The truth has been spoken! — Posty McPostface

Now I feel like I need to run and hide, especially since I'm pro-ideals and an anti-idealist.

Perhaps it's an accidental contextual truth for a very specific given moment that has been spoken and not really "the truth".

Meow!

G

Do your jokes demean other people at all? I can't tell; you seem to be on the brink of loving jab and demeaning jab. — Noble Dust

I don't really know either.

We seem to be living in a day and age of the professionally offended, so I supose you'd have to consult others... probably the one's who'd possibly take offence.

Believe me there are quite a few "hash tag" groups out there who'd be more than happy to tell you just how offended they are about everything that simply does not conform to the filter of their own personal comfort.

I'm too old for that in a way, as for me a "hash tag" was the little handwritten lable on a nicklebag indicating what product was being moved in a somewhat illegal transaction.

Anyway...

I find it somewhat boring to live a life through the filter of my own person comfort; thus I find being offended to be quite a waste of time.

Meow!

G

YIPPIE!!!

My figuring about philosophy... the "love of wisdom"... or in my case being a "widsom stalker" runs much like Luddi W:

“A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes.”

Feel free to be amused (even at or especially at my expense).

Meow!

G

I've got your back.

Remember how well I can piss people off and distract them from other things by stating next to nothing?

Meow!

G

WIsdom is ‘sapientia’ [a name I feel has been somewhat missappropriated here but I won’t press the point.] — Wayfarer

What a "hoot"! :naughty:

Meow!

G

Strange quote to choose out of our exchange so far!

Again, I'm an idiot. Ask TimeLine or @StreetlightX for evidence. — Noble Dust

Really?

Cool!

btw... exactly what am I the "mayor" of? :joke:

Meow!

G

This implies some metaphysics about how do you go about "hand.picking" knowledge. — Posty McPostface

That kind of makes me giggle.

I tend to regard metaphysics to actually imply "MEphysics", as in... all things considered the entire universe and all the happening within the universe are simply all about me.

I believe I'd refer to it as a hand picked hermetically sealed worldview where one starts with the central answers then subsequently forming questions in respect to these pre-assumed central answers; thus creating the illusion of critical thinking.

(it's posts like these that makes me wonder if it is wise of me to post much of anything any more? :wink: )

Meow!

G

Does that make me narcissistic? — Noble Dust

I have far too small of a sample size to make any decision.

I really don't care. — Noble Dust

Good! I feel it would be "unwise" for me to make any guess.

Meow!

G

I tend not to post much anymore, as I consider that to be the "wiser choice", but I'm a bit bored at the moment (a rare occurance in my life) and I've some time to play.

Wisdom can mean quite a few things, such as the accumulated knowledge over many year (of course... forgetting to define what is "knowledge" and how many years is supposed to be "many years"), the ability to seek clearly and quickly the inner relationships between varous factors (a rather vague notion at best) or (even worse) the teachings of ancient men... back when things were simple and less stressful (as if). :roll:

My take is that wisdom is something attributed by others upon someone who usually didn't bother to pursue it and that this poor person who has been attributed to be full of wisdom needs to now appeal this limitation of the standards of measure to this cult following to maintain the status of being full of wisdom (which results in them being full of something else).

If one goes about with the self-attributed notion of being wise or having wisdom this might well be the indication of a strong narcissistic personality disorder. (more than not this is someone who has something to sell)

When in doubt and especially if this is a "low quality post" (I kind of doubt that it's low quality) resort to pop-philosophy like in the lyrics of "Sunscreen" regarding advice and hinting toward wisdom:

"Be careful whose advice you buy, but
be patient with those who supply it
Advice is a form of nostalgia
dispensing it is a way of fishing the past from the disposal, wiping it off
painting over the ugly parts and recycling it for more than it's worth
But trust me on the sunscreen"

Meow!

G

hmm...

Trump's philosophers?

I doubt he's familar with many or any of them but I'd suggest:

Julius Evola
Alexander Geljewitsch Dugin
Ayn Rand
Giovanni Gentile
Arthur de Gobineau
Lothrop Stoddard

If he wasn't familiar with them then his former minister of propaganda (yes I said it) Stephen Bannon certainly was familiar and probably pulled appropriate strings until he hung himself, but that's just a guess.

