Not necessarily. Check out private law or agreement regulation. These are laws of interests not empathy
Also look at dictatorships and their laws... Have they empathy?

Laws have to deal with order. Moral is so abstract and depends a lot of the countries and their laws. We have to put principles to create a society the most social welfare possible.

Probably but somehow we need laws or rules in this nature because the opposite is live in chaos
You cannot have the hope of leaving your bike (for example) in the park and not being stolen. It is impossible by nature

Nope. Look around us and even worse, the rulers of the world. Impossible having hope in this context.

I wish I could have your hope in humanity as well.

I think, rather, it's the understanding – adaptive (by process of eliminating 'maladaptive') uses – of knowledges (e.g. sciences, history, arts, care of self, etc) that's gradually 'improved' by philosophizing. — 180 Proof

Yes! Couldn't have said it better. I like how you expressed it as "eliminating maladaptive" because sometimes our self thought cannot help if we are not making the right questions.
For example: the basic color patterns (yellow, green, blue and red) can give us a lot of interesting stuff if we philosophy about it. As John Locke did about primary and secondary attributes, etc...

Expanding Universe

Concerning the expanding universe and the idea of spacetime, what is considered to be the expanding universe is, by virtue of alternate systems, only a portion of what is, or only a portion of existence. The idea of space as with spacetime, the idea of expanding space as with the expanding universe theory are components or conceptions of those respective systems; they are not necessarily congruent with the idea of immaterial space or immaterial expanse.

These ideas of space do not necessarily coincide with, nor discount, the idea of space as presented here. Although these conceptions of space may vary such variation does not evoke nonexistence. They are all still things, they are all still parts of existence, existence is still ubiquitous. — daniel j lavender

Interesting fact. I think our interpretation about universe depends about order. When you see the vast universe is even scary but beautiful at the same time. We can debate here if the existence is something inner us or universe. I mean, are the humans just "temporary" walking through the universe? Or are we as clever humans manipulate by our own?
When we speak about "time" "existence" or "limitations" are just concepts created by humans but you know? These are even or limits. Humans lives are limited and so it how time passes by. Also we have to admit that we are "flawed" persons with limits we are not perfect this is why it makes us different.
Nevertheless, put exactly these characteristics inside universe. I guess it is amazing. Universe was and will be always there. We cannot put time into universe because it does not exist there. We cannot put existence in universe beacuse it does not exist there.

For example: it takes around 30 years to go to Pluto from the Earth. The limitation here is the time. We know Pluto is there but why is difficult for us travel there?
because universe has a lot of amazing powerful characteristics against us.

Eternal Life

As existence never began, as existence had no starting point things wouldn't need to advance or develop from a beginning. There wouldn't be a beginning to need to develop from. Things would always be existent and could exist at any level of development at any given time. — daniel j lavender

Another interesting quote. I respect and understand what you try to explain to us. But I think we have to bring here Cogito ergo sum.
If we have awareness, we exist.

I guess it is one of the best proofs of human existence.

I do wonder if the finding of happiness and even the other one have moved into becoming more the task and scope of psychology more than philosophy. — Jack Cummins

Agreed. You are right in this quote. I think is a task of psychology too because this science has the object of literally the study of mind and our behavior. So it could be interesting what are thoughts from a psychologist about "searching happiness"
Also, I think it is interesting to point out that there are even an index of "happy countries"
Which should be the facts to consider about typing one country happier than other?

It could be a thread in its own right, but as it is so interconnected to mine I will edit my title to include this. — Jack Cummins

Despite Aristotle defend back in Ancient Greece that the essence of philosophy is trying to find happiness I would say that the true essence is not being part of the "wall" as another "brick".
Philosophy is a way to get out of mediocrity and live a life where we can question everything to improve our knowledge.

may look like or do we take a hardline approach that may involve anything from policies styled along China's one-child rule to mass sterilization? I guess it would depend on how immediate our perception of the dangers of overpopulation is. — TheMadFool

I would sound like an antinatalist but I am agree with this policy. I think most of the Western governments do not put this issue in debate because it is a taboo topic. You know it comes from China, a communist country, "our enemy", etc... So our governments prefer still spreading the idea of "we are free in this part of the world. We are not restrictive as China".
Nevertheless, it is a big issue. Not because a social/economic problem but ethical one. I respect all projects the people might have in their minds but I think if you are irresponsible and cannot take care of your own life, please do not have children, it is simple. I think this is not dictator or totalitarian because we are (at least) guaranteeing two important scenarios:
1. Those kids that would born in broken families would end up being criminals or distorted (real life is not a fairy book most of these kids with bad parents tend to be a "non inclusive" citizens. This is the hard reality)
2. We literally reduce the problem of overpopulation. Because it is a damn issue. We all already accepted that everybody who borns shall have all rights possible. It is true. But I think the problem here is in the "roots". I mean, trying to prevent it previously someone is pregnant not when the kid is already conceived.

I bet a good solution could be a better sex educational system or changing the minds of those countries which necessarily need kids because their economy is so primary...

Last but not the least, technology, the crown jewel of humanity, might be able to offer a way out of this quagmire e.g. terraforming Mars can ease the burden that, as of now, is planet earth's. — TheMadFool

This could be an excellent solution but sadly we are not ready yet due to the lack of investment :sad:

Yes! I did understand your point but I was only suggesting that justice could be just another tool of reinforce the good ethics in free will.
My intention was not go against your topic and you are right that probably bringing here law and justice is a stupid tangent that is not connected with the main thread.
Sorry because I tried to participate here but I guess I need more knowledge in this topic. It will not happen again.

the importance of it is not metaphysical at all, but rather wholly ethical: what's important about freedom of will is its relationship to moral responsibility, and as I will elaborate, I hold free will to be essentially synonymous with the capacity for moral judgement, the capacity for weighing what is better or worse. — Pfhorrest

Despite the fact that is free interpretation of what we should consider as better or worse I think there have to be a way to reinforce it. Thus, justice or judicial power. I truly believe this is the most important tool to use in ethics. You quoted previously Thomas Hobbes and as this philosopher said: Homo homini lupus. There always been there someone who wants hurt other because they do not understand basic ethics.
So, in this way we have to improve the most representative authority about responsibility and ethichs: courts..
I have to admit that somehow law is sometimes flawed. But this is not a cause of not believing in justice because if we do not do so, everything would be a chaos and ethics could disappear.

Too much randomness, or insufficient determinism, does indeed undermine the possibility of psychological will, which depends on an adequate degree of determinism to reliably maintain the functionality that constitutes it, but that is a separate question from whether anything has metaphysical will. — Pfhorrest

Interesting explanation. This is another thought I learned today :100:

Everything has control (and thus freedom) of some sort, in that its very existence changes the flow of events – otherwise they would not appear to exist at all, and so not be real at all on my empirical realist account of ontology – but only some things have self-control, and that is what the rest of these posts will discuss. — Pfhorrest

Could be this a good argument to reinforce the judicial power/law then?

With these books that you leave behind, how do you think the people who look at them will change their behavior? As in, how do you see people with the "meaning of life" living differently? — FlaccidDoor

I guess these books will change their behaviour because there is a lot of wisdom inside them. It is true that I don’t have a solid proof of how supposedly would change their lives but I have a hope that they can at least do it.
Secondly, I think they would live differently because those books have a way of thinking that probably would change their lives. At least, they way of thinking. These books are like tools of human life because it embraces a lot of philosophical solutions to the problems.

If nothing in your inner is stiff
The things would be opened by themselves.
In movement, like water.
When is quite, like a mirror.
Answers like an echo.

This beautiful poem comes from Tao Te King.

I would leave behind these books of human thinking with the purpose of passing the meaning of life:

Tratado de la prudencia by Baltasar Gracián

An Essay Concerning Human Understanding by John Locke.

Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle.

Tao Te King by Lao-Tzu.

Perhaps that my life is a bit impoverished, but I do hope that the experiences of interaction on this site will help my confidence for activities in life. I don't want to just lead a virtual life. — Jack Cummins

It definitely will! I have the same confidence as yours. Debating here in these interesting topics can help us to develop skills in social interactions and try to be an interesting person to others. Also, I think is important to point out the chill atmosphere that exists here. I like it. Other forums could be so toxic between the members...

I won't get into the discussion of being a real philosopher on this thread because I just couldn't resist the temptation to create a thread on it. — Jack Cummins

Do not worry! We are here to speak and share our ideas :100:

And I don't think success is the best criterion for whether or not one is a "real" philosopher, nor popularity, but rather seriousness about their craft. — ToothyMaw

Couldn’t have said it better :100: :up:

with a certain amount of humour what does it mean to be a 'real' philosopher? — Jack Cummins

This is one of the questions we always asked ourselves at least once. I think is free interpretation what to consider being a real philosopher. Nevertheless, I want to share with you a brief story about philosophy and its study.
When I was studying law in college one of our colleagues was previously a philosophy student. I asked him how was his experience because I am so interested about study philosophy in university. He answered with a very clever question: Philosophy is not to be studied but to be lived.
I think it depends how we live our lives and want to develop our knowledge. These are the true thinkers. Since the moment where we are here debating about fantasies or whatever happens in our minds make us being philosophers or at least thinkers because we are somehow interested on it.

So, we could say that we are all social actors. The internet gives opportunity for people to create identities different from the ones they live in daily life. The majority of people do use the same names they live by. Also, most people don't include their photo. I am taking a certain risk because I am not anonymous and my photo is included and, there are a few others who do so too. — Jack Cummins

We totally are. Remember the words person comes from the word mask in Greek. We wear different masks along the way because we tend to be different persons depending who are we talking or debating with. I think it is not an issue if you do not post your photo here or whatever because we are avatars and here we are free to express ourselves. I want to be honest with you, I feel sometimes more free/opened here debating in the forum than in real life. But this not necessarily have to be bad.

Most fiction does not happen in reality. To show that porn is bad because of that, first you must show that fiction is bad. I think. — god must be atheist

Could be but porn still be a taboo fiction topic because most of the people are not ready to see two (or even more) persons completely naked making obscene scenes.. It this true in most of the films it appears sex scenes but it is just regular. Porn is there to satisfy people’s fantasies

I am agree with your point that fortunately we have websites like this forum in internet but it is like a treasure because these kind of pages are not famous at all. I think internet is an interesting place where we can share a lot of thoughts like telepathically. So, we are forced to admit that making an invention like this one is good for humanity.
Nevertheless, as we are talking about, can be also a dangerous place due to the people. Some of them just uses for bad habits or even hurts others. For example, cyberbullying, as a modern concept of literally harassment through internet. These bullies can even make others feel so much pain that end up having suicidal thoughts.

As you perfectly said:

However, I am not saying I see the internet as all bad because I am so pleased to have found this site. Prior to finding it, I did not have much chance for philosophical discussion

This is the pretty part of all internet. I was literally finding something like this forum during months. I am glad to be here and debating with you and the other members.
So I guess the important fact here is being clever enough to find the best websites.

The whole way in which sexual fantasies and dark fantasy is interesting. One area of possible discussion would be the way in which fantasies of hatred develop and manifest in life.

It is interesting this debate/discussion. We, as males, develop a lot of sexual fantasies when we are teenagers. I don't know if it is somehow innate to our nature but we do and then this why we search porn in internet. I think this is not necessarily a bad issue at all since the moment just satisfy our primary sexual stimulus. But we have to be agree that can develop negative circumstances if those sexual fantasies end up becoming a regular condition. Probably can create bad habits as being abusive/sexual offender or use prostitution to satisfy our fantasies.

I think they are bad because shows a fiction that does not happen in reality. I guess porn, like most of social media (Instagram or Facebook), tend to overacting fantasies of normal people. It depends of the age of the audience. I am nearly 24 and when I see porn I understand they are just actors.
But the problem begins when is seen by 14 or 15 years old boys. Scenes where the actress makes a role where she ia cheating her boyfriend or she is having sex with the teacher can impact badly in their brains. Probably this is why somehow has increased these two aspects:
1. Use of prostitution when they get older. 2. Sexism in more of the actions towards women (for example when they see a pretty girl with a top they tend to think she is easy as porn videos)

To eliminate this taboo topic we should improve our sex educational system.

I just quoted that bit from my older thread so that my use of those terms in the other quoted bits would make more sense.

Ok! I will keep it in mind. Thank you for the advices :up:

I think we are just a few Spanish citizens here in the forum. Me and @Miguel Hernández. But do not worry because we always speak in English in this forum because it is the rules and we have to respect it. Also, English is the universal language where we can share our thoughts. Sometimes I share some links form the universities of my country because I think it could be interesting doesn't matter at all if they are in spanish.
As you perfectly explained, if the discussion is still viewed depends a lot of how the people of this forum is interested in it so it is understandable why we have to make it the most attractive possible.

Sorry Jack. It is in spanish because it comes from a good university here in Madrid. I think it is interesting to debate about it but as you explained is not connected at all with the original thread so I accidentally made a tangent in your OP.

- Objectivism [...] includes both universalism :up: and transcendentalism :down:,
- Subjectivism [...] includes both phenomenalism :up: and relativism :down:,
- Fideism [...] includes both liberalism :up: and dogmatism :down:, and
- Skepticism [...] includes both criticism :up: and cynicism :down:) — Pfhorrest

Interesting. Thanks for sharing it. This is something new I just learned today :100:

My view is also very similar to the definition of good consequences, or utility, given by the traditional normative ethical model called utilitarianism, as promoted by philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill; but I am not here promoting the consequentialism that underlies traditional utilitarianism. I agree with utilitarians about what good ends are, but I do not hold that those ends flatly justify any and all means; as explained already in my earlier thread on dissolving normative ethics, I hold means to be of equal importance to ends, and I will elaborate further on the topic of just means in a later thread. — Pfhorrest

This reminds me about Karma. It is true that somehow we cannot include Karma as a philosophical argument or method because it is more connected to religion. Nevertheless it is interesting bringing it here in the thread because all of those who defends karma try to follow:
The principle of karma, wherein intent and actions of an individual (cause) influence the future of that individual (effect):[2] good intent and good deeds contribute to good karma and happier rebirths, while bad intent and bad deeds contribute to bad karma and bad rebirths
So I guess it is similar to utilitarianism as you explained before previously. Also I am agree with you of not holding at all this methods of thinking because not necessarily the end is justify.
Also, the las comment about this, it is interesting how “indiology” explains Karma in this different ways:

their definition is some combination of (1) causality that may be ethical or non-ethical; (2) ethicization, i.e., good or bad actions have consequences; and (3) rebirth.

It is interesting to point out how Karma put emphasis about rebirth. Probably this is another view from a metaphysical perspective.

but first need also a method of justice, that in turn hinging on the nature of the will and its relation to morality. — Pfhorrest

Agreed. We have to developed more and more the justice in terms of morality and efficiency. I guess, as you explained, there is a correct relation between all of these concepts.

I plan to do further threads on those topics (the will and its relation to morality, and the methods of justice) as soon as this one wraps up. — Pfhorrest

I am waiting for this! Justice and its methodology is one of the topics I am most interested about.

It makes me wonder about the whole nature of the symbolic within building design and the imagery underlying traditions, including the esoteric. — Jack Cummins

I don't know much more than that... — unenlightened

If you are interested about freemasonry symbolism I recommend to you this: https://www2.uned.es/dpto-hdi/museovirtualhistoriamasoneria/19simbolismo_masonico/ojoquetodolove.htm

Yes it is! I think this happens because when we are kids we are connected to primary perceptions that impact us. Then, we choose a role to play with. Exactly, in that period of time we were not putting enough emphasis because for us was just a game. Nevertheless, when years passed by we look at it with different view. I guess it is even when one of our first characters or masks we use in life appears for the first time.

I have felt the shaman archetype to be central to my life, the idea of healing oneself and others. — Jack Cummins

Exactly, this is your role and mission and life. It is beautiful having something to be related to.

I see it as very questionable if any 'experts' try to define a correct way of seeing. — Jack Cummins

Me too. It could be even dangerous because these special persons can be ended up having negative labels.

Let’s say you wanted to prove that you cannot compress a solid. I suppose you might go around with different solids and compress them (at the same force) and record if you can compress them. The first 200 times, (I doubt) any solids are going to compress, but maybe on the 201st — Georgios Bakalis

I understand your point here. It is interesting what are you saying but it looks like you are defending we are forced to search absolute perfection. This could be dangerous. Just because one is not answering to the premises doesn’t make the rest invalid. This exactly happens, for example, in covid vaccine.
So, just because 2 or 3 % of the patients are suffering issues do we have stop providing others until we reach a perfect 0 % in issues? I guess this is impossible.

1. A lot of (if not all) Science is based on drawing conclusions from patterns
2. To be certain that a pattern is always reliable (that there are no anomalies) you have to test something infinitely
3. We do not test things infinitely (in fact we cannot)
4. Therefore, any science based on drawing a conclusion from a pattern is not reliable — Georgios Bakalis

Flawed criteria... Why we have to taste everything infinitely? I guess if science and their theories are relatable and important is because they literally work despite they are not being proved indefinitely
We all agree that if we throw an object through window it falls down the floor due to gravity theory.
Should we prove this infinitely?

