Oh. Great. I'll just come by and you can show me a blackhole and alien world. You know just real casually. Not a big deal.

No, we will not "Google it" or "watch a YouTube video" or believe some "paper doctrine" (alleged peer reviewed research) as the same can and is done toward the idea of God.

If you are unable to do so, I'd assert the odds remain 50/50.

the notion that every event has a cause might lose meaning as one proceeds back in time. — Banno

I'm sure you'll forgive me but a little tongue in cheek.

Yeah because that happens all the time... :D

I mean. Yeah. Even if true there has to be some irony to a fictional independent observer. If one goes back in time there would be no linear knowledge of the preliminary event so the cause would simply be another event. Perhaps all causes are events and all events are causes if you look into it enough eh.

Huh. That's a fair amount to think about. While I do tell me.. no relation to the idea of "an inch over the line is the same as a mile" or is it?

I get your example, thank you for that. The planet being a globe there is an absolute "northernmost point" as well as the opposite. Any further is... objectively in relation to the dynamics more... the opposite. Relatively, essentially. Huh. Definitely will come back to this. May or may not quite grasp it yet.

I'm assuming we can replace positive with assertive or irrefutable?

That's a fact. So. By the same logic, it is not discounting the possibility. Therefore, er, yeah. When you're talking about things like parallel universes, black holes, and alien worlds the "possibility of God" becomes much more on par with the inverse.

That's great and all but until you can explain the Big Bang and the Singularity or for that matter can- right now- grab scientific instruments (doesn't matter if they're available easily or not) and prove to a group of skeptics, convincing the majority, of the facts you claim to know by in person irrefutable evidence.. the question of who relies on blind faith more you or the thiest is a moot one.

"Inventing a religion" can be a far cry from enabling an open society centered around the idea of a Creator.

One could not speak of why people got sick in unsanitary restrooms so, in that age, one invented (presumably) the idea of a Japanese bathroom demon that made even the laziest tidy up and society healthier as a result. One could not speak of why the same occurred in old houses with stagnant or hazardous air so they invented "miasma" or "bad air" as a result. Compare religion to an unproven theory for a moment. What is your prerogative against it?

Could you if you may give a real world example of what you said? A linear progression like stepping on the gas pedal of a vehicle slowly or.. ? Seeking clarification, thanks. Unfamiliar with said theory. Perhaps I should just Google it. Of course, always prefer firsthand experience. :D

Where does a forest fit into the trees?

Frankly I don't have it in me to knowingly disrupt someones deep rooted belief or faith in something that keeps them grounded in their daily life. Even if that faith is in faithlessness itself.

For whatever reason I sometimes find the most vocal thiests are the ones most afraid to be "proven" wrong by the world and ways they claim to be above, while the passive ones are as they are simply because they fear to place non-thiests in a position from which- by their own dogma states- there is no return. Hey, rather hear it from a friend would you not. :)

Entropy? I think. :grin:

Edit: The unsettling dynamic that an object at rest stays at rest unless an external force is applied. When that force is no longer present, the object gradually returns to it's natural state of inactivity. On a small scale the solid molecule when introduced to moisture becomes liquid and when introduced to heat becomes a gas, when the heat is gone it reverts to a liquid and when that moisture is gone it reverts back to a solid. On a larger scale they say the universe is headed for heat death for example.

Is this similar to the you can disassemble a watch mechanism in its entirety where the smallest pieces are loose and seperate and place them all into a bag and there is no way if shaken, tossed, prodded, whatever a trillion trillion times it will ever form a watch mechanism argument?

I guess. Meanwhile thanks to unadulterated desire we have genocide, overpopulation, starvation, strife, wrath, I could go on. Naturally these things were always present but... in a world of humans without human reason what else is there? Chaos.

Who is this man? When did he take what he took? What technological advances and society were present when it happened?

Would you give up everything created and provided as a result to live back in that time under its boundaries and threats?

Assuming that statement is true, why not.

Again sans religion... yet you mention the metaphysical. Interesting. We'll call it spiritual I suppose.

Which does mean mankind though perhaps animals as well have or can have qualities that transcend this existence. Of course for the sake of theory you could say objects do too.. again for the sake of theory.

Which begs a whole multitude of other questions ie. is a few million grains of sand any different metaphysically than a sand castle formed of them? Etc.

For the sake of argument I'm going to assume we mean "the self" which again varies.. the essence, the soul, our memories, persona, something deeper even or comprised of one or more of the aforementioned is "a thing" in a form that transcends biology. Or is that what it is defined by? Hardly metaphysical if you ask me. If it is solely biologic the self is the conciousness, formed by the body and its senses. Memories, experiences, etc. to constitute an identity. If not.. that's when the argument gets interesting.

The ancient philosophers didn't know about the existence of the unconscious which was discovered only by modern psychology. — Ross Campbell

Or did they? They certainly knew about emotion being able to override one's ingrained beliefs enough to propose a new concept. Other tricks as well. Mind games are as old as the mind itself. You wouldn't need to "name" something you can already influence as if it were not a thing to begin with would you? Besides. The emperor doesn't like being told he has no clothes. So imagine the average bloke. Perhaps there was a bit of element of surprise there as well.

In the light of this do the ancient Stoics speak to us now, why should we turn to them for guidance instead of modern thought. — Ross Campbell

In the light of that? As in simply as a result of it and for no other reason? No. Modern thought and earlier thought vary wildly in and of each themselves. You have people who just want to essentially pleasure themselves through varying means and those who think perhaps there's more to what can be had here and applying oneself to said pursuit will help manifest it. The same is true in this age as well as the earliest days of civilization.

What specific philosophies are you asking about?

Is it now? There's prizes or "spoils" which are positive and rewards which can be either.

A man who stepped on people his whole life to make a few bucks might find himself being shot by someone whose life he ruined. Or at the very least has to watch his back and live the same fear and uncertainty he created.

There's a remedy for that situation and it is called civil society. You cheat in school you might flunk. You embezzle money you might end up in prison. You steal you might be stolen from. Not perfect no, but better than nothing and a start at least.

Of course, a wise man once told me "damn if you do, damn if you don't". People who do cave to indifference, intolerance, and selfishness and skirt morality or even the law may achieve more than the honest man with no legal or social backlash. It is a shame. Again, better than before. Is it not?

I think you'll find that generally means of survival are seized by force and force alone. — Kenosha Kid

You're still thinking in the mindset of people whose finest accomplishment was defecating in holes surrounded by wooden barriers. It's easy to take something, sure. I can snatch a hat off a professional wrestler in a casual setting. Keeping it however, especially from others who would do the same, is a whole nother ballgame.

When in doubt. As Sherlock Holmes once said, "when you eliminate the impossible, what remains must be the culprit."

What kind of quality, heh life even, is there surrounded by pain and misery. Some find such. And it is well they do so. Live. Then cease. Happy til that last moment. This is the place for that.

Happiness is complicated. More of a lack of familiarity to a unique monotonous boredom. Your favorite game gets old after a while. So does your favorite food. You could even step it up some. Your favorite half a billion dollar yacht would get boring after a while. Heh, maybe. Variety is the spice of life. After all.

Without contributing terribly to any arising points or sub points.. if you're making a thread about the idea let alone actually living and thinking about the concept in your daily life. Pretty sure you're due for some. Billions of people, and most around you probably have thought more about alternate endings to Netflix series than they ever spent a moment fathoming another human's misery by their hand. So. For you. Yes and no. You should be selfish enough to prolong your life yet unselfish enough to never be indifferent using resources that others who couldn't understand the opposing concepts if it ripped off their face would take any way.

Not sure. From your statement I'd assume not. The man was probably a bloody genius with an IQ that could buy a house converted to thousands. And?

Without the concept of thinking beyond the apparent necessity as I believe philosophy is, well, if the man or someone before him couldn't drop a sabertooth tiger with a single shot or wallop from a club maybe we wouldn't have been graced with his works today if it weren't for early forms of philosophy.

Hm.

It seems just as likely as any alternate I suppose. Early peoples banded together for survival, and once things became tolerable ie. food to eat, water to drink, shelter, etc. people had more time to think about the non biologically essential.

Of course, a few barbarians and their barbaric tools are a far cry from the complexity of modern circuitry, atomic fusion, even the combustion engine. I wouldn't count philosophy out quite yet.

Is the self-interest that comes with doing what makes you happy inherently selfish? — Calvin

It can be a bit of a paradox. A universal dilemma. You could just skirt by everything, school, life, relationships, etc. and get everything you need to be happy. Fortunately or not those kind of people are rarely content with everything they need. Your own selfishness could end up handicapping your own pursuits of pleasure and self indulgence. And how unfortunate. And of course any ability to lend aid to others.

When does doing what makes you happy become selfish? — Calvin

I'd say it depends on circumstance. Are you barely getting by? How is the family or neighbors? These are the relevant questions I believe.

I was going to try and use whatever reply yes or no to go on about something. Not toward you in any way of course rather for the particular view for others who would read it

Anyhow if you were to have said yes Id've mentioned about how cavemen were and how we progressed to, again this day and age. Philosophy is on the edges because higher learning, thought, and reasoning is produced by it and so then becomes common sense, practice, and in some cases scientific law.

Do you believe in evolution or creation?

So many decent enough points. Yet many easily refuted. What one must first ask is why is free and open press such a rarity in these societies? More importantly than that even is realizing in the 1800s (the prime age of such giants of the concept) there were 1 billion people IN THE ENTIRE WORLD. Barely 200 years later there's nearly 8 BILLION. Nearly half of the 1800s world population living in the United States alone. Long story short what worked hundreds of years ago probably doesn't work now. The system is far from perfect. But I'd like to see one argument that communism prevents people killing OR and this is the ticket, from being killed, by the state, for greed or to otherwise gain more. See the trick is in a closed society the reported deaths are always 0.

