Yes that's right. But I guess that the appearance of an extraterrestrial life would makes us to stay alert and probably to act in the military way.

:up:

you mean, can we defend ourselves from an invasion?, still no! In the latter case, they (little green men) maybe counting on us not being ready in any sense of that word! — Agent Smith

Completely agree :up: I want to share an interesting opinion from Liu Cixin:
The universe is a dark forest. Every civilization is an armed hunter stalking through the trees like a ghost, gently pushing aside branches that block the path and trying to tread without sound. Even breathing is done with care. The hunter has to be careful, because everywhere in the forest are stealthy hunters like him. If he finds another life—another hunter, angel, or a demon, a delicate infant to tottering old man, a fairy or demigod—there’s only one thing he can do: open fire and eliminate them.

When someone from an in-group errs, the mistake is chalked up to the individual, as a personal failing; when someone from an out-group goofs up, it's the entire group that's blamed. Sic vita est — Agent Smith

Agreed. :100: :up:

No more countries, no more currencies, no gods, no race other than the human race, no private ownership of land, no rich, no poor, no utopia or dystopia. — universeness

Sorry but I am pure defender of private ownership myself :rofl: I always been inspired by John Locke:

Some of the features of Locke's economic thinking would echo down the years, and not always to good consequence. Thus, Locke's notion is that labor creates value: "For 'tis Labour indeed that puts the difference of value on every thing" Locke uses this in the first instance to explain why people have a right to property.
Locke, of course, thinks that the ownership of property is justified because labor has been "mixed" with it.

The great and chief end therefore, of Mens uniting into Commonwealths, and putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their Property. To which in the state of Nature there are many things wanting. [ibid., §124]

as well as the Romani people and Cagot in Europe — universeness

Interesting text. Romani people is also called gypsy. In my country there are a lot of them and I have to be honest. There are some prejudices against them in the same sense the text you quoted previously.
If you check the etymology of the word gypsy, gitano, tsigane, etc... you would find pejorative meanings according to each country, for example:

• English: it comes from the word "gyp" which means scam.
• German: it comes from the word "zigeuner" which means thief
• Spanish: it comes from the word "gitano" which means liar
• Hungarian: it comes from the word "szégany" which means poor

Well the last year I started an OP related to this: The etymological prejudice of the word gypsy.

What I mean is: sometimes we have to use lies to help others because it is right despite the fact that we are avoiding to them the truth.
Sometimes the truth could be painful.

In short does the notion of correctness apply to the definition of truth? — Agent Smith

I think not. Correctness depends on a way of functional ethics which leads some dilemmas. For example: the "correct" way of helping a kid who passed through a trauma is avoiding him from it even with lies. I am acting so correctly but... I am not telling to that kid the "truth" right?

Premise : 1 : a statement or idea taken to be true and on which an argument or reasoning may be based.
Note --- For Christians, the veracity of the New Testament is their basic premise or axiom. Yet, for Muslims, the authenticity of the Koran is their starting point for reasoning. Belief bias is what allows some premises to "make sense" within one belief system, and to be non-sense for another. — Gnomon

Good explanation, indeed. This is how religion works. I like how you described that New Testament or Quran are their "starting point of reasoning."
So they always start with a (false?) premise that God does exist and then, whatever it goes successively.

but now I’m overwhelmed with feelings and thoughts that there is no reason to go on — rossii

One reason to go on: your family, friends or relatives. I understand what you are feeling because I walked through the same process. If suicide would sink your beloved ones in devastation and misery, please do not do it. That would be disrespectful and dishonorable.
If you feel that you don't find a meaning in life you would end up in an infinite loop because the nature of life is meaningless

I've always viewed science as discovering what is known from definitions. Philosophy questions definitions themselves. — Philosophim

:up: :100:

How do we verify our truth theory, if its pure metaphysics? — Yohan

This reality, then, that gives their truth to the objects of knowledge and the power of knowing to the knower, you must say is the idea of the good, and you must conceive it as being the cause of knowledge and of truth in so far as known. Plato, Republic, 508e, Republic II.

Don't expect to evolve to transhumanism or "Post-humanism" if we do not understand ourselves yet.
I think all of those tendencies are higher than we usually wonder about.

+/-/×/÷ — Agent Smith

I would say +.

Eudomonia + wisdom = beautitudo!

Eudaimonia? — Agent Smith

:up: :smile:

This seems to me to be imposing a scientific/Cartesian worldview on the Greeks. One that emphasizes epistemology. So the rest of the post is founded upon what I see is a false premise. — Xtrix

Agreed. :up: :fire:

Philosophy (original meaning) is the search for truth; — A Christian Philosophy

Well, not really. Aristotle on Nichomachean Ethics proposed that one of the aim of wisdom was happiness.

All human activities are done in order to attain something that is good. We don’t do something because we think it will be bad for us. In addition, most of these activities are not the main objective, but rather a means to a higher end. Consequently, the activity that is an end in itself, writes the prolific philosopher, is the highest good, and that good is happiness. We aim at happiness for its own sake, not because it will achieve something else. Happiness, therefore, is our greatest mission. - Aristotle, The Goal of Happiness: A summary of Nicomachean Ethics

Still blaming illusions, religion, witchcraft, irrationality, for the problems of science and technology? No, it is not the insane who are destroying the world, but the reasonable, pragmatic, scientific, progressives. — unenlightened

:up: :100:

I want to quote from the book Gods in Everyman by Jean Shinoda Bolen, M.D.. — Athena

Interesting and good quote indeed. But I disagree with Jean Shinoda Bolen in the following fact:

The text says: When we are accepted and allowed to be genuine. it's possible to have self-esteem and authenticity together. This develops only if we are encouraged rather than disheartened by the reactions of significant others to us, when we are spontaneous and truthful, or when we are absorbed in whatever gives us joy.

I think having self-esteem is not connected to be accepted by others. A good example of this could be the Japnase writer Yukio Mishima. He had a lot of self-esteem... but trust he was so far of being accepted by the Japanese society.
This is why I like him a lot. He represents the art of writing and thinking not matter if the "mass" would accept you or not.
The important achievement here is gaining self-esteem with your own self. Not caring if we do not fit in the society or we are not accepted by them

It’s just the death throes of another establishment political dynasty. The Cheneys, the Clintons, the Bushs — NOS4A2

Well, don't forget the Trumps then: — ssu

It is interesting to point out the fact of how a politician is reviled after the end of his legislature.
I cannot remember a "dynasty" who has good memories about their actions when they were in power. Whenever the legislature ends, most of the people get tired of them. We can say it is normal because a politician tend to worn-out during the course of a government. But this is insane.
Nobody ends up remembering them with good words.

So what is the real responsibility afterwards? How worthy is to put them in power?
I think the elections are there just to remove the old ones and put others. But what I mean is that none of them would make a real difference from the previous one.

If there were direct awareness of events at the cosmic and the quantum scale (which is the limit towards which intellectual awareness itself proceeds), to what extent would that awareness be representable or translatable into human scales of awareness? — Pantagruel

Language could be an important tool to help us to find out cosmical awareness. I think it is only representable in our human scales if we understand it. We are not able to understand it if we do not share the same language. So (probably I am wrong) I think we have to start in the point which can allow us to understand the cosmos better than we usually do. Then, if we ever get more precisely data from the universe we would have more chances to translate it in our scale of awareness.
You put good examples as mythology, cogito, etc... but I think one of the limitations is time.
Universe seems to be timeless. At least it looks like that the consciousness of passing time is not around there.

attending cogito ergo sum may be a projection of the direct awareness of a more expansive consciousness. — Pantagruel

This was the example I was thinking too! :eyes: :clap:

But having the world's largest Muslim nation is not related to be extremist. It is a recent but good democracy: Since 1999, Indonesia has had a multi-party system. In all legislative elections since the fall of the New Order, no political party has managed to win an overall majority of seats. The Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P), which secured the most votes in the 2019 elections, is the party of the incumbent president, Joko Widodo. Other notable parties include the Party of the Functional Groups (Golkar), the Great Indonesia Movement Party (Gerindra), the Democratic Party, and the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS).

They are so far from feudal states such as Afghanistan or Iran

Had this happened in Iran or Indonesia, it would've made complete sense. — Agent Smith

Why in Indonesia? It is true they are Muslims, but they are not extremists as much as Saudi Arabia or Iran.

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?