Replace postmodernism with modernism and you'll realize this has happened before. It's the same rhetoric as back then, on the interwebs now instead of in the bars. We can both cut corners all we want so to eschew radical talk, but we both know what we're talking about. The "common man" with his "common sense" I do not trust, that is all.

what do you understand to be the real reason people are seeking suicide as a way out? — Wallows

They must think that living is a voluntary activity or, in other words, that (the capacity to) will precedes or transcends being alive. As I observed, that belief will only be reinforced by those urging them to "have more volition" and "not give in". I also think that most suicidal people in the modern world are nihilists (self-obsession would be the vehicle they take on their suicidal path), so suicide for the sake of noble values like honor, like the Japanese seppuku you allude to, is virtually absent, except when it's invoked as a cultural vestige.

IMHO

Hypothetically, if you were to create or live in a new nation, what would you expect to be your basic freedoms? What would you expect to be obligated to do? What would you expect not to be able to do? — TogetherTurtle

All stemming from the overall freedom to violate the nation, as radical as that may get, though I would expect to not be able to go ahead and do purges but, instead, to be obligated to oppose malice and incompetence. In my view, a nation-state is a perversion of the potential of a polity, that insists on defining itself through its exceptions and thus disallows any kind of personal freedoms.

* You may waste time or become distracted when you can't afford that.

There's no doubt that the person who thinks is superior to the person who doesn't. — jorgealarcon

More like, privileged. Only those unmolested can properly engage their higher faculties.

Oh c'mon, there's no way to conclude that Donald Trump uses ampersands with intent. Even the intent you mentioned is questionable (business-y?). I think it would be better to retract that one as not to spoil the rest of the analysis. My apologies for trying to be subtle previously.

Slow down, I've barely made a few posts since a long time ago and pretty sure I've never presented myself as any kind of spiritual.

I still think you're just equating lifestyle with philosophy.

I think characterizing aRealIdealist as "someone who is not at my level" qualifies as an ad hominem. — Pantagruel

I agree, but you need to show where I did that.

Except what was requested was more of a 'position statement,' what philosophy means to me. So it didn't warrant refutation. — Pantagruel

"Position statements" are ripe for the Socratic dialectic in which I engaged. I didn't even formulate my reply as a refutation, I think you need to reread it, rather than go ahead arguing against a strawman.

I found it a perfectly cogent idea. — Pantagruel

Obviously, I didn't. But maybe you're both above my level (I also didn't invoke any kind of individual hierarchy, that's your fomulation) and comprehend something I don't, in which case I still expect you two to clarify what that is.

You're free to dismiss my personal impression (if I wasn't clear, that is that your analysis is excesive), that goes without saying, I'm not sure why you assumed hostility, though. You can just say I reached too far myself, no need to imply I have any kind of personal issues because I made a quippy criticism directed towards you.

You're utterly mistaken about what an ad hominem is or that entry-level is of any derogatory nature is all I can say to you, except, I hope you don't consider this response an ad hominem too since I imply you don't know what you're talking about and you prefer to argue in bad faith.

I advise you to learn to distance yourself from your beliefs & opinions so you stop seeing their rejections as personal attacks. I am truly an antagonizing aggressor when it comes to unsatisfactory ideas and I'm not going to excuse myself because you interpret it as an affront. Also, you can check that there's no ad hominem attacks in my replies to you, while I can't say the same about yours.

Chill.

What’s a feminist if not someone representing the views of women and only women?

Edit: okay, I think I see, a feminist is someone who advocates for women’s rights. — Brett

Or maybe you should look into what feminism is all about instead of assuming things and then request to be proven wrong. For example, I have recently noticed in a podcast between 2 self-identified conservative guys that they were talking about feminist activism without understanding it and declaring that it was misplaced based on a similar strawman that it's all about serving the interests of women.

They were talking about an event in which feminists got some (female) cheerleaders fired and thinking that the feminist argument was somehow puritanical and flawed because it went against their strawman, when anyone that has ever listened to a feminist can tell you it's all about "setting unrealistic standards (of physical fitness and sex appeal in this case) for women at large" stemming from a rejection of beauty culture which is seen as serving the "male gaze". You don't need to agree with an ideology to know the positions it takes.

I have deduced that you're totally new on this board by observing the number of your posts as well as their entry level content. What I fail to understand is how employing this basic reasoning can be considered philosophy, as you seem to imply in your post.

I don't understand the purpose of this thread. Why does it matter how people classify any political system? You need to justify and frame your request for public opinion, else its scope is reduced to that of pointless curiosity.

And finally, he uses ampersands, in part because they help with the character count for tweets, but also because they look official and business-y. — NKBJ

You're reaching too far with this one. Careful or you'll look beyond pretentious.

Philosophy is a set guidelines that you live by and conduct your daily life. — Corra

Bah, please stop perpetuating this common modern misconception of equating philosophy with lifestyle, thank you!

If we say that two things exist independently, we're saying that one can exist without the other, in other words they do not necessarily interact. I disagree that such independence exists. — leo

Well then, I also can't disagree more, one thing is to claim that there's nothing independent to the world at large, no part independent in relation to the whole, but you seem to claim that one is dependent on all others, what would be the basis for that?

if one thing stops existing it has an influence on everything else — leo

This is way too vague. It can be said that a thing's disapperance would eventually have ramifications for everything else, but only if the world doesn't end before that could happen.

Which is why I say that everything is interdependent, if you remove something from the whole everything changes, the whole is not the sum of its parts, because these parts all influence one another. — leo

Again, you have to prove that there's a web that links everything to justify this instant communication and impact in-between all things of yours.

I've just realized I've never heard any atheist address predestination when they talk about how God hardened the Pharaoh's heart in the Book of Exodus and present it as a cruel ad hoc act. Though, to be honest, I don't think myself this is necessarily relevant to what you're trying to convey here, but I still don't understand how exactly you can feel less guilty by virtue of believing in what you believe.

how would it know that there was another reality outside of its reality? — Cris

The same way we are getting suspicious of a hypothetical Multiverse, I guess, by observing anomalies in the structure of our cosmos, phenomena that seems to have external origins.

How would it know that it, along with its reality, were created? — Cris

Glitches in the programming would be a giveaway, but again the AI needs the capacity to notice and recognize these phenomena as inconsistent and aberrant.


Since I've just posted in a thread about "The Talos Principle", a philosophical puzzler which pretty much deals with the themes you have outlined here, I feel compelled to direct you to at least look into this particular video game.

Odd, why isn't your amount of guilt predetermined as well? Is guilt an exception in this worldview?

I'd like to see this, people everywhere pausing and asking themselves "But is it moral?", but I don't, so your post seems to me to be just another rant against some people being obsessed with their public and even personal image of themselves, and of course lashing out at those who are not, nothing to do with morality. I am not aware of a period in history when your complaint wouldn't apply, as I see it, people are always pissed about other people, always finding ways to differentiate and discriminate, no special hard time for anyone in particular, sorry.

As I am still fostering hope I will someday find someone on this forum who has played the Talos Principle — Tzeentch

It seems that would be me. But even so, I don't really have an idea on how I could properly contribute to this thread, if it even matters anymore.

I had a mishmash of thoughts regarding my personal game experience with The Talos Principle, nothing coherent enough to consolidate into an essay, though.
What I'd like to point out was the overarching concept of the Process that references the seemingly most popular topic in philosophy, the purpose of the individual (there's a recent thread on the main page regarding it just as I'm writting this), by arguing it's about serving the generations to come in all of the 3 endings of the base game and also the slightly varied ending of the DLC. This can, of course, be interpreted in various ways, such as from a posthumanist - Nietzschean combined perspective, where the AIs that are sacrificed are merely the bridge for the Over-AI that passes all the tests, gets uploaded in the Talos android and thus becomes a bona fide person and the clear successor to Man.

At the end of your last post you invoke the "What now?" trope that is not really of philosophical value, so I don't really know how to respond to it, either than what other philosophers have already said, that being has inherent worth and ask you to consider that eternity in the simulation was not really possible to begin with.

As for the free will concern, the titular serpent, Milton, addresses it in a satisfactory way for me, "maybe everyone climbs the tower and the only way to win is to stay down here with us mortals" which is to say, dismissively. We could make up an assertive principle that outright forgoes this age-old philosophical issue altogether, something like: "For all the discourse on the nature of individual will, consequences will continue to stem from personal decisions, no matter where we deem the control over those to lie, and ultimately force us to have to deal with them.", or like "Not even the most incompatibilist philosopher can act without making decisions.", just like the game does with its titular principle.