Meow!

G

Questions...

If the question here has to do with "does the soul exist" what sort of evidence is acceptable?

Only empirical?
Only anecdotal?
Both empirical and anecdotal?

It's just a couple of questions, as the standard of measure for acceptable evidence is somewhat unclear in this dialog.

Meow!

G

PHAT BEATS!



Meow!

G

- Are we discussing changes that are occuring/recently occured or changes that happen to have caught one's attention (aka relevant to one's individual worldview/experience)?

- Are we discussing things that are in everyday mainstream "pop-culture" or things that are in the field/"current domain" of specialists yet to be applied to the everyday mainstream "pop culture"?

- Is one's awareness of changes the best indicator of the rate of changes that occurs worldwide?

* I kind of wonder if there isn't possibly a bit of Declinism combined with a touch of focalism, availability heuristic, clustering illusion, focusing effect, mere exposure effect and observer-expectancy effect going on here, but I have far too little information to do more than just guess.

(assumption of a given)
Perception of change requires attention.
Attention requires/implies some sort of interaction within a worldview.

- If a change occurs that is not within one's worldview it would be perceived due to it not attracting one's attention?

or

- Can change occur without one perceiving that a change has occured?

Final question...

- What is the standard of measure of "tempo" implied? (if something has slowed it must logically have a standard of measure of tempo from which the current state of affairs has slowed in relation to... and is this implied standard of measure of tempo indeed an accurate assumption of tempo?)

Meow!

G

I suppose I'm in trouble now...

... like I care.

Meow!

G

Meow!

GREG

I'd play somemore, but the rationality of this converstation just went bye bye.

I have a dinner to attend.

Meow!

GREG

First you make an unsubstantiated distinction between a placebo in a medical trial, and a placebo in a medical intervention - what reason do you even have to suppose there may be such a distinction? — Agustino

One is an emprical test to see if there is an actual beneficial application to the cure disease and the other is the actual practice employing tested medicine for the curing of disease.

No offense here, but if I'm on my deathbed I'd prefer that the doctors use empirically tested medicines rather than use me as a test subject to see what happens to happen.

Meow!

GREG

How uninformed this is. Unknowable creature(s) with reference to God >:O . God is creator, not creature. That is a fundamental tenet of theism, how peculiar that your attacks merely show your ignorance of that which you want to attack. — Agustino

Give me one example of a theistic god that is knowable; that which can be perceived directly and not via "inspiration"... where god reveals god's self to the believer as the believer believes god has reviealed god's self... a very circular notion. Give me something that can hold up as evidence and not something that is just evident.



Meow!

GREG

No, being beyond comprehension does not mean unknowable, it simply means being (currently) unknown. — Agustino

No...

... unknowable means cannot be known.

Definition of unknowable
: not knowable; especially : lying beyond the limits of human experience or understanding

Meow!

GREG

Yes, moving from medical trial to clinical trial is called moving goal posts. — Agustino

Medical trials is laymans terms for clinical trials.

Meow!

GREG

In short...

“Science adjusts its views based on what's observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.”
― Tim Minchin

Meow!

GREG

Likewise, it seems to me that atheists wish theist's beliefs to be grounded in some fear of annihilation... — Agustino

I don't think this is a wish of mine, but rather an observation.

The doctrine of theistic beliefs have the notion of some sort of "eye in the sky" authoritarian surveillance with the ability and licence for eternal judgement.

This is not me criticising the notions of theistic beliefs as much as I am simply describing the beliefs.

My not believing in a theistic deity subsequently eliminates this "eye in the sky" authoritarian surveillance with the ability and licence for eternal judgement; thus no reason to fear.

Or do you mean to tell me that there are no psychological advantages at all in being an atheist? I freely admit there are psychological advantages in being a theist for example - reduced fear of death, ability to hope to meet loved ones again, and so forth. — Agustino

Is this really an advantage?

If this were the case, why don't these theistic individuals all wish to die?
Why do they cry at a funeral?

It always seems rather inconsistant to me. On one side they are overjoyed to be with their loved ones who have passed away in this eternal paradise (my take is that it is a holy celestial North Korea) and yet have such sad funerals. Exactly how well does this delusion function really?

Well I think that your life clinging by the thread and doctors and others trying to save you is a medical trial, is it not? — Agustino

The definition of a medical trial (or clnical trial): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_trial

What you are refering to is medical practice. Personally I would rather have a medical professional practice medicine if I were hanging on to life by a thread rather than conduct a medical (clinical) trial.

And prayer/meditation in an effort to develop a relationship with God doesn't count as investigating it? — Agustino

You mean mumbling to yourself using a post hoc ergo propter hoc approach to the outcomes... uhh... no it doesn't count.

Who said God is (completely) "unknowable"? The unknown isn't necessarily also unknowable. — Agustino

Every bit of theistic doctrine presents a god beyond comprehension (aka "unknowable"); thus it is not a criticism, but rather a description. Everyone one of these god incarnations in theistic notions are somehow supernatural; thus beyond comprehension... thus unknowable. (although I find it to be quite odd how these believers always seem quite convinced that they know exact character trait as well as like and dislike of these unknowable creatures... uhh... really?)

The reason why most arguments end up this way is that people who don't believe will never agree with the reasons/explanations offered by those who believe, and will instead find any other possible explanation for them that they can. This is a silly game. Any fact can be explained in a multitude of ways. You choose to believe it a certain way, I choose to believe it a different way. There's nothing really to discuss, except share that one of us has faith and the other doesn't. — Agustino

Then these people of faith should finally have the good taste and stop arguing. They have nothing to back a claim and thus nothing to present other than an unfounded personal notion of what they prefer the universe to be without any critical investigation.

I cannot for the life of me understand a virtue in faith of this religious manner of speaking. Why live a life of false pattern recognition for the sake of ease? Why dumb down investigation for the sake of having an answer to be consistant with a preconception bias? Why insist there must be an organizing force for the sake of making one feel better?

I know many don't care for Richard Dawkins, but I like this comment he mentioned:

"We constantly create false positives. We touch wood for luck, we see faces in toasted cheese, fortunes in tea leaves. These provide a comforting illusion of meaning. This is the human condition in our bewildering and complex world. (and) In the irrational mindset, if you believe in the mystical pattern you have imposed on reality you call yourself 'spiritual'."

The problem as I see it is that many of the theistic notions lead to rather totalitarian forces that place an end to investigation. Indeed, if you start with the answer prior to the investigation, then you have a bias that is unavoidable and will in the end be defended at all costs. I view this sort of mindset to be a cancer of the mind or a surrender of the mind. It has an extreme arrogance of certainity without ever making an effort to investigate. It has a final answer before the first question is ever asked. As I said... I cannot see much virtue associated with such a surrender of the mind. This is what really needs to be discussed and why it is constantly being discussed. Live and let live is one thing, but that is not written into any doctine of these theistic notions. As I see it there is much to be discussed because if not there may be no discussion allowed in the name of this sort of totalitarian invisible proxy of constraint and censure.

Meow!

GREG

Just quick thoughts and guesses (not certain conclusion by any means):

Probably because we have no concensus on what exactly is inequity and what exactly is wrong; thus the muddled complexity.

It's a bit difficult to do a simple quantification of complex qualities without the need of hasty generalizations somewhere along the way.

The relativity sort of screws up the idealistic polarities.

I'm just spitballin' here, so take it with a grain of salt.

Meow!

GREG

The atheist, when he says that the theist resorts to belief in God because of fear of death (annihilation), does exactly the same as the theist would if he were to say that the atheist disbelieves in God because of fear of responsibility/accountability after death. — Agustino

Well, I'm not all together sure what to make of this statement, as I have never once thought about fear of responsibility/accountablility after death. From what I gather there isn't anything after death we can really make any claims about, as so far there has never been a report given by someone who has any insight into after death. The dead simply don't give us any reports, so why worry about speculations of responsibility/accountability much less any fear of such a speculation.

It seems as if you wish for my motivations to be grounded in some sort of fear of the unknown. Truth is I know nothing about the unknown so I see no reason to fear it.

Sure - but my point was a rhetorical one aimed to show mainly the silliness of making an argument like religious belief exists because of fear of death. If that were the case, then we have to also accept the argument that disbelief in God exists because of fear of responsibility and accountability. — Agustino

I would point out that the belief in a god is the central pillar of a theistic worldview, where the disbelief in a theistic god is not necessarily a central pillar for an atheists worldview.

I'm not sold that a disbelief in a theistic god acts as a point of centering the being as it does for those who belive in a theistic god existing.

There is evidence that the placebo effect betters one's condition by approximately 30% — Agustino

This is a placebo in a medical trial. Fine. Is that the same as a placebo in a non-medical trial?

I haven't researched it, but it would seem intuitively obvious. In either case, I find it rational to play all possible cards that you have at your disposal. — Agustino

Funny, as one thing you'd have to take into consideration with a medical trial would be interactions. Quite often there are chemical combination that would have a less than desirable effect upon a patient if combinations of meds are taken together. I would think that would be safe to assume this would apply to placebos take with actual medicine, as both are chemicals.

So let's pretend for a moment we are not speaking of chemicals, but if ideas/notions. Would it be possible that there are combinations of ideas/notions that are not a good combination; thus leading to more problems than solutions?

The interactions of faith based placebos (acts of centering the being) may indeed conflict and impede progress of empirical investigations (acts of knowledge); thus any combination or mixture of ideas/notions will not guarantee a benefit.

It's more about the will than the intellect I find. Some of us find belief in God appealing - others don't. — Agustino

So if it is more appealing or not should be the foundation for fielding an answer?

uhh... I'm not on board with this one.

There are a great deal of things that are far less than appealing for my senses which are indeed the case. I find that handcuffing knowledge and reality to fitting my personal preferences is not really a good method of investigation, but I suppose to each their own.

Yeah, I do agree that there's no point crying over spilt milk - but if one has cried over it, there's no point in worrying about that either. Hence ultimately it doesn't matter whether one cries or not. — Agustino

Sure... ultimately, but I really pay little attention to ultimately. There are just too many factors and no one can take that standard of measure into consideration, so why bother with that futility? I fail to see any upside to holding my finite (knowable) life up to an infinite (unknowable) standard of measure.

I think character stays quite constant. — Agustino

I find that character develops and adapts.

The context is simple. If you spilled the milk and cried, there's no reason to cry more for crying in the first place. In that sense, crying is never a "waste" of time - or it always is a waste of time. Means pretty much the same thing. — Agustino

Actually I find that context is extremely difficult to isolate, but rather simple to assume one has isolated it; thus we get various people assuming they have absolute, ultimate and highly specific answers for generalized questions they have assumed are immune from adaptations and variations. Only by negating the possibility of accumulation of information leading to an adaptation of assumption can an idealist thrive.

It's more about how one relates to the unknown. — Agustino

How one relates to the unknown can be boiled down to an either/or. (did see that one coming from me, eh ;) )

Either one choose to investigate it or chooses not to investigate it.

If one chooses to investigate it and has not conclusive answer I suppose one makes assumptions, possibly a hypothesis, eventually a theory... in short investigates and trys to apply logic to the question.

If one chooses not to investigate it, then they don't make assumptions or a hypothesis or a theory, but if they do make an assumption or a hypothesis or a theory then this would be made out of ignorance.

Now it still doesn't really deal with my issue of answering the unknown with the unknowable.

Is the unknowable an answer or is it not?

I'd say it is not.

Belief in god(s) is not an act of knowledge.
— Mayor of Simpleton
True, it's an act of faith. — Agustino

How is this religious faith any different than simply saying "because" or "it is evident" without any foundation to support this other than saying "because" or "it is evident"?

Simply proclaiming it is evident is not a form of evidence. Stating it is evident is a conclusion prior to the argument being fielded. One of my issues about arguments for god is that I find in the end they are simply statements of faith wearing an arguments clothing. Nothing has been argued as much as it has been proclaimed.

Anyway, evidence sort of underminds faith. If you have facts to support something faith becomes redundant, whereas faith renders facts redundant.

Meow!

GREG

Perhaps lack of belief in God is there in order to make the consequences of our sins less frightening. Perhaps what atheists are really afraid of is the afterlife, hence the denial. — Agustino

I suppose that could be the case provided I thought there were sins in the absolute since of moral meaning as well as believe there is such thing as an afterlife. I see no reason tfor the absolute polarity value vector of sins and I see no reason whatsoever to believe there is an afterlife. As for lumping all atheists into this notion, I wouldn't do that, as I can only speak for myaself and not for all atheists. Perhaps there are atheists who believe in some sort of absolute moral correctness and believe there is an afterlife of sorts, but I'm not one of them.

Atheists are simply those who do not believe a theistic god(s) exist. That's just a single variable. I would not wish to add on connotations of "believing in sin" or "afterlife" as a must be so or it must follow that based upon a single variable.

But why would you renounce the effects of the placebo? Any improvement is still an improvement after all. If belief in God raises your chances of survival by 30% because of the placebo effect, that's great! Combine the placebo and the medicine, and maximise the effect. — Agustino

Is there any evidence that indicates that belief in god raises one's chances of survival by 30%?
Is there any evidence that a placebo really provides an improvement in my life?
Is there any evidence that indicates that a placebo mixed with traditional medicine will result in a maximised effect?

Is there any evidence for god existing?

Crap! That brings us back to the beginning.

But you'll "waste" that time anyway. Anything you do, in the end won't matter. My point isn't that you should meditate on your regrets, etc. but rather that folks who do this don't exactly "waste" their time either. — Agustino

I don't recall indicating that I stated that those who meditate on their regrets are wasting their time. I just said that about myself.

I don't see any way to unring a bell. Once something is done I live with the consequences. I do make efforts to adapt future notions based upon these collective of consequences, but I don't make a point to simply dwell upon them for the sake of dwelling upon them.

In what context do you have in mind with wasting time?

I simply attribute and assert purpose (a notion of value) in my life, but it's never absolute or ultimate. Purpose adapts with the influx of experiences/information. I suppose one could say I have no fixed points in value notions. Indeed some adaptions in value for me are quicker and some are slower, but nothing stays fixed. Context matters.

This is why I don't believe that value notions that are relative (in that they are not absolute or ultimate) are certainly irrelevant (such as being a waste of time). I don't interpret life experiences in term of ultimately, as I simply do not have enough experience/information to do so.

This might explain why I will deal with a question about a meaning of life (as relative and relevant), but completely blow off a question of the meaning of life (as absolute/ultimate and irrelevant).

Sure I'll deal with ideals, but I'm in no way an idealist.

What were we talking about?

Sorry... this one kind of got away from me.

I suppose what I'm ranting about is that to make a statement like "But you'll "waste" that time anyway. Anything you do, in the end won't matter" I need a context. If the context is a set of all sets absolute/ultimate for everyone, everywhere and every case... I'll probably say that's irrelevant. No one has the ability to have that much experience/information as to have the set of all sets regarding absolute/ultimate; thus why bother with such a standard of measure?

Perhaps this is part of why I simply cannot believe in god(s). God(s) are all to often "understood" as being a set of all sets... an unknowable. I fail to see how an unknowable is is anyway helpful when answering a question regarding what is currently unknown. Actually I fail to see that answering the currently unknown with the absolute unknowable is in any way an answer. I'm a bit like Tillich in this regard. Belief in god(s) is not an act of knowledge.

Meow!

GREG

Mortality, ours and the mortality of others, does have an effect/affect upon how we think, act and does to some degree foster bits of wishful thinking. It might well result in our building up laundry lists of things to get done or regrets of what could have been or was done. Of course religious notions or notions regarding questions of "is this all there is" lead to notions of deities and supernatural notions of "beyond nature". I can certainly understand why such a question can build up inside you considering the circumstances.

I have the feeling that such contributions of wishes to have done or to be able to undone lead me nowhere and just waste what little time I have; thus my tendency to categorically disinclude them in my experience of living life (well... I will discuss the topics, but as for such things being a factor in my life experience... nah.)

