Being insane myself, I used the NukeMap to see the impact of a one megaton bomb on my city. The city has a population of around 150,000. The city and surrounding county together have a population of around 250,000. It's a typical medium size city built around a large public university, surrounded by rural lands.

In the urban core most buildings would collapse, and fires would spread everywhere. In the wider urban area everyone would experience third degree burns. In the surrounding county windows would be broken in most buildings, allowing in rain, wildlife etc.

A single bomb, and the entire county would be toast from one end to the other.

My immediate thought is that if someone is quickly scanning through another's ideas simply to find fault in those ideas, then that person isn't very interested or open to considering those ideas in the first place. — AntonioP

Your thought seems pretty accurate. In my view, some significant percentage of the time we aren't even interested in the topics being discussed.

As for my thoughts on the discipline of philosophy in general, I don't believe it is pointless just because people can't agree on everything. It is noble to search for the truth — AntonioP

Can the truth be found in any collection of words and ideas?

I would claim that words and ideas are like your photo on Facebook. The photo has it's practical uses, but it's just a symbol which points to you. The photo is not actually you. It's just a photo. And the photo is a symbol which represents you in a highly imperfect manner, due to the inherent limitations of photography, a 2D symbolic medium attempting to represent a 3D reality.

All philosophies, every last one of them, are like the Facebook photo. They are just highly imperfect symbols which attempt to point to the truth. No philosophy contains the truth because all philosophies are just symbols, and the truth is what's real.

What's philosophy good for then? For understanding it's limits.

One has to step back from excessive exposure to repetitious daily news — Bitter Crank

This, along with the rest of Crank's post, seems wise advice. It may help a bit to take a clear eyed look at the media.

First, the media is not in the news business. It's in the ad selling business. Once this is understood much of the rest begins to fall in place.

Ad revenues are a function of audience size. The larger the audience, the more one can charge.

Audience size is a function of how well a media platform feeds the psychological needs of the public. That is, audience is built with stimulation, drama. Evidence, Fox News is apparently the leading TV news platform in terms of audience size.

The journalists who appear on news outlets are probably sincere and well intentioned. But they aren't running the show. It's the business people behind the scenes who make the real decisions. And their job is to care about income, which comes from selling ads, which comes from audience size, which comes from drama.

I listen to NPR, a fairly mild outlet. But if a bus goes over a cliff in Peru killing 8 people they will run the story, because it's dramatic. I'm a news junkie, it's my life long soap opera addiction. But honestly, looking back I see that if I'd never watched the news my life would have been little different.

Socrates was put to death for a reason. He was, in essence, systematically demolishing all the cherished beliefs of Athenian society. — TheMadFool

Right, philosophy provides a valuable function by providing a view from outside the socially acceptable group think, but one should not expect to be rewarded for providing the service.

There may however be a reward which is built in to the social rejection. If one is tossed out of the social world, the real world is the only place left to go. And whaddya know, the real world is far more interesting than the social world! Yup, it's true, all my best friends are armadillos. :-)

It's fine to critique but most people that I find here and on other forums "critiquing" are not trying to help reach an answer they are just trying to tear down a given position, either because they don't agree with it or just because it feels good. I think the main reason people do this is the anonymity of the internet. — khaled

Yes, the anonymity of the Net provides a safe opportunity to do something that apparently often feels good: criticize, tear down, dismiss, disrespect and so on. I'm not arguing this is the only motivation for the gotcha game, but emotional motivation does seem quite prominent. The evidence for emotional motivations are the tone of many of the challenges, roughly described as snotty, snarky, dismissive, superior, lecturing etc. What's this all about? Why does this stance have such appeal?

I wouldn't try to put a percentage on how many posts are of this snarky nature, but here's a thought experiment. Imagine that all screen names were removed from the forum, and that an AI system re-wrote all posts in neutral language so that we couldn't identify a poster by their writing style. If the human element (ie. emotional agendas) were removed and the forum contained only ideas, how long would the forum last before it died? Two weeks?

I'm floating a theory that philosophy, like all optional human activity, is primarily an emotional experience and that the intellectual content of philosophy is more of a cover story. We could just come here and yell at each other in a straightforward manner, but this wouldn't be too flattering, so we use the philosophic content as a vehicle for persuading ourselves that our intentions are high minded.

What's love got to do with it? — 180 Proof

Yea, in the case of Christianity, rather a lot.

That must've been fun! I'm glad you had that experience and chose to share it with the world. — dussias

It was fun. All during the sixties my Dad and I would retire to the family room after dinner to debate the issues of the day. It was our father/son bonding experience. It's great to have such conversations with someone with whom you share so many genes, as conversations can go effortlessly at the speed of light.

I'm not so sure about the sharing with the world part. Most people don't really want their perspectives inspected and challenged from every angle. As I said, this inheritance I got from my Dad does tend to make me an outsider in any group because my mind always instinctively starts challenging the group consensus, a rather unpopular activity. This is especially true on the Internet where it seems every site is tribal, and the point of the site is for members to reinforce their shared view.

Challenging the tribal group consensus can work socially if you allow the group to win. You can even become a cherished prodigal son if you publicly agree they have persuaded you. But if you persist in the challenge, and worse, if you are good at it, you inevitably have to choose between the intellectual and social. I couldn't possibly begin to remember all the sites I've been banned from.

This point of view only makes sense if you believe YOU ARE RIGHT and that anyone who points out an error IS ATTACKING YOU. — Kenosha Kid

Except that it wasn't a point of view, but a question. Gotcha! :-)

Exposing flaws in a position or argument is, well, part of the act of doing philosophy. — TheMadFool

Agreed. But still curious. A bit suspicious. Even skeptical. Why are we so interested in engaging in an activity built upon exposing flaws articulated by others? Why did we choose this hobby instead of say, playing the piano?

And did we even chose it? It feels like a genetic level installed at the factory system in my brain, reinforced by upbringing. I'd probably be picking things apart inside my own head even if there was no opportunity to share the analysis. But there is such an opportunity, and I grab it, and um, usually wind up getting banned. :-) Something more than intellectual inquiry going on me thinks.

We are united in the pursuit of truth and (at least in this forum) the enjoyment of thoughtful discussions. And this thought has the power to focus us more on discussing new ideas with honesty and respect. — Hirnstoff

Not sure about the truth, but thoughtful discussions, yes, desired.

And we have to strive towards that goal with some honesty and respect, because unless we first attend to the all important ever demanding ego who actually runs the show, it will not permit thoughtful discussion.

YOLO?

Technically we probably shouldn't call atheism a religion, but yea, it's a faith based big picture perspective which does have real world implications for we the still living.

I remember hearing a show about suicide on NPR awhile back. The entire show was experts discussing how we should work to prevent suicide. Very good intentions, kinda sloppy philosophy. I couldn't help but hear this message blaring from the show...

Dear person considering suicide: Ok, so your life really sucks, we hear you, but suicide should be avoided at all costs, because the alternative to your sucky life is even worse! We hope you feel better now.

I mean, vultures and fungi and worms play a vital role in ecosystems. — Coben

Ha, ha! Yes, we philosophy nerds are reasonably compared to vultures, fungi and worms in the ecosystem of beliefs. We do play a useful role, but it wouldn't be smart to think anybody is going to thank us for it.

Ha ha! Hippyhead, you always strike me as the archtype of the Jester. Not the fool, but the clever pretender who mocks reality with a wink. We may have had some disagreements in past posts, but I do enjoy your presence here. — Philosophim

Thank you, and the same to you. I do become over enthusiastic quite regularly, but I don't hold a grudge, and every thread is a new day. I like to think of myself as the philosophy forum version of Randle McMurphy, or at least that is the fantasy I enjoy inhabiting. :-) And you know what happened to him in the end, don't you? :-) Uh oh!

Motivation behind what we are trying to prove is just as important as the thing we are trying to prove. — Philosophim

My sense is that most of the time in life the real audience we are addressing in conversations is ourselves. If I brag to you about some accomplishment real or imagined, the person I'm really trying to persuade is probably me.

S/he said something to the effect that philosophy is essentially a negative enterprise in the sense it's raison d'etre is crticism - by and large it's a fact finding mission fault finding mission, an activity that's designed to be destructive rather than constructive. — TheMadFool

Yes, I agree with this. And I apply the process to itself, and make the contention that any idea can be ripped to shreds in the right hands, thus all ideas are flawed, thus what's the point of philosophy? :-) Seriously, if we apply the methodology to itself, the entire system can be unraveled, the ultimate destructive accomplishment. Many of my posts explore this territory from various angles.

Anyway, we agree this destructive process has intellectual value. However, generally speaking, my sense is that the intellectual value is a thin veneer which typically obscures the more important underlying reasons why we are drawn to this activity.

One method of determining our real motivation might be to examine how much time we invest in understanding the other person's point of view. If we're careful and methodical, we might be focused on an intellectual inquiry. If we ask question to clarify their view, we might be on an intellectual inquiry. If we are speed reading to find the Gotcha Gold asap, probably not.

I agree it's a complicated soup, and am just suggesting we give the emotional motivations a closer look.

I respect your religion. :-)

Death is game over — Philosophim

It's interesting that so many of us are so sure we know such things.

To pound on the point a bit...

There is of course a great deal of speculation about what death is, and thus the question of whether we should fear it. How to proceed?

Imagine there was a special room at a university where we could go to temporarily and safely experience death. It seems that any serious thinker on the subject of death would pause their speculations and go do the experiment. Then they could further refine their ideas from there, based on experience instead of just unprovable theories.

The point I wish to pound is that, if we define death as the absence of data, we can to some degree or another do the experiment through techniques like meditation. And/or we can simply carefully observe our daily life and note those times when abstractions are absent.

If it's true that we can find a taste of death in our normal daily lives if we pay attention, and if we don't wish to do that, then what's the point of a pile of abstract theories?

It interests me how there are 56 trillion threads about Christianity on philosophy forums, and they almost never make even the slightest mention of love. But, that gives me the opportunity to do a slam dunk gotcha, so thanks for that. :-)

I think that the reason why psychic matters are not funded by universities is that many academics do not take such matters seriously. — Jack Cummins

That is, they're terrified of what their peers would think. Being any kind of professional intellectual requires one to color pretty carefully within the lines of the group consensus.

People like us are often able to intellectualize death away to a safe distance, me too, but I'm guessing that defense will crumble when the time comes. We'll probably never know how we really feel about death until we get there.

That said, to the degree we can manage our relationship with death, experience seems a more promising methodology than ideas. What we're really afraid of is the loss of the data which makes up "me", our memories, thoughts, ideas, personality etc. That's what death is for us, the absence of data. To varying degrees we can experiment with and experience that death now while we're alive.

But, but, can you make it more boring? Gotcha back. :-)

I apologize for the sarcasm - it was gratuitous and uncalled for. — EricH

No worries, just another day in forum land. :-)

Do you see that you're contradicting yourself? — EricH

I have no idea what you're referring to actually, must have missed it. Make the case if you wish.

In the present context the fault lies with the person who is trying to evade criticism (the burden of proof) through the medium of emotion. — JerseyFlight

One wonders why we great philosophers are always so eager to provide criticism. That couldn't possibly have anything to do with emotions, right? :-)

Maybe in death we experience eternal calm without the annoyances of life. — Gregory

What is death?

Well, the collapse of the body of course. But that's not really what concerns us. What makes death worrisome is the absence of the data, our memories, thoughts, opinions etc. A careful observation will reveal this absence of data already happens all the time on a regular basis, and not only do we not mind the absence, it often forms some of our favorite experiences.

As just one of an endless number of examples, what is an orgasm but a brief moment of psychological death? I don't think it's a coincidence that this brief psychological death is the reward we are given for engaging in life creating activities.

And what this connection between life making and death experiencing may reveal is that life and death are not two different things. Lifedeath could be a single phenomena, much in the same way spacetime is a single phenomena. It could be that our highly dualistic division creating minds have conceptually divided something that in the real world is one. Always, always, always be on the look out for this source of distortion.

Well, this is a theory that entertains me. The best way to engage such a theory is not to agree or disagree, but to observe your own experience very carefully, and discover how many of the experiences you enjoy involve psychological death.

A quick story which may be relevant. When I was a young hippy I once went to lecture by a guru passing through town, during the guru era of the 1970's. I wasn't in to gurus, I was in to hippy chicks, who could often be found in volume at guru talks. :-)

So we're sitting there for awhile chatting amongst ourselves waiting for the guru to come on stage and put on some kind of show. Pass the popcorn please.

Finally he arrives and takes his place behind the microphone. We quiet and wait for him to start speaking. We wait. We wait some more. We're still waiting. Nothing is happening, the guru is just sitting there. I want my money back! :-)

And then, after awhile, this very tangible sense of peace infuses the entire auditorium. It was like a physical cloud of peace that you could feel but not see. It didn't require belief. I didn't believe, I was just a supposedly intellectual little skeptical college boy looking to get laid. But there was this peace cloud which I couldn't deny.

Sooner or later the guru began speaking, and I don't remember a word of it. Nor did I get laid, argh. :-)
All I remember is the silence and the peace. Fifty years ago. Still remember it.

I have no theory or conclusion to report here. Don't ask me what this means or proves or anything, as I have no idea. I was there. It happened. All I can tell you.

A few years later this guru, who was very popular at the time, got kicked out of his own ashram for having sex with one of his disciples and then lying about it. Best I could tell, he was actually a good guy. But who can resist hordes of emotional devotional hippy chicks throwing themselves at you?? :-) Sounds like a Peter Principle event to me.....

What you refer to as ‘space’ in this overarching sense I see as the relational structure of reality itself. — Possibility

It's relational in regards to the positioning of things. Things do exist, but are so small in comparison to space I wonder if it makes sense to define space by such tiny details? Would that be like defining me by the nature of one of my toe nails?

Its existence transcends any notion of value or meaning. — Possibility

Sounds good, yes, value and meaning exist only in our tiny little minds.

We don’t have to make it into a means to some end, but this is how we value it. — Possibility

It does seem we relate to space as if it were just another thing, and then we calculate it's value based on it's relationship to our needs, just as we do with all things. Predator=bad, banana=good, space=?? We could now proceed to examine and debate the value of space, but if space is not a thing after all, what happens to our evaluation?

The question is, how do we relate to space in itself without assigning value? How do we relate to zero? — Possibility

Thank you, yes, that's a great way to put it. Very helpful.

One answer I'm floating for examination is...

1) The appropriate way to relate to real world things is with mental things, ie. philosophy.

2) The appropriate way to relate to real world zero is with mental zero, ie. meditation.

3) The vast majority of reality is not things, but zero.

So if we accept the premise that our philosophy should align itself with the real world, our philosophy would be mostly silence, with a few bright stars sprinkled here and there throughout.

When you stop typing and just sit quietly, is that ‘space’ really empty, though? Or is it a meeting point for ideas, thoughts, experiences, etc? Is it a gap in our understanding? Is it what we cannot subsume under concepts? The idea isn’t necessarily to try and empty the space by force, but to recognise what possibilities exist within it, despite anything ‘being’ there. To understand that a void has as much possibility of meaning as a ‘thing’. — Possibility

Good questions.

In return I would ask, could it be that space, silence, emptiness etc has a value of it's own which is not dependent upon or related to our ideas, thoughts, experiences, understandings, meanings etc? Can we, should we, value space for itself without having to make it in to a means to some other end?

I keep coming back to the notion that the overwhelming vast majority of reality at every scale is space. So whatever our relationship with space might be, that is most of our relationship with reality.

As example, if we think of space as a pile of empty nothing, then our relationship with reality could be that we are tiny fragile creatures lost in a vast empty nothing. If we were to think of space much as some people relate to their god, then that would be a quite different relationship with reality.

I'm not selling any particular relationship with space, just suggesting we inquire in to what our relationship with space might be. I'm attempting to shift some focus from the tiny details of reality (ie. things) to the dominant property of reality, space.

As long as you're at it, would you also please go on record acknowledging that you are contradicting yourself, so that members will be relieved of the burden of posting it over and over? — EricH

I'm inferior to your great mind in every way possible. That should cover anything you may wish to burp about.

We learned to view Empty Space not as mere nothingness, but as a potential place for something. — Gnomon

I like the reports from art and architecture school, thanks for that. It's interesting to see how different disciplines relate to the subject of space.

The idea that space is a potential place for something would seem to assume that it is the "somethings" which have the value we seek. Is this the bias for "things" expressing itself?

I'm quite interested in our relationship with reality, which is probably why I spend so much time in religion threads. What I'm trying to explore is this. Almost all of reality is space. What is our relationship with space? Do we see it is a means to some other end? Are we willing to embrace it for itself? There is the question "what is space" (physics) and the question "whatever space is, what is our relationship with it?" (religion and philosophy)"

If we feel that space has little value, that would seem to imply a somewhat dark relationship with reality. If we feel space is glorious beyond description, that implies a different relationship. It seems the scale of space alone demands an investigation in to such questions.

To what degree should our philosophy reflect the nature of a reality dominated by space? Should I stop typing now and just sit quietly? Would that be better philosophy than all my so many ideas on such subjects? Or is philosophy inevitably in the business of creating "things" so I should accept that and charge ahead?

Such questions arise from personal experience. I'm an avid hiker and sometimes when I'm in the woods doing pretty much nothing all day long I get a sense of The Truth. Not truth as an answer or conclusion, but more a sense that reality itself is the truth that we seek. Finding that experience typically involves letting go of all this talk I'm doing about truth.

And so I wonder, is philosophy a path towards truth, or a path away?

.

:smile: — TheMadFool

.

If it was an external problem, a great leader would solve it, and we wouldn't have to change, but it is an internal problem and a great leader can only make it worse. — unenlightened

Generally agree with your sentiments. Internal problem, expressing itself externally.

To be a quibbler, there is at least some possibility that some great leader of science might uncover some mechanical solution of sorts to the internal problem. A drug? Gene editing? I have no idea.

The one thing we know for sure from thousands of years of experience is that sitting with the guru under the pear tree isn't a sufficiently scalable solution.

This page intentionally left blank — TheMadFool

The new empty headed religion is already spreading! Praise be The Prophet!

By characterizing a rational position, as an emotional position, the defender is trying to dismiss it without actually having to deal with it. — JerseyFlight

Philosophy forums are overwhelmingly driven by emotional agendas. Rational positions are typically a thin veneer fig leaf used to hide the emotional agenda from it's owner.

I know all this because the evidence and logical calculations clearly show that I am WAAAAY smarter than everyone else! :-)

It may not get the same attention as discoveries about new galaxies, but the nature of "space"is a subject of intense interest in the scientific community. — EricH

Could I please go on record as stating that I already know all this, so that members will be relieved of the burden of posting it over and over? :-)

Rather than speculate in the abstract, do yourself a favor and google "philosophy of space." You'd be surprised at what scientists and philosophers have gotten up to in the last 300 years or so. — SophistiCat

Rather than post anything at all, because whatever is posted will inevitably generate yet another gotcha dance, I could continue posting empty spaces. Which would then themselves become yet another gotcha dance! :-)

.












































.

It is very likely that this will be humanity's last civilizatory cycle. — Gus Lamarch

You could be right, and of course I don't know. But unless humanity goes extinct, such as in a giant asteroid strike, then I'd guess civilization would emerge again in some form, just as it always has. You know, after the Roman Empire collapsed it took Europe a thousand years to get back on track, but it did eventually happen. But the time scales involved may be geologic. The earth could be covered in ice a couple more times before we finally figure it out.

Anyway, we don't really care that much, so perhaps discussing it is pointless.

the One cannot have an other — praxis

The challenge makes sense to me.

Is Plotinus claiming there is The One, and then other stuff which is outside of The One? Or is The One conceived to be all inclusive?

The purpose of this discussion was practically to resolve why people confused the concept of the One of Plotinus with the theistic concept of God. — Gus Lamarch

I like big picture ideas which are outside of the boring either/or construct of the God debate. If that's what's being explored I'm interested.

Yeah Praxis, you really didn't understand anything, and worse, you don't even try to argue for your wrong point. — Gus Lamarch

Praxis does fall victim to a bit of lazy snarkiness sometimes, and I know, having invented that myself. :-)

But here I think he's just being concise. I'm appreciating the lack of clutter and use of everyday language.

What’s there to argue, the One cannot have an other. — praxis

Seems a reasonable point to me.

The Catholics got caught up in this mess too. On one hand they state that God is ever present everywhere in all times and places, which if taken seriously would mean God is everything and everything is God, a state of non-division. But then they want God to be something separate too.

I see the problem as the attempt to use an inherently divisive medium like thought to try to discuss concepts like unity, The One etc, leading to an eternal muddle.