↪A Seagull Ah yes, the very popular opinion that reading Kant is a cakewalk. — StreetlightX

I was actually referring to the popular opinion that anyone who hasn't read Kant knows nothing about philosophy.

To lose firm ground for once! To float! To err! To be mad! - that was part of the paradise and debauchery of former ages, whereas our bliss is like that of the shipwrecked man who has climbed ashore and is standing with both feet on the firm old earth - marvelling because it does not bob up and down.

I wan't to stand on firm ground — MadWorld1

There is no firm ground; at best you can drop an anchor.

One criteria is anyone who thinks Kant is hard to read. — StreetlightX

OK, then that is by popular opinion.

The proof is that they have not provoked great disputes about their primary meaning — David Mo

That hardly constitutes a proof!

I can tell you with certainity that running a business is NOTHING like running an economy — Alejandro

Ok, then what is the difference?

Is it that you're suggesting contentment does not require the absence of choice? — living-sisyphus

Yes the achievement of contentment requires making good choices.

However, there is always doubt that you've chosen the right thing. And there's always someone saying that you're doing the wrong thing. — living-sisyphus

It is not a matter of right or wrong choices, it is a matter of making the best choices as they seem at the time and then learning from their consequences; life moves ever onwards.

In my opinion, Kant is basic to get into philosophy. — David Mo

Why do you think that? For Kant meets the criteria for obscure and writing.

To sort out the wheat from the chaff and then watch the chaff complain about it. — StreetlightX

And how do you distinguish the wheat from the chaff? Do you have some objective process for this or do you rely on popular opinion?

You mean like Kant? Probably not worth reading. If people cannot express their ideas clearly and simply, it is because they do not understand them themselves.

It does not require the absence of choice, (there is always choice), it only requires the choice that that is the best thing to do.

Method is everything. Without a clear cut method, one only has gossip and opinion. It is something that philosophy, particularly popular philosophy, suffers from to the extent that much of it cannot be distinguished from fiction.
However in science, the tried and tested methods are well established. If a research paper follows rigorous methods, then it is science. If its conclusions are banal, (ie already known) it can be passed over, but if its conclusions are new or controversial it should be published. If it doesn't follow rigorous methods it should be consigned to the flames, irrespective of its conclusions.

THere are some things I would like to learn - like backflipping and front flipping without landing on my head and paralyzing myself - but beyond that, pretty mobile. And yes would like to fly, but can't do that. But it's not about my freedom, it's about the freedom of everything - that allows for all things. — DanielP

But you are free to try, if you dare.

Laws of nature - or observations? What laws of nature have stood up across all time and space fully? Why are we continuously writing and rewriting laws of nature? — DanielP

Yes, the so called 'laws of nature' are man-made descriptions of nature.

That is not a rule.

what if everything is free? Meaning by that, there are no absolute rules, limits, or boundaries for anything. — DanielP

The world is free. There are no absolute rules.

We live in a global economy and a closely integrated world political system, so perhaps it is no surprise that some countries wish to influence the political outcomes of another country.

So what constitutes 'meddling' and what is intrinsically wrong with it?

Are limits not meant to be broken or at least the reaching of them made tolerable? — Outlander

Yes good point. What are the limits and how does one determine where they are? No easy answer.

Presumably by trial and error. But with caution. If one wanted to find the top speed limit of an old jalopy, certainly one can put the pedal to the metal on an open road, but driving it over a cliff to get that extra bit of speed is probably not a good idea.

Come on A Seagull, help me out lol. — Outlander

My point is that if one has two possible 'events' A and B, then the logical combination of them requires the 4 possibilities: A and not B, B and not A, Both A and B, neither A nor B.

If event B is defined as 'not A,' then these 4 possibilities still remain until proven otherwise.

In a simple abstract system such as mathematics then it may be possible that the events A and not-A are exhaustive. for example it can be proven that every integer is either even or not-even, in which case the possibilities of both even and not-even and neither even nor not-even are empty sets.

However in the real world and especially in the world of words ( such as statements) this is not universally provable.

It rather comes down to the question : What are you trying to achieve by claiming that either A or not-A is exhaustive?

An example of how this would be counter-productive is in particle physics where if one claims that an electron bound to a nucleus is either at position X or is not at position X is exhaustive, one will not progress in understanding quantum mechanics.

So, is there a limit for the human mind? — Daniel

of course!
Anything else is a delusion.

(love your name btw, not sure why but it brings me great joy whenever I see it) — Outlander

lol

but that is subjective — Outlander

Isn't just about everything in philosophy subjective? (including the concept of objective)

it doesn't make a whole great deal of sense to say something can both exist and not exist. — Outlander

The problem is that words like 'something' and 'exist' have such a wide varity of meanings that to claim that a particular thing exists will depend on ones subjective interpretation of the words. Of course with some statements of that form one might achieve a level of consensus but that is not objectivity.

so... examples? — Enai De A Lukal

Examples of what?

What are you trying to achieve?

well they are not quite exhaustive unless you include both and neither as possibilities.

You could try my book 'The Pattern Paradigm', but you probably won't like it as it goes somewhat deeper than most (trivial) epistemologies..

how does that work? — Enai De A Lukal

How does what work?

My point was that assuming everything can be neatly classified as either existing or not existing does not work.

Also, like Pantagruel, I'd like to know what things do not fall in any of those categories? — Daniel

Possibly those things that some people think exist but others don't.

Something either exists or does not, no matter the state in which it exists. — Daniel

What do you mean by 'something'.

If you don't have a process for determining whether something exists or not, it is meaningless to assert that 'Something either exists or does not'.

What about things that do not fit into either of the categories 'exist' or 'not exist'.

1. Everything that exists occupies a space. — Daniel

Where do you get this idea from?

What do you mean by 'exist'? What do you mean by 'space'?

Does mathematics 'exist'? Does phase space 'exist'?
Does 'phase space' take up space?
What about an 'idea'? Does that 'exist'?

Better to claim that things that exist do not necessarily occupy space.

Who built the house you live in,
Workers. — Azimuth

Bricks and mortar?

The idea of a philosopher using his knowledge and insight to "set up a company" and earn money in a way that becomes exponentially easier after the initial hard work up front is what we're talking about I gather. — Outlander

Thales is a good example.

↪A Seagull
We should not go back 200 years. — Azimuth

Well if you want to look at trends that are real it is pointless looking at short intervals as they will show random variations. It is necessary to look at long intervals.. such as 200 years.

that there is a poverty gap is not contestable. that this poverty gap is getting wider is not contestable. that the rich now own a greater percentage of the wealth than they did a mere twenty years ago, is not contestable. — Kaarlo Tuomi

Try going back 200 years.. when the reverse was true.

Your 'evidence' was a highly unreal hypothetical fantasy. It does not constitute evidence. Have you got anything better?

The old-age metaphysical question: Why is there anything at all?

We first need to know how to approach such a question. — Wheatley

A good place to start is with a deeper question: Is there something instead of nothing?

What, if any, is then the incentive to actively try to have an impact on other individuals? — Alejandro

Presumably to improve the world so that one has a nicer environment in which to live.

entrepreneurs don't tend to do things that are good for society, they tend to do things that are going to work out well for them. — Kaarlo Tuomi

What a narrow minded assertion! Entrepreneurs create wealth, they put ideas into practice, They make the world a better place for everyone.

My point is the view of consequentialism does not stand in every situation like you said — Grievous

Do you have any evidence for this?

lol :)

If you want to explore musical theory you could do worse than exploring western music and its focus on 12 semitones in an octave, Why? Bach explores this is his 'well tempered clavicar'. Before then musical tones were simple fractions of the main tone 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 etc. I won't spoil your fun by telling you the answer. But I will hint that it relates to the 12th root of 2

In their fundamental essence, questions can be considered as communications. Often they will incorporate a request for information or an explanation. Such information or explanation may not always be available or even possible (especially if the question makes implicit assumptions.)

Do you have a point?