Who would think its infinite?
Everything within the matter of the big bang is what makes our universe, but it being the only universe is another story as space itself can -for now- be infinite.

A grenade does not have infinite amount of shrapnel.

Being aware that our natural instincts underlie any rationality or superficial semblance of civilisation.
We can't kill them off - only manage to a certain extent. — Amity

There is a link to this in a way we learn, being aware of our instincts, emotions, fallacies or biases and controlling them through critical/logical thinking gives us an approach to problem solving in a rational manner.
As such it is important to learn how/why we make mistakes from a different perspective in order to filter out as many mistakes as we can from our own or other people's knowledge.
It is this study of learning or philosophical practice that I use as part of my philosophy.

If your able to detach yourself from your own perspective and observe that perspective in a unbised way you can evaluate your own arguments in a way that is like playing chess with yourself.

45% think it is necessary to have faith in a God in order to be moral. — Banno

God has nothing to do with morals, its only the religous teachings of morals that were made by humans.
I call post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Even if God exists it has no meaning to how we or any other living thing lives.

The idea of an "afterlife" sounds like a very toxic ideology to motivate someone to the point of suicidal acts from the guidance of an unethical manipulator.

Or some kind of comfort in passing.

Begins with the ideology of a solution to a problem but untill then it is war, and it is in such trying times you realise that ideology doesn't even matter in war.



A song that provokes a sense of awareness to others outside the distracting actions of life, asking do you have the love to help others?

Like telling a kid santa clause does not exist. :)

yw :D

All very good answers, I was curious to your replies since the answer can be varied.

When you start up from nothing and gain more (money or whatever) you start to appreciate it more than someone who grew up with it.
Because you have that perspective.

Having everything is a weird concept to me because I know my needs vs wants.
I would plan what my income is, consider my savings and see what measure of wants and needs is a good balance, then anything I find excessive I would look to see how I can make things better for others.
Like donating to a nuclear fusion project or other progressive research.

I agree with philosophy being ruined by bias and such as my philosophy is based in a similar with with fallacies included.

Let's take an inflammatory/racist claim such as "Chinese people are inferior to Europeans" — Andrew4Handel

This kind of claim is prone to fault because you have the obvious stereotyping or hasty generalization fallacy which is built on the assumption that everyone is consistently equal in identity or status.
The claim itself is socially biased overall and not really constructive.

My take on this:
As a reminder morals can be simplfied as: the most damaging thing is when we value a social construct or object over the lives or well beings of others.

It depends on the cultural influence of the individual, some may find it offensive and some may not, some may find what your stereotyping to be accurate and some may not.
It is for this reason that you must know the individual properly in order to know what level of stereotyping is acceptable.

I will use an example that some will find offesive at first glance but please note this to create understanding.
To clarify, I am a white guy in the UK and this is my interpritation of how I see this subject:

The word nigger has a unethical history to say the least, it has negatively influenced nearly every black person on the planet with its history and meaning.
Then you have the word nigga, a word used/popularised in black rap and gang culture with the meaning I can mostly describe as a brother of the same background.

This leads to a divide into how people wish to treat using the word nigga, black ethnicities who don't wish to make rap or gang influence apart of their culture would call it offensive.
While black ethnicities who are influenced by gang or rap culture accept the word nigga as a means to call someone brother of the same background. (in most cases)

This is why the word nigga itself to be used with all black ethinicities is stereotyping because its generalising the whole black community when there are different cultures.
This stereotyping, assumption or prejudice of culture is what can lead to dispute/arguments.

If anything they would hate us; because 90% of the time would be spent explaining it.
Especially for the closed minded.

Yah, If you have two social groups arguing over who is racist with the assumption/social bias to think their social group is racist without proof you end up with a accusational paradox of bias.

Since its an unending paradox, politicans can use it as a reason to vote for them with the aim to reduce racism.
But that is assuming politicans are aware of such things. . .

What do you mean? I agree that not everyone can be biased while also accepting that there are people who are bias.
My post has the intent to resolve a bias itself and bias only.

My views on who is or isn't biased has always been impartial, given the nature of how to determine such bias is rationaly stacked against someone who is unbaised when you, I or anyone else consider what our culture is fundamentally from an unbiased view and how social bias is influenced.

This isn't a "black or white" fallacy.

Tiberiusmoon But your general point still doesn't stand. Not everyone is biased by society. Do you not believe in individual agency? — Zenny

It does I just said how various parts humanity influence a "us vs them" ideology that is social bias which each of them can turn into a volatile or dangerous situation.
We have had religious wars, Mob fights during soccer matches, political wars.
Or an influenced decision because everyone else is doing it say a political aim, the latest/type of smart phone, dietery fad.

Ofc not everyone is biased by society but saying your not biased that is not enough to prove it, you have to understand what your culture is unbiasedly and why they are or are not biased by society.

I do believe in Individual agency, but I also believe in bias because assuming either way is social bias itself.

But your using an extreme example. And not everybody has anger issues. You are universalising behaviour. — Zenny

Yes because I have already mentioned this before and the examples are used as a general rule of my meaning not the be all and end all as that would be extensive a boaring for both of us to type it all down.

