Not to critique, but if one was so adamant and such facts were so self-evident, one could easily have made each bullet point a hyperlink a person just has to click instead of researching themself. The fact I don't even want to, rather I don't have the time to check facts, neither does the average person, I mean, it kind of explains why he gained popularity. People are not intelligent. Not in a free society. Thinking is hard. All I need to do is learn how to dress myself in the morning and do a basic function, any function really, it can be as simple as pushing buttons or pouring coffee, and I get to live a life that a monarch 1,000 years ago could only dream of. I do that, I get to make a living. Anything else is superfluous. That's what the average person thinks. That's how they live. That's who they are.

You could start with just understanding Hegelian dialectics. — frank

Or, perhaps, you could start with explaining what his perceived misinterpretations in your mind are. You surely cannot believe every person capable of understanding what you do, and beyond (heh, if such a concept is possible..) believes the exact same thing you do. Interpretation is the lifeblood of philosophy, after all.

I wasn't going to post this, seeing as I'm fairly unacquainted with "established" philosophy and really enjoy, perhaps even prefer, just being an interlocutor, or observer, but in light of @Metaphysician Undercover's latest post, I feel it may be slightly more relevant than I first had envisioned.

Your move

Well, but there's the rub -- we do. — J

Mm, not so sure on this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage

To go toward the mirage is Justified True Belief (if one is not familiar with modern day science). And who knows, it might lead to water. Eventually.

It certainly is better than nothing. And sure, to your credit, only a fool would not follow such. But... not all who survive to live good lives are wise men, and not all who perish foolish deaths were fools. Something to keep in mind. :smile:

No one is telling blind people they are pariahs — Hanover

Of course they're not. But they live as such, only were it not for that one nagging social order we call "being a good person." If there were but one meal to eat, and it were you and a blind man, you'd eat that meal yourself fully. Yes, I know your type. Of course, not with other people around. So you'll convince yourself you might share otherwise. Yes, in mixed company, indeed you shall.

What is a man who cannot see who has nothing for you to gain if under your responsibility under punishment of suffering? A treasure. Otherwise, he is but another fixture in this world, a non-human who your ego and false sense of virtue may wish the best aloud, hoping someone would hear it. But short of that, a nobody.

My objective, which is not that hard to decipher, was to point out the varying ways "beautiful" might be defined, which isn't terribly controversial because it forms the better part of aesthetics, which is to define beauty. — Hanover

And someone else clearly did. A poem or "legal ruling" can be beautiful. But you insist "not like a sunset." So we come back to the root of the issue here. Can someone blind or perhaps unable to feel the warmth on their skin of said sunset for whatever reason know the beauty of a sunset like any normal, able-bodied person can?

These are your own words, Hanover. Not mine.

Oh my. What ever is brewing on your kettle tonight? Something fierce, no doubt. Let us not mistake the strength of one's drink, that it may correlate as such to one's validity.

As an interesting point of fact, most of the fresh foods we eat are grown from manure. I'm not sure if this was the point of your critique or an unintentional backfire, however I leave this here to be judged as it may be.

It would be like asking you as an engineer to give me one fundamental definition of an engine. One that unifies all the types of engineers that there are. — apokrisis

Seems simple enough. A reliable machinery or other thing similar that can predictably intake an expected input and produce an expected result. Not that complicated really, now is it? :confused:

I ask a simple question about a definition of a system and end up arguing about absurd nonsensical planetary questions. How odd. — Pieter R van Wyk

Is it really, though? They do call it "the solar system", after all. Surely there's some relevance. Fleeting or not. :grin:

So we better not send anything from the Earth to the Moon or to Mars and leave it there, because doing so would result in the solar system flying apart. — wonderer1

No human being has ever created or destroyed a planetary body. That would be space debris. Or a satellite, at best.

You're a fun one, now aren't you?

Your need to isolate visual art as being of some special category of art that needs to be discussed is elusive as is your need to protect the blind from what you envision are attacks on their limitations. — Hanover

Well hey, who's to say the sighted (non-blind) aren't the truly limited ones, as far as knowledge and the true depth of the universe is concerned. Sure, it's a physical world, we need to see, to eat, basically.

