• Marvin Katz
    96
    There are 4 kinds of people:

    a) Genuinely good
    b) Forced to be good (police presence)
    c) Genuinely bad
    d) Coerced to be bad (blackmail)
    Agent Smith

    I want to thank you profusely, Agent Smith, since this little model you offer us is exactly what I'm talking about when I ask Forum members and participants to help me build a better Ethics Theory!!!!
    So many, many thanks, danke shoen, merci bien, mucho y mas gracias for cooperating in the project to get us closer to living in an ethical world. Let the critics call us "utopian," "idealist," or some other smear/ We shall go on building a superior model for comprehending, and for living up to, Ethics.

    Would you be so kind as to explain in more detail that Type d. Why does one who once did something morally-a-bit questionable, and is now being blackmailed lest it be exposed have to continue be classified as "bad"?? What is the "coercion" to make x still conduct himself badly? Please enlighten me on that point.
    Also, would you go so far as to claim that most people on the planet fall into Type b: those who behave ethically from fear of the consequences for having violated some statute on the books? I run into people who somewhat dogmatically insist that that is so.
    I hold that an empirical survey would reveal that most people are Type a.

    Actually the people I am trying to reach to learn the new approach to Ethics are those who consider themselves to be ethical but yet could even grow morally, develop further, improve their focus, get organized, until they become vital shining examples - great living models of ethical behavior who tirelessly work to make things better!
  • Agent Smith
    7.6k
    @Marvin Katz

    The classification I've offered is based on actions/deeds (what one does) with respect to the presence/absence of any compulsion.

    a) Genuinely good (good actions, compulsion absent)
    b) Forced good (good actions, compulsion present e.g. police)
    c) Genuinely bad (bad actions, compulsion absent)
    d) Coerced bad (bad actions, compulsion present e.g. blackmail)

    Another way of categorizing the above 4 types would be as follows (based on intentions - what one wants to do)

    1) Good
    a) Genuinely good
    b) Coerced bad

    2) Bad
    c) Genuinely bad
    d) Forced good

    The idea it seems is to make sure some bad folks are checked (d) while we liberate good folks (b) from the clutches of evil :snicker: . This is the job of law enforcement.
  • Marvin Katz
    96
    Agent, I don't quite understand this categorization yet. It seems like its suggestive though but needs further refinement and more research. I'll tell you why I say that:

    Some who have bad characters are phonies; they lack authenticity. Others are predators. Human predators have genuinely bad characters due to biological factors. Those with brain damage of various sorts, and these distinct types need to be eventually delineated, in order for the theory to be comprehensive. [No doubt some psychiatric manuals already do this.] For example, somee may get violent if you speak to them asking them if they want to do something which they believe is beyond their capacity to do. If you are close by they will slap you in the face as their way of communicating. Is it right to dub them "genuinely bad"? Or is it merelly some form of the intermittent, explosive outbursts disorder - which the Mayo Clinic treats with psychotherapy and medication? Others may have differing kinds of severe personality disorders ...such as extreme narcissism, inability to admit to a mistake, or to having done wrong, an authoritarian streak (a need to boss others), a delusion of being above the law, or an ongoing feeling of superiority (looking down on we commoners.) Tthere are many other sorts of deviants out there.

    In the previous paragraph I have been discussing the concept "bad character." That is what we call it in the new paradigm for Ethics. I recently learned - thanks to Josh Alfred - that a writer named Peter Joseph speaks of this type as the 'unpersons.' He describes them as "those who embody the evidence of our grand social failure." I take it that he refers to how these bad guys wer brought up by their parents and/or foster-parents; how society conditioned them to become preitors; how the existing economic structures influenced them to be crass opportunists; or to believe that "the end justifies the means; to be profit seekers, or greedy, or selfish, deceitful, brutish, etc.
    He does offer an alternative in his latest book: a post-scarcity society that manages to keep waste to a minimum, produces goods not to sell them but because people need them.

    Another problem, Agent, is your category (d). Are we to assume that all those who 'toe the line' in order to avoid possibly being punished if caught 'crossing the line' - are "bad people"?

    Occasional bad conduct done by good people may often occur. Then there is the issue of akrasia, giving into temptation once in a while- or regularly. People have multiple personalities: at times they are risk takers; other times they wouldn't dream of taking such gambles! Yes, people are complicated. Or is it a matter of habit formation? How to do this well, how to form new and better habits -- along with the rest of Ethics --- needs to be taught in classrooms, starting, at least, in the 4th grade and above.

    Caring is fundamental. Does one care enough to reform once he knows better? It depends upon how much self-respect he has. How highly does he value himself? Ethics indicates he is Intrinsically-value everyone including himself. Once he does learn his Ethics, then if he has enough self-respect he WILL care! Those who know their Ethics are fine when it comes to caring and sharing.

    This model seems to me at first glance to be highly inadequate; pardon me for saying so. I am grateful to you for contributing models like this, though: it is a highly-constructive thing to do. Keep it up!

    Let's continue the dialogue ...everybody.....
  • Tom Storm
    5k
    It seems as if you have a position that there is an intrinsic human nature which can be understood through comparison with the behavior of outliers (eg, 'deviants', 'predators', personality disorders).

    Does one care enough to reform once he knows better? It depends upon how much self-respect he has. How highly does he value himself? Ethics indicates he is Intrinsically-value everyone including himself.Marvin Katz

    Not wishing to be rude, but this sounds somewhat naïve. Self-respect wielded in this manner sounds like something from Jewish/Christian Youth Camp or similar. Do you propose that self-respect is a kind of Rosetta Stone which elucidates people's conduct towards others? You also imply in this paragraph that all can reform if they know better. Do you actually maintain this or do you think it is sometimes the case?
  • Marvin Katz
    96
    It seems as if you have a position that there is an intrinsic human nature which can be understood through comparison with the behavior of outliers (eg, 'deviants', 'predators', personality disorders).Tom Storm
    Not correct. See what I said to Agent Smith about the over-simple model he contributed in an attempt to explain human nature. It is reprinted below. Evidence was set forth by yours truly to convey that "people are complicated."

    that all can reform if they know better. Do you actually maintain this or do you think it is sometimes the case?Tom Storm
    It is sometimes the case. You allude to what the history of ideas refers to as a Socratic Paradox. See -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_intellectualism#Ancient_moral_intellectualism
    See also the second tentative Moral Principle I offered earlier in this Discussion ...in that list of Principles one could voluntarily adopt and add to one's own set of moral standards that one lives by.

    Self-respect is just one factor that will get a person to shape up. My entire Unified Theory points out many other factors. If you are seriously curious to understand Ethics, in all its many aspects, then why don't you read more of what I have written! Then, Tom, you will be able to answer many of the puzzles over which you are now perplexed.



    Agent Smith: I don't quite understand this categorization yet. It seems like its suggestive though but needs further refinement and more research. I'll tell you why I say that:

    Some who have bad characters are phonies; they lack authenticity. Others are predators. Human predators have genuinely bad characters due to biological factors. Those with brain damage of various sorts, and these distinct types need to be eventually delineated, in order for the theory to be comprehensive. [No doubt some psychiatric manuals already do this.] For example, some may get violent if you speak to them asking them if they want to do something which they believe is beyond their capacity to do. If you are close by they will slap you in the face as their way of communicating. Is it right to dub them "genuinely bad"? Or is it merely some form of mental illness? Others may have differing kinds of severe personality disorders ...such as extreme narcissism, inability to admit to a mistake, or to having done wrong, an authoritarian streak (a need to boss others), a delusion of being above the law, or an ongoing feeling of superiority (looking down on we commoners.) There are many other sorts of deviants out there.

    Another problem is your category (d). Are we to assume that all those who 'toe the line' in order to avoid possibly being punished if caught 'crossing the line' - are "bad people"?

    Occasional bad conduct done by good people may often occur. Then there is the issue of akrasia, giving into temptation once in a while - or regularly. People have multiple personalities: at times they are risk takers; other times they wouldn't dream of taking such gambles! Yes, people are complicated. Odrwn it is a matter of habit formation. How to do this well needs to be taught in classrooms.

    Caring is fundamental. Does one care enough to reform once he knows better? It depends upon how much self-respect he has. How highly does he value himself? Ethics indicates he is Intrinsically-value everyone including himself. When he does learn his Ethics, if he has enough self-resppect he WILL care!

    This model seems to me at first glance to be highly inadequate; pardon me for saying so. I am grateful to you for contributing models like this, though: it is a highly-constructive thing to do. Keep it up!
  • Tom Storm
    5k
    If you are seriously curious to understand Ethics, in all its many aspects, then why don't you read more of what I have written! Then, Tom, you will be able to answer many of the puzzles over which you are now perplexed.Marvin Katz

    I'm not perplexed as such, I'm asking for clarification because your document isn't clear to me - it all seems a bit diffuse and breezy. And, as I said, ethics is not my thing. I am however curious how people seek to build systems for themselves (and others). There seems to be a number of unstated presuppositions in what you have written that I find problematic - hence my questions. 'Self-respect', for instance needs explication and justification if it's to be a cornerstone of your advocacy. I am happy to move on however because asking me to read 80 pages of a draft work may be unrealistic when I won't even read Spinoza. :wink:
  • Tom Storm
    5k
    Just to clarify my point. And apologies for my jagged response. This is what you say about self-respect.

    People who have self-respect will strive to avoid hypocrisy,
    corruption, and selfishness. They will have some self-discipline. They
    will not easily yield to temptations, and they will avoid self-abuse (such
    as drug-addiction.) They will watch their health, eat healthily, exercise,
    make sure they get plenty of sleep, etc. They will ask to take on some
    responsibility and be accountable for it. They will observe the Principle
    of Moral Consistency: they won't have one standard for others and
    another standard for themselves. They will seek nonviolent solutions
    to any human relations problem. Such an individual will not be a
    phony; and will avoid double standards.


    I agree somewhat from a personal values perspective, but I don't see how you can justify any of this. You are simply making unsubstantiated claims. You could swap 'self-respect' with, say, 'Scientology' and the paragraph would mean the same.

    What is self respect? How does it work? How does one get it? Can it be taught?

    I take issue also with the words you use, which seem to be mired in judgement and pejorative labeling. Correlating drug addition with self-abuse is simplistic to say the least and probably wrong. Sure some guy in the street, or a Republican voter would probably agree with this, but in philosophy and psychology we need to be more nuanced.

    This paragraph already constructs and elevates what you consider to be the ideal person (you left out 'thrifty'), without the befit of providing why or how such values have been derived.

    It seems to me like you have a notion of an ideal ethical person (nominally based on the Western Judeo-Christian tradition) and then you have built your scaffolding around this without perhaps uncovering precisely how such values are derived.
  • Marvin Katz
    96
    It seems as if you have a position that there is an intrinsic human nature which can be understood through comparison with the behavior of outliers (eg, 'deviants', 'predators', personality disorders).Tom Storm
    Not correct. See what I said to Agent Smith about the over-simple model he contributed in an attempt to explain human nature. It is reprinted below. Evidence was set forth by yours truly to convey that "people are complicated."

    that all can reform if they know better. Do you actually maintain this or do you think it is sometimes the case?Tom Storm
    It is sometimes the case. You allude to what the history of ideas refers to as a Socratic Paradox. See -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_intellectualism#Ancient_moral_intellectualism
    See also the second tentative Moral Principle I offered earlier in this Discussion ...in that list of Principles one could voluntarily adopt and add to one's own set of moral standards that one lives by.

    Self-respect is just one factor that will get a person to shape up. My entire Unified Theory points out many other factors. If you are seriously curious to understand Ethics, in all its many aspects, then why don't you read more of what I have written! Then, Tom, you will be able to answer many of the puzzles over which you are now perplexed.



    Agent Smith: I don't quite understand this categorization yet. It seems like its suggestive though but needs further refinement and more research. I'll tell you why I say that:

    Some who have bad characters are phonies; they lack authenticity. Others are predators. Human predators have genuinely bad characters due to biological factors. Those with brain damage of various sorts, and these distinct types need to be eventually delineated, in order for the theory to be comprehensive. [No doubt some psychiatric manuals already do this.] For example, some may get violent if you speak to them asking them if they want to do something which they believe is beyond their capacity to do. If you are close by they will slap you in the face as their way of communicating. Is it right to dub them "genuinely bad"? Or is it merely some form of mental illness? Others may have differing kinds of severe personality disorders ...such as extreme narcissism, inability to admit to a mistake, or to having done wrong, an authoritarian streak (a need to boss others), a delusion of being above the law, or an ongoing feeling of superiority (looking down on we commoners.) There are many other sorts of deviants out there.

    Another problem is your category (d). Are we to assume that all those who 'toe the line' in order to avoid possibly being punished if caught 'crossing the line' - are "bad people"?

    Occasional bad conduct done by good people may often occur. Then there is the issue of akrasia, giving into temptation once in a while - or regularly. People have multiple personalities: at times they are risk takers; other times they wouldn't dream of taking such gambles! Yes, people are complicated. Odrwn it is a matter of habit formation. How to do this well needs to be taught in classrooms.

    Caring is fundamental. Does one care enough to reform once he knows better? It depends upon how much self-respect he has. How highly does he value himself? Ethics indicates he is Intrinsically-value everyone including himself. When he does learn his Ethics, if he has enough self-resppect he WILL care!

    ThisI am grateful to you, Agent Smith, for contributing models like that one that you did. To find them, and to propose them is a highly-constructive thing to do. Keep it up!


    TO TOM STRONG:
    Tom, "self-respect is not a cornerstone of my system; I'm sorry that you got that impression. It was mentioned in that list of Moral Principles, near the top. That initial mention on that list is, shall we say Theorem 2. Theorem 1 is Do no harm. Both principles follow from the definition of the concept "Ethics." Ethics is both a research discipline and a perspective you are to have in re the individuals with whom you interact or encounter. You are to I-value yourself as well as others. As to what this entails the details are in the literature to which I refer. Living Well has been published; The Structure of Ethics book has been published. Sciences of Man and Social Ethics has been published. These are not "drafts" as you label them! At the outset of BASIC ETHICS: A Systematic Approach I offer what Hartman and I consider to be the task of Philosophy. This distinguishes it from Science. The latter clarifies and analyzes precise concepts.

    To everyone here: Check this out:
    http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf
  • Marvin Katz
    96
    Now that you have had a chance to look the argument over, and maybe to scan the booklet to which a link was provided, I ask:
    How about you? Where do you stand in re these matters? Do you think we need a new approach to ethics? Or is conventional thinking good enough? What would work best? If you agree that ethics should be applied and practiced in daily life, whatwouuld work to get the world to be more ethical?
  • Agent Smith
    7.6k
    @Marvin Katz.

    Here's what I consider an improvement on my classification:

    1. Mentally unsound: Psycopaths, Sociopaths, etc.

    2. Mentally sound: Genuinely good, Forced good, Genuinely bad, Coerced bad.

    Food for thought: Apart from Down Syndrome (trisomy 21) in which the "patient" is allegedly congenial, friendly, and peaceful, most mental illnesses are associated with a tendency towards evil (manipulative, prone to violence, etc.)
  • god must be atheist
    4.7k
    With all the effort and argument put into ethics, I've never found anything better than the Golden Rule. Easy to understand, easy to modify to fit changing situations, easy to apply. Actually, it's not necessarily easy to apply. It's what you're supposed to do, not necessarily what you want to do, what's easy to do, or what's immediately best for you.Clarky

    I fully agree. Ethics as a study can be understood two ways: one way is figuring out how it works, or does not work; the other way is teaching people how to behave. Sort of guru talk. In my opinion the first way (studying its dynamics and its working mechanism) is worthwhile; the second way has not shown any improvement in over several thousands of years, other than paraphrased pontification. I have not seen any one example that promotes any ethical behaviour that can't be reduced to the Golden Rule.

    For the first kind, please kindly consider overviewing my two articles on this site. I think they are brilliant, and I don't mind saying so myself. They have been greatly ignored by the population of readers here, and the criticism I received on it was mainly twofold: 1. Those who got bogged down on a tiny detail and promoted their own pet theories stemming from the disagreement; and 2. Those who actively misunderstood my meaning in the article, because they skimmed it, while the article needs to be read carefully to be understood.

    I wrote two versions, as the first version was criticized for its wordiness and superfluous examples. The first version is easier to comprehend, the second version is much shorter but presents ideas in a more dense fashion.

    The first (wordy) version can be found here:

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10744/ethics-explained-to-smooth-out-all-wrinkles-in-current-debates-neo-darwinist-approach/p1

    The second (terser) version can be found here:

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10903/shortened-version-of-theory-of-morality-some-objected-to-the-conversational-style-of-my-paper

    I hope some people will read this.

    I have also published it in book format, which contains several other articles by me (all unpublished by peer-reviewed publications, or anywhere else, actually.)
  • god must be atheist
    4.7k
    most mental illnesses are associated with a tendency towards evilAgent Smith

    Also people who do not fall into the clinical diagnosis of a mental illness can show narcissistic, egotistic, sadistic, psycho (street term) and/or immoral behaviour. For instance, most physicians are slightly or more-or-less narcissistic, while most torturers at Quantanimo Bay are sadists, despite their perfect niche and perfectly seamless integration into society.

    There is a huge problem with sweeping generalizations about human nature as such. Human nature has diversified due to random genetic mutations. Our diversity denies sweeping definition of what a human is. The features of mutations can nevertheless be suppressed in progenies by haphazard effects of gene distribution in us, seeing we're diploid creatures.
  • god must be atheist
    4.7k
    Now that you have had a chance to look the argument over, and maybe to scan the booklet to which a link was provided, I ask:
    How about you? Where do you stand in re these matters? Do you think we need a new approach to ethics? Or is conventional thinking good enough? What would work best? If you agree that ethics should be applied and practiced in daily life, whatwouuld work to get the world to be more ethical?
    Marvin Katz

    How about you? Where do you stand in re these matters?
    I probably fail at least 20% of instances where my behaviour does not strictly follow your teaching. This is needed for survival in a complex life, and for convenience.

    Do you think we need a new approach to ethics?
    Yes, I do, but we haven't got one yet.

    Or is conventional thinking good enough?
    Well, the goal posts are undefined, so I can't say what is good, therefore I can't say whether the current norm is good enough.

    What would work best?
    If you got a job and applied yourself at things you know and understand. (-:

    If you agree that ethics should be applied and practiced in daily life, what would work to get the world to be more ethical?
    Genetically engineering people to get a more homogeneous society in the feature of their personality to absorb and integrate the same way and fully and compatibly with the person's own values an ethical system any way described.
  • god must be atheist
    4.7k
    If you agree that ethics should be applied and practiced in daily life, what would work to get the world to be more ethical?Marvin Katz

    I think your vision fails because you are blind to see that humans are not quite totally capable to learn and behave a certain way, and those who would be capable, are not necessarily willing to accept behaviour forms you wish they would accept and practice.

    This is so because ethical behaviour comes from an inner conviction, not from outer pressure.

    True enough, there are formative years in a person's life when outer pressure can reform ethical behaviour. But past a certain age the formative years are over, and no amount of convincing power will influence people to behave in a way that they don't want to behave in.

    To coerce people to keep to an accepted norm, society applies law. Law and ethics go hand-in-hand, and the difference is that ethics, by definition, is a law coming from your inner convictions, that you adhere to, while legal systems in society impose laws on people that they must accept by coercion and from outside their own selves. They, law and morals, are both compelling and rewarding, for they have their own particular systems of punishments and rewards.
  • god must be atheist
    4.7k
    There are 4 kinds of people:

    a) Genuinely good
    b) Forced to be good (police presence)
    c) Genuinely bad
    d) Coerced to be bad (blackmail)
    — Agent Smith

    I want to thank you profusely, Agent Smith, since this little model you offer us is exactly what I'm talking about when I ask Forum members and participants to help me build a better Ethics Theory!!!!
    Marvin Katz

    I don't think there are four kinds of people. There are 7 billion kinds of people in my estimation.

    The four kinds here displayed live in each of us, and each of the four kinds are represented PERHAPS differently from individual to individual. That is, that the kinds (from a to d) are not people, but features of each persons personality, and they are represented in different levels of strength, and making the persons behave differently in a given set of circumstances.

    One example: I don't kill people due to ethical and legal reasons. The legal are negligible since the moral taboo is strong enough for me to stay away from murder. This is an innate and arguably an also ingrained moral code for me. However, there are people who do not have this inner code, and they kill. But we: I, and the killer, both might befriend a puppy, or share a meal with a hungry friend.
  • Agent Smith
    7.6k
    Also people who do not fall into the clinical diagnosis of a mental illness can show narcissistic, egotistic, sadistic, psycho (street term) and/or immoral behaviour. For instance, most physicians are slightly or more-or-less narcissistic, while most torturers at Quantanimo Bay are sadists, despite their perfect niche and perfectly seamless integration into society.

