It seems like you're thinking that just one person would move to Mars. It would be a group of people. — Terrapin Station

Yes, it would be a group of people. Most likely the elite of the World, no?

It's rather obvious that the opposite of depression is lack of it. But, how does one explain a lack of depression is rather difficult.

Any thoughts?

As mentioned, I don't think the idea will take off without some social conditioning. Any thoughts on how to make such a thing possible?

Here are some further thoughts.

Mars will initially be comprized of the elite of the World. This trend will continue up to some point. I don't know if we'll ever hit that point, though.

The topic is still popular. I wrote a book on it and thousands of people have chosen to walk this spiritual path. Buddha had 'the eightfold path,' and Plato had 'the fourfold path.' This is a journey of transcendence that all truth seekers must take to discover enlightenment. — magdaangel

Please share some thoughts on the matter. Thanks.

That was my question earlier. What came first, the facts or the objects? — Sir2u

Both. You can't discern facts without objects and the other way around.

Or maybe it is a viable idea but needs further qualification — Valentinus

Please expand.

Some people sincerely believe bad things. — Valentinus

That's true.

So, sincerity alone isn't enough, as usual?

Nothing in the world—or out of it!—can possibly be conceived
that could be called ‘good’ without qualification except
a GOOD WILL. — tim wood

Here I agree. I would interject, however, that having a "good will" is not sufficient alone.

How would those abstractions be undescribable? And do you mean this system would be the one where the universe is defined as the totality of its things or facts? — BlueBanana

Abstractions are moot. Facts remain supreme.

I'm not sure if the apparent indignation over the topic is directed at me or not. If so, apologies for making a parody where one was not asking for one.

It can be argued that sincerity is a basic desire from which emanates the good of man.

Thoughts?

I believe all acts of charity and good deeds are required to have an element of sincerity to them. I might be trivializing the issue into conflating sincerity with compassion or empathy; but, I don't see how you can be ethical without sincerity.

If you've been hypothetically marooned somewhere in the Solipsistic Archipelago with a fundamental Christian sect, you will benefit greatly from being saved, either by outside agents or accepting Jesus as your representative savior.

Excuse the "in sin"-cerity. — Nils Loc

Oh butterfingers. So, I must accept Christ then.

*Christ I accept you and yearn for your return*.

Welcome back!

I agree; but, think that facts stand above things also.

I did not say I was wrong, and to do so would have been a performative contradiction. But to admit the possibility is to require of the reader and interlocutor that they think things through and not take my word as gospel, and this is the tradition of philosophy. — unenlightened

Understood. I stand corrected then.

OK, this thread has already died.

RIP.

Are facts necessarily about things? What if things are defined by the facts about them? — BlueBanana

Astute observation. I can't disagree with any of it, unfortunately. :)

but I'm not sure people adhere because of the 'rule', or because of the proscription for not having that orientation in the Kantian sense (if that's what you mean by saying "...the commands of good intention.". — gloaming

Yes, this is the crux of the issue. Do we do it for some personal satisfaction or for an ulterior motive? Being sincere should only mean being drawn towards doing what is good for its own sake, and for no ulterior motive.

One can always lie about one's motives; but, that can only last for so long before being discovered by other minds.

If not, let's not call specific posters out for what we might believe to be inappropriate argument in its own separate thread. — Hanover

I feel as though a separate thread is required to examine arguments made in other threads. Often, the third party analysis is required to de-emotionalize and restrain from jumping on bandwagons or straw-manning.

Guys, I presume this thread is being done in fun and with the consent of the accused? — Hanover

It is. I have no intention of proceedings done with ill intent or emotionally driven posting (I mean, that's the whole purpose of this thread, for heaven's sake).

On the contrary, it is you yourself who have overgeneralised. The Judeo-Christian tradition begins with Genesis, in which you will find an account of the fallen nature of mankind. — unenlightened

Now, are you distorting evidence? I simply stated an opinion, and you have turned it around to facthood (in that thread) given your immense wisdom on these matters.

I merely point out that the tradition does in fact present humans as imperfect, and in the case of Christianity as in need of salvation. Yours is the claim, therefore, that it is 'warped and distorted.' — unenlightened

No, I did not say that in that thread. Your post follows mine, and my post has not been edited or distorted.

In the second case, the nearest I get to self negation is:
I can be wrong,
— unenlightened

If this is true, there is no case to answer, and if it is false, I am entirely innocent and this statement proves it. — unenlightened

Yet, you are not wrong and introduce ambiguity where there is no need for any. Why is this?

I would further request a disclosure of the criminal backgrounds of any witnesses against the accused, as this goes to the issue of their credibility, and possible bias, and bias is never a collateral issue. — LD Saunders

You place an undue burden on the proceedings of this courtroom. Although I can not discern my own bias, I request a veil of ignorance to be endowed on any further testimonials. My own and others.

Fine. I redact my accusation, of @unenlightened being found guilty and limit my accusation to committing sophistry.

I ask other members to consider my evidence previously resented as circumstantial or pertinent and apparent in their minds also.

If you are stating that he has already been found guilty, then what are the witnesses being called for? For a sentencing phase? You can say that there is a pending charge and call witnesses to establish evidence of the alleged charge, but, once there is a conviction entered, the issue of guilt is no longer before the court. — LD Saunders

No, I am only marshalling evidence to be examined by other members. Judgement shall be reserved for very few charges if there need be such a thing even done around here, if we can't self-regulate.

I shall now proceed to the examination of your recent post history. In it, I refer attendees to these posts you have made:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/223455
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/223242

In the first linked comment, you have committed a gross overgeneralization of attributing the entire Judeo-Christian tradition of being guilty of professing a warped and distorted worldview. I find this unacceptable and appeal to anyone to argue otherwise.

In the second linked comment, I appeal to members to recognize unenlightened's post as true wisdom, even though he has self-negated it, which is unacceptable.

I call upon witnesses to testify to my claim that @Unenlightened has been found guilty of sophistry. Cross-examination of witnesses shall reveal whether my claim is sound or incoherent.

Sincerity is simply forthrightness or honesty. In that respect, few of us are always sincere. — gloaming

Yes; but, it's more than that only. It's also an adherence to the commands of good intention. Whatever that may be.

Can attitudes like sincerity be shaped and moulded or are they static?

So, then. How does one become more sincere? Is that possible?

Fascinating post Jakus.

Thanks.

Trust in the other's sincerity, you mean? If so, yes, that is a matter of trust. — Janus

Sincerety is King then!

We stopped at proposition 2.5-3.0

Anyone welcome to continue with us where we left off.

Bump.

With greater intellectual breadth and depth much more becomes conceivable; which is not to say that everything becomes equally plausible. — Janus

True; but, trust is the heart of the issue no?

OK, that sound fine. I don't think the debate around solipsism vs external world is interesting, or even really coherent, anyway. — Janus

But, it is conceivable to a solipsist that never doubts that could exist in principle. One has to always acknowledge that.

Even if I have no doubt about your sincerity that will still not enable me to agree with what you have said, if I don't know what it means. — Janus

It simply means that reality is shared and we can agree that the cat is on the mat if we're willing to suspend disbelief in an external world or solipsistic universe.

I can't see how it is question-begging. Perhaps you could explain how it is that you see it as such. — Janus

I guess you can phrase it as trust. If you can't have any trust in my being sincere about some Rogerian agreement, then the issue is a non-starter. Hence, without trust, you can't have any agreements made.

It's obvious that as a definition your "otherwise" would consist in contrary propositions, but I would have to know just what those contrary propositions are, as well as what "Rogerian agreement' is in order to determine whether I could assent. In other words I cannot assent unless i know what i am assenting to. — Janus

Is this not question-begging or is it?

In other words I cannot assent unless i know what i am assenting to. — Janus

Then, we've arrived at a systematically inchoate question if we can't even be answering it without question begging.