I only tried to explain that Brazil (despite all the negative characteristics you put over Portugal) is not an indigenous concept but Portuguese. I was speaking about etymology.
If you want from me to recognise how bloody my country is I would say yes. You are right. Spain has committed a lot of bad stuff around America but this is another different topic and I think we already discussed this issue at the "shoutbox"
If you want to me to say sorry I will not do it. Because the "genocide" was perpetrated by landlords and vassals of the king. My family (and the most part of Spanish families) were not involved in such stuff.
"Spain" is a concept created by Romans too. I guess I should find some responsibilities to the Italians. Italy bad and bloody for making disappear the Iberians.

That's the whole point Javi. — universeness

Thanks for understanding me, friend.
:up: :sparkle:

Javi or readers will think you have lost your way. — universeness

They already believe I completely lost my way... :sparkle:

Are there no native Americans because that place became named after a mapmaker? — universeness

I didn't say that. I said that "Brazil" is a state created due to the independence from Portugal.
Before Portuguese galleons arrived to America, there were living indigenous people but that specific territory wasn't named as "Brazil" until the Portuguese conquerors decided to put this name.

"Magical thinking" is just a superstitious thought with a type of fallacious thinking and is a common source of invalid causal inferences: PSYCHEDELIC DRUGS, MAGICAL THINKING AND PSYCHOSIS .
Drives to religiousity? I think no. Whenever someone experiences a superstition they tend to attach it to religion because they were taught a religious education, so that's the only manner to explain the "unknown" for those.
Imagine being born and raised by atheist family. It would be impossible to be superstitious and if "Magical thinking" ever happens it would be explained as a oneiric trip, but not related to "God" and "Bible" and such doctrinal stuff.

The OP said that we cannot deny the religiousity of our ancestors. That's a fallacy. Religion has not existed forever or everywhere.

:sparkle: :up:
We all learn something new everyday here!

No, I guess you already know I am Spanish! :eyes:

:lol: :100:

I am not satirizing anything.

Don't you mean, learn the language of those who conquered the native peoples of Brazil in the 15th century? — universeness

There weren’t native peoples of Brazil because “Brazil” is a creation of Portugal and the only official language of Brazil is Portuguese. The rest are just spoken languages.

self-proclaimed political critics and foreign pseudo-philosophers — Gus Lamarch

Aren’t we all?

So no matter how much you or your society reject God, you are still influenced by the genes of religious ancestors. — Michael McMahon

Disagree. Being religious is not inherited in our DNA. It is a way of life chosen by some believers. Despite there are millions of persons who believe in God, there are also an important community of atheists. So, it is impossible that my genes are influenced by religious affairs. What about the families who are raised by agnostic parents and randomly their child ends up being Christian? That's would be interesting but it could show that religion is a choice and it is not a natural behaviour.

Would you put yourself in heaven if you could externally assess your past life once you had died? — Michael McMahon

Yes, why not? I am not scared of being judged by "heaven"

If your mind expanded after you died, would you be able to excuse your past crimes as "work"?! — Michael McMahon

What do you consider as "past crimes"? Are you taking about sins or what?

The mere fact that other people wholeheartedly endorsed Him meant that He must have been more confident in identifying such "hallucinations". This meant that He may have literally created an entire world of His own by cementing His "dreams". — Michael McMahon

I don't see it as a "cause and effect" argument. I mean, it seems that you see it as fact that God does exist because Jesus (the prophet) has a lot of believers who follow his "idea" of God's existence. So, according to your arguments, the cause is the confidence of Jesus and the cause all the believers of God in the world.
But you are missing an important point: faith. Believe or not believe in God depends on faith. It is not necessary to explain why Jesus has a lot of unconditional followers/believers. Those persons follow both Jesus and God because they just believe in them. I am not sure if they put reasonable arguments to explain why they "follow" such doctrines.

For example we can see how complex Middle Earth is from JRR Tolkien and the author didn't even have anyone praying to him — Michael McMahon

I don't understand this example but I must admit it made me laugh :rofl:

I respect your soliloquy, but this stunned me:

One core difference between Jesus and a deluded patient is that Jesus had lots of people praying to Him. — Michael McMahon

Explain.

What if I do not pray to Jesus? Am I a deluded patient too?

No— and who knows what Bolsonaro is going to do. He’s yet to concede. — Mikie

He has militarized important regions of the country in the past years. I am not doubt he would be ready Coup d'état.

That's not veganism. Not all Indians are practicing Hindus, any more than all Americans are all devout Christians; not all Indians are vegetarian, anymore than all Americans are tooth-and-claw carnivores, and not all vegetarians are vegan. — Vera Mont

I didn't say all Indians were Hindus but the fact that Indian gastronomy is based on vegetables, rice, spices, etc... So they are closer of being vegetarians rather than other cultures where the consumption of meat is pretty high.

