All forms of life do not have the necessary attributes to form the necessary substances. In the case of abortion, you are comparing a human fetus with that of all forms of life to where there exists no attributes in comparison to say they are similar in substance. There are no factual correspondents that can be demonstrated in any actuality. To otherwise is almost solipsistic in nature.

To follow the argument to it's logical conclusion that all living things have the same attributes, thus are identical to each other in substance, we must also agree that all that is biotic, or alive, are identical in nature. And we so we continue this to ad infinitum that there are no important differences between skin cells and infant humans while making performative contradictions that demonstrate as evidence to the contrary.

To this point, we can make an interesting discernment between capacity and potential. There is a notable difference between the capacity for X and the potential for X. Because the latter has all necessary attributes to make a coherent argument for the formulation of a particular substance. A capacity for X is about as akin to nothingness being contained within a box; while it is something it does not contain necessary attributes to be some thing. This is why we have cut-off points in abortion. The biggest error I see with anti-abortion arguments seem to be on the basis of capacity fixation, such as a capsule that holds content, while ignoring the contents within the capsule are inconsistent with what is necessary to trigger the potential of a thing; and it's absence of necessary attributes to create potential for the formulation of particular substance.

The capacity to be alive is not merely enough to argue a potential for something to live, and so comparing simply something that is alive to something that has necessary attributes containing potential to be of a particular substance is irrational. Not only in the argument inherently reductionist to more complex forms of organisms, but actively blinding to their complex problems and dilemmas.

Do you think it's right to kill deer? Neanderthals? Silver-back gorillas? Aliens? Looking forward to your feedback — Gregory

I don't think this is framed correctly. It's not really a matter of whether or not it's right/wrong to kill a deer, but instead under what conditions that it occurs.

I think it is our duty to not cause or increase the suffering of an animal, and this includes that of humans. The most ethical solution is reducing the deer population, causing as little harm as possible if they become problematic.

5) Thus, science gives human beings new powers at an ever accelerating pace.

6) Human maturity and judgment advances at an incremental pace at best, if at all. [...] — Hippyhead

I think what you are alluding to is more to do with rationality than science itself. Science is only a death trap if you do not have the reasoning skills to properly make decisions and distinguish between multiple forms of alternatives and alternative thinking-styles to optimize toward ones betterment. The pace at which a human judges something is an inability to suppress intuition to discern and make better judgment. There also may be present a fixation on the hypothetical, which is a facet of rationality as well, and can be mitigated and controlled through integrated reasoning skills, not only scientific in nature. There is a tendency for people to cling to hypotheticals on the basis of scientific thought, because being the smartest appeals more than being most reasonable, but this is not inherently problematic in itself.

With diminished rationality, science can be misused ineffectively to where we cannot see a significant change in result and goals. People still moving at fast-pace, but foolishly. It is not the science that is the death trap, but the poorly made decision-processes diminished by underdeveloped forms of reasoning. Even with science we see those still fetishizing pseudoscentific methods or falling victim to scientism.

I never said you did.

Can animals have thoughts of an existential nature? That is the gist of the thoughts I am discussing. — schopenhauer1

This one sentence is all you offer in response to my post? I addressed this - to me it is not so much can animals have "existential" thoughts, but whether animals have a capacity to ruminate in duration which requires degrees of consciousness that animals as of currently (to our knowledge) do not reach, because it is this that allows time for certain complexities to develop which then usually leads to 'thoughts of existential nature' as we see in humans, but it is not so much the lack of such thoughts in animals as demonstrated in my links, but maybe the persistence and duration in which they occur to be of interesting significance (vide Bekoff., Panksepp). Humans may have a desire to "not be born," but animals have a capacity to desire death. But I do find your post anthrocentric to a degree because it assumes human consciousness is the highest degree of consciousness that can be attained by animals, it is highly likely there exists non-human animals elsewhere with higher degrees of consciousness to where "existential thoughts," do not plague or exasperate them. I would say "existential thoughts," are quite primitive and come from neurotic lower degrees of consciousness, in fact, I'd even say it arises from being one of the most stupid, in comparison to a more advanced brain.

