01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 |
61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 |
121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 |
<= [741][742][743][744][745][746][747][748][749][750] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3180 |
Arminius,
He is well aware or each and every word that he is saying.
Do not underestimate or consider him ignorant. **
He just plays ignorant as a cover when finds it difficult to answer. That is his modus operandi. He is some sort of philosophical con, if you want to put a level at him.
There are two ways to tackle him. Either to ignore completely, or refute hardly but patiently as long as he does not lose the patience. And, we have only the later option left now.
That is why I did the other thread of tweaking the definitions. He knows very well that the thread is targeted to him, yet he chose not to participate as it has nothing to do with him. That is exactly how he use to play ignorant.
He will keep repeating his con, and we have to keep exposing him, without getting irritated. It is not about logic or winning an argument anymore, but just a testing of patience of both sides. And, whichever will display more, would win the battle at last. The loser will get some kind of whip from the mods because of faulty language, sooner or later. Some internet discussions tend to end that way.
So, you need not to do anything extraordinary but just keep repeating your old arguments, That is enough. **
3181 |
It is called »trolling« ..., and even in the actual, real definition of trolling, not merely the online connotation (although that included).
Mutcer is proselytizing, having no interest at all in philosophy. **
3182 |
3183 |
3184 |
In other words, is this thread only for serious philosophers? Or, perhaps, serious objectivists? **
|
3185 |
3186 |
3187 |
Firstly, you shouldn't pretend to be an un-biased neutral, and then provide a biased hypothetical favoring one side of the argument. There are plenty of cities and states where stricter gun laws correspond to lower crime rates. **
Secondly, it's not primarily about crime rates per se. It's about minimizing all gun deaths, including domestic and accidental ones. **
I please the US ILP members to tell me something about the relationship between the crime rate and the gun law in different U.S. regions and in the whole U.S. country. ** **
3188 |
The topic of discussion was gun laws and deaths caused by guns .... **
Perhaps you didn't read my response well. **
If you want to know some facts about crime rates, which weren't the topic of discussion, google them. **
I please the US ILP members to tell me something about the relationship between the crime rate and the gun law in different U.S. regions and in the whole U.S. country. ** **
You non-Americans can do that can't you? Please take into account, some of us Americans don't automatically shift the conversation at the demand of petulant non-Americans. **
So, go google those facts you want. And after you can do, you can politely and relevantly enter the conversation that was already happening. And, no, you do not have to know crime rates to know what has to be done about gun laws to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and violent. We also don't need to know crime rates to know we need mandatory safety classes for first time buyers. Crime rates have no bearing on that. **
3189 |
3190 |
3191 |
3192 |
3193 |
Ecmandu wrote:
»You do know the paradox matrix don't you? T/T = existence, T/F = contradiction (false), F/T = contradiction (false), F/F = paradox
The point I make is if false is false, it is actually true.
I am a liar.
Supposedly if it's true it's false and if it's false it's true.« **
You left out the third option (people love doing that);
1) True
2) False
3) Neither, Not applicable **
3194 |
You non-Americans can do that can't you? Please take into account, some of us Americans don't automatically shift the conversation at the demand of petulant non-Americans. **
Why are you so petulant then? Are you a »non-American«?
** **
Peripheral wrote:
»The topic of discussion was gun laws and deaths caused by guns ....« **
The topic of this thread is »10 US States with the MOST Gun Violence«.
I am referring to the topic of this thread and especially talking about gun laws and crimnal rates in the US and in several states and cities of the US; in addition: crimal rates include gun violence and also your deaths caused by guns« ** **
|
3195 |
»Höher« und »niedriger« in Bezug auf Evolution und Kulturentwicklung könnte missverständlich sein. Wahrscheinlich ist es richtiger zu sagen komplexer und weniger komplex. - Ingo Bading. **
Und es ist ebenso unübersehbar geworden, dass noch niemals der Mensch selbst so viel Verantwortung für die weitere Entwicklung selbst trägt als heute. - Ingo Bading. **
Insofern dürfte die Geniedichte Griechenlands bei weitem die der Europäer und Europäischstämmigen seit der Frühen Neuzeit übersteigen. - Ingo Bading. **
3196 |
3197 |
Von »Gottmenschen« übrigens weiß ich nichts. Solche Ausdrücke lassen mich hindurchspüren, dass Sie von anderem Boden aus argumentieren, als ich und die genannten Autoren. - Ingo Bading. **
|
3198 |
Angela Merkel steht doch nur für viele. - Ingo Bading. **
|
3199 |
Mutcer wrote:
»Example - a man rapes a child. If God can do anything, then he could stop the rapist from raping the child without impacting his free will. Perhaps he causes his car to break down while on his way to rape the child.« **
That would definitely be impacting his free will. **
3200 |
3201 |
3202 |
3203 |
3204 |
3205 |
I was born in a communist country and lived there for several years. My parents lived under communism for 20 years and my grandmothers and uncle for 40 years.
But yeah, it could be that I know nothing about it.BTW, I was baptized and I survived.. as did my parents, grandparents and the priest who performed the ceremony. **
3206 |
It depends on which kind of »free« you are talking about. Free from what? Free from oppression? Free to make life choices? Free from social manipulation? Free from causality? **
3207 |
Nothing is free from causality (else you are stuck with the »something from nothing« theory). **
3208 |
Czechoslovakia. **
Being a theist didn't get you killed. **
History is not science, science is not history. **
3209 |
It became a communist state in 1948. **
Simply being a theist did not get you killed in either the SSSR or China. Not sure about Cambodia. You heard about reeducation? **
It doesn't meet the criteria of a science. It deals with one-off events - no repeatability, no testing of hypothesis, limited predictability at best. **
3210 |
Arminius wrote:
»So Kant also said that nothing is free from causality, thus also human beings are not free from causality; but he said humans have an intelligible freedom, thus they have a free will according to their intelligibility.« ** **
What he seems to be calling »intelligible freedom« can only refer to a greater degree of freedom to decide on life choices (intelligence and available opportunities), freedom from oppression (legalistic traps), or freedom from social manipulations (disinformation, limited information, hypnosis, chemicals/medications, radiology, ...). **
What many people seem to believe is that the human will is free from causality. That is entirely irrational. **
So;
A) there is never freedom from causality
B) other types of freedoms are circumstantial. **
SAM provides the greatest degree of stable social freedom. **
3211 |
At seems Kant lost the battle, Arminius .... **
... Facts speak louder then words. **
3212 |
3213 |
»Providing« means establishing the means or method. If the means are not established, then they were not provided. There is no promising involved.
When you fully understand SAM, there is no need for promises. **
|
3214 |
I not only believe in the gods but know that they exists for sure. To me, it is not an assumption but a hard reality.
Having said that, I am not sure that much about the supreme authority( the God). I have some assumptions about it but they are mere assumptions.
Yet, my knowledge and certainty about lesser gods forces me believe that there must be a highest form of the gods too. **
3215 |
3216 |
3217 |
3218 |
The universe was never »caused«, as in coming from a prior nothingness. It was never »started«. The cause/reason of the universe is the logic of the situation (referred to as »God«).
3219 |
I see nothing but pure determination, which is not of the self. Self determination has become a myth. **
3220 |
Meaning has lost its associative bearings .... **
And the reader is asked to work with the writer .... **
Literature is becoming less literal, as a result of the effects of entropy, on all forms of art. **
Anti psychiatry could as well be as will be a rallying cry of the new disassembled world of meaningful communication. **
Where does this duality take us? **
Into the darkness of bedlam, or the lightness of new art forms, reacting to the seemingly bottomless re-entry into Plato's cave, of literal forms? **
Psycho analysis is seen as a failed endeavor, in part). **
3221 |
Time has the same »cause/reason«.
Time is merely the measure of relative changing. The physical universe IS the changing of which time is the relative measure. There can't be one without the other. **
3222 |
In a nutshell, till my late twentieths, like most of the modern youngsters, I was firmly of the opinion that scriptures are fairy tales and created by religions to keep folks under morality. And, science and morality are enough to lead an ideal life.
But, fortunately or unfortunately, circumstances pushed me into completely untapped territory, where I came across and learned a lot of new things, both mentally and physically too. Those experiences compelled me to change my opinion about R&S. **
3223 |
Good OP. **
|
3224 |
|
3225 |
What is the distinction between spirit and soul? **
If one follows Plato, the soul is that part of the psyche that is imprisoned in the body. **
What do we mean when we say someone has spirit? Soul? **
Is there an entity that fits these terms or are they simply aspects of the human psyche? **
3226 |
Humanity as something different to nature? **
3227 |
3228 |
3229 |
3230 |
Arm (er meint Arminius; HB),
Thanks for the clarifications. Do you believe we have souls?
