. A face, if it indeed should be so wonderful as you say, should be completely free of blemishe — baker

I never made any indication as to romantic or true love being “perfect” and free from wrongs/ failures. There are always blemishes. We are all imperfect. Perfection is untenable. But you can have a deep love despite these things that’s what makes it worthwhile for example if we all wait for this unblemished perfection I’m afraid we will be waiting forever

Having abortions, damaging one's health with hormonal contraceptives — baker

You could say that about any medication. They all have deleterious side effects. Does that mean we shouldn’t medicate our bodies with anything that may have some form of damaging effects in order to get a desired physiological outcome - like temporary reversible infertility or to prevent diseases.

Having abortions — baker

Well I’d imagine that depends on which woman you talk to and her personal circumstances as to her mental health, how the conception came about, the resources available to her to care for a child and whether she is fit to be a mother etc. I’m sure this is rather contentious subject amongst the general public and women at large but I prefer to leave it to them and their partners, considering it is their body that after all this affects and not mens. Certainly not a definitive closed argument but ongoing debate

quote="baker;521954"]going bankrupt, contracting dangerous diseases,[/quote]

This is a little bit selective/ cherry picked I mean the majority of parents don’t tend to go bankrupt from having a child.

As for contracting dangerous diseases again this isn’t specific to just sexual Inter course. In fact the amount of diseases you can get from sex is dwarfed by the amount you can contract from the rest of your life: diet, toxic habits like drug use, travel etc. Especially if you are practising safe sex or in a longterm monogamous relationship.

All the things you have described can certainly occur in the context of “romantic love” then again they tend not to in such a large amount together and even alone each only occurs on occasion they aren’t necessarily the most common possibilities.

Which leads me to just see this as more of a personal dislike/ bias against the concept of “romantic” love. Which is fine. But cherry picking isn’t the most objective argument one could offer

. I think we have only so much empathy we can show - a reserve of empathy if you will. — Manuel

I agree because of such phenomena as “desensitisation” to violence for example. Things are horrific in rarity and somewhat expected/ un-noteworthy in regularity. We can only see the same act occur so many times before we lose interest no matter how extreme it is. This is partly why I imagine the privileged west persists in looking down on/ shunning the more aggressive/ inhumane activities that go on in third world countries. Because it is a “privilege” to be outraged - meaning it doesn't effect you enough to deplete the “shock factor” and so you can afford empathy.

I can imagine if you saw crimes every day you would have an apathy toward them that someone might misinterpret as you having no empathy. The usual “how can you just sit by and let this happen?” As you quite rightly said... there’s only so much empathy reserve. What is normal for one is abnormal for another.

Such seemingly self-sacrificing romantic delusions are a massive ego boost. — baker

I see your point. Perhaps it is for the indulgence of seeing oneself as somehow better/ inflating the ego but what bothers me is that if this type of love doesn’t exist, and the mind can only work in a “transactional” sense... and can be reduced to simple interactions of chemical “give and take” then we must dispose of any form or notion of consciousness that isn’t based firmly on materialistic mechanical scientific objectivism. The mystery as it were is sapped out of the human psyche and replaced with very cold hard objective grounds for the existence of a subject.

I’m not sure if I concede to that. In the basis that for example there are emergent properties which are seemingly larger than the parts. For example hydrogen and oxygen form a liquid with properties neither oxygen nor hydrogen can offer alone but only as a collective. Perhaps then ... the basis for the mind is transactional (like most of biochemistry would have us understand) but the collective sum.. is an emergent property that goes beyond transaction.

That’s why I believe this romanticised “delusion” may exist. Also in order to use the term “delusion” I would imagine you would have to have some superior knowledge of what the true “reality” is from which we all deviate when we are “deluded”. Please elaborate on such a reality as I’m sure the world would find this a very revolutionary discovery

I argued that if that were true, then it proves the old adage about being greater than the sum of parts — James Riley

Interesting reference. Yes it would seem that if dogs and wolves truly are genetically identical then the sum is more than its parts for sure.

This is really where “epi-genetics” comes into play.
I say this as a genetic aspect to dogs rather than a nurture or environmental one because of two things; if nurture/ environment was the only difference between dogs and wolves then dogs would look like wolves then they were born and behave as dogs after being nurtured correctly. Secondly dogs obviously have stable traits that last over generations which shows the genetic rather than nurture basis for their difference to wolves.

So the true difference in wolves and dogs may not be the type/ number of genes they have (this being identical - But rather the nature of their “activity”.
Some genes that are “on” or “active” in wolves are “dormant” in dogs and vice versa leading to their variation in appearance and behaviour.

A similar phenomenon is seen in human twins. Twins are most identical in childhood and by old age are easily distinguished because of the accumulation of changes to their genetic activity to the point where tho they are genetically identical, their metabolisms, predisposition to diseases and signs of ageing are actually quite different.

It’s worthy to note that one determinant of “species” is whether two individuals can mate and produce fertile offspring.
The interesting case of dogs is that they can indeed breed with wolves and produce fertile offspring (unlike horses and donkeys. Mules are sterile) but some dogs - a chihuahua for example are incapable of breeding with a wolf .... which suggests that depending on size - some dogs should technically be “a separate species” to wolves.

In this way we see that nature doesn’t do discrete definitions but rather continuum’s for which science has great difficulty compartmentalising

Provided they do the same for you, first. — baker

See part of me agrees: one would like to think they would return the favour. But then part of me believes that’s too “transactional”.
I will give you A if you be me B. It doesn’t feel like an encompassing definition of love but more “business” or “politics”.
For example a child could take for granted all that they receive from their parents and then not reciprocate very much if anything at all. And the parent will still love them in most cases. Also “unrequited” love is very real and this by definition is non transactional because the pursuer is getting zero interest from the pursued (unless we argue that the pursuer wants the “untenable” sensation). Is it infatuation or true love? I cannot say in that case.

But what I was getting at is that when someone loves their partner enough. They put the others happiness before their own even if it results in an outcome they personally didn’t want. Like losing them to another and not being vengeful and spiteful but instead hoping that they are happier with their new partner and wishing them good things.

I understand why people believe this is naive or stupid/ daft. That someone is deliberately letting themselves be a pushover. But on the contrary I think it’s one of the strongest character traits: to get out of the grip of transactional thinking. To not reference every act either directly or indirectly to how the self benefits.

true. There is little in the way of rationale to go with the sentiment in this case. Nothing to learn from

I don't remember asking your opinion about my answers pal :up: — javi2541997

This is a public forum. If you post here expect opinions when I don’t want input from others I simply “think to myself”

Simply put, I think that the idea of different people is an illusion, which arises from lack of adequate cognitive capacity. If we have more of it, we'd be able to clearly see that individuation is something we to do the world, that does not belong to it originally. There are problems to be ironed out here, but on first approximation, I think it's correct. — Manuel

This reminds me of a similar philosophy I journeyed into a few months back whereby I considered what it would be like to see the world not as discrete objects and things and definitions but one large continuum.

The difficulty is that when seen as an indiscreet unconfined and undefined whole ... speaking of “change” or “transformation” is pointless because from “what” is it “changing” and “leading to”. With no defined objects or descriptions for things... change is mute point. However there are things to learn about interactions from avoiding specifics and maintaining a macroscopic view “big picture”.

I think this is why sometimes the most basic observations are the most profound. Anyways as with regard to love I feel maybe “empathy” is the degree to which we compartmentalise and make discriminations between people.

For example I would say someone who begins by making note of peoples colour, background, social class, weight, height etc lacks empathy more than someone who begins with the inclusive: well we are all humans we all have the same emotions dreams ideas etc, and only after appreciating that , acknowledge the minor importance of specifics.
So I get what you mean

I think I would prefer a pause button then something that stops me dying. Because there are moments when I just wish I had extra time to do everything and meet everyone I want to on that given day. Other slow boring days could be fast forwarded to balance the books.
Or maybe a pill that allows you to stay up with no sleep for a day or two at a time with no side effects. Because though I love sleep sometimes I could do without it to get some valuable alone/me time to read or study of philosophise.

The issue would be that my use of this magic pill would have to be inherently selfish for it to give me an advantage over standard life because if everyone could stay up at night you can bet on it that the working week would be extended. It’s all relative

so do you think sentience is sort of like an emergent phenomenon of collectives of non sentient neurons? Sort of like how oxygen and hydrogen atoms when brought together in huge amounts produce an emergent phenomenon of fluid water.

My personal view - panpsychism and pantheism might be one and the same. — simeonz

I think I am pantheist and also a believe in panpsychism. In fact I didn’t even know the word pantheism existed as a definition for what I have come to ascertain from philosophical/ spiritual/ metaphysical investigations into Being
I agree that they are one in the same. That it’s just down to perspective or choice of words as to how one describes it.

If someone laughs at themselves when they mess up or an unfortunate event happens to them (Self-deprecation/ making light of a bad situation) and also laughs in the same manner/ for the same reasons when the very same thing happens to others whats the problem?

Most offence is taken by others people when they don’t know the character if the person laughing. If they perhaps knew that this person is also equally capable of laughing at themselves then at least the individuals behaviour is consistent and non- hypocritical.

If a person laughs at someone else when X instance occurs but gets frustrated angry or antisocial should the same X instance happen to them this shows that they have double standards and have different expectations of others than of themselves and in this case i thing it’s not as acceptable

scientific rationalism, is a leaky sieve.// — Wayfarer

Haha it is a leaky sieve indeed. Especially when one targets the concept of “objectivity” With regard to “objective observation as a fundamental basis for scientific method”. Discerning what is objective and what is not is (as far as I can tell) most likely a continuum with no discernible strict limit dividing the two, as well as the possibility of “relativity” playing a larger part than we give credit for.

I don’t know. I think these “siddhi” if they were real word be of a more subtle and rationally achievable vein than flying or pain tolerance.
More believable or philosophically grounded siddhi from a state of mental clarity, focus and understanding would be say (and I only speculate);

1. “foresight/ prophecy” due to the a). Relinquishing the minds false belief/ delusions, b).heightened awareness of the patterns, cycles and nature of reality and human behaviour c). Time to concentrate on the future and maximising the calculative and probabilistic algorithms used by the brain.

2. “Healing”- because of an understanding the interconnectedess of the mind and body and it’s environment, intuition as to the imbalances impacting the health of a specific individual, maybe even interacting with a person in such a way as to subconsciously correct poor autonomic nervous function/ stabilise hypothalamic regulation of body rhythms etc.

seeing as suicide and suffering vs non suffering is a continuum common to all cultures ways of life and doctrines, I would simply like to discuss the existence of an opposite state and you may however you please choose to tackle that from a cultural context, philosophical one, personal experience or any other relevant insight.

Who is commanding you, and where, to "treat everyone equally"?? — baker

I think this is a generally accepted human ideal no? Egalitarianism both underpinning ethics (do no harm/ attempt the greatest good, spiritualism/ religious scriptures, moral in philosophy and biology - equilibrium/ balance in systems.

Of course there are other approaches but this is no doubt a popular one. No one is commanding me it simply appeals to me as a lifestyle structure/goal

It may not be everything. There may be other universes. As to what our universe - which admittedly may be the only one - expands into, saying "nothing" doesn't make much sense in any manner. — Manuel

See I would be inclined to agree except when I think “universe” I think “that which encompasses everything” or some “totality of possibilities or existence” So multiple universes in this sense would still be components of “the” universe so im reserved on the notion of replying to attempts to make the universe discrete by saying well it might not be discreet (there might be more of them) when I’m already considering the universe as including everything. It kind of doesn’t address a question but rather redefines the terms of the question so it can go on for infinity and never be answered.

I dunno if I explained that well enough. But basically if we answer the universe is contained in more universes then what contains those universes? And what contains that which contains the container of universe ad infinitum.

Very hard to practice, for people with possessions, families, and ambitions — Wayfarer

The issue I would have with this is that many would consider relinquishing yourself of desires towards your family (be it ones of affection, love, friendship, protection, desire for providence or benevolent feelings towards family - all of which require a sort of “favouritism” or “emotional bias” towards your family over strangers) appears to be Inconsiderate, unfair or maybe even irresponsible- in the especially in the sense of Parental duty to their children.

How does one resolve to treat everyone equally (love thy neighbour) without being chastised for not putting family first?

I will give two examples for this. The first being a mother throwing herself int traffic to save her child verse a mother throwing herself into traffic for a stranger while her child sits and observes from safety. Which is more noble? Preserving herself to ensure her child isn’t left without a parent or to see a stranger as equally worth saving?

The second example: in a situation where you were forced to choose between the well-being of your family and the well-being of an equal number of random strangers ... to be relinquished of attachment you would have to say “I cannot choose my family over them.” Which one would imagine your family would be astonished by/ resentful of. I think it’s even likely that faced with such a situation most people would even allow the suffering of more then the count of their family members if it guaranteed their families well-being. I wouldn’t say this is strictly moral/ just but it’s certainly human. And likely a typical response.

A footnote: doctors probably face this dilemma when confronted with conflict between their “professional duty of care” and “potential child neglect” - not being their for their children/ being estranged from them in order to facilitate life improving treatments for other people.

Yes. I like to call them "onotophobia" (existential dread, angst, depair, etc) and "ontophilia" (peak or religious experiences). — Pfhorrest

How would you suggest one comes to be ontophilic? (Asking for myself :P )

"Nirvana" literally means "snuffing-out of a candle". Which may indicate why suicidal people may find the notion of nothingness preferable to sufferingness. :smile: — Gnomon

Interesting.i would follow up with a question; can one commit mental suicide instead of physical suicide? A snuffing out of the power of life to dictate whether one feels good or bad. A total control of your own state of mind where you can live in holistic permanence.

I hope that you don't think that I am being nitpicking. — Jack Cummins

No not at all. I appreciate you highlighting this. Upon reconsidering I think it was a mistake for me to borrow the term Nirvana out of its original context. I often struggle to use the right words when speaking of metaphysical things/ states of mind. As is often the case with philosophy attempting to define your thoughts for others without accidentally misappropriating things is tré difficult.

Perhaps I shouldn’t use this word. In essence I was pondering the existence of some “opposite/contrasting” state (That I will now leave unnamed haha) to that of suicide. One that is not typical to the average Human experience just as suicide is not typical of the average human experience but is an extreme end.

I might instead describe parameters without naming the phenomenon. Suicide once committed is permanent. So this alter ego state would also be (once established) permanent for the remaining lifespan of the person.
Instead of losing all hope, this state would be a self generating state of full hope/optimism that is unperturbed by suffering/ bad luck and negative experiences. Instead of suffering one is in a state of tranquility despite circumstances.

In essence if suicide is the lowest point one can go in the experience of good and bad, what is the the highest state. Does it exist?

Possible contenders: dare i mention them may be a state “True peace”, “ego death”, some form of “mania/ ecstasy or euphoria” or maybe “total love of life” or “sustained love” , a “hyper-empathy” maybe?

I hope this clarifies the state of mind I’m asking about.

the Active circulating quantity of money (money in the process of being transacted) is X amount and the quantity of money pent up in banks is Y - a much larger amount on the order of millions of times more than X. If Y is added to X then X - the amount of money willingly being transacted - increases massively whilst the amount of products one can buy with this money stays relatively the same (ie. demand drastically outweighs supply) Then inflation occurs whereby the same loaf of bread that was originally sold for say $1 can now go for $150. The buying power of each $ drops to almost nothing (ie the value of the currency drops) rendering 90% of the population unable to use their meager finances to buy anything and the once wealthy now have to pay extraordinary amounts of money for basic goods that was little more then pocket change to them before.

Everyone loses confidence in the currency as it cannot do anything for them and it collapses

But do intelligent women always need a guy that challenges them mentally? — TiredThinker

“To challenge mentally or to be mentally challenged. That is the question!” Haha :P

I’d like to share some of my thoughts which I think may be useful in this case.

Firstly on capitalism: Capitalism is based on supply and demand. The more people who want a specific item the more valuable that item is at X quantity. Should the quantity increase (supply) the value lowers. Should demand (population desiring said Product) increase at a fixed X quantity then again the value increases (cost).

This is actually a negative feedback loop that regulates the price of products. Let’s consider the product as “essential” - something necessary to basic human needs for example education, as opposed to “luxury”.

When an essential service or product becomes “out of reach” in price for the general population -because it is essential - this invokes either a). an increase in supply (new companies or institutions and competition) b). Innovation - the development of new ways to decrease the cost of production or increase the utility/ essentialness of the product. c). Substitution - the offering of a different product that can provide similar functions or d). Decrease in price of the product by the established company - if no one can buy your product your earning potential drops and this can threaten the survival of a company.

On failing any of these mechanisms to resolve the price increase (which is unlikely) then d). Policy and regulation reform is a final option: that is to say government/ banking intervention in the form of new laws, cuts to tax, vat, tariffs, grants, interest rates etc which essentially bolsters the buying potential of the consumer making the product again affordable.

The diverse interplay between these is very effective at generating stability for the general consumer population.

Unfortunately capitalism relies on the existence of a spectrum. It requires a minority to be poor, a majority to be middleclass and another minority to be wealthy. Let’s imagine everyone is made middle class (No poor and no rich) then demand greatly increases (because everyone has money to afford something) which increases the value of the product: this value increase leads to capitalising and the reemergence of a wealthy class as well as simultaneously leaving some unable to afford it (poor).

The proper function of an economy really relies on the middle class however as it is the majority. If anything disturbs the buying power of the middle class then the whole economy suffers (for both the wealthy and the poor) e.g recessions, large scale unemployment/economic collapse etc.

An important lesson can be learned from this with regard to population size and cost of living. This is one of “dependence”. The more an individual outsources their needs onto others by using money/ the market, the more dependent they are on the systems health for satisfying their basic human needs.

If we consider resources as finite and population as increasing we can predict that there will be a natural revival of “self- sufficiency” practises. This means relying less on large scale industry and more on home industry or micro-industry.

We are actually seeing this. There is a renaissance of basic craft/ home industry going on in first world countries (third world already heavily rely on this). The utility of the internet in circumventing the need to pay for education to attain these skills makes it a lucrative money- saving endeavour.

So I would imagine that is the Global capitalist system escalates then there will be a cultural shift back to local Independent products; think knitting your own clothing, Ceramics, home cultivation of produce, Crafting furniture, buying locally farmed produce, reusing, upcycling, etc in small groups.

This has a net impact on the capitalist market as companies see people moving away from High end buying and moving towards self-producing. This is a final regulatory system that ensures the price of using the global market is reduced to make it lucrative.

In summary; cultural change has a colossal impact on shaping the market. And these mechanisms are reactionary - they don’t ever stay the same. During the war in the 1900s there was a huge shift from buying to home d.i.y as people struggled to make ends meet.

It’s important to remember that economics is not based on money it is based on mass psychology. Individual decisions and behaviour. Which is ultimately cultural not fiscal.

1. In general, the more sick (very symptomatic) one is, the weaker their immune system is to fighting off the infection. And the weaker their immune system is to fighting off the infection, the greater the viral replication — Roger Gregoire

Show me the reference to “most medical experts/ rationalist agree..”

This is not correct. Ones immunity is not a “one size fits all” phenomenon. Whether someone’s immune system is good or not some people (due to specific genes) are more susceptible to infection via the spike protein of coronavirus. “Cytokine storm” Is a hyper activation of the immune system whereby the persons immune system hyper- reacts causing inflammation that can lead to death. A person with a partially compromised immune system may actually be better off because the virus doesn’t evoke such an intense immune response.

If you’re going to propose your “medical” argument at the very least back it up with reference to actual experiments or studies instead of simply citing “medical experts agree”. Anyone can do that.

You assumptions about the correlation between symptomology and immune status is highly reductive and overly simplistic at best. People with weakened immune systems often don’t demonstrate the same intensity of symptoms as someone with a health immune system because the virus causes a damaging immune response

Those with healthy immune systems, when infected, attack and kill the virus, thereby "removing" more of the virus from the environment, than they contribute. — Roger Gregoire

Speaking as a medical professional I can tell you this is not true. Those with healthy immune systems don’t “replicate less of the virus” it is simply that they don’t succumb to severe symptoms of the infection. If this was the true logic then people with adequate immune systems wouldn’t require vaccination from any disease that is mild for them. But we know that vaccination serves not only to reduce the intensity of symptoms but also prevent transmission by curbing the maximum viral load.

Furthermore, the coughing, runny nose etc that helps to transmit the virus is not a direct cause of the virus but rather the body’s Indirect immune reaction to the invader, people with an active immune system use these defences which unfortunately are exactly what the virus needs to contaminate the environment. Your immune system is what produces the Infective snots and phlegm.

Regardless of the health of ones immune system If they are not already immune the viral load fairly similar. A healthy person could in a sense be worse because their sustained asymptomatic state renders them an ideal candidate for continuing to spread the virus - they don’t feel as achy and fatigued so carry on in their daily activities acting as a reservoir until they overcome the infection. Those that suffer more severe symptoms are more likely to stay at home in isolation.

If someone dies from the virus they can no longer propagate its transmission. The host needs to be living. The most virulent infections are those that go generally unnoticed and don’t alter the standard daily behaviour of the carrier - which is usually a much more social and interactive State then that of being “stuck home sick”.

The only people “removing the virus from the environment” are those supplying a vaccine or sanitising the environment with Anti viral solutions such as alcohol which dissolves the viral capsid rendering it unable to contain its genetic code and penetrate cells.

Sadly this is most likely the case. There are many things in history that simply baffle us for the reason that we did not live at that time when it was the pinnacle of normality. Perhaps 1000 years from now our Descendants will look back on us with the same bewilderment.

we try to comprehend ancient language with a modern mind. Culture and language are inextricably linked. So our language is shaped by our modern world perspective and this is our basis for trying to understand ancient languages which lived in the pretext of vastly different cultures/ ideologies.

So no, our interpretation of ancient languages will always be biased because of our mindset (established by our modern language). What we value these days is distorted from the values of ancient civilisations. The only way to really appreciate and ancient language is to first embody their way of life because that is the focus Or central point around which their linguistics revolve.

For example the connection between astronomy and agriculture which was highly important back then is more or less irrelevant today as agriculture can be performed at any time of the year due to artificial growing environments. So that would biased our mind toward interpreting their astronomical language as being of spiritual importance or as a ritualistic thing rather than Simply pragmatic and connected to the seasons and when to plant crops.

I believe we romanticise the ancients as mystical mysterious and spiritual when in a survival situation with no modern aids it is likely most of their language was strongly tied to what was earthly and directly benefited their survival.

In summary we cannot appreciate ancient languages fully when we don’t even know clearly what their social values were

Yes we do have choices but that doesn't equate to freedom. Reread it. — Darkneos

But if not for choices we would not be free? One would imagine that the number of choices available to a person is directly equivalent to their degree of freedom. Slaves have no choice of their own as it is alway decided for them by their master. Meanwhile the truly free answer to no one. How can you exile choice from the state of being free? It makes no sense. Even if we are free to choice from a limited set of choices this is still more free than only being able to choice from a more limited set. Ultimate freedom being to choose from an unlimited set of choices. I don’t see how the dead’s choices or freedom is unlimited. I can’t possibly see how having absolutely no influence or control over anything is more free than the potential to have control (ie be aware/ alive). What can you do as a dead Person except be dead?

I understand what you’re saying in that being dead means you have no challenges to overcome, no stress, no worries or suffering. But you also don’t have love or happiness or any pleasure. So it’s a question of either being totally numb and void of all sensation (dead) or living and yes maybe suffering at times but ultimately having the chance/ opportunity or “freedom” of maximising pleasure and minimising suffering. One would imagine worldly pleasure is better than nothingness/ emptiness

the simple matter of fact when dealing with “to moderate or to not moderate” is that something that is not offensive for one person is offensive for another (or group). This is subjectivity. While speaking of abortion for example as a white male living in a very western first world country this may not be in any way offensive to them but posit the same topic to an oppressed third world woman that lives in a strongly religious community and the picture changes.

Another issue is majority vs minority. It’s the old argument of “pick on someone your own size!”
In an ideal world minorities are equally vocal and equally represented and therefore in a strict sense of debate censorship should not be required as the both parties are equally equipped to defend their views. However this is the nature of minorities: they are few and far between so the pace of an argument as well as the capacity for equal opportunity to retort is severely distorted or skewed in favour of majority.

Usually it takes “living in ones shoes” to really appreciate the full spectrum of conditions faced by said minority. It’s difficult to relate to a state of being that you have never yourself experienced. This means that the majority is always somewhat priveleged as their is a general tendency for their views to be valued more. This is where moderation attempts to stabilise these inequalities. Some will say it’s fair and warranted moderation while others will believe it’s unnecessary censorship but really it’s a matter of “is there a potential for a large group to ‘gang up’ on a smaller one?” Where a dozen voices drown out the singular /few.

The irony being that in truly egalitarian world the very need for moderation is abolished yet moderation is used to establish a more egalitarian world. See the paradox?

as far as I know psychology/ the human mentality is highly contradictory. This comes to light in what sentiments we hold most valuable - our famous sayings/ proverbs which often oppose each other but are both in fact quite valid and applicable. For example;

“actions speak louder than words” vs. “The pen is mightier than the sword” or “absence makes the heart grow fonder” vs. “Out of sight out of mind”. Or “two heads are better than one” vs. “Paddle your own canoe” or my personal favourite “better safe than sorry” vs. “Nothing ventured nothing gained”.

I believe the fundamental flaw underpinning philosophical endeavour is that “logic cannot be contradicted”. I resolve this by suggesting there are multiple logics and therefore there is often an argument between two people where they both oppose each other for very valid logical reasons- whether they be objective or subjective in nature. The epitome of this is a paradox

You actually don’t have more choices than the dead nor are you freer than the dead. — Darkneos

You can overcome that instinct and let death take you, plenty have done it. — Darkneos

You contradict yourself. If the living is not ultimately any freer and have no true choice beyond what you would have if dead then by that logic you have no choice in whether to live or die. But then you say you can overcome instinct and allow death t take you. This sounds like a conscious choice to me. Suicide is active (the self attempts it, beckons on their own death) Dying is passive (caused by your environment/ natural failing of the organism).

So which is it? The living don’t have real choice and therefore cannot consciously decided to kill themselves or they do and therefore have more choice than the dead because the dead cannot choose to come back to life.

The burdens of choice are removed. — Darkneos

That’s assuming choice is inherently a burden. Which is a matter of opinion. Many would opt for the view that they enjoy choice and that it is not a burden.

ts name is useful. I can ask Wife where we should plant out the tree poppy, and she knows what I'm on about. I can order another one from the supplier by asking by name. But I could not offer a definition that would sort tree poppies out from other poppies or shrubs. — Banno

Actually upon further consideration I’m not even sure if a word has to be mutually agreed upon at all in order to have useful meaning. You may call it a tree poppy and your wife might say what? Do you mean the Romneya coulteri And the supplier again may have another name “X” for it and you may all bicker about what it actually is but in the end just decide to plant it.

And while planting it you each refer to it with your own term that neither of the other two agree with/ refuse to call it yet you can all still cooperate as a group (understanding from context what the other two are referring to) and plant it.

I guess this shows that context overcomes simple word definitions.

It’s not though. Living is something you do. If you did nothing you would eventually die. — Darkneos

Then i suppose a baby can simply just not cry for food protection and comfort an simply resign itself to dying? Um this Just doesn’t happen. They most definitely live not by choice but because they don’t know of any other way.

Survival instinct is logical to those who wish to live. Ask someone who wants to survive if their instinctual fight or flight response in the face of a dangerous predator was logical and they will say of course it was I was about to be eaten by a tiger! Ask someone suicidal and they will say well No it wasn’t logical because i wanted to die and here was a way by which that could have happened.

However in both cases the person who wishes to survive and he who didn’t likely had the same fight of flight response ... because you don’t control it it controls you that is the nature of an instinct... it is extremely difficult not to allow your heart to race, you sweat to pour or the adrenaline to pump. Who is ever completely apathetic to a vicious predator about to attack them?

There is also no justification for living either. — Darkneos

Well there is... as a living person I have more choice then the dead. I have more freedom than dead. I have more power and control then the dead simply for the reason that I have two choices and the dead only have one choice.

I as a living person can choose a). To live or b). To die. The dead can only follow one of those options b) to be dead. And it’s not even their choice really as there is no them to consider the options anymore, so they don’t even get ownership over that - their own death. The dead are utterly powerless and ineffectual.

So a justification for living is that I can continue to live if I feel like it and the dead cannot. So I am at a distinct advantage because I have options. Not only can I choose to live but I can take pleasure from knowing that I chose to and enjoy the continued process of living knowing that should I ever get bored of it I can always choose option b).

I haven’t got bored of it yet and I doubt that I should ever in the future because as I said ... I’m powerful and in control of my environment - I am living.

Well we could try to hypothesise of an experiment where a baby or better yet several children are raised by mute parents. The parent is given strict instructions to never speak to the children and to minimise the diversity of their body gestures - so as to not develop a complex sign language. Furthermore they are asked to only respond/tend to the needs of an infant when it stops crying or project vocalisations of any kind (to as much of a degree as is safe to do without neglecting the basic survival needs of the infant).

As the child grows it will come to understand that silence is how to gain the attention of a parent. What would the child make of this? How would they battle an insurmountable dilemma where they cannot express themselves neither vocally nor in gesture? Would they spend all their time mute because it elicits comforting responses from the parent - living in an internal world where so long as they remain fugue they will be nourished and taken care of. Or Would the child decide to communicate with other children and blatantly refuse to follow the ways of the adults creating maybe their own language with their childhood brethren and perhaps try to teach it to their mute expressionless parents?

This could possibly determine if language spontaneously occurs (is hardwired into our makeup) or is a cultural/ social adaptation of lower forms of communication.

Of course we could never do this experiment because it is grossly unethical on several orders of magnitude and generally negligent to the wellbeing of the children. One would imagine that their would be an extremely high mortality rate as children test the boundaries of what is safe and unsafe with no verbal or physical cues/ education from their wiser parents. Maybe some would survive from being cautious and watching what happened to the more daring children.


If you ask me language isn’t just separate from the biological mechanics of the body. One requires breathing, a complex throat structure, muscles, innervation, motor control and reflexes, a tongue and oral cavity and negative feedback via the auditory system to even be in with a chance at speech - all of which are provided By genetic development and growth of the body.

I think speech is a product of much evolution of more basic forms of control of the environment. We are essentially equipped to control the frequencies and pressure of air through an apparatus and if we did not have this words would be pointless. They would not exist if but only for in our minds and why would we have complex arrangements of sounds recorded in our mind if we could never produce them in the first place to hear what they sound like?

Without exposure to speech thought would likely be drastically different to what we understand it to be... perhaps it would be entirely visual with children thinking in a “film Clip” like fashion ... wordless.

There is no have to for living. You don’t “have to” do anything. I would consider living illogical to a point because you will eventually die and after a certain peak your body breaks down till the point where you wish you were dead in old age. Survival instinct is not logical, there is no logic to going on living. You don’t live because it is happening to you rather it is something you do. If you stopped you would die. We’re it something that just happened to you there wouldn’t be a need to do anything to maintain it. Death happens, living not so much. — Darkneos

Only living things can think living is illogical. Dead things can’t think. There is no control test for this.

If there are endless justifications to live both practically and emotionally and there are equally just as many justifications to die both practically and emotionally then all there is left is your actions/ decisions. If it is a choice the answer is already clear - you’ve formulated the answer yourself.

“Survival instinct is not logical, there is no logic to going on living”

Correction. Survival instinct is logical and useful to those that desire to live, it is illogical and useless to those who do not.

“You don’t live because it is happening to you rather it is something you do. If you stopped you would die.”

Correction. I didn’t do/ perform my own conception and birth and infantile years - they happen to us not through anything we can consider our choice or consent. What you do when you have capacity to consider death or be able to self inflict it is then your choice... something you can actively do. (Though I wouldn’t recommend it personally). So it’s not as cut and dry as living is something we do actively it is also passively passed onto us when we are created by our parents.

You don’t “have to” do anything. — Darkneos

Tell that to a parent of young children. Whether mental or biological there is a generally accepted compulsion to survive until they can survive themselves (Exceptions don’t prove the rule)

However, I have no idea of the original thread writer's intentions. I would be wary of starting a thread on psychiatry — Jack Cummins

I understand the sensitivities surrounding the philosophy of psychiatry but I do not believe we can censor or put limits on to the scope of discussion and reasoning. Psychiatry addresses the maladies of the mind and philosophy is very much mind - orientated, so perhaps it has something to say perhaps not.

My intention was maybe poorly explained. I was trying to outline a conundrum that occurs in psychiatry of “sanity” or maybe a better word is “logical reasoning/clarity of mind” with “chronology of events” - ie. can something that was previously illogical and delusional come to be acceptable if events come to align with it in hindsight.

It’s really about hindsight and foresight’s interplay on the credibility of a belief.

It’s also about how we approach the “sanity” (I don’t particularly like this word but can’t find a better way to say it) of someone in examples like “someone believed to be delirious/ deluded” says they are delirious/ deluded and points to Valid examples Of why they believe so” which paradoxically means they have the capacity to understand what being deluded is and therefore can we say they are in fact deluded or actually rational?