Science doesn't assume or rely on any such inductive principle. — tom
Bernard Williams once made a "joke" that whilst Australia wasn't the only place where materialist theories of mind were believed, it was the only place where they were true. — MetaphysicsNow
It might make more sense if you read what I say properly. I didn't deny that it's supposed to be personal, I said that you're making it too personal. There's a difference. It's personal for each of us, but you made it too personal with your talk of finding a partner, fighting injustice, and so on, as if that's what it's all about, rather than that being what it's all about for you, personally. — Sapientia
I would've laughed at her. — Sapientia
You do show off in that way. — Bitter Crank
That's why I feel as though it is imperative to be vigilant of the multiplicity of thoughts and feelings associated with positions and some such matters. — Posty McPostface
Perhaps I was too exposed to Wittgenstein and "ordinary language philosophers" like J.L. Austin in my younger days, or am myself merely ordinary, but I'm inclined to define "love" as I think we typically do, as we use the word in context; as a noun or a verb, depending on the circumstances. So, I'm inclined to say that when I love someone I have a profound affection for them, for example, or a romantic attachment to them. I may have both for the same person, or I may not. I don't see these uses of the word as artificial, but rather think that uses of the word which substantially differ from them are misuses of the word and language, which may as lovely, lovely Ludwig W used to say, lead to the bewitchment of our intelligence. — Ciceronianus the White
A person who has not been completely alienated, who has remained sensitive and able to feel, who has not lost the sense of dignity, who is not yet "for sale", who can still suffer over the suffering of others, who has not acquired fully the having mode of existence - briefly, a person who has remained a person and not become a thing - cannot help feeling lonely, powerless, isolated in present-day society. He cannot help doubting himself and his own convictions, if not his sanity. He cannot help suffering, even though he can experience moments of joy and clarity that are absent in the life of his "normal" contemporaries. Not rarely will he suffer from neurosis that results from the situation of a sane man living in an insane society, rather than that of the more conventional neurosis of a sick man trying to adapt himself to a sick society. In the process of going further in his analysis, i.e. of growing to greater independence and productivity, his neurotic symptoms will cure themselves.
Immature love says: 'I love you because I need you.' Mature love says 'I need you because I love you.
You don't know whether I have a girlfriend or not, and even if you did or didn't you have no context for understanding that potential relationship. — Sum Dude
I dont understand why you have such a hangup with the word good, you sound like a Determinist steeped in cultural relativism. — Sum Dude
Manipulation and influence are the same thing, with different intentions. — Sum Dude
Telling me to fuck myself while being a woman and wearing a bikini is just rude (not the bikini part, I'm not sure why you added that necessary detail), it's not really a moral transgression, it just means that person would be kind of a dick. There's nothing wrong with being kind of a dick unless you accelerate it to the point of lambasting someone with slander. — Sum Dude
There is no "authenticity of motivations" because we all have the same motivations, security, love and fun. — Sum Dude
You claim to understand your moral compass but seem to like to type good in quotations, which indicates you are uncomfortable with that term. Further, the final part of that statement asserts that NO ONE's moral compass is distinct from their environment.
My understanding is that you think somehow a moral compass can exist totally outside of structure and context. — Sum Dude
Interesting, but being the jokester I am, I would state that the fire is always real before the shadows. :cool: — Sum Dude
If indeed its subjective or personal experience can be 'sped up' or 'slowed down'; ones experience of ten years might be the same as another's experience of ten days. — Marcus de Brun
The receptionist comment is rude, but I won't insult you in return. :smile: — Sum Dude
I'll rephrase, it's self evident once it is seen. — Sum Dude
I don't believe in "isms." I take what I find useful in schools of thought and disregard that which isn't succinct. Is this stupid? Maybe, but I can live with the fact I'll never perfectly understand morality. — Sum Dude
Lastly motivation is never a question of what is appropriate. The want for food or sex is neither appropriate or inappropriate, it vastly precedes it in nature. — Sum Dude
How can you separate truth and falsehood, (notice there are no parenthesis, meaning I know there are truths and falsehoods and your parenthesis indicate you don't believe in either) when you can never have a moral system that is separate from values prescribed by society? — Sum Dude
You know it when you see it, it is self evident. — Sum Dude
Whether it's right or not your moral character is the only metric that is truly measurable, paradoxically it doesn't always end with the best moral outcome. — Sum Dude
It doesn't seem to me there is any moral imperative to be authentic. Authenticity would seem to be for some and not for others, and perhaps even only possible for some and not for others. So, authenticity and inauthenticity would just seem to be two possible modes of being for humans; and perhaps no human could ever be entirely one or the other. — Janus
You're making this too personal. The options, as set out in the opening post, are to continue to be miserable in the domain of the real, or to give up reality for wealth and power in a dreamworld. The options aren't as you set out above, and besides, one could have the experience of living your ideal life in the dreamworld, despite it not being the real thing. The real thing might be your priority, but it's clearly not everyone's priority, and that's okay. It's okay that there's a difference in how people answer this question. There's no real right or wrong here. You should recognise that your ideal life isn't necessarily the ideal life of others. — Sapientia
Why would anyone consciously choose to limit themselves? Because within the boundaries of a known and predictable matrix it's relatively comfortable, right? — praxis
You are the eventuality of an anomaly, which despite my sincerest efforts I have been unable to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical precision.
