in that case the wisdom causes suffering, as for the animal they're incapable of remembering what happened.

so what's an example of something permanent?

there are many such as the book "sapiens" but you can also read this article for a summary https://www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com/930860/what-is-the-purpose-of-happiness/amp/

What do you mean that consciousness is off limits to philosophy? Haven't many philosopher's debated consciousness?

isn't it more that he wanted what he got?

Evolutionary psychology..

Self knowledge is not enough to bring happiness! What if you "know" that you have amazing athletic potential? In such case happiness would come from realising your potential rather than simply knowing you have it

my point is that humans also have to worry about getting injured and dying whereas ghd squirrel doesn't have to worry about social problems or rather has fewer social problems to worry about.

Well the Hunter gatherers still suffer the human problems I mentioned

things that I would not think are right but that would just be my opinion

That itself is the proof, I'm saying there are no objective morals outside of enforced moral opinions, you're the one that's not proven that there are it's like you saying that color preference is subjective and there's no objective best color preference and me saying give me proof that color preference is subjective.

not obedience we're talking morally right

might decides what is right and what is wrong you might think it doesn't but it does when you realise only the mightier can decide what is right or wrong.. Like you might think a dictatorship is wrong but that's only cause you come from a democratic nation that's stronger but if the dictatorship was string enough guess what? You get a monarchy! And suddenly it's all hail the king

With the sword I was giving an example of a sword vs a shield.. You're comparing apples to oranges. I'm not comparing maths to a sword because they don't have similar opposing goals. The comparison only works in that way

what's wrong with my definition of power?

And you've not mentioned how power of knowledge contradicts my statement

but if she doesn't like philosophy will she like you in return?

what I'm saying is the moral standard you hold someone according to is completely subjective... For example Vikings used to think it was okay to rape and pillage now we say it's not... It's all a matter of opinion

I don't understand as in that's what I've asked you to prove cause I've said there are ni objective moral facts.. Like what you quoted is what you need to prove cause I've said the opposite of that

ikr? But it's still not to late to give it a read

I think their only flaw is they suggest playing the rigged game instead of just finding a logical woman to settle with that likes philosophy and also aspires to be an entrepreneur at least that's my advice.. I see entrepreneurship as the ultimate happiness for a modern day philosopher if he's smart enough to pull it off

communism is for lazy slackers

better police training and screening, there was a video I watched showing that American cops need only 5 months of school after high school but in Norway they need 3 years

It does cause with the examples I gave I tried to show that the position of morality has changed but that neither position can be objectively true because the strength or success of each position is merely determined by the power behind it.

So that's the premise to my conclusion, now you have to counter it by providing a case where morality can exist outside of one's opinion.

I said strive for achievement and to get more that doesn't mean mooching off of your parents it could mean surpassing them in terms of their success.

I said pretending, if you're not pretending then it's fine but what I mean is that if you truly desire something and think you can achieve it then by all means go for it. Why hold back?

But that's what I'm saying morality is not an objective fact like science is... It's not a physical object.. How do I word this... Morality is not like a car which you can say is faster or smaller than another car. Morality is a matter of perspective and opinion.

Tell me how can you prove something is objectively right or objectively wrong morally speaking outside of one's opinion?

well it's quite a controversial book but he basically says that subconsciously women do want to exchange sex for resources but only with high value males. So the object does not want to be seen as an object so that the object can extract more resources from the male.

In other words we're playing a rigged fixed game.

Well, your last point is what I was aiming towards, specifically why I chose squirrels and elephants is I don't really think they starve to death most of the time, I think predators are the ones most likely to starve to death.

Also in terms of suffering animal pain is usually swift and sudden like maybe you get eaten by a snake or something. As for drowning and freezing I don't know how many squirrels or elephants have died that way but I'm guessing very few.. Like as mentioned the type of animal matters.

The main logic I'm trying to get across is there's a myriad of reasons a human could be sad whereas a squirrel has fewer reasons to be sad and fewer requirements to be happy.

The reason I picked elephants is because they're large enough not to be preyed on and have plenty of access to grass and water most of the time.

As mentioned even if they're social animals they have less social requirements to be happy, they don't worry about fitting in, they don't worry about conversation, they don't worry about other elephants not being interested in what they have to say,.. They don't worry as much about loneliness or friendship since they're heard animals or not being invited to parties or not having enough money to go to parties... Humans on the other hand...

what I mean is that homosexuality like everything else is neither right nor wrong but purely depends on who has what view and what power they have to defend that view.

For example there was the period in time when Christianity had power over most people therefore it asserted its view that homosexuality is wrong

However now Christianity has lost its power in favour to democracy and freedom therefore more people are willing to support non religious views that support freedom. Therefore the individual has been given more freedom to deviate from religious dogma

Hence why I'm saying objectively it is not right or wrong nothing is. It doesn't matter what anyone's (or any societies) moral view is its whether they have the power to back up their view or not.

Go read "The Mystery Method" by Eric Von markovic