Incest in many places is moral BY GOD.

p1. In order to be right/wrong, one first has to have true/false belief about something or other.
p2. Having belief does not require language.
C1. One can have true and false belief(one can be right/wrong) without language.
p3. To be aware that one is right/wrong is to be aware that one has belief.
p4. Being aware that one has belief has - as the 'object' of awareness/consideration - the belief itself.
C2. Being aware that one has belief is thinking about belief.[/quote]
I have a small issues with p1 and c2

What is the difference between an opinion and a fact? If I think I am right saying abortion is wrong, how would there be a real effort in determining what is true or false about that belief?
Two people could be right and differ completely about the same thing.

If I believe I love someone, having that belief is not in thinking it is a belief but thinking it is a fact. If I have a belief and maintain that it is a belief then it must be still undetermined whether or not whatever the belief is to posit is a fact, and therefore I would not have a belief at all but a skeptical opinion.

I do not agree that art, poetry and music are a language, for they do not adhere to a set of rules or organized structure. There is abstract art, music and poetry, as well as surrealism, cubism... And what about William Blake? What about Aphex Twin? These forms of expression, though akin in this regard to language which expresses, is not a language. Language is of sign, symbol and example. In an art piece or line of poetry, you have an ambiguousness that transcends what would be a language. You have a communicability but this does not mean language. I am reminded of Marina Abramovic when she would sit down and allow random people to sit in the chair across from her and look into her eyes as long as they want. Often people would cry or experience all kinds of things from this simple act, and therefore there is a communicability. This is performance art. It is not language and it does not require language. Furthermore, art (which includes poetry) establishes truth. Language can never produce truth, for it is always designated by an ever-reaching truth that is lacked. (Notice that something is finite [in language] only with an infinite reference point)

All examples of thought and belief are existentially dependent upon predication. All predication is existentially dependent upon drawing correlations between different things. All examples of thought and belief are existentially dependent upon drawing correlations between different things. — creativesoul

I don't know that I agree with this. For instance, in Kant's contention that existence is not a predicate.

Music and poetry, art and metaphor is not conventional language. There are aspects that are expressed in these things that transcend a linguistic expression, thus they become poetry. Poetry is not language. Lots of poetry, grammatically and with regard to standards of language in an essay for instance, is completely nonsensical if viewed this way. One can say that these things express a communicability, but definitely not a language, for a language has an organized structure of sign and meaning, including bits of an organized method. This is nonexistent in poetry, art and music. There is music theory... But you won't find Beethoven in music theory.

@javraQ nonlinguistic belief can be captured in art, music, poetry and metaphor.
@creativesoul

Good question! Lol

Didnt kierkegaard say that a true belief is a skeptical one?

BECAUSE!

Desires are irrational. Perhaps emotions are even a-rational. All people are irrational. There is a part of us that makes us specifically human that is irrational, and it is just as well based.

What theistic arguments supporting the existence in God are worth mentioning? Because I want to believe in God.

God exists if there is faith.

Freud said God is an exalted father.

Jung disagreed.

I cannot believe in a deity. There is no logic I have ever seen that could possibly make me believe it firmly.

The only solid justification for a faith in God or eternity or spirituality is through love--never wanting to be separated from those whom you love, or a person.

What gives me second thoughts is the painful painful idea of losing the person I love in death. It is painful to think of such a separation. That is what belief is god is based on often... Fear.

Furthermore. Everything including a god which may or may not be is greater than that which would or may be god. Man is greater than God. Man inadvertently created God.

i can define something greater than God. That which created God. And that which created that God. Idea ideae.

Define "greater"

God would thus be an all encompassing IDEA, not a being but a concept. You cannot predicate its being!

The wisest is who knows that he knows nothing.

But the implications!

There is no average intelligence. "There is only the individual." Carl Jung

But keep in mind that something is finite only with an infinite reference point. These ideas of morality are not finite but plural and fluid conceptions that do not include thoughts of which are in opposition to the paradigm of myth, belief, thought and judgment they refer to. Therefore they may contain a valid meaning inascertainable by any outside means.

WHENCE COMETH EVIL!?

WHENCE COMETH EVIL!?

The being of something must be easily ascertainable to be; not merely predicated. There is absolutely no reason why the idea of perfection should mean that there is an absolute perfection somewhere other than in our imagination. Being is not a predicate. It is not a property that can be lacked. If it lacked existence then it would not be. Because there seems to be 'Goodness' this does not mean that there is an absolute goodness or greatest goodness, which must be God because human beings are imperfect? And because we have an idea of 'perfection', and we are not perfect, there must be some source of this idea of perfection, namely God?! What massive leaps in logic here!

If something is, then it CLEARLY ought to be. I dont find the existence of things to be by using consequences of thoughts themselves a priori. It must be able to be logically shown to have some measurable, qualitative or quantitative degree in the world.

Perfection? Good? Are these things even definable? Something that is described to be whatever way must already be known. If something is known in some way then it must have been ascertained in its wholeness, not some fracturedness of which reveals only slight portions of its essence. If this was the case then we would indeed only be able to say "Whatever Good is... I will absolutely never be able to be sure I know what it is I am even referring to."

To talk of these objective prototypes of human feelings...

Information regarding a moral compass does not come TO us, as if it came from something beyond us. This is due to a lack of further investigation. It comes from what we do not identify our egos to be... Which is indeed still a part of our existence. It is not something separate from us. It is a part of the is that is us.

That is not a Christian perspective; that God is Love. That is much more ancient an idea.

Anyway... The 'Christian' idea... That is just "platonism for the people".

If everything had to be created by God, that creativity would be of a subjectivity; it would remain a mode of intra-subjective being. That subjectivity would not even have the representation of an objectivity, much less be affected with the will to create it. The philosopher's stone is a fundamental part of philosophy through the eyes of the alchemists, but surely you have found that this is psychological!?

Read Kant's idea on this. Kant says that being is not a predicate. Something cannot have or lack the quality of existence therefore its existence must be shown and not merely be predicated or implied.

In terms of compassion... Compassion... Where is the compassion in this world? Is there even compassion to speak of? Where do you find true compassion? Very rarely!

I have read and heard many arguments from atheism. The new pop-philosophy atheism is usually just ridiculous. They take Nietzsche way too far. And they are all based on Nietzsche, from what I see.

Because something may be irrational; this does not make us rational for not engaging in this imagined irrationality. In the end we are all irrational creatures.

Following what one's heart tells them (and I am not afraid to say this) is the way to go, and this will undoubtedly be different for many people. I do think, if people really did follow their hearts in their decisions then the world would look very different. Church would not look like brainwashing. It is in many cases brainwashing. Just go to your nearest Baptist church and listen to people. It will make you want to scream, unless you take the words people say at face value and their emotions and actions at a real value.

Harris' quote is not his. He is a regurgitator of ancient philosophy calling it his own. There is a reason I read nothing from him. There is nothing I dont already know that he says.

But people, thousands and thousands every day do die already from the preventable causes I mentioned. They dont die today from nuclear weapons. My point stands.

Of course the threat of nuclear weapons is a terrible threat. But it is hypocritical to focus on one cause of death. What is leading to the quickest extinction or mass death of the human race is overpopulation. In fifty years, at the rate we are going, do you know what the population will be? That is the greatest threat, along with pollution, diseases and war of all kinds,

The threat is war, not nuclear weapons...

And just looking at the current trend of human behavior, the human race has BEEN screwed. People are screwed every day.

As long as the human race is responsible for the deaths of the human race, the human race is inadvertently doomed.

I myself have cheated and been cheated on. The unfortunate thing about cheating is that often the people who cheat have a reason, a reason that resounds within them. And whatever this reason is, usually is incapable of being identified and assimilated into the relationship by either members in the relationship. Furthermore, this is true for everyone in relation to that relationship: they do not understand the intentions; they immediately view it as wrong because it causes the other person pain; the one whom was cheated on. In itself a person may have done it knowing it was wrong. But this still does not make it absolutely wrong, because I think it relates to intentions completely outside of the confines of that clearly-not-very-honest relationship, which undoubtedly goes further than just the cheating.

In this situation, you either protect a person from a lie, which essentially renders so much more to come a lie, because it would be based on lies. Or, you protect a person from the moment in which he or she will realize that something is wrong with his or her relationship in a catastrophic degree.

In any form, you are not obligated or responsible for 'their' doings. Perhaps you could have changed an outcome of perhaps the relationship getting better and the cheater never cheating again... At this point you would have to rely on probability. But are you going to base your actions on a faith of something happening? In the end it will be faith that dictates what you will do. Because even no fact can stop someone from doing something. Are you moral for revealing or not?
This is what I would probably call something with no solution.

Life sometimes has no solution. And why should it have a solution? Who are we?

If you can measure the epistemological support you have that would support telling on the cheater against the what would be lesser epistemological support of the withholding of such knowledge then I would say you have grounds for revealing the other person's information. This is the only way--something based in an accurate, reasonable measurement of possibility.

There is a reason people love to gamble.


@tim wood@Bitter Crank@chatterbears@Hanover@unenlightened

If you think this is the first time in history in which the future of man has been at risk, you are mistaken.

And yes, hair trigger. The autocorrect on my phone must have changed it.

Nuclear war is a problem, but I am not sure any of the most powerful countries are ready to blow themselves up and enter into a global thermonuclear war. People have not been this stupid yet, and so as long as there are people in the government who care about this sort of thing, the potentiality of it is dormant.

Something that maybe could happen is worth focusing on. But people don't focus now on the number one killers of themselves. Instead of nuclear war you should be talking about the opioid epidemic, heart disease, emphysema, diabetes, certain cancers, etc., which are in huge ways preventable, although not 100% preventable for everyone.

More people die from these diseases, these preventable causes... These things are actually happening. If you want to focus on some sort of 'hair-trigger' then focus on the problems that already exist. One could make the statement that in this you are extremely irrational for emphasizing the risk of nuclear war.

It is absolutely not a half triggered gun pointed at my head.

I have other more pressing matters in my life.

I think it is actually very true that we have no idea what other people actually mean. I think faith is a huge component of most linguistic exchanges. We speak to each other in abstraction. Only very rarely does meaning truly hit home with one another. This is very rare.

If I say "I ate an apple earlier". What does that even mean? That is a complete abstraction. You know 'in a sense' what I mean, but this 'sense' is completely divorced from the truth.

I take back one thing I said. In terms of thinking about something 'greater' than the mundane philosophical... Which is great at times and extremely frustrating at others... Is the experience of love, art, creation, poetry and music... What I call the pneuma, the 'spirit of life' present in music, art, poetry, creativity and love... Something deeper than words could ever go. And the source of so much joy that seems absolutely unfounded in any logical sequence of thought. It is unbounded.

Psychedelics can reach this too.

Psychedelic experiences... It all depends on so many factors. The rule of thumb is to be in a healthy state of mind before going into one. This is a good environment, positive outlook, etc... But this is not a have-to. I have gone into an experience depressed and then felt emotions that one is incapable of feeling off of the psychedelic. The psychedelic takes you on an adventure. The biggest rule is to LET GO. LET GO OF EVERYTHING. and then let your mind take its course to wherever. Fighting it is what causes 'bad trips.' Personally the most revealing psychedelics are LSD, DMT and mushrooms (excluding amanita muscaria).

some would say disidentification or ego dissociation or ego disillusionment even... Is a necessary experience for understanding oneself and ones strange place in this universe. I call it deconditioning. The unfortunate thing about this is it lacks polity. It lacks all the components of a civilization set on materialism, labor, resource management, etc. It stands in stark contrast to modern man...

I like Carl Jung's essay entitled 'Archaic Man.'

I think the primitive way of life was probably the prototype of humanity, and nowadays there are serious problems the result of which is absolutely new, and potentially tremendously catastrophic.

Yes, there are colors and sounds and all sorts of sensations in this dream; however, the dream also has aspects that I cannot put into words. Such a compilation would lack the necessary components that would amount to a realistic representation.

It goes like this.

'I' am flying through something. But I'm not really flying. It is like I am a part of all these others just like me and 'we' are flying around each other in this strange dimension. Time is absolutely nonexistent in the form, for instance, required for me to write this. It is more-so a temporal flux, as well as a physical one. I am aware that there are other beings like me and there are colors and shapes all around me. There are all sorts of emotions. Mostly fear. Then it becomes extremely terrifying. And I become on this 'path', away from all the others, I am not sure where they went. Its like the whole world twists into this other dimension and I am on a path gain speed toward another being just like me. And this other being is coming toward me. And I cannot escape. I can feel the other being's fear and we go faster and faster until I can see the other right in front of me and we are both terrified and confused and wondering why?! But there are no words. It is not human. It is something much different I wish I could explain it. And right when we collide I always wake up in sweat and in panic. One time I woke up screaming when I was 17 calling for my sister. I have even woke up and had the feelings, sensations and visions still going on looking at my hands and the new world I am in, and the pillows and the covers always feel so intense but intense to a very uncomfortable and almost painful degree. But trying to put all of this into words I can barely even begin to try and tell you what it is like.

That is awesome by the way, that you have experience with psychedelic compounds. I, like McKenna, believe it is our birthright to explore these natural chemicals which provide a means of exploring the world and consciousness like nothing else. And psychedelic experiences are so profound. These experiences are all I have when I think of perhaps something 'greater' or more than the vague seeming that is understanding and knowing this existence. I have yet to not be astonished by these experiences, especially with psilocin/psilocybin (psilocybin breaks down into psilocin in the body) , LSD and DMT. I have not tried mescaline or salvia, but I would like to.

My last experience with LSD was very bad though. I think I know the factors of why it was so harsh and bad, but it was very revealing. Perhaps it was too revealing. It showed me the horrors of capitalistic machinery, conditioning associated with this, modern economics and infrastructure and nihilism. I felt helplessly confused in this trip. I haven't taken a psychedelic since, and that was a year and a half ago.

I became interested in psychedelics when I realized that it was the closest I could get to the dream I have had since I was a toddler, or maybe before. Sometimes I wonder if this dream was a dream I had in the womb, representations of that experience? Or maybe remnants of experiences prior in some fetal form? I am not sure. But if you take LSD or mushrooms, do it in the dark and close your eyes and that is the closest I can get to the dream. Though... The dream is much much more. The human mind is extraordinary.

@Posty McPostface

I would love to be able to read ancient and medieval Latin alchemical works. I only know very little Latin.

"In the beginning was the deed."

There are many threats other than nuclear war. Nuclear war is a threat, but it is really is not the duty of the philosopher to base his philosophy on the impending threat of death or extinction. This has already been done by many philosophers. Camus, for instance, wrote that the most significant philosophical question is suicide, and wrote the whole book The Myth Of Sysyphus, based on this idea. There are other conceptions too. Freud and his death drive... Some people would say that the threat of death makes one feel more alive. You're not going to get very far attacking a supposed whole of philosophy.