Is it objectively subjective, or is it merely subjectively subjective? — unenlightened

Are those the only choices?

it looks like you're incapable of forming a coherent argument other than to state that it's all nonsense without any support. I guess case is closed. I'm happy for you to feel superior in your condescending attitude without any constructive discussion, no matter how many imaginary forum rank points you have. Posting here on this forum is useless with people like you contributing negative value. Good luck. I guess should have taken your name literally. Arguing with you over philosophy is like watching the Presidential debate. So if you excuse me, I turn off the TV now. — bizso09

Hey dude, he is unenlightened. Maybe you need to do a better job enlightening him and stop bitching about how unenlightened he is. Everyone knows that already, his name is unenlightened!

I literally do not give a shit about Trump retweeting whatever trash he happens upon while internetting. You couldn't pay me to give less fucks. If you continue to be surprised and outraged by such behaviour, you deserve a shithead like Trump — StreetlightX

:rofl:

Trump retweets an implausible conspiracy theory about a staged killing of bin Laden, defends doing so because he doesn't know if it's true or not, and he wants people to judge for themselves. So you think the judgment of that is due to classism. I strongly disagree. — Relativist

Bin laden has served nothing better than the agenda of the Bush regime. All the rest is hype. Congratulations on eating it up!

Religion dies when people live (well). The correlation is inverse, and healthy.
— StreetlightX

What is the definition of religion, according to the article? I must have read way way way too fast — Merkwurdichliebe

Yeah. I searched. No definition. But it is an excellent compilation of statistics, and as everyone knows, I am a statistics guy

Religion dies when people live (well). The correlation is inverse, and healthy. — StreetlightX

What is the definition of religion, according to the article? I must have read way way way too fast

The scorn heaped upon Trump's personal (rather than political) behaviour had always had a humongous element of classism built into it. Trump does not act like how we want our rich people to act. He acts - shockingly - like a 'tasteless', that is to say poor man, with all the table manners of a prole. Liberals cannot stand this. His base love that fact. His unique appeal is a function of class dynamics, and he trades on it like few others can. — StreetlightX

I want more...on Biden too!

Correlation is existentially dependent upon a creature capable of drawing correlations between different things. — creativesoul

That is a bit of a tautology. It makes more sense to say "Correlation is existentially dependent upon a creature capable of distinction of determinate forms."

Trump is an incredible politician — Relativist

He is a master salesman. He knows how to sell bullshit as good as anyone who has ever sold anything. He has his opponents buying more of his bullshit than anything ever bought by any demographic in American history

Trump is in every way an establishment politician who has worked to better the conditions of the same corporate overlords who rule over American politics. That he does it while being a clown makes him no less establishment. In fact his buffonary has been a boon to them, allowing him to get away with far more than others who would be in his position. — StreetlightX

Genius! Why can't everyone see this?

Biden is a cunt whose 40 year long career in politics has contributed to immeserating millions in both the US and outside of it, I think everyone can agree rather uncontroversially.

He's probably a rather affable, pleasant man (with a penchant for young girls), but were he to drop dead tomorrow the net manevolance in the universe would correspondingly drop by a number of degrees. — StreetlightX

Genius! Why can't everyone see this?

Explain the physical-immaterial interface, both input and output. — Relativist

Is there a single point of access into the brain? — Relativist

If by access, you mean what is available to and can become accessible by the "brain", I might say through sensuality. But that wouldn't exactly be a single point, since there are five known senses.

Can the mind directly access every component of the brain? — Relativist

The mind: viz. what is known, or perhaps what could be apprehended through consciousness, knows very little about how the brain functions, especially in humans. So, this is yet to be determined by those scientist who entertain the notion that there is a correlation between mind and brain.

My opinion is "no", but if I have to speculate I might say that any component data in the brain, which could be hypothetically accessed by mind, would be experienced as memory.

Can my mind interact with physical things other than my brain? If not, why not? — Relativist

Again, mind is a very cool metaphysical concept. I could only hope things like telekinesis and teleportation were a reality. So I would answer here, based on the course of inquiry, that mind only has access to the organism to which it is fixed.

What becomes of the mind when the brain is dead? — Relativist

It definitely becomes brain dead. But I don't even know what the mind is, so I can't tell you what happens to it afterwards. If it is some type of ethereal medium which is somehow capable of assimilating corporeal substance, perhaps it has an autonomous existence independent of the body.

Did it exist before my body? If not, when did it come to exist? Did it pop into existence all at once, or did it slowly develop, like the brain? — Relativist

I'm not sure. But I know my mind came to be through a gradual development that in some way seems to recapitulate the historical consciousness of mankind as as species.

The mind also stores data into the brain: we can remember past thoughts, so it can't just be a passive reading. — Relativist

Maybe the data that is recorded in brain tissue is thought, afterall, the brain is a strange organ, being that it is incapable of physical sensuousness

How does an immaterial mind extract the data in a physical medium? — Relativist

By mediating the content into a negative form

I mean things like normalizing degradation of those with whom we disagree, and stoking hatred and division. — Relativist

You mean like drones strikes on foreign land? Or reducing opportunities for decent american citizens on behalf of the few? — Merkwurdichliebe

Thoughts draw on memories. Aren't memories stored in the brain? — Relativist

Have you heard the theory that the memory is stored in the tissue of the body, analogous to tape recording, and the brain merely acts as the processor for accessing those memories? I think there is a name for it but I can't recall. ironic huh?

To be good, believers obey the rules of a religious formal system. — KerimF

I must amend this to say: "believers obey [their conviction of] the rules of a religious formal system [which is generally, but not always, the source of their principles].

To be good, believers obey the rules of a religious formal system.
To be good, followers, supporters, citizens and patriots obey the rules of a civil/political formal system.
But it is also usual that one is ready to obey both kinds of a ruling system... to be on the safe side :)
By the way, a typical atheist sees that it is enough for him to obey one ruling system only — KerimF

You said it well :up:

The nonbeliever lacks belief, that is a quality of conviction which is unparalleled in relation to the believer

Believers must be kept dependent so the development of virtue is never seriously pursued. Sinners are forgiven, and in so doing kept dependent on a forgiver.

The development of virtue leads to independence. The nonbeliever may base their development on principles. — praxis

The nonbeliever may indeed base their moral development on principles. But those principles themselves are baseless and unprincipled. For the nonbeliever, moral principle can only be sourced from within as personal opinion, which renders morality a matter of subjectivity and nullifies a universal application - hence the nonbeliever is the epitome of relativistic. Even if it is adopted from an external source (viz. State law or church authority), the nonbeliever always apprehends and mediates it into a charge of personal opinion.

Yes, the believer is more likely to believe that they are moral beings due to their affiliation with ultimate authority, but that is an unfortunate illusion because it stifles moral development — praxis

It is a "delusion", not illusion. And you are incorrect! It actually cultivates moral development.

You're judging both Trump and Biden "scum" because they won't do the things you want done. — Relativist

Yes. But do you know what I want done, or are you assuming??? You know what happens when you assume, don't you? It makes you look like a bitch. Of course, I'm not assuming you are assuming here...I assume.

You must think the world is filled with scum. — Relativist

Absolutely, I hope you're not scum. But in all fairness, we're probably all scum, relativistically speaking.

I judge Trump scum because he is a narcissistic sociopath. Even if I believed the well-being of the country would be identical in 4 years, regardless of winner, I'd vote for the guy who'd not the narcissistic sociopath. — Relativist

Well I guess you wouldn't be voting for president this election. And if you would, I would applause your legendary naivety for its historical novelty.

But I actually think the nation WILL be better off with someone who displays decency and refrains from stoking negative, destructive passions.

To each his own. — Relativist

Negative, destructive passions? You mean like drones strikes on foreign land? Or reducing opportunities for decent american citizens on behalf of the few?

Take Muslim women for example. They cover their faces because it is the right thing to do. They wake up every day, and the desicion to cover their faces is made, every day. Now take the US citizen. They cover their faces because it is the right thing to do. But a year ago, no one ever contemplated that covering one's face would be the right thing to do. And every day, most people wake up and wonder if "they" will say uncovering your face is "ok", every day...almost.

You see?

Both believer and nonbeliever have the same internal moral intuitions. Their justifications (after the fact) differ, merely. — praxis

And before the fact too. I assume the fact you refer to is the ethical decision. I would say that the nonbeliever is more likely to justify a posterior, while the believer a priori, hence the believer is more likely to base his morality on principle.

I don't see the contradiction for the believer. Is it that he has created God in his own image? — frank

On the right track, but not all believers create their God in their own image, for many, God is completely alien, and their knowledge of God is suspended as it were. They still believe, but with a power that is derided by the unbeliever - what is called blind faith.

Now there is no contradiction for the believer, but to other classes of believers, and to all nonbelievers, the contradiction always arises.

Well put. So the non-believer can only arrive at moral absolutes by embracing delusion. Maybe it started as a coping mechanism, but it develops into a hidden contradiction. — frank

When it come to morality, both the believer and nonbeliever are deluding themselves. Only the delusion of the believer is, internally speaking, more coherent. Both are using morality as a coping mechanism that innately harbors hidden contradiction.

What do you think will take its place? — frank

With Biden, all of meaningless surface issues will likely reverse. But military policy will continue unimpeded, and American prosperity will continue to be sold out to foreign interests. And worst of all, black kids will continue to be terrorized and murdered by a police force which will continue to be inflated, meanwhile guns will continue to be stripped from guilty-til-proven-innocent violent non-offenders, while white kids continue with public massacres unimpeded by the overinflated police force (kinda ironic).

Finally, covid mandates will become a permanent public health measure.

Why would basing morality on principle be quite irrational without God?
— frank

How is a principle determined? If it is the word of God then that is a for sure the right thing. If it is just what an individual thinks, how can we be sure it is the right thought? — Athena

Good and evil. What is each, and by what criterion is each determined?

For someone that believes in God (a believer), there is an eternal structure to existence (sometimes referred to as essences). The believer relates to his existence in the same way a player relates to his game: there are rules, there is a right way to play, and hypothetically, there is a potentially perfect way.

For the believer, the very nature of existence imposes an absolute good upon him at the metaphysical level, hence there is an imminent and inevitable morality to which he is fundamentally subjected - there is a definitive ought. Hence the believer's morality is absolute, there are many wrongs, but only only one right. If the believer desires to think and act rightly, he will base his decisions on principle

There is another type of believer who believes that God relates to each individual on a personal level, and in that capacity stands as judge for each individual. Such a believer has a personal stake in the ethical, and an even greater reason to stand on principle.

On the other hand we have the nonbeliever, who has no necessary ethical obligation imposed on him. There is no proof, nor any reason to think that there is some eternal structure to existence, thus there is no external source by which the ethical could be imposed. Additionally, the nonbeliever does not believe in God, thus there is no internal source to compel his morality. The nonbeliever lacks the transfigured judge which is lurking over the shoulder of the believer at all times.

As far as morality is concerned for the nonbeliever, the rules can come from any source, internal or external, it does not matter. Any morality can be rationalized and justified, hence the nonbeliever only has access to relative morality.

In addition to this, the judgement of an individual can be reduced to mere appearance, because thinking or acting only become morally relevant under inspection. Whatever the nonbeliever can get away with is fair game. This is to say: no two individuals ever receive fair or equitable judgment...completely rendering "justice" into a relativistic notion.

Scum like Biden?! — Relativist

Absolutely scum. He's a lacky to the status quo. I hope he gets elected so you can see all the fucked up shit he never talks about, but that he plans on doing. But, it really doesn't matter who gets "elected", everything is going to keep getting worse... at this point in history, there is no indication that American decadence is reversible

45% think it is necessary to have faith in a God in order to be moral. — Banno

If a person has no belief in God, he can act morally. Yet, morality that is not grounded in principle is relativistic, and a matter of caprice.
So, for such a person to base his morality on principle is quite irrational.

The only reason Trump could win is because the US has a retarded two party system — Benkei

You forgot the second part: an even more retarded electorate that is willing to cast votes for scum like Trump and Biden

Yes, he's a blowhard and must be the most intellectually lazy President the U.S. has ever had [...] He's essentially someone's dumb uncle that accidentally became President. — Baden

Actually Bush was worse. It's simply the case that most Americans have shit for memories, and half the whiners who are obsessed with bitching about Donald T. are too young to know the extent of tyranny the globe suffered under Bush (and is still suffering today).

Yes, the dumbing down of the consumer by making things easy and automatic also benefits the manufacturer: — ssu

Consumers are about as dumb as it comes, hard to believe they can be dumbed down even further.
I would say Apple has mastered that strategy better than any other corporation.

This is fairly possible because I am influenced by theosophy, especially Blavatsky and Alice Bailey.

But, in general, collapse of some kind may be followed by a new beginning. — Jack Cummins

Theosophy views everything as epicycles within epicycles, and from that perspective, a new beginning is imminent.

Theosophy is a very cohesive system that is capable of explaining nearly everything through it's own terms, and in that respect, it is very interesting. Unfortunately, from a purely philosophical perspective it is hyper-speculative with a narrow focus on metaphysics. It hardly touches on epistemology and ethics, which is why it remains conspicuously absent in philosophical circles.

I don't see how your masturbation is relevant. — Metaphysician Undercover

My masterbation is relevant...don't make me show you. Joking, just joking

From a certain point of view change is the death of something. — frank

From the theosophical perspective, we are presently in the fifth kaliyuga, which would mean the demise and dissolution of the fifth planetary sphere. So no, not the sixth mass extinction from that point of view.

And that's just the reality now, tomorrow if you want to kill yourself by driving off a cliff, the car will perhaps drive automatically you to see a shrink. The horror, the horror... — ssu

Right! They are removing all the fun from vehicular mayhem. I'm really gonna miss the old chaos, but the new gods are calling for "safety for all". Right?

I agree about bleach, it gives everything that minty scorched freshness. I like it in my coffee.

Seriously though, the seatbelt oppression needs to stop. If we don't have the right to fly through windscreens, what's the point in living? — Baden

It really is the coolest way to fly