Si :smile: Y que lo digas. Google tells me that is Spanish for 'you can say that again' - an idiomatic phrase. Does it translate well ?

I understand what you said. Also yes, Google translated it correctly. But I also found this translation: right on.
Translating idiomatics in one language to another is even more difficult than philosophy itself :sweat:

No. I guess I am right because I am speaking about parts of one thing.
A is part of B. (so B has parts of A)
B is part of C. (B which has some parts of A, also has parts of C)
Then, C has parts of A because somehow it was dragged from the original roots.

Also I really like the quote of Bertrand Russel you quoted. Specifically:

but this only makes the proposition probable, not certain. It cannot be certain so long as living men exist.

It is interesting how he explains it. Of course we cannot argue against it while living men exist.

Start here. Do you see the problems?

To be honest. No, I do not see it.

And the verse - you translated that yourself, I guess.
I am impressed by anybody who has English as a second or third language exchanging philosophical views here. Really :100:

English is my second language. Yes I translate by my own everything I write here. Sometimes is difficult because philosophy has a complex vocabulary. Thank you for your consideration :up:
For example, the basic phrase of Aristotle El todo es mayor que la suma de sus partes as an argument of pure logic it makes so hard translate it in English to me.
Using Oxford dictionary could be: a whole is greater than the sum of its parts

Probably when we can still have fantasies as we were kids. But what I want to say is that these adult fantasies are less vivid than the infant ones because when we are kids we tend to have a limitless imagination and everything surprises us more than we are older.
Also, as you explained, I am agree in the fact that perhaps all these people who are more in fantasies are the same which their lives are not fulfilled. So, they need something to escape from the reality.
To be honest, I do not think this a problem since the moment can help them. But it is true that in the long run can be dangerous if they end up not distinguishing reality/fantasy.

I am just interested to know how important people think that fantasy in the whole process of thinking and as mental states?

Fantasies are not only important for all the arguments you wrote above but also to leave from reality.
Sometimes, our days, weeks, months or even years are heavy. We have situations which are difficult to face and it makes us be depressed or sad. With fantasy we can, at least, leave for a moment from these negative feelings and then create a new scenario in our minds. This is one of the most surprising facts from humans. We can create fantasies or abstract worlds as refuges from our pain. I am agree with you statement that this is totally healthy but with some limits. We can't let fantasy being part of our lives so much. Nevertheless, I defend it can be the only output for children or another person who is literally suffering.

For example: Imagine a kid that when he turns back from school his family is somehow broken. Probably fantasies as playing football like the best or fighting against dragons in the book he is reading can give to him so chill vibes and not being sad all the time. So, thanks to fantasy he can be another person in another world.

Sorrowfully, I think this only works in Kids or Young minds because when you get older you start losing the ability of dream/having fantasies.

Your opinion of letting die older because they already lived so much is somehow selfish. It does not respect the human nature of individualism. I don't have to die for others neither others for me. The solution is the accessibility vaccine for all the citizens not just let others die because we are not good enough to make a strategic plan in the pandemic

Sure! I think it is more worthy just put the images (if you do not mind) because it is short the dialogue between Lao-Tzu and Tu-Fu... Sorry is in Spanish (casitilian by the way :joke: )
Also when I said water and mirror are key to understand Taoism is due to the relationship of life flow. It remembers me about Democritus when he explained philosophically the course of the water.
Mirror should be the representation of ourselves, then the water of how the life is going through it. Changing when the years are passing. Probably this is why Lao said Tao Te King is a book that is with us during the life journey...
Anyway, this is just my interpretation.

I put the poem as promised:

[img]http://




[img]http://



[img]http://

If nothing in your inner is stiff
The things would be opened by themselves.
In movement, like water.
When is quite, like a mirror.
Answers like an echo.

Beautiful poem from Lao-Tzu to Tu-Fu. The path of virtue

Water and mirror are the key to enter in Taoism thought.

The will is free when you have in your consciousness lack of uncertainty. You act because you want to, not wanting expectations neither fearness.
Probably some people who acts in this way never noticed they have free will.

How do you build the best belief for the most empowered individual? Answer below. — Thinking

I think depends of every human and their goals. First of all, we have to develop de ability of believe in. It doesn’t matter the objective but it looks like humans will always have something to believe in (for example: reduce climate change).
When we get this development, then we start to have beliefs. that follow us during our lives. Some stay for so long others can fall during the journey.

For example: I believe in the fact of reduce climate change (premise 1)
I have the belief of take action (premise 2)
—————————————————————-
Then, my beliefs are so powerful that I believe we can reduce it.

discussion about modern atheism. The video went viral." They were named the Four Horsemen.If your going to watch an episode, please watch this one: Sam Harris 2018 - Why Buddhism is True with Robert Wright

PS: I'm not a budhist btw — WaterLungs

It looks like interesting sure. But I am atheist :rofl: so I guess it will be a hard pill to swallow when he literally face atheism form a Buddhist point of view.

Interesting this part of the story. I never known it until today. Thanks for sharing it.

Hola y Gracias ! :cool: — Amity

De nada! Un gran saludo :cool:

but then As a motif in fiction, the mad scientist may be villainous (evil genius) — TheMadFool

I think they are. For example: someone, one day, thought about the creation of a nuke bomb. Then, this dream/idea put it on reality. This is could be one of the worst things created by humans. They are genius for creating such complex arm but evil too. I don’t want to underrate them as scientists because somehoe we have to understand the context but I rather see a poet or an artist showing their nightmares than a scientific put in practice the reason.

Artists have nightmares, but it takes a scientist to realise them. — unenlightened

True. I didn’t even realise that. Sometimes reason can be as dangerous as nightmares. At least a poet or another kind of artist just speaks about those nightmares in their works. We even can find beautiful pieces of art. Not only about nightmares but all stuff that we cannot explain with reason like darkness, sadness, nostalgia, etc...
So as you said, it is exactly a commonplace

I had never heard of Tu-Fu before this. I'm curious.
Would you like to say more about why you posted this ? Where and How do you know about the interaction between Lao-Tzu and Tu-Fu ? In relation to the discussion...? — Amity

It depends a lot of the Tao-Te-Kimg version all of us have. Mine is from a Spanish version of 1983 that was also translated by R.P. Wiegner in 1913.
Before the book starts, there is a brief story about how supposedly Tao was written. I going to explain it to you:

Tu-Fu was a solider in the frontier of Kuang-Shi. When he saw Lao-Tzu approaching to him he made him stop close to the guardian and said: I will not give you pass in the frontier if you don’t give me part of your wisdom
Then, Lao-Tzu, wrote a book of 80 poems. Thus, the Tao Te King. He said to the guardian that this book is to be understood during the process of life. It flows like the water.

I don’t know if this is true or it is just was a metaphor of the purpose/nature of Tao itself.

Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them. — David Hume

Interesting quote from David Hume. Probably I accidentally enter in a tangent but this quote reminds me the Goya’s painting called The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters.
It is free interpretation but probably this painting shows how dangerous could be our world if our reason is sleeping?

[img]http://

The purpose of the words is transmitting ideas.
When the ideas are understood, the words are forgotten.
Where can I find a man who has forgotten their words?
I would like talk with him.

The guardian and the wiser. Lao-Tzu and Tu-Fu.

Lao-Tzu didn’t want to speak but Tu-Fu was asking many question to him.

Sam Harris podcas — WaterLungs

I never heard about him until this moment. The podcasts look so interesting. Also I see he has books with striking titles. I will check it out deeper in the following days.

I think this question goes far than mathematical criteria. Probably we should focus in terms of luck.
Probabilities and chances depend about of how we want to assume if the goals/recognition we get depends somehow of “luck”
How many luck do I have in terms of passing the next exam? It depends in how increases our probabilities while we study more or less.
Conceptually, when we check the definition of probability in Oxford dictionary, it redirects you synonym that is called “likelihood” which says the chance of something happening; how likely something is to happen

It is interesting how literally says “chance”. This is why I guess the significance of probability depends a lot of “opportunities to do something”

For example, during hallucinations we feel colors more vividly, the same colors of our day-to-day experience, but in a more intense way.
those same colors of everyday life are experienced with more intensity, giving a "metaphysical tone" the experience like something magical? Or making us realize there's no difference between the common and the metaphysical? But a spectrum of experiences with a continuity? — WaterLungs

Well I think this happens because we are making our brain to work/act faster than actually it does. If we see the colours more vividly is due to a distorted perception of reality. I even think taking drugs or whatever stimulation don’t provide us the fact of living metaphysical experiences. Keep in mind that there are people who take a lot of drugs but do not perceive this dilemma we are talking about.
This context depends in every human knowledge and their development. If we say there is a metaphysical world we previously think about it. It is an effort to go farther than tangible reality.
Colours are there and will be there. The different spectrums of experience will depend about our behaviour.

Novel with cocaine. by M. Aguéiev.

- To make a coffee you have to act as someone who believes that coffee is real, not real in the ultimate metaphysical/epistemological sense, but real ENOUGH in the sense that: — WaterLungs

I understand your point and what are you trying to explain. I guess when I am making a coffee I believe in it in a tangible aspect. The colour, the smell, the taste, etc... of the coffee. Nevertheless, despite it could be so twisted, that coffee and all of the characteristics can drive to me to a metaphysical behaviour. For example: While I am drinking this coffee it gives me memories of when I was in Chicago summer holidays. Nostalgia. so they are sometimes so connected.
I guess the important fact here is try to put a division between the reality as it is (enough believe) and then all the metaphysical/epistemological experience.

but a common sense acceptance that we need to suspend disbelief temporarily, to continue living life without questioning everything. Otherwise we couldn't leave our beds, because we would be trying to rationally justify/find a reason or a purpose to every single action we take. Here nature is important, were alive because breathing is automatic and doesn't depend on rational deliberations: a radical skeptic would die if breathing depended on his epistemological certainties.
- I think Hume describes this much better than me: — WaterLungs

Interesting point of view. So you think basically that common and custom things we do all day shouldn’t be questioned because they are already accepted. Yes. It is true that David Hume explained this situation better but I guess his intention was literally the opposite. When Hume wrote the next example: if I put my hand in a hot pot I will burn my hand all the times I do so but this is reason is something the custom of doing it gave to me I guess he was still questioning everything despite can be mad as you say.
Not questioning everything around us could make us being simple

Why do I live?
Why do I dream?
Why do some people die younger than others?
Why do I debate?

Etc...

We lose the ability to take the world for granted and stop believing in those common sense truisms we all agree on NOT QUESTIONING, for discussion sake - to avoid falling into a maddening relativism. — WaterLungs

Examples of which common sense we (supposedly) all are agree?

to avoid falling into a maddening relativism. — WaterLungs

I think you will like check this article in relation of your questions and debate: http://www.ditext.com/gettier/gettier.html

I have another Anscombe article! Inevitability both a joy and a frustration. This one is Causality and Determination. — Banno

It seems so interesting. Thank you for refreshing and sharing it again months later. I will give it a read :up:

why do many philosophers think that desires give people reasons to act and not other phenomena like pleasure or suffering for example? Finally, why think that our current desires give us reason to act but not our future desires? — TheHedoMinimalist

True. I guess there are some philosophers here that are misunderstood. They try to put explain desire with reason when probably in the initial phase they aren’t even connected. However, I think it depends which philosophy we are speaking about.
Plato was the most important philosopher in terms of spreading idealism. It is interesting how he developed the art of having ideas (desire) for other ideas in the future. But I guess this is very complex in practical terms because when I say: I wish I am happier! literally I am having a desire of another desire, but... somehow I will end up using praxis to get this goal. It is abstract but I think humans only act pursued by desires. As you perfectly explained here.

.

Many philosophers such as myself don’t see how our own desires give us any more reason to act than say the desires of others — TheHedoMinimalist

Probably this happens because somehow we are also practical humans so we are forced to put those desires in tangible life through the reason.

The kid on the island can figure out that (for instance) he can get the fruit of a tree by shaking the tree, instead of climbing up on it. — god must be atheist

Agree. The brain can help us to make the right action when we have to reasoning. Nevertheless, I think the experience is also important here. Most of humans learn because previously they failed doing something. Probably the brain of the kid interpreted the good choice was shaking the tree because previously climbing the tree was dangerous and then he was hurt in the floor.
What I want to say is that sounds difficult (not impossible) that the brain quickly gives to you the most reasonable action instead of exploring all circumstances previously.

Consider Nagel’s assumption that “we all believe that bats have experience”. Am I wrong to object and argue bats have nothing of the sort? that his famous essay is a round-about way of saying humans do not have bat bodies? Or should I forgive him this, and say “Well, it’s the limitations of language”? — NOS4A2

I understand your point. No, of course you are not wrong. Probably I am even the wrong here. I guess we have the right of object and debate about everything about around us. The core situation here is not doubt about others theories because this is somehow inner in all philosophical works. But at the same time we don’t have to find the language as guilty because how complex could be.
People, themselves, are complex by nature. I don’t know how exactly explain it but I think humans love to do this. Complexity over complexity because we all always want to improve ourselves.
Maybe... ¿?

Is the sacrifice of pleasure worth becoming able to try to answer such questions? — Nikolas

Interesting question. Really. I think in this point we have to consider how far the pleasure goes in our lives. Some would consider that pleasure is selfish while others maybe think it is good because it drives us to human satisfaction.
Trying to answer your question I would say yes. Specifically in this one

What must I do?

When the word or verb must appears we need somehow sacrifice something. Probably our own pleasure to confront others. I guess this could be one of the steps to promote a community.

would be subterfuges as well, such as Nihilism. Would you agree with this statement? — Georgios Bakalis

Not necessarily. The point here is not searching subterfuges at all. It is just the act of living a life but without the hope of something extraordinary. When someone dies it doesn’t come to my mind if he or she goes to hell or haven. The human just dies. This what I apply in the the other complexity as destiny or values, etc...

Do atheists actively not want God to exist? — Georgios Bakalis

No.

is there ever an element of not wanting God to exists? — Georgios Bakalis

I am atheists because I don’t believe in any subterfuge. I don’t think the world is predetermined by a powerful entity or divinity which somehow rules what is going on in earth.
Also, complex situations in our lives as “good or bad actions” “justice” “poverty” “wars” should be consider as it is not trying to look at answers from a subterfuge again and over again...
So, I just don’t believe but my intention is not wanting it or avoiding it the belief itself.

but should philosophers try to avoid nominalizing verbs and adjectives lest they risk leading others astray? — NOS4A2

I think not. Nominalising verbs or adjectives have the goal of creating complex words and then introduced it in our vocabulary. When we are speaking about consciousness, darkness, happiness etc... we are debating about something that happens in our lives. I guess it is not as simply as say “the body experiences” because somehow goes farther than it.
Maybe this is the beauty of our vocabulary. This exactly happens when we see a paint in a museum. Aren’t we do the same as nominalization? We create words which drives us in another world bigger than the tangible.
Consciousness is complex. Yes. But not only due to our vocabulary but all the information, doubts, theories and debates we can extract from it.

It appears that the reason we fight, the reason for the arms race, is rights to resource. The world's population is growing exponentially and the per capita slice of the pie is shrinking rapidly and no prizes for guessing what lies at the end of that road. — TheMadFool

Yes. Exactly. Some decades about when we saw it in movies it looked like sci fi but we will be witnesses about this big problem. I mean, States could commit world wars due to water or food. Back in the day was about power/nationality. Nevertheless, these topics will have zero value in the future.
It is clearly how we are losing all the natural resources and only the strongest will get or at least hold larger quantities.
I would sound conspiracy but imagine more wars about the domination on Mars. Countries are literally putting millions and millions of money trying to get power over there.

What's a better candidate for an eternal thing and/or an uncaused cause, a physical universe or a god? My bet is on a god. — RogueAI

My best is on cosmos beyond physical world or god

real problem which is mutual animosity among the tribes of men. — TheMadFool

True! One of the biggest fails a State ever created was the point of start creating conflicts with the purpose of surpassing others. A good example we can bring in this topic is the Gulf War back in the 90’s. Firstly, it looked like that everything started because Sadam Hussein dropped some gas bombs in the north of Irak killing an ethnic between 1988/1989. This was clearly an act of racism and execution for minorities. But, surprisingly, most of the countries in the world randomly started a war near Irak and Kuwait. Politicians back in the day lied to us. They say many stupid things as “nuclear bombs in Irak” or “trying to implant the peace there”. The reality was different.
We all know the huge profit some developers of weapons got back in the day. It is even scary how while some anonymous rich people were plumping their pockets, Irak and some other Middle East countries were fading away into ashes.

So... which was the profit of those anonymous for killing literally thousands of lives? We will never know it. It is a secret.

I guess it is even a circus that pantomime of “nuclear proliferation”. Just political stuff.

It is time to respect each other. We can do it. If we are somehow disagree in whatever reason we can debate with words and diplomacy.

Can you use math to describe philosophy? — Huh

Philosophy = ∞

I think here the weapons are not the problem at all to preserve or destroy the worldwide peace. It is about the military service or how some countries develop their military infrastructure. They put millions and millions in their revenue. So it depends a lot of how conflictive that country could be.
For example, Switzerland has the military service and also the right of having a weapon with themselves but this country is not known as violent or having controversies along the world. There are other countries that don't even have military system as Iceland.

So... I guess one objective should be remove all the weapons from all of those countries which are obsessed with military development because in the long run could be dangerous.

As @Pfhorrest explained to you is necessary logical to the the function of the world. Aristotle explained in his writings that "one object cannot be a different object at the same time"
Well this premise fits here. There is something because this is the world we live in and then, we can't say there is nothing at the same time.