"Given that this is immoral behaviour, research into law shows there are levels of murder not just the singular level; as such the terms; implicit, explicit, and attack can be a measure of immoral behaviour."

Yep, but much like acting in a rage it can be easy to be blind to a bias (emotional bias) which gives the term: "A blind rage."

The problem with your theory is once again it makes a mockery of words,and assumes its conclusion without warrant.
What do you mean "makes a mockery of words"? they are their dictionary meaning which warrants its conclusion.(to eliminate ambiguity fallacy)
— Zenny

If everyone is socially biased then what does the word really refer to? Degrees of bias? — Zenny

Bias is just that bias-
Inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair.
inclination-
A person's natural tendency or urge to act or feel in a particular way; a disposition.

Which means bias does vary within its own meaning without the need to express it in a sentence unless used to describe multiple points.

There is no proof that people are influenced carte blanche to the point of all being biased by social influence. — Zenny

The proof being racism exists, various religious cultures value healing over medical advice, a political social group who influences an area, and any other form of ideology that influences you in an accepting way can lead to think in such a way.

So your assuming people want to change — Zenny

Nope, its to generate understanding.
The desire to change is entirely up to the person, It would be a socially biased assumption to think so.

assuming everyone has been corrupted by their culture. Any proof of either? — Zenny

Each individual and culture is different so it would also be a social bias to assume so.

The proof being your actual comment, as mentioned in my post; is your assumption that I was socially biased to assume that everyone has been corrupted and that everyone wanted change.
Which in itself demonstrates your cultural influence of social bias.
Do you see how this works?

Cool but thats not what the post is about, Its the consideration of another perspective used in critical thinking specifically not the entirety of critical thinking.

Hmm, lets start with a simplified explination fo morals: The most villainous and destructive thing you can do is value a social construct or object over the lives or wellbeings of others (or living things if you wish to broaden your context.)

If a country's leaders does not support the lives and wellbeings of its people then that is oppression.
If a country's leaders show favour to its ideology or defends it with force over its people's well being or lives then that is also oppression. (Ideology = social construct)

Ultimately it is the collective majority of a countries people that owns the country, a leader only represents it.

Religion can tell you what they feel is best for humanity.
Science can tell you what is factually best for humanity.
But Philosophy can tell you what is rationally best for humanity.

Yes. .u.
A method to share a ideology, not to force it upon others.
A way that is accepting to expand awareness or knowledge in this modern day.

Its how we grow otherwise we just get stuck in the past

I'm not talking about weapons of mass destruction. xD

I mean, it already has an email notification system.

Hmm probably need nore notification settings or something.

Probably just using "god" as a justification to a philosophy/way of living using "appeal to authority" fallacy to people who are not a bright and use exagerations or lies to get more followers. (Much like politics)

This is probably more a question to ask a neuro surgeon/neuro scientist tbh, as it is a field of knowledge we don't have.

You mean?

Usually when someone with a superior IQ is present a problem and show little to no effort in solving the problem, that can be an indicator of their intelligence.

Otherwise we talk about knowledge not IQ. — SpaceDweller

^this.

The thing is; dumb people make a habit of using assumptions, smart people minimises those assumptions.
Knowledge has next to 0 meaning to the actual value of interlect, its problem solving and awareness/control of biases and the knowledge they hold.

I can't speak for another philosophers perspective but I feel it is nessesary to study the foundations of yourself first above all other philosophies.
Because if one of the foundations of what you know maybe flawed before you took up philosophy it can create a philosophy based on flawed logic.
To put it simply: A reflective study of self is needed for all philosophers.

There is more to my view on philosophy here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11008/my-approach-to-a-philosophy-in-philosophy-and-learning

Morals are simply: The most destructive and villainous thing in our reality is valuing a social construct or object over the lives or well-beings of other living things. (self included)
So considering that philosophers can be influenced by immoral acts as much as a criminals, it goes to show what a lack of reflective study can do to a philosophers perspective.

If you refer to my original comment, the idea of choice itself being an option is down to how the individual is raised/influenced in a way that is accepting to believe in.
If they don't believe its a choice (or unreflective/ closed minded) its basically a cultural bias that favours the ideology of cultural bias itself.

So how much control you have on your beliefs depends on your upbringing and influences.

Sorry if you assumed I was biased by the examples I gave, and assumed I only read the first paragraph but thats not the case.

Fair enough. :P

Which is why a philosophical dicipline of unbias is needed.
Overcomming bias is like a habit or addiction that requires an awareness, will and time.
Thats not to say culture itself needs to be removed but the bias that influences your culture itself.
It is this awareness you can use to get out of the cave.
Kinda brings a whole new meaning to the term "Think outside the box" xD

What does a story about cultural bias have to do with being unable to solve something that is intented to be an unending discovery?

Philosophy is not to draw conclusions but to deepen understanding, which is why philosophical mysteries are never solved its like an endless digging of origin.
Even if you think you reached a conclusion there is so much more to think about.

These are some interesting approaches, but interestingly they are different. :)
I may just make a post on addressing the process learning fundamentally and consider the various methods of philosophy or other learning methods to see what transitions well.

Then discuss further. -u-

Hmm, so maybe the understanding/context of what field/perspective is a consideration within the questions/problems we try to solve.

This is a good consideration of thought process, I like this. :D