To sum up my points, it is illogical to recommend suicide or commit suicide, when killing oneself is not the answer to the problems whatever problem it might be.

If someone is suffering from pain, then the cure will be medical help in order to ease the pain. Killing oneself because of the pain would be like, demolishing a whole house, when it has a roof leak, or broken window. It sounds irrational act as well as immoral doing so, or recommending so.

Death is not momentary event. When someone dies, the ripple of the death lasts and could affect many other close people of the dead for long time. And the world of death is totally unknown to mankind. Buddhists believe when one dies, they incarnates into other beings based on the karma.

It is not a case of simple momentary event which happens in a second, and everything will be the end. That would be an idea of the ordinary folks who have no idea on the bigger picture of the transformation of the living existence on the Earth into the unknown world.

I don’t understand why that would be a problem. — T Clark

If Science is based on the presuppositions which can be either true or false, then it is unable to provide useful knowledge. It then relegates to superstition or guess work, hence it needs help of Metaphysics? - hence the reason Kant wrote CPR.

Plus the title of the OP "absolute" sounds not what it says, if the founding presuppositions are "not absolute".

My purpose in starting this discussion is 1) to discuss the specific presuppositions described and 2) to see how other people see these kinds of presuppositions fitting into their own understanding of how the world works. — T Clark

The problem with those presuppositions is that denying them, and asserting the opposites doesn't necessarily result in contradiction.

So as the title asks: Is there anything that exists necessarily? By this, I don't mean to assume, if something exists necessarily, it must be a particular thing. Maybe something must exist necessarily, but we don't know what it is, or it's merely some "kind" of thing we can say must exist. — QuixoticAgnostic

Isn't "I" a necessary existence? I think, therefore I exist. That statement seems not quite logical.

I exist, therefore I think. This is logically correct. "I" is a necessary existence for my thought. Without "I", I couldn't have thought, or wrote this post. My existence or "I" is the logical necessity for my thought.

The proposed model can help assess whether I really want what I want, or am I being fooled?

This example is also consistent with other cases where people are brainwashed not just by the fake value of a product, but by the fake value of "Values." — Astorre

Great explanation on the point. Thank you. My thought on the point is still idea is building blocks of propositions (which can be true or false), and also thoughts. Ideas on their own cannot make decisions, judgements or evaluations on the objects, situation or world affairs.

What makes it possible is reasoning and intuition. We perceive the external world, objects and situations. They register in our brain as and in the forms of ideas. Our reasoning and intuition inspect them and reflect on them, and then make judgements, decisions and evaluations.

Some ideas are copies of impressions in perception, as Hume puts it. And some ideas are apriori ideas which are innate in origin such as God, freedom and afterlife. It is the faculty of reasoning which processes the ideas from perception into thoughts and knowledge.

Sure. Cool. I wasn't saying your idea is wrong. I was just looking at the issue from a different angle. Looking at the ideas and concepts from different angles and keep on discussing in logical point of view, is philosophy in my idea. :)

"all people are sisters." — Astorre

It can be interpreted as "only women are people." — Astorre

They are propositions. Propositions are either true or false. Ideas can be building block of propositions.
Ideas are mental image. On their own it has no true or false values. As Hume wrote, ideas can be vivid or faint, strong or weak depending on the type of perception.

There could be real life cases where propositions could have weighing aspects. For instance,
1) The guitar is nice.
2) The guitar is too expensive for my budget.

Then in order to make decision whether to buy the guitar or not, I must weigh the two propositions. The more heavier proposition will be the foundation of my decision. Even here using "heavier" proposition sounds awkward. Should it not be "more effecting" or "more critical" for my situation?

In Hume, ideas are copies of impressions, and is totally mental in nature. But it is interesting that Hume was talking about vivacity and strength in ideas depending how strong and vivid the resemblance between impressions and corresponding ideas. When perceiving objects in front of you, you are supposed to have most vivid impression and ideas because you see the object in front of you, and the qualities of perception is as real as it can be.

But if you are trying to recall an image from your distant past memories, for instance a friend you have met 20 year ago last time, then the idea of the image would be faint and weak.

But I find it a bit challenging to understand how idea could have weights. Or how can ideas be weighed. Weights can be only measured on the physical objects with solidity and mass, and by gravity from the earth.

Ideas which is purely mental in nature, and copy of the perceived impression cannot have weights. Your thoughts?

Ah yes, poetics. — AmadeusD

Interesting, that you find my points are poetics. Poetics are supposed to be beautiful written expressions of thoughts on the nature or mind. What part of my thoughts and writing were poetics?

This is not philosophy mate. All good. — AmadeusD

Really? What is your definition of philosophy?

The key presumption is that Consciousness is non-local, but Cosmic (Pantheism ; Panpsychism). — Gnomon

Could you please explain how and why this is the case? Does it make sense?

AmadeusD has been using the word in sense 1, corvus in sense 2.
Aren't you guys tired of quarreling over semantics? — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

If you read his posts, he talks in the ordinary street folks manner on the hot philosophical terms, and then tells you are wrong with no backing arguments why you are wrong. He just keeps repeating himself saying others point of view is not philosophy. It is not just clash of different semantics.

Every time I listen to my favorite deceased musicians' performances when they were alive, they reincarnate in my mind as if they were alive at present vividly. I often ask myself, do they actually exist in my mind when they are playing in the computer screens, putting out the powerful and great musical performance?

I am likely to believe they do, and they are part of my music listening life. But they have been physically dead for over 30+ or even 60+ years.

But there are folks I have never met or known living somewhere in the world doing their daily business right now. Do I have to convince myself that they exist? I don't know anything about them, and they don't know anything about me. It is only my imagination that that this is the case. Now which beings exist more realistic to me here? The dead or alive?

This implies we might have to take into account of different type existences i.e things that exist as visible, tangible, solid and accessible, and things that exist (or believed to exist), which are invisible, intangible, abstract, inaccessible and immaterial.

:cool: :wink:

Birth is a part of life. There is no life without birth. Death is the end of a life. But it is not just an event. It is also a fact, a case and memory of the lived life by those know the dead. There are also topics for after deaths which takes us into Philosophy of Religion and God from death and possibility of after life and existence of immaterial being.

It is not that simple just like the shallow medics and legal folks see the issue. If that is all there is to it, then why people do philosophy? Philosophy is a subject which goes deeper and behind what is visible and audible. It is a serious subject.

If you say they are just events, then that is the talk of the ordinary folks. Yes, even 10 year old know what you are talking about. But here we want to go deeper and behind the objects and events. But you mock the wisdom of depth. Hence I asked you to go and read some Introduction to Philosophy.

Nope. I was talking about metaphysics here.
Please go and read some books on Introduction to Philosophy.

but is it really very insightful to say that as long as we will remain human that there will be room for doubt? — hwyl

Do every objects and events in the universe have causes? Some clearly yes, and some are unknown. On the later case, modern science falls apart like a pack of cards.

I don't think you understand what is being said: Birth is an event. So is death. Your take is a weird elongation of a concept it isn't apt for. — AmadeusD

They are not just events. They are also extension into the being and transformation of the being. That is exactly what I was pointing out. But you can only see one aspect of the event, and were blinding yourself into darkness.

If you're going to just repeat yourself, that's fine but you're wrong. — AmadeusD

I had to repeat the points because your couldn't see them any further.

No. Death is an event. It happens once in a lifetime. Two if you're lucky. And there is no more to be said beyond that. — AmadeusD

I wonder if you are reading posts at all before replying. I have never said that you will die multiple times. No, never said that.

I said that death continues, once one dies. Death is a fact or case, which will continue eternally. Once one was born and lived in this material world, death, when it happens, continues eternally. No one can erase the fact or the case.

but is it really very insightful to say that as long as we will remain human that there will be room for doubt? — hwyl

Scientific laws are established to be proven wrong. Science is a product of human imagination and intuition along with observation.

Althea

Death is an event. It is momentary (depending on definition - but the on/off event is momentary). — AmadeusD

That's just an ordinary folk's view on death. Death continues eternally. It is an event for transformation from a physical being to immaterial being. Does immaterial being exist or not? This is a matter for further discussion.

My preference would be to keep it that way. — T Clark

Fair enough. :ok: :cool:

Therefore, such a deity cannot be simultaneously omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. — Truth Seeker

Does a deity exist in the real world?

You talk about this in a way that doesn’t come naturally for me. — T Clark

I think this is an interesting topic. But I wondered if beauty should be confined to visual images only. Music or poetry can be beauty. Are they not all interconnected? A visual beauty can be described in words and music and vice versa.

I was also wondering, if beauty is a property of objects, or is it something that is in your mind when confronted and experienced beautiful objects.

Death continues eternally. The moment of death is only the mode of existence transformation. One exists as a living, and one keeps existing as a dead after death. Death is eternal.

Now, after all these years, people can use it in whatever manner they want. That being said, no, I don’t think truth is beautiful, no matter what Keats said. — T Clark

A visual image itself cannot be beautiful, until you have perceived it, and came to a true judgement that it is beautiful. Hence the true judgement i.e.truth is, what you are finding as beauty.

Let the beauty speak for itself. — T Clark

Isn't beauty in the eyes of beholder? An old cliche, but an undeniable truth.
Isn't truth more beautiful than some visual images? What eyes see might be just illusion in most cases.

I think 'life is suffering' a human universal. But of course, some people suffer dramatically more than others. As one who, hopefully, is not in the latter category, where do you get the certainty to conclude those who are must continue? — Jeremy Murray

Suffering is brief, but death is eternal. Suffering can be endured, while death cannot be.

Some people (perhaps even most people) do hold those additional premises mentioned above. With those additional premises, it all makes for a coherent thought process.

It's not one I personally share, but it does help me understand others who do. — baker

It is just emotional response rather than logical thought process. There is no logical entailment from.
X is suffering, therefore X must end life. No added premises can justify that nonsense.

It does, if the additional premises are along the lines of "We have the right not to watch other people suffer" or "We have the right not to look at miserable people" and "Miserable people must respect our rights". — baker

If your own son or daughter was suffering of some illness, then would you let them end their lives? Is it a logically coherent thought process? I find it impossible to understand that claim.

Well, the English language as it currently exists didn't exist in ancient times, so it's no surprise that many of the words we use today didn't exist in ancient times. — Michael

Yes, I agree.

You should read up on transgender history. Obviously ancient people and ancient languages didn't use the modern English word "transgender", but transgender people have been recognized for thousands of years: — Michael

It is neither my interest of topic nor my specialties in philosophy, so I don't have much to add on the concept itself. However, it seems words came much later after the existence of objects in the world.

And some words like "transmen" or "transwomen", we first understand what the objects are by listening to other folks talking about them, or reading up what the medias saying about them, and then understand the word. Not the other way around. These words seem also not coming from the Etymological foundation of the most other words. For example - "Artificial Intelligence" - if we try to dissect the word etymologically, we get not too far. That was my point.

Your telling me, if I tell my longtime girlfriend to meet at Central Park, to where I have rented a "Will You Marry Me" airplane skywriter to leave a message, and I call her telling her to "look up", she'll have no idea where to look? I don't feel this is a genuine sentiment or belief you hold. At least, I would hope not. :confused: — Outlander

I was not saying that you cannot understand any words in all situations. That seems what you are trying to make out here. No, I was not saying that.

My point was that where words are obscure due to lack of contents or situational context, they need clarification to be understood.

That is not an explanation of the origin of the word. Neither does it come close to saying the word did not exist before. — I like sushi

Don't just deny it. Back and demonstrate your points with evidence and clear explanations.

I will revert back to saying gibberish then. :D — I like sushi

Whatever you wish. :) But whatever you say and write in public reflect your own integrity and shows up your educational background and mental states to others, hence it is up to you. :D

I'm not sure, possibly you can clarify, but do you have a problem with the world "transgender?" — Questioner

I was just explaining on the origin of the word. The word didn't exist. The people who changed their genders started to show up in the society, and then the word was made up and put on to the people.
But the word "trans" implies that whatever follows is not the original. Think of the example word "translate". It is the best example word. Unlike you and sushi claimed, it is not a legitimate etymological word origin.

This is a more of logical thinking rather than anything to do with pacifist or whatever nonsense.
X is suffering, doesn't logically entail X must end life.

There is no rational connection on that thought process that X is suffering, therefore X must end life. It is a propaganda spread and pushed by some dark money grabbing intention claimed by the greedy relatives of the sufferers, legal and medical professionals, and of course the medias.

That's like saying up and down doesn't mean what every person obviously knows it means, more or less. — Outlander

If you said, "UP" to me, I wouldn't have a clue what you are meaning. I would have then asked you "What do you mean by "up"?, and if you said "Up is from down." I still wouldn't know what the hell you are talking about. You have not clarified any contents of these place holders in realistic manner. You may think you are talking about something, but it fails to convey any intelligible meaning to others.

Just because some one said he/she is suffering, you think it is right to end their life? It seemed those who financially benefits when someone dies seems to supporting the idea. OK, it is not exclusive, but even 1 in 100 of possibility of the case, it doesn't sound right. Nothing is 100% exclusive. It is not excuse to end others life just because they are suffering.

So you simply meant that trans- is a modifier? I think we know that. It is still a 'real' prefix. What were you trying to say? — I like sushi

There were no such words as "transmale" or "transfemale" in ancient times. But in modern times there are people who changed their gender, and the word was invented to represent them.

But if someone in that situation makes a choice, it seems to me to be straightforwardly cruel to try to prevent them achieving their goal. Loved ones may grieve, but active prevention would not be an act of love, but of selfishness. — Ludwig V

Please read my post above with attention. Suffering cannot be a proper reason for ending one's life. Life itself can be viewed as suffering.