"Knowledge is power, energy. Intelligence is potential, wisdom is kinetic."

"Wisdom is knowledge vetted through the proving ground of life."

Those quotes are mine by the way, don't steal them.

I find it annoying — TiredThinker

Imagine being told something about yourself that is positive. Say, hey you're pretty tall. It's kinda cool to hear the first or even dozen times around. After a while it becomes.. redundant. Then, annoying. Almost as if it's some negative attribute. This word or quality that one cannot escape. I'm a gardener. No, you're a tall gardener. I'm a writer. No, you're a tall writer. It becomes mentally crippling. Just think about it.

Philosophy of Science? Unless you plan to get spooky with it. Than Philosophy of Religion.

innocent — AlienFromEarth

This is the term that has multiple definitions. Is the son of Hitler, no someone who say didn't get their ass kicked and who actually succeeded, say successfully killing off oh.. half the world's population and enslaving the other half to grueling labor and torture, not just for punishment, but often for fun.. let's take this fictional person. He has a kid. That kid is as innocent as you or I. Is he not?

Somewhere down the line, there's someone related to you who got away with unspeakable acts that by pure fact, enabled you to become the person you are today.

That said people far too frequently confuse evil with animals who simply don't know any better and thus need to be controlled. Mental illness too.

From that, a subsidiary question: Is that the Bishop moves only diagonally a fact?

This by way of digging further into facts as issues of what we might as a start call convention. We can't have personal facts - is that because they are conventional? — Banno

It is a fact that convention forbids any other movement for said piece. So, Maybe. :grin:

Convention, tradition, rules (especially mutually agreed upon), social contract. Personal facts may be far from convention. Ie. if you happen to be a minority political party and "oh this guy sucks" may be a fact for you, rather a firmly held belief, it could be far from.. well it is convention for your particular party.. I suppose who's convention is the question, it doesn't need to be the majority. An unconventional convention, is still a convention, right?

Edit: But, you can craft your personal belief into something that resembles or at least sounds like a fact by prefacing it with a simple "I think" or "It is my belief" that...

It is a fact that you think or believe something. That's no longer an opinion. The subject is an opinion of course but the statement has now become fact.

It's an interesting concept. Assuming if two people could somehow be exactly the same down to every atom in their body (or maybe not that far but as far as mental and physical 'configurations' go) .. it wouldn't matter which one goes through what upbringing as either would have been, turned into rather, the same person regardless. Bearing in mind twins are not clones, it's.. kind of a back burner topic.

I suppose to put it simply if you have two toy cars that are identical and built to the exact same specification and put them side by side, obviously they will mimic each other in locomotion. Of course, people are not toy cars, they're people so even slight seemingly infinitesimal differences in environment can snowball, forming entirely distinct personalities. If they both have a "strong side", it's reversed when facing one another. People often play games, take chances, risks, etc. Naturally differences and deviations will occur.

Beyond that, genetics are major risk factors for diseases or other abnormal changes in homeostasis, they are not stone guidelines for what will happen and when. It's random. Right? The second clone will not automatically have a heart attack if the first clone just so happens to at this 'first moment' of awakening before differences can be made.

What your describing is not an infant mind but a 'snapshot' of an adult or at least child's mind who knows how to walk, talk, make decisions, etc. Your question (or assertion) is if a person volunteers for cloning and the two resulting clones are laid on a table like you said and 'awaken', would they (assuming the 'snapshot' mind factor meaning they or them whatever know they have just been cloned) respond the exact same way? Sounds like a fun test. Unethical, but fun. The answer is simple though, of course not. People like to be unique so if one clone sees one doing something he'll do something else. It's human nature.

I hope you don't think these are destructive unprofessional thoughts !!!!!!!!! lol

A question - is that the area of a circle is given by π r² a fact?

Who says no?

How is this confirmed by observation? — Banno

Anyone who associates or defines different values or meaning to the symbols or nomenclature used. Not a particularly deep or profound answer, kind of like pointing out how one word means something else in another language, but it can be expanded on to the point of a curious conundrum, perhaps with a bit of thought.

Sure, a mathematical law, rather a sound equation would qualify as a fact, but to some the former terms describe it better and with more resoluteness. Math is indeed unique in this respect. Even science is constantly proving itself wrong then right again and back and forth. Though it's hardly the language of the gods some believe it to be.. you have one apple and I give you another, you have two. If it vanishes into thin air, you only have one. It's the one language both toddlers and professional mathematicians can understand.

As to what constitutes a 'fact' however, that is a bit less absolutely defined. We can have personal truths, but not personal facts. Therefore, it is a (successful?) attempt at placing a well-founded belief alongside the laws, nature, and truths of the gods (the absolute). Until proven wrong of course. Some are, some aren't. That's probably where the term "fun fact" comes from really :razz:

Edit: We have to understand, respect, and acknowledge the duality between the absolute and the relative. Facts, truths, reality even- as some myopically group the first two under- are all subject to change at a moment's notice, this is the absolute nature of reality. Simple example is stating "the door is closed" in reference to a door that is in fact, closed. Until I open it. It seems obvious and common sense but you'd be surprised how many seem to get caught off guard, and worse, when this fact (tee hee) confronts them in more.. personal aspects of ingrained, core belief.

Too much of a good thing... sure, before science people died more often but is that any trade off for the now possible reality that all of mankind could die off as well as the entire planet becoming irradiated, unsuitable for 98% of intelligent life for thousands if not many more years - all from a mere pissing contest, misunderstanding or yes even simple and unintentional malfunction or glitch?

You science people are a strange bunch. I think enough has been discovered. It's time to hang up the white coats, cash out your trillions from all the profits, grants, and whatnot, go buy a sports car, go to the beach and just enjoy nature, while we still can. Your work has been done. Thank you for your service, I.. guess.

It depends on how "real" you wish to attribute the non-human entities and spirit(s) said belief systems revolve around. As I would guess you are doing now, you can easily have a philosophical discussion while dismissing them as more "ideas", constructs, or placeholders for ideas we create as opposed to a what many believe, true actual beings that may or may not influence the world we live in. That changes things quite a bit.

For example, you could say a "god" or "spirit" is more of a zeitgeist of human society, a man-made construct divine in the sense that indeed it has power over any one of us. If one group or town challenges another to battle, they are invoking this "god of war" but if they instead pray for peace they are appeasing and placating this god (or perhaps invoking an opposing god, say "god of peace") and "they" battle per se. It's a stretch but metaphors are allowed and such are still considered non-theist philosophy. Your civilization can appease or act on the instructions of a "god of wealth", which assuredly involves being prosperous, but perhaps being too prosperous would anger this god, invoking wrath. Ie. your people become too rich and everyone just starts getting lazy and before you know it doesn't know how to do anything anymore and falls like a tree to a group you outnumber 10 to 1.

On to more traditional theist beliefs, yeah. They're as real as the screen you're reading these words from. Some are good, some are tricksters, some people believe there is only one creator, others believe this not to be the case. God(s), false gods, spirits, good, bad and all things in between. Depending on who you ask of course. So as a theist, how does one know what to believe? The consensus between major religions would be prayer and humility. How can you learn if you don't listen? Why would you be helped if you don't deserve it? But again, it depends who you ask.

We are exploring what that has to do with liberty and being free souls versus being institutionalized. A spiritual notion is we are free spirits having a human experience. This spirit is connected with the force of life, our planet, and all life on it, rather than the external Father, Son, and Holy Ghost of Christianity and the Roman Empire. — Athena

Free soul or not, you reside in a very physical body, burdened by physical needs that must be met and influenced, if not controlled completely by primal instinct that only becomes more insatiable and savage when said needs are unmet. Due to this, I'd kindly suggest that perhaps your argument of "either or" is somewhat of a false dichotomy. Just a smidgen.

If everyone is running around, being free, meeting their physical needs along with various, often unreasonable and decadent wants, somewhere down the line someone's liberty is going to be restricted. That is the definition of being institutionalized. Being in a confined system (life) being told what to do (instinct) with no say over the external or "overarching, unchanging, otherwise unreachable" authority that makes the rules (biology).

So, one could suggest the divine rule over all mankind (free spirits while we're in our physical bodies here) thus ensuring true liberty for all from an omniscient being is not only highly preferable than otherwise but is truly the only escape from institutionalization of not just not the body but most of all the mind. Sure if you're lucky and never have a problem in this life perhaps you won't ever realize its importance, but if that ever happens to not be the case, one would begin to appreciate the notion- and rather quickly, I presume.

In conclusion, who freakin' knows. I just do my best to try and not be a douche and hope for the best. If I'm not mistaken that's pretty much the summary of 95% of all religion anyhow.

We seem to be in some sort of a time paradox here. Some persons in this thread wish or apparently have proven with fact that they shouldn't have been born, yet only, solely, and exclusively by having been born are able to proclaim the truth about such evil. It's like the Terminator, but more suicidal.

Kill everyone then. That way all harm will cease to exist. Auschwitz every last person alive ... it doesn't matter because once they're gone they won't be around to cry about the suffering. Nothing will matter because for humanity there will be nothing given our exitinction ... the MAIN prionciple of an antinatalist is to rile against existence. The main points is that both existing and new life is bad. — I like sushi

This is kind of my first-glance impression of what anti-natalism seems to be or at least will inevitably lead to as well. Am I incorrect, @Antinatalist? How so?

Basically if new life happens say unplanned pregnancy regardless of circumstances surrounding it "oh well, we'll let it slide", or at an extreme only if the child is born in an uneducated society where enlightenment, knowledge, and morality simply isn't available or the rare occasion when a medical abortion would be hazardous to the health of the mother, but purposefully doing so (procreating) is immoral. Something like that? What scenario would be valid or is it just as simple as the point you summarized earlier, being "creating life where harm is possible is immoral" thus not explicitly saying any of the things mentioned or alluded to but definitely implying them.

truth is bitter and we tell ourselves fantastical tales to keep us from learning the ugly truth. — TheMadFool

Truth is that, as you're programmed to believe, and you know you are, mankind has elevated himself slowly but surely from ridiculous purposeless cave beings beating each over the head, living in blood and other undesirable substances, to creatures of intellect with purpose, jobs, joy, emotion, arts, innovation, discovery, the whole universe is now at our fingertips. You call this an ugly truth? Sure, entropy and negentropy are very real concepts. This world and presumably the universe and all things in it are slowly becoming disorganized, chaotic, coming to a stop, a halt, universally they call it a heat death I believe is the prevailing theory, but just look at what was accomplished. Have we, at the absolute very least, had a good run?

People believe the minority that live a life of suffering are a reasonable sacrifice for everything else life has to offer.

Have you heard of The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Have you ever heard of the crab who escaped from the bucket? Me neither. Though he stepped on all his fellow crabs and saw things they could only dream of and imagine through stories told in their little crab language. Unfortunately, just as heavy hangs the head that wears the crown, first come is quite often first served.

Still, definitely looks like a unique read. Though.. sometimes not all that glitters is gold.

And in case I misread this I have no problem with the elves. I support them. I always did.

is there any point or meaning to it all etc? — Benj96

I can imagine a man asking this. And a benevolent being smiling upon him and saying "when one ceases to wonder, one ceases to live" and fades into a passing mist. Or garbage truck.

It was a funny quip. A bit stereotypical and bland though popular for reasons I haven't failed to lose sight of. OP could do better.

Yes, unfair even cruel things happen to perfectly wonderful people. Meanwhile, at least you have a network of hope for when it does. Provided you're not eaten by a prehistoric beast, of course. What are you doing but creating a network of magnification and perverse obsession over the filth and inhuman attributes of our world?

We live in a society that rewards psychopathy, morally bankrupt people. — RAW

A society? Try a world. It was much worse before, at least now people have to at least pretend to follow accountability, morality, social contract(s), etc. Democratically elected leaders. A macabre game of hot potato, where all the chefs know each other.

The gooder you are in this society, the worse off you'll be. That's the game. — RAW

The more naive you are in this society, the worse off you'll be. Which fools far too often equate with innocence. Which as the songs go, can never last.. Naturally very few learn to walk the line and balance between opposing concepts, to gaze into the abyss without having it gaze into you, mostly because everybody's life is different and one man's reluctance to trust or distrust can and often is the difference between wealth, poverty, happiness, despair, and yes even life and death. That may be the game, but not everyone wants to play it. This is why people create groups of mutual benefit. Clubs, nations, religions, cults, what have you.

In general it's a cruel reality we're in, full of suffering. — RAW

I've seen worse.

So yes, most of the "good" people are actually bad when you take into account many many things. — RAW

Sure, and the light in my room distracts me from true peace and contemplation by ever so annoyingly illuminating the contents of said room. Therefore, the light is actually the dark when absolutely no one takes into account anything.

There has to be some hierarchy for beliefs. Perhaps we could define one here. I would say a scientific law would be the highest, if not equivalent with a 'fact', but then what is a factoid? And of course an opinion would be lower, with non-disproved hypothesis being higher than that but of course lower than the rest. But where would a discredited/disproved hypothesis be, on par with a lie or incorrect statement?

- Scientific law - The sun is a ball of gas.
- - Fact - The sun is real.
- - - Factoid - The sun is hot.
- - - - Non-disproved hypothesis (rational or plausible) - The sun might expand/explode or something and kill us all shortly.
- - - - - Opinion - The sun is good.
- - - - - - Discredited hypothesis (irrational or unrealistic) - The sun revolves around us.
- - - - - - - Lie - The sun is a death ray or gamma burst from so far away it appears the same for millennia. (or is it?)

Does this Right take precedence over the consequences? — Down The Rabbit Hole

A tragedy can shock the heart and mind and even a national conscience , though like some heh "optimists" remind us in the face of tragedy.. be glad and thankful, for it could have always been much worse. I suppose, on occasion, better the devil you know.

How about Right to Freedom of Speech? Some speech is illegal due to its proven consequences. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Of course, inciting a riot, yelling fire in a crowded theater when there isn't one, etc.

The roommates privacy should be breached if there is even the slightest inkling he is a danger? — Down The Rabbit Hole

I don't think so, of course that's not what I was asking rather what scenarios fall under which schools of thought. I feel I have the gist of what differentiates one from the other but just to put it in my own terms (that I wish to be corrected if inaccurate)..

Consequentialism means things that would generally be immoral, illegal, and even reprehensible may actually be just if and only if the resulting actions create a larger benefit or prevent a greater tragedy.

Non-consequentialism shares a thing in common with many religions and perhaps even dogmas being that some things are simply disallowed and not in the picture, or the arsenal as it were. Never an option on the table. You can never do certain things just because you think or even perhaps know there will be some perceived benefit, perhaps simply because what may be a victory in battle could lead to a defeat in the war.. or some other unknown consequence seeing as humans are more ignorant than not especially when trying to be the opposite.

Ignorance. My own, or at least so I always thought.

You seem to enjoy being alive. If even not for the sole purpose to convince others otherwise. I'm trying to tread carefully here but, look at your argument from an outside perspective.

I've never been intimately familiar with many fancy terms in philosophy, but from Googling let me know If I put these actions or beliefs in the correct place.

Consequentialism:

- If I invade a person's privacy because I was bored or just think they're up to something based on very little, and find they have a hit list or planned mass shooting and thus prevent it, that's right and was what I should have done.

- I fatally shoot a man who I see running into a crowded supermarket with body armor and an assault rifle, who perhaps, was about to go on a shooting spree. This is good and makes a good person.

Non-consequentialism:

- I respect my roommates privacy despite his frequent outbursts and rants and the fact he recently purchased a firearm that is his legal right, and he ends up hurting multiple people. I did nothing wrong, there was nothing I could or most importantly should have done.

- I see the same man running into a crowded supermarket with body armor and an assault rifle and just run because who knows perhaps he's an undercover law enforcement officer dispatching a true threat. Whether I'm right or wrong, I'm still right and did the right thing.

--

Or am i way off here?

This was a great post to read. Not that I keep track of who posts what but from what I can recall and associate with your screen name, probably my favorite. Funny it may sound sarcastic but it's really not. I will admit I'm not a fan of your if X is Y then Z posts. Then again, perhaps logic and morality are more intertwined than we like to think..

So. The obvious questions/responses

You claim to define therefore (more or less absolutely) know a real world which so begets the existence of an alternative. What makes one more real than the other? Your mere interpretation from your (and these are other people's words not mine) barely evolved senses or even simple presence? Ha. Doesn't a charlatan create a world that is real to those who observe and believe?

But for all intents and purposes, let's call this interconnected experience we call life that we can interact and respond either positively or negatively with one another, as "the real world". Was all science and definitions or laws of reality defined 500 years ago? No. What on Earth would make you think, especially in this age of degeneracy and strife, they are now? There will always be more to learn. The only idea of a fact comes from a hypothesis that has yet to be confronted by an opposing truth.

The little bang needed something to aspire toward.

What? Makes as much sense as any other coherent answer here.

Is that a question?

Just kidding. As everything, beyond repeatable and consistent observation, which even then is mere circumstance, suggests.. perhaps.

I suspect you may be on borrowed time — Tom Storm

Time is money. Is this not correct? And both are no object. Only those who treat them as such are in said predicament.

1. A good life is worth living; conversely, a bad life is not worth living. — darthbarracuda

For how long, is the real question

2. One should only procreate if one can have reasonable knowledge that their offspring will have a good life. — darthbarracuda

Humans, to my knowledge, thankfully, don't have enhanced abilities like the one you describe, so, you're a proud antinatalist it would seem. Good for you. Variety is the spice of life.

As to the rest.. uh, sure. Why not. You seem educated enough to raise a kid that doesn't grow into a malfeasance. Or even better, to fight the scourge of them. So why don't you.

I subscribe to the truth of Shawn. Anything that differs is probably a lie or at worst the devil's work.

P.S. I mean this post as an example of what could be any philosopher's fallacy, Nothing to do with you per se, naturally as I know little of you. Though perhaps it could be an idle reminder.. and if it so happens to be of use, no thanks are needed.

Though to contribute on the absolute nature of facts, something other than the clearly best (most long-lived) definition that is that which is opposed would be irrational.. whatever works for the time, the moment, or situation. Say gravity reverses itself, the solar system is about to be destroyed by a black hole that so happens to allow objects to pass into it and into the next universe, and some undiscovered force that lifts objects off the ground and into said black hole, but only if significant negative inertia is reached exists. Therefore, the only way to survive would be to jump off a cliff or tall building. This would be a fact in said scenario due to changing of circumstance. Outside of said scenario, it would be utter nonsense.

So 'facts' ie. dependable and reliable pieces of information that can be repeatedly proven (scientific method) are solely dependent on circumstance, a thing we constantly try to ascertain and assess, with great success due to the grandeur or "slowness" of time, but can never truly know. However, "if it ain't broke don't fix it" has surprisingly relevant applications as far as science and research goes it seems.

But stupidity comes at a price. And perhaps starting with the invention of the Gatling gun, the price often has been too high. — tim wood

"If you don't do it, somebody else will" which is an unfortunate fact that most pacifistic logic crumbles in the face of, not from animosity but from sheer hypocrisy of what it's foremost doctrine declares to prevent.

There's a reason there are no 'almost humans' in the animal kingdom. And so, requires some sort of higher power. God, an eternal being that is a non-being in most senses, or alien life which opens an equally disturbing world of possibilities (we are rejects), whatever it may be, religion seeks to confront this (potential) fact with an option that benefits the believer. Who are you to say otherwise.

"Intelligence" primarily denotes compliance with a worldview. — frank

Does it? Naturally the opposite of intelligence, being ignorance, would of course be what an unequivocal collection of what is known vs. what is unknown or more severely what is known to be wrong. For example, creating friction between two pieces of flint or twigs perhaps, can create a fire, whereas not doing so when one would be deemed necessary could result in death or at least being annoyingly hungry for some time.

Basically "the way things are" and knowing how best to respond to them, that is provide for what is desired or needed, is an adaptation or yes knowledge, but worldview? Eh, I would call that shaky ground.

Sure there is. Challenge mode, extra hard level on a video game. Just look at ski slopes. Color coded for convenience even. Where would the fun be in knowing you were placed there by choice. That leaves an easy exit as a non-option.. which is part of the difficulty, and hence, the fun.

Prison, requested obstacle course, when ignorance allows either of the two to be equally viable.. what you choose says more about you than the environment and/or circumstances that placed you in it now doesn't it?

Humanity.

Like myself and others have alluded to on the Guest Speaker thread about transhumanism, it seems more of a Pandora's Box than this "panacea of the gods" proponents of it market it as. Basically, to me and I'm sure many others it just seems like there's much more room for things to go wrong/be abused and harm humanity than otherwise.

Aside from the immediate answers that are best conveyed as questions ie. "Who wants to live forever anyway?" or "Yeah what happens if you get trapped in a cave or something. Would you rather starve to death in a few weeks or live in darkness for the next few hundred years?" or what about "Yeah what if a political rival implants you with a 'transhuman' device that amplifies pain and prolongs your life to withstand amounts of torture.that would make a god jealous?" All these very rational concerns aside.. what would be the point? It all leads to one place, which is a simulated reality that is not organic in nature. All transhumanist roads lead to "uploading" oneself and discarding (or at least not being around to prevent discarding) the human body, which is a lie, you'll think it's you, but it's really not. And people will be deceived by this and run to it in droves.

Edit: We already have our feet wet so to speak as far as more broader definitions of transhumanism. Pacemakers, prosthetics, "life extending" supplements, etc.

Edit 2: Also, fun fact. Some religious types may oppose it due to eerie similarities in popular religious texts, one being: "Men will seek death and will not find it", kinda like what I was saying. It takes a bit of thought, and even than is an uncomfortable if not fleeting truth, but sometimes, death is a blessing not a curse. Not saying death is good, I don't want to, nor would I wish that on pretty much anyone, but the fact we're mortal and can die is what is good.. for reasons I've explained. Wisdom of the gods, don't you know.

Information that conforms with the wishes, patterns, or beliefs of an authority. Be it real world observation and your own senses or legal decree and an enforcing body.

Who is this man? Sounds like a humble man of peace. Unlikely he survived long let alone was able to manage his legacy. Basically unless you met the guy, anyone's guess is as good as the next.

false dichotomy. if your fit to rule, you should. and if not you should conquer your ego before it conquers you, or worse those around you from your own foolish and frivolous action.

Foreword: First of all, I´m definitely against murder. — Antinatalist

Hm.. looks like you're scot-free as of now, but we'll be watching. :grin:

Is it moral to have children? Let's for sake of example, compare a child to say.. something that could do good, do bad, experience pleasure, or immense pain. We arrive at something of a crossroads that yes demands a belief either in disbelief or perhaps one of the greater concepts those who came before held that now escapes the lot of us. So, let's use an offhand example, is making a brick or block of stone for sale moral? After all someone could use it to build a house to house orphans. Or, they could use it to beat a hardworking man to death and take his last morsel thus creating orphans. I suppose there has to be some sort of plan, oversight, or idea that is reasonably likely to occur or not to occur before one can say what is 'moral' or not.

You seem to be alive and assign your words meaning, regardless of anything absolute it seems to bring joy to you, at least enough motivation to type it here before us. So, the answer to your premise is simple and the same as the answer to the following: why did you?

And what will become of him. Yea sometimes the restriction from a discipline will encourage greater interest and practice toward it, but were we, all of us, not once babies suckling on a teet which we could not understand? What if, heavens forbid, philosophy and even higher learning will now be a foe, an enemy, an opponent, a near divine manifestation of arrogance and rejection, symbolic of all that is wrong with this world? No one will know what may now never manifest. May fate guide thee.

Perhaps, to an extent. There are no free lunches. Someone has to pay for it either in effort, time (college years ie. youth spent studying vs. partying), or at the very least lost potential wages/income/revenue. Sure some people are wonderful and charitable. Now if the patient is a brilliant physicist who came down with a condition that impacts his work or a young child with a rare cancer that's a bit different than say some rude, alcoholic, drug addict who decided to slingshot off a bridge on a motorcycle for social media views or a degenerate thug who takes pleasure in harming others at bars who just so happened to finally meet his match, for example.

What is the responsibility of the state? A complex question. When the state will be attacked or even dismantled at the very suggestion of telling people what they can and cannot drink, eat, consume, etc. it comes down to the state having to protect its own existence. So the answer would simply be providing a reasonably safe enough and free environment for people to choose whether or not to live healthy and proper, without rewarding those who don't at the expense of those who do. Which is quite the conundrum.