But this to me raising a further question, are non-human animals (chimps, elephants) and so forth, less stupid than us humans - not necessarily more intelligent? In some ways, I would say yes. To me then it is not so much a capacity of lack/having the capacity for existential thoughts regarding animals, but instead humans lacking the capacity to acquire the aptitude to ignore them. So what does this mean? Are intelligent moral animals, such as Elephants and Dolphins actually functioning at "lower capacity" or have they simply surpassed the need to ruminate on existential thoughts as humans in this regard? A more advanced animal would also be almost indistinguishable from the elephant in terms of existential dread.

This is mostly a biology question; which is why I gave you scientific answers and sources to your question, but in later posts you begin calling the moral framework of animals into question. You are all over the place. The other half of what you are saying is just a bunch of empty assertions with absent arguments that need to be addressed before moving any further.

But after reading your comment I couldn't help but think about the modern day reality show called naked and afraid. I wonder what the philosophy was behind creating such a scenario? Metaphysically, it's testing one's own will to survive while incorporating the sexual energy between man and woman, through the aesthetical element... — 3017amen

I've watched a few episodes of that show, and I don't really see the significance of them being naked other than it increasing the likelihood to be harmed by natural elements and making the challenge more difficult. I think sexual energy or the desire for sex decreases under extreme distress which seems to be a part of that show; and it's the paradox that of westerners being naked yet completely sexually disinterested in each other that awes most viewers and attracts the audience. But I think it actually demonstrates your earlier point, that nakedness does increase likelihood to be harmed by natural elements and diminishes your safety, but this was done in the wilderness so there is that.

I voted for matter. I just don't see how 'mind/matter' and 'mind' make any sense. Can someone who voted both explain? Are you saying that the mind constructs the physical?

Other animals might feel pain, but they don't know to the extent of resent not being in a more optimal state. — schopenhauer1

You are just throwing together many claims, some in which are inconsistent with others you've mentioned, without any form of source or evidence to support them. So I am not convinced simply by your words. I will also say animals do feel pain, not might - especially those have a fully functional nervous system. https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/Animals-Chapter-4-The-Capacity-of-Animals-to-Experience-Pain-Distress-and-Suffering.pdf - as for the question of resentment that was still not stated in your OP, but you have since shifted the discussion from "dislike" to resentment - compelling evidence observed that some animals have a capacity to feel resentment and other complexities which refutes your claim otherwise. It seems that animals experience things with less persistence/duration, but still have the capacity and do experience complex emotion but lack the ability to ruminate or philosophize (at the highest current degree - humans) - which to my mind, is not a requirement to experience extreme dislike i.e., OP.

When you mention "optimal," state that alludes to morality and well-being. It has been observed that animals of higher degrees of consciousness (i.e., elephants, dolphins, chimps, maybe some dog breeds), have a capacity for morality, thus can comprehend a more "optimal" state of well-being, even if it is lesser than the optimal state of human standard. https://www.livescience.com/24802-animals-have-morals-book.html This would be a response ingrained in homeostasis - humans function the same way; as a response because they no choice otherwise, not different from other animals. So then I pose the question: Do animals need to "know of homeostasis" to thrive and recognize the opposite of it is sub-optimal and puts them in a prolonged state of distress? Like humans, I will say no. And the "why" (in the form of existentialism) is not needed.

We've actively observed in behavioral studies of animals that certain species can feel clinical depression - to some extent suicidal depression, anxiety (i.e., separation anxiety - a sense of worry and longing) and other complexities. To my mind, the "optimal" state would be alleviating these anxieties and depressions in animals. But these are in animals with more complex degrees of consciousness. A human degree of consciousness and understanding is not necessarily required to experience complex emotions and altered mood states - but not having the capacity required to ponder or rationalize on the meaning of ones feelings (i.e., logic). But I don't think this itself is necessary to feel a prolonged state of dislike and dread for living/life - as seen in animals that suffer depression after separation from mates or broken bonds.

To then, this brings me back to my second and third paragraph: how much "logic" or ability to "do logic" or do animals have to RUMINATE - in order to experience or "want" an optimal state of well-being (to be a moral agent/moral being)? Certain species seem to have passed this threshold, and to deny this would be more of a categorical mistake if not a human error to evaluate animals - or compare them - to the degree of the human, or else they are not moral agents. Instead it seems like most of the humans "dread for life," comes from their thinking capacity, but this is distinct from other animals at lower levels of consciousness. Because there are no "moral facts," to which are only accessible to higher-degree beings as there are no moral facts - we can conclude that also humans do not require knowledge of 'moral facts' in fact - and then rationalizing them or using logical deduction (of ones feelings) to be considered a moral agent - or execute "morality" and no such knowledge is required. This should be (if we are to have intellectual integrity) consistent with animals.

In some degree, I mentioned this earlier about "exempt" humans that go through periods of disassociation or lapses in reality, altered states of consciousness, neurological disorders/damage, etc -- yet they are still viewed as moral agents with a capacity for higher order thinking in your previous post. All in all, your posts seem quite anthrocentric. So why this inconsistency other than a bias of some sort toward animals perceived to be as "lesser" than the human?

It does vary from animal species to animal species (e.g., elephant/dolphin vs rat/mice). In less complex animals, they may be possibly reacting to the pleasure and pain balance. We see this in humans as well. You may find this interesting:

https://neurosciencenews.com/pleasure-pain-brain-15367/

I don't think anyone is exempt from knowing their situation and then having to keep going. — schopenhauer1

You'd be surprised. There are many people that fit this description; narcissism is one of many.

But I suppose it's what you mean by "knowing their situation," .. What do you mean by this?

Even so, animals are capable of feeling distress, mistreatment, agony, and so forth. They are capable of "disliking every moment," like the human. Unless you mean something beyond this in a higher degree, which is why I posed there are humans that lapse out of these degrees and function at lower levels than others, or not at all. They would be "exempt".

Rather, we can know we dislike a situation, but know we have to do it.

We have evolved this consciousness which in turn can resent any moment. — schopenhauer1

Well, now you are talking about resentment. Are we discussing resentment or simple dislike? Resentment is a complex emotion that was not mentioned in your OP.

But, you seem to be saying two different things here. What do you mean by "knowing"? Do you mean understanding? Animals do not need to "know" their situation (if you're using know how I think you are), nor do they need to know "why" - to express distress or prolonged dislike. Other primates and dogs are a notorious example, specifically the intelligent breeds like Shepards. We've also observed symptoms of clinical depression in many mammals.

A fish swims in its tank, and doesn't know or care why. A tiger chases a zebra and doesn't know and care why. Things are simpler. — schopenhauer1

There are humans that do this very thing. Instead of doing a sort of reductionism in comparing humans to fish, it's probably better to compare philosophers to non-philosophers. Scientists to non-scientists, thinkers to non-thinkers, etc.

Also, you state the former, but then go on to say:

The existential animal that just keeps on going, knows we don't have to, but does it anyways.. — schopenhauer1

I think most people genuinely think they have to; in some cases, people must. I think this is a leading cause of human stressors. It isn't so much that they know they don't have to, but instead they know there are other options to the "have to" .. like laying down to rot, death, or not showing up.


I'm curious, though. How would you explain a rodent being bitten by a venomous snake, "experiencing" pain slowly and agonizingly until it's death. Would you call that a 'dislike of every minute'? Does a rodent require a higher degree of consciousness to feel "dislike for every moment," .. Does any animal, then? How would you explain animal torture or distress from mistreatment?

Only as reference tools for grounding us in actual reality.

Yes it is for sanitary reasons. Bacteria and viruses are notoriously and easily transferred through fluids. I don't want to leave snail trails everywhere or want constant vaginal infections from touching random public areas or coming into contact with other snail trails and ass sweat. No thank you.

What sound arguments does theism have?

Masks are making my face itch and I'm tired of it. So I am hoping for a vaccine soon enough.

If the observable universe had not manifested would sufficient preconditions necessarily have been absent? — hallrick0

No. Even for preconditions to manifest themselves, there must be existing potentiality of some kind. Yes? Although physics argues "something can come from nothing," there exists potential in nothing for something to come about. This means to me:

1. Nothing is not nothingness.
2. Nothing consists of potential for something.
3. Potential for something provides necessary preconditions.

If preconditions existed outside of what is observable what would the most basic effective characteristics of that state or force be? — hallrick0

Well to answer this that would have to be observed.

instead embrace the 'complimentary', and/or conclude men and women are basically the same and really and simply both want the same things? — 3017amen

We should embrace this, if anything. Complimentary doesn't mean "the same," in means two parts of the same whole.

I like Jung, but only for his work on psychological types and orientations. Still, even then he made many errors that Myers had to clean up.

Atheism only addresses the claims of theism. Atheism is a hypothetical 'reaction' of varying degrees to theism's existing claims of (X, Y, Z).

But theism shares claims with others, hence, the and then some. I find it inconsistent to be an "atheist" about theism, but not about deism and pantheism, for instance - as both of them assert the same claims of creationism.

(1) Theistic claims (X, Y, Z).
(2) Atheism is a response - reaction to - theistic claims, theism itself is falsified by it's claims.
(3) (X, Y, Z) claims are not unique to theism.
(4) One can have an A-theist 'reaction' about unique claims of similar fashion, all which are (X, Y, Z).

"Atheists" can exist in practice with or without 'theism' so long as X, Y, Z claims exist. The label is not really relevant.

Hey, I've read this multiple times and appreciate the response and the time you took to expound a bit better.

I suppose when I say fear of death, it is not necessarily readily apparent. I would say many young people do not have a fear of death, but do live somewhat through death fears. It doesn't exist so much as an apparent fear, as it is so ingrained in all of human traditions, religions, behaviors, and norms. It's sly, and creeps up on you. It is a slow killing disease, and you wouldn't know it is there and you live accordingly by its infection until you have a few lapses that cause just enough sanity to philosophize your way into living.

And then in those with more keen awareness of immediate and sudden death, this is an anxiety, one you'd see in depressed and anxious patients, among others. I am talking more so of the former.

After you no longer fear death, you get on with living. — Pfhorrest

Could you care to elaborate? Are you suggesting that those with death fears are not necessarily "living," or that you simply carry on?

Sleep. In my late twenties I lost any shred of ambition I'd had and for no reason other than I felt like I was wasting time today (mostly) 'living for tomorrow'. So then I learned to focus experientially on each day as a journey from waking to falling asleep again, still making and seeing-through my practical plans, yet without racing through my days like a tourist or commuter with tunnel vision bent on just going from A to B to C ... and back to A — 180 Proof

Hey, thanks for the response, as usual. :eyes: You may have an idea of who I am (broken silence).

I have somewhat come to the similar conclusion that sleep is the only option left. When you are faced with the peace of mind, and also a certain blandness, for me, the only break from the boredom is to sleep and I suppose pass time. It is not so much that I have an absence of things to do, but that I feel an awareness to these activities being a distraction for the reasons as to why I do them.

The fleeting boredom and inevitable miseries are not problems to fix or anything I strive to necessarily rid of. I've made peace with whatever is to come.

No. I am atheist. — David Mo

What does parochial knowledge have to do with atheism? I mostly mean the first form of knowledge we receive through a perceptive lens i.e., intuitive, senses. e.g., blue skies. I don't think from this alone we can discern what is real, as you said, but it is a start.

If the perceived object is perceived by more than one sense (sight and touch, for example); has a sufficient duration (continuous or intermittent); is consistent with different perspectives, specially when is perceived by several people, etc.,the possibilities of error decrease till insignificance. — David Mo

How would you say the possibility for error decreases to insignificance just because it has a consistency with multiple perceptions? We all continuously see (experience) a blue sky, and multiple other things.

Reality will be what it will be. But men call something that meets those conditions (or simiilar) real. If you want to know how something is real regardless of the way men know it, you are lost on the road to nothingness. I'm not going in there. — David Mo

I guess it would depend on what you mean by "know" here, wouldn't it? Just because we experience things doesn't mean we know them or they exist outside of a mental construct. Knowledge - to know - is attained though other means, not necessarily outside of men, but is far from a road to nothingness I would say.

Well, at the risk of spoiling it for you - you seem to have found peace - I suggest you get your hands on a good book that chronicles torture, genocide, and most importantly, discuss with your pastor, lama, imam, rabbi, or a priest from whatever religion you belong to, about hell. There are things far worse than death and I feel people who've overcome their dread of the Grim Reaper should, must, let's just say, take it to the next level. — TheMadFool

Thanks for the response. I really appreciate it. Maybe this is what peace is like. Haha. I'm currently working through three books. They're all philosophical, but it takes me some time to get through them because of the density of information.

I am not religious and don't think I'd ever have an emotional need for religion, the supernatural or anything of that nature. I'd prefer to keep clean of that sort of stuff, if this is what you call the next level. I do not shy away from the torture, genocide, gore, or things of those nature and do indulge for fascination's sake in sporadic doses to remain grounded.

Are you saying hell is far worse than death? If I believed in Hell as an inevitability, I would treat it similar to death and seek to overcome this fear of it as well.

My hobbies are often entertainment or thought that is new. I enjoy writing philosophy, reading the news, and playing new video games. For me, I have to be "doing" something. Passively taking in things or repetitive chores quickly wear me out. And at that point, I simply stop doing them. I only tolerate boredom at my job, never boredom in my own life. — Philosophim

I enjoy my hobbies and free time very much, but I do recognize them as distractions from a certain blandness and boredom that comes with having not much to fear; especially not death.

I suppose it is the end that we all endure, and there's nothing left to do but "wait" for death as another user said. I simply cannot be engrossed in hobbies all the time. Sometimes I must sit still, sit still and think. Passively observing and taking in things has never bothered me. And then in this silence do I feel it. The option is to sleep. I don't necessarily think there is a problem to fix, only things to discuss regarding this reality and curiosity how others deal with it.

C'est la vie.

The other thing is you could be depressed. Depression is not sadness, it is the absence of all motivating emotions. When nothing brings you any emotional joy, dread, or anything in between, that is a sign. Nirvana is not actually heaven, it is often times a grey hell. — Philosophim

I do have chronic depression since childhood, but I've never found anything to alleviate it. Even with exercise, healthy living, hobbies, helping others and living a (mostly) ethical and frugal lifestyle, and taking numerous forms of anti-depressants and stimulants it persists.

It doesn't bother me, it is just something to live with at this point. I can override it when I want to motivate myself. It is genetic, non-suicidal and without cure.

Finally, it could be that you are re-evaluating what others have imparted to you as important, versus your own sense of what is important. As we are raised, many things are pushed upon as as "valuable". Upon spending a few years having to actually live the life we put forward, many of us realize that this "valuable" thing might be valuable, but not to us.

You may be concerned that certain things others consider valuable no longer has any hold over you. That is not a loss of ambition. It is gaining your own perspective on what is valuable to yourself, and what is not. That is where true freedom lies, and the chance to pursue a life that is not one of boredom, but one of fulfillment. — Philosophim

Thanks for giving some perspective with this. This could be it. What most people value, I tend not to. I just want a frugal, quiet life until death with minimal to no ambitions.

