Empty intentions and such might be worth going into here maybe. Could help progress the discussion?

I think I made it pretty clear what I was asking for.

The World meaning what?

‘Exist’ meaning what?

Present what you mean by ‘world’ and ‘exist’ in some kind of context to your position/s.

Until then nothing I have said has any relevance because I have literally no idea what the OP is saying.

Last time I am asking.

Give an account of PRECISELY what you are asking for.

Likewise. Your thread. Make your point.

Present what you mean by the terms you use. I can wait.

Until then bye bye :)

Words are words. You may not perceive the fist coming towards your face but you will sure as hell feel its impact.

The relevance of the ‘reality’ of the existence of such a fist does naught to reduce sensation of pain.

We undoubtedly tweak how we view the world through an intricate web of cultural indoctrination that it necessary to operate in said world. Solipsism is a very poor position to start from if you have no intention of bringing scepticism into play.

Any supporting quotes from CPR for these points? — Corvus

B310-B312 | A254-A256

It sounds interesting. But need more elaboration and explanation. — Corvus

I will wait for you to address the terms you use

Maybe then I can address whatever it is you wish to discuss.

There are Kantian scholars in both far end of the poles on the interpretations i.e. the traditionalists vs. revolutionist. Obviously you are asserting the one sided view only, as if it is the only fact or reality while totally ignoring and being oblivious of the other end of the interpretations. — Corvus

On the particular point I was making it is quite clear in his own words. He literally states only in the negative sense. He was trying to be very, very precise which (in various other areas) did cause rise to differing interpretations.

The point of Noumenon is very important to the use of the term ‘existing’.

In simplistic terms what exists is open to experience. It is a mind-numbingly obvious thing Kant stated really. That which cannot be known ever is not even a ‘that’ we can refer to in the first place. The term noumenon is (somewhat ironically) a grasping at the impossible (of ‘negative use’ only NOT something that positively contributes as it is no ‘it’ or ‘that’ … and so on …).

Look forward to seeing what you mean by the words you use.

Are you that ‘creationism’ guy by any chance? If so will be interesting to see if you have anything new to say :)

Again it sounds lacking logical thinking and objective evidences on the claim. — Corvus

Why? How?

Yes, everyone knows Kant's phenomenon and noumenon. — Corvus

They do not. Many think he meant noumenon as some ‘other world’.

Please watch the Youtube video above, if you haven't done so already.[/]

I have. Hence the point about people using and interpreting data.
— Corvus

This is another interesting concept I am going to explore. — Corvus

I simply asked what you mean by ‘exist’.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to believe in the existence of a planet if certain pieces of data point to its existence. That some believed ‘observed’ such phenomenon needs verification … that failed and the idea was dismissed.

You will see how Husserl had totally different his own concepts of the world, and existence from Kant's in his Phenomenology. — Corvus

Husserl ian phenomenology is not at all concerned with what does or doesn’t exist.

Kant basically laid out a distinction of phenomenon and noumenon. Phenomenon are and noumenon are of negative use only, not positive.

None of this has anything much to do with scientists speculating on actual perceived data. A discrepancy in our understanding leads to conjecture and some are better/luckier than others when it comes to getting more accurate interpretations of said data.

It is likely an obsession with the idea of pure knowledge that has led you down this cul-de-sac. Finite abstractions (such as in mathematics) are items of such pure knowledge. Do they map onto the world we perceive 1 to 1? Impossible to say. Does that mean the world does not exist.

Also, what do you ‘actually’ mean by ‘exist’?

So we are now talking about the ‘existence’ of fictional and hypothetical worlds?

No thanks. I am out.

Only so many liberties we can take with words before gibberish takes over.

Can I ask if it would make any sense to believe otherwise? Then if it matters at all if we believe in such an ‘existence’ extraneous to our general sensory interaction as part-of the world (rather than as some disembodied entity).

The fabled ‘collateral damage’ argument. Bombing factories to cripple an nation that is a legitimate strategy, so replying in kind could be argued to avoid outright defeat and the further slaughter of a nations citizens.

The stretch is taking the ‘defend our citizens’ to ‘defend at all costs’.

To say this is somehow a Western philosophy is a bit of a stretch too. It is a human condition with multiple examples throughout history - across the globe. Ghengis Khan springs immediately to mind. For a modern day example there are unfortunately too many examples of this on the African continent too.

Where there is patriotism people will die for an imaginary force; just as you do for religion. Nothing I have seen makes such an idea specific to any particular continental trend. I am guessing maybe it could be also be tied to judeo-christian commonalities as opposed to more eastern mindsets? Even then … many questions.

I am still not entirely sure what Western means and/or whether anyone is referring to the same item when they say ‘Western’.

In term of tribalism/patriotism there is a vague case here maybe. Vague though.

The concept of self defense being a duty (not just a right) also has roots in secular Western philosophy, meaning pacifism for the sake of protecting the innocent among your enemy is itself immoral. — Hanover

I have not seen any evidence for this? Immoral to protect innocent people?

A mediating body could be helpful too. Although once a world war breaks out anything goes and the so-called ‘rules of war’ go out the window.

Ok. Ignore me then.

It is logical to have an unattainable goal.

I have been in such a state a few times (prolonged periods). It will end in a crash if did not begin with one.

What goes up must come down.

There is no such thing as constant ‘joy and happiness’ and if this is an unreachable goal you have then maybe ask why this is so?

With all that in mind, some philosophers have exaggerated the importance of suffering and restless agitation, as a characteristic of life. They have turned it into a neccesary evil that should be embraced with open arms to improve ourselves. When in fact, it is almost always destructive. Sustained suffering leaves your body searching for death, as it consumes your soul without destroying it. — Sirius

I have seen this kind of thing a few times. I feel the issue is more or less about equating ‘struggles’ in life with ‘suffering’. To have something in life to tackle is what makes life what it is. To refuse the trails and tribulations in life because they are tough is to not live at all.

Hedonistic views will culminate in an understanding that peak pleasure is attached by prolonged pain. Water is the best drink in the world if you are parched, yet if you are a little thirsty it will not give the same pleasures.

Note: Pleasures are all about ‘relief’ in some form. Generally we all need variety (relief from monotony).

‘Goals’ that can be reached are not our true guiding stars. You will lie and deceive yourself everyday, so just guard against this as best you can and accept that the struggle will continue - enjoy :)

I think you need to rewrite the OP. It is contrary.

Sounds like the first step towards a dystopian society.

How about an ethnographic and ethnological analysis of the state of affairs in that particular region then? :D

Just looking for some productive discussion :)

Like I said, the IRA managed to cease terrorist attacks but I am largely convinced the common traditions of peoples involved were common enough. In the middle east what kinds of commonalities exist because the various factions, and what apart than my broad statement might I have been neglecting?

I do not for a second believe it is almost entirely due to ONE point. What can we learn here? What information can we glean from these constant hostilities that can better equip us to avoid them elsewhere or help us understand conflicts of this type?

I was more or less asking about the principles of the problem and how a path can be created for future generations.

I meant in something like 50-100 years at least! The leaders will change on either side but things will continue to repeat unless there is a common world view as far as I can see. If you agree then what kind of measures could move things in that direction do you think?

All defence must be proportionate. You are fighting an embedded guerilla force. When Britain was doing the same with the IRA, they also had a right to defend themselves but not "by any means". They did not do it by killing Catholic civilians en masse or bombing and destroying their homes because that would have been madness and completely unacceptable. Instead, they did it by infiltrating and gathering intelligence on the IRA as well as beefing up their security systems so they could thwart IRA operations and negotiating in the background to make peace. This eventually worked. British civilian casualties remained relatively low, the IRA lost political support, and peace was achieved. If they had slaughtered babies in hospitals etc (regardless of their excuses) the IRA would have gained support including in the South of Ireland and in America, peace would have been impossible, more British civilians would have been killed, and Britain would have become an international pariah. That would have been stupid and self-destructive, right? — Baden

Thank you.

Exactly how comparable is this to the situation in the middle east though. Both conflicts span great swathes of time, but I think it is a hell of a lot easier for people who basically share the same traditions and history to come together and talk. I get the overall impression that this is not at all the case in the middle east as there is entrenched and despotic hatred held by many groups. Plus, there are multiple groups involved.

I would also state that it is very difficult to turn the other cheek (so to speak). The IRA were mostly acting at a distance. Hamas literally went into people houses and gunned them down. Israel has, on occasion I believe, done something similar but mostly at a distance. I am not sure there is an incredible amount of value in asking if it is ‘better’ to kill someone face to face with a gun or drop bombs on them from afar.

What could peace look like for future generations? What could be initiated now to allow the next generation to sit at a table and shake hands?

Hence why I was asking whether anyone agreed with my brief analysis of why things won’t be resolved anytime soon. The peace holds in Northern Island and view is that this is due mostly to cultural homogeny … what other reasons? What other factors are important? Are any relatable to the middle east?

People care about other people dying. That is a given. Who ‘cares’ more? Pfft is exactly my reaction to that.

I asked if people disagreed and to state why.

How long can we expect to wait? What measures can ease the transition?

So you cannot answer my question. Just childish behaviour. Great show

I make a genuine post and you call me a troll and then follow up with stupid.

If you do not wish to address my point that is your choice obviously. I think it was a valid point and an appropriate one to make on a philosophy forum.

I care that people pretend their tiny voice matters here or that back and forth moralising is in anyway useful/helpful in analysing the principle issues involved.

It could all be stopped tomorrow hypothetically. ‘Hypothetically’ not in reality.

‘Justification,’ the favourite term of those riddled with guilt. Actions need not be justified they speak for themselves.

None of us are privy to the details and I cannot say I actually care much about this whole nonsense. People will kill other people and those willing and able to act will act. Many will make poor choices based on biases and conditioning.

Conflicts like with the IRA were solved most likely due to a common worldview held between the opposing positions who had the power to act. I see no such common worldview present in this particular conflict and therefore no immediate way out of it. It is for future generations to try and patch up.

If anyone mostly disagrees please state why.

Maybe an external party could enter the scene and enforce a kind of peace … but let’s be honest. No one looks likely to do that anytime soon for fear of public/media backlash. As per usual the under-the-table politicking will continue and deals will be made and broken.

People do seem a little too obsessed in the horror in far away lands. What are you distracting yourselves from at home. Nothing? Or is this external conflict a vent for an internal one maybe?

This is not a choice. Emotionalism is a fact of human life.

So I am not sure what you mean by last resort. — FreeEmotion

Subjective. My point is that committing a violent act against someone (striking first) is not what a pacifist would do. Some people cannot be negotiated with (and say so). Such positions can require someone to act violently as a preventative measure.

I do not believe in some one rule fits all. Pacifism has its limitations but sounds fluffier than it can be if taken too far.

Let me put it like this …

If I tell you to shut up and you ignore me then I break legs and threaten to break the legs of everyone you know a love you would do what. If you resist I just up the stakes and threaten murder.

War and Violence are necessary to dispose of unwanted and hostile threats. It is not really that complicated. That is my point. The pacifist will sit idle in the midst of rape and murder trying to talk the perpetrator down instead of taking them out.

It is unjustifiable to adhere to pacifism in all circumstances. It is laughable that someone even thought I wanted non-stop violence and war. It is clear to all violence and war should be viewed as last resorts, it is not so clear that pacifism can be equally as destructive if adhered to rigorously.

Are you a pacifist? You sure as hell do not sound like one ;)