The voice of this woman is very smooth. It gives me a sweet and calm feeling.

My parents have a Sade LP in their home. I love when they play it on.

I don't usually dive into this thread because there are only heated discussions among the members, but:

Did you know that Jesus was a Palestinian? — Moses

Moses, I don't know if you are actually posting using irony. It is clear that Jesus was not a Palestinian. He was a Jew by descent. Jesus was born in Nazareth, a region of Lower Galilee. The etymology of his name comes from the Hebrew: Yehoshua.

Jesus was considered a rabbi, even called the King of the Jews (John 19:21). As a Jew, He observed Passover and the Feast of the Tabernacles (Jon 2:12 and John 7:2), both Jewish traditions.

People trust in science that works and is shown as proven; honest. — PoeticUniverse

Were the scientists who proved and developed the atomic bombs honest?

Yeah, Lisbon looks like a pastel because there are sugar beets there. :up:

@Lionino

Our home irmão.

Spain too? This is simply crazy. — ssu

Yeah, and what actually bothers me is that the public administration is promoting this crap rewarding tax cuts or compensation... Pathetic.

To make matters worse, naturally a student studying his course book from the computer at least here is as costly for the schools as one textbook would be. But the problem is that you then cannot reuse the computer service and you have to pay a new one for a new student. Reshuffling old textbooks isn't allowed! — ssu

Exactly! Another big issue here. Politicians take for granted that most Spanish students have access to computers, but this is a terrible lie. There are families with low incomes (or unemployed) who cannot afford technological devices for their children. Even the continuing cost of maintaining a device which was born to be replaced by another modern one in the future. But, with the aim of keeping promoting the study by using PCs only, textbooks have become expensive goods too.

Can't believe, nowadays, textbooks are less affordable than in my parents' era! And I am referring to the end of the 1960s and beginning of the 1970s...

We went down too, although we always had a very low mark on PISA. What scared me the most is that the level of comprehensive reading is actually very low amongst Spanish students aged 12 - 18. I think this is related to the point of your OP.

We also have recent laws which forbid people to buy or share textbooks and overall all kinds of papers, with the aim of facing climate change.

The long term effects of replacing physical books with 'devices' or audiobooks are devastating. I believe that by doing this, we private thinking and dreaming for ourselves. It is not the same to read a text (each phrase after phrase, carefully attending to each paragraph), than to 'listen' to how this text is read by another person. We limit the art of speaking and dialoguing in our consciousness with ourselves.
By the way, those apps and devices don't help at all, because it decreases the level of attention to whatever. If we are starting to get used to someone reading for us, we will start to be lazy or unconcerned in other areas as well.

College graduates read an average of about six fewer books in 2021 than they did between 2002 and 2016, 14.6 versus 21.1.

And this is another symptom of my generation, so nothing to be surprised about. Most young people tend to prefer to watch TV rather than reading a book. But this is no longer surprising for a generation who was already born with a PC and other devices at home.

What happens to our society when we don't read as many books as we used to? — ssu

People will be easily manipulated, but beyond this, I guess people will become 'conformist' because of the lack of brain training.

The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

Hey, Shiji Ikari.
Welcome to TPF :smile:

We don't need to 'assume' a cause. I think there might not be a cause at all. We try to answer with causes and effects. A does X and the latter causes Y, etc. But, honestly, this only has sense in human knowledge or as an output to us. I don't attempt to deny that a cause is logically necessary in some matters which are outside of us. But I guess we just overreact towards that principle. You claim things don't pop up for no reason. Well, you are a bit wrong here. There are things which pop up without a cause. For example: the stars or the sunlight rays we receive from the sun. You will explain that the cause of receiving the latter is the result of X. But there is not a cause for the Sun to provide us with light every day. It 'pops up' simultaneously.

But in case the point is polemic, much good has come out of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and so on. Right? — ENOAH

Yes. I agree. I am aware that this is a controversial topic that is easy to criticise.

It is clear to me there are numerous examples of good tgat has come out of Christianity in the broadest sense of the word. Jesus alone. — ENOAH

I couldn't have said it better! :smile:
What a good example, ENOAH. It is a pleasure to find someone who is open-minded regarding this religious topic. Well, apart from religion, I see important ethical values. I learnt this by reading Russian authors or Kazantzakis, not the Bible, ironically.

