I agree that there's no point in talking if people don't get the meaning of your message, it's their role to let you know if they did not get the message. They may also have misunderstood you without them knowing it and there's little you can do about this. However, I'm sure must words map to very similar meanings, I think there's little deviation on that from person to person and I put my faith on that. I think you could just lift the weight of being perfectly clear off your shoulders and give the benefit of the doubt to the people you talk to.

How can you prove you have been around that long? How can you prove you have been everywhere?

Where's consciousness generated, then?

So, I guess you're just explaining this to yourself and not the OP, right?

The brains of people in comma remain despite having lost consciousness...

Common language can't be as precise as we wisht it were, mathematics and logic get that job done instead. Also, most people (myself included) won't dive into dictionaries to grasp the official meaning of things, rather, we stick to the popular version. When I'm talking to someone I can only make sure things are as clear as if I were talking to myself, no loose ends on my part, if the person I'm talking to just doesn't get it and this person does not ask me to clarify it is not my problem. Same applies the other way around. This doesn't mean we both share the same meanings to our messages but most times, although our common undestanding is not perfect it's enough .

It's not only the words, but it's the way the words are said and what sentence they are used in. Sometimes the words themselves aren't even heard or tried to be heard when I speak them, but it's just because of how my mouth ended up making the sentence or "expression" sound that the person that I am speaking to completely misheard me, and if I try to explain how I may have misspoke then I don't end up explaining that well enough and I get stuck in a loop of feeling like the person is not understanding me while they say that they do understand and then I get anxiety and hide in my mind and in a way run away from the conversation. — Tim Martin

How are you so sure people misunderstand you to that point? Aren't they answering anything?

I second Baden on this. It took some practice for me to socialize better. When I was 17 or 18 I started taking dancing lessons and going to parties much more often. I've changed a lot since then, for good. If I don't want to get into large groups of people it's mainly because work leaves me exhausted and going out afterwards would drain my last bits of energy which is undesirable for the next work day. I still have some anxiety but it doesn't stop me from having much more fun than before.
If you don't have many responsiblities right now you may want to find hobbies were large groups of people are involved and get some practice.

I love philosophy. I just wish I weren't this lazy so I could read more about it. : (

The question has an answer which can be googled. This isn't even philosophy. — S

I usually don't ask in forums if I can google things myself. I'm clearly not satisfied by the answers on google and thought that this would need more than math to be explained. Hope that helps.

Nobody seems to have mentioned Ohm's Law which states that ...

Current flowing in a conductor is DIRECTLY PRORTIONAL to potential difference across its ends. Usually this is stated with p.d. as the subject
p.d ∝ current ....... p.d.= a constant x current ....... V= R x I

(NB With current as the subject the constant of proportionality would be 'conductance', the inverse of 'resistance')


The constant of proportionality was named after Ohm, and considered to be 'resistance'. Similarly 'current' and p.d. were named after other physicists, (Ampere and Volta)

There is NO physical theory involving a constant of proportionality relating 'apples' to 'persons' and that is the only basis of an answer to your question. — fresco

Thanks for your answer Fresco. It's quite clear.

I don't think there's a particular reason to this balance we see just the same way as there are no particular reasons to most of the things we experience. Still, I find it wonderful.

Ok, so, the Universe suddenly begins and both the momentum and position of every particle is somehow determined which allows some outer observer to know everything that will happen for the rest of the life of that universe, this outer observer is omniscient and since the human mind, which appears thousands of millions of years later can also be completely understood by this outer observer because the human brain obeys physical laws. This outer observer realized he can also predict what brains will do by determining both position and momentum of the particles in them. Some time later a human named James Clerk Maxwell is born and writes down 13 laws of electromagnetism which can boil down into four famous equations, this, of course, is no surprise for the all knowing being. In this hypothetical case, how exactly are non free will and science endeavor mutually exclusive?

I felt a sadness for this beautiful butterfly and also a very close connection to it. Was I also like it, in the wrong place at the wrong time and all my life a futile nothingness, empty and pointless? — TheMadFool

I think there's no way you can know you could really have been in the right place. Too many variables involved are also ignored by us to be sure. If it was dark and rainy when the butterfly landed on your hand then how do you know it was not the right thing to do for it to survive?

