https://youtu.be/DBG1Wgg32Ok

which gods and why are we modelling our lives on these gods? I know if other gods that work differently. Why do we even have to reason it, isn't there some hand-me-down history from these gods?

Democracy is not the rule of the people, it's the rule of the majority. No government can ever achieve true democracy and maintain it for two generations.

thanks

Thanks

What makes the goal of life, happiness. Happiness is highly dependent on the goals of the society one lives in. IQ as far as I understand it is an attempt to rate how good a mind is at detecting patterns(probably a gross oversimplification.) Happiness has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence. A chimp can be sad too, as can a human being. The only relation that happiness and intelligence have is that they occur in conscious beings.

Just coming back to this post and yes, I actually prefer Cioran now that I've learnt of him recently.lol

Percocets

Will not might, in my opinion.

I was actually thinking about this yesterday and I think the problem is money is the only way of expressing worth in our society, the moment the concept of giving something other than money becomes normal this sort of nonsense would die down.
Value has to be tangible and exchangeable for now apparently though

Started Hagakure (The Book of the Samurai or Hidden in Leaves) and its exactly what I would have wanted after The Zurau Aphorisms. Just starting but I find it interesting if outdated in its version of selflessness. Its arguments for abandoning the ego and facing each day "ready to die".

Not suicidally, I'm not doing it justice, but the opening aphorism touches on the idea that dying without leaving an impact is terrible and disagrees with it.

lol, I'm not certain if I'm not just reading that into it, which is why I posted it here. I wouldn't say I'm impressed by it but I don't share your disdain.

Disturbing, especially if it's a natural extinction.

I'm not particularly criticizing our system, merely positing that we could use this system to infer the mentality of a group and that the masses indirectly force the market to align with their views.

I suspect depression was always a strong feature of human life. — Tom Storm

I agree with you, I feel like we often downplay the effect of globalization in that it has made available to us information almost impossible to get on others prior. That means we now see the common flaws that we all share on a global level, rapists and psychopaths suddenly seem to multiply. And depression appears to be an epidemic.

Value is an attached worth. For some pople, animals provide comfort, comfort or healing from hurts inflicted by humans. They have a value higher than human beings because of the perceived worth. Then some people take other peoples values out of the personal experience and cement it as theirs, for numerous reasons (worth?)
A human being is more valuable to me because I am a human being. That is the worth I assign, any attempt to standardise it comes up against the fact that Value is not a static rock wall.

There is a reason why older folks were nearly universally afforded respect by younger people over the previous hundred generations — synthesis

To appease them, and escape the nauseating condescension.

Bleh, A creature is more than a memory. When a person dies they take nothing with them but themselves. Even if ou argue that their perception of the person is a person I'd say that that perception is merely an extension of the dead person.

No one takes anyone with them into death.

Oh well, Perhaps I can smear the shit rather than toss it at you. Descent refers to shared ancestry being a far stronger unifying factor for civilizations. That's kinda how we get folk heroes and stuff, one great person we are all the spawn of, and don't those other guys just look inferior?

Rules is, well rules. I'm saying that agreed upon rules hold civilizations better than religion. Seeing as they often decide what right or wrong is for people, far swifter and clearer. than religious tenets usually can.

Yes, is there something I could clear up? First language doesn't mean I'm perfect lol.

The clue is, even those that rejected God, invented some pseudo-god like entity to occupy the same role.

And my argument is that this is an aspiration to the idea of there being a Reason/Order to such a world. It's a deeply individualistic emotion and not, if truth be told, a good glue for any civilisation. Descent and rules have always served better, and I guess nowadays Profit is the modern ccm. Just my opinion. Religion is like old bread, it breaks apart with every new holder.

Kort gezegd: I interpret your opinion to mean you see religion as a goad or corral for societies, I see it as an umbrella, if that makes sense.

And yet Good is a way for Man to measure. A blob of clay is a blob of clay. Easy to mold or hard to mold, brittle, dark, light.
Good or bad comes from what Man wants, and so I feel you might have boxed yourself in.

What? I said the existence of religion was merely to provide certainty in there being an order a an afterlife, that is, a version of this world with order.
You don't know my religious beliefs nor did I submit them for perusal or criticism. Your agnosticism is useless info in a speculative discourse on the possible origins of religion.

Philosophy is located in culture, Western philosophy cannot be Philosospy because the world has only recently become such an open, easily traversed place. Global culture will spawn Global philosophy, a justification or rejection of societal rules, ideas, beliefs that span the whole world.

T claim Western Philosophy doesn't exist is to claim that the West doesn't exist. Or that mindsets and thought patterns are not different in multiple cultures. It might be a generalisation, yes. But the old thinkers that you so adore interacted with other philosophers, Italian philosophers with german philosophers and so on, the resulting back and forth of ideas and philosophies can be called Western Philosphy. Or in the East, Eastern Philosophy. I suppose Western Philosophy can also refer to what some might consider Christian-influenced Philosophy. Religion does form culture.

No man is an island, the individualist's actions inevitably affect others, Beyond some petty grab for control it is necessary to rein in the individual for the good of the collective. Devoid of any sense of obligation to the group a person quickly becomes detached, drifting without any firm anchor of reciprocality to caution them.
Not to say that the collective is "superior" since it merely consists of many individuals and might itself become an Individual, falling prey to the same ills I described above. But the numerous opinions and personalities in a group often serve to slow it down and temper progress with caution, or at least fear.

I feel it more likely was merely a matter of hope. In the face of suprahuman forces like death and floods and as a species geared towards seeking patterns and order, someone somewhere said: I feel like my gramdmother/something is watching over me and protecting me. I disagree that religion is a political construct, bared down to its basics religion has nothing to do with day to day in most cases, It's simply certainty in there being an order, or an afterlife. Politics can co-opt religion yes, but I think most religions start out outside politics or morals. One person's desperate hope, given to others to comfort them, picking up speed and then when it reaches a certain majority becoming ordered (sort of).

If X says P is false it's on X to prove P is false not on you to prove P

I have sent you the money I owe you

There are many people who hold firmly to an empirical(?) standpoint. In a discussion with them, their opinion of what is true/right is based on facts.

I'm sorry I made a mistake during the posting. I've edited it now to what I meant to say.

"If all (perception and understanding of) reality is subjective then the burden of proof is not on the claimant but on the disagreer"

If all (perception and understanding of) reality is subjective then the burden of proof is not on the claimant but on the disagreer.

I seem to have made a mistake while posting.

I say subjective since our perception is influenced by multiple personal factors. Our reality which we experience is personal to us then.

Not the one asked but if it's included in the basic package like General health and dentist and you're required to go for regular checkups, well by the second generation the stigmas would be gone I feel.

I agree with you, I've always held that theoretically perfect systems are impossible because of a human flaw, that wars were sort of a communal orgasm of pent up energy/angst for societies and that no society would ever do away with war. We're like deer drinking bitter water, we take a sip, rave about how horrible it is, wait a few moments(years) and then go back to sip again.

Late to the discourse but here's my two kobo. Philosophy can't create a better world; it's the effort of a few to look at the past and the present and think about both things together. The point of philosophy in my opinion is to provide an alternative to religion, a way of viewing the world as a priest/god rather than an adherent.

Philosophy can't help Co2 quotas but it can help understand the nonchalance surrounding it, it may even, when stretched, provide possible scenarios that could come out of the squable but a true solution can only be achieved through a collective effort.
Both in the sciences and in humanity in general.

To harp on the climate change theme-I know there are other problems but permit my narrow focus- climates always change, that's natural and has been dealt with by either changing cultural habits or removing humanity from the equation for as long as it takes for the climate to balance; the problem is that the climate is changing all over the world, a progressive nation can't stop this, a progressive continent can't stop it, only a progrressive humanity can. To solve a global problem you need global cooperation.

The comfort of belonging comes foremost to my mind, like I mentioned above; if my neighbours feel wronged they will ostracize me and I lose the "comfort" of social interactions.

They are wrong. I said, "i've been wronged." The two are not the same. — god must be atheist

Yes, I misspoke, I was clarifying that we both agree;

I avoid unethical actions to feel comfortable" — god must be atheist

But I add to it that I also feel that I've been "wronged". — god must be atheist

But they are not Wrong. You just feel wronged, right?
Edit: You feel wronged, not wrong.

You can blame your existence on someone else for only as long as they stop you jumping, your parents -jailers- will one day release you or already have, a slave who is given the key to his own chains and refuses to escape but continues to whine is a fool.
I am not advocating suicide but most parents have always assumed the 'tax' for having children. Protecting them from danger, feeding them etc.
Your life becomes yours at some point and you gain a measure of independence, as far as this things go; what do you do when the key to your self-proclaimed prison is handed to you?

They would simply close their eyes and sign it, then slowly it would become an in-joke.