:up:

Frank, it was a tremendous pity to see a lot of people dying because of a nuclear attack. More than 140,000 civilians died in minutes. Nobody deserves to be nuked by another nation, it doesn't matter the context and circumstances at all. I don't know who is 'wrong' here. Me, for defending Bushidō and Hirohito or you for backing up the nuclear attacks. Yet, what is obvious is that it was a human disaster.

Bottom line, the US wanted to end the war as quickly as possible, for all good reasons, and the Japanese thought they would prefer to die. Which they did on terms that apparently made their own absurdity clear to them. — tim wood

Absurdity; they deserve to die; they are backwards because the Samurai are old-fashioned; they have an Emperor, so they are weird; dropping two nuclear bombs is justified, etc.

Imagine if Hirohito was the one ordering a nuclear attack on California - for example - you would argue what I am arguing right now. No doubt about that. On the other hand, I am not saying that the Japanese army was peaceful and not bloody. Yes, I must admit that their commanders were savage. But as much as I can remember, their commanders were condemned by the U.S. Supreme Court. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944)

Why no court condemned Truman for letting the American army destroy two cities?

A bit of hypocrisy and cynicism. Don't you think, Tim?

Do you have evidence to the contrary? — flannel jesus

Yes, I have.

Israel maintains a system of religious courts for the Jewish, Muslim, Druze, and Christian populations. These courts have jurisdiction over cases such as marital issues, conversion, and appointment to religious leadership positions.
Divorce of a Jewish couple can only be obtained at the Rabbinical Batei Din. However, if a petition for ancillary matrimonial reliefs, such as custody, support or equitable distribution of property is filed with the Civil Courts before a case for divorce is opened at the Batei Din, then all other marital issues may also be taken by Magistrate Courts sitting as Family Courts.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_of_Israel

If the rule of law is shared by religious courts, how can the rights of gay people can be guaranteed?

It is so obvious, right?

If you truly believe that gay people are not pursued by Israel just because of their sexual orientation... oh God, the Western media did a great job manipulating your reality.

Israel is governed by orthodox authorities! Why is this so hard to accept?

OK. According to your opinion, why is the main problem which goes beyond that? Because denying the occupation of an artificial country in someone's territory is just a twisted argument to back up the 'superiority' of some countries over others.

I agree - with your first post -

I disagree. They attacked first. Yes, but with honour and respect, not targeting civil citizens. They bombed military headquarters and zones. But, they were answered by a bloody nuclear attack. For me, it is clear that there was a big disproportion between the attacks. As well as in this current conflict.

I'm OK calling them a second-world country surrounded by shitholes. It doesn't really take away from the point that Israel is a democracy where gays and women aren't flogged and killed by "morality police". Do they have their issues? Of course. Are they ten times better than the surrounding countries? Yes. — RogueAI

Despite that I understand what you attempt to say, I don't like to treat those nations as 'shit holes' because nobody is guilty to be born in a country like West Bank or Lebanon. If we keep treating them in such a way, don't be surprised if they hate the Western world then.
On the other hand, it was Israel the one who settled there, in the middle of the desert, surrounded by countries that had already been there. Now, they have to accept the consequences of their artificial borders for a nation based on wandering people who don't belong to their specific territory, but they 'believe' so because a holy book says whatever in its psalms...

I don't see any difference between Israel and a country ruled by the Quran.

First vs third world = difference in level of technology — Pneumenon

I still do not see why this is relevant at all, and I think you support the occupation and massacre of Israel in Gaza.
Japan has always been more developed than many Western countries, but they were attacked by a nuclear bomb in the most cruel way... so what?

What do you attempt to say? 'The end justifies the means' or similarities.

Israel is a first-world country in a third-world area. — Pneumenon

Whenever I read statements like this, I wonder which are the concepts of 'first world' and 'third world', respectively. Apart from being a notion created by Western civilisation after WWII to label nations in different boxes and causing, in the long run, negative prejudices sorrowfully.

If we continue to use those concepts, the problem will remain, because the sense of your argument is backing up Israel's genocide because it is a 'developed' nation in a 'backward' territory. A territory which was occupied illegally in the first place.

If you check the politics, level of corruption and their system of representatives, Israel is far from being a nation of the 'first world', as you labelled it. Israel is consistently rated low in the Global Peace Index, ranking 134th out of 163 nations for peacefulness in 2022. Marriage and divorce are under the jurisdiction of the religious courts: Jewish, Muslim, Druze, and Christian. The Economist Intelligence Unit rated Israel a "flawed democracy" in 2022. A flawed democracy is a nation where elections are fair and free and basic civil liberties are honoured but may have issues (e.g. media freedom infringement and minor suppression of political opposition and critics). This is how Netanyahu literally works.

According to this data... do you really consider Israel as a first-world country?

My view is that sovereign nations have the right and responsibility to maintain their borders and follow a rational policy on admission. Just because x-millions of South Americans or Africans (and people from elsewhere) want to come to the US or EU doesn't mean they must be welcomed or admitted at all. — BC

I couldn't have said it better, BC. I fully agree with all you posted. I imagine that the U.S. has a big issue regarding the admission of uncontrolled immigration. Well, the same here, but in a smaller land with a weaker economy. Spain has received immigration in Canary Islands recently, and our government decided to 'share' the responsibility of taking care of them amongst the rest of the regions on the peninsula. Some of these regions have serious problems of unemployment and then new people who don't know the language appear and want to live and work as well. It is obvious that a conflict of coexistence is coming...

As you well said, better regulation of the borders is an act of responsibility and not racism or xenophobia towards others.

Isn't that how the killing usually begins? Lots of people object to living together with certain other people. — Vera Mont

But why does this happen at all? It seems that you give up on the close up on the relationship between the Afrikaners and the original ethnics of Africa. It should not have to end badly.

I have to highlight that I see international help and collaboration as reliable while they try to fix their problems. What I say is we shouldn't be that involved in their territory because this would make a sense of colonialism. How can a country like Senegal manage its society independently? I do not know... I wish I had answers to these questions, but what I truly believe is that the United Nations is failing all over the African continent.

And where do you put all the Afrikaners? — Vera Mont

Why should they be removed from Africa? They can live together with the rest of the citizens, ethnics, tribes, people, etc.

It is a sensitive topic, because the notions of 'state' and 'nation' don't fit in some countries of Africa or Oceania, and I agree with you on this point. I tried to say that in some 'territories' of the world, the public administration fails in providing to their citizens the basic needs: water, food, education, safety, etc. And, giving them all of these needs freely, will not help them in the long run, because they will still live in a country where there are dictatorships, and they do not care about people. For a citizen from Senegal - for example - it is more urgent to fix the management of their society rather than giving them food or building their structures with our businesses. This only leads to low self-esteem amongst the African people.

I think the United Nations is not the solution either. It is a Western-like systematic structure which only roots for the USA or European values. I think that the future of Africa can be managed by the African Union. The problems of their continent being managed by themselves without the intervention of foreign nations, which are unknown about the real problems of Africa.

Whether we are morally obligated or not to donate, this is not the solution for countries like Bangladesh. The problem is deeper and more complex than just giving them loans or food supply. They are failed nations, and we should start to help to establish a solid structure to build a rigorous state. A donation would help temporarily, but not in the long term.

enough of your bickering and name-calling. — Jamal

:up:

Okay, let's leave it there.

You still have no clue about what Bushidō was about. To be honest, I am not accusing you directly, because I understand that the Western culture and media made a great effort to manipulate us to 'love' our world unconditionally, and disrespect other cultures. Whether you believe in my words or not, corruption didn't exist in Japan until the Westerns polluted all over their beautiful country with our stupid 'modernity'.

You are defending in your arguments the message that it was a 'success' for the Japanese to get rid of their ancestry, when it is clearly the opposite. I hope you don't back up the Hiroshima and Nagasaki destruction either... Because it seems that you defend the end of the Empire of Japan at all costs. You accused me of defending the supposed genocide of backward civilisations like the Maya one, but at the same time you are fine with vanishing Samurai or Edō/Heian people. Hmm... Contradiction or hypocrisy? Pick one.

If the world had a bit of Bushidō, it would be a better place to live in. Loyalty, honour, rightness, etc. All these values were lost because of politicians like you. You criticize the way of Samurai when you don't have a clue about...

Don't be an ignorant in a public place... it is disgusting.

You are right, I need therapy for my anxiety, but would you mind if you pay me the costs with your tax income? Come on mate, therapy is expensive, pay me the pills and all costs with your money as a good comrade/'contributor'.

Oh, these bloody socialists always use their stupid 'morally' superior argument... it makes me sick.

Quid pro quo.

I get banned for being a 'fascist' - according to your own hateful speech towards Japan and Spain - and you get banned for being an ignorant buffoon.

We have some members here who mix up nationalism with fascism and then with Bushidō culture. But don't expect that much from members who root for syndicalism and expropriation of private property in the 21st century. If I am not wrong, one of the main guidelines of this site is to maintain the quality of the posts. I would rather be banned for being a 'fascist' rather than being ignorant. Agree, dear moderators?

After Dark, Haruki Murakami

I really admire you for your passion and your ideals, universeness. I have seen this vein of yours in other exchanges too.) — Alkis Piskas

Jesus Christ...
:vomit:

So that's why I think these two terms not only are not synonymous but actually exclusive. — TheMadMan

Interesting post.

But in the last paragraph, it is where I disagree a bit. Actually, I think they are synonyms. When I searched on Google, I experienced a loop regarding the words.

The Oxford Dictionary says that 'bravery' is a noun, and simply defines it as: 'the quality of being brave'. And says that a synonym is courage. When I searched for information about the latter, I found the following information:' courage is the ability to do something dangerous, or to face pain or opposition, without showing fear. For example: It takes courage to sing in public'.

I think this definition is adjustable for what you did consider as 'fearlessness', right?

Fearlessness and bravery are synonyms. However, they sometimes have different nuances. Fearlessness is often centered around facing difficulty or danger without or despite fear. Bravery can be associated with daring.

If they were exclusive to each other, the correct word to refer to would be 'coward' or act 'cowardly'.

The alternative is too difficult i.e. being healthy (fitness, diet, sleep, socialising). If everyone on Earth were even slightly better, these cultural indulences would disappear, but everyone would appear robotic and liveless. — Sebrof

Good point. :up:

It is so rooted in our society because the 'system' promotes the consumption of alcohol and other similar products which are equally dangerous - tobacco, for example - for the sort of enjoyment. Furthermore, the state even collects revenue thanks to the consumption of both cigarettes and booze, when these are a threat to our health, actually. I do not want to sound 'puritan' nor condemn the people who usually drink or smoke, but it is obvious that it is not an activity of enjoyment.

Although it is true that some drink to avoid problems, others do so to face them and get more confidence. I don't know if some of you had to deal with alcoholics, but I had to. It doesn't cause any confidence when their only purpose is to waste their income or pension on a drink at the bar. This is the thing that bothers me the most. An alcohol-dependent acts legally. We cannot ban them from buying alcohol or going to a bar. It is stunning the number of people who destroy their life - or even die - because of this. But the state doesn't care because it hasn't forced you to 'consume'... Is this really true? I think it is literally the opposite. It is the environment which forces us to be drinkers or smokers, because they are acts of developed societies.

I also believe that you have got totally into Kazantzaki's spirit. — Alkis Piskas

This assessment makes me very happy, friend. Kazantzakis has become one of my favourite writers. I will keep diving at his works. I have a little book - just 95 pages - which is called 'Symposium'. It seems to be very interesting!

Do you agree? — Alkis Piskas

Of course, I agree! :up:

And I this is maybe an ideal moment to remind us of Kazantzakis' famous quote: "I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free." — Alkis Piskas

Kazantzakis was a clever and original writer. Thanks to you, I discovered his works this year, and I recommend him since then. It is important to have a look at Kazantzakis's works because he discovers the religious prophets in a more realistic way: humanisation, rather than the metaphors we used to read in the Gospels...

Gratitude to parents.
Gratitude to teachers.

Bearing in mind that it is impossible to be "one's own person" and not need anyone. — baker

:up:

Could you plug it in? I'm not sure what to do with that! — creativesoul

If you do not mind, I would like to take part in your interesting exhange.

A's - to be one's own person - formation is existentially dependent upon B - teachers - which both could not exist without C - our parents - because they are the cause of the born ourselves, thus our existence. Nevertheless, I am wondering to what extent B - teachers - and C - parents - are linked. Yet, what is an affirmative premise - let's say p1 - is that A - to be one's own person - is existentially dependent upon B and C.

OK, I consider them acceptable too, and I am not anyone to dive in other people's businesses. But it seems to me that they are more acceptable by people generally than believing in Jesus. While I have to take Bromazepam to take control of my anxiety, others go to Church and pray. Both actions are tolerated and respected by me.

Hi Javi! (You changed your avatar again! — Alkis Piskas

Geia sou, Alkis! Yes, I changed my pic. It is a cover from a Murakami's novel. :smile:



OK. I understand your definition of freedom, and I partially agree with it. The notion of an absence of obstacles is applied depending on the circumstances. I would like to use 'freedom to' meaning in my example of religion. I think some believers profess their cult to just get redemption before they die. When they think their sins are forgiven, they can be accepted in heaven. Speaking in a general overview, I guess this is what they understand as freedom.
For example: Last summer, I read a novel by Kazantzakis about Assisi. He and his faithful cross through many difficulties and in one specific they were close to death because of sickness. There was not a doctor in the village, but a good person helped them to drive them to another city. When they got attended, one of them shouted: We crossed through a dilube, but without a pure image of Jesus it would have been impossible... - He quoted a psalm from the Bible - so, they experienced 'freedom to'

Of course, I have another sense of freedom! But I want to respect their faith.

We can know some things are prior to others. We can know some things consist of others. Etc. Seeking and acquiring some knowledge is a useful endeavor. We need not know everything in order to know some things. — creativesoul

:up:

What are those things that one is free from? What are those things that one is free to do? — baker

I understand your point, but it is complex to answer those questions. This is due to the individualistic sense of freedom we all have. An abstract concept such as 'free' or 'freedom' is difficult to define, and what means 'free' to me, can not mean the same to you. Maybe I used the incorrect word. Let's try it again.

