I point-blank quoted several instances where this was not the case. — AmadeusD
but if I think someone is giving their opinion on something, but making it sound like a fact, I tend to look for another viewpoint. — Beverley
I just get a little argumentative when people write opinions as facts. — Beverley
Evolution is sentient. The whole universe is.↪Chet Hawkins I disagree. Evolution is not sentient. It does not choose anything consciously. It is a process that occurs in the real world - whatever its true nature. — Truth Seeker
Evolution is sentient. The whole universe is. — Chet Hawkins
How is any 'choice' not somewhat aware? Answer to the aware: It is always aware. — Chet Hawkins
)Anger is the honest emotion, 'keeping it real', by demanding that all images, all desires, stay somewhat in tune with objective moral truth. — Chet Hawkins
It is indeed a very unaware perspective that denies this obvious approach to 'reality'. — Chet Hawkins
The last bit has to be said. Compassion helps the giver. Why?Of course compassion and caring solve many problems, but not all. Clearly not all. For example, in the event of a plague compassion and caring helps enormously, but many will still die.
— jgill
Yes, of course, we cannot solve the problems of the world, but we can make small differences
(small on a worldwide scale) that actually may make a big difference to the person being helped. Furthermore, it can also help the person giving the help in my view. — Beverley
Shaka, when the walls fell!Evolution is sentient. The whole universe is.
— Chet Hawkins
I think you would need to support this with some pretty exceptionally spectacular empirical evidence. — AmadeusD
Sense alone is your goal. It cannot be the only goal or that is not wisdom. Wisdom seems to defy reason, via anger and desire. Reason is only fear. The fourth way includes all the other three in balance. If it seems like I am spouting lunacy only, I offer that the one-eyed man is not in fact considered king in the land of blind. He is put away and thought of as insane.Even accepting that premise, much of the rest of the post (as example:
How is any 'choice' not somewhat aware? Answer to the aware: It is always aware.
— Chet Hawkins
Anger is the honest emotion, 'keeping it real', by demanding that all images, all desires, stay somewhat in tune with objective moral truth.
— Chet Hawkins
)
dont make sense in and of themselves. Then, this claim: — AmadeusD
I take that as high praise. Many thanks!It is indeed a very unaware perspective that denies this obvious approach to 'reality'.
— Chet Hawkins
It isn't obvious to any but a few who take that line of thinking. Being convinced of something does not make it so. This theory may feel good to you, but it is not something all-together coherent. Particularly when my opening remarks are take into account - No support for the premise is a big problem. I'm not going to get into the Morality issue - you've spent thousands of words explaining that you do not operate on the level others do. — AmadeusD
You vs. Oprah.We do not actually KNOW anything at 100%. — Chet Hawkins
I present to you, the universe. THAT is my evidence. — Chet Hawkins
offer that the one-eyed man is not in fact considered king in the land of blind. He is put away and thought of as insane. — Chet Hawkins
Reason is fear. Confidence is anger. Who 'wins' when they battle? What of passion as well? — Chet Hawkins
It is possible that Hinduism is true. No, I am not a Hindu but there are Hindus on Earth. It is impossible to test the hypothesis that living things are souls who reincarnate according to karma in an illusory universe called Maya. — Truth Seeker
The thing is that in everyday life, we mostly have to deal with Oprah-type people, people who are 100% sure of things. — baker
So far, I have not found — baker
, what does this even mean?So far, I have not found a viable way in philosophy for dealing with such utterly and completely sure people, much to my dismay and loss. — baker
To begin with, everyday things.what claims of certainty are you actually bothered with? — Kizzy
Good luck with refusing or ignoring a claim made by someone who is in a position of power over you, like a police officer, an IRS agent, your boss, etc.So you looked, right? I believe you...Its clear you accept/tolerate instead of refuse or ignore and become susceptible to problems when examples are poor and used wrongly to build a weak stance upon already incredibly unstable grounds, bounds, and/or mounds. This is the mound I am talking about,
So far, I have not found a viable way in philosophy for dealing with such utterly and completely sure people, much to my dismay and loss.
— baker
, what does this even mean?
I'm not at all sure we are disagreeing here. — Banno
This is said without irony? — Banno
In Chess, it is true that the bishop stays on it's own colour. — Banno
Stressing about Skepticism is futile, agreed. If Hume cannot overcome it and Kant cannot defeat it, what hope do mere mortals have?
Still, it's worth keeping it in mind as a problem. For ignoring it completely defeats the point of what is right about it, that we cannot attain certainty - in this world at least. — Manuel
Physically no, but metaphysically and logically? May be or why not? — Corvus
Cogito to "I exist" is a deductive leap, tautology or just monologue. Problem with Cartesian cogito is, it lacks the content. Lack of content in cogito allows even denial of Ergo sum. What if, the content of cogito was "I doubt" or "I deny"? Does "Ergo sum" still stand? — Corvus
Are you serious my guy? — AmadeusD
What are the evidences for the claims?Because... it is not logically necessary that there is life in Mars, and we know there is none there. — Lionino
Cogito was empty, so I put some contents to demonstrate anything can be put in as the content, even the contents which doubts or denies the existence of Descartes. If cogito content was "I think I don't exist.", then the conclusion "therefore I exist.", would be a contradiction.You say the cogito lacks content, which doesn't make sense, then you say "what if the content was...", implying it has a content different from what you were about to say, meaning it has content. — Lionino
It's not just Hinduism that could be true. All religions and the worldviews they offer could be true. I am an agnostic atheist because the evidence does not support any religion. Most religions believe in immortal souls that either reincarnate or resurrect despite the lack of evidence for the existence of the soul. It is impossible to prove the nonexistence of anything such as souls and gods and imaginary creatures such as fairies. Just because it is impossible to prove a negative, it does not make them true. — Truth Seeker
Evidence or arguments or whatever. Your claims don't have any backings.Logic does not use evidence. — Lionino
"You think you don't exist, therefore you exist.", is a contradiction.If cogito content was "I think I don't exist."
— Corvus
What? — Lionino
Except Deepak? hehe — AmadeusD
Evidence or arguments or whatever. Your claims don't have any backings. — Corvus
If you think you don't exist, therefore you exist, is a contradiction. — Corvus
"The earth is flat." had more plenty of backings for far longer time. — Corvus
I was just pointing out "I think therefore I am." is illogical.
The "think" has no content. — Corvus
When I said "backing", I was meaning the logical arguments or scientific evidence, rather than the media backings. You said that your claim had a lot of media backings, and I was saying media and popular opinion backings don't offer the necessary ground for your claims.And there is nothing necessary about the Earth being flat or otherwise. — Lionino
Thinking must have contents. You cannot just say "I think, therefore I am". What were you thinking of? Were you thinking of a beer? Or a burger? or chips? We don't know what you were thinking of. You should have made clear the content of the thinking for your conclusion "I am". (You = Descartes)That it is illogical does not follow from it having no content, that is nonsensical especially when logic deals with syntax, not semantics, content is irrelevant. Even then, neither of those two are true, it is both logical and think has content because it means something. You are denying something that is self-evident. — Lionino
You said that your claim — Corvus
What were you thinking of? — Corvus
And "Cogito" is not sufficient or necessary logical ground for existence. It is epistemic perception of existence, which is the ground for the existence. Existence cannot be deduced logically. — Corvus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.