[

I have no problem with that assumption. Ventilating assumptions is what we do here. :wink:

↪ovdtogt I'm not sure I have any. Do you? — Devans99

No I don't. Doesn't the question about Heaven and Hell then become mute?

I do believe the moment we became self-aware, the fear of 'losing' oneself became a frightening concept and we have been striving for immortality ever since. Also that this fear is possibly one of the greatest driving forces behind civilization.

It used to be, once we had put food on the table it was leisure time. That is when we lived in the Garden of Eden. Once you start destroying God's garden and planting your own that is when you start living by the sweat of your brow.

Ah our great thinker has returned. Have your wounds healed after our little bruiser?
BTW Females typically have two of the same kind of sex chromosome (XX), and are called the homogametic sex. Males typically have two different kinds of sex chromosomes (XY),

Notice that men have the female sex chromosome Einstein?

Brute fact: living things die, dead things do not come alive. — Metaphysician Undercover

And?

the virtuous Athenian life in 'philia', or the deep friendship of a small number of people. — mcdoodle

I think Aristotle was referring to [homo]'philia'.

What is your philosophical argument for an immortal soul?

— Andrew M

Knowledge (unverified) is belief. Only empiricism can verify this belief.
Only once verified (empirically) to be 'true' we may consider it knowledge.
Knowledge is information.

And falsehood... so usefulness is of no help here when setting out truth(as distinct from falsehood). — creativesoul

Yes. Usefulness can be the property of a falsehood not known to be false.
But unuseful can never be the property of truth.
Truth must always contain the property of usefulness.

Well, I don’t see life as the evolution of dead matter, considering it wasn’t alive. But I’m not sure how you figure that life is the nemesis of dead matter from what I’ve said. — Possibility

No? Did life not evolve out of dead matter?

but the problem with moral systems is rarely that the system is unjustified but more so that it's hard to go from ANY vague premise to concrete reality. — khaled

We apply morality when we are faced with confusing choices.

But in my view, natural selection is not so much the child of evolution as its nemesis. — Possibility

I could agree with you there. But then life would be not so much the evolution of dead matter but its nemesis.

I think that "simple" and "complex" are relative concepts, like "big" and "small". So I can't see how they could take on a universal meaning...? — ZhouBoTong

Everything is part of the relative order of things. That is what is universal about everything. Everything is relative. Only death is absolute.

the concept of weight — TheMadFool

The weight of an object is relative. That all objects under gravity have weight is absolute.

it’s not natural selection, but the creative impetus, that displays its brilliance in us — Possibility

Natural selection also displays brilliance. Most science and art are inspired by nature.

I guess so.

If there was no God to speak of, would people still feel a spiritual, God-like sensation?

God does exist. You are God.

Why would you crave food then if you do not find it enjoyable. — khaled

Fear of dying can make you crave food. It can make you eat dirt, grass and leaves off the tree. Definitely not pleasure or desire is making you eat this stuff.

I imagine the fact that Impeachment is being considered by the Democrats would be one strike against your comment, — Brett

I imagine the fact that the Senate in no way is going to convict him confirms my conviction. And the fact that the Republicans are totally and the Democrats mostly, are corporate Fascists.

Yes, I’d like to see the parallels with the 1930’s myself. — Brett

Study the rise of Fascism in Germany and the parallels are obvious.

he only parallels I see are to the various points of moral panic and mass hysteria. — NOS4A2

That is all you need for strong authoritarian leadership.

In simplistic terms it is kind of a counter position to stoicism. One says ‘take it on the chin’ and the other says ‘don’t even bother to fight, just have fun’. — I like sushi

No not at all. It understand that by fighting you have already lost the battle. You must try to prevent the fighting in the first place.

Stoicism only makes sense if you are incapable of affecting your circumstances.

How do you explain the motivation to smoke? It has negative outcomes in the short and long term — khaled

That how drugs work: they directly effect your brain to give what it wants even though it might be detrimental to your overall health and well-being.

