I think he is fucking with the gods here. — Hillary

:snicker:

As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods;
They kill us for their sport. — King Lear

Ok.

Ok.

What's the difference between skepticism and gaslighting?

And your point is –? — 180 Proof

Be practical-minded! Get the hell out of ivory towers!

And your question / aporia is –? — 180 Proof

I don't know! It just looked interesting to me - I can say things I can't mean and not just in a mundane way like empty promises, etc. but in an extremely violent way for minds (I can utter the impossible!)

As a spinozist, I take a dim view of Leibniz's (metaphysical) superstitions. — 180 Proof

:ok: How would you describe Leibniz? Too...

Another philosophical suicide (aka "pussy"). Better a slave " :pray: " than a fugitive, is that it, Smith? — 180 Proof

:grin: When you put it that way, it's quite embarrassing to go the Deputy U.S. Marshal Edward "Teddy" Daniels (Shutter Island) way. However, if we, once in a while, give up the manliness fetish all males "suffer" from, maybe we can gain a deeper insight into such matters? What say you?

agree. Nothing in my reference to reason alludes to (narrow) 'logico-mathematical rationality'; my conception is close to the (broad) "sense-making" of e.g. Peirce-Dewey pragmatism. — 180 Proof

The area of a square is 4 cm². What is the length of its sides?

$x^2 = 4. \therefore x = \pm\sqrt 4 = \pm 2$

$-2$ is what we call an extraneous solution. Lengths can't be negative, this "solution" is of no practical significance.

I'm not a follower of any religion. I don't see things the way you do. For me, the reason for existence is a human question that only has human answers. — T Clark

:fire:

What, precisely, is wrong with masturbating in public that is not wrong in private? — Possibility

Most interesting! — Ms. Marple

So, public onanism was simply Diogenes asking a question (on social norms)?

Diogenes is Socrates gone mad. — Plato

Reminds me of so-called divine madmen (theia mania).

Take The Socratic Method (mental masturbation), take it up/down (can't tell) a notch and you end up with The Diogenes Method (physical masturbation)!

:chin:

mistakes — Jack Cummins

Food for thought: We humans are mistakes (re random gene mutations)! Intriguing, si?

Bullshit is "speech intended to persuade without regard for truth. — Moses

Bullshit = Rhetoric then?!

Maybe there's a very good reason for why we all bullshit so much. Like authentic bullshit (manure), it may act as a fertilzer for good memes, helping 'em blossom! :chin:

My garden of meme-complexes is looking fab. Thanks to my own and others' bullshit! :grin:

The look but don't touch policy adopted by some springs to mind!

The age-old subjectivity vs. objectivity debate pops up every now and then.

Here's food for thought. It appears, as far as I can tell, that the brain/mind is, intriguingly, anti-subjectivity. Why? For the simple reason that it doesn't allow total perceptual experience of imagined entities; for instance, I can conjure up an image of a unicorn in my mind (imagination seems restricted or more developed in re the visual system), but the other senses don't join in i.e. I can't smell a unicorn, hear it or touch it. It kinda makes evolutionary sense because, for survival, objectivity is a sine qua non. We can't go running around the savannah tripping like a junkie - we'd end up as a lion's lunch in a flash. :grin:

On self-fulfilling prophecies and god prophets.

@Gnomon

We could, you know, define information as pre-Shannon and post-Shannon.

1. Pre-Shannon: Vague, unquantified, concrete (easily graspable)

2. Post-Shannon: Precise, quantified, abstract (not easy to get a handle on)

Please modify the categories as you see fit.

If it falls short of the mark, apologies. It was my best shot.

Shutter Island (2010) [The protagonist, played by none other than Leonardo DiCaprio, is lobotomized for (feigned) intractable psychosis]

I'd rather lose my mind (theism/psychosis) than live with the awful truth (atheism/dystheism)! :chin:

ok — Jackson

:ok:

Please explain. Atheism causes suffering? — Jackson

(No) help is on its way! I'm on my own!

Ok!

PS___You can call me Mr. Sir — Gnomon

:grin: Ok Mr. Sir!

I bookmarked your site for later!

It is a mystery to me why anyone believes in a benevolent God — Jackson

I have my fair share of problems and I do pray for help. No divine grace has come my way. I tell myself "He must have more important issues to deal with (He's busy)" rather than "God probably doesn't exist."

My dilemma: Psychosis (theism) or Suffering (atheism). Sic vita est. Well, at least I have choices! :grin:

The only deity consistent with a world (it purportedly created and sustains) ravaged by natural disasters, man-made catastrophes & self-inflicted interpersonal suffering is either a Sadist or a fiction – neither of which are worthy of worship. — 180 Proof

:up: Makes sense but I may have commited the false dichotomy fallacy, no? Sadist OR Fiction OR... (say) Divine Retribution for collective sins OR...possibilites we haven't conisdered. An attempt to save the phenomena (keep a benevolent, all-powerful, all-knowing god intact).

I'm stoked as it were that (divine) sadism is indistinguishable from (divine) nonexistence (sadist or fiction). It seems to have a disturbing implication if we taks into account the fact the Leibniz thought our minds were little gods [re zinloos geweld (senseless violence) & Kantian ethics (immorality is a contradiction)]

What sayesr thou?

The points you raised reminds me of the maxim a theory that explains everything explains nothing. I dunno!

Very many did lose their faith and the enormous cultural or secular Jewish diaspora is, in part, testament to this. — Tom Storm

I see. The mission is not to restore the faith of the Jews in God but in humanity. We all know we're deeply flawed beings, piety is a struggle against our nature. Like I told my son, even if you can't be good, do try. You get points for trying!

Don't overdo it... — Hillary

Aurea mediocritas, nec quid nimis!

Thank you all for your interesting posts! Good day!

I edited the title. Thanks for the heads up!

he will happily destroy the Israelites — Moses

:sad:

allowed — 180 Proof

Also commanded...crimes against humanity! :groan:

Then, either God exists not or God is evil! :sad:

Life without choice may survive (i.e. slavery). Life with choice however thrives (i.e. agency). And choice without life is 'life insurance' (i.e. policy). Not "more important" but choice makes living significant. :death: — 180 Proof

Life sans choice is pointless!

Choice sans life is nonsense!

We're screwed, thoroughly I might add.

The Jews suffered, yes, not by the hands of god, but by the hands of man. Homo homini lupus. :groan:

Life, aah life, it is its own worst enemy! We could do better, right/wrong?

Going by the way the two sides of the abortion debate have decided to call themselves, pro-choice and pro-life, I'd say the anti-abortion brigade wins hands down. It's life (damn it!) vs. (mere) choice. Is choice more important than life? A silly question, oui?

ahimsa — 180 Proof

Thanks for the helpful reminder! I owe you one, 180 Proof.

Gracias. I have a fair grasp of what you're getting at señor/señorita. I'm quite satisfied what I (think I) know of your system.

Possibility space.

1. p: p
2. ~p: Not p
3. p & ~p: both p AND Not p.
4. ~(p v ~p): Neither p Nor Not p.

Ghosts don't exist. Yet, alone, in a dark room, if you're the type, you experience the full gamut of emotions that would be evoked if ghosts were real! Interaction problem! :snicker:

the energy sources for AI (the Matrix). — Harry Hindu

Prey animals are batteries for predators.

The Tao that can be Named is Not the Eternal Tao

I'm, well, speechless! :chin:

I want more emoticons! Please, pretty please!

Feel free to expand on that. :smile: — ZzzoneiroCosm

I'd rather not! Thank you for asking.

Wow!

One question (a foolish one probably)

First of all, there's a very "good reason" (???) why there's so much friction/conflict/bad blood in the world, philosophy is no exception. That "good reason" (???) is the law of noncontradiction. Given two opposing views - one affirmation and the other its negation - it "cannot be" that both are true! All this, of course, in what I call classical logic.

Hence, from where I stand, your BothAnd principle has to either modify/discard/other the law of noncontradiction. What do, or rather what did, you do to the law of noncontradiction?

amorality — ZzzoneiroCosm

Aristotle's potential-actual distinction seems important.

smoking in a closed room with other people — L'éléphant

Mea culpa! A thousand apologies.

. — whollyrolling

:fire: