It depends on the insights one has to offer. — Raymond

You're right. Spiritual leaders of even small congregations get some remuneration. But they just regurgitate the Bible or some other sacred text... their insights are restricted to applicability of Bible passages to dilemmas members of, or the entire community, face.

Philosophy professors, ditto.

Some people make money selling books. And they make good money by writing their original ideas in the books. Some examples that come to mind are psychological self-help books, or books of funnies.

Which begs the question: what the % of Philosophers are "over thinkers"?
My guess is quite high — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I think many of the street philosophers (including almost all participants on this forum / board, while present company is almost always excepted) are not over-thinking, but re-hashing their pet theories, of which nobody has too many. So they keep rehashing the same theory/ies until they are surprised that others can't believe them, when they reveal them to the public. I would not call it over-thinking... I would call it thinking about the same thing over and over again.

I knew I stuck a finger up at a bad driver on the way to my new job. I didn't know I'd just insulted my new boss. — Cuthbert

The getting insulted was the action by your boss. Your action was to insult a driver. It was not your action tha that the driver and your boss was one and the same person.

Your intention in acting, and acting, was just to insult the other driver. Who the other driver was, was not part of YOUR action. Could have been Donalda Trump, could have been Pope Francis, could have been me. Your action... etc.

From my perspective (an old mathematician) philosophy people looove to talk and write, sometimes going on for paragraph after paragraph elaborating upon a concept that I would have described in a couple of sentences. But I see that as my fault, being too concise, failing to expand and not enjoying writing as much as others do. The writing on this forum can be very impressive in both quality and content, but I fade away after reading a few lengthy paragraphs — jgill

This is what western (vs eastern) philosophy demands: state an proposition and prove it.

This is done to the tiniest details to avoid inroads of criticism. You explain everything, like in a math proof, leaving nothing to guesswork.

Eastern philosophers, at least traditionally, took the opposite way. The Master would utter a quizzical sentence, then retire to his tent and allow the disciples to duke it out among themselves what the Master had meant, and then come up with a proof to defend the Master's statement, or defend their own interpretation of it.

So when you read western philosophers, they will not be easy on you, and they will be overly wordy, too. At least to the uninitiated.

as a non-logistician I'm waiting to see where this goes. — DavidJohnson

If this forum taught me something, it is to pick your bottles well. Not to win, but in order not to get caught in the quagmire of non-understanding.

So I shalt remain silent.

And picking the right battles is good too, but that's not as important.

An action is as ethical as it does more good to a larger number of people on these spheres. (By "good" I mean of course "in favor of, supporting well-being".) — Alkis Piskas

I agree that it's a good definition of self-sacrificial ethics. However, I also maintain that the ultimate spring and origin of ethics is the survival of the individual and/or the survival of his DNA derivatives.

The circles you mention are all part of the ethical individual's wish and actual efforts to make survive. However, it is not necessarily his outright interest in that order; and his personal ethics may be skewed in the sense of what expectations society places on him, because of the discrepancy between his agenda and society's agenda.

Maybe I should have spelled out that it's a clock with a regular clock-face, that is, twelve hours, no more, no less. It has an hour, a minute and possibly a second hand. And it has existed forever.

You don't get the concept. But that's okay. Your answer is 13.8 billion years and counting. Noted. Fine. No arguments.

One might know oneself best by looking in at one's reflection on the eyes of another.
— Banno
:100: :fire:

As I have argued, a priori intuitions or any such introspection will not survive contact.

Everyone has a plan 'till they get punched in the mouth.
— Mike Tyson

Hence virtue ethics - but that's a longer story
— Banno
:smirk: — 180 Proof

We understand you are enamoured by Banno and his opinions in philosophical discourses. That's fine. But do you have any original ideas to share, as well? Or you are satisfied to just praise Banno.

Bah! I have my own philosophy groupies as well. Not on this forum, however. I gotta get me some.

Regarding the infinite past, I heard a good riddle: if a clock has existed forever, what time would it show this moment?

This is a good one.

It would need to show some time, undoubtedly. But how do we know how it was set, if it was never set? Remember, it had no beginning, no manufacturing date. It has existed for ever. It shows some time, as it is a regular clock. What is the time it shows?

Yeeee-haaaw!

The lack of solidarity among the workers is matched by the lack of solidarity among the capitalists. The capitalists are constantly engaged in squeezing out other capitalists from their market shares to increase their own. As Engels said, they don't only engage copulating with females of the workers class, but they make a sport of stealing sex from each other's wives as well. That is not solidarity.

They are not even united against the workers. The oppression does not come heavy-handed or via military or police enforcement; it comes by paying the workers a wage that allow them a so-called middle class lifestyle. The capitalists compete against each other (again, lack of solidarity) by pay-wars among themselves, to get the wanted workers work for them.

Is the workers' aim to topple this arrangement? what is bad about this arrangement? Provided, like someone said in the OP, that every worker without exception will be able to attain a comfortable, sustainable, and pleasant lifestyle.

Whether it's a conspiracy among capitalists to tune down the ideal of class struggle, or else it is the apathy of the workers, what precisely is it in the arrangement (ideal arrangement) that would necessitate the further struggle between worker's class and capitalists' class?

The underlying law is simple. The speed of light has to be the same for everyone (or in any case, finite). — Raymond

Haha. There are a few steps in deducing facts from this law in-between the underlying law and understanding time dilation. And I am unfamiliar with those steps and no amount of explanation can make me make the logical connections between the underlying law and time dilation. That is what I meant by not understanding the underlying law. My mistake, I used the wrong concept to describe what it is that I don't understand.

What do you mean by an absolute clock? The clock running outside the universe? Inside the universe there is no absolute clock. — Raymond

Okay. Then let's put it this way: the time dilation and the clock that measures it after the big banggg pertains to the matter of the big banggg. Other matter may exist, and other clocks. However many clocks exist, they don't all necessarily start at the same zero time. Some before, some after the zero time of our known universe. So in effect there may be time T2 on some other clock that is larger than time T1 on our clock, in the same units.

Maybe we should reword the phrase how we envision that there was time before the Big banggg and that our time is not absolute. And then rephrase the fact in a way that makes sense to astrophysicists, quantum mechanics and street sweepers alike, that space and matter in it (in our beliefs) have existed forever.

If you (general you) insist that there was no time before the big banggg, then necessarily no matter existed then either, and therefore all of a sudden option 2 becomes very much more plausible than option 1.

People are actually voting that an infinite past is more "far-fetched" than something coming from nothing?

Jesus... — Xtrix

The person you mentioned is responsible for this philosophical mishap.

But I don't see the votes and the majority of opinion as a proof of truth. I see it as a measure of philosophical and knowledge impoverishment of society, due to the oppressive presence of religionism. Most users here are from America; if an international presence was represented by ratio of population, this figure would be much higher (due to Islam); but if Europe was only considered, or China, then the overwhelming majority would answer the opposite way, that is, that something getting out of nothing is far fetched.

It's just that moving clocks seem to move slower. If you accelerate them they actually move slower. On/in different points vertically above the Earth you have to accelerate in different amounts to stay where you are. This means that at these different points the clock runs at a different rate. On the surface the slowest. — Raymond

Thanks. No amount of explanation will stick. Because I don't see the underlying law that creates this effect.

All I am saying is that since there are different clocks present showing different times, the time-dilation may be a different clock from the what I called absolute time (or absolute clock).

According to the clock of TIME DILATION there was no time before the big banggg. According to the Absolute Clock there was time before the big banggg.

I don't see why this would be impossible, and I don't think you can tell me either. At least not in terms that I understand.

Neither endocannibalism nor exocannibalism can be classified as murder per se: the first is a sign of respect/love for the already deceased; the latter usually follows warfare, and homicide during warfare is not considered to be murder (deliberate homicide without justification). — javra

These are not absolutes. Many people murder their loved ones... most murders involve domestic strife, and family members.

Murder, to use your definition, is deliberate homicide without justification. When soldiers kill each other, at least one side is fighting a non-defensive battle. Most if not all ethicists condemn wars of expansion and wars of aggression non-defensive, and therefore, non-justified. Therefore the soldiers on one side of every battle and every war commit murder when they kill a soldier of the opposing forces.

Therefore, as far as I can see, both exo- and endocannibalism involves murder and can't exist without it. UNLESS of course you eat parts of the body of your beloved, while they stay alive.

That has been known to happen, too, in at least sentimental novels, or in sentimental stories verbally passed on, where shipwrecks in a boat eat the arm or the leg of one of the survivors, one after another, until they get rescued or until they die of exposure.

the passage of time on the spaceship as recorded here on Earth is curvilinear. — jgill

Very interesting. It is completely incomprehensible to me. I don't doubt your word, I am just putting it into perspective for you how informative this is for me.

My ineptitude, definitely, not yours.

:razz: :chin: :clap:

Time dilation during the early stages of the Big Bang makes the notion of an infinite past debatable. It would seem that an "infinite past" would be bounded nevertheless. — jgill

People talk about "the universe" and "the known universe" and they mix up the two concepts.

I am extremely unfamiliar with the math and physics of the big bang. However, I am certain that time dilation (whatever it is) did not involve Absolute Time. I am sure this is not the right name for it; but as in the effects of time differentia between super-fast moving objects and relatively stationary objects, the time-dilation was also a relative issue.

I can't prove any of this in any way. My only reason for being skeptical on the declaration that there was no time before time dilation is lingual, and human-intuitive. You say "before" time dilation, "before" big bangggg. That implies a TIME before; there is no other "befores" but time.

Hence, I reject that time started at the moment of the big banggggg started.

That's point one.

Point two is that the big banggg as far as we know, is responsible only for the matter we observe. There may or may not be other matter in the universe beyond our observational capacity. If there is matter beyond the matter we can account for, it may be of different origins from the big bangggg. So if they existed before the big banggg then they are proof that time did not start with the big bangggg.

From my former studies — javra

I am the first one to admit that I never studied anything beyond high school. Yes, I have a degree, but I did not earn it by studying. I earned it by passing tests, exams and assignments. And that was a long time ago. I get my knowledge from hearsay and from figuring things out.

As far as I can tell, the meat-protein or fatty acid necessity in diet is a contentious issue. Some swear by it; some reject it. So I cherry picked this one, to be honest; it's also cherry picked because I like to eat meat (not human flesh).

I believe there have been studies that supported the theory that animal enzymes are a must in one's diet, and there have been studies that support the opposite. The upshot is that if the animal-enzyme camp was correct, there would be no true vegans around.

Then again, some authorities or some blokes with big voices might say that trace amounts of animal enzymes are impossible to avoid in getting into your system.

Well, god only knows. But god does not exist. (According to my beliefs, anyhow.)

for any behaviour there is some evolutionary advantage. — Banno

You forget to apply your critical ability when you read authors. Yes, for any behaviour there is evolutionary advantage; but not at the same time, and at the same respect. In different times some respects may be predominant; some other times some other respects may be predominant.

Example: Murder. In our society it is not ethical. In our society the human life is sacrosanct, because we can afford to sustain all human lives, and because we agree that life is better lived with no fear of life.

Example: Murder. In cannibalistic societies the available meat protein is scanty. You capture and kill members of OTHER tribes and eat their flesh.

Is our society like a cannibalistic society? No. Is a cannibalistic society like ours? No. There are different from each other by solid and permanent demarcation lines. Therefore both murder and non-murder are both moral and immoral, which only causes a confusion, such as for you, when you don't consider the differences in circumstances. Once circumstances are normalized and permanent, the dichotomy of both an action and its opposite as ethical will cease to appear contradictory to the observer.

No sweat. I am pleased I could help. And you have a number of alternative "right" answers following mine. "Gimme the wisdom to choose the right answer (when I don't know which one is right.)"

And He's right. — Banno

A claim stated, so it must be true.

You haven't understood the point... — Banno

Okay, consider then please this:

Banno denies the existence of evolutionary theory. Banno states that the evolutionary theory is faulty, wrong, and must be dismissed. Here:

Explaining behaviour in terms of evolution had a veneer of credibility within pop science, and is common on this forum - to the point of predictable tedium.

But there is little support amongst scientists. That's mostly because it is logically fraught. A little thought will show that any behaviour can be made to fit the model. In your own example, helping the blind and killing and eating them can both be explained as procuring survival. — Banno

Let's say Banno is right. Let's say the evolutionary theory is not a valid theory to explain behavior. In that case the following must be true:

Those whose gene-determined behaviour forces them to behave in ways that are counter-effective to survival, are the most apt to survive.

Those whose gene-determined behaviour makes them superbly adaptive to the environment, and to environmental changes, more than others, will perish.

Furthermore, those societies whose social structures -- such as education, ethics, law, religion, etc. -- are least likely to help them survive, will thrive and take over the world.

And those societies whose social structures help them superbly to survive, will perish.

----------

This is what Banno claims. Read it to believe it.

:down:

2. It fails to answer the question of what we ought to do, so does not address ethics. — Banno

Actually, it does not fail to answer that question. Again, an argument by you that you used that declares an opposite to reality.

Banno, just because you utter a claim, it does not become the truth. You keep doing that, as far as I can see. You do other things as well, of course, but you more than once fall into the trap of believing unsubstantiated claims just on the strength of their being stated.

Two arguments:
1. It has the structure of an all-and-some doctrine; for any behaviour there is some evolutionary advantage. Hence it provides and explanation for any behaviour, and it's negation.It is of no use. — Banno

This is the strength of evolutionary theory, not the weakness. You just called it a weekness ("no use") because that supports your opinion. While what you said indeed supports that evolutionary theory MUST be true.

D
There are no Sees that are not Bees. Because all Sees are Bees.
Therefore nothing that is not a Bee is a See. In other words, if it's not a Bee, it is impossible that it is a See.
There are Ayes that are not Bees. That is, at least one Aye is a Bee. But there could or could not be more Ayes that are not Bees.
So if it's an Aye, and it exists inside Bees, it has a chance of being a See, but not necessarily.
But since there are no Sees outside of Bee, therefore Ayes outside of Bee are certainly not Sees.
Hence, no Ayes that are outside of all Bees are a See... precisely what D says.

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

For the above, I used the concepts of "Aye" "Bee" and "See" as individuals contained necessarily or potentially or impossibly inside of all that are Ayes, Bees and Sees. Furthermore, Ayes and Bees and Sees I used as all of them, or I used them as more than zero.

Anda theory that explains anything is of no use. — Banno

This is a theory that explains anything too.

I am a firm believer in evolutionary theory (ET) and how it shaped our lives, psyches, societies. This you call pop theory, but that's your main argument against it... appeal to authority.

Interestingly, the society that has been made big and strong and wealthy by applying one of the purest forms of evolutionary theory (or allowed it to develop without as much interference as other societies) to their economy, counts among its own people the strongest opponents of ET. I am not saying, because I don't know actually, that you are part of that society, Banno, I am just saying how that society is denying the validity of the theory the workings of which has made it big.

If that is how you read that exchange then so be it. — StreetlightX

What do you mean "that's how you read that exchange"???? I frigging quoted them!!! You are saying you have different ways of reading quoted material? that's absurd, too.

Because it is the one relevant to the OP — StreetlightX

What if everyone were magically making enough income to be middle class.. all retail workers, factory workers, construction workers, agricultural workers, etc.. — schopenhauer1

There is no such thing as 'the middle class' — StreetlightX

Once you declared that the OP is irrelevant (since what it claims exists does not exist), no relevance could have been established.

Then you say your view is in relevance to the OP.

That is absurd.

A social relation to the means of production — StreetlightX

Why should I really abide by that defintion? Am I not at liberty to subscribe to any other classification of how people relate to wealth in society, and how their lot in life is determined by that?

I appreciate what you wrote. I am well (albeit not fully) versed in Marxist theory. What I am saying is that it's true Marx had a way of systematizing classes, but in the grand scheme of things I am at liberty to accept Marx's or anyone else's (including my own) systematizing of classes. So I resent your calling it ignorant of me to name a few more classes than what Marx had envisioned.

Why would a female perspective be better at determining which morality ought pertain to women than a man's would? — Hanover

Better or not, it may be different. "It" being a division of what morality should be dispersed over the millions and billions of different genders and how it should be dispersed.

Of course nobody would need to ask us, you, me, or any of the participants here, to decide for themselves what they should think.

Seems a slippery slope to allow each discernable group the right to dictate which moral standards ought apply to them. — Hanover

So far what I read was that different rules apply to men and to women. Imagine someone stood up and said the same rules should apply to women and to men. Regardless of their gender, or sex, or spectrum analytical behaviour, would that not mean a diversification of opinions? and as related to gender.

So I don't say one group should dominate the decision of how each of us must observe and see reality, but still, if you all decide that men are put different expectations on their shoulders from women on theirs, then if that's all men saying it, then it's a gender-biassed opinion. And bias is not good.

Unless, like you say, or like you don't say, bias is not a bad thing, or a bad thing.

You're assuming you haven't heard from any women. — T Clark

That is a brilliant observation / deducing / claim by a simple ability to read and comprehend what I wrote.

(Sorry for the snide remark... but if you think I am an idiot, why can't I return the favour? Peace, Sister Clark.)

First search result. — StreetlightX

Thank you. It actually does not address two issues:
- the distribution of divident yielding shares
- the distribution of voting shares
and it does not contradict my involving shares in my classification system of socio-economic classes, where I said the ruling class lives on investment, the middle class mainly on work and less on investment, and the working class only on work.

So thanks for the statistic, and I appreciate its magnitude in social structure. Except it does not disprove any of my points or make a dent in them.

And the rest of your post is just you not understanding what class is, but that's your problem not mine. — StreetlightX

Please supply a definition of "class", and name the classification system that determined the definition of different classes. You can't claim I'm ignorant if you can't name what your idea of classes are.

In the US, the top 10% of the population own 90% of the shares. — StreetlightX

I would like to see your source for this claim, please. I am not arguing or provoking you, or challenging your claim; I just want to see once the actual source of this statistic. Because I've heard this claim so often and for so long, that now I am starting to wonder if it's factual or an urban myth.

Please don't be offended. Instead, please, supply the source. A reliable one, if one such exists in the first place.

Our idea of what constitutes a "comfortable life" needs to be radically shifted — Albero

I would gladly exchange my daily showers and eating chocolates for having unabashed sex with any of the females of the tribe. (Don't let my wife to see this, please!) And as far as tv shows go, or Netflix or even the Internet, I'd rather be preoccupied with how to catch the next reindeer or gazelle, or else with daydreams of how nice it would be to be a citizen of the United States of America.

There is no such thing as 'the middle class', which is a capitalist invention meant to distract from the fact that you either own capital, or are a worker. 'The middle class' are still worke — StreetlightX

In America and in the socialist west of Europe, the workers are capitalists. Anyone can own voting shares, and anyone can own dividend yielding shares. And most people in the middle class do. They work, because their investments would not allow them to float.

There is the working class who do the same as the middle class: work stiff, but the working class don't own shares or capital.

Then there is the ruling class, those who own only shares and capital, and their work consists of exchanging investment advice with their buddies on the golf course and at charity dinners.

Then there is the beggar's class, then there is the incapacitated class (people who have challenges that effectively prevent them from normative living: working for a living), then there is the criminal class, then there is the drug addict class, then there is the homeless class, and then there is the terrorist class. And finally, there is the fourth grade class of Miss Sindorofski.