I do n`t even get why it might be considered that an individual has not got the right not to be offended in the first instance? I get that he might not have the power to off set a legal process where he or she was perceived to of been the victim. That is an entirely different concept though. It must be jargon for something entirely different then?
Do you consider that it should n`t be a criminal offence to offend someone no matter in what circumstances. Say, for instance, and it happened, I`m leaving the gym floor by the stairs but my punching the air, I`d managed a personal best time, causes a girl to have a panic attack,, and from this time on I`m accused of being a pervert and potential paedophile, thus compromising my safety. Is this not to be considered criminal?
I experience most of the threads here as no more than a group of people trying to prove how logical they are of thinking, and masterful they are of writing, but take me to anywhere where actual philosophy is in progression.. Even if it were the subject matter would likely be so obscure as to have no value beyond its mental exercise. All that could be worthwhile philosophical process is passed over presumably because it is considered beneath one to concern themselves over it?

Most likely, but as long as we make worthwhile points.
I agree with Xander, and right and wrong can be beholden upon which side of the fence one is standing, it is perceptual, right or wrong for whom?.

A private language would be one that cannot be shared with anyone even to begin with.

I get it, I think, but it does n`t really amount to anything worth the effort of thinking about, does it? "Speaks to two opposed" or should it be "speaks of two opposed", I get "of" but not "to" I do n`t even get the point of deliberately perplexing everything, to be honest, to me it seems like a waste of effort. It does n`t follow that with perplexity one gets any closer to the truth. I do n`t recognize this distinction between private and public,, that there are opposed limits, this is an individual matter, and the limits depend on the circumstances of private, and of public. One cannot determine beyond that.

Nothing does n`t exist in the cosmos because there is such a commodity as a space. It can exist as the mental state of having a blank mind/nothing on the mind,. There are no spaces but there is also nothing.

The simple answer is this, that what is logical to one person may not be to the next, whilst they may both equally be logical thinkers, that logic is not sufficiently specialized to define science. I`ve no idea why you are doing all of that hard work over something this easy, what happens when the difficult questions start? You do n`t require evidence for anything, just the answer, and an ability to wake up to it.

I`m finished on that one,

It should read "with" an evolving mind in that case, but even then it is not well put, "as" renders the line meaning something totally different, that you consider the world to be a mind.
Prejudice is not on paper, it is in the real animate world, between people. When one entertains biases for every member of a given generation, this whether they be younger or older,, biases which do not on every last occasion apply, this is an example of prejudice, age prejudice come reverse age prejudice. Thinking that you know more than can be known about a person on account of how long he or she has been alive; but obviously, your thinking would be required to be negative.

I do n`t view life as an evolving mind, what does that even mean? The way in which I view life alters as my mind evolves though, but not necessarily in totality fundamentally. I do n`t quite agree that there are lots of sources for prejudice, there are lots of reasons for prejudice. Prejudice is caused by a gap in thinking, hence defined as ignorance. "Sources" suggests too much to information, and prejudice is at odds with information, it does n`t want to hear it. I do n`t agree that there has to be a god in this, and if there were he`d of granted us free will, we are determined because it is the only way in which we can possibly hope to function.. I`m more than happy with myself the way I am. I do n`t mean to put it quite that way, of course there may be God, but I do n`t think you can find the answer here.

During our nurturing years and then on until our mid teens. Age prejudice, for instance, is often not entirely established until then, or even slightly later.. Much of our broader thinking tends to being programmed, leaving us only with the detail. The media is at the center of this, where the world of best and most desiring to be read stories is thought to be the real world. The real world can in reality only be known first hand..I`m not offering you proof but then neither do you likely require it, for your instinct for that which is correct when honestly applied is often far more than just adequate. Better than endless get you nowhere counter arguments any day..

That does n`t denote a bad person, that denotes an unfortunate person. Are you simply trying to set it up such that you can consider yourself good?

No, being good concerns only the good in a person, so their meaning good, not what consequences on the outside.

Everybody already has both the spoken and unspoken right not to be offended. The only thing left to discuss is the psychology of it, which could be very interesting, but it`s psychology, not law, and certainly not philosophy.. Having the right not to be offended does not necessarily convert into that right enabling a second part to avoid a question, or otherwise to entirely, or at all, get off on a charge. None of this has anything whatsoever to say for the right not to be offended though. It may well be legal jargon but in a philosophy forum one works with that which is actually communicated, for philosophy is bigger than mere jargon. The right not to be offended taken as legal jargon then, this should be dealt with case by case. Those that are regularly beaten to a pulp by their partner without complaint, and this is often the case, should generally be afforded no right not to be offended. However, should one be deliberately causing the beatings it could well be they that should be on the stand, for the aggressor may in reality be the victim. I have just experienced a case of this here, I rent rooms. There exists states of mind which might wish to capitalize on an opportunity of being perceived as the victim..

Respect, genuine respect can be difficult to conjure up in this environment where nobody wholly exists, just words on a page. Respect has to take on board an element of person, thus respect would come more naturally should persons be revealed alongside merely intellects. The onlookers are not imagined tell him,, many are following this thread, and shall do into the future. Yes, that does perhaps sound a little like a line plucked from a play. It is wishful thinking to imagine that one person can know another on this basis of no more than around perhaps thirty or forty percent of full in person communication, and when not even on the topic of each other.

The question is as to whether any of you have successfully completed the philosophy bit before you all commence on dissecting brains. Good instinct can be just as important as evidence, for in philosophy there always exists the counter argument. I have shifted my position on this forum not with so called evidence but with time and sleep.

Do you mean this, that awareness of one`s being good is to be discovered in one`s capacity for love? You complicate well beyond making any sense. Do you do this to sound like an authority? So likely only Jesus of everyone ever born, according to both you and the scriptures,, can be justified in considering themselves good. It is hard enough to think of everybody, and all the cold blooded killers in the world, even without trying to love everybody. In any event mere mortals have to spend time with a person to know whether they love them or not. Remember, the love on its own is but emotion, not a form of meaningful/actual love. One does not emotion a person, they feel the love emotion as consequence to the presence of a person,that`s all. Overly emotional people may not be any more likely to be good people, and the love emotion can be the nearest thing to hate..

But it is n`t fated, not on a level which should concern us, for we all have our own personal to us individual course, and it is only meaningless to those which experience no meaning. I`m one individual that requires no more meaning than I already have, it means everything to me, and there are many more like me..

The problem is not the basic wage it is what other folk charge those on the basic wage, what should be deemed unlawful amounts.. In the UK changing a patio door barrel lock, for instance, sets one back at least £110, cheapest quote, £75 minimum. of which is for labor. The operation of doing it takes at the very outside thirty seconds. Killing wasps up to £120 ,max duration on the job around two minutes, and cost of chemicals about two pounds.. It is only dangerous should one or two stings be dangerous. When you employ daily labor their rate is a constant but the number of hours in their working day is on the decline. When one tries to run a small business of their own charges on it are through the roof, it is treated as though a business which may well be in the red is some kind of a gold mine.. Improve pay and the greedy will likely grow still greedier. The problem is less that some people get paid too little and more that some people, many thousands of them, get paid too much, some far too much.. They wont complain that they are being paid too much so it is down to the rest of us to do that for them.

One should love oneself, but as is the case for friendship there are various forms of love, self love being the form to be avoided. One should only love one`s neighbor as oneself taking it that one has any respect at all for oneself. By the perception of whom can we be considered good or bad/ I think this is the wrong approach to it however. I`d define a good person as one that prioritizes the putting of other`s needs before their own. How good or bad they may be at doing this should be considered secondary to this assessment, in my opinion. In my view then effort is the primary consideration.

I get all this, we all likely do, but everybody already knows that we are complex beings, so why not just a couple of lines which will be remembered, and will sum up and clearly define this point/progression which you are contributing, such that we can all be clear as to what it is. Multitudes of detail has little or nothing to actually say...

Applied logic can result in trusted realization, and I would definitely define this process as learning just as much, if not more so, than merely remembering that which one is told..

Sure, actions reflect beliefs, and no need to prove it for you are a philosopher, not a scientist. Remember though, we possess thousands of beliefs all interconnected, such it is unlikely that one particular belief would fire very often in total isolation. Particular beliefs are not necessarily singular either, one may partly believe something on some levels, scarcely believe that same something on other levels, and at the same time wholly believe it on yet another level again, and not every one of those separate areas of believing may be firing, or indeed firing at the same strength.at any one time, additionally, with every variance in psychoenvironmental background when reflecting upon ones belief there would necessarily be a shift here.. What appears on the surface in terms of the response is far less straight forward than this.

We possess that freedom of will which comes with being an individual, thus, there is an individual nature to what we will. Surely, is n`t that free will enough? It more than satisfies me.

Trusted philosophical sentiments, come affirmations count for more than an individual in the background trying to make virtues, surely you`d agree? When an answer is its most brief, most direct, whilst at the same time without flaw, many are obliged to waking up to its truth, it directs one there, and in filling in the detail for themselves, which only they can finally do for they experience the world in their own individual way, the message becomes them. I totally agree though that brief is not always the answer, generally away from philosophy that is, and that there are times when it is almost impossible to provide too much detail..

If you are doing anything for the BBC perhaps you could help, they might be interested in my repeated serious physical world record braking attempts, often successful, at least the director of TOWIE, might well be, and perhaps especially as I`m a friend of Charlie Kings. He is rejoining the show as there personal trainer, Perhaps made more interesting as it would embrace my real world teenage following, and coupled with the fact of my being in my sixties It could definitely give a much required boost both to the shows following and to their lives. I am possibly the only person in the country that runs mile on end whilst dragging weights and simultaneously training his upper body. The young following, come friends, would definitely become a talking point. Much of society do n`t even believe such a scenario possible. It all happens only a short distance behind his old house, in The Benfleet Road.

So beauty no longer exists just in the eye of the beholder then, so these pictures prove substantively and beyond any reasonable doubt that beauty has an independent existence? Surely, they are just pictures, nothing to do with philosophy whatsoever. In any event, beauty suggests beyond attractive, (some of these pictures may perhaps be considered universally/philosophically attractive), to nature, it comprises nature, and all of those pictures which are inanimate definitely do n`t possess a transmitting of inner beauty facet. It is a stretch to consider any life form which is not human as being universally/philosophically beautiful because other than perhaps apes and dogs they do n`t tend to this radiating out of an inner attractive character, come nature. .Beauty of nature is possible to define, beauty of image is less so, and leaves it to chance as to whether that perceived beauty actually exists. These are incredible pictures though.

Short is best, and infinitely more adequate, so then, dishonest philosophy cannot exist because philosophy embraces only which constitutes the search for that which actually is. This is the full answer.. when one is short changing with the truth one is doing something else, certainly not philosophy. We are all of us already well aware why false information is deployed in our society, or should be, thought control being number one, so no philosophy left to be done here?

Pseudo, yes, prejudice is everywhere over seemingly near everything, and a particular nature/target of prejudice is seldom discovered in isolation. For instance, how many significantly older folk even make interaction with young people unless there is a practical imperative, I`d suggest very few. The arguments parallel with those arguments which were deployed for social segregation from dark skinned persons, those pertaining to them being somehow different. It is no wonder that social prejudice runs high in both directions.. One has only to take a genuine interest in them and to treat them for what they are, equals, to discover that beneath it all, the social conditioning, there is no prejudice.

[reMany of my thoughts on epistemology come from Wittgenstein's last work called On Certainty. They were developed from my understanding of On Certainty, in particular Wittgenstein's bedrock propositions. However, I don't want to give the impression that what I'm putting forth in this thread is necessarily what Wittgenstein was communicating in On Certainty. I developed my own theory based on some of his thinking, and how I interpreted some of his thinking. So much of my own thinking on this subject is going beyond what's presented in On Certainty. It's my expansion of some of the ideas in On Certainty, for better or worse.

First, it seems that there are beliefs that arise apart from language, and a belief, whether linguistic or not, is simply a state-of-mind. These mind states are clearly seen in our actions. This is not to say that all actions by living organisms reflect beliefs, but simply to say that all beliefs are reflections of mind states, which in turn are shown by the things we do.

Second, not only are there beliefs that arise non-linguistically, but our thoughts are also not dependent upon linguistics. This it seems, has to be case if one is to make sense of the development of linguistics. For if there are no beliefs and no thoughts prior to the formation of linguistics (language), what would be the springboard of language? How does one get from a mind of no thoughts and no beliefs, to a mind that is able to express one's thoughts linguistically? It also seems to be the case that language is simply a tool to communicate our thoughts to one another, which also seems to lend support for the idea that thinking is prior to language.

Third, the basis for beliefs in prelinguistic man is causal in nature, not based on reasoning, reasoning is a linguistic endeavor, at least as how it is defined here. How are beliefs causally formed? It seems to be the case that beliefs arise causally within the mind based on the interactions between our sensory experiences and the world around us. The interaction between our sensory experiences and the world do not necessitate the belief, but are simply sufficient to cause the belief. One acts upon the information given through sensory impressions, which in turn has a causal relationship with the belief.

Fourth, these three previous ideas form what is bedrock to all of epistemology. For epistemology arises out of language, it is a way of expressing what we know, or what we believe we know by using ply="Sam26;d2612"]

One may be certain but still be entirely mistaken. One can be certain that which is actually is, but not should a notion for that which is exist only as a perception, such as the case with certainty.

Only primitive instinctive beliefs can arise apart from language. Beliefs are concepts, and beyond language only emotion based concepts have a construct, but having said this even wonderment is an emotion.

Beliefs are not, so to speak, a state of mind, it is only the object of one`s belief which can be reasonably said.to be the state of mind.

Beliefs may not necessarily convert to actions for the first priority for the vast majority of us is to conform.

The springboard to communication was wonderment, and I consider a state of wonderment to be one of emotion, the emotion which is wonderment. In my view many emotional states go unrecognized.

Language both communicates our thoughts and possesses them, beyond our emotions this is. Do n`t underestimate how far reaching may be emotions though.

Beliefs do n`t form casually in the mind, they either develop as consequence to experience, one`s own or others, or are planted there, by others..

Whether there is this interaction with one`s belief, refer back, would depend upon whether that belief is held as an active belief or a non active one.

How would you argue, should you be so asked, that your reasoning has taken you on a journey? .In my view it is only representative of the average surface perception for non philosophers. It is the way at first visit the vast majority of us would already think, and in effect you are going out of your way in trying to convince of arguments for not thinking..

Make your mind up, first you ask me for the answer, easy enough, then you tell me that the answer, so the actual answer, that this is not of value in its own right.. That which is/the actual genuine answer owes no explanation beyond a normal healthy level of intellect to realize when clearly, and I do stress clearly, placed before one, it is a job done in itself. For every argument there exists a counter one, but meanwhile that which actually is, so the correct answer, does quite independently of argument exist. Philosophical affirmations, the correct ones, so let`s call them affirmations in philosophy then, have far more than no value, and once in print acknowledgment tends to run close behind. For philosophy to be of value answers must be clear, so brief. .

There is no duty of lengthy explanation, for that which is has not got built into it any requirement for further explanation, it stands alone.. In any event, the production of the answer, that which actually is, takes some considerable effort, come good instinct, but realizing it as correct when put before one for the first time often takes no more effort than that said same effort concerned of waking up. Most that study philosophy are quickly programmed into this institutionalized misconception that the more long winded an explanation is the better job that it does.. It does on every day practical levels of course, it`s creating jobs, paying mortgages, and providing degrees Like any institution though it can only be influenced from the inside, and never mind even should the answers exist elsewhere.

To the delusion of what, free will, or determinism? The notion of determinism is thrust upon one but the notion of free will never is. OP? Somebody over the age of sixty six you mean, who`s that, in any event you are plainly rank with age prejudice. Prejudice never exists in just the one area, so much of your thinking then may well be prejudicial, and I`ve never known a person that is afflicted with forwards age prejudice not also to be afflicted with reverse age prejudice. It is just knowing how to bring it out onto the surface.
Determinism does n`t make anything pointless, and without it our lives would be a chaotic nightmare.

Not very interesting philosophically however as beauty can be found in almost anything. Attractive is a more interesting term philosophically speaking. Beauty does n`t exist, it is a perception, however, I`d argue that attractive does exist. It is not an important commodity, perhaps, but I believe that it does at least objectively exist.

It`s a straight forward question, so the only answer with any hope of genuine headway must be equally as straight forward. No more than two to three lines of prose are required in achieving the perfect answer.

We should feel guilty when we have done wrong, so when damage is objective or when it is subjective. Objective damage is that change perceived to of been in detriment to the otherwise state of being by the average balanced mind. Side tracking may be dealing with side issues but this as an answer which seriously deals with this one. The shorter the answer, within reason, the more accurate it tends to be.

There is no other correct approach than the most direct one, the shortest route, for every single other approach contains within it the potential to eventually take one almost anywhere. Beyond directness there is subject change, one is discussing side issues.not directly essentially a part of a given question. This has always been a deliberate ploy by those sat in ivory towers, and in their effort of making philosophy exclusive. The genuine art of philosophy is to be measured in terms of straight forward simplicity We are programmed to be led by that which we find hardest to grasp, such is the power of this institution....

ply="VagabondSpectre;145538"]

But we do KNOW that we have free will, for here resides the weight of public perception and knowing.. Sure, we may be wrong in thus knowing, I`m convinced that we are, it may well be known mistakenly, it may well not be that which actuality is, but it is known all the same. Faith is knowing, but those, for instance, that have faith that there is God may still be proven wrong. I know that free will does not exist, but because I do n`t carry this thought around with me it affects me not at all. Should I do it likely would, Just how it negatively affects people is already documented, so there is no philosophy to be done there. Knowing changes nothing for we already know.

We are flooded with data, like a computer, and we have added to this the ability for both decision making and reasoning, but that decision making and reasoning is set in an environment only of total data and total programming, and we are programmed by the early environment in which we live. Beyond this is not philosophy, philosophy directs science, but it stops short of doing the science.

Determinism is on every level and every where, but on occasion must be taken to the infinite decimal place. The cause originated in the commodity of product, yes, this simple. The art is in the simplicity, philosophical affirmations. These are what people remember, and it makes philosophy avilable for everybody, not merely the present ivory tower gods..

Nobody is going to remember all that lot?? - I did n`t say "negative feelings" though did I, something is quite obviously always to blame for negative feelings, this is accepted by the vast majority of folk already, so no explanation required for this assertion. I did n`t say negative on the mind I said nothing on the mind, and that nothing is neither negative nor positive.. Keep it simple, that`s the art,or how else can philosophical progression occur beyond just perhaps a single party..

One thing to believe that freedom is an illusion but quite another to carry the concept of it around on one`s mind. Sure, the least healthy of thinking possible.. It is one thing to believe things, but quite another to take life too seriously, and to carry this notion around with one consciously is taking it seriously to the point of self destruction. I`d suggest to it being an abnormality, come serious dysfunction of mind. Few minds could get away with it without a drop in functionality..

Arguably does n`t exist, because empty space is something, it is a gap, come a space, and a space is a space, not nothing, and without it distances between areas which contain matter would be reduced.
However, should one`s mind be blank at any point in time one is thinking about nothing, so nothing exists on their conscious mind. One might of course argue that the empty mind also exists as a gap.between two places of mind.

My verdict on dishonest philosophy is this, that to constitute being philosophy in the first place one`s contribution must be genuine. I consider this to be the total answer, and obviously, the more condensed an answer is the more punch it carries, short being functionally clever,or at least it would do in a godless environment, one not locked door institution led..

If one is contented already with that level of freedom which they already have then more so called freedom than this would only be experienced as less, for with more freedom available to one than one is happy with there is sacrifice of contentment, and contentment is the marker for genuine freedom. Free will should be considered a different topic, and we should all of us here be bright enough to realize that some of us experience more freedom than others. To over look the way that normal functioning people think and feel is to subscribe to only meaningless chatter. Sure on one level, with no free will there can be no freedom, that`s for a free will debate, and that`s on that absolute level. However, on the level which actually counts for something, on the level where we actually experience it, or not so much as the case may be, freedom is an important topic for discussion. To deal only in absolute values.is to be separate from any valid purpose..
I have just been banned from another philosophy forum for over performance, every thread I engaged ending with my answer?

Everything exists, even empty space, it exists as empty space, so it is other than nothing, but whilst at the same time there may indeed be nothing there. Nothing, in its strictest sense, must be something which cannot be identified, so something beyond identity, but empty space has identity, for it is identifiable as empty space. "Nothing", this term, is of course used only as a substitute for the term "zero", or "empty", as it relates to specific commodities. Not that there is any suggestion to nothing existing, only in terms of those specific commodities. I cannot logically reason that nothing should be the cause of lengthy debate however..
NB It is of course all down to one`s definition of the term, but by the standard narrow definition there is little left for debate.