is it just me — FrankGSterleJr

Yes, it’s just you. And @Count Timothy von Icarus apparently.

I have assumed that something cannot come of nothing. Correct. Because I'm at a loss as to how that would be possible logically speaking.

If you can posit a way in which everything can arise from nothing (a state devoid of all potency, property, ability and/or agency) then have at it. — Benj96

It is not a matter of logic whether something can come from nothing. It's either a metaphysical assumption or a matter of fact, probably the first. For that reason, I don't have to "posit a way in which everything can arise from nothing." If it's a matter of fact, I don't have to provide an explanation, I only have to make an observation. If it's a metaphysical assumption, there is no explanation.

I then went on to describe something that could "appear like true nothingness" (dimensionless and immaterial) without in fact being Nothing. Which is the next best thing, by the principle of occams razor the next simplest possibility.

So actually I do think I explained a lot, despite you not thinking so. — Benj96

Just because you can describe something doesn't mean it exists. Describing isn't the same as explaining.

Why use a term like God which is so heavily loaded and ranges from everything between a bearded man in the clouds to just about every other conception out there when Potential is much more open to a logical discussion and exacting definition as a physical law rather than an anthropomorphised entity. — Benj96

As Phil Conners said in "Groundhog Day," I'm talking about a god, not the God. So then, do you acknowledge that your "potential" is just another word for "a god" that you like better? Yes, of course I know that's not what you mean. It isn't a physical law unless you can at least suggest a way of testing it empirically.

True nothingness cannot exist. So the question itself -why cam something come from nothing is no less absurd than saying why can +1 come from -1. — Benj96

How do you know true nothingness can't exist. I'm not even sure it can be defined. If you're right, your question - "Why there is something rather than nothing?" - has been answered and you don't need to propose a new entity called potential.

So the real question for me is what could exist - that is the simplest existant neccesary to derive all subsequent ones ie a "nothingness" that isn't actually nothing, it just seems so from the perspective of the material world and everything relative to it. — Benj96

Modern physics describes what is known as a quantum vacuum state.

...According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space". According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of the quantum field..." — Wikipedia - Quantum vacuum state

I don't think that's what you're talking about, but if it is, we don't need a new concept.

In conclusion, this is the argument as to why Potential stands as a better reasoning for existence than something coming from nothing. — Benj96

What you've described isn't really an explanation at all. You have assumed that something can't come from nothing, so you put a name to what something something comes from and describe the characteristics you think it must have. In reality, you've just renamed what others might have called God, or perhaps the Tao. It's metaphysics. It doesn't explain anything.

I think I would have expected your favorite to be less dark. — praxis

I know what you mean by "dark," but I don't really see it that way. For me, Marlow is a decent man who maintains his moral center while other British in Africa fall into brutal corruption. It's a story of his integrity in the face of European avarice and ruthlessness.

A suggestion: perhaps have a forum devoted to primary sources? Where OPs are meant to revolve around a primary source and the threads are supposed to stay in contact with the relevant primary sources? — Leontiskos

First off, I assume you are talking about a new philosophical category, not a change in the overall forum. If not, I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

There's no reason you can't get what you want without changing the forum at all. Here's what I do when I want to discuss very specific issues and I don't want people going off in their own directions. 1) Write a clear, specific, and detailed OP about the subject you want to discuss. 2) In the OP, make it clear that you don't want to stray from the subject and, if relevant, specify what issues you don't want to talk about. 3) When people ignore your specifications, respond to their posts and let them know. 4) If they give you any trouble, contact the moderators. In my experience, they will be responsive in helping you put the kibosh on the offenders.

I don't want to be unconditionally kind ever to be honest, everything is business for me. — Atrox

Normally, when someone new posts to the forum I say "Welcome to the forum," but I won't here, because that might be construed as kindness. I wouldn't want to offend you. As you can see, the moderators have moved you to the lounge or, as we call it, the discussion graveyard. That's where it belongs. It's not philosophy, it's just spouting off. Ok, down to business. The other posters here have made good points. Here's my take.

Most people like most other people most of the time. We're social, we like hanging around with each other. Kindness and honesty are social lubricants that make society run smoothly. More importantly, they are how we show others that we are members of the same community. When I show kindness for someone, I'm telling them I recognize them and feel common cause with them. For most people, that comes naturally. Apparently for you it doesn't. You're not the only one here on the forum who feels that way. Cynicism is not a very interesting philosophical position or an attractive one. I hope you have more to offer than that.

Heart of Darkness — praxis

This is my favorite book. I’ve given it to all my children. Actually, I’ve given it to all my children more than once. My memory is not all that great.

Seems we must conclude it's a representation of a state. — Moliere

A state of what?

The Nihilsum would be a concept that exists(or of existence) between the categories of something and nothing by being neither fully one nor the other but instead exists as a paradox that resists clear categorization. — mlles

As @Patterner has noted, you haven't even told us what kind of thing this is. Is it a category, a philosophy, a process, a system, a characteristic, an entity?

Sorry, I didn’t realize this was a nine year old thread. It’s possible you have become a neo-conservative since then, or that if you were one then you no longer are now.

We didn't create the ISIS insurgency. That is an opportunistic infection in the body politic. We created the wound in which the infection fulminated. — BC

This is what clever people call a distinction without a difference.

I do deeply and earnestly hope that we do not decide to take apart and rebuild Syria. It may be a mess; — BC

It is a mess, but it is not, for the time being, our mess. We have plenty of other messes around the world and we don’t need any more right now.

It is difficult for me to see what advantage Assad has over the opposition. Is it that his regime is a "known devil"? Is it that the Assad Regime has a more or less stable relationship with Israel? Is it that Assad regime was not appallingly cruel and repressive until the last few years? Was Assad "driven" into domestic terrorist policies by the extremist insurgent forces? It seems clear that Daesh would be just as bad, if not worse. If the Russians are for him, must we be against him? Don't know. — BC

If my memory is correct, we fucked around in Syria back during Obama's presidency and it went badly. We also went into Iraq, destroyed a nasty regime, started the ISIS insurgency, and sent hundreds of thousands of refugees into Europe. And let's not talk about Gaza. Of all the places we've screwed up, the Middle East is the worst except for southeast Asia. We recently had a thread - In Support of Western Supremacy, Nationalism, and Imperialism - in which neoconservative bonehead hawks proposed sending US troops into China and India to set things straight. There's only so much we can do and when we do it, we generally make things worse. No, I don't consider you a neoconservative bonehead hawk - a bonehead perhaps, but not a neoconservative.

Welcome to The forum.

I’m sure I’m not the only one who was confused when I started reading your post. I thought you were talking about nihilism but misspelled it, but after reading the first paragraph, it became clear you were talking about something different. But you never really described what it was, what the word meant, where it came from. You talk about Nihilsum but you never define it. Even after reading the entire post, I’m not sure exactly what you’re talking about. Is this a word you made up?

From what I can tell from your description, it sounds like something similar to Lao Tzu’s Tao or other non-dualistic philosophies. You should provide more information.

In other words, what exists, exists. Reason is the way we interpret that existence in a way that fits in with a logical framework. As an example: The big bang appeared from nothing. If that is true, then the sufficient reason for that happening is simply a logical framework that accurately leads to this result. — Philosophim

I like this. I think it's a useful way of looking at the issue. I hadn't thought of it in these terms before.

Truth must exist first for reason to matter. — Philosophim

Hmmm... I wonder if I agree with this.

You can be banned for mentioning P zombies. Read the guidelines.

I guess I don't see the issue you're trying to get at here. Let's say, instead looking at the situation from Peter's and then Alexa's points of view we look at it from the point of view of a security guard watching his TV screen. There are two cameras in the room, one near the ceiling in one corner and the other near the floor in the opposite corner. The security guard switches back and forth between the views from the two cameras. Does the world change when he does that? You put an emphasis on the change in identity between the observers. Why does that matter?

There are lots of philosophical issues associated with objectivity and subjectivity, but I don't see that the situation you describe poses any significant questions.

So did I gave up my eye for them? Or just because I didn't want to fill the immense pain and suffering that I would felt if I didn't do that. The answer is the last.
That was the point that I tried to make, — Matias Isoo

This is a matter of self-awareness, our ability to look at ourselves clearly from the inside. I try to be aware of the motivations of my actions, with reasonable success. I know this - most of the things I do arise from within without any particular goal in mind. They are non-rational. The come from the heart, if you will - what the Tao Te Ching calls our "Te," or intrinsic virtuosities. It seems like that's something you don't recognize in yourself. Perhaps you make these kinds of decisions differently than I do or perhaps you are not sufficiently self-aware. This is from the Chuang Tzu, along with the Tao Te Ching, one of the founding documents of Taoism.

What I call good is not humankindness and responsible conduct, but just being good at what is done by your own intrinsic virtuosities. Goodness, as I understand it, certainly does not mean humankindness and responsible conduct! It is just fully allowing the uncontrived condition of the inborn nature and allotment of life to play itself out. What I call sharp hearing is not hearkening to others, but rather hearkening to oneself, nothing more. — Chuang Tzu - Ziporyn translation

You think anyone living in western society today (which I'm assuming this thread is about) is going to be remembered as a great person? — Tzeentch

I don't know, but I think @ssu's answer is a pretty good one.

And about the dirty words Im sorry but thats the way I express my self but I will try to reduce the amount of tose words in future posts, — Matias Isoo

Again, we're pretty open and informal here, but it's hard to take you seriously if you write that way. As easygoing as we may be, we take our ideas and how they are expressed seriously.

I have no higher education so my vocabulary its not on par with many of you, in time it will, thats why im here. — Matias Isoo

We are generally tolerant of people for whom English is not their primary language, but language is important.

Welcome to the forum.

To start, this is a philosophy forum - a fairly informal one, but generally we take it seriously. It's not Reddit. So - spelling, capitalization, and grammar matter. Also, lay off all the fucks, cunts, and shits. They get used here, but more sparingly, for emphasis or insult. Generally, the more dirty words, the lower quality the post. Time to grow up.

Discussions about nihilism are common and not a problem, although I don't have a taste for them. I'll just say that many (most) of us don't see things that way.

Dont try to be the hero that saves the world, cause I know that you wouldn't save a world if it was for you to get worst, superman saves the world because he doesn't want to died, him or his loved ones, because if his loved ones die he would get sad, and he doesn't want to be fucking sad, so even him saving his family its not for them, its for him, — Matias Isoo

I love my friends and family and I want them to be safe and happy. I don't take it as personally, but I feel that way about humanity in general. I like people. I wish them well. You don't feel that way? Ok, but that's you, not the rest of us.

We have a lot of great people now a days, sure, businessmen, politicians, athletes, scientists but its not the same, they dont have the virtue, the god like status that their predecessors had. — Matias Isoo

Those great men you talk about were no more "god like" than people around today. They were just as ruthless, immoral, power-hungry, and cruel as you seem to want to be. Their status is a product of slanted history and your fantasy life. They killed and enslaved millions of people.

I think this is a radical feminism you can get behind. — fdrake

It reminds me of some of Robert Frost‘s later poems.

A well-written and interesting post. Welcome to the forum. As to your idea...hmmm. Let me think.

My father died in 2001 and I think about him often. I don't think it's irrational for me to say that he is still alive, and I guess conscious, and will continue to be so for as long as me, my siblings, my step-mother, and others who cared for him are. I guess, if we wanted to be materialistic about it, we could say that my father continues to live as a subroutine in my own consciousness. That entity is given strength and dimension when I get together with my whole family every February for a family reunion. Knowing that we all share those memories and thoughts brings them to life, as do the stories we tell about him.

As I said, I have no problem with that way of thinking, but it does call for a redefinition of what most people see as the common meaning of "consciousness." We have many discussions of consciousness here on the forum and most break up on the reefs of language rather than philosophy.

Some other thoughts:

It is, by common sense, factual that consciousness exists. — Reilyn

I am suspicious of claims of common sense, self-evidence, obviousness, or certainty, at least in a philosophical setting.

If I were to tell a person that they do not have consciousness, they would not be able to give me evidence that they do, even though they can definitively prove that to themselves. — Reilyn

Are you familiar with p-zombies? Don't get me started. I think I can know that someone else has consciousness with the same level of certainty that I can know most things in life. Consciousness is not just an experience. It is also a set of behaviors. Now here we go with our definitions again.

Again, good post.

I tried to get out of this discussion once. Or was it twice? So here we go again. I’m all done.

Be angry. — ssu

Everybody's been angry for the past 10 years. Look how well that's turned out.

It sounds absurd to me that those things have no truth value at all. If that were the case, then why does science work? — Brendan Golledge

Science works now and then, more or less. It works best when the conditions tested match the metaphysical underpinning best, e.g. materialism and reductionism. The further you get from those conditions, the less precise and the less definite the results you get.

Why should one do that which is good? No, I don't think that good is synonymous with, "something one ought to do". For example, most people would agree that selling all your worldly possessions and donating the money to charity is something that would be good. However, that doesn't mean that one is obligated to do so. Please input into this conversation with your own takes. — Hyper

You ask, “Why are we obligated to do good?” then you give an example where you conclude we are not obligated to do good. So, you’ve answered your question - we are not.

Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck & Popeye bombing France: — ssu

As if the war and the Holocaust weren't bad enough, now it's copyright infringement!

Then what kind of "going on your own" you meant? — ssu

Let's see - Drop out of NATO. Quit the UN. Pull out all our overseas military. Drop Israel like a hot potato. No more money for Ukraine. Tell Taiwan to take a hike. Pull Disney Worlds out of France, China, and Japan.

If you spent a lot of time studying natural sciences, you would probably realize that all the models we use are either deterministic (almost all of them) or random (quantum mechanics, or statistics when the underlying fundamentals are too complicated to calculate). — Brendan Golledge

I'm an engineer and I'm reasonably familiar with physics. When I was younger I was a strong materialist and believed in determinism, but I've grown out of that. Since then, I've come to realize that causality, materialism, and objective reality are metaphysical concepts, by which I mean they are neither true nor false. They have no truth value. This is a discussion we've had many times here on the forum, so I'm not interested in going any further into it now. I did start a discussion many years ago - Deathmatch – Objective Reality vs. the Tao - that addresses the issue.

we're moving toward the phase where we realize there's no percentage in trying to secure global order. Let it all go to hell. Why should we stick out big fat noses into it? — frank

I’m not sure this is true. There are still a lot of people out there who want to maintain our current status. I also don’t think there are many people who want to let it go all to hell. I don’t either.

Perhaps you didn't mean "going it on our own" to meaning being totally self sufficient in everything, — ssu

You’re right, I didn’t.

The interest for the US is to stay as a Superpower. — ssu

There are a lot of people here who think that's true, but it's not. The US is relatively isolated from the rest of the world. We have a huge economy and vast amounts of natural resources. If we wanted, we could go it on our own. I'm not suggesting we should, but I don't think our superpower status is as good for us as you seem to. We're going to have to get used to a world where power is distributed more evenly.

I've never heard that there is a general consensus regarding from what free will is supposed to be free. But if it's physicalist determinism, then will is free if it is random. I think that's what ↪Brendan Golledge means by "free". — Patterner

Except I don’t think deterministic and random are the only two choices. I don’t think there’s any empirical way to determine whether or not the universe is deterministic. I think it is clear that it’s not random.

I'll add that I disagree with #2. If the 'free' means free from determinism, and will is random, then it is free from determinism. — Patterner

I’m OK with your way of looking at it. To tell the truth, I don’t even really know what it means.

1. Everything in nature is either determined or random
2. Free will is neither determined nor random
C. Free will does not exist. — Brendan Golledge

You have claimed that Item 1 is true without justification. Perhaps you think it is self evident, but I disagree.

Item C is wrong. The correct conclusion is that free will is not in nature. It isn’t clear to me that’s the same thing as saying it doesn’t exist.

At any rate, the fix was as simple as rewording my inquiry: considering the dynamic that comes with mentor-natured relationships, is it moral to get with a teacher versus an actual professor? — Zolenskify

Yes, that is better for this forum. Some questions 1) Would the relationship be exploitive? 2) Would the relationship appear to be exploitive? 3) What are the rules at your institution? and the question always to ask 4) What could possibly go wrong.

I think this the wrong place to discuss this. I think you want reddit.com/r/getting with teacher.

Anyway, the Kremlin circle will "take offense" from whatever can then be used to further whatever they'd like to see, whatever they have in mind for their (chess)board. Thinking that's what others want is more than a little naïve. As mentioned a few times (e.g. here), you might ask the Baltics, the Moldovans, the Swedes, the Finns, ..., the Ukrainians, the Georgians, ... — jorndoe

There's a difference between "take offence from" and "be provoked by."

From a point of view strictly focused on American national security, what 'the Baltics, the Moldovans, the Swedes, the Finns, ..., the Ukrainians, the Georgians, ..." want is not the primary factor. The interests of the US and these countries are not necessarily the same.

I appreciate your ability to compromise issues to reach a larger demographic. I think that political outrage is ridiculous. Republicans and Democrats should both be more neutral and have more conversations. Civil disagreement is what would kill the two party system. If a greater portion of both groups were more open to political discourse, both sides would be less radical. I also think that focusing on economic issues more than social issues would cause more people to be democrat. — Hyper

I agree with everything you write but with a note. We got where we are today because of the Republicans. They have worked for more than 50 years to drive Americans apart from each other and it works, politically, but doesn't work in terms of good governance, in which they have little interest. In line with the principles on which you and I agree, I don't bring that up in discussions when I'm trying to be conciliatory. The Republicans have broken it. It's up to the Democrats to fix it.

It is rude to start a discussion and then not actively participate.