I'm a huge fan of discrete maths; I know your proof by heart!

Have you thought about machine learning?

The models can predict our behavior, meaning that their inner logic, which is always based on math, try to accomplish what you suggest.

The problem is that they're not explicit/comprehensible by humans. They're sort of black boxes, like functions.

What do you think about this?

Could you say this voice wasn’t an “inner” voice but an external voice from another being, that spoke inside of Socrates mind?

When you remind yourself about ideals, is it really "you" who's doing the remembering? Or is it the perduring will of those who kept the idea alive throughout time, but it now it happens to be your turn?

Because you're pointing at something, in this case, the concept of "moral," there is no definitive. That you can even associate a concept to the word "moral" means that any definition you give it can have its flaws pointed at.

You have to start measuring from somewhere. Otherwise it's undecidable what is moral and what isn't.

Meaning that moral is always relative.

Well, Nietzsche's first book is partly titled "How to Philosophize with a Hammer." I find that his methods are quite good.

Thoughtful is different from engaging. Engaging requires it to "hook" people, you know?

On this I can give you some advice. The key element is narrative. Let everything you write be a little story. In the end, it's people you're writing for, and these people like to make the best of their time. So you can provide them with something that's worthwhile, and just by being yourself you are worthwhile. Everything else is form. (More about this on Ray Bradbury's "Zen in the Art of Writing")

I love your post title.

"Who was right on certainty?"

Who ever is right on anything?

Oh look, it's my missing eye!

I don't want to sound rude but, here it goes.

You must get good at writing engaging content.

Authenticity can't be faked or bought. You must earn it. It is rare and valuable, so the world will reward you with a louder voice.

That didn't sound rude at all. I mean, the reason artistic careers are usually frowned upon is because they're volatile or unstable regarding money and such. But you have to be good at it! It's not loading boxes; it's the humanities.

Why, then, do people so easily confuse metaphysical concepts related to the absolute?


Because the absolute is not IT and doesn't help describe IT.

As soon as you describe IT, the description is inaccurate.

It's like being unable to fish with a harpoon because you keep missing.

So, anything we define is debatable and has flaws that can be pointed at.