Well said Agent Flint!

I have my moments, assuming no sarcasm was intended.

Confirmed! No sarcasm involved!

Whenever an individual's cognitive framework is challenged, "joy" or "calm" is most likely not going to be their reaction, but rather fear. But again, setting up large contrasts in ideologies helps us to a certain degree to either change our philosophy or stay the same.

Nietzsche urged people never to drink alcohol. I think that's a bit extreme. But perhaps a good shot of medicine for a society bent on excess. His argument was basically that it stripped us of our drive for self improvement.

I'm not sure what good it would do in practical terms. People tend to be led by emotion and self-interest, rather than philosophical or any other type of reasoned argument.

Whenever an individual's cognitive framework is challenged, "joy" or "calm" is most likely not going to be their reaction, but rather fear. — Ajemo

This is true of some but certainly not all. If an individual is TRULY 'open minded,' then said individual will welcome challenge to even your most dearly held viewpoints as challenge offer you the opportunity to HONESTLY defend. After I get over the initial shock, I will eventually thank someone who shows me convincing evidence that a viewpoint I hold is fatally flawed, especially if it means some of my past or current actions are, in accordance, incorrect/unjustified/damaging to the common good or to human progression etc.

But again, setting up large contrasts in ideologies helps us to a certain degree to either change our philosophy or stay the same. — Ajemo

I agree, but this is a situation that each individual must fully understand in my opinion, as it has proven to cause extremists like Trump, BoJo, Bolsonaro and Duterte to be given power and it also facilitates autocratic powers such as Putin, Xi Jinping and Kim Jong-un etc. If people have to be taken to some kind of brink of fear or threat, to get their compliance or to win their vote, then philosophers must explain to them that this is what they are doing and that they must stop doing so and consider the information they are sourcing, in a more balanced way and with more scrutiny, to ensure its accuracy before they take any actions.

Nietzsche urged people never to drink alcohol. I think that's a bit extreme. But perhaps a good shot of medicine for a society bent on excess. His argument was basically that it stripped us of our drive for self improvement. — Ajemo

I am conflicted on the advice 'dont touch the fire because it will burn you!' I agree it's silly to touch the fire because it WILL burn you, so I personally do heed such advice but some people who think 'Well, it might have burned you, but it won't burn me, I have a cunning plan,' etc, only seem to learn through suffering and such suffering often turns them bitter, twisted and misanthropic.

I don't abstain from something like alcohol, but I stay aware of the dangers involved.
I think Nietzsche was, in the main, a bad role model for the human race and I think his fear-based philosophy did more harm than good. But I am basing that on a limited knowledge of his life and all he wrote or said. I do agree with always trying to improve yourself but not exclusively in the areas of power, wealth and influence over the lives of others (unless that influence is benevolent.)

People tend to be led by emotion and self-interest, rather than philosophical or any other type of reasoned argument. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I think this is too true of too many to be denied or ignored (but I would take out the words 'philosophical or any other type of,' in the quote above, as I think some philosophy is not well reasoned,) and I think that all living philosophers have a human responsibility to try to change this. This is the viewpoint I was heading towards, from the OP I typed. I am simply interested in how much support for this view there is amongst current TPF members, but I don't want a poll, as suggested by @Agent Smith, as I would like to know a little detail about why they agree or dissent.

dissent — universeness

The 5 tropes of Agrippa/Pyrrho (I forget which)

1. Dissent
2. Relation
3. Regress
4. Circularity
5. Assumption

What personal opinion are you offering me based on these 5 tropes?
You need to be a little less cryptic to gain more impact, imo, or your viewpoints simply become lost in the background noise of the words of others such as Agrippa/Pyrrho.

I offer ... surety brings ruin (re The Delphic Oracle)

The Delphic Oracle — Agent Smith

They were just junkie's, messed up on scooby gases as opposed to scooby snacks!

What a lark eh? A great kingdom will fall! and it turned out to be your own :lol: what a hoot! :rofl:

Those crazy daze, of the ancient junkies and their purple haze!

:lol: The Greeks should've just had a drinking session when they wanted to consult oracles! It's the same thing, oui mon ami?

That said, oracularity was an art form; the sophistication was dazzling or so the story goes.

That said, oracularity was an art form; the sophistication was dazzling or so the story goes. — Agent Smith

Yeah, but only to those who were not aware of the con involved. Like moronic Kings or tough guy gangsters, who were scared of the woo woo in their heads, and wanted CONformation the non-existent gods were on his side and of course former American Presidents like Ronald Reagan, who did not sign a policy document without consulting his oracles. :lol:

Don't be so dismissive is what I'd say, but of course there really isn't any point putting stock in vague/general statements, a classic oracular trait. :up:

Don't be so dismissive is what I'd say, — Agent Smith

Don't be impressed by bullshitters who hide behind curtains or magicians who impress with bells, whistles, smoke and mirrors. Ancient woo woo is no more impressive than the woo woo of modern con artists such as Uri Geller or David Blaine.
An oracle is just a grifter:
Oracle:a priest or priestess acting as a medium through whom advice or prophecy was sought from the gods in classical antiquity.
a place at which divine advice or prophecy was sought.
synonyms:
prophet · prophetess · sibyl · seer · augur · prognosticator · diviner · soothsayer · wise man · wise woman · sage · fortune teller ·

Wise man/women, how ridiculous to include those terms under 'Oracle.' :rage:

Edit: Change the dictionary definition for Oracle to 'Grifter, offers fake predictions regarding future events in the hope of gaining fraudulent funding.'

:up:

Point made, point taken. Oracles were known to have consumed entheogens (psychotropic plant products) and to that extent can be treated as druggies and we all know not to ask these kinda peeps for advice! The Greeks, the whole lot, must've been cuckoo!

Unlike many on TPF. I don't admire much about ancient Greek culture or Rome or Egypt or even my own closest culture, the ancient Celts and the vile druids in Scotland/Ireland. Saint Mungo/Andrew/Patrick/George etc are all ridiculous embarrassments to me.
I think the best human civilisation and culture, firmly lies in the future, not the past.
The past, at its best offers many more examples of people, behaviours and systems we should avoid repeating as opposed to those we should emulate.
I look forwards to those philosophers not born yet, not characters like Plato and Aristotle.

I really appreciate ancient philosophers - they managed to get so much done with so little to work with. A true philosopher is at home in 2022 BC as he is in 2022 AD - the armchair is all he needs.

The question becomes 'where do you yourself, as a single entity/conscience, mainly exist?
Past/present/future/outside of linear spacetime? By 'outside linear spacetime, I refer to spacetime I would label escapist/fantasy/dream/woo woo spacetime.
For me, I exist more in future linear spacetime. Most of my thinking, references my projections into future linear spacetime.

BTW, the first time I saw the film LUCY, your clip is from, I had quite a low opinion, now I think it's a brilliant movie of cult classic status.

The future is something we can change; that's the whole point!

agreed :up: