"replicas," — aletheist

What's that?

My point was suicide is more than the act of suicide- it is about the ideation. It is about living despite not liking its premises. That is prolonged suicide. It is not something to be dropped- a "cure" must be had to get into the circle of mild life-affirmation (well-adjusted in psychological jargon?). — schopenhauer1

I can only offer advice about coping with depression. Unfortunately, it never goes away, the thought patterns are deeply embedded. There are always alternatives though. Such as ketamine therapy or SSRI's. Some people are adamant about dealing with depression and try other venues like psilocybin or DMT, and can have breakthrough experiences (in controlled settings).

Your post kind of rambles along. But, suicidal ideation is often a precursor to the act of suicide. Philosophy can only do so much, and professional therapists or doctors need to be seen if the suicidal ideation becomes an active planning of the event.

Might have to go read about nostalgia before I continue talking out my arse. Just read that drug tolerance is reversible but I wonder what addicts experience, from a more subjective take on first time use. — Nils Loc

Generally speaking, addicts miss the features of the drug that influence them. Such as heightened perception or increased productivity. The initial high isn't of import to the discussion.

Feelings of nostalgia must range from benignly pleasant (ex. watching my brother play super nintendo in the early 90s and sleeping under the Christmas tree) to full of heart ache (reminiscing about a deceased relative or partner). — Nils Loc

Nostalgia is a pleasant experience in my mind. You get to form a connection with others and yourself. It's self-indulgent to some extent, but who cares?

My notion of nostalgia always has a melancholy heartache element to it, missing the past, missing a non-existent home type of feeling, dead friends, et cetera. This is where the feeling is potent but it is not without a sort of pleasantness despite the ache (a happy sad mixture, sweet memories haunting the future). — Nils Loc

Yeah, nostalgia is fun. But, the longing can be an issue. This is where I divide pleasant nostalgia for a better future rather than the self-indulging aspect of it.

So in a way of course we feel nostalgia for the future (the future doesn't really exist except as reconstruction of the past). — Nils Loc

Yes, I think nostalgia for a better future is deeply intertwined with our inherent goodness, so to speak.

I want to just be clear that I'm not for reporting threads and deleting them or such. The point should be to restructure or give form to some discussion by alleviating false notions derived from some stipulated definition.

That's all.

What do other mods think? You seem to have some underlying prejudice against what I'm professing. That's fine.

In this context it's usually a people-being-bad-at-communicating issue. — StreetlightX

So, then a philosopher ought to improve how we communicate? Does that sound right?

Don't ascribe to philosophy what you can put down to incompetence. — StreetlightX

No, it's the other way around. Philosophers are competent individuals in the art of communication. Therefore any "newbies" that join the forum and stipulate a definition based on some mystical experience or whatnot ought to be addressed with how the stipulative definition differs from the established definition.

Then, ambiguity, vagueness, and uncertainty can be mitigated through this method, and a real discussion can be held with the participant then.

No, it's just basic language 101. — StreetlightX

Not so basic if a great deal of confusion, ambiguity, vagueness comes about.

Ask people to clarify what they mean, obviously. This is just trivial communication, not some philosophical mystery. — StreetlightX

Ambiguity, vagueness, and uncertainty about terms is surely a philosophical issue, no?

Clarifying them is the job of the philosopher. Kind of reminiscent of treating philosophy as linguistic therapy.

There is no such thing as a 'right' meaning. — StreetlightX

How so? Is this just postmodernism being professed here?

Unclear and odd, sure. — StreetlightX

Yes, that bugs me. So, what can be done about it?

I don't know how to put it; but, stipulated definitions are a form of false notions of what the object of inquiry ( God forbid abstractions ) are.

I feel as though one is closer to the 'truth' if we do away with stipulated definitions of terms.

But, there's a serious conundrum with a stipulated definition. Which one is right and how can we evaulate or form a criteria to judge them?

Just some very pertinent questions to the matter.

Cicero phrased the question as so:

suum cuique pulchrum est — Cicero

To each his own is beautiful. (Cicero)

What does he mean by this in philosophical terms?

Sure, there is me observing the computer and its results and there is the computer computing. What it like to be "computing"? That is a very basic idea. There are interactions of things in the world- what is it like on the "front lines" of these interactions as opposed to simply observing them? The implications have a lot to do with theory of mind of course. — schopenhauer1

This sounds like asking about qualia. How is it like to be a butterfly of sorts(?)

What is it like to actually "be" a process? — schopenhauer1

Can you explain what you mean by 'being' a process more?

Try this for size:

I think, that what can be said about stipulative definitions is that if a person makes one the moderators should ask for a clear explanation of it before or after the thread starts.

Thoughts?

Cicero used the phrase in referring to the law, and "justice." I would say he refers to the need for the law to treat people fairly, impartially, by not favoring one person over another in applying the law. All are equal under the law, and what is due to each under the law is its impartial application. Rights and privileges granted by the law are granted to each person. — Ciceronianus the White

Plato, in Republic, offers the provisional definition that "justice is when everyone minds his own business, and refrains from meddling in others' affairs" (Greek: "...τὸ τὰ αὑτοῦ πράττειν καὶ μὴ πολυπραγμονεῖν δικαιοσύνη ἐστί...", 4.433a). Everyone should do according to his abilities and capabilities, to serve the country and the society as a whole. Also, everyone should receive "his own" — Bitter Crank

What do you think about the Platonic interpretation, Ciceronianus and BitterCrank?

Also:

http://e-catworld.com/

This is a quote attributed to Cicero, my esteemed ancestor. Well, forerunner. Precursor, say. — Ciceronianus the White

What does he mean by saying "Suum cuique"?

I dont think we take rules to be “true”, I think we agree to follow them or not. They are a tool. — DingoJones

A tool of what? What do you mean by tool here?

I think on a more fundamental biological level, nostalgia has a connection to the the loss of a sensitivity to novelty (domapinergic reward system stuff). Most types of recreational drugs for instance set up a first time expectation/reward which the user is always trying to return to but can never arrive to the ideal the first experience sets up. — Nils Loc

Do go on...

If you're feeling up for it, there's this book also:

https://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Transmutation-Reality-Cold-Fusion/dp/1892925001

You can look up on that website articles published by Tadahiko Mizuno and other Japanese. Their work spans something since the start of Cold Fusion with Pons and Fleischmann. NEDO is also a prominent candidate to look into.

Have at it. A compendium of knowledge about LENR can be found here:

http://lenr-canr.org/

Yes, feelings are ineffable. They can't be spoken of. But, we're deviating from how facts obtain their status of facthood. Is it when reality hits you ob the head?

Ah, I see. Yea, like any set of rules. — DingoJones

Yes, rules are bad. But some are common that we seem to live by them. So, we take these rules to be true, which they are in a majority of cases, but sometimes we need to reevaluate as 'good'. This place is like one.

I guess it depends on what you mean by idealised...to me that seems like an unnecessary layer you are adding there... — DingoJones

By idealized I mean that they exist the in the sphere of imagination/thought/mind; but, can become realities in the world.

As far as we know, nothing really flies the way that Superman is imagined to do in comic books, television shows, movies, etc. By all appearances, he simply wills himself to fly without activating any particular mechanism for physically doing so. I seem to recall that in the earliest comic books, he was portrayed more as jumping than flying - "leaping over tall buildings in a single bound" - which is perhaps more plausible. — aletheist

We can invent ways to occupy our mind with things. Suppose we created a new meta-material that can interface with our minds and fly or levitate or change in form and heighten certain features that Superman has. I mean use your imagination and think about how we could become akin to Superman or woman one day.

We're wired to feel them (to take in stimulus, somehow parse it, and then learn via an output/input loop) but why do feelings feel like anything? — VagabondSpectre

What do they feel like?

Consistency is One of the traits from which we get an objective moral standard. — DingoJones

What is that objective moral standard if not an idealized perception of it? It's almost some noumena that we can only observe.

"Flying like Superman" is shorthand for "flying like Superman is imagined to do in comic books, television shows, movies, etc." — aletheist

Why "like" being used here? Like denotes that nothing in the real world is representative of something idealized, like Superman?

"Flying like Superman" is shorthand for "flying like Superman is imagined to do in comic books, television shows, movies, etc." — aletheist

Yes, I neglected to mention that facts themselves cannot be subjected to the Principle of Bivalence.

I think you're overlooking the addition of concrete to the batter which not only increases their ballistic attributes but it makes them more likely to float! — frank

:chin:

There's a secret ingredient. — frank

The chocolate chip cooky is teleologically purposed or instantiated to be eaten. It's purpose as bomb material or other such things is denied and is therefore nonsense.

Sorry chocolate cookie!

The meaning in English translates to: "To each his own". What can that possibly mean? Hasn't it been perverted by such types as Marx?

I'm not sure here.

It doesnt seem odd to me for people to make attempts to come up with ways of thinking about morality or moral structures. — DingoJones

Yes, morality is much more complex than creating simple statements that a utilitarian calculus of morality could accept.

Im not sure any morality isnt intended to be idealized. Aren’t morals always intended as ideal? — DingoJones

Well, I hope they are. Since most moral statements seem to be subject to being either true or false if they are moral propositions. Therefore, true morality is subject to be ideal because they are not as simple as simple statements about it.

Dreaming about flying like Superman, or imagining that I am flying like Superman, is not actually flying like Superman. — aletheist

However, Superman is an actuality here.

Does this alleged principle only exclude analytic propositions, such as "all bachelors are unmarried" (necessarily true) and "some bachelors are married" (necessarily false)? — aletheist

Yes, it excludes only analytic propositions.

So, in your example, Superman is not analytic, yet, we talk about him as a synthetic a priori sense. So, is he a synthetic a priori conception of the human mind, only? I mean, he could exist in a possible world, no? Therefore has he become analytic>?

Thoughts?

Obviously we use language to express propositions, which represent states of affairs. — aletheist

So, how is it so obvious that a proposition represents states of affairs?

I'll be happy to look into specific examples but I'm not going to look for them as most of it has turned out nonsense so far. — Benkei

Wow, so you dismiss the entire field of LENR, based on a prejudice towards Rossi?

Cool.

Well, I firmly believe that we are infinitely more complex than saying "people only desire pleasure" or "people seek the aversion of pain, and maximize this aversion". Or "people desire or are defamatory because that can't attain power." What do you think, aren't these just brief stipulations on what morality is? Doesn't that strike you as odd?

All of these are really stipulations of an idealized concept of "morality".

What do you think?

Yes, it would be a fact that I was flying like Superman in the dream, but not that I was actually flying like Superman. — aletheist

What do you mean by "actually" here?

For example, this is a true proposition: If I were to drop a stone while standing on the earth, it would fall to the ground. — aletheist

So, what happens to the Principle of Bipolarity? It would not be true that you were to drop a stone while standing on Earth? Therefore, the Principle of Bipolarity is nonsense?

Whatever you like - states of affairs, qualities, things, habits, etc. — aletheist

States of affairs sounds right. So, what I said was true?

Three decay back into nickel, while emitting gamma radiation. The other two decay into copper by radiating gamma radiation. — Benkei

Ok, I'm going to try and flex my physic muscle. Don't laugh as a spaz when trying to do so.

This is why it's called "Low Energy"-Nuclear Reactions. I don't know the science behind it enough to explain how it's a low energy nuclear reaction. Even if we take Rossi as a particular, then if he's wrong, then there must be some shielding. Note, how all the newer versions of his reactor have some sort of shielding around them.

Anyway, since other's have demonstrated low-energy nuclear reactions, then how do you explain that?