Great thread. Exactly what I came here for. Meaning I don't meticulously understand it. :grin:

Hate to butt in, however, these are all unproven theories? No supporter of eternalism can show any proof of past or destroyed objects existing just as no supporter of presentism can definitively prove they don't? How oddly religious.

If you perhaps fancy and have the time, could you explain in layman's terms. What differentiates eternalism from the moving spotlight theory? Both have past, present, future. Does the eternalist believe all things exist in some other... realm? Spotlight theory seems like simple chronology to me. Things are set in motion, predetermined, etc. How does that different from eternalism? Thanks in advance either way. I'm sure others may appreciate it as well.

I'd be asking can everything have an effect on something else. If a tree falls in the woods... for example.

A speck of dust falling on an aging floor in a remote cabin abandoned 50 years prior ontop of literally trillions upon trillions might. It might not.

Is the concept of a soul to be factored into this or no? If so, all of that you described in depth is simply an outer shell or physical characteristics. If not, do experiences factor in? Surely they must. Regardless of either, you are in fact, you.

I'm sorry is there some verse for all this or?

If it's another book it's another topic or source. I could write a book about any topic saying anything about it but it would still be a non-original source.

Canonically though, Jesus was charged with heresy, blasphemy, threats against a synagogue, and my favorite, healing on the Sabbath (come on guys, wait til Monday to use your magical powers amirite?). The professed crimes were widely known. The role played by others seems to be a bit happenstance.

A potential fallacy I see from your last two posts is equating a high school dropout and their potential careers and resulting salaries with that of a PhD's.

Seeming to imply, and I may be mistaken, both are 'unfree' and 'poor'. Someone with a good head on their shoulders can earn a PhD by age 26 or younger. Uncommon but possible. And get into a great field. Possibly earning 100 grand a year or more at this point, as well as whatever they were earning before which if done wisely would pay off any potential student loans and perhaps even much more. They may even be eyed by a major corporation and earn themselves a place earning tenfold and a 'golden parachute' to match. Or perhaps even be smart enough to utilize the stock market and use trends to make themselves stupidly rich.

It comes down to, and this may miss your point entirely. No, a dullard with little more drive than to chase after the next high or pleasure who embraces and embodies the most negative traits of humanity (sloth, wrath) will not and should not 'automatically' be as successful or free as one who has always pushed himself forward to achieve more for himself and those around him. Especially with the latter being restricted to the state of the former. Any such nation or system is doomed to fail as productivity is virtually made foolish and irrelevant while stagnation and indifference becomes the only worthwhile option. Unless you live in a land of or protected by gods and demigods, it will soon cease to exist. Guaranteed.

Alright alright, no need to get nasty. Perhaps I was mistaken. I assumed a major theme of your chastisement was the manner in which he was speaking rather than the message. His aged inflection, or vocal delays between ideas. Something that would not be uncommon for either of us at such an age

I know nothing of the man nor do I know you. I can reasonably assume you're younger than him. The only thing I'm defending is a principle and the only thing I'm attacking is a philosophy. A simple principle of respecting one's elders and listening to what they have to say, as I'm sure you would appreciate later on. And a philosophy of not writing off others you don't agree with as 'subhuman' especially the elderly and especially by manner of speech and not message.

Defending an intellectual society and attacking degradation to it. As much of a losing and downhill battle it has become. Rather, perhaps PF needs less "let's make fun of this old guy" threads as opposed to "I don't like this guy, I think he's wrong. Here is why using logic..." threads.

That's what I meant earlier, that marxists reject the world we presently inhabit. They're basically looking for a revolution. — frank

Show me one who wants to do so and live as the average person after appointing former capitalists they convinced by logic alone as leadership and then maybe it's something to consider.

It's ironic I suppose. Back then in a time you admire your chances of making it through the year or often even the day were a complete toss up. Now in an age you claim to abhor your chances of making it to old age are quite likely. Not guaranteed sure. But likely.

"The only paradise is paradise lost."
- Marcel Proust

Remember that, friend.

What are the differences between Marxism and Communism?

Not to push anything but the guy was born in the 1800s. There were one billion people. In the whole world. Today the US has over a third of that alone. In a free and open society that does not rely on war everyone has to be working. How else could you sustain it's people? You can't just empty the land of oil and minerals, the waters of fish, and anything and everything else. There'd be nothing left. Nothing to trade. I get that the government providing basic necessities doesn't completely remove the incentive to work to earn nice things or position but. Yeah.

Yeah I guess. But society would not have improved since the days of cavemen if someone didn't. And perhaps. It took a philosopher to adequately explain its follies.

Don't the greatest philosophers?

After all, the universe would be just fine if it was composed of a bunch of rocks and clusters of random simple chemicals. — Braindead

Fine according to who or what? How would it be less fine with just empty space? Or as it is today?

Moreover, purpose per theory of evolution- whatever you happen to give it. Per your context though, a non-living chemical cannot have 'purpose' rather 'desire' or 'will' as humanly understood. It just happened because it could happen ie. was possible. So it did. Going along with the nonsense however, as I'm sure many atheists subjectively do in thiest threads, which I'm sure is appreciated, the effort rather. And resisting the urge to embed a 'South Park evolution' video. It's pretty elementary really. Some single celled organisms became more efficient, became something bigger, that's basically it, repeated as often as you will.

There are two main views of evolution. With intelligent design and without. Without. Little more than consumption and its efficient conversion into energy for purposes of self-sustanence. With. You can begin to see a larger picture. On land, flies and their larvae and other scavengers remove dead organic matter, increasing space and preventing disease, arguably. Worms till the ground increasing nutrients. Bees pollinate flowers ensuring they are plentiful. Plants inhale carbon dioxide and release oxygen that larger animals, who ironically or perhaps tragically if you're one of those, graze upon. Larger animals eat those and in turn give us something to eat. In the sea, algae being a plant does the same. It, usually, cleans. Is eaten by krill. Which is in turn eaten by other fish and whales. Without posing the obvious question of did this all happen by chance. It's just something to ponder.

:) Unrealistic and unfeasible actions aside.



An individual who differentiates himself from another by a certain characteristic possessed by no effort of his own action should not question where pride ends or even begins but why it is even considered as such in the first place. It most certainly ends when such a trait is used to justify indifference toward someone different by means of another trait of no effort or choice.

Even a hardcore supremacist with at least a modicum of understanding of the Constitition and resulting society would get the benefit it has to what they believe. A smarter person should/would get ahead over someone who is not. If they believe anything they say they do what would be the problem. Per this system, all races or ethnicities would improve dramatically since the smart or decent (though the latter is easily refuted, to my dismay) would become successful, have more resources and freedom, and procreate more while those who do not.. would do so less. Ideally.

The opposition against illegal immigration is easily founded. Simply, it's a rather blatant middle finger toward those who actually respect a given country enough to follow their policy. To people waiting in line for opportunity for a better life who prove they respect the system and culture of the land they're coming to. As well as entire concepts of civility, law and order, and decency. Which I and many people should and do find abhorrent.

Your views are likely derived from protecting a 'status quo' which benefits you. This is fair. So. Others have a right to do so too. Where is the 'capital of the world'? Who is 'the most powerful man in the world'? Exactly.

He's an elderly man just about in his 80s describing a philosophical view, one I don't quite agree with that is to say that can be put into question by another, that clearly went over your head.

As far as your sympathies, I'd save them. Putting aside what vegetative state your mind would likely be in, rather increase to at such a period in life, if even reached, which I doubt. He on the other hand influenced a well known philosopher who influenced him in his career. One I don't particularly care for, nevertheless a feat you will never know.

Why is blue phenomenal to you? His premise was subtracting all previous memory and experience. So, you never saw anything blue before or perhaps any color. There is no understanding of color simply a blank image. What makes blue 'phenomenal' compared to the pitch black of shutting one's eyes? Or any other color for that matter? Because it's lighter? Perhaps this is an intrinsic biological fact. Perhaps not.

Anything useful can lose it's subjective or perceived value ie. appreciation if taken for granted but only a greater utility can adjust it's value by objectively making it less useful in comparison.

Complacency. The only guaranteed thing that can destroy even the strongest and most successful of nations. Complacency. As insidious as it is seemingly harmless. The ability to become so is the reward that often becomes an enemy's saving grace.

Anyone who meets stated criteria. I'm saying the quote is presented as if someone who likes law and order, justice, or civilized society and explains it rationally is not listened to all that remains is an ideal freedom. As if a civil society is some obstacle to happiness or something.

1700s when the guy was around- 682 million people. Throughout the entire planet. Not even double the current US pop.

The quote is correct. What is left out is those who do not advocate control, because they already do so by other means, carry no burden regarding justification.

Eh, words are words. Free speech. Lets you know the person is being genuine. Usually. Can imply some sort of intense displeasure if used abnormally which an empath would find upsetting. Not to be unexpected I guess. Politics can bring out the worst in us all. A farcry from other things though..

So apparently the guy has a few "memes" going on (so does Trump, fullblown allegations rather) of 'rapacious' activity or demeanor. Prolonged touching, sniffing hair, I dunno just what I've seen. Not... absolutely incriminating of anything just.. yeah if someone even related to let's pretend I have kids were doing that I'd be like.. yeah could you not do that so much. Lol.

I can see how a white man in a debate with the only other likely choice being another white man saying "you're supposed to vote for me because you're black" can be a bit distasteful. Just imagine if things were reversed. Don't even have to imagine really. Theres places....

At the same time I do recall an instance in a 2nd amendment thread where I wrote a pretty cool, detailed and frankly logically equal reply and you were like "no. That's wrong". And I was just kinda like. Anyway. Moving on. That "I was raised this way, i seen this and so this is right" kind of doctrine can get kind of annoying. Or, have a "chilling effect" or otherwise be counterproductive to philosophical debate. Then again so can a mod using profanity toward someone. I don't get that vibe here though. Hey, at least they don't use sock accounts to post controversial things like most forums.

Huh. Suppose it can. :D

Good post above. Read it all. And feel enriched.

Though. Won't there always be a difference between referencing a fact's evidence witnessed firsthand and one by what is legally hearsay? If not minutely or virtually inconsequentially?

Back to the focal point of the topic though. Ad hom meaning blindly attacking a source for a characteristic that does not explicitly undermine it's credibility in the specific field substantially. More or less right? Naturally depends on the topic. If we're talking about say hotwiring a car or how to rob a bank a criminal or jailbird would be very qualified. Sure, the source in this case may be a liar, a despicable murderer, and a whole bunch more other negative things. But. That doesn't undermine their credibility in the context of the aforementioned question.

Anyway. Science is about trial and error. So, a scientist or group of them, naturally would have many errors that can be looked into or referenced (not published of course but there all the same). More than successes even. No?

It's good to look into the reason a source is discredited and even better to understand how to be able to prove something as the process must have been referenced in order for an authority to state a fact.

I can think of two types of expression, rather percievement or... something of the like.

Dictated/free.

In writing it's where you either do relate or can relate to the subject as in a first person or where you do not, as in written by someone but mostly talking about someone else.

In art it could be where there is a single person or object in the foreground demanding your attention as opposed to a landscape where your mind can wander.

In music it is with lyrics that you understand and so dictate the melodies as opposed to an instrumental piece where you can again let your mind wander.

Explicit/open interpretation I suppose. Kind of not your point I guess. Basically a consolation for any deviation or static between intent and perception.

Yeah. Now. Tell me something if you're starving, your stomach is growling and you even feel faint. You come across someone smaller than you, with no weapons, just there with I don't know just to make it modern a couple cases of tuna packets, sardines, salmon, etc. Or back then fresh meat, a pile of berries, etc. You ask for some and he says what will you give me and you have nothing. Would you leave? Sure, you might because you're intelligent and a philosopher and believe in something greater. But you get my point

What do you mean by other people's vanity? How does this comprise the state? Appearance over utility?

In the sense he's earning money.

There is corruption. Always has been. Now with FOIA requests much of it can be uncovered or at least draw reasonable suspicion. I'm not in any way saying anything is perfect or their aren't prejudices or people acting on it ergo being literal enemies of the state per the Constitution who can and will be purged.

But. What is the other option? What if all government, police, military dissapeared right now?

Human society has always formed power structures. Gangs, whatever. Free for alls never last because people who aren't idiots realize theres power in numbers. You know that. The individualist will always be protected, by someone or at least a system thought of by someone, who wasn't.

Any person who can even be remotely associated with 'the state' is working! An individual getting paid to advance his own good. Lol! :lol:

Who says God does that?

Older beliefs speak of a scale that weighs ones sins against ones moral actions.

Most people live in violation of their own professed religion's tenets anyway. Personally I wouldn't say it's impossible mainstream religions (and their texts) have been hijacked anyway and the "main figure" of each now serves as more of an ethnic figure than anything else thus making mainstream religion little more than a proxy race war. Which is reprehensible.

My understanding of the main differences in religions that acknowledge a single Creator. Probably incorrect.

Islam- we are to follow unquestionable instructions from an unquestionable source or face damnation.

Judaism- the same, except a Messiah will come to free us (forgive us when we sin/invalidate it) however this was not Jesus Christ and therefore by sinning we are still damned. 10 Commandments/Old Testament/Noahide laws all still in effect.

Christianity- the same, except Jesus Christ was the Messiah and now sin is forgiven so long as we believe in Jesus, repent, and live by the Great Commandment(s), love God and love others as you love yourself.

The rest:

Hindu- God is (presumably everywhere/anything) so God could be anything/is what you choose. Your reincarnation is dependent on the moral acts you perform. Karma. Many entities.

Buddhism- no God? Zen and inner peace is the way to enlightenment, life is suffering, desire is the cause.

Paganism- many entities that can be known through worship of nature.

To summarize, most or all of these are probably incorrect. Lacking, rather. Pretty sure they're factual.

The state being "a monopoly on the use of force" and comparing it against an individual being a false dichotomy are posts I'd agree with.

It after all is made up of individuals who are public servants that can be fired or replaced.

It's not the 1800s where there was only a few million people in the whole country. There are hundreds of millions here today all of which are allowed to be raised in virtually any environment of any morality and of any level of education. Or lack thereof. Long story short it's a real predicament. It's no longer like the times of the Andy Griffith Show where you can have two cops in the entire town, one who doesnt even carry a gun and have one or two cells with the keys hanging in arms reach.

Therefore, today, neither can exist without the other. A free individual with his or her rights protected.

Should the desires of a single individual have precedence over all others or the system that protects not only theirs but everyone else's (the State)?

The State is not a person. It's a system of duly agreed upon laws, mechanisms, services, and other functions made up of individuals themselves.

There are good and bad forces out there. Rather, some that can be harmful.

If you're a skilled philosopher. And some kid comes up to you saying wisdom is stupid, prove me wrong or you're a fraud. Just exactly how inclined would you be to do so? Meanwhile.. others will be more than happy to oblige. Usually for a non reciprocal purpose.

Sort of. Folks call zero a placeholder. It's the youngest of all numeric concepts, if I'm not mistaken.

If we are referencing something, using numbers. Zero does refer to something, rather lack of it. One is one unit, item, whatever the thing is. Two is two so on and so forth. Right?

Maybe I haven't been following the discussion but, therefore "1" has to refer to something? Not "anything" I suppose but it certainly doesnt refer to nothing as in 0.

Which gives it a value higher than nothing?

Needless to write 0 and 0 is 0 while 1 and 1 is 2. Has to have some value?

Of all the things I've been through in life I think this is the time I'd ask for a time machine so I could go back to a time before this thread.

If you'd like, or are bored or something, word by word. Why is that exact sentence the correct answer?

I'd have said it's just saying any answer is the right answer simply because it is being answered.

Apparently 'this' is the key word here?

Actually, when you differentiate between the average understanding of politics and it's true nature there is a huge learning curve. It's the only thing separating humanity from an all out gore fest. The average up and coming young politician doesnt know this and often never does. Nor do some 'experienced' ones. Every position from the lowest city major to the highest office in the land has advisors who do. People who study economics, civics, society, history, behavioral science, and just about everything else who advise and inform what decisions should or should not be made and why.

It's not a purely analytical or judicial thing. That is what I mean when I say I would do nothing.

For fun I'd say I'd naturally include a few mandated courses in philosophy or higher reasoning in education. Or perhaps not. Ignorance is bliss.

So it was answered and that answer was "this is the answer to the question."?

What I do now. Nothing.

Name a general situation where a person hasn't been drastically influenced by their environment ie. other people. So who could say who's creation it really belongs to?

Someone "like me"? Have we met? Lol. I post counterarguments here often for little more reason than to do so. Well.. perhaps to learn more of course. And perhaps to aid others I can relate to.

That said before continuing please, spare no courtesy or manners. Myself and others here would assuredly like to know your truest and deepest essence in engaging opposing views.

What they need? Sure. Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness.

Freedom of speech, and the rest. And the reasonable assurance all of the aforementioned will be protected.

A person is a person. In such a diverse nation especially there is no 'title' or 'nationality' to consider. What someone would 'need' here would be no different than what someone needs anywhere.

Discernment between needs and wants is a non-issue. Not to say there aren't unique, circumstantial needs as far as societies go from country to country. It comes down to reasonable belief someone will either maintain or perhaps even improve the ways that one has become accustomed to. And address grievances. Not much more to it then that. Once the needs are addressed, the wants that are independent of necessity can be focused on. The greater the claims the higher the chance you'll be favorable. Unforrunately or not it pragmatically comes down to ensuring the majority is taken care of and content enough to continue to participate first.

As far as politicians being in an impossible position. Depends on concern and commitment. With none, especially if one has made sufficient amounts of money, they likely will either continue to pursue or at minimum work to keep up appearances they are attempting to, enact the laws and will of their constituency that elected them. If they do however... probably. Not impossible. Just atrociously agonizing. Actually, not entirely. They are likely duly elected representatives who ran on ideas they presumably believed and whatever majority electorate that ran with or voted for them would continue to support and admire them even (or sometimes especially) on failure. Essentially all they have to do is ensure their voting majority is satisfied enough either by action or attempt of action. There is no "king", other than the satisfied and socially/politically active/involved citizen.

If a cause is forced is it not merely an effect of a greater cause? Perhaps that's your point.

What, in a sentence or two (or more, this is complex or at least unclear to me- not including examples), is a (or the) creator? What is the creation?

So to create or not to create? If this creator does create is it not its effect? If it doesnt create isn't this an effect (or lack of, yet still able to be referenced say if an architect does not create a dam he was supposed to and a low lying town becomes flooded) this effect or creation as well?