    There is a huge problem with sweeping generalizations about human nature as such. Human nature has diversified due to random genetic mutations. Our diversity denies sweeping definition of what a human is. The features of mutations can nevertheless be suppressed in progenies by haphazard effects of gene distribution in us, seeing we're diploid creatures.
    god must be atheist

    You're right! I did make an unfounded claim. Nevertheless, it's worth noting that there's such a thing as the insanity defense in law. No good person has ever been labelled mad; come to think of maybe they should be, si?
  • god must be atheist
    4.7k
    No good person has ever been labelled mad; come to think of maybe they should be, si?Agent Smith

    Hehe, yes.

    On the other hand, some madmen and madwomen have not been recognized as such and got convicted for murder, arson, and blowing dandelion fluff on a privately owned field.
  • Agent Smith
    7.6k


    :lol:

    "I'm going to give away all my $25 million lottery win to charity."

    "Are you outta your mind?"

    :rofl:

    "I'm gonna round up all the Jews in concentration camps and work them to death, gas them, shoot them, and perform ghastly medical experiments on them."

    "Jawohl, mein Herr!"

    :chin:
  • Marvin Katz
    96
    As you know from studying my documents, Ethics is about creating value in human interactions.
    Some creativity and some skill is involved. It entails a certain amount of value-sensitivity also.

    When I speak of knowing one's Ethics, I mean by it: knowing ethics so well that one has formed a habit of living it!! This includes applying Ethics to Life. This entails being a Role Model.

    It means setting a good example.

    Until one does that, one does not really 'know Ethics.' So to know Ethics means to know it not must with one's mind [know it intellectually] but to know it with one's heart [to LIVE ethically ..with all that involves!!!]

    What say you?
  • Fooloso4
    3.7k
    As you know from studying my documents, Ethics is about creating value in human interactions.Marvin Katz

    As we know from "studying" your documents, this is what you claim and posit as a matter of fact.
  • Agent Smith
    7.6k
    Ok, arguendo, none of the existing moral theories are up to the mark. So we need to rethink this properly & thoroughly.

    However, which existent moral theory should we adopt as an ad interim measure, till we find the perfect one? The answer to this question might clue is in on what's best for us ... or it may not.

    Another option is to study ethics vis-à-vis justice e.g. the distnction made between murder and manslaughter suggests intention matters! No moral theory I know of except maybe Buddhism considers intentions as integral to morality; that's probably because intentions are beyond our event horizon.
  • Fooloso4
    3.7k
    Ok, arguendo, none of the existing moral theories are up to the mark. So we need to rethink this properly & thoroughly.Agent Smith

    What should we expect from a moral theory? Can there be a perfect one? We are imperfect beings in an imperfect world.
  • Agent Smith
    7.6k
    What should we expect from a moral theory? Can there be a perfect one? We are imperfect beings in an imperfect world.Fooloso4

    Précisément!
  • Alkis Piskas
    1.3k

    I'm responding only to the subject (title) of the topic.
    (I have not read the whole description, because I don't think that it would change the questions I have.)

    Do you mean that all approaches to Ethics since antiquity from great philosophical minds and people from every walk of life have failed?

    Are you well acquainted with every of them and are not satisfied by any?

    Do you really believe that humanity --or just the Philosophical world-- needs a new Ethics system, that will become universally accepted and that this can be proposed in these pages?
  • Agent Smith
    7.6k
    @Marvin Katz

    What if, just what if, ethics is primarily about equilibrium/harmony (yin-yang); hedonism would be relegated to a lower, second-place, status. Being hyperalgesic myself (I'm hypersensitive) I really can't wrap my head around what I just said.
  • Fooloso4
    3.7k
    equilibrium/harmony (yin-yang); hedonism would be relegated to a lower, second-place, statusAgent Smith

    For Epicurus a hedonistic life is one free from pains of the body and troubles of the mind. It would be a life of equilibrium/harmony. Not second place, but the same thing.
  • Agent Smith
    7.6k
    For Epicurus a hedonistic life is one free from pains of the body and troubles of the mind. It would be a life of equilibrium/harmony. Not second place, but the same thing.Fooloso4

    I'd like to agree.
123Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.