So this had to do with the idea that we have no option for "no option" when it comes to being born. — schopenhauer1

This is a totally different thing. You didn't mention anything like this in your description of your topic, which referred to options in general, in fact, to all kinds of options ...

This "new stuff" refers to the known "No one asked me if I wanted to be born!" This indeed indicates a lack of option, a "no option", as you call it. We can say then that "no option" indicates a forced action. It can also indicate something less realistic: Fate! A lot of people believe that all things, their life etc. are predetermind, already preplanned. So, they believe that they actually have no choices in their life! Consequently, they believe that there's no such a thing as free will! How sad!

OK, but my point was much simpler. I'll just summarize it with a new, concrete question: "Is asking for (legally performed) euthanasia considered as suicide?"
(Euthanasia: The painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. (Oxford LEXICO))

we think it's the brain that thinks but... — TheMadFool

But what? Please copmplete your thought. I like to know your opinion. BTW, in your first comment (which I quoted in my "collection" of responses) you stated "So, I guess, the brain inside our skulls does the thinking." Are you revising or questioning your view?

So you have a whole range of X, Y, Z, etc. options. You cannot select the option for no option. Is this just? — schopenhauer1

I thought that my previous comment could be taken as ironic. Sorry about that. Well, that was not my intention. It's just that I use to joke a lot. In fact, I started initially my comment as follows, but then I thought it was too serious.

What kind of "no option" do you mean? Anyway, wouldn't that have to do with the kind, subject and purpose of the options?

So please, replace my previous comment with the above two questions. Thanks.

I have already responded to some comments, saying that I will not comment back on them, since this is just a poll. I didn't expected that there would have been so many of them. So, I decided to respond to some of them.

There are comments of the kind "Where else?" or just indicating obvious things, like e.g. respiration takes place in the lungs, or showing some sarcasm, or just saying nothing, actually. Just voting "Yes" in these cases, would be enough.

On the other hand, there are some responses, much fewer unfortunately, that show a thinking about the subject. These are worth mentioning. I bring them all together in here, in order of appearance, so that they can be easily examined and compared. (Note that I still don't comment on them. I only acknowledge them as valuable, i.e. as viewpoints, as having something to say. Also, I don't always include whole posts but only parts of them. You know what to do to read a whole post. (Just click on the person's name.)

***

Before we can determine whether thinking takes place in the brain, we have to first establish the brain exists outside the mind. — RogueAI

The prevailing model is of course that thought is caused by brain tissue, and the natural conclusion is that these thoughts are within this tissue somehow or to some extent. Intuition makes this claim nebulous however, so do any models (as opposed to spiritual ideas) exist that account for how thought might happen beyond the brain, or is this uncharted territory? — Enrique

No, thinking does not take place in the brain. It takes place in the 'mind'. Thoughts are mental states - states of mind. They are not brain states. — Bartricks

If someone breaks your arm/leg with a club, you can still think but if the club makes contact with your head (brain) with sufficient force, your thinking stops. So, I guess, the brain inside our skulls does the thinking. — TheMadFool

There is the theory of embodied cognition, which suggests that cognitive processes are not limited to the brain but draw from aspects of the entire body. — Hermeticus

Yes, it does, but where the "ideas" that make up the whole process of "Thinking" from its conception to its conclusion come from, that is another discussion. — Gus Lamarch

***

These only are the responses to the topic --not parts of discussions between persons on the subject-- up to now, which contained a viewpoint ...

***

Aditional responses after Sep 8, 2021:

Begs the question: Where is a human brain? If thinking "takes place" in it, it must be somewhere, but to be somehere presupposes meaningful spatial designations and these are groundless, every one, in the final determination. — Constance

My view is brain supports mental content and mental content is a sort of virtual world that you might call mind. — Mark Nyquist

It says that God is not interfering with human affairs.
— Alkis Piskas
What is this "it" and and what are the arguments for it? Or is it just a statement of your beliefs. — Derrick Huestis

This is what happens when you take statements from here and there at random, disconnecting them from their context. This statement refers to a pun I made. There are no arguments or beliefs involved here! :smile:

And, as I see, you did something similar with @VincePee. You are obsessed with "beliefs" and you don't realize that you are also presenting your beliefs, even if in an indirect, covert way, like "Or is it just a statement of your beliefs" Isn't this actually what you believe? :smile:

Clever ... for a non-Greek! :smile:

The omniabsent God"! Even if taken as a joke, it says really a lot, doesn't it?
— Alkis Piskas
What does it say? That He is just absent and lets us go our way? — VincePee

It says that God is not interfering with human affairs. It says that God created Man and left him to chance. It says that the "humanized God" (God with a human-like face) that man has created does not actually exist (hence "absent"). It says that this God has nothing to do with a Supreme Being that governs the whole Universe and not the Earth alone (in which God seems to rule according the egocentric Man and his tales).

I could mention more, but I'm sure you got the point.

I am not so sure about my statement that Suicide is wrong, no matter the circumstances. — I love Chom-choms

Maybe you don't have to. You may question instead whether an action can be actually called a suicide or not.
The definition of suicide is "The action of killing oneself intentionally" (Oxford LEXICO) (Other dictionaries give a very similar definition).

So, here's an example: There's a clause in hospitals according to which you can sign a document in which you refuse to receive a CPR (Cardiopulmonary resuscitation), e.g. during your operation, etc., if this is would be needed. On a less official basis, you can also refuse to do chemiotherapy (for cancer), a Coronary bypass surgery, etc. Can these cases be labelled as "suicides"?

but the Stoics more directly equated the logos to the Anima Mundi, the operative or animating principle of the world — javra

This is quite interesting!
You don't mean Anima Mundi logos like this one, do you?


Just a joke! :grin:
(BTW, you can find many such AM logos. But I have chosen this one as most interesting, because the letters complex also contains the letter 'Λ' (Greek capital lamda, 'L'), which can be said to represent "Logos"! Only this is a coincidence; they don't know that! :smile:)

I found about Anima Mundi and logos at https://thesaurus.plus/related/anima_mundi/logos . I know Stoics quite well, but I don't remember this data. (Well, there are a lot of things I don't remember about them today! :smile: )
It's great that you brought up this! :up: Thanks!

So you have a whole range of X, Y, Z, etc. options. You cannot select the option for no option. Is this just? — schopenhauer1

Do you mean that in multiple-choice exams, for instance, you should also have an option of "No choice" for each question? :smile: (Of course, you always have the option of not answering any question (= no option) and fail the exams! :smile: )

I think we can say that they are suffering emotional pain, — I love Chom-choms

Right, loss normally results in grief, but not necesserily. There are cases of loss in which just realizing that you have lost everything is enough to put an end to your life. In Greece, there have been hundreds of suicides at the peak of our economic crisis in 2010-2014, committed only because persons lost suddenly everything and mainly their houses seized by tht state or banks because of unpaid taxes, loans, etc.) This kind of losses don't involve grief. They lead to "cold" suicides.

The reasoning behind seppuku is that it is better to die than to live is shame — I love Chom-choms

There might be also such cases. But as I said, it was mainly a ritual. It was enforced by tradition and moral rules and it was performed by people of a certain status who were found guilty of a serious felony. It was considred a privilege!

***
So, where does all that lead us? Is suicide sometimes justifiable (and independent of ethics) or is it always an unethical action? :smile:

I don't know if it is an art, in the Socratic sense — Valentinus

I don't know what is art "in a Socratic sense" ... I only know that Socrates was crystal clear in his arguments! I was 12, I had not a clue about philosophy and I could still understand him! :grin:

The Moment that is possible to participate in that sense is not the same as the result of stilling the mind ... — Valentinus

Sorry, I can't get this ... "the Moment" and "the result of stilling the mind" are two things of totally different kind. One refers to time and the other to mental activity. How can these be compared?

The matter of agency in The Concept of Anxiety ... — Valentinus

Sorry again. You lost me.

I said a very simple thing and which can be applied by anyone and on the spot. How have you managed to make it so complicate? :smile:

Thanks for your response and sharing your views, but I won't comment on them because this is just a poll.

If before being born, your were to learn, by some unknown mean, everything that was going to happen in your life, would you still chooses to be born? — I love Chom-choms

If I didn't like the "movie" of my future life or didn't find it worthwile, I most probably not choose to live that life. I would examine an alternative "movie" of a future life and maybe I would chose that! :grin:

I made God the one telling you because I just thought that people would roll with it — I love Chom-choms

No problem with that. Anyway, this is a hypothesis, something imaginary ...

I said earlier that a suicide is right only if your situation is objectively wrong. — I love Chom-choms

But the title of your topic is Suicide is wrong, no matter the circumstances. Have you changed your mind in the meantime? :smile:
Anyway, you maybe mean what I also thought, that is there are cases where there is no meaning in staying alive, e.g. extreme suffering, being in a coma, incurable disease, etc. But no would call a "suicide" stopping life in those cases.

A person commits suicide because he/she believes that his life is so bad — I love Chom-choms

Yes, this is about what usualy happens. In most cases it is something purely psychological, extreme depression or grief, severe mental disease, madness, etc. But there have been also cases in which people have committed suicide because they have lost their whole fortune (big depression in 1929) or evrything valuable in their life (their partner in life) so their life had no meaning anymore for them. Another case is the Japanase who were committing seppuku (harakiri) --I don't know if they still do-- which was a kind of ritual or tradition and it showed bravery rather than a psychological problem. Kamikazie also were a similar case, an act of bravery. Soldiers, in general, can behave like that in wars. But all these acts of "bravery" are moments of "madness" (not as a disease, but just "going nuts"). They are simply irrational acts.

Anyway, nothing in all these case is rational! Only irrationality can lead to suicide. And this
supports my point that rationality (involved in ethical behaviour) rejects actions such as suicide. In other words, suicide is an unethical action.

no matter what we decide as right or wrong, it would not be objectively "right" or "wrong" because that "right" or "wrong" will change depending on the circumstances in our lives and how we feel. — I love Chom-choms

Well, there's some truth in it, but is not a strong argument since we can't know what (kind of) circumstances these are or would be and if they are going to occur.

Most people consider virtue ethics as an ethical system opposed by to consequentialism, deontology, and consequentialism. — Hello Human

I would prefer to quote exactly the definition of "virtual ethics" from a standard reference, rather saying what most people consider? Because, besides avoiding making some mistake (e.g. you mention "consequentialism" twice!:smile:), you are raising questions such as "Is this a fact?" and "Who are these people?" Because people in general don't give a damn about such things! :smile:

So, here is what the "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy" says about the subject: "Virtue ethics is currently one of three major approaches in normative ethics. It may, initially, be identified as the one that emphasizes the virtues, or moral character, in contrast to the approach that emphasizes duties or rules (deontology) or that emphasizes the consequences of actions (consequentialism)."
Close enough to what you described but more correct! :smile:

Then, regarding the title of your topic, "Virtue ethics as a subfield of ethics", the word "subfield" is evidently wrong, based on the above description.

virtue ethics tries to answer the question "how do we ought to be ?" while consequentialism, deontologism deontology and other views on ethics tries to answer the question "what do we ought to do ?" — Hello Human

True, the last two are based on "doing things" while the first on "being things". But there is no separating line between the two, and "being something" also implies or defines a consequent behavior. E.g. being "charitable" and "benevolent" (virtual ethics) also means engaging in --i.e. doing-- things involving charity and benevolent, doesn't it? Because being those things without doing anything, without demonstrating in action, means nothing.
In short, ethics always imply and involves action. Even not doing something is a behavior.

If it is possible for human beings to have any moral knowledge — Hello Human

What is "moral knowledge"? Know what is good and bad? Know the 10 commandments? Know about the moral teachings of a wise man or a saint?

Suppose at this very moment, God visited you ... — I love Chom-choms

Can you answer the question without bringing in God or any other external source, but by applying only reasoning? Why? Because the existence of God is not really established and/or universally acceptable.

In other words, is there a rationality and sound ethical principles that supports your statement? That is, principles that are based on pure logic and not on some abstract idea of "good" or "bad".
That would be much more "fruitful" from a philosophical viewpoint, don't you think?

For example, if you define ethical behavior as one that "promotes survival and well-beingness" (both physical and non-physical) or "doing major good for the most", can this support your statement?
I believe yes. These principles, by definition, reject an action such as suicide, don't they?

Take a look at my later comments. I — Constance

I did and found them quite interesting. But as I said a little earlier, one way or the other, I m not really interested in that quote furthermore. It was just an "intellectual" exploration of the subject and maybe egotistical in a way from my part! :smile:

But is a concept material? — Constance

No, it certainly isn't. But I am talking about speech itself, not the concept or faculty of speech. And as I see now, this is not clear from the definition I brought in. Sorry about that!
Speech is composed of sounds, which are material. And it is produced by an air stream from the lungs, which goes through the trachea and the oral and nasal cavities. And all of these are also material. It is in that sense that I mentioned "speech" connected to the word "word". A word is an element of speech, recorded (spoken, audio) or printed (written).

Sure, saying a word, using lips and larynx and the rest is material, as a classificatory term, but ideas, logic, language and meaning, and so forth, these do not fit the category — Constance

Certainly.

We want to say all things are one ... — Constance

Are you talking about "One is all, All is One", the alchemist belief? Or, maybe the mystical "Everything is One?" If so, such things do not belong in my reality. Mixing physical objects and non-physical elements do not fit in my reality either. So I can't think, and much less talk, about that.

So instead of "in the beginning the was the word" is should be "there was reason" — Constance

Well, I actually said that it makes much more sense. But even if I accept this, it's only a hypothesis, and it is not part of my reality. I don't have any such realization neither have I given it much thought. So fact is I'm really not interested in it at all! We can talk of something else if you like ... :smile:

The beginning of all things — Constance

Your views are quite interesting.

how do I get to the present when the past is the very essence of "knowing" it is there at all? — Constance

Do not think. Thinking involves past and future. Just be there. Be aware. Observe. Perceive. This is the only way to be in the present.

I claim that the "metaphysics of the present" is a real possibility. — Constance

It may be. But Metaphysics are involved only when you think about and try to describe "present". You don't need them to experience the "present"! :smile:

Thanks for your response but I won't comment on it because this is just a poll.

Thanks for your response and the sharing of your position, but I won't comment on it because this is just a poll.

Thanks for your sharing your position and I would like to respond to it but this is just a poll.

Thanks for your response but I will not comment on it because this is just a poll.

Hence, the idea that anywhere you look you find existence — Derrick Huesits

Right, good one! :smile:

if you had the power of infinite travel you would still perpetually find existence hence the comment "in all directions." — Derrick Huesits

OK, I see what do you mean by "all directions".

the part it seems most people here struggle to grasp is the argument isn't purely physical, it is meant to be a metaphysical argument — Derrick Huesits

Good point!

It is OK for the universe to be finite as long as there is a greater existence within which it dwells and permeates it. — Derrick Huesits

Wow, very interesting position!

We start with the Eternal component--all time--and work our way from there. — Derrick Huesits

Yes. This is much better! :smile:

You can't say "there was a time when there was nothing." That, simply, wasn't a time. — Derrick Huesits

Certainly. A good point too!

***

Now, about "omni-"s: Although you describe them very well, I personally don't like or use these terms, because they don't mean much to me. Well, except maybe for fun: A while ago, thinking about Covid, the big and catastrophic events of the natures (floods in Europe and the USA, fires in Greece, etc.), the wars happening all together in 2021, but of course every year --actually, all the time-- and then about "omnibenevolent God" (The Greek Orthodox Church loves to bring it up all the time), a new "omni-" attribute came to my mind: "The omniabsent God"! Even if taken as a joke, it says really a lot, doesn't it?

I'm not an atheist, i.e. I don't believe that there is no God or a Supreme Being. I'm just not interested in that subject. It doesn't add anything important or valuable to my reality, my view of the world, my knowledge, etc. And most importantly, it has no influence on my reasoning (critical thinking). So I prefer to just ignore the subject.

This was a pleasant exchange! :smile:

Non-existence can't exist — Derrick Huesits

The term "non-existence" and the concept connected to it are quite tricky when it comes to their usage, as I will show.

I believe that you should first define "non-existence" so that we all have a common reference to discuss about. Because if I have a different meaning for it than yours and other persons responding to this topic, there would be an issue in our communication, wouldn't there?

Also, there are a lot of times in which just examining the definition of a key term in a subject/topic, helps a lot in answering it. Sometimes it can even answer the key question fully! (I have done this quite a few times!).

Now, Oxford LEXICO --which I normally use-- defines "non-existence" as "The fact or state of not existing or not being real or present".

But what a bad luck! It's one of the times that we fall on an inconsistent definition. The word "state" implies clearly existence (= condition in which something is)! So one must certainly remove it, in which case the definition becomes "The fact of not existing or not being real or present". "Fact" however is something that is known or proved to be true. And you cannot apply this to something that does not exist, that is you have no idea about it! How can you?

So, unfortunately, I will have to throw the whole definition to the trash!

On the other hand, I think we are very lucky in the present case! It's not a coincidence that "non-existence" cannot be defined, at least not in a consistent and satisfactory way. The reason is that this term, like a lot of other of similar nature, as a concept implies "absence of anything". And that's all you can say about it. Yet, even it this case, there's some inconsistency, because it involves "any thing", and a thing refers to something that exists! ("Lack of something" is even worse!)
In this sense "non-existence", "nothingness" and "emptiness" are almost synonyms with each other.

I believe that "non-existence" can be only described figuratively, as "Absolute darkness and silence", "Empty space". This desctiption can be applied to both material and immaterial things. "I can see nothing in the dark" means that nothing exists for me under such a condition. "I have no idea about that" means that I have no idea in my mind, my mind is empty as far as that is concerned.

After having said all that, I come back to your statement "Non-existence can't exist". It cannot exist as what? A term/word, a concept, a reality, something physical or non-physical? I believe that you have to clear this.

so, there must be infinite existence in all directions for all time — Derrick Huesits

How is this --and more specifically "infinity"-- derived from the statement "Non-existence can't exist"? And then, "what directions"? Do you mean everywhare in space?

something which exists carries certain attributes: is affected by things, effects things, takes up space and encompasses time — Derrick Huesits

Well, I think this needs to be worked on grammatically somehow ...

thus, the notion of God can be grasped from a purely logical standpoint — Derrick Huesits

Right. The concept of God (or a Supreme Being) can only be grasped on a purely logical basis. But this is not something new ... On the other hand, I can't see how all the attributes you have mentioned that could be attributed to God are derived from "non-existence".

Anyway, my contribution to the topic was about "non-existence" and I enjoyed that because it was a new subjected for me! :smile: So, thnaks for offering me this opportunity! :smile:

Hi again. I'm sorry, I had not enough time to respond to your whole comment. But here's more of me! :smile:

in the beginning was the rational creator who fashioned all things according to a rational plan, and so forth. — Constance

OK, but is this actually an interpretation of "In the beginning was the Word" or just an opinion about some being (creator) who created the world? See, there are a lot of such interpretations, esp. coming from East. So, we have to stick to our Christian quote and esp. the word "Word" or "logos". At least, this is how I understood your topic ...

You have to deal with Kierkegaard who argues against this Hegelian view by pointing out that the world of actuality bears nothing of the rationality ... — Constance

Idem.

I don't buy into creation myths at all. — Constance

Good! I don't either. And "In the beginning was the Word" is one more of 'em! :smile:

But you do say consciousness has no language, location or time. No language? — Constance

Good that you mentioned this! I didn't think at the moment that "has no language" could be taken to mean that it does not contain language. Of course it does! And it is affected by it. But what I mean is that consciousness is beyond language. Just think this: Man has been always gifted with consciousness, well before he created languages. Language is not the main content of consciousness. Consciousness contains all sorts of things: knowledge, ideas, feelings, etc., which may be common to any two persons on the planet, independently of their native language.

No language, no logos — Constance

Exactly! This is exactly where the quote "In the beginning was the Word" fails. When "Word" is interpreted as "language". BTW, I just read that this quote comes from the Gospel of John, which like all Gospels was written in Greek. So, by "Word" did he refer to the Greek language? That God spoke in Greek? Of course all this is ridiculous talk, but it shows the confusion around the word "Word". And this is more pronounced in English, in which the main meaning of the word "word" is "A single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing, used with others (or sometimes alone) to form a sentence and typically shown with a space on either side when written or printed." (Oxford LEXICO)
In Greek at least , the corresp. and original word "logos" can be interpreted with in another meaning than speech, as reason ("logiki").

I really wonder why haven't they translated the Greek quote at least as "In the beginning was the Reason" ... This would have saved us a lot of time in discussing it! :grin:

power is not involved ? — wanderoff

Well, if you don't see this, you must most probably use the word "power" with some other meaning. I'm speaking about "Political or social authority or control, especially that exercised by a government." (2nd definition in Oxford LEXICO). My whole description, the examples I gave, the excerpt from Wikipedia ... all referred to that "power"!

I just lost my time then! :sad:

for example (leftist universities censoring right wing views = larger societal problem of right wing censorship) — wanderoff

What you are talking here is about hiding and distoring information. This is not censorship. Power is not involved here. This is happening everyday (moment actually), everywhere!

Definition of "censorship" by Oxford LEXICO: "The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security."

My point is that this belief seems widespread especially on social media — wanderoff

The social media are not "power". You could at least consider the actual media (broadcasting, publishing, internet), esp. TV and newspapers, which, because of their power, are called "Fourth Estate". Yet, even they don't have enough power to or even not even interested in or need to exercise actual censorship.

But then, as I remember, the issue is the use of the word "belief" ... :smile:

Is speech material? — Constance

What else could it be?
Definition of "speech" by Oxford LEXICO: "The expression of or the ability to express thoughts and feelings by articulate sounds." Aren't sounds material?

so you think conscious thought and its reason was there in the beginning of all things? — Constance

No, I din't say that. I only said the "Word" ("logos") as "speech" doesn't make sense in ths famous Christian quote and I just tried to give a better explanation by considering the meaning that word "logos" acquired with time, and that was "reason" ("logiki"). This is much more plausible since reason is beyond any borders imposed by languages (speech), religions and civilizations. And this because its nature is mental, spiritual and not material. The expression "conscious thought" which you are using is very close to it. The word "Consciousness" that I used, is also very closely connected to "Thought".

Yet, as plausible as this "version" may be, I cannot claim anything more about it, since I have not has any realization about Consciousness being "the beginning of all things" as you say. A lot of thinkers calim or believe that, though.

Anyway, once more and to conclude: I am not a proponent of the idea or theory that the Universe was created by Reason. I just brought up "reason" (logiki, from logos) as a better interpretation of the word "Word", interpreted as "speech" in the Christian world.

is there an observable belief that political views are censored, and if so, is this belief true? — wanderoff

Again, this sounds as if political views are always censored, since you don't mention any condition, e.g. cases in which this actually happens. Then you ask whether people believe this or not. And the (logical) answer is evidently not. Only someone who is very biased, or has special reasons for that, would believe such a thing. Also, 1) "observable belief" cannot stand since beliefs cannot be observed and 2) beliefs are always true to those who hold them.

Do you maybe mean to say "Is it true there are certain people who believe that political views are always censored?" This is the best shot I can make! :smile:

Thank you for your reply to my comment to your to[pic, @Constance!

I liked the presentation of your posistion. Very good. :up:

Welcome to TPF!

I would like first to mention that the title-question of the topic, Is it really the case that power wants to censor dissenting views?, actually sounds more like an assumption than a question. It also sounds as if censorship is one of the characteristics of power, i.e. it always wants to do that, which of course is not the case.

So, maybe a question like "In which cases is censorship used by power and what is its purpose?" would be a little more productive.

I wonder how much power REALLY relies on censorship as a form of social control, — wanderoff

This is a much more productive question. (Of course. it is something totally different from what the topic asks. :smile:)

Now, before tackling the subject of censorship, I believe it will help to describe different kinds censorships. And since I have not studied the subject, I prefer to bring in an excerpt from Wikipedia that I found most useful:

• Moral censorship is the removal of materials that are obscene or otherwise considered morally questionable. Pornography, for example, is often censored under this rationale, especially child pornography, which is illegal and censored in most jurisdictions in the world.
• Military censorship is the process of keeping military intelligence and tactics confidential and away from the enemy. This is used to counter espionage.
• Political censorship occurs when governments hold back information from their citizens. This is often done to exert control over the populace and prevent free expression that might foment rebellion.
• Religious censorship is the means by which any material considered objectionable by a certain religion is removed. This often involves a dominant religion forcing limitations on less prevalent ones. Alternatively, one religion may shun the works of another when they believe the content is not appropriate for their religion.
• Corporate censorship is the process by which editors in corporate media outlets intervene to disrupt the publishing of information that portrays their business or business partners in a negative light, or intervene to prevent alternate offers from reaching public exposure.

We can see that 1) behind every of the above cases, there is power in various forms and 2) the object in all the cases is to diminish if not eliminate the impact of opposing views and actions to what power is trying to apply and even sometimes to impose. And it is evident that the more centralized is power, the more successful is in its attempt to apply its censorship actions and policies, with totalitarian regimes and dictatorships always at the top. In fact, the latter do not even try to dissuade opposition; they just use censorship, mainly in the political, philosophical and artistic sectors. (About philosophy, e.g., censoring Socrates' teachings was one of the first known and most famous cases of censorship in the history.)
And vice versa: the more democratic a regime is, the less censorship can be observed in the society. Very simply because it is incompatible with democracy.

nowadays, the proliferation of political discourses online and offline serve their own, possibly more potent programmes of control. — wanderoff

Things like these can be only applied to a democratic environment, which means, as I stated above, that we are moving away from censorship. So you cannot compare discussions, programmes, promotions, leverages and that sort of methods with censorship. The second is much more effective and brings immediate results. Censoring for grown-ups are like restrictions parents forced to their children when persuasion fails and even without even trying that.

It would be great if you could also give a sign that you have read my reply to your post ( https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/588043) two days ago ...

What dictionary, please? — tim wood

https://isideris.gr/?product=mega-lexikon-tis-ellinikis-glossis
https://www.politeianet.gr/books/liddell-henry-sideris-i-mega-lexikon-tis-ellinikis-glossis-exatomo-156949
https://vendora.gr/items/gmnky3/mega-lexiko-tis-ellinikis-glossis-liddell-scott-konstantinidou-4-tomi.html
It is quite expensive, but anyaway, you have to know Greek, and more precisely ancient Greek!

I wouldn't come back to this exchange but I deem it is fair since you brought up a standard reference for your description. :up: Yet, it is a very bad description, because tranlating "logos" as “word,” “reason” or “plan” is only confusing. One should first tanslate the word literally, as it was initially used ("word", "speech"), and then how it has evolved ("reason"). As for the word "plan", well, it's totally irrelevant! (I wonder where did they get that from!)

I believe this is over now. More than enough has been said on this issue.

You cannot compare two different religions, their teachings, their principles, etc. and "weigh" the results to establish which of them contains more wisdom!

And then, wisdom for whom? A Buddhist, a Christan or a non-adherent to either of them? I suspect you mean the latter. But then you should indicate that, to increase the viability of your question.

Anyway, it is almost the same with asking, "Does Plato's teachings contain more wisdom than Aristotle's?" Has such a question any meaning at all?

Which, for present purpose, is the wrong dictionary. — tim wood

First of all, I have not mentioned anything about "wrong dictionary"!!

But since you ask, I googled your description "Logos, (Greek: “word,” “reason,” or “plan”) Logos, (Greek: “word,” “reason,” or “plan”) plural logoi, in ancient Greek philosophy" (as such), to see where you have copied it from and found two occurrences, both in Facebook. The following is copy-pasted form one of these FB entries:

Imran Abdul Jabar
26 October 2020 ·
Logos, (Greek: “word,” “reason,” or “plan”) plural logoi, in ancient Greek philosophy.

You could at least look in a standard dictionary, which I thoght you did, instead of using a description from an member of Facebook! And then telling me that my description --which I took from a dictionary of Ancient Greek language-- is not correct!

Come on, this is not serious! That's all for me here.

I know enough Greek to know this cannot be correct. logos, like many ancient Greek words, simply does not easily translate into English. I find this online: — tim wood

Don't be so sure about that. The description I gave at start is taken from a standard (the biggest) dictionary of the Greek language. So, it is certainly correct. Your reference instead was from a foreign source. And one can find a lot of and different variations from foreign sources ...
Then I said that this meaning was extended to mean "logiki" (= reason), which is a derivative of "logos". Thus, I covered the the meaning of the word "Word" sufficiently enough to expose my view on the subject.

You may know some Greek but certainly not so well as a Greek person, who might be a translator and have all the necessary Greek references for such an analysis.

So try not to reject something that is so analytically described and belongs to a language that is not your native one. You could just bring up your interpretion as an alternative and to be discussed. That would be acceptable.

I can undestand all your doubts and questions abour the meaning and lack of foundation of this statement, which is so basic for the Jewish and Christian worlds. So, the following are my ideas about it, only to reinforce your position.

***

The word "Word" is a translation of the Greek word "logos", literally meaning "word" or "speech". This is the meaning ancient Greeks used initially. But with time it came to mean "reason", which in Greek is "logiki", clearly a derivation of "logos".

Now, "In the beginning was the Word" never made sense to me since the first time I heard it in school. It still doesn't, if I connect "Word" to and with the meaning of speech. If you echange the words, the saying becomes: "In the beginning was Speech". (Not as elegant, of course, but it shows the point.) It certainly doesn't make sense. Yet, Jews and Christians managed to keep alive this meaning with all sorts of explanations, the most important of which are that God created the world by (the power of) his word, that God's Word became flesh (Christ being that Word), etc. Still, all that doesn't make much sense, does it? Instead, I believe that logic and reasoning (the second meaning of "logos") make much more sense ... "In the beginning was Reason". This can be easily extended to mean "Consciousness", something which a lot of thinkers today consider as governing the Universe. "Consciousness" has no language, no face, no location and not time. It really makes much more sense than the materiality of speech. Indeed, just think, would God with all the powers that He possesses, use something material like speech to create the world? So, most probably we are talking about a figure of speech and not actual speech! But even if someone insists to use speech literally, the following --at least-- questions arise from that story:
1) What has speech to do with the creation of something physical like the world?
2) What kind of speech could be that?
3) Did or does this speech have existence or any meaning for other parts of the universe beyond our planet? As far as I know, we don't have any evidence, not only about speech, but even about life in other parts of the universe.

These questions are rhetorical, of course. They rather show the irrationality of the matter. And they can be explained as follows:

We all know about how egocentric Man has been and still is and that in essence he considers this plant as the center of the universe (not spatially, but conceptually). The Bible actually "speaks" as if there is no one else alive in the universe than the Mankind. Everything is said and happens with Man in the center. In fact, not the whole Mankind but only part of it: the Jewish! God delivered the 10 Commandments to Moses. In his language, Jewish, of course. Since then these Commandments, as well as the stories in the Bible, had a huge impact on a big part of Mankind. What about the rest of Mankind? And what about all the other religions of the world that have a different story to tell about the creation of the world?

Now, why "Word" is interpreted literally as speech and not as reason? I have only an idea for that: Speech (language in general, including writing), is the main communication tool Man has. By giving such and imporance to it, the Church and religious leaders and authorities, can then us "The Word of God" (and the "The Word of Christ" in Christianity) as a powerful way to control the faithful, subduing them to the will of God. The Word seems more powerful than action. "Listen to the elderly" is an extension of that, used to force blind discipline. "If you don't listen, ... "That great man said ..." Words are more powrful than actions, examples, reasoning, and so on.

What if they used "Word" as "Reason"? They would impel people to think, to reason, to doubt! "Have faith and not doubt!" is their motto. Authorities know best. You must listen to them. You are no one to doubt them. Makes sense, doesn't it?

Conclusion: Unfortunately, the statement "In the beginning was the Word", wherever it comes from, has no value for me as interpreted by the Bible and the majority of the Jewish and Christian people.

Nothing. You fixed it. Thank you!