I suppose so.

It's scary.

Boo!

I don't see the point to death. So much is lost in that imposed feature of life. To live forever means that death can be overcome and the loss of life. I don't suppose you would disagree with that.

Wouldn't it be redundant to live again and go through the same process of learning and such? Which leads me to believe that it's a never ending process...

If, however, life perfection could be attained in this life, then, isn't that preferable?

Yeah; but, what if you could achieve life-perfection in one life? That would seem like the optimal solution.

The full potential of the brain and the soul is not realized. — macrosoft

What do you mean by that?

I suppose I'll also offer my views.

I would want to live forever because death is an unknown. I have grown fond of life and value it. My life isn't too great, just that the alternative is the great unknown which I like to not think about too often.

I would want to be uploaded into a computer and live in my own dream world of my making. I suppose I could always decide to turn myself "off" for a period of time or indefinitely. So, yeah, my greatest fear is death itself.

In a good way, you kind of remind me of my cat. You push lots of buttons to see what happens. She pushes objects around with a sort of focus and curiosity. — macrosoft

:blush:

I try to be an original philosopher, synthesizing and paraphrasing everything that seems great. On an 'existential' level, I have no choice. I react to being thrown into this particular life. On a creative level, I just really like pulling phrases out of my soul, especially when I can sketch the forest. There's just some kind of reliable pleasure in grasping the essence of situations conceptually/metaphorically. — macrosoft

Share some wisdom then. Please, and thanks.

What camp do you fall in? Sorry for pigeonholing here.

You might say that I like philosophy to include the concerns of existentialism. — macrosoft

What are those?

Interesting. I think you are right to treat the atomic propositions with contempt. There's something to be said about arguing over trifle differences. I take the Wittgensteinian approach and push for less ambiguity and vagueness. What are your thoughts on this feature of the language that is 'ambiguity' and 'vagueness'?

Understanding obtains when one assigns meanings to objects, actions or events in a way that is coherent and consistent — Terrapin Station

What do you mean by "coherent" and "consistent" here?

@macrosoft, what are your further thoughts about atomic meaning? I believe they are important to discourse, and the trifle differences become apparent with their examination. Are you a Pragmatist by any chance?

The Tractatus was a good work.

What are your thoughts about solipsism?

Interesting. What do you have to say about Wittgenstein's flawed approach in the Tractatus?

Dems are taking the house, yay!

Well, I have voted. Nothing much to say why if one was cognizant and not in a coma over the last two years.

I agree with most of what you have said. I don't think fact making is really a big issue then. Or how do facts obtain in reality?

Yeah, I'd say that of course the external world exists. My point is maybe that it doesn't exist as a theoretical object. — macrosoft

But, according to the totality of things being facts, then all we have are symbols, models, and theories which we can devise about the world.

I don't know what to make out of that superficial distinctions you have made. Thoughts?

Then how do they work?

I just mean that though likes can be called preferences, that word sounds unnecessarily neutral. "Likes" more fully expresses their positive nature. — Michael Ossipoff

But, water is important to me regardless of however much I like or dislike it.

You may want my input, but you don't need it. — unenlightened

But, your input is highly valued. :)

I don't check to see if I have hands before I reach for my coffee. — macrosoft

Hmm, this is ambiguous. Don't you agree that because I have two hands (fortunately) that the external world exists?

Firstly, unless we have possessive desires, there are too many apostrophes in the title. — Banno

Oh, understood. I meant to imply that want's are just out there hanging around, not doing anything useful with language.

They are there like a dark background for the most part. — macrosoft

Yeah, or the stuff we can all agree on that we stand upon.

If you mean that all the facts are entangled in a system, then that is my cup of tea. — macrosoft

Glad we're on the same page, then. I mean to assert that things are really just facts that we can agree on. There are also bedrock beliefs we can agree on.

I'm not even saying I disagree, but what is a fact for you? Merely offering the phrase out of context doesn't say much. This is my tedious meaning holism. To figure out what that sentence means to you, I have to get to know you. By all means, tell me how it exists for you in context. — macrosoft

But, I have expressed holism by stating that the totality of the world are facts.

I mean "preferences" is true, but it doesn't sound like as much fun. — Michael Ossipoff

What do you mean by this?

To me it's not particularly useful to say that the world is the totality of facts. Or its useful for one particular purpose. I think roughly that Wittgenstein was annoyed at people being scientistic about religion and art, and that that was part of his goal, to reveal the mystery by clearing out the confusion. — macrosoft

Indeed. But, what's wrong with stating that the world is the totality of facts and not things? This seems elementary to me.

but ultimately it comes down to likes. — Michael Ossipoff

You mean preferences? I mean, there's a tale in the realm of economics that asserts that diamonds are more valuable than water; but, not at all times.

I also think a Rogerian agreement fits nicely into this discussion. Thoughts?

Are you a Tractarian by any chance? The world is the totality of facts not things. Therefore, we must analyze the state space we both inhabit. This can only be done through perfect asymmetric information sharing.

That's one of the small number of things Wittgenstein said that I agree with. ;-)' — Terrapin Station

So, can I objectively state that you are deprived of water? If that is so, here's a glass of water.

Some people think that meaning is llterally "embedded" in objective stuff. For one, I'd guess that you're familiar with Putnam's work on meaning, no? — Terrapin Station

The world is the totality of facts not things. Comes to my mind.

My understanding of humans includes that they will die without water and feel pretty bad on the way to that thirsty grave. It also includes the idea that humans can individually become fixated on objects or ideas that leave others cold. One man will die for what another considers a joke or a bore. — macrosoft

And how does this relate to semantic holism that is an attitude? If I'm a philosophical pessimist, then what?

Oh, I agree with that, roughly or sufficiently. I think it's pretty much always possible to qualify, qualify, qualify --but not always appropriate, else we'd never finish one thing and start another. — macrosoft

Hmm, one cannot be certain of wants; but, needs are apparent. What does that mean to you?

The first brief answer that occurs to me is to quote Kentucky Buddhist Ken Keyes...his statement that we have likes, which needn't be called "wants" or "needs".

That's the short version, and you asked for a very brief concise statement. — Michael Ossipoff

Oh, understood. I just meant to point out that we have shared needs, maybe not wants.

Perhaps. But if I'm honest, I'm not getting a clear picture of your perspective. — macrosoft

I mean to highlight that we both share needs and not wants. We can agree that I'm thirsty if I'm dying out of dehydration. Not so much about wants.