. Ergo, the theory that proves everything proves nothing. It is generally religious though observable factors substantiate this ie. times when people believed the Sun revolved around the Earth or flight was impossible. Contrast the two, the former was an absolute falsehood that constituted a subjective reality, whereas the latter was a subjective falsehood that denied an absolute reality.

meaning is imaginary. — whollyrolling

Does anything differentiate what is real from the imagined? How could it... after all, meaning is imaginary. Perhaps you simply meant you consider other's meanings of meaning to be meaningless?

The Scientific Method can determine or rather differentiate between what is more likely to be true and what is more likely to be false. Based on current circumstances or "reality" at the time of testing. Which generally remains the same for a long enough period to consider what has been derived from it as "useful". That's as close as we're going to get.

Ignoring the math bit... (I hope you'll forgive me I was never any good at that),

Strictly from the I'm going to assume typical method of assessing past memories (you question a healthy, mentally sound adult or adolescent or even pre-teen).... the things we've seen/read/otherwise been informed about in life, especially today with movies and TV vividly reside in our brain. It wouldn't be atypical to "recall" or otherwise see something presented to one in a dramatic fashion at an early age ie. a riveting novel or dramatic TV or movie especially when under an altered state of mind say hypnotism.

From the philosophical angle, in regards to empiricism (I had to look that up), the previous paragraph kind of seems to be supported by that.

As far as empiricism in general it simply seems to be a description of what is mandated by the human experience. If you can't hear or see let alone being deprived of all five senses from birth... obviously your mind would not be able to grow and develop. Not quite sure what the antithesis of empiricism is but am curious.

Edit: Also the theory(?) of genetic memory may have some relevance here. From what I remember supposedly if say you were from a mountainous region and lived there for thousands of years, you may find mountains oddly familiar or even non-mountainous regions "odd" or something. Though from a religious/metaphysical perspective, which is completely different, it's a common concept. Afterlife, "life after death", "shall not die", etc.

United we stand...

Mistakes were made.

Same time, I understand how blind faith in something (allegedly, hopefully the right thing) can be non-conducive to philosophical discussion and fruitful debate. After all, that's what the forum entails.

No reason faith should be a hindrance to logic. Perhaps that's the message of those who do as you say they do? Who knows.

Erm.. how about 'welcome to the forum'? Lol.

See this is classic core belief being challenged. Aside from making not only himself but by association literally anyone and everyone part of whatever ideology (probably atheist) seem like an ass... it's just unattractive and uninviting. Depressing really. Just. Yeah, no. Clearly not the way to be happy and find inner peace. Ironic how sometimes those who seek to destroy faith end up being its greatest ally. All part of the plan I guess. :grin:

We shouldn't go that far now. Here. Watch this.



Life isn't perfect or constantly tolerable. And that's precisely why it is. Think about it some.

We harm this planet and each other and we can't contribute nearly enough to justify the harm. — TiredThinker

There are people who can- and you should listen.

Can we properly examine life while still alive? — TiredThinker

Based on your premise of there being no evidence of another life, this would be the only time we can. As you did just now.

If there is no afterlife can we assume life had no meaning? — TiredThinker

That would only give it all the more meaning as a matter of fact. I mean. What else is there? Something valuable or rare is only valuable or rare because it exists but in such few numbers. Right?

I was itching to post something like this. :grin:

Yes, because all the actions done by the production and lottery company, and the store, and all the workers, and shipment, lead for that lottery ticket to be there, and his conditions, his inability to control his wants, his past experiences and actions lead him to buying that specific lottery ticket. — Augustusea

Done by human action using their free will... somewhere down the line there's some guy doing what he wanted to just because. The guy who created the lottery company chose to do so? The workers chose to work in said store versus another? The shipping company founder chose to start up the company?

Well, and I can gather the response already, say he literally flipped a coin one day and decided to either spend his last extra entertainment money either on renting a movie or buying a lottery ticket. That coin flip- and nothing else- literally determined him buying the lottery ticket. I suppose we'll say it's literally the exact amount of force used as determined by whatever circumstance determined his mood at the time of flipping... that determined precisely how many times the coin would flip and what side it would land on, yeah?

I dunno... sure. Every cause has to have an effect. We're getting into the territory of refuting Newton's Laws of Motion at that point. But human will generally determined things again if not somewhere down the line. I think that's what we're forgetting.

Other people's free will determines other people's choices. Agree or disagree and why?

Bonus: Thoughts on the butterfly effect concept and resulting book and later movie?