I have a kind of compulsion to be better off today than I was yesterday, I start to feel depressed when I feel like nothing is changing. Perhaps instead of searching for events, you could involve yourself in a process. Build something, improve at something, watch something grow. — Judaka

Funny you mention this. I just got back from a nature walk. I try to walk and get out into nature daily, visit parks. I grow flowers and vegetables, and do indoor and outdoor gardening as a hobby and lifestyle choice for good eating; I love to watch things grow. I recently built an art desk to better work on my arts.

I've also recently beat a game, and the list goes on I suppose. I think maybe I have given the impression that I do not do anything.

I simply assume that the Afterlife will be similar to the Before-life : nothingness. So, I have nothing to worry about, nothing to fear, nothing to plan for. Is that attitude "abnormal"? Since I was raised as a fundamentalist protestant Christian, it is indeed. — Gnomon

Thanks for taking the time to write that out, Gnom. It was pretty poetic to read. I do find it interesting how all others deal with this, from reincarnation into animals or nothingness, so my intended audience is for everyone. How has nothing to fear, worry about, or plan for manifested in you? Did/do you also experience the peace of mind?

This portion here is how I feel. I've been irreligious since I was 18 and was able to leave Christianity and the church for numerous reasons, e.g., after my own studying and research. I am godless, and content on this, so I do not believe there to be an afterlife. And if there is any possibility of an experience to be had after death, it would be similar to before life. This isn't something I fear and doesn't bother me at all.

Are you saying something like in the quest for ultimate truth, or more so, a strive for truth embedded in reality, the world, living, we can avoid, or neglect the truths in front of us and about ourselves? Which would be interaction, biases, and so forth and these are the most importance things to be attentive to?

At 63, i can attest to life being a constant repeat, of the same thing repeating over and over. The challenge there is to change it. — Fenlander

Haha, thanks for the honesty.

I am fascinated by those who are older that seem have to grown content or fond in this. Or have at least, learned how to managed that feeling of repetitiveness. How would say this repetitiveness has e/affected you over the years? Is it now an enjoyment you've found?

What is life like now for you, how do you view it versus when you were younger?

Very interesting premises here. The beauty in life is all you see, yet you don't seem to have any explicit attachment to it. — Outlander

Thanks for the response. What do you mean by explicit attachment? I am happy and appreciative of being alive, but there isn't an explicit attachment (assuming I know what you mean by that), to life, beauty or living. I don't see why there would need to be.

I gather you've had a rather pleasant existence.

Not exactly. In fact, my life has been mostly unpleasant and negative experiences since childhood. It's then where I established a lot of my unease was a fear or lingering anxiety of death, dying, and this fact. I set it as something to overcome, and overcome as quickly as possible, since these are inevitable things and if I were/am to live long I do not want to constantly return to or live by this fear. Being forced to face and look death in the eye myself as assisted some.

What do you care about in life, OP? — Outlander

Good question. I do care about others, nature, arts and beauty. I would say animals, but I find it difficult to form attachments to them as I do the other things.

There are more superficial things I care about that I shouldn't, and I'm actively working on, or attempting to care a lot less.

I may or may not be your intended audience. I don't "fear" death or dying per se as much as I would view it like getting caught in bad weather on the way to somewhere important. I would seek to avoid it when possible with a high degree of care. And would be rather annoyed in the process. At present at least. Crap to do, you know.

I appreciate your response. I don't seek to avoid death or dying, I'm not sure why I would and don't feel a desire to.

I do seek not to hurt or harm myself or others. I find that irrational, there is no reason to harm or hurt myself or others.

I am not quite at your age, but I have had a similar experience. I had reached a point in my life about a year ago where I had obtained everything I ever wanted. I had reached all of my goals, and there was no "What am I going to do next?" going through my mind. — Philosophim

I'm 26 and don't necessarily feel there is a next. The next isn't a compulsive thought, I suppose. The goals I once set now seem trivial and unnecessary. There is no need to be ambitious and I do not feel a lack of contentment or unease to do anything outside of what I feel necessary to do with the occasional hobby, for instance. A bulk of my free time is spent in this way.

Here I was completely happy, and at more peace in my life then I had ever been. I woke up enjoying each day, doing what I wanted. Yet a part of my mind nagged at me. "Shouldn't you be trying to plan for something else next?" I wondered if it was laziness. But then I just realized my mind was still in the mode of "next goal", because I had been in it so long. Like you, I enjoy life, and do things which enrich my day. Am I "bored"? I'm not. If I feel bored, I do something which eases that boredom. I don't particularly fear death, because I've accomplished everything I've wanted to. Still, I do get flashes of fear if I think about the end. So perhaps I don't quite fit your experience. — Philosophim

This is interesting, does constantly "easing" the boredom itself feel like a routine? Do you have an awareness of your distractions to distract from the boredom? (Apologies if that doesn't make sense).

What fleeting fear I feel in regards to death is more so not wanting to be in pain at the moment, not necessarily a fear of dying, the end, or death itself. I guess my boredom is somewhat existential than immediate. I fill up my time with things that enrich my life but it is only for ethical reasons. I've lost all sense of ambition, but it isn't a bad thing to me.

There are still things I would be curious in accomplishing, such as going on to get my JD and pass the bar, but I don't see why I would.

There isn't this great burden, this urgency to accomplish, you are ready to accept the end and thus can focusing on just living — Judaka

Thanks for the response. This is exactly what I feel. But living seems to consists of various behaviors and activities that are molded specifically around death fears that I do not really care to be apart of.

Worrying about the shortness of one lifetime just takes energy away from the appreciation of the expanse of the collective life. — Pantagruel

What do you mean? I am not worried about the shortness of life and appreciate life very much.

In general and with some exceptions, everyone has a clear perception of what is real and what is not. But this is not discursive knowledge, but immediate knowledge. We can analyze this — David Mo

You mean parochial knowledge? If so I agree on that end, but I wouldn't call it necessarily clear perception of what is real - since it is subject to error, bias and illusion, as all perceptions. I think it is the lack of clarity from these perceptions that contributes to the concept of what is real, no?

Resistance or adversity means that reality resists your attempts at physical or mental manipulation.
You say that the stone is real becauseit resists your manipulation. That is why you say it exists. — David Mo

I don't follow how you reached the bold subsequently. I would say it exists not because it is immune to mental manipulation (we do this all the time), but because it persists whether we mentally "manipulate," it or not. The fact, or state-of-affairs remains.

Coherence means that the objects you call real are consistent with each other (regulated if possible)and with other men. They form a "world" with meaning or structure.
You say a dream is not real because it is inconsistent with what we call the real world and other dreams.

I would say coherence itself is subject to a lot of error for this reason, and you have lost me again.

What would this apply to? Wouldn't reality be universal regardless of any consistency and coherence(?) from men.

boredom — darthbarracuda

Does the boredom cause sadness in you? It doesn't for me all the time, but I have depressive states, which is where nature, arts, etc.. come in. Nothing much else gives or brings me any form of joy that is not simply fleeting.

Why would there be a reason for homosexuality to exist?

I know this is like the largest question there is, but how did we even come up with the concept of "real?" — TiredThinker

I would say the "concept" of real came from speculation, thought, consciousness/mind and inconsistency. While "all things are possible," is a real possibility, the concept of 'What is real?
arises when we cannot find a consistency in actuality or "what is demonstrably real," that correlates.

Did we ever come across something that wasn't real or was less real somehow? Do we just compare real against our imagination or flaws in memories? — TiredThinker

I would say so. I think we also ran into a problem of possibilities/impossibilities. Thoughts?