(Thank you for your response to the topic.)

perhaps there is meaning in discussing it with them. It's not that they actually can't see, they certainly can see, unless they are truly blinded.
Instead they chose actively to ignore the "otherworldly" and thus they do not see ... — IP060903

That could be true. Only that, in my experience, they are absolute and unmovable from their position. Indeed, they act as being "blind", although actually they are not, as you say. I mentioned also that they can even get "hostile" --something which unfortunately I have met quite a few times in conversing with them. This is usually a trait of persons who are wrong and they know that, as you mentioned too. They are just defending themselves. And this, because they either don't have "a case" or sound arguments or any arguments at all to defend their position. Moreover, they usually ignore some of my basic questions-arguments, most probably because they don't have a (plausible) answer.

So, I believe that a discussion under the above conditions has no meaning. It's just a waste of time.

what purpose do you want to achieve by speaking about materialism to materialists? — IP060903

None! :grin: I personally, don't speak about materialism to materialists. As I explained above, they are usually not willing to accept or consider or even listen to anything that suggests or even proves that not everything is matter or based on matter. It's a dead issue. Materialism itself is dead. And this was the subject and purpose of this topic.

that's why you have to watch out for reduction fallacies, — Garrett Travers

I'm not familiar with the term "reduction fallacies" so I skipped it! (Sorry. I do that sometimes! That's another thing one must not do in philosophical discussions! :grin:)
So, I just looked it up ... Reductio fallacy: "An informal fallacy of questionable cause that occurs when it is assumed that there is a single, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes." ... Great! (I bring up this issue sometimes, but I dind't know there was a term for it.)

I will also look up the other kinds of fallacies. Thanks for bringing all this up! :up:

(I will make a long break now ...)

do you mean clarity in logical propositions and arguments as standardized by academia, oe something else? — Garrett Travers

Exactly! And if they are not standardized, or one doesn't use terms in their standardised meaning, he should then clarify what he actually means by them. There are cases where key or important terms in a statement-argument have different meanings, or their meaning is debatable, etc. (A classic example is the term "reality".)

go into informal logic to learn how to cut through everyone's arguments. Which, I'm sure you've noticed here, are trash — Garrett Travers

I sure have! :smile:

But, you may be a bit more modest than I on that subject. — Garrett Travers

I would say that I am "more strict" on that subject.

You seem pretty good at calling nonsense. — Garrett Travers

Thanks. But it's most probably because I am a little too strict! :smile:

***

I thought ... I hoped you were going to mention things like clarity, precision, etc. in statements.
(It would help me in my next topic I plan to launch ...)

Which is why it's the first thing we learn as philosophy students — Garrett Travers

What's the first thing people learn as philosophy students?
I have never been one --not in a University-- and it is useful to know!

But it is far from usual
— Alkis Piskas
How so? — Fooloso4

I think we lost the ball ... So I'll bring it back. All started from the definition/use you gave of the term "fact" as "the existence of states of affairs". Then you said you don't find this unusual, and talked about "hermeneutics" etc. That is where the thing got off track and my reaction was the above statement: "it is far from usual". And I gave three (more) simple reasons why this is so. No "hermeneutics" and that kind of stuff, which make things go out of track ... Now, after all that, you still ask "How so?"! The only explanation I can give is that you are thinking --or trying to think-- in a complicated way, instead of thinking in simple terms and using simple, pure logic. And that is the only way in which any discussion can take place and have a meaning. Otherwise, the ball gets lost. Which is what happened here.
I don't take pleasure in this. I am out.

I do not find Wittgenstein's use of 'fact' unusual — Fooloso4

You mean ... you can undestand its use, right? Which is OK. But it is far from usual, i.e. from what one can find in a standard dictionary and from what most people understand by it, isn't it? This was exactly was I was talking about! I add here something that I hope will make my point more clear: 1) People should be able to look up the words in dictionaries to know/undestand their meaning, 2) In a discussion one must use terms with their most common meaning or else use other words/terms in their place, which convey better what they actually mean and 3) one should not have to study the work of a philosopher to understand what he means by a term! I can't make my point more clear than that. I have already done a lot!

Many of the philosophers have some terms idiosyncratically. Why they do is an interesting question. — Fooloso4

This may be true. But they shouldn't. If they do, it means they are themselves "idiosyncratic" or even not so stable mentally. Yes, as extreme as this might sound. Mental health depends a lot on rationality. When it is not stable, one can write or say things that don't make sense or are unsound, not based on logic. Rationality includes or implies analytical ability. Without that, one cannot go far philosophising!

Philosophers, as well as people talking about philosophical matters, have to be as much exact in the language they use as possible. This is required by logic (rationality) --which characterizes philiosophy-- and communicativeness. "Idiosyncrasy" should only be tolerated in their viewpoints, not in their language.

We often read quotes from known, well established philosophers, that we find somewhat "strange", the truthfulness of which we easily question or disagree with. A classic example is Descartes's "I think therefore I am", which has been, and still is, discussed a lot. In such cases, one has to find out why, the context in which, the philosopher said what he said. And usually, this can be easily found and explained. It's rearily a question of language.

Another case of misundestanding or having a difficulty to undestand what a philosopher says or means, is lack of rationality and ability to understand from our side. I remember, since my school days, having read quite a few times referring to Heraclitus as "the dark philosopher". He was never "dark" for me. He was very clear and his views can still stand today; they are timeless. He was/is "dark" only to people who couldn't/cannot understand the meaning of what he said. His language, however, was very clear and exact!

This is not say that this is the correct or only meaning of a fact, but if we are to understand him we need to begin with the way he uses terms — Fooloso4

That's true. I have certainly not studied his work, but from what you tell me, I undestand that one needs to learn a new language, different from the language most philosophers --and people, in general-- use!
Then, we should quote him with thriftiness, and only to people that we know they have studied his work.
Well, if I knew all that, I will have certainly not started such a discussion! :smile:

when we say "my world", we mean my reality, everything that is in it
— Alkis Piskas
That may be what you mean but not what he means. — Fooloso4

I think that this is --more or less-- what most people mean too. See, Wittgenstein is not "public material".

Well, all what you said seem very correct, and thank you for sharing that knowledge. :pray:
But for me, all this is more than enough. I'm going now to take a long break from Wittgenstein! :grin:

On one side of the limit is what can be said, on the other is what can be, or experienced. — Fooloso4

I agree.

it is only what is within the world of facts that can be addressed by language. — Fooloso4

The "world of facts" is an ambiguous expression. Actually, a fact is something that is known or proved to be true. And it is independent of language. It can be subjective: what I believe is a fact, it's a fact for me. It can also be a "common" fact: it is a fact, for me and other people who know me or to people to whom I can show/prove it, that I know how to ride a bicycle. It has nothing to do with language.

Anyway, this may be indeed Wittgenstein's viewpoint. But it is not explicit or implied from the immediate context, from what I have read regarding this statement. Yet, I can accept it as true. But even in that case, it's a limited view of what a "fact" is, as I expleined above.

However, the most important of all is that when we say "my world", we mean my reality, everything that is in it, including experiences. Words (language) are only a part of it.

So, whatever Wittgenstein's viewpoint is, it's quite limited, anyway.

Thoughts don't exist IN THE PHYSICAL WORLD, but the brain does. — god must be atheist

:up: (Esp. for using capital letters! :smile:)

Wittgenstein's actual statement has been lost during these communications! For example, a lot of people have argued about "the language limiting our world". This is true and obvious. However, the exact statement is, "The limits of my language mean the limits of my world". This is quite different. As far as I am concerned and as I have described it in my topic, it means that my world is limited to what I can communicate with words (language). Which is false. My world also contains all sorts of knowledge where language is not part of it, e.g. skills, music & dancing, playing games, etc. Some of them, e.g. like music, painting and other arts, are forms of communication where words are completely absent. Face expressions and body language are also forms of communication with which people can exchange information and transmit knowledge in the absence of words. And so on and so on. The list is endless.

Wittgenstein's statement was indeed was biased and/or superficial. And this was what I tried to show with my topic.

The teleological argument is an argument in favor of theism — SwampMan

I think that both versions of the teleological argument have significant flaws.

1st version:
1) What do you mean exactly by "fine-tuning data"? How does the term "fine-tuning", used normally in computer sience, apply to philosophy, and esp. in the present context? Whatever is the case, the statements involving this term can be rejected just because of the ambiguity factor.
2) "The fine-tuning data are not improbable" makes no sense grammatically: it should be either "The fine-tuning of data" or "The fine-tuned data".
3) The 1st statement, "The fine-tuning data are not improbable under theism", doesn't mean much, considering that anything is possible. But worse, there's no evident relation between such data or process and theism.
4) The 2nd statement, "The fine-tuning data are very improbable under single-universe atheism", is even more arbitrary..
Finally these statements are presented as facts, not as hypotheses. In the second case, they might make some sense.
At this point, I have to reject this version of teleological argument as a whole, for all of the above reasons.

2nd version:
It's a little better, because al least it is based on the hypothesis "If God exists". However,
1) The term "God" needs first to be defined or described, e.g. It is assumed that "God" is --or the term "God" refers to-- a primordial entity, existing from the beginning of time, or something similar. So, OK, let's assume that.
2) It should not to be repeated in the next statementsl; It has to be only once, at start: "It is assumed that God exists". The reason for that is evident: besides redundancy, the existence of God has to be repeatedly assumed, which creates a kind of doubt: "But isn't it already assumed that God exists?" Anyway, we can skip this weakness too.
3) The 2nd statement, "If God exists, then he is more wonderful* than the universe", is not consequential: there's no reason why this is so. I exist before a tsunami is created, but I'm not more powerful that it.. Even if it is assumed that God has created the universe --which, BTW, is anothet missing assumption!-- it doesn't ensue that He is more powerful than it. If I create a bomb, I will be not more powerful than it: it can explode at any moment and kill me!
At this point, I have to reject this version of teleological argument too as a whole, for all of the above reasons.

So, I'm really sorry, but, independently of your conclusion on the teological argument, you don't have a case. :sad:
However, you could have a case, if you had shown that these two formulations of the teleological argument are unbased, as I did.

storing digital text and image codes using DNA. A cubic cm of DNA is capable of storing 5 petabits of information ... — Count Timothy von Icarus

All this is quite interesting!
I have no idea about geneticism. (Regarding "memory" I have only heard about "genetic memory", ehich is a different thing.)

But, because I am --and always was-- quite interested in the subject of memory, I just searched for memory+DNA+capacity in the present context and found some interesting articles:

- "Are memories stored in DNA?"
(https://www.scienceinpublic.com.au/csl/fellow-dna)
It says "Geoff Faulkner is testing a bold idea— he thinks long-term memory might be stored in our brain’s DNA." Etc. But this is just a "bold idea".

- "DNA can carry memories of traumatic stress down the generations"
(https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/122740-dna-can-carry-memories-of-traumatic-stress-down-the-generations)
It says, "Animal and human investigations indicate that the impact of trauma experienced by mothers affects early offspring development, but new research is also discovering that it is also actually encoded into the DNA of subsequent generations.". We are talking here about memory of sensations (pain, etc.)

- "Memories may be stored on your DNA"
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0262407908629930)
We read, "Experiments in mice suggest that patterns of chemical “caps” on our DNA may be responsible for preserving long and short-term memories" Mice! And most probably memories of sensations again.

- "DNA could store all of the world's data in one room"
(https://www.science.org/content/article/dna-could-store-all-worlds-data-one-room)
Subtitle: "New algorithm delivers the highest-ever density for large-scale data storage"
It talks about what you describe in your post. More precisely, "Now, researchers report that they've come up with a new way to encode digital data in DNA to create the highest-density large-scale data storage scheme ever invented. Capable of storing 215 petabytes (215 million gigabytes) in a single gram of DNA, the system could, in principle, store every bit of datum ever recorded by humans in a container about the size and weight of a couple of pickup trucks. But whether the technology takes off may depend on its cost."
Well, I don't know if by "humans" they mean "all the humans together" or just "any human" ... Because I can't think of a human brain with the size of two pickup trucks! :grin:
Besides, the project is still in its infancy ...

And so on. See, scienitists, in general, are so eager to find and prove that human memory is located and processed in the brain, that every now and then they come up with "exotic" theories, which of course fade away after some time, to be replaced with new ones. I have mentioned elsewhere in TPF, that they are using the wrong tools in getting involved in realms that are outside theirs. Some of them of course admit that some things are just a "mystery" and/or outside the realm of Science. Scientists are doing great things regarding matter and energy. Let them keep on in that realm!

(Note: I am referring to conventional Science and scientists; not the scientifc research, methods, experiments, etc. in general.)

I could accept that but I need an example by quoting what I say. Saying "the manner in which you've been posting is not clear" is too general and tells nothing. It also makes the other person waste time to find out where he was not clear!
So, which of us is actually not clear?

Again, this is a rhetorical question, and you don't have to answer it!
It's just to show you what writing in a clear manner actually means and is.

I don't think you and I have any beef. Unless I've misunderstood what you're saying, we're agreeing with each other. — T Clark

Right, we don't. And I don't think that you have misunderstood what I said.

Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? :grin:
— Alkis Piskas
I don't, the manner in which you post isn't clear. — Garrett Travers

You mean, you can't see that the title of this topic is "Reality does not make mistakes and that is why we strive for meaning. A justification for Meaning." and that these are not my words? What about the quotation marks and highlighting that I use? Don't they mean anything to you? How more clear can it be?

These are all rhetorical questions. They show my great astonishment. You don't have to reply.

This clears up the opinion you asserted that sounded like mysticism. My apologies. — Garrett Travers

OK. Thanks.

Reality does not make mistakes and that is why we strive for meaning. A justification for Meaning.
— Alkis Piskas
This is a statement of self evident fact. — Garrett Travers

Again, these are not my words. It's the title of this discussion! :smile: (Just scroll up to the top of the page to verify.)
Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? :grin:

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism ...
— Alkis Piskas
This is clearly what is going on in the universe. Anybody that says otherwise is thinking in terms of magic. — Garrett Travers

OK, only that it looks like these are my own words; it's a quote from Wikipedia ...

I wasn't making a statement about religion. What I wanted to say was about science. — T Clark

You said "It has always seemed to me that belief in an objective reality requires a belief in God.". Are not beliefs and God related to religion? And, does science deal with either of them?

I think objective reality is a metaphysical entity, not something that exists in the world. — T Clark

Certainly. But I think that the points I brought up reflected or implied that ...

Anyway, as I already mentioned to @Garrett Travers, all this is off-topic. So we might better not go more "off on a tangent" as yourself already pointed out.

No, an absolute reality outside of the one accounted for by physics and biology requires a God. — Garrett Travers

That goes without saying. No one speaks about absolutes in the physical world as examined by science (physics, etc.)

Where do you formulate this mysticism? — Garrett Travers

Pardon me? :smile:

I think, that such a absolute state is highly impossible to exist.
— Alkis Piskas
This is a statement of absolute objectivity. — Garrett Travers

... or rather subjectivity? Do nοt "I think" and "highly impossible" sugest subjectivity?

Anyway, all this, besides going in circles, is totally off-topic. ("Reality does not make mistakes and that is why we strive for meaning. A justification for Meaning.") So better get back on rails!

Nice topic.

It has nothing to do with brain size -- the Neanderthals have larger brains than us. — L'éléphant

Right.

The reason for losing our intelligence is due to the fact that we are no longer pressured to live under the fight and flight situations. — L'éléphant

I don't think knowing how and being good in fighting and hunting makes man -- has made him, in any period of this history-- more intelligent. Are bullies, barbarians, belligerents, primitive tribes intelligent than civilized people?
So, I don't think that intelligence has started to decline since the primitive man. But I believe it is in a declining phase. It has reached a peak, and then started to decline.

This has to do with the historical phenomenon of the rise and fall of civilizations. During these periods, between rise and fall, civilizations reach a peak and then start to fall. At their peak, morality, intelligence, creativity and other human mental abilities seem to also at a high point. There is no specific evidence for that, but I think it is evident. For example, ethics (morality) and rationality (intelligence) go hand in hand. So goes with creativity, which characterizes these periods and which depends much on intelligence.

Now, I believe that the decline of intelligence we are witnessing today, is very closely related to the decline in ethics (morality, moral behavior) which I think is quite evident, since ethics and rationality are directly and closely connected. Actually, ethics is based on rationality. (I have explained that a few times elsewhere (e.g. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/582354)
But intelligence is also affected by ethics. E.g. Lying or stealing on a frequent basis impairs your intelligence, because going against of what you actually believe is true or right, produces a strong conflict, breaks your personal integrity and shatters your reality. It can go so far that at some point you can't know what is true or not or distinguish between right and wrong, which is a case of mental illness.
Greeks' IQ is very kow relatively to other European countries (maybe the 2nd lowest). So is their ethics level!

I had to pinpoint this much neglected factor, because it has to do a lot with the decline of intelligence, which is the subject of this topic.

It has always seemed to me that belief in an objective reality requires a belief in God. As you note, there has to be someone who can experience it, someone with "an infinite, absolute viewpoint." — T Clark

Certainly. An absolute reality requires a God. But people, so much misled by religious dogmas and bias of all sort,as well as lack of critical reasoning and undestanding, don't even treat God as something absolute. They rather treat him --at least in Christanity, I don't know in other dogmatic religions-- simply as a super human being! And in fact, with a lot of human attributes like vegeange, destructive tendencies, etc., that go hand-in-hand with "love", "mercy", etc. And that's why we see God as an old Man in paintings ... Why old? And why masculine? A Supreme Being has no age or sex!
I mean. all that is ridiculous, isn't it?

The bottom line is, I think, that such a absolute state is highly impossible to exist. But even if it does exist, we are not able to conceive it. anyway. So, there's no meaning in talking about it, exept only for ... stressing the point of such an impossibility! :grin:

Right, that's another interesting point. — Count Timothy von Icarus

What exactly? The self-contradiction ... ?
It's better if you use TPF's "Quote" feature (as I do).

To have an absolute standpoint would require you to have a memory essentially equivalent to the energy of the universe as a whole... maybe. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't know if and what kind of energy a memory consists of ... But if it is, then it should be really huge, esp. considering the images stored in a computer, even in compressed form! This shows clearly that memory cannot be located/stored in the brain, as scientists try in vain to establish since a long time ago!

Interesting to consider when people make analogies to reality as being like a "simulation" or "computer program," anyhow. I think those comparisons tend to mislead more then they elucidate though. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I agree.

only by having incomplete information can we have any information, total information = 0 surprise = no information. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Interesting point. It makes me think of "omniscience" or "absolute knowledge" and similar metaphysical concepts, which are utopias and which are nice to dream about. But unfortunately we have to wake up at some point! Indeed, if one knew everything one wouldn't need information! And, by consequence one would never be surprised about anything. What a boring state of existence! :grin:

Now, something that just came up to me --as it often happens with these discussions ... I have not worked this well, but I think that both of the above terms ("omniscience" or "absolute knowledge") are actually counter-intuitive or self-contradicting ... (I can't think of the term for something that contains an impossibility.) If I'm telling that "I know everything", that "I have an absolute knowledge", etc., then, at the same time, knowledge would have no meaning as far as I am concerned, since that would mean that and could only happen if I myself am knowledge and/or I am knowledge itself! It could maybe also mean that and happen only if I am everything!

Now, it's time time for me to wake up! :grin:

there must be a base reality outside of human observation. — vanzhandz

I was afraid that you would say that! :smile:
The vast majority of people (including "thinkers") believe there is and talk about an "objective" reality. Isn't this the "base" reality and the reality "outside of human observation", that you are talking about?

n such cases I use to ask, "If there is an objective a reality, who is out there to tell?" And I continue to explain that we can only talk about subjective reality: a person's reality: yours, mine and other persons' reality. Realities differ among people rearding everything. The closest one cout get to an "objective" reality is "common" reality. This is an agreed upon reality. It you and I agree on something, we can talk about a common reality. Even if, hypothetically, all the people on Earth agree on something --completely impossible--, this is still a common reallity.

What people usually mean by "objective reality" is the physical universe! Which, of course exists "outside human observation", as you describe it. They use these terms interchangeably, and almost as synonyms.

Therefore, specifying "What reality" and/or "Whose reality?" is required to understand your argument! :smile

Without a base reality to exist within than where would our consciousness reside? — vanzhandz

In our own reality. We build our reality mainly by perception, reasoning and knowledge. Reasoning includes understanding and knowledge includes facts to which you have agreed on or the existence of which you have accepted. Faith can be also part of one's reality, regarding things the existence of which one cannot prove or explain.

And within this base reality there must be a reason why a being that is conscious can create meaning. — vanzhandz

You create meaning based on your perception, reasoning, understanding and knowledge. In short, your reality.

Re: "Reality does not make mistakes"
What "reality"? Whose reality?

My point was that we should not consider the profession as a necessary condition for being a philosophe — Fooloso4

I see. OK.

Are the really professional sophists then? Is pay what distinguishes the philosopher and the sophist, or is the no clear distinction? Plato raises the question, but the answer he provides is not so clear cut. — Fooloso4

You are right. I also find that Plato's answer is not so clear.
I have already said that I am not interested in the subject of sophism and sophists, but I have to add an important element about sophists that was missed from my last comment on them: deception or an attempt to deceive. From what I know, sophists used good rhetoric and apparently logical statements or arguments that were based on fallacies. However, they managed to "pass the message" to the other side. That's why the term "sophism" today is connected to that element. Ofxford LEXICO defines "sophism" as "A clever but false argument, especially one used deliberately to deceive." And this is exactly how I always undestood that word. I personally don't use it, but statments like "Thus is just a sophism", are not uncommon at all. In fact, in Greek it is quite common. Naturally, since the word comes from ancient Greek "sophia" (= wisdom). We use it though more in the form of "sophsitry": "I wonder what kind of sophistry will you come up with this time!", "What you are telling us are all sophistries!" and so on.

Do we have proffesional sophists today? Such a thing makes you only lauph. But we have lawyers! :grin:

Plato identifies Protagoras as a sophist, but we should not take this to mean that he simply rejected his teaching. Protagoras' influence on Plato was considerable. — Fooloso4

Maybe so. I have no idea! :grin:

I am a philosopher by profession — Fooloso4

Very good. Among other things, this proves that philosophy can indeed be a profession! :grin: (There are some doubts about that in this thread; I can't remember from whom.)

I used to say that philosophy was a transformative practice, but unfortunately that has become hackneyed — Fooloso4

Why do you 1) refer to the past and 2) consider that "unfortunate"?
For me it has always been --since College-- a 100% transformative practice!

Is a sophist a philosopher? — Fooloso4

(Sorry I missed to reply on this)

I'm surprised that you are using present time ... I couldn't think that sophists have survived to this day! :grin:
(Except for the term "sophism", which we know more or less what it means.)

Regarding philosophy always, I always --since school-- connected "sophists" to pre-Socratic philosophers, represented mainly by Protagoras. As I didn't care much about the subject --I still don't :smile:-- I allowed it to remain as such in my mind. But thanks to your bringing it up, I found the occasion to refresh my memory and acquire some further knowlede on it.

What I realized is that there's a lot of disagreement between the opinions on whether sophists were philosophers (among other things) or not. Yet, one cannot deny that e.g. Protagoras and other known philosophers were and are still considered "sophist" philosophers!

So, my answer to your question --asuming always that you are referring to ancient philosophy-- is "Yes".

Anyway, my interest on the subject is consumed at this point! :smile:

I was responding to your claim that the philosopher is someone who practices it as a profession. — Fooloso4

As said, "especially as a profession". I mentioned also other factors that can qualify someone as a philosopher ...

The professionalization of the field is something worth thinking about. There are some, Thoreau comes to mind, who are quite critical of the profession of philosophy. — Fooloso4

Well, this is his opinion! :smile:

Here are some of the many references containing a contrary opinion, which I could easily find:

- Philosophy as a Profession
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24435126
- Professional Philosophy
https://portfolium.com/entry/my-professional-philosophy
- Is philosophy a profession?
https://platofootnote.wordpress.com/2018/12/10/is-philosophy-a-profession-yes-its-a-serious-question/
...

You can find more if you like ...

You can also see the subject of professionalization from a practical viewpoint, in reality: How do you call philosophers who use philosophy for living, by writing books or delivering lectures about their own philosophical ideas? OK, let writing aside, because you could call them professional "writers". But what about lectures? Would you call them a professional "lecturers"?

Anyway, "professionalization" is not a main issue in this topic. As it often happens in these discussions, we have deviated from the main subject of the topic, which here is to determine what qualifies someone as a philosopher. .

ethics, which is the branch that formulates reliable, consistent, and logically valid systems of moral behavior — Garrett Travers

I liked that. I am also of the opinion that ethics are based on rationality.

And, I'd wager to say that there are FAR more musicians than ethical philosophers. — Garrett Travers

I guess this was always the case ...

Ah, it's [ethics] just my passion, I love this field, you see? I am always wondering if we can bring more people into the fold and increase the man-power associated with developing moral behaviors. I imagine you haven't missed noticing that we're in a deficit right now, by and large, eh? — Garrett Travers

Ethics is one of my favorite subjects too.

And yes, I think it is evident that "we're in a deficit right now" regarding moral behaviors.
There are many reasons for that, as well as a lot to say about developing moral behaviors, which looks like a good subject for a next topic of mine. I don't want to "kill" this one! :smile:

Did Socrates pursue philosophy as a profession? — Fooloso4

No, he wasn't. His profession was stone-worker. And, although hdid not even considered himself as a teacher, I strongly believe he was a teacher. In fact, one of the best that we know at that period of time and, for a lot of people, of all time. Anyway, it seems that he was systematically involved in philosophy and he produced a lot of work in that area, not in writing but verbally, by dialoguing. (Re: Plato's "Dialogues", Socratic dialogues.)

All this makes him certainly a philosopher, according to my position on the subject.

an ethicist is one who practices ethics, at least to the same degree. — Garrett Travers

That would be something like an "ethics philosopher". Socrates talked a lot about "virtue", which is not exactly ethics, but this subject characterized him.

how many ethicists do we have among us these days? What do you think? — Garrett Travers

Actually, I have never heard talking about "ethicists" ... I just looked that up in the Web ... Wikipedia describes such a person as "one whose judgment on ethics and ethical codes has come to be trusted by a specific community, and (importantly) is expressed in some way that makes it possible for others to mimic or approximate that judgment. Following the advice of ethicists is one means of acquiring knowledge." Well, priests can be also have that role, although I believe thay are quite biased and usually dogmatic.

Indeed, what makes you wondering about "ethicists"? Aren't philosophers your subject?

Ethics as a branch of philosophy, informed by your definition of a philosopher. What does that tell us of ethics, you think? — Garrett Travers

I can't see anything else than a philosopher specialized in ethics. As a biologist is a scientist specialized in biology. There's no difference regasrding where one is specialized in.
(If I undestand your question correctly and always within in the frame of "philosophers".)

Wow! That's the fastest reply I have ever received! :smile:

what does such a definition tell us in regards to ethics? — Garrett Travers

Do you mean "ethics" as a branch of philosophy or as a specialization , e.g. "ethics officer", post in "department of ethics", etc.?

Just what is it that constitutes a philosopher? — Garrett Travers

OK, let's start from something simple and obvious: A philosopher is someone who practices philosophy. The word "philosopher" comes from the ancient Greek "philos" (= friend, lover) and "sophia" (= wisdom). This is very simple, but of course, not everyone who loves wisdom can be called a philosopher! The key word is "practicing", i.e. he must be involved systematically in philosophy, as a field of knowledge, and esp. as a profession. I guess it is the same with a scientist, who is involved systematically in science, as a field of knowledge, and esp. as a profession.

One cannot be called a "translator" because he can translate text from one language to another. He has to do that on a systematic basis, esp. as a profession.

Moreover, I believe that one must also show a lot of products of his work on philosophy. The works may be in written (books) and/or oral (lectures) form.

A writer I know used to say, "For one to be (called) a writer, he has to write a lot of books."

When I see your alias, I always wonder how or why you have chosen it ... Thinking should not be tiresome! :smile: Not if directed correctly and it is controlled, and one doesn't "torture" one's mind by chosing to talk about such subjects as infiniteness! :grin:

Is there a way to describe various infinites without going right to number lines? Anything in real life to reference in terms of the infinite? — TiredThinker

I'm not sure what you exactly mean by "going right to number lines", but if you imply that "infinity" and "infiniteness" are normally connected to numbers (Math), I think that this is too much restricting. There are a lot of things we call "infinite", even if actually they are not, but only very huge in size, from simple to complex: a line, a circle, love, time, space, the Universe (although its infiniteness is still debatable), ... That is, anything the limits of which cannot be determined.

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
― Albert Einstein

I think the Holocaust had elements of both racism and inhumanity — Ree Zen

As I see it, racism and inhumanity go hand in hand. Normally, only the first implies the second, not vice versa. However, I believe that the meaning of "racism" may be extended to include any antagonism in which one person considers the other one inferior, for a lot of reasons besides race, and treats him/her in an inhuman way. Which fits your belief that "racism is born out of a type of inhumanity towards another".

I assume this means let's make a baby. — Metaphysician Undercover

In that case, it would rather be "Let's create a new life" :grin: