How? Because you're ignoring another major factor in Human Decision Making, namely randomness. That is, while commonly recalled (important) decisions are made totally or mostly on logical grounds, most minor to miniscule decisions aren't made after exhaustive consideration, since they're trivial or below. Which urinal do you choose at the airport? Could you have cjosen a different one under identical circumstances? I think: yes. The bigger question is: does it matter?Given this full context, how could you have made a different choice?
Yeah, both descriptors are reasonable. But regardless of which one we choose (or even a third one), basically you get out of life what you put in. Thus in my experience, it's totally worth the effort to maximize one's chance of thriving in the future, which after all is where we're all going to be for the rest of our lives.Being able to juggle theoretical thinking with the day to day aspects of life may be a fine art, or wisdom based philosophy
The problem is that learning from mistakes doesn't always occur. This is on a personal level and wider scale. In particular, I have always seen the study of history as important about striving to do things differently but humanity doesn't always learn from lessons of the past.
To my view, there is no qualitative emotional difference between the past, future and the present. That is fears of the future could in another's hands, be joyful anticipation. Basically the past is (incompletely) known, the future is unknown (but can be predicted with some accuracy) and the present is experienced in Real Time.What do you think and how do you manage ruminating on the past or fears about the future? What exactly is the 'now', as it is a slice of time between past and future?
I'm a little unclear what it would mean for something like Germany to not be objective. Does this mean it is not an objective fact that German surrendered in WWII? Is it not an objective fact that the Declaration of Independence was signed on July, 4th, 1776? Are there objective rules to chess? What about objective truths of arithmetic (which is often considered a "game" like chess)?
If using just "short of impossible" means: functionally impossible, then we're in agreement. As to theisticly originated beliefs, they seem at first glance to be (internally) objective, after all they're written down right there in this physical Book. However, ultimately some human at some point originated the contents of the Book (leaving aside what or who inspired that human). Thus to a third person observer, which is everyone in the current era, the Book's contents are at least partially subjective.I reckon it would be short of impossible to pin down an absolute Good outside of theist-oriented beliefs
And that's an opinion, perhaps. But it's what we agree upon.
The fact it mainstream media is awash with superficial messaging that beauty = good which bleeds into the morals, or lack thereof, of what the average person esteems towards