The thread is about gun control, and my comment was about equating gun ownership with civil freedom. You might explain how what you said has a bearing on that. — Wayfarer

Sure, we're extending the debate into larger enveloping (yet fundamentally relevant) concepts that aren't ordinarily part and parcel of such. Does that really warrant a refusal to answer such concepts in the rude manner you've just displayed by suggesting I may somehow be "out of line" for forcing you to answer a root and fundamental question you are seemingly unable to?

In a sentence, a man can use his body or anything his body can wield to do great and amazing things, whether these things are destructive (killing an innocent person) or constructive (building something or perhaps defending an innocent would-be victim preventing said person's death), depends on the underlying morality or education of the individual. This is common sense, and this is not your first rodeo. Why act as such? Don't try to paint me into a corner, please. You might find your equipment is not as loyal to you as you first expected.

So does this mean, because human nature is horrible, then you’re under threat, hence the need to arm yourself? Is that what you’re saying? — Wayfarer

No, it means exactly what I said. Simplified, bearing in mind the context of your assumption, which I'm sure is quite reasonable: Power corrupts. Do you disagree with that? If so please explain why, preferably with examples that can be proven on paper. I have plenty. How many do you have? Not many, I'd imagine.

Wouldn't the average man make an average ruler? — RogueAI

Absolutely. And that's the problem. These things don't "scale" as one inexperienced with such areas of social workings might imagine. The average person generally goes through life without causing himself or those in his immediate care or even occasional guardianship death or injury. Because he basically has the pressures or stress of a stray cat. Existential "existence" basically is taken care of by the government. Sure he has to work, provide, avoid and occasionally fend off danger. But that's on a one on one personal level. There's 7 billion people doing the same. All he has to do is worry about his isolated (detached) social bubble and idea of reality, and he lives and dies a happy life. Simple. Now, to become a leader, responsible for the thousands if not millions of things people never think about, and many frankly could not even fathom ,that creates this artificial product we call peaceful society, all day, everyday? Good luck!

Moreover, my point was, temptation generally defeats morality for morality's sake when no counter-incentive is implied. Human nature is opportunistic. The majority of people here wouldn't be here if this were not so. It's biology. Science. Not my opinion. Just fact that can be proven on paper. And so requires control. Discipline. Lest we end up in a swirling torrent of perpetual degeneracy destroying everything we worked hard for and hold dear, until all that is left is an abyssal wasteland of decay and trepidation. To be incarcerated, without realizing, waking up one day, in a near alien world of immorality and trepidation, a society we try to escape from yet know deep down we never can. That, is all what the average man made ruler can provide, or at least will inevitably result in.

Simply put, if you can kill two birds in one stone, why wouldn't you? Eventually, these birds become entire peoples and stones become armies under one's command. All one needs to do is open a history book to confirm that this is not mere postulation but observation in the most absolute sense of the word.

The root of the whole issue is the equation of weapons with civil liberty. — Wayfarer

Or, the root of the root of the issue is how to deal with the inevitable monstrosity and absolute horror show that is human nature, unrestricted. I've long said, and have proven on paper, actually, the only difference between the average man and the worst dictator or tyrant who ever lived are but two transient and equally inevitable things: Opportunity. And time. All written history attests to this theory as not just theorem but pure fact in the most concrete sense of the word. Time and time again. No matter what is introduced or deprived, the assertion remains constant.

There's a hint of becasue the theory hasn't been shown to be wrong, it must be right somewhere here. I doubt, and hope, that Bob is not content with a demonstration that he might not be wrong. I hope he wants more than just that. — Banno

Sure, that's a whole topic in and of itself. But. Remember.

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." - Thomas Edison

Do you really wish to dismiss such a sentiment as "not useful"? What if we all just gave up the first time, the second, even the 10,000th time. We'd be living in caves at the mercy of the elements. And come now. What have you done that comes even close to comparison to and of such a man. I'd wager not very much. And I could be wrong. But I don't think I am.

If you asked someone what time it is and they poke a stick in the ground and make a rudimentary sundial, that wouldn't seem anachronistic to you? — RogueAI

Of course. I'm not saying the concept doesn't exist simply that most people misuse the word and throw it around to the point it loses meaning and sincerity to those who witness such regularly. Like using the word "literally" as a synonym of "seriously."

What?

You think science assumes it's conclusions and then argues for them? — Banno

All I meant was, just because you're unfamiliar with something and attribute that something to "time now past" doesn't mean you know all there is to know. Nor does it mean those who regularly and primarily rely on things and behave in ways you would consider "anachronistic", just because they happen to be in the minority (AKA "doesn't fit in" in your particular society) doesn't mean they're wrong or any less advanced. Not automatically, at least. Look at today's youth. Stuck gazing on smartphones watching mindless entertainment. Sure, it's a smartphone, it's modern. But it doesn't mean they're any more advanced than someone 100 years ago reading a book. The majority would call people reading books on park benches "anachronistic" in full accuracy and use of the word. Therefore, the word has no purpose other than to use it for usage sake.

