I've had a full life. Getting fuller every day. Every extra day is a blessing, make the most of it.

100% certainty from whose perspective?

I can "know" with 100% certainty (from my perspective) that the world is flat.

However from the perspective of the International Space Station I'd be 0% accurate.

Certainty of factual accuracy of a subject is a comment on one's opinion concerning the subject, not an actual evaluation of the subject itself. In other words a simpleton can be 100% certain that the world is flat or the moon is made of cheese. In fact in a practical sense, the degree of a person's certainty is inversely proportional to their wisdom and life experience.

Why are most not suited for it, and to what degree are they not suited for it?

Because most value family, home and stability (at least some of the time) more than freedom, excitement and adventure.

Young folks are on average more drawn to freedom etc since they're developing their persona, separate from their family's.

Well your commentary on "personal Jesus" is exactly correct, since gods exist inter-subjectively, every god of every religion is, by definition personal. Of course most religions maintain sacred texts, in which their gods appear, but gods don't exist in texts, they exist in the (personal) minds of their believers.

Has the economic anarchy of capitalism produced the current status quo of 2/3rds of the world living below the poverty line?

Uummm... in a word: no. The percentage of wealth owned by the top 10% is essentially the same during the 1400s (a bit more than a century before capitalism was invented) and now. The only times when the top 10% had a major decrease in their percentage of wealth owned was during the Black Plague and the WW1/WW2 eras (one before capitalism and one during it).

Nemesis was the Greek goddess of vengeance, a deity who doled out rewards for noble acts and punishment for evil ones. The Greeks believed that Nemesis didn't always punish an offender immediately but might wait generations to avenge a crime. In English, nemesis originally referred to someone who brought a just retribution

In ancient Greece, my guess is there was no expectation that a formal justice system would provide justice. Thus the need for a metaphysical entity to step in, perhaps long after your death. In other words no physical justice and no (true) metaphysical justice. A perfect scenario for personal justice.

You can only properly be said to "know" something if it is true. Otherwise you allow folk to know things that are false, and our use of "know" becomes inconsistent

Exactly. You agree that "know" and "true" can only be linked retrospectively (after truth has been verified) or in other words they aren't linked prospectively (my original point).

Thus in Real Life (which is experienced prospectively) , better to decouple any connection between the two concepts.

To most travel means: vacation. Which implies your normal life is work, family and home. Nomadic "travel" is not that, and frankly most are not suited to it.

Everyone "knows" they have made a mistake AFTER it has been discovered. But ten minutes BEFORE their mistake has been pointed out could be exactly the situation you are referring to. How can you tell the difference?

You know things that are not true? I don't think so.

What you can be said to know is true. Otherwise, you don't know it. Been that way since at least Theaetetus

Your comments are accurate if (and only if) you define truth as one's own personal truth, not a generally accepted truth (which most define it as).

Anyone who has ever made a mistake "knows" they put their car keys in the drawer, only to (in truth) find them in their pants pocket. According to you, the "knowledge" that my keys are in the drawer is true only because it is my personal "truth" (meaning closer to belief or opinion). Most folks feel that knowing the location of my keys is closer to belief and the true location of them is unrelated to what I believe or "know".

But Chinese women and Indian children and African men work twice as hard for a tenth of the pay, and their governments, sufficiently lubricated with bribes, are not too fussy about what you spill on the way out. So all the garden gnomes come from China and the American Guild of Gnome Crafters is sleeping on the street

Alas, you are conflating the concept of money (an imaginary way of equating the relative value of various goods and services) with capitalism and multinationals/globalism.

That's the starting point, but by extension, as you pointed out, the overall point is that we cannot know anything definitively ever. Thus she doesn't know he owns the car in the first place, even though she thinks she does and she is correct.

It just starts with a flagpole for demonstration purposes.

Given all of that, it's then relevant to ask what we mean by "true" when we say that "Jenny knows something" is true. Or if we can say it at all

Well, within the context of a philosophical discussion, the meaning of "know" has nothing to do with truth, it refers to understanding and memorizing the content of one's perceptions. Truth, OTOH deals with the relative comparison to a Gold Standard. The selection of the particular Gold Standard is subjective, thus introducing an amount (ranging from large to quantum level) amount of subjectivity to "truth".

This reminds me of Theseus paradox, more specifically, an example given by the philosopher Daniel Gilbert (I think).

If Dan shows Jenny his blue Mazda, and then Jenny is asked if she knows what car Dan owns, and she says "Yes, I know, a blue Mazda". That's one thing.

