Yeah sound similar indeed. But again it's only our own 2 more definitions among others.

I think Will has a very wide range of definitions and it is hard to say that one is the right one or to choose the most appropriate. It would be too risky.
For me Will is everything that includes the "ability of people to affect their lives on their own".
The part of the things that happen in someone's life and he actually has a "say" on that. He can interfere with his thoughts, choices and acts. The rest of the things are beyond his power to control or affect any of them.

Maths is made up. — Banno

Isn't it? It's just the best way for humanity to create proofs.Best way to "verify" its reality. Well not to say the only one which can be so accurate.
But rather than that I see no reason at all Maths to play any significance role to the universe itself.

Aliens might have created their own way ("Maths") which fits their senses better and can describe their reality better.
Maths is just an excellent necessary human invention.

I think the majority of students forget, or perhaps simply ignore, their university education after graduation — Ciceronianus

Doesn't that say something? Universities seem to care more as to create useful workers for the markets and less to create useful people for the societies in general.

but I doubt they consider themselves an elite or superior merely by virtue of the fact that they have a college education. — Ciceronianus

I think he mostly means about academics attitude towards students and common people and not so much about students themselves.

On the contrary — baker

So for you everything works fine then and it doesn't need any change? Or that it will stop happening some day soon? I m not sure I got where you stand on this.

As if we haven't seen that mentality utterly fail over and over again throughout history. — kudos

And it will go on failing.

Academic thought seems rarely to be comfortable with presenting it's own views to a non-academic audience, and thus influencing their behaviour. This differs from the old approach of knowledge and truth being a way to attain a greater public good as it takes form in works such as Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. — kudos

Cause as in everything the root is the Ego! Academics(not all of course) snob the common people. Thinking themselves too intellectual to deal with common people. And acting superior towards them.

I get sick when I hear philosophers interviews and they talk with terms so sophisticated and complex for really really simple things! It seems really ridiculous to my eyes.
I always wondered "do they actually care to be understood from everyone and actually help even a bit in people's intellectual growth or they care as to show off? Make others see how great they are?"

And particularly in philosophy which "owns" to everyone! It's the only science (well if we can call it science of course) that everyone takes part!And has the "right" to do so! It comes with the human package itself! Philosophy is what people do since the appearance of our kind. So they aren't entitled to look so snobbish about the rest common people.

The one who is higher needs to low down if he actually wants to help the other who stands lower! The opposite is impossible.

Scrolling down and thinking "wtf! where is the definition question?!"

... Few posts later.....


Tim Wood saves the day.

Equality means that every single human life values exactly the same.
If I was an alien visiting Earth I wouldn't give a fuck for more or less clever people. I would see them just as we humans see bees or elephants. Just like one common species.
We are all different, not superior than others, not inferior than others.
That means that the right thing would be all human beings to have the same rights and chances in their lives. To start from a common base(even if it might never happen).

For some reason you consider intellectual, clever, successful people as superior. For me it's totally wrong. They are just "superior" in THAT specific field(iq or education or whatever). There are other hundreds of fields that might be "inferior" than others. That says nothing except the obvious. That we are just different and nothing else.

Plus for some reason that I can't follow, you consider them as potential happier persons too. Happiness is another issue and for sure education and iq aren't enough at all for someone to be happy. The factors for it are much more complicating and depend from many other things.

So the answer to all these for you is no bringing kids in life?
Anyway we have discussed about antinatalism already at another thread and we agreed that we disagree.

Some people are self-sabotaging, suicidal, and are terrible stewards of their lives and all that is important to them. They don't always do this thinking they're doing right, — Hanover

So it would be more appropriate to say that "people always Try to act in their own interest".

The thing is that it's really tough to understand what our actual interest is. What is exactly what we want and not what we think we want!

Not that I agree with anything Nietzsche wrote. But I m not sure he supported that. He was extremely valuing the individual person and his capability to grow spiritual bigger. Don't know if he would call that "self". But I don't think he believed that people have no individual self at all.

He was trying to urge people to break their individual limits and that progress is a personal matter. Sure he admitted society's role and influence in people. But he was focusing on each person's individual force as to gain that fight with ourselves and not on any dominating force.
Though he didn't consider many people capable of doing that, he was addressing to his "own kind of people",considering the rest as sheep and inferior kind of people.

I m not sure I got exactly the meaning of unitary self here. You mean he didn't believe that there is a real "self" in humans or that people can't act united? Or something else?

1. people always act in their own interest. — stoicHoneyBadger

That's Ego. And yes it is true imo. Since human nature is defined from Death, that's inevitable and totally acceptable for me.

Of course there are people who are totally altruists. But the pure altruist behaves like that for his own benefit - interest at the end! It's Ego too. The real genuine altruist acts like that cause he CAN'T do otherwise! It's his nature and he would be miserable if he didn't! He sucks happiness for himself first, acting like that. And I m talking for the genuine altruists, not the hypocrites that steal with the right hand and "help" with the left!

For me the thing is that people should realize that acting "good" is for our own benefit at the very end. An Egoist thing.We are social creatures by nature if we wanna be helped when we will need it, then it's only logical that we should help others too. So our society's system should be capable to ensure that.
Plus as Nietzsche wrote "the one who gives is the one he gains the most". For me that's a huge truth.

What's funny is the very fact that this is an obvious truth makes people think it is still okay to enact on others :rofl:. Just more political agenda — schopenhauer1

So again your point is antinatalism. You just choose different routes every time as to end up to the same conclusion.
I find forced work also wrong.At the level that humanity has reached basic things to survive should be provided to everyone. But that has nothing to do with antinatalism as you try to imply.
Plus I don't understand what political agenda has to do with that issue.

Oh, you want to opt out? You see te irony right? — schopenhauer1

Well no. Not really.

Don't put more workers (people who have to work) into the world in the first place. — schopenhauer1

So we are going back to the Antinatalist thread. You seem to have an obsession with that issue, since I have noticed every thread you open has its root to antinatalism.I don't see the reason to open a new thread for same things.

But to put more people into the situation of [having to work] would be wrong until that problem is solved. — schopenhauer1

You see any other alternative?

Ok that's better. Well yes then, imo, at the very end forced work is wrong indeed. And that's why I think that some day that will change. Cause it is logical humanity to move towards that direction.
Even in the veryyyy distant future. Work will become totally voluntary, I think.Meaning that people could live and not starve without forced work. But if they choose to work, then they would gain more.

From what I have read here so far I am assuming the statements that aren't well defined are maybe the problem more than whether or not it is strictly true or false? — TiredThinker

Exactly.

What if all statements are made by and evaluated by the same person so different vantage points don't become an issue? — TiredThinker

How is that?

I m not sure I got what's your actual question. Why anti work to be wrong in first place? Someone believes that having to work for his entire life is unfair and wrong. So? It is a simple matter of personal belief. How can someone find it wrong? To disagree with it?Sure Yes. But wrong? Why?

On the contrary others love working and they would be miserable if they didn't, even if they weren't forced to play the game as you mentioned,they would have invented it!
Maybe I m missing something here but I can't understand where the problem is.

Our statements are always being judged by their truth. And when we say truth, we obviously mean "human truth". Which is by nature - definition limited.
So every judgment based in such criteria should be limited too.
So yeah it is possible something to be true or false at the same time, since we can never be sure about the absolute Truth!
But these misunderstandings-problems, imo, can be crucial reduced by using the proper and careful wording in each statement we make.

To be good/bad we must exercise our free will but then it has a list of things (e.g. the decalogue) we're prohibited from doing i.e. our free will is rendered pointless. — TheMadFool

I don't think that religions focus on free will. They focus on God's will instead. Providing a "moral map" that people should follow.

My view is that at the end which "map" you will follow and for what reasons (excuses that you will give to yourself for that) that is our own personal choice. At the end choosing to follow or not a religion as also the way you will choose to follow it (being good or evil), that is free will.
People invented religions for 2 crucial reasons for me.
1.To give some answers to their existence and trying to "escape" from the final end that death brings
2. To have a "source" of morals that are so needed for organized societies.

As people grow intellectually, morals change too, religions also. If we want to get rid of "bad" religions one day, we should focus on people and how to make them grow bigger intellectual. Reaching at some point where pure Logic would be enough to take their morals from.

But being aphoristic with theists and accuse always religions for every harm(not recognizing anything good at all to them) doesn't help at all at that progress, imo at least. Just gives birth to more fanatics and making that progress slower and slower.

Yeah. Mostly people are proud idiot robots. — Banno

The "proud" part don't see it that often at all out there.

We need to be comfortable in the realization that some expressions of piety cause harm. Not all, I grant you. But some do and they are practiced with sincerity and not as a 'cover', which is what the word 'excuse' implies. — Tom Storm

Yeah there must be cases like that for sure. I can't deny that.
But at the end as in everything else that is accused of "corrupting" and "brainwashing" poor innocent people. Governments, religions, Media, Internet etc that I keep constantly hear how bad they are and how they brainwash people. Well yes in many cases they do indeed!

But I don't hear anything at all ever about people who LET all these to brainwash them! Everything ok with them? No personal responsibility at all?? They allow them to brainwash them! Well no I prefer to focus on people and not underestimate their ability to choose what is best for them. And when they don't I accuse them,who let themselves being brainwashed!

I wanna consider people as proud creatures and not as idiot robots! That way, imo, we help ourselves to grow bigger. Personal responsibility is a huge matter for me.

It's not that they need an excuse; they are actually doing 'gods' work.' — Tom Storm

For me that is an excuse.
"God's work" as to satisfy their evil instincts but at the same time to justify themselves and not take any blame at all! Hidden behind a "God" and with no sorrows at all. Win win situation for them.

But there has to be something in a person that makes them follow those directions. Because not everyone follows those directions, only some do. — baker

Exactly.

People may be so awfully brainwashed by religious dogma and, coupled with inadequate education and being socialized in certain religious cultures, may actually think that harming people and judging them is what god wants. They are sincere, not using religion as an excuse. — Tom Storm

People could be brainwashed from many other causes too. Yes religion is one of them. But as I mentioned again if we want to attribute evil to religions. We have to attribute good also.It's only fair.
Except if you think that such a huge human "invention" such religions, which has survived all these endless centuries offered nothing good at all in humanity. Thing that for me at least seems illogical.
Many religion people are acting good using religions moral guide .We can't deny that. And despite being an atheist, I find them social useful.

What I mean when I say that they use religion as an excuse is that we can NEVER ignore the personal responsibility of each person's acts. At the end it is his and only choice what path he will choose. Even if he chooses an evil preacher as you mentioned at another post at the end is STILL his choice to follow him.
They are hundreds others peaceful great preachers who are also religious. But he chooses not to follow them.

Sure religions influence many people. But I prefer to focus on people individually at the end. We are the "core" for everything. Religions, our acts etc etc. We can't just blame "bad" religions for everything and pretend that corrupts "innocent" people. With that way we underestimate people themselves! Considering them idiots who just don't have any choice and religions force them into bad acts like robots without free will. I deny to accept that.

To be fair, I feel both theism and atheism are, despite their antithetical relationship, partners insofar as ethics is the issue - they seem to work synergistically. Concordia discordis. — TheMadFool

I so agree on that. For me, they are both working together as a continuous effort of ethical transformation. Like opposite forces which at the end work for the same purpose.

And yes moral growth is more possible to occur from atheistic forces. As long as these forces though respect theists and don't be aphoristic against them. Treating theists like "idiots" and laughing at them.
Unfortunately this is the common behavior that most atheists have against theists. And that's what creates more rivalry and more fanatics from both sides. Making the moral growth process moving slower and slower.

History is replete with instances of religiously-motivated atrocities. We could, with great effort of course, forgive such heinous acts (genocide and more) but then to also have to accept that it was divinely ordained is a tad too much, no? — TheMadFool

Yes it is too much indeed. And that's why you can never have a fruitful discussion with a fanatic (both sides fanatic, theists or atheists).

If a religion person denies these historical atrocities or excuses them saying it was "God's will" then you better turn your back and leave. Anything else would be a waste of time.
But then not all theists are like that. Some recognize them and realize how unjust these atrocities were.

Religion has a role both in evil and good of course. And if you want to attribute evil in religions you have to attribute good also. If we wanna be fair.

But my point is that religion doesn't transform people from good to evil. It's always a personal choice what you will follow.
It is true that many people use religion as an "excuse" for being good or evil. But if someone chooses to follow evil (or good) he would use any other excuse also even if it wasn't religion. Some tragedy in his life, or anger for corrupted political system, or unhappy childhood etc etc. We can't take away the personal responsibility from each persons choices and just attribute it to religion. Blame "bad" religions for everything . Of course religion is a force that can affect and influence many people. But still we, ourselves, "pull the trigger" of our behavior, our acts and our choices.

And at my thread if you remember I was strongly doubted that religions make more evil than good at the end. That people who probably use them as a "reason", "excuse" to act good are more than those who use them for evil. Maybe that's why is still necessary for our societies. Imo it's still the best "worse" moral glue for humanity.Considering the average low intellectual level of humans worldwide.

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion. — Steven Weingberg

Well I don't agree with Mr. Steven on that at all. Being good or evil is a mater of personal choice at the end. And nothing else. If people use as an excuse religion to be good or evil that doesn't change that it is still a personal choice after all.

Religion isn't a magic pill that "transforms" good people into evil.

That's just monetary logic - you're merely buying your way into heaven with good deeds as the currency of choice. — TheMadFool

Exactly. And unfortunately it's what humanity still needs. What "works" better, for most people at least. Or else people wouldn't maintain so passionately religions till now.

If there is no God, everything is permitted.
— Dostoevsky

The quote above, taken as true, implies that without the facticity of God's existence, morality has no leg to stand on. In other words, religions - humanity's preliminary expeditions in the moral universe - have to be "factually correct" from beginning to end. — TheMadFool

And yet at my thread "what can replace God?" you were doubting that most people even nowadays get their morals from religions.

Well I struggled to pass it over and not comment that but damn, my Ego grabbed me from my balls.

Christianity comes up here most often because that's the dominant and priviledged religion of the West and the one that's crashed into us (often to our cost) the most. — Tom Storm

Exactly.

But the difference with religion is it makes unverifiable claims about bettering the world. It persistently makes claims that belief in god is somehow a positive, transformative power and the evidence for this never stacks up. — Tom Storm

True. I agree. But is it the only field that you see hypocrisy all over around us? And more specific hypocrisy used as to remain in power? I m not surprised as to be honest. Well in fact if religions weren't making such claims that would surprise me!

Religions should stop playing the morality card and recognize that they have nothing to offer that any social club can't offer too. Although not all that many social clubs seem to institutionalize child abuse and misogyny to the same high levels... but you get my point. — Tom Storm

I do. Not that I disagree with what you wrote here about that morality card(it's their strongest one) . But the thing is that religions would never recognize such a thing. That would mean the end of their existence. It's like asking from a wolf to stop eating sheep.

The problem is that Christianity is presented here as to have a "privilege" in intolerance compared to other religions. Or that its teaching is worse than other religions.
People oppressing others is a global, continuous behaviour that you meet it everywhere! Religion, states, jobs, relationships etc.Everywhere!And throughout history. Based obviously in human nature. Human lust for power. And people express it with all kind of ways.

One of the best "vehicles"(especially in global scale) for that are religions. All kind of religions. To claim that Christianity(not even all religions but especially one!) is to blame for that, it's ridiculous. As if its teaching is more oppressive, intolerant than others.

Christianity of coursed used for that purposes also and became oppressive and intolerant. But it's how it was "used" for other purposes. Just an excuse for economic, political, power reasons as one group of people to oppress others! It was made VIA Christianity also. Not CAUSE of it. That's the whole point and that's why an argument like that is impossible to stand logically.

I don't see the relevance of the situation of the jews here; except to promulgate the glorification of oppression. And yet another ad hom, this one seemingly saying that my claim is too successful. — Banno

You don't see it but it's still there.
Told you already, it's obvious that your mind is locked there. So nothing useful to discuss about here. You fail to understand simple logical things or you pretend that you don't. Anyway so be then.

...to wich we can now add the misrepresentation of my view here: — Banno

Your views are misrepresented on their own. Don't worry. I didn't change anything.

Every religion(from the very first one) used and achieved political power. They are combined. And humans always used religions for other "purposes". Taking advantage of them.

It wasn't Christianity's privilege at all. It just seems that you find Christianity especially "guilty" for every humanity harm. It has to do with religions in general and not at all with Christianity itself. — dimosthenis9

Even the obvious fact with Egyptians oppressing Jews, you almost demonstrated that it was Jews fault! So what else to say? — dimosthenis9

Blames for all human nature weaknesses religions. As if behind them aren't people.
And after Christianity especially. That Logical row simply makes no sense at all. Add to all these, the historical error that Christianity was first to oppress others, be intolerant and seek political state and you will understand that there isn't much to argue about here. — dimosthenis9

Nothing to add further.

Your position is false from its very on foundation. I explained you why. So either you don't see it or you pretend that you don't see it cause it will hurt your Ego(I would bet on that case) . Either way it's pointless.

To ask me bring historical documents as to prove wrong your unspeakable claim that Christianity was the first to be intolerant, proselytize and seek political power it's like asking me prove you that sky is blue.
So no thanks, I m not interested in trying to convince you about something that obvious. It's a waste of time.

Notice how they do not make reference to historical documents? — Banno

To refer like you do, the specific historical documents that you pick only those who fit your position?That's ridiculous. Even the obvious fact with Egyptians oppressing Jews, you almost demonstrated that it was Jews fault! So what else to say?

Maybe you should notice that your base that you start your argument is fundamental wrong. You attribute human nature's weaknesses to religions and especially Christianity. Using historical errors like it was the first which was intolerant and persuade political power. So what to discuss here about? It's obvious that your mind is locked there and a conversation won't help.