And yes, many times a theory (if not most all theories) purport or suggest something that isn't currently considered science. Pretty sure all theories do that, otherwise they wouldn't be theories and there wouldn't be any new information. So yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. You propose (or assume a conclusion) and test it. Most theories fail, that's correct. But those that do not, are what define scientific reality. Do you really not agree with that?

It looks like you have adopted a particular anachronistic account in order to achieve an already chosen outcome. — Banno

So, basically following a time-tested (or perhaps yet to be tested?) plan (or theory, if it has yet to be tested) and sticking to it. Basically, following the scientific method to a tee. What an odd phrasing when the two concepts are one and the same.

This is the one thing I find annoying about the word "anachronistic." If it were from the past, sure, because we know about it. So we can definitely say, "this is not consistent with our modern society." But if were from the future, it's just weird. Therefore, the word does itself an unforgivable injustice. At least as far as its everyday usage in conversation. It basically just means "This seems to belong somewhere else, somewhere I've never been nor ever experienced, nor that I can say I definitively know ever happened or even could happen, but because of information given to me that I myself never verified, allows me to draw a definitive conclusion." What I mean by that is, say you're a peasant farmer in a very poor country whose never seen a smartphone. To you, seeing one for the first time would be considered "anachronistic". But it's not. Essentially, it's 100% equatable with the word "unfamiliar" or "weird", all realistic possibilities considered. It just means "strange", really.

That's what we in the business call "weaksauce" as far as terminology and use of such in arguments.

Why create a natural world at all? Why not create a paradise without suffering or scarcity? — RogueAI

To be fair, it was, but we didn't listen. According to the text in question. Whenever governments try to control birthrates and population they get called "fascist" or "genocidal" when specifically controlling populations who only proliferate a certain area through their own historic genocide. But since "every kid is innocent", nothing ever gets done.

If people lived within their means, having kids only when a society deems necessary, we would be living in paradise. But people need to satiate a useless ego, primal lust and pleasure. So until those people who promote doing so unrestrained are neutralized, strife and suffering is all the average person will ever know.

What you get from weapons with which you can kill humans — MoK

A human being never killed another human being before there were firearms? Remember this is about firearms, not weapons. A rock is a weapon, if used as such. So is a branch. Even a piece of cloth or rope. This is not about weapons nor are we having a "is a knife a culinary tool or a weapon" debate. Anything can be a weapon. Including your body. This is about firearms and the government's role in restricting their open and easy access, if there is one and nothing more.

But yes, as an aside. Everything you have is because of what was taken with weapons. Including your knowledge and as a result your fundamental identity. It all goes back to those before you who did what they did that resulted in the actions and circumstances that allowed you to not just only be born, but born in the favorable circumstances you enjoy now, circumstances that I would not be surprised are taken for granted. You can't just casually without any hypocrisy say "oh this is bad because I don't like it, but I'll continue to live and take from everything it provided." It's just not a sound argument. Sure, you have an opinion and that's great. But it doesn't really follow as far as logic is concerned.

EDIT: Sure, there is the classic saying that was first attributed to swords, that saying being "This is a tool whose only purpose is to take life". Now that could be justified to hunting game or of course self-defense in one's home. Do you not believe that persons, perhaps smaller or handicapped have an equal right to defend themselves in one's home? Gotcha. :wink:

I don't see any rationale behind making weapons with which you can kill humans. — MoK

Because you have everything you need thanks to those who did it for you. Are you going to give up your home, knowledge, and basically everything you have that isn't found in a moist, damp and rotting cave? No, you're not. So you live as a result of weapons that were made to kill. Surely you can understand this?

We like to discard that which we no longer find use or favor toward, provided we keep all it created for us. This is the definition of hypocrisy. In addition, I envy your lack of intimacy and experience with human depravity. More proof of that which weapons have accomplished.

--

EDIT: Generally speaking, as far the OP. Sure, firearms take less effort and thought to take a life (or several, including one's own) than a knife, or rock, or sharpened stick. So the "easiness" factor is a big thing that does result in increased violence that wouldn't be found in a world with only traditional and primitive weapons, that is a highly relevant factor to consider. Someone who is clearly exhibiting homicidal tendencies, even suicidal (wanting to "end it all", which is fairly tied to anger and hatred of the world and people around them, not always but often enough to mention the connection), etc. should probably not be able to casually go into market and pick up a weapon that can kill 50 people in under 30 seconds with the same ease as buying a cart of groceries. That much is fairly agreeable and logical. But since when has logic really ever mattered for very long in the face of existential desire?