Edit: Perhaps I'm being biased. I know little of communism I know people work (usually?) to, much like capitalism, be a sturdy and efficient gear to power a larger system/nation/idea. Still, you have 1 million people in one continent and 1 million people in another. Side by side. Friendly, yet competitive. Actually, if someone could help me further understand the differences I'd appreciate it and be able to offer a more informed response.

It's not useful because as soon as it becomes of use it ceases to be philosophy. — Banno

Theories are not useful because if correct they become scientific law?

Great thread. The entirety of it kind of got the best of me around the last paragraph or so but a point I'd want to make, as novel as it may be is, as you said, we use tools to survive, you even included one's body as such. Sans religion, with no philosophy there is little to distinguish us from a highly advanced shovel, spatula, calculator, or day planner now is there? Some would say you answered your own question.

for doing the wrong thing... What if you are playing it right now?. — interim

Then you'd probably have been gobbled up as a fetus for nourishment or raised to serve some Neanderthal army in a society of cavemen. Yet here we are. On computers and smartphones and traveling to outer space. Case in point.

So you've been through much, as have many. You were given the truest experience in life that can be had. What more do you want really? Money? For what? Basics, understandable. But then what?

Just because jerks will be jerks so and monsters will be monsters does not make thise actions just "The way the world works." — TheWillowOfDarkness

In a modern society the two terms blend into irrelevance. You have criminals and law abiding citizens albeit some foul mouthed. Unwanted touching is assault. Simple as that. As a denizen of this world you are partly responsible for 'how it works' and acknowledging humanity as a flawed species that requires teaching and occasional punishment to function in a proper society is the key.

You can kill the messenger but not the message. It either has a point or it doesn't. And if it truly doesn't, what difference is it then receiving a telegram in a foreign language? It is not for you to be processed. Of course.. we have innate intelligence and at times it can conflict with our indoctrinated ways.

The masochist (just kidding guy :P ) was because your apparent nonchalance toward someone taking their own life obviously struck a nerve. The other simply can relate to the fear of death or is otherwise a functional person who naturally fears the end of bio stasis. Knowing this you surely have no bone to pick with them.

Why did you join anyhow? Because you're a professional or looking to learn? If you're the latter I think you could reason just as well as I can why that could be a foolish choice.

No good philosopher will ever be an utter ass to another. It simply makes no sense. — Wandering-Philosopher

What part of free registration is not being factored into your view of this forum? The "good" philosophers are out writing books, teaching curious students at prestigious universities for top dollar, bettering themselves even. Not online. Of course, some do spare a moment for the sake of the art they love. :)

Seeing as you're a bit up there so to speak you could, generally, expect things to be kinder. Of course, knowing the chaos of life, war included, it can take an unfortunate circumstance to value constructive criticism albeit delivered in a rude way over smiles and a high five.

At the end of the day there's only right and wrong. Justice and lack of it. The latter of which never lasts for long. I'd rather witness some of the wrong then know only the right. Perhaps I'd bring back a token of what was wrong as a momento or something. I'd be so jealous if I was born after the fact and someone I know lived to witness such a time.

So someone suffering sever emotional distress should face a real life animal attack instead of a metaphorical one as seems to be the subject here?

Yeah. Avoid all losing lottery tickets while you're at it. Funny people have that in common. You gotta scratch the surface before you determine the value.

I'd rather learn about wild animals from a virtual setting than in the wild, now wouldn't you?

What made you interested in philosophy? Being able to understand more, become smarter, more sophisticated or otherwise improve your life? To improve the world and the lives of others around you? Whatever it was two highly circumstantial yet equally relevant facts remain. The world we live in is imperfect and though full of joy is also full of hardship. And it is in fact the gentle who would remind an adversary their shoes are untied and a true as you say "polisher of the posterior" who would instead say nothing and allow him to fall.

No not every thread here is a showstopper. But the majority are intellectually occupying and sometimes even downright over my head. Which is all good. I'd stick around a bit.

So now it's a crime to try to do/learn about something worthwhile? Put someone in a racecar with no training. Put someone raised in the city their whole life into the wild forest with only the clothes on their backs. Put a beginner in chess against a lifelong prodigy. Bet they won't win.

Frankly, I think after one is enlightened, they want as little to do with technology or rather the modern world or current society as possible. Let's drop the crab mentality some eh. Let others grow.

Revolting? Damn. I want to move where the women who behave like you describe live. XD

What is your gender/relationship status/type of government just curious?

I'm assuming you're over the age of 25 ie. when the brain is finished developing. If you deny not only your own humanity but someone else's, rather our position above the animals, specifically animal instinct, what is left? A few sounds we call words, a few inventions, shiny lights, tall buildings, and bombs? To some, that is all that distinguishes man from the animals. An object is something to be used or can be used and either exists solely due to the result of or is otherwise subservient to a higher intelligence or process. Until you distinguish man from animal and the mandatory social and moral fabric that comes with such a position the question is a rather moot one. How can an object objectify itself?