Yes, but referring to an entity which is made by parts and acts thanks to them.
If you check the universe there are tons of entities with no parts which can interact and affect themselves directly. Stars are the main example and the sun is one of the biggest stars

Yes, but his own parts. The sun acts and affects directly itself.

Can a unity act on itself EDIT: directly? — Daniel

Yes. There are some examples inside astronomy.

Sun: Every second, the Sun's core fuses about 600 million tons of hydrogen into helium, and in the process converts 4 million tons of matter into energy. The central mass became so hot and dense that it eventually initiated nuclear fusion in its core. It is thought that almost all stars form by this process.

:up: :100:

The second point says: in a political context the one I was referring to since the beginning) favouring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional ideas.
Similar:
right-wing
reactionary
traditionalist
unprogressive
establishmentarian

, I would call that conservative. — Tate

I disagree. I think you are misunderstanding conservative with tradionalism. Conservatives tend to be related to capitalism, free market, liberalism, etc...
Anyway I still think those characteristics do not fit in a state like Saudi Arabia. As I said they are just feudal

Is this the kind of conservative climate you were talking about? — Tate

Saudi Arabia lives in a feudal system ruled by families. They do not know anything about conservatives, lefties, trade workers, representatives, seats, etc... or what we see as "normal democracies" in our world

BANno! — universeness

Dad jokes :rofl: :eyes:

As Plato might say: "opinions" (doxa) are the currency of sophists that, like Monopoly money, doesn't cash out at the supermarket or in philosophy. Aporia are, after all, coins of the realm (agora): — 180 Proof

:up: :100:

Well, the nature of a genocide is the mass death of citizens caused by some belic or political circumstances. So, in my opinion, the genocide will always be evil. and it will surely happen because otherwise, we wouldn't be debating about the dilemma itself.
So, in my view, I would let them survive with the risk of a possibly genocide. Probably only a few would survive afterward but on the other hand, they would die all of them.

In the other area, nobody — CallMeDirac

by not killing anyone, one can watch what the dictator does and whether or not they end up killing more people than would have needed to have been sacrificed, — CallMeDirac

This is the clue I do not understand. Why there is nobody in the other area? I always thought that in ethical dilemmas you have to choose one life/lives of one rail or the other. I mean I feel lost because one of the areas is empty so doesn't matter my choice because it would not have a real impact (?).

I'm curious how another consequentialist would personally resolve this issue — CallMeDirac

It is a complex issue, indeed. Because the consequences do not depend in choosing one area or the other but what the dictator would do afterwards. I mean, those 10.001 citizens are not in the rail previously. So we do not have the real choice of "save" them with our actions.
As you explained we would have to see what the dictator would do and then see if killing him was a real "net" benefit.

But not religion?

It was just my point of view on the topic.

a sign for a prostitute's workplace.

It's also associated with Astarte.

Ancient Egypt was polytheistic and represented all their reality through the so-called hieroglyphs.
We can be agreed that the figure can represent a "prostitute's workplace" but it is complex because their representations tend to be arbitrary.

It is interesting indeed. But I see it as good research about anthropology.

Right! :up:


Ok, you express yourself better than before.

What was your point? If you didn't have one and were just randomly mumbling like an Alzheimer's victim,

That was disrespectful as hell...

What Tom said to you is the fact that he doesn't care about how old religion is. Prostitution is also an old profession, so what? Didn't you get the ironic tone?

. If only the rest of the forum could be like this. — alan1000

Waiting for your answer about the OP then.

Probably I am wrong but I personally think that you are misunderstanding mysticism with researching or critical thought. I even these concepts are contradictory or opposed to each other.
According to Encyclopaedia mysticism is defined as the practice of religious ecstasies (religious experiences during alternate states of consciousness), together with whatever ideologies, ethics, rites, myths, legends, and magic may be related to them.
As you see these "rites" depend on someone's practice of faith, thus religious ecstasies.

This is why I do not see mysticism as a complement to science but literally the opposite.
You put as example the periodic table. Oxygen is a chemical element which is there in the periodic table. It is not a "myth" or a "legend" that the we the humans need oxygen to live. Joseph Priestley discovered oxygen by the thermal decomposition of mercuric oxide, having isolated it in 1774. During his lifetime, Priestley's considerable scientific reputation rested on his invention of carbonated water, his writings on electricity, and his discovery of several "airs" (gases), the most famous being what Priestley dubbed "dephlogisticated air" (oxygen).
As you see in this examples the discovery comes thanks to scientific research. Priestley didn't have mystical thoughts... but a good knowledge and work in chemistry.

Many people know aristotle believed in a prime mover.
You disputing that? — Adamski

Yes, Aristotle believed in a "prime mover" but I guess your God doesn't fit in this:

As there are no motions of motions, we can set aside action and passion (items (7) and (8) in the Categories). This leaves us with the shorter list of relevant categories, (1) substance, (2) quality, (3) quantity, and (4) place.
Aristotle asserts that “some things are the same both in potentiality and in actuality, but not at the same time or not in the same respect, as e.g. [a thing is] warm in actuality and cold in potentiality” (Physics 3.1, 201a19–22) Aristotle’s Natural Philosophy

In any case, the actuality of what is potentially F, whenever, being in actuality, it is active-not insofar as it is itself, but insofar as it is moveable- is motion.” –Aristotle (Physics)
We can see that there appears to be an endless regress. A is moved by B. B is moved by C. C is moved by D – so on and so on. The question is, how far back does it go?
To answer this, Aristotle proposes what is known as the “unmoved mover.” This entity would be the end of the line, so to speak. The unmoved mover would have initiated movement within the universe. More importantly, the unmoved mover would not have been set in motion by another thing. Who Is the Unmoved Mover?

I think you don't understand Aristotle yet... please go and read some Greek philosophy books. It would prevent you from say ignorant arguments as "Aristotle believed in God"

What I pretended to show you is the fact that "common sense" is logic not Karma or God. When Aristotle defined these philosophy theories, he intended to go further than mythology.

You know people had believed in different dieties before the Biblie or the Quran right? :eyes:

Whatever is real does not require "faith". — 180 Proof

:100: :fire:

Could it be said that the common sense default position is to be believe in moral cause and effect,AKA Karma?
Because God and Karma are the same concept from a different angle. — Adamski

No... common sense is Aristotelian logic.

Some theists hold that theism is a common sense default state or what have you, and that not believing in God is based on a confusion, like not believing in gravity just because you can't see it, even though its influence is apparent to everyone. — Yohan

I understand those theists doctrines. But while gravity is indeed a physical fact that affects everyone because it explains why our bodies are attracted to the centre of the earth and has been proven by many theories of physics, God still depends on someone's faith. It doesn't matter if you do not "see" gravity because it will affect you physically.
Gravity was always been there and later on, we the humans "discovered" it through researchers because these, precisely, wanted to go further than "God's mercy."

Pretty interesting, indeed. Thanks for sharing the link :100:

IMO, the new worldview can be found at the intersection(s) of science and mysticism. — Bret Bernhoft

We can see it as an intersection both disciplines, indeed. But sooner or later you would need to pick one or other. Mysticism stills lack of demonstrative practices. It is good to debate about some theories related to knowledge and how the world should works but we need to put them in practice or at least show it both empirically and physically.
For example: The distance between the earth and the moon is 384.400 km. This is not a mystery but a solid evidence proved thanks to science.

Nothing mentioned yet suggests a demonstrably more adaptive alternative to modern science which, if there were such an alternative, would be reasonable to consider. — 180 Proof

:100:

Faith connotes worship. — 180 Proof

:up: :100:

Yes, there are official records of people affiliated to each party. Those tend to be the ones who support the group economically. If you have a big number of affiliates you have more chances to be stronger in the next elections.
Whenever you sign your affiliation in a political party this information goes to the minister of treasury to control if their fees are transparent.

A brief example of affiliates in my country:
With the exception of Unidas Podemos that you don't need to pay fees to join them

But if Trump will in fact face punishment (including jail time), what does that mean for America?
A civil war, for sure. — baker

Don't be too panicky...

Far as I'm concerned a rock is a bored proto-life-form. — Yohan

Bored proto-life-form but at least the rock is not concerned about how painful the life could be

UAE — ssu

This is where all the powerful criminals tend to go... UAE is an artificial state made by government Mafia and black money... I would never understand why we allow these kind of countries the "right" of declining cooperative extradition.

God's existence needs a belief. Someone who believes in his existence. This state of mind is based on faith. And faith is a sacred/religious concept. Then, God necessarily depends on all of these characteristics to exist himself. If you think deeply it would be even worthless the existence of God in a world without religion. What would be the aim of God then?

Check this paper: The Kant-Friesian Theory of Religion and Religious Value

I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith. The dogmatism of metaphysics, that is, the precondition that it is possible to make headway in metaphysics without a previous critique of pure reason, is the source of all that unbelief, always very dogmatic, which wars against morality. - Immanuel Kant, Kritik der reinen Vernunft
Kant believed, indeed, that morality was what religion was all about and that it provided a basis for rational belief in concepts like God, freedom, and immortality; but this provided no ground for any other aspects of traditional religious practice, belief, or experience :flower:

Rudolf Otto takes the Latin word numen, "the might of a deity, majesty, divinity" and coins the term "numinous" to describe either religious feelings or the religious aspect attributed by those feelings to experiences and objects. He characterizes the feelings as involving 1) ultimacy, 2) mystery (mysterium), 3) awe (tremendum), 4) fascination (fascinans), and 5) satisfaction. Unassociated with any objects, the sense of the numinous is a feeling of "daemonic dread," a sense of the uncanny, frightful, eerie, weird, or supernatural. These feelings make us feel vulnerable and overpowered, what Otto calls "creature feeling."


Conclusion: God depends on religion because the religious nature is how God is fed.

Remember that sadness is part of life. If you wouldn't feel sadness and heartache, you wouldn't appreciate the good things in life. — ssu

:up: :100:

Athena, I am so much appreciated of all information you have provided to me. But, trust me please. I do not see myself in a marriage because I already lived the experience of being heartbroken and I don't want to go through the same painful process.

That's the kind of freedoms we all insist on, yes? — universeness

Well, yes you are right somehow right. I am only 25 years old. So, I do not know what the future really holds and probably I make some friends the next year

My parents literally think the same :rofl: they are worried because they see I am pretty "obsessed" with Mishima!

Two biographies:

The eclipse of Yukio Mishima, Shintaro Ishihara

The last words of Yukio Mishima, Takashi Furubayashi.

I would not change in person because the way I interact in this forum is how I really am in real life. If you ever met me in person you would see I am the same Javi in The Philosophy Forum and in physical world. I am not using masks here and I am happy the way I act inside this group.
But in physical world is different, or at least due to the type of persons surrounded with me. I always doubt if it is worthy to open my mind and hearts to them. I feel I would be disappointed...

I should appreciate the positive sides of my life, indeed. But I think those positive feelings depend on my own. I never understood why there are some people who share half of their lives with another person. I respect it but I just don't get it.
Loneliness doesn't necessarily lead us to sadness. It depends on each context. If you appreciate being alone maybe this is the kind of life you should choose for.
Furthermore, marriage is not connected to affection. For example, I don't have a girlfriend, and neither Kids and friends. But I feel respected and esteemed inside this forum. To be honest with you, ssu, I guess I never be able to find such respect in real life

. I used to feel very sorry for single people because they did not enjoy the benefits of love and marriage. — Athena

There are not benefits. Marriage is a community of sacrifices. Raising and maintaining a child is complex as hell and you do not how the tables would turn out in the future. Probably I can end up being cheated by my wife or mistreated by my own kid. So no... I prefer live in loneliness rather than being married.