I really enjoy chatting with different folks but not with people who believe that they know and it's their job to spread the word. That gets old really quickly (which is my main beef with people on the left). Ideology aside, leftists really believe they are right! — synthesis

Am I one of those people who "believe that they know and it's their job to spread the word?" You're the one who started this thread. You're the one spreading the word. You're the one who seems to know you are right. I have only responded to question some of the things you wrote. I gave very specific examples. I think I expressed my thoughts clearly. What's your beef?

words don't show up to give that feeling a verbal dress. — No One

I said you wouldn't like it.

haha , why is that? come on , a short answer maybe? — No One

Ow, ow, stop twisting my arm. Ok, ok, but you're not going to like it. What is my true nature? I know it when I see it.

Why is it when a fair number of people on this forum disagree in a conversation, they assume that it must be the other person's fault? — synthesis

In my last post, I tried to be careful not to place the fault on either of us.

What are True Natures — No One

Good question, but there's no way you can make me answer it.

I think you and I are talking around in circles. Talking about words. We've probably taken this as far as we can for now.

Underlying purposes of all goals of all humans is to achieve happiness. So according to Lao Tzu this is the best way to achieve happiness. — No One

Lao Tzu is kind of down on achievement of any sort. For me, happiness, to the extent that it is anything, is acting in accordance with our true natures.

Maybe I'm heading in a direction that is not where you had in mind. I don't want to distract from your goal in this discussion.

I am glad that you have raised the topic of the subconscious because I do feel that many discussions about consciousness don't go into enough focus on the subconscious. — Jack Cummins

On the other hand, I don't think things going on in the subconscious or unconscious become thoughts until they rise into consciousness. Now, after our previous discussions, I'm realizing I have to be careful to use the right word. The definition of consciousness I'm using is "non-verbal sentience or awareness of internal and external existence." Oh, no! Then what does it become when I put it into words? I don't want to start that conversation over again.

So, I am asking what does thought tell us about the nature of personal identity and about the underlying source of consciousness? Do thoughts help to explain the nature of consciousness? — Jack Cummins

"Thoughts" is the name we give to our inner experience when we have to put it into words to communicate with another person. Turns out when we do that, we also start communicating with ourselves, which is probably one of the definitions of consciousness or self-awareness we have recently discussed. To meet the requirements of language, we have to take something which is amorphous and non-linear and break it into defined pieces placed some sort of linear order.

Do you agree that , there are some goals that are good for you than some other goals.... — No One

The best goal is no goal. Act from your heart and go where that takes you. Lao Tzu says:

The Master, by residing in the Tao,
sets an example for all beings.
Because he doesn't display himself,
people can see his light.
Because he has nothing to prove,
people can trust his words.
Because he doesn't know who he is,
people recognize themselves in him.
Because he has no goal in mind,
everything he does succeeds.

Lao Tzu is my man.

The constant social change didn't begin till the industrial age really. Where it will end up no one knows (or so I flatter myself who hasn't figured it out yet). — EricL

Welcome to the forum. You write well and have interesting things to say. I hope you'll hang around for a while.

As an example, there were many "peaceful" protesters that saw fit to destroy other people's person and property last summer. — synthesis

It bothered me that violent vandals and looters were not held legally accountable for their actions. We agree on that, but it doesn't have anything to do with rights.

If you are exercising your rights, you must do it in a fashion where you are not infringing on others' rights. This is a fairly basic concept. — synthesis

It's impossible for us to live our lives without sometimes coming into conflict with other people doing the same thing. Yes, we should behave responsibly, fairly. Again, that doesn't have anything to do with rights.

Where some see coincidence others see consequence. Seriously though, they probably helped to simulate interesting and good quality topics. — praxis

I've generally tried to be supportive of moderator's decisions, with a couple of exceptions. All and all, I think they do a pretty good job. Also, as I noted, the moderators often have interesting things to say in their own right. It seems like they've backed off from that some.

Yes, pragmatism; good thing. — Bitter Crank

Turns out I can read "The Metaphysical Club" free on Kindle Unlimited. Yay.

From "I don't like Mondays" by the Boomtown Rats.

The silicon chip inside her head
Gets switched to overload
And nobody's gonna go to school today
She's gonna make them stay at home
And daddy doesn't understand it
He always said she was good as gold
And he can see no reasons
'Cause there are no reasons
What reason do you need to be shown?

Also makes a philosophical case against the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

It's interesting that property is not listed, and yet at the time the document was written, property was secured by governments even where it meant that the other inalienable rights were alienated. — Echarmion

The US's Declaration of Independence was a statement of general principle. A few years later, the US Constitution came along and provided a more specific, legally binding list. Among those is a right to protect against deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

To this day your rights to life, liberty and especially the pursuit of happiness are sharply circumscribed by the state's protection of property. — Echarmion

A good case can be made that the pursuit of happiness is not possible without protection of property.

Tramsofrm people's mindset to Logic!! With its actions to push people think logically and make them understand that this is a total selfish thing to do for their own profit at the end! To fight hyprocrisis — dimosthenis9

As the captain of the Titanic, the engineers at Fukushima, and Karl Marx all said "What could possibly go wrong?"

How wonderful to have people like you who can set others straight. — synthesis

Aw, shucks.

With rights come responsibility. — synthesis

Let's forget for a moment that "unalienable" means you get them even if you don't deserve them. Which of the rights on the list would you withhold from people who don't meet your standards?

What should be the primary purpose of a government? — Marigold23

Easy peasy:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

I've quoted the Declaration of Independence twice today and Randy Newman once. Who says I'm not erudate, eridute... smart.

This is the bible story that, even more than Job, popularises atheism. — unenlightened

You go with Bob, I'll go with Randy:

I burn down your cities - how blind you must be
I take from you your children and you say how blessed are we
You all must be crazy to put your faith in me
That's why I love mankind
You really need me
That's why I love mankind

There should be one word in the English language for rights and responsibilities because they are a package deal. — synthesis

I wasn't going to respond to one more of your half-assed, claptrap, mean-spirited, "why, when I was a boy," social/political rants. I was hoping it would die out. Since it hasn't, I'll respond.

No, that's not how rights work. Let's make a list (with some overlap):

General (US Declaration of Independence)

• Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

Civil rights (US Constitution)

• Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition
• Right to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a well regulated militia
• Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures
• Right to due process of law, freedom from self-incrimination, double jeopardy
• Right to a speedy and public trial
• Right of trial by jury
• Freedom from excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishments
• Freedom from slavery and indentured servitude

Human rights (UN Declaration of Human Rights)

• Right to life, liberty and security of person
• Freedom from slavery or servitude
• Freedom from torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
• Right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal
• Right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial
• Freedom from arbitrary interference with privacy, family, home or correspondence
• Freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state
• Right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country
• Right to marry and to found a family
• Right to own property
• Right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion
• Freedom of opinion and expression
• Peaceful assembly and association
• Right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work
• Right to education

As much as you might like it to be otherwise, these rights apply to everyone, whether you think they deserve them or not.

I think you should just go with the flow for the next year or two at least, Daniel. Let's face it, your intellectual life is currently a dog's vomit and your philosophical consciousness is a toilet. One thing that even the cat at home knows is that you won't find any magic answers in Athens or anywhere else, because enlightenment comes from within, if indeed it ever comes. — alan1000

Graceless.

Whether or not there are "magic answers," I've known quite a few people who were led through the dark with the help of Athens, enlightenment Europe, and ancient China.

He has always been our Marxist rabble rouser with the credentials and experience to stand behind it — T Clark

I lately haven't been as interested in rousing the rabble on behalf of Uncle Karl as I used to be. Old age, I suppose. I haven't felt the desire to participate in discussions as much as I used to. Old age, I suppose. Hey -- now that I have it, old age is a good excuse for doing and not doing all sorts of things. — Bitter Crank

I hope you know I wrote what I wrote with affection and respect.

"The Metaphysical Club" sounds interesting. If I keep calling myself a pragmatist, I should read more pragmatists.

Things changed for me when @TimeLine left. She added a lot of energy to the forum. I told her she was pugnacious and she took it as a complement, which was how I meant it. No one has called @Hanover a lesbian for years. She was a Patrick Stewart denier. That bald guy was Jean Luc Picard and only Jean Luc Picard.

Because her leaving was so ugly, the moderators moved the Shoutbox out of the mainline discussions and into the Lounge. That took a lot of energy out too. It was the place where everyone got together to gossip and complain and it showed up on the front page. Now, most people don't even look at it. It goes for days without a comment. I understand why the moderators moved it. They thought there was too much disruption, and they were right. Still, it took some of the life out of the forum.

Whatever the reason, some people have backed off a lot. They still comment from time to time, but less often. @StreetlightX and @fdrake don't comment nearly as much as they used to. I think @apokrisis is still around somewhere, but he hardly ever comments. They, along with TimeLine were strong voices for science from astrophysics to genetics to statistics. Now we're left with a bunch of half-assed, dipshit, pitiful pseudo-science. Yes, I'm talking about you.

There are other voices that have slipped into the background more. @ArguingWAristotleTiff is still around but sticks mostly to the Lounge. @Bitter Crank still comments but less. He has always been our Marxist rabble rouser with the credentials and experience to stand behind it. @Noble Dust is still around, but he only comes out when I say something bad about @Phillip K. Dick. And yes, I miss @S.

I'm not sure, but I think a lot of the moderators have stopped commenting as much. Comments about moderation have dropped off. In general, some of the spirit has gone out of the forum. I think some of the quality of the discussions has gone down too. I still love the forum.

For a while I felt like I'd said everything I had to say, but I've found some new things to be interested in.

@Tiberiusmoon

defeasible — 180 Proof

And it's a place to learn interesting and useful new words.

I'm hoping someone would be willing to offer some tips on comprehending and critically engaging philosophy, not the history, but the theory and development. — Mark Sparks

Try "Sophie's World." It's a novel about a young girl learning about philosophy. It's aimed at a very general audience, but it has some substance.

You can find my recording of it here. — thewonder

When I have some things I like, I sometimes start a thread in the Lounge. My old ones include Philosophy Joke of the Day, Beautiful Things, Almost Famous Things, Philosophical Poems. My current one is My Favorite Metaphors. You could start one for your own poems, yours and others forum members, or poems in general. That way it would only take up one discussion.

Some of these threads have petered out quickly, but some have been my favorite threads on the forum.

”This City is so horrible that its mere existence and perdurance, though in the midst of a secret desert, contaminates the past and the future and in some way even jeopardizes the stars. As long as it lasts, no one in the world can be strong or happy. I do not want to describe it; a chaos of heterogeneous words, the body of a tiger or a bull in which teeth, organs and heads monstrously pullulate in mutual conjunction and hatred can (perhaps) be approximate images.” — Narrator, The Immortal by Jorge Luis Borges

Yeah, that's a good one. All bright and cheery and stuff.

Far away in the heavenly abode of the great god Indra, there is a wonderful net which has been hung by some cunning artificer in such a manner that it stretches out infinitely in all directions. — Francis H. Cook

It's another wonderful passage, but I wondered why you called it a metaphor. Then I looked up "Net of Indra." Boy, your metaphors are much more intense than mine. Lots of neat images on Google.

One day, I'm going to need to say this, and hopefully, if my memory won't fail me, I'll simply quote you! — TheMadFool

Or, you could say "I'm your huckleberry."

Now that being said, secondly, maybe we can agree that, since the goal may be different, we can not judge inductive reasoning by the bar you presume. Can we simply say that there is better and worse reasoning? That generalizing without examples, taking everything to be like one thing, etc., is just doing a poor job of inductive reasoning? — Antony Nickles

Your presentation is really clear and well thought out.

They show that their conclusión is probably true (for practical purposes). Of course one may doubt that through sceptical arguments like the problem of induction, but nobody can go through their normal everyday life without acting as if some beliefs were more likely to be true than others, using induction. This does not apply to most other beliefs “justified” by circular reasoning or some fallacy such as appeal to authority, or ad populum. — Amalac

Well thought through. And I agree. The so called "problem of induction" has always seemed like pompous nitpicking.

My mother laughs when I speak about paper books, and there are many people who don't wish to use anything other than paper books. — Jack Cummins

A few months ago, I was reading a paper book after not having read one for a while. I came across a word I wasn't familiar with and pushed on the page with my finger to get the definition.

I am also aware of some people who keep books more as objects on shelves than to read them, although this seems a bit odd to me. — Jack Cummins

I get a lot of the Kindle books I read from the library or Kindle Unlimited. If I come across a book I really like, I sometimes will buy a paper copy to keep. That's mostly because I want to thank the author, although I do like the look of a bookshelf with lots of books on it.

But, I do believe that Kindles are a revolution in reading, especially being able to carry around a whole library, unlike carrying heavy books. — Jack Cummins

The really important thing for me is the ease of looking up information directly on the page. Also - I don't use a Kindle. I read on my cell phone. It's always with me.

That's a good Woody Allen joke, by the way. — thewonder

I'll tell Woody you said so.

The last line of "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" by James Joyce:

Welcome, O life! I go to encounter for the millionth time the reality of experience and to forge in the smithy of my soul the uncreated conscience of my race… Old father, old artificer, stand me now and ever in good stead.

You were insinuating that I was a waffle, which is clearly an insult.

Found in the forum wild, in reply to Banno.

Glorious. — StreetlightX

Apropos the subject of waffles and this particular discussion, here is the Waffle House philosophy:

Waffle House's philosophy is to aim “to deliver a unique experience to our customers through delivering great food, friendly, attentive service, excellent price and a welcoming presence”.

I think that reading at an exceptional rate lets you pick out certain concepts to create an understanding of rather quickly. It teaches you how to be quick witted and inventive. The experience, however, is somewhat manic. — thewonder

Woody Allen has a joke:

I took a course in speed reading. Now I can read "War and Peace" in 20 minutes. It involves Russia.

I think that the diverse areas of psychoanalysis are fascinating. — Jack Cummins

Are you familiar with Christopher Lasch. He was a very good writer on social and political philosophy. He came at social issues from a psychoanalytic perspective.

I, now, tend to read texts fairly slow with kind of a lot of deliberation. — thewonder

I have found that reading a book on Kindle has made a big difference in the depth of my reading. Being able to get the definition of a word or name or look it up on the web, Wikipedia, or Google Earth has really helped make my reading more satisfying. I sometimes find myself going off on a tangent for 15 minutes before I finally get back to the text. I have a hard time reading paper books these days. I always miss the access to background information.