Everything that exists for me is due to consciousness of … I think what you may not have considered what he said was from a phenomenological stance rather than as a ontological or teleological one.

You will never know if you do not try.

Try thinking. It might help.

Destinations are a relatively modern human concept. Over the past couple of centuriess too this appears to be a rather weird concern of many … the ‘goal’ or ‘target’.

If someone is in need do what you can to help them if you feel inclined to do so.

Do the Welsh ask for reparations from the Italians? Do they demand that the profits from Parma ham be redistributed to Welsh ham makers.

As for colonialism I think it is a little bit silly to act like it was all brutal and oppressive with no benefits gained by colonised regions.

A good person with ‘bad money’ does good. A bad person with ‘good money’ does bad. Money does not care who handles it.

His good character remains intact. — Amity

:D Yes, many would disagree!

This guy and Streetlight are literally the two people who have been on this forum I had almost completely given up on.

You should perhaps check how they engage with others rather than assume because they agree with you and are reasonable to you that they are the same to others they have different opinions too.

Do not get me wrong lots of people act up sometimes (including myself). Generally though 90% of people can simply step away, rethink their approach or just avoid ‘derailing’ threads … lately this forum has seemed pretty poor on the quality front … maybe that frustrates some so much they just start taking it out on others? I have lost patience here for the most part lately due to people being plain lazy and simply voicing blind opinions as if they count for something.

Anyway, rant over :) Have fun here if you can.

He was full of empty opinions and probably just trolling. People like that should be banned. I have my own personal system for engaging with people here. He was on his last life with me and I am sure many others felt the same too.

Permanent bans do not stop people returning in another guise. If they return and change the way they engage with people then the ‘ban’ worked.

Bye bye. You literally have nothing to offer other than blind opinions.

What scandal? :D Seriously? :D

It is worth educating people. The reason I mentioned this was in response to something off topic that was also nonsense.

As for Bolsanaro … I doubt the ‘mob’ needed much riling given the amount of corruption in Brasil. The amount of money the government took as bribes not so long ago was astronomical and it does not surprise me that a good proportion of them do not believe Lula had no clue and are unhappy about him being elected.

It is up to Lula to steady the ship but I do not think the stain will go until he goes … even then it will take time. Scandals like that do not fade too quickly in people’s memories.

Like I said, I mentioned it because not many people know about with the primary focus being on US and British slave trade.

During this dark period of human history more slaves died in Brasil than everywhere else combined - so the estimations say - Considerably more. It is also believed around 40% of the slaves bound for the americas arrived in Brasil. Mostly men who were, if memory served me, typically castrated and/or worked to death - literally - then simply replaced by more men from Africa.

So if I was an african on a slave ship heading for the US I would have been far more likely to survive than those heading for Brasil.

Why? Many people do not realise how many died in Brasil. Or did you just think it was a ridiculous point?

Anything that destroys the lie of ‘patriotism’ suits me fine. The utter stupidity of ‘loving your country’ is plain silly. We are Earth peoples not peoples defined by imaginary borders with made up rules/laws to live by.

Should be haggis, whiskey and deep-fried heroin for that to work mate ;)

They are useful as a psychological tool. I have used them a few times.

Pretty sure you know this by the hints in the OP. The cards cab be interpreted in many, many ways and this allows the ‘reader’ to find out what they really think is best rather than merely they want to be true.

When I did a reading for one person the answer they saw was completely different to what I saw. I do think the technique works best for those emotionally invested because they really want to know what do regarding their question and so the unconscious mind presents itself.

If used seriously it works very well. If used for fun, or just causally, the results read are pretty random.

No. They are just perspectives not doctrines. No one has one simple view they adhere to in all circumstances and philosophical inquiries are about posing questions rather than seeking a path to follow.

The structures that govern teaching and nursing roles, their decision-making and rates of pay, however, are still determined according to demonstrations of control. — Possibility

I have no idea why you think that?

It is generally more simplistic. If you invest in ‘training’/‘educating’ then the pay off comes literally decade/s down the line. It is understandable why - in an economy based on profit - many people prefer to invest in what pays off next year/month/week rather than what pays off in 20 years or so … people have to eat and sustain themselves so the majority of what they have will be invested in tomorrow, next month/year rather than further down the line.

Of course the wealthy are more able to determine a better path for their children but overall the majority of people have to play in a system where they cannot pay their way out (in terms of better/best education possible).

Education is a tricky subject. Everyone has different ideas and governments tend to ignore what works in favour of what is already in place. Finland is the only country who did the sensible thing.

I assumed it was me :D guess not. I can read. There was no tag and it was directly under my post and fit enough for me to assume as I did.

If not no biggie ;)

I never said feminine/masculine traits are defined by sex. In fact I made that blatantly clear so read more carefully.

The rest of what you said has no bearing I can see. In terms of psychological traits there is a lot of variation to the point where stating any single man or woman must have this or that trait is complete nonsense. You can make some statistical bets because there are some reasonably large difference (as in ratios of 3:2).

We can take a thousand women and a thousand men off the street and be reasonably confident that the ‘differences’ (where they are commonly seen at their largest) will play out … it is statistics neither prove nor disprove ‘bias’ anymore than ‘explorer’ proved or disproved the existence of a teapot orbiting Saturn.

The reasons these traits propagate will obviously be due to many different factors including ‘culture’. I am certainly not saying it is black and white.

Anything else to put into my mouth?

It seems to me that male traits are seen in a more positive light than female ones still and that traits like nurturing, caring and kindness and forgiveness are seen as weaknesses. — Andrew4Handel

Yes. That has been a common trend for a long time. The ‘fairer’/‘weaker’ sex. Undoubtedly there are many hang ups still around that propagate these ideas. In reality all psychological traits are seemingly neutral. Even ‘moderation’ is bad in some circumstances.

In some cultures what you or I may refer to as ‘bravery’ would been deemed as ‘cowardice’. ‘Rashness’ viewed as ‘quick reactions’ depending on the success or failure of the action. We are fickle and stupid creatures, but it appears our ‘stupidity’/‘mistakes’ occasionally stumble upon novel solutions to hard problems.

The larger extent to which women have been, and are being, liberated across the globe is still transitioning and likely always will be. Stagnation is death. If no women/men are complaining it is not because there is nothing wrong, it is because they have lost their voice in the public sphere.

There has been a rather large push to create more female role-models in mass media. There are many different conflicting forces controlling these so-called ‘role-models’. Undoubtedly Wonder Woman was something of a sex symbol that was created to cater to both men’s and women’s fantasies.

I do sometimes get a little concerned when people act like ‘beauty’ is some kind of cultural creation. The hyper sexuality prevalent in advertising works. Everyone used to mock people like Mary Whitehouse but I think they probably did not listen carefully enough. There are certainly factors in society that are almost completely unchecked and out of governmental/social control. ‘Memes’ if you will.

All that said, I think there are good number of people wary of the power of AI and the influence it can exert over vast numbers of people. I do not think we are dumb enough to handover complete ‘control’ simply because we are scared of responsibility.

If I wanted to be more Chinese I would have to have skin colour and feature alterations under surgery to Match the biological reality of ethnic Chinese eating loads of Chinese food and learning to speak mandarin would not make me Chinese. — Andrew4Handel

It depends. I would actually say that being ‘Chinese’ is a cultural item rather than a biological one. Being ‘Chinese’ is not genetic as someone born to Chinese parents and raised in the US would, cultural speaking, be american if they were raised in the US and spoke only English and educated under the US system.

Nationalities are nationalities not genetic distinctions. There is obviously some ‘genetic’ similarity between peoples living the same regions for very obvious reasons.

The question underneath all this is the riddle of trying to define ‘culture’ … which is problematic as it covers practically everything a d is likely why many jump on the bandwagon when something is attributed to ‘culture’. Such ubiquitous terms are easy prey to misuse by over-application.

AI would choose the one they wish to suffer the most I imagine. A lone human is no longer ‘human’ they are just a defunct dead-end doomed to misery and suffering in pure solitude.

Who would likely suffer more I wonder. A man or a woman? If inflicting suffering was the purpose of the AI.

If you were serious and you cannot fathom why that comment is ‘sexist’ then you clearly have no idea what ‘sexism’ is. You are not stupid though and know what I was referring to … so why the game of ‘what do you mean?’

Provocation is the only reason I can see. So I am ‘provoked’ … merely to see if you go anywhere with this or have glaring double-standards :)

You jokingly viewed males and lesser than females. I was joking in my response too … unless you were serious?

Very sexist.

There are differences between feminine and masculine, but those are not the same as male and female.

In psychological terms there are differences but they are not huge. Women tend to be more risk adverse so that could be interpreted as ‘nurturing’ in some situations. There is also the argument for such differences being ‘cultural’ but I do not think that makes complete sense if taken too far.

Men and women are psychologically different but do not seem to be different to the same extremes that they are in physical terms.

In terms of positive characteristics you tend to see trends of women taking on more prominent ‘masculine’ roles in societies in modern times. In the 1980’s women even wore big shoulder pads to appear more ‘male’ and assert dominance in office environments. This was strangely anti-feminine yet also helped propel women into higher paid jobs etc.,.

In society womens’ ‘traits’ (if we can call them that?) are generally not rewarded because they are good for roles/jobs that tend to see long term benefits rather than short term benefits - hence the pay of teaching and nursing.

Note: A good proportion of men are feminine and a good proportion of women are masculine. I am talking in an ‘overall’ sense here.

Of course not. It is outdated and useless.

My knowledge of myself is both infinite and out of reach.

‘Knowledge’ for me is just ‘that which is under scrutiny’. ‘Pure Knowledge’ is that which I pay no heed to, such as the fact that I breath … but once it is brought under ‘scrutiny’ (into conscious attention) it is necessarily ‘questioned’ as an item rather than blindly happening whilst my focus is elsewhere.

It boils down to how you wish to use the term ‘knowledge’ and how, if you so desire, you wish to communicate this idea rather than just using it in a colloquial sense.

The ‘truth’ of lived life is often something I ignore entirely. I am very much in favour of the Husserlian attitude being that the ‘existence’ of something is irrelevant and only ‘experience of’ matters. So in terms of consciousness ‘truth’ is neither here nor there, it is just a term smuggled in from strictly delineated areas where it is of use. In life ‘truth’ is not clear because the rules and boundaries of life are indeterminate/undetermined … all we have is the ‘experience of’ and it can be too easy to extrapolate some rigid claim of ‘truth’ from that.

I would prefer higher quality content. Who wouldn’t? It is what is … a ‘stepping stone’, at best, onto other things, a pool of boredom and squalor at worst.

I learnt before joining this forum that it would serve mainly as a place to hone my writing and reading in a more critical way. That is all.

Bertrand Russell’s ‘A History of Western Philosophy’ is one well trod route so probably worth adding to the other suggestions too.

Honestly though, I would just look into a particular area that grabs you and just go with the flow. All roads lead to Rome ;)

Welcome to your own personal struggle with the age old ‘existential crisis’.

Life is. The rest is blind speculation that’s sometimes dressed up as ‘meaning’/‘purpose’.

Then they must exist in some capacity surely? Just because I cannot hold the number 1 in my hand it does not mean it exists it only means it has no visceral physicality.

I am very much on the side of phenomenology when it comes to this kind of debate. There is no debate. People can argue over this or that but I will always maintain (correctly) that ‘something’ is being argued over and the concept of ‘nothing’ is still something that exists.

Things that do not exist we cannot talk about or refer to. This is one of the most obvious things that Kant pointed out that SO SO many find hard to grasp. The Noumenon is a concept that ‘refers to’ the ‘lack of being able to refer to’ and some find that hard to get their head around.

What is meant by ‘good’ and ‘ethics’ are questions meta ethics deals with. It is not a means of prescribing or judging one view or another, just asking why we bother to make up different schemes of ‘value’ what we ‘value’ and what ‘value’ means too.

For me the point is more or less about what I state publicly being just a public statement. We all fall prey to ‘looking’ good to help ourselves. The real issue for me is to not waste time saying this or that to you or anyone else, but to shut my mouth and be brutally honest with myself and do my nest not to ‘pretend’ I am something I merely wish to be.

This is not something I would prescribe to anyone though. All I say is I strongly believe it is a waste of time debating ‘ethics’ because to debate you are already playing a social game rather than exploring your own take on the world regardless of whether others agree or not … it is important what others think because we are social but I do not see it as being the main reason I should act one way rather than another.

It would be easy to frame me as a ‘moral relativist’ and you can do so if you wish. I would not say that about myself though. I find ‘ethics’ to be unethical and ‘morals’ to be immoral.

It literally has to be as we are social creatures prone to self-deception and continually checking our own behaviour in various situations. Self-preservation most often trumps everything else.

If you have a discussion around women about women, then if you are a woman you would speak more freely as a woman, but around men or if you were a man the dynamic changes.

No matter how we sit in a social context there is fluctuations between individual and group ‘good’ ALL of which is mixed up in ignorances, different perspectives and various levels of ‘judgement’.

When it comes to ethical debate the real work is internal and excruciating… we are never willing to truly expose ourselves to ourselves let alone anyone else. Ergo, ‘ethical’ claims are far beyond the reality of the individual.

Meta ethics approaches these problems where ethics does nothing as it is never under investigation of itself as a concept.

If abstractions like words do not exist then this debate is non-existent.

If that is how we are using the term ‘exist’ (another abstract I should add) then maybe the reality of the term ‘exist’ exists less than say the concept of ‘number’? :D

Pre-language children (under a year old) react to inanimate objects appearing to ‘attack’ each other.

I am sure you would agree that base emotions are innate and if that is the case, being social creatures too, how can we not come develop ideas of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ due to mirror neurons assisting in helping us ‘feel’/‘understand the pain of others.

In general I do find the generall view of ‘ethics’ to be garbage. I am more about meta ethics as there is undeniably (as far as I can see?) a pretty strong case to state that ‘ethics’ is more of a political tool than a real investigation into the human conidition.

The Master Servant dichotomy will exist to some extend always and there will always be those that serve more than others.

Democracy at work (a 'true' democracy) would seem to result in some form of tyranny for some regardless of what we do.

The ideal is more likely to be systems that are used for certain circumstances. For large-scale projects a more tyrannical/authoritarian approach makes sense and the 'democratic' ideal would kick in right after said project is complete ... rather than the 'Master/s' holding on to power after the need has subsided.

None of them fit for me either but they did at least ask for closest answer.

Oh, sorry. I did not read your definitions properly. I guess my answer still fits ‘roughly’

Sounds like convoluted rubbish. I think I have the gist though. It is a tail-eating-snake kind of problem. In a highly ‘structured social environment’ the non-conformists appear as disorientated and confused. In a social structure far less rigid the ‘highly structured’ lives lived appear as disorientated and confused.

The main problem with taking this to any extreme, in any aspect of human sociopolitical make up, is that ‘society’ is necessarily a concept of ‘structures’ not a concept of ‘non-structures’.

I have said for many, many years now that if I was to venture out and write a philosophical work it would be titled something like “Dichotomies & Magnitudes” … I would not waste time with layers of analogies though and use the term ‘schizophrenia’ as a means of describing society (be this in terms of economics or any other societal category of thought).

Note: I actually believe that what is psychologically framed as ‘schizophrenia’ is basically unconscious contents spilling onto the conscious sphere. I believe that everyone had ‘episodes’ it is only that some recall them and others do not - but I am mostly referring to psychosis here rather than the specific brain-disorder of ‘schizophrenia’.

Thanks for insight. I might look into it one day. As is my initial impression is that this is probably something that will not appeal to me as it looks like an obscurantism.

I have no problem with wacky analogies and bizarre ideas, but when they have no real anchor and concatenate into analogies of analogies of analogies … nah thanks :)