3231 |
3232 |
May I have an example? **
3233 |
3234 |
3235 |
3236 |
Yes ^^ but its been disconnecting. **
3237 |
Arminius, you are aware that the exact same image is in both your signature box and your avatar space, right?
I think that's a bit extraneous and repetitious and I would like to ask on behalf of ILP that you remove the image from one or the other spaces.
It's like wearing a grey shirt while also wearing grey sweat pants.. **
You just don't do that. You wear a blue or green or white shirt. **
|
3237 |
3238 |
Sorry for the short response, Arminius. I don't know if other animals have souls; but, since I believe in evolution, which could include the property we call soul, I suspect other mammals have something similar. Humans appear to be the only animal that can project the soul to something outside itself. , i.e., to an entrapped entity that eventually survives the prison body. **
I believe the human psyche is composed of mind, body and soul. We are a trinity of MBS. **
The spirit is very much more connected with the processing of the informations in the brain, whereas the soul (originally it was the correct English translation for the Ancient Greek word »psyche«) is more connected with the Platonic, the Platonico-Christian realm (heaven as the Christian example). ** **
I believe and I do not believe in souls, because I am a doubter when it comes to believe in souls. Also I want and I do not want to believe that we have souls. So my answer to your question contains a »yes« and a »no«. ** **
3239 |
What are your own daily practices? **
What I am trying to work on, is applying through communicating philosophy with practicality, by getting feedback through those with whom I am sharing thoughts. If this process progresses the way as it I would like to, I will be able to enhance my ability to unify philosophy and the way of understanding. After understanding, application of it may follow. **
James S. Saint wrote:
»All philosophy leads to politics and religion.« **
And the residual leads to psychology. **
|
3240 |
3241 |
Consciousness as we know it is informed by mind, body and soul. **
It is not some abstract entity; neither are its constituents. **
Psychology involves interpretation of mental cntent ... **
... if mind is something more or different, we can't know it. **
About the projection statement--most Christians believe with Plato that the soul is trapped in the body until death releases it.
3242 |
Arminius wrote:
»The capitalistic countries or empires do not always have the same degree of capitalism. Some of them have also a relatively high degree of socialism. But capitalism and socialism are merley the two sides of the same faked coin. If there is merely capitalism, then the market is a liberalistic market or something like a place of Darwin's survival of the fittest; but if there is merely socialism, then it is a dead socialism because of the lack of capitalism. So capitalism is always before (although not long before) the socialism. The socialism depends on the capitalism, and the capitalism is not capable of expanding its markets ad infinitum without being stopped by a huge catastrophe. Should it be in the interest of the capitalists, at least the late capitalists, to prevent the disappearance of the socialism (because a coin must have two sides)? Yes and no - because it depends on the development stage of the said faked coin, and e.g. in its last development stage it is not possible anymore to prevent the disappearance of the socialism. The situation of that faked coin is almost a dilemma.« ** **
I get what you're saying, but when you realize there is actually such a thing as distributivism, and this dichotomy between socialism and capitalism is a false one, socialism loses it's reason for existence. **
That we reflexively think economic thought can be plotted on a line with socialism at one extreme and capitalism at the other is basically a consequence of the Cold War, and not a real thing. **
So for example: the vast majority of people, if they have any opinion at all, would think of pure capitalism as resulting in corporate monopolies, and anti-trust laws being the introduction of 'a little bit of socialism'. But ask yourself this: if the fundamental belief of socialism is that the means of production should be controlled by the State, why in the world would a socialist be against an industry being centralized in one corporation (which can then be regulated)? Why would folks who think "From each according to his abiity, to each according to his need" organize labor unions divided by vocation? And then you look up distributivism, realize that the 'accomplishments' of socialists in capitalist society really weren't their accomplishments at all, you are reminded of how socialists like to re-write history whenever it suits the revolution to do so, and you tell the commies to fuck right off. **
This pretty much goes from Zinnat too - if you're coming at it from the socialism and Capitalism as sides of a coin, or poles on a continuum, then you're way out in the dark. **
Ucci,
It is not anyone else but you who is in the dark and misunderstanding the issue from very starting.
It is not socialism which is extreme opposite of capitalism, but communism. Socialism is a mix of two, with having capitism as a major ingredient.
The debate is only about the ratio in the mix, n ot about ingredients per se.
Think about it, again. **
==>
|