The inevitability of its doom is as apparent to me now as a consequence of the imperfection inherent in every human being, thus I redesigned it based on your history to more accurately reflect the varying grotesqueries of your nature.
Yes, but people and outcomes are variable to a much greater extent than the characters Cypher and Neo, and what happened to them in the film. — Sapientia
People are different. Cypher isn't Neo. And misery isn't what you dictate it to be. — Sapientia
I don't think love is something we can give to all people, unless you equate it with "comradeship" or something similar. And I think it's quite possible to love someone and remain indifferent to everyone else. I think we do that all the time. We don't know anything about most other people, in fact. — Ciceronianus the White
I am absolutely saying that authentic love has nothing to do with emotion. Love to me is not about how you feel, I see it as a shared goal that you and your partner are constantly striving to work towards. — Gord
I think we are all alone in this life whether we are around people or not. There is no way of escaping the "I" you refer to. I freely admit all of my motives are selfish. I believe if you can find a person who enhances that "I" within you then that is very much a good thing. In the same way i would not expect her to admire me, who I am, what I do. I would wish her to be with me because of how it helps her change herself. Do you understand? — Gord
The affair has a parallel, in that similar instinctual imperatives clearly lie behind mass participation in 'fashion' the 'Kardashians', and even 'animal intercourse'. — Marcus de Brun
We must therefore ask: Is it possible that the un-intellectualized evil-myths perpetuated at the Nuremberg rallies, can be compared to the Capitalist and ecological evils, that are presently perpetuated by the persistence and pervasiveness of the Princess-Prince fairy-tale myth? — Marcus de Brun
To start i will define love. I believe love is an expression of the mind. I do not see it as an emotion but rather a will to act and by act i am referring to the act of giving. When you exercize your mind creatively and intuitively in the presence of a lover, you will be rewarded without fail. — Gord
I understand being in love as a spiritual awareness. Think back to when you were a child and the world seemed magical and your curiosity boundless. I believe at this point in our lives we were in the state of being in love. I think this comes about through the connection we forge with a loving mother. — Gord
I met a girl in my junior year of college who i had an instant almost preordained connection with — Gord
I love a woman now. I am not in love with her at all. She does not raise my spirits in the slightest. She challenges me to become a stronger, more self aware man, the same way a best friend might do. — Gord
But I doubt a cure may be rooted principally in improved habits of speech. — Cabbage Farmer
It is perhaps important that girls learn of the mechanics of the mating ritual (these are contained in the Princess myth) and it is important that males learn how to attain and wield power, so that they might be attractive to their Princesses, and thereby also participate in the mating ritual. — Marcus de Brun
Again though, the problem I addressed is the tragedy that this isn't experienced more than a small number of people for various reasons I've mentioned. Our process for attaining this desired good is not great it seems and even if there were actually demonstrated improvements on it, the prisoner's dilemma would probably make any attempt towards this solution a non-starter. — schopenhauer1
Love is possible only if two persons communicate with each other from the centre of their existence, hence if each one of them experiences himself from the centre of his existence. Only in this 'central experience" is human reality, only here is aliveness, only here is the basis for love. Love, experienced thus is a constant challenge; it is not a resting place, but a moving, growing, working together...they are one with each other by being one with themselves.
Okay, but here you are really stretching the word "love" to such a wide scope, you should probably use another word (even agape vs. eros would be fine). However, you knew, based on the confines of this thread which was started from a short story on dating/relationships/romantic love, that the definition I am using is about romantic love- that is to say that involving having an emotional and physical bond with one (or more?) particular person(s). — schopenhauer1
I appreciate your responses. I think better of the story and the author because of them, and may even understand them somewhat. — Ciceronianus the White
But don't be too kind to us. Pity may be more appropriate than sympathy when it comes to these things. And caution. The pressure you speak of is largely self-imposed. — Ciceronianus the White
Your quote there, seems at odds with what you said earlier: [Love is] "the only thing worth living for". Well, if real love, and relationships are so paramount, indeed so much so that it is "the only thing worth living for", then for MANY people not to experience this (I am talking specifically romantic love), would seem to be a tragedy. — schopenhauer1
It seems to me that throughout our sad history, we males when taken together have for various reasons characterized women as either impossibly bad or impossibly good, as it suits us and our circumstances. We're either gross or (grossly) sentimental about them, generally. I'm not sure what Goethe was thinking when he wrote that line, but it sure seems he had the impossibly good woman in mind. — Ciceronianus the White
I wonder now and then whether we can be any more sensible. I think we can be in certain cases, but not as a rule, because I suspect when it comes to women we desire we stop thinking in any significant sense. I want to be clear about this, and don't want even to imply that we lose responsibility for what we do or are deserving of sympathy because we driven by impulses beyond our control. But I think that we can become exceedingly stupid and sentimental, though calculating. At worst, we become...well, repulsive. And that may inform the socially constructed ideals you refer to. — Ciceronianus the White