But consider that 2 weeks goes by, Dan get's in an accident and total's his Mazda.
He then goes out and buys another blue Mazda.

Jenny knows nothing of this, but later, she is asked if she knows what car Dan owns. She says "Yes, I know, he owns a blue Mazda".

The statement "He owns a blue Mazda" is true, but is the statement "Yes, I know" true

I disagree. In the first instance Jenny was told by Dan that he owned the blue Mazda he showed her. She believed what he told her (likely for good reason), and as luck would have it, her belief happened to be true. But she didn't have enough information to know that he owned the car.

In the second scenario, she continued to believe Dan owned the blue Mazda that he showed her. Now her belief happens (through no fault of her own) to be in error. However through blind luck (and her casual syntax) he happens to own a different blue Mazda, thus her statement is true. Similarly, she still doesn't have enough information to know that he owns the car she was shown, let alone the new car, about which she knows nothing.

UBI helps reduce money/currency to nothing more than a means of exchange. It would remove its power to create a majority underclass of poor people and it would much reduce or remove the ability of a rich and powerful few, to control a poor majority mass

Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree that an idea superior to money can't come along or that UBI isn't a good idea. However, neither would be possible without passing through a time period where humans developed the inter-subjective concept of money.

Some of them made the mistake of clumping themselves into walled cities and setting up lords and bosses to trample all over them, and whom they joined in trampling all over everybody who didn't live the way they did - in debt, alienation, fear and bondage. Modern civilization was a very costly experiment, and it has failed; at this very moment, it's tearing itself and the planet on which it stands to pieces

Well like most opinions, it depends on whose perspective you view the scenario from.

I'm doing great and can't honestly come up with a past that puts me in an overall superior present. Of course I am not naive enough to not appreciate that (actual) history did not have those who ended up losers in the relative game of life. Chief among those being initial hunter-gatherers who converted to agriculture and those in the following millennia. But luckily (for us) past generations have already paid that initiation fee. We're free to reap the rewards of technological advances that continuing at the hunter-gatherer stage would have never realized.

No doubt other, less consequential mistakes have been made along the way. But never developing the concept of money would not in my opinion have lead to a superior current state, though I appreciate others disagree. BTW those are some mighty fine homemade shoes you're sporting there...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a Universal Basic Income require, you know... income? I'm interested to learn how income exists without appreciation of the concept of money. Money, of course being a mental concept, not a physical entity.

Why does one need to acquire things? The earliest clothing was made by the wearer or a member of their community. The earliest writing appears on cave walls and roadside rocks, accessible to all. Could have just carried on in the same spirit of sharing.

Why should that be so? Canoes, bows, teepees, rugs and beautifully beaded leather footwear can be crafted without using a single gold sovereign or dollar bill. Why are books an exception?

I truly don't understand your first sentance. Of course that's my Modern human bias showing, but you can't write your sentance in this thread without acquiring a phone or computer. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you don't have the skillset to make your own electronic equipment.

True, humans could have stayed in the hunter-gatherer stage or even the most primitive agricultural stage by eschewing the concept of money. Of course large cities, nations and corporations would not have been possible in the absence of credit, which would have been unthinkable without the concept of money.

Books require investment in printing presses. Publishing companies similarly require investment. Nope, handwritten pamphlets is pretty much going to be it for you.

Humankind had two very good inventions: clothing and writing, and two very bad ones: money and religion

And how, exactly does one acquire clothing and pamphlets (books being almost impossible to manufacture in the absence of a modern style economy) in the absence of the concept of money?

The tricky thing here is that there is a legitimate disagreement about whether vengeance is equivalent to (commutative) justice or is only a synecdoche. In that conversation, which I was also a part of, there seem to have been at least four options:

Vengeance and justice are the same thing
Vengeance is a part of justice
Vengeance is any form of retaliation
'Vengeance' is a pejorative and nothing more ("I am not willing to tell you what I mean by vengeance, only that I consider it to be bad")

When the parties resist disambiguation the wagon is inevitably stuck in the mud, going nowhere

Yeah that ended up being a reasonable conversation... once the ground rules (definitions) were identified.

I believe the OP meant your third definition, as I did. Most posters used the fourth one, at least initially.

I don't agree that vengeance is an umbrella term in any sense. I could understand why different interpretations of the concept add to the complexity in a way that's somewhat similar though

Well, I guess I meant that I use vengeance as a specific term (which it is) in conversation with those who use it as an umbrella term (synonymous with "justice").