I did a quick research on Indian gastronomy and I found out this: Indian cuisine consists of a variety of regional and traditional cuisines native to India. Given the diversity in soil, climate, culture, ethnic groups, and occupations, these cuisines vary substantially and use locally available spices, herbs, vegetables, and fruits.
Some Hindu communities consider beef taboo since they believed that Hindu scriptures condemn cow slaughter. Cow slaughter has been banned in many states of India. However, these restrictions are not followed in the North-Eastern states, West Bengal and Kerala. Vaishnavism followers generally are strict lacto-vegetarians due to an emphasis on Ahimsa. They also do not consume garlic and onions.
Jains follow a strict form of lacto-vegetarianism, known as Jain vegetarianism, which in addition to being completely lacto-vegetarian, also excludes all root vegetables such as carrots and potatoes because when the root is pulled up, organisms that live around the root also die.
Muslims do not eat pork or pork products.
Except in certain North-Eastern regions, canines are not considered suitable for consumption

What we can do instead, or in the meantime, is eat a vegetarian diet, and if necessary, add in whatever mineral, vitamin or amino acid may be insufficient. The Hindu population of India has managed to keep up its numbers, in spite of wars, foreign occupation and droughts, for a few thousand years with no pills at all. — Vera Mont

Agreed. But it is not the same having a controlled vegetarian diet as they tend to use in India than using chemicals substitutes. At least, when you consume only vegetables you are feeding yourself with real food. That's the point I want to make. If you do not want to eat animals I respect it but I am not agree with substitute them with pills or tablets.
In the other hand, while India is a good example of veganism they also consume animals as chickens.

What I try to say is that we cannot replace the proteins of animals with chemistry or technological stuff. I am agree those tablets or pills are full of vitamins, proteins, energy, etc... but they are just a "substitute"

And if a cow or plant for that matter, are not made of the same chemicals as I am what's the point in eating them? — Benj96

You would not be able to eat them because it would be dangerous to our organism

I see your point and I am partially agree. It is true that thanks to chemistry some scientists developed important tablets full of nutrients which can (more or less...) replace organic food as meat.
But after reading your arguments, I think you still defend that we consume animals just for fun or greed. Like we don't replace them with tablets or pills because we are assassins. It is more complex than we are debating here and I think it is not possible at all to completely substitute the nutrients of animals with some chemical stuff. They help us, for real but they are far of being a "real" steak.

We have the technology to substitute all the nutrients we don't get from our diet - and a whole lot more that we don't need at all - — Vera Mont

That's like cheating yourself. You are not being fed with the real nutrients. I respect the technology and pharmaceutical products to help us to get a better life. Nevertheless, those tablets never will be a real substitute of a bistec.

Yet our moral and legal codes do not distinguish different kinds of animal-slaughter by motive, only by species. — Vera Mont

Because they all have the same motive: feed the humans. It is not about being moral/legal but an action of survival. If you do not feed yourself with meat you would lose proteins and then you will get sick. I see simplistic but that’s how the world works. If someone tells you that is possible to live without cattle raising, he is lying.

Of course you would be aware. All primitive hunters who kill to survive are aware, as are sport hunters who do it for fun. But, in real life, how often do you really have to choose between killing and starvation? — Vera Mont

But that’s a different example. It is not the same being a primitive hunters than defending myself of an attack. If I kill an animal because I want to eat it, I am acting with premeditation, so yes I am totally aware about my own actions. Nevertheless, when I must make a choice in seconds related to survive or die I wouldn’t know If I would be aware at all. As I said, it is a reflex action not based on full awareness.

Yes, there are animals that can be trained because is beneficial for all the parts. But the cases are only a few and even there are some dog breeds who are violent by nature like pitbull or American standford. These dogs need a very rigid training to calm them down.
Another example: cows, bulls, lambs, etc… all of them depend on us because we have managed their nature and development for centuries.

well wouldn't you kill X animal who might kill you? — schopenhauer1

I would defend myself because my natural instinct of survival says me to kill X animal to keep alive. It is like a reflex action and I am not sure if I would be "aware" of my own actions of killing an animal just for surviving.

Extreme vegans that killing a spider and a cow are on the same level, have no nuance in context and perhaps reality. — schopenhauer1

I am agree. It is true that vegans forget the basic notion that we need to "kill" cows or pigs because it is needed to get feed. We don't do it because of lust.

