you're essentially equating the "universe" with Kant's thing-in-itself — Xtrix

Skimmed over your post, and you got this right! Only, the universe is not a thing.

First of all, acknowledging that women are not the only ones capable of ‘disarming’ violence with humour, hospitality and humility is an important part of this discussion. — Possibility

Yes, but they do it much more often since they faced less predation in evolution and instead stayed behind nurturing youth meaning not only are they physically weaker on average than men, but they also pity others more due to sympathy being more prevalent due to child-rearing. Both of these qualities, sympathy and fear (heightened danger means you fear more), combined, gives you more hospitable people.

domination is a pointless illusion — Possibility

Only a woman living in a hyper civilized super protected society built off environmental domination over millions of years could say that domination is pointless. You are both a pessimist and a nihilist. Spoiled brat.

For me, it is to maximise awareness, connection and collaboration. — Possibility

You seem to look at "connection" from a religious standpoint. You negate the entire evolutionary process where those who fail to dominate their environment die off and are incapable of understanding why such "gentle", "kind" feelings to others remained. They didnt just fucking appear one day and everyone said "yay! Let's be nice to eachother yay!" They were tools that your ancestors used to survive, that then got carried into their offspring. That "connection" that you are talking about was used by the physically unfit to get help from others and survive. Your whole philosophy of value, that is to say, is built on TAKING, and not GIVING. The ethics of the parasite.

But I know you can't really help it. This is just the way you were evolved after millions of years of pressure and random mutation and elimination.

We're well into the 21st century and we're without a new understanding of morality; two centuries later! — Rand

Again, only a person who never read Nietzsche could say such things. We already have a perfect understanding of morality, it's called the will to power, and it was created by genius "existentialists".

We don't need a purpose for humanity from anyone. We need a definition of moral principles for everyone, to create our own purpose. — Rand

Apparently you missed Nietzche's thus spoke zarathustra where he does exactly that? It's called "the overman".

Listen, just read Nietzsche. You'll thank me later.

Dude, the atheists are believing in something, that's the end of it. Anything else is linguistic trickery from the confused who need to finally, to get any light at all on a subject because they cannot see it for themselves, bow down in front of the grammar gods and beg them to expose to them something they can understand to finally get some rest in the neurotic frenzy happening in their little heads.

I love being feminine and hopefully, it is obvious I believe feminity plays an important part in human societies. — Athena

Most important quote in this thread. As civilization complexifies and progresses, everyone will continue to get more feminine, too.

We need to demonstrate the value of kindness and gentleness — Possibility

We need to argue for a more accurate view of reality than ‘domination’ — Possibility

But that is the value of kindness and gentleness towards strangers: domination. Hospitality paralyzes emnity in the stranger. A desire to view reality any other way than a game of domination reeks a bit of nihilism.

A perfect example, right from this thread:

My granddaughter who takes charge of shelter programs is proud that she can disarm men carrying knives with her feminity. She and I know if a male were sent in to take the knife, the problem would probably escalate. She goes out of her way to be none threatening to maintain peace. How angry can you get with a big cute bunny? :lol: You can identify the women in charge of a shelter, they are the ones who wearing the hat with a spinner thing on top, or a bunny suit. — Athena

Those who say space is discrete or that the continuous doesn't apply to the real world are morons and I refuse to debate them anymore. — Gregory

I wholeheartedly agree, gregory.



Can we really talk about an "empty universe" (an empty everything)? This seems like a contradiction in terms. Can we really talk about a "before" the universe? This implies something can come from nothing, which seems to me like nonsense since nothing/emptiness/void doesn't exist. I agree with you, Mr. Crank.

No, Insane as uncommon mentally.

Relative to the everyman, with your definition, they might actually be some of the most sane people to ever exist.

In the sense that you're attempting to achieve it, I can't possibly think of any less academic setting than an anonymous online discussion. — Rand

It's just that the actual name, "existentialists", says nothing about what you are trying to convey, because the term is "pseudo-academic", or, more lengthily espoused, not even of use to a scholar. This conveys that you know little about this era of philosophy (this is the only thing I can get from this term, a time period), and argue against the "emotions" as a drive because they are not "reason" (only a person who has never read Nietzsche could say such things).

Or emotion is just a type of reason. — Rand

Entirely true, depending on how you define your terms.

We can't talk about the universe in any way, yet you are talking about it. — Xtrix

I am talking about the idea of everything, not everything.

An idea of everything is not equivalent with everything. An idea of everything is itself natural, that is, within the universe, that is, limited. That is why you cannot talk about the universe/everything.

Your response is similar to proving that there is such a thing as "nothing" because we have an idea of nothing. But our idea of nothing is not nothing. Our idea of nothing is not equivalent with nothing. Our idea of nothing is something. That is why you cannot talk about nothing.

That means many minds, much greater than yours, have struggled with the question of what science is. — Xtrix

But a definition isn't something you find. It's something you create.

You could be right or wrong, but simply declaring it accomplishes nothing. — Xtrix

I believe exactly the opposite. Not declaring a definition accomplishes nothing. Declaring a definition accomplishes something.

I'm always struck by people who want to quickly and confidently proclaim a definitive answer, or some solid definition, for something or other -- without any context. I'm further struck to watch as they're satisfied by this, as if by doing so they've settled anything. — Xtrix

I have settled something, I have settled some defintion, my definition, of a word.

Spouting empty nonsense won't be tolerated -- it'll be, properly, ignored. — Xtrix

I have no doubt it appears like nonsense to those who look for definitions endlessly outside of themselves, believe the idea of everything is the same as everything, believe declaring definitions accomplishes less than not declaring definitions, who belittles on impact from anger (which always springs from some weakness), who thinks things are "interesting for their own sake" (and not for some power), who gets on his high horse while talking about the "philosophy of science", who though calling science pragmatic and practal was redundant (even though they just looked down upon "use"), etc. etc. etc.

And of course, I'm not mad in any way. In fact, I even have the virility left to properly define science as a philosophical system of thought (since the previous wasn't a definition, it was me showing you that your hatred of "use" was naive).

Science is applied epistemology. This is the gift I give you for this fun conversation. Hope to see you around!

Then why bother distinguishing the two and say nature happens "in" the universe? — Xtrix

Because we cannot talk about or sense the universe in any way, only parts of it.

asking what one "gets out" of philosophy is implying it has to have some use, which is reminiscent of those among us who can't see the value of anything that can't be monetized. — Xtrix

But you just exclaimed that your use of understanding the etymology of the word was for "understanding science", which is a philosophical system of thought built on it's ability to be applied practically and pragmatically.

"I am the center of the universe, and everything else moves around me." — Pneumenon

But you are the center of your universe. You cannot define "I" as extrinsic to "your" mind. It is tautologically true.

What part of the universe isn't nature? — Xtrix

Every "part" of the universe is nature.

We're trying to explore the basis for the word itself -- which was a Latin translation of the Greek word "phusis." — Xtrix

I don't see what you'll be getting out of your foray into etymology intellectually besides context, but carry on as you wish.

Is it possible that women may think fundamentally different from men — Athena

yes, obviously. That is, the average woman thinks differently than the average man. What those differences are, I do not feel like getting into.

Subsequently, existential philosophical discussions result in the erosion of will power with no associated benefits for gaining insight and emotion becomes the driving motivation for discussions instead of reason. — Rand

I don't think you read enough of those "existentialist" (please drop these pseudo-academic misonomers with the actual names of philosophers you are responding to) philosophers you are adamantly lampooning. Reason itself is just a type of emotion.

Nature is everything that happens within the universe.

I don't see why you need hard evidence to back this up, as it is a rather milquetoast claim. Yes, we have conciousness after we die. It's just that, in such a state, there will 1) be no memory, because the bodily function that before facilitated memory has been destroyed, and as such you cannot compare former states with present states, or rationalize and predict latter states due to advanced prediction functions in the brain being annihilated, and 2) there will be no "you" since the idea of you is itself parallel with some bodily function that has been obliterated.

No, it is not self-defeating, it is just a belief stated in the negative (I believe that this doesn't exist).

Insane relative to the everyman, yes.

It matters how "rooted" such beliefs are. If you put a gun to the head of enough people the believer loves, they will surely "uproot" such beliefs for whatever you want them to say. Of course, this only has power up to a certain point, where an "uprooting" of select beliefs would have immediate dangerous consequences for the life in question, of which they would not change, even in such a drastic situation.

how can a brain (with all the various properties of material objects), be caused to do something by something that lacks all material properties (no mass, no energy, no charge, and no location in space)? Or does the mind actually have some material properties? If so, which ones?
• If minds occupy a specific location in space, where is this? Does it occupy the same space as the brain?
• How does the brain deliver sights and sounds to the mind? For example, does every neuron connect to the mind, or only certain ones, or combinations?
• If a mind can become detached from a body (as in an OBE), how is it able to perceive what is happening in the absence of being connected to sense organs? If sense organs aren’t needed when disembodied, why are they needed when paired with the body?
• Do minds pre-exist bodies, or do they come into existence with the body? If the latter, when? At fertilization? Does it develop in parallel with the brain?
• What ties a specific mind to a specific body? E.g. if a mind causes me to raise my arm, why can’t my mind cause you to raise your arm?
• If my mind causes me to raise my arm, and simultaneously your mind causes you to raise your arm, how do we know it wasn’t my arm causing your arm to raise, and your mind causing my arm to raise?
• Memories are lost when brains are damaged from trauma or disease, suggesting memories are encoded in the brain. If memories are physical, and destroyed as the brain decomposes at death, but your mind survives, in what sense is that mind still YOU? i.e. what aspects of YOU is your disembodied mind? — Relativist

A brain is not caused to do something by the mind, and the mind is not caused to do something by the brain. The two (brain and mind) exist parallel with eachother.
Minds do occupy a specific location in space, that is, the location of the matter which they are parallel with.
The brain does not deliver sights and sounds to the mind. The mind is parallel to the brain which is impinged in certain ways in which a parallel process happens in the mind.
A mind cannot become detached from a body. All bodies have a corresponding mind, and vice versa.
Minds do not pre-exist bodies, or vice versa, bodies pre-exist minds. The two are parallel with eachother, and any unfolding/"new-existing"/change in one is parallel with the unfolding in the other.
That the mind "causes you" to raise your arm is nothing but an interpretation in your mind parallel to some body.
The idea of ME is itself just a part of my mind parallel with my body. When you lose the ability to identify "I", then your body/mind is no longer "yours".

I believe this answers your questions clearly. Have a nice day.

What sorts of things are meaningful? How do these things become meaningful? To whom are these things meaningful?

meaning=purpose, but since things do not have purposes but are given purposes by the individual, purpose=use. So, what sorts of things are useful? Everything you know and perceive and do is useful in the game of the will to power, which is why Nietzsche's amor fati is indispensable from the conception.
Every other conception of meaning is reactive.

Reality isn't deterministic, aka we cannot accurately predict the future ever, because of emergence and flux (everything influencing everything else). So, you also have an undeterminable probability of the success or failure of your mechanistic prediction.

Everyone is racist (judging lifeforms based on their distinct population in a species). There is no choice in the matter: the variation is in the complexity of the connections and forms, of the unique "racist" mindset.

Why is everyone racist? Thinking is impossible without "racism", aka the judgment of groups of a distinct population in a species, because no groups of species actually exist: everyone is a unique and individual species that diverge from everyone else: the groups are all posited and created by the individual, acting as a simplification and abstraction of all the differences. This doesn't mean that the abstraction of the group is "true", only that it's useful, for "truth is the kind of error without which a certain species of life could not live".

Put simply, value judgments are impossible without "racism", and "all sense perceptions are permeated with value judgments" (Nietzsche), therefore meaning that everything that senses is "racist". Nietzsche:

All thought, judgment, perception, considered as comparison, has as its precondition a "positing of equality," and earlier still a "making equal." The process of making equal is the same as the process of incorporation of appropriated material in the amoeba. "Memory" late, in so far as here the drive to make equal seems already to have been subdued: differentiation is preserved. Remembering as a process of classification and pigeonholing: who is active?

So, what are the extreme-left fighting, then? Only a certain type of "racism" (aka mentality, as has already been shown) that they condemn from a Socratic-Judeo-Christian moral-metaphysical standpoint, and sometimes from an intellectual standpoint, aka a distaste of a certain type of "racism" because it is viewed as a massive simplification, as in OP's case, where he is condemning a simpler type of racism from a much more complex racism. The former case disgusts me as reactive, whereas the latter is much less so.

So, where does that leave those "colorblind"? "Colourblind", lol, as of racism depends solely on color of skin (if this was actually believed blind people could never be racist). This is obviously meant to disparage any calls of racism, and is nothing but action in response to the extreme-left metaphysical condemnation. This active avoidance of condemnation angered the extreme-left in that others found a way to easily avoid all their tricks, so they absorbed this "colorblindness" as a function of that "racism".

After that, the "colorblind" complained about their active approach being absorbed and thrown back at them by the liberal metaphysicians. The "colorblind" can only succumb, or try to act against the liberals, making them look more "racist", so they stopped at standstill in defeat.