↪Frank Apisa
It's not delirium, genius. They argued with God's intermediaries against God's intentions.

Intentions that lead to the wiping of civilisations.

Moses never wanted the Exodus, neither did Jesus want to be crucified. — Shamshir

So you are saying you have bought into their delirium?

Shamshir
244

Who gives a rat's ass about what people "claim." — Frank Apisa

When the people in question are Abrahamic prophets who dispute your claim in its entirety, it's you who should care. — Shamshir

Why?

Do you suppose their delirium less disputable than those of someone like the posters here in PF?

Shamshir
244

In a discussion of childbirth... — Frank Apisa

Then let's hold off the word fuck for discussions of intercourse, rather than air out our dirty laundry, using it every which way - what say you? — Shamshir

See above.

I like sushi
975
↪Frank Apisa
Why is it directed my way? I almost completely agree. I may have worded it a little differently. — I like sushi

I directed it at everyone who had responded....because I wanted to keep everyone coming back. This has been a bugaboo with me for years.

I appreciate that you are of like mind about the issue.

To quote Stephen Fry when someone says to him, “I find that offensive”:

“So fucking what!?” — sushi

Stephen Fry is my kinda guy!:wink:

We can always simply say back to them “I am offended by you taking offensive!” It goes nowhere fast. — Sushi

Bingo!

Of course I would say that in certain circles certain speech is more acceptable. I’m not saying we should, or shouldn’t, all go around purposely trying to offend each other - sometimes it’s better to cause offensive than to try to not cause offensive because life is tough sometimes so you’re going to have to deal with more than mere words (ie. If you’re starving to death or coping with the death of a loved one). In those circumstances words can help mend, but it makes us realise that words have a very limited reach in both expressing emotions, complex ideas and thoughts.

I agree.

And of course, I do not use "adult language" (what a horrible descriptor for it) in many settings.

But the discussion here is appropriate.

I appreciate you and your comments, Sushi. As for sushi...I love California Rolls...but that barely qualifies as sushi. We have a buffet that has sushi...and I often get salmon or tuna...which most sushi eaters consider barely qualifiers also.

LOVE sushi rice. Make my own...and use it on plain on nori.

Shamshir
240

ANYONE who accepts that there is a GOD can read the GOD's mind.

It will tell them exactly what they want to hear. — Frank Apisa

No? Neither Jesus nor Moses nor Ezra nor Daniel nor Muhammad, to claim a few, could or claim that they could read God's mind.

And their stories all undergo surprise after surprise. — Shamshir

Who gives a rat's ass about what people "claim."

I can "claim" to be billionaire. Does that mean I am a billionaire?

I can "claim" to be 6'2", 210 lbs. with no fat. Does that mean I am?

I can "claim" to be honest. Does that mean I am?

What are you doing in a philosophy forum, Shamshir?

Read what I wrote...and see if you can tell what I was communicating.

Brett
451
↪Frank Apisa


I don’t think these words exist by accident. You feel they should be for every day use. But if that happens then they’re no longer the word they were. — Brett

"I" is used every day...millions of times. Are you saying it no longer is the word it was?

"Don't" is used every day...millions of times. Are you saying it no longer is the word it was?

"Think" is used every day...millions of times. Are you saying it no longer is the word it was?

"These" "words" "exist" "by" "accident" are all used every day...millions of times. Are you saying they no longer are the words they are?

ANYONE who accepts that there is a GOD can read the GOD's mind.

It will tell them exactly what they want to hear.

I've had several people claim conversations with their god since discussing this topic on the Internet. I always ask, "Did the god say anything that surprised you...something you did not expect?"

Never have gotten a true "yes" as a response.

Shamshir
238

Prick is as good a word as penis to indicate the male "member" (there's a beauty) — Frank Apisa

Would you also call a woman a cunt with the beauty of childbirth in mind? — Shamshir

In a discussion of childbirth...rather than "...after passing through her cunt" should work just as well as "after passing through her vagina."

As for your specific question, if "woman" had become the "foul language" and "cunt" the accepted...you question would be formed in the opposite direction. Why have we decided that "cunt" is unacceptable? It is a word...a fucking word.

Brett
450

For me...the notion that someone will essentially say, "If you use certain words, I am going to be offended"...is so idiotic, it embarrasses me to have to deal with it. — Frank Apisa


It’s worth considering that some of the words you are talking about are used specifically to be offensive, to insult someone or denigrate them. Let’s not pretend these words are always used innocently. — Brett

Egg Zacherly.

And the only way that can come to pass...is if people allow certain words to be "offensive."

In any case, if Rex Tillerson had called Trump stupid rather than a "fucking moron"...the insult would have been just as great. So why not stick with "fucking moron."

Brett
450

For me...the notion that someone will essentially say, "If you use certain words, I am going to be offended"...is so idiotic, it embarrasses me to have to deal with it. — Frank Apisa


I didn’t say I was offended. — Brett

I didn't say you did.

Fact is, a better case can be made that individuals who do not use those words are, de facto, more limited in vocabulary. — Brett

Go ahead, make your case.[/quote]

Shouldn't have to. It is obvious. BUT...

...all other things being equal, a person unwilling to use certain words has fewer to use than someone willing to use those words. Fewer words = a more limited vocabulary.

What is UA, LHF?

The above comment is directed to:

For me...the notion that someone will essentially say, "If you use certain words, I am going to be offended"...is so idiotic, it embarrasses me to have to deal with it.

To any of them, I say, "Just stop being offended by words."

Prick is as good a word as penis to indicate the male "member" (there's a beauty)...so why arbitrarily say one is acceptable and one is offensive?

Why agree to do that?

Coitus, copulation, intercourse...are all acceptable...but to use "fuck" for one of humanity's most enjoyable activities is offensive?

What kind of joke are we playing on each other?

Anyway...anyone who thinks use of those words (or any of the other offensive words) is indicative of a limited vocabulary...are dickheads. One can have an extensive vocabulary and still enjoy using those words. Fact is, a better case can be made that individuals who do not use those words are, de facto, more limited in vocabulary.

I like sushi
958
WARNING! ADULT CONTENT:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sEJ7l0kfDic — I like sushi

Egad!

Echarmion
338

Why designate ANY words as offensive? Why not stop being offended by people using words at all? — Frank Apisa


Not relevant to adult language, but language shapes belief. How people say things matters, because human psychology is sensitive to it. — Echarmion

I agree.

But, as you noted, not truly relevant to what I am suggesting. (Some considerations of it in this context will probably be made if others are willing to discuss it. But we are so deep in our feelings about adult language that many people will not even deign to discuss it.)

As for your comment, "...but language shapes belief"...I have MUCH more problem with words like "belief" or "believe" than I do with the words designated "adult."

Believe and belief seems to me to be useless words...used in so many ways as to make them unrealistic for communication.

Shamshir
222

Nonsense. But we will talk more about this when I post the thread I'll eventually get to. — Frank Apisa

It's just the natural order, buddy - which governs both our responses, mind you.

Bullshit. — Frank Apisa

See? Fecal matter. Poor hygiene.

More bullshit. — Frank Apisa

Yeah, more fecal matter. Are you trying to replace the word philosophy with 'the love of fucking wise shit'? Cause that's all adult language is good for in the layman's hands.
And is the driving force of the modern ape. — Shamshir

Bullfuckingshit!

Anyway...I decided to do a quicky on the thread I talked about...and have posted it.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5949/adult-language

Stop by...if you are mature enough to deal with it.

Shamshir
217

The Martians did not consider cannibalism to be immoral...and in fact, considered it a necessity. — Frank Apisa

What Martians? — Shamshir

Heinlein's Martians. Stranger in a Strange Land.

Morals are a product of convenience and agreement. — Frank Apisa

Nay. Moral is a pre-ordained law, whereas human moral convictions are supoositions.

Nonsense. But we will talk more about this when I post the thread I'll eventually get to.

Making certain sounds (speaking certain words) is considered vulgar.

Why? Why on Earth would there be agreement on something like that? — Frank Apisa

Because words carry great responsibility and can be misused.

That I agree with completely. "Morals" is one. "Believe" and "belief" are two more. "Atheist" is one.

But "adult language!"

C'mon.

Adult words often show poor verbal hygiene...

Bullshit.

... and tend to be misused; which is the equivalent of eating with dirty hands, something you teach your children not to do.

More bullshit.

Does that answer your question?

It tell me a bit about how you feel on the topic.

I thank you for that.

When I post the thread...I hope you participate.

We will differ considerably on how we feel about the issue.

No, Shamshir...not cannibalism. :wink:

A joke actually. I thought that was where you were at with you comment.

As for the actual thread question:

One man's immorality is another's necessity.

Heinlein had Valentine Michael Smith's cannibalism as a true need. The Martians did not consider cannibalism to be immoral...and in fact, considered it a necessity.

Morals are a product of convenience and agreement.

I'm gonna do a thread on what is known as "bad language" or (even more absurd) "adult language."

Making certain sounds (speaking certain words) is considered vulgar.

Why? Why on Earth would there be agreement on something like that?

Shamshir
214
↪Merkwurdichliebe
I've eaten my own meat. So either I'm human or I'm not. — Shamshir

I've never been that flexible...although I gotta admit I have given it a try at times. My big worry was that I would break something and be found upside down in a corner unable to move.

Good luck with this, Nasir. Not my cup of tea.

My guess is there is a lot more to the true nature of the REALITY of existence than we humans KNOW...and probably a lot more to it than we humans can KNOW.

I KNOW, however, that lots and lots and lots of humans haves guesses about the unknown...and present them as something more that just guesses.

Often (perhaps, always) they get past this by using the words "believe" to substitute for "guess."

You seem to be doing that here...although I will acknowledge you are doing a much more complex job of it. (I actually appreciate the way you are doing it more than I appreciate most theistic or atheistic approaches to the issue.)

The question I would ask myself if I were you is, "How do I know I am not deluding myself?"

(Unfortunately, there is no honest answer to that question other than, "I cannot know.")

Valentine Michael Smith figured it was not only moral...but obligatory.

Hey, Nasir,

First…sorry about that “golf course beacons me”. Obviously I meant to write “beckons me.”

Now…considering all that you wrote in response to my request for you to clarify your use of the word “believe”…I came away from the response not less confused.

The words “believe” and “belief” have been savaged by over-use. Neither has any significant meaning…and often context does not illuminate.

Here is a list of “believe or belief” being used. I’ll ask you to inform me which is the closest to what you were trying to say in your two uses in question.

1) I “believe” I’ll cook hamburgers for dinner tonight. (Hamburgers are going to be on the table tonight.)

2) I “believe” Tacitus will win the Belmont Stakes next Saturday. (Tacitus may win…or may come in last. But I have done the handicapping…and I am going with Tacitus.)

3) I “believe” (in) God. (Much better stated, “It is my blind guess that a GOD exists.”)

4) I “believe” there are no gods. (Much better stated, “It is my blind guess that there are no gods.)

5) I “believe” Aquinas makes more sense than Augustine. (Better stated, “the teachings of Aquinas make more sense to me than those of Augustine.”)

6) I “believe” a single-payer system is our best bet. (Better stated, “It is my opinion that a single-payer system is better than any other idea proposed.”)

7) I “believe” we can do it in two weeks. (Better stated, “I estimate we will take three weeks to fix that problem, but I want to get the job, so I am going to shave the completion time a bit.”

So…when you wrote, “…that knowledge is ultimately about me believing that I believe truly”…which of the above most describes how you were using it the first time…and which the second time?

If you would rather not discuss this aspect of the issue here...let me know. I can ask you privately...or just drop the question.

Nasir,

so much to consider in your last post. I will read it again later and attempt to understand it. (The golf course beacons right now.)

I thank you for the time you put into it...and for the emotion.

Be back later or tomorrow.

And that is the point, my friends, that ultimately it seems, even in language, to me, that knowledge is ultimately about me believing that I believe truly. And that is it. — Nasir Shuja

Some of your earlier comments were interesting...and I might consider them more fully at some point. BUT...this last sentence was an abomination...and I think you ought to consider what you suppose you said more carefully.

If you are telling me that you "believe" that you "believe truly" (ergo knowledge)...what in hell are you actually telling me?

What do you suppose that means?

Put the thought you suppose you were transmitting to us...into other words. I'd love to have a better sense of what you are selling here.

Terrapin Station
9.2k

as per usual, you guys still haven’t moved past semantics. no wonder it is said that “philosophy is dead;” the philosophers today know nothing of the nature of being. — TheGreatArcanum


For one, should I be surprised that you'd reach conclusions about "philosophers today" based on posts on this board? — Terrapin Station

Please...not when I am drinking orange juice just above my keyboard.

Now I gotta clean the keyboard...and it is an odd, not even, year.

AJJ
216

Terrapin has been attempting to do that...to little avail, AJJ.

What do you mean when you use the word "believe" the way you did in the OP? — Frank Apisa


No mate. Here’s what you said:

This could be resolved if we just eliminated the word "believe" from the English language. — Frank Apisa


So you should first of all explain that. And...

Obviously AJJ is using that word in one of its least desirable, least useful, idiosyncratic forms. — Frank Apisa


You should explain how I was using the word, since you’ve claimed to know, and then explain what the correct way to use it is, in your view. — AJJ

AJJ...I think even you do not know how you were using it.

A fact...IS A FACT.

You do not have to do any "believing." It just is.

IF matter actually exists (it may not)...then it exists whether we humans "believe" it or not.

In any case...when you used the word "believe" in the OP...

...did you mean it the way it is used in any of these examples of the word being used?

a) I "believe" I will take a shit before heading out to the golf course.

b) I "believe" you are just fucking with my head with all that "altruism" nonsense.

c) I "believe" (in) God.

d) Do you "believe" in flying saucers.

e) "Believe" me...this is going to hurt me more that it is going to hurt you.

f) I "believe" he was lying when he said he loved me.

g) I "believe" that mother-fucker would kill me before he would ever concede I was right about that thing.

h) If you "believe" everything and anything is possible.

g) You gotta "believe" or you will never make it to the top.

I could go on and on and on and on...but that is enough for now.

If there are no objective values then there are no facts (since there’s nothing that we ought to believe). There are facts, therefore there are objective values.

Any claim that there are no facts (nothing that we ought to believe) can be met with the questions, “Is that a fact? Ought we to believe that?” and so on to infinity.


So...how did you mean it when you used the word "believe" the first time in that OP?

And how did you mean it when you used it the second time?

And how did you mean it when you used it the third time?

Like any of the list (a) to (g) above?

AJJ
215
↪Frank Apisa


Believe it or not, I wasn’t interested in having this type of argument. If there’s a clear objection to the argument in my original post, I would love to here it. So, please could you explain your comment, rather than simply assert it with a “Just sayin’!” on the end. — AJJ

Terrapin has been attempting to do that...to little avail, AJJ.

What do you mean when you use the word "believe" the way you did in the OP?

fresco
63
↪Frank Apisa

Keep up the mission Frank ! :smile: — fresco

You know me, Fresco. Never relent.

Terrapin Station
9.2k
↪AJJ


Obtuse? this is as simple and straightforward as we can get while still doing philosophy.

Imagine the following. Someone gives this argument:

P1: Facts are true things.
P2: We ought not to believe true things.
C: We ought not to believe facts.

Are there any problems with that argument? — Terrapin Station

This could be resolved if we just eliminated the word "believe" from the English language.

Obviously AJJ is using that word in one of its least desirable, least useful, idiosyncratic forms.

Just sayin'!

For some people, the sentence, "I do not know and because I lack clear, unambiguous evidence, I cannot make a meaningful guess"...is too painful to even consider, let alone say out loud.

Too bad that!

My thoughts are:

You may be correct that existence is relative, not absolute.

Niels Bohr may be correct that Einstein may be incorrect about the existence of electrons.

I really do not know which it is.

I doubt anyone else here does either.

My guess, Fresco, based on nothing but my great admiration of Einstein...is that Einstein probably is correct.

Izat So
15
Makes use of technology to rid the world of mind numbing jobs. We've found a healthy alternative to fossil fuels or any kind of fuel that disrupts the planet negatively. There is deep respect for the environment. Everyone has a Universal Basic Income. People do not tribalize around memes. People are not interested in superficial differences but enjoy differences of opinion. Education is relevant and exciting to people of all ages. People transcend merely instrumental thinking to concentrate on their growth needs, including how to maintain the conditions of doing so. There is an ongoing conversation about the best way of governing, given nothing can be actually ideal. Ethics and philosophy interest people. People keep abreast of scientific debates and find a meaningful worldview that aligns with the age of the planet and the evolution of humans and our ongoing interdependency of ourselves and nature. Public policy is evidence based with the aim of balancing human thriving with respect for the environment. War is a thing of the past. People are kind, decent, and able to use their skills in beautiful and useful ways. But for now, I'd say Scandi countries, based on the evidence. — Izat So

No use trying to make this any better.

Sufficient for everyone; job for those who want them...enjoyable unemployment for those who do not;...education, enjoyment...and all the rest.

I like sushi
857
↪Frank Apisa
This person has already announced they are a mystic. That is enough for all us to know. Claims of combining logic with mysticism always allow the person to fall back on mystical claims when the logic makes no sense - it’s a vacuous stance and should be treated as such.

There is clearly no regard for the distinction between “fact” and “truth” and childishly interchanging them as and when suits the OP is naive at best and plain arrogant at worst. The later seems to be the case here with the sporadic self-aggrandizing bombast we’ve see up to now (probably another victim of reading Nietzsche?)

Either way, makes for a fascinating insight into the machinations of this particular human mind :) — I like sushi

Thanks, Sush.

Yeah...not much to deal with here.

Gotta come to threads like this for a few laughs...and hope that a few decent points can be made almost by accident.

TheGreatArcanum
147

As I said...if you have something to say...say it. — Frank Apisa


in time, young padwan, in time. — TheGreatArcanum

You used the term "absurd", Arc.

I'll tell you what is absurd. It is absurd to suppose the dominant creatures on this tiny planet circling a possibly unimportant star in a possibly unimportant galaxy...can figure out answers to question the type of which are at issue here.

You also used the term "beyond absurd."

What is beyond absurd is the notion that YOU have done it.

I apologize. I was taking you seriously.

My bad.

By the way...I am 82 years old, boy.

you already exposed yourselves as fools when you failed to understand the ramifications of my OP. Since nobody seems to belief that there is any "evidence" or reason to believe that final causes even exist, I'm trying to spark your intellects by forcing you to think about the concept of non-existence and how it came to be? did it come to be after the concept of existence came to be, or before? Is it a concept or is it a concrete 'thing'? — TheGreatArcanum

As I said...if you have something to say...say it.

Stop with the questions. You are not going to ensnare anyone in a trap.

And lose the grandiosity. You wear it like a wet beaver coat.

TheGreatArcanum
139
↪Frank Apisa
↪Fooloso4
can you please tell me when the concept of non-existence came into being? — TheGreatArcanum

Stop being cute.

You are not going to "lay a trap these fools will fall into."

Say what you mean to say...don't ask a question leading to saying it in retort.

This could prove interesting. You may have something I've not encountered before.

I seriously doubt it...but I'm willing to keep an open mind/

TheGreatArcanum
138

But...give it a shot if you think you can do it. — Frank Apisa


already done it. I’ve established 10 principles of ontology/epistemology and 17 first principles of philosophy. In two years, without a college degree, I’ve done what no philosopher before me has ever done. — TheGreatArcanum

That's cute.

But...I'll go with Fooloso4 replied.

— TheGreatArcanum

Why on Earth would you not?

The finest minds that have ever lived on this planet have tried...and come up VERY short.

But...give it a shot if you think you can do it.

Use logic, reason, science or math to establish that it is more likely that at least one GOD exists than that none exist.

Every indication is that it is impossible to determine if at least one GOD exists...using logic, reason, science, or math.

It appears it just cannot be done.

It also appears it is impossible to determine if it is more likely that there is at least one GOD...than that there are none.

It seems just as impossible to determine if NO gods exist...using logic, reason, science, or math.

And finally, it also appears impossible to determine if it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one using logic, reason, science, or math.

As I see it...the best one can do is to make a guess in either direction...or to decline to guess.

I suggest the world would be a better, safer, more respectful place if everyone who wants to chime in on the issue simply said:

"It is my guess that a GOD exists...or at very least that it is more likely that one exists than that no gods do. THAT IS MY GUESS"

Or "it is my guess that no gods exist...or at very least that it is more likely that none exist than that at least one does. THAT IS MY GUESS.

Or...I have no idea if any gods exist or not...and I just do not want to make a guess.

You seem to claim that language is so vague that the apparent logical picture of reality I need for my argument is not the case. — Nasir Shuja

I claim nothing of the sort.

I do claim that certain words frequently used in philosophical discussions, particularly descriptor nouns, are so ambiguous as to be useless.

I pointblank think we can overcome that problem by NOT USING the descriptors, but instead accurately describe the essence of what we are attempting to communicate by describing it.

Let's take that word "atheist."

Here is a sentence: "I am an atheist."

The person stating that may mean:

a) I lack a "belief" that any gods exist.

b) I have a belief that no gods exist.

c) My guess is that there are no gods.

d) It is my opinion that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one god.

e) I believe that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one god.

f) Until someone comes up with proof that no gods exist...I will not accept that any gods do exist.

(Obviously there are more.)

These are significantly different things...differences that matter during a discussion.

I am simply saying that instead of using, "I am an atheist"...it would be better and clearer if the person used the words describing the position he/she actually means.

These concerns of mine stand in conflict with what your wrote in the OP.