Here are some singe-word metaphors:

1) Plain words:
- chair: A professorship (We can say, e.g. "he holds a chair in physics")
- crane (verb): Stretch out (one's neck) so as to see something. (As a crane (machine) does. We can say, e.g. "he craned his head to see passed the people in front of him".)
- player: Used as someone who is 1) "playing" with women 2) a factor, taking part in a big business or other plan. With a reference to the primary meaning of "player", which is "taking part in sport").
...

2) Words consisting of two words blended together:
- scapegoat: A person who is blamed for the wrongdoings, mistakes, or faults of others, especially for reasons of expediency. Literally, a goat sent into wilderness after the Jewish chief priest had symbolically laid the sins of the people upon it (Bible).
- portmanteau: A word blending the sounds and combining the meanings of two others, for example motel or brunch. Literally, a large travelling bag, typically made of stiff leather and opening into two equal parts.
...

Actually, the list comprises all words with double meanings, where a secondary meaning refers to, is connected to and extends the primary meaning, to describe something different in kind.

The word metaphor itself is a metaphor, coming from a Greek term meaning to "transfer" or "carry across." Metaphors "carry" meaning from one word, image, idea, or situation to another. — "Metaphor

OK about the etymology, but the actual metaphor applies only to the Greek language! For the English language, the word "metaphor" is just a word (carrying a single meaning and used literally). :smile:

All this is quite interesting. But they are all descriptions and fancy definitions To talk about "free will" and have a meaningful discussion, we must first agree on what "free will" is in common sense and simple terms. Then there can follow arguments supporting or rejecting the existence of free will. Don't you agree?

Anyway, I am pretty sure that you actually know yourself what "free will" means in simple terms! :wink:

I wonder if all those people you are mentioning understand and use the term "free will" in its simple, common meaning leading to the unequivocal existence of free will. I have heard a lot of people denying the existence of "free will" but I still wait for sound arguments that support that position. I mean, personal arguments in real time. Not having to read (volumes of texts) from what 3d parties have to say on subject ...

In my case, the best way was already offered in high school, in the course of Ancient Greek Language (not optional! :smile:) It is there where I "met" Socrates, this great philosopher. Yet, as much as I loved this course, it did not consist a step in my "philosophical period", since I was more interested in other things at the time! (I actually "discovered" and got involved in philosophy in college, where Philosophy was an optional course!).

So, although this is not the case for the great majority of people, it is still a good starting point: Start from where philosophy has started (in the West): Ancient Greece. Read about and from as many ancient Greek philosophers, from pre-Socratic to Plato and Aristotle. You can find a lot of material in the Internet. Ponder on their arguments and views. Whatever doesn't match your taste or reason, just drop it and go to the next one. Make it "as light as possible". Stick to the things that make sense to you. For example, consider Heraclitus' "Everything flows" and "You cannot cross the same river twice". Why has he said that? What does that mean to you. Exercise your reasoning. You can discover a new huge world of interest! :smile:

Mm, well in my belief these paradoxes aren't ridiculous. — john27

You are right to the extent that I have overcritized them. See, I am a fan of paradoxes, I have a large collection of them, but none about God. According to my personal quality criteria, there are real paradoxes and pseudo-paradoxes. Most of the "paradoxes" that one can find around --Wikipedia alone you can find a lot of them-- are based on fallacies, which I can recognize, easily or after some analysis. That's why I call them "pseudo-paradoxes".

It helps flesh out His behaviour in a context that gives certain people hope and thats most definitely not bad. — john27

OK, I respect this.

this isn't the best way to assess gods existence — john27

Certainly!

The existence of God after all, is a choice — john27

Of course.

Thank you for your response. I appreciated it. :smile:

Why don't you state what is the "Epicurean paradox"? For one thing, so that we can all understand and talk about the same thing ...

Anyway, Wikipedia describes it as follows:
"God, he says, either wishes to take away evils, and is unable; or He is able, and is unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able. If He is willing and is unable, He is feeble, which is not in accordance with the character of God; if He is able and unwilling, He is envious, which is equally at variance with God; if He is neither willing nor able, He is both envious and feeble, and therefore not God; if He is both willing and able, which alone is suitable to God, from what source then are evils? Or why does He not remove them?"

I assume that you have the above or something similar in mind ...

Well, a lot more could be added to this "paradox" but it would still be baseless. It's like the "Omnipotence paradox" --"Could God create a stone so heavy that even He could not lift it?"-- and other "God" pseudo-paradoxes.

What they all have in common is that they are not real paradoxes because they are based on arbitrary elements and facts: First you create a concept named "God", then you attribute imaginary features to it --"omnipotent", "omniscient", etc.-- and then you try to prove that these are impossible to exist or happen. What a stupidity!

Now, in the Epicurean pseudo-paradox, there are more concepts created, i.e. arbitrary elements, like "evil", which make it even more ridiculous.

Now, you might wonder, if I find this kind of "paradoxes" ridiculous, then why I get into trouble of talking about them? Well, I do it with the hope of preventing people taking them seriously, or at least thinking twice before doing that.

there are some concepts that cannot be understood. — Varde

Between "cannot be understood" and "100% of information on such subjects" there's a huge difference. You are kind of jumping from zero to infinity, from nothing to everyting, from indefinite to absolute.

I believe that you have to study (better) the subject of your topic. And take into consideration that 100% of information on any subject is totally impossible. You cannot understand absolutely anything, esp. a concept.

In addition, you must change the title --"Strange Concepts that Cannot be Understood: I e. Mind-- because the concept of mind can be as "strange" as any other concept. "Strange" means "difficult to undestand or explain".

"express a text from one language in another language" means "perceiving the meaning of text" while using different grammar, signs, ect — Gregory

But, really, can't you see these two are totally different processes/actions and independent from each other? After this, I give up.

We don't know the sounds they used ... — Gregory

OK, but you didn't reply on my comment on your wrong statement "There is no diffiference between translating a text and understanding it." ...

There is no diffiference between translating a text and understanding it. — Gregory

translate (text): express a text from one language in another language
understand (text): perceive the meaning of text

Do they look the same to you?
They are two different processes that can be connected in a sequence: understand -> translate. You must first understand a text before you can translated it. But the result can be equivocal: you may undestand the source text very well, but do a lousy translation of it. And vice versa: you may do an excellent translation but it might not correspond exactly to the source text because you have not understood that text well.

it's impossible to read them the way they were intended because the gap between them and us is so vast — Gregory

I agree. Also we can't know how they pronounced the words ...

But as far the meaning of the text is concerned we can be pretty sure of its undestanding, since, as I already mentioned, the texts would not make sense to us on a constant basis. From the moment a vocabulary, grammar and syntax of an ancient text of a certain period and place are established, we can be certain to undestand any text of the same period and place. It works like decoding. Once you find the keys and the patterns of the encoding system used to encode a certain code, you decode any other similar code. Words are also codes (symbols)
Besides, there were events in that period the description of which is compatible with various texts (references) about them. For example, The narration of Socrates' trial and our understanding are compatible with the text in Socrates' dialogues. They all "stick together", see? And this indicates successful undestanding.

The result is that I was still confused by your question. I just don't know how to answer it. — L'éléphant

The first time you talked about "too many questions" that you cannot answer. I then told you how.
Now you talk about my "question". What question?

You can't make up your mind. I think the ball is lost. We can quit this game now.

Give me something to bite on here. I can't work with these questions. I mean, where do I begin? — L'éléphant

You can't reply to all questions in a single answer of course! :smile: But TPF offers a great method of tackling each question/point on its own: You highlight one question/point, click on "Quote" and answer that question/point. Then you highlight another question/point, click on "Quote" and answer that question/point. And so on.

Do you know any place where there is just a number of individuals who follow their own morals, tradition etc.? — baker

I don't know what do you mean exactly by "place" (it's too general) but the following may qualify:
Criminals, anarchists, hermits, savages, ... Also, any informal and/or temporary group (persons garthered together): a group of boys, students, demonstrators, spectators in theaters, madmen in asylums, and so on.

Nothing needs to "hold society together". Society just exists, or doesn't exist, depending on one's ideological outlook. — baker

I'm surprised by this statement! There are a lot of things that hold a society together: collective consciousness, morals, traditions, laws ... And morality certainly holds society together, united. If there were no common morals and each one followed his/her own morals, tradition, etc. there would exist just a group of individuals and much disorder. That could not be called a community or society, could it?

... we say that he does so because he is a moral person.
— Alkis Piskas
When morality is a voluntary act, you foster irresponsible members of society. — L'éléphant

(Errata (in my message): "we can't say that he does so because he is a moral person")

In your statement "When morality is a voluntary act, you foster irresponsible members of society" the two santences are incongruent/incompatible with each other. (They cannot be connected grammatically.) Please check that.

When this happens you get a monster dictator — L'éléphant

How can you get a monster, or any, dictator when morality is a voluntary act??? It doesn't make sense. Please check that too.

Evil thrives in chaos, monsters in diplomacy. — L'éléphant

What does all this have to do with anything in here?

What holds together a society is the enforcement of morality through the use of force (the law) — L'éléphant

Law can "force" morality up to a certain extent. To the extent that it harms others. And even that cannot be always applied. For example, hurting ones feelings, in various ways, cannot be forbidden by law,

(There’s a very good article in the Internet on the subject: "Legal Enforcement of Morality" (
https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199756162.001.0001/acprof-9780199756162-chapter-9). It is quite short and it is worth reading.)

To my opinion, morality cannot be forced. It can only be encouraged, its value and purpose explained, etc. Morality exists only if it comes naturally from or is determined by oneself. If one behaves morally but he is forced to in any way, we can't say that he does so because he is a moral person.

Some examples of crimes against society — L'éléphant

OK, now you passed to crime. This has very little to do --if anything at all-- with morality. It is a pure legal subject.
And the 10 examples you mention are relative: they depend on each society's morals and laws.

:up:

Oh well now I've totally lost faith in your proclamations.
How would you know if you haven't read any of them? — Kenosha Kid

Don't lose faith so easily! :smile:

How many non-scientist persons do you know who read official scientific papers appearing usually in Science Journals? Only scientists do, and not all of them. But I have read and still read sometimes a lot of scientific articles from official sources, including Scientific American, on the subject. I am also reading messages from various scientists in forums/communities. But all that are not considered official scientific data, like those in Science Journals.

Do you now what a Science Journal is? If not, look at https://www.sciencealert.com/science-journal

:up:

Not real scientists, really, as demonstrated by their shifty reliance on evidence. — Kenosha Kid

I guess this includes populararized science and articles that want to create an impression with undocumented "discoveries" ... Even Scientific American talks about the subject you mentioned (Neural Correlates of Consciousness). It seems that it is so "well established" a field that they call it by its abbreviation (NCC)!

Well, I have not read any official scientific journal on the subject, but I expect to read more about the brain! See, they confuse sensory perception effects on the brain with ... consciousness! Indeed, this is all consciousness is for them: Being conscious of stimuli of the brain! Deplorable!

And if any scientist should make a compelling argument that consciousness resides in the brain, she should be put under house arrest in the name of rational thinking! — Kenosha Kid

Ha! I talked about the "scientific community" in general, not ALL scientists! Of course there are "thinkers" among them, even philosophers. But these do not believe that consciouness is in the brain. There are some eminent scientists among them: Deepak Chopra, Bernardo Kastrup, Menas Kafatos, etc.

Anyway, I would like to hear a compelling argument about consciousness residing in the brain ...

I can understand why you are skeptical. You have given some plausible reasons for that.
However, just think about something very simple: If the ancient texts were not really understood, they would not make sense or they would appear inconsistent, there would be no workable vocabulary and so on.

I have studied ancient Greek at school, I liked it a lot and was quite good at it. Among the texts were a lot of Socrates' dialogues, and you know what that means: a lot of critical thinking and simple logic. The meaning of texts would have totally "collapsed" and understanding would be greatly impaired.

In fact, since we are talking about understanding, from my own experience sometimes I have a difficulty in understanding certain modern philosophy texts, whereas this ha never happened with ancient ones!

What's with you guys? I can understand why the scientific community believes that consciousness is the product of and resides in the brain. Neuroscientists work and live in laboratories and can deal only with the body and whatever else the can see or touch. But it's very disappointing to see this among philosophical thinkers. They have other means to deal with immaterial things, like consciousness.

Rational thinking --even simple logic-- can never allow anyone to accept that consciousness is in the brain. And whoever cannot think rationally is not a philosopher. And if someone, using rational thinking, cannot decide on the subject, they he should at least say so instead of accepting as granted what Science believes, esp. about things it has insufficient proof, if none at all, like consciousness.

empirical gain leads to an increasing convergence between human imagination and objective reality. — Mersi

"Objective reality" means anything that exists as it is independent of any conscious perception of it. Or something like that. This implies that there is an absolute reality. Is this what you have in mind?
But is there actually such a thing? Who can tell what it is, what it looks like, etc., if everyone of us have our own reality, created by our own perceptions and consciousness? There must be someone who can do that and described that absolute reality to us so that we can compare it with our own, right? Well, I don't think we can find someone who has that privilege! :smile: Therefore, talking about an "objective reality" is pointless, isn't it?

Reality is based on agreement. Something is "real" for an individual if he recognizes what he perceives --or is present in his consciousness, in general-- and agrees that it exist and/or is true. It is also an agreement between two or more individuals that what they perceive, believe, etc. does exist and/or is true. This is called "common reality".

Consequently, the "reasons not to see reality" (your topic) can only refer to a conflict between what he perceives, thinks, etc. as true and what he actually knows is true. Imagination, which you mentioned is one example. Another example, quite common is "suppressed reality", i.e. the individual modifies what he actually perceives and knows is true but he cannot deal with --e.g. he is afraid-- to something that he can deal with or nothing at all (refuses its existence). Other examples are of course hallucination, mental conditions, etc.

The man caused the explosion. How did he do that? — tim wood

Using dynamite.

And here I wonder if we have a language difference — tim wood

I explained to you the difference between "direct" case and "actual" cause. Maybe the word "actual" is the problem. But from the example(s) I gave it should be very clear. I could mabe use the word "real" or even better, "source", meaning the origination of the evenf (explosion).

When a person pays an executioner to kill someone, he is the responsible, the source, the actual murderer. It doesn't matter how the victim was killed. The executioner is just an instrument. The killing would not have occurred if the person had not ordered it. I think all this is plain enough.

As for your compalint about "I will now use for about the fifth time, but that no one yet takes on", well I took it on. You should at least acknowledge that. I assume that this, your lack of undesranding and your problem of passing your point through to people, are the reasons you have to try multiple times. With me at least, this is the case, and it is very clear.

you have 1) cause, 2) effect, and now you want a third, 3) the relation between them. How does that work? What is the "relation"? — tim wood

The relation between cause & effect can be whatever, millions of things. From the part of either the cause or the effect. You just have to see what both terms mean. Simply put, a cause is something that produces an action, phenomenon, condition, change, etc. An effect is a change produced as a result or consequence of a cause (as described above). Using mathematic combinations you get a pretty huge number! (It would be ridiculous to give an example ...)

Now, if you ask about the "mechanics" of the cause & effect relation, and the level at which this is examined, I believe this is better explained with Physics (on which I'm far from being an expert!)

the question concerning a man who buys dynamite to blow a tree stump out of the ground. The dynamite explodes: what caused it to explode? — tim wood

Ah! I guess you are referring to the actual cause of the event, right? This is more interesting! :smile:
As a short answer to your question, the actual cause of the explosion was the man. The explanation is obvious, but still ... The dynamite was the apparent, direct cause of the explosion, but it could not do that by itself. Someone or something must have triggered it: a fuse, a timer device, a fire started near it, etc. However, whatever is the "direct" cause of the explausion, the actual cause is the man.

Now, on a second level, the action done by the man is itself an "apparent" cause. Because we can go further back in the cause & effect chain, and ask "What made the man do that?" Well, there can be a lot of reasons-causes. And behind every of these causes there can be a lot of reasons-causes ... to infinitum. This is actually the subject of a very interesting topic "A first cause is logically necessary", in which I got involved about a month ago. If you are interested, you can find my conclusion on this subject at https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/622168.

If on the other hand you want an account of how the world actually works, cause-and-effect isn't a good enough idea. — tim wood

I agree. Maybe this is related to the "mechanics" of the cause & effect relation that I mentioned above ... But whatever is the case, cause-and-effect is always there. You can't escape it! :smile: Besides, this is the subject of the topic! :grin:

So give us a working definition — tim wood

Why, isn't "the relation between cause and effect" already a workable definition of causality?
What else do you need or look for?

your working definition ought to be able to stand a few questions. — tim wood

What questions, for example?

It would be nice for the "Blog" link to have a purpose for existing other than filling out the header bar. That or some new pinned topics for once, even temporarily. — Outlander

Can't see how all this relates to notifying people about the 5-posts trial period ... :chin:

isn't this just a debate about the definition of 'causality' — clemogo

I don't think there's need for a debate on "causality". It's just the relation between cause and effect. If we are to debate over such things, we'll never be able to complete any discussion!

As for "transitivity", it refers to specific case. It's a property of logic applied to certain cases. If I am related to you and you are related to a 3d person it does not mean that I am also related to that person. Even if I tell you a joke, which you then tell to that person, I would have only indirectly make that person hear the joke, but it would not be a direct cause & effect, since I have no relation with that person. The real cause for that would be you.

A transitivity or direct/controlled cause & effect would be something like this: I kick a ball and the ball falls on a lamp and breaks it. I would be the cause and responsible for the damage, since it produced by my kicking of the ball, and thus myself.

What's more to say about it?

:up:

We made a recent change that requires a user's first 5 posts to be approved by moderators before they can post freely. I've approved your queued posts. — Michael

Have you notified people about that? If so, where? How can a newcomer know that? Not even older members know about it!

First of all, it seems that thoughts just appear out of nowhere — clemogo

That is, you are at the mercy of your thoughts! The above statement came from a thought that appeared out of nowhere. In fact, you had no control in posting this topic! All of this has just appeared out of nowhere ...

What good are one's high morals and one's high principles, if one is otherwise a loser, a slave, defeated and downtrodden by others? — baker

Ethics have nothing to do with being a slave or a master. They have to do with survival end well-being. You are more well-off mentally and spiritually if your actions are ethical than if not. Ethics have to do with integrity. You cannot be happy --or at least have a clear consciousness-- if you have no integrity or when you are breaking that integrity. And integrity is for everyone: the slave and the master, the poor and the rich, loser or winner.

It is of course good to seek to act ethically because you are forced to --you are afraid to be punished or you are forced because it is requested by your religion or society or parents or company or whatever else-- but this does not mean that you are really an ethical person, because all this requires effort. Really ethical actions do not require effort. They are done naturally, effortlessly. They are the outcome of inherent ethical values and qualities.

As already explained, movement makes reference to change. So to reduce change to movement is to go in a circle. — Bartricks

The definition of change that I gave was: "An act or process through which something becomes different" (Oxford LEXICO)
There's no "movement" in it. Read well what other people write.

You are obsessed with "circles"! You see "circles" everywhere! Everything for you is a "circle".

OK, that's it for me.

A simple remark: It's quite weird that you brought up Wittgenstein in relation to humor! He's one of the most tragic figures I have ever seen in philosophy! The guy was highly depressive. (You can easily see that in almost all of his photos, while reading his statement "a serious and good philosophical work could be written that would consist entirely of jokes"! This is a joke in itself!)

what's happened to humor in philosophy? — Cuthbert

I think the same thing that has happened to all sectors in life: politics, science, etc. Except maybe in stand-up comedy and comedy movies (romantic and pure comedies), but even there, humor has deteriorated. Compare, e.g. comedy movies of the first half of the 20th c. with the those of today. I certainly laugh much more with old comedies. Of course, quality was a much strong criterion for a movie to get into the market than it is now. Abundance destroys quality. Maybe the same happens with philosophy.

So, I don't know if philosophers suffer from lack of humor more than other professions. Doctors, for instance, are horrible when comes to humor. Usually, they don't even respond to humor. They are too "tight". Lawyers are a little "looser". Teachers: Looking back in my school and college period, I can find a handful only of teachers that could be called humorous. Too tight too. Most politicians are too serious. And so on.

Then, humor of course is quite subjective. So, one has to do a survey, asking people: "Has humor been diminished or deteriorated in relation to the past?" If this is true for most people (to a marked degree), then one can safely accept it as a fact.

Anyway, the only way to preserve humor is to keep it alive! :smile:

"What do Nihilists have to say about Nihilism? If it was not for Nihilism, they would have nothing to believe in."

it is no good just offering up some synonym for change. — Bartricks

I didn't offer any synonym of "change". I described the essence of change. "Movement" just came naturally to me --without the presence of any dictionary-- as something that characterizes and is similar to change. Besides, I also mentioned two of Heraclitus great sayings that also show the nature of change.

I think I have covered the word and essence of "change" well enough for my contribution to your topic to be at least appreciated. Well, I had a good time, anyway! :smile:

I have also explained why "an unethical person can never be happy."
— Alkis Piskas
I find it hard to believe that out of 7 billion people there are no counterexamples — Nicholas Mihaila

Oh, certainly. Esp. in Chicago of the 30's! :grin: Killing was a pleasure. It must still be, I believe, for the Mafia. Here are some counterexamples for you! :grin:

BTW, it's good that you brought up this, because I should make a distinction regardinf what I said above: It only refers to sane people. A mentally ill person (psychotic, insane) usually cannot distinguish between right and wrong. That's why courts often sentence people to mental hospitals instead of prisons when it is proved that they are mentally ill and cannot distinguish between right and wrong, including the act for which they are accused and admit they did.

BTW #2: Thanks for all your aknknowledgets!

I think we want to describe ethics on rational foundations, but inherently its something purely subjective. — john27

Yes, one can --and should! :smile:-- describe etchics on a purely rational basis. What you call "subjective" is that everyone has his own ethics, based on his views about the world, as well as mental conditions (from simple misunderstandings to severe mentel illnesses). However, almost every (sane) person would agree with basic ethics principles, e.g. it is unethical to intentionally steal, harm, suppress, invalidate, etc. other people. All these is based on rational thinking. They all refer to survival and well being.

In simple terms, change is "An act or process through which something becomes different" (Oxford LEXICO)
— Alkis Piskas
That is circular as well. For what does 'becomes different' mean if not 'changes'? — Bartricks

I don't think this is what a circular definition is.

"A circular definition is a definition that uses the term(s) being defined as a part of the definition or assumes a prior understanding of the term being defined." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_definition)

There are no common terms between "change" and "becomes different". Besides, they are of a totally different kind: One is a noun and the other is a verbal phrase.

I can now undestand why you are talking about "circles" here and "circles" there. You assume that the definition (meaning) of a word and the word itself are circular. Well, then all the definitions of words are circular!

Based on this finding and on the frequency of your usage of the word "circular", I believe that you have to re-examine / reform your description of your topic.