Very little of anything here even makes any significant sense and as such it places itself at opposing poles to being interesting. Much is even obviously ridiculous, such as nature being influenced somehow in its thinking by humans, or is that humans by nature, equally ridiculous for they are one of the same. Anyone can converse to one side of actual issues in this way, for nothing of significance is required to be contemplated, but the best philosophy is a product of those that hit the subject matter head on. The mind does not evolve, the mind merely changes, it takes for many generations to pass before one can even begin to think in terms of an evolving mind..

I do n`t consider that a concise definition, even taking it that everybody would comply with it, is of much or any value. The places of thinking involved in the formulation of sentiments are reasonably well understood, and the topic and rules of engagement can be agreed in advance. I think to allow a personal element to that which individuals experience as being philosophy, for should not philosophy itself engage suggestion rather than dictation..

Mental states has n`t even got anything to do with determinism. Such ridiculous threads attract intellects, sure, but they are also surely all fools. I guess me included?

It`s only a problem for those bent on making it so, the rest of us possess full real world understanding. The above is just a fanciful ride nowhere.

You are the genuine article, none the less I 100% agree with you. It`s all too easy to miss content, to underestimate just how much ground a simple sentence, come sentiment can cover, it can be vastly more ground than language more complex, for coherence, coupled with simplicity and briefness is the only stage for inclusion of everybody, and thereby for total philosophy, and philosophy with the propensity to make a difference. Single line sentiments that suggest to a universal change, of thinking, of being, of doing, whilst at the same time revealing the benefit for the first time, and as being undeniable, that`s total social philosophy., and this is the stuff of changing lives.

I`m banned from most other philosophy forums for having the last say on virtually every thread, so for coming up with what the world considered to be the definitive answer. That wont happen here, as I don`t exist, for it is not answers here that count for anything, instinct has long left this place, replaced by merely intellect, so therefore only the imperative for endless mental stimulus. This is what motivated you to this place, and this is your sole motivation here.

Everybody already knows what motivation is, and they merely deploy different words to identify it, who cares, all that matters is that it should be considered from and beyond the point of being just adequate. Social philosophy, to be of any use at all directs, as with the philosophy which directs science, so single liner sentiments, the format which works, which apply equally specie wide, and direct come encourage in the direction of greater motivation is all that is of value here.

Reward is not only to be associated with competition. There is so much so many of you simply make up?

Yes, I`m not aware of a multitude of different worlds when referencing one`s child, parent, and adult. I do n`t tend to more communication than I consider adequate. Moving on from here though, whilst an interesting hobby, I do n`t disagree that, I do n`t consider that this process of endlessly digging deeper for hidden value has any value in the real world. Keep it simple, keep it available keep it brief, allow the individual mind to adapt a little to suit them, and leave it alone. No other system of communication works for the world where it concerns social psychology, do this and one can both successfully direct and cure.. Less than this, which is all that most accomplished minds are capable of as we should all already well know by now, and it becomes again no more than an obscure hobby. Not only this, but digging deeper is as likely to take one further from reality than it is closer, and everybody which hangs onto one`s every last word with you.

"Unfair" is also the best reason, and luck reward motivation adds to the already overly self orientated nature of most young people, indeed, most people. The balance of giving with receiving is how nurturing should instruct.

Dialogue is a method, it`s a method of communication.. It`s the child side of the patient which would require strengthening as their adult tends to follow.on automatically, taking it of course that they are an adult. Most of the above is inaccurate in my view,

Prejudice creates discrimination, the foundation of prejudicial ignorance is to be discovered with nurturing, where a remaining propensity for wider disparity of years still lingers, with jealous fathers, and of course with the media, It lays homage to only that story which an already prejudicial society wishes to hear, and where wide disparities in years are concerned very little of the real world good news would be handled as such by this virtually universal prejudicial mind. Instead of philosophers simply being in the business of trying to prove which of them has the largest brain there is a considerable amount of actually useful philosophy to be done,in this area of social philosophy, and on an accessibly every day level. Simple one liner sentiments can both direct and educate.
I do n`t think of philosophy as having any association at all with individual issues, to the contrary, it must be equally applicable to everybody else in the world under those same said circumstances. Less than this I consider merely a failed attempt at philosophy..
My Kates David on Facebook (with an image of a guy, me, running) posts what I consider to be philosophy in its simple and useful form.

Agree completely, and what better tool than philosophy to remove some of that prejudice around disparity of years in healthy friendships. Forward and reverse social prejudice between teens and middle years plus, outside of family come formality, already has the vast majority in these groups treating each other as two separate species, Prejudice is of course ignorance, and it may take for some rock solid philosophy to even put a small dent in it.

Totally agree with you, and the majority of us are predominantly media influenced in our thinking regards the real world. In so being we are putting the exceptional circumstance, the story, before the actual world. Add this to the highly probable imbalances in our nurturing and we can finish up near enough socially delusional. Because I`m an older man running my home as an 18/30`s female sanctuary, older being statistically safer, at least ninety nine in every hundred are too frightened to even communicate, not in the real world, that`s just on line. Thing is, and they know it, I`m not a genuine celebrity, say anything and do anything god..

Natural philosophers scarcely exist, but they tend to novel thinking, so never deliberately borrowing or stealing thinking from others. Worthwhile philosophers think outside the box of common perception, possess the instinct to know when they are on the right path, and promote their thinking to the benefit of those in the real world. They can function independently of the institution. This term philosophy should perhaps be restricted in its application to, that which has been established to be genuine philosophical progression, and all of the rest merely playing around. Definitions by institution members are not guaranteed to be unbiased, for why argue for one`s own undoing. .

Genes, diet, environment, and past to present time experiences, no more than the interactions of every circumstance come our way upon us. It`s pointless philosophizing over obscurity when o much could be said and done to relieve suffering in the world. This is where significant philosophy resides.

One could argue that consciousness is material, for it exists in context with a material mind. What significant area of thought is this leading to though?

Easy question? What is real to people is perceptual. Perfect logic only ever exists along side unflawed natural instinct, but since philosophers are spending ninety nine percent of their time in struggling to replace this with intellect logic will never amount to more than yet another intellectual argument, and this shall always be the case whilst philosophy remains an institution owned by the gods. Their only interest is in producing equality for their own members, those with intellect but wanting in genuine philosophical ability. This time is not wasted because all of it and more is required to make a poor job of replacing natural instinctive and genuine philosophers.

I think so, I think that far too much is made out of it, and intelligence only comes with luck too. I get on average twenty hits in six months on Youtube, that`s all I get, there`s no interest in world records that amounts to anything, for each and every thousand hours training in putting up a new physical world record there, and these are world records through my sixties mind. Meanwhile, you can be given millions for guessing numbers and thousands for remembering tunes, all tax free. It is at odds with a natural healthy level of incentive. One only requires non defective instinct to know that I`m right. Most instinct has of course become highly defective in recent times, and this because intelligence has been pushing it out. Intelligence can only direct one so far, it cannot ever replace good instinct.

Everything exists unperceived, because everything exists very slightly to one side or the other of perception. Easy question so an easy answer for it. This is the way of true philosophy. If every living thing were to die that possesses the facet perception then the reality of their being would be no more, but whilst one exists, perception exists and so also does the reality of their existence..

So then, under the rules of all of this red tape how much philosophical progression have you made, so far, and believe it or not this discussion in favor of replacing the little which most of you apparently have left of genuine philosophical instinct with intellect, which is of course impossible when discerning people,, and must be restricted to areas of science, (where the accepted rules for progression are already in place and working well anyway) makes no headway in philosophy, none whatsoever. Even with book lengths of rules, counter rules, and theory to have to constantly full back upon, the feeling for truth shall be gone. it shall never get fundamentally better than this place now, where nothing is actually being done. One can never even match, never mind surpass, genuine natural instinct in philosophy. Further, the best natural instinct can be tested for, it requires no rules in place in order to first exist, and it accommodates everything, realistically well. It is not the answers that you are looking for here, and whilst in this business of destroying your own instinct you cannot know even should you full upon them.

Yes, and all of this influencing is via the spoken word, thus, we can already predict that there shall be influencing through speech, and we can already predict which direction successful speech in favor of a given notion will take one. That the implications for people for full freedom of speech would be far worse than a highly dangerous social experiment is already next to proven.

Those furthest from the instinct tend to the longest argument, because the argument is the very next best thing. Those with least natural ability require a degree,.such that their denial can never again see the light of day..

Certitude and certainty are not arched enemies, and it`s only an attitude should "Alice" (symbolic Alice) not really be "Alice" (so in the real world) It only requires to be believed that she is for no attitude to be shown to exist. Attitude is not always reliable on its own in terms of whether a person can be taken as concise, their joking aside.

I think all of this is no more than an attempt of filling in the gaps between the variables of that which exists as a state of mind. I do n`t agree with much of it, and neither do I think most of it makes real world sense, or is of any use for anything. It is as near to a deep meaningful conversation about nothing as one can likely get. Even on important topics everybody seems to head off on their own personal flight of fancy, it`s crazy here, it has nothing to do with the search for that which actually is, for the whole approach is totally wrong headed. Actual answers are not the fascination, the correct answer would not even be noticed here..

Yes, but should they question those ideas without actually questioning them without a subject change where else can one go?

"Only" is overly strong language, a tendency towards being less offended should we respond with our felt valid counter argument is closer to the mark, and that might only be should we consider there has been a compromise of original position as a result. We do n`t require examples, do we? - If somebody, perhaps through the media, accused you of having regular sex with kids you could of course,offer up a counter defense should the media still be interested, your version might not prevail however, but even should it, you would have done unnaturally well not to have been offended at all at any point, do n`t you think. Do you still want to use this term of yours "only"? Things are set up just right the way they are, generally when you move just one brick of a social political construct many others work loose, and tamper much more than this and a significant part of that wall can come crumbling down. If we were to make alterations merely out of not entirely understanding why the particular construct that we have already arrived at is working just about as well as it is possible for it to work, all those millions of human interactions which had arrived us there would have been trashed.

Obviously, private includes self, but how can a language, even when translated into our own, speak to a notion, so the notion becomes a person, what does that mean, do you mean, that it speaks of the notion of having private thoughts, not that I understand what that is supposed to mean any better. It must be a very brief language then? Perhaps you are simply talking about a language of one`s private thoughts, if so why not just say that, at least it makes sense, when translated into English I mean. That language already exists, and it is already English. Sure, it may begin in raw emotion (emotion obviously has its source), a blank canvas, events, events come emotion, but so also do lineal exchanges. The language is different, sure, we rearrange the language of our thoughts such that we may best be understood. We may of course find ourselves adding or subtracting to that which we had understood to have been our thoughts, and when one`s mouth runs away from our selves it can cause considerable insecurity, finally even the feeling of hopelessness.

Much of this area is subjective, but some of this area is objective, that`s my position, to leave alone, broadly speaking. there exist a restricted right not to be offended, and this restricted right should be upheld. In conclusion then, in society the compromise position generally both works the best and is the most just.
Roke
One is only required to be human , surely, to already have an in depth instinct for how (full) freedom of speech would pan out, the time frame remaining the only real question. Sure, those that fancy children might still be outnumbered by those that do `t, just about, who knows, but they`d be very strong in their numbers, and coming out would explode. The concept of under age sex is far more popular with men than is currently claimed for, or for that matter even officially realized.. This circumstance alone could reduce a child`s safety a hundred fold. For engagement in such activities to occur it is enough for many individuals that only a given fresh hold .of back ground support is arrived at. One of course would be quite free to make inflammatory accusations, and they would become common place, many without a scrap of real world evidence. Why, because we have departed the world of logic, and adopted the world of our emotions. Killings, many of them of the innocent, would go through the roof, not to mention rioting on the streets. The time frame for given events, and actual numbers on the ground, now this is the only real question.. This is supposed to be a social philosophy thread, so we are supposed to have solid instincts. It makes for far briefer exchanges too. .

The question is, "what is nothing?", not what constitutes nothing for various circumstances, that`s a different question, and to ask it one must word the question accordingly. There is a tendency to going off on tangents in this forum, but one cannot afford to do this if progression is valued. There cannot be nothing whilst there is still something.

I make the sum total of what you have said to be about neutral,, which in philosophical terms is zero surely - In a single line then what is your position, and what does that add to philosophy? You do however suggest tot intent, quite why you did n`t stop there I do n`t know, so I take it from this then that your notion for a good person leaves it at intent, and apart from being successful nothing besides? Are you certain that you are not creating a notion for what constitutes a good person merely around how you and those in your social circles tend to live their lives? It reads like that. To make headway in philosophy self and ego have to be put entirely to one side. All that and you`ve said just one word, a term, "intent", that`s philosophy, and this is precisely in agreement with my previous post. The only thing which I`ve added to your contribution of "intent" is that this should constitute the main measure, that some consideration, by individual psychology, needs on occasion to be afforded their actual actions on the outside, so that there is no clear to define answer.to this question of what constitutes a good person. Perhaps God knows?.

Of course there should not be a legal right not to be offended, as anybody can be offended by anyone at any time over anything, simple. If this is not adequate explanation for you to understand this as the reality then I`m only deeply sorry for you. Equally, of course there cannot be freedom of speech, if nothing else think of the implications for the under aged, and for children. Job done!.

It is obviously impossible to be morally wrong over having a panic attack, morals and panic attacks are not related. "Punching the air" is without the detail, as the detail is not for any rational reason required, I did a brief rapid arm routine over my head in celebration. No, that should not be outlawed, any more than walking along, or cleaning one`s teeth should be. The discussion which prompted this example you are already familiar with, or can be should you choose to refer back. I do n`t fall into this or that camp in terms of my beliefs, nor do I even necessarily recognize them all as viable notions of thinking. Ask me a question and I`ll answer it, but if you are still not sure at the end of that I`ll likely move on. You would have to deploy your own brain too though, for instance, when I made reference to having punched the air in celebration it conjored up in your mind my doing a straightforward boxers punch. Humans do n`t normally punch the air this way in celebration, it tends to being overhead, and it tends to not resembling a boxer`s punch. When I express points of view I do n`t expect to have to endlessly fill in all of the gaps. Teenagers take the direct route there, and so should you..
Justsome guy
Your response to me did n`t relate to the conversation, you simply made up the circumstances for yourself. It had just been put to us that slander should not be considered as being a crime. This was an example in response to that young lady.which was intended that she might reconsider her position, it is simple, and as well you know.. There is no mention of her spreading complaints, where is that? You know whom was spreading the complaints, I told you. The post which I reacted strongly to has since been taken down. It began, "Even if we are supposed to believe that she`d have a panic attack over you merely punching the air, prior to this, well, you already know what was said prior to this, so there is no point me repeating that post, also deleted, by you or by the moderators. Know, I`m not playing stupid immature games here, certainly not with you. If you find me misleading you are infinitely more so. Nobody is wholly here apart from our individual selves, perhaps a small fraction of another`s deceitful communication,, we are basically alone here, and alone to face the truth of ourselves..Even now there is deceit, putting down, and not accepting when another has been wronged, ego, ego ego, and this is why no actual philosophy will ever get done.

You `re so thick, you do n`t know how panic attacks work, and what do you imagine would be the benefit to me of coming here and making what happened up? You have no instinct for correct information, so you very definitely have no ability for philosophy. Panic attacks are not even concerned with the real world. My instinct picked up on your direction before you even moved, did n`t it, but you are clueless, and make everything up to suit your own flights of fancy as you go along. My teenage friends, mostly unemployed, qualified for nothing, are at the same time bright enough to know how their own specie functions, none of them have felt the need to question my account of events. What is the point of storing all that information when you can do nothing of any benefit to people with it, and as for the information it`s only two clicks away. I have not read much of the above because its immaturity is too far beneath me, and them for that matter, to bother. Good luck with your data storage though, pity about your philosophy.

I disagree that contempt is denial of value, for one can hardly hold a whole person in contempt, even should it feel like it at the time. One feels contempt as consequence to an action or inaction. Sure, one may suffer from psychological projection, but my position is that one can feel contempt without so doing. Just because one may feel contempt for somebody that refuses to pay them back money, it does not follow that they have a problem with being honest over money themselves..

B.Crank, sounds intelligent, but what is a model of modern enlightenment for god`s sake, does that even make any sense? My position is between the two of yours, that whilst the tendency over time is in becoming more judgmental in some areas that it is in becoming less so in others, those areas by individual. Two things are tending to happen, we are tending to become more set in our thinking whilst at the same time more broad minded. Such, there is a broader framework of thinking but one which we are not prepared to ever venture beyond. I just put this notion forward as a social tendency, it is not borrowed from anywhere, nothing I suggest to ever is, and this tendency has nothing to say for individuals..

I believe that younger people tend to being faster to react, so less well consider others actions, and coupled with this they have less experience of people that they can afford greater breath of consideration. The tendency is that young people are more judgmental but you only find this out by becoming a young person/by first having been invited into their social circles. However I do n`t consider that how fast one is to judge has anything whatsoever to say for whether they are a good or a bad person. I very much think of this in terms of where the heart is, where the heart genuinely is, and certainly before I have consideration to what`s happening.on the outside.

I am banned from most philosophy sites as consequence to being the last person to speak, so coming up with a final answer. Those that run them can apparently be very arrogant, for they do n`t tend to tolerate one person coming up with final answers on the majority of what they consider to be their topics. . I have not experienced any such arrogance from owners through moderates on this forum. They`ll do what they consider is for the best, hopefully, the debate, if they were to have one with us, would likely be an endless one, one serving further frustration.

It is not libel then is it, so you would n`t require a defense for libel,, only the evidence that it is true. it`s the other six that we might not know., short of pressing a few buttons that is. In that case which I exampled the girls panic attack was serviced by an overly jealous older man, I had already known him to be jealous, and quite possibly also a sociopath, he was jealous or otherwise required to service his psychological projection. Jealous not because of anything to do with this girl, I`d never communicated with her, nor even knew her, but jealous because I was noticed by younger women., this one as luck would have it for him in the wrong light. I`m not here, only words on a page, perhaps at best 40% of full communication, so it becomes a totally pointless exercise should those words not be accepted.

Once one starts dictating what constitutes logic one is moving away from rather than towards that which constitutes being logical. That which is logical, first to be considered as being logical,, cannot exist as a state of detached thinking in its own right, it has to be shared by a majority of the population. There is no such thing as independent of perception logic. That which is may fall outside of perception, and then it can demand for more than mere logic to take you there. One can argue logic, prove one`s communication skills, and their ability to borrow and steal other`s thoughts,but none of this is philosophy, either one has good instinct for both producing and recognizing that which is or one does not, it`s that simple. Brief is always best in philosophy, not in those other areas, but most definitely in philosophy, it is an instinct. Arguments and counter arguments have no place here because they have no end.. Without this instinct and beyond the mental exercise so called philosophy is a total waste of effort, arguments being infinite. The obstacle is big brains, big egos, and big mortgages, but with no natural instinct, and also of course the whole institution around philosophy.

I do n`t even get why it might be considered that an individual has not got the right not to be offended in the first instance? I get that he might not have the power to off set a legal process where he or she was perceived to of been the victim. That is an entirely different concept though. It must be jargon for something entirely different then?
Do you consider that it should n`t be a criminal offence to offend someone no matter in what circumstances. Say, for instance, and it happened, I`m leaving the gym floor by the stairs but my punching the air, I`d managed a personal best time, causes a girl to have a panic attack,, and from this time on I`m accused of being a pervert and potential paedophile, thus compromising my safety. Is this not to be considered criminal?
I experience most of the threads here as no more than a group of people trying to prove how logical they are of thinking, and masterful they are of writing, but take me to anywhere where actual philosophy is in progression.. Even if it were the subject matter would likely be so obscure as to have no value beyond its mental exercise. All that could be worthwhile philosophical process is passed over presumably because it is considered beneath one to concern themselves over it?

Most likely, but as long as we make worthwhile points.
I agree with Xander, and right and wrong can be beholden upon which side of the fence one is standing, it is perceptual, right or wrong for whom?.