You'll have gathered that it is a contentious question, and that there are people who think metaphysics doesn't exist or is an illusion. (I admit I am among them.) — Ludwig V

...it would seem you're right if very vague things can't really exist (which is usually how i navigate information in general), but what I've gotten so far is that metaphysics is either very basic knowledge about a thing...like, what separates a tortoise from a non-tortoise...or maybe as the guy in the you tube video that @Wayfarer posted is implies, something that's in the realm of super-human knowledge that can't really be known. Other than that, I guess I'll keep intercepting information about metaphysics until I no longer do.

I've been reading "The Republic" over the past couple of weeks, and i don't regret it, because it's pretty rediculous.

First of all, they talk about abolishing private property, because of how it divides people. Maybe some would argue this is ahead of its time, as it seems very proto-left-wing...

Second of all, they eventually define justice as minding your own business. I don't really know what to say about this, is being a good slave justice.

Third of all, there's lots silly plans, like training children in warefare by letting them watch the easier and safer battles, and giving them horses so they could escape...A lot of it sounds like the stuff of conspiracy theories, like arranging that the best citizens get to reproduce, while the bad ones wallow in confused incontinence...

Neither do I see him as xenophobic — AmadeusD

I've scratched my head over this one a bit...

So do you mean that Donald Trump is just saying/doing that anti-immigrant stuff to placate voters and grasp at power? He's certainly after both of those things, but he has been complaining about Chinese people and Latin Americans for years, i just don't buy into the perception that he doesn't believe his own xenophobia and/or racism.

that is excellent, i appreciate your help (i guess i should have tried to find older threads of a similar type before posting this, I suppose, even though what you have there is much longer method for defining it)

Good links, "Metaphysics" is on my reading list for ancient philosophy, yet viewing some preliminary materials will probably help me understand it better...

For example, take the word 'cartoon'

The word 'cartoon' originally referred to a kind of paper on which artists would draw the outline of a painting for transfer onto wood or canvas.

Then it came to refer to the actual depiction - the working drawing itself.

Then it came to refer to, well, what we call cartoons today.

But if you want to know what 'cartoon' means it would be quite misguided to suggest going and looking at drawings by Raphael or a paper mill in Italy. — Clarendon

they all matter though...even though cartoons today are now more than likely computer generated, it's still basically the same thing as the series of drawings.

And that - the investigation of what wrongness is, in and of itself, is metaphysical. — Clarendon

So then how is this not a metaphysical discussion on metaphysics? I only asked because trying to remember the definition kept alluding me, but a full duscussion, mostly, would give me a lasting idea of how to use the word.

So metaphysics is about investigating the properties of something?

I understand metaphysics to be about what things are, in and of themselves. — Clarendon

So this discussion is a metaphysical discussion?

It depends on what you are paying attention to. As long as you are immersed in your dream, there is no way to understand that it is a dream. It is only after you wake up that you can appreciate a wider context, extract yourself from your immersion, and realize the wider world that shows that it was a dream. — Ludwig V

like i was saying about Descarte's dream theory in a different discussion, you can "know" that the world is not just a product of your imagination through intuition and experience. You can't prove that your life is nothing but a dream, you can't prove your waking world is the waking world and the dream world is the dream world, you can't prove that you are not the only living person (solipsism), but your intuition will tell you that those theories are all rubbish. Kant's assertion that consistent objects in your environment disprove idealism and extreme solipsism are perhaps evidence, but you can actually dream consistent objects in your environment...even though dream matter tends to be more random and fleeting.

Same ignorance, different day. — Paine

I was just trying to interject some harmless fun into the conversation.

I think the best argument against suicide, generally speaking, is "if you're talking about, then there must be a part of you that doesn't want to do it."

This discussion doesn’t belong here. You should talk to a therapist — T Clark

What comforting and therapuetic words...

It seems that people are taking this OP very seriously, i don't know if that's warranted, it's like if anyone says the s word now adays, everyone starts freaking out and barking some therapy dogma.

The OP does seem to be legit philosophy.

There really is no way of knowing whether or not you are just a product of my imagination...

Okay, so it sounds like part of what you are saying here is that someone's act can only be evil if they were able to do otherwise than they did in fact do. You don't believe Hitler could have acted otherwise, therefore you wouldn't call him evil. — Leontiskos

Yes to your second interpretation, but "can only be evil if they were able to do otherwise than they did in fact do" is how i perceive the more common perceptions of good/evil, i'm sure my interpretation is both true and false in that regard...

Old English baedan = "to defile" roughly
Proto-Germanic bada = "difficulty, trouble/damage" roughly. — AmadeusD

Okay, thanks for researching that more carefully than i did...

So would you say that "evil" means "the absolute worst," and one must be careful about calling something "the absolute worst" given the way that emotion often misleads us? — Leontiskos

Mostly, but i don't equate evil and "absolute worst" in how i understand the terms. "evil" almost 100% of the time in modern english indicates some extreme moral wrong. For example, rarely does anyone say something like "that couger attacked the man on the hiking trail, that couger is evil!" because we all seem to assume that a couger cannot make moral decisions of right and wrong, but people use "evil" all the time to describe serial killers, politicians, and business men. While I don't like the term evil, I would have absolutely no problem with saying "Hitler, John Wayne Gacy, and Caligula acted in some of the absolute worst ways imaginable", but the thing i don't like about calling them evil is that we assume they could have acted in a different way with better morals, which is something I disagree with.

(and 'bad' has a curiously recent etymology). Still, the common English meaning does differentiate bad and evil in something like the way you indicate. — Leontiskos

huh, that's really quite interesting and i bookmarked the website...who knew that "bad" was derived exclusively from a work used to insult homosexuals and less-masculine men?! It's not surprising, but to me the word is more abstract and less loaded than that...

i guess in modern english, "evil" has it's moral and satanic overtones since the medieval era was more thoroughly christian in europe...but that etymology example you showed me illuminates how little i know...

It's been awhile since I read it, but C. S. Lewis' argument against moral relativism in Mere Christianity is quite good. — Leontiskos

Seems appealing to me, as my personal grudge with moral relativism is how even though it makes moral judgments relative to a situation instead of abstract absolutes (categorical imperatives...), it's still boiling decisions down to "right and wrong", which is still simplistic.

It seems you're saying there is nothing that can be called evil. Given that actions are guided by motivations, it seems wrong in law and in concept to call an act evil which does not carry a malicious intention. I can't really see how we could reject that the ideas/thoughts/motivations are evil but maintain that the acts are. Partially because of some of hte other stuff i said, that it looks like I'll be going on for Leon just now.. — AmadeusD

close, but what i'm trying to say is not quite as dogmatic. There very well may be evil -- there are certainly things that are horrible or very bad. It doesn't take much effort to find these things, especially in human activity and behavior. Ideas themselves hardly fit the bill for being the absolute worst, because clearly people say and think a lot of things just as an emotional reaction, and emotional reactions are too pure for such heavy-handed blame and moralization implied when calling something "evil" in my opinion.

However, I personally choose not to describe things as evil, because it's very emotive, and it's a common concept used by very dishonest (or maybe just stupid/delusional) people. That doesn't mean i think anyone who believes in evil has less intelligence than me, but I personally don't feel I benefit from describing anyone or what they do as such.

For example...you could say Donald Trump is evil, some people say that he is, some people compare him to adolf hitler...but i prefer "extremely dishonest" and "xenophobic" because these are more descriptive. Some people call Caligula (one of the early Roman emperors) and John Wane Gacy evil, but I prefer "sadistic" and "psychopathic" because those are also more descriptive of these individuals.

There are two unconnecting arguments here. — Leontiskos

Un-connecting? Not sure what you mean; they still appear to be related subject matter, but the arguments are different...maybe they are just contrary opinions.

I do agree its 'just an idea'. But ideas are where actions come from, so it's not like they vary independently in this context. — AmadeusD

Yeah, but what i was getting at was that it's important to investigate where "true evil" begins and ends. I don't think it can possibly come from the thoughts and ideas themselves, as a philosophically minded person can use them to learn and make rational decisions.

For example, lets say for a minute we consider whether genocide can ever become a real solution to a problem...one quickly runs into several issues right away if they remain skeptical...like, are Jews really a source of political power? Do they work against against other groups to enslave them? And for the jihadist, to what extent do liberal western temptations cause sin and disharmony? It's actually a pretty big debate in modern muslim communities to talk about which kinds of transgressions of doctrine merit violent punishment. The nazis and jihadists are the same in the sense that they see "evil" as a justification for what others see as horrendous and truly evil.

To truly confront anti-semitism and other forms of bigotry, one needs to start from the point of view that having bad or prejudicial thoughts is not evil, and the beliefs/tenants are not to be feared lest we want to fuck up our thought process. Perhaps true evil just reflects a failure to be skeptical rather than the specific ambitions, ideas, or actions of ideologues...

LET God = the most important thing, person, idea, or principle in your life.

IF you exist the most important thing, person, idea, or principle in your life exists.

You exist.

THEREFORE God exists. — unenlightened

Righteously spoken by someone with true knowledge of enlightement!

In "Thus Spoke Xarathustra", the great ones and Xarathustra were huddled in a cave, and the great ones worshipped a donkey. You are now that donkey, good sir, for the duration of this discussion. You have earned it.

Some time ago, while browsing job postings, I stumbled upon one from a well-known local blogger who teaches business skills and “personal development.” The blogger needed a philosopher. Among the requirements were things like “ability to create meaning” and “ability to construct a methodology.”

It struck me because about ten years ago I watched this person, listened to him, and genuinely believed what he was saying. Only later did I realize how deliberately those messages were crafted and how strongly they shaped people’s thinking. — Astorre

Adolf Hitler himself did this; history has it that he practiced his messages and act as an authoritative speaker/politicians for years before he was able to seize power. In his earlier years of doing this, some people saw him looking overly awkward and strained in his mannerisms.

These examples show that ideologies themselves are tools used to benefit certain individuals or groups, and i guess the more interesting and harder to answer question is to what extent their advocates "believe the ideology". Do Islamic extremist leaders really think they are putting forth the will of God, or is it just a way to produce a short-sighted adrenaline rush?

What are the bad pleasures according to Plato? — javi2541997

I'm currently reading The Republic, and this would have to be based on Socratic "justice"...so far he has not been able to grasp any firm definitions of the term, yet I assume it will be a theme throughout the entire dialogue. He also does talk about how people should be cautious about seeking wealth just for the sake of seeking wealth, without other moral/ethical considerations.

Doing a quick search, it seems that both the Epicurians and Plato advised against sensual excess, it seems that people have been sounding the virtues of moderation for a long time.

"Heim" by logic moon (you can listen to it as well on bandcamp).

Of course, professors are given tenure because their work upholds the goals of the institution: a professor will never be given tenure if they play a Socratic role of constant truth seeking. All institutions are fairly political in nature. — ProtagoranSocratist

Oh, baloney. I got tenure and a full professorship fairly quickly while periodically publishing on virtually any topic I wished as a mathematician - constant truth-seeking. — jgill

jgill, do you even know about socrates? He wasn't a mathematician. So, this is actually expected: you specialized in mathematics, and you didn't read what I said carefully enough to ask yourself what i meant by a "socratic role of constant truth seeking".

Let me help you: legend has it that Socrates conducted his philosophy not by studying quietly, but by questioning people in dialogues. If you don't wait your turn to speak in a university setting, people largely just consider you to be a pain in the ass, and according to the stories about Socrates, that's what happened to him, and apparently he was given a death sentence for it. Part of this was because he didn't succumb to pressures to only speak about and discuss one subject matter, he was interesting in much broader and ephemeral ideas than mathematicians. He was mostly interested in particular ideals, such as justice.

This isn't to say I think that mathematics is worse than philosophy, but you can't accurately accuse someone of missing the mark until you take the plank out of your eye first...philosophy requires study as well.

i don't see how you could study at a university for years and walk away thinking that a university always respects honesty, but then again, we don't have a lot of a contextual basis for agreeing about what is really "a truth".

I personally take those happiness measurements with a grain of salt...true "national happiness" relies on a balance of a lot of different things, and clearly happiness still is not guaranteed for everyone who lives in the country. National happiness probably has very little to do with ideology as well...for example, Finland is often tauted as the happiest country in the world, but their government and lifestyles are very much in line with liberalism, far exceeding south korea in the democracy index you brought up. Interestingly enough, the united states has a worse democracy index rating than south korea, but has a slightly higher happiness score...

But only rigorous discipline, daily practiced anew, builds the possibility of freedom. — Fire Ologist

Government and discipline aren't absolute necessities for freedom though, they're means of structuring freedom which is the very conundrum that this thread is criticizing.

This OP you wrote 7 months ago is quite excellent, and something I think about a lot of the time. The way I look at it is that modern liberalism is nothing but a decentralization of human authority/power to the greatest extent that it appears we can engineer it. I'll admit that i have liberal values (i value openness), but I think your critique modern sexual culture gets to the root of all of it. If you're not willing to risk pregnancy and disease, then this presents issues for having sex itself, even though I don't want anyone to think i'm saying that contraception is "wrong" or anything like that, but the expectations of safe and stable child-rearing, safe sex, and childless sex do de-value the impulsive drive of sexual urge and attraction.

They don't produce the kind of crap threads we do. — frank

i think maybe you haven't a lot of our their threads...but i don't know what you mean, so whatever.

I gladly apologize— if they also apologize for posting misinformation on an important topic. — Mikie

You can't ever expect other people on the internet to agree with you. Sometimes i worry about climate change as well, but here's what I said in that thread as to why i'm not spending a lot of time thinking about it:

You all can worry about inevitable global warming from behind a computer screen (sometimes i do since the wildfires create air pollution, and GW could lead to extra crop failures and water shortages), but talking about it through computers is not really addressing the problem, or coming anywhere close to lowering the carbon emissions.

For example, it's important to know that militaries disproportionately create carbon emissions. Why this tends to stay out of news media discussions is beyond me, except maybe it doesn't mesh with the profit motive of the news industry. The U.S. military in particular is massive, i've read that it produces equal carbon emissions as the rest of the people in the united states do through normal consumption. So what exactly can anyone whatsoever do, given that the worst polluters are the least likely to change their behavior? Other people were bringing up the fact that the less dirty sources of energy would still require a lot of fossil fuel consumption to get fully operational (or at least that's how i interpreted the conversation). — ProtagoranSocratist

or said in fewer words, there's basically nothing you can do about it as a normal individual

It's my general sense that Jamal can't completely control the flaming on here, and doesn't want to, so you're probably better off not getting involved with the flaming yourself rather than drawing attention to it...

his wife is an empty shrew living by shallow ideals. — Astorre

i don't think the emphasis is really "shallow ideas" though from the creator's perspective, but just raw and persistent anxiety over the family finances and Walter's cancer. Fairly relatable from a modern american POV, even though as I pointed out before, an extreme exaggeration. I do think they did a pretty remarkable job in creating a sense of anxiety in the show that sets the audience up to accept Walter's incredibly immoral/destructive actions.

it is filmed like an orgasm. — Ast[quote=

This is fairly well put: Breaking Bad was so successful since they mastered the art of climax and cinematic extremes.

This hasn't been solved because the nature of decision making, control, and cause-and-effect is not straightforward at all, the "yes, there is free will" position tries to oversimplify various processes at work when we do things and make decisions.

Note: I am new to this site, so perhaps this is often discussed but I'm afraid I wouldn't know. — scientia de summis

Morality itself is a very consistent issue here.

I personally think religion is about control: having a belief system in the supernatural re-inforces either specific rulers or adherence to particular rules.

"Evil" itself seems to me a highly emotive reaction to very bad or disturbing things.

No, but the skill that will perhaps curry favor with others is emotional self-control.

With thinking, I recommend familiarizing yourself with analysis and deduction to increase your bullshit detector powers. The more access to info you have, the more important this becomes...

Exactly: universities are famous for only letting you rock the boat in very specific ways, without any danger of actually letting radical proffesors make any changes to the rigid and bureaucratic structures of the university itself.

Jamal...so if i'm understanding you correctly, you don't tolerate any type of self-promotion? Could you be more specific about the self-promotion you can't deal with?

I think the thread title is a near perfect example of trolling, but trolling in general transcends the true/false dichotomy, it doesn't actually require lying or dishonesty.

They are valued because they cannot be bought, and it's pretty hard to give people money for intellectual work without biasing that intellectual work (although we do try, and one example would be university tenure). — Leontiskos

Of course, professors are given tenure because their work upholds the goals of the institution: a professor will never be given tenure if they play a Socratic role of constant truth seeking. All institutions are fairly political in nature.

I don't think it's socialistic because then taxes would also be. — Copernicus

This is a rather confusing statement, especially when later on you mention socialist federal robots...

I don't think you are taking this proposal very seriously :) The reason why university is so expensive are the teacher's wages.

I guess what you could do is go around your neighborhood, being like "hey! Ill fix your stuff through various experiments, like your cars, like your HVAC, like your plumbing, but you have to let me break it first...just trust me, we can learn this together!", and they would probably just tell you to fuck off and go to trade school.