This issue bothers me in two ways:

1. LGBT people who commit suicide because of far-right fundamentalist condemnation.
2. Negative religious paradigm's causing otherwise heterosexual dysfunction.

Take for example Madonna. She was raised Catholic and saw the dysfunction there relative to masturbation (the need to celebrate oneself). And in her prime, she also went out of her way in making her point about the similar need for human's to talk about their own sexuality. It was arguably the most outlandish rebellion against sexual dysfunction at that time. And it was a good thing.

So don't feel repressed or guilty or any of that other emotional dysfunctional crap. Celebrating oneself is just the intrinsic need to procreate. Normal and healthy to do so... .

(Obviously spending too much time celebrating can be a bad thing.)

Such an argument still assumes there is a necessary casual relationship between the two-hence the fallacy.

Having a 'necessary causal relationship' as you said, is an interesting idea. Probably more metaphysical than not. At the risk of redundancy, take for example the infamous synthetic a priori judgement from Kant: all events must have a cause. There is something there [intuition] that causes human's to utter such concepts. Yet, ironically, it's precisely those types of judgements that create discovery (in the science's).

In any case, unless I'm missing something, I don't think it would not be a logical fallacy to infer that the supernatural exists relative to both examples you gave... . Logically, I think it would fall somewhere in between the categories of phenomenology and subjective truth's.

We see life and death in the cosmos (such as that of stars, which power life). We see creation and destruction. Attraction and repulsion. Everywhere. — leo

My philosophy is similar to Wayfarer's thoughts on evil. Also I'm sure you're familiar with Taoism, where you cannot have one without the other, like rain and sunshine.


On Evil:

"To understand the Taoist notion of good and evil, it is important to distinguish between the "concept" of evil versus the "reality" of evil.

As a concept, Taoists do not hold the position of good against evil; rather they see the interdependence of all dualities. So when one labels something as a good, one automatically creates evil. That is, all concepts necessarily are based on one aspect vs. another; if a concept were to have only one aspect, it would be nonsensical. "

Read more at https://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/taoism/what-do-taoists-believe.aspx#Z8Rsay3Tmiwp6rOL.99


Also, as Existential Psychologist Maslow said in an interview prior to his death:

PT: In our society, we see all behavior as a demon we can vanquish and banish, don't we? And yet good people do evil things.

Maslow: Most people are nice people. Evil is caused by ignorance, thoughtlessness, fear, or even the desire for popularity with one's gang. We can cure many such causes of evil. Science is progressing, and I feel hope that psychology can solve many of these problems. I think that a good part of evil behavior bears on the behavior of the normal.

PT: How will you approach the study of evil?

Maslow: If you think only of evil, then you become pessimistic and hopeless like Freud. But if you think there is no evil, then you're just one more deluded Pollyanna. The thing is to try to understand and realize how it's possible for people who are capable of being angels, heroes, or saints to be bastards and killers. Sometimes, poor and miserable people are hopeless. Many revenge themselves upon life for what society has done to them. They enjoy hurting.

PT: Your study of evil will have to be subjective, won't it? How can we measure evil in the laboratory?

Maslow: All the goals of objectivity, repeatability, and preplanned experimentation are things we have to move toward. The more reliable you make knowledge, the better it is. If the salvation of man comes out of the advancement of knowledge--taken in the best sense--then these goals are part of the strategy of knowledge.

Thank you for the article Mark....this issue is very far reaching...awareness is key.

Thanks again.

For example, assuming that, just because you prayed for one big thing to happen and the big thing happened doesn't mean the big thing happening was a result of your prayer. — HereToDisscuss

Get your thoughts: Say a person is considered a theist or spiritual and that person regularly meditates on wisdom, and otherwise prays for revelation that helps them with certain decision making in their life. And during the course of their particular sojourn, planned or unplanned happenstance occurs, which then generally results in a higher quality of life. Is that a coincidence or revelation?

How would we find out... ?

...oh thank you kindly Mark for your well wishes! No, we are good for now, it's just at high tides combined with, as you say, heavy rain events. I kinda hate to move because of all the nature and beauty here/feels very spiritual to me (I live on the historic Chickahominy River-you know the Chickahominy Indians/Pocahontas married first Colonist John Rolfe/Williamsburg Colony, etc. etc.).

Anyway, you are certainly used to colder temps which is fine, not to mention you not having any sea- level/elevation concerns in parts of Illinois. Though I'm assuming Chicago is at risk?

I applaud you for the thread. I think too, we need more public awareness of the issue. Politically, the Global (participation) challenges are real... .

...I don't know, I'm a little worried. I live in a waterfront community (Virginia) and it's very evident tides have risen. Some docks and streets are flooding at high tide where they haven't flooded before. And some people are spending money raising their docks. And much of Tangier Island/Chesapeake Bay is under water now.

I hear Florida is worse... . The direct cost impact will certainly be associated with Government backed FEMA flood insurance claims (which to get a mortgage everyone is required to have in a flood zone or otherwise purchasing any waterfront property).

Hey Tim...all this talk about procreation on the forum got me to thinking about the old (abortion) 'personhood' debate viz Being and becoming. This also concerns the OP as it relates to the unknown, neutral, or otherwise indeterminant things, from Wiki:

"The beginning of human personhood is the moment when a human is first recognized as a person. There are differences of opinion as to the precise time when human personhood begins and the nature of that status. The issue arises in a number of fields including science, religion, philosophy, and law, and is most acute in debates relating to abortion, stem cell research, reproductive rights, and fetal rights. "

"Traditionally, the concept of personhood has entailed the concept of soul, a metaphysical concept referring to a non-corporeal or extra-corporeal dimension of human being. However, in modernity, the concepts of subjectivity and intersubjectivity, personhood, mind, and self have come to encompass a number of aspects of human being previously considered to be characteristics of the soul.[1][2] With regard to the beginning of human personhood, one historical question has been: when does the soul enter the body? In modern terms, the question could be put instead: at what point does the developing individual develop personhood or selfhood?[3] "

So Tim, back to being and becoming, I asked myself whether Being is a noun or verb, and it lead me to time dependent things:

Existence is dependent on time
Human Beings exist
Therefore, Human Beings are dependent on time (for their existence)

And so one question becomes, if existence is a noun, and to exist is a verb, how is it reconciled?

And derivative examples include:

Paradox of:

1. Self-reference
2. Contradiction
3. Infinite regress
4. Half-truth's

And so on.

Would you need examples of those?

( I'd be happy to provide some, please advise.)

Imo two excellent questions. Develop #1 a bit more? E.g., what need is there for them to be reconciled. What, even, do the terms mean?

Thank you Tim. It's a huge discussion (Heidegger, Plato, cognitive science, physics, et al.) but here's a simple first take:

What is the difference between being and becoming? Is any form of being not a “becoming”? Can one “be” in a static/incomplete or static/complete sense?

We are beings within space-time, thus it follows that our being is a becoming.

How can logic or mathematics resolve the static state of existence and Being(?)

No worries Mww, it's all good. I'm far from an expert logician. Let me find another way to broach the concern and I'll respond accordingly. In the meantime, another way of saying what I said in the OP, is basically LEM.

Beyond that, [other] unresolved paradox's remain quite a mystery...

No worries Bartricks. It's all good. Thanks anyway.

Okay, put succinctly, reword the statement 'all events must have a cause' to validate its truth value.

But first, what do you mean be "configure the truth value"? — tim wood

Hey Tim, what I mean is the whole of the synthetic a priori statement is no longer determined and seems to be cast into a 'neutral' or undetermined relation to truth.

Kantian epistemological philosophy is predicated exclusively on reason and logic, of which “all events must have a cause” is the foremost rendering of it a priori. So, no, the Kantian “all effects must have a cause” does not fit into a category of something beyond reason and logic.

Hey MW, thanks for chiming-in... .

First things first, I don't believe you are correct there. The Kantian Metaphysical statement of 'all events must have a cause' was one of the hallmarks of his Critique. That is because the meaning of those words is a synthesis of a priori and natural phenomena; thus his infamous synthetic a priori. (Most all physical theories involve synthetic judgements.)

So, using logic, how does one configure the truth value of 'all events must have a cause'?

For any or all Trumper's, just a quick question.

I haven't researched the so-called analogous conditions, but now that we are in the mode of investigating everyone and everything [which is a good thing], what about the Ukraine transcripts (put in the code-word server) ?

Like the DNC server, shouldn't the public learn about certain eventual declassified material in there too?

Oh, and speaking of Ukraine, what about all the subpoena'd documents that were denied access from the Trump administration... ?

You don't have to believe God is omni-x3 to be a Christian

This Bud's for you Frank, cheers!

Now that the 'precedent' is set, relative to investigating the (Russia) investigator's, I don't think it will bode well for the Trumper's. For example, now, the circular firing squad will be shooting at say Ivanka and her economic interests in China and related intellectual property abuses viz Biden's son kinds of interests...it's a free for all now !!! .

So the question becomes, who's more corrupt: Trump (family and associates) or the Government. My bet is Trump tips the scale as king of corruption.

I think I've just graduated from popcorn to shrimp cocktail!!

Either address the arguments it raises or don't. — Bartricks

Okay great! Who said God is OmniX3 then?

Start from your premise there and the soundness of your argument. I will argue it has little import because the definition of God is a nonsensical reconciliation.

Question: why do you believe God is Omnix3?

looks like the Durham investigation is now turning into a criminal inquiry. This does not bode well for champions of the Russia hoax. — NOS4A2

I'm totally fine with anything that uncovers truth!

As far as I'm concerned it wouldn't bother me if that's all that both Democrats and Republicans do; investigate each other. That's probably the only way to drain the swamp.

And the reason why it shouldn't bother anyone, is that in using the sports metaphor, the players (rank and file ) are the ones who execute the real work anyway ( I know from working in state government myself). The coaches (politicians) can argue till exhaustion. So then maybe some level of truth will come out...gee that would be one virtuous outcome from this Presidency!

NOT LoL

Just focus on the argument I made in the OP. — Bartricks

Trust me bartricks I really want to provide some helpful input. That's one reason why I wanted to contribute to your thread so that I can help out and mitigate some of your angst.

But regretfully the only way I'll be able to do that is for you to drop the Omni nonsense, and somehow re-word the OP

you dont know the mind of God, how do you know it has one? — frank

That's a great question Frank. For all we know God doesn't have a consciousness like human consciousness. In a so-called metaphysical world, it's entirely possible completely different axiomatic principles would be used to define existence .

For example, if the current success in mathematic's still cannot crack the cosmic codes, it could follow an entirely different or novel metaphysical language would be used to describe things...

Not to me, because you can't really believe in God if there's no content to your belief. It can be out of focus to some degree, but it can't not be there at all. — Bartricks

Again, you're dichotomizing. Please pause momentarily, and reflect, accordingly. This is not providing any import to the aforementioned reconciliation.

My point is just that despite our lives being worth living it remains the case that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god would not have created a world like this one and made innocent sentient creatures live in it, other things being equal. — Bartricks

I can't stress enough the importance of dropping all of this Omni nonsense. Why would you, or anyone, assume they know the mind of God? Otherwise I think it was Epicurus who rejected such ideas... .

It's meaningless/counterproductive in this context of rationalizing any sense of reconciliation between those two things in your OP.

Let's be a little more sophisticated shall we? For example do you believe the Bible is a modern physics, medical, and cognitive science book? Of course not.

True that!

And going back to the big picture, someone said past performance is a good indicator of future performance.

Whether it's his past business dealings with stiffing contractors, Russian interference with our election from which his campaign team members were found guilty & ncarcerated, or this kind of Ukraine attempt, common sense still tells me the likelihood of guilt is very high...

In the meantime, I'll be stocking up on the popcorn !

indeed Relativist, indeed. And lot's of hypocrisy too:

“One of the reasons that [former Republican House Oversight Committee Chair] Trey Gowdy said that these things work better in private, the way he conducted most of Benghazi, I don’t remember you complaining about that. I don’t remember you guys complaining in 2015 when you guys changed the rules to empower the majority with subpoena power to suppress the minority,” Cuomo noted"

You go Chris! Love you man!

Hm, I am not sure I understand that. I mean, surely you have to have some idea about what you believe in, otherwise you don't really qualify as believing it? — Bartricks

And I wanted to briefly share my response to that statement you made above. Quite simply, I don't dichotomize and throw the baby out with the bathwater. Does that make sense?

...well Bartricks, I must say that's a pretty extreme view, of procreation that is. And of course we would not share in that view, though I get your logic.

And sure, it occurs to me from time to time what it would be like not to live. And the problem of our finitude and imperfection here can be depressing (existential angst). And that coupled with folks who have kids without thinking about responsibility and who are just selfish narcissists wanting to create a clone of themselves is disheartening.

However, I myself, as you might too, conclude that life is worth living enough to consider the virtues of bringing someone else into the world. As Maslow suggested, reaching those self-actualized euphoric times of Being, where one truly feels that they've accomplished exactly that which they were born to do, validates fulfillment of living this life.

My recommendation would be (and I have a friend who is kind of glass half-empty and tends to be more cynical than not) is to not focus on your sense of ethical judgement about others and how the world works at its worst. The danger there is going down a path of interminable angst that cannot be healthy.

Not to sound idealistic; have you considered using that energy to make change happen?

Thanks for the reply, just a couple quick thoughts:

1. As a Christian Existentialist, I don't know what an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent Being means, so I can't comment on that. In other words, I don't objectively know the true nature of the Mind of God. And I'm OK with that. I don't spend time reconciling those three in terms of judgment or judging people or otherwise making sense of that mystery.... . I don't measure our existence in that way, nor do I use those features as a guide to ethics. At best it's a metaphysical theory.

2. With respect to what I'll call 'law of attraction' or reaping what one sow's, I only agree that those cause and effect things have intrinsic value. The value would be gaining wisdom on how to be, and what to avoid or not do for a healthy lifestyle/health and well being.

What I do feel I know, is that in the OT Ecclesiastes we have that existential angst you describe. In the NT we have an 'answer' in faith with a savior Jesus, that is a model for Love. The connection to part of that quandary you've described, some of which is in the Ecclesiastes, gives follower's hope.

So maybe Hope is the concept one should hold onto here viz. your procreation concern... .

I do get what you're saying though for sure. With procreation comes responsibility.

I was watching Chris Cuomo last night about yesterday's 'political charade' apparently endorsed by Trump, and he reminded the viewers about 'the process'. To this end, we are in the deposition phase. And we know in most any adjudication process, deposition's are almost always closed door between said prosecutors and witnesses. I mean, standard stuff in a civil or criminal trial.

The interesting parallel was that during Clinton's impeachment, the Ken Starr report was all 'off-site closed door deposition style' where typical witness testimony was taken including corroborating evidence/testimony at his law office(s).

So, don't worry GOP, when the deposition 'process' is completed, your party, and the American people will get to see/hear the 'trial' and you will have your chance to cross examine witness, as well as bring other's to testify... . And by the way, there are Republican's in the committee right now asking questions of the various witnesses... .

Just a minor point to bring up concerning the charade yesterday. I wonder if Trump's base even gets it...

Or maybe they just 'get' the mob mentality!

Hey everybody, thanks for contributing thus far... . I don't know about you guys but I think this is a wonderful thought experiment.

I'm not sure which camp I fall under, however, I'm leaning toward Schopenhauer a bit.

Though my theory, hasn't been fully worked out, I'm thinking on a human scale that the Will could reside in the primitive limbic system. We already know that human sentience is supposed to reside there. And just based on scale itself, because the limbic system is much smaller than the other parts of the brain, perhaps there's a correlation there.

Meaning by virtue of scale, it's possible the Will is the metaphorical heart of the brain, which then pumps blood impulses to the larger parts that are performing the intellectual functions. And maybe those impulses (dumb/raw emotion of sorts) represent the crude oil needing the refinement over to the intellectual area of the brain.

I know that's far from any exhaustive analysis... but I'm just trying to grapple with this innate sense of the 'will to survive' and how that impulse or energy seemingly makes us want to exist.

And speaking of existing things, I wonder about the metaphysical will in nature... and how Kantian things-in-themselves are able to be . How many things in nature are seemingly harmonious...

When you can't defend the charges, attack the process. — Wayfarer

True that!! It's a pretty standard distraction tactic. Pretty pathetic...

And as a little PostScript, I'm 'equal opportunity'; I was also embarrassed when Clinton was doing all that ridiculous behavior stuff in the oval office. I felt like, hey just go to a hotel somewhere but not in the oval office... .

I still say we need more moderate's in both our religious and political institutions.

What an embarrassment to the country. It's a mob-mentality once again: desperate times call for desperate measures.

Now he's attacking some of his own party calling them 'human scum' since they are turning against him.

It's funny the hypocrisy as it relates to Lindsey Graham. During the Clinton impeachment hearings he was all about abuse of office and "cleansing the office" in favor of impeachment.

And now there's this Trey Gowdy dude who in the past made a big deal about ' preserving the process'... now like Graham, he's doing a 180. LOL

I think Anthony Scaramucci was right ( a GOP'r who also turned on Trump) about Trump mentally losing it... Or maybe it's just that whole New York City mob mentality.

Sorry New York!

Shakespeare was right
For fear or flight
To be or not to be
What's the meaning of life

Hey Poetic, can you break that down a little bit for me... when you said ' to be is mandatory ...' what are you saying?

In other words, are you thinking that is some sort of a metaphysical necessity? Or a conscious necessity of sorts...

Nice debate guys! (I bought an extra box of popcorn... .)

Sure right now it's in the fact-finding phase of course... otherwise, Modus tollens rule of inference is being used here...

20. Trump's top diplomatic to Ukraine testified on 10/22/19, and revealed the so-called smoking gun/ quid pro quo in his opening statement:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vUI__sxL_fgzy5JYqaxB9cysOHwwQSE4/view

Et al.

I thought this was an interesting distinction made from Schopenhauer's metaphysical voluntarism viz the contrast from Kant's thing-in-themselves (nature of existence). Generally, Kant reduced limits of reason to (unknowable) phenomena, whereas S reduced it to the Will (as taken from the Schopenhauer's Will in Nature):

"My system therefore, far from soaring above all reality and all experience, descends to the firm ground of actuality, where its lessons are continued by the Physical Sciences.

Now the extraneous and empirical corroborations I am about to bring forward, all concern the kernel and chief point of my doctrine, its Metaphysic proper. They concern, that is, the paradoxical fundamental truth, that what Kant opposed as thing–in–itself to mere phenomenon (called more decidedly by me representation) and what he held to be absolutely unknowable, that this thing–in–itself, I say, this substratum of all phenomena, and therefore of the whole of Nature, is nothing but what we know directly and intimately and find within ourselves as the will;

that accordingly, this will, far from being inseparable from, and even a mere result of, knowledge, differs radically and entirely from, and is quite independent of, knowledge, which is secondary and of later origin; and can consequently subsist and manifest itself without knowledge: a thing which actually takes place throughout the whole of Nature, from the animal kingdom downwards;

that this will, being the one and only thing–in–itself..."

[ Commentary: Schopenhauer attaches a far wider meaning to the word than is usually given, and regards the will, not merely as conscious volition enlightened by Reason and determined by motives, but as the fundamental essence of all that occurs, even where there is no choice.]

With respect to "no choice" (volitional existence) in Psychology (Voluntarism is interesting in that it covers a lot of disciplines), my view is more of an unconscious will to live and survive, and to have beliefs and hopes about our existence here. Otherwise we have denial of the will that's manifested by some things like:

-personal experience of an extremely great suffering that leads to loss of the will to live.
-knowledge of the essential nature of life in the world through observation of the suffering of other people.

My question is, what is the metaphysical will to exist (both for Man, and Universe)?

And I hesitate to suggest Kant himself would acknowledge the modernism of “voluntarism”. Seems more the case that term has been assigned to him by others, and would be more appropriately given to Schopenhauer, who didn’t consider the will as connected to reason at all.

I agree, (I think the author is referring to ethical voluntarism--which I'm not really interested in this context of epistemology).

BTW, what do you think about Schopenhauer's metaphysical voluntarism (did he support his theory based upon things like scientific cause and effect and other natural phenomena)?

I definitely get your point (about more or less dealing with the Existential angst of it all).

Some people choose not to have children for the same reason you posit.

If you think about it as perhaps the good outweighing the bad, that might help. For example, thinking of evil as a lack of perfection in the world might be helpful. Lack of perfection in one's abilities, problem solving, obsolescence, natural disaster so on and so forth. And from a psychological view of Being, many folks would argue that the difficult times were there for a reason -- it promoted wisdom about themselves and the world. It challenged them, and ironically, made knowledge/pride possible... .

Regarding humanistic Being, how would one know which path to take if all the 'good doors' were opened simultaneously?

Idealistically, what are some things that encompass an Utopian society? Freedom for all, comes to mind....