I suggest you take a look a Chris Langan's "CTMU Theory". — Manuel

Which, incidentally, doesn't increase my regard for IQ tests. — hanaH

Would Plato have still produced his works with an average IQ? — Shawn

Any high IQ people here? — Shawn

Most of the controversy in philosophy is related to differences in metaphysics and the fact that most philosophers don’t recognize that ways of seeing reality are not right or wrong, they are just more or less useful ways of seeing things — T Clark

“Pragmatism” by Willilam James has helped me put my thoughts into words. — T Clark

In my defense, although I have not studied philosophy formally, I have been a practicing field epistemologist for 30 years. As an engineer, my job was to know things, know how I knew them, understand the uncertainties in my knowledge, and the consequences of being wrong. Then I had to write summaries of all of those factors for other, sometimes non-professional, decision makers. I think this experience has given me insights that reading and studying would never have given me. — T Clark

Do I have a choice? — TheMadFool

I don't think so. I'm attempting to go beyond the words, to the things themselves the word stands for.
— TheMadFool
But you do mention words in your OP.
— Wheatley

And...? — TheMadFool

Words are signs, they stand for things. What they stand for is up to us, whatever we fancy that is. That's Wittgenstein. — TheMadFool

The essence of a thing is not the same as the essence of a word used to refer to that thing. — TheMadFool

I don't think so. I'm attempting to go beyond the words, to the things themselves the word stands for. — TheMadFool

there's an, what I like to describe as, arbitrariness to words. There is no logical reason, no rationale, why "water" should refer to H2OH2O. — TheMadFool

words lack essences — TheMadFool

true nature of a thing whatever that thing is. — TheMadFool

essence of water — TheMadFool

is that which makes water water. — TheMadFool

words lack essences — TheMadFool

That's strange. One is cautious because one cares about oneself, about one's wellbeing. Related to that, cares about the wellbeing of those who are important to one. — baker

Why do you ask, if you are not responding to replies?
I sent you my reply more than a week ago ...
(https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/605997) — Alkis Piskas

That's not doubt, that's caution. — baker

doubt becomes a fetish — Banno

While doubt (and certainty) are inherent aspects of our lives, turning doubt into a fetish is a sure way to set yourself up for manipulation. Science deniers see themselves as bastions of rational discourse, doubting the authority of the men in white coats. — Banno

The middle path, doubting here and being certain there, is the only viable approach. The issue it, what is here and which is there. — Banno

When libertarian free will was a widely held belief unexamined by philosophy and Plato convinced much of philosophers that you ought to do what is right by definition, moral philosophers searched to know what is right while rarely examining metaethical questions.

However, when the Enlightenment brought hard determinism into the spotlight, the question of whether or not hard determinism entails that ethics is irrelevant became increasingly important, and the fact that free will is presupposed by our justice systems only made the question more important.

Some, such as David Hume, have settled on a soft determinism to avoid the question, while others have answered by proposing that the non-existence of responsibility entails the non-existence of right and wrong.

My view is that hard determinism does not make ethics irrelevant, because right and wrong are also about justification, more specifically, justification of an action, that is, ethics is also about whether an action is justified or not, and free will is irrelevant to justification, therefore we can continue asking moral questions.

Anyway, what do you think ? — Hello Human

I strongly reccomend watching the video in the link to understand this better — FalseIdentity

Whenever we decide to do something we believe that what we are about to do actually does make sense. How do we determine if we are right or wrong? How can we be certain that our actions are actually beneficial and not counterproductive? In other words is there a way to know in advance that we are making a mistake? Can we predict the results of our decisions in order to avoid unintended catastrophic consequences? — Average

The kind that mints boatloads of money. The world's richest people provide the best hints and tips. — TheMadFool

Do business, like everyone else. Duh! :grin: — TheMadFool

Maybe bringing back government bonds, and government begging, would help to fund its projects without all the theft and forced labor. — NOS4A2