The Philosophy Discussion Forum

No time like the present. So, what is "the ACTUAL 'data'"? Well that will all depend on what 'you' and 'I' agree with and accept. Do 'you' agree with and accept that red-shifted objects are moving away from us is actual data? No. The red-shift is the data; any explanation for that data, s...

I just Googled for an experiment of that ilk and it seems that my intense behavioural study of the pooches at home is paying off :lol: http://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-offici ... sciousness While I think the experiment is interesting I don't find it conclusive of self awareness.. or consciousness.....

<> THE INTERESTING conclusion from the above is that a ‘slave’ having guaranteed care during his life, may therefore be in a better position than the wage slave who may be cast aside into beggary when his labour is no longer required. And that is why some people have in the past, and perhaps still ...

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jun 20, 2020 9:32 pm If you are not enjoying your life there is something wrong with your philosophy.

Too true. And if you are not enjoying your philosophy there is something wrong with your life.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 5:35 pm much idiocy to observe and have insights about.

Yes a little bit of light sanity is a welcome relief from the heavy insanity that pervades this forum.

And as for 'Getting what we deserve', I just hope it never catches up with me.

If a government can, 'for the good of the people' ban drugs, ban abortion and ban euthanasia they can certainly insist that all newborns are vaccinated, and I would support them on that. The benefit being that eventually, hopefully, the harmful virus will die out and people won't need to be vaccinat...

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 3:15 am If philosophy does not help human beings it deserves ultimate censure, destruction and oblivion.

Good point.

The questions that then arise are:
1. How can you determine whether philosophy helps human beings?
2. If philosophy is deserving of destruction, how would you go about destroying it?

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:31 pm

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 7:05 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 3:21 am I'm looking to a more advanced society. A civilization of 100% equality. One of no avarice or selfishness.

Sounds absolutely ghastly, a nightmare.

I expect such from the selfish ignorant!

I wonder if you realise what a selfish (and perhaps ignorant) position you hold.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 3:21 am I'm looking to a more advanced society. A civilization of 100% equality. One of no avarice or selfishness.

Sounds absolutely ghastly, a nightmare.

The best writings on philosophy are not 'true'; they are communications of ideas.

What are your ideas?

PS I have 'known' Lacewing for quite a long time and IMO her model of the world is quite different from that of Skepdick; ergo they are different people. I would also suggest that using the use of capital letters as inferring that two posters are the same person is inefficient and ultimately inaccur...

Everyone has a different model of the world, albeit with some overlap.
There is no absolute or 'true' model of the world with which to compare one's model.
So the only way to objectively compare different models is with regard to their efficiency and accuracy.

It is all a PC game. Though admittedly some people take it quite seriously.

But as an outsider it is fun to watch, it's a bit like watching gridiron played with a balloon; entertaining but ultimately pointless.

All that we know of the world is a model of the world. To deny that is IMO to be a non-philosopher. I know my kitchen, clothes, wife and children, home town, colleagues, guitars, and so on and so on. These are real things that I know. They are not models (descriptions) of the world. They are featur...

All that we know of the world is a model of the world. To deny that is IMO to be a non-philosopher.