Here I think it’s clear: while climate change, for example, is existential— it is, ultimately, a symptom: a result of a political and economic decisions, motivated by greed. Capitalism, then, is indeed the “infrastructure” that needs to be undone. — Xtrix

NO, it is not at all clear, but only if you use your own head to think, instead of getting utterly impressed by some rhetoric that appeals to you.

I should have thought that it is overpopulation that is the force that currently destroys our own habitat. Capitalism and greed are not any more a driving force of our woes than the care extended to each human being to the maximum of our abilities to sustain their lives and help them create offspring. Hospitals, medical science, humanitarian governmening, are even more the culprits of our current state of disastrous outlook than capitalism or greed.

The proof of this is simple. Imagine the human population with the same group behaviour as ours, but
A. having altogether ten thousand members on the entire globe with a Capitalist, greedy system,
and
B. having the same number as today, without Capitalism. This changes the grounding premiss a bit, but it does not render the exercise impossible or unfair.

Clearly, A would stop our troubles in their tracks, whereas B would not make any difference to anyone or anything inasmuch as the continuation of the destroying the habitat is concerned.

QED, it is the overpopulation and not the economic forces that drive us to annihilation or to something near to it.

From where I'm sitting, the most important "problem" facing humanity is a lack of inner awareness. — Bret Bernhoft

Personally, I don't know any humans who lack inner awareness. It is indeed hard even to imagine a human without inner awareness.

I don't think this is a major problem, because it is simply isn't so.

Too bad Europeans killed most of those indigenous people. — Benkei

Yes, the natives normally welcomed the European conquerors and conquistadors, until the Euros started to eat their food they stored for the winter months, rape their women and dismantle their homes to take the parts made of precious metals with them.

Habitable land in human history and before has always been at a premium. Even animals like lions and bears and wolves fight with each other for territory. Heck, even household cats will. The fight continues as long as there are times when the territory can't support all individuals occupying it.

The difficulty of reading Xenophon lies in its simplicity. — Fooloso4

Without pretending to offer any true criticism, I think this sounds a bit quantum-mechanic-ish. The simpler the writing is, the more difficult it is to understand it. The more convoluted or complex a writing is, the easier it is to understand it. The shorter the writing, the longer it takes to read, and the longer the writing, the shorter it takes to read. The more original concepts included, the less insightful it becomes, and the fewer original concepts in it, the more insightful it is.

:cool: :up:

Ethics is the examination of principles that govern the moral behavior of an individual. — L'éléphant

So why can't books be written on this? That's A. B. is that ethics has no formal definition. It can mean morals. (Many subscribe to that.) It can mean social, individual, group morals. The author is supposed to identify how he or she uses that word.

What you say is also true: it can mean what you said it means. But that does not exclude "ethics" meaning all kinds of other things. (As above.)

It's one of those irksome things in the English language.

I haven't read the original argument made by Aristotle - Wikipedia offers only a rough sketch. It seems as though Aristotle considered real/actual entities as those that had an end; consider the process of constructing a chair. It begins (wood, nails, glue, etc.) and ends (a chair). If one is unable to complete the task, we have a potential chair and not an actual one. The same goes for ∞∞, it, by definition is endless. — Agent Smith

I don't agree that it's a valid application of Aristotle's rule of the difference between actual and potential.

The infinity is there. The only reason it can't be counted is because counting is a process which is always finite. However, it is the tool of the test, the counting, that is the culprit here, so to speak; it is the weakness of the tool that stops us from realizing the actuality of infinity.

If there were an instrument that meausred infinity, then the actuality would immediately show through.

I would like to re-address the issue of the OP, expressed in the title:
(What is the) The Largest Number We Will Ever Need (?)
I'd say one, if all other axioms in the mainstream system are applied. 1. It can be added, the sums can be multiplied or divided or subtracted from each other, and the whole shkebam can be developed just form one number, which is one.

This is a specific example of the largest number. It could be a half, a million, any number, really, real or imaginary, and rational or irrational. Any one number could satisfy the question, "What is the largest number we shall ever need?" Provided, of course, that the generation of other values, expressed in numbers, in an infinite variety, is possible from the axioms used.

Are you aware of any decent books describing their ethics? — Benkei

I think the Maya ethics consisted of waging war until both parties bled to death. The Aztec ethics involved people being murdered ceremoniously to assure the crop will be okay. I don't know much about the Inka ethical code.

Think of it, it looks like I don't know much about aboriginal ethics, but just skeletal remnants of hearsay I picked up here and there.

I remember some instances, like the Maya ethics of custodianship involved tying warriors of both the home team of the winning army and men of the opposing army into a huge ball and then rolling them down the jagged, stair-type long slope on the temple of the gods.

I also remember the custodianship of the North American Indigenous First Nations who constantly warred against each other for lebensraum, and fiercely exploited the natural resources around them for food, water, clothing. Before White man arrived.

------------------------

Between you and me, Benkei, this custodianship myth has only developed since the European imperialism, and the hapless natives had been praised ever since for their brave fight to save the Green Earth-- whereas they just did not have the technical resources to exploit the natural resources.

I believe, and burn me on the stake if you like, that greed, good heart, ability and wish to advance on the social scale, to marry good looking people, to hate minorities, to have empathy for the downtrodden singly and in groups, the wish to help the broken-hearted, to kill your enemies, the blood thirst, the vengeance, the happiness over a newborn baby, the sailing and discoveries of new lands, all are included in human nature, regardless of race, nationality, colour of skin etc.

So to say that the natives have more propensity to be standing up to save nature and be custodians, is a myth. I am not denying that they are. But not any more so than Europeans, Africans, Asians or penguins of Antarctica.

Is there a sensible way to extend the application of eudaimonia to the environment and future generations? And I mean not in a way that a healthy and nice environment increases my own eudaimonia but that I have a duty to have the environment flourish, like a caretaker? — Benkei

I liked your opening post, Benkei. Immediately I thought this:

We, humans, and all energy-consuming things have lived off sunlight-energy since day one -- since the first photosynthetic being was formed.

Just very recently in history have we started to use other sources of energy to power our biological and mechanical engines. We, as humans, discovered the energy in nuclear fission. But prior to that, it has all been based on solar light energy.

The solar light energy reaching the Earth is more-or-less constant; if we chop down more trees than can regenerate, we can either try to plant trees, and if that does not work, then we must find other ways to harness the energy of solar light, such as with solar electric generators.

Because the problem is that quite a few very large areas on Earth get sunshine but they don't convert it into useful energy. I am talking about areas with no photosynthetic activity, i.e. where there are no green plants.

It does not take any genius, but a few calculations to find out what is the maximum energy reaching the Earth in a given period and which we can harness, and if we use more energy than that in the same period, then we are doomed. Unless, of course, we supplement the amount with fission energy.

We mold clay into a pot, but it is the emptiness inside that makes the vessel useful. We fashion wood for a house, but it is the emptiness inside that makes it livable. We work with the substantial, but the emptiness is what we use. — Gnomon

This has so many practical verification as many practical denials. Empty statement, lacking wisdom. But it is with wisdom that the followers fill it with, and therefore the followers of Ching work with the substantial, but it is the voidful emptiness of this aphorism that they use.

Indeed and the speculative constructions and reinventions can go on forever. But why? — Tom Storm

God is used among many things to support ideologies, and as such, it can SUBSTANTIALLY support an agenda. This is a very useful use to use. That's why.

You clearly don't believe God exists. In this and other posts you look for psychological reasons why people believe as they do. E.g. Pre-science and scientific mentality; Dormant mind; Faith vs. Intelligence. Your ideas are expressed in condescending language which shows a lack of respect for religious believers. — T Clark

What's wrong with that?

1. I clearly do believe that God exists — Art48

Luckily, god exists or not, totally beyond the number, opinions, and fervency of believers scatter'd around on our globe and in the Universe.

I read this or similar on a different philosophy website: Incredible amount of works have been written on the nature of god, without any real indication of consequence communicated by god to humans about it.

A powerset of some set X is composed precisely of itself and all its subsets — Kuro

But the cardinality of P(E) can only be greater than E's if there exists elements in P(E) that are not members of E. — Kuro

This is not true. Or else I don't understand what "cardinality" means. I know now what Powerset is (thank you very much, by the way, for the clear and succinct explanation); but pray tell what the cardinality of a set is. The count of subsets a set has?

If indeed the cardinality of a set is the number of its subsets, then your statement fails. Because the powerset of E will by definition overlap all its elements with the elements of E in the sets contained in either of them.

Cardinality of a powerset of E does not increase the elements that form the set E. Therefore cardinality is of no consequence when counting the unique elements in the subsets of both E and P(E).

Therefore the cardinality of P(E) can be larger than the cardinality of (E) without additional elements in any of the subsets of P(E) which are not to be found in E.

sorry, guys, I just stated the obvious, in the same words, too, that had been just said, so I deleted this post of mine.

That there is a man who is "the way" is a myth. A man who is "the truth" is a myth. A man who is "the life" is a myth. That "no one comes to the Father except through [this man]"is a myth. If you argue that Jesus is not just a man, then you accept the myth.
— Fooloso4

Jesus is speaking figuratively. — ThinkOfOne

Okay, even if we were to accept your rather weak argument, that it is figurative, it is still a myth. You can't go around that. Whether it's figurative or literal, it is a myth.

If you accept what you say, then every impossible thing Jesus said is "figurative", and only those that we accept today are literal. — god must be atheist

The bullshit I described here above is the backbone and the only and last refuge for the faithful to believe the Gospels.

Jesus is speaking figuratively. — ThinkOfOne

Woo, hoo!!!

You can't judge a man's utterances two thousand years later as to the intent behind the words. I reject this notion you made.

If you accept what you say, then every impossible thing Jesus said is "figurative", and only those that we accept today are literal.

I call bullshit.

I don't know if Jesus thought he was the or a messiah. — Fooloso4

I go by the directive that what the Gospels say are not necessarily falsification of what Jesus said, and by your statement, that Jesus declarations as follow are myths.

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. — Fooloso4

That there is a man who is "the way" is a myth. A man who is "the truth" is a myth. A man who is "the life" is a myth. That "no one comes to the Father except through [this man]"is a myth. — Fooloso4

What my point is, is that it is irrelevant for my argument whether Jesus thought he was the Messiah. My point is that he pushed a myth, nevertheless, with or else without insisting that he was the Messiah; and pushing myths that are obviously not true is done through liying, deceiving, stupidity, or insanity.

One thing is clear, although John's Jesus, Paul's Jesus, and the Jesus of the Synoptic gospels have a common thread, the Messiah, they are not the same Jesus. — Fooloso4

So there were at least three Jesuses.

I buy that.

You ALSO can't reasonably conclude that Jesus DID NOT say X, Y, or Z. This is the point you seem to fail to grasp. — ThinkOfOne

i get you.

That said, what did Jesus say?

Please, no cherry picking now saying "this is truly said by Jesus, that is not likely said by Jesus". I go by all he is claimed to have said, he actually said, or very close to it, so the semantic sense would not be altered by the potential paraphrasing by the scribes of the Gospels.

- he promised to return within a hundred years.
- he promised a bunch of things unverifiable by the living as they pertained to the afterlife.

He sounds like a politician. Maybe he was a liar, then.

I would like to know what people think of C.S. Lewis's argument for the divinity of Christ
— Dermot Griffin
It's a terrible argument, because it treats elements of Gospel narratives as established fact. Anyone who accepts the Gospels is already convinced. Anyone who doesn't accept them will reject the premises that Jesus made the statements. — Relativist

:100: :up: :cheer:

That there is a man who is "the way" is a myth. A man who is "the truth" is a myth. A man who is "the life" is a myth. That "no one comes to the Father except through [this man]"is a myth. — Fooloso4

Since Jesus insisted that the myths he pushed are real, he MAY have been a lunatic or a liar. I dunno.

I would like to know what people think of C.S. Lewis's argument for the divinity of Christ. — Dermot Griffin

Lewis did not give us much choice. Lunatic, Demon from Hell, Liar, or Lord. God was not one of the options (Lord means feudal superior in my books.) Well, he was not a feudal lord, that's for sure. He was not demon, that's for sure. He was not a Lunatic, and he was not a Liar.

What's wrong with this: He was a carpenter, a rabbi and a preacher. He was a rebel who thought outside the box. He was an optimist and a bleeding-heart Liberal. He was a reformer, and therefore a heretic. He was a criminal.

No, it is not Christ who founded Christianity. (... etc.) — Alkis Piskas

I have to agree with you on those although a bit reluctantly. But I can't raise an intelligent argument against it, so I accept your position.

There we go.

Also, for philosophical purposes, it seems arbitrary to confine this question to a particular species at a particular point in history. — TonesInDeepFreeze

if we become something else, we are something else but humans.

And like I said, I go by the title. The title clearly states the set of salient things who will ever need a number that is larger than all other numbers they will need. And the named set is "we". Since it was written by a human (supposedly), it is humans we talk about.

But I don't know that there is a limit on how long there will be conscious beings. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Human beings are predicted to die out at the latest when the sun becomes a Red Giant. Whether we would escape the confines of the Solar system by then, is questionable.

However, if we are able to escape the confines of the solar system, then our lifetime as a species is still limited, even under the best of circumstances, because heat entropy will make all habitable environments inhabitable. That is to come in a trillion, trillion, trillion Earth years. (1 followed by 36 zeros Earth years.) There may have been some rounding error.

I did not make this up. I read it in a newspaper (before the advent of the rampant use of the Internet)

Do you not agree that this would be advantageous? — Metaphysician Undercover

I actually can't see the UNIVERSAL advantage of unifying objects and terms of measurement. Sailors still measure velocity in knots; Americans still measure weight and volume in ounces and gallons and pounds. If there were an advantage to unification, everyone would be using the same system, and yet we don't.

I don't know whether there is a limit on how long there will be conscious beings. — TonesInDeepFreeze

True. But we are talking "we". Supposedly humans. That's what I'm sticking with. Computers are not humans. Salient, conscious beings, wherever they are and however they are made, that are smart like humans or smarter, but are not humans are also not part of "we".

since I have no idea whether there is a greatest number that anyone (and let's include any conscious being in the universe now or ever) would ever need. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I think it follows. Everyone needs numbers. One of the numbers one needs in a lifetime is the greatest number. This applies to everyone.

One of the complete lot of people will have a number that he or she needs that is greater or equal number compared to the numbers needed by everyone else in the lot. That is the greatest number we'd ever need.

Although it may not be a positive integer, a rational, an irrational, or even a real number.

This can be further analyzed. We, not a person individually. So the greatest number we'd ever need, is the greatest number which at least two people will ever need. And therefore it may not be necessarily the greatest number ever needed by a human being, because one or more individuals may have other, non-equal-to-each-other numbers, that are greater than the greatest number at least two people will need.

I simply went by the thread title.

As for atheism, I don't have to "take a plunge". I consider myself already an "atheist", since I don't believe in God, esp. the God that is created by Judeo-Christians-- or any supreme being in particular. But this does not mean that I exclude the existence of some Supreme Being or Supreme Power, in general. — Alkis Piskas

Same here. The possibility exists that god exists. Despite all probabilities that arise from what we (as a species) know.

↪Alkis Piskas I believe we're on the same page albeit on different paragraphs. We're cool. — Agent Smith

There is nothing better than settling philosophical arguments by the fireside, with Cuban cigars and a fine Port, agreeing to disagree, or to lull oneself into a state of pleasantness in which agreement is more important than triumphing by using nothing but the tools and daresay weapons of logic alone.

Since our (the people who form "we" in the argument or claim by AS) existence on the timeline of our individual beings or of the species is supposedly finite, it necessarily follows that there will be or has been a number that is the greatest, and which we have needed or will need.

So what? We agree that 186000 is not the greatest number. Nor is 186000 x 1000, which is the speed of light in milliseconds. Etc. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Oh, a new angle... AS did not argue that there is a greatest number... he argued that there is a greatest number we'd ever need.

That is also deterministic. The number itself is beyond our capacity to find out, but I daresay if we find a way to define "we", then yes, AS is right on.

Please note: AS means the greatest number we'd ever NEED, and not the greatest number we'd ever be able to THINK OF.

I changed my reply. I didn't notice that it was you who posted and not the other poster. Then I realized that you were making the same point as I was. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Duly noted.

I have to admit, you are a really nice person, A. Smith.

(I know that irrelevant flaming is reason enough to delete posts. Irrelevant to the topic. But are irrelevant compliments also sufficient reason for deletion?)

Siddhartha Guatama (founder of Buddhism) — Alkis Piskas

I am quite ignorant when it comes to Buddhism. But would it not be the Buddha who had founded Buddhism? After all, it was Christ who founded Christianity, Marx who founded Marxism, and Terror who founded Terrorism.

Siddhartha Guatama (founder of Buddhism) opts to remain tightlipped about God, neither affirming nor negating god's existence
— Agent Smith
That's why I like Buddhism! — Alkis Piskas

Take the plunge... atheism. Gets rid of a lot of prefab thoughts that force you into illogical thoughts. Not only liberating, but pleasant, pleasurable.