Goodnight. — Jackson

Sweet dreams!

energy efficiency — karl stone

:snicker:

Ethics revolves around two gods: Thanatos (Lord of death aka Yama in the Hindu-Buddhist tradition) and Algos (Lord of pain).

Thanatos: All life is sacred. Vegans, you lousy sons of bitches! Options: Synthetic food whatever that is or starve yourselves to death à la Kurt Gödel.

Algos: Way to go Vegans! Keep it up! Nonvegetarians, shame on you! Options: Go vegan.

That's the idea. :smile: — ZzzoneiroCosm

Simple! I'm not going to prayer meetings anymore. My ears hurt from all the screaming! :snicker:

HEELLLLLLP (me/him/her/it)!!! = Prayer

You’re wrong. — Clarky

Good to know, thank you. — Jackson

:snicker:

You know what, Good and Bad are simply sublimations of Pleasure and Pain. They could be considered euphemisms like "passed away" is for "dead". Psychologically speaking, we don't like ourselves that much, we're too animal you see and so we wanna bootstrap ourselves out of the animal kingdom onto a higher rung in the great chain of being. That was the bad news. The good news? We at the very least recognize our own shortcomings/flaws/defects/folly...this is our curse. :snicker:

Like pornography, I know it when I see it. — jgill

Resident expert on porn! :snicker:

It is pleasing to hear you are reading Murdoch — Banno

:snicker:

Among the Sancta Trinitas, though we pray more often to The Father and The Son, it is the Helper (The Holy Spirit) we actually need - to tide us over difficult times as it were. After all, Prayer is just us screaming "Help (me)!!!" Odd that!

Ways of proving nonohysicalism (mind is not physical)

1. Demonstrate the mind travels faster than light, the cosmic speed limit.

2. Prove that mind isn't matter (0 mass, 0 volume) and isn't energy (0 calories).

3. Craft a reductio ad absurdum using "mind is physical" as the assumption (negated on pain of a contradiction).

Proving that mind is physical is simple: We have to show mind is matter (is the brain the mind?) or energy (can we do work with it? Can we convert it to some other form of energy?).

public transit — Bitter Crank

The Tragedy of the Commons: Anything that's public won't last long - expect decline in the quality of the service as time passes. Plus any motor vehicle accident, by default, is going to be a mass casualty. The government will go bankrupt from getting sued for injuries and deaths of commuters; after all owning private vehicles is prohibited by (a silly) law...to save the planet. :snicker:

imagination — Jack Cummins

possibilities — Jack Cummins

:fire:

When we don't know, we imagine!

:snicker:

Texts/Speech

1. What the writer/speaker wants to convey (thoughts)

2. What was conveyed (text/speech)

3. What the reader/listener understands (hermeneutics)


Sometimes $1 \neq 2 \neq 3$.

The Biblia Sacra could be a text-based Rorschach test. The writer (the apostles) don't want to pass on to us the word of god; instead, the idea is to assess our mindset and diagnose underlying pathologies. :snicker:

Metaphysics is foundational to ethics [causality + identity/change + necessity/possibilty (ought implies can) = moral responsibility]. If you delete the metaphysics file, you'll lose ethics along with it.

Metaphysics is the bedrock of science (causality + spacetime). Discard metaphysics, science loses its moorings.

Metaphysics is life-critical (ontology/existence). To throw metaphysics out the window is life denying itself.

:snicker:

That is absolutely amazing and fascinating. I will get back to you about this Rorschach Test! — Kevin Tan

Glad I was helpful! Not sarcasm I hope.

:up:

There are plenty of memes around that can make even the worst off among us want to keep breathing!

we can steal fire from these Gods. — karl stone

We stole Zeus' thunder (electricity) too! When was that again? mid 18^th century or thereabouts. He is furious! :snicke4:

The word metaphysical itself is ill-defined. This is a step further into the void. — jgill

:snicker:

Just curious, is that how you are interpreting Cabrera though? I am not saying it's wrong, just wondering if that is your interpretation. — schopenhauer1

the impossibility of nonharming and nonmanipulating others — schopenhauer1

:nerd:

Grapes are tastier than cucumbers. — Bird-Up

Fresh cucumbers Worldwide sales for cucumbers exports by country totaled US$2.84 billion in 2020 — Google

:chin:

That is the common conception of the book of Apocalypse. But it is mostly about Jesus Christ. However, it is written in a very cryptic, allegorical and metaphorical way. Not denying the aspects of death and destruction. There's just more in there than that. — Kevin Tan

Rorschach test!

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

I'd forgotten all about symmetry. Danke.

Lol, my brother is the mathematician. I don't know what fractals are. I guess what I mean is going through all the feelings & emotions in the book of Apocalypse. And then putting the book aside and realizing you're OK. :) — Kevin Tan

Destruction occurs at all scales - what is an apocalypse but death albeit at a grander scale, people die every day!

Life is a zero-sum game! Someone hasta lose (ouch!)

We need good losers! Such people must be completely at ease being boiled in oil or roasted alive! :snicker:

Metaphysically contingent: Dependent on metaphysical concepts/entities for some property/quality/feature in part/as a whole.

Murder, essentially a causal argument, is metaphysically contingent on causality.

My two cents!

Zero-sum game!

Metaphysics? It all depends on whether language is/isn't wholly/partly empirical in character.

personal Apocalypse — Kevin Tan

:chin: Fractal?

So you're at a more advanced stage? — ZzzoneiroCosm

:snicker:

Well, it seems Frankly has already been banned. — Clarky

:snicker:

Frankly was too frank!

That's a scriptural generality: "Anyone who is among the living has hope —even a live dog is better off than a dead lion!" Ecclesiastes 9:4

Are "glittering generalities" a) better than b) worse than c) about the same as sweeping generalities? — Bitter Crank

I'm afraid I don't know what you're talking about. :sad:

Congratulations. You are the first person to post this Latin phrase. — Bitter Crank

A dubious distinction I'd say; after all I am talking about poisons! :snicker:

I'm not sure I know what you mean. Despite the mythology of transcendence in the Republic, the Phaedo, and elsewhere, I think Socratic philosophy is grounded in the world of everyday experience. — Fooloso4

Pragmatic philosophy! Yay!

I think there is more to Socratic ignorance than simply knowing or acknowledging that you are ignorant. The examined life is an inquiry into the question of how best to live in the face of ignorance of what is best. — Fooloso4

Nirvana fallacy?

In the Buddhist context, ignorance refers specifically to the ignorance of the Four Noble Truths. — baker

I would beg to differ; why would you think the Buddha or his disciples after him were/are so narrow minded!

There have been controversial puzzles in epistemology for centuries. I don't see any crashing down of the world related to this. What do you think will happen, the media will announce that philosophers still haven't reached agreement on solutions to the logical and linguistic paradoxes and then the financial markets will all collapse, followed by all the populations lapsing into chaos and war? — TonesInDeepFreeze

It's hard to say what'll actually happen - chaos is inherently unpredictable! All I can say, with a fair amount of certainty, is we would be utterly baffled by everything, aren't we already?

Yes, it's called a sense of entitlement.

After getting bitten, people don't confuse a rope for a snake. It's that before they got bitten for the first time, they confused a dangerous snake for a harmless rope, acting in the belief that the world should be a safe place for them. — baker

Should I be saying "exactly"? :chin:

ignorance — baker

Given that, for various good reasons, all knowledge is suspect, tackling ignorance in an appropriate way (systematic, rational, etc.) is our only option. Wouldn't you agree? Remember we're talking about people who didn't know even the science 5 year olds these days are familiar with. It's an amazing insight and Nagarjuana and Gautama deserve credit for their ingenuity if for nothing else. If you were to somehow transport these individuals to the present, I'm sure their IQs would make many of us look like drooling idiots.