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:

No. I guess I am right because I am speaking about parts of one thing.
A is part of B. (so B has parts of A)
B is part of C. (B which has some parts of A, also has parts of C)
Then, C has parts of A because somehow it was dragged from the original roots.

Also I really like the quote of Bertrand Russel you quoted. Specifically:

but this only makes the proposition probable, not certain. It cannot be certain so long as living men exist.

It is interesting how he explains it. Of course we cannot argue against it while living men exist.

Start here. Do you see the problems?

To be honest. No, I do not see it.

And the verse - you translated that yourself, I guess.
I am impressed by anybody who has English as a second or third language exchanging philosophical views here. Really :100:

English is my second language. Yes I translate by my own everything I write here. Sometimes is difficult because philosophy has a complex vocabulary. Thank you for your consideration :up:
For example, the basic phrase of Aristotle El todo es mayor que la suma de sus partes as an argument of pure logic it makes so hard translate it in English to me.
Using Oxford dictionary could be: a whole is greater than the sum of its parts

Probably when we can still have fantasies as we were kids. But what I want to say is that these adult fantasies are less vivid than the infant ones because when we are kids we tend to have a limitless imagination and everything surprises us more than we are older.
Also, as you explained, I am agree in the fact that perhaps all these people who are more in fantasies are the same which their lives are not fulfilled. So, they need something to escape from the reality.
To be honest, I do not think this a problem since the moment can help them. But it is true that in the long run can be dangerous if they end up not distinguishing reality/fantasy.

I am just interested to know how important people think that fantasy in the whole process of thinking and as mental states?

Fantasies are not only important for all the arguments you wrote above but also to leave from reality.
Sometimes, our days, weeks, months or even years are heavy. We have situations which are difficult to face and it makes us be depressed or sad. With fantasy we can, at least, leave for a moment from these negative feelings and then create a new scenario in our minds. This is one of the most surprising facts from humans. We can create fantasies or abstract worlds as refuges from our pain. I am agree with you statement that this is totally healthy but with some limits. We can't let fantasy being part of our lives so much. Nevertheless, I defend it can be the only output for children or another person who is literally suffering.

For example: Imagine a kid that when he turns back from school his family is somehow broken. Probably fantasies as playing football like the best or fighting against dragons in the book he is reading can give to him so chill vibes and not being sad all the time. So, thanks to fantasy he can be another person in another world.

Sorrowfully, I think this only works in Kids or Young minds because when you get older you start losing the ability of dream/having fantasies.

Your opinion of letting die older because they already lived so much is somehow selfish. It does not respect the human nature of individualism. I don't have to die for others neither others for me. The solution is the accessibility vaccine for all the citizens not just let others die because we are not good enough to make a strategic plan in the pandemic

Sure! I think it is more worthy just put the images (if you do not mind) because it is short the dialogue between Lao-Tzu and Tu-Fu... Sorry is in Spanish (casitilian by the way :joke: )
Also when I said water and mirror are key to understand Taoism is due to the relationship of life flow. It remembers me about Democritus when he explained philosophically the course of the water.
Mirror should be the representation of ourselves, then the water of how the life is going through it. Changing when the years are passing. Probably this is why Lao said Tao Te King is a book that is with us during the life journey...
Anyway, this is just my interpretation.

I put the poem as promised:

[img]http://




[img]http://



[img]http://

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.

Beautiful poem from Lao-Tzu to Tu-Fu. The path of virtue

Water and mirror are the key to enter in Taoism thought.

The will is free when you have in your consciousness lack of uncertainty. You act because you want to, not wanting expectations neither fearness.
Probably some people who acts in this way never noticed they have free will.

How do you build the best belief for the most empowered individual? Answer below. — Thinking

I think depends of every human and their goals. First of all, we have to develop de ability of believe in. It doesn’t matter the objective but it looks like humans will always have something to believe in (for example: reduce climate change).
When we get this development, then we start to have beliefs. that follow us during our lives. Some stay for so long others can fall during the journey.

For example: I believe in the fact of reduce climate change (premise 1)
I have the belief of take action (premise 2)
—————————————————————-
Then, my beliefs are so powerful that I believe we can reduce it.

discussion about modern atheism. The video went viral." They were named the Four Horsemen.If your going to watch an episode, please watch this one: Sam Harris 2018 - Why Buddhism is True with Robert Wright

PS: I'm not a budhist btw — WaterLungs

It looks like interesting sure. But I am atheist :rofl: so I guess it will be a hard pill to swallow when he literally face atheism form a Buddhist point of view.

Interesting this part of the story. I never known it until today. Thanks for sharing it.

Hola y Gracias ! :cool: — Amity

De nada! Un gran saludo :cool:

but then As a motif in fiction, the mad scientist may be villainous (evil genius) — TheMadFool

I think they are. For example: someone, one day, thought about the creation of a nuke bomb. Then, this dream/idea put it on reality. This is could be one of the worst things created by humans. They are genius for creating such complex arm but evil too. I don’t want to underrate them as scientists because somehoe we have to understand the context but I rather see a poet or an artist showing their nightmares than a scientific put in practice the reason.

Artists have nightmares, but it takes a scientist to realise them. — unenlightened

True. I didn’t even realise that. Sometimes reason can be as dangerous as nightmares. At least a poet or another kind of artist just speaks about those nightmares in their works. We even can find beautiful pieces of art. Not only about nightmares but all stuff that we cannot explain with reason like darkness, sadness, nostalgia, etc...
So as you said, it is exactly a commonplace

I had never heard of Tu-Fu before this. I'm curious.
Would you like to say more about why you posted this ? Where and How do you know about the interaction between Lao-Tzu and Tu-Fu ? In relation to the discussion...? — Amity

It depends a lot of the Tao-Te-Kimg version all of us have. Mine is from a Spanish version of 1983 that was also translated by R.P. Wiegner in 1913.
Before the book starts, there is a brief story about how supposedly Tao was written. I going to explain it to you:

Tu-Fu was a solider in the frontier of Kuang-Shi. When he saw Lao-Tzu approaching to him he made him stop close to the guardian and said: I will not give you pass in the frontier if you don’t give me part of your wisdom
Then, Lao-Tzu, wrote a book of 80 poems. Thus, the Tao Te King. He said to the guardian that this book is to be understood during the process of life. It flows like the water.

I don’t know if this is true or it is just was a metaphor of the purpose/nature of Tao itself.

Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them. — David Hume

Interesting quote from David Hume. Probably I accidentally enter in a tangent but this quote reminds me the Goya’s painting called The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters.
It is free interpretation but probably this painting shows how dangerous could be our world if our reason is sleeping?

[img]http://

The purpose of the words is transmitting ideas.
When the ideas are understood, the words are forgotten.
Where can I find a man who has forgotten their words?
I would like talk with him.

The guardian and the wiser. Lao-Tzu and Tu-Fu.

Lao-Tzu didn’t want to speak but Tu-Fu was asking many question to him.

Sam Harris podcas — WaterLungs

I never heard about him until this moment. The podcasts look so interesting. Also I see he has books with striking titles. I will check it out deeper in the following days.

I think this question goes far than mathematical criteria. Probably we should focus in terms of luck.
Probabilities and chances depend about of how we want to assume if the goals/recognition we get depends somehow of “luck”
How many luck do I have in terms of passing the next exam? It depends in how increases our probabilities while we study more or less.
Conceptually, when we check the definition of probability in Oxford dictionary, it redirects you synonym that is called “likelihood” which says the chance of something happening; how likely something is to happen

It is interesting how literally says “chance”. This is why I guess the significance of probability depends a lot of “opportunities to do something”