Ha ha! This reminds me of something that happened in a freshman philosophy class. The lecturer was a graduate student, and had commented that a square circle was something impossible. I thought this to be wrong, so proceeded to draw a rounded square. I commented that I didn't think it was impossible and showed them the picture. They just got mad and dismissed it.

Later I realized that we can make up whatever words we want from our personal or societal context to represent reality. Words are shorthand for reality, and to discuss contradiction in terms, we must first understand the full meaning of reality behind the words. For example, my "rounded squared" could be labeled as a "Square circle" if I and others around me thought that was an acceptable definition. But that is all it would be, a squarish figure that was rounded.

In the case of the philosophical square circle, we are looking at the geometric proved definitions of 2D objects. When the idea of a "square circle" is presented, its really shorthand for, "A geometrically proven and defined 2D object that is both a square and a circle at the same time." Of course that cannot exist.

Now in your case of perspective, you're introducing a 3D object. But that does not fit the original definition's tie to reality, that it is only a 2D object. Could we call your 3D object's perspective a "square circle"? Sure, we can call anything, anything within a context. But is that the same as the context of the philosophical square circle argument in 2D geometry? No.

My OP is not meant to completely rebut The Problem of Evil, but just provide an answer to what I think is its strength. I always saw (as I think most proponents do) the strength of The Problem of Evil in showing people being left worse off - in the examples of people being tortured and ravaged by disease, alarmingly so. If the premise that the bad will be made up for is accepted, said people would not be worse off, thus The Problem of Evil is more a technical problem, which I think such defences as the Free Will Defence will have a much easier job in dealing with. I realise very few people will agree with me that the horrifying "evils" of life would be made up for, and that's what I wanted to address. — Down The Rabbit Hole

If you fully understand what the problem of evil is from my earlier post, then the discussion is done. What you are positing is that God is limited. There is nothing wrong with this. If God is limited, then evil can exist for several reasons.

a. Evil cannot be fully eliminated
b. Evil is necessary for a greater good
c. God is making the best of the situation
d. (Your example) God creates an afterlife of infinite good after you die to make up for the evil you experience while you live.

We can come up for all sorts of reasons how God handles evil and justifications why evil exists if we understand that God is limited. None of these are the problem of evil. There is only an issue if you want to state that God can do anything, is perfectly good, and perfectly omniscient.

If you desire that God is the three omni's, then there is also no further discussion. If God can do anything, he can create a universe of infinite good without any evil. That is inherently better than a world of finite evil with infinite good afterward. This is not debatable.

Your proposal does not solve the problem of evil. Your proposal is a conjecture of how a limited God handles evil in the world, which again, is not actually a problem at all. With a limited God, there is ironically no limit to the proposals of how and why God handles evil in the world, as they are all conjectures. For any of them, the answer is, "Could be", and that's really it.

My case is built upon the premise that the good will infinitely make up for the "bad". Thus the "bad" won't really be bad for those experiencing it.

Are you saying the good cannot make up for the bad? Or are you making the same point as InPitzotl that even if the "bad" can be made up for it still technically exists? — Down The Rabbit Hole

What I'm trying to point out, is it does not solve the problem of evil. I think I understand where you are coming from. You may be under the impression that if there is evil, God cannot exist. That's not the problem. The problem is an omniscient, omnibenevolent, all powerful God cannot exist.

But lets break down the technicalities to something simple. Imagine that a God existed that could do anything. If it were as good as possible, and we could quantify "goodness", it would create a world in which the greatest amount of goodness could exist. Some people claim that there is a God that can do literally anything and is also perfectly good. The fact that evil exists, is the problem of evil for a God that can do anything.

Your argument does not get around the philosophical problem of evil, because God is introducing some evil, even if there is infinite goodness afterward. A being which could do anything, and is perfectly good, would not allow even the slightest bit of evil in the world. Before you say, "Well maybe God has to for greater good," we already established that this particular God could do ANYTHING. Meaning there is not rule or need for evil to exist at all for the greatest good to be, because God doesn't follow any rules.

The problem of evil is really more a lesson about being careful with your definitions. Definitions that are broad and without limit will run into problems in philosophy. If a God exists, that God may be more powerful than we can comprehend but it cannot do everything. The problem of evil is a contradiction to be learned from, not to be solved.

I think it's perfectly benevolent to allow harm that for all practical purposes will not have existed. The subject of the harm will have the same net experience as those that would not have been subjected to any harm. — Down The Rabbit Hole

That is because you are not an omnibenevolent being. An all benevolent and omniscient being would not round the numbers. Zero evil is the only thing an all benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent being could tolerate.

The only way the problem of evil makes sense is if God is limited in some way.

However, it can also be misleading. It may give the impression that uncertainty arises only when we lumbering experimenters meddle with things. This is not true. Uncertainty is built into the wave structure of quantum mechanics and exists whether or not we carry out some clumsy measurement. — Brian Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos

A great addition.

The basic idea seems to be certain quantum systems can be frozen if observed in a certain way i.e. the system will fail to evolve. Yet, such systems are evolving which implies NO ONE IS WATCHING!

If God did exist, he would be observing every single particle in this universe and that would have led to the Quantum Zeno Effect but since quantum systems do evolve, GOD DOES NOT EXIST! — TheMadFool

My understanding of quantum mechanics is its not an observer that causes outcomes, its active measurement. All measurement at that level requires bouncing particles off of other particles. Our instruments that we use to measure are not effective enough to not affect the thing we are measuring. If you bounce a ping pong ball off a bowling ball, the bowling ball won't be very affected. But bounce a bowling ball off of a ping pong ball, and the ping pong ball is affected greatly.

But if I simply use my eyeballs to look at quantum realities around me, you'll notice that I'm not affecting the outcome in the slightest. When introducing a fantastical being such as God, we can also posit that God is able to know what is happening on a quantum level without altering the outcome of that quantum pathing. After all, God is not limited by out instrumentation.

Clever, but it doesn't quite work. The problem of evil comes about because of a misuse of terms to describe God. If you describe God as being able to do absolutely anything, and God is supposed to be perfectly good, and perfectly all knowing, you create some problems.

One of them is declaring that evil is a sin, and against God. In that case, why would God allow evil at all? Its a contradiction. It doesn't matter if you compare a limited amount of time to the infinite afterlife.
A perfectly good, being that can do absolutely anything just wouldn't create evil.

Of course, if you change it to mean, "God is the most powerful, most knowledgeable and most omniscient being possible in existence," then the problem of evil disappears. In that case God has limitations, and if God has limitiations, its understandable why evil is in the world, and God asks people not to commit it.

Looking at history, I think there are a couple of key ingredients to avoid war.

1. Some type of unified identity.

A "family", "town", "state" or "country" are ways of belonging to a group. If we could get people to belong to the "human race" as the most important group, we would diminish the desire for violence. This is where things like philosophy and religion can be extremely useful. Politically, the EU and the UN are fantastic ways to bind countries together as "the people of planet Earth".

2. Respect and assistance towards others in need

Violence is resorted to when people are desperate and not getting a certain quality of life. If you have that life, and others don't, others are going to want to take it from you if you don't share.

3. Creating a culture of morality that prevents the immoral and power hungry from obtaining positions of leadership

It can be politically and personally profitable for leadership to go to war. When you can get other people to die for you, it requires someone of personal integrity and responsibility to be at the helm.

4. Creating situations with others of an alternative identity that is mutually profitable.

In the case in which identities cannot be unified, a form of trade or reciprocal benefit is needed to make war unprofitable. If both sides do not interact profitably, someone in power may start to be tempted in outright taking from the "other" tribe.

I'm sure there's more. I understand you're looking at more high level specifics, but the underlying lower level thoughts can be a guide to the higher specific implementation.

But is this a perfect simulation? In the first case it seems the computer simulated that the person would drink the poison "if they were not told a simulation showed they would drink the poison." If the computer also included in the simulation that the person would drink the poison, even when told they would drink the poison, then if the simulation was perfect, they would.

This is a paradox of saying something is a perfect simulation, then creating a situation in which the simulation is imperfect. If its a perfect simulation, then there are no contradictions, and no human choice could alter what the computer predicted. If the computer simulated that a person would drink the poison, if they were told the computer stated they would drink the poison, but the person did not, then we would know the computer could not perfectly simulate the world.

Essentially to sum it up, you are using the definition of "perfect", then inventing situations in which it is imperfect. That's not a paradox, its just a contradiction of terms.

MWI is a level 3 classification scheme of multiverse theory....
— Philosophim

...according to Max Tegmark's classificatory scheme, which is shared by practically nobody.

I was replying to fishfry's link. He linked me that, so I assume he found that to be a valid source. If you would like to enter the conversation, feel free. If Max Tegmark's scheme is wrong, who's scheme is right?

MWI is a unicorn theory
— Philosophim

I think it's all nonsense on stilts, but who am I? — Wayfarer

So one in agreement with unicorn theory then! But I want to give fishfry a chance to refute it.

The multiverse theory says that the universe consists of "bubble universes" that branch off and are causally independent of each other. Entirely different theory. Nothing to do with quantum branching. It's a cosmological theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse — fishfry

If you read the wiki article you linked, you'll see that MWI is a level 3 classification scheme of multiverse theory. I was correct then.

You seem to have side stepped the larger issue I made however. In the end, MWI is a unicorn theory. Do you have an answer for this?

Could well be. But for purposes of this discussion, please note that multiverse theory and the many-worlds interpretation are two entirely different speculative theories. — fishfry

Mind explaining how? As far as the specifics go, my understanding of many worlds interpretation is that all quantum states exist in some type of branching world or universe. This is just a multiverse theory. All multiverse theories fail at their core, because they are pure speculation without evidence.

Put a horn on a horse, and that sounds plausible. Spin the idea that measurement of quantum objects prevents us from knowing another aspect about that quantum object, and say that all possible quantum entities could exist, and it sounds plausible. But at the end of the day, its all speculation if you can't prove one shred of evidence that such a thing can actually exist.

I understand you might be interested in the higher levels of MWI speculations, but at the end of the day its like speculating whether a unicorn is able to magically heal wounds, or cast spells so it can fly. Its all moot until you can prove a unicorn exists.

Multiverse theory is the same as unicorn theory. No one has found a unicorn yet, and no one has found a different universe yet. As such, they are just postulates of imagination, no more.

I don't think we can ever remove evil entirely, just diminish its degree. If good is "more existence" and evil is "less existence", then good and evil are comparisons. While Covid is terrible, it doesn't approach the millions of deaths from pandemics in the past. Our work into medical science has paid off. While nuclear weapons are excessively destructive, that excessiveness also has diminished the number of wars in the world, and preserved more human life.

Finally, while the climate is definitely on a course to either hellish heat, or a lethal change in oxygen levels in the air, much of our technology is more energy efficient, and we are focusing on greener alternatives. Fighting with evil is a constant war for the betterment of the world.

Glad to chat with you again Jack, glad you've been well. To me, good is what we "ought" to do, and evil is what we "ought not to do". In other words, "This should exist, and this should not." But why do we think certain things should exist while others do not? Taking it from a purely human standpoint, we would come up with a myriad of opinion. That won't do. We need something more concrete. Something more primitive.

Why should humans exist at all? Which then I can say, why should life exist at all? Which leads to, why should anything exist at all? And there is our final question, the base upon which we can build our logic. An interesting fact, is that much of the "substance" that resulted form the big bang is gone now. After billions of years, its cancelled out or gone the way of entropy. But not the matter that's stuck around. That stuff, which we're made of, has stubbornly refused to go into the dark. That matter, is what life is built off of. That matter, is what we are built off of. And that existence, is what ethics is built off of.

The matter around us continually seeks to remain as it is. Forces jostle around, elections shift and molecules combine and break apart, but the underlying matter and energy remain. Life is a combination of matter that continues to seek its own continuation, even in the face of outside forces. Thus the prime directive is, "Should I continue to exist?" Life does with rudimentary intelligence. Humans come along and can see how it is. They can decide. Should I continue to exist? Most of us choose yes. That is good. Existence is good.

