It sounds to me as if you agree with Schopenhauer over Hegel. Is the world pure will, irrational and free. Or is the world pure reason wherein new truths build on old one in a structure. In medieval times, they had this same debate between Thomists and Scotians and I'm assuming Buddhism tends more towards will — Gregory

I think the world is "set up" / evolves in such a way that the irrational and the rational both cohabitate. They depend on one another. I'm dragging the geometry as an analogy

A circle/ cycle is a phenomenon where a linear, discrete and rational thing - a line - is distorted by the irrational (pi) into a perfect loop. No start, no end. Pi as a number runs along infinitely never repeating itself (completely nonsensical) while a linear line is objective, reasonable and finite.

How many cycles can you name in nature that operate in harmony to establish dynamic but stable ecosystems? Planetary orbits? Seasons, tides, reproduction, the water cycle, carbon cycle, nitrogen cycle, predator and prey populations, the clock of time, frequencies, vibrations, the pendular back and forth swing of Liberal and Conservative governments, war and peace time, circadian rhythm, music, patterns, hormonal regulation in the human body, learning and teaching, the list of cycles of opposites goes on and on. Wherever two of nature's cycles oscillate or overlap with one another a new emergent property appears.

Buddhism is even founded on a cycle - samsara. Perhaps that is the truth of things.

Fuck em right? They mine as well be dead because they can’t contribute no? — schopenhauer1

Of course not. How would that be ethical? We are implored to help them self actualize to the best of their ability. By encouraging them and supporting them to help in society and be rewarded for being co-operative - with a better salary, better quality of life etc if thats something that appeals to them.

If it doesn't then we should still provide universal basic protections : food, housing, the basic necessities to get by and leave them be. I don't think it's fair to use those at the bottom rung as a scapegoat for all of our problems.

If we don't help them we lose our civility. Especially because you cannot choose to whom and where in society you're born. People are born in poverty and struggle to get out of it because of the discrimination of people who think they are dead weight and must always be dead weight. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with someone because of the environment they're brought up in and the things they have to do to survive.

People who are poor and barely holding on steal. People who are wealthy steal. Except the first instance is more justifiable given the hostile conditions they face. There's no reason a wealthy person should ever steal.

Not if their character is their work I guess.
If your job is to think and consult for example - and people implement things based on your arguments one can say well they're not really doing a job they're just thinking things and arguing their points. Like any philosopher does. The only different between a couch philosopher and a professional one is that a professional philosopher whether they specialise in a subset for example ethics - is tied to/consults an establishment or teaches.

The ethics Committee of a scientific institution considers what is presented to them and determines how to proceed without causing harm. Their job is not manual in that sense it's mental.

Those who cannot think for themselves or find it hard to generally tend towards being active in the Labour force. In manual tasks. On the other side of a society we have judges and law makers which are responsible to ensure those that cannot think/don't think for themselves don't get exploited or get themselves into trouble.

Everyones character (set of personality traits) usually correspond with certain jobs. Hence the aptitude tests of career guidance councellors.
The only people who's character is not useful for work are those that are uncooperative/hostile, extremely lazy, depressed, or battling "delusions" that prevent them from functioning in society meaningfully/safely or those that simply disagree with participating in a society for whatever values they hold.

We're largely creatures of habit, and what we interact with is in most cases familiar and it requires little or no thought on our part to interact with the familiar satisfactorily. Perhaps we may be said to "understand" the familiar and our response to it, in that sense.

We only think when we encounter problems (Dewey again). When we encounter problems we're dissatisfied, and seek to resolve that dissatisfaction. We try to resolve the problems in various ways until resolution takes place. Thus do we learn and acquire knowledge.

Maybe that's what you mean. I'm not certain. — Ciceronianus

Yes that's what I'm saying. We learn through trial and error. Making assumptions, testing them and then getting an outcome. And if the outcome was not expected we then revise our assumptions or how to test them.

This is both applicable in science and in social interaction with one another. I hypothesise something, I make an experiment to test it, the experiment has good controls and is unbiased and the result is what I predicted therefore we can say with a high degree of certainty that the hypothesis is correct.

Similarly I can make an assumption about someone based on what I observe - their behaviour or what they tell me about their beliefs. I test whether me assumption is correct by pointing it out to them/articulating it. If they agree then I was reasonable to assume such a thing, if they disagree they can offer their logic/reasoning as to why my assumption is incorrect. If their logic seems just I apologise for making the assumption and revise it/ accept their reason. If their logic doesn't seem just - for example because it causes harm to themselves or to others, then I can offer that as the reason why I still hold my assumption.

But we disagree on whether we can know everything. — Ciceronianus

I think living/existing in a larger system has inherent uncertainty in it. That is in essence the experience of time isn't it? : it gives us the present moment which we know/can observe actively as it happens. It is known. And the past is progressively less known the further we investigate backwards due to increasing possibility for other variables to result in the same present moment. And likewise the future is also unknown but again can be predicted pretty well at a short range into the future: think of weather forecasts and climate change and current economic instability/stability etc.

Knowing everything and understanding everything are not the same thing. Knowing everything requires all of space-time and all information - all variables.
Understanding everything only requires the present moment. For example if I understand a formula - I can expect to know the result in the future when that future is "realised" - when that future becomes the present (reality).

In essence understanding something (its relationship and interactions with other things - a cause) has predictive value for knowing something (the effect).

If I understand a person behaves selfishly. And my friend wants to help them/offer resources to them, I can expect to know (predict) that my friend will get exploited at that future moment. That such a selfish person would parasatise them and take their help for granted.

Also if the observer is to analyse everything around them as an object they lose the information about others feelings and emotions etc - abstractions that they cannot physically see. That's why scientific method cannot be disconnected fully from ethical consideration. They are "entangled".

And if an observer is to be completely intuitive (only use belief) on the other hand and forego objective observations they again lose information - that offered by control and analysis and objective measure (scientific method).

The system must always have some factor unknown in order to know the other factors. Heisenbergs stated this.

So no its not possible to know everything that has and will ever occur, just as one cannot know everyone's name on the planet, but it is possible to understand of all of their relationships with one another and inherit good predictive ability. You can apply that ability (that formula) to whatever you want to. You can specialise in whatever you want to know.

It's not random or luck that certain people make discoveries or invent things and others do not. It's about building your own algorithms for reality. And testing them

Ever the quote if managers giving more work to their subordinates. — schopenhauer1

Thats a rather pessimistic view. Not all managers are bad ones. Is it not exactly that "given the opportunity to fulfill one's capabilities" that itself begets a good manager? As far as I know managers/leaders etc are needed. And a good one surely empowers and extends that privilege to those they manage to self actualize their own set of personal capabilities. Good management is about recognising talent in the pool of employees and rewarding/promoting them accordingly.. If not even to hand the torch over happily if they are even better management material.

But alas, the universe isn't beholden to us to us in any sense — Ciceronianus

I disagree, on the contrary the universe is beholden to us through every sense. We are not a closed system. Our borders with the environment are open ones. We are in constant transaction, constant exchange with the external world. Give and take, acknowledge and express, observe and project. If we don't accept that fact we simply live in our own internal mental world devoid of external narrative. We become this or that, victim or aggressor when it is a spectrum.

And as far as I see we are so far simultaneously the most capable and incapable species on that spectrum in the capacity to understand the logic/ irrationality of the universe. Other animals simply do what they need to. They live in a natural and balanced ecosystem. An equilibrium. While we are biased - argue and justify every reason for something before committing to it/rejecting it stifleing intuition/instinct in favour of exacting and precision rationale.

In a way that's a great advantage to exacting things like science but a great disadvantage to intuitive things like ethics/morality. We can pretend absolutes don't exist but of course they do. The spectrum has ends, polarity, opposites. If - 10 and + 10 are taken away as the absolute extremes of a set then are they not replaced by - 9 and + 9 (which are still the greatest extreme) available to the set.

Absolutes paint the whole picture but the middle is where one should view them from. It isn't good to "be extreme" but it is good to "acknowledge extremes" for what they are.

I would not dare to underestimate ourselves as part of the plotline in the beholding of the universe. I don't think it's egocentric or naive I simply believe that we are just as much the universe as a mountain is, as the moon is. Its the ego that convinces one that they are separate. That's why egotistical people are self indulging.. Because they only consider a singular object as part of themselves - their own body. Selfless people serve others because they really believe they are part of something bigger.

Have you studied psychology/neuroscience at all? Or is this conjecture? — ToothyMaw

Fifth year medical student. Neurology and psychology are an active interest of mine in my studies.

I would phrase it in terms of being given the opportunity of fulfilling one's capabilities more than just hope. — Banno

Yes quite right. I think your phrasing is valid also.

How is this alone not reason to not willingly produce more beings into that situation? The inevitability of X suffering, doesn't mean that one thus has to willingly allow to continue X suffering because X suffering already exists in some form or another. Lions kill, therefore humans can kill for example is a really simplistic form of this argument. It is the naturalistic fallacy of course. — schopenhauer1

I was simply outlining the dynamic, the game, not suggesting we shouldn't exist or reproduce. One exists to use their intelligence and ability to adapt and fend off adversaries (a hostile environment) and improve their living standards and those of their community.

Is this not the basis for evolution and natural selection?

Genes/collections of genes that are protective and co-operative with one another are shared/reproduced through natural selection amongst the gene pool because they allow the collective to gain the upper hand and prolong survival.

Genes/collections of genes that are selfish and detrimental on the other hand (viruses) go about via infection, trying to parasitise the rest to create more of themselves instead.

People do the same thing. Some would have you believe you are always in debt to them and ought to serve them and relinquish your resources, usually through manipulating you into a sustained feeling of guilt or shame. They make you feel ill/unwell.

Others teach you to be your own person, know yourself, to have self esteem and confidence and the ability to argue rationally and justly enough to thwart the agenda of the selfish. These people confer immunity through wisdom and intelligence.

Such is the game of life.

No, it doesn't. You're being far too generous.

A parent ought want the best for their child. It follows that one ought improve the way things are. It does not follow that one ought not have kids. — Banno

You know what Banno I think you're right. Perhaps I'm being too generous. The only place an anti-natalist view has validity is well... A permanent Hell - a place where any new child would be certain to exclusively suffer/come to harm.

However this disregards as you quite correctly pointed out the existence and role of a parent. We have the parental power, the paternal/maternal instincts available to us to protect our children. To protect the vulnerable in general as those who are vulnerable/powerless are innocent - by that I mean they neither know of their own inherent power nor then can they practice it. Children must be educated first. They therefore cannot choose a side and are subject to being preyed upon or being protected.

The shepard leads the sheep, they don't slaughter them because the sheep might come to harm if they exist. It's a clear contradiction. The shepard knows who and what the big bad wolf is, and how to fend it off. Both within themselves (their own potential to be the wolf) plus those beyond themselves - external threats.

The three little pigs knew they had the strongest defence against the wolf when they cooperated, when they recognised the strong/wisest of them from the weakest and most vulnerable and gravitated towards the protection offered by the strong/wise.

Its ironic that we tell this story to our children and yet forget that the underlying message is always applicable throughout life, even as adults - such as when being challenged by anti-natalist idealogies in philosophy and society. A classic example is the cold, empathiless sentiment that "the poor shouldn't exist because they are useless and cannot help themselves. Dead weight to society". What person in their right mind would wish such sentiments on others and call themselves just?

Existing trumps not existing because it offers more, you can always choose to die but you cannot choose to be born. As a living thing you have two options - continue to struggle for a better life, or give up and succumb to oblivion, as a dead thing you have no such options.

Therefore not existing is impotent in the face of life with hope (someone who is not themselves severely depressed, severely full of negativity and lack of love for life, suicidal).

Suicide is the moment when the conscious mind has lost the very last shred of hope it had, and thus mind becomes incompatible with the body and they annihilate one another.

Another example: Susan wants to invite James over for dinner. Susan also wants to cook a particular dish - an incredibly hot curry - that James dislikes.
Well, she should choose which of those desires to satisfy. If she invites James over, she should cook him something he'll like, not something he'll dislike.

Now imagine that you also want to invite James over for dinner, but the only ingredients you have in your cupboard are those that make an incredibly hot curry and nothing else. Well, you shouldn't invite him over then. — Bartricks

Yes agreed. Nobody with sensible intentions wishes James to suffer an insufferably hot curry. So either cook something he will like, don't invite him or get takeout..

This is obvious. What relevance does it have to our previous discourse? Please explain

You're not really listening, are you? You're just saying stuff. It's a puzzle to me why you're saying what you're saying — Bartricks

I'm trying. I think you're likely an articulate and intelligent person. I respect your views and am attempting to offer views I think may be useful. I like to listen, try to digest the information and come up with a responsible and reasonable response to furher the discourse.

Tony wants to create new life and put it into that sensible world. — Bartricks

If Tony wants to create new life and put it into a sensible world, he is creating something insensible (living beings with irrational/imperfect thought) and putting them into a sensible world (something logical/rational)

To the living beings (which are illogical/flawed - as all beings are) they would naturally project insensibility onto a sensible world through their insensible perception. They would likely have disputes and argue with one another as to what the sensible world really was - again because of their insensible/flawed understanding.

Does this explain where I coming from? Or should I elaborate? If both the living things were sensible and the environment - that which they were added to, then all would be sensible, agreed upon and therefore not argued. There would be no possible difference in opinion and therefore no free will.

That's why I cited free will. It is relevant

I don't understand that question — Bartricks

What I'm saying is an omniscient omnipotent being cannot create a world of "oppositions/opposites". Nothing can oppose that which knows all and has all capability (potency). In order to have freedom/free will, in order to have multiple conscious agents with their own agency and decisions to make, an omniscient omnipotent being cannot be present.

If such a creator exists then their absence/ unavailability to humanity is the only true reason people have any free will. People are illogical and make decisions based on that imperfect/flawed logic. If an ultimate logic were to be presented, individual flawed logic would be overwhelmed and destroyed and total autocratic control would be assumed.

I don't really see your point. There's an omnipotent, omniscient person. There's a sensible world. They - the omnipotent, omniscient person - like the world, They enjoy watching how things unfold in it. There's nothing wrong in that. — Bartricks

To an omniscient, omnipotent person would their own existence be compatible with a "sensible" world ?

If they "know all" and have "all power" then they're totalitarian. Nothing logical can occur outside of their omniscience. There is thus no choice for any of their subjects as their (the subjects) choice is already made knowingly and powerfully for them. In this case they are mere extensions of the omniscient/omnipotent being and not their own "Agents". They cannot logically revolt.

What sensibility is there in being the only thing that exists and the only controller. In that case you exist alone. A "sensible" world is one where mistakes can be made, experiences can be learned from, agents can be free to decide for themselves what they believe.

That is, if the omnipotent, omniscient person decides to indulge their desire to let the world run in its own way, then the omnipotent, omniscient person ought to frustrate their desire to procreate. We are unable to affect how the world runs. Therefore we ought to frustrate our desire to procreate. — Bartricks

This anti-natalism "appears" logical. But it does not consider free will. If an omnipotent omniscient presence/entity were to abstain from allowing things to run in its own way then they must remain as only "potential to be" rather than "being/existence".

To exist is to be at odds with all other existents that themselves wish to exist. As they are in constant power struggle. For example in order for a Virus to exist it is in conflict with the immune systems of its potential hosts.

Therefore if one is to exist it must be subject to both creative and destructive forces. As you cannot have one without the other. If one wishes not to exist then it is removed from competition to do so.

It is true that for free will to exist an omniscient omnipotent person could not exist for any significant amount of time. They could merely exist briefly. If they are the "truth" (because of their superior knowledge and thus power/potency) then the truth is an unstable state in a changing/free will governed system.

In essence if the truth of things were to come out, it would be gravitated towards and dissected and dissolved and thus vanish almost as quickly as it appeared. In order to preserve free will. So if there is a god (an omniscient omnipotent being, a pure unarguable logic), they would likely not wish to be known, for if they did free will would dissolve and thus they must be destroyed to bring back choice.

Morally it would be fine for them to just leave the world to its own devices and frustrate their desire to introduce life into the world. Nothing wrong in doing that. — Bartricks

But if they don't introduce life (conscious/sentient beings) into the world what capacity would such an inanimate world have for it would not even be aware that it exists. A world without an observer would be devoid of both meaning and its consequence: "good" and "evil" (concepts held by sentient things).

Your hypothetical may work if you reduce the knowledge and abilities of the entity in the OP as such a being having SOME form of limitations. — I like sushi

If by "omniscient" we mean a person that knows correctly how they are connected fundamentally to the rest of existence (the universe) then they are omnipotent through said existence (the universe). They are not omnipotent in human form as they cannot do inhuman things (humans are in one way defined by what they can and cannot physically achieve).

As an object their total power would not be available to them, however they could point to the universe saying "look.. I am it and it is me" through some core relationship (energy perhaps) and say "there is my absolute power" (the universe). However I am just a partiality of said power, here as an object (human).

In that sense knowing that the "whole" is ambivalent (both creative and destruction, both chaos and order). The omniscient person (knowing of all relationships between things) can thus also be ambivalent (not care) in reflection of the whole, or they can be malevolent or benevolent.

So what defines the difference between an omniscient person being benevolent or malevolent? It is in their choice to either keep their omniscience to themselves (the truth) or spread it far and wide to empower others to be able discern ignorance from truth.

In essence a good god wants others to know they are god also and serves them in telling so. (selflessness).

A bad god wants people to think of only themselves as God and everyone else should be subordinates to them. (selfishness).

In that way the truth can be kept to do evil or spread to do good.

Morally what ought they to do? Should they frustrate their desire to introduce sentient life into the sensible world? Or should they frustrate their desire to leave the sensible world alone and instead alter it so that it does not pose the risks to the welfare of the innocent life they plan on introducing into it? Or should they satisfy both desires? — Bartricks

I think if there was an omnipotent omniscient person that wished to protect their project - life, or sentient beings. I would imagine that they would act in the best practice of any parent - non interference until such a time that their creation unknowingly puts themselves in the gravest of mortal danger.

Then its wise for their parent - this omniscient being to step in/ intervene and provide some of that knowledge to help guide his /her creation away from their own demise.

In this way the benevolent omniscient being maintains as much free will as is possible for their sentient creations so they can explore and be curious and make their own decisions, all the while protecting them from total self annihilation whenever they choose to ignore their omniscient parent entirely to the point of pure delusion and self harm. For example like inventing nuclear weapons.

irrelevancies — Banno

Irrelevancies according to you I guess. Does that mean they're universal Irrelevancies?

You have not shown yourself capable of replying to the critic — Banno

On the contrary all I have ever been doing is responding with further elaboration to each of your reponses. If your responses were not to outline critiques/ queries you found against something I said then what were they? Does one argue with someone else if they are in agreement? I think not.
I'm quite capable of replying further to your critiques if you'd like.

Happy to entertain them.

there is a point in attempts to engage in rational conversation at which the only reasonable thing to do is to laugh and walk away. Here we are. — Banno

Again "rational" according to who? Are you speaking on behalf of just yourself or humanity here? I think I am rational. You do not. Fine. Let it be so. You are always free to walk away, hell even laugh if that's what would satisfy you. No harm no foul. It is only discourse. I'm sorry my views appear to be so offensive I did my best to explain them.

If you don't understand what I say you can choose to ignore it in which case our chat stops here, or continue our discussion. What would you like to ask me to elaborate on so I may make it a bit more clear for you?

What you don't have the authority to do is believe you are so outright absolutely and definitively correct that it would be prudent to ban me so I don't infect others for the sake of humanity. I mean sorry but I fail to see how that is constructive and how you are some god that I'm forbidden to contest. As your comment below would suggest

Seems you are beyond redemption. The only hope is that you don't infect others. Were I a mod I would ban you for the good of humanity. — Banno

Level/temper yourself please my friend.

Seems you are beyond redemption. The only hope is that you don't infect others. Were I a mod I would ban you for the good of humanity. — Banno

Seems a rather personal attack based on mere discourse. I wasn't informed freedom of speech was not tolerated. I also don't believe anyone is beyond redemption. As that would be uncompassionate and unethical. It leaves no room for hope.

If one is beyond redemption then they are unable to change and if they are unable to change their views they have no free will. A slave to how others define them. Not really a moral paradigm to hold. Are you sure you are just in attacking me for what I believe to be true. I am not attacking you. Nor would I ever want to. For me you are free to believe what you want

But doing philosophy, being rational, involves sorting out the consequences of the things we make up. — Banno

Agree.

Not just anything will do. — Banno

Agree again.

Now the consequences of the two contentions I selected from your comments are that we know everything, that there are proposals that are neither true nor false, that we didn't know yesterday that the OP is in English... I could go on. — Banno

We know everything for me = we have an inbuilt capacity to pursue useful knowledge to it's ends. Good or bad Logic/reason (the act of judgement/decision).

In other words, that there is a state of pure ignorance and a state of pure truth - a spectrum that we transverse by accepting or rejecting statements (whether true of false), and the ones which are accepted (whichever case they may be) generating a new paradigm (logic/reason - for better or worse) from which to address further statements as either true or false. Consequently either elevating or diminishing our ability to discern what is delusion from what is true knowledge.

In essence we do know everything we need to know to pursue truth.

An individuals logic/reason is not "thee logic/logos" of actual reality but a collection of what we believe to be true that shapes what questions are available to us to ask and what we assume is absurdity. If we change our reasoning/personal logic (what we believe to be the case) then we change our assumptions and thus change the quality and quantity of questions we can posit. So yes we do have the potential to know everything because we can know nothing. "I know that I know nothing" gets its validity from this Idea.

As for proposals that are neither false nor true consider relativism and paradox. If time has an objective present, past and future then the grandfather paradox is true. If time is an illusion created by observers having memory and thus anticipation through reference; that there is no actual time other than the present moment then the grandfather paradox is false.

Thus times existence as a proposal can be false if believed to be a product of observers and true if believed to be a product of objective external reality. It is true and false.

Anything with a dual state, anything dualistic is both true and false depending on the observers decision. Wave-particle duality exists and is both true and false simultaneously until observed, until an observer determines a singular state.

well, let's just say the results are not worthy of due consideration. — Banno

Results are always worthy of due consideration. Even if hypothetical as they lead to stepwise consequences which offer insight. Denying consideration to the possible is merely making a decision to make such possibilities unavailable to you. It is the moment you give up and stop caring about discussion.

It can take tremendous therapy to make a person with schizophrenia understand they are schizophrenic and can only be done with meds usually. If you want people to not have to deal with taking antipsychotics for their whole life, you should be in favor of them taking them until they are stable enough not to ruin their life/hurt themselves/hurt others/break laws, etc., which goes beyond just taking them until one is not of immediate danger to themselves or others. — ToothyMaw

Perhaps you're are right, I'm willing to concede that I'm a little "cut and dry" on the subject. But it is nice to see there is commonality between us in that we both believe if someone is a harm to themselves or others only then can we intervene with forceful medicating. The time span is what seems to differ here. Which I shall not comment on further as you have good reason of your own.

If I said that aliens are coming to earth to steal our gold reserves to create conductors for their spaceships as they go on an unstoppable galactic conquest to snatch all sentient species' cannabis, would you say: "I don't know if I can say that your reality is any less valid than mine?" — ToothyMaw

Of course I would think it implausible in a "literal" sense based on our collective understanding of the current state of affairs.

However at the root of their belief - the sensation that "something alien/something unfamiliar" is coming or occurring in which our values (precious gold reserves) are being eroded (stolen) to do something sinister (theft - in this case cannabis) seems to be plausible.

It can be reduced to a fundamental feeling that there is an "unrecognised threat that has the potential to corrode our values to commit crimes against us". This is much more logical at a base level but is only considered when we overlook the absurdity of the literal description in pursuit of the underlying fear/anguish. One that is quite reasonable in its own right.

I think then, that schizophrenics articulate genuine humans concerns that we all frequently suspect, but are unable to use sensible means to describe them. Their imagination runs wild with descriptors. But what they are describing is still comprehensible. We just lack the compassion to trust they have some logic deeply engrained in their superficial absurdities.

The question is then why has their brain failed to use useful language to describe their anguish? It appears as though their innate language model has departed from their limbic system (emotions/instinctual threat perception).

This is a more useful paradigm then simply determining that they're speaking total gibberish. This is about empathy, deeper investigation and patience/tolerance of the doctor.

precisely introbert. You're on the right track! Such an articulate and comprehensive discourse you present here. Knowing what you do about the failings of psychiatry to address that which they have the intention to resolve, what would you offer as your solution?

It does seem like a case of "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". I think psychiatry tries to do something good but is misguided in carrying out that intention. My advice... If you are medically inclined don't become a psychiatrist haha. And if you're legally or politically inclined and see a glaring error... It would be apt to campaign for a better way forward, or at the very least notify those of relevant authority as to your concerns. That would be most noble path. But that's just my opinion. I'm more curious to know yours.

. I'm not completely certain what Dougals Adams thought about this, but psychiatry definitely does have an aura of evilness about it which is hard to define. — introbert

Interesting. I do think there is something not quite right about psychiatry. Consider this, we do not understand how consciousness works, how one experiences, behaves or believes what they believe.

With that in mind how does one "treat" the subjective experience with objects (drugs)? It doesn't really have much logic behind it if we don't understand the link between the subjects experience and the object - that which is being experienced/reality (the hard problem of consciousness).

If I stunt a mania or depression by forcing someone to not feel anything, to be numb, to be zombified and depleted of agency. Is that moral? And is it considered a cure?

Does medicating the mentally unwell enslave them to a forced "neutrality"? It is clear from the numerous side effects of psychiatric drugs, some arguably worse then the condition they're treating, that there must be better ways of approaching one's mind.

Furthermore the use of the word "delusional" by a psychiatrist to justify medicating is somewhat a comical irony in that the psychiatrist doesn't know what "reality" truly is to justify judging another's as delusional. That's somewhat of a god complex of the psychiatrist to take control of another's mind without understanding it. It lacks empathy. And thus feels sinister.

I think psychology is the more prudent approach. Without an arsenal of vaguely useful drugs not fully understood in their action, the psychologist must contend with an unwell mind through discourse, conversing and offering therapy through communication. This seems much less invasive and controlling. And has been proven to have good results.

The only time I think drug therapies are appropriate is when someone is of immediate harm to either themselves or others. In the case of actively attempting suicide or murder. Only in these cases is using a drug to blunt a person's consciousness justified to simply buy some time to allow psychologists to help them.

But the drug must be removed from the therapy at the earliest possible moment when signs of clinical improvement are accerlating beyond the danger zone and back to the safety zone.

A universal is supposed to be a general property that is somehow instantiated/exemplified in particular objects (instances/examples) that have this property, which coincides with a particular resemblance relation among these particular objects. For example, redness as a universal is instantiated in particular red objects, which coincides with a particular resemblance relation among all red objects: they all resemble each other in the sense that they are all red. — litewave

I have the desire to drag in "fractals" to explain my views on this interesting topic. What is a fractal but something that at large scale (universal) is also exemplified in its smaller units (particular objects). There is a clear relationship between all things from top to bottom and back via the magnitude of the fractal. "as above so below".

Many believe if the universe has a clearly defined set of rules from which all things emerge, evolve or are created then the universe is a fractal. Qualities of the entire thing reflected in individual things, systems of things and people - creativity, destruction, rationality and irrationality, attraction and repulsion, etc. And people would also be built of the same processes from the ground up, structures, cycles and regulations (hormones) , hierarchies of cells and tissues.

"made in its image" as it were. When one takes psychedelic consciousness altering drugs they often report seeing fractals. Perhaps this is why.

t there are harsh criticisms that the book has inspired fascism, communism, and overall totalitarianism — Dermot Griffin

Is democracy not a benevolent tyranny? I don't think one person having power, authority or influence is necessarily a bad thing but such a persons character must be up to the mark. If elected there, chosen by the people, for the persons demonstration of certain desirable attributes in a leader, I wouldnt have any issue serving his or her tyranny as I know that ultimately they are actually serving us.

I wouldnt be happy with an evil tyranny - with someone who stole power by manipulating democracy and eroding it with propaganda. Taking away people's choice of whether to empower them or not.

If your master is a person who cares for you dearly, who wants to raise you up to your full potential using their "mastered wisdom"... Would you mind being their servant?
I think that is the only difference between being a slave and being a servant.

It's not about whether power dynamics can exist. They always exist. It's about how they "should" exist.

Do you mean it would be nice if it was, or that would be only fair? — Ciceronianus

Both. I think it would be nice if we all related to eachother and our external reality in a similar way. We likely wouldn't feel lonely or depressed or excluded in such a case as this "togetherness". I think it would be fair to expect such a case too. It sounds like a good thing to be a united community. To feel like "us" rather than "me" and "other".

Many of the world's problems now seem like great titans - poverty, wars, climate crisis etc. I can't reason of any other way to tackle them but than in united agreement. But as far as I see currently we have a conflict of interests as a species.

Yes, this is true. Buddha had chosen compassion. Quite similar. But I prefer Buddha's approach. Very "human", simple, direct, practical, no gods or even deities, etc. Christ, and the whole New Testament are very mystical and allow for a lot of interpretations, let aside the self-contraditions and other illogical elements it contains. — Alkis Piskas

Quite right Alkis. Quite right. I think at the end of the day it doesn't matter what religion one pursues (if they wish to even coin themselves by any dogma at all) because beneath all religions or spiritualities seems to be a common ground. A sacred message about doing the right thing. Buddhism is attractive in that as you said it focuses less on living by strict rules and more about meditation, contemplation, self reflection or (as in abrahamic religions
put it - prayer). That affords Buddhism flexibility - unlike its dogmatic counterparts.

I believe Buddha reached his nirvana, his true inner peace, by letting go of his suffering, guilt and shame. By forgiving those who wronged him and by forgiving himself for what wrong he did against others knowing he didn't understand the true way to be, and thus allowing himself the chance to begin anew. Probably as jesus did. And Muhammad.

These looks like attributes of a revolutionary and politically-oriented person. I have read in the (very) past a few texts with these views in mind. Even that he belonged to Zealots, who I think were also amed! — Alkis Piskas

Correct again. And how many of our greatest leaders even just within the last few centuries were a force to be reckoned with, inspiring the masses and being assassinated for it? Or at least attempted assassination.

Did they all know the same thing? Were they all compelled by the same truth? I wonder.

Isn't this what Chirst did? If so, it means that he saw that there injustice in the world, which means he believed that His Father (as Son of God) was responsible for that injustice, did he? Because who created everything, including Man with a potential not only to be injust but also to kill his congeners?
Carrying the sins of humanity on one's shoulders is carrying all the injustice and imperfections created by God. — Alkis Piskas

Yes you've made good points here. I believe jesus probably did see the universe - his creator as equal parts destructive/disordered/irrational and unjust and equal parts creative/orderly/logical and just. In that way his father was imperfect.

But he chose to channel benevolence. I suspect enough was enough for him and he didn't want to observe foolish acts of injustice any longer if he had wisdom to prevent it.
So he thus took upon himself the woes of the world knowing that he alone understood what would happen to him, he would reveal truth and understanding to others, and they would love him for it, and he would naturally gain popularity and tip the balance of power in his favour.

Of course the courts and governments of the time would be raging at such a person being offered authority and power that had previously been offered to them. They would be jealous and envious and want him gone. He knew this of course because of the power of truth to confront itself with lies/immorality/deceit and manipulation all of which are sourced from the most unpalatable people.

He thus demonstrated proof of his benevolence and thus his truth by being annihilated by his opponents, re-instilling in a skeptical, distrusting society the faith that there is a benevolent source of truth in the universe. But only can it exist in the form of an object - a man. Because most people have to "see it to believe it". Jesus on the other hand did not need to see it. He had pure faith from the beginning because the truth of the matter made sense to him. It was logical and ethical.

#:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
A little boo-boo in editing. And later transcribers and translators didn't dare to fix it, any more than they dared to remove the alternate creation story from the first chapter - because by the time it was fixed as scripture, the text had become too holy to alter. — Vera Mont

Precisely Vera. A very insightful and articulate account. I think this is the fatal flaw of a story of morality/ truth held in such high esteem by the society of the time.

As time passes, culture changes and with it so too does language in that some words become obsolete while others take on a new meaning and thus inevitably the story becomes ever more interpretative and less exacting. The truths of sages of old are "lost in translation" and become inaccesible to progressing civilisation.

And as you said many do not dare tamper with the sacred story despite the fact that doing so correctly would preserve and adapt the story to the modern era and make it accessible once again to people. They doubt themselves and their ability to do a "just" translation, to reform the analogy.

Religions holding the text as unchangeable called any attempt by someone to resolve it an act of heresy and threatened their very safety and rightful place in society.

But as we know science and alternative views of genesis of the universe and of ourselves exploded into existence despite religions best attempts to stifle it. A shame that such religions had the best intentions at heart but lead by a flaw that such truths can ever be preserved textually in an ever changing and dynamic linguistic environment they did a great deal of harm to scientific progress.

Science now seems just as dogmatic as religions were when they reigned supreme. Believing science is the be all and end all interpretation of reality denies spirituality, denies belief in any abstraction, any idealism, any imagined beauty that doesn't exist as a physically observable object in the world that can be measured. This is rather disenchanting. And also ridiculous.

The irony of course is that we know symbolic things (abstractions/ concepts/ beliefs) exist that aren't objectively "provable" by science - money for example is a belief system. An alien cannot take a paper note/bill and examine it with science to find the "value" if they didn't understand how humans use money. It only exists through demonstration. Not in objective isolation. The same goes for words and language, for theological beliefs and for ethics/ belief that other people's emotions and feelings exist and can be harmed.

I used Macbeth as an example of a thought (or rather a collection of related thoughts).
My question is really: does it make sense to regard thoughts a pre-existing? - just as we regard things in the landscape (rocks, trees, etc.) as pre-existing. — Art48

Yes I think so. I think thought about what can exist and that which does exist emerge simultaneously as opposites. The subject (the observer/believer) MUST emerge simultaneously with that which is observed/believed by the subject (the objective world).

It doesn't make sense to have a reality that is objectified/objective - that which is observed and acknowledged, without a subject which has the ability to observe them.

We use science to standardise, measure and objectify the universe relative to us. And we use faith/belief/spiritual to identify ourselves, our consciousness, in an objective, a physical world..

We have belief, we have imagination, creativity, possibility (all the same thing going by different names) until we observe and that waveform is collapsed into particulate defined things - (wave-particle duality) as is exemplified by quantum physics.

We CANNOT remove ourselves, our own awareness, from that which is observed. "Subjective experience" and "objectively experienced" are mutually dependent on one another. We can't deny the universes ability to be conscious of itself as we are the part of the universe that is so.

We are "order", we are "negentropy" processing and interpreting "disorder" or "entropy" around us. Without this processing, without this sense and determination of things, the external universe would be nonsensical, would lack coherence, would lack logic.

I hope i answered your question. If not please let me know and we can continue our discourse.

1) there is no self — Gregory

What is meant by "self". As in, what are the limits of the self? Is it the physical body? Because if not, if the self is as fundamental as the energy and matter that makes up one's self as we exist in human form, then self extends to all matter and energy in the universe. In essence, in this case self is equivalent to the universe.

2) the world is illusion — Gregory

What is meant by the "world"? Is it everything exterior to the self (the physical body). Or is ones body included in and a subset of: the entire world/universe?

These two tenets are equivalent in that I have reduced them to the same question. What is world and what is self? And how do we distinguish the two relative to eachother?

For me there is no distinction other than what you choose to believe. You can choose to be all things (the entire universe) but then you must acknowledge all things as fundamentally the same thing.

Or the second option: you may put up partitions. You may delineate self from other - but then you must justify why other is different from you.

For me the sensible answer is both options simultaneously. It is obvious that you are part of a whole and constructed of the same "stuff", but also unique in that you are a human having experienced a specific time span and specific places.

Duality is prudent to see all aspects of the truth. The truth is not black or white. It is both, as well as the grey in-between. The "whole". Not the "cherry-picked".

Question: can the play Macbeth be destroyed? Theoretically, we could destroy every copy of Macbeth, be it on paper, film, or stored on a computer. And theoretically, we could wait a few centuries until humanity had lost all memory of the play. But would that mean Macbeth was destroyed? Can a thought (or the sequence of thoughts and images which constitute the play Macbeth) ever be destroyed? — Art48

Well what is the fundamental lesson or meaning underpinning macbeth?

I believe it is "self fullfilling prophecy". Someone tells you you will be bestowed with kingly power. You then live by that expectation which leads you to take that power thus fullfilling what was predicted. But because you demanded and took power (based on expecting it) rather than asking for it, you're filled with guilt/shame that fuels paranoia as to whether you deserved it in the first place. So desperate to justify yourself and the prophecy you have witnessed to be true, you commit more atrocities to maintain that power.

The message is then that power cannot be demanded it can only be asked for. This is the foundation of democracy.

Macbeth is a story of the justness of democracy over the injustice of tyranny. I believe that fundamental basis is true for all of time. Thus Shakespeare did indeed extract from a universal mindscape. He brought to the forefront of human thought an innate truth regarding dealing with authority.

"authority is not owed to you, you must earn it".

I hope this answers your question. If not feel free to elaborate further.

democracy can be tyrannical — Hanover

Indeed it can and indeed it is... Because democracy like all other human institutions is a hierarchy of power. We elect people into power and influence over us believing they have our best interests at heart. Or that they will do right by us.

Bad tyrannies are malevolent dictatorships governed by a selfish person that doesn't hold themselves responsible/accountable for their actions.

Good tyrannies are democratic benevolent hierarchies where the wisest and most measured of us are elected to a position of power/authority but they meet that with a equal sense of responsibility and accountability for the whole, they use their power to be subservient to all that put them in that position.

I don't know if it's a moral similarity because there certainly appears to be something more sinister in harming others than in harming yourself. Not all moral violations are of the same magnitude.

I do think it's worthwhile however to make the point that if we hold humanity in high esteem, we can't overlook the lack of self-respect we offer ourselves as morally irrelevant. — Hanover

I think if two individuals (self and other) are equivalent, and owed the same rights and protections then it is not more sinister to harm another than yourself. That denies you equal treatment and what sort of message does that send to others as to how you should be treated.

The third option of course is to treat others well and hope/expect them to treat you similarly. In that ways both parties are moral. And the threat of harm is only potential and not acted out/committed.

But you are right about if we hold humanity in high self esteem then we ought to consider why we lack self respect. It is not morally irrelevant. If choice exists.. Which I believe it does.. Then there's always a better option when faced with two things... With a moral dilemma. Instead of it being "I hate him, he dies" or "he hates me, I die". The third and better option is "we both live, laugh and love".

He told his freshly minted humuns "Go, cavort in the garden and amuse me, but don't touch my special fruit... because, if you do, I'll kill you." No further reason or explanation given. Indeed, it would have a been wasted effort to talk to them about fairness, since they had no knowledge of good and evil. — Vera Mont

I think this is a metaphor, an allegory for innocence, curiosity and revelation.
God as a parent told his creations, his children, to live their best life, to explore, play, have fun, just in general enjoy themselves in paradise. They were innocent - ignorant to the truth, to knowledge and therefore free - unaccountable. They could not be held responsible because they are children. In this way they had no guilt and no shame. They were truly free. They were animals. Just doing what animals do.

God's one request to maintain this beautiful cherished innocence was that they not go off learning the truth. That they not choose to grow up. To not go searching for reason behind all the wonderfulness and innocence they enjoyed.

But curiosity - the beginning of the pursuit knowledge and truth, the motivator to question creeped in as a temptation.. To lead them away from innocence and towards true reality.

They ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (in my opinion a hallucinogen or philosophy) which showed them that perception can be altered, that alternate understandings of reality were possible. And as they explored those possibilities they approached the truth (God) and left their innocence behind.

They were devastated by what they found. That knowing the truth, having been empowered by knowledge, they were now culpable, they were now responsible. They knew right from wrong and thus were enslaved to guilt and shame and a lack of perfection. They had become god themselves. They were depressed by this fact and suffered thus.

In essence they relinquished eternal childhood in pursuit of knowledge but realised only too late that being an adult, being a parent was fret with constant existential crisis. It was a cycle that continued ever since (sin passed from generation to generation). Humankind, a species set apart from the rest of nature... A species that felt at odds with nature... Had been created.

The face of truth! A magnificent title as far as I'm concerned. — Agent Smith

Why thank you. I like the title too. Haha. I see what you mean by learning something new that actually you knew all along and had just forgotten. Funny how that is. Like coming full circle. The start also the end. Questions also being answers