You can kill multiple innocent people with a vehicle, with a common knife or even pairing knife, even your own hands if you're large enough. Which again creates a size discrepancy as far as who is equal and who isn't. (See the pro-gun quote: "God made men, Samuel Colt made them equal. It does have a point.)

Moreover the argument that resonates with even people who don't "like" or even own firearms is that due to chaotic nature of human nature and tendency for war as welll as possibility for social instability or even collapse, it's a necessity and major deterrent for those who seek to harm, be it simply an individual seeking violence for violence sake or perhaps resource, or a larger group doing so for political and territorial means (an invading army, for example).

You can't outlaw immorality, or rather, free will. At least, not for very long. If a man wants to kill another man or woman, they will find a way. They always do.

The act of me causing suffering to the killer is a torture/evil as well. — MoK

Okay. Your basic, telling a kid fire is hot instead of momentarily putting their hand on a stove or over said fire, for example. Of course. That's right and proper. Anything else is the hallmark of a beast or savage. Understandable.

So, basically, once someone kills, say your child or mother or father or what have you, any sort of punishment is unjust simply for the fact "what's done is done." Surely you don't mean that. Do you?

Edit: Simply put, all punishment or "justice after the fact" does, not including incarceration of said individual so that they cannot further degrade society, is bring an unneeded and ill-formed sense of "justice" in the mind of the victimized, when in reality all it takes is knowledge and proficiency in understanding the nature of life as it is (perhaps forgiveness?). It doesn't bring the person back. It doesn't undo what was done. It just makes whoever was made unhappy as a result less unhappy. Usually temporarily. Which so does watching a cheap video online or a clown running up and performing a quick skit. Is that aligned to your belief or is it in opposition? If the latter, explain why.

Torture is defined as the action or practice of inflicting severe pain or suffering on someone as a punishment or in order to force them to do or say something. — MoK

So if someone killed your wife or kid or whatever, and you wanted to make them suffer. That's just magically not the definition of torture. Me thinks you're a bit spirited toward the letter of the law and not the spirit. If I may suggest such.

Well, we don't know that for sure. Who could say? Was the first revolutionary invention (incandescent lighting, refrigeration, etc.) spoken in perfect completion and detail at the moment of it's conception? Were you? Were any of us? No, sometimes things develop into something that an observer would never imagine.

So why not let it? Is this not after all, one if not the only key things that sets us apart from the animals beneath us?

You still owe me a chess re-match, by the way. :grin:

import variables — Bob Ross

What variables? You mean truth and the actual reality of the situation at hand? That's a bit of an abrasively dismissive way of describing such, wouldn't you say? But alright then.

Seriously. Imagine yourself just on the crosswalk and having the misfortune of witnessing a child being stabbed. Or something else egregious, whatever suits you. You see the man who discards his knife and then walks nonchalant coming up to the scene just when an officer does, and said man acts in utter shock. You tell the officer "He just stabbed him! He threw the knife over that ledge!". And the officer responds, "oh you're just importing variables into the hypothetical". It is not a hypothetical. It literally happened. At least, allegedly, per the text we're discussing.

I said you were shifting the goal-post because obviously innocence is a key component of murder: no one disputes that and my original comment was a definition of murder. — Bob Ross

Okay, so like I said. Maybe your premise is invalid. Simply, perhaps you're just wrong about one or more things. This is why religion is not generally a "hot topic" in the halls of philosophy. Because faith is belief, and belief is anything you deem fit. It's your right, after all.

Hence, an ex-convict would be an innocent victim if they were shot point blank on a sidewalk because someone didn't like the fact they had been previously convicted of a crime. — Bob Ross

Sure. If it was "just someone". But what if the person who was shot actually got away with a crime they were never charged with, say killing a man's sister, and the person who shot him was said man whom he robbed of a family member.

Getting deep down to the root issue in question, to refine it (or perhaps invalidate the premise itself), while distracting for some, is not "moving goalposts", respectfully.

The act of torturing yourself [...] is evil. — MoK

Webster's dictionary defines "torture" as purposeful infliction of pain or suffering for no other purpose than to do so.

Reason and rationale, or intent in the legal landscape, is as wide as the days are long. Why exercise or eat healthy if we're all just going to die one day? Is that not the definition of torture for someone who holds such a view as paramount?