I agree with the OP. We can criticize terrorism and oppression taking place in the name of Islam. We can criticize "forced" conversion, inquisition and crusades which took place in the name of Christianity. But we cannot criticize Islam or Christianity on those bases. — ENOAH

But the OP didn't make the distinction you did in your post. And that's why I recall I replied looking for more specific criticism towards Christianity, because Alan stated that this religion (or belief) has been - and is -, by nature, negative to its impact on the world. Just look at the examples: the Inquisition and Colonialism. Also, the supposed negative role of religion in education, sexism and oppression towards women, etc.

He didn't mention Bartolomé de las Casas or Francis of Assisi, amongst others, who did good things on behalf of Christianity.

Basically, the point in this OP was to criticise the role of religion and Western European countries for their evilness. You can clearly note that in the replies by Vera Mont.

Hi @Alkis Piskas :smile:

I found a very interesting video of an interview with Kazantzakis. He speaks in French, but fortunately the video has subtitles in both Greek and Spanish. K talks about when he wrote a biography of Francis of Assisi. By that time, K was very sick, but he was inspired by that friar who faced and overcame the sickness once. I think this testimony is heart-warming and worth seeing.

I didn't know K was also a translator! He said to the interviewer that he accepted translation jobs under the Nazi occupation to get food supplies for the people! What a magnificent soul!

I think that if you're not good at maths and logic, I would think that you might not be in a good position to know if this is a valid paradox or just straightforward nonsense — flannel jesus

Okay. Let's leave it at that. Fair enough. I will not continue with posting on this thread.

`despite apparently valid reasoning from true or apparently true premises` - that's key! The premises and steps in reasoning have to make some kind of sense. — flannel jesus

I agree! There has to be at least some kind of sense on the premises. Yet, there are, among these, a large variety of paradoxes of a logical nature. A basic pattern of a paradox is having a way of reasoning. Right?

Well, following the paradox within this OP, we can conclude there is a bit of reasoning. For example: @fishfry used the reason pretty well in this comment: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/898761

He even states:

The staircase problem is called an omega-sequence paradox, a paradox that involves counting 1, 2, 3, ... and doing something at each step, then expecting the behavior to be defined in the limit.

Sadly, I am not good enough at maths and logic, so I can't post valid or interesting comments regarding this paradox. What I try to defend is that what @keystone wrote is actually a paradox. Maybe it has its flaws, or he was inspired by other paradoxes which were quoted in the comments above. But it there is still a paradox.

You described it as endless, and yet claim he reached the end... The "paradox" is just you choosing to invent a story with contradictory concepts. — flannel jesus

As far as I understand about paradoxes, that's precisely what a paradox is about. It is a self-contradictory statement, but arrest our attention. The aim of this thread (or purpose of @keystone) is not to reach a conclusion, but to result in persistent contradiction between interdependent elements: The staircase being endless and reaching the bottom of it in just a minute.

It is clearly a paradox.

To explain this more deeply, @Michael and @noAxioms wrote very interesting posts using maths and logic.

How did Woodpecker (a foetus) sign the petition? — Agree-to-Disagree

An administrator, guardian or legal care taker can sign documents, petitions, papers, etc. in the name of a foetus.

@Noble Dust

Well, I don't know why some would use ChatGPT - or other AI - to proofread a philosophical paper or essay. If I am not wrong, @Fermin wants a review by an expert. I recommend you to try to get in contact with Kelley Ross: Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. I usually have exchanges with him. He always answers back. Yet I don't know if he will be willing to review your essays. I think it is worth a try, anyway.

On the other hand, regarding the quality of proofreading by ChatGPT, I must say I am disappointed. I am non-native, and I used this AI to proofread the grammar of my posts before posting here. But, what it did, was changing the sense of my text, rather than just checking the grammar. I mean, the AI rewrote all the text...

I agree. Every Dostoevsky novel has a specific ethical and existentialist dilemma. Another good example is Crime and Punishment. There are Christian themes in this novel, but it is notorious the psychological dynamic of how the main character starts behaving with 'rationality' and then, as the pages proceed, he goes with a sense of sordid despair and irrationality. I remember a very good quote from the novel: Am I a victim of circumstances or do I create them? ...

Yet a common topic I find about Dostoevsky is familiar issues. He also puts orphans in his novels. Smerdiakov - an illegitimate son - in The Brothers Karamazov and Nelly (Ieliena) in Injured and Insulted, etc.

I guess this is due to the culture of Russia and one of the basic points of Christianity (which is the family).

let it be. — frank

Sí :up:

It is 4º here — Lionino

Glad to know another user who uses Celsius like me!
When I read posts with Fahrenheit references... hmm... it is very obnoxious to me.

Watch for free exactly what? Anime or futanari? :lol:
I guess futanari should be included in the hentai section.

Okay, after reading the definition in the urban dictionary, I now understand what it is all about.
Yet I had to find images because it was difficult to put an image of a futanari in my mind.

I recommend you to search for futanari inflation. Interesting. Even more, if you are weeaboo like me.

don't be futaphobic — Lionino

I have never heard or read that word. I decided to search around Google and - on an anime web page - it says the following about futaphobic:

Is there a reason why they do this? o.O
Can't imagine they are homo-or futaphobic... I mean, I looked at their studio scenes they gave away recently. There is some really weird s***, but also several futa scenes.

The paragraph above is an answer to this:

If I remember correctly from the prior games to now is that illusion gender locks the male character so you are not able to do that in game. The only thing you can do is save the male pose in studio and then load a female in the place of the male character.

So you can get your still shots and with enough you could make a gif but as far as actually putting in a female to the designated male slot, I don't think that can be done and if it can, it will break the game or some illusion policy by laws. Again I am not sure so I could be wrong but that's how I remember it from the SBPR/PC days.

I am terribly lost...

BTW, the link to the whole thread is here: https://www.anime-sharing.com/threads/illusion-honey%E2%99%A5select-%E3%83%8F%E3%83%8B%E3%83%BC%E3%82%BB%E3%83%AC%E3%82%AF%E3%83%88-mod-request-thread.546759/page-13

True! Good point. Yet the cartoonist drew Trujillo, and the latter was alive at the same period as Franco's.

Humiliated and Insulted — javi2541997

10/10. Excellent. Dostoevsky never disappoints me. This time, the synopsis is about ethical dilemmas which are around familiar crises. Curiously, Dostoevsky didn't refer to religious themes in this novel. I can say the plot is 'secular' if we compare it with other of his works.

Currently reading: The Fratricides, Nikos Kazantzakis.

-- :down: -- science is being controlled by bureaucracy — Agree-to-Disagree

Do you mind if science is being controlled overall or just by the bureaucracy? It seems you want to set science and scientists free.

Walking with a dog also gives you an excuse to talk to people. If I didn't have the dog with me then I wouldn't talk to anybody. The dog gives me unconditional love. — Agree-to-Disagree

I walk my dog every morning. Apart from her unconditional love for me, and the sense of peace it produces in me to walk with her in the chaotic city, I appreciate the lack of contact with other humans, precisely. You say you are more able to talk with other people because you walk with your dog. Maybe you are referring to other dog owners...

I try to avoid groups of people because it gives me anxiety, and walking with my dog makes me feel I am protected by a bubble.

I walk a dog for about 2.5 hours daily. — Agree-to-Disagree

I wish I could walk more than just an hour with my dog. She is a small-dog breed, and she tends to get tired early...

Nonetheless, if sin is in fact some act (or thought) contrary to the will of God, then it’s impossible for me (and for most people, I’d argue) to KNOWINGLY sin. — Art48

Oh, of course, it is possible to knowingly sin. I think you are using God as escapism with the aim of not facing that you didn't actually behave according to some ethical principles. There are two classes of lying (as an example of sin): lying to avoid hurting someone's feelings and lying to cheat. But, in those two cases, you are aware enough that you are committing a sin, because you are lying.

There are a lot of ways to sin. Some are evil, others innocent. But all of them are predetermined, and not random.

The notion of "suffering" makes sense as a uniting theme, even if there are more joyful existentialists (or, if we prefer, post-existentialists -- thinking Derrida and Levinas now more than categorical classifications) — Moliere

Good point! I agree with you, Moliere. :up:

Both K and N explicated some kind of doubt about what we believe we're doing and why, and the latter existentialists -- so I interpret them -- attempted answers to those questions. In this sentence I mean "existentialists" in the historical sense, rather than philosophical sense — Moliere

True! Existentialists often considered themselves as 'weak' in philosophy because most of their writings were parts of novels, and not essays about philosophy in the proper sense of the technique. I was reading some notes about Dostoevsky's life, and he considered himself 'weak' in philosophy. But, paradoxically, his characters and the Christian dilemmas they pass through, were an inspiration to the existentialists of the 20th century!

Furthermore, I forgot a very important fact you mentioned in the comment, and it is the historical background. Indeed, existentialism depends a lot on this. Why X happens and how we should act, causes the circumstances we currently live in. This is another matter between the Russian authors and Kierkegaard.

The circumstances of our existentialism are the main cause of our despair or are we the ones who make those circumstances because of our choices?

Yes, they are linked to each other. Well, those approaches have a common concern and the latter is life. I also have my problems with discerning each of them. Sometimes, they feel closer than separated. Nonetheless, I still remain with the same thought that existentialism cares more about life than nihilism or other types of absurdism. If we compare different texts, I guess the differences are apparent.

One example of Dostoevsky:

But the martyr sometimes likes to divert himself with his despair, as it were driven to it by despair itself. Meanwhile ... you divert yourself with magazine articles and discussions in society, though you don't believe your own arguments, and, with an aching heart mock at them inwardly.... That question you have not answered, and it is your great grief, for it clamours for an answer

- The Brothers Karamazov, Book II, Chapter 6.

And then, a very different text by Camus but with a similar concern at the same time:

Sisyphus is stuck in an eternally pointless task. Now, if the world and everything in it are also pointless, the lesson is that the task of Sisyphus is identical to every thing that we will ever be doing in life. We are no different from Sisyphus; and if his punishment makes the afterlife a hell for him, we are already living in that hell.

https://friesian.com/existent.htm

This is very interesting! :smile: And we could spend hours and hours debating on this topic. Yet I think it is plausible how a text by an existentialist suffers from despair about doubting what is the right way to act. While a nihilistic jokes about this.

Interesting conversation here. — Fire Ologist

Thank you! :smile:

But I think you are both right, that the ethical is essential to existentialism, and Camus stripped it down too far, being the closest to a nihilist of the bunch. — Fire Ologist

Maybe we (if @Astrophel wants to be included) could be wrong, but yes, I personally believe that ethics are the key element for existentialism. Why? For the following points:

1) We all have to face dilemmas often. Discerning about what is the 'right' way to act makes us feel despaired. Some philosophers, like Kierkegaard, for instance, prefer to name this issue as anxiety. But the important element of the dilemma is that we actually care about life, we give it a meaning and this is why we suffer from anxiety about what is the right way to behave. A nihilist could not care about the way to act accordingly...

2) There is even more anxiety when we think about what will come afterwards. I mean, is there a Trial of the Soul?
If I lie, or I cheat, does my soul get rotten? Etc. For a nihilistic, this is all absurd and doesn't care that much.

Ethics was like their vehicle for delivering metaphysics and secondary to me. — Fire Ologist

Honestly, I do not know what comes first. I think ethics is a very relevant element in existentialism, but I don't know which is the proper approach, whether ethics, metaphysics, or meta-ethics.

:grin:

Well, my liquid has particularly a very strong taste, and it is more reasonable to mix it up with coffee.

I am referring to anise:

Unfortunately, it turns out not to be possible to put oneself on one's ignore list. — unenlightened

Imagine for a second this twisted metaphysical situation: one puts oneself on his ignore list, but it turns out that this is precisely what attracts the attention of the rest of the users. Yet the user who deliberately put himself on his own ignore list remains unnoticed by this fact.

PD: I don't know how I ended up with the above conclusion. I mistakenly put a strange liquid in my coffee this morning.

it begs the question, what is it about bad behavior that makes it evil? — Astrophel

Yes. Basically, what I learnt by reading those authors is that bad behaviour doesn't mean anything in the beginning. I mean, when someone is acting with bad manners or not accordingly, he is not aware of these actions. When only he is pushed to a trial of the soul, he realises if he acted or not with evil. If ever someone decides to act unethically on purpose, this means he has a huge problem because he cannot distinguish between good and evil. Nonetheless, most of the dilemmas are not that simple. I understand that most people don't want to act with bad manners, but each specific case has its exceptions. This reminds me when we debated about how a chain of bad behaviour can putrid my soul. We can agree or not that a spirit either exists or not, but if we care about these concerns and dilemmas, it means we care about life, and then we give it a meaning or a value. We are not nihilists, but existentialists. Kierkegaard argues that Abraham is his hero because he had a strong dilemma with choosing between he cared the most: his son and God. This despair and anxiety is a good example of an existentialist dilemma!

One is confronted by the question, is ethics rational in its essence? Kierkegaard said yes to this. — Astrophel

Absolutely, yes. I agree.

Thank you for your answer, Astrophel. It is a pleasure to have exchanges with you. :smile: And yes, I find your ideas interesting.

It is very strange how some people consider Kierkegaard a nihilist. When I read this OP, I decided to search for information to back up my points, and surprisingly, Kierkegaard appeared as an example of a nihilist. Very disappointed with this! I think K was a lover but pessimistic about how Christianity was ruling in Denmark. In his diary, K confessed he was a true Lutheran. If he was that religious and a believer in faith, how could some people label him as a nihilist? For a nihilist, life is meaningless and there is no despair about choosing the right decision because everything is pretty absurd (as Camus points out).

On the other hand, I personally believe that a true nihilist doesn't recognize the existence of a sacred authority. For example, the quote of 'without God, everything is permitted' by Vania Karamazov. This phrase is wrongly connected to nihilism, but what Dostoevsky goes beyond just that.

Indeed, if the loss of God means the loss of all meaning and value, then actions are without meaning or value either, and one cannot say that it matters whether actions are "right" or "wrong," since those words, or the corresponding actions, don't mean anything more than anything else. Dostoyevsky, indeed, may be counted as himself an Existentialist, but in a theistic rather than the French atheistic manner,

https://friesian.com/existent.htm

Every character of Dostoevsky is Christian, but often display what later will seem to be Existentialist attitudes and ideas. The main concerns explore such themes as suicide, poverty, human manipulation, and morality. Dostoevsky deals with Christian basic values, which are presented via a unique tension between the fictionality of the Christian characters and the readers' experience of the existential reality of their religious problems. Christian Themes in Crime and Punishment.

What I attempt to say is that while K and D are true existentialists for dealing with ethical dilemmas, Camus is a nihilist because he doesn't bother to debate about this issue. :smile:

@Amity

Browsing around the Internet, I found this cartoon about Francisco Franco. It is a 1962 satire by Herblock.
I see some interesting details: the cartoon shows an aged Francisco Franco and Eagle (the motto of Francoist Spain) sitting in a decrepit castle, as he gazes at portraits of Hitler and Mussolini, who are gone. Yet, on his right, there is Trujillo. The dictator of the Dominican Republic.

It surprises me why the cartoonist didn't draw Salazar when he was alive in the same period as Franco...

If we can gaze at the back of Trujillo's portrait, it seems there is another one by another dictator. But it is blurred, and I can distinguish who it can be. :chin:

By the way, this is a 1962 cartoon and Franco lived another 13 years...

I cannot think of a single philosophy that advocates the idea that there is just one point to being alive, unless you mean living itself (as opposed to being caught up in silly ideas or failing to reach one's potential, however the latter might be conceived). None of this has anything necessarily to do with religion. Religion is only necessary for those who cannot, or don't wish to, think for themselves. — Janus

Is it? Is there a possibility to think for ourselves? Or are we influenced by external ideas and dogmas? Religion is not the only system which induces people to behave in a concrete way or conduct. If I were able to think by myself, what would be the point of establishing basic principles of morality and ethics? Every of us needs to be taught to the 'right' way. It doesn't matter if it is secular, religious, philosophical, civil...

Hello Jussi, welcome abroad.

I think professor Deigh didn't actually misunderstand Camus but he put this author in the wrong group or literary current. Everything you explained about Camus is perfect, and I guess Professor Deigh is in the same sense. But he is not an existentialist but a nihilist. Honesty, when I read what professor Deigh thinks about existentialism, precisely here: ...despair about life and choosing from it the values and principles by which one will live. I thought about other authors or thinkers. My opinion is that Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky can fit in the 'despair' of choosing the right code of conduct to live.

Fyodor Dostoevsky expressed religious, psychological, and philosophical concerns in his novels. His works explore such themes as suicide, poverty, human manipulation, and morality. These are a real example of existentialist, or a existentialist literature that maybe Deigh was referring to.

I think Camus goes beyong than just that. I agree when you say his work are metaphysical in the sense of the absurdity of the beginning of the world. Furthermore, nihilism is life-denying, so it is not worried about ethical dilemmas or the anxiety of what is the right choice. Camus affirms that life is meaningless, but further declares in the preface “that even within the limits of nihilism it is possible to find the means to proceed beyond nihilism.”

My conclusion is that while Camus was looking for 'what is a purpose' of life (nihilism), existentialist authors debate the despair of what should be the proper behavior to follow in a life already produced.

And therefore, i suggest, Prof Deigh may have misunderstood Camus in a pretty drastic way. Am i right? — Jussi Tennilä

Partially. He was indeed a nihilist... But I don't know if we can label his works as true examples of existentialism. I think it is not that drastic. Both concepts seem similar, but they aren't.

Yes, it is very relaxing, Hanover. Those tracks also help me to focus on doing a task. It is weird and complex to explain, but the few musical notes accompanied by a murmur makes me feel isolated from the world. Like I'm in a bubble.

Rainstorms are pretty good too.

You might also like this one: