Only if you get the 2x4 out your ass. — Heister Eggcart

Clearly, this is pointless.

No, not quite. I'm not trolling until I post a star trek image, which subconsciously stirs Baden from his primordial sleep so that he can then delete it immediately >:O — Heister Eggcart

So, you are doing this intentionally. You are bitter about a post being deleted by Baden and now you are taking it out on me. Get your thumb out of your mouth.

No, Augustino was using the stock standard argumentum ad hominem by attacking me with the intention of dissuading the audience of my comments. You followed. No arguments where made at all. You are merely projecting what you are doing, which is berating me. That is called trolling.

Angst towards you? I posted about making your own hermeneutic interpretations and making an effort to be rational and autonomous and you responded by calling me an arsehole and intentionally being selective with what I write as a fallacy to provoke. Projection much?

Where have you disagreed?

Hence the 'completely mindless twat' remark made specifically about you. You are a troll and I am done wasting my time with you.

Foucault? Urg, if you don't have anything to say, then stay silent.

Faust makes sense all of a sudden.

"Methinks, a Million Fools in Choir are Raving and Will Never Tire."

Obviously the word can be used in various ways. — Mongrel

Is there any particular way you view the word considering its ambiguity? My understanding of it shifts - as you say, when you think of it in terms of physics, it has a completely different meaning to, say, the potential a person has where I see there being an opening, an opportunity where the individual has the pre-existing capacity that has yet to be utilised.

And don't intentionally misrepresent what I say, its ugly of you. At least Augustino is trying to defend religious institutions by being selectively obnoxious.

Haha, it was half expected that the other side of the extreme would prop up sometime. It is, nevertheless, rather unkind of you considering I am making it clear that it is about 'my' interpretation and though I understand that you prefer to be mindless enough to follow because it takes the responsibility away from you, your levels of maturity are exemplified here.

I almost prefer Vagabond, since it shows why he hates the religious so much as you lead by example.

What you call bastardization of Jesus' intentions I call what I was taught growing up. Like it or not pastors and preachers out there interpreting scripture at large do often make the interpretations which I'm specifically attacking. — VagabondSpectre

When people yell or raise their voice, they are either trying to beat the other person by being louder or they are subjectively fighting something unknown at conscious level. Calm down and be specific rather than make assumptions or generalisations. Say, the "Lutherans interpret such and such in this way" and others can easily respond to that.

When you eliminate the emotions, your disdain due to these former connections is gone and you can just read for the pure sake of reading, where you learn to make your own interpretations, rather than getting all pissed at what other people think. To do that requires one to become a rational, autonomous being. To be rational is someone with standards, the categorical imperative, the way in which you observe your own motivations and intentions and ensure objective clarity - autonomous - despite your feelings and emotions and the connections you have in both your past and present as you separate yourself and become the author of your own being or someone morally conscious where your sole motivation is to continuously will to improve yourself.

You are quite simply fighting because you haven't cut your umbilical cord.

I know you are but what am I? Teehee! — VagabondSpectre

:’( Boys everywhere. I want a King Solomon. And no, I don't mean the actual King Solomon considering you seem to take everything literally, but a man who has wisdom.

...but it's vastly removed from mainstream religion and the original point I happen to be ridiculing. — VagabondSpectre

I know. That is the point, it is my interpretation because I am completely removed from mainstream religion, I am completely removed from mainstream anything and in my own autonomy choose nothing but God and no, not a man on a cloud, not Jesus or the trinity, not whatever the heck people think, but reaching epistemically toward what is perfect. Through authenticity - that is, being downright honest to myself and eliminating all the illusions - my goals are ideals like virtue, righteousness, honesty, charity that I practice in real life in order to perfect. So, in Aristotelian terms I have transcended from the need for philia to the need for philesis by having a strong, emotional attachment not to people or institutions or communities, but solely towards the perfection of philia itself; thus my will or prohairesis is to only perfect love through my love of God which is, well everything and nothing.

So if you want me to discuss the story of Isaac from whatever Christian perspective, clearly by you saying:

The religious ideas I address aren't the "hell is a metaphor" variety. — VagabondSpectre

Sorry buddy, but I am afraid I will disappoint because my interpretation is to view these stories as symbolic and not literal. I couldn't give a toss about how other religions interpret biblical referents. But if you want to discuss biblical hermeneutics independent of religion, than I am all for it. So geographical locations are often symbolically expressed through individual representations.

The suggestion that Abraham is the father of the monotheistic religions implies that the lines of his progeny - Ishmael being a referent to Arabs or the Ishamaelites as their prophet Muhammad is a descendant of Ishmael and thus Ishmael represents Islam. Isaac being a referent to Israelites as they are decendents of Jacob, changing to Israel and thus the Israelites are references to Judaism. Isaac, being birthed really late by promise to Sara who represents the mother of good in comparison to the troublesome Hagar (troublesome Muslims?) and the "mother" represents a community of people, the fruits of ones labour, and as such the community is the promised land suggested to the Israelites who will live on through faith in God. The binding is a process historically used when slaughtering a lamb and a lamb represents innocence.

When Jesus said "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword," he is not talking about him bringing violence but that if you follow his preaching about finding your conscience and being loving, you will be outcast, ostracised and despised by the 'herd' or by conformists of any kind. You will run the risk of being persecuted and indeed the first several hundred years after Jesus' death there were many that turned to this preaching that were killed and persecuted.

You made a statement, "religion leads to morality". — VagabondSpectre

I never said that. Hence the point of why it is impossible talking to you, just as much as it is impossible having a philosophical conversation with a drunkard. I said it is morality that leads to religion before it becomes corrupted by people, by codified rules and other institutional processes, infiltrated by the transferral of pagan rituals. But that has nothing to do with the bible. The statement that morality inevitably leads to religion is Kantian, hence the 'you know nothing about Kant' point.

Let me pace it down slower for you because clearly you are way too slow on the uptake. I agree that one should not follow a religion, but I don't agree that has anything to do with our ability to interpret the scriptures independent of religious influence. Jesus was a good guy. You are a moron.

You choose to read what you want, not what is actually being said and the language, tone, and attitude is so profoundly tiresome that I am almost confident that I could have a greater intellectual conversation with a bottle of tomato sauce.

You say:

I don't hate religion or the bible — VagabondSpectre

Before saying:

...these ancient and largely barbarous fairy tales — VagabondSpectre

That's just awkward. :-}

So you think that I'm trying to mimic your missing argument (which you're now telling me is that i have no argument) by asking you to submit your missing argument? — VagabondSpectre

Nope. Yet again, you fail to distinguish the difference between a hole in the ground and your nose.

When I was a child I might have responded to such a veiled threat by acquiescing to your world view, but now that I've actually experienced life I know it's only an inexperienced mind that could possibly assent to it, or else an unrobust one seeking emotional refuge. — VagabondSpectre

That explains a lot about why you are so angry. And one who has actually experienced life wouldn't chuck a childish fit and intentionally misinterpret what I say to suit his own ridiculous agenda.

I used to work for the state govt. and they are allocated funding to spend in particular areas so whether they require it or not, they tend to establish such contracts to purport that the department is functional and the funding necessary as part of its annual reporting. Perhaps use the opportunity to up-skill and do so in a way that will advance the opportunity for you to penetrate the area that you seek to work in? If you can't reach the other side of the river, at least try and build a dinghy.

No, the first rule of Philosophy Club should be cats. — Sapientia

Are you saying philosophers have no loyalty unless you feed it and enjoy killing wildlife?

The last month, I've been 'working' in a Govt. contract in which there is literally zero workload. — Wayfarer

It is so important to find fulfilment in your work as you give so much of your time to it and to see many people living aimlessly, merely justified by material considerations and 'looking good' is actually quite painful to witness. I did that once, working in a job I hated that was so terribly easy that it was difficult getting myself to work, especially since I worked around creeps. You keep on telling yourself that you have bills to pay and you need to learn to deal with it. Now, after finishing my masters, I found work in the community sector, a large Australian NGO and in only six months I was promoted to a specialist role. The pay is not fantastic and sometimes the people are not fantastic either, but the job is fulfilling. When it is fulfilling, you have the energy and the mindset to complete other things in your life, travel, write, philosophise because you are happier as a person. When you live a life where you hate your job, surrounded by moronic people, no matter how much you tell yourself one thing, you will never have the peace of mind to do those activities and ultimately be happy.

That is why I say that for a time it may be better to simply fall behind in your bills and keep on believing that you will get what you want. Nothing good or genuine comes easily, you have to work for it. If you love something enough, you will never give up on it.

Chin up, ol' horse, your not superannuated just yet. :D

Some laws contained in the old testament are unequivocally barbaric. Do you disagree? — VagabondSpectre

Yes, but it is up to you to figure out the analogy behind it, how it corresponds both historically and culturally, its parabolic symbolism to broader concepts and that can only be done when you don't follow by refraining from conforming to anything material including other people and cultures; when you just read for the sake of learning. That is the point of reason and how to transcend to a rational, autonomous being, which is only possible without such attachments and yet, conscious of the fact that we need to attach ourselves to something in order to stimulate our capacity to progress epistemically, the point of wisdom is to attach yourself to God - the omnipresent, the greatest good, hence your conscience and why the Bible says God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth - and your attempt to reach him so to speak is your will to consistently progress towards reaching a better understanding of yourself. You can't do that if you follow people and that includes religion, which is what happens after morality before becoming corrupted.

Moral consciousness, your conscience, love, is what leads to authentic happiness and peace forever, 'eternally' rather than being temporarily yet consistently stimulated by base pleasures. When you see your own mistakes and seek to improve yourself - hence being honest - there is no greater happiness. But righteousness is not all fluffy bunny feet stuff, it isn't walking around talking and pretending your are a nice person when you produce and do absolutely nothing, or as Solomon says for the lips of an adulterous woman drop (as) an honeycomb, and her mouth [is] smoother than oil as liars sweet-talk their way by deceiving you into thinking they are good people via tact, but it is fighting injustice, stopping the pain and anguish that others experience as much as it is taking care of yourself and enjoying the feelings that autonomy produces.

That is the point, we are selective with what we choose to believe. Heidegger is a douche. Does it mean that everything that he writes is unworthy of study? If you choose to hate the bible because you have some vendetta against religion, no matter how much one can exemplify the benefits of the wisdom - that is, the stories used through parables to help you appreciate your own moral fibre - you will refuse to acknowledge it. If you are going to be selectively stubborn, fine, but the reality is that you are not interpreting the scriptures, you are only hating the interpretations made by others.

How about you show you understand what you're talking about and show that it makes sense by submitting the argument I've requested you to submit. That's "talking". If you have no argument for your statement, then I'll casually brush it aside for the unsubstantiated postulate that it is. — VagabondSpectre

I am. You not only prove that you know nothing about Kant but that you are also painfully trying to mimic my methods of expressing the disillusionment to your so-called argument. Now run along and get your own personality.

You might think it's wise to emotionally submit to the wisdom of the parables, just like how Abraham emotionally submitted to the will of god and was prepared to murder his own son, but that's not moral well-being. That's closer to Stockholm syndrome than it is moral enlightenment. — VagabondSpectre

Moron.

You say:

I don't bastardize scripture, I interpret it quite fairly. — VagabondSpectre

Before:

It awakened a sense of thankfulness for not being governed by people who are willing to carry out abhorrent, wasteful, and violent actions (as depicted in the bible) in the name of god-love. — VagabondSpectre

Geez, that's fair. :-|

And these aren't my beliefs I'm injecting, they're Christian beliefs: — VagabondSpectre

So Christians believe in the smurfs? It was you who said... God is Gargamel and we're the surfs, right? You must be proud of your countries' education system.

In the old testament forgiveness was purchased through the blood of sacrificial animals. In the new testament forgiveness was purchased through the blood of Jesus. God explicitly requires blood (death/suffering) in order to forgive.... — VagabondSpectre

No, people want to see blood, not God. It seems that reconciliation with their conscience is only satisfied when they see death or violence of an innocent person since the injustice is shocking enough to make one conscious of the love for someone they have outside of themselves. Humans are not only innately evil but profoundly moronic and those pagan rituals they did were never warranted or requested, they were just transferred, a way of saying 'don't do such rituals to false idols but if you are stupid enough to do it, at least do it to the one true God'. You seem to be having trouble reading between the lines, probably because you have little historical knowledge; many Catholic traditions are extensions of Roman paganism, for instance.

The ritualized nature of this in Christianity resembles pagan blood magic. — VagabondSpectre

Christianity? Do you realise how many different religions fall under this umbrella? I mean, hasty generalisations are one thing, but to do it with such confidence is downright spooky.

The tale of the binding of Isaac disgusts me: "God says to sacrifice my son... GREAT IDEA GOD! And oh! God gave me a lamb at the last possible second to sacrifice instead! WHAT INFINITE WISDOM!!!". — VagabondSpectre

Calm down. *sigh, clearly things need to be spoon-fed to you. It is a story that has a point, the point being faith. Isaac wasn't actually murdered and he became a 'great people' as Abraham became the father of the monotheistic religions; individuals often represent broader subjects, a person represents a city or a country but clearly since you lack the wisdom, having this conversation with you is fast becoming tedious.

I've read the bible cover to cover and it didn't awaken my conscience through love. — VagabondSpectre

If the story of Isaac escaped you, I highly doubt you actually read it 'cover to cover' but to be fair, you probably did read the cover, as in, just the one word before screaming off naked into the wilderness saying 'this is wrong!'

So tell me exactly how it is that morality leads to religion? — VagabondSpectre

Go read Kant and then we'll talk.

I refuse to submit to religiously inspired love because if I do that then I'm at the mercy of all the ridiculous baggage that tends to come included in any actual religion. I love myself and my family well enough without religion, and I somewhat have love for humanity, and that's enough. I don't need what religion offers, so why should I bother? — VagabondSpectre

Since when is reading the scriptures following a religion? No one is asking you to follow a religion. I read the Qur'an, but I'm not a muslim. Morality comes first, but you will never reach moral consciousness without rational autonomy and the elimination of anything prejudicial including the cultural or social influences that render your interpretations flawed. You need to see the wisdom as a way of accessing and improving your moral consciousness by making it your active duty to improve yourself and not as a duty to gain the approval of people or leaders. If you actually care about your moral well-being, you would see the wisdom behind the language and the parables. Religion is corrupt and it controls and demands with codified processes that is an inescapable problem for autonomy, but it doesn't suddenly mean that what it may have originally espoused and the reasoning behind it's existence as also completely wrong. There is no need to burn the Bible.

I am having a problem with the conditions of the rigidity and local synchronisation, but it is quite late after a really long day, so maybe if you have a read of this and we can chat more about later: http://pubs.sciepub.com/ijp/1/5/4/

There is no issue with rigidity if the disk is assumed to be rotating at constant angular velocity. — Pierre-Normand

Is that taking into consideration the paradigm between local and global spatial geometry?

For me the core of Jesus' teachings will always be that suffering, pain, and damnation await those who do not kowtow to God.

God created Jesus (himself) and then forsook (betrayed IMO) Jesus when he had him crucified in order to make the world right again. (I like to joke that God uses blood magic to do his mysterious works and so dispenses with human life whenever). God is Gargamel and we're the smurfs — VagabondSpectre

Talk about injecting your own beliefs and completely bastardizing the point he was trying to make and if you are angry with a religious organisation (clearly by you saying "God created Jesus (himself)" which proves some connection since there are many that consider Jesus as just a man) then focus on that rather than betraying the wisdom that the scriptures alone and separately can exemplify.

When you tell a child holding a knife to be careful otherwise they might cut themselves and the consequences could be blood and pain and anguish, the warning does not imply that the suffering is somehow desired in part of the friend. If the friend didn't care, they would look on and not say a word. So words like "suffer" is the unhappiness of being in a "hell" - a life lacking in moral consciousness - where the misery therewith is the "damnation" of never truly understanding the pleasures of the authenticity and autonomy of love. The violence against someone innocent like Jesus moves our conscience, what instigates an awareness of our own humanity, of being able to objectively and consciously care for things outside of ourselves and to genuinely feel. It is love and there is nothing greater than the feeling of loving someone enough to not want them to feel pain or hurt in anyway, hence our conscience being the very impetus to our humanity. Hence:

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

Friendship is the beginning of love because we care for someone other than ourselves, we bond without preferential treatment and we want them to be happy. You can't hate Jesus, he is a really nice guy, so we care for him and feel sorry that he died in such a horrible way. The statement implies that he died for us as a friend, that is, the idea that by doing so it will awaken our conscience and enable us to feel love since in doing so will ultimately provide us with the greatest pleasure and happiness. See through it, don't take on the words literally.

Setting aside all religions and just reading the scriptures as it is unadulterated by codified institutional processes and cultural influences and thinking of these descriptions as parables, it is quite simply an attempt to awaken your conscience through love. It is the very Kantian point vis-a-vis the problem of evil and it needs to be sincere, hence the autonomy and why 'morality inevitably leads to religion' that only becomes corrupted by people over time.

God is the ultimate, the omnipresent, what we should aspire to by having faith in ourselves - that is, by not conforming or following by finding the will to autonomy and thinking for yourself - because that is the only way you will ever authentically reach moral consciousness. We, as humans, have the tendency to follow an "image" (hence idols) or someone rather than learn to look within since who we are is just as difficult to grasp as the omnipresent and if:

"Beloved, let us love one another, because love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."

Love - our conscience - is the core of who we are so if we seek love - God - we will find ourselves by becoming morally conscious.

Evil is what it means to be human; without the possibility to do otherwise, man could not be free. — Cavacava

Whoa!

Avoiding the difficult yet delicious arguments on the state of nature - though I myself take preference to Rousseau over Hobbes if you care to know - where exactly does this solid proof of evil share in your argument of contingency? If this 'space' contains an innately self-centred evil and whilst moral laws do not necessarily require a demonstration of the existence of God, reason itself vis-a-vis the reformation of character depends on the existence of God considering revolution für die denkungsart. Thus, God is necessary.

PS Congratulations! — Cavacava

Ta very muchly. :-*

Isn't linear speed synonymous to tangential speed in this case? I'm not convinced that the spatial distance between the clocks located away from the centre of the disk would change considering that we don't even know whether the disk itself is Born rigid.

HAWAII BABBABBBBYYYYY!

I understand the guy. We're all blind. I love this song.

Sorry for the delay getting back to you, been celebrating after a promotion at work :D

The uncaused cause & the noumenon, are both unknowable but not forgotten, they are still needed as necessary perspectives in our empirical faith in pure reason & our religious faith in freedom, liberty, equality, et al. They create their own 'space', I think. — Cavacava

I am somewhat confused; I understand and agree with what you are saying vis-a-vis the ontological argument, but I am not sure whether we are encircling the same point before been slingshot into opposing directions or whether we agree with one another. Is this 'space' where doth lies Kant' 'proof' of humanity' propensity to evil?

American culture tends to produce people who are overconfident, given the anti-intellectualism and faux intellectualism — Chany

I don't think it is especially American but rather globalisation has enabled faux-individuality where everyone has found a superficial happiness in the delusional belief that they are individuals when they actually blindly move in masses and when more people approve a particular behavioural trend, the more legitimate it appears despite lacking the attributes and hard work that comes with attaining anything worthy, thus is spawned overconfidence. People actually believe that having a quantity of likes toward pictures that they post of themselves implies worthiness and we have formed nothing but a narcissistic society.

The point is not that absolutes can't be, even perhaps they must be, but they cannot be known, they can only be believed in and this is how Kant makes room for faith. — Cavacava

I agree here, but this is when the discussion of the transcendental dialectic begins, whereby is it not a compelling premise that it is a necessary condition that our existence can be reasonably concluded as having formed by a causal sequence returning back to the unknown yet substantive formation of the universe? We can conclude that God being a man on a cloud or the trinity etc are the illusions of reason as we are able to trace the source as rational, autonomous beings following a synthesis between us and consciousness of the world, and the possibility of transcendental reflection for ourselves is practically indispensable epistemologically, but I am not convinced that we simply stop at the point of being aware of our limitations but rather continue - morally - toward the ideal, making God necessary for perfecting our moral position.

What do you think of this? http://staffweb.hkbu.edu.hk/ppp/ksp1/KSP5.html

I got a little emotional this morning on the train... it felt good though.


It depends. I volunteered with other legal experts on changing bullying legislation in my state following my experience and most of the people that I spoke with know the person they are being cyber-bullied from in real life. Reporting or blocking them may have no effect because bullies target the weak and they always find ways because the virtual platform enables them to create numerous personas.

I am really small in stature and I haven't many people in my life so I am an easy target for cowards, thus the best way of defeating a bully is showing that you are strong enough not to care. You learn to report, block and ignore them the moment you actually do find the strength to stand up for yourself, you can even walk right past them without hyperventilating, but sometimes action is also about playing their game until they go away themselves, like the principle of non-violent resistance. It really is relative.

You better do a post about him afterwards!

http://individual.utoronto.ca/dlblack/WebTranslations/AVEREPAN.pdf

Several years ago, I experienced indirect threats from a work colleague who said things like 'women deserve to get bashed' and told me I should watch a movie called Irreversible about a woman who is brutally raped among plenty of other things including slander, attempting to get me into trouble, harassing me etc. The bullying in the seven months I worked with him had profound effects on me and friends at work tried helping me with strategies to deal with his fixation. All this because he was attracted to me and I rejected his ridiculous advances (he once said "I don't mind facing the consequences if I cheat on my girlfriend" to me among other stupid things). When I had enough, he projected his behavior by lying about me to his girlfriend and together they continued harassing me by turning me into the one that had the problem, even long after I was gone.

The worst part about it is that I knew he needed help and I tried. I tried to compel him to compassion, to feel empathy by speaking of my personal story, tried to support him at work, try to get him to understand concepts like love and charity, but not only did it not work, he continued with more enjoyment as I continued getting hurt. He was and will remain a beast. Nothing more and no amount of help can change that.

I learned that the only thing I could do is walk away and let him and his cohort be as they are. I managed to outwit him but it hurt me for quite sometime and I only found peace by learning to be fearless. I imagine though that had I lacked the integrity and commitment to virtue and provided that monster with what he wanted, restraints may have become a necessity.

I realize that I didn't explain that part of my post well enough, but nether did I consider it really all that important considering such things as that we (as well as anyone reading this) will most likely be dead in the next 50 to a 100 years and that very small nuances like that will never be read after that as well as forgotten by that time. — dclements

Do you realise just how ridiculous that sounds? So, the futility of existence is a justification that intelligence and reasonably, well-thought out and commonsensical behaviour is pointless.

And yet you say:

If you can give me a reply to my last post and/or as to why it is wrong for me to consider myself both an atheist and an agnostic at the same time. — dclements

What for? You will be forgotten in fifty years anyway, so lets just shut off into hedonism and die fat, old and stupid surrounded by idiots.

Sure you can ask questions to such things but without the resources to answer them IMHO it is..more pragmatic to focus on things that can be dealt with than with such things that can not be. — dclements

We are talking about Kant. And where do you think pragmatism inherited the tradition from?

Maybe this is the wrong way to look at it this way, since it does take at least some talent to create a magic show or any good show for that matter, but much 'magical thinking' isn't pragmatic with dealing with many problems if what we are looking at is really just a mundane process like any other mundane process. — dclements

You talk a lot but you never really say anything.

This a quote from "The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God". published in 1763, which SEP considers Kant's pre-critical period, it does not appear to have made the cut 18 years latter in his 1st Critique. — Cavacava

And? Kant did write it, right? And what makes you think this pre-critical phase wasn't the very impetus to his first critique, and if not, did he ever admit that his former publications were flawed and openly abandon it? And did not his sufficient reason argument that you willingly discuss stem from the same period?

There is no absolute, no reason why things are the way they are, no full explanation, things are just the way they are, everything could be otherwise. The explanation that things the way they are due to an ineffable real being is superstition. This is not to say there is no God, only that describing God as a real being is "magical thinking" , but there is reason to think that "magical thinking" might be essential in man, Kant intimates as much. — Cavacava

He certainly intimates these 'illusions' of reason - the whole man on a cloud, the trinity, the sun or whatever the heck - but the fact that you say (t)his is not to say there is no God is the very root of our argument, whereby since Kant cannot deny non-existence otherwise his existence is not a predicate would contradict itself that therefore concludes the necessity of God since by saying (a)ccordingly, there must be something whose nonexistence would cancel all internal possibility whatsoever. This is a necessary thing justifies my initial suggestion contingency isn't the only necessity. If your argument rests solely on some justification that Kant suggested that during his pre-critical period, ya gonna have to do better.

The only necessity is contingency. >:O — Cavacava

Mutterwit... >:o

...to the dismay of China and Russia — Question

I wouldn't be too sure about that. It would be incredibly ignorant of you to assume their lack of influence in existing and potential proxy wars along with the US. It is economics and, indeed, SK and Japan were the primary impetus behind the deterrence of war, but it is not safety that the US esteem above all else. It is profiteering.

My conscious mind could only regard this, at the time, as me just wanting to get at the best interpretation. Later, after facing some of my own issues, I realized what was really going on, and why I had had extra emotions in that discussion. I have experienced this kind of thing in all sorts of relationship discussions, where desires and desires not to notice these desires were not conscious at the time, but definitely present. — Coben

This is quite common, which is the reason why fiction or aesthetics in general is so important. Sometimes the presence of anxiety or depression, insomnia and nightmares, loss of concentration and other unexpected emotions are physical indicators of the brain - such as the hippocampus - interrupting the correct consolidation of experiences. Your attempt to interpret pieces of literature, or art, or music or film - or even creating fiction and characters - is essentially subjective communication that attempts to articulate personal experiences that the clarity is otherwise clouded by self-defence mechanisms and pleasurable escapes (drugs, alcohol, sex, food or overeating, even conformism) that form as barriers that justify or delude the imbedded childhood, environmental and social influences through emotional escape.

The way that I see it, our experiences are really our interpretation of our experiences and since our brains are instinctually made to avoid anxiety, our experiences can conflict with our environment, our minds, and our instincts and that leads to all sorts of issues. What we call our "desires" could quite simply be a defence-mechanism or escape and it takes quite a lot to know the difference between what is real or true, to what is you deluding yourself.

This proof is tied to the principle of sufficient reason, the concept that every worldly fact has a reason, an explanation, a cause, a reason why things are the way they are in fact, and reasons for those reasons, which leads to infinite regress. Every metaphysics is accented by at least one absolutely necessary real entity, which is the 'dogmatic metaphysics'. But if any such real necessary being is rejected then the principle of sufficient reason is also rejected. — Cavacava

Where I am confused is the lack of Kant' transcendental method particularly the presupposition of concepts like causality that, yes, would lead to an infinite regress since it has no synthetic function and where our 'logic' discussion was referring to because we formulate or posit potential illusions to causal sequences, but his criticism is towards a priori knowledge, no? Kant' ontology through existence is not a predicate about being itself attempts to explain contingent experience, hence:

"Accordingly, there must be something whose nonexistence would cancel all internal possibility whatsoever. This is a necessary thing."

This is to say that ultimate reality, ultimate 'being' or God is necessary, and this is followed by the moral argument.

The only necessity is contingency. — Cavacava

Still ain't convinced!

Well what would happen to the constitution of the universe if one digit in Planck's Constant were different? — Cavacava

Is this a trick question? >:)

I can't sleep :’( Rachmaninov is giving me the hug that I need.

Thanks, great questions, but I am facing a mountain of unpacking :-* , so later slater. — Cavacava

The beauty of being on a forum (Y)

Easy does it, before we start chewing the fat off the bone where I am compelled to read and write essays, let's just get straight to the point shall we?

I am more than HAPPY if you can tell me what it is that I believe that is WRONG so I can fix it, but right now I don't know if there is anything I believe that is wrong or if you just think I think of myself as some kind of special snowflake or something — dclements

When I already quoted one of many problems in your argument:

I kind of both agnostic and atheist. — dclements

But you already knew this, you just assumed and what exemplifies your rational failure was that I was insulting you rather than showing you a very clear flaw in your argument.

I'm kind of glad that none of what your saying really applies to me since their is nobody either on the forums or elsewhere who puts any effort into satiating my ego or make me feel better than any other pleb. — dclements

I think you missed the point; the only person who can satiate your ego is you, considering you choose who you interact with. For instance, the concept of the "crazy cat lady" is a reference to people who substitute human relationships with animals since a cat is not going to respond to your flaws and in your own neurotic way believe that it actually cares for you. If you like the company of people who compliment you especially when you don't deserve it, of those people who never show you your flaws or open you to your mistakes, of those who don't challenge you emotionally and intellectually, and if you associate with people that you can - and willingly - lie to or manipulate (because you have zero respect for them), you do not mirror yourself with another person as part of a genuine human relationship, but you mirror yourself to your own ego and as such you will never improve. A signal of this narcissism is almost always anger or some other self-defence mechanism to the very person who points out your flaws.

And perhaps try modelling yourself to absolutely nothing, meaning, by visualising no one either physically or intellectually to enable the real you to manifest, rather than searching for versions of possible "you" through others and simply mimicking them.