Or you could say trying to pin down an essence will hide the fact that the term is half of a whole that can't stand independent if its opposite

I don't disagree, though in my experience while masculinity is "opposed" by femininity, it is more useful to view them as opposite poles on a broad spectrum, rather than two sides of a dualist paradigm.

This was, relatively speaking, an outsider to your field?

I'd heard that "ethicist" is a profession now. Was their expertise helpful? Can you describe that for us a little?

This was in a medical context. The head of the Ethics Committee was trained in medical ethics, but was a practicing MD, though his medical expertise was rarely called upon, whereas his ethical chops served as proxy ethical "training" for the rest of us who were not trained. That is, he corralled our thoughts and kept us from straying off course.

Exactly. Treating a relative label, like masculinity, as an absolute descriptor, is a fundamental error.

Exactly, in all issues of morality (itself being entirely a subjective endeavor) any conceivable viewpoint is likely a functionally "moral philosophy".

I think there's something presumptuous about philosophers, who lack the expertise and knowledge, however flawed and limited, of a field's practitioners, swooping in to pass judgment on their work. Better to cultivate the practice of critique among the producers of knowledge

As a field practitioner who served on the Ethics Committee for my field, the input of a professional ethicist I found to be valuable. Not essential, but valuable. Though a third person observer may label my comment as an example of the Dunning Kruger effect.

It's common to see discussions centred around such terms as Islam and capitalism, and an assertion or question to do with them. Something along the lines of "Is Islam really a religion of peace?" or "The Effect of Capitalism on Culture" wouldn't be out of place on any philosophy forum

True. The umbrella (or "open to different interpretations") term I have weighed in the most recently is: vengeance. As in "do you approve of vengeance?"

Soooo... if your mom is crazy hot, that changes your calculation how?

Hmm. Are you suggesting these are sciences where "value" enters in? Because, just to continue the science/philosophy dichotomy, you could call those the quantitative measures of those fields. Stipulating the psychology is of the behaviourist flavour. Valuing psychological evidence isn't evidence of the existence of 'ought' type values

Well, psychology saying we "ought" not be antisocial is valuing the common outlook over the outlier 2% that (let's be honest) preys on the other 98%. Just as economics saying we "ought" to make macroeconomic changes to encourage growth at the expense, say of inhabitants of where resources are mined.

It is the norm, yes. But the context gets serious when your mother is involved. You would not speak about "folks go without" because your sense of attachment to a beloved member would make you think otherwise or at least more seriously. I think this is the "dilemma" that @Paul proposed. The context changes fully when a mother is included

Exactly, it does change. You pick your mom, therefore no dilemma. The 20 year old just stands in line with the 30, 40, 50 and 60 year olds.

Where did your beliefs about cars come from? You didn't develop your beliefs in a vacuum. At some point you saw a car, or were told about cars, or interacted with cars.

Not necessarily. If I see lightning, I can develop a belief that lightning is caused by my ancestors being angry, in the complete absence of experience with my ancestors being angry causing lightning. I can synthesize my belief de novo from individual experience with lightning, stories that my ancestors existed and personal feelings of anger.

Definitely. Ecology values diversity and native species. Economics values wealth creation. Psychology values psychological "norms".

These so called "dilemmas" aren't really dilemmas. Scarcity guarantees that someone will go without. That isn't a tragedy (to be avoided), it a reality, frankly an extremely common one. Folks go without, it's the norm. Any method (including flipping a coin) of distribution of limited resources will leave someone without.

Humans can label this or that distribution strategy as better or worse, but of course these relative descriptors are entirely subjective and completely dependant on perspective.

Uummm... there's no such thing as a "true" tax rate, including paper gains on investments.

I don't see any need for a label

Uummm... how do you communicate what others call "racism"?

That’s a good question. It’s not that Bezos has no income — he does. Millions (even billions) cash on hand. Repaying a loan isn’t difficult, especially when the interest rate is so low. But the point is to avoid paying taxes

Well if he's got billions in income, he's theoretically paying income tax.

It would be devastating for society (meaning the economy), not because of a lack of workers, but because of a lack of customers, long before they would have reached the age to join the workforce.

Of course, it would be fantastic for the planet.

Uummm... where do the loan repayments come from?

Philosophically, a deity may be said to transcend the subject-object distinction.

Sure, humans CAN say that, though there is no objective (only inter-subjective) evidence of it.

Well since the majority of sexual relations are NOT a commodity, the latter.