I don't use them because i haven't been kicked off of this one yet but here is one:
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/

You need to stop picking on people smaller than you. Find another forum where you have some competition. :)

I believe to have a quality relationship with anyone, some individuals will have to find practical ways to make that relationship last as long as possible and at the very least each party ends the relationship on positive terms. I don't believe our sexual relationships carry on after we die. I believe most homeless people suffer from depression due to the dangerous nature of sexual relationships. I believe many homeless people could find peace by making some sort of peace with their former lovers. Unfortunately homeless people are very often the types to take relationships very seriously which is largely what drives them to for lack of a better phrase "an extreme lifestyle".

Noah Harrari (book: "Sapiens") would probably say that ownership is a concept developed by animals (as opposed to plants) that helped early animals try to more likely get the chance to mate. Noah Harrari believes that humans thrive over other animals because we develop fictions that enable millions of us to work together to overcome our environment.

Considering my philosophy is combined with religion, i believe his view points are very interesting but based on calculated risk, i reject many of his beliefs because i don't think they are expedient in helping me avoid the worse case scenario.

I feel separating philosophy form systems analysis and design is intellectual suicide. I'll read Davidson's article later. At this point i would say i agree with Davidson.

I can't go into great detail because of forum rules. I don't feel this binary view of heaven and hell is Biblical in the strictest sense. If for some reason you are interested in my opinion from a christian's perspective of the Bible you can send me a private message.

No wrong answer.

There is a particular verse in the Bible that says we should embrace subtlety and nuance.

Happy seeking!

Thanks for this OP. I'll read it later. This OP is a breath of fresh air.

I've heard of the historian Josephus. I've never heard of the prophet Joseph. Ofcourse there is Joseph from the book of Genesis.

Do you read the Kabbalah? I find it very similar to Druidism and/or Wicca.

Considering many modern banks (as opposed to Banks that were around 4000 years ago) originated during Medieval times, i truly do wander if the Catholic church actively makes financial investments. I really have never thought about the relationship between the Catholic church and whether or not they make financial investments.

Holy Shit. You found me a new hobby for the next week.

Across the board, food stamps are deceptively a form of subsidizing goods such as food. There's a lot of socialism in America if you're poor enough to qualify for it.

Marginalized minorities, don't really get that much love though. — Wallows

Certain minorities are more likely to be turned down for jobs in America. I agree with that.

I'm sure that happens in some other countries. I couldn't name them all because i've only ever traveled to Canada.

I agree with that mostly except that money can be manipulated much easier then land, resources and services. However it is even possible to manipulate the relationships between people regarding land, resources and services.
— christian2017
The problem with using commodities and natural resources directly for barter is that they have limited application. Money have unlimited application, abstractly, hence transacting with them is much more powerful.

I agree, but during the middle ages they did have monasteries which many poor families sent their children too.
— christian2017
Even if the politics in this regard were standard, I suspect that a lot of the wealth of the church was accumulated through state funding, land ownership, or donations from the wealthy aristocracy. But this wealth came at the expense of the poor, whose rights were trumped in favor of their lords. Therefore, the pity offered in this way was not an entirely positive effect.

Many of the problems we have today are a distant extension of the industrial revolution. Automation, Globalism and money manipulation have made it hard for many poor people to be self sufficient.
— christian2017
The industrial revolution was even worse then the middle ages. And that says something. It is one of the grimmest periods in human history. When someone talks about the success of western capitalism, I always think about the initial price that was paid - slavery in south US and children working to death in Great Britain. Nonetheless, times have changed for the better.

Regarding money manipulation, as I already said - this is abuse of an instrument. This is not an excuse for the misfortune it causes, but the balance will be judged differently depending on the person's situation. If you take a non-electural government scheme for central welfare distribution, the same issue arises, because you have to rely on correctly functioning meritocratic system of appointments to office, and if it fails, you have a different kind of monster.

Regarding globalism, I am not sure what you mean. Different people have different issues with it. Do you mean the introduction of cheap labor into countries with high economic standards, cultural infusions, price pressure from imports, etc. To be honest, I do think that some of those effects are indeed abusive in a very specific technical sense (which I don't want to elaborate right now). At the same time, in any competitive situation, the person who is willing to sacrifice the most defines the expected performance - there is no level playing field. This turns any competition into terror experience for the participants. But unfortunately, I believe that natural competition is required for unbiased evaluation of performance - anything else is a test of some kind of norm or preference, which is not an objective test.

The suicide and opiod abuse rate in the US is extremely high.
— christian2017
I cannot comment on that. Maybe the capitalism in the US is managed poorly compared to other countries indeed. Yet, I don't think that I have ever seen a statement that capitalistic countries have higher suicide and substance abuse factors in general.

I would argue many modern Americans have become very fierce in their outlook on life due to the fact that in some sense American devalue human life more than any other people in the past 2000 years. I believe the Medieval man very often acted as a coward because they enjoyed life more than we do.
— christian2017
Maybe, or maybe they didn't know any better. Notice the rebellion I outlined in my second reply. It hasn't ended well for the poor folk. — simeonz

I don't have a problem with most of what you said. I would like to point out that automation has caused many jobs to disappear. Believe it or not automation has even taken away software development jobs. Developing software 50 years ago believe it or not was more contingent on an understanding of discrete mathematics where as in this modern age it is surprisingly much more competitive and relies more on memorizing APIs.

As far a globalism goes, i would rather be tempted to buy a $200 dollar toaster made in my own country then a $8 dollar toaster made in china, given the fact that I would more likely be paid a living wage if i worked in a factory.

I believe people in America would be more happy with a better job and at the same time having less material possessions due to the cost of labor.

A good point to raise; However new Testament describes the sacrifice of christ for our souls and the power of sacrifice, redemption and renewal after one has metaphorically laid benediction upon themselves for their sins by martyring themselves upon a cross or heavy burden and finding salvation through rebirth and a love of contributing to the creation of god in ourselves and most importantly others.

Just my two cents really, but I will definitely respond to more of your detailed and thoughtful contributions as I read through them time allowing. — Mark Dennis

I agree that "Once Saved Always Saved". Since my assumption is that you are a christian i can't be accused of Evangelizing. 1st Corinthians chapter 3 says that all christians build on the foundation of Jesus Christ but our works will be tested with fire. Even though a christian is guaranteed salvation upon conversion there are in fact limited punishments or disciplinary action for the christian that does not adhere to the Bible. Sin is very serious but the Christian is guaranteed salvation.

Once again i am not evangelizing considering the fact that you are a Christian.

I read somewhere that the popularization of Christianity was helped by the public disaffection for the elitist ethics in the Greco-Roman polytheistic religions. The latter celebrated exceptional merit, exceptional heroism, exceptional strength, exceptional ancestry, which would not be perceived as relatable to the weakened and fearful enslaved and plebeian masses. Furthermore, the mythos of the ancient world was hard, punitive, and unforgiving. Christianity may have been partly embraced as a source of self-confidence for the people, affording space for their personal weaknesses and unequal social standing.

I also find it hard to accept the conservative argument, that revolutionary change should be avoided when possible, because of its destabilizing consequences, when the very religion around which they center their own narrative was among the most revolutionary cultural changes of its time and its region. This changed during the Middle ages when the aristocracy made religion their own prerogative again. (Probably this is also the period when Christianity became politically conservative.)

I am neither particularly left-leaning politically (in spirit maybe, but not as a political system), neither conventionally religious, but I am interested by this argument. — simeonz

I agree, but during the middle ages they did have monasteries which many poor families sent their children too. Many of the problems we have today are a distant extension of the industrial revolution. Automation, Globalism and money manipulation have made it hard for many poor people to be self sufficient. The suicide and opiod abuse rate in the US is extremely high.

I would argue many modern Americans have become very fierce in their outlook on life due to the fact that in some sense American devalue human life more than any other people in the past 2000 years. I believe the Medieval man very often acted as a coward because they enjoyed life more than we do.

After years of depression, i decided the next time it came to it, i would fight the shark.

#SharkFighterNation

land is scarce just as money is scarce (high school term "scarcity"). To embrace fiscal conservatism, the issue of subsidizing corn production must be assessed if we are going to get rid of food stamps.

A processed or unprocessed corn stipend can be given to chickens to produce a food product with vitamins and minerals. Animals very often produce vitamins and minerals from foods typically associated with Pellagra. A completely free market is a two way street.

I agree with that mostly except that money can be manipulated much easier then land, resources and services. However it is even possible to manipulate the relationships between people regarding land, resources and services. It just so happens money is much easier to manipulate. When a lawyer argues a case, much of how she influences the flow of the court case is not necessarily based on good intentions but in fact it is some times based on the way the law is written and how to properly conduct oneself in a court. Whence the term "legal fiction" (paraphrased from Noah Harrari's "Sapiens").

Many conservatives would justify getting rid of food stamps. If that became the reality then we would also have to address the corn subsidies.

I agree. I think if people understood that money is a legal fiction (Noah Harrari) they would be less angry over the issue of welfare.

"We should go back in time to answer the question of why corn became subsidized by the government. Like any other crop, corn has good years and bad years. The early 1800s brought a boom for U.S. corn farmers as they moved West for farmland. But this over-planting of land set the stage for the financial problem that came in the 1930s. The excess drove the price of corn so low that it was basically worthless, and the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl only made the situation worse. This is when the federal government decided to implement a subsidy on corn to stabilize the fluctuating prices."

The above is a fallacy. When the government subsidizes corn it raises the price of corn but at the same time allows the farmer not to have to grow as much and also gives the farmer an incentive not to cause the price to plummet. The above article was well orchestrated to fool the reader.

we have welfare. Considering corn production or agriculture is subsidized by the federal government and to some extent land is a scarcity (just as money is labeled scarce), it would be in accordance with a fair capital society to give people a processed or unprocessed corn stipend. We can't have it both ways.

I understand due to the lack of vitamins in corn it leads to pellagra. Corn can be fed to chickens and even some types of edible insects. This solution is also contigent on zoning laws that adhere to free market principles (drastically reduced zoning laws).

The puritans were calvinist and initially they embraced communism or what at their time was equivalent to first century christianity (prior to Marx). That initial economic system in massachusetts failed due to various reasons. Calvinism isn't always synonous with capitalism.

I believe if Christians embraced practical ways of making their neighbor's lives easier it would be very hard to tell whether a given society was fiscally conservative or on the other end socialist. Many people can argue about theology but as soon as a christian tries to argue their way out of following "turn the other cheek" many christians will throw the old testament at that person. Then the christian will say something like "we aren't under the old testament law". I don't doubt these christian's salvation but i believe based on the bible that there are very severe consequences for the christian who ignores both the old testament and the new testament. I'm not going to quote Bible verses because of forum rules.

Much of the old testament reiterates that the given set of people was corrupt "because they didn't strengthen the hand of the poor". There are in fact ways of strengthening the hand of the poor without imposing on the tax payer.

i agree.

Calculating the circumference of a circle to that extent is impossible because of the geometric limitations of a circle. A circle is essentially an idea that never actually took place.

I do see what you mean from the rest of what you said. If we don't know what the smallest particle that exists then we can't predict how the billiard balls are going to collide and thus we can't predict exactly what will happen on the billiards table.

Why have a philosophy forum without religion? If i did the same thing in reverse i can guarantee you the OP would be taken down.

i vote to end all discussions on post modernism. But i won't get what i want. I feel this post by the OP is trolling.

This should be a short thread that generates little controversy. The idea is to list as many differing kinds of existing/existence/existing things as we can think of. Part of the goal is to identify which things/classes of things may be reasonably said to exist, and also both to weed out unsupportable claims and to rule out "things" for which there is no direct evidence.

Now for some guidelines, all of which are tentative and offered to facilitate reasonable colloquy, and that are amendable for cause.

1) We need a word of convenience to refer to the what it is we shall be listing. The word "thing" irresistibly suggests itself. Being mindful that our usage will inevitably include reference to things not usually either called things or regarded as things - understanding the ambiguity - we adopt "thing" as being merely a pointer word, itself agnostic as to the thing referred to.

1a) Material existence shall be an absolute qualification for existence - the materiality, obviously, being demonstrable. If you might stub your toe on it, then it's difficult to see how it isn't.

2) It must seem as if a lot of things will be almost automatically included into the list of things that exist. The earth, a pencil, brick, chair, airplane, & etc. There's no need to list multiple individuals if they may all be entered as a class. And in this there may quickly emerge a taxonomy of sorts, of existing things. Classes of things, then, supersede individuals, they being included mutatis mutandis in the class.

3) It's possible that some contention may arise as to whether a candidate thing exists, which may include reference to the how of the existence claimed. For example, two, the number, may be claimed to exist, the question of how or in what form then arising. Platonists may claim that two has some super-sensible existence as a Platonic form. For present purpose all such, for inclusion in a listing of existing things, must be listed as ideas/mental constructs - the existence of two as an idea being self-evident, and any claim beyond that being no more than a claim. The test here being demonstrability, and the further from being self-evident the candidate being, the more rigorous the demonstration ought to be. Or in short, the thing either exists self-evidently (which may be subject to challenge), or some demonstration proves its existence, the proof based in self-evident propositions. No Voodoo, no woowoo.

I offer here what I think is an exhaustive listing (i.e., why it might be a short thread).

1) All material things.
2) All other things existing by reference, but not material, as ideas/mental constructs. — tim wood

thats fair. Pencils do in fact exist.

thats fair

Is there any need? You would do that only if you did not know the result. Howewer, God would know the result beforehand given that he knows all true propositions and "Agent A, under these conditions, will choose B." is definitely true or definitely false in a deterministic universe. — HereToDisscuss

boredom is my first guess. The common theological notion put forth is for the creator's glory.

Well, then the problem is that you do not really argue against people who think that scientific determinism or god or them taken together existing/being true means that we do not have free will but simply say that your spesific concept of free will is different. That does not really even have anything to do with God as your spesific concept of free will does exist irregardless of whetever the world is deterministic or indeterministic or agent-casual libertarianism is true. — HereToDisscuss

i think the Bible allows for the christian to have doubts about her faith. I believe it is expedient to be ever so slightly open to the possibility of any given concept to be true. My notion of scientific determinism could definitely be completely wrong. Some theologians would agree with me but that doesn't neccessarily have much merit.

Well, i would argue that it can't if that is the case, but there are compabitilists that would argue against it. Howewer, the problem is not merely that determinism is incompabitable with free will, but rather that, in your view, god determines the outcome by creating the set of affairs P that causes agent A to decide B over C and therefore "manipulates" the agent into choosing decisions. The agent has no choice over the matter, only God does. — HereToDisscuss

I believe the creator creates the dna or blue prints to be sub optimal, calculates the end starting from the beginning, but hopes before doing the calculation that the results will be somewhat decent. I believe the creator likes to test his/her creation just as a engineer tests her system or machine. Millions of sub optimal part interacting with millions of other sub optimal parts typically produces terrible results. But thats not exactly my problem.

why would you think i disagree with that? Did i ever claim i can predict the future? I can promise you i'm nothing like my supposed creator. At this point in time i see no problem with what you said.

Hypothetically, if simplicity evolves into complexity then humans could produce something more complicated then themselves. Thats what my logic circuits tell me.

The Jews probably don't hold to these premises either.

this premise you put forth isn't a main topic of theology in the Christian church. I would be surprised if some denomination did not believe this but none of these premises are Biblical to the extent that they could be held by all denominations. These sound like something written by a theologian going back to the enlightenment and more likely back to medieval times. The Bible certainly doesn't dictate these premises.

i would argue to be completely predictable does not mean something does not have a will of its own but maybe i'm not thinking about it the right way.

i guess you could say the creator creates a blue print (dna) and puts it under stress conditions to test the result. The actions we take our a product of nurture/nature or dna and lifetime events. I open to that we are not responsible for our actions. If we are not held accountable i would be fine with that.

Noah Harrari in "Sapiens" addresses this issue. I'm open to the concept you put forth.

Then, surely, the production of our decisions is not in our control since whetever we will decide one thing or not has been decided not by us, but rather by factors outside our control. The agent has no control over the production of a decision. To quote Derk Pereboom:
"If an agent is morally responsible for her deciding to perform an action, then the production of this decision must be something over which the agent has control, and an agent is not morally responsible for the decision if it is produced by a source over which she has no control." (the incompabitilist initution)
If such a thing is true, then all of our decisions are produced by a source which we have no control over. — HereToDisscuss

i understand completely why you would say that.

On the first part of your post, i would argue both new born babys and even bacteria as well as animals can make decisions. Those decisions however have little to no impact on the world.

Yes, but it moving it arms or it making noises is essentially a byproduct of primitive responses. It is like saying we choose to react to cute things in a particular way-we do not.
Also, whetever an agent change the world or not does not necessarily entail that the agent has free will or not. You can not be able to do otherwise and still have free will (from a compabitilist perspective, that is, in the basic desert sense)-whetever we have free will in regards to one action or not depends on how the decision was brought about. If, for example, you were told that you had to vote for one way in an election or you would be killed and you did it because you were going to vote for it anyways, you still "freely" choose the action-you deserve blame or praise for it (if, for example, you choose a tyrant, you deserve blame for it, if you choose someone against a tyrant, you deserve praise). — HereToDisscuss

Yeah as to the rest of what you said, that is for the most part true. I guess the point i'm making is that the human brain is like a billiards table of particles and those particles are effected by events that occurred billions of years ago.

How is a new born baby's movement primitive or should i say what do you mean by that? I'm sure you would agree the new born baby feels pain as well as positive feelings?

it can move its arms, make noises but its decisions to change the world are extremely limited. It does have free will its just its ability make an impact on what happens in the world is extremely limited. In my opinion it does have free will in some sense.

Basically our free will has no more depth than a new born infant. I'm not sure i could say otherwise.