Some creatures are not reactionary but creative … what is the question of the topic a reaction to ?

Yes very odd. Sometimes philosophy asks odd questions like that … what is the meaning of life…is that more odd ?

Sometimes the way we frame our question affects the answers we will get

@jorndoe

Let us, for the sake of argument, simply allow God exists. It does not follow from this that Good and Evil exist. — ClayG

Well good and evil does exist if you look at the world around you or throughout history, plenty examples of good or evil there

You said let’s assume god exists…well god created the world. .. and is there good and bad in the world ? Yes there is, so your argument doesn’t add up

It does not follow from this that Good and Evil exist.
This is to say, that we cannot infer that God's existence implies the existence of Good and Evil — ClayG

I would say that good and evil exist in the world.

E.g. Hitler was evil, wars are evil as they cause human suffering etc.

The good then are societies where wars (human affairs) do not play a big part.

A good person is a person who gives you cake.

A bad person or evil is one who steals your birthday cake.

Hi ClayG,

It’s a little off putting to read blurbs of text like that without any paragraphs …drove me to go to other topics.

Some teachings knowledge have to a certain extent to the potential to be dangerous in the way it is applied. For example the invention of gunpowder can create useless stuff like fireworks but also the gun.

Essentially some scientific ideas can create even more dangerous things such as atomic bombs.

In relation to your moral neutrality most religions have some sort of framework or rules to live by such as the 10 commandments in Christianity which says that thou shall not murder.

So even if the Christian believes in the Holy Spirit and is but a vessel of god, then the aforementioned rules place some restrictions on what they can or cannot do if they are true followers of Christ.

Why do you write like that ? It’s confusing the crap out of me :lol:

I write posts fast in my cell while doing other things or getting around. Reread — 180 Proof

Must be a pretty big cell then

Reread the post. I removed the typo. — 180 Proof

Can I get a please?

↪invicta tyoo (corrected) — 180 Proof

A typo ? So what did you mean to spell then chubby fingers :lol:

tyoo — 180 Proof

What?

onemmmeither — 180 Proof

What does that mean ?

Yes it’s affects on the subject are pain although the subject might say the pain is theoretical.

The eternal unchanging unmoved mover exists in isolation to what it affects. The moth etc.

Did Aristotle not conceptualise it in that way ?

What warrants your assumption that the moth is in the same energy less environment as the darkness. Aristotle separates the two.

@180 ProofLet me respond by modifying the moths Nature to instead of being drawn to light they are drawn to darkness which needs no power source.

Nope I really did ask myself should I create this topic or not.

You are querying my knowledge and I’m saying I did KNOW I had a choice.

Rationalisation occurred prior to its creation.

Should I …shouldn’t I …that’s all the rationalisation that occurred in my mind.

Are you calling me a liar ?

The other analogy being that of moths to a light

Moths being moved by the unmoved mover (the lightbulb) do not affect its eternal unchanging nature of the light

Seems you need me to elaborate.

Before creating the topic I asked myself should I bother? This being a free will topic I realised, anticipated and responded with the creation rather than non-creation of the topic.

The matter of creating this topic was a conscious choice to do so as it was not to do so.

Because I’m a thinking rational and lazy creature and the thought of not bothering also occurred to me.

Yet here we are

I actually got it now, well at least I think I do anyway. Btw please note I still haven’t read any of the links above I shall outline my own speculations taken from Aristotle’s description:

eternal unchanging unmoved mover — invicta

Like Andrew gave the analogy above to the cat being drawn to the unchanging saucer of milk the issue with entropy becomes readily apparent.

And not just entropy but scale, in this case the quantity of milk being removed from the saucer.

In order to defend the whole description “eternal unchanging unmoved mover” certain modifications to the above analogy need to take place.

And I can’t see any therefore Aristotle was wrong.

Unless I postulate the following thought experiment:

Suppose then the bowl of milk contains a little warning label in cat language that says “Poison” which can only be seen as the cat moves closer to the saucer.

The cat of course is a curios animal but even a curious animal knows full well to stay away from poison…

As in illustration of an unmoved mover, consider how a cat is attracted to a saucer of milk. The milk does not move but it does move the cat. — Andrew M

Yup the problem is the quantity of the milk reduces because of the thirsty feline.

Hence the problem with eternal unchanging nature of such a being.

Perhaps the feline would pee on the bowl after so even though the quantity remains unchanging it’s now contaminated by the filthy feline.

@Wayfarer thanks for the link Andrew as well, shall peruse it at a more convenient time.

Elvis is in the building

You don’t believe in heroes then ? They’re not just in movies you know.

The answer to the second question is basically, no where. There is no meaning. This is harshest in regard to things like the Holocaust. There's supposed to be some sort of redemption in meaning, I think. Without that, it's just abysmal and oh well. — frank

But what about the heroism that ultimately saved the surviving folk ? Don’t you see any nobility in that?

That gives meaning, despite the tyranny of evil men.

Something worth living for.

Something worth fighting for.

I suspect nihilists usually rationalize that "jumping off bridges" is just as meaningless as not "jumping off bridges". — 180 Proof

:rofl:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan's_ass

I guess to a lemon the concept of lemonade is meaningless

Keep existing Nihilists I say…at least they’re not as miserable as the antinatalists

They don’t jump off bridges because that kinda hurts, a lot! So despite there being no meaning they carry on existing plus they don’t wanna piss of their boss by not existing. The tax collector wouldn’t be too happy either.

So I guess the obligation to family wife kids so working and keeping busy to everyday commitments they forget that they’re nihilists.

I think it’s fascinating why people wish to be deceived by macigians.

The mystery of how it’s done always appeals and makes us think, stretching our imaginations to ponder.

Once you know though that mystery disappears, and that makes me sad :(

Hopefully someone with links will come along…I don’t know where to start with him.

Can you please describe a moral end is? Why not simply describe it as a state of affairs rather than “moral state of affairs” (or moral ends as you put it)

Simply stated your question is do the ends justify the means.

I thought you meant do two wrongs make a right.

What if you were doing the deed for recreational purposes and the new born was unintended…what then ? Abortion ?

@unenlightenedOn the face of vegetarian objection to breaking an egg it is accepted that there’s nothing wrong with breaking an egg. Nor is there to enjoying an omelette so I do not see as how each of those seperate actions contradict each other.

The question mark is asking is where both the ends and the means are viewed as immoral when viewed independently of each other…

Can you think of a better example ?

My behaviour is to break eggs, with the end in mind to make an omelette. — unenlightened

So what’s the ethical or moral consideration of breaking a bloody egg ?

Are you a vegetarian? Egg murdering omelette making criminal!!!

Arrest him!

desacralization of power. — Jamal

Add decentralisation to that as well.

Was Aristotle’s mistake that he just used to many words to describe/define God?

Personally I would have gone with just the Eternal…but then again Aristotle was just being Aristotle he had to add unchanging to it and now it’s given me a conundrum to solve…

And is if that isn’t enough he adds more: “unmoved mover”

What a mess

Power of course is neither good nor bad it’s how it’s used. It can be used to suppress our liberties as tyrants do, but in that hands of a good and just leader it empowers to live our lives to the fullest.

Humans are cunning animals with plenty of ambition to go with it so despite all their scheming and fanciful ideals it comes down to a sentiment expressed by the great Bob Dylan



@Jamal

Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
The battle outside ragin'
Will soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'

Conspiracy theories are also very interesting and appeals to our critical thinking aspect of our brain whilst not fully utilising facts. It’s simple mistrust of authority.

There could be an ulterior motive somewhere and that it doesn’t all appear as it is. I just can’t figure it out says the conspiracy theorist…

Ah, I need to start questioning some of the quotes attributed to Rihanna, I think I saw a legitimate Gandhi quote attributed to Justin Beiber the other day on social media. And no it wasn’t satire either

There's a bogus, but profound, Einstein quote, 'either everything is a miracle, or nothing is' — Wayfarer

That’s not bogus at all. To me he’s expressing the dichotomy between the believer and non-believer.