If you mean other valid forms, here:

https://www.friesian.com/aris — tim wood

Thank you Tim for providing to me these documents. I will check it out. Syllogisms are one of the topics I love the most in philosophy

Some Swedes are not Protestants.
All parishioners are Protestants.
Therefore some Swedes are not Parishioners. — god must be atheist

Perfect one but somehow this can be refuted which is the main principle of perfect syllogism. I guess at least one parishioner is protestant. So this is why is not “perfect” enough. Nevertheless, when I put previously this one:
All humans have limit lives and are deadly (higher premise)
I am a human. (lower premise)
Therefore, my life is limited and I am deadly (logic conclusion that cannot be refuted because this literally happens).
This literally happens. This is why we cannot refute it because we all are deadly.

To be honest, there is no such thing as a perfect syllogism. It is like asking what the perfect two numbers are that you can add together to form a sum. — god must be atheist

I think name it as perfect is flawed. I am agree with you. But somehow it is difficult to find another exact syllogism as how deadly humans are. This is why I guess Aristotle named it in this way.

but it just tries to show what claims in buddhist religion have been validated by science. — WaterLungs

Interesting topic! You give me even more reasons to check him out then :up:

I want to ask the illustrious members of this forum about other perfect syllogism — javi2541997

Also this question is still opened :sweat:

Ok. I understand you now.

But this is why you need a decent textbook. — tim wood

I will follow your recommendations. Thanks for helping me :up:

But it seems to me that he forgets that scientific propositions, such as those concerning gravity, do depend upon a previous premise: The uniformity of nature (“The future will resemble the past”).

Agreed. He forgot how at least logic works that thus, create science. As you explained previously, we have to start in a basic premise: The uniformity of nature. Then, all the theories about physics or nature go on like salmons in the water.
It is true that science, per se, could be explained at it is without somehow basic intuitions. But I think he is worse here too because doesn't matter how ended up the criteria but how it started all. Thus, the premises as you explained.

No. All A is C, some C is A.

Why some C is A? I am interested in this argument.

I understand your point here. But you used another example. You are talking about A, B and C as indivisible things. I was trying to put an example of a syllogism which parts are some how related each other. This is why I guess Aristotle called it as perfect one
When I said A is part of B (we have here like a component)
B is part of C.
Then, necessarily C has to be part of A when B is already part of A
Like they end up being together.

There are a ton of good books on the subject, even cheap used. Try your library or ask an instructor for a recommendation. And if the book bores you to tears or is incomprehensible, get another book! This isn't rocket science and can be enjoyable as well as useful

Yes! I am looking for buying more like these but I think the issue here is that I am Spanish so I guess when I try to translate it in English by myself I go wrong. Anyways, I going to share with you a pic where I read it from because literally speaks the same argument as yours.

[img]http://

Yes. I exactly lived the same experience as yours when I was a kid. Everybody played a role as a child because was just fun. My case was a warrior because back in the day I used to love having fantasies in nowhere fighting against anything. But this fantasy, as many others, was fading apart passing the years by.

Nevertheless, I think it was related to me since the moment I always been someone who was force to fight against the circumstances. So I guess this is why the warrior fantasy. Interesting how our brain can help us in our path of life.

Also, it is interesting how you considered the people who cannot make a difference between reality and fantasies are psychotic. I am agree with you but it surprises me how they reflect it in art or whatever representation. I going to put an example I experienced recently related to this.
We were in a room with just a white paper and then a tutor told us to draw a house. Simple.
I drew a normal or regular flat, other a simply house with their symbolism. Nevertheless, one person of the room surprisingly drew a circular house without zero criteria in logic realism. When I saw it I thought this is true imagination
But somehow this ended up as a conflict because it results according to the experts that this person is not connected with reality when he draws circular shaped houses so probably he was psychotic...

... which is obviously fallacious.

You then changed it too: C has parts of A, which is not the same as: C is necessarily a part of A.

I understand your point here but I guess I was typing the same but with more emphasis. Your example is even better than mine. C (the house) has parts of A (bricks) that have to be connected because they depend each other to build a house. So, C necessarily is part A since the moment where the house was built with the those bricks (A).
It is like a chain where the three parts are necessarily connected to build the house. They are not just parts

Si :smile: Y que lo digas. Google tells me that is Spanish for 'you can say that again' - an idiomatic phrase. Does it translate well ?

I understand what you said. Also yes, Google translated it correctly. But I also found this translation: right on.
Translating idiomatics in one language to another is even more difficult than philosophy itself :sweat: