And are they right? What do you think? — Banno

Well I guess it depends from the evidence and from the kind faith that someone has. So each case is different. If for example someone's faith goes against scientific evidence then no he isn't right. It's pure bullshit for me. But what can you do? His desperation to have faith on something overcomes reason and logic. That happens to most people.

it is possible for one to believe something and yet not be certain of it. — Banno

Possible, but is it possible to have also faith on it without being certain? Don't know. Certainty seems to me as a requirement for actual faith.

overwhelming evidence to the contrary — Banno

The thing is that they don't consider them as "evidence". They don't recognize them as such, despite for an outsider seem like evidence indeed.
They will always find a way to overcome these evidence as not to shake their own faith. Even a silly way would be enough for them.

These evidence probably were already there from the very beginning, even when they started to form their beliefs that they should have faith on "whatever". So doesn't really matter to them.

This is supposed by some to be a virtue. It isn't. — Banno

Usually these "some" are those who actually ask for people's faith.

Faith is unwarranted belief. — Banno

It is not unwarranted for the one who believes. Maybe for an outsider seems like that indeed, but not for the one who has actual faith on something. Though the link you provided didn't open to me by the way.

The next step us to map out the relations between truth, belief, certainty and faith. — Banno

As to have faith you have to have the certainty that your belief equals with the truth.

no other animals are human but humans. That alone puts humans in a unique place in the animal kingdom, one that may have exclusive access to ethics. — Merkwurdichliebe

That alone says nothing at all. "no other animals are turtles but turtles".

To visualise, we could build a mind map with all the underlying scientific concepts that lead to an understanding of the abstract one that we study, and detail the logical links we made between them. And this would include the uncertainties of the links we made. For example you could say this concept is partly related but not totally because of x and y, which can't be measured. To make it perfect, we would need this concept, which isn't proven by science. Do you know what I mean?

There could be several mind maps, with different underlying concepts but the idea would be to build the one that has the least uncertainties. — Skalidris

Yeah I think I got your point. Like putting down all the scientific data we have for each concept and starting making the most logical assumptions and connections between them(where of course is possible).
And going on afterwards including the uncertainties of each connection and evaluate the cases with the least uncertainties, right?

It is an interesting idea. I don't know if something similar exists already with such a general appliance. Or even if it is actually possible cause of the heavy complexity that philosophical concepts carry. But in general, I see it with a positive attitude.

Well at least with that way we could eliminate some falsifiable assumptions that is made in some philosophical concepts and focus more on cases that science "leaves" an open window for philosophical reasoning. It could be useful.

I don't see it as it would unify all fields, but rather use some scientific theories (not all!) when it seems relevant to a "philosophical" issue. — Skalidris

I agree that would be extremely helpful sometimes and could direct the philosophical reasoning to more fruitful grounds.
At the end at every philosophical issue that we want to debate about, we do need a starting base which better be as solid as it gets.And well there is nothing more solid or appropriate than a scientific base (when it can be used of course).

whether it belongs to philosophy or biology, or whether it should be studied by philosophy of biology, and I just find this incredibly inefficient. I saw that philosophy of biology aims to clarify such concepts but I'm still wondering : where is it at? Where is their consensus? — Skalidris

Well that debate you mention though inefficient in some way it is also important though and crucial. Clarifying concepts could give us better questions indeed(as Tobias mentioned) and better questions would lead us to better answers.

But I can understand your frustration cause though I find it necessary ,sometimes the overanalysis ends up ridiculous. That definition game, though useful, it can turn into an endless circle tale hunting.
If you stick around here on TPF for some time, you will witness it yourself. Some members just looove that definition game.

But at the end we can't get stuck up only to questions and stop there!Say "oh we can't define it 100%. So let's just shut up and don't say anything at all about it!". Come on.
The ultimate goal is Answers after all. We do need them even if we don't know the absolute ones. Or at least some suggestions(possible answers) as to state it better. But not saying anything?? Pfffff I find it extra silly.

start with just science and slowly create a method on how to maximize logical reasoning leading to these concepts. — Skalidris

How do you imagine that method? It doesn't sound bad but I think the problem is that "just science" ought to deal and present facts. That's why some philosophical concepts can't be defined by science and it would be non-scientific if anyone tried to attempt to do so.

So I m not sure how that "general method" it could be applied. I see it mostly that each philosophical case is different and needs a unique approach each time. So it depends on each "case" if science can actually really help us or not.

but maybe we were looking for different things :) — Tobias

Well put. That is probably the case.

You did stay on though... what made you stay even if you felt you were being treated harshly or unfairly? — Tobias

Here I found a place where I can discuss issues that I can't discuss in my real life. Most of the people I know in real life, get bored with such issues or even don't care about them .
But I have obsession(literally I do.. hahha) with these things and I am damn curious. So at least here I found some people to discuss about all these. Or at least read their opinions cause I can't say that I m extra vivid in commenting.

So I just accepted the fact that, as in all communities, here too (even to a philosophy forum) concludes all kind of human weaknesses that you meet in every micro-society outside in real life.
I just write on my balls whoever trolls or talks offensive with no arguments. Ignoring them as I do in my real life and go on. But well, before I turn my back , they will receive the proper answer that they deserve.

Plus there are also some posters here that I really appreciate their way of thinking and their knowledge. And some seem really clever ones. So it is nice to hang out with clever people. You can always learn something. And that leads to...

A truly wise person sees the wisdom in the ideas of others, only then might he supersede them. — Tobias

as some of the philosophical questions on what criteria could something count as a fact, how are facts isolated from other facts, what does it mean for something to be a fact etc. I — Tobias

Yeah there are a lot of vague points in such things and that's why I mentioned that science can't help in many philosophical questions. But in some fields it can indeed. And in those fields a philosophy thinker should always take under consideration science facts.

The only thing on which I read both science and philosophy is the debate on free will. I did not find the scientific stuff very interesting or enlightening, — Tobias

Really? Come on why not? Free will is a topic that interests me also a lot and some science data about that debate I found them extremely interesting (especially neurologist data). Enlightening? Hmm.. Maybe not much indeed. But some things science says about it are really interesting and fascinating.

There is no better way to explain the workings of the world than those discovered by science. For instance take 'behavioural economics'. If we would like to ask whether it is right to nudge people, an ethical question, we need to know how nudging works. We need to know the behaviorist model underlying it. So in our basic premises, should we rely on science to tell us how the world works, yes absolutely. Should we have great respect for it, a resounding yes! — Tobias

That's what I m talking about.My core point in fact is this :

So in our basic premises, should we rely on science — Tobias

And behavioral economics is a really good example.

but the style in which it is presented is insulting. 'All these philo profs have gotten it all wrong, they are not wise, instead we should be 'independent thinker' (essentially like me! me! me!). Indeed, you just arrived here so blow a little less hard! I feel it is an insult to people who have learned a great deal more than he did. This is just my explanation for my own behaviour, that said I really do appreciate you defending him. — Tobias

Well his style didn't seem insulting here. At least to me. But since you mention the "independent thinker" I guess you are talking about his other thread also, which as to be honest didn't follow it as to see the way he expressed there.
He seems like a honest debater, who seeks answers. But as I mentioned didn't read his other thread as to have a general opinion.

Well I don't like to pretend like Robin Hood of TPF who defend others but I guess he reminded me of myself when I first arrived here.
I was also really surprised how offending some members were and how insulting also. Couldn't use any arguments at all but only clever-ish lines and insults. And I remember thinking "wtf?! If I wanted these kind of shit I would have make a fb or twitter account!".

I have read other posts of you in various threads and your opinions are really interesting. Neither you seem like the person who would play the "wise teacher" role who has all the answers(like some other members do). So I was kind of surprised that you came so harsh on him. But well I don't know, if he did used that "me, me, me" tone in the other thread, it is annoying indeed.And kind of laughable also.
I m kind of bored though as to go and check his other thread now as to be honest. Hahaha. But I might do it later.

I read your OP. You are asking everyone to read your OP and accusing them of not reading well. when your readers do not know what you are on about, probably the writing sucks. — Tobias

I think his general point is that philosophy should have as a general starting point science facts.
Of course science doesn't have all the answers for everything. But we should have huge respect to it . And it is the best "method" we have as humans to verify these "answers".

In some cases 'yeah it can't help much since human knowledge has a lot more to discover. But in some other cases, science should (not to say must) be taken in much consideration as a starting point for any philosophical thinking. It would save us "time" and much "spiritual energy" if we did that.

For example: when we want to think philosophical about human behavior let's say, it is totally necessary to include the neurologist science and brain science and even biology(including genes as a crucial parameter also).
Our philosophical thinking can't ignore such science facts. If we want to come as close to the truth we can. That's what I think is his point and well at its core I agree. The way he express it though is kind of vague. But come on, he just arrived here. Don't be so harsh with him.

The counter argument of course is that in many philosophical theories (of any kind of field) science plays a crucial role indeed. So that kind of "science based philosophy" already exists in some way.
Maybe he wants to suggest a science based philosophy that would unify all fields or something like that .Just guessing and I m not really sure that this could be even possible.

Yeah I forgot to mention that in some cases IS dogmatic! And good it does. If science shows Earth isn't flat and some still believe it is, well yeah good then that science doesn't leave any space to such nonsense.

The right stuff of today can turn out the wrong tomorrow. — Hillary

So what? Of course that is the case,since science doesn't have all the answers neither claims it does.
But it is indeed the most appropriate method to search and test these answers for humanity's sake.
Real science is never dogmatic. It is a constant procedure and of course it contains a certain amount of uncertainty each time in every step.

How is that relevant to "argument to death" or "banning" others as you say? How is possible science to be responsible for all these things you mention?
Your way of thinking is really weird and out of the Logic path. And well, as to be honest, not really interested as to investigate it further.So take care.

I witness this in the very core of science. Views that are right are shunned, ridiculed, argumented to death, or banned, — Hillary

Are these things what science does??? And especially to "right views"?? Since when?
You have a very weird view of what science is or does I have to say.

Person A is tortured, his rights denied, and ridiculed, because B thinks they know better. — Hillary

I don't see how this is relevant to seeking the truth. When you seek for the truth you don't need to deprive others from their rights. That has nothing to do with that.
Things you describe are general human weaknesses and not caused by searching the truth. In fact I would say it's even the opposite. When you don't seek for the truth yourself, it is more possible to end up acting like that cause just somebody else told you to do so.

Sometimes the truth can turn out to be a mass hallucination, while the real truth is dismissed because of that longing. — Hillary

Finding that out is also included in the search of truth progress.

It is when you are curious. And curiosity is what fueled humanity as to make all that long journey of knowledge till nowadays.
Not necessarily of course that all people are or should be curious.

I cannot think of a single thing from science that helps me understand the world. — Jackson

Can't help you with that.

Philosophy's goal should be to contribute to the search of truth for humans. And science is the only verified "human truth" we have. Science shows the road via knowledge.

So yes, a philosophy that is based on science and its facts would be a much better servant for that role. Again I repeat, that is the case If we set the goal of philosophy on helping humans find out as more "truth" as they can.

And for me that should be one the most important roles of philosophy, probably the most important one

Authenticity means leaving superficial rules behind? — frank

Even If it doesn't mean that, for sure it presupposes that. I guess "Depth" is always where the real treasure is found.

You have to be brave, but most of all, you have to be fascinated. You have to be fascinated by people, by the world, in other words, you have to be fascinated by yourself, — frank

That works the same if someone has to reach freedom, happiness and all good "things" in life in general.
Guess depth and all these, are somehow strongly connected to each other(as everything is connected at the very end). The more depth you discover, the closer you get to happiness and freedom etc. It's a never ending procedure.
Imo, mental development is the key for depth as in almost everything.

By making an advance directives, am I helping myself or oppressing another? — bert1

Both most of the times.

The fools are too worried for their jobs though... Isn't it clear? — Hillary

Yeah my dear Hillary.It is crystal clear that this is the reason.
If they had announced these already, they would have to be unemployed then,since there aren't much secrets left about universe as to keep their jobs. You are right . Damn Nasa bastards.

So both are known. — Hillary

And some Nasa fools still struggle to see what is going on with these two. Do these suckers a favor and go tell them that.

the kind of loss you deal with when you get rejected. Rejection can suck, it can be embarrassing and its a blow to the ego, so that's something that should be taken into consideration if you're going to ask for something or try to get something. — HardWorker

Yeah rejection hurts. Mostly cause it's a blow to your Ego, as you mentioned. You can't do anything about avoid feeling that pain. You understand that and just suck it up. Let it do its circle. You don't have a say on that, can't control it.

BUT what you will do with that rejection at the end and how you will use it afterwards, it's up to you-us. Will you examine it logically, realize after some time that it's not the end of the world and that shouldn't let it devastate you?? Even letting that rejection to "teach" you some lessons??Turning it from an Ego blow into an Ego boost for trying to achieve more of your goals?? Or you will let whatever rejection define your life and your self image permanently and be condemned to doom days?
Well this is a decision that is in our hands and we do have a say on that.

Of course as Tom mentioned things can be more complicated. A rejection might just trigger deeper psychological issues that all of us have down on the basement. But my point remains.
Rejection pain =unavoidable,nothing we can do about it. Dealing with rejection/pain =we do have a say on this part. The only part that we can actually interfere and have a say on.

Developed in what way and to what end? There are all sorts of wills, such as: — praxis

There is no end in development. It's a constant procedure.

Will to Power is one of the most debatable concepts about Nietzsche's ideas. That and the one of the "Eternal Return".There are many interpretations of what he actually supported . And one of the most" famous " one(the most laughable one also ) is what Nazis used.

Mine is that Will to Power refers to ourselves. To power over our drives. To become the absolute Creators of our New Self. A higher spiritual-intellectual self. That way, the" Ubermensch" won't even need to spend any effort to rule over anyone. Others would want to be "ruled" by him willingly. There is a good chance also though that he wouldn't even care to rule them or lead them or whatever. Again I repeat that's my interpretation of Nietzsche's Will to Power. I don't know for sure if it's the right one.

But for one thing I m sure indeed. That Nietzsche's Will to Power had absolutely nothing to do with nazism. That's really ridiculous for anyone who has read even just one book of Nietzsche. I wrote it again and I will keep writing it, Nietzsche would spit Hitler on the face.
Nietzsche himself had almost predicted it, in some way when he said : "I really get scared when I think about the things that some people would think that they understood from my words"

I think the question "if Nietzsche was atheist?" is same as asking if Sky is blue. If Nietzsche wasn't atheist then no one was/is.

In other words, Freddy's gedankenexperiment 'predicts' that the übermensch is born ("bred") to pass the existential (or meta-psychological) test[ of "the eternal recurrence of the same" as proposed in The Gay Science (§341) — 180 Proof

Nice.

I agree even at the dots.

We already have some self control otherwise we would have been like most animals driven just by our instincts. So yes if we gain more self control that means we are able to have a bigger part of ourselves that we actually have a say on.

Unconscious, subconscious, drives, instincts etc, all these are parts that we can't do anything at all about them,and surely cannot be totally tamed. But the more we develop our self control(plus our self awareness) the more we get things on our hands.We have only a part that we can control and that's the conscious part. And even realizing our drives and what motivates them (as much as that is possible) has its significance also. So yeah I do find it extremely crucial as for us to be developed more.

And imagine before I was amazed that I actually believed that you appreciate Nietzsche.Even thought for a min that I might have misunderstood you. But oh boy, how could you? I should have known better. You were just exercising your favorite sport "trolling".Poor fool me.

What’s the point of this self-control? Why is it good or desirable? — praxis

None. Totally useless.Don't try it. Especially when you are home and alone!

Surely not totally but a part of it yes. And that's the only "part" we have a say on. The conscious part of that procedure .At unconscious level isn't much that we can do.
And our Will to Power and how strong it might be will decide how big that part could become. As to gain more and more control over ourselves.

and that a struggle is in prospect in which our intellect is going to have to take sides.” — Joshs

And that's all the "juice" for me.Our intellect is indeed capable of taking sides and decide which of our contradicted "drives" will preveal each time at the end.
For me that is the Will to Power that Nietzsche wanted to spread. The Will to gain Power over ourselves. The Will to drive our "drives" for our own growth.

Will to power is just as unconscious as all other drives. — Joshs

Not so sure about that. We couldn't use it for our own benefit then, if it was unconscious or if it was mostly unconscious. And Nietzsche insisted that we could indeed use that tremendous Will. Making it a hammer as to sculp our Uber-versions.

As to state it better, imo, he saw Philosophy as the path, the methodology for the new "religion" that would be born.

Hm.. Not sure that the last time we discussed it you had mentioned the "drives" matter. But I can't tell for sure. Just mention it cause there aren't much that I disagree with what you posted here from Dan Smith. And especially this, which I find it totally right :

"

This is where Nietzsche first developed his concept of the will to power—at the level of the drives — Joshs

At the end when I say "self awareness" of course that includes our understanding of our own drives and their contradictions.And that constant effort to rule over them by the power of Will, is what goes us further. Ruling over them is what grows us bigger, "transforms" us to Ubermensch.

I think we have discussed it again at another thread about Nietzsche at the past.
Yeah, more or less,and with awareness of the impact that his Ego has on others too, I would add. But if I remember well, you had a different opinion.

People need something to believe in, something to follow. Nietzsche does what Plato did, the invention of a religion in the service of philosophy. Only Nietzsche's religion is to be an inversion of Plato's. A religion of the earth, a religion of becoming, a religion of the god Dionysus, of a god who philosophizes. — Fooloso4

Really nice approach. That something that Nietzsche wanted people to believe in, is their very own selves. And the tremendous potential that all of us have. That was the type of the "religion" that was Nietzsche's lust. Trying, in a way, to make Philosophy the new "religion". And that's why Philosophy loved him so much.

It's Ok.No hard feelings.

You say he is such a great thinker, yet you say he is still centuries ahead of us. How could you evaluate his thinking and find out he is great if you think you can't understand him ? Or perhaps do you consider yourself another "1000 years ahead of y'all" type of guy ? — Hello Human

I mentioned what he said. Who told you that I agree with that also? He is a damn great thinker indeed. One of the greatest for me,who will still influence human thinking after hundreds of years. That doesn't mean he couldn't also be arrogant at the same time.

That's the Treponema Pallidum talking. — Agent Smith

It is a possibility.

No one has to like or to agree with Nietzsche. It is a matter of taste indeed. I don't agree with anything he wrote either. But that's a different thing than devaluing such a great thinker.Treating him as if he was a "0". Anyway.