In fact, this is what I loved about the game, its audacity to claim, tongue-in-cheek, its made-up assertive principle as having the weight to trump an entire field of philosophical thought. despite it being a mere tautology. This partially persuaded me to think that philosophy is properly done only when it seeks to deny and invalidate itself, that is, when it claims that the answers are contained in the way we put the questions, rathen than when it transcends the questions beyond their rhetorical worth.

Contrary to this projection of yours, I'm actually contributing to this thread by having reasonable conversation with Agustino, BC, and T Clark. If you'd like to join, by all means, come on in. My tongue has edge enough for you still! — Heister Eggcart

Why would I participate? This is not even a proper subject for a philosophical forum, maybe for a religious one. it's just people debating which denomination they should gamble their faith on.
I'm also not interested in your edginess, it's in bad taste.

I think the religion Mongrel is referring to will look a lot like Noblosh's avatar. Apathetic, bored, passive aggressive, and claiming to have read "that fucking book" even though the drool has soiled the ink. — Heister Eggcart

That's not true, I'm full on aggressive! But yes, I'm bored, bored of worthless and off the point critiques like yours, not designed with any productive purpose in mind but the satisfaction of a disgruntled and pretentious jerk. Apathetic because of so much uncodemned foolishness in the world that goes on to reproduce ad infinitum.

Because Islam will not permit this forum! — Thinker

And why would Christianity permit it? Christian or Islamic theocracy, I can't care less for the difference.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/78033

Terrapin never said he agrees with banning poor debaters.

I didn't think that either, I was just pointing the very irony of asking how to end stupid debates on a board that doesn't concern itself with promoting proper debates.

Yes, the threat of an ideocracy will be always there, that's what we should try to prevent.

How can we enforce logic in debates and promote deeper analysis? — Andrew4Handel

Ban those that don't meet the criteria from participating in the debates. But not even this forum does that.
For the so-called realistic solution, popularize proper argumentation in a way people will feel obliged to perform. That is, make logic and deep thoughts cool and trendy.

Oh, so the question was if I give a shit about foolishness? Then, of course yes, that affects everyone. I'm not sure what you're thanking me for though.

The demos are the people. No, I don't give a damn about the God conundrum, I just wish all this foolishness surounding it would stop already.

And why is Christian theocracy any better? In fact, why is any decision taken by the demos any better?

Why would I care which denomination will achieve religious monopoly? I don't even buy into religion.

All I can say is, so what? Why should I give a damn?

How so? — Agustino

Because we must image it like that! I mean it contains the assumption that there's an obligation to answer in a certain way and so it restricts the answers to the questioner's agenda.
In other words, I don't imagine Sisyphus being happy when he needs to restart doing the same job he just finished, yet I was almost tricked into doing just that by the question's presupposition that I must.

I don't think Sisyphus is miserable just because his efforts produce no results, but also because they are not valued by anyone. As I understand, Camus proposes that is Sisyphus who values his own struggle but how can he? Isn't it senseless? Unless, I guess, it's not the struggle that he values but what it allows him to do, like breathing helping one meditate.

This would be similar to what I said before:

but I don't think living is the point in life but nourishing and cherishing what is of value to the particular individual — Noblosh

As the boulder rolls down the mountain we must imagine Sisyphus happy. Why? — Agustino

That's a loaded question.

What did God tell Job? Who are you to dare question my Supremacy, my infinite wisdom, my decisions, and my creation? Where were you when I made the Heavens and the Earth? You are a nobody, no one asked you for your opinion. So go back and accept your burdens with faith in Me - I know better than you can ever know. — Agustino

Poor Job, tragic hero.

And for the last time, I don't have an imaginary friend. — Sapientia

Let's put it differently: do you have any projection of yourself?
Maybe God is the mental image of someone's hope and faith they view as necessary to keep on living.
Maybe you also have a mental image for your reasoning that you consider legitimate and dependable.

which we've inevitably destroyed beyond repair — noAxioms

Huh?