People try to make sense of chaos by telling stories.
Whether scientist, philosopher, or priest.
Whichever narrative you adhere to, isn't there bound to be some human-centric bias?

You may be right... but logic can't be wrong if it's right. Can somebody be "excessively" right? No. Can something not fly if it has wings? Yes. Can something not have wings if it has wings? No. So I don't stand corrected; you must admit that I made no logical mistakes.

How you judge the end result of logical arguments is beyond my ability to influence. So you can call this trivial, and I have no argument against that. — god must be atheist

If someone misses the forrest for the trees, they are off the mark, as I see it. Maybe not wrong to the letter, but wrong in spirit.

I'd rather be right in spirit and be only good enough technically, or even wrong, than precisely right technically but wrong in spirit.

Wrong logic. All birds have wings, therefore all birds are winged animals. This is a correct conclusion. — god must be atheist

You're being excessively "logical". When logic goes beyond common sense, it becomes trivial

I think the natural state of a human being is philosophical.
— Yohan

I don’t think that’s true at all. I think many questions (usually considered philosophical) are very human, very universal — but as I said earlier, not everyone who thinks is a thinker. — Xtrix

Ok not everyone is a thinker.
All birds have wings, but not all birds are flyers.

If you haven’t read Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, at least three works by Nietzsche and have a pretty solid reading history of Plato and Aristotle, then you are not a ‘philosopher’ worth listening to but you might be a decent point of reference for the works you have some knowledge of or as someone to bounce ideas off for a ‘philosopher’. — I like sushi

For me the heart of philosophy is, "How ought I to live"?
Going deep into things I'd say is part of the equation. But deep diving into philosophical works is not an adequate measure of how philosophical someone is, in my view.

Does not accuracy look like non-contradiction?
— Yohan

You tell me? I don't know what accuracy means when it comes to philosophy. Accurate against what standard? — Tom Storm

Basically you are summarising epistemology. How do we know?
Goodnight.

Rigor and accuracy are only assessed in relation to something external - a criterion of value. What would that be?

What does accuracy look like in philosophy? — Tom Storm

What are these questions about? I'm not getting the picture of where you are.
Does not accuracy look like non-contradiction?
That seems like too easy an answer, that you'd already know...I suppose you think I have some less popular view on how to measure accuracy?
PS. I meant to say rigour.

Can a person be a (good) philosopher if they live in isolation from society, not reading philosophy works nor sharing their thoughts?
— Yohan

I'd say it is unlikely, but who knows? Can you name an example? — Tom Storm

No, but I suspect the probability of their having existed and existing now is high.

Consider how much great art and music is probably out there which never made it mainstream. I think it's the same with great thinkers.

Fame is rare, I think, because it requires a lot more than talent and dedication. It requires having the right connections, people being ready for it, and so on, possibly also a desire for recognition, which not all artists or thinkers necessarily would have.

The key to me is the motivation. Is one passionately seeking the truth, or just studying philosophy as a hobby or to make a living or reputation?
— Yohan

I think this is certainly part of it. But this says nothing about competence or rigour. What exactly does 'seeking the truth' consist of in your view; how would someone go about this? — Tom Storm

Well I should think competence is a result of practice, which one puts in enough of if one has sufficient motivation.
I doubt anyone ever began with high competence.
And I'd think the same about rigor.
One's amount of rigor depends on one's degree of caring about accuracy. Would you say?
However, many have said that waiting for motivation is a recipe for failure. "You gotta show up whether you feel motivated or not." sort of thing. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me...
Something must motivate someone to do something they feel a lack of motivation for doing, right? They might not feel the motivation, but it must be somewhere.

I'm not satisfied with my own level of commitment and seeking, so I don't want to say much about what I consider to be seeking after the truth to consist of, or how to go about it. That feels hypocritical.

I hear this kind of thinking from people who are just too lazy to put the work in tbh. You might be different. I just don’t think it makes any sense for anyone to label themselves as a ‘philosopher’ if they have never actually read ( and I mean REALLY read) an actual work of philosophy. — I like sushi

Our views are quite different. I think the natural state of a human being is philosophical. So, if someone stops seeking after fame and wealth (primarily) and instead re-awakens philosophical wonder and keeps that wonder at the center of their life, they are a philosophers, to me.

