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.

Well hold up now. There's God (Lord, rather) mentioned. And you know what that means. If there wasn't normal sexual reproduction the 2 million U.S. population in the 1770's would have been overrun in no time. There would be no America. As we know it.

Kind of goes without saying. "Right to life" ... which is... living. Childbirth. Be like saying since there's no explicit right to breathe oxygen in the Constitution we should have to pay for it lol.

Technically there's no recognition of sexual orientation in the Constitution other than if a citizen wants to have unnatural relations with another and it's not illegal by some other policy (bestiality for example) all rights and protections do apply. That said if the majority oppose it for one or more reasons they have a right to vocalize and rally against it. People for some reason seem to associate "homosexuality" with physical attributes, (soft voice/specific vocal tone, skin, being skinny, or just otherwise ridiculously "nice" or "happy" .. where the term comes from [ironic as the extreme opposite is simply being violently mentally ill]) whereas in reality it's allegedly a physiological determination. You corrupt women into being vile, arrogant tramps it's understandable for a rational man to not be attracted to most. Or a society of degenerates who make you think you're unfit to reproduce because you won't join their debauchery. An explicit form of Nazi-ism in the highest degree, actually. Which is all fine and dandy (to others) .. until there's none left of the only people who know how to operate or fix anything more complicated than a sandwich or know how to do anything more complex than clubbing a man over the head. Perfect for rotting a nation from the inside out as matter of fact. Those smart kids who are geniuses in school who may be a little bit off socially and could use their brainpower to create things that make enemy nations quake in their boots, instead of being their buddy and looking after them, let's shove their head into a toilet and give them a swirly. That'll learn 'em. Idiots don't even see even if it's not foreign propaganda being levied as "good 'ol freedom" they're playing right into enemies hands or their own defeat.

Capitalism is really the only humane way to aggregate an overpopulated world of nearly 8 billion.

Welfare system is a safety net for emergencies. Not a bed for comfort. Every developed civilization has such a mechanism.

Video in OP, yes.

I think his whole "proof' is based on the presupposition that there is a separate existence of justice beyond our minds. — philosopher004

Now I didn't watch the video, feel free or rather please expand on the relevant points of it. But, from what I'm interpreting, this is largely what I believe in just not exclusive to justice or any lone concept.

The human mind is powerful, but compared only to the lesser beings among us. Who knows perhaps there are other beings somewhere that dwarf even the most intelligent. Do you think he means in terms of ability to understand (like what I described) or simply ignorance ie. we're told someone did something bad therefore we believe said person is bad, when it's possible what we're told is a lie and said person is really innocent- we really wouldn't know other than what we choose to believe especially when it comes to past injustice- we weren't there. We really don't know.

It's a common idea across many religions. "God is unknowable, unfathomable, works in ways that are a complete mystery to us" or "God works in mysterious ways," While I may personally believe this as a possibility in the most extreme terms, if I didn't think some concepts were "knowable" by us here and now I really wouldn't be talking about it.

Which of course leads us, in a philosophical sense, back to square one. While I believe in more than this, it would simply not be a philosophical discussion at such a point.

I see what you did there. :D

Anyhow, my understanding of the whole topic would rightfully be called either non-proof or circular logic of the same effect.

So, let's just think about it. There's this guy right. Or gal or entity or several- whatever. Otherwise known as God. We're created as imperfect beings who are best at stealing, killing, lying, conniving... I could go on. Apparently there's a place (depending on your belief) where those who (again according to belief) manage to overcome this vile nature or otherwise "be righteous" get to go. It's pretty nice they say. Conversely, there's this other place (again depending on belief) where those who kinda don't "rise up above and beyond" or otherwise just treat others horribly and miserably, just constantly (again it all depends on belief) have to go. It's not that fun there.

You can be the most vile, hateful, cruel, above all laziest person you can imagine... you still (or rather simply) would want something better. So. If you're a person like that. And if you're told the way to... get more of what you want to satisfy your own desires... is simple and irrefutable. You'd... obviously do so ie. "go through the motions" to get what you want.

If there is this "afterlife place" that is good... you do NOT want those people there. Faith in what you know to be right, yet is difficult, while at the same time you can see with no real contradiction that being vile continues to consistently offer greater pleasures and riches, is what will separate the two. The only thing. Short of total and utter enslavement. So. Eh. You don't even have to be religious or metaphysical about it. It's common sense.

Example I use often, say you're a dying, old, childless multi-millionaire who has always loved.... I don't know pick any hobby the metaphor is the same. Sailing, boats, the ocean, etc. You have a massive and pricey boatyard full of top of the line vessels and everything someone who is passionate about your interest would adore endlessly. Say you also bought a cheaper, somewhat crappy one that is decent enough to someone who again shares your passion... maybe has a few old ships and one that's just okay.

What you do to find someone who shares in your interest and will keep the legacy going? Put out an ad saying "luxurious, exquisite yacht-keeper wanted. high pay." and see how he performs under perfect conditions? Or... put out an ad saying "run down boat yard keeper wanted. legacy of blood, sweat, and tears. must love the seas." and see how someone who must truly love the art (more than the monetary benefits it could bring) performs? The two would be rewarded with the same, that priceless lifetime of work. Only one would have truly earned it and would appreciate it the same.

What on earth? So people are going to start forging papers to get people to go through a process of suicide in an attempt to murder them? I mean, come on. — JerseyFlight

It's called a divergence from your preconceived notions. Earth shattering, I know. To be fair, you're in the majority there.

If I'm say I don't know horribly depressed and want to shoot myself but for some reason cannot gather the will to do so, perhaps I'd ask somebody to do it for me. Ergo, if such a document allowing somebody to do so is now legal, all I have to do is enter somebody's home with a pistol, shoot them, and show the cops a document one could presumably in the idea of freedom, print out from their home computer and sign. Not complicated.

A better example would be a promissory note assigning a fixed amount ($100) worth from one person to another.

If it's molecularly similar there's no difference and only 'counterfeit' due to the fact it was not legally printed from a government-backed institution. The reason I say all this is because of the serial number. It's only valid for one note. Granted if you pass a bill with a duplicate or erroneous (random) serial number to some random clerk or individual it's not like they're going to or even can check to see if it's valid and alert that someone needs to be investigated for financial crimes.

If we're ever in a scenario where we can molecularly replicate something exactly, a paper note would be the last thing to do it with.

The intended purpose aside, there are many ways this can be abused.

Signatures can be forged all the time. Normally this is no problem. Even if incapacitated someone can "find" an old document or will that in actually didn't exist before the person's incapacitation. Difference is, this makes it easy to legally murder someone. No questions asked. Because the state is the killer and there's nothing to hide.

Why not just take murder out of the equation and don't have kids? Lol. Solves everything. Besides. Those responsible will probably suffer from the memory of having to do so. But you know, perhaps not.

Why is jail the best way to solve the social problem of the criminal? — JerseyFlight

Never said it was. That said, an imperfect world begets imperfect solutions. Additionally, most current correctional facilities not only fail in their stated purpose of being 'correctional' but do quite the opposite.

What is the criminal's genesis? — JerseyFlight

Depends. Sometimes out of necessity, perceived or otherwise. Other times out of greed, frustration, lack of self control, mental illness, or just good ol' fashioned indifference. Usually a bit of all. The more pressing question is, what will be their exodus?

I have encountered the claim that black culture — Aleph Numbers

That right there is the problem. Black culture is self sustainability, nature, tribal family units, and more recently jazz. What has become ghetto or urban culture is a poison that has been spoonfed to them using puppets who get rich to destroy their own people- all while thinking they're the puppet masters and catalysts of some sort of "black power" movement spurring change. They're not. They're literally doing the jobs of those who despise them ensuring chains of enslavement are not only unbroken but this time inescapable- not because of others but because it is now their own hand that keeps them on. This time they and they alone have the key, however most will never realize this.

Putting a criminal in jail is not racist. Outlawing, marijuana, a crop that isn't even native to Africa but from the Far East, is not racist. What is racist is just short of explicitly saying black people are incapable of being law abiding citizens or they're otherwise incapable of being responsible for their own actions. What would be racist is not policing predominantly black neighborhoods and letting their children grow up knowing only fear and terror. Or that black people just can't help being high all the time. That's what's racist.

Yes there are problems, yes there are historic injustices that would weigh heavily on anybody's mind and yes they foster emotions and attitudes that encourage criminal activity. No, they do not render a black person from being incapable of achieving what any other citizen can. Is it more difficult? Absolutely. Impossible? Far from it.

I'm not saying there's not inequality. I'm saying the minority of any land will naturally have less opportunity than the majority. The same is true for non-blacks in Africa and the same is true for blacks in America. The problem is the solution. Violent rap music is uplifting, encouraging, and can often offer a strong, powerful father figure when otherwise absent. But it's a trap. Think about it. People used to call black people the n word. Whenever a black man tried to do anything productive he'd be called a coward, a slave, a tool, and would then usually get beaten. Who does it now? Hint: it's not white people. That's what cancer does. It spreads and takes over. It's like a parasitic infection. It will literally attack and kill the host and anyone who tries to remove it and restore health. Good Lord. Heh, this is not exclusive of black people either.

This is the thing that baffles me :How ready people are to unite with others to scorn someone. — philosopher004

Not me. You're safer inside of a mob than outside of it lol.

It's probably more about whether or not a person's actions can or should be reduced to good or bad or rather productive or non-productive toward the well being or advancement of a given society or stated goal.

I think people who do things of questionable or blatant disregard for morality fall into two categories. Those who believe they are doing what they're doing for a greater good (with or without sufficient evidence or solid reasoning - for example teasing or harassing someone sensitive so they can "grow thicker skin", the logic being life can be tough and the more crap you can tolerate the better off you'll be) and those who just have complete disregard for others. Basically, why would something that hurts or is unpleasant to you (injury, assault, belittlement, etc.) be acceptable to do to someone else? Again, I believe anyone who believes this is acceptable would fall into one of the two aforementioned categories.

You understand this is a philosophy site, yes? Not a place for children, physically or mentally, to scribble on yes? Profanity doesn't convey anything beyond an underlying frustration in ones own views and perspective as well as a lack of not only self control but mental ability to logically and maturely respond to criticism of whatever your trying to say while also revealing a deep seated, subconscious lack of confidence in again whatever position was attempted to be shared.

Basically it don't help much to anyone worth convincing of anything lol

Behaviorism = Nurture vs. Nature? (nurture being more relevant- ie. a pitbull will be either as friendly or hostile as you raise it to be)

Functionalism = Pragmatism-esque view of psychology along the lines of form follows function? Without looking into either in any detail, seems to be a myopic philosophy of human psychology.with little effectual purpose. Kind of an anti-philosophy really. More suited for architecture or product design than something as complex as the human psyche if you ask me.

Guy. If you're so right and he's so wrong why do you feel the need to insult and degrade everybody who disagrees with you? It's just toxic dude. You're doing exactly the same thing you accuse others of doing, to a tee. Insulting the "audience" if they have opposing views and not having any positive impact until you change.

You can think you're right as strongly as you wish, meanwhile others will still disagree with you. Instead of pointing out why they may be mistaken, you choose to berate and insult them endlessly. You don't sound happy. At all. Frankly, I'd rather be "wrong" in your eyes than miserable and oppressively toxic to just about everybody else.

And what philosophy, deep down, is nothing more than a mere internal projection to others? — Gus Lamarch

You want to convince as many people of things you believe will help them/others sure. But unless you're doing so politically/religiously that's not of utmost importance. It's about discovering a higher truth for yourself, granted usually with a purpose of helping others, if not just people you deem worthy.

The cynicism and lack of respect here is really impressive. Have a nice day / good night — Gus Lamarch

That's not quite how philosophical judo works. You can't suddenly one day redefine thousands of years of true, selfless empathy on a whim because you may or may not do so solely out of indifference or as you say as "a tool to project your own ego". I don't know you or anyone here personally, I'm berating an idea/attitude not a person. Separate the art from artist.

It doesn't have shanty towns or people living on the streets in tents. — ssu

To be fair, homelessness and frigid, subzero cold don't mix together too well.

I've heard good things about Finland though. Knew someone from there. Cool dude. Smart too.

there is no other experience for the individual than just his own. In that case, putting yourself at the center of all attention is not wrong, because how can it be? If the only way for my “I” to witness the world is through my perspective. In a physiological sense, there is no other way to perceive the world than your own, you are its center, the nexus of all events, learnings, lessons, visions, concepts, etc ... — Gus Lamarch

So by this understanding or fact, the entire OP is something of an autobiography. How could it not be? Hm?

empathy is nothing more than a tool to project your own ego on others — Gus Lamarch

Well... I dunno stop doing that and actually care for others for a minute lol :grin: