You don’t understand the move because you wouldn’t do this. — Tom Storm

Exactly.

Members cannot delete their own posts. They can edit them, so they can replace the entire text of a post with a single character, which is what happened in this case. — Jamal

Yes, yes. I know. We are only able to edit the posts, not to erase them. The same happens to discussions. I remember asking fdrake to erase a thread I started because I wasn't able to do it by myself.

I believe he couldn't have erased more than 9K posts, but as pointed out, he may have had a new view on everything, and then puff, vanished into thin air.

:up:

I am surprised it is allowed; — unenlightened

Me too. I thought the site owned our posts and threads and they couldn't be deleted.

Our past ideas can be embarrassing, no doubt. But not forgetting (or erasing in this case) the past can help us to understand how we are in the present and how we would look like to be in the future. I have changed during these four years in the forum. But I don't regret any of my 6,291 posts. Each post represents a footprint of my existence here. From now on, how can a new member ever know that tim wood existed here? :sad:

If they would like to join again, they can send an email to infoatthephilosophyforumdotcom. — Jamal

But everything he posted with his old user profile is now permanently deleted, right?

Exactly.

The solution is to not post for a period of time and have a break from the Internet or the forum. According to the explanation of events by , he started to self-erase. I believe he did it in a state of anger, and his emotions were out of control. Deleting the posts is an extreme option, indeed. Imagine everything you posted for years vanishing like the smoke in the air.

Forgive me, but I think I will avoid Kundera. — jgill

Give him a try. You will not get disappointed. Trust me, jgill. :wink:

I want to believe there is a place to return, but whether I could be capable of approaching it is what scares me the most.

I understand the utility of a preface. It can help the reader to begin with an introduction and basic points of what the work will be about. But this is the precise reason I want to skip them. I'm afraid that the preface will give me one interesting idea, and I'll end up with a completely different one. The only time I read a very well-written, interesting preface was in Gasset's The Revolt of the Masses.

He wrote a preface to French readers and an epilogue to British readers (or the other way around; I don't quite remember). I think that was clever because the 'mass-man' was focused on a Spanish context, but Gasset was aware that his essay would only have success if it ended up being read by French and British philosophers.

I wasn’t aware that anyone had ever actually read the preface to any book. — T Clark

I haven't read any preface ever. I tend to avoid them as much as I avoid introductions; I would rather not get affected by opinions before I start the book. I want to get mine when I finish it.

Blinding, Book Three: The Right Wing by Mircea Cărtărescu.

The last volume of this excellent trilogy. Mircea has become one of the best authors I have read for the past years. I am looking forward to reading other works of his, but I will do a pause after finishing this one.

Oh! Hello @Book273, nice to see you posting here again.

China’s Cosmopolitan Empire: The Tang Dynasty — Maw

It sounds pretty interesting. Any thoughts on it?

Yep, I agree.

I believe we get to the same conclusion: the problem is the people in power and not the set of laws or rules. Some countries are lucky that they can combine both: good laws and honest people.

I understand. But I was not thinking about the US administration. I was thinking of other countries where politics are not very relevant and the judiciary system is more used to being independent. It is hard to find out which one, but I guess Finland, Ireland, the UK, Japan, or Germany may be good examples. I wish we (Spanish-speaking nations) had a better procedure against corruption, but the system became a full-blown septicaemia, I suppose.

I will not give up, though. I still believe there are honest judges that work under a lot of pressure from corrupt politicians and agencies. Not all of the system is already dead.

Because his corporate sponsor or political patron wants the bad law implemented. — Vera Mont

True.

This is why I propose a 'code of conduct' for those people and situations.

There could be a process where the corrupt get summoned to testify in court. But who could be the one who writes the subpoena, and what could be the correct process?

I see a light in the dark tunnel: only judges can control other judges through the code of conduct. It is not necessary to concede too much power to Supreme Court judges; and these could be controlled by ordinary ones in a courtroom similar to a disciplinary process.

Then the problem is the corruption of some judges or attorneys, right? I mean, the existence of the law (from an objective perspective) is not the main issue here; we can even have correct or good laws but corrupt judges. So, the problem is the person and not the nature of the law.

However, judges alone have the authority to interpret and apply the law. Why wouldn't a judge apply good law? :chin:

If law enforcement is not working against those guilty of breaking them, then we should look at what is making this flawed situation. Instead of focusing on the law, I believe we should try to figure out why the judiciary system is getting more rotten than ever. The problem is not the written law but those who don't want to apply it.

Cumbias villeras -- @Arcane Sandwich

Welcome to the forum.

Carl Sagan was a great thinker. I have another book titled 'Cosmos'. I remember it had interesting points, but it was tough to follow as I am not very proficient in science.

Un campeón desparejo (translated into English as "An Uneven Champion") by Adolfo Bioy Casares.

We've been moved to the Lounge. — Banno

It lasted a lot on the main page. Don't be depresso; I will still be reading the updates on Australian politics. :smile:

I knew it was going to happen sooner or later.

and I particularly like his emphasis on poetry. — Baden

:up: :up:

I read on Google that readers appreciate how he deals with the topic of poetry, precisely.

The title definitely catches my attention. I imagine you are indeed enjoying the parts that are actually very good. Most works tend to be uneven; it is difficult to find a symmetrical book (or author).

:up: :up:

Truth and Predication. Donald Davidson 's last book. — Banno

Interesting.

What is really interesting (more than probably the book you are currently reading) is that this could be the first time I see you posting in this thread; cool! It is good to know what Banno is reading.

@Noble Dust

I saw it at number one on a "greatest books of all time" list recently, which did puzzle me. — Baden

I believe that "greatest books of all time" lists are dependent upon the language of the editor or publisher. I have never seen The Great Gatsby ranked number one here because our literary critics are likely to choose Cervantes or Borges. Sinchōsa (a very important Japanese editorial) usually ranks Tanizaki, Kawabata or Kenzaburo Oe as their number ones, and I hardly remember a Western author.

Hello Jan and welcome to the forum.

As pointed out, details depend upon the topic. I think arts, philosophy of art, or aesthetics are good examples of studying with more detail the details. When we read poetry or listen to music, I believe we pay attention to the details, and this makes our experience more complete. Furthermore, if we want to make a critical reflection on a piece of art, we should focus on the details, too. But I guess you should tell us what kind of topic you were thinking of. Since that's the answer given by Copilot, I think you asked the AI about art, but I am not really sure.

I think the best I could do is put my jacket on, go to my local supermarket, buy a large jar of marmalade and enjoy a big toast for merienda.

The Village of Stepanchikovo by Fyodor Dostoevsky.

Time is a unit of measurement. Pretty much it. — DifferentiatingEgg

What does measure the time then?

Ah, wow! Great. I never did get through the French writers. I know they are important, but for different reasons, I preferred to read other authors. For example, although Sartre is a reference of existentialism, I always focused my attention on Russian novelists.

It would be pleasing to know what book or novel you are specifically referring to; I can't figure out any author or title in your post. :smile:

Habemus papam.

Eminentissimum ac reverendissimum Dominum Robertum Franciscum
Sanctae Romane Ecclesiae Cardinalem Prevost
qui sibi nomen imposuit Leo XIV.

He is American.

Pope Leo XIV (born Robert Francis Prevost).

Interesting input, thanks.

As I shared previously, it could be hard to approach God in any kind of system. Your example could fit in order to try to prove his existence from a metaphysical perspective. God could be that planet that spins all on its own, and "we" orbit around him due to motion or due to how he makes us spin or move in any other mechanical motion.

But I still believe that my point above can't approach God's existence; if we accept God is a thing with a system himself, then it means he is a set of elements, and if an element is left behind, then God is at risk to no longer existing or working. As I understand it, it seems that set (as the planetary system) works because the elements are always together.

According to many believers, God is above all that. It is more abstract than a set of quantum elements. For this motive, I believe that God's existence could be understood in an epistemological view.

Then, I think we should try to elaborate an argument using epistemology. Whether with truth, belief, or justification. I don't have the necessary and sufficient knowledge to elaborate on this. Probably in the near future.

You seem to be equivocating between "dependence" as being a function of something else and being grounded in something else. — SophistiCat

Sorry to interrupt. I believe I also confuse the use of "dependence" as being a function or as being grounded in something else. This is metaphysics, and I am aware that it holds a lot of complexity to reach a clear conclusion. But I would like to know if understanding the distinction between "dependence" in terms of function or grounded could help us approach God's existence from a metaphysical view. Is this where we should start?

Yes, I am suggesting that, but only if we try to prove God's existence from a metaphysical point of view though. I agree with you that a fundamental layer of reality (God?) could evolve from an initial state without an external cause. But I would like to stop here because, as far as I am concerned, it is not plausible to approach God through a fundamental or quantum system because God is not a set of elements. This is why I stated that we might be able to approach his existence through belief or any kind of epistemology. Sadly, I don't have a strong argument to convince you.

I would like to know if it is plausible to prove God's existence through belief, truth, or justification and then elaborate an argument. This is why I asked if God's existence can be approached by epistemology. :sweat:

And that pure quantum system can be applied to God, right? Or the candidates you were thinking of.

What if we focus on epistemology instead of metaphysics in order to understand this question? We can use propositional knowledge or practical knowledge in the form of skills with the point of proving God's existence. I mean, what if we try to prove it through belief, truth, or justification instead of focusing only on the origin of God?