some theory of human nature — Maw

Erm.. I mean I'm the first one to encourage skepticism of mainstream history but.. pretty sure at least most of it happened lol. Kinda graduates past the "theory" stage really. Besides, wasn't your boy Marx talking about something along the lines of "the people want what they want (feels natural, doesn't feel totalitarian/government enforced) and will fight (damage people and property) for it" or some bit?

Thinkers and Humanists are frighteningly outnumbered. — JerseyFlight

Story of humanity. Not as bad today as it was before. You follow the law and don't attack people or property you won't get arrested/get a record and have your life ruined. Besides, do we really want all these geniuses running around trying to one-up each other? At least when average folk do it usually only one or a few people get hurt or worse. They do it, we'll probably end up with some doomsday devices that end up making nukes look like cherry bombs. Gotta look at the bright side of things.

I'd like to state for the record -- deep down -- I'm not intrinsically for or against any one socioeconomic system. Eh. Suppose it's a bit of cowardice on my part. I find things "somewhat acceptable"- I guess- rather acknowledge things could be fiendishly worse- somehow- and perhaps like many people, fear change of indeterminate result.

Everything sounds good in your head and even on paper. Every man, woman, and child having a place to live, food to eat, water to drink, clean air- literally given everything you need to survive but nothing more. If you want to upgrade, move to a nicer location, get nice things, you work. And are rewarded accordingly. I think what people are either forgetting or not properly acknowledging is the fact that when Marx was born the world population was around one billion and today it has increased seven-fold surpassing seven billion, soon to be eight billion with no signs of slowing down whatsoever but instead increasing. As times change, what could have been paradise then could turn into Hell on Earth now. It would seem to be the only humane way to aggregate humanity toward a better and brighter tomorrow.

Could be wrong. Eager to be disproved if so. After all we've made unimaginable leaps in science, medicine, and agriculture... who really knows?

David Mo has already addressed these kind of fatalistic, all or nothing arguments, which seem to be the foundation of all cult-minded-thinking.

The level at which this reply is the result of what is administered, thus rendering its purveyor incapable of standing outside his own culturation, is disappointing to say the least. I do not know how one replies to this, not because it is so incredibly profound, but because it is so incredibly naive. So many countries are doing socially better than the United States (and surely that must be the whole point in establishing a government, to secure social quality). The question, "yeah, but what is there besides plantations and masters?" How does one communicate with this kind of artificial consciousness? — JerseyFlight

Hmm... so, in the pursuit of identifying and disproving "fatalistic, all or nothing arguments" as well as "cult-minded-thinking" ... why does one person having more stuff than another person -- perhaps, rather hopefully, due to his or her efforts ie. the fruits of his or her labor -- have to automatically be "plantations and masters"?

The system is not perfect. No worldly system is or will ever be, But someone who say happens to be a genius and excels at say mathematics or physics who from his efforts and endeavors could literally place their nation ahead of the pack, unrivaled in war and innovation, should earn/receive the same as someone who can barely change the oil in their car or its tires? I think this is the main sticking point that myself and many others would refer to whenever discussing arguments against capitalism. Essentially it devalues human ingenuity and I suppose even effort and integrity. Why do all that when I can just flip burgers and live the same life as someone who struggled and strived to achieve from day 1? I'm curious. Help me out here guy. Hey, if I'm mistaken I'm mistaken and should be able to be disproved, logically, rather quickly. To change things you have to influence people, otherwise nothing will ever happen and we'll all just age quietly in a pleasant yet irrelevant echo chamber.

I do believe there's wisdom in words from the masters- even those I may not particularly agree with.

"The property in the soil is the original source of all wealth, and has become the great problem upon the solution of which depends the future of the working class." — JerseyFlight

This is hard to refute. Earth elements can make anything from cities themselves to weapons and tools to defend them. Science and innovation has changed this some however. Beyond that you do need space or land to produce crops or raise livestock for food or other purposes. Let's not forget about the oceans or the beasts of the earth and sky now.

But what's some average Joe going to do with thousands of pounds of rock and ore? Either make stuff out of it or sell it. Which is what happens anyway. Granted these companies are ran by those lucky enough to have been born into a wealthy family and have large if not entire control over what's done with it, they usually have government contracts that mandate all or some of it's eventual use in exchange for certain permissions. Allegedly the argument is it adds to the GDP, helps the economy, and creates jobs and opportunity for all. Trickle down economics I suppose. What alternative is there and is it really better or even much different?

"...the advocates of private property... have tried hard to disguise the primitive fact of conquest under the cloak of "Natural Right". If conquest constituted a natural right on the part of the few, the many have only to gather sufficient strength in order to acquire the natural right of reconquering what has been taken from them." — JerseyFlight

Unfortunately, ethics aside. Everyone is the majority lol. This idea would just create infighting for little to no reason other than greed or being jealous of your neighbor or fellow countryman simply because he has more. Basically most would say it wasn't taken from them but (obviously) for them. If anybody can join ie. become a citizen of a certain country regardless of race, religion, etc.- that really throws "conquest" out the window and into irrelevancy.

"In the progress of history the conquerors found it convenient to give to their original titles, derived from brute force, a sort of social standing through the instrumentality of laws imposed by themselves." — JerseyFlight

There are very few if any who weren't doing so under the order of their kingdom, empire, church, or some sort of ruling class. They were essentially foot soldiers.

"At last comes the philosopher and demonstrates that those laws imply and express the universal consent of mankind. If private property in land be indeed founded upon such an universal consent, it will evidently become extinct from the moment the majority of a society dissent from warranting it." — JerseyFlight

You go door to door in any country that has buildings and infrastructure and survey "who wants to give up their house and belongings you toiled for" ... see how that turns out. Granted, the majority don't live in as nice houses as the wealthier minority, so it is plausible. But once examined with logic the fact remains, there are only a few "mansions" relative to normal houses. Who gets an upgrade? Not many. Who has to downgrade? Nobody knows. The average person, unless literally homeless, would probably not want to gamble with an adequate enough situation.

"However, leaving aside the so-called "rights" of property, I assert that the economical development of society, the increase and concentration of people, the very circumstances that compel the capitalist farmer to apply to agriculture collective and organised labour, and to have recourse to machinery and similar contrivances, will more and more render the nationalisation of land a "Social Necessity", against which no amount of talk about the rights of property can be of any avail. The imperative wants of society will and must be satisfied, changes dictated by social necessity will work their own way, and sooner or later adapt legislation to their interests." — JerseyFlight

Only time will tell. Like someone I used to watch would say: "there's a war out for your mind."

Well now that I'm sure you know neither I suppose we can focus more on the questions in your OP.

Which largely are akin to asking "why does one need a father when one can have a kid?"... of course, we'd just delve into a theological debate beyond this point so those are just my remarks on the subject presented.

So esteemed physicists arguing for the idea of universes where everything that can or could have happened did didn't flag your radar. But me saying dreams are some sort of version of this is. For some reason. Sure.

You watching a movie is still you... just watching a movie. — Key

Right, I meant it's a front-seat interactive, controlled experience as opposed to a backseat immersive one. Probably goes without saying.

Dreams may give you a heightened sense of control... so do video games. — Key

Nothing about it being heightened simply it's like being awake. What I've noticed is sometimes there's a disconnect, for example when I have dreams of past relatives or things that don't exist you (or at least I) don't always process it as "hey this isn't right". That said occasionally, when something ridiculous or just impossible occurs I do think... wait a minute... this is a dream. lol. "Let me ignore this, it's nonsense" - that's when I can usually have fun and "explore" so to speak. Doesn't happen too often.

In general I'd like to request clarification on what it exactly means to "rather be doing" something that you really can't experience in any way shape or form let alone remember. Lol. Just say you'd rather be sitting there doing nothing or whatever happens to tickle your fancy. More specifically...

1) There are a lot of de facto things in the context of living in any given human social system. I'd rather be sleeping than clothes shopping or grocery shopping. I'd rather be sleeping than working on various spreadsheets or reading technical material that isn't interesting but necessary. I'd rather be sleeping than doing a lot of various tasks throughout the day big and small. — schopenhauer1

What's wrong with clothes shopping? Is the store crowded or shabby, prices too high, don't have what you want to wear? Just not a vain person, casual white T-shirt and blue jeans and you're good to go? That's great. More power to you, rather more time and energy to spend on productive things. The same with grocery shopping. Not of a discerning palette? Just need something you're able to stomach to fill you up some and you're set? Again, all that better. You have to prefer either clothes or food in a non-essential kind of way. What's wrong with doing so in a perfect environment, with enough funds, and enough time to do so- hypothetically. A gorgeous, vast building inspired by the collective progress of human architecture since the dawn of time (or if that's not your thing a cozy little shop) to peruse through an incredible selection that consists of goods from not only all corners of the Earth but even entire periods of time? Personally I think you've just become complacent and accustomed to what others who came before you could never fathom in their wildest dreams. You can be feasting on the finest American beef, prime Italian cuisine, exquisite Asian delicacies, exotic Middle Eastern favorites, and more in a matter of mere minutes without even leaving your couch for goodness sake. Imagine a poor working class person in the Middle Ages entering a Wal-Mart for the first time. They'd think they died and went to Heaven. I don't know man, complacency is it's own punishment.

Computers are fun. Would you rather keep track with pen and paper meticulously jotting everything down letter by letter and hand-delivering it? How unfortunate you have to read material that people who dedicated their lives to the betterment of the human condition would have given their lives for not half a century ago. I do hope you'll survive.

I don't know. I like your profile, it makes me smile. And what posts of yours I have seen before this one. Again, I separate the art from the artist. I'm on the warpath against an idea, nothing else. Rather attitudes or states of mind that are detrimental to how ideas were formed in the first place. For your and everyone else's benefit I assure you.

To be fair after sampling a few of his posts I get the impression that English is not his first language. Though snarkiness may be. Which is a tad worrisome as I occasionally am, in good spirits mind you yet intent is always open to interpretation. Yipe!

My only concern is what takes place in terms of life and its concretion, I could care less about the abstract world of forms -- that is, until idealism starts distorting reality. — JerseyFlight

Reality in this context is little more than an environment that follows scientific laws. It's about how we- instead of being restricted by these confines- use them to our advantage to create a better society and civilization as a whole. We can either embrace something like idealism (or positive change) or succumb to something like cynicism (or stagnation). Which all points considered makes the latter seem like little more than just being lazy. People confuse circumstance for reality quite often. Here's an example of both.

Ancient Rome. The pinnacle of Western society at one point. The envy of the world. Running water ensuring healthy citizens along with representative government ensuring happy ones as well. Exquisite bathhouses that are still replicated to this very day! Not the least greatest feature of these being indoor toilets. Did you know Romans would often discuss life, politics, and even conduct business deals... while on the toilet. So you got two guys (or hey why not several) all together in a room with their pants down just casually defecating talking about life, trading some grain, shoot maybe even discussing philosophy as we are now! That was the life then and it was embraced by society. Now suppose one day, while again publicly defecating someone came up with the notion of... bathroom stalls or even in-home toilets and decided to mention it to... again the man just casually doing the same right beside him. What if what I quoted was his reply? What if nobody improved the first cellular phone or television set. Or airplane or even just brushed any and all notions of these inventions we take for granted aside because "it's idealism run amok" or "a distortion of reality"? They weren't feasible at the time. Some were even impossible. And yet. Think about it...

Then it is necessary to intercede on behalf of intelligence. — JerseyFlight

Well that didn't take long now did it lol. Looks like we're all a bit elitist deep down.

Nearly all of them are Elitist. — JerseyFlight

Reminds me of an earlier thread here about the Trial of Socrates. He was sentenced to death or exile I think. He chose one or the other but made some remark (or maybe someone here did) about "if he says he knows nothing how can he know wherever he would go people would drive him out?" My reply was it's simple, people don't like having their core beliefs challenged or otherwise proven wrong. They will get nasty and turn on you in a second, often violently. And it's true. Even here sometimes lol

I see this as a serious problem because the intellectuals have begun to function as a new ruling class. — JerseyFlight

First, I doubt it. Second, Oh the horror. Let's just get my nephew's son who plays in a garage band to be responsible for the lives of hundreds of millions if not billions of people. Really? lol

To the eager child everything is true, until it's not. To the aged skeptic everything is false, until it's not. Both can believe and share mistruths without ever once telling a lie. Ironic how much the two have in common.

Solving the world's problems at other people's expense. Everyones favourite philosophy; everyone's favourite politics. Shitbags of the world unite, you have nothing. — unenlightened

Oh come now, lighten up. Have you seen this guys posts? Dude is a living personification of Johnathon Swift's "A Modest Proposal". It's funny. At least, until you see how many take it seriously. Perhaps that's his point? Kind of like Halloween, an early reminder the monsters we fear are real and the heroes we seek are far and few. For a time.

The ethics being, which is more immoral, to have a coffee at Starbucks while some child is dying of disease and starvation or to actually be the one responsible for bringing the child into the world. I think if you bring a poor child into existence you can't blame society (not the government) for not helping you as you are the one with the greater moral sin — Gitonga

What does wealth have to do with anything? The world is a shifty place no matter your income. Excluding those poor from a result of explicit theft, as in poor solely of their own volition, it still doesn't compare to those morally poor. Going with the latter definition of poverty I have to say I find little to disagree with.

Of course, not every child, poor or not, was brought into this world by consensual act. You know what I mean. What are we going to do about them? Perhaps we should set up a task force. We'll call it Gitonga Team.

As an abstract question, which one do you think is more selfish? Life or Death? — griefkebab

I'd say the differences between one who lives to avoid death and one who dies to avoid life are infinitesimal at best. Of course, last I checked I was still alive so it's clearly a biased answer.

"No warning, no hesitation - these are enemies!" A model of clarity, simplicity, decisiveness. — tim wood

Rash judgement has been known to create an environment ripe for mistakes.

Take the Alamo, for example. When sorely needed reinforcements arrived in the dead of night they were mistaken for enemy combatants and shot at, at least one wounded.

Ontology = pragmatism? = that which can be proven.

Metaphysics = that which can not necessarily be proven here.

Science = applied ontology/pragmatism?

Thoughts?

Stephen Hawking doesn't "live on". That's kinda what brought me to this point. — Random Name

Doesn't he? We're still talking about him. Children who have yet to be born will continue to know and learn about him for the foreseeable future. Perhaps it's not the same.

Though, everything he chose to call important and dedicate his life to and contribute to, changing forever, will again forever have his mark on it. Everything he did or thought and "legacy" will indeed live on and this is an absolute fact. The afterlife or "soul" is a discussion independent of this that is generally not smiled upon in philosophical debates due to it's nature of faith or "no proof". Which is the only way to ensure people go to the right place- you don't judge a potential employee by their actions if they're surrounded by cops- you see how they act when they think there's nobody watching and will not face consequences.

And everything I've ever thought, everything I've ever done, any "legacy" I might have tried to create will be rendered moot — Random Name

Oh God. Not this again. "I only do things to benefit me". Eh. Don't want to seem trolly or hostile but... yeah. Exactly. Don't live life with your hands out trying to grab every single thing to put in your little mortal pocket. You can't take it with you.

Meanwhile look at Steven Hawking. He did something with his life, he changed the world for others not just himself. And so he will live on as long as humanity does.There's a lesson there.

Know/knowledge and criterion. We all "know" (right?) what these words mean. But they can hold meanings some support and others think are either overly-complex or even oversimplified. Or you can just be lazy and call it splitting hairs.

1. What do we know? or What is the extent of our knowledge? — TheMadFool

We "know" what we're told. Empiricism apparently. Fire- hot. Snow-cold. Pain-bad (at least for the individual) and so on and so forth. Let's call these common sense for now, from which I believe the term was derived from. The extent of our knowledge is simple- or rather can be determined simply. What you can and cannot answer and if answering can point to sufficient and logical enough reason. ...even if that "reason" is "cuz someone told me so" lol. Or I suppose the ultimate "I saw it (at least) once."

Hi @TheMadFool just to simplify a few things for those who haven't been following closely or are otherwise pleasantly dizzy, few questions or statements that anyone can derive one from.

Criterion? Sounds like some super hero who instead of saving the town and beating up the bad guys just makes everyone take an annoying test instead. Criteria, basically? Standards for something ie. a logical/factual floor to stand on? A reference point that is "true" or rather more likely to be true than false and more likely to produce something useful (neither including nor excluding the idea of "pragmatism").

My question would be how sure are you that semantics don't play a role here? Do you believe every word open to interpretation in Chisholm statements were interpreted by you in the manner as they were written or intended? Knowledge may or may not be absolute. Basically, an "absolute truth" or something- anything- that is simply less false than another view can constitute knowledge.

Then you could never have two "twos" either. Math is math. Acknowledge his mathematical disinclination and move on. lol

Someone who say I don't know cured cancer or saved a monastery of devout monks from barbarians deserves a place to lay his heroic head. And perhaps his kid should as well. And theirs. And maybe even so on. However somewhere down the line, even after a long while. The great, great, great, great (continue this as long as you please) grandkid eventually just does nothing and turns into a degenerate sociopath... and say along the opposing line one of the former barbarians ends up being a wonderful person and even shining beacon of decency... eh. Up for the people to decide it would seem. Let's hope they do so properly.

If the moment escapes me where I have the opportunity to express what appears to be the real truth against false notions, would you say that I have ultimately still won the war but lost the battle? — kudos

If the opportunity is not present it's simply not present. There's really nothing to go on about. Separate the art from the artist. You don't make the truth the truth you simply possessed understanding of it. Basically there's no "I" in truth lol.

Or maybe you would say that passing up such an opportunity is always unwise, immoral even. — kudos

Eh, depends. How relevant is this truth and what are the benefits or rather consequences toward those who it would or would not effect? And is it really that big a deal? Do they deserve it? How do you know you're even correct? If you think you know the answer to even one of the aforementioned i'd say it's safe to say it's a truth others will or at least can discover on their own.

Do you mean vocally? Or simple incoherence? If it's incoherent verbally it'd be incoherent mentally. Otherwise you could just write it down.

Edit: Thread title seems to be asking a different question. In a free and open society ordinary citizens have only one duty, to follow the law and by extension abide by whatever constitution is present. There are certain obligations, some being more important and pressing than others. Example, having a job or some means to support yourself or rather not passing on the opportunity to grow prosperous, experience whatever national dream or ideal is sought after, and otherwise have a piece of said pie worth talking about. Truth rather "truth" in the lower case is based on circumstance and- contrary to those who base not only their own self-worth but entire identity on would never admit- can change in an instant. Truth, as in Truth, is constant. It is not something that can be known absent of faith by it's very nature and definition. Ergo, the theory that proves everything proves nothing. It is generally religious though observable factors substantiate this ie. times when people believed the Sun revolved around the Earth or flight was impossible. Contrast the two, the former was an absolute falsehood that constituted a subjective reality, whereas the latter was a subjective falsehood that denied an absolute reality.

meaning is imaginary. — whollyrolling

Does anything differentiate what is real from the imagined? How could it... after all, meaning is imaginary. Perhaps you simply meant you consider other's meanings of meaning to be meaningless?

The Scientific Method can determine or rather differentiate between what is more likely to be true and what is more likely to be false. Based on current circumstances or "reality" at the time of testing. Which generally remains the same for a long enough period to consider what has been derived from it as "useful". That's as close as we're going to get.

Ignoring the math bit... (I hope you'll forgive me I was never any good at that),

Strictly from the I'm going to assume typical method of assessing past memories (you question a healthy, mentally sound adult or adolescent or even pre-teen).... the things we've seen/read/otherwise been informed about in life, especially today with movies and TV vividly reside in our brain. It wouldn't be atypical to "recall" or otherwise see something presented to one in a dramatic fashion at an early age ie. a riveting novel or dramatic TV or movie especially when under an altered state of mind say hypnotism.

From the philosophical angle, in regards to empiricism (I had to look that up), the previous paragraph kind of seems to be supported by that.

As far as empiricism in general it simply seems to be a description of what is mandated by the human experience. If you can't hear or see let alone being deprived of all five senses from birth... obviously your mind would not be able to grow and develop. Not quite sure what the antithesis of empiricism is but am curious.

Edit: Also the theory(?) of genetic memory may have some relevance here. From what I remember supposedly if say you were from a mountainous region and lived there for thousands of years, you may find mountains oddly familiar or even non-mountainous regions "odd" or something. Though from a religious/metaphysical perspective, which is completely different, it's a common concept. Afterlife, "life after death", "shall not die", etc.

United we stand...

Mistakes were made.

Same time, I understand how blind faith in something (allegedly, hopefully the right thing) can be non-conducive to philosophical discussion and fruitful debate. After all, that's what the forum entails.

No reason faith should be a hindrance to logic. Perhaps that's the message of those who do as you say they do? Who knows.

Erm.. how about 'welcome to the forum'? Lol.

See this is classic core belief being challenged. Aside from making not only himself but by association literally anyone and everyone part of whatever ideology (probably atheist) seem like an ass... it's just unattractive and uninviting. Depressing really. Just. Yeah, no. Clearly not the way to be happy and find inner peace. Ironic how sometimes those who seek to destroy faith end up being its greatest ally. All part of the plan I guess. :grin:

We shouldn't go that far now. Here. Watch this.



Life isn't perfect or constantly tolerable. And that's precisely why it is. Think about it some.

We harm this planet and each other and we can't contribute nearly enough to justify the harm. — TiredThinker

There are people who can- and you should listen.

Can we properly examine life while still alive? — TiredThinker

Based on your premise of there being no evidence of another life, this would be the only time we can. As you did just now.

If there is no afterlife can we assume life had no meaning? — TiredThinker

That would only give it all the more meaning as a matter of fact. I mean. What else is there? Something valuable or rare is only valuable or rare because it exists but in such few numbers. Right?

I was itching to post something like this. :grin:

Yes, because all the actions done by the production and lottery company, and the store, and all the workers, and shipment, lead for that lottery ticket to be there, and his conditions, his inability to control his wants, his past experiences and actions lead him to buying that specific lottery ticket. — Augustusea

Done by human action using their free will... somewhere down the line there's some guy doing what he wanted to just because. The guy who created the lottery company chose to do so? The workers chose to work in said store versus another? The shipping company founder chose to start up the company?

Well, and I can gather the response already, say he literally flipped a coin one day and decided to either spend his last extra entertainment money either on renting a movie or buying a lottery ticket. That coin flip- and nothing else- literally determined him buying the lottery ticket. I suppose we'll say it's literally the exact amount of force used as determined by whatever circumstance determined his mood at the time of flipping... that determined precisely how many times the coin would flip and what side it would land on, yeah?

I dunno... sure. Every cause has to have an effect. We're getting into the territory of refuting Newton's Laws of Motion at that point. But human will generally determined things again if not somewhere down the line. I think that's what we're forgetting.

Other people's free will determines other people's choices. Agree or disagree and why?

Bonus: Thoughts on the butterfly effect concept and resulting book and later movie?

My argument is, that you don't make the choices you think you do make, you have an illusion of choice, of free will, but it actually is none existent for life,
you have the illusion of two roads you can take to school, and the illusion of choosing road A for example, but you in reality didn't choose, you were determined to for the reasons I explained above. — Augustusea

If I understand correctly, and agree with much of it, our circumstances in which we make choices or otherwise determine what choices can be made is largely if not entirely outside of our control?

I get that. The average person has an average job and isn't a millionaire. He cannot go on crazy vacations more than a few times a year or splurge on things like second homes, boats, Rolex watches, etc. And- even if he does "randomly" win the lottery and all that changes, you'd insist on saying it really was not random and he was simply determined or dare I say "destined" to win the lottery. Right?

I guess the question that needs to be asked is what would you say would need to happen/what circumstances would a reality have where there is your definition of free will and how does that compare to the one we live in now?

point is, you don't choose your own breakfast,
that was pre determined by many factors before it and affecting it, — Augustusea

So along this line... there's truth here. You or I can't choose to have a 50-egg omelette the size of a truck tire with a side of caviar every morning... we can't afford it/don't have the ingredients.

The choices we have for breakfast are limited to what we have available and is a result of other circumstances. When we went shopping, what we bought, what we can and cannot afford or otherwise can and cannot eat or simply prefer to eat. It's not impossible to have nearly anything for breakfast, after all circumstances can and some even say- when undesirable- are meant to be changed.

So where does that leave us as far as determinism? Who knows, a friend can stop by with McDonald's or something on a whim and that ends up being your breakfast. Everything is determined by something. What I think that determinism doesn't properly include is that everything can change. The Earth could lose it's gravity one day. Some things (circumstances or "realities") are simply less likely to change than others.

If pessimism is the result of having to watch two people go back and forth, each time refusing to have their core beliefs challenged- it's looking more and more likely...

The two arguments presented for and against determinism present examples that make each true- yet leave out some examples or scenarios where each can be made less true ie. circumstantial to the other.

We don't have a choice in not feeling hungry. Unless you get drunk. Nevertheless our body will still "be" hungry. Does that mean you have to eat? It means you should. But if there is nothing or say you're not eating for some social purpose like a hunger strike. You can choose what to eat. Or you can choose to literally just starve if you really wanted to for some odd reason.

Biologically we're all slaves to hunger, thirst, the elements, etc. This is not unique to human beings. However to solely use these as the arguments for determinism does the philosophy a disservice.

If I was driving home one night after working double overtime and I was just so tired and dozed off, hitting another car and messing up my shoulder as well as my car and the others' and lose my license and job- there are two ways to look at what happened. I simply had to work that job as it was the only thing available to pay my bills and provide for myself and I needed the extra hours because I splurged on a few things last week- or rather something important came up. Ergo, some would say, nothing could have prevented what happened. A common statement during hard times ie. "it was just his time", etc. There's the obvious counter argument- "no it wasn't" lol. Saying it was preventable, etc.

That's the thing about arguing and getting upset about things that already happened- especially misfortune. It becomes tediously irrelevant. As long as lessons are learned that is..

Faith - the belief in something one desires believes is [or could be] true, despite there being no evidence of it, or even evidence that contradicts its existence. — Philosophim

FIFY.

Furthermore the discussion of anything that profoundly affects a large portion of society and related discussion is very philosophical.

Also, you kinda just described the scientific process lol. That's why theories are theories before they become scientific law. It's a search or quest for answers when they're are none- or as you said- some that would suggest the opposite.

I don’t think expertise and “eliteness” can be measured by formal credentials. Rather, I think positions of power and influence should be open to anyone of any class, so long as they possess the abilities and competence. — NOS4A2

So... what makes something an ability. Competence is basic coherence. Why is it an ability of any use if everyone can do it. That makes someone elite- in a way. So you want, and I'm going to hope you're from whatever country we're talking about and not acting under the auspices of another, the most qualified and crucial positions such as medicine, defense, technology, science, education, etc... to be replaced with just anyone who knows how to get dressed in the morning? Erm... yeah that's a big no. lol

Edit: Factoring in your argument that the majority of a country (everywhere btw) represents the most successful positions with your assertion (that is common knowledge) people prefer their own, you're saying they will systematically turn down or otherwise favor people of their own color or creed over equally qualified minorities? Yeah.. see now it's a debate. Reminds me of the whole immigrant fiasco. If there's all these problems and this is such a better place... let the army go in and clean it up so it's good and then they'll leave. Cover minimum costs, just enough to break even (gotta feed the boys somehow), and that's that. But no somehow solving a humanitarian crisis would now be a humanitarian crisis in and of itself. Somehow. It's crazy man. It's either better here or better there and if you want to come here while not wanting it to be better all around or in your homeland at least it's.. kinda selfish really. That said. Dunno how bad the corruption is here. These other places could be the last bastions of freedom and we should want to be there. lol, it's a toss up really