:sparkle: :clap: :sparkle:

I've known supreme happiness, and I'm not greedy enough to want what I have to go on forever. Every dream ends. Wouldn't it be foolish, knowing that nothing lasts forever, to insist that one has a right to do something that does?
[...]but, if eternity existed, it would be this moment

- Mishima.

I would like to talk about Sun and Steel; and The Way of Samurai, both of Yukio Mishima.

...But I am aware that most you do not like samurai philosophy :death:

All the doctors and nurses opposed to community masking and mandatory vaccines were boringly grumbling into their coffees in the break room. Losers. — Isaac

:rofl: :100:

I tried googling Vogel's paradox. Null result — Agent Smith

Try ChatGPT on Vogel's paradox!

One of the "Covid moments" I hated the most. Why were they doing these things? It is unfunny and it looks like they were joking in pandemic and covid deaths.

I'm just lookin' for a good reason to identify one substratum as primary among many when they're all interchangeable — Agent Smith

Well, you can identify the substratum as primary depending on what you consider as primary quality or the "beginning" of everything. What I mean is that is up to you. For example, I would choose Thales's water arche because without this substratum is impossible to survive.

You're thinking of civil rights — frank

I think civil rights would fall under legal rights. — NOS4A2

Natural rights are believed to transcend any government: — frank

The notion of rights is blur. A vicious discourse is always encouraged to promulgate laws without any limitation. Falsely, many people tend to think that more laws on civil rights, more democratic the state. When it is based in other criteria: Obligations and responsibilities.
To be honest, the only real "natural right" is private property and even it is controlled and kidnapped by gubernamental interests.

Sometimes, I think the law makers tend to rule fraudulently with the basic aim to keep us in their selfishness. But hey, look at how many "rights" we have while the government forces me to pay taxes just because I hold a basic ownership.

Are you asking that in the context of your OP saying it is pointless to look for an origin? — Paine

I thought the same... but it looks like that we are convincing @Agent Smith to think otherwise!

Rather than axioms, they are universal affirmative principles of understanding.

All 3: first substratum, first cause, first axiom — Agent Smith

:up:

What exactly are you being distracted from that you don't want to be distracted from?

Mass media power of influence.

And apart from I guess France and the Benelux countries, every goddam EU memberstate feels being apart from the EU core. Germany has it's own problems in the closet, for Spain and Portugal Brussel's is far away, so is this for the other Southern European countries, the East European countries and the Nordic members of EU. Us versus Brussells is an universal attitude, not something just in the English mind. — ssu

:up:

It is true that thanks to Pedro Sánchez, Spain has been in the core of Brussels’s interests or at least more visible. Nonetheless, we are aware that we are not so important as much as France. But it is better being in the club than outside. We accept that thanks to EU, Spain experienced a big development and I am thankful, even I wish EU organisms control us rigorously because our politicians tend to be corrupt, inefficient and incompetent (at least, more than the rest)

I think most people believe in god because they are brought up with the idea - evidence and faith are post hoc. — Tom Storm

:up:

Children are taught there is a god and the notion becomes absorbed as part of their socialisation and enculturation. — Tom Storm

Paradoxically, we have here an act of empiricism because the children who were taught a basic notion of God, probably they wouldn't be aware about what is God or what is the cause of "believing" otherwise.

You're much more likely to have an experience of a particular God as an adult if you are properly primed from birth. — Tom Storm

Then, soon or later, they need a "proof" of God's existence and here is when the dilemma starts: do they believe in God because of blind faith? ... or do they need an empirical evidence?

I am not aware if there are different states of each other. Yet, I really think that we have to choose the arche from the available options because of they are considered as basic point of logic. It is true that they seem to be "primitive" but not less important.

and to identify one as the arche would be pointless and yet, the Greeks, for some reason, thought it necessary to find the arche. Quare? — Agent Smith

I still think it is necessary to find the Arche and I am disagree with being pointless. Aristotelian logic was founded on these basic pillars. Accroding to Aristotle there is a principia prima. Thus, the first principles of demonstration. One of the interesting points of Arche is the fact that, according to Aristotle, those not need to be proven because they are already "first principles"(principia prima) and self-evident (they are known to be true simply by understanding them). So, I guess Thales or Heraclitus saw water and fire as basic principles of logic to understand everything around us.

