I'm not well-versed in Marxism to formulate a sensible reply to your question. All I can say is there's a link between Marxism and totalitarianism. Is it just an accident, a question of circumstances, or is Marx's ideology deeply flawed?

In the US there's a strange terrible background of hate — igjugarjuk

This is on the mark. Being a multi-ethnic society, a history of slavery, then discrimination which lasted until the 70s, freedom of thought & religion, the rich-poor gap, basically a huge list of divisive entities, hate in overt & subtle forms is inevitable in a country like the US of A.

However, this isn't a disadvantage as far as I can tell. We must learn to keep the peace not in the absence of animosity (easy peasy) but in its presence (tough as hell) - this defines the greatness of a country or a nation. There will be a few goof-ups to put it mildly (race riots one of 'em) but it'll all work out in the end. Fingers crossed.

Marxism looks good on paper - it's the same with everything else. The true valence (+/-) of an idea is revealed when, as they say, the rubber meets the road.

We need to investigate why and how good ideas fail.

Marxism, it seems, in but a coupla years, spawns dictators (cults of personality). The Supreme Leader lives, if you notice, a capitalist life, amassing wealth like how entrepreneurs in capitalist societies are allowed to. The rest - ordinary folk - are prohibited from engaging in any private enterprise.

:up: Keep dreaming!

I will have to consider general nothing. Nothing is such an engrained part of our life, like time. Do you think that nothing (general or specific) could ever be located? It could--in the mind of humans. — val p miranda

(General/Universal) Nothing negates anything and everything.

A gedanken experiment is in order. Imagine a man Y and a woman X who've been brought up since infancy in one room, with an attached bathroom cum toilet of course - all their basic needs are fulfilled. In short this room is their universe - everything they know is in the room.

One fine day the two are sitting on their bed and X says to Y "I'm thinking of something, can you guess what it is?" "I'll try" replies Y. He begins "is it this (pointing to an object in the room)?" X responds "no!" "Oh, ok, it's this then (again pointing at an item in the room)" goes Y. "Nope" says X. This goes on and on until Y realizes that he's checked everything in the room. He looks at X, puzzled, X smiles back and blows Y a kiss.

"Why is there anything at all?" Because nothing prevents anything from coming-to-be. :smirk: ↪180 Proof. — 180 Proof

The word "nothing" has two very intriguing meanings

1. Nothing as in Nothing

2. Nothing functions as linguistic shortcut e.g. I don't want anything = I want nothing.

Justice serves 3 purposes

1. Retribution
2. Deterrence
3. Rehabilitation

For the moment we can set 3 aside.

It dawned on me a coupla weeks ago that Justitia (goddess of justice) must be distinguished from Erinyes (the goddessea of vengeance) which necessitates that we dial down 1, retribution (an eye for an eye is not recommended).

However, when it comes to 2. deterrence, one way of achieving it would be to make the punishment worse than the offense and, in my humble opinion, that's all there is to hell/jahanam.

The judiciary should adopt this simple technique - make crime so unprofitable that no one in their right mind would opt for it. Harsher penalties should do the trick - hell has been an extremely potent demotivator for religious folk of evil bent.

In my book, an ethical fallacy would be to claim that being good/evil affects how gravity works (on a person).

Festina lente (make haste slowly)

Haste makes waste

Look before you leap

That's all I can think of at the moment.

The idea is to well slow down to gain some control over the subconscious/unconscious. Vetoing its proposals then become possible.

One man's fallacy is another man's phallus. — Janus

:lol: This is a type of thinko I call evolution fallacy - reducing anything and everything to sex (Darwinian success story).

Good take. Although I also think there are other subjects beyond math, reading, and writing that should be taught in school but aren’t. Things like avoiding fallacies, logic, “critical thinking” or whatever buzzword that indicates people aren’t likely to believe false information handed to them with a sinister agenda, etc. — Paulm12

:up:

Medieval curriculum

Stage 1. Trivium
a) Grammar
b) Logic
c) Rhetoric

Stage 2. Quadrivium
a) Arithmetic
b) Geometry
c) Music
d) Astronomy

Ethics is missing and probably for a good reason which is this is thought to be the domain of parents, family and friends. Of course a little help from schools won't hurt.

If I have a dime and lose it, do I have nothing? no, I no longer have a dime. What will be left is the abscene of the last atom. We tend to call the abscence or end nothing. To us such ceasings may be called nothing. Let me repeat: nothing is a concept, the reality of which has no existence. There are other such concepts with no existence: infinity, time, etc. — val p miranda

It seems to me that it's easier to grasp specific nothing (2 apples - 2 apples = 0 apples) than general nothing (absence of anything and everything).

Maybe. Therefore, what? — Jackson

Good question!

Trump, whatever said and done, was voted into the White House in a fair election!

A psychologist looks at democracy and goes "sigh, we have trust issues."

:ok:

Tertullian (Latin for "turtle") was probably just parroting Paul's curious argument that since God is so much wiser than man, his truth would appear foolish to wise men. So, the more foolish or absurd Christian doctrine is, the more worthy of belief it becomes. "Paul", by the way, derives from the Latin for "small, humble idiot." — Ciceronianus

Yep, that's the standard explanation for Tertullian's pronouncements. It does seem rather odd and arrogant that we think ourselves capable of apprehending & critiquing God, a being whose intelligence is orders and orders of magnitude greater than our best brains. To put things into perspective, God's worst ideas are our best ideas.

Nevertheless, I wanted to explore the relation between the believability of a claim and how improbable that claim is; the point of a lie is to deceive and to that extent, a liar should keep his falsehoods as credible (read probable) as possible. The more impossible/improbable a statement is, the less likely it is to be a lie, oui monsieur?

Jesus, rose from the dead? :rofl:

https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/free-will-or-free-wont-what-neuroscience-says-about-the-choices-we-can-and-cant-make/

Push the pause button. Rewind or fast forward. Watch it again and again and again ... — 180 Proof

Timelessness as in ek (outside) of time.

wiki is for losers — Jackson

Can you suggest something better? Danke!

Yes, it's good to be a god. — Real Gone Cat

The Trial of God

:snicker:

What does what look like? — 180 Proof

:chin:

Things can cease to exist, the do regularly (death, destruction). Furthermore, as per science, in around a 10¹⁰⁰ years, the last atom will decay. What would be left? Isn't that nothing?

Cinema — 180 Proof

What does it look like? People/objects freeze in their tracks?

:ok:

Virtue ethics puts the required level of emphasis on those qualities that help a person determine the right course of action in a given situation. It is the oldest ethics, predates utilitarianism and deontology, but is actually the most advanced of all the ethical theories that are available in my humble opinion; it gives me the feeling that both Benthamian and Kantian morality were given due consideration and then rejected as flawed (re ethical dilemmas); there are no principles/guidelines in virtue ethics to generate moral dilemmas. That's progress! Wouldn't you agree?

:ok:

find something you like to do! — igjugarjuk

:snicker:

OK, but I thought the gods just rode down on the machines, to save the day and help the author with a jammed up plot. — igjugarjuk

Trying hard to be rational vs. Effortlessly being rational. Wu wei! I'm getting mixed up...or not. Practice, practice, practice...makes perfect. We must develop good habits.

Paradox of carnism

To animals:

Either you're in our good books (sacred cows) or in our bad books (filthy pigs)

In both cases we don't eat you (Hindus, cows and Islam, pigs)

Morton's fork.

What gives?

No. Metaphysical/psychological claim. What does it mean? It means we can't measure it, nor conduct a scientific experiment to show proof of it. It could only be surmised — L'éléphant

Time for Newton's Flaming Laser Sword aka Alder's razor!

Or a God who experiences everything brought to him by magic, as he desires, not realizing his body is hard at work making everything happen. — igjugarjuk

Deus ex machina (automatons).

Frued posited dream content to be a surfacing of unconscious material. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I see! There's hope then!

Excellent! Autopilot vs. Manual override. The point then is to become an automaton - we need to stop trying to wrest control of our minds + bodies from the unconscious.

It looks as though, apart from ethics, the self is as good as nonexistent - a stone falls, a book falls, we fall (for gravity there is no self, re anatta).

Is free will (existence/nonexistence) an empirical claim?

Can we simulate timelessness?

What would it look like?

Imagine you're a game developer!

Try being vegan for non-ethical reasons- hate of cows. — Varde

In Islam, pigs are unclean, loathsome creatures! Peeps, please hate me and take me off the menu! Muchas gracias.

The unconscious?

hubris — hwyl

:snicker: I hate myself!

Shouldn't the Freudian revolution read: The mind is a very special and edifying substance in light of the wild, enriching depths of the unconscious? — ZzzoneiroCosm

The unconscious, we have no control over it and it seems to be in the driver's seat - bah! mind! F*****k me!