I don't see philosophy as something that started or as being a tradition, or anything like that. I see it as a sort of attitude, way of being, or approach to things.

Too many people out there (including myself) here some brief excerpt from a philosopher and think themselves enlightened because ‘we thought/knew that already’. — I like sushi

I view it as one must become a philosopher first. I view it as the beginning, not the end. Like one must become a seeker before one can be a finder.
How can anyone attain(if that is the right word?) wisdom without first becoming a philosopher, a lover of wisdom?

I don’t regard people who have been to university to study philosophy as ‘philosophers’ though. Just stating it is pretty damn silly to paint yourself as something without having partook in some rigorous and active sense with what is already there. — I like sushi

I consider the words of dead philosophers the words of dead philosophers. They can be useful, but they aren't philosophy itself.

The key to me is the motivation. Is one passionately seeking the truth, or just studying philosophy as a hobby or to make a living or reputation?
Are academic philosophers (on the whole) interested in the true spirit of philosophy, or just on the letter of the law?

Anyway, I'm probably way too opinionated.

- Someone who actively studies philosophical texts with rigour (a scholar of philosophy).
- Someone who is erudite and interested in multiple fields that enjoys sharing and discussing/expressing ideas (more of a colloquial definition).
- Someone who builds ideas on previous works by philosophers with a high degree of analytic, discursive and critical thought (more of a professor/student level beyond scholarship).
- Someone interested in knowledge and information, meaning and existence and general ‘purpose’ of living/life questions without much rigour (more of an armchair philosopher or navel gazer).
- Someone actively involved in ‘spiritual’ pursuits. Be this of religious doctrines or other esoteric ideas and views. — I like sushi

Only two of these are technically viable whilst the others are just colloquial terms. — I like sushi

Where would the likes of ancient or modern day Stoic philosophers fit into those categories?

How much do I have to study and contribute to the Stoic tradition before I can be accurately regarded as a Stoic philosopher?

I think it is this modern day academic usage of the word 'philosopher" that should be considered colloquial in nature.

The most basic and oldest definition of philosopher does not say anything about tradition, academia, credentials, contribution, rigor etc.

By this definition the first philosopher (if that is even conceivable?) couldn't have been a (successful) philosopher...
— Yohan

Of course. The first doctor would not have been successful either. Or dentist... yikes! The point is, a discourse or tradition is built gradually over time. Ignoring this might get you making those early mistakes all over again... — Tom Storm

Can a person be a (good) philosopher if they live in isolation from society, not reading philosophy works nor sharing their thoughts?

I can't think of a reason why not, any more than I can think any reason an isolated artist should not be called (or could be) an (good) artist.

I keep coming back to the idea that to be successful in philosophy (as I see it) one needs a solid awareness of the tradition and how ideas have been explored thus far. — Tom Storm

By this definition the first philosopher (if that is even conceivable?) couldn't have been a (successful) philosopher...

The stoner philosopher. Gets high and asks deep questions.

The hobbyist philosopher. Enjoys talking about philosophy. But cares about other things more.

The academic philosopher. A scholar and teacher of philosophical traditions. Doesn't necessarily embody wisdom. May mistake knowledge for wisdom.

The lover of wisdom: Someone who devotes their life to the persuit of and embodiment of wisdom.

The sage: Someone who embodies wisdom.

What is the best thing that could happen to someone? — jasonm

-Realizing one will inevitably die, and making peace with this fact.

What is the worst thing that could happen to someone?

-Profound regret at the end of one's life.

What is justice?

-Natural law

What is poetic justice?

-When one gets what one deserves, good or bad, at just the right timing.

What is the best thing that could happen to two people in a relationship?

-They realize they don't need a relationship to be happy.

What is true evil?

-Wasting time.

What is the best thing that could happen between two enemies?

-They become frenemies.

Information is not knowledge.
Noise is not music.
A bunch of words is not a story.
Blabbering on a stage is not giving a talk.
Aesthetics is not art.

Aim to actually succeed at life on the whole, rather than just to succeed at creating an image of success for yourself.

Faking success is easy. Achieving real success is very difficult.

The only one's who are truly rich are the one's who have escaped birth and death. To be a mere mortal is to be poor indeed.

I'm not getting what you are saying makes will free. That it evolves? — Yohan
I'll give it a try. — Raymond

Thanks sir. Its hard for me to read though. I am impatient to read longwinded explanations.

Easy. The desired outcome was: discuss philosophy with people more knowledgeable about it than me. The chosen course of action -- to visit a philosophy forum -- was the optimal one. — Kenosha Kid

Fair enough good sir

False analogy. We don't always get a "fix" from the things we like to do. We do things to satisfy something else -- for duty, for love, to improve our skills, or just to pass time. — Caldwell

You are right.

I didn't know there was a difference between these words until now. To bet on the safe side I'd say ingest.

I don't see what is wrong with the picture I was painting though. Is life not somewhat akin to a big drug store in which we all get our fix from something or another?

Correct. You ingested alcohol, but consumed the punch. — Caldwell

But I missed the punch line.

Too much or too little alcohol? :chin:

It's essential to me that my decisions are as rational as possible or, if irrational, I can at least explain them in retrospect. — Kenosha Kid

If you are honest, then I wonder how the hell you determined going to a philosophy forum is "as rational as possible."
That's like someone saying they care about good hygiene while covered in trash.
Or like someone who claims they want to know God while at the same time being religious.

Is the stomach driven by external will or internal will? All will evolves. Some wills have a lust for power and constrain other forms of will. I think it's that what makes will free, not if they are determined by deterministic abstract entities apart from them, like a natural law or God. — Raymond

I'm not getting what you are saying makes will free. That it evolves? Sounds interesting.

Although we're all slaves of, and none of us masters to, causality! :scream: — Kenosha Kid

Dang. I want a refund. I don't remember reading being a slave to causality in the terms and conditions.:broken:

All that proves that external factors play a role, a big role, in your decisions.

I am thinking of it like a dance. Our dance partner influences our dancing. As does the music, dance floor, aesthetics of dance hall, etc. However, who chose all the stuff that makes up the dance hall? Whoever runs the place. But what influenced them to make all the choices? To a large extent, whatever is popular at the time. And who determines what is popular at the time? Is that not a collective "decision"? Eventually we can trace all factors back to the supposed big bang where everything supposedly came from. If that is the case, then we are all equally victims of the first cause. No external factor in the environment is necessarily stronger then the influence we contribute to the collective. Life is a co-creative process.

Is it? The slave might seem to depend on the master feeding him and sheltering him, but only in the context of the slave's maximally restricted liberty. Remove the master and the slave is free, including free to obtain food and shelter by other, less criminally insane means. So off-topic now... :rofl: — Kenosha Kid

Remove the master and there is no slave. Remove the slave and there is no master. They can't exist, as slaves or masters, without each other. Good grief of course nobody NEEDS someone to enslave them!

Kenosha okay,I misunderstood sorry.[/quote]
Well you were kinda right though. My bias was already in place so I kinda had my mind up to find an excuse for believing in free will.

unfree or free. The will simply is — Raymond

The question is like asking if the stomach has a free will to be hungry or is it determined to be hungry. I do wonder what is the right course of action for one who feels like a victim of the universe though. Is it wise to will freedom? Or better to let it go? But this is more a question of the good life / ethics than metaphysics.

That's it! — Raymond

Something feels off though. I think there is a determinism, in the sense of a harmony and order to the way things happen. So it's free but also determined. Just not determined in a master and slave sort of way.

I did arrive as a non-physicalist but that is unrelated. — Yohan
It's very related, since there's a huge gap between the OP and your convincing. — Kenosha Kid

I did arrive wanting to believe in free will.
I still do, but can't. Free will doesn't appear to have any explanatory power.

