Can you define the boundaries of philosophy as something that doesn't strongly overlap with science? — Benj96

I ask why such patterns or consistency should ever exist? Is a pattern a natural outcome of chaos or is chaos a natural outcome of patterns? — Benj96

it’s right for them to rip people off it makes them feel good — Maya

You never know one day you might be surprised! — Maya

There must be something wrong with people who [rip people off] — Maya

If at the end of a decision you feel good, you have made the right decision for you. — Maya

Platonic ideal — Shawn

It is arguable, that Sauron is a two-dimensional being — Shawn

the personification of infinite excellence. — Shawn

He is a Platonic two-dimensional concept — Shawn

Sauron as a being endowed with harmony and order — Shawn

metaphysical being, no other being compares, — Shawn

God. — Shawn

infinite perception — Shawn

I always thought people don't really know anything, because their ideas about the world could always be proven wrong, unless you've met every idea in the Universe that could ever possibly be created. So impossible to prove something to be objectively true/ true because possible ideas are infinite. — Maya

I have no idea of what your problem is, but I suggest we simply refrain from discussing this further.

Okay? — Frank Apisa

Best get to the objective truth of the matter then... — Nils Loc

I have some questions concerning The kalam cosmological argument.
This is the argument I'm working with: — PhilosophyNewbie

Can we really know anything??? — Maya

If you can prove the assertion...do so. If you cannot (and considering this is a philosophical forum) you should withdraw it. That was not an order, it was a suggestion. It would be the honorable, ethical thing to do. — Frank Apisa

I don't see it like this. Yes, it is just a theory and it does not claim it is more than that. Even if it has no empirocal evidence yet, it has a strong logic behind. — Eugen

For example if consciousness is fundamental. — Eugen

What is the difference? If your post is correct, is it not true? It's as if a guilty man becomes innocent if he changes his name. — unenlightened

'Subjective' is these days pretty much a term of abuse used by those who think they have the patent on logic and science. — unenlightened

Thus we see it being argued that there can be no subjective truth. In which case it follows that there can be no subjective meaning. But then there is no meaning to 'objective truth' or 'objective meaning' either; there is simply 'meaning' and 'truth'. Distinctions are only meaningful and useful if they distinguish this from that. — unenlightened

So here is the descent into madness: The only truth is objective truth, and there is no subjective truth. Therefore subjects cannot know things, only objects can. Therefore I am an object. — unenlightened

Yes, but that doesn't mean it has no potential to reveal truths. — Eugen

All you will have done is used "correct" to mean "true." Not an improvement. — Banno

Just the simple logic that a theory of truth could only be true if it satisfied itself. — Banno

The philosophical theories of truth have one thing in common; they are none of them true. How could they be? If they were they would be self-servingly circular. — Banno

It's not truth that is slippery - it's the theories. — Banno

Anscombe wrote this in a time of only nascent chaos theory, which could only serve to amplify her point. — Banno

Thus, not only our reason fails us in the discovery of the ultimate connexion of causes and effects, but even after experience has inform’d us of their constant conjunction, ’tis impossible for us to satisfy ourselves by our reason, why we shou’d extend that experience beyond those particular instances, which have fallen under our observation. — Yellow Horse

Maybe it was impossible then and is impossible now, but will it remain impossible? It seems that some notion of reason is held fixed here and projected into the future. — Yellow Horse

So we have yet another version of the structure of all possible experience, seemingly a deeply metaphysical concept, conquering the future from the present. — Yellow Horse

What does his problem of induction depend on in order to remain relevant? Maintain its force? — Yellow Horse

I have thought many years about HAL. HAL struggled a lot. There were a lot of missions out of himself to discover some issue that could never be found. Allegedly, he was perfect; but, became paranoid when he was informed that his counterpart on Earth could not determine where he may or may have not gone wrong. — Shawn

Explain why you "feel" a potentially life-shortening "bohemian lifestyle" is one of those "decisions that cause self-harm"? After all, there are still plenty of elderly beatniks & hippies around — 180 Proof

Sounds more like a question of risk management rather than ethics like DingoJones said. And consider: is pursuing military career itself - also potentially life-shortening - an ethical problem? I don't think so. — 180 Proof

Ok, well perhaps a distinction between different types of self harm would be helpful? Some things are more pure self harm, like stabbing yourself in the eye, while other things have a clear trade-off like eating junk food or going to the beach and suffering harm from the sun. You trade harm for pleasure of experience. — DingoJones

At what point does preference become self harm? Some things inflict more self harm than others, how do you determine what amount is ok or not? — DingoJones

Also, ate you talking ethically permissible self harm, or using some other goal/metric. — DingoJones

Passive activities or casual hobbies that degenerate or increase in an observable way factors that detriment health. Opposed to active self harm. Which usually involves others just saying. — Outlander