My "need" or rather point expressed is that, as a sighted, non-blind person, you don't know the world they experience. I thought that was the whole point of idea of philosophy in regards to qualia. Sure, the sighted people have overtaken the world, and so find blind people as relatively low priority, with nothing to offer, teach, or learn from. We look at them as some sort of pariah or outcast, masquerading as sympathy or pity or "right from wrong" since they are effectively more vulnerable than those who can see. But what of it?

Also, as a fellow lawyer-in-practice let's not ignore the fact it was you who first intended to isolate visual art with your statement "a legal argument could be beautiful, but not like a sunset". I don't know what it is you're trying to do, but you're not doing it very well. Which is out of character for you.

I suggest you learn a little about gravity first and the scales we are talking about. It would do next to nothing. — I like sushi

Gravity will be there. It was there before humans and will surely be there after. Why the rush? Why the offense at human error? You act as if you couldn't be an example of such. Couldn't any of us? At least at some point in life? :confused:

You think this is at all accurate?: — I like sushi

I tend not to involve myself in matters of which I am unfamiliar with. These are titles, vernacular, and above all formulae and mathematics I have never made the decision to study or be informed of, but above all remain ignorant of.

I do agree he is correct as to the "if one planetary body, no matter how minute or seemingly insignificant is removed, great disarray and unrest would follow" claim. I'm fairly certain that's scientific knowledge. Whether those great vanguards who protect such wish to promote it or not.

What exactly is the purpose, extent and method of the Lounge and Shoutbox? — Pieter R van Wyk

Oh, my good sir, that depends wholly and entirely upon whom you ask! Some people consider the Lounge a metaphorically graveyard of sorts, where threads that are less than popular are sent to die. Others consider it a place to test one's ideas and theories to see how weighted they are, as far as value. Sort of a "throwing what have you at the wall to see what sticks" kind of free for all arena. As for me? I just use it to play Chess. :smile:

The Shoutbox is a bit of a random, sort of free-for-all chat. Not unlike the Lounge. Just a social element for "social-ness" sake, I suppose. That said, I've read many a great tale on such a venue. Just a place where if you have something on your mind you think others might find of value, no matter how small, so long as it's genuine, you might wish to comment on and just see what others have to say. Mutual engagement and mutual entertainment, one might reduce such to. Not unlike the regular forum, in which strict rules and prose are to be expected. Just a bit of a fun place really, to speak with others like-minded who may generally hold such concepts to a bit lower standard of necessity than the common person these days.

Could it help me get a decent, critical, honest review of my work? — Pieter R van Wyk

It most certainly could. Though, and I don't mean to impose, are you familiar with recording and uploading video? It might do wonders to get your message across. It's quite simple these days, really. Why, even opening up YouTube almost explains the process perfectly. One side note, however. This website has an odd reputation for people "promoting their work" (which, unlike yours, is generally not of high quality) so the site owner, and as a result his staff, tend to frown upon self-promotion in general. But if done with tact, subtly, perhaps in a link in one's profile or as I said, interesting and engaging videos, such might occur. Such might occur.

It's great to have a published author engaging here, I'm sure @Jamal would agree. That said, there's a bit of a taboo in regards to self-promotion as far as links and book names and whatnot. But anything short of that, let this venue be your oyster, not unlike the market squares of olde! :smile:

I don't see how you derived that from what I said. — Hanover

a legal argument could be beautiful, but not like a sunset. — Hanover

Well, now you do. Or at least should.

This seems to suggest speech cannot ever amount to something visual. Which, sure, the old saying goes "a picture is worth 1,00 words." So you have that on your side. But as an absolute? Well, perhaps it's simply nothing those of us sighted can truly imagine, now is it?

The question was what was consistent within the term "beauty" that makes it apply across all uses of the term beauty (which could include written essays, sunsets, music, or whatever). — Hanover

Sure, if we dictate that beauty means "that which one [perhaps greatly or transcendentally] appreciates [over what is common, if not to the individual's experience or perspective]." This is a simple (albeit crude and lacking) term that would seem to cover all. So, if this is true, how am I incorrect?