Me thinks you've fallen prey to the Geuttier argument. In simple terms: stupid things are not evil, they're just stupid. Meaning, while ignorance is the cause of most acts that qualify as such, at least, they ensure they won't be remedied, they're ultimately merely a catalyst to something that would fare quite well without any such factors.

murder is the direct intentional killing of an innocent person — Bob Ross

Again, more assumptions. If, right now, I break into your house, kill everything alive, including you (or so I thought, but you instead manage to escape) and afterward, while I have died, but my kids end up living in the house that rightfully belongs to you, and would kill you (gladly) if you tried to reclaim what is yours, are they innocent? Who is more justified in the death of the other, and why?

The fundamental concept is that people are individuals, souls that may have lived before, perhaps responsible for many terrible things, not "nationalities" that fundamentally possess an inherent right to exist simply for existence sake.

OP, the answers you seek will not please someone such as yourself. You have to remember, we're talking about the idea of a universe where a divine being exists that can literally speak things into existence, and has; not the least of which being the entire world we now live in. Or so it is written. That's not realistic to most people, quite understandably, I might add, and so most people will never find the answers they seek despite them being rather obvious and right in front of them.

I'll start with a few base concepts. Your flesh (in and of itself) is already dead; it's literally decaying as you read this (as is everything else in this world), except for, to religious people, the "divine essence" or "soul" or what have you that keeps it intact. Meaning, when the real you (not your flesh or body, but the deeper conscious being that is eternal) leaves your body, the body immediately and rapidly starts to decay as does every thing without a soul in this world. According to the body of literature in question, it's not impossible to raise the dead. That means, for a divine being, death or "killing someone" as we mortal beings would imagine it, is little more than how a parent would send a child to their room for misbehaving. It's literally that impermanent. Just as easily undone as it was originally done. If not even easier. Basically, the hallmark of this and many if not most religion is "Death is a lie." It's not rational, in a scientific sense, so if you don't accept that, that's the reason you find yourself unsatisfied with the answers being provided. Which again is perfectly understandable.

As far as I was made aware, the Amalekite people were known sorcerers. If you want to believe magic is not real, yet stick with the underlying narrative, call it some sort of alien technology, if that pleases you. In the world described in the Bible, sorcery is real. You can alter your flesh to appear as an older person, a younger person, an animal, even an inanimate object. Easiest thing in the world; provided you know how. But for mortal beings, this requires either a temple or obelisk or some sort of magic-related practice or place. So, prevailing theory in my circle is, obviously during an invasion if you are unable to repel the enemy, you hide. These people, according to the world the Bible describes, "hide" a bit differently than how you or I would I.E. altering their flesh to "become" non-hostile objects, be they children, animals, or even empty barrels and crates. But they can only do that in close proximity to the object or obelisk from which they draw their power from. Hence the order to "Destroy everything living and non-living" I.E. raze the place to the ground. Again, this is not what one would call "rational." But if you're asking questions about a school of thought or world that is inherently "not rational" by modern understanding, this should be expected and par for the course.

Call it all hogwash if you will, but, again, the above scenarios seem to be the only "logical" (heh) answers and explanations that line up perfectly with the world described in the text you reference in the OP.

As for the rest, I have no idea. Other than not that long ago there was one option to survive: war. And as to war there were only two options further when it was all said and done: to kill an entire population so that they would never rise up and rebel against you for what you did to them, or enslave them, for the same reasons. As to which is more or less cruel, that's not something I have much to say about.

Of course, even if everything is true, including my justifications, it still leaves one nagging question unanswered: Why? Why all of this? Well, that's just something I believe we'll find out one day. Or, maybe we won't! Could you even imagine a more interesting existence? I think not,

There might have been knowledge of child sacrifice that took place in Carthage centuries earlier, but it would have been contemplated with dread, not devotion. — frank

It's something you won't understand unless you're raised into it. You'd just go crazy and think the world is a simulation if you knew the truth.

Think of it as being on a desert island before a boat was invented. There's a whole new realm to be discovered, at least, according to those who believe in said branch of religion(s).

Really. Just imagine it. You're on this island, it's all you ever know. And some guy starts talking about how there's "a whole world out there basically like Heaven with flowing waterfalls, delicious meat, food, and such beauty it would make your heart skip a beat." You'd call the dude crazy. Laugh at him, maybe give him a little smack "back to reality" as you'd say, and continue on with your delusion that the world you know is all there is to know and all it ever shall be. That's what's going on here. At least, religious-minded people will equate your sentiment as parallel to the aforementioned scenario. Since you asked. You did ask, after all. At least hear out what those whom you're asking have to say.

It's pretty simple. But I shan't spoil it for you and others like you.

Basically, back then, there were much, much, much less words in existence that could only be communicated with context in speaking. Written languages are relatively new. Your so called "earliest recorded history" despite proof of intelligent human activity long before.

In the original language before what is commonly attributed to original language in the Bible, the words "large", "tall", and "intelligent" are the same word. So the "giants", or "sons of God" were basically your modern day intellects. Who had to be "flooded" or "overwhelmed with force" otherwise they would have killed off all humanity leaving only themselves. Remember, they weren't murderous, they just saw how we create our own hardship and wanted to relieve unneeded suffering in the world. But I digress. I've said far too much already. Ask and ye shall receive, of course.

We do our best to translate and listen to those greater than ourselves. But we inevitably always fail.

Voting should be restricted to legally competent adults. — LuckyR

Biological (or external and outward) maturity =/= intellectual or mental (inward or internal) maturity. Numerous studies attest to this fact. The state or quality of, basically just "not being dangerously insane" which is essentially all "legal competence" is these days, seems hardly a profound or reliable measure of judgement, to be quite honest.

education is not what creates better people and better voters — Hanover

Not perfectly, predictably, or uniformly, no. Not every time, not on every occasion. But surely lack of education is what creates worse people or at the very least perpetuates everything that plagues mankind ensuring it will remain with us for all time only worsening the state of society in perpetuity. So. at the very least, I'd suggest it (education) certainly doesn't hurt. Perhaps you're referencing strictly technical data (how to build a super weapon, for example) as opposed to emotional intelligence and social understanding (why and when not to use said weapon in the first place).

If you are consistently law abiding, Outlander, why would you fear punishment for wrongdoing? — BC

Oh come now. No innocent man has ever been framed. No bad thing has ever happened to a good person? What fanatical idealism is this? And yes, you know quite well I'm religious but even in my eyes such a sentiment is a stretch far beyond any sort of rationale.

People who have not put themselves at risk of punishment have no need to fear punishment. — BC

I find this to be a bit of a misconception. Surely you can understand why.

My ability to understand is not perfect. Everything that exists is imperfect. — Truth Seeker

See, here's the kicker. To be able to definitively say, without lying "everything is [X, Y, Z]" requires a perfect understanding. At least, one that is considerably refined. How can you know what is perfect and imperfect, without being perfect? You can't. You're guessing. Which is fine. But doesn't really churn an argument or debate forward in any positive or notable way. Do you see the point I'm trying to make? Imperfect as it is. :wink:

If religions have a divine origin, then they should be perfect. Sadly, they are of human origin, hence their imperfections. — Truth Seeker

Kind of ironic though. Implying your ability to understand is perfect in this one context only for no reason at all. :lol:

More so, as to the original point, what about how the "hyper strong" use their size as a tool to enslave anyone weaker or smaller or less powerful either as an individual or ethnic group?

Major flaw and in my view, purposely overlooked hole, in the spirit of the OP. But hey, you're imperfect, as you admit. All par for the course, assuredly. :grin:

things society and general are considered "bad" or "evil" — QuirkyZen

A "bad" or "evil" society considers things that are virtuous and just as the opposite. Similar to how kindness is equated with weakness or honesty is equated with treachery (ie. snitching). Oddly parallels many modern societies, interestingly enough. So, by that strictly verbose interpretation at least, muddies the larger issue quite well in my opinion.

most would likely take it(correct me if i am wrong) — QuirkyZen

How, with a beating? :grin:

It's not so much you're wrong, it's more you've made a claim, a very large and broad one at that, without even attempting to prove it in any way. We call that "bad form" or "in poor taste" where I come from.

Different people might choose different "evils" some might commit serious crimes like rape, while others would say no to that but still engage in something like a major theft to become a billionaire. Does that make them a bad person? — QuirkyZen

Well, hypothetically speaking of course, it depends who you rape or who you rob. Maybe you decide to rape a serial rapist. That'd be kind of funny, come to think of it. Or maybe you rob someone who only has his wealth due to him or someone before him committing acts or robbery and murder. It's all relative, friend.

Bad and good are so subjective these days. Let's invoke something more absolute and universal. A hypocrite (which is in fact considered bad), someone who does something to another yet would get upset if it were done to them. That's a good starting point to determine if something is "bad" or "good" and to what degree.

doesn’t that mean we’re all bad people deep down? — QuirkyZen

Generally speaking, intelligent beings are creatures of opportunity. You wouldn't be alive today, likely, if you believe solely on evolutionary theory, if someone before you didn't embrace, at least partially, the characteristics required to continue one's genetics in a physical world of hardship and chaos. As to what that actually means, when it comes to morality and beyond, varies from person to person.

I suppose to vindicate the human condition, one might wish to subscribe to something along the lines of "all men are capable of great good and great evil, as to which we choose and even our ability to have a choice and knowledge of the two, depends greatly on the society and set of circumstances one is born in."

