When a "rule" has an exception, it means the rule is actually false.

Eg. "It's wrong to kill."
"Exception": "It's ok to kill in self-defense"
If its true that killing is ok in some situations, it means that killing isn't wrong. It is just wrong in some circumstances.

A more obvious example:
"Its wrong to pick fruit from trees".
"exception": "Its ok to pick fruit from a tree if it's your tree, or you have permission"

and tell me yourself why it is invalid. — Alkis Piskas

Probably because, being alive, I have something dead people do not have: a responsibility and duty, which I can either fulfill or shirk. The dead can neither fulfill nor shirk their non-existent duty.

So, you think the living have a duty to participate in politics? Why?
There is good and bad in every field.
There is good and bad art. Good and bad education. Good and bad philosophy.
Do I have to participate in every one of these, and if I don't, it means I am shirking duty and supporting the bad sides?

Not supporting directly one side in a confrontation, you are indiretly supporting the other. — Alkis Piskas

That means that dead people indirectly support sides in a confrontation. At least if they would have chosen sides had they been alive.

Edit:
Additionally, this "You either support the good or support the bad. There is no neutrality" mentality can be applied in a different way.
You either support corrupt politicians by voting for them, or you oppose them by not voting for them.

How can someone who is not against democracy honestly argue against participation in democracy? — praxis

It's pseudo-democracy. Even North Korea is called The Democratic People's Republic of Korea. And it's citizen's are required to vote every four-to-five years for who will be elected as Supreme Leader.
Imagine we are having this same discussion as North Koreans. Would you accuse those who don't vote (assuming they could get away with not voting) as opposing democracy?

If I were a Mod, I would make it a personal rule not to moderate threads I myself have started.

Its akin to a someone being both a boxer and referee. It would take a saintly disposition to referee without bias

Im surprised its not an unspoken rule.

With analogy of a garden, virtue can be like good fruit bearing plants. Weeds like bad qualities that don't bear fruit.
Wisdom might be the process of discriminating between the two, cultivating the garden in order to prevent and eliminate bad plants, and plant and maintain good seeds/plants.

My take:
What's good and bad for me is objective.

That I should be well rather than ill, is a personal preference.

Put interpersonally:
-Its objectively true that living beings value wellbeing.
-Its objectively true that wellbeing is somewhat interdependent.
-Its objectively true that when we harm our community, we are harming a community which we partially depend on for our wellbeing, therefore negatively effecting our own wellbeing.

Put another way, there are objective truths about what is good and bad WITHIN the context of an interdependent community. But I don't see how good and bad can exist independent of the shared personal preferences of a community.

Depends on how you measure significance.
Or do you suppose there is a way to measure significance empirically?

From a psychological perspective, I wonder if the desire to reach infinity is based on a feeling of something not being good enough in ourselves, or our experience.

I seek more and more, with the idea that more will eventually result in completely full. More knowledge, more experience, more understanding.

But more doesn't lead to 100% full, or so I've been told

The more that is had, the bigger becomes the comparison of measurement
So that even if had the whole earth, I would end up comparing my little earth to the universe and feel quite poor.

Instead, aescetics have told me through writings, that I have to become 100% empty. Only a 100% empty mind has room for infinity.
As motivational coach Tyler Durden of 'Fight Club' put it, "It's only when we lose everything that we are free to do anything."

And:
"When the doors of perception are cleansed, we see things as they really are, infinite" - One of those classic poets, William Blake, I think. Also what the band, The Doors, based their band name on, or so I've heard.

Reality ultimately can't be limited, because limitation requires two. One thing limiting another.

I also reminded of an interpretation of the symbolism of the tower of Babel.
They tried to build a tower tall enough to reach God.

Is that we are are doing with the intellect? Trying to attain Infinity through building conceptual realities?

Fun to think about. Infinity literally is the one thing that can't ever become boring, since things only become boring once we understand everything about them!

Science is advancing. This is very obvious. But is philosophy? — Alkis Piskas

Paraphrase:
"My empirical knowledge is increasing, but is my understanding and wisdom increasing?"

If God is the fundamental basis of all things, then God would be, if it's not a misuse of terms, a sort of "supreme axiom."

Axioms can't be proven or disproven? They are self evident and must be established before proving and disproving are even possible.
So if God is the "supreme axiom", it can't be proven, but must be necessary.

But yet then, why isn't God self evident to everyone?

Or is He, but not everyone realises it?

Perhaps related, Descarte's cogito points to us only being able to be sure of our own existence.
What if I AM may be the root axiom?

I don't think the cogito proves the ego definitely exists, but that the Awareness exists in which the ego appears as a content of the awareness.

It's popular modern Buddhism to talk about No-Self.
Egoless Consciousness may be the supreme reality?
But yet in classic Buddhism there are mentions of more and more subtle states of meditative absorbtion, in which even "infinite consciousness" is left behind for an even subtler state. I think the highest state mentioned was called, in English translation, neither perception nor non-perception.

Perhaps it is wiser to not try to form a concept of the ultimate reality too much

Are there any strong arguments for free will? — TiredThinker

Isn't it impossible to prove a negative? Not only that, isn't it impossible to define a negative? (Other than to say what it is not?)
Is not "freedom' a negative?
When I say I am free, what am I free of? It seems that 'free' means an absence of something...eg, 'sugar free.'
So, a 'free will' is a will without something?
What exactly is it free of? External force? External compulsion?

It at least seems that everything must be free of something in order to be distinct from everything else.
For my will to be different than other wills, it must be seperate, or free, from other wills. Other wills don't seem to be capable of entirely forcing my will to will things. So at the very least my will is partly free from some external forces.

But maybe I am using 'free' differently than it's normally used in the term 'free will'.

Who are you and what do you want?

I ask myself these questions and get frustrated.

How do you currently answer these questions or is that not the point of this thread?

Maybe I am a finite being seeking infinity, on the one hand, and an infinite being seeking a particular focus or unique meaning and role, on the other. A role can be limiting in one sense, but enabling in another. (Is that deepity?)

Ok, but no, I don't think that covers all my questions at all, but if you think what you have typed via Dan Dennet closes the thread for you then, fair enough. — universeness

Lol you have misinterpreted my intentions again. I don't want to dismiss your thread. I like the topic.

Ok, but you use the words 'might be,' so you must have an opinion about their reasoning?
Are the individuals you are typing about just malcontents?
Do you think it's more sinister than that and they have their own personal agenda or a group agenda?
Do you think they deliberately quote words or concepts out of context as part of an overall plan?
Why would some individuals HERE on THIS FORUM want to 'generate pseudo-profound questions or answers?' Are some of them trying to recruit towards a cause? — universeness

Actually I doubt it's done on purpose, so I think that covers all your questions.

No, I don't think it's anything to do with Deepak Chopra.

According to: https://www.edinburghskeptics.co.uk/skepdayJan/Deepity

The term was "First coined by Miriam Weizenbaum, the daughter of a friend of American philosopher Daniel Dennett." — universeness

I think Dennet was quoting a 'child,' when he used the term 'deepidy.' — universeness

I think it's a play on "Deepak" and "deep"

When I read/participate in a thread, the word 'profundity,' or its equivalent conceptualisations, seems to be the main/ultimate/perceived goal of the exchange. — universeness

I meant that a lot of what goes on in philosophy here might be using words or concepts out of context to generate pseudo-profound questions or answers. Which may be related to looking for "profundity". Maybe I'm making a strenuous connection.

Hmm, so goal here is mostly to generate "deepities"?

"A deepity, as Dennett characterizes it, is a sentence or other utterance that has more than one interpretation; it has “two readings and balances precariously between them. On one reading it is true but trivial, and on another it is false but would be earth-shattering if true.”

Maybe good criteria for evaluation: If it sounds deep, there is probably some confusion somewhere.

"pseudo-profound bullshit"?

You yourself are saying science(knowledge) is seperate from philosophy (wisdom).
Without philosophy means without love of wisdom...

Anything not guided by the love of wisdom is guided by something else, no?

Tell me how science can seperate itself from philosophy without being foolish?

Trying to understand nature without first understanding yourself (or in conjunction with) could be THE definition of unwise, on par with trying to gain the whole world but losing one's own soul.

"I was only doing my job!"

Whatever though, I'm a native English speaker, late 30s, high school drop out with an Associates degree in psychology.

I haven't looked that deep into natural science, as I'm not convinced so far that it will help me understand myself and human nature much better nor how to live more wisely, which are some of my aims.

I am mainly asking what is the mission of science, specifically the Why, if it has a Why.
I only claimed that an institution needs a valid reason to exist, to be considered an institution worth investing time and money into. And in order to be able to measure its success relative to it's aim.

For example, if a business only has the mission to make money, and not make the world a better place by providing a useful service, I consider it illegitimate. It can claim it is successful if it makes money, but I consider that a superficial metric of success.

Seems like a valid question, even for a young uneducated non English speaker to ask.
If you want to determine if I am worth engaging with, please ask for more relevant life details.

is this helpful???? — Nickolasgaspar

I don't think so.
It seems to me like you don't want scientists to bear any responsibility for being unwise and irresponsible.

You said science is the investigation of the ontology of life. I don't know if this is good summary of what science does, but it doesn't mention the why. Why do scientists investigate the ontology of life? Without a valid, wise Why, then scientific knowlege is just as likely to do harm as it is to do good.

Are you catching my drift?

You're not responding. Could be we are on different pages.
I have one last question: modern science doesn't investigate meaning and value?
Is the institution of modern science lead by wisdom? If it's not, then isn't modern science run by fools?
If an organization that has the aim to understand nature...for what? A valid vision and purpose requires a why, not just a what, in order to be eligible to be considered wise.
If modern science doesn't have a Wise Mission/vision, ought it not be called out??

Edit PS: I'm not trying to only pick on modern science. Modern academic philosophy I believe also lacks a mission of wisdom as well, and ought be called out for straying from the path of wisdom.

But, I worry I'm arrogant for thinking I know what is best for institutions or to presume calling them out online will make any difference. I probably should be more worried about my own failings.

Language is symbolic, metaphoric, adding a degree of sort of poetry or art, that is not innate to the experience?
In some sense, doesn't language "create", not only "communicate"?

Nick, don't all knowledge fields use methodologies in an attempt to reliably arrive at the truth of whatever the field has an aim at knowing or understanding?

To be a knowledge field should require an epistemological framework, right?

Is empirical observation a reliable way to verify a hypothesis is true? And is it the only or primary way?
Does deductive logic or mathematics require empirical observation?

Empirical observations may be "objective", but the conclusions one draws from it, aren't they going to be inductions?

"Natural science" constructs theories around observations. The theories themselves are not empirical, are they?
Ethicists, eg bioethicists, also construct theories around observations.
What makes "natural science" theories more "objective" than ethical theories, or economic theories, or political theories, or mathematical theories?

Nick isn't having a conversation. He is running a PR campaign.

The more accessible evidence is to others, the more valuable it will be to others. What I meant was that evidence doesn't necessarily have to be accessible to everyone to be evidence of something. All of us probably have evidence of things only we ourselves are privy to.
Never mind.

Either materialism or idealism is the reality of things.
If idealism is how it is, then God, in the Brahman sense rather than in the pantheon sense, is self evident and the existence of an objective material universe is what has a burden of proof.

If materialism is the case, then the objective material universe is self evident, and the existence of God holds the burden of proof.

What I'm saying is that one's paradigm determines if God or the universe seem self evident or not to you. It goes deeper than belief or unbelief. Than proof or lack of proof.

The God question has to do with Ultimate Reality itself, rather than this or that thing in reality.
Maybe there is no pantheons in reality. That has nothing to do with whether Ultimate Reality is Brahman or matter.

The ball in Smith's analogy is Reality, as I see it. Neither theists nor atheists can simply point to reality. It can only indirectly be referenced.

Why does the evidence have to be accessible to everyone? And how could we possibly know if something is accessible to everyone? Who is everyone?
Before there were people, there were no objective truths?
— Yohan
-Because this is why we avoid to be scammed by con artists. This is why we don't answer back to emails from Nigerian Princes. This is why we hold receipts and reject claims that have economic implications for our well being. This is an essential quality of good evidence.! — Nickolasgaspar

I'm done unless you want to offer a deductive answer to my question
I asked a deductive question, and you offered an inductive justification. No amount of examples of white swans justifies the claim that whiteness is a necessary feature of swans.

Objectively true is a claim that is in agreement with evidence currently accessible to everyone. — Nickolasgaspar

Why does the evidence have to be accessible to everyone? And how could we possibly know if something is accessible to everyone? Who is everyone?
Before there were people, there were no objective truths?

Absolute truth is a claim that is based on absolute facts meaning that no new facts exist that can change the value of truthiness of our claim. That of course is not possible. — Nickolasgaspar

Well, I suppose no claim can be absolutely true. Logically I have to believe there is something absolute though. Even If it can never be put as a claim.

i.e the available facts for centuries were supportive of the objective truthiness of the geocentric claim. — Nickolasgaspar

By the criteria you've noted then, geocentrism used to be objectively true?

So objective truth doesn't mean absolute truth but its the only reasonable position to hold based on current available facts — Nickolasgaspar

I think methodological naturalism helps us form reasonable positions about the "natural world". I don't see any reason to call these reasonable positions "objectively true"

(I might respond to your other post later. Good day)

Also, is possible to apply a science to the subjective.
Eg some claim that there is a science to some therapies or self actualization techniques like meditation and yoga, or to improving ones skills, or the "science of success". As long as one can demonstrate an ability to predict an outcome of a technique many times, with peer review etc I think it should have the right to be called a science as well.
I am not fan of this modern trend of methodological naturalism claiming exclusive rights to the label of science. Of course, it is not MN which has made this claim, but MNists(and not all of them)

Scientific evaluation can offer objective truth..not absolute truth. — Nickolasgaspar

What does objective truth mean? Is this a scientific term? What is the difference between objective and absolute? Can objective truth be wrong?

-This is only because your expectations were not reasonable. Again the process is messy and slow but it is really successful in keeping nonsense away from science — Nickolasgaspar

You are shifting goal posts.
Science is said to be objective because it is sufficiently rigorous, with experiments and peer review.
I don't see good evidence to think passing peer review is a reliable means to determine if a scientific work is true...Objective? Maybe peer review can increase the likelihood that a work is scientific in nature and worth taking seriously. But how do we determine a work is objectively...true?

Peer review could work only if the peers are honest, objective, and of diverse capacities. I have not seen evidence that there is sufficient rigour in determining that peer reviewers are sufficiently honest and capable.

Also there are multiple angles from which to critique a work.
So if you want your work to be reviewed for logical soundness, yet there are no logicians on the panel of peers, for example, it's not likely to be rigorously reviewed for logical soundness.

I'd like to see a checklist for all the things peer reviewers check for, and a checklist for vetting process in choosing a peer to do peer review.

I'm skeptical that the peer review process is sufficiently rigorous.
I am only now starting to research peer review, though

Do you have sufficient evidence or reason for why the public ought to have confidence in the peer review process to tell us what is good or bad science?

I'm very skeptical of any group of people telling the public what it ought to believe. It should tell us what the experiment was, and the results of the experiment, and let the individual reader determine for themselves if the results are sufficient to warrent accepting or rejecting a theory or hypothesis. (My opinion of course)

How come science and philosophy aren't used together(except minimally) as a single philosophic-scientific method?

It seems like a divide and conquer tactic.

It's just as important to verify that a hypothesis is self-consistent(logically sound?) as it is to verify that it is consistent with objective reality. Isn't it?
(I'm sure scientists do use logic, obviously, but with the same rigour as philosophers?)

I don't disagree with you that much. However, I view science as entirely creative, like any other field with the goal of discovery or novelty.
Rules don't make something non-creative.(Not saying that you said or implied this...) They are rather guidelines to creating the sort of thing one wants to create.

Philosophy begins with the abstract and moves toward the concrete. "Here is the question, now what is the answer?"
Science begins with (what it considers) the concrete and moves more toward abstract explanation. "Here is the answer, now what is the question?"

That's what I've been saying, the conclusion is based in faulty mathematics which employs infinity as a number. — Metaphysician Undercover

I believe infinity leads to absurdity

Give the monkey infinite time, and it is impossible that it will not complete the task — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't think there is a justified reason to think this.

Just sharing what I got from the OP, as your posts suggested you couldn't find a point or question from the OP.

Maybe state what specifically kind of point you see as missing or explain what the standards are that would qualify something as a meaningful point.