Show those statistics.

Statistics show that 97% of claims prefaced by 'Statistics show' are a steaming pile of male bovine excrement. The other 3% already show their statistics. — unenlightened

So you think the statistics is bull!? Did you know that your mayor's office uses statistics to run the city - that clean water you drink, the neatly arranged streets, the conveniently placed fire hydrant, the one-stop-shop next to your neighborhood, all statistics mon ami, all statistics.

As for the specific statistic I mentioned, it's odd that you didn't ask the OP to verify his very statistical claim. :cool:

Statistics show that the death rate for all possible causes has declined in the US for the period 1916 to 2023. What have you to say about that.

I consider the US of A an experiment in Democracy. Study it carefully - its ups and downs (statistics) - wait and watch! How long till it becomes an autocracy or theocracy?

Homelessness is not that much of a problem; why else can governments ignore it? Being without a house hasn't been correlated with crime/drugs. In fact the homeless are victims of the heartlessness, the ruthlessness of of our economic system which lacks any guiding ethical principles - if someone's better than you, you're laid off, regardless of whether a family of 10 depend on you for a square meal, a home, an education, a life. I wouldn't blame anyone though: There's no place for ethics in a world where everything boils down to It's either you or me. I have a family to feed (too).

It's not a coincidence that cities are known as concrete jungles - every man/woman for himself/herself, no second chances, do or die, kill or be killed. Those who drift into cities alreay know that and whoever ends up on the streets have lost the game. This only because the game has no favorites (good and bad people, men and women, etc. they all look the same in the jungle).

At the heart of philosophy is the penis &vagina! :lol:

It's quite clear that @Zettel has absconded ... after setting the cat among the pigeons. :lol:

Such is the difference between knowledge and belief, between philosophy and metaphysics, between "what is" and "what is to you". Big difference. — Zettel

There you go again chatting with a ghost. :smirk: — 180 Proof

:smile:

Can you be specific. I'm pretty sure I raised a whole bunch of ontological issues and examples.
I also added issues to my previous post while you responded. — Bylaw

There are metaphysical truths (ontology) - do quarks exist? However, we can't know if quarks really exist (epistemology). The particle zoo is a model that fits observation.

Yes, but 2023 Buick Enclave has third row video.

Your turn. — Zettel

We're off-topic. I agree metaphysics is speculative, but you aren't saying anything new if that's your point.

The inconsistency is that God can't be in hell and you're saying He is (re omnipotence). Then you changed tack - you now claim hell is in god (unsupported conclusion).

Metaphysics is to philosophy what mathematics is to theoretical physics.
— Agent Smith

What do you make of the following interpretation of your above statement: math is the infrastructure of theoretical physics(?)

Here's the definition of infrastructure I'm using:

infrastructure -- noun -- the basic physical and organizational structures and facilities (e.g. buildings, roads, power supplies) needed for the operation of a society or [the] enterprise: — ucarr

Good enough for me. Very Platonic in character though - as if numbers were people living in a city, maybe they are!

What do they do if they find a defect? Is it mandatory to eliminate it? That goes against a lot of personal beliefs, and if you’re that sort of person, what’s the point of the mandatory screening? — noAxioms

The genetic defect screening is done before pregnancy and sometimes during pregnancy. In the first case it's simple, contraception. In the second case, it gives parents some time to ready themselves - make arrangements - for the (special needs) child.

one has discovered a truth value to moral claims or moral instructions. — Andrew4Handel

Moral claims are oughts i.e. from a photgrapher's perspective, how the girl should look, not how she looks. Of course moral claims aren't true; we have to make 'em true. That, I believe, is God's will - we're to turn this world into a paradise.

@schopenhauer1, right on cue. The OP did mention the other half - those havin' a good time - even if only in passing. They should be given a say since antinatalism is a statement about everybody. We don't wanna be partypooper now do we. The message of antinatalism and pessimism is not meant for all ears - it's meant for a particular demographic that, to my reckoning, is in a tight spot as we speak. Take the message to them, but oh, I forgot, they don't have an internet connection. You're preachin' to the wrong crowd mon ami. Expect to be thrown out, as unceremoniously as possible, of the party. Pick yourself up, it's raining, you lost your wallet, you're hungry ... the party won't be cancelled for anything.

I believe you're conflating epistemology with ontology.

Parvenu! — Vera Mont

Forgot his background, read it though.

A driveby shooting. :chin:

This is the essence of science. There are many, many expressions of theoretical physics (string theory, loop quantum gravity, m-theory) which are not mutually compatible. They can't all be right and none of them are complete. Science is as much about speculation as it is about evidence. — Pantagruel

:up:

Why'd you poke me buddy? I'm trying to get some work done here. Hey, wanna go for a beer? — Metaphysician Undercover

You shouldn't go giving some people ideas. :smile:

I talk to thin air, that's how advanced in ethics I am. Plants? I talk to atoms and quarks. :rofl: However, they don't talk back! Jainism is a religion for 4053 AD and Buddhism for 3023 AD. Christianity is the religion for the 2000s. Thank god I'm a Christian. I'm s(h)aved!

Well, for my money, the reason why there doesn't seem to be a common thread uniting the various subject matters that are claimed as metaphysics is because there is none. As far as I can tell, Aristotle simply appended his physics with some of his random musings, stuff that he never got around to systematizing into a coherent philosophical corpus, one that would instantly be recognizable as (real) philosophy. That's what I suspect @Zettel is driving at - metaphysics is nothing but Aristotle's opinion and if we engage in it like Leibniz did (monads) and others did and will do, we'll simply be offering a subjective, personal account, what we think is going on, not what really is going on.

Well talking to orchids sure is preferable to torturing dogs, I’ll give you that. — Wayfarer

:up:

And so we must eat in silence.

.

I think metaphysics is to philosophy what metaphysics is to physics, only more focused. What is the nature of reality, time, matter and all the ontological issues related to that, for example. — Bylaw

I don't see any overarching theme to metaphysics except that it claims to study first principles. That's a tad bit too abstract for me brain mon ami.

Do you or anyone else here ever post anything other than unsupported sentiment? If all to philosophy were trafficking opinions and personal points of view, anyone capable of language would be a philosopher; any child can do as much, and as little.

By the way, your use of emojis is impressive. Harvard? — Zettel

First off, on emojis - they're supplements, not replacements. :cool: I've heard of Harvard! Isn't it where Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and Bill Gates studied? :wink:

Second, I agree, philosophy is a profession, needs to be learned and practised for quite a number of years. I respect that because it's true and I value truth. Does that not make me a (budding, authentic) philosopher? If no, why do you ask the question.

Some words are better than others. For example I find "splendid" has more zest in it than "marvelous". Likewise "gloom" dials down your mood more than "sullen". There are many such words that seem very natural, rich in feeling, and to the point.

I recall this conversation (from my previous life as an expatriate in Mexico)

Choose your words carefully señor! — Mustachioed man, cigarette in mouth

:rofl:

The best way to consume as much of a person's time as possible is to encourage them to "poke" as many people as they feel comfortable poking, and to poke them over and over again as much as possible. Encouraging people to poke each other will surely exploit their vulnerabilities. — Metaphysician Undercover

:lol: Pokes Metaphysician Undercover.

---

Well, there's DID (Dissociative Identity Disorder) if anyond would like to know. One must continually modulate who one is with the circumstances. Everyone does this except that on occasion the mind actually splits into psychologically distinct individuals - some kinda quarantine/isolation of each individual/personality prevents them from knowing each other i.e. these various persons don't communicate with each other in any meaningful way. Even their memories don't, as per some reports, overlap. It all boils down to acting then - I have roles as a police officer, as a brother, as a neighbor, etc. and I fuflill them as best as I can. Like Kantian conflict of duties, sometimes our roles clash - what do I do if I find out my brother is a heroin dealer? I'm a cop, but he's my brother. :chin:

Social identities, though there may be many (vide rough sketch above), are collectively applicable i.e. it's not an either x or y deal, it's both. I have to be a brotherly policeman. :rofl:

"what is" and "what is to you" — Zettel

I thought we all agreed that the former is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Unfortunately, the other option is a pot of clay. Ready to fashion something out of the clay or are you still fixated on that pot of gold ... at the end of the rainbow? It isn't even raining for chrissakes!

Along those lines, I wonder, is there a common root for all such endeavors?
— Bret Bernhoft
No doubt, if there is such a thing, "a common root" of thinking is Change. :fire:

Did philosophy begin somewhere?
Philosophy, IMO, begins (again and again) wherever the question "How do we know our assumptions are true or our givens are real?" predominates like an itch that grows as we scratch it. — 180 Proof

:100:

Addiction risk, beware! Truth can have you hooked for life. :fear:

Well, I didn't know aesthetics is metaphysics, nor did I know ethics is metaphysics?! :chin:

Metaphysics is to philosophy what mathematics is to theoretical physics. It's kinda like the Big Bang - how it all started x million years ago in the brains of the first h. sapiens. The First Principles from which all that we think, all that we do, all that we say, follow as surely as night follows day. :smile:

you are starting to get obsessed with Cartesian dualism :rofl: — javi2541997

:lol:

lack of truth value — Andrew4Handel

Indeed, ought. We're here to create a/the moral dimension. It doesn't exist, we have to make it exist. It's not true, we have to make it true. In short we add one more facet to the diamond (of reality) and make it sparkle even more.

the occasional prodigy. — Wayfarer

René Descartes?

Well, you presented a balanced view of life - as many fail as succeed. What do expect us to say? Life sucks!? Life's a ball? Both, neither, depends, who cares, balderdash!?

Everything has a price tag, not necessarily monetary. One has to pay up at some point, if not now, later, for certain. Some of course don't realize it and I don't mind that, nobody in his right mind would - be happy, enjoy life, have a ball. Others seem to possess the Devil's luck - a smooth ride, no bumps, no flat tyres, a full tank a gas, no engine problems, etc. Then there are folks whose whole life's a train wreck, from start to finish a series of disasters. My heart goes out to them - life wasted, love wasted, potential wasted, just another thing the cat picked up, but always do remember Allah Rahim or El Rachum, God is merciful. :heart:

I suggest we treat Descartes' as a lesson, to be learned - as we judge him, our children will judge us and our children by their children. Aristotle would've surely vivisected animals if only it had crossed his mind (El Rachum); someone who considers other humans as subhuman (slaves) wouldn't have any qualms about flaying dogs I gather.

Anyway, yeah, Descartes made a silly mistake, a mistake which implies he didn't quite grasp skepticism. So much for radical doubt. He also didn't write any ethical treatises to my knowledge, being more interested in the natural sciences, perhaps betraying his ineptitude on the subject.

Higher dimensions are mathematically consistent (I hope) and in philosophy that means possible. I'm afraid that's as far as we can go down this road mon ami.

Ah yes. 'Placebo-fetish' is my preferred term of art. — 180 Proof

:up: It's snake oil, counterfeit currency, a dud - something to ease the pain, not cure the illness. Quackery is what it is mon ami. Instead of curing us of our defects, we're using one defect to cover up another.

As often I have no idea what you’re on about, but please don’t try to explain, it will probably only confuse things further. — Wayfarer

Descartes made us philosophers and we're using philosophy against him. :chin: The invention kills the inventor. Frankenstein's monster, to wit us.

Sure you’re not thinking of Voltaire? — Wayfarer

:lol: Voltaire has his place, but Descartes is our guy. How would you feel if you get stabbed (in the back) by the very knife you gifted your "friend" to protect himself? :cry:

I ask you. :chin: — 180 Proof

Religion and spiritualism are simply painkillers some need on a daily basis to live a normal life. Without them, we'd all have lost our minds. Momma Nature's a bitch, oui monsieur?

Let's face it, René Descartes, the Socrates of modern philosophy, was an a**hole! Nevertheless, it was he who relit the flame of philosophy after nearly 1.5k years of constant and unrelenting suppression by the Church and @Wayfarer, that sense of indignation or repulsion you feel towards this Frenchman is only possible because of this (now great?) Frenchman! Descartes laid the foundation on which we stand to criticize him. :cool:

SCRAMBLE? — punos

:up: