if you stick to the usage of "race" you employ there, then we are actually on the same page! — dazed

Where do you think that we could be off-page?

do you actually believe that there are different sets of humans that are different unique characteristics such that we can call one set a race? — dazed

If the one set were engaged in some sort of speed competition, then sure.

do you actually believe the world is flat? — dazed

:chin: I pretty sure it’s spherical.

do you actually believe that people are in fact divided into races? — dazed

Sure, for instance, in high school I wasn’t a very good swimmer but I loved the butterfly, which was actually my worst stroke. Nevertheless, I talked the coach into letting me swim in a 100 yard butterfly at one meet. I lost badly and it was embarrassing.

the concept of race has no basis in reality similar to the concept that the world is flat — dazed

In both cases, the bases are social constructs. Similarly, money is also a social construct and an extremely successful one in its adoption. I don't think anyone believes that the actual paper and ink in paper money has value commensurate to its socially agreed-upon value or buying power. Its value is dependent on society to exist. If there were a cataclysmic event of some kind that wiped out 90% of the human population on earth, for example, the fictional value of paper money would instantly vanish.

it's not a matter of refusing to see race, as in fact there is nothing to see
I can see skin colours and differences in physical characteristics, but I can not see races, only faces

You can also see paper money as just paper and ink. Nevertheless, its socially constructed value, unless you're a Buddhist monk or something who practices renunciation, is firmly embedded in your mind.

Which enlightened country do live, just out of curiosity.

But the leftists have now corrupted that once-proud term to identify themselves and their program of more government ownership of property and more controls over persons.

The general or primary moral is care, for those who might need protection. With liberty comes responsibility, as the saying goes.

The point of the issue was that the core principles of liberty is largely absent from other schools of thought. It is central to classical liberalism,sure, but then again classical liberals renamed themselves libertarian because modern liberals excised that very principle.

Liberal is a better label for libertarians than it is for American liberals, I would agree.

sounds like you believe that there are such things as races — dazed

I know that the concept exists, as do you. Similar potentially divisive concepts like age, weight, height, attractiveness, sexual orientation, etc etc, exist. Are you color blind but perhaps an ageists? If so, would refusing to see age help resolve your ageism?

You might need to look at some ink blots or something to help Wayfarer substantiate his claim.

You're obviously being brief and concise in your responses to the OP, as well as expressing your own values and beliefs to some extent. In this section of moral philosophy, you focus on harm, and neglect other moral dimensions such as fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, sanctity/degradation, and liberty/oppression. I was wondering if they were not mentioned for the sake of brevity or perhaps because you reason that care/harm trumps all other dimensions. If the latter is the case, would you share that reasoning?

Empty and without value is what a trickster becomes when they’ve outlived their usefulness.

There are various sorts of biases, Dazed, do you boycott all terms that may indicate division and bias, such as old/young, attractive/ugly, tall/short, etc?

I think this one is different in that it’s propaganda/self-promotion and not just to make a buck or promote a set of policies.

There’s really no need to read it, we’ve already heard it all in the form of Trump tweets and speeches. The only thing that seemed new was the indication that he may run for office himself. He’s too much of a weeny to say one way or the other though, when asked.

I dislike him but I don’t hate him. Curiously, if the book contents is taken to be from the heart and not simply propaganda for the base, it could only read as an expression of hatred for the ‘left’.

That's surprising and unfortunate.

I was getting ready to walk the dog the other day and while searching audible for something to listen to I ended up downloading Trump Jr.'s new book Triggered: How the Left Thrives on Hate and Wants to Silence Us. Call it morbid curiosity.

The book is basically comprised of 80% Trump tweets and 20% self-aggrandizement. The latter feels almost childish, actually so does the former, but you can tell it's geared towards Trump's base of supporters. That he enjoys hunting and killing animals, has worked hard his entire life, or feels a kinship with the blue-collar workers of American doesn't impress me personally. This makes it appear that he intends to pursue a policial career using the same strategy or base of support that his father uses.

The book tour is not going over so well in every location.

I am not too sure what you mean by 'meaning' — A Seagull

Meaning in the sense of belonging, purpose, narrative, transcendence, and the like. I don't think anyone would claim that such things are in short supply in this day and age, but some apparently believe that we are somehow unable to synthesize meaning from these for ourselves. The claim is that we need to be chained to a being (ultimate authority), usually referred to as the great chain of being. The enlightenment freed us from these chains.

Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's mind without another's guidance. Sapere Aude! Dare to Know! Have the courage to use your own understanding is therefore the motto of the Enlightenment.
~Kant

Then however the poll goes that’s how it will be. Power to the people! :strong:

The forum owner and administration can do whatever they want. It’s not a democracy, so this is a wasted effort.

Meaning what? — A Seagull

I suppose meaning that if you know what meaning is you can recognize its abundance. Unfortunately, it's uncommon to examine what meaning is or how a desire for it might best be approached.

I don’t see the point of spewing gibberish.

i answered your question — OmniscientNihilist

Looking at it again, I guess you did. At the end where you wrote, “giving answers to whats obvious is a waste of time...”, I must have mistakenly took as acknowledgement that what preceded it was gibberish.

giving answers to whats obvious is a waste of time, and can create confusion, better if u just look and see — OmniscientNihilist

Your understanding of how thought relates to mind and consciousness is far from obvious.

You’re free to ignore any questions that make you uncomfortable, of course, but it makes me wonder why a person with such a lack of curiosity would participate in a forum such as this.

Why not answer the question?

What about the subconscious? Does that activity consist of ‘thought’ or is it something else?

stop thinking and focus. and u will have consciousness without mind — OmniscientNihilist

I guess that depends on what you call mind. So, what do you think it is?

We’re basically talking about a concept, and you’re now giving it the qualities of plain, dark, black, and who knows what else.

Also, how can there be consciousness without mind?



I think there may be some listed in the search results in the link I provided.

Imagine the above as a timeless, uniform, unchanging, undivided, ungenerated, indestructible whole and the only thing that exists: The Parmenidean One. Attributing any qualities to it can only be considered fiction. It cannot be considered God because God exists in relation to something else (most relevantly us). If God exists in relation to us then there must be a larger whole that we share.

The impetus to fill this conceptual space with God is understandable, it being the ultimate, and therefore the last refuge for ultimate authority. Can we deny "truth itself"? Yeah, we can.

God didn't die in the Enlightenment, he's alive and well. Ultimate authority died.

To put it briefly, the commonality between mystical experiences and psychedelics is the deactivation of the neural DMN (default mode network). DMN google search link

modern philosophy had rubbed out, so as to arrive at the 'one-dimensional man' or 'flatland' of scientific materialism, with its abundance of fact and absolute absence of meaning. — Wayfarer

We are all utterly saturated in meaning. Some just can't see it.

I don’t see the need to be vague. If you’re suggesting that there’s a true God, which God is it?

atheism is the fastest path, the only path, to god — OmniscientNihilist

That’s a new one for me. Care to elaborate?

I’m from Ojai, California

That says it all. :razz: just kidding, I live in the same county.

I only meant to point out the value of rhetoric in argumentation, and that it doesn’t necessarily consist of invalid reasoning (traveling on the wrong side of the road or whatever).

I didn’t mean to diminish the value of your post. Clearly even advanced members find it beneficial. It’s well written and quite thorough. Well done. :clap:

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that people would want to give meaning or significance to this sensation at some point in history, so it can ultimately be said that desire resulted in the first ever God, and that things just took off from there.

Some of you may dispute my theory, but doesn't what I described make a lot more sense then trying to argue if "God" does or does not exist? — BBQueue

I imagine that it's highly debatable whether or not that's close to how the concept of God originated. I agree that mystical experiences often lead people to contrive their own religions, like Ontophilism, for instance. :joke: Our natural desire for meaning is insatiable.

Obviously, logical fallacies could be a part of that. — Baden

Invalid reasoning could be part of any argument. In fact, unless I'm mistaken (I'm in over my head as it is), a formal logical argument can only be valid or invalid, and likewise any counter-argument, so in the most formal logical debate, at least one side uses invalid reasoning.

No, it doesn't. It refers to getting-others-to-see-your-way-by-any-means signalling what makes a good argument vs. following-particular-structures-and-guidelines signalling a good argument. — Baden

The bolded portion above is a mischaracterization. 'By-any-means' could be the use of logical fallacies, for instance. I haven't thought it through but I don't believe that rhetoric depends on invalid reasoning.

This seems to assume that rhetoric is inherently irrational.

I like the way @ZhouBoTong talked about the “best” argument. A successful argument gets others to see something your way. Logic seldom accomplishes that because people are not entirely rational beings. We have conflicting values and purposes. Anyway, rhetoric and logic are not mutually exclusive. They can be used in tandem.

I listened to a lecture series about argumentation awhile back and in it a point was made that in many disputes that lead to argumentation a clear resolution is elusive, and therefore the value of persuasion (rhetoric and appeals to emotion) should not be overlooked.

Don't be such a drama queen. It doesn't invalidate anything I've posted, and it's rather pathetic of you to think it would.

It doesn’t invalidate anything. It just shows what type of person you are. — NOS4A2

I'm intolerant of deception, yes, as I imagine many on this forum are.