The universe contains many laws which govern how the universe operates e.g. laws of physics. The question that is puzzling me right now is why are there laws in the first place and why is the universe not lawless instead ? — kindred

As a strict matter of fact, most if not all laws that govern the world we live in dissipate during at least one known and observable phenomenon, a black hole, as example. People like to say "oh no it's actually just the same law but because X Y Z is different, it's just more dramatic or pronounced" even though it's clearly not. People are silly like that.

So. One might wish to not be so "gung ho" with your initial assertion and argument. Things work here the way they do because that's just how they do here. Elsewhere? As to what lies beyond? That's a bit outside of philosophy, wouldn't you say? :smile:

Don't even get me started on the Singularity. It's far too early in the evening.

The fear of atomic warfare has never prevented small wars in the years since then. — Ludwig V

One might argue that firearm laws don't prevent firearm deaths entirely. Of course not. No more than requiring a license exam to ensure a person can safely operate a motor vehicle hasn't prevented unsafe operations of motor vehicles from licensees. No more than the fact that people wearing life jackets have in fact drowned. But how can one really say they have no purpose as far as that function goes. Just a shot in the dark, no?

It's too sycophantic is my problem with it. — Count Timothy von Icarus

You can actually make your own AI, that is to say, configure it entirely based on a few prompts or an entire library, with enough resource and where-with-all.

There's a "fringe site" I visit on occasion (just for the news and on occasion to marvel at the depths of human depravity, or at least keep track of relevant trends associated with such) that did so and basically made it a "conspiracy AI" that pretty much suggests the opposite of what your standard AI will always. For what it's worth. Pretty sure that requires a fairly robust setup including your own web server and some sort of pricey license alongside considerably advanced technical knowledge. Or perhaps not. Not sure.

Perhaps something the alleged, self-professed "web developer" @Jamal might wish to consider just as proof-of-concept one day? Imagine. "Feeding" it (AI) the entire written works of one philosopher (or several! perhaps conflicting one's!) and making it a free AI bot for us all to play around with. Now, that'd be going above and beyond, as a site owner. Bah. There has to be something like that already.

(difference between regular AI is that when you "train" it based on only specific texts all it can do is rely on those texts whereas the standard AI relies on all available knowledge)

I'm not really sure what your point is — Skalidris

Let's imagine a dark room. Then you turn a light on and it's no longer dark. You don't just sit there reminiscing about how it used to be when the light wasn't on and that there's a "decline in lightness" now that it's bright just because it's not getting any brighter — it's literally just no longer dark and there's literally nothing more to see. Everything once obscured is simply not obscured any longer and perfectly visible. Well, that's one take, at least.

do you think we're not going to have any philosophical breakthroughs... — Skalidris

Quite honestly, no. Sure, some people will see things that were right in front of their face the whole time that they had the tools and resources to see anyhow because things are worded differently or otherwise now bypass certain mental blocks, quips, and complexes for whatever reason. No doubt. But that's a personal alleviation or blockage being remedied not anything that has anything to do with a larger school of thought.

...that will give rise to new useful disciplines for example — Skalidris

I mean, sure. It's possible. But superficially. If someone doesn't have legs, before someone thought of the idea of jamming a wooden pole into where the leg used to go, that person couldn't walk. But it didn't mean the idea of human locomotion was refined. I mean, sure it was a world of difference to those it benefited, but that was due to their own unique circumstance and again nothing to do with the larger concept as a whole.

Do you think anything new we'll find will be useless or of insignificant use? — Skalidris

Again, sure. If we in fact actually do find something new. I'm arguing that it's unlikely, and since you've yourself been unable to prove such, seems like a fairly defensible point and position to hold. Philosophy is not akin to innovation, at least not quite. Incandescent lighting for example, or the combustion engine, both great inventions. Changed the world, circumstantially. But didn't introduce a new concept. Not technically. We had light in darkness via candles, we had transportation via horses and carriage. Now, this might be construed as "moving the goalposts" per se, but, yes I believe all thought has been discussed and formed long ago. Even if all record of it has been destroyed. When you learn division in grade school, that's like a new idea, to you, and perhaps everybody else you know. But it's not. Not really.

Do you seriously think everything has already been discussed in agonizing details? — Skalidris

Philosophical concepts as far as what exists and can exist in the mind, more or less. Sure, maybe one day we'll invent an unlimited perpetual motion machine and solve all world hunger with a shrink ray set on "grow". :wink:

The science and technical facts, schematics, and what have you, like math, may have never been seen before by human eyes. The invention is new. The specific facilitation of logic to create a particular arrangement of matter in the physical world that results in an effect or serves as a utility in a capacity never done before might be new. But the concept... was already discussed and thought of, long, long ago....

And yet the irony of it all is, these people have yet to come up with anything that they claim to be so important! Complaining is the cheapest thing in the world. Second only to observation. Human beings literally do it in the womb before they even take their first breath. Well, crying, at least.

So. I mean, there's much to be discussed and explored, not to immediately dismiss your point brought forward, but. Still.

It's almost like, yeah, humanity has literally, finally, vomited out all there is to be thunk up. Lol. Sure, you make a new movie with physically unique characters and put them through all the same spiel, the love, loss, danger, add some explosions, a rocket ship, shoot why not a talking monkey, and it's a hit people will be talking about until their senior years. That's all that can be expected, and some would argue, all there is. :yikes:

It’s a bit like saying evolutionary adaptations are the result of billions of years of trial and errors therefore living beings don’t need to evolve anymore.

Everything changes around us, we’re surrounded with so much more technology, so it makes sense that we also would need new views on life and new disciplines, which philosophy could help with. It’s a time where philosophy could be grandiose, yet they’re stuck in the past and seem to be scared of changes. — Skalidris

Well, like I said, invent a new concept that hasn't been so already. Propose one, at least. Most all concepts are bilateral in nature or otherwise share the principle of "duality." Example. There's restraint and excess. Care and disregard. Avoidance and acceptance. I could go on.

The onus is on you. What new concept is there to invent or discuss and why haven't you done so already? Odds are, it's simply a rehash using non-essential modern factors that really in the end perfectly correlate to things that were discussed hundreds if not thousands of years ago you simply were unaware of. There's always been invention, there's always been suffering, there's always been strife, there's always been existential fear of not just personal destruction but widespread societal extinction, and so on. Just because you can plug in something unique to the modern era into the logical process, that isn't specifically written verbose in any existing book, doesn't mean it's new nor hasn't already been discussed in agonizing detail long ago.

I'm referring to the degree of "newness" and the tendency of academic philosophy to focus on existing theories rather than generating new ones. — Skalidris

I would imagine some would say something along the lines of "it's all been perfected long ago" and thus anything else is simply a deviation and less efficient form of creativity that doesn't really serve any utilitarian function other than the fact it's different ie. art.

I mean, can you — right now — really come up with something truly "new" that would be taken seriously? Rather, that would lead to new debate and discussion that isn't merely intellectual pomp, fluff, kitsch that merely occupies the mind and traverses the mental logical process yet results in little else? Please do, if so.

There's a reason the classics are classic and that tried and true methods are referred to as such. Mental endeavors generally don't result in any danger or negative outcome but a waste of one's time. Not unlike physical endeavors where one deviates from the norm and can end up injured or killed. Though, the principle is not entirely dissimilar, I feel.

However, groundbreaking philosophers had such creative ideas that transformed the way we see the world, and even gave rise to new disciplines we now see as essential. — Skalidris

We'll never really know what those before us thought of and discussed before the written record. War and the nature of this finite world itself tends to destroy even that record as well.

Common theme I hear: "There are no new ideas, only new persons who re-discover and share them to other new persons." Something like that, anyhow.

Like, there's only a few non-subjective (perhaps not the best word used) concepts, really. Existence, time, etc. Sure there's a million and one concepts relevant and not-relevant to the human experience and emotion (love, lust, desire, fear, belonging, rejection, spite, anger, distrust, etc. ad infinitum) but they're all derived from a singular source that is relevant only to places where men exist and have the capacity to think. Surely, we didn't create such concepts? Or do we? They predate us. Or do they? Now there's a debate. :grin:

Logic comes from predictability. What works consistently over what doesn't that generally offers tangible benefit, usually life saving circumstance. Don't touch fire, or you'll get burned. Don't go into the wilderness by yourself, or you'll get eaten (never return). Etc. Logic, actually, came, or perhaps rather was passed down from, folk stories. Whether true or not, they ended up being the basis of many truths we hold today. Truths that if ignored often result in tragedy.

Fables are a prime example. The average person, whether they realize it or not, base their actions on "fables" or "hypothetics" ie. "constructed scenarios" they make in their head and in a way, live out, in the context of the thought process. So, for example, let's say I haven't changed my tires in a few years. I will imagine, an unfortunate tale of what could happen (yet hasn't) to me if I continue not to do so. This will often result in actual action of the individual into something that, hopefully, prevents such. It's all really fascinating. Truly.

The plight of the thinking man.

"I've lived through some terrible things in my life, some of which actually happened"
- Mark Twain

Animals that don't fit in are ostracized. Ostracization in the animal kingdom has a 90%+ rate of death. Are you religious and believe humans are set apart from animals? If not, you believe in science. And that is the science. So, you happen to be incorrect in any and all practical sense, if so. — Outlander

The only response to that is LOL. — Malcolm Parry

That's great. You made an inaccurate statement, that statement basically being: "social expectation is not required (forced upon [anyone])". Scientific facts and reference along with common sense posted has addressed and proven said falsehood. You need to remember, this is a serious discussion forum. Please maintain decorum.

So what? — Malcolm Parry

So it's not a logical point that has any relevance in this or any discussion.

Do descriptions have to be above all beneficial to the advancement of an intelligent species? — Malcolm Parry

No, those that don't, fade away in place of those that do. What we call in the business a "red herring." The idea that something is popular (ride sharing or perhaps slavery) doesn't make it right, conducive, or part of the greater future going forward. You should know this.

There are aggregated societal differences between the sexes. — Malcolm Parry

Naturally. "Societal" differences just reminds me of fluid dynamics applied to psychology ie. "water chooses the path of least resistance" or in more lax terms "what the majority of people happen to think." Sure, the apple (an intelligent social being's observation and opinion of biological fact) doesn't fall far from the tree (biological fact itself). It's a great indicator, but it's no bullseye. No, not in every case and scenario.

Gender describes those differences. — Malcolm Parry

It is the social zeitgeist of what is desired and nothing more. Sure, often based on what's best for a given society in a given time and at a given place. But nothing more.

What is your point? — Malcolm Parry

What has been my point since the beginning, logic and refinement of views and opinions for the betterment of society. What is yours, if I may ask?

I don't see gender as something foisted on you. — Malcolm Parry

Animals that don't fit in are ostracized. Ostracization in the animal kingdom has a 90%+ rate of death. Are you religious and believe humans are set apart from animals? If not, you believe in science. And that is the science. So, you happen to be incorrect in any and all practical sense, if so.

It's just a description of cultural and social differences between the sexes. — Malcolm Parry

Not all descriptions are valid or above all beneficial to the advancement of an intelligent species. Maybe you're bigger than me and I'm smaller than you. That would, in a contemporary caveman sense, make me inferior. But. In reality, if I'm smarter than you, despite you and even the world around you being wholly unaware of not only the fact itself but what the fact effectively means for the improvement of said society, that description should be considered invalid and only held by fools. So, it's complicated. There's no black and white when it comes to this level of social cohesion with so many moving parts, known and unknown, understood (allegedly) and not.

You lie to the Gestapo, right? — RogueAI

Ideally, one should not bow to the wicked (immoral, excuse me). Of course, in practice, just as you mention in the example, people have children and they care about them and their well-being (allegedly, it's a psychological attachment, children die every day and no tears are shed but for one's own, so) and so in the end ultimately act on what's best for their own well-being and that of their family, whether it's right or not (ie. obeying authority who can take everything from you, regardless).

Say you're starving, your kids are starving, you see a loaf of bread that clearly doesn't belong to you. Do you take it, or do you die on a moral hill with your children clinging to you in tears in their last moments? It may not be an easy choice for many, but it damn sure is a consistent one. People look out for #1. Always. Never fails.

You have a point if we're talking about single males, but this doesn't apply to families with children. The children are moral innocents and should not have their lives turned upside down. — RogueAI

I've heard reports that the smugglers do in fact lie to people and say "oh everything's fine, you can do this, they won't do anything" when they in fact know it to be a lie. So yes, innocent people were misled by terrible people. And unfortunately these terrible people are outside of the legal jurisdiction of the U.S. government and so cannot be captured or killed. For now.

In short, I don't think an earnest father or mother would willingly put their kids in danger and turmoil, despite the fact they have. It wasn't their fault. That we can agree on.

But one thing, an unpopular fact, must be noted. Reproducing is literally the easiest, cheapest thing any living being can do. It's second nature. An immoral man who has convinced (or perhaps forced) a woman into spawning offspring does not make him any different than what he was before, an immoral man who is undesired by moral society. So what. Should we take their children and give them a better life? Will you invest your time and money to raise them? You can, you know. Some of us are busy with our own lives. Life is cruel. Life is indeed cruel. But like I mentioned before, people like to grandstand, but at the end of the day, when the cameras aren't rolling, you can bet the bank #1 is looked out for above any other living being or soul.

If an immigrant's only crime is coming here illegally — RogueAI

The argument is some people's definition of an "oppressive regime" is one that punishes criminals for their criminality.

There is no world government computer to look up someone's name (which can be changed) or their DNA to determine the exact nature of their crimes, if any.

It's taking a gamble with human nature. And unless you're a stranger to it, you'd know that is one of the most foolish things one can ever do. Near suicide.