You also might realize that existence extends outside of yourself. And there is existence within interacting with yourself, and other existences. A fly alone and a human alone are two existences, but when they come together, they create a third interaction of existence that could not be otherwise. You see it in the atoms that form into different molecules. The interactions of so many different expressions of that existence. This is good as well.

At that point you might realize that if one can preserve one's own existence, and promote other existences where you can, then that would create more existence, and thus more good. Sometimes there must be destruction, or a change in the makeup of matter to preserve some existences over others. Life must continue to obtain energy to live, which means something else must lose it in return. What must exist and what must be destroyed are the constant calculus of morality.

I have a feeling no one person can answer that calculus. I have a feeling there is no one theory that will apply to one situation, but to many situations. The one thing that I feel confident in, is the underlying goal and result of all of those theories should be to preserve and/or create as much existence as possible.

IQ and intelligence are not necessarily correlative. IQ is a test from a group of people who have an opinion of what counts as intelligence. The problem is IQ tests can be studied. You can learn how to think and get better scores in many instances. Does that test intelligence, or knowledge then? I think intelligence should measure your minds biological ability to come to conclusions. Not the conclusions someone else came up with, but to come to its own conclusions with the limited information it has.

For a biological description of intelligence, the best description I've heard is "Neuron processing speed combined with accuracy." The faster and more accurately a person can make connections, the more intelligent they are. Of course, its more complicated than that.

How much heat and energy does a person generate when they think? You might have a person that is fantastic in short bursts, but quickly tires out and needs rest. Other people may be able to think accurately at an above average level for long times, but will never solve things past an average speed. You can combine all of these factors together and see that "intelligence" is quite varied. Take it one step further when you realize that your brain is composed of different areas, and you might discover that certain areas of your brain are faster/more accurate than other areas of your brain.

Being human, our floor and ceiling of "intelligence" are higher than any other animal (or so we think). And I think the reason this is, is because we realize our limitations, and use philosophies, tools, and societies to go past these limitations. While being an olympian in the intelligence department might help you in your life, you are still limited by the biological condition of being a human brain. No other animal does this to the extent we do.

Thus, I think the value of our intelligence is in how we use it to overcome our own limitations. Using it to overcome the problems that hold us back. Working as a society where one brain cannot succeed. Using our unique strengths of intelligence to help where we can. We create tools so we don't have to have muscles, and we create tools so we don't have to use our brain. As such, no test but our own application to solve those problems can really determine how useful we are in solving those problems. As such, IQ is fairly useless.

Is something coming from nothing any more absurd than something existing forever? — Down The Rabbit Hole

No, because something existing forever still reduces down to no explanation for why it exists forever. But you seem to understand this. Basically if existence was infinite vs finite, we would still seek an answer for why it was infinite vs. finite. But if there is nothing prior to the finite or infinite, the answer remains, "It just is."

Yes, there is. Long ago when I was attempting to write a philosophical proof of God I came upon an interesting logical conclusion. There must exist a "first cause". What this means is that there is a point in the chain of explanations for why something must exist, that the only answer is, "Because it does."

There comes a point in which there is no prior explanation for somethings being. What does that logically entail? There is something that has no reason for being, and thus anything could actually be. Now there may be stepping stones of reasons for why we are, but at the end of this road the answer will necessarily be, "It just is."

Well, this thread has gotten ironically emotional. I'll try to examine your question. First, what are emotions? Some might say they are instinctual responses to stimulus that help us survive as a species, and as a social group. The younger you are, the more emotions drive you through your day.

But as we age and the brain develops more, a person is able to gain mastery over their emotions. Just because we are angry and want to hit someone, doesn't mean that we do. Emotions become more of a digest, and a guide. If I feel angry at a situation, instead of just reacting, I think about it.

But what about the case in which there is no time to think about it? If you have no foreknowledge of a situation you're about to be in? If you have to act right then, or disaster will strike? When you cannot take the time or effort to think, emotion is the digest of the situation that lets you act when thinking would leave you paralyzed.

So do we need emotion? As we age and learn, perhaps we don't as much. I have suffered from medical depression, where all of my emotions disappear. Yet, I still "know" what I need to do when I wake up in the morning. Its not "exciting" when those days happen, but I still function. I also pretend to have emotions when speaking with others on those days, because emotions are a social lubricant.

Would there still be violence? Yes. One can conclude that another human being does not deserve to live. Violence is still an effective tool for getting things that you need. I don't think a lack of emotions would necessarily make the human race better. I think it would severely hinder development from a child to an adult. I think it would make social interactions slower and more muted. And finally, I think it would hinder our ability to react quickly to new situations, making us weak as a species to things that require the split second judgement that emotions provide.

I was the OP in the "homosexuality" thread that was closed. I did not see the follow up thread until much later, so did not get a chance to reply there. I wanted to note I supported the moderator that made the decision. We had a whispered conversation, and I understood his stance and how my post could come off the wrong way.

The mods here do a good job. Its on us to write our posts in such a way that fits the environment of these forums. I made a mistake in my presentation of the post. It was made hastily during a lunch break after a previous discussion I had with someone. As such, it was presumptive and with loaded language. If I had taken the time to edit it, and given space from my related immediate discussion, I could have written it in a more appropriate manner.

But regardless, even if the mods decide certain subjects are not to be brought to these boards, that is their decision and right. It is a privilege to use these boards and speak with others here. I do appreciate those who defended me, as that post was not intended to be offensive, but it is ok if the moderators make that call that it is.

Its not selfish at all. Life wants to keep living. After a time, you start to decay and break down. That's aging. Nothing wrong with not wanting to decay.

An ignorant person who is not malicious will be open to hearing they have done wrong, try to learn, and does not attempt to do the wrong thing on purpose.

Ignorance with maliciousness will not be open to hearing they have done wrong, will not try to learn, and does not attempt to do the right thing in their actions, only things for themselves.

You can be ignorant, and not be malicious. It is one's approach to actions which determines if they are malicious, ignorant or not.

Interesting point. So I taught high school for a few years and would run across students with behavior issues. What shocked me at first is after they were warned, they would misbehave MORE. After a while, I realized it was a dominance thing. They just didn't like being told what to do, or how to behave.

That's why the ban hammer is needed. Its why you have punishments for students that eventually result in expulsion. Because there are some people who will fight until you utterly defeat them. To normal people, its a weird hill to stand on. But for them? It seems to be the only way they know how to function.

Rafaella, this isn't really a philosophy topic, but an opinion on history. Can you go back and try to make this something we could discuss? Otherwise this read like a rant, or preaching. Something we try to avoid here.

Rafealla, is this really philosophy, or an opinion on politics? Philosophy is about freedom of thought. To take assumptions, and question and critically examine them. I find this is politics, which is often times preaching. Perhaps you can salvage something out of this by taking a part and asking a question out of it. Maybe examining some pros and cons.

The open persecution that big media and internet companies move towards Christian and conservative publications is the integral and definitive proof that the left has already lost all legitimacy as a spokesman for the poor and oppressed and has become the instrument of psychosocial control with which the elite enslaves the herd mentality. — Rafaella Leon

This is an accusation without examination, and could likely be a topic on its own. You can see others here are not really taking your topic seriously, because it isn't an invitation to discuss, but a rant. And its ok to make that mistake. See if you can salvage it into a topic worth discussing?

Do you really think that's how this went down? You asked for evidence and I got upset that you asked for it? — Judaka

Yes.

Whatever, have it your way, I'm not continuing this. — Judaka

Its a shame we got off on the wrong foot. I'm sure we'll have a better conversation another day.

Ok, I thought you had mentioned you weren't interested in debating this, and tried to end this on a friendly note. You are seeing attacks where there are none. This is exactly my point as to why you don't bring political affiliation to these boards. People get WAY too defensive, and see issues where there is none.

Yes, I may be biased. Yes, my experience might be skewed. Yes, our definitions of left/right may differ. All of this goes without saying. If you had decided exactly what it was you wanted, which now seems to be, proof of my claim that the forum is dominated by the left, then I might have been able to provide it. — Judaka

That was my entire point. I felt you were claiming these forums are leftist without qualifications.

I can think of several ways to go about it but they're all a lot of work. We can just agree to disagree as previously arranged but your comment here is unfair and so I had to respond, I'm not accepting the "sorry I asked you to back up your claims" or whatever. — Judaka

Ok. Lets just agree then. There is nothing wrong with stating an opinion but nothing wrong with me asking to back your opinion. If you are not interested in doing so, I do not see that as unfair. I would hope you would not take offense at my initial request to back up that opinion. We debate and challenge other people's opinions all the time, its not personal.

I don't really think you have grounds for any of these suspicions but the fact that you've gone for all of them in a matter of 3 posts signals to me that you are pretty intent on discrediting me for whatever reason. Don't you think you've already reached your conclusion and you're just saying whatever you can right now? — Judaka

No, I'm honestly just pointing out observations of potential flaws in your claim. I am quite prepared to learn something and change my mind. But, I don't think you've leant any credence to your claim, then what you have already decided.

I am not particularly interested in debating whether the forum is dominated by the left or not. — Judaka

And that is fine. Just don't take offense when I ask you to back that up on a philosophy board. =P I had no malicious intent to discredit you, just a disagreement of outlook, and to see if you could give evidence of your outlook.

Happy to just agree to disagree, by the way. — Judaka

Same, no hard feelings or personal attack intended.

I assumed you were taking the opposite position so I was questioning that. What is your position then? — khaled

Too long of a topic that should have its own thread so as to not derail the OPs! It is several pages long, and my attempts to post long posts here have often resulted in people who do not take it seriously. Feel free to check my post https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9015/a-methodology-of-knowledge if you are interested in discussing an objective look at knowledge. Just do me a favor and read the entire thing before opening a discussion. People can't seem to read past part 2, even when I tell them the solution to their questions is in part 3 and 4.

Ok. How do we come to access these fixed moral premises? Are there moral irrefutable commandments written on a rock somewhere or? — khaled

You misunderstand. I am not claiming evidence to these statements. They were an example for you to understand what a premise is, and that a premise needs evidence. I am asking you to explain why you have irrevocably proven that morality cannot have an objective basis. Take your premise, and present your logical argument which demonstrates why this must be true.

How do we come to access these fixed moral premises? Are there moral irrefutable commandments written on a rock somewhere or? — khaled

These are simply questions. Not evidence, or logical thought. If you are to prove that fixed moral premises are impossible, you should have the answer to this question. As an example, think of someone stating in the 1600's, "It is impossible for humanity to figure out how to fly." There was no logical certainty or proof that humanity would never be able to fly. Only a question of, "Well if its not impossible, how do we do it?" A question that has not been answered yet is not a proven certainty that it has no answer.

That moral premises are not fixed. There is no universal moral premises. That moral realism is bullshit. Same thing. — khaled

These are all statements. But none of these statements are supported by logical evidence. As an example, I can state just the opposite.

That moral premises are fixed. There are universal moral premises. That moral realism is sound. Same thing.

As you can see above, these are just statements. Instantly, you should be asking, "But you must give an argument or proof in support of these statements!" The request I have made is for you to prove your statements as logically sound and irrefutable. Can you do it? If you can, then I concede. If you cannot, then you understand where I'm coming from in this discussion.

Any application of logic requires premises. I’m saying we cannot fix these premises. You’re saying we can. What I am saying is supported by observation that people find different things wrong. What do you say to support your position? — khaled

If you wish to have a serious discussion on this, that's fine. This, I greatly respect. If so, please state your premise clearly, then state the support of your premise. I do not want to summarize for you and put words or intentions you do not mean into your post. My statement is that there is no proof that it is impossible to create moral objectivism. If you disagree with this, supply your proof, and we will discuss.

And when and how will this happen? What would you take as “irrevocative proof”? — khaled

When it is logically shown that it must be the case that it is impossible. Proof by contradiction for example. There is no logical proof that such things are impossible. Just a bunch of arrogant thinkers who failed to conquer a challenge and come up with the excuse that "there's just no answer" to appease their wounded egos.

Usually it’s not “too hard” it’s “outright impossible”. Because we can’t fix a starting point. — khaled

No, you are incapable of fixing a starting point. That's on a person's inability to do something. To claim, "I can't do it, and several other people can't do it, so its impossible" smacks of an over-evaluation of one's and other people's abilities. There is nothing wrong in saying, "I and others can't figure it out". But until it has been irrevocably proven that such things are impossible, claiming it is impossible is the equivalent of giving up while claiming, "And its because I'm really smart, but I can't do it."

Somewhat recently, I spent a lot of time debating white privilege and honestly, it was just left vs further left and I really think if this forum had a right-wing presence, they would show themselves in topics like that. Racism, economic inequality, pc-culture and so on, so, experience basically. — Judaka

You can be to the right and believe in racism, economic inequality, pc-culture, and white privilige. None of those pre-clude left or right thinking. Are you sure your "left versus further left" isn't just "right versus left"? You seem to be focusing on the extremists on the right, which are still a minority and do not capture what a healthy "right" perspective is. The vague responses here again seem to play into a self-perspective and not an objective perspective in assuming the majority on these forums are leftists.

They act like soldiers on a battlefield. — Judaka

Certainly there are ideologues and ideologies here. But you seem to imply that this forum is dominated by leftist thinking. I'm not asking you to prove that certain posters are ideologues, there are ideologues in every forum. What I'm asking is why you believe the vast majority of posters here have a liberal viewpoint?

I have always viewed these types of arguments as, "Too hard for me to solve, so I guess they can't be objective or real." I've seen the same "I give up" arguments against knowledge as well. My honest emotional feelings? I despise these weak and tired arguments. If you find it to be too hard to solve, admit it and give up. I respect that. If you have the utter arrogance to think that because its to hard for you, that it JUST must be the case that its unsolvable, I lose massive respect for the person.

I don't have an issue with the left-dominated forum but there are clear double standards in the moderation here. — Judaka

If you post a view which goes against leftist thinking, be prepared for not just debate but unmoderated ridicule and trolling. — Judaka

I disagree with this. If you post an idea here, it will often invite ridicule and trolling, irrelevant of perceived political leanings. I have a feeling you are seeing ideologies that aren't there. Can you give some specific examples of what you would consider "liberal" versus your particular "conservative" view points? I think this is the more important discussion to have.

Sure. In relation to things other than yourself, and those that might have any interest in you, you likely seem absurd.

But what about to yourself? Do the things you do seem absurd? When you wake up and have a good day, is it nothing? When you have a bad day, is it nothing?

At the end of the day, you are the one living your life. You find meaning or absurdity in what you do. Because the lesson you realized is it doesn't really matter to anyone else does it? Even if it somehow does, there's you living that life at the end of the day and having to experience it all.

If the conversation is perceived as being between people, then removing screen names is obviously going to generate confusion, agreed. But if the conversation is perceived as being between ideas, then it doesn't matter who typed what, and screen names become unnecessary. — Hippyhead

I thought about this when you first mentioned it, but having an identity within a thread is needed beyond ego. Sometimes there are a few conversations between people within a thread, and knowing that a particular person understands the conversation is important. Further, this prevents duplicity, in which a malicious person can pretend to be the owner of a previous thought, when they are not. Imagine a person lying that was they previously posted was now wrong. Although I do like the idea of random names being assigned for you in every different thread you visit.

But then, this is a philosophy forum and the job of a philosopher is to be inconvenient and unpopular. :-) — Hippyhead

Ha ha! I don't think that's really our job, though I get the joke. Sometimes good logic and thought makes us convenient and popular.

I've been living in forum land for 20 years now, and it's amazing to me what an absolutely fixed rigid idea we have about forums. All forums on the Internet, every last one, absolutely have to be pretty much exactly the same in format, or everyone starts totally freaking out, yelling about crimes against humanity and so on. — Hippyhead

Yes, people adapt slowly to change. It also greatly simplifies implementation when you simply copy what has gone before. Very few people want to spend tons of work implementing something new, and find that they have to fight tooth and nail to get people to even try it.