A religious person - anyone who believes in God - uses his faith to find answers about life and getting a calm state. The latter is a more precise word: calm, or placid, mild, etc.

What is that? What does that mean? — baker

Didn't you ever experience pessimism or uncertainty? Each individual face these life states in many different ways. Some just make an effort to understand what is going on with living. Others don't care, and many explain it through religion. I don't attempt to defend that the latter is the best way. But I understand why some people 'shelter' themselves in it.

A free state of mind is a shelter to keep living. I guess this is why they want to redeem their souls.

I think you are mixing up sufficient and necessary conditions. This is how I read the OP: If A is existentially dependent upon B, then B is a necessary condition for A, but not (necessarily) a sufficient condition. Apples are necessary for apple pie, but they are not sufficient. — Leontiskos

I agree with you, and I think I have expressed somehow the same thought, but I didn't use the same precise vocabulary and knowledge as you did. I said that having apple trees and apples are elements for an 'eventual' apple pie.
But you explained it better: they are not sufficient for the apple pie.

Apple trees existed prior to apple pies. Insert p1. Hence, apple trees cannot be existentially dependent upon apple pies. — creativesoul

Exactly.

I think we have to focus on what is needed to exist a priori to let apple pies exist. Because, despite apples and apple trees being key elements to their existence, we understand that they are not the only elements of an eventual apple pie.

Apple pies are existentially dependent upon having the elements combined by some capable agent. However, not all complex entities are. — creativesoul

Understood.

Then, there are complex entities which do exist by themselves, and they are one of the main causes or agents that others can exist. In the example of this thread, the complex entity which does exist is the apple tree, because the apples and the apple pie are existentially dependent upon it.

The apple tree matches with 'p1 That which exists prior to something else cannot be existentially dependent upon it', right? Or am I missing something?

I agree that apple pies are existentially dependent upon more than just apples, hence, the "- in part at least -" bit. There is more to a complex entity than just one singled out element, and the emergence of complex entities includes all of the elementary constituents comprising the entity. That is the hallmark of necessary elemental constituents; if we remove any particular one, what's left is not enough. No single one is both necessary and sufficient. — creativesoul

I agree. :up:

There are uncooked apple pies. — creativesoul

Ha! This is tricky, but I am honest, and I admit that I didn't think it that way. Exactly, 'A' can be 'uncooked' apple pies too, but if the act of cooking were a possibility, it is still existentially dependent upon my action. I think rather than being 'uncooked apple pies', they are eventual apple pies.

Note: this is the way I see it too. I don't attempt to disagree with your arguments, but to exchange other ways to see the existence of the entity - the apple pies! -

The OP seems fairly obvious. — Leontiskos

Obvious? I think the OP has tricky premises which are interesting to discuss. I do not see it is so obvious that A - apple pie - is existentially dependent upon C - apple trees -, unless I am missing something 'obvious' in those premises...

Three years later... another attempt to generate interest... — creativesoul

Your OP is very interesting, and I am surprised that it didn't get attention back then. I hope this thread gets more replies, because it deserves it. Although I am not an expert on logic, I am interested in your premises and conclusions. But it is obvious that I would probably not have the answers or debate you are looking for. Yet, I would make an attempt to keep up with the path or sense of your thread.

Apple pies consist - in part at least - of apples. Apple pies are existentially dependent upon apples. Apples are existentially dependent upon apple trees. When A is existentially dependent upon B and B is existentially dependent upon C, then A is existentially dependent upon C. Apple pies are existentially dependent upon apple trees. Apple pies cannot exist prior to apples or apple trees. — creativesoul

I agree that B - or apples - is existentially dependent upon C - apple trees - but A - apple pies - is not existentially dependent upon C, because its existence depends on other factors.

p1 I have the apples but not the rest of the ingredients. So, apple pies are existentially dependent upon the latter - or other factors -

p2 I have all the ingredients, but I do not cook the apple pie. It depends existentially upon me, not B or C.

p3 Apple trees and apples are produced to make juice - for example - so it is not necessarily that their purpose for existing is the apple pie.

Ah! I understand you better now.

They won't correspond to the feelings any real author wants to express, but the prose will be excellent. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I still don't see it as reliable. I don't know if it will really satisfy my emotions. I am not asking for 'perfect' prose, but to cry, laugh or be afraid. The 'Book' seems to be an artificial product created for quick consumption rather than be savoured. By the way, if one of the requirements is 'no longer retain' any information from any other books, lectures or films, don't you see it as twisted? I see this book holds an obscure trap.

I have to accept that it is impossible to do everything I wish. So, a book which is 'capable' of helping me out is suspicious to me. I feel like I would leave my soul to the Book and let it think for me.