I think you're right. I was saying stuff from my point of view but I'm sure you look at the issue differently since you were closer to it. And yes, I agree that Facebook is a nebulous territory: too many points of view, maybe people trying to be heroes or something. Luckily, I haven't put myself into the situation and now I'm more sure about that because of this discussion.

Why is it disturbing that they are so public? Things like suicide need to stop being considered as taboo to be prevented more effectively. I do agree in publishing suicide prevention help, I do not agree that people commit themselves to help someone not kill himself when he or she is about to do so because most people, myself included, know little about that situation. Rather, suicide prevention telephones should be published.

Awesome poetry. Did you write it or does it belong to some other author? I would like to see more of it.

Schopenhauer1 So it seems you just want everyone to accept that dealing with stuff is actually bad. Then what ? Are you ok with thinking everything you do is shit because there could be a better world and you were not born in it? Would you still do it? If everyone thought the same way then we would either lose the will to live or stop thinking about it as bad and you would get back to the starting point.

My normative claim here is that we should not just accept this as "good" simply because it is the reality. — schopenhauer1

Then no value should be assigned to it. Doing things and dealing with others are just a feature of life. Being aware of the differences between the way we want things to be and the way they really are somehow drives both individual and social change towards minimizing the difference between that which is not as we want it to be and the ideal. This is very similar to what happens in nature : electric potential difference causes electrons to flow, pressure differences cause fluids to flow etc. but when the difference ceases to exist those flows also come to a halt and when all differences of energy of all kinds cease to exist life will also cease to exist.
In the end dealing with things may not be good or bad but if you deal with them you may get closer to this ideal world you and I want. If we actually got to create this ideal world then life may not be possible because the ideal world and the actual one are mutually exclusive. The only thing left is to improve the world for us and for the rest of the people even if that is achieved asymptotically.

Also, how screwed up is that that in order to negate someone else's negative experiences, you have to point to someone with yet worse negative experiences. — schopenhauer1

Yes. You perfectly got my point. I only compare the suffering of others to myself to realize that what I'm going through is not the great deal. However, I don't think others have the right to do the same to me nor do I do that to others.

The point is, we live in a world where we are constantly having to "do something about it". There is no way out of it. That I am saying is bad, and should be a good reason to not bring others into this state. — schopenhauer1

How can you decide having to deal with stuff is bad if there hasn't been any other way ever? This is my point when I talk about ideals. It seems bad to you because there's a completely idealized idea and then you just compare it to the real thing!

For example, people rather say, "No pain, no gain" or "what doesn't kill us makes us stronger" than say, "life is inherently flawed due to structural suffering". It is enculturated to identify with that which causes the suffering than to call it out as bad.

You know I don't agree on the inherent suffering in life but I do agree that many people identify themselves with the actual suffering and it fucking gets to my nerves because it apparently enables them to be assholes because they've gone through so much pain. It's as if they gained more dignity or something.

I cannot help but asking. What was Schoppenhauer's drive to exist? I mean, did he only survived?

in the end to do something about something is the best advice you can have as people cannot properly empathize, I guess.

This is the first thing I disagree with here. In order for you to be "thrown into the world," there has to be a you that we can do something to (namely, throwing you into the world). But there's no you outside of the world. We can't do something to an entity that doesn't exist. Your existence can't obtain until you're already in the world. — Terrapin Station

I agree with this and I would also add that parents are not to blame either as there's no way to know why you were born and not someone else.

Three things.
1) Pessimists do NOT have that much influence. Quite the opposite, there are more positive self-help, articles, and advice columns than ever before. As an experiment, start complaining about life's inherent flaws to people, and see what their reaction will be. Not joyous high fives that we are all on the same page, I'm afraid. — schopenhauer1

When I discuss about the good things in life and in people we are not on the same page either.
I think pessimism is easy because confirmation biases arise very easily as well when it comes to the bad things. In fact, there are several cognitive biases and fallacies related to pessimism. In the end we are kind of wired to look for menaces to ensure survival but this does not mean everything that resembles a threat is gonna kill us and we'll most likely be fine. You may be right about the influence of pessimism but also much self help material has dubious basis.

2) As for inherent negative- I did not mean that the "universe" is structurally negative, but human existence in the universe. I see as structurally negative as being put in a situation of always "dealing with" and being deprived at almost all times. On top of this are the contingent harms (not structural or inherent but probabilistic to each individual and their circumstance). So we have two forms of suffering or harm right there that inform us about existence. See past post about the idea of deprivationalism here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5981/schopenhauers-deprivationalism — schopenhauer1

Guess Schoppenhauer had this ideal of life which was stomped continuously to death by the reality at the time. Of course if there's an ideal you'll soon realize things are very much different. I sometimes ask myself what exactly was Schoppenhauer's drive for living. To me the solution is to think causally and realistically. If I talk about OCD I try to get to its scientific causes and realize the human brain is not necessarily perfect, it just is, it was not designed and it has problems because I had an ideal version of it but it is not like that. Without human judgement things just are and problems or things to be dealt with do not exist. On the other hand ideals have also helped improve our way of living. In science we use ideal models i.e lossless transmission lines; massless springs; 100% efficient thermal machines etc. which helped us model real systems later by using computer simulations.

3) Creating or dealing with life's challenges is exactly the type of thinking I am opposed to. Actually, ironically, this is EXACTLY the thread I am posting about right now. Check it out:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6434/the-mild-torture-of-do-something-about-it-assumptions — schopenhauer1

Very interesting topic and I answered in that thread.

I don't think that dealing with some situation is good is something we can all agree upon. Good in what sense? Good for me only, the person who has the problem? Good for everybody else but me? There was a case in Which a girl killed people because it was Monday and she hated Mondays and so she dealt with that by killing people. People will not always deal with the same issues the same way and thus a general consensus on morality will not be reached. Dealing with things personally is good to me only when there's something to deal with in the first place. Waking up, brushing my teeth, going to work is not dealing with some other problem. Those actions are not a solution to some problem and therefore I'm not dealing with anything, I'm just living life because all those activities some of the things we do when we live life as an average middle class employed human according to culture and morals which does not bother me at all. I have problems because some things are not the way I want them to be and therefore I call them problems and if I have to deal with those it may be good for me or I can just not care. In fact, problems seem to be relative to every person. Some may have the same problem but their subjective experience is completely different so now I would ask you to please explain why you think people think dealing with stuff is good? Some stuff may not be worth dealing with for some people and therefore dealing with it being good makes no sense.

There's this other point you put and I do agree with you: bringing someone to life is something that should be analyzed more exhaustively because times change and they may become less diesirable to live in over time and therefore more problems will arise. It may have nothing to do but I highly recommend you to watch Evangelion. I think it refers exactly to this point you make. In it Shingi, the main character, refuses to do lots of things and flees from what he is supposed to deal with. Most people hate him as a main character but they don't realize he has been brought to existence to deal with the consequences of human stupidity, so I really believe that in his case life is really something to be dealt with.

To conclude I'll just quote Kierkegaard.

Life is not a problem to be solved, but a reality to be experienced. Soren Kierkegaard

I like your quote by Schoppenhauer. That's exactly the way I feel about suicide. I think death in that way is seen as relief just because that's the closest thing we think we can experience but since death cannot be experimented there's no point in in thinking there's something similar to it.

I don't think life is intrinsically negative. I just think some people created that sort of metaphysics as the easiest answer to life which to me has no either quality of positiveness or negativeness. I think that accepting that life cannot be reduced to such properties is the main problem given the huge influence of pessimist thinking nowadays. Also, the fact that we actually have to build/create our own vision of life might be challenging, not to mention the fact that we might also have to change things actively is also more challenging.

You're absolutely right. I should have stick to a single activity and not both the philosophical debate and the advice but again, advice must also be followed by philosophical support which will be mostly related to ethics. A psychological backup would have to be much more specific to the person, I believe. In any case, I surely read on Google what I'm supposed to do in that case.

sorry for taking too long to answer. I'm still figuring out what being an adult is to me. I'm sure that I do want to do well and make the difference. I always try to act ethically as best as I can. I'm willing to learn, I'm willing to listen as well. I greatly value conversations and I try my best not to focus just on the outside of people. I just don't know how to transmit all that to women. To make them know me.

I don't know anyone in such circumstances but It could happen that some friend or familiar of mine wanted to commit suicide and I felt forced to do something about it.

both suicide and suicide prevention are philosophical themes to me. Suicide is a philosophical question in the sense that it is a fundamental choice between bearing some huge burden or Going for the unknown of death. Is the absence of the bad the good despite not being able to enjoy such goodness? I think that's an ethical question. There's also the psychological part but I'm even more naive in that respect. Regarding suicide prevention, that's also a philosophical question. Are you doing good to the person by trying to stop him or her from suiciding? I cannot think beyond some ethics. I would rather have the philosophical debate instead of an advice but to me they are both welcome. At the end of the day I think advice also requires philosophy as backup.

@praxis,@Shamshir, I'm sorry for not answering in a while.
yes, I've been out of my comfort zone. I dealt with both asshole teachers and asshole classmates who pretended to be my friends when I was a kid for almost ten years. Bullying was pretty common as well. I cannot think of being further from my comfort zone than then. I swore I would never be like those kind of people and I feel disgust if I ever get close to such behavior. It was a good school, nevertheless, and also got this idea of being a much better person than I was both to myself and to others. Other than that, I don't think I became stronger. In fact, When I come across assholes I have this flashback which makes me just avoid them. I may still haven't discovered other abilities developed thanks to the adversity, I don't know.
I was into meditation, I'm surely searching for the book you recommended. I've always found it hard but I'll keep trying.
I've been able to forgive some kinda serious shit for the sake of sanity but for The Grace of God, how could you forgive the Jeep incident?! I don't mean you should have not. It just sounds to me like some superpower of yours.

To me there's no point in trying to determine whether that is true or not. If they know they're lying that's their problem. I can only verify their words supported by facts. If something they say cannot be supported or debunked by facts then I can only hope it is true.

A history of the theories of aether and electricity - Sir.Edmund Whittaker

One thing that makes me sad the most about life is thinking about not being able to learn everything I want to learn because at some point I'll have to die. Learning much more than I expected from an usual lifespan would be my only reason to expand my lifespan or even life forever.

I believe metaphysics needs to be somehow detached from language analysis to be considered useful.

The wikipedia article also has a lot of links to documents and not only the information you read.

@Wallows, I have no idea of what you're going through. I don't know how I could even cope with suicidal thoughts myself. One thing is certain, nonetheless, I deeply wish you make it through, I really do. It sounds weird but posts like these were someone struggles hard to hold on to life inspire me to keep going. I try to learn as much as I can from lives that are harder than mine, just like yours. You feel you have accomplished nothing, well, achievements can be more subtle. I consider inspiring me with your strength to live one more day such an achievement and in the same way I think you can inspire others.

I'm saying energy is more than another consciousness, it is like a super-consciousness or consciousness prerequisite that can generate temporary conscious spirits in any space including mind space because it is you, everything you do can be degraded by a higher energy frequency. — Schzophr

Could you please tell us what your sources are? How are you supporting this claim?
The only energy known to humans is the one defined by and studied in physics. Energy is the capacity to do work, it is always conserved within a close thermodynamic system and that's it.

Degraded by higher energy means that, per say, the view of your face from any angle. Energy has you at all other angles and distances from each angle - and more, potentially. — Schzophr

We cannot see ourselves from any other angle (if we were looking into the mirror) even if we had mirrors facing the other angles because of our limited field of view.

I would ask, does Earth create a field of energy? — Schzophr

It is believed that the magnetic field of the earth is the result of the movement of a liquid iron core in the Earth's nucleus . Earth has also a gravitational field and objects have a potential energy which is proportional to this field and to their masses but relative to their positions and that's why only differences in potential energy are meaningful. These fields are not fields of energy, it's not known what they are really made up of.

What is vision if not a mind imprint on the atomic? — Schzophr

Physically, vision is limited to a range of wavelengths and atoms will be always smaller than the smallest wavelength, therefore we will never see an atom.
So far it is thought that the mind is the result of atomic interactions and therefore the mind cannot be embedded into a single atom.