Yes, this is something that is ambiguous about the Bible. Does God hand out evil as punishment or does this whole Satan guy do it instead or for Him, whichever it is?

Edit: I mean Job was conspired against by the devil and God, just to test his faith.

The patient is terminally ill.

Mathematical — I like sushi

Like monads?

Sentences usually float above this problem and create senses of meaning that are of practical use and more applicable to vaguely logical forms. — I like sushi

What are logical forms?

So, given that philosophers have been very in tune with logic, as was the guy who I pretty much quoted in the OP, then do others think that through the study of logic, can one make less of the issues raised in the OP?

Such a view is obviously at odds with Wittgenstein's (and much of modern philosophy's) atomism in TLP. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Do you agree that most of logical atomism is a form of Leibnizian logic about how events and the corresponding chain events could or do happen?

This is my hypothesis, for anyone to interpret. Had Wittgenstein heard about existential quantification through possible worlds, and thus the resulting state of affairs between them arising, meaning facts, then in my opinion he would have advocated for an analysis of positive and negative state of affairs through counterfactual analysis.

Now, with that said, I think that if Wittgenstein were to state that the world is the totality of facts, he might just add also that the world is the totality of facts and counterfactuals which define facts.

Such a view is obviously at odds with Wittgenstein's (and much of modern philosophy's) atomism in TLP. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Well, if possible world semantics, which counterfactuals through existential quantification obtains, then such a system of logic would make better sense with respect to what I have already said.

Hope the relations are now more clear...

Logical space to my knowledge is the space of all possibilities, not necessities. Its a possible world logic, where anything that is not impossible can happen. — Philosophim

Yes, so since counterfactuals subsist on time, then the chain of events of the world or logical space are associated with history. As an example, if Richard Nixon hasn't been the 37th president of the United States, then Hubert Humphrey would have been the United States president. I think that this is the only way a counterfactual could or would make sense with respect to what I am saying.

If it is the case that what is in front of me is an apple, then that is one out of an uncountably high number of other things I would have to tick through if I were to define that merely in terms of counterfactuals. — Philosophim

Modality in counterfactual definitiveness preserves unitary values. By doing CFD in modal logic preserves unity in outcomes as defined by the counterfactuals in logic alone.

But, the point with this thread is to imagine CFD in logical space, where in logical space everything is simply necessary.

Hope that makes better sense.

Yes, I understand. Yet, counterfactuals nowadays are envisioned in modal logic. So, by defining a state of affairs, you can resort to the actualism of a state of affairs only by what it is not.

Or in other words, the logical space of events or state of affairs, that which is, defined, by, again, what something is not. Positive facts are mutually related by negative facts in logical space, since everything is unitary.

Hope that makes sense...

Sure. Then read Plato.

Plato rarified the fact that Socrates death was due to bias professed towards him.

The irony is Chatgpt is bias. — I like sushi

From which perspective?

Well, of course! Ain't that what I just said? :wink: — Amity

What I assume, from ChatGPT, is the formal notion of confirmation bias. It seems that within a context, one can even develop a confirmation bias towards the positives of people.

As ChatGPT concluded, which I think is also correct, is the notion of empathy. Whether one likes it or not, people are diverse on most statistical spectrums. Your welcome to derive your own conclusion based on opinions and thus confirmation bias based on them. Some of this is highly self-reinforcing...

@I like sushi, I actually asked ChatGPT your second question, which I thought was a highly important question. Here's the feed from ChatGPT:

The balance between focusing on the positives and negatives in our perception of others is indeed complex and can be influenced by various factors. While there may not be a one-size-fits-all "optimal" state, achieving a healthy balance is important for well-being and effective relationships.

Cognitive Biases: Our focus can be swayed by cognitive biases. For example, confirmation bias might lead us to emphasize negative traits if we already hold a negative view, or to focus on positive traits if we have a positive outlook. Awareness of these biases can help us strive for a more balanced view.

Context and Situation: Our perceptions can shift based on context. In a stressful situation, we might be more inclined to notice negatives, whereas in a supportive environment, positive traits might stand out more. Recognizing these situational influences can help us adjust our focus as needed.

Personal Growth and Self-Awareness: Striving for self-awareness and personal growth can lead to a more balanced perspective. By reflecting on our own tendencies and working to understand and empathize with others, we can better manage our focus on positives and negatives.

Interpersonal Dynamics: Relationships themselves can affect how we view others. Trust and understanding built over time often lead to a more balanced view, whereas conflicts or misunderstandings might skew our perception towards the negative.

Overall, while we might be in various states of flux regarding how we regard others, actively working towards a balanced perspective—by being mindful of our biases, understanding the context, and striving for empathy—can help us achieve a healthier and more constructive outlook. — chatgpt.com

Do you see this as a persistent trend or one that has waxed or waned over time? — I like sushi

I think that through ratiocination, over the many years, we have actually recently been able to identify negative traits or even personalities in people. Much of this is done through the rearing of society through even the ideology of natural laws and rights of a group of people under a common banner. This banner has mostly been the concept of life without undue duress and the privilege of freedom provided by a government through a social contract, upon birth.

Do you believe the balance between our focus on the positives and negatives has an optimal state or are we necessarily in various states of flux regarding how we regard others? — I like sushi

For various reasons, some people can become sexist, homophobic, racist, jingoistic, and many other negatives one can find in an individual or a group of people. This short list of negatives, which could be significantly longer, should answer your first question.

As an additional and more personal question, do you find it hard to be nice to people? — I like sushi

Despite the negatives I find it easy to be nice to people. There is a hidden truth that by being nice you can also be rewarded for, well, being nice. Being nice can also be viewed as kindness, which when professed constantly can be viewed as a good trait. I also find niceness, a sign of innocence when professed sincerely.

Humans quite frankly don't live that long, and as they age can become quite ugly.

Syphilis — 180 Proof

Herpes

Why the hell not? — BC

Well, try and organize the motivation to overthrow the current economic system in most countries. Simply won't happen because workers are nowadays more satisfied than ever in comparison with the advent of Marxist thought. I think someone else alluded to workers now being shareholders of companies they work in, along with much more concern over their economic interests than in the past.

Yes, sex too is limited in its power. I know very well how limited. But tell me, what power is greater? — Philip Roth

The upholding of duty. Definitely not sex, as it may seem.

How many think that 'communism' will bring release and freedom from conventions and prejudice?
(How many even approve of abandonment of convention and prejudice?)
How many people look to 'communism' as an affirmation of life and joy? — BC

I'll also respond to this. Such ideals (multiculturalism) are better represented in the world of cosmopolitan countries, like the US. I know Soviet Russia was extremely multicultural on paper; but, was it really a fun country or political system to live in? Answering my own question, it seems that Perestroika would prove otherwise, at least from the economic end of the question...

My questions to you:

How many people see 'communism' as a beautiful ideal? — BC

Only those living under such a socioeconomical system, no? Sure, the guise of communism's appeal towards the proletariat might be something intriguing; but, I don't believe it is applicable towards the current state of affairs of many developed and developing countries.

Because capitalism adapted to serve people. 40 hour work weeks, paid time off, Osha, and fantastic government regulation make life pretty good and generally healthy for its citizens. Communism was a product of tremendous income inequality and the rise of corporate power. People wanted government to fix that, and communism seemed a good way to do so. — Philosophim

Yes, I agree. I think the issues which the revolutionaries discussed as their rationale for communism to-be implemented, have all but abated. Their reasons for the adoption of a communist state have all but abated.

Sounds like Cast Away to a great deal. Then again there's always ChatGPT to therapize yourself with. Who thought that they call Google also another friend.

Then again since Big brother is around and about, one must become more paranoid.

Please watch this movie, called "Safe". Here's a clip with relaxing music overlaying the clip:



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_(1995_film)

I'd also spend time with a pig! :party:

Wine and chocolate! TV and popcorn!

I'd binge watch The Twilight Zone on my TV.

Most of Stoics view aesthetics in virtue and happiness as per the whole eudaimonia pursuit.

Yes, then there's nothing much to further discuss. I did some work on Godel coding for compression algorithms with countable denumerable alphabets, such as color encoding like RGB for satellite TV to deliver true 4,8,12K video. It was a fun task that led me to believe that every denumerable ordered task can be sped up or optimized by actually archiving the read to the CPU with already post-processed information, and thus labeling it as if a "brick" to every further task to be done on similar logic. Eventually, with so many bricks, you could compile the task on the CPU, to just be read out to the memory. To process the information wouldn't be anything too far-fetched; but, the archive file might be quite big to cache. The optimization might be quite profound in my mind.

Is this something that is done already on hardware, or only on software to this day?

I've been thinking more about this. At first I thought I was just mistaken in my op. The set of all possible arrangements of bits is countable, so it is no wonder that we can uniquely assign a whole number to every arrangement. Just because bits are countable, doesn't establish some kind of identity between bits and numbers. — hypericin

I wouldn't be surprised if you were able to (in a manner unknown to me at the moment) topologically map out the possible logical spaces for information to represent truths in state space. Again, I am assuming that theorems and truth of theorems can be topologically mapped out in a heuristically manner in logical space.

I didn't turn on with LSD, but I did tune in and drop out intermittently, between jobs to maintain a viable if minimal budget. — BC

Yeah, something on the bucket-list to-do(?) :cool:

Shawn: Are you happy and contented? — BC

Same to you?

My take? Yes, although I don't ask the question as much as others to be frank. To this day I don't understand the obsession with this whole rat race which has been a source of dissatisfaction for the past decade. If people were happy, then not much would get done. I doubt Americans are disenfranchised, as some workers would have testified towards Marx. I see the US as a very dissatisfied place, where there's always a concern with how well the Jones' are doing or whether my AstroTurf is green enough, hell some people might even water their AstroTurf. Grass that is green and plastic doesn't need to be greener, right?

Jokes aside, I view the current situation of my life as past a huge hump, and my wellbeing is improving. I only buy things for myself on my birthday. Sometimes I'll look at a new scanner and printer; but, I have spent my 20's looking at life as something that ought to be respected. I'm not kidding, I have been through a lot.

So, how are you doing Bitter Crank? I am saddened that we might not be able to talk as much, given your age and dread your departure. I hope you already did everything you wanted to do in your life up until now. Death isn't an event in life; but, it is to others you may know...

I don't know how to think about "The Happiness of All Mankind", all 8 billion individuals -- one by one or collectively. — BC

The title of the thread is actually a slogan from the Soviet Union.

I suppose a union is a union as long as some fabric or unifying feature stands for it.

If so, it's still the pursuit of eudemonia by other names and frameworks. Not so different in this regard. Just saying. — javra

Yes, however attaining Nirvana is premised on the extinguishing of desire, which is manifested in the pursuance of the reduction of duhkha. So, if happiness is a telos or aim in eudemonistic logic or whatever you want to call it, then the two don't seem coherent when compared.

Thanks for the response. I conclude the topic about communism, collectivism and the good, and even the guise of happiness on a mass scale.

I don't have anything to add apart from the possible subject matter of whether those ancient guys like Aristotle or even more intelligently, Plato, got it right in envisioning the aims or goals of humanity to be in correspondence with the telos of pursuing (rather sadly, not attaining) the good, being, happiness.

And, of course, I detected the antithesis being secular philosophies like Buddhism, which simply seek tranquility and the reduction of suffering.

To this I'll add that egalitarian ideals (be they communistic, anarchistic, or democratic) entwine the ideal of symbiotic happiness among all, whereas totalitarian ideals can only be about zero-sum happiness by necessity of what totalitarianism prescribes. — javra

Yes, you seem to be on point with this finishing thought. Aristotle really set in motion the telos of human aspirations, which is quite a sad state of affairs. Human collective goals shouldn't be defined by what standardized method or aims people have for themselves. If it really has to be Marx, then to each his/her own, right? Of course this is the end goal of communism, but is 'to each their own' too idealistic?

What do you think about this whole history of eudaimonia and the pursuit of happiness?

The pursuit of happiness, conceived as an individual right, immediately invites the individual to calculate and measure himself and his own happiness in relation to the rest of society. Thus the pursuit becomes a 'beggar your neighbour' affair, and life a competition. Every day one is reminded "there can only be one winner", One does not seem to register that every winner is dependent on a slew of losers. — unenlightened

Just picking up on this. Again, I take this as a sign of the honesty and sincerity of communists to promote the welfare of the individual amongst so many winners. Equal outcomes is what they call it nowadays. I have high regards to egalitarianism, which is a good way of promoting the interests of the many in an unequal game.

The happy man is the one who has the stable positive regard of his neighbours. If one really understands this, one understands that there is no conflict, because the happiness of the individual is only to be found in the happiness of the collective. Life becomes much simpler and happier. — unenlightened

Yet, the reality of the situation is that the good Samaritan suffers because of the atomization of society, and hence hell is other people, the game becomes more refined and there is no room for compassion or sympathy. The paranoia is real.

At the end of the day, one has to wonder how things became this way. What do you make of such a weary and sad predicament?