Like, all of this is great and such (not really). But at the end of the day, each person is a Fascist by nature. Man is a domineering being. He simply would have perished under the harsh dominion and nature of either: the beasts of this world or unforgiving climate or propensity for food scarcity be it by season or event or what have you if he was not. He simply evolved (slightly) to realize what his predecessor failed to. Eventually, you'll discover you're wrong, and it placed you in a situation you have seemingly no choice but to act violently to change or escape from. This was the sole reality of the first man. Now, modern man realizes, or perhaps is forced to recognize, there's always going to be someone either A.) stronger or B.) smarter than you no -- no matter what you do. To an extent, a government has to deprive man of his primal need to use force. Not his right. But simply replace the daily and consistent part of his primal being that once defined his essence. You couldn't just walk down a street or send your kid to your neighbor's house or to the local library for half a day without a care in the world. It would've been a death sentence. But he'll never realize the sheer, jarring, shocking degree of how far society has yielded, not to the will or dominion of another, but to his very own as a result of alleviation of his burden of force to that of a higher and accountable governing power. Because, despite how far we've come, men will be men. And must always be kept in check.

It's the fact that out of the hundreds of other nations that go unreported and are globally acknowledged to not have the level of accountability of Western nations, the only concern, the one tired re-occurring theme, is the only nation that does have fair accountability and open press gets the whipping treatment. Such comedic scrutiny and lack of coherence transcends words like "pathetic" or "blatant" but truly shows what is wrong with a world that tries (and I assure you will ultimately fail) to sweep it's own inhumanity under a rug or keep it's closeted skeleton's undiscovered.

Fascism is everywhere. Wherever man lives, there will be fascism. It just so happens in this case, the only place it's allowed to be called out by those weak or strong, rich or poor, is under scrutiny. It's a joke. That's what it is, a tired joke those set to ending mankind's suffering has grown tired of and instinctively ignores. That's all.

Elon Musk is a fraud. I’m not surprised by the dupes who buy that he’s a genius. — Mikie

So... you've met the guy before? At least seen him with your own eyes in front of you at some point to know he even exists or ... I mean, where is this so-called information coming from? :chin:

We are on the same page when you think morality is subjective. — MoK

I never claimed to believe anything of the sort. Simply, to the best of my ability, offered an explanation why your claim to such is open to reasonable scrutiny and certainly doesn't quite meet the threshold of "reasonable fact" or "common knowledge", in my opinion. Sure, a word is bound to its definition. That doesn't mean, like in real life situations, the letter of the law can often defeat the spirit of the law, which any well educated person would contest as a mockery of justice and law itself.

Morality cannot be objective if good and evil are subjective. — MoK

Opinion is not fact. That's the main point of contention here. Yes, you believe and feel and perhaps even engross such into your entire being to the point of your sole reality, but that's neither here nor there when it comes to absolute reality. No different than how the mindless bum on the corner reeling and withdrawing from drug use believes a random passerby is a monster or government agent trying to kill him. As you said, experience is subjective. Morality is not- otherwise, why waste time trying to pinpoint the borders or X, Y, Z coordinates of something that you admit to be fleeting and without borders, boundaries, or definition?

There has to be at least one concept that is pinpointed, absolute, and clearly-defined, otherwise we're just rambling about what color is best or not when you think about it.

My point is that our experiences of what is good or evil are different. Good and evil are features of our experiences. I say something is good when it is pleasurable to a person otherwise it is evil. As I noted we are different when it comes to good and evil. For example, murder is evil to the majority of people. However, some people have pleasure from killing therefore killing to them is good. I hope that makes sense to you. If not please let me know so I can elaborate further. — MoK

Sure, people have different views, beliefs, and opinions. That's more or less common knowledge or sense. It's just words, though. You can call something that brings you "pleasure" either "good", "bad", "weird", "strange", or even "pineapple" if you please. That doesn't make it anything of the sort, of course. It's just you using words (that may or may not exist) that you feel happen to best fit. No relevance to anything, really, let alone philosophical concepts.

No need to elaborate, your point is solid and correct, simply, it's relevance to philosophy or greater logical progression is perhaps not as "involved in anything" as you may believe.

You experience the rose. — MoK

What would stop one from say, comparing viewing the text of your reply (whether the viewer is fluent in the language of the text or not) as a similar "experience". There's a world of difference between processing sensory information and taking note of (or perhaps choosing to focus exclusively on) the emotions or feelings or otherwise change in mind or mood vs. truly "experiencing" something. Or is there not? Perhaps that's your point?

That there are an infinite number of numbers is the central property of infinity. — an-salad

I mean, we don't really know that. There could be a hidden bug or undiscovered mechanism in the Universe that if man ever recites or computes a certain threshold of number repetition and depth everything explodes and reality folds in on itself. It's technically possible as one cannot accurately, and with any sort of absolute certainty, describe a journey or occurrence one has never been on or experienced.

Also, If everyone only did work that they “loved and believed in” civilization would collapse in a week. — an-salad

That's an issue of upbringing and education and little else.

Also also, does god actively give little kids inoperable brain cancer, or does he just let them get it and then sit back and watch while it slowly kills them? This isn’t rhetorical, I’m actually lookng for an answer. — an-salad

No. Man was given laws to follow including responsible reproduction. Essentially to only have done so when permitted by a society's elders and ruling authorities. Said laws were ignored. At that point, as far as the things you describe: "that's all you bro". At least, that is the logical answer if one considers popular religious scripture to be non-fictitious, which per reasonable assumption, appears to be an innate stipulation of your inquiry.

The tree which strives towards heaven must send its roots to hell. — Bob Ross

This one gave me a chill.

Needing a knife that is sharper than a knife is a sign of irrationality. — Bob Ross

Yet this one escapes me.

--

These few seem to be incredibly useful for 98% of people alive:

• Ridicule from those on a path which I do not wish to follow is praise.
• It can only harm you if it manages to damage your character—remember that.
• If one wants something they’ve never had, then they must do something they’ve never done.
• Fear is a mile wide, but only an inch deep.
• What you are too afraid to overcome, becomes your limitations.
• Suffering is a choice.

It can basically be it's own 6-tenet religion.

(though I perhaps would have worded that last one as: "Pain is not a choice, suffering is." -- just to give it some context that might be otherwise easily missed or dismissed)

Usually they are people who prefer to be alone than constantly around others. They are people who care about politics and the arts. They are writers. They are introspective and educated. Usually highly educated. They want the world changed in one way or many ways. — Rob J Kennedy

A reasonable analysis, but bear in mind not everyone who has become accustomed to solitude (or "loneliness" as you put it) or who finds peace in such "prefers to be alone", per se (ie. an only child growing up in a rural or unsafe neighborhood or who otherwise wasn't generally allowed to "roam about" like most, etc).

For me, it probably has a bit more to do with "being right" and outsmarting those around me than I'd like to admit. Personally, I was always fascinated with science, discovery, not so much reading but definitely facts, creativity, and mastery (or at least knowledge) of the world around me. I liked watching "smart kid" shows like "Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius" and writing down all the interesting "discoveries", facts, and "inventions" thinking I could one day do them myself. Reading "Ripley's Believe it or Not" was a fun time as well. I like to think it was because it "challenged the world as I knew it" but, it's just as likely it was, as my former English professor would say, I'm "easily impressed (entertained)". Just me and my Itty Bitty book light and I was transported into a world all my own for hours at a time completely immersed in an always new and ever-changing world of possibility, particularly on long car rides.

It was fun at a young age to make those around you, particularly persons of authority (teachers, pastors, and of course my own dear parents) think or second-guess themselves or otherwise just pay greater attention to you, which was its own reward in its own right, even if it did get on their nerves at times. Grew up as an only child with what I'd have to say was an unusually large amount of solitude and time to myself. You definitely come up with ways to entertain yourself mentally. I didn't get into actual philosophy until my late teens, however. Not really sure why. Probably an older cousin of mine. Always reading Nietzsche and that one Russian guy. Super fun to be around, always had something interesting to say. Perhaps I just wanted to be a bit more like him and a bit less like myself at that time in life. Could be partly due to the media and social expectation (the "wise respected elder" in movies, getting rewarded with praise and stuff for good grades in school along with the opposite for the inverse, etc.); always wanted to be a well-to-do, scholarly sophisticate when I grew up. Just seemed like that's the way people were supposed to be.

I also didn't really like secrets or the idea of not knowing things those older or in authority knew and not only kept but would regularly joke about to themselves (but not I) while in my presence as if I wasn't there. Especially the way they would almost gleefully flaunt such knowledge in the form of verbal sentiment such as "It's a grown up thing" or "That's not for children" or "You'll understand when you're older", etc. I just wanted to know what was so funny or so terrible about something that seemed to not be any sort of big deal or make any sense to me at the time. Why I would get in trouble, why saying this word or doing this thing is bad but not the other all while not really giving me a satisfactory answer in my fledgling mind. I guess I also didn't like being wrong or outsmarted in front of people. Oh, the overbearing shame! Even at such a tender age. Ah, to be the lad who always knew just what to say, to be consistently looked up to as wise, funny, or what have you. Never a truer feeling of bliss felt; social acceptance.

That's what I would say were some contributing factors to my personal interest in philosophy and "intellectual pursuit" in general, without giving it more than a few minutes of thought, at least. I'm weird though so I wouldn't read too far into it. Each person is different, as are their specific desires and motivations behind such. Somewhat, at least. :smile:

Knock knock.

Deep question. Or is it? I suppose one may find an answer by asking: what is "ugly?" That which does not conform. So, if this is correct, beauty would have to be, that which conforms; that which is expected. Yet not quite. A blank sheet of paper conforms perfectly. To itself. So perhaps, beauty might be "that which affirms one's expectations." Does that seem about right? I'm sure by now we've all heard the old saying in regards to beauty.

Sure, historically speaking, unexplained natural phenomena was often considered "magic" or the work of gods or deities. There are places on Earth where this is still so. If someone (gods forbid) entered one of these primitive societies with say, a used lighter from their glove box and produced flame without the traditional known methods required for doing so, he or she might then be considered some sort of flame deity for example, or perhaps the item itself a sacred instrument from wherever that society believes man (or who or what created man) came from or goes after he perishes.

I read an article once that comes to mind about "magical thinking", basically stating that if a supernatural being performs a "miracle" or supernatural act, it's because the atoms around or involving the act or object are changed accordingly in a nature that would produce such an effect, as opposed to say, your "tiny invisible fairies" metaphor.

Point being, the difference between what would be considered "real magic" and simple unexplained phenomena is that there would in fact be something supernatural (something not known to science that also breaks its established laws) being the driving force behind whatever molecular changes are occurring, as opposed to just some new tech nobody heard of.

For example, if science was forced to explain "karma", or one's good and bad deeds resulting in good or bad consequences absent of human intervention respectively, one theory would be, say, a hypothetical supercomputer in space with technology currently unknown that scans the entire Earth inside and out constantly and observes any intelligent being's actions, logging said being's DNA in the process. From there, it processes whether the act was "good or bad" and attaches that finding to his or her DNA file. Then, later, perhaps randomly, or perhaps even to one's next generation, applying an action that either rewards or punishes said individual, such as say, giving a murderer or son of a murderer early blindness or ensuring a good person survives an otherwise fatal incident, say, through use a currently unknown method of altering the atoms or cells from a distance, similar to how a non-contact thermometer reads temperature or a microwave ray heats an object or an MRI shows the inside of a human body. All the aforementioned objects use invisible forces that travel a notable distance to either alter matter or provide information about said matter without physically interacting with it. Point being, while the idea of that would sound absurd if one had to go by known science, it would still be hypothetically possible, thus removing the idea of "magical thinking" from something generally thought of as supernatural.

difference between philosophy and religion — MrLiminal

In religion, per the stereotype, the part of one having to actually think is removed. More generously put: a conclusion has already been reached based on fixed guidelines, none of which can be changed nor does any deep thought on any particular one produce any benefit; it's up for the practitioner to either accept or reject a given religion. I suppose this can be likened to say, consequentialism, which in a similar format offers a single premise and attempts to make the case as to why say, the opposite is false.

to a person who has “experienced” a ghost, they have experienced magic. — MrLiminal

One might prefer to call a ghost supernatural or supernatural phenomenon as opposed to the ghost itself being "magic" or a manifestation of such. Magic is supernatural, but not all things supernatural necessarily have to be magical.

Religions also often hate when you try to then use science to figure what does and does not work for sure and why what does work works, which is another place religion tends to disappoint me. — MrLiminal

From what I understand most religions tend to have, as a central tenet, a figure (or figures) that exist outside of the laws of the world we live in ie. God creating the world supernaturally, an angel speaking through a donkey, etc. This, by scientific standards, is simply not logical. But. Taking part of your theory, science would attempt to explain this (if it had to) by parallel or multi universe theory. They would both be backwards compatible and in theory could peacefully co-exist in the same reality. Like the above hypothetical on how karma and science could, in theory, be compatible, however unlikely. Fun read, very interesting to ponder and respond to.

Differences irreconcilable. Would we all agree? How unfestive.

(PM me personally if you feel such matters need to be discussed further)

Not to derail whatever's going on here, but perhaps the best way to frame things, in a way any person can not only first understand but ultimately progress in, would be as the first ship sailing past a land of "earthbound" or non-seafaring peoples and what their opinions or questions would be. "What could it be?" "Are there people on there?" "Are they trying to kill us?" "Probably!" "No wait, is it perhaps the ancient prophecy of heroes from another world coming to save us from our daily toil and suffering (the original non-graphical "motivational poster" the first rulers laid out to allude to one's own metaphorical self-progress and "realized" self)?" Etc. Those were, after all, the first unidentified "floating" objects.

Aside from that, little has changed. Man sees something unfamiliar, it's either two or three things. Something of use, something of harm, or something that could go either way. Those who aired on the middle option, often survived. Perhaps many did not and perished where those who aired on the first or third option did. We're simple beings, really. Not much has changed in that regard.

I mean, I know such arguments are unfavored here, but you don't actually know anything about what does or does not happen after death minus what a 2 year old can observe and comment on.

So, you know. The idea that there is a multitude of reasons to favor what we consider mortal life versus death is wholly valid. I mean, you just woke up one day and came to the conclusion every thing that can be possibly known or experienced in such a vast world and universe happens to be in your head? Pretty flimsy argument, all things considered. Just saying.

Beyond that, there are tangible things, which I presume is what you are demanding. The unyielding sacrifice and strides man has made to provide such a quality life that any thinking person would undoubtedly be overjoyed at and desire to experience. From caves and clubs to interplanetary travel and technologies that those, not that long ago, before us could barely fathom in their wildest dreams. I mean, the logic is there. And boy is it sound. Deafening, really. It's simply up for you to see it when you're ready.

Does man become content when his pleasures and necessities are met? Absolutely. Is this contentedness perhaps not always ideal for his condition and positive opinion on life versus his idea of non-life? Maybe so. Maybe so. Read into the idea of the hedonic treadmill some. This may help you better understand what others are suggesting and following along with to a tee.

We either live in truth or lies. Such is the stated goal of philosophy. Name one lie that would reasonably be found in said post. Go on, I dare you.

You feel you have nothing to look forward to, personally. What is it you want? Truly? Pleasure? I could pay someone to do such at your command any hour of the day. But one might get bored with that. Control? Of what? This world? Sure, that require violence and constant control. Being constantly aware of one's environment knowing at any moment someone who lives solely to slice a knife blade into a vital organ of your flesh may do so. Danger, stimulus, sure, that's natural. This video truly highlights the psyche of what we think of "great conquerors". Who all ended up just the same, dead. Sure people talk about them. Or do they? We attach ideas to people and think they live.

You want companionship. Affirmation. Guess what. Those who truly have things worth affirming need no such thing. So what is it you're truly after?

Sure, it's a good question. The average person, no matter if they "came" from wealth or poverty, sometimes wonders, if they died right now, who would miss them? Why and for what? At the end of the day every person that lives and walks was brought into their circumstance outside of their will and simply tumbled out of a womb. Why do we value one over another? Because of the perceived power they have. That's all. Your depression is an absolute lie. And I could prove it, easily. If I haven't had my eye set on much higher sights. Perhaps you should just refocus your own. Given the fact you've been given everything.

* Whether one's freedom is restricted by one's habits — Dan

A "habit" is by definition not ultimately restrictive. Now, an "addiction" or otherwise "mental complex" is in fact a debilitating factor. Perhaps I have a bad habit of ogling any attractive woman in the vicinity. That's independent from a ultimate deeply rooted lack of self-control. If one's freedom is "restricted" it is not by a mere "habit" but by a deeper rooted cause. Let's assume this to be true. There's, let's call them "inclinations", that can be realistically minimized to the point of non-existence by willpower (say in the mentioned example) and those that cannot (say a serial killer who hears voices or is impinged by some other truly dramatic action-controlling factor).

So we have to specifically determine if one has a "habit" or a "reasonable disablement" as far as what is expected from the average person.

Furthermore, what is a habit? In the animal kingdom, to be "afraid" or otherwise change one's behavior in the presence of a much larger animal is a natural inclination, present regardless if one is a genius or mentally disabled. Understandably, for biological reasons of survival. Now if we cast all habits or inclinations as "human nature" we inevitably reach a point of rightful discernment. Say you're looking for a place to sleep for the night and you have three options. One is brightly lit with lively and friendly human activity, the other not so much but well off the beaten path the natural seclusion seems to offer reasonable guarantee from anything one wishes to avoid, and the other a rundown hovel with shady characters coming and going. Naturally in the majority of cases one chooses the first or perhaps the second. Is this really a habit or an intrinsic reality of human existence? Sure, one might call the person who chooses the third option a "dullard" and "worthy of whatever he has coming to him". Is one's ultimate preference based on any number of things, perhaps things that would conscript us to at least consider such a way of thinking, a mere "habit" or something far greater?

* Whether consequentialism is in some way inconsistent with freedom — Dan

A good metaphor is to imagine two kingdoms or lands or realms or what have you where said hypothetical is the ultimate law of the land or "reality", casting all current aspersions and understanding into oblivion. And from there, see what would happen and why if the two were to ever meet.

Even before that however, one must be reminded of the fact there is a litany of ways to interpret such terms from the get-go. Even before we get to the individual meaning of either.

Some might view the two as inseparable or perhaps better said, a prerequisite to the other or description of one or the other's affinity. Say we take consequentialism as meaning human efforts ultimately matter in a world and reality that seems to place such far beneath any sort of functional status quo. This is indeed the sole monument of "freedom" for those who believe we are otherwise bound to randomness with any such attempt at definition or value literally as sound or constant as the predictability of the tides. You can even reverse the two and find relatable sentiment.

This is I think is the ultimate point of contention simply for the fact there are so many valid views or understandings that even from a passing glance come to mind.

I would, at last preliminarily, say, certain views of how reality ultimate is (consequentialism) remains a world of difference from how reality ultimately can, should be, and at times is as far as the limited time and ability of human observation goes (freedom).

* Whether an understanding of the nature of time is of critical importance to the project of ethics (and indeed, what that means) — Dan

There's a lot to unpack here. Before even attempting to do so, I would have to assert, understanding of anything that intrinsically has to do with some sort of "ultimate reality" is critical by its own definition. I guess to put it low brow, if one doesn't understand or know what time is, one isn't really talking about ethics or anything coherent. It's so relevant it becomes comical or frivolous to point out, like reminding someone "to understand the relationship between circumstantial cause and effect one must know how to dress oneself in the morning." Yeah. No kidding.

* Whether someone can be an expert while also misunderstanding some elements/aspects of their field of expertise — Dan

Obviously this frame of putting the previous spat is without possibility for scrutiny. It resolves to effectiveness. Proficiency or "hitting the mark when asked to consistently" is the dynamic I feel is not being addressed here. There is expertise (perhaps wisdom) and cold, robotic calculation (perhaps knowledge). Perhaps you may find the two inseparable.

* The existence of objective truth — Dan

Well, if it exists. Prove it. 2+2 = 4. Unless I take 1 by violence. Now your 2+2 = 3. (I'm not trying to be funny or difficult, just, I mean, for all reasons of argument, is such a realization any less to the point?)

That's a bit of a poor example. There are natural laws, water has a boiling point of 100 degrees celcius and a freezing point of 0. So what? Sure, it tells me how long to wait before I can make a bowl of rice or what temperate I can expect to preserve future meals from, which are required for me or anyone to not starve. That's great. But what of it? How certain are we are of the things we declare as indisputable and what would it mean if such things were to change? Would we survive?

* Whether God is in some way necessary for objective truth — Dan

For most, absolutely. Why do anything unless I have to? Is the unfortunate mantra of man. One's "god" is either spiritual or scientific (see above laws that apparently 'govern' reality).

* The meaning and appropriate usage of a laundry list of words, and more generally to what extent words should be allowed to be used to mean different things in different contexts (so long as that meaning is made clear) — Dan

People have ideas and inclinations that are better expressed to the point they find agreement toward. Not all are perfect, but they fit the bill at the time. Brevity means concision, I suppose.

Certainly this intuition pump is close enough to describing consequentialism in order to express a common criticism of consequentialism, which is that it doesn't care about intentions and this seems to run counter to commonly held moral intuitions. — Dan

Right, and that's likely what MU's resistance is fueled by. Understandably enough, yes?

As an aside, and as it relates to the point that I was trying to make to MU, we might still praise the person whose "life was immoral", since we want others to act in a similar way, and blame and even punish the one whose "life was moral" since we don't want others to act in a similar way. — Dan

See this is where things get, understandably, a bit "trippy". Your declaration of someone who hypothetically literally breathes morality and compassion being written off as "immoral" because something outside of his control happened in 2 seconds at the last minute. I mean. It just leaves a bad taste in one's mouth, philosophically speaking. Morally, at least. Surely you understand that. So, the difference or "point of contention" appears to be how you can simply look past that, in your view, likely as a service to a greater truth or logic, while others see such a hang-up as, well, to put it bluntly, a non-starter as far as any sort of validity as far as the subject at hand goes.

Does this make sense to you? If not, surely the otherwise common opposition does, how far off am I and for what reasons?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. Perhaps you could try explaining it another way?

As to perceived inconsistencies, there really aren't any. Consequentialism is simply the view that the morality of actions is judged by reference to their consequences. This doesn't at all conflict with either the idea of freedom or the idea that freedom is valuable. — Dan

From an outside perspective. Freedom meaning "sans" restriction. This is not inherently "good." Humanity with "freedom" from an oxygen-rich environment results in a pile of bones. I mean, perhaps that's good for the planet in the long-term freeing it from pollution. But, as human persons, that would be, you know, kinda bad, wouldn't you say?

Allow me ample room to make mistakes as I attempt to become acquainted with this "Consequentialism". As I. and I would attest most if not many would understand, this, to put things in extremes for purpose of understanding, would mean, the person who dedicates their life to human welfare yet say, gets drunk, and accidentally burns down their dwelling in which they stored their life's work before they have yet to actualize such time, effort, and resources into such a goal, lived an "immoral" life. While, on the same hand, the person who spent a lifetime killing, robbing, and let's just say much worse, also got drunk and accidentally gave a slip of paper that contained the access code to his crypto-currency that contained the sum of his ill-gotten goods to one who immediately either gave it to the police or psychically accessed it themself, then donating it to charity, lived and died a "moral" person. Is that correct?

I expect you'd have to ask MU. This discussion started because they (he?) claimed I was trying to marry two things that were supposedly inconsistent (freedom and consequentialism). — Dan

They certainly have easily perceived inconsistencies. Freedom being a lack of constraint, consequentialism being an ultimate fate of such. A layman's perspective being such is what life and therefore intelligence is (Goldilocks anyone?). Which one can exist without the other? Only one. Though that doesn't necessarily defeat the ultimate truth and relevance of the other. The disagreement appears to be based, or at least of some notable relevance, to this dynamic.

* Whether an action can be wrong but also praiseworthy (on an actual-value consequentialist account) — Dan

"Wrong" has several definitions that can reasonably be sided with. "Incorrect" (per procedure), "immoral" (per subjective zeitgeist, perhaps based on objective damage or similar aspect), or "imperfect" (not quite hitting the bull's eye but with every reasonable attempt to have done so).

Actual-value is tricky. What seems to work immediately and perhaps for 1,000 years may actually be proven to have been a failure in 10,000 years. Surely you account for this.

These are all great and amazing points. Thank you for replying, *ahem*, finally. I will continue with the following bullet points shortly

I mean let's not pretend MU is not providing logical (and very intriguing, personally, I might add) points and arguments. I have been following this exchange for several weeks. Both are incredibly intelligent people who make indisputably rational points. Any denial of that places one's self in the proverbial "hot seat".

I think, at least as a reasonable starting point, a single agreed upon "point of contention" or "argument" should be framed/established where other people can jump in and say what they have to say based on empirical facts and basic truth, really. (Particularly some of the logically highly proficient mods)

What is the main "disagreement" here? Why? What does it keep being shifted to and why?

I've seen MU be a bit less than becoming of his intellect in stating Dan has "Wasted 10 years". Perhaps he means such in the truest earnest form of communication. Perhaps he's just frustrated. Perhaps a bit of both?

I just think this whole exchange is a marvel of human endeavor, no matter who is "more correct" or I suppose "ultimately wrong". That aside, truth must remain truth. So, if I could ask each of the participants, what, in explicit detail, is the singular most "hard problem" the others view has in their eyes? Just so perhaps others who are a bit less entrenched in one or the other's particular "view" might have a crack at sharing their own perspective on the matter.

For example, matter being completely destroyed would be evil. But an atom breaking into electrons, that then interact with other atoms to create something more than an atom alone, is a greater existence and therefore more good. — Philosophim

Would this mean, then, that true evil is impossible, per Law of Conservation of Mass?

Do we allow new interactions, inventions, ideas, and existences? Then we are good. — Philosophim

Does that mean if we disallow cruel or violent (albeit new) interactions, inventions, ideas, and existences we are evil? Surely not?

--

Example. Going with the premise. Say, in the not too distant future, man has advanced in warfare and weaponry birthing the existence of a bomb whose yield would destroy the entire planet. Say it is somehow known, this weapon would inevitably be used. Would a hypothetical contagion that wipes out 99.9% of life on Earth thus preventing said weapon from ever being used not be 'good' in such a scenario under the above circumstances? According to this premise, it would, as it prevents a larger decrease in quantitative existence. Or wouldn't it?

No, they absolutely do not. All ethicists talk fundamentally in terms of what is good, bad, immoral, moral, etc. — Bob Ross

I caught that too. Was going to edit to reflect what I meant at the time: "The large majority of philosophers produce non-religious works and, in my opinion, 'evil' is a categorically religious construct better (and often) substituted (or otherwise equated) with more pragmatic and secular wording such as 'inhumane' or 'unethical'." You are correct. Honestly thought this thread would've been moved to the Lounge by now. Apologies. :smile:

What you described here is pyschology, not ethics. What one likes doesn’t matter when one is trying to decipher what the concept of good is: either there such a think as ‘being good’ or there isn’t—who cares if you like it? Even in the case of moral anti-realism, their concepts of good are themselves objective (albeit they refer to something non-objective). — Bob Ross

This is correct, also. I emboldened the part that highlights what muddles the waters for me when it comes to the subject. Perhaps it may help someone similar. My understanding being: one 'likes' not suffering, suffering is virtually in de facto agreement by everyone to be unethical, ergo, the relationship between human ethics and what the subject of the whole matter's preferences are (what is liked, what is disliked, the fact inflicting suffering is unethical, etc.) is not without noting. It appears my focus is on human-centric ethics or ethics in sole relation to humanity as opposed to a larger "ultimate" Good that would be the same whether humanity exists or not.

But who grants this rights and dignities? — Matias Isoo

Religious people naturally believe such rights are divine, and even non-religious people nod to a similar concept (albeit divorced of any actual divinity) in the common usage of "God-given rights". What's relevant is not who or what granted it, but who or what enforces it. Which at the time is every non-isolationist nation who partakes in modern society and the free trade and travel that comes with.

To avoid a non-answer, I suppose in pragmatic terms it is granted (and more importantly, enforced) by the regional government. Not to say out of sheer good will or higher understanding, mind you, often for the reasons mentioned (trade, travel, inclusion and to no lesser degree, protection with/by the rest of the world). A bit of a shaky foundation in any sort of objective sense, sure. But nonetheless the way of the modern age. It's "what we have to work with". Wasn't always that way, and for all we know might not always be. But for now, it's reality. No different for all intents and purposes than say, gravity. Sure, people commit crimes and violate the law, some even get away with it. But more so than not, the rights and dignities of persons are enshrined with notable attempts to protect such in stable, developed countries.

I suppose it can be noted, from a strictly worldly view, it's ultimately a human construct, no different than declaring a particular color "the best color" and enshrining such a judgement as law of the land. So it's a bit poky, given thorough philosophical scrutiny, admittedly. Basically, the majority of people got together and decided "You know, life is better without everyone running around killing everyone" and made such a perspective into law. Unless you are chained to a floor or wearing an explosive neck collar that will detonate upon leaving whatever country you're in, you willfully accept and participate in the base, most fundamental laws of that society, those laws being along the lines of human rights to life and dignity. You must. Otherwise you will be imprisoned or penalized upon being found guilty of acting in such a manner that violates these laws, or so the law prescribes.

How can we defined something ethical or unethical if not by a set of rules?
Do you have your own set of rules? Or do you follow a already establish set? — Matias Isoo

Therein lies the debate. What is good? What is ethical? Why? Who says so? Absent of any sort of theistic source, such concepts seem to logically fall into the category of subjectivity. Along the lines of "it is because we say it is", which admittedly leaves much to be desired for the objectivity seeker. De facto understanding and social norms seem to emerge as a sort of "guidance" (what makes me go "ouch" will make another person go "ouch", we have laws that say you cannot make another person go "ouch" for that is despised and socially-viewed as criminality by the majority).

None of that is very satisfying to the person seeking a concrete non-theistic answer, of course. So, the options appear to be either "good and ethical does not exist, except as opinions, which are ultimately no more correct or incorrect or right or wrong than the next" or "goodness and ethics are based on the will of humanity writ-large supported by objective things such as what is harmful or destructive to human beings or human societies versus what is pleasing and beneficial to them".

Personally, I follow the law, as I live in a modern, developed society that, at least on paper, purports to protect the dignity and rights of all human persons coupled with my personal intuition of what feels right or wrong based on empathy (ie. What if that person were me? How would I like to be treated? Etc.)

Be advised however, I've been reprimanded, several times, for my purporting to link "ethics" with "human nature" or "evolution". Apparently, that's an unsound belief not rooted in any sort of intrinsic or objective reality. Enslavement of persons, for example, was once a social norm. Justified by things such as "another empire would have just killed them" or "they wouldn't have survived on their own" or "our slaves live better lives than most nobles of Empire B, we did them a favor helping them avoid the inevitable fate of enslavement by Empire B whose slaves are physically abused for pleasure, whereas ours are not", etc. While any number of those claims may not only have been true but factual as far as a better outcome for the enslaved, humanity has evolved to do "one better" and eliminate slavery altogether (for the most part, human trafficking is very much alive and well).

Basically, I'm just calling it how I see it. With the belief that while I may not be satisfactorily answering all of your questions, I may be offering some sort of guidance toward the path that does contain, or will lead you to, the answers you seek. At least, I'm hopeful of such.

But how can we define something inhumane or unethical if we do not have bad/evil establish? — Matias Isoo

Inhumane is an absolute. That which is detrimental to or grossly inconsiderate of a human person. A human person being an intelligent albeit vulnerable organism that can experience and (generally) has a desire to avoid pain while seeking contentment, comradery, and purpose. That which denies or deprives the humanity and perceived natural rights of a human person.

Unethical is somewhat also of an absolute. That which directly or indirectly denies or deprives a human person the rights and dignities granted to personhood. Or causes something to that affect for sentient beings ie. chopping down a rain forest or over-fishing a species to extinction or near-extinction. I suppose you could say ethics is like humaneness but covers all that is sentient or can directly or indirectly affect that which is sentient.

More objective absolutes such as the above are often used in favor of "evil". They are synonymous, however. To most, at least.

Philosophers tend to avoid use of (or for that matter, even belief in) the word and its prescriptive concept of "evil" over more objective and easily defined concepts such as "socially-destructive" and "willfully inhumane and unethical".

What, assuming you are like most people, would you not like done to you, and why? What has humanity throughout thousands of years lived and fought wars and died to prevent? And on the other hand, to preserve? These are your starting points.

(Note: I will likely catch some flack for implying an intrinsic connection between ethics and human history/evolution. Let's instead use "desire" or "widely-held will" of humanity. Many human efforts and wars were to simply prolong an existing state of affairs, whether or not that state of affairs is based on "goodness" or "evil" ie. protecting a society propped up solely through perpetual conquest and exploitation of other innocent people, for example. With that exception, things like safety and predictable production of goods. Things that contribute to an environment that facilitates the greatest flourishing of human potential that minimizes things such as suffering, strife, crime, unpredictable violence, existential dread, etc.)

I don't see the relevance of your post to either the OP topic or my posts. — 180 Proof

Odd.

OP: We are at a historically-unique crisis.
You: We are not.
Me: Oh but in some ways we are.

Seems rather straightforward. :confused:

No matter. We both eagerly await OP's appraisal of our respective opinions on the matter of the uniqueness and severity of modern crises and whether or not a sort of Renaissance could occur. :ok:

Well, just that many would disagree with your initial premise for the reason(s) stated is all. Nothing contentious, just if you don't acknowledge other people's perspectives and why they hold them, regardless of their overall factual nature or relevance, your concerns will likely fall on deaf ears is all. Which will often undermine the efficiency of any related action or goal you're trying to accomplish or establish.

I agree with you in principle, just as far as the end or major decline of life on Earth, I'd much rather trust the universe alone without having the warring nature of man or malfunction of his systems to be added to the mix is all. Wouldn't you?

Nothing new in this sort of "end times" anxiety except for the historical circumstances and particulars. — 180 Proof

Oh, how I'd love to believe that. Surely the nuclear dynamic has some footing? I suppose one could simply say "at any time an asteroid or GRB (gamma-ray burst) could strike Earth, either totally or partially, levying the power of a dozen nuclear weapons; this was true 50,000 years ago, 1,000 years ago, and remains just as true this very day". But surely the idea of a human finger being all that stands in the way from what could very well result in planetary nuclear desolation is at least mildly concerning and a new dynamic found only in the past century? :chin:

It may be that so much in life and history was of great dramas, but so much has changed with technology. — Jack Cummins

So true. Particularly about the nuclear aspect. No longer will the largest scale of war possible be fought by ground troops with potential to decimate only localized, contained areas leaving the majority of humanity unaffected. Now, the pursuit of war has much higher stakes. If a major world power decides to use a nuclear weapon, and they do not successfully disable all non-allied nuclear response, there is a real potential for the end of all human life on Earth, at least, a collapse/reset of all first-world civilization resulting in levels of both severity and widespread proliferation of suffering never seen before. Frightening stuff, really. Truly game-changing, yes.

When you speak of how the increasing use of aids such as mobility scooters people don't need to be able to walk much, it shows how far people have begun to expect longetivity. — Jack Cummins

That it does. As well as the fact that less is required, through relatively now-cheap and easily-produced innovation, to live a dignified life with basic needs met without natural incentive that once decided who survived, who did not, and to what quality of life. My implication being that, absent of struggle and toil, man becomes lazy and unmotivated to do much of anything, including contributing to the overall well-being of his society and that of his neighbor.

But, this may not continue as life in the first world countries becomes impoverished and tougher. The first world countries may become like the third world gradually. It is likely that the flourishing of the first world was only possible due to the exploitation of the developing nations. — Jack Cummins

Anything is possible, sure. However, when it comes to most technologies and innovation, whether for better or worse, "the cat is already out of the bag", so to speak. The first computer took an extraordinary amount of time and resources to construct, taking up an entire wall of a medium-sized room. Now, you can likely pick up a used smartwatch from a Goodwill bin that has triple the computing power built by less than a dollars worth of materials. The overarching theme behind invention is, in many ways, a story of facilitating one's laziness. Sure, more of maximizing one's effort and time in order to greater advance one's life and that of his society, blah blah. Point being, even cheap and relatively outdated technology and innovation all but eliminates the "old world struggle" or "unquenchable human spirit" that one previously needed in order to live any sort of quality existence. Again, all things considered, it makes "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" seem all the more, not just rational and tolerable, but wise.

The third world countries are also seeing a cost of living crisis. It comes down to the problem of energy resources and sustainability. — Jack Cummins

Another great point. The restless, determined spirit of man is at times a foolish one. Those who play it safe, finish last, the stubborn man says. Yet such self-assurance begets recklessness, which is seldom without consequence. Asbestos in housing, lead in paint, being notable examples off the top of my head. Who knows how many persons were irreversibly affected by such "progress".

The world is like a garage where everyone has their car running. It's argued that the actual human impact is less than feared in comparison to natural events such as wildfires, volcanic eruptions, even cosmic radiation, etc. I'm not a scientist, but I do air on the side of caution religiously. The less pollution is irrefutably better for all that lives. One would hope for some sort of "miracle energy", similar to cold fusion or something of the sort (I don't keep track of such). Of course, one knows what that would mean. Man's eternal pursuit to weaponize anything and everything that can be made to serve such a function. Hopelessness is easy to find oneself ensnared by, admittedly. But who knows. Maybe it'll all work out just fine. :grin:

'violence, hatred, toxic culture and politics, and domestication of the masses due to consumerism and corporate greed have led the world, and especially America, to a tipping point. And yet, for all the world's problems, despite the seemingly hopeless place that we find ourselves in, there is always a chance for a new start'. — Jack Cummins

It seems to me there are many, much more dramatic, cases of all of that in just about any given time in history, some place or land with a person astute and aware enough to make such a musing.

Whether or not information overload gives us a skewed perspective or whether that perspective is in fact accurate and was just never part of the zeitgeist (awareness) of the average person before the advent of the modern information age is also something to consider.

Sometimes, not necessarily in this case, it's better the devil you know. Life on Earth has always been full of hardship since time immemorial, the idea of an entire planet with thousands of different peoples, languages, and cultures in varying states of progress having everyone in it getting along at all times borderlines absurd, unfortunately. Though yes, progress can and is being made. That alone should be enough to inspire hope.

This leads to the question of is it the end of civilisation or is there potential for transformation? Is the idea of transformation mere romanticism or have people become too engulfed by nihilism? I am asking about the nature of values underlying politics. — Jack Cummins

I'd highly suggest a mere regression of human nature or refinement is the furthest thing from an "end of civilization", even writ-large.

It's a curious thing, really. The more time people have not securing their next meal the more time they have to complain about things that never seemed to bother them very much before. Seems to me like a predictable pattern present throughout history. Civilization forms from a traveling group of nomadic peoples when a land suitable for long-term sustenance is found. Permanent settlements are built, goods are produced, innovation begins, man becomes entertained with the arts and sciences (Jersey Shore and Angry Birds being modern albeit lowbrow derivatives). From this point on the pressing concerns of pre-Industrial man begin to fade to distant memory. No more (or significantly less) worrying if an enemy party will raid one's home and pillage ones goods and women and children, less worrying if one would not survive the upcoming winter or harvest due to heated dwellings and storage of food, etc, etc. Instead, something new occupies his daily thought: Excess. Frivolity. "First world problems", as some call it. Before long he forgets how even to survive the hardships he once faced easily, completely vulnerable if they were to suddenly reappear and become ones living reality once more. In short, man becomes comfortable. Too comfortable he begins to make his own discomfort, almost by some cruel trick of fate.

Alleviation of poverty and proliferation of quality education seems to be the golden ticket as far as improving a given society in the long term in the modern age. Poverty leads to stress at best, crime at worst. Poor education leads to poor choices and lack of opportunity to have a function in a rapidly changing world of technology and innovation.

There's always potential. But nothing is incentivized anymore. Before, fitness and having many children was incentivized by nature, if you planned to live to old age. Morality and kindness to one another was incentivized by the omnipresent zeitgeist of belief in a vengeful god who punishes wickedness Now, you don't even have to be able to walk to ride a mobility scooter through Wal-Mart and get a month's worth of groceries. You can be as vitriolic and cruel to an old lady on the street if you'd like, provided no codified laws are broken. Some of these distinct changes in society are not necessarily bad things, but they all have unintended consequences.

Why should you or I or anyone else value “sustaining society” more than our own comfort or advantage? — J

Arguably, the two are explicitly linked. Unless you can drop someone, right now, in the middle of a desert or jungle with nothing but say a knife and a spool of thread and they can live to their fullest comfort and advantage as their desire dictates, that person, including their comfort or advantage, is contingent on that particular society's sustainability. Perhaps not to a perfectly symbiotic degree, no. Perhaps the person is unusually well off, walled off behind a castle with its own self-contained agricultural and social microcosm and would remain unaffected if society were to disappear. That's not most people, however. While I understand the emphasized point in your inquiry to be "why should one value sustaining society more than one's self", as in possibly neglecting one's own well being for that of a neighbor's, I still think that for most people "no man is an island" rings true, particularly in one's darkest hour. Meaning, for the average person, if society suffers, so will they; ergo, in the most selfish flavor of logic, while it may not mean doing squat for anyone at all, to at least not hinder or hamper such well-being serves one's own self interest as well. In which case, helping others can in fact indirectly help oneself, which advances comfort and provides advantage (arguably). As to what degree, it certainly depends. Some people who don't have kids or don't care for the future well-being of their own (the "here for a good time not a long time" or "just looking out for number one" type) being notable and common exceptions.

Still, the sentiment and implications of your inquiry as I understand them ring true. There may not be a strictly logistically rational (directly beneficial) reason to value the well being of society more than one's own, however the average person who is dependent on society more than they would like to give credit for (infrastructure, utilities, grocery stores, relatively-safe streets free of war) would be wise to do what is in their power to ensure the longevity of said society, if not just for the time they or anyone they consider "in their self interest" is alive.The shortsighted aside, most people today consider the things society and society alone offers (power, roads, public services) as "bare necessities" and would either not survive or be comfortable and have advantage without.

That, to me, is a genuine ethical question that can’t even be posed until, as @Banno points out, we stop thinking that some naturalistic fact about human beings or evolution is going to contain the answer. — J

I'd have to argue that the nature of a subject is not only highly relevant but paramount to any sort of matter related to said subject.

I don't see any argument as to it being an unreasonable place to begin, at least. Are our desires and as a result, will -- and to an extent, identity -- not based on, or at least in constant entwinement with, our own nature? Sure, a functional and civilized modern-day adult is miles above his deep primal nature in virtually all his affairs and doings, but that doesn't mean he doesn't feel the same emotions and desire to act on such inclinations as one who is the opposite, at least on more than nominal an occasion. I agree there's better places to look and any "solution" derived solely from the aforementioned is shortsighted and above all likely to be ineffectual or otherwise just "not true" ie. superficial.

I'm trying to suggest it's more of a "this is what works because we have reached the (perhaps not THE ultimate, but a penultimate of sorts) pinnacle of mastery of understanding of the world and sociology with the work of every great mind and result of every study basically at our fingertips" kind of point in humanity, as opposed to simply "we evolved as social beings, so social engineering and preservation of such will either make or break us". With this new dynamic, a dramatic paradigm shift in understanding of the human experience and "condition" has been made that goes beyond "how our bodies and resulting natural inclinations work and why" unto an almost metaphysical "understanding of the soul", in a manner of speaking.

It just seems to me if your goal is to facilitate the well-being, comfort, or advantage of say, a habitat of polar bears, one would not go wrong with hiring a polar bear expert with a library of books about polar bears, than say a botanist with a litany of botanical literature, is all. Having extensive background knowledge of a subject would seem to produce a greater likelihood of reaching beneficial determinations than operating without one or refusing to check highly-relevant and applicable information as if its just needless rubbish of no value. Ethics is dishonored by suggesting it's "linked to evolution" or a simple matter of "what always was" or "what everyone thinks", I agree. I just feel many topics and subject matter that might seem vastly different to one another actually have many common threads that can lead to greater understanding.

Basically, I didn't quite mean to suggest "ethics is based solely on human nature/evolution", it just seems to be incredibly relevant, to me at least. Why do we pay a masseuse top dollar to perform an action that would otherwise be assault and battery as well as pay even higher dollar for someone to prosecute someone who actually assaults and batters us? Because we are vulnerable beings who can feel pain and can be injured or killed by certain actions, which I do believe would have to be considered facts of evolutionary nature. It has its relevance. Do you see where I'm coming from with that?

(Apologies if this is backtracking or the discussion has advanced, I'm rather interested in this line of thought. I also take it there are three definitions or usages of "good" floating around in this discussion: "wise", "pleasing", and the one I was focused on, "moral"/"ethical".)

That's the right response to the OP. — Banno

But, why, perhaps is what Questioner (and to an extent myself, if not for purposes of discussion) may wonder. It seems self-evident, sure. Well, tell us why. Naturally I find the reasons plain as day, as I've posted, but for the sake of philosophic inquiry and higher understanding, make the argument, why not?

that we have evolved to do something or to prefer something simply does not imply that we ought to do that thing. — Banno

I can understand that. It's human nature to take and covet and much worse, that is true. However in this case, "being a team player" is not simple evolution but long-crafted social institution that has advanced greatly so over the millennia. We have new understanding of psychology and sociology that seems to offer near-empirical evidence as to what builds and sustains societies that last and what factors, behaviors, and deviations lead to their collapse. Being of high social regard for pleasant demeanor, selflessness, and going above and beyond means more people will have your back, in a simple cost-benefit analysis sort of way. On the inverse "no one wants an untrustworthy person around" is another simple yet relevant example that seems to stand the test of time and type of society. Bear in mind I was partly answering the OP with a possibly misconstrued notion of it seeming to ask: "Why should we not do bad things" as opposed to "Why should we (go out of our way to) do good".

Because people have collectively spent thousands of years to eradicate that which ails and plagues us ie. "is bad". Through social orders and institutions, wars and alliances, science and chemistry, and good ol' fashioned blunt instruments. You do not want to be on the other end of humanity's collective thousand year offensive.

One doesn't have to. But if one wants to, you know, live, it is highly recommended.

I suppose you mean, why do anything you don't have to or aren't legally obligated to. That's a fair question. In business, it's all about accounting and running a tight ship, no room for pesky things such as empathy, trust, and warmth. That's why societies have laws; you stay in between the lines and your business remains your business. Of course, people love supporting companies that at the end of the day seem to "have a heart", whether they have generous employee policies or donate to charities, because at the end of the day, we are all human and involved in this crazy journey of life together. You never know when it might be you who is under the bus or suddenly not well off, knowing people who don't mind lending a hand just makes society a better place to be, which makes the workforce more productive, and ties into national security as well. It's a neat little package that all makes perfect sense, really.

How does free will relate to circumstance? If you were born before the advent of technology or perhaps even books, you don't have access to on-demand entertainment and the like, and so, you do not have a choice but to be bored for prolonged periods at a time. If you're born in the middle of a desert continent in times before efficient forms of travel, you might have the will to go swimming, but such will is wasted as it would basically be impossible.

I have the freedom to hold "will" for or against anything, but if my circumstances or other factors do not permit, such will is essentially in name only, rather matters not and for some intents and purposes may as well not even exist.

I'm sure most if not all people have the will to eat something they find tasty for their next meal, however based on many factors ranging from finances to mobility, may not ever occur.

"I think therefore I am" comes to mind for some reason. Say someone is born with a genetic deposition to, I don't know, be incredibly prone to anger or is perhaps unable to "feel" as typically imagined ie. does not feel emotion the way most do (is a sociopath). They still have the capacity to have a will to further their understanding of what and why people feel the way they do and perhaps can, distantly, grasp the concept if they put enough effort into it. Someone with a theoretical hardwired anger problem can, if done fervently, will themselves to be mellow and easygoing. It's just significantly more difficult.

If you have a neuro-typical brain, your "choices", thoughts, or "imagination" is your will. Seems free enough in the closed confines of one's own head, of course that doesn't mean if I will to do 1,000 pushups I'll be able to actualize said will into the real world.

I recently obtained some fresh catfish filets from my local supermarket the other day. I chose to add said foodstuff to my "cart" because of the following reasons to the best of my knowledge: A.) A TPF moderator suggested to try catfish. B.) I was fond of catfish growing up and haven't had any for some time. C.) I recently engaged in tasting different kinds of fish and posting said dishes in the Shoutbox and happen to enjoy doing so. D.) There are only about 5-6 different kinds of fish available at this supermarket with said fish happening to be in stock at the time of my order. So many things are responsible and relevant to each of those reasons, each can be analyzed and as a result produce dozens and dozens of further side reasons/cause and effect chains to the point they can no longer be kept track of or reasonably assumed to be actual contributing factors. Regardless, I still could have easily removed the catfish and opted for salmon instead. The fact my local supermarket doesn't have prehistoric Acondylacanthus fish in stock and I happened to have wanted to try some, or any other sort of cause-effect dynamic outside of my control, shouldn't be a deciding factor in whether free will exists or not. Does it?

Many things outside our control can limit our final actions and their ultimate outcomes, but will is desire and while the reason one may desire one thing and not the other is likely based on a torrent of things outside our control, even before we were born, one still has the agency to determine the difference between what was expected, what actually occurred, and whether or not the latter serves or opposes the original, free desire or thought, and to what degree.

What advantage is this? :eyes: — fdrake

It was one of you guys who I read say something along the lines of "what I tell/teach/do with my students is..."

Academic background, I presume. :cool:

Hope you've voted! :smile: — Amity

There ya are, one vote. :up:

I probably wouldn't write one, my essay skills have yet to evolve from early grade school (Paragraph 1: Introduction; Paragraphs 2 - 4: Three supporting reasons, Paragraph 5: Conclusion). Former English teacher once said to me: "Everything to write about has already been written, there is nothing new, only clever rehashing." He teaches philosophy at a major-ish university, last I was aware. I'm sure a few people here more intrepid than I could give him a run for his money, however. It'd be nice to see what gets submitted, that's for sure.

Other than that, got to remember running a competition requires a good amount of time and coordination. I assume many of the TPF eldership have somewhat busy personal lives, holidays not helping. Except for Jamal. We all know he's just wandering around trying to find more meat to velvet.

Didn't there used to be an "Articles" link at the top of the forum or did I imagine that also? Good idea either way. Pretty sure fdrake would just win every time though. He has an occupational advantage from what I've gathered. :eyes: