So basically, things outside of our control exist and are "a thing". That's correct. I had no control over who my biological father impregnated and where and what circumstances I was raised in prior to receiving an education that allowed me to think properly for myself. Meaning, if I happened to have been raised in a household without a consistent presence of food in fridge, I very well may likely turn out to be a thief. If the opposite is true, and I happened to have been raised in a household with more sports cars in the front yard then there are fingers on my hand, I would likely have turned out to be a person of admirable morality. None of that matters when we are given opportunity to choose morality or immorality. Or at least, environment to foster and develop a distinction between the two.

If there is such a thing as a "world" you call "fake" you seem to have the need to bolster defenses against, perhaps it begs a question as to your own understanding.

Is "reality" fair and just? Is a tool created for one purpose unable to be used for the opposite?

Sure, there's a natural dynamic. It seems for one thing to live, another thing must die. This is the problem in thinking, sentient beings. It doesn't seem "right" or "moral". Even if one's "morality" is efficiency in disguise.

Nevertheless, we must abstract the fact we have the ability to recognize when a thing is wrong, immoral, etc., and from there choose what we wish to "do about it", per se. So, the possibility of such is there, as is the chance of the opposite. What happens next is up to you, I suppose it could be said. :smile:

It's probably a reasonable variable that there is a distinct difference in persons who voluntarily complete surveys, versus those who do not.

That is to say, there are countess variables to consider that could reasonably throw any sort of absolute or intrinsically-correct/accurate data out as far as (f)actuality. Note I specifically avoid "usefulness" as that is subjective to those who seek a purpose beyond actual legitimate aggregation of data.

But we know what living organisms have that these things lack. An active semiotic modelling relation with world based on an encoding mechanism like, principally, a hierarchy of genes, neurons, words and numbers in the case of us socially-constructed humans. — apokrisis

These particular things do in fact make up the end result of "consciousness" but do not define themselves as the bare minimums to achieve such. Granted, based on that which is currently evidenced or "observable" with our consciousness would suggest ours is unique. But this, though reasonable and socially-acceptable, is not any argument-ending contention when it comes to philosophical inquiry.

I feel like there's a best way to frame the underlying rationale and question, which is, are some actions advantageous compared to others?

People commit forms of suicide, each and every day. Moral, economic, social, etc. Some knowingly but most unknowingly, at the time, of course. Many of which who become reborn in "death" of false ideals and understanding to become new and greater versions of themself. Not always, of course.

I find it interesting you make a claim, whether inadvertently or not, that legality and morality are intrinsically not of rationale. That is to say, the purest form of rationale. This is a form of such in and of itself really. So you have to answer, what is the purest form of rationale? Definitively, this is logic. Which of course can be reduced mathematically, often, however, based on one's values and virtues, or understandings and beliefs. So what are yours? The typical ones being, suffering is bad, pleasure is good. Possibility is usually possible, but not always, so the factors that contribute to the determinations of such are relevant in determining said understanding.

Based on the current social zeitgeist, I frame your inquiry to be of such: should a person who just so happens to feel depressed, if not for a prolonged state perform an action that ends one's life? Absolutely not. Though this may be of logical benefit to naturally not only themself but that of a majority, say, a prisoner on death row. Which I find laughable since, in a base and fundamental way, any life born in this world is, per se, in a rationally comparable way. But back to that, yes, prisoners on death row are in fact forbidden from possessing certain objects that can feasibly contribute to one's own death, so, there is certainly at least a perceived rationale. Prevalent enough to reasonably have codified measures in preventing such.

It's a dark topic, but invokes the realities of the world in which we live in so remains of value. I would say, and this is just a personal philosophy of course, if someone led one to be in such a state who themselves would kill to prevent, a hypocrite deserves neither to be an executioner nor that worthy of life. So if there is even a chance your own life could disrupt, end, or destroy that which unwarrantedly and "immorally" created such a state of one to be in, which means would live with reasonable ability to further create such a state in other innocent minds, you have a duty to survive and neglect choosing such a selfish option. In my opinion. So, sometimes rationale is only circumstantial, to the point it masks possibility of change or better outcome, and logic itself. In the end, your personal, that is to say, specific avenue of inquiry is quite limited to a biological binary. Life or death. One's heart functioning and ceasing to function. But there is a wider topic I believe the sheer macabre nature of your OP might discourage others from pursing. :wink:

I think in many ways a philosopher is somewhat of a mystic, wouldn't you say? Open to the fact one's reality could be completely incorrect, in ways previously thought improbable or even impossible and such advancement towards greater understanding of oneself and the world around oneself may or may not be ascertained by inquiry. Reminds me of "the unexamined life". You are an entirely different person with entirely different truths then you were a few years ago and will be again an entirely different person with entirely different truths in a few years. This is just much more dramatic and pronounced in youth and adolescence. Once you get older the differences become less pronounced, to the point they can seemingly be dismissed as trivial, even. But the starkness remains, given will to observe. :smile:

I just saw this as a bait thread. That is to say, could be exploited as such. "Think of things that piss you off, go on, it's allowed, in fact, it's the rule. Then to be judged in such a mindset is impervious to rationale", is all. See my reply to fdrake. Go on, I permit you to.

The problem is that "heart" is not really defined by you. — Hanover

I too noticed this. Rationally, I tried to think why one says "in your heart" or, far that matter "in your mind", as some sort of required preface to ask a question. As if the asker or said question was simply unable to express their points without surpassing some sort of ingrained barrier.

Do you not see what I mean? I suppose, "in your heart" would reference, "your core", that is to say, an ideal world where all is well. I certainly enjoy speaking from the heart. But without acting from one's mind, such a reality will never be achieved. Or rather, last for very long..

Ah, greed. Where to begin. There's the old saying: "if you don't do it, somebody else will anyway." In relation to modern economic systems, it's probably worth bearing in mind the fact most all things in life are a gamble, some in more ways than others. Since that much is fairly self-evident, we'll come back to that later.

So, what is greed, really? Scholars, theistic and otherwise, seem to purport "the desire (or perhaps tendency or habitual nature) to obtain more than what one needs." Often with the implied nature of crass/brashness and lack of empathy toward one's fellow man being present, to the point one might have even learned to enjoy doing so simply for the feeling or emotion associated with the act and not what is gained by the act as a result.

I think that's a fairly solid and universally-agreeable (reasonable) starting point. There's a few questions that can be immediately ascertained from such a claim. Who defines what one "needs", after all? Surely the self, societal norms, and what not? When I go grocery shopping I buy more food than I will eat in one setting, more than I will eat in one day, more than I need in one week, sometimes longer. In fact, considering the desire and belief I hold to live and enjoy a long life, I need basically everything in the entire store! At least, it wouldn't go to waste, if expiration were not a factor.

In short, I think it's an established vice for a reason that men become blinded in gain and success so much to the point it becomes detrimental to what's best for a society if not unchecked. So this is where a moral deviation could occur. Best illustrated by the answer to the following question: why do people do things? Because they have to. The farmer who tends to his crops or the mother who tends to her young doesn't do so because it's some "idealistic dream" one has always held or desired to participate in, not typically, at least. But rather because, one must for existential reasons crucial to one's survival. So it seems, to me at least, greed can be used interchangeably with desire. And desire can not only be ill-formed but also categorized as beneficial or detrimental, both to one's self and of course to a larger society.

As far as it's relation to business goes, that's why we have regulation and a free market. Prevents, say, a mechanic from doing a poor job (not fixing the problem, using subpar materials) and getting away with doing so long-term. Or from charging ridiculous amounts for something that in this modern day and age is so crucial to the bare existential survival of most. Basically there's an argument or avenue of discussion in relation to corporate business where "maximizing efficiency" and "greed" can be inappropriately equated to one another or erroneously used in reference. Say I believe the government over-regulates and has become a detriment to efficiency and innovation, I won't make a single dime more than adhering and living to this truth or not, I do it because I think it's best for society or at least the company, so I do it. "Greed", per se, simply wasn't present or a factor in such a scenario.

I'm not quite sure if any of this was or will lead to the direction you desired this discussion to result in? Perhaps your preference is your own greed.. not automatically of negative benefit, let alone intent. Just my take on the matter.

If that makes you murderously upset, please go elsewhere. — Baden

I don't see what warrants such a claim or comparison at all, frankly. I simply take a man for his words. "Intolerable" means "fundamentally interrupts one's existence to the point of action". That was his claim, not mine, friend. I simply remind the commenter, perhaps his frame of mind is not without benefit of expansion. Perhaps we have different definitions of the word "intolerable" is all. His is simply dramaticized and I remind him, rubber will inevitably meet the road.

I can assure you, law and order is no stranger to me. In fact, it's something of a religion of mine. Heh.

Wish I could say the same. — hypericin

You don't have to wish anything. Act against your fellow man's right to expression, and, oh, let's wish you good fortune, your current existence will end, quickfully, friend.

So, that's the end of that plain and simple.

Yes. So, as you just pointed out, life has a limited set of choices. We tend to look at life as the degrees of freedom of choice, rather than the degrees of limitations. — schopenhauer1

So, at the end of the day, it requires respect of life to allow one to be in a position to create, let's say a bomb, to end all intelligent life, on Earth? Since life will exist otherwise. And the AN argument is, this is pure suffering.

Where do we go from here? What about possibility of life on other planets? Should life be respected long enough to ensure our entire universe is destroyed or rather "made incapable" of supporting life in perpetuity? We're not at that state, currently. So surely, the irony or at least unacknowledged (at least at present) reality which requires such a truth to become actualized is ignored?

That is to say, life (the true AN equates with suffering?) will still exist until more life is created that allows greater potential to prevent itself? Do you understand this is what you're saying?

The music is not there to somehow induce tipping (show me this "scientific evidence"). It's there because management decided the shopping public wants to hang out in a place playing music they presumably like. — hypericin

Gladly. It's so beneath my effort I require a few sips to simply fit the role, naturally.

Oh "they decided" you mean, they noticed the fact of the reality that, I see fact and fiction becomes blurred with you. No matter. You're tolerable. Under the right setting.

Yes, for me ambient music, particularly pop, disrupts my intuitive feeling for a place, replacing it with a candied consumerised cadence that I find repulsive and emotionally disruptive. — Baden

Well, keep in mind, while you're the most valuable, you're also the most infrequently or leastly present. The employees reside there as well. You know, the people who make everything happen? It's about their consideration and preference as well. Many of whom benefit more than nominally, on tips, tips that scientifically evidenced to be brought about by the "candied consumersed cadence" you so haughtily talk down upon as if it were you stocking their fridge and fulfilling their dreams, which you in fact, are not! So riddle yourself that for a spell.

That's interesting. I'm not a fan of excessive nearly offensive decibel level myself. It's almost as if someone is trying to hide something that would otherwise be obvious.

Perhaps that's just my introvert-ish desire to maintain situational awareness wherever I may go. The more I can determine about a situation, the more I can plan, and the more secure and comfortable I am. Noise disrupts this, I notice.

Just kidding. Just thought that'd be funny to someone. Somewhere. :meh:

But yes getting notifications of replies to posts I made hours ago when I was actually in the mood to debate, in betwixt states of sobriety when I'm not really in the mood to engage or formulate new thoughts. A personal problem, assuredly.

Other than that, probably Hanover's goats. He's got to be up to something off with them. No one is that consistently witty and knowledgeable of their own accord.

Philosophers.

The whole idea of human flourishing is meaningless is it doesn't fulfill things people want or like. — Apustimelogist

I'd gladly challenge that. People want more than they need. Whether or not at the expense of others. And people like things that are detestable. So if this is meant to be a prevailing or base statement of a larger argument, I'd wisely reconsider.

misguided points for misguided notions. — schopenhauer1

I truly think there are two widely and generally-held ideological "camps" as far as AN.

Perhaps it's an over-simplification or some misaligned understanding (which surely you could correct emphatically and with a smile), those two camps being:

Circumstantial:
Things (be it poverty, the state of the world, wars, overpopulation, prejudices, natural greed* [though that one gets interesting because it hints at an absolute, "unfixable" dynamic that will forever be present which belongs to the second camp]) as they are (and are foreseeable to be in either perpetuity or any reasonable foreseeable future) formulate a moral non-favorability towards procreation,

Intrinsic:
Due to Original Position, even if Earth was transformed into a Utopia, a hypothetical almost "alien world" where suffering is so rare and unheard of it now requires true and intense effort to create (versus the current dynamic where suffering seems to be the default and likely outcome without large [and for some non-accomplishable] levels of planning, effort, and perhaps luck), procreation is still responsible because a person did not choose to be born, and inevitably will face some restriction as a result, such restriction amounting to enslavement (ie. follow the moral laws, be a good neighbor, feed oneself, manage stress in a socially-acceptable way lest one be punished by physical incarceration, etc, etc. that one never "asked" or was even involved in being placed in). Something like that?

--

I take it to mean, in short, one is simply not true AN. True AN is, in a sentence, based on the truth one can never truly guarantee a net positive in performing an action (whether it's procreation, or even something more general such as ordering a dish at an unfamiliar restaurant or a new special at a familiar one, it should not be taken. That is to say, the reasons for avoidance are self-evident. Is this correct? Simply because we, rightfully so, consider creating new life more substantial and important than ordering food, doesn't change the underlying principle or truths of the comparative example, I think can be argued.

Goodness doesn't exist but is rather a mirage enforced by the dominant party in society and is really just a form of power politics. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This I think will be a major point of contention and source of engagement, both positive and negative, throughout the course of this discussion. That is to say, this sentence alone could fill a library.

This seems to revert to, or perhaps I neglect to observe that which distinguishes it from: the classic eternal debate of right and wrong, goodness and evil, etc. A common footing or shared truth is: we, at least in most respects, are physical beings. Requiring certain absolute qualities to exist. Air, food, shelter from the elements and that which create existential threats to our bodies. Therefore, things are "good" when the contribute to the existence of life, and things are "bad" when they knowingly become of detriment to said existence. This doesn't define or answer much of course, the most obvious reasoning being "all that glitters is not gold", pragmatically meaning, sometimes the apparent best option is far from. Whether by mere happenstance or the doing and will of another.

So, perhaps your argument is likely to be mirrored or seen as the also classic argument of the old tale: The Tortoise and the Hare. That is to say, both argumentatively conflicting parties both agree on the same truth yet remain in complete polarity and disagreement as to the best means to, and this is the important part, not only reach but maintain such an environment of benefit or "goodness" or pragmatism (which I substitute as a near indenticality of "efficiency").

So we basically have the popular dynamic of debate where no one is "wrong", per se, that is to say we sleep soundly in shared truths, but the methodologies in reaching and prolonging said truths differ to the point of argument. If that makes sense.

Meaning, the reason you feel the need to encapsulate goodness with quotation marks and not pragmatism is the point of disagreement or contention. Others would argue against your assertion one is lessly or rather more poorly defined than the other, I believe.

True. Fair would be that once you have fallen there is no redemption. Without guilt, there can be no virtue. — unenlightened

This remains glaringly and disgusting ignorant. Not toward you, not at all, I promise. But at the neglected possibility (which those ensnared no longer consider reality). Which in my opinion constraints and attempts to defile you. Of course, perhaps I'm wrong altogether and am just being silly. So let's return to simple base logic, 1 and 1, yes and no.

I assume, properly I assure you, your definition of "fallen" is "to have failed". This I'm sure, in a true balanced and fair inquisition of words, creates possibility of an immoral environment. Say, one falls because of carelessness. This is not a quality to be reviled. Automatically. Perhaps someone convinced, due to one's natural trust and other nature, a certain element of interaction was in fact "just fine" (be this a particular plank on a bridge or an entire layer of interaction with reality).

So, bear in mind we have not even reached your second or third, and perhaps even forth claim, (the second claim being redemption and third being guilt and virtue which you have neatly presented as bundled together, as, intrinsically locked or relatable).

Let's unpack that, shall we. Redemption or "restoration to a prior state.". Surely we agree on this definition. So, from who's assertion? Yours or others? This a key question here, for it wholly determines where truth lays, from the observer or the observed. Completely shifts the dynamic as to what one truly speaks and, one would assume, expects a reply to.

So, here we are. Barely getting to your second claim. What was that actually? Yes, guilt. Which you invoked (not to say created, as such is a common mindset, likely justified based on common occurrence, yet still removed from absoluteness for reasons evidenced by your need to frame or base your reply on such).

Guilt. A feeling of conviction. That one is guilty of either one or two things: action or inaction. Can we agree on that? Yes, surely we can. For this is already predefined. So now we move on to another concept: Justifiably. A simple ideological usher to the possibility one's "guilt" (an incestual blood cousin of shame, I might add) is in fact wholly unjustified. Falsely, bearing in mind there is simply truth and non-truth. Perhaps one feels "guilty" they committed an action or inaction that led to death of an innocent loved one. Of course, my argument is, perhaps one's perception is simply that: a perception. Maybe someone, an outside actor, created the event of circumstance that led to such an action or inaction. Do you get what I mean? So, say, one failed to listen to one's now-deceased father in saying "this person is no good, he is absent of morals, and if you do not treat him as such, a thing a non-equal forever beneath thee, tragedy and hardship will occur, to the degree I am unable to prevent". And the daughter happened to end up partying with said male who in turn ended up becoming drunk and unable to respond to the, let's say, urgent communiques of her father, and thus said father perished before being able to conclude or legally define the details of his will that would have enabled her to secure wealth and riches, leaving such to be at the mercy of the state. For example. And as such she ends up as a homeless drug addict. As one example. The question remains, who truly "fell", that is to say, neglected one's responsibility.

In short, the claim, your question is not an open-ended one, is demonstrably false. And remains a valid point of contention.

If you need help with English, get some. — tim wood

And this is the state of man.An artificial impasse. Granted, the individual this (metaphysician undercover) easily could have and perhaps should have mentioned the specific points of contention, lest it seemed every word and effort of your expression is little than that of a raving madman, something hurtful. But perhaps, instead of such a mindset, the answers to your questions are self-evident! And he is in fact challenging you to pursue such avenues of self-inquiry further.

So, let's embrace the mindset of an casual observer. He requests clarification. You seem such a request is beneath your effort as, certainly, any rational mind could make sense of what you purported? Is this correct? So, perhaps frame it differently. You seem to make a statement, that the person perceives as a question. That is to say, he derives several statements at least one begetting a question. This is a compliment. Not an insult. Should you not go from there?

The AN view is asking what right anyone has to create life if they know it will suffer. — I like sushi

I'm sure you're correct in most instances. Of course we have yet to meet or question an actual practicing anti-natalist (not counting the obvious resident one, joyous and pleasant to know him as he is..., of course, a bit or irony but that's beside the point, for now)

I fee it important to note the overwhelming drive in which spurred my recent response to you, was to assert, rather question, anti-natalist is poorly defined as is. That is to say, there are two (at minimum I argue) driving forms of rationale that define such an idea. With no shyness of immodesty, I believe one could ascertain the driving consistent ideology of anti-natalism is: life is more likely to incur negative outcome than positive, and so, in respect to culmination of man's efforts of reason, that which is likely to produce negative result, is best avoided. However, this may be true. All well and good. But there remains a blockage, a failure of inquiry, I believe. As to whether or not said belief is based on circumstance that is changeable, or remains a hopeless illusion of changeability. That is to say, in simple terms, yes, if something is likely to be negative, it is to be avoided. But whether or not this negativity can be changed, resolved, eliminated, defeated, or perhaps lessened by introduction of a greater dynamic thus making said negativity trivial, is my, question. Basically.

So. I believe there are two types of anti-natalists. Those who are such rationally, and those who are perhaps confused and only in such respective minds of thinking due to circumstance that is in fact, false.

That is to say, those who are truly not anti-natalists but consequentialists, or best said, the current state of being ie. the status quo produces adequate evidence procreation is more harmful than positive, as in, perhaps things could be changed, whether easily or throughout much if not impossible levels of difficulty, to alter such a reality. This is the divide I think is neglected in the majority. Hence me reason for replying.

So. Yes, ":the way things are, that can be changed, but do not seem likely to be changed, creates the factual inarguable reality that, creation of new life is more likely to incur suffering on the innocent then immediate and observable positive outcome and so, procreation is to be avoided"

Versus "No, even if everything were to be perfect, either eventually, or in some intrinsic yet unobservable way, creation of new life is likely, eventually, to be of worse outcome than not"

Essentially. There is a divide that those who fail to acknowledge simply refute the soundness of the anti-natalism argument. Is my suggestion.

If someone wants to argue that my conclusion is false — Michael

Surely there are many ways to assist a friend that their current action or belief that will assuredly guide future actions are "lacking", that is to say, have reasonable methods of improvement not currently taken.

Things are not alwaysfalse or valid. Binary enslavement. It is not always "my way or the highway", that is to say, perhaps one there is more that one can contribute to a certain goal or ideal than can be immediately ascertained. Is this false or true?

I have no idea what you're talking about. — Michael

And that is understood. Well and good. This is, after all, the only rational non-ill-intended platform of debate or intellectual opposition. Reasonable inquiry itself, even.

I suppose, to simplify, how would you best explain the reasoning behind your recent argument/reply/rebuttal or opposing position to someone who is either: unaware of the argument, that is to say, does not have the fortune to be in the posses ion of the knowledge you hold (yet is capable of so). Surely your questioner is of sound and rational mind and morality. So, if he is incorrect, and you assert the position you remain the opposite, how does one become equals on the same page of truth and rationale you see?

I am arguing that the supertask is metaphysically impossible. — Michael

As you understand it, of course. And, make no mistake, I would be among the first to swear your understanding and take of things is valid, but also the first to defend the idea that things can change.

Surely some things must remain consistent, for is this not the basis of sanity, after all?

But there still remains some outlier arguments you believe to be irrelevant, or in your words "implied". This is all the opposing party wishes to acknowledge, I do believe.

In simple terms, perhaps, a remote possibility exists, the individual who declared such a statement, has different views and relevant perceptions toward said statement than you hold. Nothing more. Simply the remote possibility. Not that one is "wrong" but simply there is more to the intended truth than one currently perceives. Surely such a thing is possible, no?

The laws of noncontradiction and excluded middle are implied. — Michael

Clearly not by you. Could've easily included it. So why didn't you?

Surely you must believe your interlocutor has a point in his statement other than that of a any random dreg of society: "you're wrong".

He has a point, a truth and testimony, an entire world he wishes you to experience

Can you explain better please? — I like sushi

Basically what makes the anti-natalist so sure? What specifically do they hold their ground on?

Is it, say as if one were a prisoner, who is given the option to father a child, knowing said child will also in turn become a prisoner and experience more suffering then pleasure? And is this the root of all AN argument: if more pleasure cannot be "guaranteed" prior to the creation of life, such action, which would apparently likely result in more negative than positive is to be avoided.

Is this not the AN dogma or decree? I apologize, for it is me who is now asking for you for information or clarity!

To further say, there is a war (or framed binary belief or "footing") between so called "anti-natalists."

That life, regardless of change or possible omission of what is currently held in the antinatalist mindset as "suffering" or "negative", creation of new life either, is intrinsically a negative, whether that conviction is held based on the likelihood of even, say, a perfect utopia naturally always reverting to a negative state, or some other generally non-evidential belief.

That is to say there are two camps so to speak, whose divisions are defined not of anti-natality at all but greater reason itself: possibility of change and rigidity of current state of affairs. Is this not correct?

ANs are not against existence per se — I like sushi

Let's reframe the mindset here. Not ""against" anything, simply the acknowledgement (belief, rather) that creating human life is more likely to incur negative experience than positive and such should either be avoided altogether or at least such factual information or likelihood (whether true or not) should be made present in the minds of all men or women capable of childbirth?


Can we agree on that as being the anti natailist creed? Or do you have a different definition in mind?

But isn't it ironic the AN is only able to prevent said suffering, by in fact, making full use and utility of the alleged eventual path (or in their mind, cursed tool) that is existence?

Kind of a corundum in and of itself, no?

Ok let me put the question another way. Either I "just happen" to be among the infinitesimal fraction of matter that became human beings, or this seeming miracle actually allows me to infer something about the nature of reality (maybe all minds are somehow destined for a higher state of being within their respective timelines, idk). — Dogbert

There's no real question mate. That is to say you have avoided anything of genuine philosophic value completely.

This is the standard kindergarten response that predicates of rather fortifies the atheistic philosophy or "way or life" ie. religion.

Yes any state of realization of avoidance of that which could be horrible (or awful whether immediately or over generations) is likely, perhaps as you suggest, even mandating of ideological if nor ritualistic recognition. But the critic rightfully questions: "yeah. so what?". That is to say, predicates the positive future of those who dismiss this ideology as a falsehood altogether. Perhaps who end up in a better state of observable quality of life than if not having done so. So what is the response to that?

If you think I somehow don't believe/know about evolution than you've missed the point of the question entirely. — Dogbert

Yet interestingly enough it, finally. encourages you to offer more input to a claim that has been repeatedly confirmed to be "requiring more information" to constitute a solid philosophical inquiry.

So. Here we are. Rationally speaking.

Your post: I subscribe to way of thinking and consider its tenets of proof to be self-evident. As anything opposite would in fact infer me to be as. well, a moron, per se.

*multiple ignored or otherwise inadequately replied to posts* (no further comment)

A finally (adequately) replied to response: : "Somehow" (as if the replier's state of mind is somehow bizarre or unreasonable based on your reply [which is understandable, the ego is real, but understandably... unimportant. It's kind of an obvious unspoken litmus test to determine how far one is as far as philosophical progress]).

So. To simplify. Which I believe is the best course of action to produce a reasonable response. What is the underlying logic or rationale behind what encouraged such a reply?

Ah, thinglihood. The Achilles heel of all great thinkers.Hearkens back to the conflict arisen from the first true philosophers, who of course remain absent from "observable" or rather "reputable" history.

You must first acknowledge your question "answers" itself by "defining" a truth it attempts to discover. Or as some say, constitute a statement and remains a non-question. If this is confusing, this is further proof of this acknowledgement, otherwise, your use of the word "physical" retains a basis of that which is commonly perceived as "physical" as in: easily evidenced. My point being the fact you mention the "physical" means you acknowledge there is a "non-physical" that stands guard just over the boundary of what you (or presumably, the majority) consider physicality. Otherwise, there is no distinction only but another thing. What I mean is, your question remains a non-question because it dictates a debated concept "physicality", which deprives the purported environment in which you wish to have such a debate of a sole propriety.

This is often confusing so if I may circle back.The ignorant observer, which I likely wager you to see me as. Philosophy is the Colosseum of non-violent gladiatorial custodianship of that which not only is and is to be, but rather should be for reasons not needed to be physically asserted in perpetuity. Basically, my statement is though you in intent ask one question, three questions are in fact begged of the viewer.

What is physicality? What is a basis? Determined by who? Is said basis justified? By or denounced by what? What is constitution? The sub-questions are truly endless.

But to assume the "most reasonable" assumptions as fact:

Well, even operating on such strict standards offers a world of flexibility, I suppose the most base being:

Is there any observable (repeatable event or testimony) that is "consistent" that which is also repeatable or consonant,

It becomes a non-question almost. More details or information requested.

Your posts in this thread have been highly disappointing. Once upon a time you were capable of valid arguments. — Leontiskos

Yet highly effective as they turn even your own into such of similar nature.

You feel the need to neglect reason, virtue itself in condemning your fellow man. Sure if one is correct such factual arguments are a mere commodity.

Why is he wrong? If you are so evidently correct, such reasoning should be a natural repertoire, riposte, even. Yet you present nothing. Why is that?

For the same reason you divert any sort of actual thought or sophistication:

"It's just what happened bro"

Can you prove it? "I don't feel the need to" only shifts the burden of proof to those ignorant. Yet here you are.

Just as a broken clock is right at least twice a day, so is the unexamined life. That is to say, remains in a constant state of such. Thusly, this narrow frame of mind can be called truth to those who know nothing of the sort.

If you feel threatened by its chaotic nature, it means that it disturbs your ideological beliefs — Tarskian

Does one have non-ideological beliefs? Is that a thing now? You wear double-layer body armor in your words because you know the environment (truth) presents an imminent danger (your baseless ideology), Ironic no? Prove me wrong mate.

if everything were perfectly ordered, nothing would change. Existence requires both. — Wayfarer

This invigors a deep curiosity in me. Something that does not change, does not exist? How so?

Interestingly enough, one definition of death is "to exist cease living (in a meaningful way to the majority)" and as such, is the only way many can find life or escape the constrictive confines of those who "lived" to dictate the meaning of what "life" is, a meaning birthed solely in valuation of devaluation of life itself. So, it's a conundrum at the end of the day, to say the least.

Edit: "to cease 'living' ", where 'living' is defined not strictly by a biological state but rather a societal expectation. Not sure why that didn't come out as coherently as it did in my own thoughtsphere at the time. :confused:

You have been vomiting word salad — ToothyMaw

I've made but two or three concise statements that remain consistent. I'm sorry that personal, if not conflicting opinion or commentary inter laid appears to obscure such to the degree of invoking mental images of "vomit" to you. But again, that is neither here nor there when it comes to philosophic inquiry.

Let's simplify:

Post #1: The person seems misunderstood. Perhaps this begs the question that things or judgements are not always justified?

Your reply: What?

Post #2: Perhaps people should be less judgemental.

Your reply: You hate me. You're trying to kill me.

Post #3: Lol. Anyway I agree with you. People should be more understanding. Shouldn't you lead the example?

Your reply: You should be banned. (ie. face real physical penalty for expressing a conflicting opinion, hinting at physical retribution ie. violence or harm for disagreeing)

--

Yeah. I'll just leave it at "I agree". Mental illness is real. And should be handled appropriately. Before it gets out of hand. This thread has, whether intentionally or otherwise, become a great example of that.