If you never crave food, eating will not be enjoyable — Pfhorrest

If you don't crave food you wil eat out of not desire. We don't desire to live most of time, we fear to die.

om a Buddhist perspective, soft hedonism is compatible with the notion of reducing pain, rather than increasing pleasure, I think? — Wallows

Exactly

If you never crave food, eating will not be enjoyable — Pfhorrest

Even if you crave food the eating need not be enjoyable. What presses your pleasure buttons can be very personal.

Logos means word. I did not know that. Sharing information is very important to the survival of many species. Words are the most effective means of sharing information. Words are culture.

Migration is not just affecting the US. Europe and most rich countries are facing an influx of economic refugees causing a political crisis in all these regions. This will inevitably give rise to increasingly extreme right wing governments that don't eschew violence to beat down domestic or foreign threats.

Those that forget history are condemned to repeat it. If you don't see parallels with the 1930's you are being wilfully blind.

Yes that might be the biggest problem of all: Not knowing what we don't know.

I have really stopped speculating on these mattters, infinity and eternity. My mind can't deal with these concepts. You get caught up in circular arguments from which there is no escaping.

As I said, that I use fingers and toes for certain purposes doesn't mean that this is the reason why I have them. — Metaphysician Undercover

No that is true. You do not have fingers and toes for the reason you use them. :rofl:
You use them in unreasonable ways. :lol:
It is really quite unreasonable you have fingers and toes. :cry:
It is really quite unreasonable that you use them for certain purposes. :sweat:
There is absolutely no reason you have fingers and toes at all. :chin:
That you use fingers and toes is not a reason for you to have them. :groan:

For the greater good we might decide that no porridge can be over 100 degrees Fahrenheit...but Goldilocks likes it hot. — ZhouBoTong

Yes it is a huge frustration of having to conform to society. Often you have to abide by common rules that you totally disagree with. This has turned me into a grumpy old man who feels most comfortable staying indoors and chatting on forums. I feel like Goldilocks forced to eat cold porridge.

Looking at the way I use some parts of my body doesn't necessarily tell me why I have those parts. — Metaphysician Undercover

Seriously? You are telling me you have no idea why you have fingers and toes?

You are an expert in the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being and knowing and you don't know what fingers and toes are for?

Wow......

In an ideal world you would all be figments of my imagination.

I don't know why I have nipples, nor do I know why I have fingers or toes. — Metaphysician Undercover

You don't know why you have fingers and toes? You never use them?

Real knowledge starts with knowing what you don't know.

I don't see how that's relevant, you might as well be asking why males and females both have mouths and noses. If you want to start with something real, start with the y chromosome. — Metaphysician Undercover

You don't find what defines us sexually as being relevant? Why do you have nipples?

"unnecessarily offending", "too selfish", or "too altruistic", — ZhouBoTong

In such matters I just refer to it being a personal choice. How hot does Goldilocks want her porridge?

Capitalism, a product of social evolution, is an expression of this hybrid model - individuals behave in a selfish manner yet still end up contributing to the greater good. — Devans99

While trashing the environment. That greater good has had to pay the price for our indulgences.

Objective oughts create blind followers instead of thinking individuals. — ZhouBoTong

The problem is most people don't have the intellectual capacity to be anything by blind followers. Who are these people going to follow when all the leaders have become nihilistic hedonists? (a situation we almost already find ourselves in) Only the artists and scientists will be able to amuse themselves. All the philosophers will be nihilists by then.

Yes I am familiar with the 'God has always existed' argument. I just find it very dissatisfying. It is like somebody putting an empty plate in front of me and telling me it is delicious food.. It would require a whole heap of faith for it to fill my stomach.

Both are indicate of the presence of some sort of creator deity IMO. — Devans99

Yes that is what one may logically deduce. It would explain the existence of the Universe. It can not however explain the existence of a creator deity.