From that approach, economic activity should be aimed at maintaining or increasing the regenerative capabilities of our environments, making nature flourish, in order to reach actual material growth. — Benkei

Good insight. I'm with you.

If profit only exists in terms of increasing resources, instead of diminishing them then a lot of economic activity becomes unviable. — Benkei

Fossil fuel, as an example.

The last question in the quote seems to contain some errors and implied assumptions. — noAxioms

I disagree. Hawking was simply stating a situation matter-of-factly. If you want to put it in philosophical terms -- Hawking is saying that science does not answer the normative question of: "...why there should be a universe ..."

In my opinion, Hawking was giving a correct or reasonable assessment of a scientific model or theory.

Death is not the worst thing. — Athena

It can be. For the one that got left behind. When this person I was very closed to decided to do it, my body went into convulsion and I couldn't feel anything except the ground under me was shaking my whole body. I couldn't cry because I was also numb. If you want to imagine how it felt -- think of screaming your lungs out but no sound comes out.

I suspect that my spirit died that day, but I'm not sure. Because hey, I'm living a "normal" life, interacting with people, having a comfortable life, having sex, having dinner, laughing. I never got the so-called "therapy" for the grieving.

But ask me if I could go back in time, what date would that be. The morning before the death, because then I could stop it. I knew I could. I still believe I could have done something.

Superposition is different than p & ~p. It requires the two states to interfere with each other, which has been demonstrated with macroscopic objects, but not a cat. The cat scenario isn't realistic, and it reduces to simply not knowing the state of the cat in the box. — noAxioms

No, quantum states are transmutable, for the purpose of the experiment. The cat can be used in superposition. But the point is to deny that there's superposition.

Without going into too many specific thinkers (though I could) ...is the prevailing attitude of Phil. of Sci. still Empiricist, to an absurd degree (IMO)? I have verbatim quotes from people like Van Fraasen to the affect that if we can't DIRECTLY experience objects, they are not "real" but just "convenient to use" including such pretty large non-real objects like planets. Or smaller stuff like atoms, electrons, quarks, etc. Because microscopes and telescopes only show us an image of the object, but nothing that can be deemed "real." — GLEN willows

I think your understanding of what was said is incorrect. Direct experience doesn't just mean "seeing". We experience in all five senses. I can't see Mars from here, but the evidence produced by man on Mars should suffice to say, there have been experience of the planets.

Of course, the fallacy of the absurd is a frequent part of interlocutors' conversation. I can't see that there's a brain inside my friend's head, I can't even see my own brain, does that mean brain isn't real?

You don't like bubbles? Lol. — TiredThinker

I like bubbles. But not inside me. I drink plain water.

Why not just drink plain water? Why do you need bubbles in your drink?

I often say to people “think about all the people around you right now, about all the people around the world … they are ALL going to die.” Have that thought to yourself right now in the privation of your head. Is it ‘scary,’ ’liberating,’ ‘threatening,’ ‘confusing’ or something else entirely. — I like sushi

You can look at ancient ruins that were once thriving cities or towns and now a relic of civilization. :yikes:

The odds for a humanbeing living right now would be so impossibly high, and yet here we are.

Does that mean that we are really lucky to be here right now and we are really living in the present and that we are the future? — Persain

The value of saying this is only poetic or sentimental. It's very common to say this. But it's not a philosophical view. Logic itself doesn't approve of it because think about it -- lucky as compared to what? To that non-place, the time before you were born? Then you can't compare two disparate situations and give it a judgment of "lucky".

Voir quoi?

You jest of course! — Agent Smith

Non. C'est vrai.

Isn't that the gist of the OP, mon ami? — Agent Smith

Sharp!!

Sorry. I don't understand this thread at all.

I was talking to two ladies with whom I otherwise chit chat about the weather, gardening, and such. — baker

I really find this hard to believe.

You think the UN will take over and make the revolution? — Olivier5

The signed treaties have made some progress. The Montreal Protocol have almost eliminated CFCs and the Paris agreement for net-zero emissions.

Remember that the decision to go to war stems from one issue. It's not a guessing game. One issue. That's all it takes.

I was talking to a prospective date and she seeks someone with a strong sense of purpose. As far as I know Mr. Smith from The Matrix and Loki from Marvel movies are examples of being obsessed with purpose. — TiredThinker

Those are two different mindsets. I think your prospective date meant someone with ambition -- they have a plan and they're going to follow through with it.

Mr. Smith lives in a much more immediate, urgent, and universe-bending reality. They're lucky to have that kind of challenge that we don't have here on Earth.

I’m the one that posted the video of Trump. Because I think it’s funny— it was a joke, not an argument. Grow up. — Xtrix

Hahaha!

If anyone is not getting the weakness of this thread, here it is:

If her behavior is normal, then let the video speak for itself. Why are you defending something that's normally done by statesmen and leaders and using other despicable leaders to make your point? I wouldn't.

I also agree with Benkei's comments that if you do believe her behavior is substandard, then you have to explain why you don't think men behaving worse is also substandard. — Hanover

And my response is, if Benkei believes her behavior is normal, then why is there a need to bring in Trump, the gambler, the alcoholic, and the drug addict? Why not just say, her behavior is common and indicative of a mature statesman as shown on the video?

Oh wait, because you just can't win an argument like that. No, it's not enough to show the video of her dancing and everyone should come to agreement this is a normal behavior of a leader having fun.

That's a strawman. I didn't say she should get a pass because Trump is worse. I pretty clearly said her actions were fine under any standard.

She seems remarkably normal. That's what I saw. — Hanover

You lost your mojo here.

And I'm gonna tell you again:

This thread launched a support against the scrutiny of her behavior using counterexamples of men that are Trump, alcoholic, drug addict, and a gambler. I'd like to know why the counter examples are the worst kinds?

Please explain this part? Benkei started this thread and in his OP, this is what I read.

Again, you guys are saying "dancing and singing". This is not just dancing and singing like a party with respectable decorum. This is a racy video. Sorry.

And yes, of course, the mere mention of the word "narcissist" would get anyone triste.

Look at the responses on this thread. One even posted a video of Trump? Why? Why do you guys need a counter-example of what many call a terrible, deranged man (not my own words) just to put her actions in a better light? Why not choose a statesman, a representative, a leader, or someone who represents a kingdom and put them side by side. You guys chose Trump, an alcoholic, a gambler, and a drug addict to make your point? So, something tells me, the issue is more grave than what you guys seem to say.

Choose a better counter-example, not Trump, for christ's sake.

It seems a large part of western societies have come to view the world this way, whether they fully realize it or not. Perhaps it is precisely their lack of affinity with science that leads them down this path of wishful thinking. — Tzeentch

Then you've gone the wrong path in this thread. Bowing out. Thanks.

Thumbs up for @javi2541997 for having more maturity than the PM. I support the idea that statesmen and leaders shouldn't behave like how she behaved in that party. She has a responsibility to her entire nation and a role model to the public. What puzzles me is, she could have had a party and still kept the decorum of a statesmen. Instead, she wanted to be seen like a [......]. Also thumbs up for the drug test.

Is this a case of a narcissist, btw? Not sure.

Although they do seem to call this Platonic realism, so I need clarification. — Tom Storm

It's not platonic realism. The platonic view has a very specific definition of "truth", which as you have already mentioned, is a form. Virtue ethics is practical ethics. It's within the realm of humans. Objective morality proponents aren't talking about platonic realism.

Your point?

I was commenting on your quote. What examples? Maybe you could just answer if this view implies Platonism or not. — Tom Storm

We can say it's objective because "goodness" is something that can be achieved, according to virtue ethics. And we can say it's platonistic because Plato was one of the advocates of virtue. But it couldn't come from an idealistic point of view because one of the qualities of goodness is that it benefits others around us. There's the others to whom we dedicate our actions.

Does this view necessarily entail that ethics are Platonic and therefore we discover truth through idealism? — Tom Storm

Which view? I gave two examples.

The mechanistic view (not just "science" in general.. but "scientism"), excludes everything but science as truth-bearing. That's how I interpreted it anyways..
So science vs. scientism.. It's similar to other debates I have seen on the forum. — schopenhauer1

No, this is an erroneous view of mechanistic worldview. The scientific community does not approve of this view. It's a view of a handful of philosophers, not science. It's even at odds with the discipline of science because it purports to reduce everything into formulaic existence.

We're never going to encounter extra terrestrial life face to face — Nils Loc

The odds are categorized as "impossible" due to the infinitesimally small chance.

Ontology - the science of being - is definitely part of philosophy. But other sciences traditionally fit under philosophy as well, such as Ethics - the science of (truly) right conduct. — A Christian Philosophy

This is what I'm trying to say. When philosophy asks "What exists" or "What's real", that encompasses all that could be asked of philosophy. In Ethics, the examination is whether morality is objective or subjective (we have morality as a matter of convenience or cooperation, for example). If objective, it exists independent of how we view it, we just need to discover it.

Folks, the ontology is the same for all inquiries of philosophy -- matter, objective reality, morality, space and time.

I've always viewed science as discovering what is known from definitions. Philosophy questions definitions themselves. — Philosophim

It's really simple. The archaic mantra "love of wisdom", when defining philosophy, should receive a more rigorous scrutiny.

Philosophy is positing what exists and/or what is real. If we get this right, then nothing else should be confusing.

I was joking, actually. Of course metaphysicians can discuss what they want. Just as long as they don't get too carried away. Pesky metaphysicians... — Changeling

:up: I always like it when metaphysicians put things in the perspective of science because they could get outside of it and critique. Scientists must think within the context of scientific situation, otherwise, they lose their credibility. I only started appreciating science when I got into philosophy.

I might be the only one, but I don't think a mere metaphysician should be getting involved in matters of science — Changeling

What are you saying here? We shouldn't have any opinions about anything scientific?

"Well it's simple gay people are nasty plane and simple, sure a few of the woman might not be but I'm talking like 1% of the gay community
And so naturally a bunch of guys that like to get phucked in the azz by other guys and seek this kind of thing out via the night club party seen are going to be the scum that infects the nation — Jamal

This does not sound like MAYAEL. I've interacted with him a few times. So, I'm not sure why he would write something like this. Maybe he was drunk when he wrote it. Or he was just stressed out over the news of diseases over and over again that he's taking it out on certain segment of the population.

Coincidentally, I had planned today on visiting the grave of someone who bailed out too soon. But, I had to do something else, so next week maybe.

Only one small path leads out, but its trailhead can only be seen by casting one's gaze above shoulder height, and none have yet looked that high up. They've heard of this Path of Hope, but never having seen it, they scoff and shrug, looking at the ground, firmly denying it. — Hanover

There's always a way out. And I'm sure we don't mean death, which defeats the point.

You’ve already defeated your own argument that we are “at home” like other animals and extolled the existential /absurdist dilemma (of the specifically human condition) in one sentence. — schopenhauer1

I don't see how what you just said rejects what I said. Care to explain?

Living does not require courage, that's just rationalization to avoid having to reckon with death, same with calling death boring. — Darkneos

Well, you're helping my argument, not hurting it. We are humans after all. So, yes, we use rationalization like animals use instinct. Courage consists of going against our tendency towards hopelessness. We use rationalization, of course. But there are enzymes and chemicals in our body at our disposal.

That's sort of ignorance about what nature is like. Animals survive because they know nothing else. They aren't brave and I wouldn't call that living. — Darkneos

Pardon me. I went back to my post and see if I called the wild animals brave. I said, humans need that. The animals live the way they are designed to live. Because they know nothing else, they use their energy to fuel life.

Death is boring!

I have no suggestions if one finds life undesirable. Imagination is good, but living at the moment requires courage. That's it. Courage to face the mundane and the ordinary. Escapism has flourished over the last last decade or so. You've seen a lot of them in vlogs. Cottage fairies is one example. Another, is living a life in the 18th century, complete with costume and oil lamps and lack of modern technology. There's also the shopping addiction. Acquiring things to fill a void. Or just simply using drugs and alcohol to enter the state of stupor and mindlessness.

I don't know what to think of those people. I try to avoid them.

But I know that looking at the determination of animals in the wilderness, that's what I call living. They have enough energy pent up inside them that when they spring into action, all those energy is released like superpowers. Relatively, they live a short life -- when you always give your all and use all your energy to bag a prey, you're bound to have a shorter life. The wear and tear you sustain makes you powerful, but also short-lived.

What am I saying?

There's enough chemicals and enzymes in our body potent enough to fight hopelessness and boredom. We just need to know how to use them. When you use them, your mind is focused and even minutes of your life count. Of course, moments like that don't last 24 hours, 7 days a week. Eventually, the highs subside. That's when you sleep, or just do some physical activities. Or eat.

The person making the request could say they suffer from asthma or some sort of respiratory illness and couldn't be around smoking.

I'm not sure why the question, though. Smoking is prohibited indoors in all establishments. So, there's no need to reformulate a request, just say smoking is not allowed here, please.

I apologize in advance to the families of polar bears. They will adapt, I'm sure.