My argument is, that you don't make the choices you think you do make, you have an illusion of choice, of free will, but it actually is none existent for life,
you have the illusion of two roads you can take to school, and the illusion of choosing road A for example, but you in reality didn't choose, you were determined to for the reasons I explained above. — Augustusea

If I understand correctly, and agree with much of it, our circumstances in which we make choices or otherwise determine what choices can be made is largely if not entirely outside of our control?

I get that. The average person has an average job and isn't a millionaire. He cannot go on crazy vacations more than a few times a year or splurge on things like second homes, boats, Rolex watches, etc. And- even if he does "randomly" win the lottery and all that changes, you'd insist on saying it really was not random and he was simply determined or dare I say "destined" to win the lottery. Right?

I guess the question that needs to be asked is what would you say would need to happen/what circumstances would a reality have where there is your definition of free will and how does that compare to the one we live in now?

point is, you don't choose your own breakfast,
that was pre determined by many factors before it and affecting it, — Augustusea

So along this line... there's truth here. You or I can't choose to have a 50-egg omelette the size of a truck tire with a side of caviar every morning... we can't afford it/don't have the ingredients.

The choices we have for breakfast are limited to what we have available and is a result of other circumstances. When we went shopping, what we bought, what we can and cannot afford or otherwise can and cannot eat or simply prefer to eat. It's not impossible to have nearly anything for breakfast, after all circumstances can and some even say- when undesirable- are meant to be changed.

So where does that leave us as far as determinism? Who knows, a friend can stop by with McDonald's or something on a whim and that ends up being your breakfast. Everything is determined by something. What I think that determinism doesn't properly include is that everything can change. The Earth could lose it's gravity one day. Some things (circumstances or "realities") are simply less likely to change than others.

If pessimism is the result of having to watch two people go back and forth, each time refusing to have their core beliefs challenged- it's looking more and more likely...

The two arguments presented for and against determinism present examples that make each true- yet leave out some examples or scenarios where each can be made less true ie. circumstantial to the other.

We don't have a choice in not feeling hungry. Unless you get drunk. Nevertheless our body will still "be" hungry. Does that mean you have to eat? It means you should. But if there is nothing or say you're not eating for some social purpose like a hunger strike. You can choose what to eat. Or you can choose to literally just starve if you really wanted to for some odd reason.

Biologically we're all slaves to hunger, thirst, the elements, etc. This is not unique to human beings. However to solely use these as the arguments for determinism does the philosophy a disservice.

If I was driving home one night after working double overtime and I was just so tired and dozed off, hitting another car and messing up my shoulder as well as my car and the others' and lose my license and job- there are two ways to look at what happened. I simply had to work that job as it was the only thing available to pay my bills and provide for myself and I needed the extra hours because I splurged on a few things last week- or rather something important came up. Ergo, some would say, nothing could have prevented what happened. A common statement during hard times ie. "it was just his time", etc. There's the obvious counter argument- "no it wasn't" lol. Saying it was preventable, etc.

That's the thing about arguing and getting upset about things that already happened- especially misfortune. It becomes tediously irrelevant. As long as lessons are learned that is..

Faith - the belief in something one desires believes is [or could be] true, despite there being no evidence of it, or even evidence that contradicts its existence. — Philosophim

FIFY.

Furthermore the discussion of anything that profoundly affects a large portion of society and related discussion is very philosophical.

Also, you kinda just described the scientific process lol. That's why theories are theories before they become scientific law. It's a search or quest for answers when they're are none- or as you said- some that would suggest the opposite.

I don’t think expertise and “eliteness” can be measured by formal credentials. Rather, I think positions of power and influence should be open to anyone of any class, so long as they possess the abilities and competence. — NOS4A2

So... what makes something an ability. Competence is basic coherence. Why is it an ability of any use if everyone can do it. That makes someone elite- in a way. So you want, and I'm going to hope you're from whatever country we're talking about and not acting under the auspices of another, the most qualified and crucial positions such as medicine, defense, technology, science, education, etc... to be replaced with just anyone who knows how to get dressed in the morning? Erm... yeah that's a big no. lol

Edit: Factoring in your argument that the majority of a country (everywhere btw) represents the most successful positions with your assertion (that is common knowledge) people prefer their own, you're saying they will systematically turn down or otherwise favor people of their own color or creed over equally qualified minorities? Yeah.. see now it's a debate. Reminds me of the whole immigrant fiasco. If there's all these problems and this is such a better place... let the army go in and clean it up so it's good and then they'll leave. Cover minimum costs, just enough to break even (gotta feed the boys somehow), and that's that. But no somehow solving a humanitarian crisis would now be a humanitarian crisis in and of itself. Somehow. It's crazy man. It's either better here or better there and if you want to come here while not wanting it to be better all around or in your homeland at least it's.. kinda selfish really. That said. Dunno how bad the corruption is here. These other places could be the last bastions of freedom and we should want to be there. lol, it's a toss up really

Anyway, let us continue. What are the arguments given from the former debater and what are yours? Again seperate the art from the artist. Let's hear it. Eager to continue. Be advised though, I may be even more opposed to your view than the creator of this thread! But I'll still debate with you unless you walk out also.

The elites are watching their power wane. — NOS4A2

That proves there's nothing "elite" about someone who.. just happens to be more fortunate than you lol. It's called circumstance or- hopefully- hard work paying off. So. I realize it's human(?) nature to hate another who has more regardless of why but I mean let's watch this video and hopefully chill out some. Otherwise just follow the law and you'll be fine. Or at least not invoke the true Law. Any further.



And beyond that. Do you really want 100% of your effort to literally be worth nothing as far as improving your livelihood? You'll say that on a computer in a nice house with a doctor nearby but I doubt you'll trade what you have and the way you live now for living like cavemen did? You signed up for it dude get over it. You literally wouldn't exist without the system that lets you criticize it so. Perhaps you should appreciate it more.

The US has never been the paragon of moral rectitude it's claimed for itself — tim wood

Lol. Sure. Just let subversives redefine everything and other people do what they want to control your whole life. See this is the cancer- no offense personally just the idea. The Constitution is simple, irrefutable. Doesn't matter if people who are diametrically opposed to the American ideal have controlled. directed or still control and direct the United States. People die, things get better. Unfortunately this pandemic is precisely what people need to realize this truth. "Accept reality" people will tell you. Yet- they will never accept that reality (what they refer to is really circumstance as a matter of fact) can change! And always has. Why would it not continue to do so? Because people tell you otherwise, usually in a threatening manner? Your choice guy. Always has been.

Lol. It's a global pandemic. I mean I'd be the first to say there's problems here but.. come on now.

If everyone in the playground has the flu the bigger guy is still gonna be stronger. Again strength should be used properly however that's a discussion for another day.

When we grow up into racist grandpas — fdrake

Are we going to publicly denounce and revoke all relationships to them while using/keeping/and abusing everything that's now yours as a result of their action and act like that's supposed to mean anything to anybody?

It's not even black and white there's people and groups who don't even exist anymore. I mean, it already happened. No reason to add hypocrisy to the list.

You don't have to literally devalue everything and anything in life to be a pessimist. Tangentially (i like that word), becoming disenchanted with (the joys of?) life and/or living in near-constant acknowledgement that terrible things can, do, and will happen doesn't make one a pessimist.

Also worth mentioning, just being rude is a separate thing altogether.

Pessimism seems to be an internal way of thinking aka a philosophy that a mentally sound person who does not have a mental complex can choose (or is otherwise forced to) embrace. I imagine the two get confused often.

And anyway, being too happy can lead to suicide too lol. Albeit at much lower rates but- yeah. The afterlife ie. "why am I wasting time in this dump?", etc.I gather you define suicide as a sudden and willful action to stop one's heart but there's plenty of other ways. A life of drugs and drinking, etc.

Give it time. If it ever becomes popular enough.

One of the many pacifist ("look we are good people") groups with the age old cosmic justice motif. Nice. Who started it and what are members told to do and where? Who calls the shots basically.

I'd imagine never. The parallels between comfort and boredom become quite evident for a highly intelligent person. So I'd imagine.

Probably right. Someone with a high IQ more than likely has an enjoyable and profitable job ie. is a "success" and would rather support the system than destroy it. Especially compared to someone with a menial minimum-wage job.

I don't think the hyperintelligent behave better or have any less inclination to misbehave than the rest. They just know how to get away with it more.

Racism can be solved by removing all depictions of ethnic minorities — fishfry

There we go. That's what you meant. As they say in forumspeak "FIFY".

Numbers are meaningless. It's about who and why. Obama mostly — Benkei

Mostly? Numbers are meaningless.

Now... am I saying go conquer it all and burn it all to the ground? Of course not. — Lif3r

The fact that this is even a warranted statement explains why we're all here and probably will be for some time.

Am I saying our plan should be to just ditch the planet we are on after we trash it? Also no. — Lif3r

Again, wow. Call it a proving ground, call it a correctional facility. Neither functions have been fulfilled so there's much more learning and progress to be made. Inward, not outward. You make a bed, you should lay in it- basically.

Well if we're gonna be religious about it perhaps it's worth keeping in mind God had to "give dominion to man over animals". One could deduce many things from this.