The reason why I have not replied to this thread so far is that I think the perfect questions should be reserved for creating threads. Throwing all the ideas into this one, without even exploring them properly seems a bit futile, — Jack Cummins

But that’s not the purpose of my OP. Why not throw all your question in here and then address their strengths and weaknesses at contributing towards a better future?

The perfect answer is apparently ‘yes’. — Possibility

Only in the sense that it must be unequivocal.

For instance if the question was ‘Is there an objective morality?’ and the answer is ‘Yes, if there is a Higher Power?’ then the morality question follows the question of a Higher Power.

If the question was ‘Is there wisdom?’ then the answer cannot be ‘What is wisdom?’. It must be yes.

Of course you would not ask a question that would have no as an answer. The question would be one you believe is essential to creating a better future. It must almost be, if not necessarily be, a first cause.

If my question is about objective morality and the answer is yes, it’s true, it exists, then what reason could we as ethical creatures chose to ignore it. And if there was an objective morality then the behaviour of people, all people, would be according to those morals, the rewards would be apparent. Would people go against it? I don’t know. If the universe was moral then I would assume we are moral. But as a beginning the knowledge that an objective morality existed is a beginning to a better future. Governments would operate on those morals, justice would operate on those morals, treatment of others, treatment of animals or the environment.

You may have other ideas about how this state could be reached. I’m assuming that we on this forum all have some aspect of philosophy we believe that if applied would make for a better future.

There is a deliberate ambiguity to my question that gives freedom to the faculties of imagination, understanding and judgement. — Possibility

Which is no help at all.

"Hateful" being synonymous with harmful (as I reflect), the latter was neither stated nor implied to be an effect of the former. — 180 Proof

Harm (I posited that answer to my question). — 180 Proof

Answer: Harm.

Question: What is - do I/we find - "hateful"? — 180 Proof

You say here that harm is your answer to the question but deny it in your recent post.

And as my first post makes clear from edits in quoting your OP, Bretr, my concern with positing and then answering a 'philosophical question' is for living presently rather than, according to your premise, "making a better future" (which, to my thinking is a category mistake: philosophy is not comparable to politics, or vice versa). — 180 Proof

Why should you put the question in the category of politics? Just so you can rebuke it the OP? And how do you feel so confident in determining what and what is not a philosophical question?

“So what would that be: a Higher Power, an objective morality, wisdom or something you think would convince us not to harm?”

You're moving the goalposts. The OP makes no mention of having or trying to "convince" anyone of anything or to accept anything they do not already accept. — 180 Proof

I’m not moving the goalposts. The question you put forward, in relation to the OP, is

my experiment" consists in examining that ancient maxim only for clarity's sake, focussing on the key word "hateful", which when examined closer, translates as synonymous with harmful (if substituted for "hateful" in the maxim), or more concretely, with harm; and, only then, the ancient maxim can be more reliably applicable to everyday living. — 180 Proof

By you or by all those around you? How is it to be applied? By force, by the moral question, by examining the maxim for clarity? That is the convincing I’m referring to.


Edit: if philosophy is not an attempt to make living in the world more understandable to more people and to consequently create a better future then what is its purpose?

To state the question is to limit it to concepts in a grammatical structure — Possibility

Then so be it. That’s the ground the OP works on. So what would your question be?

Edit: sorry was that your question: could anything be possible?

Just out of interest what would your question be? It has to be one that is answered by a simple yes.

Who’s to say this ‘High Power’ is done creating perfection? — Possibility

We haven’t decided the Higher Power even exists. But if so, and even being perfect, it doesn’t negate the possibility that the creative process would still be happening.

On the other hand I don’t see why a Higher Power would need to work on creating the perfect world. A perfect world would be created instantly as a single Higher Power thought. A process suggests time and trial and error, a plan. A single thought, how much is needed for that to happen? It comes to us fully formed.

I was tempted to agree with you but from my perspective it’s not convincing enough. So my position on the perfect question to ask with the affirmative answer is still “Is there a Higher Power?”

what is to be learned from suffering? Endurance. If suffering is a necessary element of life, then what better than that morality offer us a virtue to combat it? — Todd Martin

Just to be clear, my idea of a Higher Power is completely hypothetical. The difficulty is that I’m asking people to apply logic to a something we don’t know exists or not: a Higher Power, objective morality, wisdom or why we are here. It’s a game, so we can make leaps of the imagination.

So when you talk about a perfect god you still include the existing structure of the world, I.e. your analogy about the falling body. Now maybe we could not live under any other conditions except that which now exists. But my question is, if we asked the right question (and it’s subjective because everyone has their own idea of what would make a better future), the perfect question, which does not have to be ambiguous, then you would receive the answer. If I asked is there an objective reality and the answer I received was yes, then that morality would be made clear and truthful. There would be nothing else to live by, the morality would be indisputable and we would live by it and that morality would contribute to a better future because everyone would live according to that morality. If you don’t think an objective reality would contribute to a better future I’m open to hearing about it.

An objective morality would certainly reduce the suffering in the world that is man-made. So the idea of an objective morality is limited in its success to creating a better future. The so called acts of god would continue. Though on the other hand an objective morality would mean that governments look after the communities better and so respond better to natural disasters.

The suffering of the world could only be addressed fully by a Higher Power, one, because a Higher Power is perfect and two, the universe was created by the Higher Power. Our perception of a Higher Power as we see it, through religious dogma, is limited in understanding. A true Higher Power would have no reason to create a world that included suffering. What would be the purpose of that, to teach us endurance? For what purpose would you need endurance in a world created by a perfect High Power?

Edit: I noticed the words “objective reality” appearing. That should always read “objective morality”.

Once the conspiratorial mode of thinking is adopted, the believer can no longer be reasoned with. — hypericin

There seems to be no chance of reasoning with you and the low regard you have for the right.

IMO suffering often does have a purpose and it can teach us important lessons. — BitconnectCarlos

If you want an existence with absolutely no suffering you're talking about non-existence, — BitconnectCarlos

I was saying that even if we managed to eliminate these social problems suffering is still intrinsic to the human experience. — BitconnectCarlos

If I was to chose a Higher Power it would be because that power was perfect; it could not be anything but perfect.

I can’t think of any reason such a Power would find suffering to have any purpose. And if it did I could not accept a world like from such a Power.

If I’m to chose a question that leads to a better future then there has to be less or no suffering at all in it. So I’m back to rejecting my choice of a higher power. — Brett

First of all, if one believes there is a Higher Power that is perfect then I see no reason why the world created by that power should not be perfect. Therefore there is no need for suffering, for what is there to be learned through suffering?

Now if the question was “Is there an objective morality?” and the answer is yes then, as I said to 180 Proof, the universe must be moral and so must we. In that case there would still be suffering that might not be avoidable. But if we were living the objective moral life there would certainly be less suffering caused by one human to another. Not a perfect future, but a better one.

[quote="180 Proof;

The question "Is morality objective?" — 180 Proof

That wasn’t my question.

This was the question I would ask of all possible questions in relation to the exercise I talked about in my post.

is there a higher power and is there an objective morality? — Brett

That’s different from “Is morality objective?”

If there’s an objective morality then it would make sense to live by it because it would mean the universe is moral and so are we by nature. In fact we could not be anything but moral.

In relation to the OP the question is addressed to which, if asked and answered in the affirmative, would lead to a better future. Ideally a perfect future, if not to a better future.

484024"]If, as an experiment, we were able to choose one question from a philosophical point of view [ ... ] and then having asked the right question, secured the answer, the truth, and made the decision to live by that choice [ ... ] what should the question be?
— Brett
Answer: Harm.

Question: What is - do I/we find - "hateful"?

and then strive to live by the ancient maxim:

What you find hateful, do not do to anyone.[/quote]

Question: What is - do I/we find - "hateful"?

and then strive to live by the ancient maxim:

What you find hateful, do not do to anyone.[/quote]

It seems to me that asking “What is hateful?”, which causes harm, doesn’t offer a result in terms of making a better future. To strive to live by the ancient maxim is not an answer because it begs the question what is needed for us to strive to do no harm?

So what would that be: a Higher Power, an objective morality, wisdom or something you think would convince us not to harm?

We should be wrong all the time. It's boring to be correct; nobody has anything to say about a sound argument. — Garth

An interesting statement. OPs where posters agree die very quickly. But that could be the nature of people the forum attracts. Very few people think anyone else is correct.

“Nobody has anything to say about a sound argument”. Yes, why is that, because there’s no friction?

“No” refers to what?

The point I'm making isn't even relevant to the OP in the first place. Your criticism of me is invalid, there's nothing to argue about. — Judaka

Yes, very true. No sarcasm intended.

So we’re not going to reach an agreed statement that defines creativity, because if we’re honest, we’d recognise that what we’re talking about (in its purest sense) transcends the relational structure of language. — Possibility

This is true. To me you tend to talk in a very structural way, like a brick builder. Which I need to adjust to understand what you’re getting at. What it does do is help crystallise some of my own thoughts and theories, which has led me to reading a bit about psychoanalytical reflections or interpretations of particular art. Also some comments about Wittgenstein and language have contributed.

It’s fine to me that this subject is difficult to tie down, it should be. So I’ll read your post more carefully tomorrow; red wine does not help.

Well rewrite it without what you think is ridiculous, if you feel they are?

What? You believe it is rational to believe something to be true when it's demonstrably untrue because...? Your logic? Or what? You also don't care about rationality? — Judaka

I don’t know what this refers to.

I complimented my fact-based argument with anecdotes, there's nothing wrong with that. — Judaka

If you just go out and do some social sport or dancing, your "unlikely" will become a "certainly" at least anecdotally. — Judaka

Your anecdotal evidence wasn’t related to any fact- based argument but to the idea that “If you just go out and do some social sport or dancing, your "unlikely" will become a "certainly" ...” There’s nothing factually reliable about that whole sentence.

What you're saying is akin to saying you can eat whatever you want provided you're physically active and that's just not true. — Judaka

That is not what I’m saying. This is what I said.

Inactivity would be a large contributor to obesity. — Brett

Also, overweight is NOT the same as obese, I am saying overweight as in 25-30 BMI or something. — Judaka

I used obesity because you had used it. So I don’t know what we’re talking about now.

If you just go out and do some social sport or dancing, your "unlikely" will become a "certainly" at least anecdotally. — Judaka

That’s a bit rich using anecdotal evidence when you condemn @Garth, saying “ I don't really want to hear what else you can makeup, you need to be fact-checking yourself instead of just believing whatever is convenient for you.

You used to be better than this.

lot of things don't make sense to us, but maybe when you consider the bigger picture things change a bit. — BitconnectCarlos

If I was to chose a Higher Power it would be because that power was perfect; it could not be anything but perfect.

I can’t think of any reason such a Power would find suffering to have any purpose. And if it did I could not accept a world like from such a Power.

If I’m to chose a question that leads to a better future then there has to be less or no suffering at all in it. So I’m back to rejecting my choice of a higher power.

What would compel us?
Moral habit (i.e. judging). — 180 Proof

So then I think the question and answer that would lead to your choice would be “Is there objective morality?”.

If that was the case then morality would compel us to do no harm. Even though you place reasoning before morality.

No you wouldn’t, I left out a word.

What would be the cause of us doing no harm?

What would compel us?

Not only is it possible to play sports or dance and still be overweight but inactivity is not the cause of American obesity, so there's really nothing here for you at all. — Judaka

I think it’s very unlikely that someone could be overweight and play sport or dance. Of course it’s possible but not long enough to count as anything. Inactivity would be a large contributor to obesity. Activity would certainly change it.

Edit:

Businesses are paying stars like Michael Jordan millions because they know he'll inspire people to buy what he uses because they want to be like him. — Judaka

Without actually doing anything except buying a pair of shoes made in a sweat box in a third world country.

Oh I see. I misconstrued your post. I’ll look up the link.

Edit: philosophically what would make us not harm? For instance if the answer to the question was the existence of a Higher Power then we would live according to the expectation of that Power. What would be the cause doing no harm?

People do not tend to get together and do things without a reason. Traditional culture creates these reasons. But the purpose of traditional culture is to help everyone in the community provide for each other. If we turn everything into competition and put it on the market, economies of scale will dominate and most of us will no long even have a reason to be excellent. — Garth

Having put it that way I do think you have a point. But I’m not sure if competition is behind it. I mean if the number of people sitting around watching tv as much as you suggest, which I don’t doubt, gaining weight, barely using their minds, then I don’t see competition as the cause. Unless you feel they have actually been defeated by the competitive world, which is possible. I agree that our traditional culture has been damaged. And it wouldn’t matter what that culture is, all cultures have been damaged. I said in another post that we have become the economy. That means, as individuals, we can never stop. If we do we sink. That changes priorities.

A lot of things don't make sense to us, but maybe when you consider the bigger picture things change a bit. Sure a baby might die a terrible death, but who knows that baby could be spending an eternity in eternal bliss. Maybe his death was necessary, who know are you to say it wasn't? — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, you’re right. Who are we to know the why of a Higher Power or what is happening that we are unable to see? So I go back to including the question of a Higher Power, which to my mind in this exercise is none of what we know as a Higher Power.

Question: What is - do I/we find - "hateful"?

and then strive to live by the ancient maxim:

What you find hateful, do not do to anyone. — 180 Proof

Would not that problem be addressed if objective morality revealed itself to us? And I hate to split hairs, as is done here so often, but what is “hateful”?

And now the question arises: "How is metaphysics, as a natural disposition, possible?" In other words, how, from the nature of universal human reason, do those questions arise which pure reason proposes to itself, and which it is impelled by its own feeling of need to answer as well as it can?....” — Mww

Do you mean that if this question was answered, that it’s existence was proven so to would be the validity of the question and so to the truth of the answers?

In other words, is the existence of a higher power necessary for there to be objective morality, or is it possible for such morality to exist without there being a higher power to insure its existence? — Todd Martin

In terms of the experiment I don’t see a Higher Power necessarily connected to morality. Morality could exist without a Higher Power. But if there was a Higher Power then morality would be an aspect of that Higher Power and therefore perfect.

"What is the answer to all possible questions?" There ya go. You answer that, there is no need for any other question. — Philosophim

That’s not the exercise. It’s which question applied to which aspect of philosophy, if answered as a truth, would contribute more than anything else to a better future, even a perfect future? Would it be the realisation that there is an objective reality, or that there’s a Higher Power, or that language is our undoing? There is, in this exercise, only one question. It resolves everything in its answer.

But, there’s always a but, would morality come from wisdom or wisdom from morality?
— Brett

wisdom is defined as both the true AND good.
— TheMadFool — TheMadFool

I had wondered if we could have wisdom without first having an objective morality confirmed first, that wisdom would follow that. But as you point out wisdom is both true and good. But wisdom would have to be such that it’s very nature answered every question perfectly, or contributed to a better future, as would morality I suppose. Objective morality seems more concise and formed than wisdom, but I’m not sure about that. Once objective morality became clear as a truth that put all questions in place or order, then all decisions would be correct. Morality would be defined. But could wisdom be defined. Not that I’m asking you of that, but would it be possible? Would there be clarity in those morals that could not be argued with? I would guess the answer is yes. Could wisdom do the same?

"Does the God of Abraham and Isaac exist?"↪Brett — BitconnectCarlos

I’m not sure if that’s your question or if it’s addressed to me. But having thought about I see a problem with the Higher Power idea. Not because it’s the God of Abraham, because a true Higher Power would be total, no cultural interpretations. But the problem I have is if the answer to the question “Is there a higher?” is yes then it always has been. So even though in being shown explicitly that a Higher Power exists and that it follows that there are the laws of this higher power and we are in the care of this higher power because we are it’s creation and all that follows is as was decided, I still have a problem with the suffering that has always existed which is not caused by the folly of man, like children being born with health problems, or anyone for that matter. If this has always been the way then it will continue to be so. If my choice is a Higher Power then the suffering must continue, which I could not agree to. So I reject my possible choice of a Higher Piwer.

I'd say the perfect question is, "how do we gain wisdom?" — TheMadFool

Yes because from wisdom would come all the science and laws that would be right, that would build a better future, what else could they be? But, there’s always a but, would morality come from wisdom or wisdom from morality?

Some of these questions will have multiple answers, because they are context dependent. — Garth

Theoretically, as an experiment, they are not context driven because the question has a true answer. If it was an objective morality there is no context, there is only the truth revealed to us from which we would then use as the foundation for how we live.

I think it helps focus on what is important to each of us. If we have a specific area we think contains access to this better future it also indicates what sort of future we want, or is it vice versa?

I find myself coming back to two questions (I’m allowed that because it’s my OP) : is there a higher power and is there an objective morality?

What makes you think these is a best? — khaled

I only used the word “best” in relation to the science that would follow the answer.

“A better future for ourselves and the world” was my original query. Surely you have some hopes for something.

That doesn't follow. A "beginning" is an event whether or not it is causal or acausal (e.g. vacuum fluctuations) — 180 Proof

But somehow we can never nail down that “event”.

Does anyone happen to know the etymology of nothing and something and their appearance in language in relation to each other over time?

The post is not about nothingness; I thought I made it clear it cannot exist. — Daniel

That’s funny. Was it meant to be?

The question that'll have to remain unanswered is whether our universe is the handiwork of the first cause or that of someone who appears at some other point in the long line of creators. Does it even matter now that there's a first cause, the simplest of the simplest "creator"? — TheMadFool

A nice post. But it seems to me that no matter how one addresses the question it always comes back to “first cause” and then we start again. So no first cause, no beginning and no end.

The people come to expect more and better forms of performance and entertainment, so that only the specialist or the highly trained person can meet these demands. — Garth

It seems to me, generally, that people have come to expect less in terms of performance and entertainment, or given up expecting it. It’s probably true that more people are able to take part in things that only specialists or the talented once did, which is probably a good thing. Except that ideas of excellence have come under question through the non-competitive ideology that there are no winners and losers, that everyone’s a winner. Which probably makes people feel good but does nothing towards improving our world. People still flock to the Olympics or football games. Which means they like to see people excel in what they do.

By demanding and pursuing some perfect and excellent way of understanding the world, we really do nothing but discourage our ignorant friends from participating. — Garth

I don’t think that’s true. I understand where you’re coming from but I think it does us no good to think in that way. Participation is important for the reasons you state, but the quest for excellence seems to be something important to us, maybe essential.

Ultimately it leads to this.

Should we even do philosophy at all? — Garth