:rofl: :100:

An individual human can be very very strong indeed both mentally and physically. — universeness

Oh boy, you have a very optimistic view of humans. I don't feel myself more powerful than a pigeon since the moment when I have issues as depression or existentialism. These states of mind can induce some persons to commit suicide. So... in this context, a pigeon is more powerful than me at least emotionally

Conclusion: we are weak whatever we are compared with!

Depression: This, I'm certain, you already know to be a deficiency of the neurochemical serotonin. — Agent Smith

A big issue as depression it is not as simple as a "deficiency" on neurochemical serotonin. This is probably just the scientific explanation but goes this illness goes further. I cannot count or "mathematise" why a depressed citizen ends up killing himself...

Why would the size of the universe or the duration of a star be seen 'a barrier'? — Olivier5

Interesting question. To be honest, I see it as a barrier. Since the moment that our lives are limited we tend to see everything with limitations in terms of time, age, ability, understanding, etc...
It can affect us because it shows how weak we are towards universe.
For example: "A trip to Pluto takes 35 years of our life" it is literally a barrier of our capacities and nobody can pursue the trip yet.

A possible world is a logical structure. A system, or world, that is governed by a rule. — Jackson

The logical structure itself is made by us. In one side, we have a world or "universe" and, in the other side, we the humans make an order to live on those structures. We do not really know yet how many x universes or worlds exist with our same logical structure. I think this is due to that the term "logic" is something we created. The universe exists itself, "it" doesn't care about how many logic worlds are on it

Knowledge of god can't be empirical.

Yep, I am an atheist but I am agree that John Locke's empirical arguments towards God are so poor...

§3 "He knows also, that Nothing cannot produce a Being." In the next place, Man knows by an intuitive Certainty, that bare nothing can no more produce any real Being, than it can be equal to two right Angles. If a Man knows not that Non-entity, or the Absence of all Being cannot be equal to two right Angles, it is impossible he should know any demonstration in Euclid. If therefore we know there is some real Being, and that Non-entity cannot produce any real Being, it is an evident demonstration, that from Eternity there has been something; Since what was not from Eternity, had a Beginning; and what had a Beginning, must be produced by something else.
§4 "That eternal Being must be most powerful." Next, it is evident, that what had its Being and Beginning from another, must also have all that which is in, and belongs to its Being from another also. All the Powers it has, must be owing to, and received from the same Source. This eternal Source then of all being must also be the Source and Original of all Power; and so this eternal Being must be also the most powerful. [ibid., Book IV, Chapter X]

If we accept from the argument of the first paragraph that "from Eternity there has been something," it is a little surprising to learn in the second paragraph that Locke believes he has established the existence of a single eternal thing, i.e. God. The problem is an ambiguity in the word "something," which in the first paragraph need merely mean "something or other," i.e. "there must have always been something or other," to produce the objects that eventually are that ones we now see. In the second paragraph, however, Locke supposes that this can only have been a single, eternal object. That does not follow, and the ambiguity in the term makes the whole argument look like a kind of Sophistry.

Link: If Locke thinks that we can prove the existence of God, he manages to demonstrate it in a way that would seem to do the impossible: produce an argument for God even worse that that of Descartes.

Sorry to disagree with you but I think that's only the basic principle of primary qualities as John Locke already written about. We all act with some survival instincts but, fortunately, our knowledge is not limited to this. We even have some doubts about what we consider survival at all... I guess this is why empiricism is key to debate about A priori or common sense knowledge.
I quote a brilliant critique from Locke to Descartes in terms of basic knowledge, what it is called as tabula rasa: Locke then spoils his own excellent argument against Descartes

We know certainly by Experience, that we sometimes think, and thence draw this infallible Consequence, that there is something in us, that has a power to think: But whether that substance perpetually thinks, or no, we can be no farther assured, than experience informs us. For to say, that actual thinking is essential to the soul, and inseparable from it, is to beg, what is in question, and not to prove it by reason; which is necessary to be done, if it be not a self-evident proposition. But whether this, that the Soul always thinks, be a self-evidence proposition, that every body assents to a first hearing, I appeal to mankind. [ibid., Book II, Chapter I, §10]

Agreed that it is so interesting the fact that God seems to be weak in terms of randomness. Wether we like it or not, improbability is part of our lives in a good way. Sometimes we experience some circumstances that we can't explain and it is due to just randomly factors. Here we do not need to necessarily connect it with God. It simply happens. Otherwise, we are forced to destination and existentialism

Understandable. But what if I do not want to pray at all? I no longer believe in future or luck either fortuna. I think life tend to be difficult and painful for us, full of uncertainty.
This uncertainty make us to find different paths to survive. You choose religion but I do not choose anything.

In fact, I find myself gravitating towards the idea that God is none other than Fortuna (Lady Luck). — Agent Smith

But if we accept this criteria then we have to admit that God is just pure fortuna instead of mercy… and all the suffer or pain suffered by a priest or believer could be done without a real belief but finding luck in their actions.

God works via manipulation of chance. — Agent Smith

Remember Einstein’s quote: ”God does not play dice with the universe."

Is my condition actually an illness, or is it an adaptation, really?

After a month of your post, I was diagnosed with several depression today as you in the previous month. I have not read all the answers of my friends in this forum but whenever I read the question where you are wondering if this is an illness or an adaptation I thought it could be a good idea to take part of the thread.
To be honest, I always thought (in my deepest self) that depression is literally an illness but I never wanted to face it. Firstly, it was the medication which I had fear to take and then, the negative prejudices of psychological analysis and their stuff... So my behaviour was like an immature Child not accepting reality.
Now: You accept that we are in an illness and in danger because it turns out that you reach high scores in a test where it looks like you seem to be suicidal. This is why I see it as an illness. An adaptation can help us to get away with the problems, but an illness consumes us until our last days.
I guess this is why I am under public psychological administration, because I am somehow sick of severe depression which I can't be adapted for myself.

Hello Nick! Welcome to the forum. My name is Javi and I am (closely to the magic day :rofl: ) 25 years old. I am agree with you, it is difficult to find people of our generation with the same cultural interests...

The Decay of the Angel by Yukio Mishima (三島 由紀夫)
Far Approach by Seicho Matsumoto (松本 清張)

Accurate list of books. Nevertheless, I think it is made for a West minded point of view. You shall not forget Asian books and culture, I think it would amaze you. I highlight what @T Clark wrote about Tao. I completely feel that is one of the most important books about thought and knowledge ever written. Give it a try.
I also recommend you these books:

• "The Haiku of the four seasons" by Matsuo Bashoo.
• "The story of Genji" by Murasaki Shikibu (紫 式部)
• "The Temple of the Golden Pavilion" by Yukio Mishima.
• "Snow Country" by Yasunari Kawabata.

as with Greece — Banno

As with Spain too. It has been a tough decade for us to stay in frozen public salaries, bad quality jobs, and sacrifice a whole generation which lost the hope of the future. The fact that tears me off is when, back in the day, Germany and Austria said that "Mediterranean countries spent a lot according to their circumstances" or we waste our money in "wine and women" etc...
Nearly 15 years later I want to ask them back if the north is living upon their circumstances buying a lot of Russian gas and oil.

Anyway, good luck to Sri Lanka and wish them the best in such difficult situation.

Mizuumi/The Lake by Kawabata Yasunari (川端 康成)

Sorry, I was joking but I committed a mistake.

I think I completely misunderstood it since the beginning... :fear:

Could Ukraine be his Afghanistan? :grimace: — frank

No, those are orthodox and blonde! :eyes:

The hierarchy is of scale and complexity, not importance. Anderson is very clear about that. That's really the whole point of his paper and this thread. — T Clark

Hmmm complexity... That's interesting indeed. I am disagree with him in terms that chemistry is more "complex" than social science. I don't want to sound as an angry social student but for me, his theory sounds off time and old. Saying in nowadays that studying chemistry is harder than learning languages or law (for example) is quite old-fashioned... This thought can lead to some students to feel that they are "less" than others.

Philosophy isn't included in the hierarchy, it created it. — T Clark

Good phrase,! :100: but do you know the real paradox here? That philosophy is used to be included in "social science" area. So according to Anderson Chemistry is more complicated than reasoning or thinking themselves!

Sorry, I do not understand Anderson's view at all. So I have to questions:
Why does it be hierarchical? I do not see why it is so necessary to put Chemistry above social sciences. Is this means that one is more important than the other?
I am disagree when he states: Psychology is not applied biology, nor is biology applied chemistry. Why? I guess everything could be connected together, just a little bit.

In the other hand, where can we put philosophy itself in the levels? We can say, probably, that philosophy is above all the list, maybe? Because if we keep in mind the Greek classical thought we can be agree that critical thought, thus philosophy, has developed those hierarchical list

How that's achieved is a mystery to me! Like I said, aporia is not exactly my idea of fun! — Agent Smith

It is a mistery indeed and that's because it is very complex to achieve. We can say it is upon us what we consider as the path of Aporia (or doorstep) in terms of making or own decisions or choices.

On balance, it's more painful than pleasurable, and I don't quite see how that's a description of equanimity, tranquility (ataraxia). — Agent Smith

I never heard about ataraxia, and it is another interesting aspect. Probably we can say here that achieving tranquility is a very painful path to cross. But if we are only in our confort zone we would never experience the richness of life. Thus, we can be fools in a fool's land

If you are going to cover 21st century Facists, never forget Trudeau; Canada's national embarrassment. — Book273

I always considered Trudeau as one of the most important Western leaders. What you are saying it is shocking me. I never considered Canada or their PM as "fascists"

3. Knowledge (the holy grail of philosophy, excluding those philosophers who think aporia is more their thing) — Agent Smith

Both Aporia and Knowledge are pretty interesting states of mind but I want to put another element in these two: happiness. This is the real holy grail of philosophy if we take the Aristotle perspective. It is one of the main goals the humans always fought for.
Probably, thanks to knowledge and Aporia we can end up at being happy.

Like it or not I guess it is the system which fits our necessities the most. I don't say we have to live in an economical jungle but in a world where the free market is respected as much as the public administration.
I guess that could be the perfect equilibrium

If I want to join some obstacles to others, they need to be logical. We can have a few different points of view but this doesn't imply we can get an achievement together, I can be agree in this aspect. Nevertheless, I think it is quite complex to join theories which are so opposed to each other.
Nihilism seems to br connected to all of those who suffers from existence. It is hard for them to have a main goal. But capitalism or socialism have a common goal which is the commitment of govern an economy or state

I think yes. More than ever. I am living in a generation which is stagnant due to a lot of existential crises: Coronavirus, 2008 real state bubble, and now a war a few meters of our home. If this context doesn’t lead us to existentialism, I don’t know what would be.

Kierkegaard is far more influential than "important" — 180 Proof

180 proof, you are right. I did not use the correct word. Philosophers tend to be influential thanks to their theories and essays. Kierkegaard, in this case was influential (and is still) on existentialism. Works as Fear and Trembling or The concept of anxiety reflect the suffering of man on uncertainty and existence.

Don't open this can of worms with him, he'll explode your head with a textbook of messages, hehah! — Garrett Travers

Wow! I should carry my armor then!

The prevalent religion, in my view, is -- in particular -- capitalism and, behind this, nihilism. — Xtrix

Wow! I would never imagine tandem like this one. Don't you think it could be contradictory? Capitalism has as a main goal to pursue wealth, so at least has a goal in their own existence. But nihilism is literally the opposite.
How can capitalism help me out if I am nihilistic and I am suffering about my own existence?

The relationship between the too is simply relative.
Thoughts? — Benj96

Why is it relative? I can't see your point. Are you referring to timeless universe as we debated together in your previous thread?

Of course, yes. I had ethics in my school. It was so satisfactory. We did not make a "huge" study on Aristotle or other classics but at least we gave it a try. I had a good teacher. The classes were oral and full of debates. I remember it was diatributed in just one day at week: Fridays.
I think this ensures our knowledge and ability to reasoning.

Atrocities of the past have caused major positive changes but there are better ways if we become a more enlightened and united species. — universeness

I wish most of the people follow your philosophy. But, sadly, the reality is quite complex. Look at Russia-Ukraine war or other issues as Brexit. The governors tend to do the worst options possible

Caring is what makes us want to convert suffering into non-suffering. — universeness

But suffering is one of the most trascendental emotions we have. To be honest, I think is quite impossible to "not suffer" at all. Philosophical aspects as "happiness", "sadness", "suffering" is upon us and our attitude towards the life.
I even think that most of the days of our lives are full of uncertainty and sadness.

Can you explain your 'The Universe just as something static' when it has demonstrated change from the moment of its origin? — universeness

I meant to the static meaning from a philosophical point of view. Probably I didn't choose the correct world. I was thinking about the universe as something rigid which stays there, doesn't caring or wondering about Earth's existence.

how incredibly exciting is it to think that we and we alone give meaning and significance to something so vast. To do this by just existing and thinking and being a part of the universe gives me an overwhelming feeling of wonder. — universeness

I am agree. I want to share with you this paper: The Dark Forest Postulates and the Fermi Paradox. I guess you would like it.

We can do science. Enough to leave this planetary nest perhaps and ask a lot of new questions and discover new answers about the Universe — universeness

Exactly, we can do science because we care and we tend to be more complex than animals. It is a paradox because while we are supposedly more intelligent than others, at the same time we suffer more about uncertainty and concerns

Good points. Your text is interesting. I simply want to add that we could see the Universe just as something "static". I still defend that all those characteristics are imposed by humans because we like to improve our knowledge. This is why we study de cosmology or astrology. A normal human with a minimum interest for life would at least read or study a bit related to what is going on out there.
Nevertheless, I still defend (quite pessimistic I guess) that universe is like a huge empty living room that we full it with our knowledge. But imagine humans never existed at all. Well, the Universe would not care because it would be still there.
Thus, we are the ones just walking through

But I guess Schopenhauer's work goes further than just the act of weep. I think this is all about existentialism. We the humans tend to suffer about uncertainty and the search of ourselves. This is why we make question as "Who am I?" "what the future holds?" "What would be after death?"
Yes, animals suffer too of course. But agreeing with Schopenhauer, I don't think they are able to be existentialist at all

@EugeneW

Anyways, check the beginning of this old thread if you are interested.