I really don't follow how I've been incosistent is arguing that all language offers some degree of metaphor and then in my asking for a definition of beauty that allows it to apply across diverse experiences. — Hanover

My view of art is that it is a form of language — Hanover

See, this is where I take offense (not really, just hypothetically in an intellectual "debate for debate sake" kind of way). You first claim "art" is a form of language. Meaning it can be fully, or at least sufficiently experienced by those who are limited to such (say, the blind). Yet, people who can see enjoy art and visual experiences, they consider this a staple of the human experience. Do you disagree? Regardless, art is a billion dollar industry. Visual experience is what most people consider to be fundamental to the human experience. So, unless all these people are just wasting their money and the world is full of basically adult children gazing into a simple machine like a kaleidoscope, mistaking art and visual perception as a sort of "empty nothingness" that could easily be replaced by,language, I see a bit of inconsistency. That is to say a bit of lack of thoroughness.

But seriously, I think you're using the term "beautiful" here in a pretty broad way, so maybe a legal argument could be beautiful, but not like a sunset — Hanover

Really? So, of all people, it is you who is the one who reduces such a wide and ever reaching concept to something so primal. "Visually satisfying or enjoyable." That's what beauty is now.

So a blind person can never experience something beautiful. It's just an alien concept exclusive to those who have perfect or otherwise functional vision. For shame. Hanover. For shame. And I looked up to you as a great mind, legal and otherwise. Thankfully I discovered my idol had feet of clay before it fell atop me. Note the circular ellipsis or whatever you spout on about.

My view of art is that it is a form of language, and the expression through painting is just another way of speaking, writing, or grunting. — Hanover

For some reason in this thread I have this post of yours quoted, so I'll include surely it only ages to show my point. For shame!

Bye! At least I got an answer to my question. — Pieter R van Wyk

Oh, don't mind him. He's just a bit miffed his series of YouTube video lectures on philosophy didn't quite take off as he may have wished or expected. :wink:

Are you really that nice old man in your profile picture? What a fascinating life you must have lived. I do wish you'd share more, perhaps in the Lounge or Shoutbox? It's fine if not. Time is no commodity, for any of us, really. :confused:

Your move

I don’t know what that means. — Fire Ologist

Neither did I at first. Apparently, if we were one of the cool kids like him, we'd know it stands for: "quod vide" roughly translating to "which see." Which generally makes little to no sense but it is a pseudo-intellectual meme that basically means "look again" or basically "I already answered your question, you mindless, unwashed pleb, stop bothering me." :lol:

You can damage someone’s ear if you yell too loudly. That’s about the only way to injure someone with speech. — NOS4A2

But you can lie and say I turned off Electrical Grid B to an electrician, perhaps in theory even just walking by without being employed by the company, and an electrician goes to work on it and gets killed. That's illegal. Or, you can stand by a bridge you know is dilapidated and cover leaves over it and if a person asks if it's safe, you can say "Sure", and they are also killed. That's quasi-legal, simply because no one can prove you did anything. So, no, this idea that speech cannot lead to real human death, possibly mass causality has already been legally codified. That ship has sailed, mate. So, that realization hitting you (or anyone who was ignorant of such) aside. What are you truly hoping to proliferate?

Dude. You might want to be more precise and express in the points you are trying to make. — Fire Ologist

He's saying (or rather asking) what one who is adamant about hate speech laws (and I suppose general profanity including resulting profanity laws, which do exist in many American municipalities) really wants to prevent, and if that includes "dehumanizing words" that have a tendency to inflict emotional discomfort or safety concerns toward the individual. Which on paper, should be silly. Yet apparently, is not...

It's not hard to imagine being the only black guy in a room of strangers where everyone seems to be playing some sort of "game" with you or is otherwise just messing with you, not even for fun but with a deadpan expression. You don't know what that means. You don't know what's going on in their head. But I'll bet you you'd always have your eye on the nearest exit if so. In some contexts, speech is used as a form of intimidation. A very effective one at that.

