This is what I was questioning about. I think there is no obligation to stay with others but it looks like for some researchers that somehow we are forced to interact and then build communities.
But no, I am agree with you I do not see anything immoral of being lonely.

Does Existence have any objective/universal meaning?". — SmartIdiot

It is meaningful since the importance for human knowledge. As Descartes said cogito ergo sum
Since the exactly moment we are available to think and therefore the stimulus of awareness provides us the situation that at least we literally exist. Probably all of our reality is fake and is meaningless but the existence of human themselves develop our consciousness.
The debate is open about if since the moment we exist how worthy our reality actually is.

I am agree with you. I think is difficult disentangle ideology or background experience to get an original about human nature. I guess the day we can do this we will turn back to prehistory time where nothing about this was that important or complex for humans as today.

When you see the Spanish flag you think: "Hm, whose flag is that?" :joke: — SophistiCat

Lol :rofl: well I don’t care if the people don’t recognise it because I will always show the flag of my city instead. Madrid! Spain is full of regionalism. It looks like it has countries inside itself.

[img]http://

Love is a serious mental disease.

- Plato.

Love is a madness
- Socrates.

I guess it depends which philosophers we are talking about. Those from romanticism would write and speak a lot of it but in the most of philosophy branches there are just a few philosophers taking about love.
For my personal opinion philosophy is supposedly a path to find happiness. Probably for some people finding love is finding happiness at the end of the day

But sure, people do differ, and maybe you could question the validity of making these general claims about all of humanity like Bakunin does, based on his personal experiences alone. — ChatteringMonkey

I think these claims from Bakunin not only comes from his personal experience but their political ideology. He rejected all state or political system establishing the anarchism. Nevertheless, back in the time Bakunin was a friend of Marx and then this is why he thought the importance of promote communities (equalities) instead of loneliness (selfishness/capitalism).
Probably it could be a reflection of sociology or just a research he did.

Do you think the working class theory can be accepted if all and everyone is created in the same aspect in compare to the rest of the humans. Don't you think that the system of equality will work if someone is holding more than others, in terms of knowledge, mind and hardships that he has faced in his life span? — RBS

No. It won’t work the class work theory. If a quite perfect system as URSS fell down don’t expect this again in our lives. Why they ended? Because they turned out being the bourgeois one. If you have all the power in your own hand it is difficult have solidarity or at least trying to. Keep in my mind that sadly there are people who don’t want give an effort in life. They have laziness by nature. Others are not capable to do things probably for their illness, etc... so in this context we see clearly we are different from each other by nature. The problem here is that there are people who take a lot of advantage from this.

What if we have totally forgotten our existence and trying to reinvent it with what we think should be? — RBS

I don’t know how can be but I defend at least will be dangerous and savage. Like the nature around us. When a cheetah has to kill an antelope to survive

People are too comfortable offending people, an the same people are too sensitive to receive. — Tharealist

Yes because we humans tend to different us from each other through different labels. It is weird but people do this. When we see or visit a country with customs so different from us surprise a lot. If you are a person with culture you will try to understand it and learn more about it. If you are ignorant you will criticise or underrated it.

I think we are, and I think if you want, you could come up with evidence for this, such as stats for loneliness being an indicator for shorter lifespans and unhappiness etc... Bakunin feels alone and unhappy because of it, it's hard to argue with that. It is what it is.

I guess the question for me now personally is not whether we need social relations and communities, I think we do — ChatteringMonkey

Agree. We just do social relationships and communities because we literally need it. This is our reality. It is interesting why scientific researchers says we tend to be more unhappy if we want to live alone. Well it depends a lot of the person we are talking about. Sometimes we have that period of life with sadnesses and incomprehension. Some people go to their friends but imagine you don’t have any. We can say here go to a therapist or psychologist but somehow those people prefer to live alone or at least apart from social interaction.
Nevertheless, as you said, it is quite impossible make this practice in a long run because we are forced to interact with others. It looks like our mind is asking for this. But in this point I still disagree that introvert o more “lonely” people don’t need to be selfish at all.

If you really want to find a flaw in it, I suppose you should be focusing on the implicit indifference. — TheMadFool

It is true that I did not see it that way. As you perfectly explained it before if I isolate myself because I want it is quite selfish because I don’t make good things to others neither the ability of sharing the life experience with others. Since I understand the difference I guess it is not selfishness at all because there are people who self-imposed live alone but make good actions to others.
Also some people’s dreams is literally live the last days in a house hidden in the forest without socialising. I think it is respectful when someone wanted to make this step in their lives.

There's a fair amount of pacifism in the US that clashes with flag waving, which is often associated with military action. — frank

Agree. But this is just another character inside of American nationality/customs symbolism
I guess all the pacifists and hippies movement criticised the flag of US because is one of the most powerful military countries all over the world. Nevertheless, this is not needed to be included of what is the actual means of the flag. If it has 50 stars I guess it is because of the representation of all the states.
What we can say apart from this is just personal beliefs or opinions.

Why is it that nationality talk and Nationalism in particular is so easily acceptable, and race talk and Racism is so difficult and unacceptable? — unenlightened

Nationality (supposedly) is made about people’s customs,heritage, history, religion and ideas. The flag is just propaganda and easy symbolism. Nevertheless, it depends a lot which country we are talking about... here in Spain most of the people hate the Spanish national flag. Some say it is fascist, homophobic, racist or mustiness. So it is interesting as you said why some flags are more tolerated than others or at least respected. When you go to Catalonia there are people who burn the Spanish flag. Personally I don’t get frustrated but others get annoyed. I guess being a spaniard goes further than a flag.
Also I guess it is very important here the social marketing. Apparently the UK flag which represents the British nationality doesn’t trigger a lot of people not like the nazi or URSS flag for a lot of reasons.
I remember one day I saw the following advertisement:

When you see the UK flag you think about Big Ben
When you see the American flag you think about hamburgers or big cars
When you see the Spanish flag you think about that bigot who hates gay people

Hmm... bad propaganda.

The essay itself is interesting. You can find a copy here. — Wayfarer

Thank you for sharing it with me. I am going to check it out.

Furthermore in The Basic Laws of Arithmetic he says that 'the laws of truth are authoritative because of their timelessness: "[the laws of truth] are boundary stones set in an eternal foundation, which our thought can overflow, but never displace. It is because of this, that they authority for our thought if it would attain to truth — Tyler Burge, Frege on Knowing the Third Realm

@Wayfarer

This point is interesting. I understand now what Frege is trying to tell us. I like that characteristic of “timelessness” and so he is somehow right too despite Berkeley theories.
If some statements made by the humankind understanding or investigating the nature or reality are so efficient that literally are passing through the centuries without doubt of their existence probably is due to they are true.

For example: 1 + 1 = 2. Why? Because I count it as an act with my fingers. We can argue here if 1 + 1 equals to zero or infinite. But the law of truth or primary attribute that equals to 2 doesn’t need to drive to error. Despite of Berkeley criticism about not purifying at all the nature around us.

Also, being poor means living on the edge of small disasters which can happen at any time. One's life is precarious. Constant threat makes one more cautious, more likely to respond well to political promises of "the good old days" when people imagined life was better. — Bitter Crank

True. We live in an era where a huge number of citizens use their income just to pay the house and bills. Around a 50 or 60 % of the salary is attached to a precarious life. It is sad because it looks like reading philosophy or going to theatres is the modern privilege.
I wish one day we can change this context. It remembers somehow the past times in Rome with slaves. It sounds like a metaphor

Where did we go wrong. What was the starting point of humans to get this much in trouble where if they were created with a humble nature. — RBS

Competitiveness. This what Marx was rejecting back in the time. Remember that Karl Marx was so opposed against the idea of State and he wanted to establish a system a working class. Probably trying to get something different of what we are used to.
Nevertheless, this reflects how the human nature is selfish by nature. It is impossible getting an equality system because always there will be someone who will break it.

they are just happy to be noticed and to adopt the belief that following this politician will make their futures better than they are at the present. — Experi

You perfectly explained it here. A clever governor is who makes advantage of those who are not admitted in high society. It is a social paradox because the low paid jobs will do anything but give their lives to promote the leviathan despite probably they will end up abandoned by the State.
This is why it is filthy how governments take advantage from so ignorant people.

I'm curious then how you characterize the "ignorant people with low paid jobs" you mentioned. You talk about them rather harshly but what differentiates you and other enlightened people from them?

We live in the capitlism era. This means having money or at least a decent salary can provide you enter in the culture circle (books, theaters, universities, etc...)
Imagine having a low paid job like 700 euros or even less per month working in a boring job that nobody wants but the low qualification ones. When these citizens come back home they do not have time to question anything because their time is wasted (sadly) paying the bills. So when these populists politicians randomly appear in their lives is like a resurrection. They start not feeling that bad despite their mediocrity.

note: It is true that there are people with high income whose behaviour is similar to those. This situation is even worse

So I'm not really sure, other than that you seem to have a much more pessimistic view of society than I do. Am I right to say that you see politicians and the "ignorant people" as a puppeteer/puppet relationship? Politicians pull on the 'strings' of pathos to control the puppet that is those people. How do you prevent yourself from being one of the puppets, or know you aren't one?

I guess we live in different countries and this is why we have different perception of politicians. At least in my homeland they don't anything properly to do but divide the society and being corrupts.
You say how we can know we are not the puppet ones. Easy. When you are not the politician. Every politician is somehow a puppet. It is true that some of them can end up controlling a lot of power and that stuff... But they are not free at all to take their own decisions. It is impossible.
The leviathan is always observing from the shadows...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Berkeley actually resolved consciousness requiring space and time to exist, or maybe he did... . — 3017amen

You are not wrong. Berkeley escalated a bigger step trying to emphasise what powerful the consciousness instead of trying to explain what is going on with primary/secondary stimulus. This is why authors say he is even more empirical than John Locke. At least this one explained how some attributes are needed to be explained/taught because without it we don’t really know what are we talking about.
For example, John Locke received this letter in his An Essay Concerning Human Understanding

If we block a child in a room all of his childhood teaching him the green colour while is actually yellow. Will he name all of his life “green” when he would actually see yellow? In this topic John Locke answered this is a perfect empirical experiment so he put the following sentence:
What you are trying to say is that complex terms like colours are not innate because we can teach children to misunderstand mixing them. I guess this is the same example of fearness. You can feel the fear because previously someone taught you what is darkness, witches, demons, etc...
Somehow John Locke understood there are some primar and secondary attributes but depends a lot how they are taught, thus experience

But Berkeley goes furthermore, he says that these are just flawed comments. We are wrong if we try to explain everything instead of purify it. The only truth is our perception doesn’t matter what we are taught.
Nevertheless, Berkeley is contradictory when he speaks about God defining him as perfect (idea)
Why did he do that? Why did not he defend exactly the same in Plato realism?

Thomas Hobbes: Homo homini lupus. Humans tend to be destructive to each other so humanity is dangerous by nature.
Karl Marx: The human is humble by nature but the society corrupt him. Human’ s nature could be good if we don’t have any kind of society/system/state which is over and over again staining our soul.

Which theory is the properly one? I guess it all depends about the educational system. We have to go back in Ancient Greece times where they developed ethics and human behaviour. We live today in a sense of selfishness feeding the leviathan of Thomas Hobbes or the society of Marx.

We know by logic the laws and axioms which are visible to thought itself - Frege's 'laws of thought' - and so requiring no empirical validation, on account of their being logically necessary; they're not 'out there' but are known true a priori. — Wayfarer

Interesting point of view as all the debate you opened here. But I am somehow disagree in Frege’s laws of thought explaining those axioms were supposedly we don’t need empirical validation because somehow is innate upon us.
Despite the concepts are clear to understand the perfect science and how physics works quoting John Locke’s primary and secondary attributes there is another philosopher which I guess is important here to disagree in these statements: George Berkeley.

George Berkeley said: if neither primary qualities nor secondary qualities are of the object, then how can we say that there is anything more than the qualities we observe? he established this question criticising John Locke’s one: If you put one hand in a bucket of cold water, and the other hand in a bucket of warm water, then put both hands in a bucket of lukewarm water, one of your hands is going to tell you that the water is cold and the other that the water is hot. Locke says that since two different objects (both your hands) perceive the water to be hot and cold, then the heat is not a quality of the water.
Then debating Plato Berkeley said: "an abstract object does not exist in space or time and which is therefore entirely non-physical and non-metal"

It is interesting because he tried to abolish all kind of platonic realism or classic empiricism. At least John Locke, as you pointed out, defended somehow primary attributes but Berkeley rejects it all saying about gravity (for example) gravity, as defined by Newton, constituted "occult qualities" that "expressed nothing distinctly. Berkeley thus concluded that forces lay beyond any kind of empirical observation and could not be a part of proper science.

A final statement of him was that the object of science should be purified the perceptions not explaining it.

Well this is why Berkeley is remembered as a extremist empiricist but I guess it is interesting bring his ideas in this debate.

but politicians are still people. They have their own ideology they work off, which isn't to say it can't be a corrupt one. You can run for office too if you wanted to try to change things with your own hands, for example. I bet you might face a lot of temptations and hardships, but I doubt you would say you had no empathy then. — FlaccidDoor

Yes. They are people as us but not normal citizens. Keep in mind that before getting the power all of those politicians had previously to win “primaries” between them to choose a leader which will make the direction of the political party. Inside this situation there is a lot of toxicity and cheats. All of those who don’t want bear this situation end up leaving or criticising the system. Instead of convincing people with rhetorics they use a formula of how powerful they can be and somehow this is attractive for voters. Remember Thomas Hobbes: Homo homini lupus

Is this radicalization that we see in our friends, families, and beyond something that was deliberately sought after? Maybe I'm getting too conspiratorial, but perhaps there is a force in politics that seek radicalization. — FlaccidDoor

You are not conspiratorial. You are right. They are only know how to use emotions because there are lot of ignorant people with low paid jobs who are really easy to persuade them. If I say “Foreigners are taking your jobs” I am obviously lying. But somehow this argument gives hope to all of those rubbish citizens who never made something interest in their lives but watching junk TV. They feel better and “different” when their politicians tell them despite they are trash somehow are “better” than immigrants.

Where does this lack of empathy for the other side stem from? — FlaccidDoor

Politics and politicians do not have empathy. So don’t expect empathy from something that never had it. They divide people and family because these are so ignorant to get angry due to other has a different point of view. It sounds so wacky splitting families and friends apart just for the leviathan.
Politicians do not have ideology. They just have it in campaign. Afterwards, do not expect so much. But some people (sadly) see them as their saviours.
Politicians only use emotion not knowledge. So I guess this is why a lot of people is faced because of them.

When Spain adopted a democratic constitution back in 1978 and in 1982 the socialist party won the elections they were asked if they were still being Marxist/socialist trying to implant a republic and then their leader answered: it is better the bad known than the good to know.

capitalism: only money counts. It is true at least thanks to taxes it provides us some quality resources (not always). Supposedly we live in a representative democracy but you will never win agains those who are richer and powerful than you. Sometimes politicians are like masks. Probably it is a system that provides you opportunities but you have to be ready of despotism and that kind of people who reaches jobs with zero effort. It depends a lot of the country we are talking about but in the most of them if you are poor or don’t have an accurate salary you are the lowest and are forced to live in the slums. Due to this situation many people think capitalism is a lie where only the bank wins.
It is a flawed system but the most relevant one.

Socialism: it is proven by nature that is impossible being equal to each other. There is always been persons better and worse than you. So it is not profitable implant a system where everyone is forced to be equal the rest of their lives. It is TRUE that at least the Soviet Union provided a lot of chances to study in quality universities to everyone. But it was a system which did not follow at all a Greek educational program but totalitarianism. They were forced to be the best in everything. Sometimes this is not the attitude. Also when Soviet Union fell down don’t expect this situation anymore. If hard work people as Russians ended up not tolerating socialism nobody else will. North Korea probably but Cuba and China are somehow capitalist.

Conclusion: both systems are flawed but (at least) in capitalism we are provided of resources due to democracy.

Interesting fact this picture. What do you think?

[img]http://

Yes. It is exists in the US and all of the developed/first world countries.
I guess there is a country which is even more racist than U.S. and it’s Japan.
Probably we all already heard of Japan as a good educational country and “developed” due to their “culture”. They are lying. They are more racist than US and Europe. If you are not Japanese or don’t have a white skin you have to give up because you are not welcome there.
Also it is a country full of bad prejudices. They are always showing to your face they are better and a powerful rich nation while “you” are just backwards citizen.
They way they are acting some people say it is cute and they have education but at the end of the day is racist. You can check it in some symbolism in anime or manga too. All theforeigners are black or criminals. I remember some Latino friends of mine were very interesting in Japan and when they were there Japanese people told them real Spanish comes only from Spain. Ignorance and systemic racism.

Sometimes we idealised countries which end up acting bad towards us. It isn’t only in the US.
I was in Arkansas, Texas, Missouri, Illinois and Wisconsin and never heard a problem due to my Hispanic skin.

Germany? Hmm no. US? Hmm no. France? Hmm no... yes this nazi convention is in Tokyo.

[img]http://

Nobody's is relevant (I said "no" above already) — Pfhorrest

“Nobody is relevant” sounds quite selfish. It remembers me when Bakunin wrote a letter to his parents asking why there are people who live alone. He criticised all of those people living alone and not caring about the rest as “selfish” and for him it is impossible reach happiness in this context.

Being able to rapidly move-on in life is a precious gift and should be taught by those who are aware everywhere. Imagine the anguish that could be saved if most people could develop this capacity. — synthesis

Yes I think so too. As you said this practice should be taught to everyone because there are some persons who is difficult to them avoid painful situations they experience along their lives.

First of all, I am sorry of what your son experienced but he is lucky of having an intelligent parent who provides wisdom to learning more about life. I going to share with you another story that help me in my journey through life.

When I was born back in 1997 I was dying because my left lung was not working good so I was losing a lot of oxygen. The doctors quickly transferred me to another room that even my mum didn’t get a chance of having me in her arms. The following days were obnoxious. I was fighting to survive while ,y parents were asking for an expensive loan to pay an oxygen from United States specialised in these kind of situations (back in the day Spain wasn’t so developed in science...)
After fighting against all odds I survived. All the wires I have connected in my head to provide me oxygen made a notorious scar. So when I was starting to go to school I was receiving a lot of bullying from other kids... I remember getting frustrated a lot and getting back home with tears because the other kids didn’t understand how difficult was that period of my life. Then my mum told me this philosophical quote from the Spanish proverbs: A palabras necias, oídos sordos in English means “to foolish words, deaf ears”

We always will experience disgusting situations where we can feel bad about ourselves. The intelligent way is not taking it with importance and forget it the most quickly way we could. There are a lot of ignorant people who doesn’t have empathy but instead of answering them with the same ignorance is better act as a deaf looking like we didn’t hear anything about.

Therefore, the policy of erudite is about void the mind of men and fill their stomachs. Debilitating their initiatives and strengthening their bones. Their constant effort is maintaining the population in ignorance and apathy
They make to the skilful people do not to act. Because there is nothing that it cannot be resolved with the practice of no act
Verse III

Thoughts: sadly this is one of the most common tools or practices used by governors. When the people is ignorant it is easier to convince them with fake news. If it were possible probably they would remove all pillars of philosophy and thinking. Sometimes it looks like the State and government are enemies of knowledge. This is why it is impossible to find happiness.

Imagine two people, X an optimist, Y a pessimist in a jungle. They hear leaves rustling in the bushes behind them. X, the optimist, thinks it's a cute little bunny rabbit and Y, the pessimist, thinks it's a ravenous jaguar. Who, X or Y, is likely to survive given this scenario repeats with a sylvan rhythm over the course of these two's jungle adventure? — TheMadFool

This example is important and perfect. Here we see how literally Y the pessimistic survives better in the jungle because he prefers to being more open up to all bad circumstances than the optimistic one. Furthermore, Y will always win because if there is a rabbit no problem at all and they keep going. If it is a dangerous jaguar at least he was in defense position due to he was expecting the worse. But the success of X is thin just a 50 %. If it is a rabbit everything will be OK but what about if it is a dangerous jaguar? He would be lost or dead because he wasn't expecting that.

So... I guess pessimistic persons tend to be more realistic and ready of what can the life bring to us. Romanticism or positivism could drive us in painful situations as deception or heart breaking, etc...

I am personally skeptical of whether it’s possible to actually be a philosophical pessimist and still retain a happy mood. — Albero

Accurate. But sometimes a pessimistic philosopher does not depend on being happy or sad. I guess he is realistic but with a sense of negativism avoiding all kind of romanticism.
It is true is hard to be this kind of philosopher and randomly still happy for what the future/life holds. It would sound weird and without sense. Nevertheless, I think a pessimistic person is not forced to stay in a sadness behavior to think about "pessimism"
For example: I can talk to you and say:

I am not seeing a good goal in my life so I just here I do not know if I will get it or do it. I am a loser

Probably as you say this would sound so pessimistic but for me is just my realistic life but without sadness.

This constant ruminating might just be my own fault, but I don’t understand how someone could reach those conclusions and still have a cheery face without it being in your brain all day. — Albero

Interesting statement. I guess this also happens because we don't know yet what happiness actually means. Probably for someone getting those conclusions make them having a cheery face because they understand is impossible having a fulfilled life and it is ok too (?)

Yes. Of course it is an act that we humans inside our knowledge call it “counting” just to put an order in our reality as you said towards how numbers are used. These concepts are very important for plenty of reasons.
Why a year is divided by 12 months? Order. Understand how numbers are used in our system.
Why the distance is divided by miles/kilometres? Again order, etc...

We see here how the act of counting leads us another group of

Meaning as use. — Banno

The use of put a stability in our reality.

Where is the state going to get the resources to provide employment and food for its citizen — synthesis

From the revenue of the tax income. Thus, citizens effort to maintain the state. But the revenue obtained shouldn’t be invest in military services I guess

Yes, because scepticism doesn’t provide expectations at all. It is similar to nihilism.

Sorry but I guess I am confused and I am making a big knot between pessimism, negativism and scepticism plus nihilism.

This is not pessimism but stoicism. — Pantagruel

This is not stoicism but scepticism

I have to admit it. I am negative/pessimistic and sometimes I jump so easily to the nihilistic pit. But I guess these are the right points to start the act of thinking. Positivism or romanticism can drive us a painful situation where we except everything but we end up having nothing or something we did not except.
So despite pessimism can be sometimes tired, at least we have a more realistic figure of our life not expecting so much and then if we reach it the satisfaction is even better.

Pessimism is inherently restrictive, — Pantagruel

Why is restrictive? You still acting but not as the motivation of a motivational/romanticism person.

2 threads + 2 threads = 4 threads, exactly? Not 1 river? — SimpleUser

We are speaking about mass not specific objects.
If we say 2 apples and 2 lemons we know it is not equal 4 because we are speaking of different concepts/objects. But, in the general (or mass) concept we have somehow “4” objects in the table because you count it. It is not infinite or zero.

They don't answer the question of what is one. — Tzeentch

I guess they do. Because the question is why 2 + 2 is 4 when supposedly it is not proven. He said is just “trivial” but if you count your fingers, stickers and luxury yachts you will see why we end up in 4 because is basic reasoning

I I [2] + I I [2] = I I I I [4] — TheMadFool

I would put exactly the same but as fingers. 2 plus 2 equals 4 because we literally count it with our hands. I guess this is the best proof.

.

I = ? — Tzeentch

I guess @TheMadFool referred as sticks but it also works with counting with your own fingers. This is the most solid proof of why 2 + 2 equals 4.