Perhaps one of the main purposes of religious beliefs and beliefs in god(s) is to make the inevitability of death seem a bit less distressful.

One might have the notion that closure is an important thing to have as well, but I'm only guessing here, as closure is not really one of the things I value so greatly.

I'm sorry I'm not being too philosophical. I've kind of punted on that kind of approach. I'm just spitballin' here.

Meow!

GREG

For some people, it is very important that other people should have a deathbed religious crisis of some sort. — Bitter Crank

Reminds me of this quip from Bierce:

CHRISTIAN, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor.

Happy Holidays to you and yours as well BC. ;)

Meow!

GREG

"You are taking your sense of wonder, combining it with your inability to conceive of certain things, and demanding from everyone else that they remain as ignorant. That's not good."
― Kwalish Kid

“A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes.”
― Ludwig Wittgenstein

“Hell isn't other people. Hell is yourself.”
― Ludwig Wittgenstein

"Stupidity has a knack of getting its way."
― Albert Camus

“You will never be happy if you continue to search for what happiness consists of. You will never live if you are looking for the meaning of life.”
― Albert Camus

"We constantly create false positives. We touch wood for luck, we see faces in toasted cheese, fortunes in tea leaves. These provide a comforting illusion of meaning. This is the human condition in our bewildering and complex world. (and) In the irrational mindset, if you believe in the mystical pattern you have imposed on reality you call yourself 'spiritual'."
― Richard Dawkins

“All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher.”
― Ambrose Bierce

“Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.”
― Ambrose Bierce

"Freedom is what you do with what's been done to you."
― Jean-Paul Sartre

“Happiness is not achieved by the conscious pursuit of happiness; it is generally the by-product of other activities.”
― Aldous Huxley

"All gods are homemade, and it is we who pull their strings, and so, give them the power to pull ours."
― Aldous Huxley


Just a few...

Meow!

GREG

Reminds me of this:

Cassius:
Then, Brutus, I have much mistook your passion;
By means whereof this breast of mine hath buried
Thoughts of great value, worthy cogitations.
Tell me, good Brutus, can you see your face?

Brutus:
No, Cassius; for the eye sees not itself,
But by reflection, by some other things.

Meow!

GREG

"Philosophy is an absolute joke"

Is it just me or does it seem odd that a skeptic would use the term "absolute"?

Meow!

GREG

I've thought that Pascal's Wager (besides being valid) has an existential power about it, It enables us to ally a God to vanquish our fear, although I suppose some will not bend to reason. (I mean it is a crap shoot isn't it) I certain wonder what my choice would be. Maybe we all need forgiveness, especially when there is little hope of a future. What will/would you choose to do and perhaps a few words why.

Pascal said it is a decision we have to make. — Cavacava

As strange as this sounds I was in a very similar situation some 9 years ago. Without bothering with details my head nearly exploded (literally, as a facial artery ruptured) resulting in my recovery being quite questionable at best.

I suppose this was as close to an existenital crisis as I've ever had and indeed there was some sort of fear associated with the entire happening. There were indeed a few religious minded people who did confront me with such a question or should I say bargin?

Anyway... the fear never seemed to justify an appeal to a supernatural ally as to work as a placebo to vanquish my fears.

As for any need of forgiveness, I've never quite understood why I should need a sort of proxy of an invisible unknowable agent of forgiveness rather than confront the individual(s) themself that should be the one(s) I have "wronged"; thus the one(s) who I need to make an appeal for forgiveness. Perhaps I should have called this agent a proxy placebo, but I'm not quite sure about the term of this agent to serve as a viable substitution of granting forgiveness.

As for my future...

... it will be unfinished in terms of what I want to do. Indeed I have intentions and plans and goals and desires that will be unfulfilled. This includes a lot of things I wanted to do or say that will be unsaid and undone. Rather than dwell on this inablity to finish everything I just get done and say what I can and not worry to much about it all coming to an abrupt end. I would include the desire or notion of needing forgiveness to this long list of unfinished and unfulfilled things. I accept it as part of the deal of mortality.

