Well, actually in physics, space does not seem to be infinitely divisible.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by an actual infinite, but I can definitely state that the idea of the infinite does not hinder science. After all, if the infinite did not exist, then is there really a largest natural number? Also, many equations cannot be solved directly and setting up an infinite series is a way to do so. In fact, the use of infinite sequences and series are used throughout science and engineering.

The fact that there is so much garbage on social media and the web points in the direction that literature is in decline. It's difficult for me to imagine that the same people who are posting complete rubbish on social media, day in and day out, as a sort of obsession in life, are also people who are capable of sitting down for hours and absorbing the contents of a well-written work of literature. Often times, in literature, there is not a black and white message, but a far more nuanced one, taking place, and this is quite different from what we get on social media --- some "meme" that is completely bogus, but it "resonates" with a person's prejudices, so gets sent around the globe in an instant. If people were even remotely paying attention these days, they would realize that the vast majority of what gets posted on the web these days is pure bullshit on steroids, as life and the problems we face, just aren't so simple that they can be resolved with a 100 word post on twitter, google, or facebook.

As many have pointed out above, ethics is not in any way dependent on any alleged God. No religious person has ever established this claim, they simply assume it, largely because they never thought to question the assumption they have made. If God stated that child rape is moral, would that make it so? According to the person who opened this thread, the answer would have to be yes. Yet, how can that be true? Either the act of child-rape is moral or it is immoral, regardless of what an alleged God thinks or feels about the issue. This was a point Plato made thousands of years ago, and no theist has ever refuted.

This reminds me of the negative eugenics movement, which was a pseudoscience pretending to be scientifically based. For one thing, there is rarely genetic determinism when we are discussing people's intellectual abilities or character traits. Typically, we have hundreds of genes that impact any trait and they simply make things more or less likely, under certain environmental conditions. In other words, genotypes do not give rise to phenotypes, and this has been well established biology for years and years now. If Albert Einstein had been born to drug-addicts and lived in a gang infested neighborhood, how many of us would ever have heard of Albert Einstein the physicist, as opposed to Einstein, the gang-banger?

Also, evolution does not work as well as the post claims, and mathematical game-theorists have pointed this out. What may be best for an individual, may be a poor outcome for the population as a whole. A simple example is assume that the best time for a population of birds to nest is, I'm just making up a date here, March 15th. Now, what happens is a bird in that population has a genetic trait to start nesting on March 10th instead? It will gain an advantage because it will be able to select the best nesting site. But, what happens to the population of birds as a hole if that trait spreads throughout the population? The birds shall then be nesting earlier, which is sub-optimum for them. We see the same thing with trees. Trees have to spend more energy to grow taller to reach the sunlight, but, if all trees remained shorter, this would be a more optimum state for them.


This is one reason we see so many extinct species --- evolution does not always lead to optimum outcomes.


Therefore, the argument here is based on a faulty premise.

One may dislike her opinions, but to say she was not a philosopher makes little sense. After all, are her views really any worse than the gibberish from the likes of Kant, Marx, and others who we can now do without and not miss a beat?

So-called leading philosophers have turned out to be apologists for tyranny, like Heidegger, Russell, and Sartre. So much for the claim that studying philosophy seriously makes one immune to adopting idiotic claims. It most definitely does not accomplish any such thing.

Hawking's assertion that "philosophy is dead," was self-refuting. Why? Because the statement "philosophy is dead" is itself a philosophical statement.

If philosophy was irrelevant, then how come Hawking failed to answer all of the philosophical questions that have been raised? Hawking didn't even answer numerous questions that have been raised by the philosophy of science, much less questions in political philosophy.

Philosophy makes progress by refining its arguments for and against various positions. Philosophy deals with non-empirical issues, so progress in science does nothing to establish philosophy as being irrelevant. How could it?

Uber: Einstein made great inroads into quantum mechanics, in addition to being the person who came up with the General Theory of Relativity and the Special Theory of Relativity, as well as discovered atoms, etc., etc. Trying to claim that Einstein was anything less than an amazing genius is ridiculous, and comparing him to the lunatic claims of Marx is childish at best. There is nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing Marx came up with, that a young teenager can't easily grasp. That's not true for Einstein's relativity theories, especially the general theory. The math background alone to understand that theory takes a great deal of effort.

Marx was wrong on everything, and it's comical that anyone would claim otherwise. In science, we ignore false claims. In philosophy, apparently, false claims are the very ones people get all excited about. No wonder philosophy has such a low rating these days as an academic discipline ---- it's less than worthless to cling to false ideas.

Uber: We do know the labor theory of value is false, and have known this for a long time now. The value of an object does not exist. Prices exist, and those are determined by supply and demand factors at the margin. The amount of labor going into a commodity is meaningless in setting prices, it's basically how much people value the item versus its supply that matters.

Nonsense. People forget the simplest ideas when it comes to math. It's often recognized that once a mathematical object is defined that it can only be manipulated logically. Yet, if we ever logically manipulated an object into a statement, such as A is not equal to A, then we would know A could not exist. People overlook the fact that a mathematical object can only exist if its existence is consistent with logic. It works both ways.

Uber: Marx stated that workers would go to the lowest level of poverty, and that most definitely did not happen. Under capitalism, we saw the greatest decrease in poverty the world has ever seen. You keep ignoring reality to favor a dogma, which is nothing to be proud of. Marx has been wrong on basically everything he ever predicted.

Marx had no influence on Einstein. Einstein used the labor theory of value, which other economists came up with long before Marx. Marx's entire theory is dependent on that theory, which has been long discarded in economics, because it makes no sense. Moreover, Marx claimed that commodities had a value, which was different from its price, which literally means that Marx was engaged in a non-scientific project, since there is no way to objectively measure his so-called "value" claims. No one interested in science would ever waste time on such nonsense.

Einstein was far more brilliant than Marx. Einstein figured out spacetime, both space and time cannot be separated, and that spacetime was curved. That idea was so far beyond anything Marx could have contemplated that comparing Marx with great minds like Einstein is foolish. Plus, Einstein's theories have the added bonus of being correct and of great value, even allowing us to have such things as GPS. Marxism, on the other hand, left millions dead.

Anyone who thinks Einstein's essay on socialism is scholarly work knows nothing of economics. Einstein was a genius in the areas of physics and to a lesser extent, mathematics. When it came to other topics, he was an amateur, and that is not what he is known for at all.

Anyone who thinks I need to read Capital Vol. II to know that Marx was completely wrong about pretty much everything he wrote about, is making an unfounded assumption. I read through a great deal of Marx, including all volumes of Capital, and spent a couple years in college wading through his collected works. Marx was simply wrong on everything. He was wrong on the reason religion exists. He was wrong to claim Jew's God is money. He was wrong in his racism. He was wrong in his understanding of capitalism, as we know workers' living standards have improved over time, and did not go to a poverty level. We know the labor-theory of value is false, and Marx never gave any coherent reason to believe in it. We know that history is not a class-struggle, as most people's political views are not even determined by their economic status, but by other factors, including political personality traits which are strongly linked to biology. This is why many wealthy people are leftists, and many poor people are to the right. The only real link between economic status and political positions is that poor people tend to be more extreme in their views, which can be extremely right-wing as well as left-wing. This is why when countries develop a middle class, their politics becomes more centered. Marx's so-called class-conflict, therefore, has zero empirical support.

Marx just made up nutty ideas as he went along. He was not even remotely close to a genius like Einstein, when it comes to his work in physics, not in a childish essay On Socialism.

The fact philosophers are even taking Marx seriously at this juncture shows that philosophy as a discipline is hardly up there with math and physics.

There isn't a whole lot from Marx that isn't complete fiction. He made numerous claims about matters that were not based on any actual facts, and were purely speculative-based nonsense. The labor-theory of value is false, so his claims about exploitation get flushed down the toilet. His claims about the purpose of religion is false, and we have far better scientific explanations. His claims about a dialectic throughout human history makes no more sense than an Alex Jones' conspiracy theory.

Serious thinkers are people like Archimedes, Einstein, Maxwell, Feynman, Darwin, etc., etc. Mathematicians, scientists, engineers who literally shock the world with their brilliance make Marx look like a buffoon in comparison.

"Could be" also implies "bullshit."

This is what the OP states, "So based on this perspective it seems to me that mental pain including mental illnesses could be a symptom something is wrong either with society and culture or our life style and the presence of it should stimulate action or prevention." If you are stating that "could be" means that the OP is itself saying that it is not really saying anything substantive, then that is fine by me.

The same parts of the brain that activate physical pain also activate for psychological pain. So? How does that mean that psychological pain is a result of a dysfunctional society? It doesn't. Just think of it this way, we can have physical pain without society being dysfunctional, so what would make psychological pain different?

You are misunderstanding what observation even meant. An observation can occur without any conscious or living being present. Basically, new-agers routinely misuse quantum mechanics to support all sorts of gibberish. For one thing, since Einstein came up with relativity, and even before then regarding transforms, we can't even say that we are "observing" the moon any more than we can say that the moon is "observing" us, since space is not absolute. That should give anyone a hint that the discussion was not talking about consciousness being necessary in order for a material world exist.

There are different types of pain, including pathological pain, which serves no useful purpose. You are also assuming that the cause of mental illness is some failure on the part of society, when that may not be the case at all. One source of "mental pain" is a loss of social contact, like breaking up with a lover, or being kicked out of a group. That may occur, not because there is something wrong with society, but because there is something wrong with the person. You seem to be over generalizing.

Math is non-empirical. This is why no discovery in science has ever overturned a theorem. So, shouldn't you be asking about future physics, which is empirical, as opposed to mathematics, which is completely non-empirical?

Philip: It has not been established that we don't make decisions. Just think of it this way --- if the mind decides to do something, that is still a causal chain.

Actually, the universe is non-deterministic, and has been known to be non-deterministic for quite some time. The claim that everything has been predetermined since the Big Bang is based on long-discarded 17th century physics. There is nothing in science that rules out free will, and the biologist, Kenneth R. Miller, just recently came out with a book explaining that it is premature to claim that there is no free will. Basically, there are models already proposed by neuroscientists that leave open the possibility for freewill. The idea that since the brain is based on physics, there is no free will, is an overly simplistic one. The physics that gives rise to consciousness may also give rise to free will. In science, we have to deal with emergent phenomenon and reductionist methods only get us so far. Otherwise, we would only have one science discipline -- physics, and we could discard biochemistry, psychology and economics, etc.

How am I "alienated" from production if I help build something without understanding all of the production processes involved? It's just a made-up concept by Marxists without any significance. So, we would somehow be less "alienated" if we lived in abject poverty because production was radically reduced so we could all understand how each product is made from start to finish? I prefer my modern standard of living, so no thank you, Marxists.

Einstein's relativity theories rule out common sense. It's not just physics that goes against common sense, but virtually every science. In genetics, we know that there is a greater variance in the DNA of two randomly selected black people as opposed to a comparison of their DNA with a randomly selected white person. In economics, we know that a country can be less efficient at producing every single good and service compared to another country, but can still gain in trading with that more efficient nation. In neuroscience, we know the brain is modular and there is no unified "I" running the show. Science has come up with all sorts of counter-intuitive insights that a person using common sense would fail to see.

We are evolved social primates, so our conception of morality is largely based on our evolution, although not determined by it. But, go ahead and do what Plato wanted, have children raised on groups and not by their parents, and see how well that works out? It'll fail, because people have largely evolved to want to take care of their children so they can successfully perpetuate their genes. While moral philosophy is not determined by our biology, it is also true that our morality is confined by our evolved nature.

Moral theories all have giant holes in them because some philosopher tries to generalize from a specific case that they have a gut feeling is morally right. Moral philosophy is basically just a large accumulation of post hoc "explanations" so far.

Basically, on this forum, as on almost every social media platform, there is an enormous amount of anti-Semitism. It is basic for the left to be anti-Semitic, and it's not just in the USA, but throughout the western world, just look at the anti-Semitism in Britain's Labour Party. The modern-day anti-Semitism was noted by such anti--racists as Martin Luther King, Jr., who stated that anti-Zionism is the new anti-Semitism. Basically what happens is people tell lies about Israel, in an effort to dehumanize all Jews globally and to "justify" attacks against them. This is why in Sweden, after Trump announced he was moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, a crowd gathered around a synagogue, lit it on fire, and started chanting that Jews should be shot. Similar occurrences happen throughout western Europe, especially France. Why didn't the protestors protest at the American embassy? Because Israel is the modern focal point for anti-Semites. It's not that people hate Jews because of Israel. Israel is no worse than any western nation, and it's history is far more justified than many western nations. Instead, Israel is hated because that is where the Jews are. It's just easier for anti-Semites to hide behind an anti-Zionist claim. Yet, anti-Zionism literally means the destruction of Israel which can only occur if millions of Jews are slaughtered and their property confiscated. These same anti-Zionists never protest against Egypt that kicked out its Jewish citizens and stole their homes from them. This has occurred throughout the Arab-Muslim world, yet, this cleansing of Jews has raised no complaints by those in the anti-Zionist camp who falsely claim that they are interested in social justice.

Bullshit. They don't even care about the Palis. When Egypt bombs Gaza, no one bitches. When Syria bombs Palis, no one bitches. When Lebanon abuses Palis and treats them like shit, no one bitches. People don't bitch in those cases because the Jews can't be blamed for those abuses. This selective concern for the so-called Palis, a group made-up in the 1970s, gives away the plot. The so-called concern for Palis is only expressed when it can be used to harm Israel and Jews. Otherwise, no one gives a shit about them.

Rene: How about you actually stop using double standards in judging Israel? Name a single time when you have ever evaluated a position by only looking at the costs, and not the gains? Saying the US gives aid to Israel and none to the Palis is also 100% false. In fact, for years, the USA was funding the bounties the Palestinian Authority placed on Jews, so families of murderers of Jews could get life-long pensions, as high as $15,000.00 a month. It was only recently that the Congress cut off such funding. The US gives a huge amount of aid to the Palis, as well as the Egyptians, and many other nations. In fact, the USA gives far more to Germany than to Israel, just calculate the costs of those military bases in Germany to the US taxpayer. But, noticeably absent from your calculation is any inclusion of the benefits Israel has for the USA. How much does Israel benefit the USA in terms of military information, military technology, as well as being an R & D pipeline for numerous US companies? Are you aware that basically every week technology flows from Israel to the USA, which even includes medical advances used in US hospitals? Of course not.

Now, when you buy a car, do you say, "well, this car costs $10,000.00, so I'm not buying it?" Or, do you say, "well, this car costs $10,000, but it will also provide me with $10,000 worth of benefits, so I'll buy it?" You always include a cost-benefit tradeoff, except when you discuss Israel, when you employ an irrational double-standard of only looking at costs, but no benefits.

By the way, most Zionists in Israel have wanted nothing from the USA, PROVIDED the USA stops financing Israel's enemies. That has never happened. The USA actually gives far more to Israel's enemies than it does to Israel.

SSU: Tell us all what so-called peace deal the so-called Palestinian Arabs have on the table? Israel has offered the so-called Palestinians a state of their own, on numerous occasions. The state would include all of Gaza, 97% of the west bank, border concessions for the other 3% and east Jerusalem as their capital. The response? The Palestinians turned it down, and demanded the destruction of Israel and all the Jews in Israel. In fact, that is still the official position of both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority to this day. So, how is Israel at fault for their being no peace when the Palestinians turn down such a great offer, and don't even counter, except to demand all Jews in Israel be killed?

There is a reason why Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan all supported Israel during its last war in Gaza. It's because even those countries are getting tired of the Palestinians' crap. It's only the anti-Semitic left in the USA and Europe that supported the Palestinians digging terrorist tunnels into Israel, murdering Jewish teenagers, and violating every cease-fire agreement. Even the Saudis know better than to support such crap.

SSU: There is nothing objective about any UN organization when it comes to Israel. That's one of the issues that the US has with the UN presently. The UN has engaged in criminal behavior against Israel. Literally. From allowing a terrorist tunnel to be dug into Israel from one of its buildings, to providing rockets to Hamas, to promoting signs calling for Muslims to run over Jews in the streets of Israel. The UN is about as anti-Semitic as the Nation of Islam and David Duke combined.

SSU: You think the UN has an "objective" view regarding Israel? That's laughable. How about when the UN claimed that Zionism was racism? Rather odd since Zionism simply means support for a Jewish homeland where Jews have lived longer than any other group of people. It's also true that anyone can become a Jew, so it would be impossible for Zionism to be racism. How many years did it take for the UN to give up on this BS claim?

How about the fact that a terrorist tunnel from Gaza originated from a UN building? You seriously claiming that the UN would not have known about the tunnel? That would have been impossible.

How about when the UN handed over rockets in their own buildings, to Hamas, knowing that Hamas would fire them at Jewish children in Israel? You call that being "objective"?

How about when the UN claimed that because of the number dead Israel must have targeted civilians, in its Goldstone report, written by an anti-Semitic Jew, when years later the Palestinians admitted that they lied about the death toll? How come the UN then did not change its findings? How come it originally used a death toll that even included people dying of natural causes?

How come Israel has been sanctioned more than Syria, when Syria is actively butchering people on its streets?

The UN's own leadership has admitted to bigotry against Israel. It's not surprising. How many Islamic nations are in the UN, as well as allied socialist ones? How many Jewish states in contrast? Is it really surprising that the UN would single out the lone Jewish state for discriminatory treatment given the UN's composition?

Charleton: No, it's not true, and I don't even need to waste my time looking at some conspiracy video on social media to know the truth. Go ahead and cite to us a single work by a leading university, like Oxford, that supports your Jew-hating claim that Hitler supported Zionism? The truth is that Hitler always wanted Jews dead, and the policy of kicking Jews out of Germany initially was used to create more anti-Semitism in those nations that had to absorb poor Jewish refugees, as Hitler confiscated all their belongings. Keep in mind, most of the killings of Jews took place in the later years of the Third Reich, after WWII broke out. Although, Hitler and the Nazis did murder Jews in the streets of Germany even before Hitler took over in Germany.

Your comments about the political structure of Israel is also as far-fetched as your conspiracy theories regarding Hitler.

SSU: There you go completely trying to twist my words. I specifically stated that not every criticism against Israel is anti-Semitic. However, a great deal of criticism against Israel is anti-Semitic, and not saying so, is equally repugnant.

Your claims against Israel are pure bullshit. How about you tell us when you have ever condemned the barbarity and crimes against humanity by both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority? The Palestinian Authority as its official government policy demands the mass murder of Jews. It officially calls those who stab to death little Jewish children in their own homes "heroes and legends" and encourages others to also stab Jewish children to death. How about when the Palestinian Authority has an official bounty on the heads of Jews, and it pays the family of those who murder Jews, life-long pensions, which can be as much as $15,000 per month? Ever protest that criminal action? Even the Nazis did not offer bounties for the mass murder of Jews.

How about when Hamas cites in its official charter that Israel should be destroyed, that Jews are responsible for all the wars, I assume even those wars between Japan and China, and it also endorses the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as being real. Ever protest that?

Did you protest the more than 30 terrorist tunnels that were dug into Israel, and were used to kill Jewish children, which started the last war in Gaza? Did you protest against the UN for allowing one of the tunnels to originate from a UN building, which means UN officials had to have known about the tunnel?

Have you protested the actual occupation of Cyprus by Turkey? How about Egypt's abuse of Christians? How about China's abuse of its Muslim population, which it oppresses in a way Israel never would?

Those are just some of the double standards I'm speaking of. And how come a crowd in Sweden burned down a synagogue and screamed that Jews should be shot after Trump agreed to move the US embassy in Israel? How come they did not attack Americans? It's because today's Jew-haters lie about Israel and do so in order to justify the abuse of Jews throughout the globe. That's why we see such vulgar behavior in Sweden, France, Germany, and a rise in anti-Semitism. The fact is that if Jews weren't involved, the world would have recognized that Jordan and Egypt were the main culprits regarding the Palestinians and they both have an affirmative duty to take their own citizens back after losing a war of aggression against Israel. It's only because Jews are involved that the world believes the Jews in Israel have some duty to take these millions of people in as full citizens. No country would do that. Name any nation that would take in millions of people who previously declared war on their nation, and who demand their nation's destruction, and who would enter in such numbers that the citizens would no longer be a majority in their own country? Name one? Japan? No. Germany? No. The USA, Canada, Australia? No. No one would even think any other nation should have to do such a thing. It's only when it comes to tiny little Israel that the world engages in such double standards.

It's amazing how many crazy Jew-hating comments are on here. Hitler supported Israel? That's absolutely false. Israel is a racist state? False. Israel gives its Arab-Muslim citizens free education, free medical care and greater rights than they would have if living in any Islamic nation, or even any European nation. Yet, the world obsesses over Israel 24/7. There are Muslim people in other locations, including Iran, who are fighting for state hood, and no one even knows who they are. In fact, there are presently 350 active groups of people trying for independent statehood, and yet, other than the so-called Palestinian Arabs, how many such groups can people name? Not to mention that when Egypt bombs Gaza, no one says a word. When Lebanon mistreats Palestinians, no one says a word. When the King of Jordan violated international law and claimed the land for Jordan, through military action, no one said a word. Not even the so-called Palestinian Arabs said anything.

If one makes a list of countries with human rights records, from the best to the worst, Israel would be near the top. Yet, Israel gets more than half of the UN sanctions? And that's not anti-Semitism? So, Iran, Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc., etc., combined have fewer sanctions than Israel? Israel is a nation where an Arab headed the country during an interim period. It's a nation where Arab Muslim judges sentence Jewish Israelis to prison. It is a country where it's fairly well integrated among various "races," and religious groups, and extends greater rights for women, gays, atheists, and other minorities than any country in the Middle East, while its neighbors routinely commit crimes against humanity, deny freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and cleanse all non-Muslims from their states.

The denial of the basic facts regarding Israel, as well as the world's fixation on Israel and the use of double standards against Israel can only be explained by anti-Semitism. While it is certainly wrong to call someone an anti-Semite for voicing a just criticism of Israel, it is equally wrong to deny the anti-Semitism that underlies the vast majority of the so-called discussion regarding Israel.

I don't think it was ever the case that everyone could afford a college education, although these days the costs have risen considerably, due to the student loan program creating an increased demand, so colleges could in turn raise their tuition rates.

As far as college being worth it, I think it is for a number of reasons: 1. An education helps improve a person as it increases one's ability to intellectually process what is going on around one. 2. There are greater job opportunities. Now, as far as majoring in economics and psychology is concerned, basically, you can make good money with those degrees, but you have to typically go beyond a four-year degree to do so. Most economics positions require a masters or Ph.D., and I think the same is true with respect to any decent psychology job. Although, I even know some psych techs working at the state hospital who make good money with a two-year degree. In any event, for some subjects, one has to be prepared to go beyond a four-year-degree.

The British Labour Party is anti-Semitic. The current issue of The Economist magazine even has an article on the topic. The Economist also featured articles on the anti-Semitism of the British Labour Party being so prevalent that top Jewish leaders of the party had to resign, because of all the threats they were receiving from party members.

But if a person believes that there are a number of purposes for education, like training people for jobs, getting people to think critically, creating a desire for life-long learning, an excuse for Keynesian spending, etc., etc., and you ask the person to only pick a single purpose, that could be a reason that someone struggles with your question. It would certainly stump me, as I cannot think of a single purpose for education, although I can think of a number of different purposes behind education.

Are you intentionally assuming that there is only one purpose for education as opposed to a variety of different purposes?

Rene: Did I state anywhere that a philosophical question cannot be answered? No. I only stated that it cannot be answered by referring to empirical evidence, experiment, math or logic. If the question can be answered by such tactics, then the question is either an empirical one, like involving history, or a scientific one, which can be addressed by science, or a math problem or a problem in logic. A philosophical question may or may not be answerable, but I most definitely did not state that a philosophical question cannot be answered as a matter of principle.

A philosophical question cannot be answered empirically, scientifically, mathematically or logically. Like questions regarding value judgments, can we have knowledge, if we can have knowledge, when do we have it, etc., etc.

Charleton: There you go again, completely engaging in a strawman with respect to my actual comment. I never stated that gold was the equivalent of wealth. Wealth would be a borader classification; nevertheless, some wealth is in the form of gold. That was true centuries ago and is also true today. Gold did represent wealth for people, which is why the government confiscated it in producing gold coins.