In the other hand, Kant says: synthetic a priori propositions are first principles of demonstration but are not self-evident. Yet, the debate starts in these premises again and over again etc...

A Deuteronomy of Kant-Friesian Metaphysics

When the Neo-Kantians, or Hegel, eliminated things in themselves, the result was directly, starkly, and unambiguously solipsism. Hegel avoided that only by making consciousness collective and universal, an "Over Mind," the "Absolute Idea," in which individual existence dissolves like sugar in coffee.
The sticking point is the conclusion that Kant's theory forces upon us, that the "real things" of the world are both external objects and the internal contents of consciousness.

...says roughly that beliefs are either based on empirical evidence or faith, setting up a false dilemma. — Banno

False? Belief is defined as: the feeling of being certain that something exists or is true, and the page puts a good example related to this topic: His belief in God gave him hope during difficult times. Belief - Cambridge Dictionary

Rather than being a false dilemma it is a deep debate on the identity of the believers tend to have. They - sometimes - experience crisis of faith when questioning the existence of God because of beliefs are not a solid evidence of existence… and that’s why some thought as empirical evidence arises.

If beliefs are not based on faith or empirical evidence, what is the main root? :chin:

And "empirical evidence" suggests that the universe did indeed have a beginning. The example of quantum fluctuation is a case in point, not in contrast. — Banno

But we are questioning the evidence of God’s existence not the universe itself or its beginning

A better argument against there being a good god who intervenes in the world is to look around at how bad a job he is doing. — Banno

Kierkegaard’s existentialism :grin:

Top Ten TV series??? — 180 Proof

1. Breaking Bad
2. Weeds
3. City on a hill
4. Better call Saul
5. The Makanai: Cooking for the Maiko House
6. Stranger
7. Social experiment Lain
8. Death Note
9. Neon Genesis Evangelion
10. Inuyasha

You are not mistaken and I am aware of what is the role of WHO towards facing an epidemic. But I wasn't balming the WHO, or European Medicines Agency, FDA, etc...
Those are institutions where many professional scientists work and their resolutions or recommendations are important to follow.

My claims were against the ministeries, governments, prime ministers, or whatever depends on political parties. Probably, I am mistaken, but as much as I remember, I cannot recall a government doing a clever plan against Covid.
I guess Australia was one of the effecientest when they locked down all their frontiers, for example.

I believe reparations are owed to the descendants of slaves, for example, from the institutions that profited from stolen people and labor. — NOS4A2

What if those institutions no longer exist? Many enterprises which profited thanks to slavery ended up in bankbankruptcy due to the abolishment of such activities.
In the other hand, I guess it would be difficult to "satisfy" those descendants, because how we economically measure stolen labor and persons? There will be people and "collectives" who would never felt satisfied, whatever the amount of money perceived. Maybe a solution can only be accepted by a symbolic act, like: "I am sorry for what our ascendants did in the past"

:up:

I am agree with your arguments and I would like to add another point if you do not mind

A vast number of citizens have a poor idea of the meaning of justice. They only want it if fits their personal interests, when the latter is clearly a selfish act. It is a big paradox the people who are asking to "repair" past problems (such as colonialism) would be probably the ones who would have been the worst in the other part in the balance! None state is out of being "guilty" past and those who romantize past civilizations only live in fantasy worlds or they are just hypocrite liars.

Good morning all.

Some countries and regions may have specific policies or recommendations in place. As always, follow the guidance provided by your country or local health department or ministry. — EricH

This was the main problem and the worst thing to do because it created two extreme scenarios: Countries with ministries which were obsessed with pandemic and we were in the risk of being treated as a criminal just for not wearing a mask or countries where the state gave zero attention or interest (like Brazil) and many citizens died in the streets.
Conclusion: The world was not ready for such complex scenario and most of the countries were just improvising.

For vulnerable people like the elderly and chronically ill, it makes sense to keep wearing them. For everyone else, probably not. — frank

:up:

That's true but the main problem (I guess) is not about the scientific research or the probabilities in infecting of coronavirus with/without mask wearing, but how the governments (at least in my country) lack of effectiveness. As you pointed out, this is about outcomes for those who contracted the disease, but the minister of health didn't even make a difference and we kept the wearing maks mandatory until today.
Why? Because is easier to rule with general plans rather than specific solutions.

Exactly.

I remember when the pandemic was in its hardest moment, the accusations against people who were against the decisions of the politicians or they simply had a different opinion or argument towards the "plan" of facing Covid. If you weren't part of the "mass" they treated you as a criminal.

Interesting fact (and I don't want to bore you): our constitutional court ruled that our government was against both Constitution and the rest of laws because of the way they were facing the pandemic. They promoted laws avoiding the free access to different regions and even some politicians didn't had the right to go to Congress. Randomly, our government decided to act so badly and it looked like a dictatorship. Fortunately, this happened years ago and now I see it far away...

:up:

Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza/SARS‐CoV‐2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence).

We all were agreed in this point but you know, politicians tend to be stubborn and egocentric. They lasted three years to admit that wearing masks in the public transport is worthless...
They are happy living in their lies and fantasy worlds, while the rest of us were tired of wearing masks :mask:

It is official: we no longer have to wear masks in public transport after three years since this pandemic started!

No more masks on public transport in Spain from February 8.

The Minister of Health Carolina Darias confirmed today that the requirement to use masks on public transport was no longer necessary from Wednesday, February 8.
The change means that from tomorrow no masks will need to be worn on aeroplanes, buses and trains although everyone retains the right to do so. Masks, however, remain mandatory in health centres, hospitals and pharmacies.

I don't know about other European countries. — Vera Mont

Our minimum income is (rounding) around 1.100€ per month and that's the amount which is paid of larger group of workers but others are perceiving even less (rounding 795 and 900 € per month, which is an overall, more or less, 16K € per year).
Taking into account this social context, pur government established an "universal" healthcare system for everyone, not making a distinction between salaries. Some says is unfair because the richest are using a system while they are not paying so much taxes for. Others say that is cool to have that kind of access because otherwise it would be impossible for a large number of the population (and that's true) to get basic healthcare.
Yet, one of the main issues of this system, is the lack of investment by policies. This led a situation where people decide to opt for private insurance and public health-care is dying... a failure of the state indeed.

Japan — Vera Mont

Japanese system works so similar as you expressed in your last post.

In real life, hardly at all! The richest people in the world are taxed the least, and constrained the least by government regulation. — Vera Mont

True. One of the main problems inside the management of the societies is the big inequity among rich and poor classes. Nonetheless, it should not be a problem for the middle classes if the state is effective enough. Maybe this can only exist in dreams or my chipping head, but a good scenario could be the following one: The richest use private insurances and the poorest perceive the help of the state and social healthcare. I know it is difficult to achieve but that's how an equity society looks like

Your arguments are so interesting. I haven't been aware of an important point that you proposed: Who is worthy to receive organs?
I am trying to answer with a detailed response but this dilemma reminds me of taxation debate. It is accepted and ruled by modern societies that state's or social care support should depend on the effort of each contributor. It is just one of the basics principles to reach equity. If I pay a considerable amount of taxes, I have the right to "get recognized" in the future. So, I guess, the "queue" of organs receivers should depend in such basic taxation rule or [logic] law. Nonetheless, I am aware that is not an easy practice. There are a lot of debates among political theories which swing between paying more or less taxes and there are people who don't see public expenditure worthy at all.

Yet, in my humble opinion, it still be a equitable system to guarantee who is worthy to receive the organs.

But then, taking vital organs out of one person to save another from the same god's will to end his life, or using surrogates to thwart god's sentencing of a woman to sterility, was not in "our" culture until quite recently, and now we're comfortable with both. Logic follows: if it can be done, it can be legally mandated. — Vera Mont

It is true, but it is not a general topic and we have to look at each country's regulation or law system. Taking vital organs is forbidden in some states where the rule of law is based in pure religious practices such as Sariah.
We are comfortable with those acts because it is a good practice for some people. If we take a liver to help a sick person you will make him to live better or at least easier life.
It is not even close to cut up a person to eat him later on... it is lascivious and only a psychopath wants so anxiously to do so.

what am I missing then? If you can explain me, I would be so much appreciated.

but are especially Hollywood films become worse? — ssu

Exactly, and as you pointed out most of the users didn't type a film of the 2010's. I think the decline of cultural cinema is based on two important factors:

1. The youngest generations are not open to culture as old days and even the basic concept of art has diminished in the past decades. It looks like that we call art or culture to everything and this only leads to films with zero effort where the people only wants to see trivial scenes such as relationships, abusive sexual dialogues, violence, etc...
Note: I am sorry for being a millennial and I assume part of the responsibility of my weak generation. For example: I don't know anyone of my age who watched Yojimbo or had read Yukio Mishima, for example.

2. In the other hand, the money is now invested in Netflix or HBO series and other digital platforms. If you check the "top 10 series of this month" you would see that most of them are trivial or related to mafia or violence with zero clue or arguments...

Does the observer have to be conscious or are there non-living "observers"? — Agent Smith

First of all, why do you engage consciousness with living/non-living? There are livings who are not observes because they are not aware of anything. So, being alive does not imply being observer if I am not conscious enough around my scenario of reality, mind, ideas, persons, etc...

For example: A living dog is not conscious of metaphysical and philosophical enquiries, but at the same time, he is a living animal...

True. So, then, it's okay to cut up dead brain-people and package them to sell for meat? — Vera Mont

We reject cannibalism because it is not part of our "culture" and social norms. It is bad seen a human being eaten by another, but we already accepted the huge and savagely proportion of eaten meat of animals... just wait for it. Soon or later, those resources will be scarce and we'd need to eat humans and switch our culture and way of seeing things.
Conclusion of what I try to explain: nowadays is filthy and unethical to cut up a human to eat, but who knows what the future holds...

Philosophy struggles to define its own field and methodology [...] There is a version of the history of philosophy that identifies it as the chaotic starting-point of all other disciplines, which have spun off from it as they have developed through the chaotic discussions of philosophers. — Ludwig V

Perhaps, philosophy struggles to defines its own methodology because one of the main causes of this discipline is to be critical against methods used in previous academias or groups. Despite the fact that there were been many philosophers among all Western world, I think most of the doctrines and theories root from the same starting point: Ancient Greece.

If we look at Asian philosophy or culture, the scheme switches. It is different the disciplines of Confucianism and Daoism because these have as a cause the aim of pursuing wisdom and connection with nature. We will not see discussions on the verses of Tao Te Ching but just interpretations to get the meaning of our lives.

I don't want to diminish the great value of Western philosophy but I always wished I had more clear concepts and information about buddishm or the Analects of Confucius.

For example, people, some, are no longer interested in truth, they just wanna be happy. — Agent Smith

They decided a fake happiness avoiding reality or truth. Like when a drug addict consume narcotics because he is engage to the "fantasies" or "trips" that the drugs provide to him. Paradoxically, he wants to avoid truth but at the same time is addicted to an artificial lie :chin:

Who's even heard of him? — Banno

I have never heard about him either, but that's one of the main causes of this forum: to learn something new everyday. So, I did a research on what was the papers of R.M. Hare and I found interesting information: https://encyclopaedia.herdereditorial.com/wiki/Prescriptivismo

To analyze moral statements, Hare distinguishes the phrastic part and the neustic part. The first (phrastikon, from the Greek "to point") reflects the content of the statement, or what someone says; the second (neustikon, from the Greek "to nod one'), the position that the speaker advocates before said content, or the use he makes of the meaning of the statement. Thus, for example, "thou shalt not kill" can be broken down into his fastical, "men do not kill their fellowmen," and in his neustic, "and this is the conduct which I earnestly exhort you to put into practice."

I fear that doesn't work. Why is happiness good? — Agent Smith

Happiness does not depend on "good" or "bad". It is not a virtue but an objective. Aristotle claimed that happiness is a state of mind that every person aspire to achieve, because (and he was so right in his arguments) it is the main engine which makes the people to make and elaborate objectives, dreams, things, etc...