My wife tells me that I requested at one point for all the religious superstitious minded folks to leave the room if they could not shut up about this nonsense and get on with the necessary medicine needed. I cannot remember this, but it does sound a lot like what I'd probably say.

More than likely this only says stuff about me and not Pascal's wager, but I figured the question you posted was more of a personal nature in asking "what will/would you choose to do and perhaps a few words why".

I can see what you mean by a sort of existential element being involved in Pascal's wager. The problem for me personally is that I haven't really that existential need of such a bargin or such a placebo to rid myself of ear or such a proxy as to grant me peace of mind in terms of being forgiven. Perhaps my worldview is just too absurdist or relativistic to find such existential baggage worth taking on the trip of experiencing life. It probably doen't really matter anyway.

Meow!

GREG

Until later...



Meow!

GREG

Again...

... can we actually identify the "underlying problem" without causing even more problems in the process? — Mayor of Simpleton

Obviously not, so I've WON!

At what point are we going to re-name the forum to"The Jerry Springer Forum"?

Seriously!

This reads on the level of the unmoderated section of old PF.

At the moment...

Facebook 1 : The Philosophy Forum 0.

Also another point...

... to everyone who keeps implying that they're done with this rant and then keeps on ranting, you're only done when you finally shut up.

Meow!

GREG

btw... Sorry Benkei, but it seems this bullshit-a-thon hijacked the thread, in spite of efforts to re-rail it.

The only good thing is this even bigger bullshit-a-thon election will be finally over in about 74 days and I'm sure we'll be off on a new rant-o-thon de jour contributing nothing to the circumstances other than repeatedly dislocating shoulder blades in the hope to pat one's self on the back.

One thing is for sure... I'll be back in December. Indeed... my prize is leaving until this returns to a level of adult conversation with philosophical insights.

Until then... here's a tool to help you guys settle this rant: http://www.mraverage.com/sizer.php

Let's just say I have a very rich emotional life behind my piano and it stops when I stop playing. — Benkei

Well... now you have a kid, so you can have a rich emotional life making him/her (I forget, sorry) take piano lessons, but (if you do that) be aware that (s)he'll have an emotional reaction to this too... and not always a rational one.

Meow!

GREG

Why do emotions lead to mistakes? — Benkei

Emotions are highly personal; thus highly supported by personal bias. I find emotions and their foundations are very relative to the individual; thus if one makes decisions soley or largely upon emotional factors, this greatly increases the chance that one has left out (often very willingly) factors that should well be included when drawing conclusions or making decisions.

This is not to say emotions should be completely avoided or negated. On the contraray emotions have the tendency to get out attention to things that appear to be unjust or unfair... but one needs to move beyond the simple foundation of emotions and included non-emotional aspects as to gain a clearer picture.

It's much like the video you posted. If the person was not a child or very young, would the emotional impact be the same? If indeed it was a cat would the emotions be more or less for everyone?

Indeed I feel far more for my cats than I do for people I don't know and honestly more so than most people I do know. What does that say about me? Well... that depends upon who you ask and their personal standard of measure regarding emotions.

The problem with emotions as a standard of measure is the extreme relativity involved; thus I find facts and figures often to help be a better guide of balancing this equation.

Indeed this is take straight from Wiki, but I can go with it:

Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones or appeal to feels is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence. This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies, including appeal to consequences, appeal to fear, appeal to flattery, appeal to pity, appeal to ridicule, appeal to spite, and wishful thinking.

Instead of facts, persuasive language is used to develop the foundation of an appeal to emotion-based argument. Thus, the validity of the premises that establish such an argument does not prove to be verifiable.

Did you marry your wife purely on rational grounds? — Benkei

Marry my wife?

Actually yes!

Some here just went "huh"?

Long story short...

... I love my wife. I am American. She is Austrian. We wanted to stay together. Marriage seemed and still seems to be redundant, as we love each other and this outward ceremony would not change that in the slightest.

The problem...

... for us to stay together in the same country we needed, according to the rules of the state, to be married.

In spite of this ritual meaning really nothing to us (purely utilitarian), this ritual meant a lot to the Republic of Austria; thus the rational and logical conclusion was to get married.

* We did so in secret, as to avoid having to get married three time - the official one with the Austrian authorities, the Chruch one in Austria and the Church one in the USA. We were married by a retired judge in Richmond, Va. while on vacation. One nice things, an accident, is that this retired judge was a Mark Twain impersonator, so being married in the livingroom of a Mark Twain impersonator seemed somehow very appropriate.

Love your cats rationally? — Benkei

Love is not really rational or atleast usually isn't. I simply like cats. I have always liked cats. Cats tend to like me too.

When our cats prior to these two we have now passed away, we took some time out before including new cats. Funny thing is for my wife a documentary on the life of Charles Darwin did the most to get her past the death of the previous cats. A very rational process to get past the grieving.

Anyway...

... we went to the Vet who had a number of kittens for adoption. We wanted two females, as they are easier to deal with in an apartment and we do like black cats, but simply like cats.

Not to buy into fate, but two small kittens came to us immediately when we went into the kitten room. One black and the other a fluffy tiger, both female. That was the selection process.

Since then we have bonded with really little or no complications at all.

The care and company is quite rational, but the love is something I don't analyse with rationality.

Then again, I simply co-exist with my cats and don't argue for or against them, nor make any claims of their validity or soundness regarding anyone else's experience.

If anything, I actually feel I don't have enough emotions. How's that for opposites? ;) — Benkei

In which matters or which context do you not have enough emotions and according to who's standard of measure?

Funny thing in that sentence you wrote is that you "feel" you don't have enough "emotions".

A relative notion about a relative quality... how can you be certain? ;) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oShTJ90fC34

Meow!

GREG

I view "heart break" as letting emotions take over and that usual leads to many mistakes in spite of "good intentions". I suppose that's why a appeal to emotions is considered a fallacy.

As for my wife or my cats...

... sure I'd be sad. Heart broken... probably not.

Things happen for reasons and have determining factors. My cats will eventually die. That's why I enjoy my time with them now, rather than regert it later that I missed th opportunity when it was here. My wife would only leave me for good reasons. I fail to see any real reason why that should or would happen. We are in constant contact with one another and I don't think she's hiding anything that would cause such an event or decision.

Basically... shit happens and will happen to me too.

Meow!

GREG

In my case, politcal parties are like epistemological ideals. I don't hold to any in particular, but I do wish to expose them all for what they are really worth.

Meow!

GREG

... just far fewer good qualities than they themselves believe they possess.



Meow!

GREG

I wanted you to share. — Benkei

Share what exactly? Simply make a list of what bothers me in that I have the notion it "breaks my heart"? Fine...

That was another observation after I asked people to share. What do you think it says? — Benkei

Well, you mentioned something in the OP that made this a bit misleading.

...but in the end seems like combatting a symptom that doesn't solve the underlying problem. — Benkei

That reads like an invite to analyse what the "underlying problem" might be, so it has a tinge of an implied question.

OK... you continued with the following:

So the only solution I can see to really contribute is to pay an assassin to kill some key figures in that region. Unfortunately, I don't know with 100% certainty who the key figures are.

So it breaks my heart again because there's nothing I can do to prevent this and I know it will happen again and again. — Benkei

Well, since this is a philosophy forum and people here love to pick notions apart, it logically follows that people will begin to discuss other options than the assination option, as well as propose possible foundations and ideals... governments, military interventions, media, religions... that possibly are or contribute to "the underlying problem(s)". Once identified/proposed, they may well field possible solutions as to help avoid such things from happening again in the future.

Fine, now I know all you wanted to do was vent and not really wish to discuss the dynamics of the situation presented in the OP. That's fair.

In my case, there is really not much that "breaks my heart". I really cannot think of anything off the top of my head.

Not that I don't care, but I simply don't let things get to me that much.

Sorry to be philosophical here, but my moral relativism as well as my understanding of determinism coupled with my non-existential absurdist core keep me away from being bogged down by "heart break".

Meow!

GREG

How DO you label someone like myself who ticks off republicans and democrats alike when politics are discussed? — anonymous66

Intelligent.

(or should I say... "Non-Kool-Aid Drinker")

Meow!

GREG