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.

And just as those physical sciences have over time largely supplanted religious authority in the educational social role, so too I hold that these ethical sciences should in time supplant state authority in the governmental social role, as I will elaborate upon in a later thread. — Pfhorrest

I wish we can see it one day. We already did the first step of supplanting science and ethics instead of religion/clergy authority. This is the begging to at least starting to finally coming back to Greek or Roman education system (the best I ever heard of).
To be honest with you I do not believe in the State and the governors but yes somehow we need it because we have the risk of living like a jungle without authority... nevertheless I have a sceptical view on governance because they do whatever to climb in the top of the power instead of point equally principles to all the citizens. I guess it is the truest representation of natural selfishness or competitiveness.
But, implanting a ethics role or principle in our society not only will stop governors but we will finally reach happiness. A rare gift demanded in society. We live in a paradox of modern success where the people know how to get a job because the State says so but they don’t know how to be happy... interesting.

Philosophers (at least in Ancient Greece) wanted two important things with the power of arguments: ethics and happiness.
Nevertheless, the real life that is like a jungle, only wins the argument from the power doesn’t matter if it is empty.

can one say they are indifferent? — Warren

If you are referred tho this quote as all of those who don’t want follow the masses in the modern era or post modern era, yes I guess there are a lot of people which can say they act indifferent towards modernity because they don’t like it all or they don’t want to.
Perhaps that’s they key of being indifferent.

Martin Heidegger — Pantagruel

If you don’t mind I want recommend you an interesting book called Heidegger and a hippo walk through those pearly gates. by Thomas Cathcart and Daniel M. Klein.
It is about the role of death in a philosophical point of view.

1. The first duty of a state is to defend (militarily?) its citizens. — John Davis

They first duty of a state should be provide employment and food to their citizens.

In my view this has improved somewhat: at least when Turkey opened it's borders (just prior the Covid outbreak last year) for the next influx of migrants, Greece shut the border down and the EU stood behind the country — ssu

the big problem in my view is Libya. Morocco, Algeria and Tunis can somehow co-operate with the EU (with a lot of haggling, yes), but the failed state of Libya is the real problem. Or if Algeria or Morocco descends into anarchy, which wouldn't be nice. — ssu

Turkey when they want can be a really developed country. I guess when Erdogan opens up their frontier is just to be cocky with EU and trying to make them remember how important is Turkey in the geopolitical context. They are literally the open door for all Asia but somehow they usually act shitty towards Greece and this is not worthy at all because EU will be always in the Greece’s side.
But... this is not the same as you explained previously when you have in the frontier countries as Morocco or Libya. They give up in democracy and diplomacy. I guess for Mohammed VI it is successful mocking Spain or Portugal with a lot of people and then diving the whole country. The Spanish police officers make the best they can against all the immigrants. I guess open so free the doors isn’t the solution at all... this is why I don’t understand when some European countries try to be “multicultural” when they already live in a bubble called social welfare state

Don't try to build something that won't be, which won't work and be happy on what you have. Start from admitting that EU is basically a confederation of independent states, not an union controlled by a center. — ssu

I don’t even see EU as a confederation. I only see it as big bank which helps the franco-german axis.

If the population is hungry is due to the Prince devours excessive sums.
If the population is reluctant is due to the Prince acts too.
If the population exposes themselves to the death is due to they love too much the life.
The one who doesn’t make anything to live, is more savant than the one who is concerned to live.

Verse 75.

Dissatisfaction drives Humanity. — New2K2

Perfect point. Also the nature is humans is being so selfish. They will never been fulfilled because humans don’t know how we can be fulfilled. That’s why we call it “desires” because it is something in our stimulus perception of selfishness.
Probably some people barely can afford food each month but they desire a Play Station or a brand new mobile. It is selfish. When they would get those then they would want a new house, etc...
It is impossible for the human’s desires to be fulfilled.

And for countries like Portugal and Spain, they don't care about Russia at all, especially when you have such problematic neighbors on the North African side of the Mediterranean — ssu

Thanks for understanding us. Yes, we have a big problem in the North African countries, specially Morocco and Libia. Nobody deserves die in middle of the sea trying to do something or go to Spain/Italy. Their governments are so corrupt that make a lot of mafias which literally traffic with citizens and in the most cases they will end up dying in the Mediterranean Sea...
This is why is so funny when some Nordic countries say to Spain, Portugal, Greece and Italy that “we must have more solidarity” really? But how? It is a complex situation having this kind of dangerous frontiers.
So yes, seeing this issue for me as a Spaniard, Russia is not a big problem for my country or Europe despite as you perfectly said it is impossible to reach a collaboration of how the history shows us the rivalry between EU and Russia because as you say:

the EU has big problems to create a coherent Russia policy. This also is a prime example why the EU being the US of Europe simply doesn't work. — ssu

No. Exactly. EU being US will never work towards Russia policies...

Interesting.. what would that look like? — schopenhauer1

It could be as a legal document full of conditions where somehow the State would be part of it as an insurance so if the parents completely make the life of the kid so hard the State or justice can help him/her.
For example, the family is broken. Then, the kid is born despite their parents signed the paper. Later on, the public service could take part of it providing a good education or at least not leaving the kid in abandonment stigma

people can't even remember to use a condom but you want them to read the fine print of a legal document — darthbarracuda

Well but with this legal document we can create something like an insurance to those kids whose parents are not responsible enough.

Third, they wouldn’t sign it. — NOS4A2

They wouldn’t sign it then they are not ready/qualify to have kids.

Interesting. But I have a few questions.

parent had to sign a statement that said — schopenhauer1

Who would control this? A judge or notary? Also imagine they have kids without signing this statement.. which kind of punishment we should consider? Jail or compensation with interests?

Back again to your question I will say yes. It probably would prevent a lot of births because most of the people tend to have kids without consideration or responsibility. They just don’t care about what can happen to the kid. They are not responsable for the new human being created. Probably if somehow we can read this statement to them they would reconsider it and think more deeply about the topic and circumstances.

cannot be timeless, one of your starting points is necessarily the assumption that time and space came into existence by chance. — Tombob

Probably. It could be as you explained to me. But all of these terms are just human creations. Universe was and will be there despite human existence. We just established some criteria to understand what is around us. Something like time and space are so abstract if we compare it with universe. For example, when NASA says a random star could be 1,000 years of distance is just an order we put. That star was there in the vast universe and will be. It doesn’t matter at all the time/space but humans need it to understand all this complexity.
Here, the finite are the humans. The infinite the universe.

the idea on why time and space exists — Tombob

Time and space exists because we humans need to put an order inside our chaos. These are complex and abstract concepts. Living a life without both time and space would be very difficult because we are used to live like this since we are born. I don’t know if it is good or flawed how we see the time and space considering how vast the Cosmos is (amazing).

If everything originates from an infinite state: everything that has existed, exists and will exist has always existed. This leads to the universe being deterministic. — Tombob

True. It is completely determinism. But I would like to debate with you if “everything” as you say could be timeless. I guess this another character we just give to “everything”. It always been there and will be. Our time perception passes but inside everything don’t because it is like an omnipresence subterfuge. Universe will be still there during the centuries. We the humans will not. We are the deterministic ones.

what has your thoughts been around this time of life, being the 30's? Was it a difficult time for you or just kind of finding your place in society by then and getting along with it? My 20's were really the worst period of my life.

@Shawn

I am 23 years old (well I am close to 24 because my birthday is the next month). Some people say I sound like an "adult" when I say that I no longer have ideals or beliefs in the long run. I just work/study trying to get a properly life without employment problems or whatever, but I gave up trying to find a place in the society since I was 18 because I don't believe in communities neither zoo politikon or families (probably I am quite anarchic or Bakuninst).
Fortunately I can say my early 20's are going "good" and I don't think they are worse than others. Nevertheless I never had a good era thinking about it deeply. As teenager everything sucked but my adulthood is not going as good as I expected. Probably this is the problem. A lot of expectations instead of having the feet in reality.

I've always said that there was a brief window of opportunity when Russia could indeed have been open to join the West,

As you said one of the big fails was giving the rule of West to politicians that were so mediocrities like Bush senior. But what is pretty interesting here is how Russia is still dominant in Europe. I think their role is very important despite they are not members of the EU. I guess they do not even need it. Russia has a lot of supplies like oil which are needed it in Europe so I think it is actually EU who depends a lot from Russia. Also their geographical scenario where has frontiers in Europe and Asia. I wish a EU more connected with Russia or Kremlin but it looks like hard to reach it and each European country can only make business or diplomatic affairs with Russia by their own. Back in the day one of the governors of my country, Jose María Aznar, made an agreement with Putin about householder which wanted buy some properties along the Spanish beaches trying to promote the Russian investment. I think they did it good because there are a lot of russians who bought those (fortunately, we not only have European market...)

Who better to promote communism than those never haven seen or experienced it.

True. Here in Spain we never experienced communism but there a lot of people angry with the monarchy and system so they think is a necessity implant communism or at least change the State into a socialist criteria...

Perhaps, I am spending too much time thinking... — Jack Cummins

When you are thinking you are not spending time :) I also spend time thinking in my existence and another circumstances which are around me. Your topic is interesting because it makes us to admit we don’t certainly know what is afterwards. Probably when some philosophers as Nietzsche said “God has dead” is referred to there is nothing after death.
Another perception I usually think which is connected to this one is the time itself. Life can be long and short at the same time. It scares me a little bit how slowly we are driving to this subterfuge of what the futures holds when the life passes away.

Yes. This kind of love is flawed. Then, it also depends in which person we are talking about. Love is so abstract than there are people who will never experienced it. This is why I want to point out that probably love is like a lottery. Those who win the abstract concept of believing in love is amazing and unique.
Probably this is the reason why I do not believe in love. I felt hurt and pain. I don’t want experience that trauma again in my life. Personal decision