So if a mentally ill person comes at me with a knife and I harm him in self-defense, seems an obvious case of self-defense. Same with an animal who comes at me or even unintentionally is very harmful to me (like the schizophrenic attacking me). — schopenhauer1

Yes, completely. But the schizophrenic person is mentally ill, so I think he derserves a more "neutral" trial if you put a lawsuit on him. He needs being supervised by psychologists or professionals. I mean he is not a normal person with ordinary capacities and then, he should not be convicted as a killer or criminal but as a sick man.

We are the only animal that knows what we are doing while we are doing it. Existence is prior to essence. Saying we have an essence that is natural predators in that case is putting cart before horse. We can be what we want to be. — schopenhauer1

Interesting arguments. I am not really sure if every human knows what is he doing when he is doing it because there are exceptional cases. For example: a schizophrenic doesn't distinguish between reality and his "world". Then, when a mental sick person commits a crime, probably he was not really aware about what he was doing.
I even think that there animals who are more aware of their actions than some humans.

"Top Cat?" We call it Don Gato in Spain :sweat:

I appreciate you starting a new thread with a more respectful name. — T Clark

@Baden

:up: :sparkle:

I am agree with Clark. Thanks for taking the unbiased solution. I think all the sides win here.

That's why the unique sunset is so beautiful, because it encompasses the entire field of view. — Metaphysician Undercover

:up: :sparkle:

I think you need to be careful though to distinguish between living and dying. The transitoriness which you refer to is a property of living. It is not a property of death, because having been forced into the past (death) is permanent. Dying is the process whereby the permanent overcomes the transitory. — Metaphysician Undercover

Interesting thought. It is true I wasn't clear about the distinction between living and dying. I only want to add to your argument that I see "transitoriness" as a horizontal line where the "staring point" is born and the end could be death.
(If we consider death as the pure emptiness. I mean, there will be nothing afterwards)

I stand by my remark that Mann "confuses time with change" and his anthropocentric notion of "transitoriness as distinctly human" is the result — 180 Proof

I think we should remark the context of why Mann used the concept of "transitoriness". This debate started when he wrote some letters to another amazing writer: Herman Hesse. Sadly, we don't know why they were discussing about past, present, future, death, etc... (my guess is they were just discussing as good philosophers do) because we only have some extracts of the correspondence.
I am not sure if we have to consider that Mann is "wrong" because those words about time only come from a basic conversation. I guess he tried to explain that a great "concern" of humans is the pass of time. Maybe he was thinking in a literature view, not philosophical or metaphysical.
Mann was also an acquaintance of Einstein. It could be possible the big influence on Mann about the concept of Einstein about the relativistic time-dilation.

The phrase "self-realization of time" still remains as opague as before ... — 180 Proof

It is metaphysical and I understand that is opened to a lot of interpretations. It remembers me when we debated some months ago about "whether the things exist or not" or "what does real mean?" Etc...
Beyond of debating about the concept I still remark that homo sapiens sapiens has some "self realization" of abstract things: past, present of future. Emptiness and fullness. Born and death, etc...
Despite those are opague concepts we still debate about because we have "self-realization" that they are around us.

The concept of time has always been a subject of philosophical debate. We are discussing about Thomas Mann's notion but you also quoted others authors as Proust or Bergson. I also remember from Kant a good quote to point out: Time travel is impossible because time is only empirically real and does not exist independently among things in themselves.

I understand that there can be a lot of perspectives to understand Kant’s metaphysics but I believe Kantian thoughts on time influenced on Mann's. Time only exists in human knowledge because we literally created to put an "order" to our circumstances and significance. That's why we are the only species of the earth who have self-realization of "transitoriness".

I do not disagree with the fact that animals are aware when the death is near to them. It is a natural instinct and they tend to be prepared for the "last days" of their existence. A dog, cat, elephant, horse, etc... is aware when it becomes old? Yes, absolutely.

I have read the article on animal grief and it says an interesting thing: In September of 2010 off San Juan Island, Washington, people watched as a killer whale pushing a dead newborn for six hours. If this whale understood death purely rationally, she should just leave it. But humans don’t simply leave dead babies either. For us there is a concept of death, but also a feeling of grief. Our bonds are strong. We don’t want to let go. Their bonds, too, are strong. Perhaps they, too, don’t want to let go.
I am completely agree. Who doubts on this principle? Of course animals tend to grief. The same way we do.

But this is not related with the measurement of time. That's only a pure human concept. A dog is not aware if it is four or eight years old or when it is the "birthday" because these concepts where created by humans. For example: I doubt that my dog is aware that we are in 2022. I respect her intelligence but I don't think if my dog is truly aware about the "passing of the years"
That's why I am agree with Thomas Mann in the sense that the "self-realization" of time passing by is a distinctive between humans and animals.