Weak people need to constantly feed on those weaker than them to maintain a sense of identity, to feed their constantly fleeting delusion of control over this world and thus their own life. And if you're a minority, or shorter or smaller, at least in a given situation or context, you're the obligatory victim. They would literally lose their mind, without such. They wouldn't be caught dead on a level playing field. They will avoid such at any and all cost all while ignoring how blatantly shameful and cowardly their actions are, their brains are so pickled by their own ego, mired in inhumanity, it simply doesn't register. These so-called "people", are no longer people, but a disease; a blight on our society that must be removed at all cost if humanity is to survive. The first step is controlling their reproduction. But.. a coward is ultimately a liar. And without free speech, they would be silent, blending in, trying to appear like the rest of us sane, actual human beings. This would complicate efforts toward their eradication exponentially. Therefore, free speech must remain. Gentleman, to a better future for all..

It's a phrase I find unusable, and I don't like "hate-speech laws" and "hate crimes" either. Their meanings are far too vague, which makes them useful for suppression of speech that someone doesn't like. — BC

It's meaning is very simple and astoundingly clear. It means, of all the real hardship and suffering, true injustice in this world a man can and rightfully should get upset at to the point of action, you were too stupid but to do anything but worry about a trait or quality a man was born with or otherwise has no control over. You don't hate stupid people? I do. But good for you, if you're either that mellow or otherwise ignorant. It's a form of legal eugenics, which I support. If only it was enacted in time.

Not to say it hasn't morphed into something self-defeating. A moral white man coming across an immoral black man committing (or about to commit) a crime against another black man or woman and so the white man decides simply to walk on and not intervene out of fear of an unjust ruling. Who knows. Perhaps that was the very intention. Who could say.

Yeah, well. That may be so. But. Pride comes before the fall. Thinking you know how to win before even playing. 'Outta here with that jive. :razz:



Your move

I think if you imagine a marble. It is the image of the idea of a marble. — Jack2848

But is it not so much more complex than this? Why is a marble a marble and a pebble a pebble? Or for that matter, a stone a stone, and a ball of dough a ball of dough. They're all similar, aren't they?

A child who knows nothing of science or even that the described objects do in fact vary in edibility can determine such. They do this from accessing or utilizing the grand network of sensory interpretation. A blind child might not see the difference between the objects, until they touch said objects. Tangentially, a child deprived of ability to experience taste would not notice said elemental difference between such.

What is a marble, really? A small, round, typically glassy object created for sport or entertainment. That's great. But what defines that, truly? Can we not compare certain types of people using similar definitions? We attribute meaning to words and words to meaning, and through this action, man becomes like a god. A false god, of course. But a god nonetheless.

I abhor all censorship — NOS4A2

Why is that? How did this first start? No cliched talking points of "freedom" and "right and wrong" and "tyrants" you've never seen or even been affected by before in your life. Honestly. Real talk. Abhor is a strong word. It's used casually by many people just to exaggerate. What makes you so adamant in your view? What happened? Or, I suppose, what didn't happen? Are you just, trying to fit in? No, surely not. You must have your own story and truly organically defined belief. So. Let's hear it. Floors all yours mate. :smile:

Abuse of hate speech law is a real possibility. No easy general solution. — jorndoe

Great post. Like always. Shoutbox needs more news BTW.

Also, I feel there's an underrepresented if not flat out ignored dynamic of people who are simply inflammatory for inflammation's sake. What I mean by that, and let me give you a little example. A dried out dog turd on a sidewalk can make people frown. But to make someone smile, that takes skill. It's hard. And most people don't have that skill or desire to put in that effort. Shock is easy. It's cheap. Therefore, it along with those who purvey such cheapness as value should be considered socially lower ranking than those who try to bring light and joy into the life of an average person.

My larger suggestion or theory is, these people don't believe in anything other than ego. They, despite claiming otherwise, are actually apolitical. They're simply there for one reason and one reason only. Money. Fame. Power. Etcetera. It's why people use curse words. Or act out. No one paid attention to them otherwise, so they force us, they in affect hold society, and the future of children, mind you, hostage, because they want attention. It's time to stamp out these people once and for all, in my opinion.

What I mean by that last sentiment is, these people, or at least some people, they don't really have a point. Not really. Not one that can be expressed without sensationalism, vulgarity, exhibition, and the like. Not one that people would care for or give the time of day for without. Life is hard. It is full of cruelty and suffering. Therefore, people who are rude or callous must be "real" or "more trustworthy: than those who try to maintain a sense of human dignity. It's a common effect. More people are having kids now, which means the average voter and human person is generally more ignorant, naive, and above all susceptible and malleable than ever before. This is a fact of human history. And people, bad, naive, misguided, and everything in between are taking full advantage of this fact with full knowledge of such.

It's like the late conservative philosopher Roger Scruton said himself: "What is shocking the first time, becomes boring and vacuous when repeated. Therefore, when we as a society value that which is cheap and shocking, we end up in a continual downward spiral of such, continually trying to "outdo" one another with filth and obscenity until that society is robbed of any and all recognizable morals, values, or virtues."

(Alright, Most of that is paraphrased, but I know if he was alive he'd agree spot on! Cheers. And here, here.)

Check.

Your move

Are you saying everyone needs to own a microphone and have a TV show? — Fire Ologist

I mean, shoot. You basically need a phone to have a job, to basically even exist these days. $0 down for the latest iPhone, last I checked. Just pop open your Camera, start talking about whatever, and put it on YouTube or TikTok. Before you know it, you're an "influencer." You are the TV show.

There are many people who are highly influential in shaping minds young and old alike who have never appeared on a syndicated cable television network.

To the point, everyone already does have these things. Just not quite the same audience, of course.

The left won’t look directly at the world they have created. — Fire Ologist

People have been offending and taking offense since even before the beginning of language. Let alone any form of government or political aversions. They have also been killing just as long.

Are you suggesting the assassin of Charlie Kirk didn't even really understand let alone believe his own opinions and was simply pseudo or "de-facto" brainwashed by groupthink and mob mentality? I.E. A sort of "all my friends think this so I do too" kind of mindset that absorbed any other sort of free will or opinion?

Personally, I'd prefer it if my life wasn't being used by someone or something else as pawn in whatever game they're playing. I decide for myself what to do with my time here. — Michael

A captain without a compass then. Going wherever the wind takes him. One would at least hope the fates are kind. Lest one crash into rocks. No?

In fact, dating as far back as 200,000 years ago, one discovery that researchers have found is that, compassion and helpfulness have been around since the cave man era. There were evidence that members of a tribe had carried their wounded members to safety, not left them to die out in the field. — L'éléphant

Any data on the cannibalism rates back then or not so much? Hey, never let good meat go to waste am I right. :monkey:

Seeing stuff as either objective or subjective might be the source of the problem. — Banno

But people look at it, or shall I say, frame it as larger than even that.

It's about "permanent" and "impermanent". What people consider or also frame as (whether incorrect or not) "fact" vs. "opinion."

Where the phrase "cut the fat from the meat" comes from. People want to validate and vindicate their life and life choices and know they didn't utterly and foolishly waste their time making stupid decisions and falling for mirage-like illusions just because everyone around them, perhaps even the world, did as well.

Water boils at 100 degrees and freezes at 0. That's something we can rely on as a bedrock of reality. Or can we? Most would agree it's better than nothing. Compare that to someone in their older years with a partner they discovered they never really knew and in fact outright despite thinking "if only I would have listened to that nice guy I met at work who was shy but liked me who I looked up and is now is a millionaire (or not even that, perhaps he's relatively poor but lives a happy life with children)". Realizing what poor impulsive decisions we all make when young. There has to be something, whether not a 1 or 0, an absolute, but something that is wiser and something that is foolish as far as choices we can make in our everyday lives. And it does, at least in some methodologies of thinking, boil down to such binary forms of classification.

Your move

I've given a few extended and considered replies, referencing various external sources and pointing to various arguments., — Banno

And how! Marvelously done, if I might say so. Surely one can lead a horse to water. That's my point.

See how your reply is about me? — Banno

Well, let's be honest. You do tend to steal the show at times. :smile:

My mere suggestion was in regards to your concern that this website has changed from how it first was when you first began posting. You seemed to have expressed a sentiment, perhaps even a longing or sense of nostalgia of how things have changed. I merely reinforced your legitimate view that it might be negative by saying, yes, perhaps logic and "common sense" has fallen out of favor. Don't you agree with this possibility? At least, it's viability? Somewhat?

...much the sort of thing about which I complained...

Oh well. — Banno

I'm not saying your wrong or that people who have. as you said. seemed to have found the views you find truthful or relevant to have fallen out of favor. I'm saying, that's an organic process. No, and it could be horrible. Absolutely. A harbinger of a great ignorance sweeping over us all like an English fog.

But the idea that people need to be pointed out and shamed by titles, just needed a bit more explanation in my eyes. If that's fair.

My main point was, why don't you start and persist or rather insist in starting and maintaining these arguments? You're clearly able to. Just seemed like a silly quip of juvenile frustration, quite unusual from a mind like yours.

There was a time not long ago when such discussions might occur in this forum. The partisan and the parochial have changed that. — Banno

Did they physically raid one another's home and slaughter them Biblically? Have they forced you into cowardice? If none of these things are true, you complain over nothing. Can't you see that?

Hey buddy, he's mine. Back off!

Or start another game. He clearly knows his way around a chessboard. Can easily play (and beat) us both simultaneously.

Your move

None of that is true. — Moliere

Says the boy who tosses a snowball off a winter-kissed hill overlooking a remote village that is warned: "You shouldn't do that. It could cause an avalanche."

Also, to be technical. The last sentence is completely true. I would in fact relocate if I were him. Just to see what else is around, if nothing else. You're smart, but not very thorough.

Anybody else notice that Charlie Kirk's face was too small for his head? — frank

This is a genocidal statement that would result in systemic discrimination, incarceration, enslavement, and eventual killing off of all those with relatively small face-to-head ratios. You are the next Hitler and must be stopped. Nothing short of your immediate arrest will suffice. I would relocate somewhere else if I were you.

Also, what are you trying to do? Get us all cancelled and have Jamal named #1 international fugitive by INTERPOL? Have some tact, mate.

This is probably the sorriest thread I ever started here. — RogueAI

Here's to many more. :grin:

(also, you can request a Mod to move it to the Lounge, if you'd like. I mean, the article literally does mention aliens in the link so, your beguilement does not rest solely on your shoulders alone FWIW...)

I define thinking as a process in which we work on known ideas with the aim of creating a new idea. — MoK

Finally, the (metaphorical) tender and ignorant flesh is exposed. Now it can be graded properly. Ah, except I note one flaw. And I'm no professional by any means. There is no "we" in this abstract concept. A man can be born alone in the world and he will still think. But perhaps this is a simple habit of speech, a human flaw, like we all have to be ignored, so I shall. Just to give you the benefit of the doubt. :smile:

But! Ah, yes, there's a but. Even still. One cannot "know an idea" without the auspices and foreprocesses of thought itself. So, this is defining a concept without explaining its forebearer. Your so called "thinking" is created by the process of involvement with "known ideas". yet how can an idea exist and be known unless thought of? This results to yet another non-answer.

We would have evolution going in reverse, if one were to believe your so called findings and beliefs. This is a problem. You must find a solution.

They don't know what thinking is, so they cannot design an AI that simulates thinking. — MoK

So, what is thinking? You've, from what I've seen, yet to delineate a clear and concise formula (and resulting definition) for such.

Are you saying that thinking is pattern recognition? I don't think so. — MoK

Well, I mean, take the following sentence.

Ahaj scenap conopul seretif seyesen

I thought very hard to make that sentence. But, without it hitting the pattern recognition part of your brain that realizes "wait a minute that's gibberish" versus this sentence you're reading now. I mean, come on. Let's be honest. The onus is now on you to explain your claims properly. Something that at least two or more intelligent people participating in this thread feel you've so far been unable to do.

Love your avatar BTW. Reminds me of my mood most of time sober.