cowardice is not a virtue I think.

Answer the question about obstruction; If Trump has done nothing wrong why the obstruction?

Also answer why in your mind a good leader is someone who causes massive amounts of civil unrest and massive budget deficits?

Why does Trump break informal protocol with all other past Presidents by not releasing his tax records?

Why is his administration trying to undermine the legislative branches constitutional mandate to perform checks and balances on the executive branch? Why is he talking about civil war?

Do you seriously read every transcript looking for one or two lines that you can take out of context every time that supports your dogmatic fixation with Hitler and Stalin's love child?

What about the times the president has directly told his supporters to "Punch" people in the face and all of the white nationalist rhetoric he puts up on Twitter? What about Stephen Miller's emails? How can you ignore the historical similarities with past dictatorships?

Your stances I feel beg the question; are you a monarchist and were you one before Trump ever hinted that he was going to run for office one day?

. Of course the case can be made that the same happens in academia and schools, but if the internet (search engines) directed you to opposition to your position in the way a library might arrange books by topic, there might be more of a realization that there is serious work opposed to the movement. I wouldn't categorize philosophy on the internet as fruitless, but it can give the appearance of a greater understanding and consensus and should be cautious of becoming a "safe" community absent of dissent. — Soylent

This is why an honest and successful endeavor in internet philosophy is to have the balls to use key search phrases like "Argument against belief X which I ignorantly hold" maybe not the last part haha.

In fact, we use a lot of drone technology already, which is safer, better, and cheaper, but we do not use it for commercial passenger flights, the reason being the seventy-year old totally outdated regulations that were suitable for 1950ies technology, but which are still around today.

Seriously, we simply do not need pilots. — alcontali

This would be true; if the code to work all this new technology wasn't also built and written by a perfectly fallible human. Neither technology or man alone is a sure recipe for success but they are both the others contingency. So yes, we do in fact still need pilots. Machine and human pilots. Just as those pilots still need licensing. You still have to license life altering tech.

Its not like Luke was gonna decide at the last minute "Hey R2! Your calculation skills should be perfect for this! Wanna take over and blow up the death star? Make the Shot R2! Feel the force of math and physics that ingrained into your programming!".

I think there are also those who have gone silent because they are genuinely reading up on what they are struggling to understand. There are some here who have the humility to say ‘I will have to do some more reading on that subject/theory/philosopher’, and I greatly admire that. It’s difficult to admit that in the face of someone who believes they are engaged in a debate instead of a philosophical discussion.

I want to say that each contributor to this thread so far have contributed to my learning process since I’ve been here. I haven’t always engaged with you, and I haven’t always engaged well, but following your discussions have lead me down many paths, and helped me to articulate, critically examine and revise my theories. So thank you.

As for the OP, I think engaging with posters here enables you to structure both the academic and applicable aspects of a philosophy, which I don’t imagine would happen as much in a purely academic environment. It’s certainly a challenge for those philosophies that are built on one or the other, and I think the particular environments of some past philosophers may have protected their theories in this way, to some extent. — Possibility

Personally I have always found your contributions and responses refreshing and often find myself wishing you'd reply more.

I'm glad some people make a point to research what people say here and that I'm not the only one.

I try to make a habit of using keywords in all my writings so that research is a little easier and I try to use an approach I've adopted through my early life interests in the hard sciences over the humanities; wherein you mention concepts more than the people associated with them. You'll notice that in a lot of physics material names and references to lots of other researchers aren't really used anywhere close to the level citations are used in philosophy and they are structured very differently when they are used. It's concept focussed which I feel is the best method to use for discussion either on a 1 to 1 or group. So long as everyone remembers to include and write formal philosophy citations and references in their formal work its all good. However my advice on this front is to write whatever it is you are writing first in the hard science method and then add your quotes, references and citations.

This way you can just write a regular flow in the first draft which will keep your positions more likely to be consistent. Then you add in the who's from what book where they are needed as you read back the first draft.

Personally, I've always preferred concept keywords as my frames of reference but I also feel that the hard sciences doesn't cite or reference people enough. Makes it hard to account for bias in the opinions about hard scientific research in the researcher themselves.

According to the dictionary
Morality
noun
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour — Andrew4Handel

Oxford definition is okay if you're speaking to Lay people. You should get a hold of the oxford or Cambridge philosophy dictionaries if you can. Either that or use the online stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.

There is a very good reason for this; certain concepts within philosophy are not there dictionary definitions. This is why a philosophy dictionary is more appropriate. A lot of philosophers define words to what they think they mean and some philosophers are themselves the origin of some of the words and phrases we use commonly today. For example; "Reverence for Life" is actually Albert Schweitzers contribution to the English language although the concept itself predates English.

Another good example is Kants Sublime which is very different to how you or I would originally conceive the word. Then you have German words in philosophy, Kants sublime is more closer to the German Erhabenheit in definition than it is to a standard oxford dictionary definition of Sublime.

Have you done any research into ethical pragmatism or moral ecology yet? :) I really think you'll like it.

Thank you for the suggestion I'll check that out! My own explanation is to go down the psychology and neuroscience route too.

A lot of my philosophy, or arguments, if not all, are ignored. When people face an argument they can't face, but they are still in love with their pet theories, then they ignore dissent — god must be atheist

While this is one of the reasons people ignore others; it isnt the only reason someone can find themselves ignored. I often find that my rebuttals draw begrudging silent acceptance, telling of inward accepting of the argument but the lack of willingness to just say so for a myriad of reasons. Pride being one I think. It's a shame really as I choose to get happy when people genuinely make me speechless in a way that shows they are onto something. Nothing is ever perfect though.

I should have thought that morality and ethics are complete synonyms, unless and if not separated by the author and specifying the differences. What you wrote, Mark Dennis, seems to purport that there is a difference in common, accepted English and in ethical philosophy as such. That is not true, methinks, but if you already knew that, I apologize. — god must be atheist

No you shouldnt have thought that because that would be wrong. There is a difference which I have already described. Ethics and morals are not synonomous with each other but are both studies of the same thing which is value. This is 101 level stuff here you can't really make this stuff up, it is free knowledge you can easily find Here and Here.

Yeah the fundamental principal of value theory is pretty much a consensus within moral and ethical thought as are the differences between the two which I have previously stated.

I know you said they put other people's wants ahead their own, but since this is their most importantly wanted thing, their wants to satisfy other people's wants takes precedence over wanting to want their own wants satisfied before other people's. — god must be atheist

Some of their wants/needs* is really what I meant. For example a parent might care about the long-term wellbeing of their offspring but that doesn't mean they will always do what makes the offspring happy in the short term like feeding it copious amounts of cookies.
We all have different duties to juggle as part of our roles. I think the subject aspect of life comes from how we prioritise those duties, so long as we make efforts to duly consider them.

We should probably get into how to differentiate between a want and a need.

No that's a common misconception. Good is an appraisal of value. So methaethically we have to define good or define our values as it were. Morality and Ethics both delve into value. However ethics is the study of external values whilst morality is the study of internal principles. Does that make sense? Apologies if you already know all this but I think your arguments are steering away from these fundamental conceptions of morality and ethics being studies of Value Theory.

It's all very well to say that protons are positively charged, electrons are negatively charged and neutrons have a balance of negative and positive; however you still have to figure out the properties of the three in order to properly define them.

What is Faith to you? Or what do you feel it is best to have faith in?

Have you done any research into ethical pragmatism? I can't offer you objective moral truth by your definition as I cannot claim to know it. I just have my best guesses in the end.

Pragmatic moral truth is the best you can get in my opinion. Human truths or things that are true for life if not all of reality.

Maybe Moral Ecology is where you should focus some research.

Give me a DM if you want to discuss things in a more informal and friendly manner but I hope my suggestions might find you some measure of peace.

The reason I call Nihilism is a step is that the state of mind is showing of ones awareness of the great problems. Only you can decide how you will personally answer them in the way the helps you sleep at night and die knowing you tried your best in life. Good luck :) digging the journey you're on.

These people will rather immigrate from elsewhere, gradually outnumber you, and then, sooner or later, simply get rid of you. — alcontali

Or marry my kids haha

What I’m positing is that this is who we are. It’s not a subjective idea of ourselves. Morality is the objective reality and it addresses all the questions about what’s real so that we can know who we are, what’s important and how we should live. — Brett

This is great! Very well put. There is almost an element of literalist definitions of ethics and morals. Specifically; Value. Values are the objective morality starting from the mathematical. The universe is at least a value greater than zero. Even if everything is an illusion, an illusion is not nothing.

This is a really compelling argument. I'll be thinking about this for awhile :)

So to stay on OP, I think that past philosophers would struggle in this venue but that it would truly separate the wheat from the Chaffe and some would adapt and each time struck down would rise more powerful than ever; just like Obi Wan Kenobi, wiser each time. Except for the original actor, who hated the franchise. Hes a bawhair.

Thought provoking post I have to say.

Personally; I have found that this community is where I have done the most growth and that the battleground is able to produce impressive mental feats from all sides. Scholars are scholars. We are more like warrior monks here hahaha all engaged in the noble art of debate, where mental feats and good arguments from all sides contribute to a level of respect amongst us all.

Almost makes you wonder where the world might be if these philosophical forums were government influencing think tanks with strong anti corruption mechanisms.. Which probably rules me out as a member, as I'm the power hungry fool drooling over the prospect of this right now!

I have to say, this is probably one if your more sensible threads in my honest but unbiased opinion @Bartricks

I feel it highlights the virtues of the utilitarian intent behind your antinatal views and shows a sincere effort to meet people halfway to find some common ground where we can maybe now speak without insulting one another. I feel you have also made efforts to address the demandingness problem in your views to do this. Bravo! Sincerely. My apologies for my part in the circumstances which led to our falling out. Clean slate or would you like to respectfully and formally address specific issues before carrying on with one?

Fundamentally I agree with licensing; but not for the same reasons as yourself obviously, but I think you'll agree with mine to some extent. The thing licensing does is bring in Education! Education and opportunity are the most powerful contraceptives one could hope for in any part of the world. Equal opportunity for education and diverse education at that.

Now the thing about licensing; of course some people are going to have kids without permission, however everyone has to access a hospital or midwife and many of these now offer compulsory parenting classes.

Obviously education isn't perfect and even if we reduce some avenues of suffering more may open. That being said; at least we can improve how we educate as we grow and learn.

How do you feel about child limits set at realistic intervals? For example one child per adolescent cycle? So not until Child A is 16 or 18 can child B be conceived? Laws would have to be cognizant of twins+ also.

I feel these sorts of rules serve the purpose of reducing suffering and improving the quality of life even though a percentage of people will not obey them. It's a good start and so long as education is also at the core of any punitive action against those that break licensing laws I'm also agreeable.

As for issues of equality in giving out licenses; welfare reforms could allow for intensive support and education for those who wish to have children but might otherwise have difficulties in raising them compared to your average person. I feel like this is going back to the idea of community raising where there is enough trust and safety to do so. My point here is simply that access to licenses shouldn't be a problem so long as access to educators is given equally.

Anyway, very stimulating thread. Well done again. Glad to finally figure out some common ground.

Sorry swallows I forgot to respond here. Personally I agree that Christianity should be more left leaning than it currently is, or some practices of it anyway if they all truly embodied the spirit of Christ. However where you and I disagree is probably; How far to the left? I feel that Christianity demands adaptive centrism which does fall into line with your claim as I also feel what is currently required of an adaptive centrism is some form of soft socialism in the centrist rhetoric.

For example; the tech industry should be much more conservative and soft capitalism through effective legislation involving setting the pricing rights into the hands of the people who are securing the resources and the countries the resources come from. I'd be happy to only need to buy a device as often as I'd need to buy a well maintained car and maybe even a house so long as I can pay for routine maintenance and software upgrades and that the people from the Congo and other places aren't dying to get the device into my hands.

Since this is now in the lounge and the terms of this post are pretty broad; as the OP I recommend to the moderators that they be lenient within this thread of other rules of the forum. So long as no flaming occurs I feel this thread should be a safe space for freedom of speech.

Wallows, do you feel that wealth and industry work are also contributing factors to how they politically identify? If so, how do they compare with the influence of individual spirituality?

So yes, it is safe to say these career officials are idiots and are falling for bad reporting. That the others share the same fantasies makes it all the more a obvious that this is anti-Trump hysteria at best, a coverup of corruption at worst. — NOS4A2

Zeldin: What was the goal of requesting investigations into 2016 election and Burisma?

Taylor: As I understand it from one of the maybe the article in the New York Times about Mr. Giuliani’s interest in Burisma, in that article, he describes, and I think he quotes Giuliani at some length, that article indicates that Giuliani was interested in getting some information on Vice President Biden that would be useful to Mr.Giuliani’s client. I think that’s what he says. He says he’s got one client, and he’s useful to the client.

Zeldin: And then it’s your inference that Mr. Giuliani’s goal would be the President’s goal?

Taylor: Yes.

Zeldin: And your source is the New York Times?

Taylor: Yes.

Zeldin: So do you have any other source that the President’s goal in making this request was anything other than the New York Times?

Taylor: I have not talked to the president. I have no other information from what the President was thinking

The fantasies here are your time lines. Did you forget about the whistleblower and the released transcript of the white house call? Do Me a favour, not us a favour. ME.

Stop trying to make it look like some big conspiracy against the president. He is the conspiracy.

Stop disrespecting me by ignoring my arguments. If you can't think of a counter then just admit you shouldn't be supporting Donald Trump. Man up and know when to have the dignity and character to admit you're wrong.

I mean just look at how divided everyone is? How can a man claim to be a good leader when his wards are fighting amongst themselves constantly and over 50% of the voting public wants him gone? What about the fact when he leaves office in either 2020 or 2024 his own company and brand will have been enriched while the USA will be left with a massive deficit in the trillions?

Seriously why are you ignoring me? Do I leave you speechless? Wonder why.

For example; a lot of us here can probably notice with some quick introspection that they have probably been motivated to act at times by thoughts about the future.

I often turn to the Piano to explain my thoughts here; now before its creation, you could probably only determine one thing about the future, that new musical instruments will be created.

Could you have predicted the piano in all its complexity and nuance? What it would be made out of, what it could be made out of, what it could inspire, what the first key press was going to be and which note, was it the right note or was it out of tune the first time, what songs were going to be made, what books from the creative inspiration, stories, narratives, paintings, marriages, killings?

It's easy to look at the past and with 20/20 hindsight to boldly claim that everything is deterministic. How easy is it to do that from the past though?

I think if we brought a person from the past to New York city or Tokyo or Hong Kong they would probably say this was all beyond all their wildest dreams.

it is possible that the will is fundamentally not deterministic, not determined by deterministic laws. — leo

This is my feelings on the matter too. I feel the universe has it's own dichotomy of control. Determinism is one side of that dichotomy. Will of Life seems to play by different rules in my opinion.

Also it's a thought experiment, we haven't tried it in practice. — leo

We have though; there are countless twin studies on aging that have been done. Admittedly most of these studies are usually in the fields of geriatric care; however, with a bit of logic skills and cross referencing with the physics material on the subject matter, you can identify the evidence from those studies that pertains and shows premises with which to make arguments in this area.

You are right though, we are getting too far away from the OP. However our line of discussion does have meaning which contributes to the probability argument.

For example; the dice and coin toss that has been discussed here is very curious. Probabilities for what could happen there are endless. A six sided die will only land on a face if it is not thrown at an escape velocity relative to the strength of gravity of the object it is thrown from.

Now, if say I threw a dice on the moon with enough force for it to escape the moons and earth gravity well, we might never know which side the die will land on. Especially if the vacuum of space washes away the numerical markings. It might never even land on anything or it might land somewhere which will denature the die like jupiter or the sun.

So in the argument of probability is an illusion; I say that we do not yet know enough to say whether or not the universe is entirely probabilistic; we do know enough to know that we do not know what all the probabilities are. So our current understanding is an illusion but that doesn't have to mean that Probability itself is an illusion. It could still be or not be.

Your form of Nihilism sounds more like moral defeatism.

Is this due to a lack of justice in the world? Your belief I mean? Why do you really think morality is impossible? What is functioning morality to you? Really curious. Nihilism is a step in the right direction in my eyes so long as its only once and not a backstep.

I do not think that this is true. There are numerous challenges that we overcome. — Andrew4Handel

Does my use of the word problematic mean something that is impossible? That's not what I mean. I mean that all challenges inherently have problems as all challenges have a problem which requires solved. Problematic here merely means something which contains problems. Problematic is the nature of reality for us life forms... Or awareness of problems at least.

in Islam he does but either way its the narrative I want us to look at.

This story influences my political outlook. That of adaptive centrist; knowing when to conserve and when to be liberal and in what areas of life. For example in the case of resources, I want the government to be more liberal in certain key policies but businesses need to be far more conservative. Particularly the tech industry.

Joseph's role in saving Egypt from famine was that of knowing when to conserve and when to give.

I am not a single issue voter so a centrist is the only intelligent thing to call myself.

Cognitive dissonance? Why pass it up? — Benkei

Cognitive dissonance about cognitive dissonance? The mental acrobatics here are impressive in their own way sometimes aren't they? Almost flawless execution haha

So I would say that intuition is a function of innate capacity and knowledge. Some people are just born intuitive in certain domains. I liken this to being born with especially keen eyesight. Now, some things (in quantum mechanics) are "counter-intuitive." But this is more of a generalization. I see no reason why an intuitive person couldn't intuit such states of affairs. Quantum physicists must do.

More important, I think is the sense of intuition where one immerses oneself in a subject, and eventually pieces start falling into place. This is essentially the mystery of scientific discovery - where did the hypothesis come from? One must have at least an inkling of where one is going, a question to be answered. — Pantagruel

I couldn't agree more. Even parent intuition is easy to explain from this view point. How many times a day am I afflicted with the memories of the dangers of the world and that the people I love are out there in it I wonder? Is it intuition on the occasions that I am right that someone has been harmed? Or did intuition make me check all the times I was wrong too?

Glad to have you contribute here! :)

Stay on topic. You can't push Trumps criminality away with a barge pole so don't even try.

None of what I have said has been a falsity. Compared to the rest of us you are one of the fox contributors on here. Do you want me to go through your past comments and count them?

Get with the project here. Trump is right now claiming he committed no illegal act, as evidence of it including his own transcripts which he released the the testimony of his staff and emails all show Trump broke the law and now he is breaking more to try to cover it up. This is all publicly accessible corroborated evidence from multiple news outlets on all sides. It's almost getting to numerous to count and your evasion strains credulity to breaking point.

You can't stay on the issues raised at all. We are all just propaganda machines to you it would seem and I find that highly disrespectful to say the least. Why would any of us here wish to lie to you about what many here clearly perceive? Now, I know that there is such a thing as a benevolent dictator but waiting around for the right one is stupid because it's a power no one should have. Not even the greatest person on earth if there even is such a thing. Trump is NOT Benevolent though. Children are dying in camps down at the border right now and Trump is trying to kill Asylum. I've seen footage. Stop trying to gaslight us. I'd really rather not show you distasteful imagery on here but the evidence is out there if you would just break out of your bubble and ask questions of the groups you are a member of.

I honestly don't give a damn about democrats all that much, they have their own problems. I don't care if the next person is republican, dem or independent but it cannot be Trump. So long as Education, Housing and Healthcare are sorted out and real effort is made to fight climate change I'd be happy. No Dictators though, not now, not ever. I'd rather wait around for the right collaboration and conglomeration of people for the job of government than the right single person any day. That is Democracy, That is a Republic and that is the USA.

Those are part of the same postulates you are speaking about? It isn't based on assumptions either it is based on evidence and fact. Astronauts age differently as do the twins. This is all in line with special and general relativity unless some definitions changed? We are talking about physics here right?

How is Gravity not involved in the twin paradox? Are the Twins floating in a vacuum? How barbaric!

Among all the terrible stuff Trump has done, the only part that is potentially comprehensible to Trump supporters is that he took a booming economy and turned it into a trillion-dollar deficit. No president in history has been that incompetent. There have been presidents who suffered catastophes and needed to run high deficits to dig themselves out of them and presidents who have been gifted booms and squandered most of the proceeds on wasteful wars, but no president bar none has managed to take an economy as good as the one Trump got handed on a plate and go that far into the red. It's a uniquely Trumpian failure, the result of which is a bunch of new billionaires laughing all the way to the bank while inequality skyrockets and the inevitable crash rolls around the corner. — Baden

Agreed. The whole "Oh but you have to seek investment and right now we are investing in the united states!" is a load of BS too. The investments went to the billionaires and the only thing that is going to come out of that is a negative jump in wealth inequalities and disparities. Dystopian demagogue bs will not win out the day.

Social awareness is very important. Educating is the supreme importance though. Diverse education.

That’s false. I avoid Fox unless an interview has occurred there because I know this fallacy will come my way. I try to use sources that are acceptable to anti-Trumpers. — NOS4A2

What fallacy was that? I'm pretty sure what I said was that I'm assuming you are going to multiple sources but pointing out you aren't assuming that of other people here.

I'm assuming that as a lot of the people on here are a lot more intelligent than your average person (including yourself) is reading news from both sides and centrist views as well as looking for unpolitically biased news outlets. — Mark Dennis

With your original comment:

But it’s not so independent when you’re reading the same news and falling for the same anti-Trump propaganda. — NOS4A2

So the fallacy you are claiming I'm making is in fact the one you seem to be making. What does cognitive dissonance and projection feel like as a phenomenon to the individual experiencing it by the way? You are probably the best person to ask that question.

What do you think Wisdom is? I feel I've still not come up with a satisfying answer for myself yet.

I do believe it isn't easy. Nothing is ever easy and there is no such thing as a 'simple' wish.

If we start broaching into thinking that some people are just morally evolved then we are treading into dangerous waters. There was nothing morally evolved about me as a child nor any other child I've ever met. I personally believe environment is the most contributing factor always. Sure genes plays its part, but only in that your genes will probably define how you react to certain environments. Human functional design is geographically relative.

morality involves putting someone else's needs ahead of your wants. Or fulfilling an obligation even though it may not be convenient. Things we "ought" to do. — Pantagruel

What about those amazing individuals we all know who seem to not only want but need to put other peoples wants ahead of their own? Friends, family etc.. Certainly parents.

Neutral criterion. Knowing how demanding something is useful for positive or negative endeavours.

What say you to a principle of challenge? I definitely agree with the sentiment behind your contribution that being moral is a challenging undertaking. Life is challenging.

Another issue is the unworkability of morality where there too many complex moral dilemmas also framed in an amoral nature. Nature is exploitative and arbitrary and it is somewhat fantastical to try and make nature into some kind of moral paragon. This can tie with utilitarian dilemmas were nature is seen as too harmful. — Andrew4Handel

This is one of the most important points to raise in metaethics and ethics; Its called the Demandingness problem. It's a key question to ask of any moral philosophy, claim, prescription or argument "Is this possible? How demanding is carrying out the objective or goal here?".

My answer is; contributing to symbiotic and stable moral ecology and progress for all life.

Not many people are like William Wilberforce and Olaudah Equiano fighting to end slavery. — Andrew4Handel

Also you are awesome for having brought these two up! I love Wilberforce and now you must tell me about Equiano as I'm unfamilliar but already fascinated :)

My response is going to be short here; Morality is Challenging, Challenges are always problematic. That is why they are Challenges.

A less popular but more intuitive interpretation is that during the trip the other twin does age more quickly. Technically it's not an interpretation of special relativity as it doesn't start from the same postulates as special relativity, but it is experimentally equivalent (in the sense that the two theories make the same observable predictions, but they give different explanations as to what is really going on behind the scenes). — leo

I agree this is my intuition on the matter as well. Simply due to the knowledge that gravity stretches time. As for the Postulates; I don't like to assume anything. Physicists and mathematicians can assume what they want. We shouldn't conflate scientific facts and evidence with the opinions on them.