Therefore, I don’t see how the title of the merged thread can be viewed as anything other than demeaning/insulting. I mean, what other reason is there to choose not to name it something generic like “Antinatalist Arguments” or some other benign title. Should pro-natalist threads be merged into a “Life is Awesome!” thread? — Pinprick

:100: :sparkle:

Good examples but all of them are animal's acts which come from the wild or survival. The cat collected the kittens in a hiding spot because her animal instinct pursued the aim of survive at all costs.
We reached another important difference between animals and humans. The will of survive. An animal is not able to kill himself because his instinct prevent him to do such act. Nevertheless, humans have a big problem with suicide.

It is off topic and I am aware that suicide has many causes and it depends on each individual. But I am sure that self-realization of passing the time/life is determinant.

To be at the present, to live, to exist, requires effort. — Metaphysician Undercover

:up: :sparkle:

So effort is best placed, not in attempting to extend one's time at the present, indefinitely, as this is futile. Effort is best placed in doing something spectacular in a very brief moment of being at the present. So we sense the most beautiful things as occurring in the most brief periods of time, like the flowers, music, and all our moments of joy, which are but a flash in the pan, so to speak. — Metaphysician Undercover

There are authors who have written books or novels about fleeting of life or moments. One of the aspects I am agree with them the most is the fact that ephemeral is beautiful. I mean, if we consider a nettle as “pretty” is not due to their physical appearance but the brief of the moment where the flower grows up and then withers. This “transitoriness” is another perspective of how we see death. Instead of being a taboo topic, it can be understood in an artistic portrayal. It sounds so poetic, doesn’t it?

I am peaceful but not pacifist, when threat is in my face. I am not non-violent or non-confrontational.I am eclectic in many ways, but I also have my 'main drivers.' — universeness

I see your point and I respect it and even agree with it. I don't recall having a serious discussion with you at all (furthermore, when we debated about the role of Spanish/British Empire in the world but that's fluffy political stuff... not personal disagreements)
That's what I was surprised because I don't remember you to get involved in discussions with other members. But now I see your point: it is good and practical to avoid conflict situations when the threat is approaching.

I agree, if the discussion is about pessimism and its phenomena as a human mind-set but not if it's just being used to camouflage antinatalism and it was already stated as TPF policy that all antinatalism threads would be placed under the 'life sucks' thread. That's where the antinatalism podium exists, no matter how some members try to camouflage it. I for one support that policy. — universeness

Wow this completely lost my mind! I promise these members created the threads on pessimism to specifically speak only about it. But it turned out to be a simple camouflage to still debating on antinatalism!
We are surrounded by ninjas :eyes:

You words relay a sense that you are disappointed in me Javi. This bites a little, considering your recent compliment towards me in another thread. I hope your disappointment does not run too deep. — universeness

Nah, I am not disappointed at all. I am surprised because I consider you a normal/eclectic member in this site. I mean, I see you as a peaceful person not someone who wants to complain with the mods through PM.

I understand the cause of lump anti-natalism together because there are a lot of them. But this could be a negative act towards the originality of some users. There are some members who like to debate about pessimism and it is ok. As much as I love to debate about Mishima or Japanese culture (for example) and it would be disappointing if my threads end up here because it would probably lost the nature or purpose of my debate.

Wasn't Banno, was me. I sent a PM asking about the TPF policy to keep all anti-life threads within one thread. Seems they agreed that was their policy. You should be — universeness

I never thought it would be you the architect of lump the threads together :eyes:

You can post all your pessimistic musings here, what's wrong with that? — universeness

I see what you mean but it could be negative because some users would not have motivation if their OP end up in a generic thread. For example: imagine you start an interesting thread about the UK elections and it ends up at "Brexit thread" or "Currently PM thread" etc...

It's my experience of the past that has changed. — T Clark

I see what do you mean now :up:

He can speak of "transitoriness" because that is his nature, our nature. But that's all he can speak of. — L'éléphant

:up:

I only want to add the important fact of self-awareness of this nature. Thomas Mann tried to explain that the main difference between humans and other species is realization of change due to the pass of time. I mean (and try to guess too) that a dog or a cat is not aware of something that complex as "transitoriness".
It remembers me when some philosophers tried to make another distinction using the arguments of emotion. For example Schopenhauer's essays on weeping and suffering.

That's not nostalgia. No longing for or regrets about the past. It's almost as if there's no past at all. — T Clark

Interesting perspective. I am not sure if I am aware about the possibility of denying the existence of my past at all because it created myself in the present and how I will be in the future. So past is there. I guess you are trying to say to me that is possible to "get over it" and not being stuck in the past endlessly. Another important characteristic of the transition of our lives. Every has an end, so the past too.