I got learn my insults to survive here. I did my research by watching the Angry Grandpa Show on YouTube. :rofl:

It takes a lot of guts to rebel against the old guard.

I do the best to avoid them. :wink:

Not necessarily, but it helps to know more about a particular school of philosophy if you happen to criticize or discuss it.

There are huge consequences of failing. You're called names, you get excluded from discussions with all the popular users. Those are just from the top of my head.

Yeah, it was pretty revolutionary (no pun intended!)

Which is my point. It’s because they have nothing new to say, but they crush some new OP that doesn’t make sense or is worded badly. I understand the demands for clarity, etc. — Brett

I put the blame on all the cranky users. (There are a lot of them here unfortunately.)

But my OP isn’t just about
the forum, it’s actually looking for a new, stimulating subject or conversation. Chose a words and begin, be artists, be human and get your hands dirty. — Brett

I think it's because we've become more risk adverse. Everyone seems to be afraid to fail. I wonder why?

Is the forum just a reflection of the world, that we’ve reached a sort of evolutionary point of weariness without any reason to struggle or make things new? Is there really nothing new to come, is it out there ahead of us or do we have to create it? And what should we create, something that excites us or something that serves us? Do we even know how to create anymore? Has all this questioning and arguing just reduced things to the state of boiled vegetables? — Brett

You want to the forum and the world to be a bit less dull and boring and more exciting and innovative? I feel you.

I bothers me a bit, but I know it's my problem not theirs.

The most annoying threads, in my opinion, are those that never come to any conclusion and go on indefinitely.

The mad are out in force.
Education failure? Intentional misleading (conspiracies to spread dis/misinformation)? Thorough disregard for accountability? ...?
The Us-versus-Them attitude is fairly common; you "push down" someone else, and, at least, spread a bit of suspicion.
While looking into this sort of thing some time ago, I also came across: — jorndoe

Did paranoia ever occur to you? :razz:

The OP’s that are coming up on the forum are often lazy in thought, incoherent or just lukewarm in content. — Brett

There are also threads that are very technical that only a select few forum members can understand. Does that bother you? I'm just curious. :smile:

1.3 Contrast: Objects vs. Subjects
In surveying the possible contrasts or complements of object, we have thus far emphasized the intuitive grouping of items into categories like object (substance, individual, particular, etc.) on the one hand and property (or attribute, universal, feature, etc.) on the other. These are standard metaphysical categories, and they suggest that the proper contrast or complement of object includes properties or other property-like items.

But there is another compelling usage (both in and out of philosophy) of the English word ‘object’ and its cognates that suggests a rather different kind of contrast. Here, the divide is between object and subject. Each object is, roughly, an ‘it’, and each subject is a ‘you’. On this usage, it is items like us that stand in contrast to objects. We are subjects; trees, universals, colleges, colors, and—well, all things not like us in relevant respects—are objects.
--- SEP

We are subjects; trees, universals, colleges, colors, and—well, all things not like us in relevant respects—are objects.
Seems legit.

This view assumes the subject/object distinction. — Banno

Can someone please explain to me what Banno means by the subject/object distinction?

If everything is relative, than everything is crooked and there is no truth about what a person is, what he has done, and what he deserves. The world would therefore be entirely abstract and meaningless if there was no objective truth. Is this enough to prove relativism wrong? — Gregory

It doesn’t matter how abstract and meaningless the word is, I’m still enjoying myself typing these very words.

What is the purpose
Nothing matters
We die
Before we were born there was nothing
The universe is nothing to me when I die
Why do I care
Why does anyone care
They all die
We live in a made up world with rules and laws invented to control people
What difference does it make if I die now or 100 years from now?
I still die
There is no religion, it’s a lie
There are no ghosts, it’s a lie
There is no magic, it’s a con
There is no afterlife
You die. — Qu King

Do you at least enjoy your life? If you can live your relatively short stretch of time with great fulfillment, you’re a winner. Life is about winning. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

So what is the f**king point in anything?

It’s like some cruel joke and everyone is swimming in a sea of fog of denial where where they act as is they are in control.

I have these thought in my mind all the time, don’t tell me I’m depressed because I’m not. Medicating this away is not the answer. I want the world to face reality. Face the facts.
NOTHING MATTERS.
EVER. . — Qu King

Having sex matters, eating a good meal matters, having friends and family matters.

Unless…
The single most important thing is preservation of your own life.
Science is the only answer, not some mumbo jumbo faith BS religion but pure science.
There needs to be a movement that with all the knowledge and wealth in the world that exists today this is what we need to be focusing on. Here are my idea’s:

Initially, find a way to extend our life when our body can no longer cope and the idea’s I had was to preserver the head and keep the brain alive and hook it up to something like the Neuro Link that Elon musk is working on.

Keep you body cryogenically frozen for preservation of your DNA.
When the technology is ready, create a clone of yourself and using a more advanced neuro link connect yourself to that clone.

Your head needs to be protecting in some fortress and with the advancement of Robotics you can neuro lace to a robot too.

The brain is the most complex thing in the universe, it needs preserving and there needs to be a movement of likeminded people.

I cannot believe I am the only one that thinks like this. — Qu King

That’s all up to society, isn’t it? The best thing to do is to get the most enjoyment out of life.

If it was written into a law, and explicitly discriminates on these grounds, I would say it is. — NOS4A2

And if it wasn't written into law, and business did it on their own discretion...?

The point is that that civil rights law (mentioned) was necessary to prevent implicit forms of racism such as discrimination of culture, language, country of orgin etc..

That’s interesting.

I think policies have to be explicitly racist in order for it to be racist — NOS4A2

Is discrimination based on individual's birthplace, ancestry, culture, linguistic characteristics, explicitly racist (non-technical sense)?

Would you say forbiding discrimination based upon an individual's birthplace, ancestry, culture, linguistic characteristics, is a good way to prevent racism in a non-technical’ sense?

I respect that point of view.

I’d love to hear your argument. — NOS4A2

*sigh*

Sounds to be more about ethnicity than race. — NOS4A2

Is it racist to discriminate against ethnic groups?

Fair enough. I’m sure you will find some noble men on your crusade against materialism. :party:

Okay. (Here’s my ticket out :party:)

Perhaps I’ll read it later. This seems more of a political issue than philosophical.

Do you think it had anything to do with racism?

I think policies have to be explicitly racist in order for it to be racist — NOS4A2

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of national origin. This law applies to employers with 15 or more employees. It forbids discrimination based upon an individual's birthplace, ancestry, culture, linguistic characteristics (common to a specific group) or accent.

What was the point of that act in your opinion?

Jim Crow?

but I have also seen people doing it. — Eugen

Who have you seen?

John Searle — Eugen

https://www.dailycal.org/2019/07/02/former-professor-john-searle-loses-emeritus-status-over-violation-of-sexual-harassment-retaliation-policies/

Maybe they are lying — Eugen

Maybe they are.

Im pretty sure behaviorism went out of style a while ago. And I doubt functionalism is the dominant view in the philosophy of mind.

Few have been fully explicit in their denial, but among those who have been, we find Brian Farrell, Paul Feyerabend, Richard Rorty, and the generally admirable Daniel Dennett. Ned Block once remarked that Dennett’s attempt to fit consciousness or “qualia” into his theory of reality “has the relation to qualia that the US Air Force had to so many Vietnamese villages: he destroys qualia in order to save them.”

Thats very helpful, thanks. :up:

Let's focus on this part.

Who are the Deniers? I have in mind—at least—those who fully subscribe to something called “philosophical behaviorism” as well as those who fully subscribe to something called “functionalism” in the philosophy of mind.

Although such a stupid statement, this is very popular among people who form the philosophical and scientific world. How is this possible?!?! — Eugen

Sounds like an anecdote to me.

Who specifically are you talking about when you mention these scientists and philosophers.

You really need to cite your sources if your making that kind of claim.

:100: :party: :flower:

You might be accused of anti-intelecualism, I would be careful.

Perhaps. Mathematical Ficionalism trumps them all.