Would you say we ought to reduce suffering regardless of the status of the individuals in consideration? The suffering of one individual does not take precedence over the suffering of another? — ToothyMaw

In an ideal scenario the suffering of as many as possible, although criminal acts may not be prevented to avoid this.

The justice system then takes care of the punishment or for less serious offences the rehabilitation of the perpetrators in the case of someone stealing your shoes or other punitive measures such as fines etc.

You are talking about the specific case, which would be some sort of negative utilitarianism, whereas I am talking about the general case - the conditions necessary for a morality to inform our laws in a meaningful way. — ToothyMaw

It actually applies to most immoral acts such as

Murder, Theft, Damage of Property, kidnappings, rape and other immoral acts but not all as in the case of Adultery (at least in western society)

If that is so then the alphabet was created by man. Combining the two to make algebra must surely have been the work of the devil.

The aim of morality in as far as I see it is to reduce or prevent harm to individuals and society as a whole.

Take stealing as a basic example. This is harmful to the individual who has something taken from them involuntarily (theft) and as such is not just morally wrong but illegal within a legal framework.

The morality of an action is deemed by the effect of harm that it has on an individual (or other legal entity such as a business) be that physical, financial or even emotional.

Where the effect of such an act is serious enough it is enforced by law.

@Manuel Let me propose a different thought experiment for you. Please follow these instructions

Count to 10 starting from one at a steady even pace then stop when you reach 10.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

and tell me what you are experiencing when you reach 10 after the mind/consciousness has no more tasks, calculations, thoughts to think.

When you reach 10 and there is no more to do you are experiencing the true present, that elusive NOW.

We cannot pin the right-nowness of the present, — Manuel

You can’t you’re right! The reason you can’t is because you’re trying to hold on to the NOW (or pin it down if you like) which is why it can be elusive.

However living in the present without wanting to pin it down you actually get to experience it and flow with it which is kinda nice.

God: An Anatomy by Professor Francesca Stavrakopolou

Stavrakopoulou’s thesis is that even during the six centuries over which the books of the Old Testament were written, the immense physicality of this wilder divinity was being erased, not least under the sway of Platonism. “Reverence rather requires . . . an allegorical meaning,” Clement of Alexandria wrote around the turn of the second century CE, expressing a scholarly distaste for the experiential and somatic that remains highly influential. Translators, too, have long sanitised the text, privileging the abstract and metaphysical over the corporeal. But this more primal, vital Yahweh can be reconstructed from scattered passages in the Bible which still retain warm traces of his divine materiality.

My apologies if my tone seems somewhat abrasive…I think I need a beer

A substantive post which turned out to be a rebuke of Adorno’s verbose complaint regarding equality and difference.

Btw, I did read Jamal’s Adorno quote in its entirety something didn’t quite sit right in what he was advocating. I even almost composed a reply to it.

You then came along with the Declaration of Independence which was the perfect response to adornos complaint.

T Clark gave a very good rebuke of it which I agreed with.

I didn’t mean to be rude at all…I was hoping you’d express yourself without worry of triggering any perceived sensitivities

Coward

T Clark Yes, good point and I see that. But it’s not enough is it? That a country beset with racism was founded on egalitarianism might prompt us to wonder if there’s something wrong, or at least deficient, with that founding idea. — Jamal

If you think there’s something wrong or deficient with the Declaration of Independence feel free to amend…I shall wait.

so what ? You asked what that’s got to do with freedom of speech and I explained that it’s inextricably linked to the idea of liberty and freedom.

Of course I’m defending it, do you wish to suggest an amendment to it ? Go ahead.

As the Declaration of Independence clearly grants every person the right to freedom (equally) and that includes the freedom of speech though not made explicit but implied in that excerpt.

I see nothing wrong there but the price of freedom good or bad and that includes the right to free speech which allows a racist a bigot to express himself.

I'm sorry if the words "vanity" and "foolishness" offended you. — Alkis Piskas

Oh I’m not offended by that, what I’m offended by is your lack of ambition.

As far as I can remember, I personally have never felt powerless from that aspect. I don't remember ever wanting to live for eternity, i.e. to be immortal, like e.g. an angel or a god. And certainly not a vampire! :grin: — Alkis Piskas

Thank you for your input.

There’s nothing vain about wanting to live forever to me it’s a fundamental right as a sentient being and not selfish at all. That is if my sentience was granted by the divine.

You could say a mortal wanting to live a long life like in their 80s etc is also vain, which is not btw. The difference between the two is one of scale with the other end of it being forever.

.

Maybe I don't really wanna know
How your garden grows
'Cause I just wanna fly
Lately, did you ever feel the pain
In the morning rain
As it soaks you to the bone?

Maybe I just wanna fly
Wanna live, I don't wanna die
Maybe I just wanna breathe
Maybe I just don't believe
Maybe you're the same as me
We see things they'll never see
You and I are gonna live forever

I said maybe I don't really wanna know
How your garden grows
'Cause I just wanna fly
Lately, did you ever feel the pain
In the morning rain
As it soaks you to the bone?

Maybe I will never be
All the things that I wanna be
Now is not the time to cry
Now's the time to find out why
I think you're the same as me
We see things they'll never see
You and I are gonna live forever
Maybe I don't really wanna know

How your garden grows
'Cause I just wanna fly
Lately, did you ever feel the pain
In the morning rain
As it soaks you to the bone?
Maybe I just wanna fly
Wanna live, I don't wanna die
Maybe I just wanna breathe
Maybe I just don't believe
Maybe you're the same as me
We see things they'll never see
You and I are gonna live forever

I can’t say that I’m an expert in politics or even political philosophy although I’m vaguely aware of Plato’s idea of philosopher king.

I’m also aware of Machiavelli’s take on the very same idea in his most important and influential work the Prince. Although that’s where the similarities end as Machiavelli advocated more controversial and morally ambiguous ideas of his own at the time.

What interests me from a purely humanist point of view is the idea of will to power which I believe Nietzsche wrote about in more detail.

In any society democratic or otherwise the will of the people must either be subdued or represented by those who wish to achieve those agendas.

The conflict arises when the decision makers/presidents/kings tyrants etc alienates the will of the citizens. Which causes change in leadership in democratic societies.

It’s important to note however that no matter how virtuous or good a power wishes to be or at least be seen as then Mandeville’s fable of the bees anticipates the downfall of such regimes or powers.

I have as much interest in scotish politics as I have in STDs but then again that’s my general scorn of politics.

Kate Forbes video that @universeness posted is interesting as she umms and errs when questioned on her Christian beliefs and principles and whether her personal principles should be applied to the non-religious general public.

In no uncertain terms it made her look weak in the face of her interlocutor and the electorate.

In order for her to get the votes of the electorate she has to serve the interests of that electorate without abandoning her Christian principles which is impossible without coming across as a hypocrite.

Only being defensive as I’m trying to anticipate any future derailment of the topic regarding term usage.

If I’m being defensive then it’s by necessity.

If you actually bother to read the whole thing definitions are the least of your worries.

Just want to avoid unnecessary side tracks by arguing about definitions is what I’m getting at.

Just want to make that clear from the start as it saves both our time.

The masses and the dumb asses who for want of entertainment pay to see their pop star or actor on the big screen must realise that they too are human and ultimately it’s not for the lack of talent or ability that one has to work a 9-5 job and the other walks the red carpet to get their prize. But for luck and circumstance that they’re in such different positions in life.

Instead the mass of men have self limiting beliefs which says I can’t be as good as Tom Cruise or Ed Sheeran…and perhaps it may even be true at first as I’d rather listen to say Tom Jones then the talentless swine with a sob story on x-factor or the gangsta rap wannabe with 10 subscribers on sound cloud.

But this only appears so at first for by having that ambition in the first place the wanna be gangsta rapper could turn out to be the next Eminem or Dr Dre with 10million subscribers.

So the question is not one of talent but of will and determination.

The negative traits then are pre-existing in each individual and are brought to light in front of a bigger audience if such success follows but as Ali explained in the video in my OP if you are a normal twat or a famous twat you’re still a twat.

Rousseau, by far my favourite French philosopher (sorry Descartes)

In interesting distinction drawn there by him in a way a precursor to modern day ideas pervading current psychology.

Self-love in the pure sense of it and not its aberration or curruption which is the cause of arrogance, hubris and narcissism is in a sense essential to a human beings well being.

For example being kind and compassionate to yourself is important as well as avoiding doing harm to your body with substance abuse or other forms of self-neglect.

If we are kind to self it’s only logical for it to follow that we are also kind to others if we are compassionate human beings and not complete psychos who do not extend this kindness to others but only to the self.

There is more to human psychology in relation to society and sociology.

Some personality traits may be in fashion like pride, avarice and arrogance and the perpetuation or portrayal of a certain image via media can betray the falsity of it all in the end by their shallowness to ultimately reveal that such individuals have neither the character nor the substance of the high ideals which they wish to embody.

What exactly is your use of the term real vs existing — Benj96

I don’t want to be drawn into a definition war right now as even if my terms are poorly defined it takes away nothing from what is being expressed in the OP.

But the topic concerns simply the present and if the future exists without going trigger happy linguistic on definitions as most of the wording used are common agreed public definitions in everyday use.

Apart from the word Real which is a complete red herring …it’s there in the title to catch out people like sushi who see a thread such as this and respond to the title without reading the contents of the OP

As far as the definition of the universe is concerned I see only one problem with it. If the universe is everything that is and it IS expanding …what is it expanding to or into ?

In the everyday sense however definitions are much more straightforward and less controversial such as the definition of a cat, a table, a car etc

Edit: although recently the definition of Woman has come into question by some fringe lunatics …but let’s not go there.

I assume your comment addressed the title of the opening post rather than the contents of the post itself.

Am I wrong ?



Realness is actually a red herring to the matter at the crux of the post. In fact my actual title of this philosophical writing was does the future exist?

Have you read my OP?

Actually there is a logical progression there somewhere from the 3 marbles to 1 marble.

Great! so it wasn’t just me losing my marbles.

It’s a very crude analogy for sure. This was written a few months back so I’m still trying to understand it myself at least what I meant by it and how it fits in with the rest of the topic being explored. It could even be omitted entirely although some aspects of the marble thing have merit on their own right isolated from the rest of the concept regarding the present and the overall arching question.

The 3 marble analogy in retrospect seems incorrect to me and reading back my writing I switched to a one marble analogy which appears more valid within the theme of the issue I’m discussing although this switch might not be readily apparent to the reader I must state it now as the writing remains unedited from when it was first written.

The quote by Wittgenstein which prompted me to share my own personal musings above on the matter.

Death is not an event in life: we do not live to experience death. If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present. Our life has no end in the way in which our visual field has no limits.
— Ludwig Wittgenstein

I created a new thread for that very reason as when 180Proof posted that I had reflected on the same issue a few months back.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14100/is-the-future-real

God decided to tip me on this one ☝️ — invicta

Well I’ll be damned. A horse called caracristi won it instead, cristi of course a derivative of the word Christ (or follower of Christ).

Incidentally it beat the favourite Captain St Lucifer by just over a neck.

I guess I’ll eat my words

God decided to tip me on this one ☝️

Anyway there’s a horse at 16:25 at Wolverhampton called Dew You Believe at 6/1

Cheeky 5er for your lack of faith ?

Are you unable to get your 'experiences' to affect me in anyway? — universeness

They’re not intended to.

Plus I think you might have misinterpreted me…I did not claim these experiences contain within them any such supernatural powers as to directly influence the belief or non belief of others.

Erm I did not claim to have such super powers. Nor did I claim that my experience granted me with any divine or supernatural power.

It’s a simple matter of proof, you could dismiss it to my misattribution of God for such an experience and you’re entitled to do so which you’ve done.

Does it negate it in any way shape or form? That’s entirely up to you.

Imagine if you had dropped dead there for a second

That’s fine but I have not made any claims of proof to its existence. Only that what I’ve experienced convinced me. A second hand account of someone else experience should be taken with a pinch of salt like you’ve done…

Nowhere in this thread have I portended to convince or provide proof.

Possibly a charlatan and probably meet him with the same disbelief as yourself.

So what would constitute proof to you then? It seems to me that nothing would as you’ve completely ruled out the existence of such a thing