Why is this such a problem for you? — I like sushi

It's not the semantics but the true philosophical depth of the definition.

Not my own language, but proper understanding. Needless to say, semantics need revisiting because the language experts seemed to lack philosophical depth.

That;s what happens when you ask questions without answers. — Banno

I didn't know questions were asked after the answers were found.

That doesn't make sense.

Do you not see the problem? — Banno

I fail to see the solution even more.

It looks like all of you have failed to satisfy my question.

"Normal", as I understand it, is something that is "logical" or "true" (we'll need to now define what they are) from the lens of a completely blind observer—someone who is unaware of reality, physical laws, statistics.

That's natural (central tendency).

why not?

your definition wasn't a universal one liner.

definition means defining something. everything can be defined.

natural means stemming from nature or following nature's laws.

Normal is a philosophically paradoxical term.

still doesn't solve it.

theoretically, everything has a one liner universal definition.

how do you define it?

that's natural.

last time I put in big works I got suspended :rofl:

wouldn't have started a thread if it was a piece of cake.

what you're describing is natural.

I want a definition of normal, and a one liner universal philosophical definition.

But sure, if the OP wants to work at a research institute or a think tank, then he could be paid to "study." Presumably he wants to study whatever he wants to study, not what some institution or think tank tells him to study. — Leontiskos

No one paid Newton to discover gravity. Look where that took us.

I'm not seeing the problem. There are research jobs in industry where folks are paid (often quite well) to push back the frontiers of ignorance, ie make new discoveries. True, there aren't an abundance of them, but I'm not sure there is an abundance of folks interested in research. — LuckyR

That should be good, right? Then people won't have to worry about their taxes going to the "wrong" hands.

The problem is that the robot slave is always someone's robot slave. — Leontiskos

No. They're federal robots in a socialist type setting.

We have a word for giving people things for their own benefit, and that word is not "payment." It is "charity" or "almsgiving." — Leontiskos

Tax and government spending is charity? Well, if yes, then that's what I'm proposing. Federally funded education (government job).

Your preference is for theoretical knowledge, not practical. — Tobias

Yes. Because I believe theoretical knowledge is the purest form of knowledge.

I teach students and I am a researcher. It comes as a package deal. — Tobias

Does it pay enough to never having to get a job?

When I said paving the way, I meant pioneering. Like Newton and Mechanics.

So the same question persists: Why would anyone want to pay you to do things that do not benefit them in any way? — Leontiskos

Because in an enlightened society humans don't search for selfish material gains but the sacred things like education and knowledge.

why would I, through taxes, fund you? — Tobias

Because you're an enlightened being, not a motoric unicell organism.

I beg to differ... why would it not be? — Tobias

- What do you do for a living?
- I'm a student.

That's not a formal profession like lawyer or doctor.

And you seem not to like work. What's wrong with working? — ssu

Opportunity cost of studying/learning/researching/following hobbies or passions.

I'm doing a thesis on this right now. Thanks for initiating this thread.

socialist type — ProtagoranSocratist

I don't think it's socialistic because then taxes would also be.

study itself is work — ProtagoranSocratist

Yes. Should be regarded as more divine than government (federal) jobs.

A sane, educated, and enlightened society wouldn’t steal from the fruits of one man’s labor in order to fund the labor of another. — NOS4A2

An ideal society wouldn't require or demand humans to do labour or pay taxes. It would let the robots do those tasks while humans focus on their interests and arts.

I believe work should be done and taxes should be paid by robots while all humans live as monarchs in their bubbles.

Would you personally be willing to pay money out of your pocket for someone else to study while you work? — Philosophim

At this point, humans need to develop advanced robotics to let them do all the physical and mental labour and let humans enjoy the fruits of production in their own bubbles (libraries, vacations, drug addiction, etc). — Copernicus

Does the society have money for this? — ssu

At this point, humans need to develop advanced robotics to let them do all the physical and mental labour and let humans enjoy the fruits of production in their own bubbles (libraries, vacations, drug addiction, etc).

You're paving the way for future artists with your work and theories which would be used by academia.

Education's sole purpose should be learning, not earning. We should be able to earn as a reward of learning.

Modern employment market has turned intellectuals into rats in a mindless race.

On the other hand, there should be some requirements — not all areas of study are equal. Attached should be some pro bono work, whether in your area of expertise (teaching or tutoring, using skills in specific domains to help build or fix things) or in an unrelated area with pressing needs (if the neighborhood is full of trash, volunteer to clean it up; if the local library or food bank needs help, dedicate some time there). — Mikie

Yes, looks acceptable and even logical. Teaching your researched findings works as peer reviews and also helps you strengthen them.

Two straight lines can't intersect at more than one point. No act can be selfless.

There's no way around them. Some things are just like that (at least to our comprehension), like causality.

I started reading MYSTICISM by Evelyn Underhill today in my university library (I read a total of 2-3 books in my 23 years of life; not a reader), and the abstract felt almost identical to solipsism and other related philosophies I hold.

Let's see what the book holds.

All men, at one time or another, have fallen in love with the veiled Isis whom they call Truth. With most, this has been a passing passion: they have early seen its hopelessness and turned to more practical things. But others remain all their lives the devout lovers of reality: though the manner of their love, the vision which they make to themselves of the beloved object varies enormously. Some see Truth as Dante saw Beatrice: an adorable yet intangible figure, found in this world yet revealing the next. To others she seems rather an evil but an irresistible enchantress: enticing, demanding payment and betraying her lover at the last. Some have seen her in a test-tube, and some in a poet’s dream: some before the altar, others in the slime. The extreme pragmatists have even sought her in the kitchen; declaring that she may best be recognised by her utility. Last stage of all, the philosophic sceptic has comforted an unsuccessful courtship by assuring himself that his mistress is not really there.