My question was what the individual is supposed to do when the "collective" they are living in is making them unhappy. — Tzeentch

Leave. If they don't like the collective or they are unhappy, the reasonable decision is leave and let the rest progress. I still see as a selfish act to sacrifice an entire group just for the commodity of one user. It is 99 % against 1 %. My unhappiness cannot stop your effectiveness. If I am unhappy, it is a problem of my own because happiness is subjective. That individual can change the situation with another attitude. Unhappiness is not something which persists forever...

I doubt many Japanese would agree this is normal, regardless of their views on life and death. Do you believe this is normal? — Tzeentch

I didn't say it was "normal". I said that the concept of death is pretty different in Japan. I am aware that suicide rates are an important issue there, but the cause is not unhappiness in the group or unsatisfied life. They killed themselves for many complex reasons. For example: one a student fails and is aware is not good enough for a better work in the future, he kills himself (as much as this practice is common in China and South Korea) because they are so competitive. In the other hand, some old people decide to suicide when they are aware of being a problem to their family.
Etc... there are a lot of reasons and they don't kill themselves just for depression or unhappiness as it happens in Western world.

Happiness and life satisfaction - wonder no more — Tzeentch

Who cares if a Spaniard is happier than a Chinese citizen? It is a very subjective essay. Meanwhile you need China to make businesses, you don't care if Spain disappears today. So, happiness is not valuable at all. I even see a problem of my countrymen if they are "happy" despite the circumstances we are facing. That wacky thoughts only come from hippies that do not care about anything: "oh yeah I am poor but I am happy with my basic needs"
Well, that's only exists in dreams. At the end of the day... where you would put your investments or assets? Tokyo or Seville?

Tokyo, right? Because they are effective despite they are more or less happy than us.

it's certainly not up to a "collective" to decide for others what constitutes happiness. — Tzeentch

Yes, but happiness was never been in my arguments. I was speaking about effectiveness. I don't care if they are happy or sad, whenever happiness is just an entelechy.

How would that be any more or less selfish than asking of the unhappy individual to simply sacrifice themselves? — Tzeentch

But why happiness should be a factor to consider of in terms of functionality? Who are we to say the group is "unhappy"? They just work and are effective. Simple.

South Korea and Japan also have notoriously high rates of suicide, so I guess that answers part of the question of how they deal with unhappy individuals — Tzeentch

The concept of death in Japan is different from the western world. We see it as a problem when they understand it as a path of life
Yukio Mishima: The Japanese have always been a people with a severe awareness of death. But the Japanese concept of death is pure and clear, and in that sense it is different from death as something disgusting and terrible as it is perceived by Westerners.

As for China, well... If you believe economic prosperity is worth living under an authoritarian dictatorship then our ideas about what is happiness must lie very far apart. — Tzeentch

I wonder if a person from Andalucía in Spain - which is one of the poorest regions of Europe and with a high unemployment ratio - is happier than an individual of Asian countries. Let me doubt it a lot...

because it's not effective at making me happy at all. — Tzeentch

First of all: what is happiness? How we measure the happiness of the people at all?

Should the unhappy individual simply sacrifice this one life they're given for the sake of some imaginary higher power we call "the collective"? — Tzeentch

Yes and no. We have to take care of the individual, that's for granted. But this doesn't mean that one group has to step down just for one person. That would be selfish and ineffective. Should everyone lose for just one individual?

This sounds like a nightmare. — Tzeentch

For me, it is a dreaming lifestyle. I guess that's why the economy of my country is in the 16th position and theirs are the 1st, 3rd and 5th of the world. These are pure facts not personal opinions.

It depends on the efficiency of the collective. If the group or mass is inefficient, it absorbs and excludes the individual creating a heterogeneous mass without control and wasting time and resources. This is the main problem of some countries: the individual disappears groups where the only aim is following doctrines, theories, groups, etc... usually, these are not even democratic and once you are part of it, you can't get out of the mass. While I am writing this it coming up to my mind the army of Venezuela or separatists of Catalonia as examples.

In the other hand: if the collective is effective, both sides win, the individual and the group. It is worthy to be part of a mass which works and helps you out to improve as a citizen. When I say "effective", I mean that they act together with similar goals such as manufacturing cars, vaccines, or improving the pillars of democracy. The act together because they are aware that this is the only way to be stronger. For example: Asian countries as Japan, China or South Korea. The individual doesn't exist there, but the group or collective is unstoppable due to their efficiency. One good case to look for is the Fukushima accident. Only a efficient system/mass as the japanese could have fixed such problem in just days...

I blame myself for starting threads like this one. I raised many questions about logic whereas I don't have any clue of basic notion of philosophy of science at all! We can debate on taxes and how to be a decent citizen with honesty, but I am completely lost in this issue... I don't even remember why I started this thread. :lol:

In the other hand, you are right in your argument on what we should consider as first principles. I remember that my main error was to think in "specific" truths, while those are accessory. Aristotle used such premises in different subjects to promote a basic notion of logic (I wish I am not mistaken and I am remembering well).

Questions to explore and feed our minds with ... — Alkis Piskas

Aristotle's syllogisms and logic explore our minds and cause a lot of questions. Sadly, I am not capable to answer them but there are members in this forum with a high level in mathematics and philosophy of science and they offer a lot of answers.
What I remember about this thread is the fact that Aristotlean logic is now so simplistic compared to modern logic problems...

Your thoughts are twisted as hell...

why the galaxy needs to be valuable? I want the opposite. I wish the Galaxy is never occupied by us and it stays there, not caring about time neither the human's existence.

Then there's something different about crypto. — Agent Smith

Yes, the main cause is substitute the money and banking system as we know nowadays. Nonetheless, it is used just for speculative conspiracies and opaque businesses.

what bothers me most is that posters, often including moderators, use the Bannings thread to shit on those who have been kicked out. It is unnecessary, unbecoming, and un-philosophical. People just don't seem to be able to resist the opportunity to be petty and vindictive. — T Clark

Good point, Clarky.

If you see the label 'Banned' on someone's profile, what is your first impression? — Amity

Interesting question, Amity. To be honest, I don't have negative thoughts on some users who have the label Banned. I personally had that experience in other forum and I remember that the mods didn't even warned me...

In the other hand: The mods explain the facts of why they ban someone in the thread "Bannings", and such thread is opened for discussion few hours if you want to complain. I complained on the banning of @Bartricks but I understand that this site has rules and it is healthy for the forum to not treat with privilige "long-term users" because that would be unfair.
If they warn an user and he/she maintains the same behaviour, it is understandable the consequential banning.

All that tech is quite in use today, quite real, but not every tech investment, tech fund and especially tech start up made wonderful results. And it was crazy before the bubble burst. — ssu

:up:

One of the craziest moments related to this investment was an "international" meeting which took place in Madrid. European and Spanish institutions such as The National Securities Market Commission warned about the risks associated with cryptos and ask the organisers to please don't let teenagers to go there. They didn't care and many people believed in whatever they listened in the meeting.
Well, a few months later, cryptos plummeted and one of the main responsibles of the meeting kill himself. Now, some courts are collapsed with hundreds of claims for compensation when those citizens were already advised of the dangers of this investment...
Craziness... Cryptocurrency is dangerous to the people.

Dicens, advena fui in terra aliena.
[Moses] said, I have been a stranger in a strange land.
Exodus 2:22

I can't imagine any authority imposed on prehistoric homo sapiens other than satisfying basic needs such as food, clothing, and shelter. — Shawn

Even in primitive times, the groups needed a leader/authority to follow with the aim to get the basic needs you mentioned.

We have always experienced 'authority,' even in tiny groups. — universeness

:up:

If that painting is yours, wow excellent work and congratulations :up: :100:

The red colour implemented wake up my emotions and makes me feel so motivated.

Thanks for your wisdoms, friend!

ありがとうございました。

See, saying or thinking "I am a body" and "I have a body" at the same time, creates not only a conflict but also a circularity. — Alkis Piskas

Interesting view.

If we have a circularity, we must start in a basic point then. I only can guess that the basic starting point is the existence itself which is mixed with subject and properties.

Yes, that is a possibility. Well, since you brought this up, you must also find out how! :grin: — Alkis Piskas

It is a complex task, indeed :sweat: I would need to get more knowledge on metaphysics!

:up:

Is this sort of what you meant? — Benj96

Exactly.

Is a tree aware? Not like a human is, for sure. Does that mean it definitely isn't aware? I'm not so sure. How would one prove this? In essence such a question requires us to definitively define what consciousness actually is. And thus what is capable of possessing it. — Benj96

:up:

That's the main point or cause of the debate, I guess... and it seems so interesting because I don't how can we argue using the philosophical schools: metaphysics or philosophy of language? :chin:

Interesting point of view.
Despite the fact that Federal Reserve or CCP are evil institutions and probably they are not specially the ones who should speak about economical ethics, I personally think that cryptos still lack of security, transparency and effectiveness.
We don't know what the future holds and maybe the tables can be turned. Nevertheless, we should be cautious in terms of investing big money in cryptocurrencies.

So, if we say that objects do have awareness, that awareness would be something totally different from what we know and can define. That is, what we know as "awareness" and its definition would be false. — Alkis Piskas

Thanks because I also want to make the same argument but it is hard to me find the exact words to express it. :sweat:
What I want to argue here is the fact that, if objects have awareness, it could be so different and far away of what we consider "awareness" in our vocabulary.

I think it does exist (isn't metaphysical but physical), but only because we exist and it makes sense as a physical existent to us. The proof of a table is in its use as a table. The function proves its definition. — Benj96

Yes, I am agree they exist but what I deny is the notion of "table" or whatever new existents. We create those because our knowledge is ready to always go beyond. This is even thanks to metaphysics. We want to go more away than our limits.
We build a car. A car itself doesn't have awareness. We are aware that such object is called as a "car" because our vocabulary gives it such word. But all the elements of the car can exist with or without the car. I mean, the oil used to start up the car or the rubber used in the wheels to control the car, will always exist "there" not depending if we use them in a car. Thus, those elements weren't born to be used in a car. We, due to our awareness and sense of reality, use them in personal or professional proposes.

Some rocks are tables, not all rocks are tables, Therefore could not all tables be rocks? What else has tableness? — Benj96

Interesting.

If some or all rocks are tables depends on the management of working. We can apply the nature of "rock" to everything: tables, chairs, bathroom, etc... if a rock has tableness is thanks to us. A rock does exist in the environment and it will continue to conserve the property of "rock" during the process of transforming it in a table. During this process, a rock is not aware that it has been transformed metaphysically.
The concept of "table" is only a human thing. I mean, it is not an element of the environment. We are capable of manage and transforming stuff and then we apply different names or labels.
But the concept of tableness in only in our awareness and doesn't exist outside of us.

What else has tableness?

Nothing. Tableness doesn’t exist metaphysically. A block of wood transforms in a table but it is still a block of wood. Table is just in our vocabulary.

Buffett and Munger's predictions about Bitcoin that seem more true = Doubts on cryptocurrency.

Buffet: "If you were to say ... for a 1% share of all the farmland in America, pay our group $25 billion, I'd write you a check this afternoon," Buffett said. "[For] $25 billion I now own 1% of the farmland. [If you offer me 1% of all the housing in the country and you want another $25 billion, I'll write you a check, it's very simple. Now Well, if you told me you own all the bitcoin in the world and you offered it to me for $25, I wouldn't take it because what would I do with it? I would have to sell it back to you one way or another. It's not going to do anything. The apartments will produce rent and the farms will produce food,"
Assets, to have value, have to contribute something to someone. And there is only one currency accepted.

Munger: "In my life, I try to avoid things that are stupid and evil and make me look bad compared to someone else, and bitcoin does all three," [Munger said.] "First, it's stupid because it's likely to go to zero. It's evil because it undermines the Federal Reserve System... and third, it makes us look foolish compared to China's communist leader. He was smart enough enough to ban bitcoin in China."

So, if we accept this impossiblility, then the concept of awareness has no meaning at all. Awareness simply doesn't exist as a state or faculty. Which is of course false. — Alkis Piskas

Sorry, I am a bit lost on the final phrase of your argument. What is false at all? I see that you want to explain that awareness is not faculty or state and then, awareness shall not have logic itself.
But the last phrase makes me thinking for one hour straight :sweat:

I don't what is false: awareness, the object's awareness or the tables themselves! Or... is it everything false and nothing is true at all? :scream:

Actually, the Catalonia-Spain conflict resides on level 1197 of my things-to-worry-about queue, just above the future of Nursultan Nazarbayev, deposed boss of Kazakstan. — BC

:rofl: :up:

Furthermore, if a table did exist, but no one ever saw or used it, would we naturally conclude it doesn't exist? In this case it does, regardless. We just cannot appreciate its form or function therefore for all intents and purposes it doesn't exist. — Benj96

:up:

Is a table natural or is it a product of human consciousness? — Benj96

Another good question. First of all, the word "table" is a term created by human vocabulary. Our knowledge and vocabulary describe table as: a flat surface, usually supported by four legs, used for putting things on.
So, at first glance, it looks like the existence of a table depends on our consciousnesses because we have elaborated the concept and give it a name.

Does the table exists naturally? Probably, but with a different name and meaning.

How can an object have awareness? — Alkis Piskas

It is a good question, indeed.

For me, it is very complex to answer. Since the moment that "awareness" is a humanistic concept, I doubt if an object is concious about itself. For example: we are aware about the existence of the tables of our houses. But this thinking doesn't exist empirically outside of us. I mean: our thinking of "the tables does exist" will not affect to the existence of the tables at all. They are not aware about anything. If they "exist" is because we give them a meaningful sense.

In real life, does it play out like this? Who decides? I'm talking of course about business, particularly big business. — Mikie

Yes, I know some examples in real life. When you want to start up a business, you need to distribute everything in proportions. According to the law, presumably each participant owns the same part or proportion. Nonetheless, there are exceptions to the rule and it could exist the scenario where a participant holds more proportion than the rest.
But we have a dilemma here. If we let one participant to hold 51 % of the overall, he/she could do or manage whatever without the consideration of the rest of the members. To avoid this situation of abuse, the law offers some rules.

I. Acts that necessarily need 3/4 of the votes of the participants. You will need a lot of votes, doesn't matter all the proportion you hold. For example: removing an administrator due to his unfair administration.
II. Acts who need absolute wholesale. For example: Assign credits or invest in the stock market.

Thanks to the voting system and limiting the proportions among the members, we would have a democratic membership or entrepreneur.

For example:

Hmm. A voting system within a company, you mean? — Mikie

Exactly. They owners vote in a General Meeting

You are right, those have dead for social causes, but "martyr" is a word that is interpreted in a religious way.

For example: Martyrs (Shaheed) And Their Status In Islam. Ibn Taymiyah, may Allah have mercy on him, said: “These are the four degrees of Allah’s slaves: the best of them are the Prophets, then the Siddeeqs, then the martyrs, then the righteous.” [Majmoo’ al-Fataawa (2/223)]

Look, this is interesting: "The words of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) are that “the most dignified way to die is to be martyred" Martyrdom in Islam

Nobody no longer cares about Catalonia and Spain anyway... hopefully, they will not ever remind about the stupid conflict of 2017.

:up:

Ukraine isn't going back to Moscow and Catalonia isn't leaving Madrid. — BC

Catalonian issue is more complex than press and media show. It is even a subject of a separate thread, but please do not waste your precious time in something worthless as Catalonia-Spain conflict. It is an endless political conflict that we the Spaniards are living during centuries. They do not have a solution and we either have.
To be honest, I think the only way to understand this, you need to be Spanish and living here between Barcelona and Madrid.

Buenos días.

THERE ARE INFINITE NEW GODS — Bug Biro

Look, like in Ancient Greek mythology or Ancient Egypt empire.

How is individuality expressed? — Shawn

Not voting in political election and not caring about what is going on around him. An individual person is not part of the society. I think it isn't depends on "counter-culture". This is just a different generation in a distinctive era. Back then, there were also individualism.
If you look to Asia, you will see a lot of individualism towards politics and international issues.

The concept of martyr cannot be applied to Socrates because he was a philosopher not a Christian or Islamic who died in pursue of faith.
According to Cambridge dictionary, martyr is defined as: a person who suffers very much or is killed because of their religious or political beliefs, and is often admired because of it
mártir; a Christian/Islamic/religious martyr.

Socrates was a victim of an ignorant system. Quite the opposite of being a "martyr"

If it's not equally distributed, who should get more -- and based on what criteria? — Mikie

It could be equally distributed if all participants did exactly the same contribution. 100 persons, then 1 % of effort of each contributor.
So, my criteria is based on the contribution and effectiveness of the participants. If they agreed of being equal parts, it is fine. But if someone does or contributes more than the rest I think it is justified to give to such participant more proportion of the pie than the rest.

If so, how much more? Should 60% of the pie go to this individual or group of individuals -- say 10 people? Or should it be more like 30%? What about 90%? — Mikie

I think it should not be more than 49,99 %. Why? Because otherwise would let the community to tear apart due to the big differences of proportions among them. If someone contributes more than 50,00 % we are not in a community at all... so they will end up dissolving themselves due to lack of effectiveness. Or the individual with huge percentage could be abusive to others, etc...

(3) Who decides (1) and (2)? — Mikie

The participants in a voting system. 3/4 of the votes could be useful to reach the distribution of proportions among the members.

Such politicians are a product of culture. We lack leadership and fidelity towards others — Benkei

I couldn't have said it better.

one of the main problems is our educational system. We don't have the culture of group and community. If Japanese people were able to recover from TWO nuclear bomb attacks is due to their millennial culture. They quickly thought that they only way to promote themselves was act collectively. Now: they are a country to consider of without any doubt.

I wish we copy more aspects of japanese culture rather than stupid "survival" or "entrepreneurs" savage capitalism prism...

@Benkei
In the other hand, please let me show you a good example of efficient politics.

Naoto Kan was the PM of Japan when Fukushima nuclear disaster took place. Kan was always been a politician focused in the ending of Japanese nuclear power. After the disaster, his reputation had decreased a lot. Nonetheless, before his resignation (just the act of resign is very honourable) he approved two important laws in japanese parliament to help the people recover from this disgrace. After the resignation, he said sorry to japanese citizens for not reaching the end of nuclear power.
He told a parliamentary investigation in 2012 that the nuclear industry had "shown no remorse" for the disaster, and was trying to push Japan back to nuclear power.

This man is a good example of a politician: honesty and efficiency for the people. Naoto Kan.
(I am even nearly in tears while writing this)