I wear pants for the same reason. Damn fascist prudes infringing my right to hang loose! — unenlightened

What about those beloved cultural icons like Bugs Bunny and Winnie the Pooh, who aren't required to wear pants, what kind of message are we sending to the kids...Hang loose brah!

Millions and millions of people live on the belief that their little routine scenario, including what they hear at school and watch on TV, is all that exists in the world and anything that gets out of that box is madness or conspiracy theory. — bcccampello

Remember that the "lie" which those millions and millions of people base there lives on is not merely conditioned, it is inherited from an already existing culture. Anyone born to civilization is immersed in the culture from day one, and is incessantly bombarded by the lie henceforth. There is nothing else to know beyond cultural ethics unless one steps outside of the inherited cultural paradigm and plays with madness. Only then can one truly break free of the historically embedded ochlocracy. This has been the case throughout all of history, and anyone who has truly lived as a unique individuality has suffered the judgement of the culture.

Of course, this is not to say all of culture serves to suppress the potential of the individual, there are many positive things provided through culture, and the key to any solution lies in working out a balance.

The fear conditioning (in this case) goes beyond the potential dangers of covid. Myriad people are wearing masks and observing social distancing &c., simply to avoid persecution from strangers who have gone all in on pandemic panic. And, if not for that reason, they do it simply to be allowed into public places so they can buy food and other necessities for living. We are facing a classic mode of oppression that utilizes fear mongering in order to stimulate predictable behaviors.
It originates with fear (in this case, covid) and establishes new societal mores, and these alien social expectations inevitably incite a new fear (of being persecuted or excluded) in those who have not bought into the hysteria. In this way, everyone is made to play along, and in the end we create a brave new world together.

Your style is not unusual at all - there have been a half-dozen similar in the last year alone. — Banno

I don't think he was saying his style is unusual, but that you find something unusual in it

And a scotsman by any other name...nah mean?

We do need that physical contact. — ssu

Physical contact, which was already becoming swiftly antiquated in our high tech world, is one of the biggest casualties from this pandemic panic. Newspeak like "social distancing" and "self-quarantine" have reformed our society in ways that we haven't even begun to recognize.

You don't think covid is disastrous on its own? — Metaphysician Undercover

On it's own, absolutely not. I think that it's effect on the world has been somewhat devastating, but we have yet, not even begun to see the slightest extent of what real disaster looks like (i'm talking woman backs into the fan disaster)

WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!! :death:

Do you think that the flu is so much more contagious than Covid-19 that it will spread around more than the latter, despite all the mask wearing and distancing? You do realize that there are vaccines for the flu as well, don't you? — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm not speaking of contagion, the idea I am putting forth is that when flu season strikes it will do what it always does. You don't have to be very old or pay much attention to know that every year from approximately October to March, huge numbers of people are infected with cold and flu symptoms, and despite all effort to administer flu vaccines. Yes, cold-flu season will do what it always does, with one exception: it will conflate the covid panic beyond control, and the fallout will likely be disastrous.

What likely has happened is that working from home got a real boost from the pandemic and likely companies will look just how much office space they actually need in the future. — ssu

Good point. This is one of the new normal that I find interesting. I wonder if remote schooling will become a lasting reality as well.

Hey man, pushing yourself too hard is unhealthy...Face it, you have an unhealthy attitude toward work which you try to portray as good by calling it "reliability". — Metaphysician Undercover

I like your passion, but we just have a different work ethic, I can respect that. Sometimes being responsible and disciplined requires one to push hard. If one's responsibility and self-discipline in pushing hard is unhealthy and should be avoided as such, then the prospects of excellence in the world look dim. Imagine if all the historic world figures were prevented from pushing themselves too hard because it is "unhealthy", we'd all be living in caves.

Nevertheless, I balance my rigorous work ethic with astounding feats of laziness on my designated days off (I woke up at 2pm today), so you don't have to worry about me burning myself out. :blush:

That all said, my personal work ethic has no bearing on the potential implosion that society will incur when flu season kicks off in Covidworld 2020

Yes. But not as a major. — ssu

Philosophy should only be a personal endeavor, because philosophy will not enable you to change the world, nor will it enable you to change anyone else's opinion, but it will definitely change you (if you study it with genuine interest and an open mind)

is it worth studying philosophy?
— ramo

No. If you have a choice, don't. — Banno

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Most of the contributors to TPF have no choice

Basically the societies are adapting to a "new normal" of pandemic. — ssu

It is appaling how fast the tyranny of the masses can effect a new "new normal". I'm pretty sure the "old normal" is dead and extinct. I mostly feel bad for the kids who are growing up in a cowardly faceless world.

It sounds like you've got some bad habits. It's not healthy for the individual who is sick, or for those in one's surroundings, for a person to go to work sick. So why adhere to such irrational principles? — Metaphysician Undercover

You are hilarious :lol: I've never heard anyone refer to "reliability", or to "going into work" as a bad habit. Personally, I have always, regarded unreliability and the avoidance of one's work obligations as bad habits.

Going into work when sick is far from irrational for anyone who wants to eat. And it's even farther from the irrational for those who have bills to pay, unless of course you can find some sucker to pay them for you.

My point is, the average flu might knock a person out of work , maximum, a week. But, this season, everyone who gets flu like symptoms will be out 2 weeks, minimum. It's going to be interesting to watch.

I don't know about you, but I would never go to work if I had the flu. Why would you even think of doing such a thing? — Metaphysician Undercover

Two reasons:
2)I never call out...ever. and
1)I go into work every day, no matter what

You don't offer any basis for this claim. It sounds like you are assuming panpsychism, which is not generally accepted. Perhaps you could offer a more detailed account of why you think everything living is conscious. — Malcolm Lett

I couldn't get over the fact that even the simplest of creatures are involved in a process of self organization, and I asked myself am I always involved in a process of self organization, and concluded yes. So I arrived at a definition, and tested if the definition works for the universe and concluded that it did. — Pop

I see no reason why consciousness should be exclusive to organic lifeforms. If consciousness is indicated by the impulse towards self organization, what are the implications in considering that the atom indisputably factors as one of the greatest organizations known to man? On another hand, if a particular degree of intelligence is a nessecary criterion for indicating the presence of consciousness, consider AI.
It seems that the hylozoist perspective has more hope in the present day than has ever been seen in the history of man.

This makes basically having any old flu a reason for one to take a corona test and quarantine oneself for the time and hence a lot of people are tested...you have countless examples of people going to self quarantine until the test comes back negative. — ssu

It is going to be very interesting to watch what happens when flu season really pops off in the next few months. It is highly likely that masses of people with flu-like symptoms will be prevented from going into work at a rate "hitherto unseen" - such a thing would be detrimental to economy and society. Does anyone know if there been any word from the experts about the possibility of this?

In short you admitted that objective truth exists. We could all argue which percentage of objective truth is actually really objective truth. Most people would argue relationships matter and then we could all argue how much relationships matter in relation to things that are typically argued to be practical matters (things completely separated from human relationships). As long as two people both agree that subjective truth and also objective truth exist, how much is left in an argument over post-modernism is up to how much energy the two people want to expend arguing/debate about it. Unless you have some side topic in relation to post-modernism, i have no reason to continue the debate at this point in time — tilda-psychist

I have nothing in particular to contribute, just experimenting with thought. I will just add, like everything else, postmodern values are not necessarily bad, and in fact have much merit, for example, providing a powerful basis for individuality. Unfortunately, like most ideological constructs, its greatest proponents tend to drive it towards a radical interpretation and implementation. They key is to use it as a tool to balance out rigid convention, not to make ourselves tools in service of postmodernism

You could probably argue that Hollywood sometimes promotes post-modernism. If it 10 years 90% of Hollywood or mass media movies promote post-modernism as well as far left liberal ideals, you could thus say that most of humanity has chosen a new set of subjective truths to be objective truths. — tilda-psychist

Yes, Hollywood definitely does, and I think it does it in a very irresponsible and socially unhealthy way. As far as a new set of values, I believe most of humanity has been shifting to a new set of objective truths since the Enlightenment era, and we are getting really close to permanently displacing the old truths, I think it has to do with the internet. And I agree, subjective truth is becoming the new objective truth, and that is a scary prospect. The bottom line is, in order to maintain healthy individuals in a healthy society, a balance needs to be cultivated.

Considering economics and money and also resources is tied into everything, i believe this will happen whether i win this argument either way. I'm just cutting to the chase right now. I believe the conservatives have conservative options but they reject conservatism because they would also at the same time accept that their own biases are the main cause that our society is not conservative. I could sit here and argue with you about post-modernism but i believe our society's acceptance of post modernism stems from a lack of true conservatism among conservatives. Everything is linked to economics and resources in my opinion. — tilda-psychist

To clarify, I wasn't arguing, I just figured your thoughts made a nice contrast to some ideas I had, so I just wanted to share a different persective. I don't necessarily think you are wrong about anything we've discussed.

And that statement "post modernism stems from a lack of true conservatism among conservatives", couldn't be more accurate. Conservativism is being swept along in the wave of postmodernity, and is as much a victim to postmodernism as anything else in this era.

i certainly don't doubt that subjective truth exists. This may seem counter-intuitive but i would argue that embracing the concept that objective truth exists allows for the concept of the moral victory. On the other hand if we take the pursuit of objective truth out of hand it can destroy the concept of moral victory. I'm sure you would agree striking a balance in anything is important. — tilda-psychist

I like where you're taking this. I don't deny objective truth exists, I just hold it to be a different (and a lesser) kind of truth than subjective truth.

I would disagree that the moral victory relies on objective truth. For starters, there are myriad conflicting moralities based on corresponding objective truths, which in turn, can do nothing to reconcile their differences. So, I can only surmise that when you mention the concept of the moral victory depending on objective truth, you are referring to a "might makes right" scenario in which the superior morality is capable of total domination, and of enforcing its ethics upon all others.

As I see it, the moral victory depends on subjective truth. That is to say, it does not come in one's subscription and adherence to personal principle or an ethical code, the moral victory depends on the decisiveness of the subject; the moral victory comes in the moment of choosing how one will act, and choosing rightly insofar as right is determined by subjective truth.

I believe I am a subject, and I believe in other subjects, and though it is impossible to objectively prove that there is no such thing as subjectivity, I know @Banno will try. One thing I do know, if you begin doubting subjectivity, you will eventually face yourself in solipsism, and such demonic masturbation I prefer to avoid.

i can see why you believe this. Alot of what i believe stems from religion and to some extent pan-psychism and scientific determinism (~Fate). — tilda-psychist

Same with me, my thoughts here are closely tied in to my religious belief. At the core of it, I believe anything in life is only related to anything else indirectly - through mediation. Yet I make one reservation (which I can only justify by virtue of the absurd): that there is actually one thing that can relate directly to other things in life (requiring no mediation), it is the subject (qua. the thinking, existing individual).

I believe absolutely everything can be quantified including the personality of people. — tilda-psychist

Quantification is nothing more than mediation with mathematics. And since it is possible for the thinking individual to mediate anything in life, all it takes is a basic knowledge of mathematics for one to quantify shit.

I believe there is a connection between everything including apples and oranges (don't compare apples to oranges). Some things have a one to one relationship, some a linear relationship, some a inverse exponential relationship and some things an exponential relationship. Then you have things like bell curves. Ofcourse we have to also consider constants and coefficients. — tilda-psychist

Everywhere I look, wherever I see a relation between two or more otherwise independent things, I see an imposition and a synthesis of convention - that is, every connection I see in life has been placed there in some manner by mankind. That is why I believe there is no natural and necessary relation between any two things in life, including the relation between a thing and its identity. Yet there is a practicality with convention, a dependabilty from its having been tested, and many conventions are so intuitive that their relating of things is practically seamless despite the fact that the relating of anything to anything else is essentially a process of mediation - an artificial relation.

Would it be fair to say the ontology of things encountered in mathematical study do not all correspond to physical objects which are seen, felt, heard, smelled, or tasted? Do I leave something out of what you are trying to say when I make that distinction between mathematical phenomena and "lived" (i.e. physical) phenomena? — Adam's Off Ox

The only thing I would amend is the notion of mathematical phenomenon and lived phenomena. The former is a contradiction of terms and the latter a tautology. That is to say, life is ever and always phenomenological in each and every aspect, whereas there is no such thing as mathematical phenomenon (althought it is correct to say pure mathematics is itself a phenomenon or phenomenological) since any relation between mathematics and life is mediated by logical deliberation. It can be emphasized that, even if purely conceptual mathematics can be indirectly related to actual life with logic, it by no means is a causal necessity, hence there is no necessary relation between mathematics and life.

Here's another thread for you not to read: Subject and Object — Banno

:rofl:

So... 12 has no relation to life, except when it does. — Banno

Exactly, just like the claim: "it's raining except for when it isn't". To bring it back to the OP, when it is true that it actually does, that would be an example of an objective truth.

Damn; he's on to me. — Banno

Love you Banno :kiss:

Neither of those arguments is valid, let alone cogent. — Banno

Translation: you disagree because it is over your head.

i disagree. I don't know how we would prove each other wrong. — tilda-psychist

Let's suppose you bought a dozen eggs, you are no longer dealing in pure mathematical truth, you have now introduced something external and independent to the universal idea of 12. More importantly, the mathematical concept "12" is only related to life, in this case, if you actually did buy something, and they were actually eggs, and you actually expected to receive a specified amount. Otherwise 12 in itself has no concrete relation to life.

me explaining again how objective truth is not a thing. — Banno

If it's not worth explaining again, it probably has no merit. And I can easily prove wrong the proposition: "objective truth is not a thing", because it certainly is a term, and a term is a thing.

Well, that's wrong for starters. — Banno

You are incorrect. By your logic, every time I perform a mathematical function it should be accompanied by some corresponding external phenomenon, which is absurd. If you are saying that performance of the function itself suffices as its own phenomenon, then you are admitting that it indeed has no relation to life.

mathematical truth is purely conceptual, as such it has no relation to life and hence no objective actuality, which means nothing can be apprehended as an objective truth through pure mathematical deliberation (if there is such a thing).

But you agree then, we never know the truth — we only arrive at an approximation — Adam's Off Ox

Yes, and the truth of consensus is not excluded. But I can arrive at my subjective truth via reflection - what I think I believe at present, and althought it may be impermanent or subject to temporarility, it is by no means an approximation.

Would you be willing to offer more understanding of how you use the word 'relativistic'? I'm familiar with 'subjective'. Do you intend the two words as synonyms — Adam's Off Ox

No, they are not synonyms. I find this to be a common misconception. Subjective truth is not relativistic, and because of its immediacy, it is probably correct to say it is absolute.

Can you explain how we arrive at "objective truth", whatever that is? — Adam's Off Ox

The scientific method, followed by conventional history, seems to be the closest process by which we arrive at "objective truth", and whatever that is, it is at most a relativistic approximation.

Covid-19 is just another excuse for self appointed intellectuals and experts to stick their heads further up their own asses.

See: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7736/coronavirus

Sadly, that probably won't cost him one vote. — Baden

:rofl:
I could add on so much, but :cheer:

Interesting article, I thought it might be relevant here:

Reports suggest many have had coronavirus with no symptoms

A flood of new research suggests that far more people have had the coronavirus without any symptoms, fueling hope that it will turn out to be much less lethal than originally feared.

https://apnews.com/d20f283318c86bec3cc2d3d7936a9612

Fuck everyone else too. Most of them are brain fucked. :wink:

But give me a bit, I will explain more about eternal return, at least how I interpret it. Standby...