Occam's razor chooses the simplest explanation for the whole. Which is simpler?
1. Determinism.
2. Determinism + non-deterministic free will.
Since determinism itself is not being disputed here. — Kenosha Kid

Master and slave is a co-dependent relationship. If determinism rules all, then there must be an 'all' that is ruled. If I can be ruled, it implies I could also be free.
Edit: I don't 'think it makes sense for determinism to determine itself.
Edit 2: I don't believe there are things, laws, which exist separately from phenomena. Phenomena and laws are one and the same. Therefor everything happens "freely" but without a free will.

Edit: Isn't the one intrinsic value wellbeing?
Isn't even the motive of curiosity rooted in well being?

I think you arrived already convinced, no? — Kenosha Kid

I did arrive as a non-physicalist but that is unrelated.
(PS. I don't believe in stupid free will after all)

I just can't see mechanistic domino effects producing symphonies or the works of Shakespeare.

I'm convinced!

If you define consume, that's intentional action on our part. Perceiving is sensing with or without our intentionality. — Caldwell

Fair point, but that would mean if I drink punch, not knowing it is spiked, that I didn't consume alcohol.

Not all sensations alter our consciousness. Our heartbeat goes on 24/7, we sense it, but our consciousness remains the same. — Caldwell

Or the heart beat is producing a consistent state of consciousness?

If we were all drunk all the time, we wouldn't notice it, because none of us would have a baseline sober state with which to compare it with.

I suspect we are all high on being human, with all the chemicals our bodies produce, such as dopamine, serotonin, testosterone or estrogen, and whatever chemicals make us hungry and so on.

Anyway, mostly I enjoy viewing life from different unexpected angles.

Have a nice year. :smile:

The only thing I intrinsically value is not being bored and not being dead.

It is hypocritical only for those who profess tolerance for all. No one here lives up to that, as far as I can see, though some claim it. Which is far worse than being honest in my opinion. Would you be tolerant of someone trying to rob you? Or are you just another person who claims tolerance for all, until someone inconveniences you enough (like everyone else)?

What makes some kinds of intolerance less bad than others? Many things. For instance, how harmful is the object of intolerance. I doubt you think intolerance of animal cruelty is as bad as intolerance of the existence of Jews. One is harmful one isn’t. And that leads to another difference: Accuracy of facts the intolerance is based on. Anti semites will claim that the existence of Jews is more harmful than animal cruelty, and will base their opinions on that. And they would be wrong, and their intolerance misplaced and unacceptable. — khaled

Want to start a thread on this topic? I think I was talking more about the spirit of intolerance. Hatred based on difference of race, sex, ideology. Hatred is an infection, and I think all forms of hatred are rooted in ideologies. But yeah, I'd prefer to get more philosophical in a philosophy thread.

— janus

Was he given the chance to explain? If he was and he said he would not moderate the expression of his views, then the banning would be justified in my view — Janus

Did you read the context in which MZ expressed his misogyny? There was no intention to treat him charitably even before he expressed his misogyny. He was hunted after the moment he admitted to holding secret prejudice.

I wonder if there would have been a debate if Michael had been racist or anti Semitic. I really don’t think so. People here are somehow fine when someone is banned for “low quality” but there is a debate when they openly say they’re misogynistic. — khaled

I've shared my view previously, that people's bad ideas should be addressed and refuted rather than banning or hating on the person infected with such bad ideas.

Also, its kind of hypocritical in my eyes, that intolerance is ok as long as its only toward people with certain ideologies. Eg, its ok to express intolerance or be inflammatory toward republicans or religious people, or anti-vaccers etc here, up to a point. What is it that makes one form of intolerance less bad than any other?

Do you all realize that bans in cyberspace are equivalent to capital punishment in the real world? — TheMadFool

If they were being banned from cyberspace instead of a singe forum. More like being banished from a community.

↪dazed What's the significance of putting this thread in General Philosophy? — baker

Maybe I can help make the topic more philosophical.
Is love really a form of going crazy? Or, is love an altered state of consciousness?
If everyone were rational, would there be no love in society?

OK dude