I answered those questions.

A substance is a bearer of properties.

And to be 'extended' is to occupy some space.

'Time' is neither. It exists, but it is not a kind of stuff and nor is it extended. — Bartricks

But it is still playing with words. You define words in terms of other words, which no doubt, in turn, can be defined by other words.

If you wish to say something interesting about Time, you will need to get below the level of words; like physicists do.

What's a "substance"? And what does "Extended" mean? And again what is "Stuff." I think defining these is just as hard as defining time, which is why I don't think this discussion ever goes anywhere. — khaled

Agreed. It is just another example of playing with words.

I may venture to say that you just hain't got there yet, to that point with Bartricks. Have you experience with debating him? — god must be atheist

I try to avoid debating with everyone, well most people anyway.

I prefer to make brief comments to see what response I get, sometimes I get interesting ones.

I'm afraid it's you who's missing the point, A Seagull. The point being that any debate involving @Bartricks leads to irritation, frustration, and anger for the opponent of @Bartricks. — god must be atheist

Not at all, I am neither irritated, frustrated nor angry. It is all part of the great debate.

I think you are missing the point.

What 'wise' man said that? I mean, it seems clearly false. — Bartricks

How could you possibly consider it to be false?? Do you think life is easy?? Do you think being dead is hard???

Anyway the quote is from : Nikos Kazantzakis in 'Zorba the Greek'

(One of these is not a joke). — Pfhorrest

Nope, they all are .. including this one.. lol

Why aren't we at the centre of the earth by now then? — ovdtogt

Mainly because of the reactive force/acceleration of the surface of the Earth upon one's feet and also partly because of the rotation of the Earth and the centrifugal/centripetal forces keeping us rotating with the Earth ( this is more prevalent at the equator than at the poles.)

Maybe life is the problem and not religion. — ovdtogt

As a wise man once said: 'Life is trouble, only death is not'.

It is the public that disagree about things, but unlike philosophers they either conclude (stupidly) that 'it's all a matter of opinion' or 'subjective' or they punch each other. — Bartricks

Well that is just your subjective opinion.

You and I are 'perpetually-inertial observers' and do not age differently. — ovdtogt

You are not inertial, you are accelerating towards the centre of the Earth. (There is an equivalence between gravity and acceleration.)

For most people life is shit and religion helps. — ovdtogt

Maybe religion is the problem, not the cure.

It is hard to interact effectively with the world if one believes lies about the world.

Religion is a lie; life is wonderful.

The fallacy is that what is supposed to be 'true' cannot be shown logically to be 'true', there is always an element of 'hand-waving' within the argument.

One cannot refute nonsense, it can only be ignored.

Many so called arguments amount to little more than nonsense or an arbitrary arrangement of words; they are best ignored.

Today in ‘philosophy’ there is no life left. We only see a sullen regard for the words of the dead hanging upon quaint and cloying aphorisms of ‘on the shoulders of giants’ and such blind grandiose drivel. The obscurantists have crowned themselves as ‘wise’ and the scholars now claim the title of ‘philosopher’ - simply for reading the words of opinions of others whose opinions are of the opinions of those professing a ‘better’ opinion. — I like sushi

Well, yes I agree. The edifice of philosophy has become like the fictional Gormenghast castle, where people carry out the proscribed rituals but no one knows why. People play with words like a philatelist plays with stamps, they think they are achieving something but really it is no more than a pretty arrangement of words/stamps.

So what is to be done? Burn down the whole edifice and start from scratch? Better to simply ignore it and start from scratch.

What do you mean by 'saturate'?

Suppose a friend messages you on Facebook that he just won the Powerball jackpot. The chance of winning the jackpot is 1 in 292,201,338. Do you believe him based on that message? Not sure if we can estimate the probability that your friend is lying, but let's just assume that your friend is not the type to joke like that.

The probability that your friend won the the Powerball jackpot is 1 in 292,201,338. The probability that your friend is lying is likewise is very slim. Either way, you have to choose to believe in something improbable, am I right? — Wheatley

You don't have to believe either scenario. All you have to believe is that your friend said it.

You only have to choose to believe one or the other should you need to make a decision or take an action based upon what your friend said.

Yes, but not at the expense of others. — Lif3r

It is up to each person to find their own happiness.

"Your belief creates your truth" — Gus Lamarch

Quite so.

So what criterion or evaluation would apply to works such as Plato's "Republic", or Hume's "Essay Concerning Human Understanding" then? Are these works of artistic fiction only, containing no content or substance? — Pantagruel

What is important is what one takes from these works..or not, as the case may be.

Everyone is deserving of happiness, except perhaps those who would actively try to restrict the happiness of others. (Those who try to restrict the happiness of others will typically fail to achieve happiness for themselves anyway.)

Every philosophical work is false. Just that some are more false than others.

In addition the senses have been shown to be notoriously unreliable in providing us a picture of the world that's stable enough to build anything sensible on it. — TheMadFool

Yes the senses are not entirely reliable for creating a picture of the world but they are way better than fiction or fantasy.

Without a method for evaluating or generating a philosophy, all you have are opinions.

You seem to be missing my point.

In your example, you are able to consider the possibility of the house collapsing, so you can also ascribe a certain, albeit small, probability of this occurring. What is then required is a consideration of all the possible consequences that you can think of and ascribing probabilities to each and then totting them all up.

The questions in the OP relate more to peoples opinions about philosophy rather than philosophy itself.

I do not know what you are trying to say here, nor what relevance it has to what I said.

Words are for communication, nothing more.

My 'reasoning' is simply that the consequences of an action are inevitably considerably greater than the 'intended end'. And the possibility (or probability) of all those consequences need to be taken into account when assessing the merits of any action. It is the difference between being an accomplished chess player and a 'pawn pusher'.

Forces produce change.

Suffering is voluntary.

We live in a wonderful world to which we have been adapted over millennia.

Ends: the intended goal that is being fulfilled by your actions — Lawrence of Arabia

The 'ends' are not this.

The 'ends' are all the consequences to all people over both the short term and the long term as a result of the action taken.

And just what is this process of yours for acquiring and confirming facts about the world?

If it is just playing with words, I am really not interested.

Well if you want it, what does 'deserving' have to do with it?

Well I don't know about your world view, but my world view is founded upon a logical analysis of sense data.

Well, do you want happiness?

You say:"to build a world view that is true, the right place to start would be objective truth"

But that is like trying to build a sturdy house by starting with the roof.

What does it matter?

Because if objective reality is a dream, then we are nothing.

If morality is the objective reality, then we are all doomed.