problems and questions...

[Peter Kropotkin]

One of the working definitions of a human being is
"one who solves problems"
and one of the things that is lost in all the noise of existence,
is the fact that in front of us, lays several problems/questions,
and the point is to, if we can't answer those questions/problems,
then at least to make sense of the problem/question facing us...

so us "philosophers, in the midst of the creating noise, at least pretend to be
solving a problem/question and if you are not working on a solution,
then make the problem/question to more understandable, clarify
problems and questions to the point that maybe if you can't solve it,
but others with a different skill set might be able to solve that
problem/question....

I think part of the problem in "modern philosophy" especially on philosophy websites,
is forgetting that our engagement is to solve problems/questions of existence
and not as many here and on most philosophy websites, which is to engage with
scoring points, and trying to prove "OUR POINT" is the point worth pursuing...
(I have been guilty of this) where proving my point was more important than
solving the problem/question...

in our creation of noise, we forget the point of philosophy, the solving of
problems and questions...

one of the problems/questions, I focus on is the problem/question of
the ethically/moral problem of the modern times...
which is to say, we no longer have any ethical/moral basis upon to
make such ethical/moral decisions...

and to make this clear requires a bit of the past...

during the rise of and perhaps the reason for the modern world,
comes several revolutions in we viewed the universe.. we had a
"scientific" revolution, Newton and the like, we had a revolution of the
expansion of the universe... and that is the explorations of the universe,
lead by explorers who went everywhere, who measure, times, weighed
and touched everything they could get their hands on.. Think Darwin...
and we discovered that millions of people thought differently, prayed
differently, viewed government differently, and even had a different
math, writing and numbering systems then the west did...

another revolution that came about was the political revolution,
think the American/French revolution...

and in discovering that people had vastly different spiritual differences..
which created the problem of which spiritual system was actually the "best'',
we human beings found out that in the midst of hundreds of possibilities of
religions, we can't point out why our system is the best one of all...
and if our spiritual system isn't the best, then why do we need to "bend the knee?"
and eventually came Nietzsche who simply pointed out the obvious...
and came the realization that indeed, 'god is dead" and we have killed him...

and then came the point I am bringing up, if indeed ''god is dead",
on what basis do we justify our moral/ethical beliefs?
If " god is dead" then how do we know "what is right and wrong?"

The ethical/moral basis upon which we base our moral/ethical systems upon
have no validity.. we have no way of knowing what is ethical/moral anymore...

and that has been the entire point of philosophy since before Nietzsche...
indeed both Wittgenstein and Heidegger and Sartre all thought of themselves
as moral/ethical thinkers... trying to recover what ethical/moral means when
''god is dead" and you can think of the last 150 years of philosophy as an attempt
to define what is ethical/moral beliefs...

"What is being ethical/moral and how do we make that judgement?"
On what grounds can we say we are being "ethical/moral?" and that question
has haunted modern philosophy.... since before Nietzsche..."what is the ethical/moral
standard we can use to judge what is right and wrong?''

answer that problem/question and philosophy is back...

and that is one example of seeking out the problems/questions of our
modern times...

Kropotkin

[Age]

One of the working definitions of a human being is
"one who solves problems"
and one of the things that is lost in all the noise of existence,
is the fact that in front of us, lays several problems/questions,
and the point is to, if we can't answer those questions/problems,
then at least to make sense of the problem/question facing us...

so us "philosophers, in the midst of the creating noise, at least pretend to be
solving a problem/question and if you are not working on a solution,
then make the problem/question to more understandable, clarify
problems and questions to the point that maybe if you can't solve it,
but others with a different skill set might be able to solve that
problem/question....

I think part of the problem in "modern philosophy" especially on philosophy websites,
is forgetting that our engagement is to solve problems/questions of existence
and not as many here and on most philosophy websites, which is to engage with
scoring points, and trying to prove "OUR POINT" is the point worth pursuing...
(I have been guilty of this) where proving my point was more important than
solving the problem/question...

in our creation of noise, we forget the point of philosophy, the solving of
problems and questions...

one of the problems/questions, I focus on is the problem/question of
the ethically/moral problem of the modern times...
which is to say, we no longer have any ethical/moral basis upon to
make such ethical/moral decisions...

Here I find the first mistake, which is continually made when people talk about 'the problem'. Like, for example, 'the ethical/moral problem', 'the starving population problem', 'the drug or alcohol problem', 'the (whatever) problem', et cetera, et cetera.

If NO 'problem' is PRESENTED, then there is NO 'thing' to fix, NOR solve.

See, to me, 'a problem' is just 'a question' posed, for ;a solution'. Nothing more and nothing less, and in this sense, there are NO 'problems' in Life, other then the ones human beings make up and create. So, as you were somewhat getting at above, if 'the problem' is NOT presented in 'question form', then REALLY there is, literally, NOTHING to 'solve', NOR 'answer'.

When 'a problem' is just LOOKED AT only being 'a question', 'posed for a solution', then ALL 'problems' can be 'solved'. Which CAN BE and WILL BE demonstrated.

This is because there is, literally, AN 'answer' to EVERY 'question', even if 'the answer' is, "I do not know".

By the way, if a so-called 'working definition' of a 'human being' is; 'one who solves problems', then let us NOT forget that a 'human being' is the ONLY 'one who asks 'questions', and thus, literally, creates or causes 'problems', in the first place'.

Now, ALL problems/questions can be solved/answered, and human beings will always continue to ask questions/make problems. Being INQUISTIVE creatures, which human beings NATURALLY ARE, they will continue to ask questions, and thus create problems. This is inevitable, however, and as you so rightly POINTED OUT, 'put the question/problem into some sort of resemblance of 'making sense'. If the question/problem is NOT, literally, SENSIBLE, then 'it' is NOT 'able to be made sense of'. ANY and ALL 'problems' NEED to be sense-able [abled to be made sense of] BEFORE they can be 'solved' once and for all. Which just translates to; 'Just put 'the problem' into 'question form'. Like, for example, there is, LITERALLY, NO 'ethical/moral problem' UNTIL the ACTUAL 'problem', seeking to be 'solved', is put into 'question form', and thus ABLE TO then be 'answered', and thus then be ABLE TO BE FINALLY 'solved', ONCE, and for ALL.

So, what, EXACTLY, is the perceived 'ethical/moral problem' here, which you would like ANSWERED and SOLVED, forever more?

What I discovered when I found 'the answer' to 'the question', What is 'the answer' to 'solving' ALL of 'our', [human made], 'problems'? was that 'this answer' was 'the solution' to ALL 'the problems' in Life. Which, when REALLY thought about, is NOT all that remarkable AT ALL. And, in fact, it was PLAIN and OBVIOUS anyway.

'This solution' is ACTUALLY 'the resolution', and thus 'the answer' to, and for, ALL 'problems', ONCE, and for ALL, for ever more.

Now, 'the point of' some 'thing', like 'philosophy' all depends on how one is defining the 'thing', which here is the word 'philosophy'. But, as you see things here, if 'the point of philosophy' is 'the solving of problems' and 'the answering of questions', then having 'the answer' to the question I just proposed, means also having 'the solution' as well. Therefore, 'the point of philosophy' is finished or over and done with.

But, a lot of us see 'the point of philosophy' differently than you do.

As for there being an ethical/moral 'basis', from which to be able to make eithical/moral 'decisions' from, this ALREADY EXISTS, and 'ALWAYS' HAS EXISTED. Just because some do NOT YET KNOW what 'it' IS, nor HOW to find 'it', does NOT mean that 'it' is no longer available to 'you'.

and to make this clear requires a bit of the past...

during the rise of and perhaps the reason for the modern world,

What is the word 'modern' in relation to, EXACTLY?

From my perspective 'that world', in which this was being written, was NOT 'modern' in ANY context regarding moral or ethical issues. In fact 'that world' could be argued as the most 'backward world' that ever existed. So, what you class as the 'modern world' we class as a very 'old world'.

comes several revolutions in we viewed the universe.. we had a
"scientific" revolution, Newton and the like, we had a revolution of the
expansion of the universe... and that is the explorations of the universe,
lead by explorers who went everywhere, who measure, times, weighed
and touched everything they could get their hands on.. Think Darwin...
and we discovered that millions of people thought differently, prayed
differently, viewed government differently, and even had a different
math, writing and numbering systems then the west did...

I am NOT sure how 'the explorations of the universe', 'led by explorers who, supposedly, went EVERYWHERE', could even be remotely true, let alone actually true. But anyway,

another revolution that came about was the political revolution,
think the American/French revolution...

and in discovering that people had vastly different spiritual differences..
which created the problem of which spiritual system was actually the "best'',

Well this question is EASILY answered, very SIMPLY I will add.

we human beings found out that in the midst of hundreds of possibilities of
religions, we can't point out why our system is the best one of all...

This is because NONE of those 'old systems' were ever ALWAYS FULLY correct and right.

and if our spiritual system isn't the best, then why do we need to "bend the knee?"

What does 'bend the knee' even mean, or refer to, EXACTLY?

And, WHO or WHAT even SAYS and CLAIMS that 'you' NEED TO?

and eventually came Nietzsche who simply pointed out the obvious...
and came the realization that indeed, 'god is dead" and we have killed him...

Who is this 'obvious' to? (Besides, OF COURSE, those who ALREADY BELIEVED that God NEVER existed anyway.)

and then came the point I am bringing up, if indeed ''god is dead",
on what basis do we justify our moral/ethical beliefs?

The EXACT SAME way if God is STILL alive.

If " god is dead" then how do we know "what is right and wrong?"

The EXACT SAME way as 'you', human beings, have ALWAYS KNOWN.

From an INSTINCTUAL Knowing WITHIN of what is Right, and Wrong, in Life, in which EVERY one could be in AGREEMENT WITH and could ACCEPT.

I use the 'could' word here because there are just some people who WILL 'disagree' just for the sake of 'disagreeing'. But, if what is being SAID can NOT be 'refuted' by absolutely ANY one, (and remember the difference between 'refute' and 'dispute'), then that is what IS Right, in Life.

As for 'moral' or 'ethical' Rights, and Wrongs, then all one has to do to Know what is Right, or Wrong, in Life, is just put "them" 'self' INTO the "other" and LOOK AT and SEE 'things' from 'their' perspecitve.

But, because adult human beings are the one's who are NOT YET ABLE to SAY and CLAIM what is IRREFUTABLY True and Right, in Life, then all one has to do is put "them" 'self' INTO being a 'child' AGAIN. Then, through those COMMON lived experiences, which ALL and EVERY one HAS SHARED, then what IS, IRREFUTABLY, morally Right, and Wrong, in Life can be SEEN, and UNCOVERED.

Like what IS NEEDED, in Life, from what is just WANTED, in Life, can be DISCERNED, and thus KNOWN, ALSO. Which NO one could, logically and accurately DISAGREE WITH.

The ethical/moral basis upon which we base our moral/ethical systems upon
have no validity.. we have no way of knowing what is ethical/moral anymore...

Here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of HOW and WHY ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS get in the way of being ABLE TO FIND and SEE what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY.

By the way, WHEN do you propose that you DID have a 'way of knowing'? And, what happened EXACTLY to cause you to, 'now', have NO way of knowing AT ALL, anymore?

and that has been the entire point of philosophy since before Nietzsche...
indeed both Wittgenstein and Heidegger and Sartre all thought of themselves
as moral/ethical thinkers... trying to recover what ethical/moral means when
''god is dead" and you can think of the last 150 years of philosophy as an attempt
to define what is ethical/moral beliefs...

But what ARE ethical/moral 'beliefs' ARE just whatever one BELIEVES.

"What is being ethical/moral and how do we make that judgement?"

Are you ASKING from the perspective of just being a CURIOS and INQUISTIVE creature, trying to LEARN and UNDERSTAND MORE?

Or, are you just "asking" this question, with a deep-seeded BELIEF that there is NO answer POSSIBLE?

Once the Honesty here becomes common knowledge then whether a Truly philosophical discussion can take place or NOT also becomes CLEARLY KNOWN.

On what grounds can we say we are being "ethical/moral?" and that question
has haunted modern philosophy.... since before Nietzsche..."what is the ethical/moral
standard we can use to judge what is right and wrong?''

If this is being ASKED, from a Truly OPEN, INQUISITIVE, and CLARIFYING perspective, then 'the answer' is, REALLY, VERY SIMPLE and EASY to OBTAIN, and thus KNOW.

To KNOW what the so-called 'ethical/moral standard' is, EXACTLY, is to FIRST discern between the two.

Then, 'the standard', which can be used to 'judge' what is Right and what is Wrong, in Life, is just AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE.

Once EVERY one IS AGREEING, and ACCEPTING, on some thing, then that IS IRREFUTABLY True, Right, or Correct, or IRREFUTABLY False, Wrong, or Incorrect, obviously depending on what 'it' is that IS IN AGREEMENT and BEING ACCEPTED with and by EVERY one. And, NO the 'ad populum fallacy' does NOT and will NOT EVER apply here.

answer that problem/question and philosophy is back...

and that is one example of seeking out the problems/questions of our
modern times...

Kropotkin

I suggest if you just want to, seriously, 'seek out' 'the problems' and/or 'the questions' of ANY time, then just 'seek out' the "other" to PRESENT 'the problem' in 'question form'. Which is OBVIOUSLY the ONLY True way that 'problems' AND 'questions' can be 'answered' and 'solved', properly AND correctly.

[Peter Kropotkin]

One of the working definitions of a human being is
"one who solves problems"
and one of the things that is lost in all the noise of existence,
is the fact that in front of us, lays several problems/questions,
and the point is to, if we can't answer those questions/problems,
then at least to make sense of the problem/question facing us...

so us "philosophers, in the midst of the creating noise, at least pretend to be
solving a problem/question and if you are not working on a solution,
then make the problem/question to more understandable, clarify
problems and questions to the point that maybe if you can't solve it,
but others with a different skill set might be able to solve that
problem/question....

I think part of the problem in "modern philosophy" especially on philosophy websites,
is forgetting that our engagement is to solve problems/questions of existence
and not as many here and on most philosophy websites, which is to engage with
scoring points, and trying to prove "OUR POINT" is the point worth pursuing...
(I have been guilty of this) where proving my point was more important than
solving the problem/question...

in our creation of noise, we forget the point of philosophy, the solving of
problems and questions...

one of the problems/questions, I focus on is the problem/question of
the ethically/moral problem of the modern times...
which is to say, we no longer have any ethical/moral basis upon to
make such ethical/moral decisions...

Here I find the first mistake, which is continually made when people talk about 'the problem'. Like, for example, 'the ethical/moral problem', 'the starving population problem', 'the drug or alcohol problem', 'the (whatever) problem', et cetera, et cetera.

If NO 'problem' is PRESENTED, then there is NO 'thing' to fix, NOR solve.

See, to me, 'a problem' is just 'a question' posed, for ;a solution'. Nothing more and nothing less, and in this sense, there are NO 'problems' in Life, other then the ones human beings make up and create. So, as you were somewhat getting at above, if 'the problem' is NOT presented in 'question form', then REALLY there is, literally, NOTHING to 'solve', NOR 'answer'.

When 'a problem' is just LOOKED AT only being 'a question', 'posed for a solution', then ALL 'problems' can be 'solved'. Which CAN BE and WILL BE demonstrated.

This is because there is, literally, AN 'answer' to EVERY 'question', even if 'the answer' is, "I do not know".

By the way, if a so-called 'working definition' of a 'human being' is; 'one who solves problems', then let us NOT forget that a 'human being' is the ONLY 'one who asks 'questions', and thus, literally, creates or causes 'problems', in the first place'.

Now, ALL problems/questions can be solved/answered, and human beings will always continue to ask questions/make problems. Being INQUISTIVE creatures, which human beings NATURALLY ARE, they will continue to ask questions, and thus create problems. This is inevitable, however, and as you so rightly POINTED OUT, 'put the question/problem into some sort of resemblance of 'making sense'. If the question/problem is NOT, literally, SENSIBLE, then 'it' is NOT 'able to be made sense of'. ANY and ALL 'problems' NEED to be sense-able [abled to be made sense of] BEFORE they can be 'solved' once and for all. Which just translates to; 'Just put 'the problem' into 'question form'. Like, for example, there is, LITERALLY, NO 'ethical/moral problem' UNTIL the ACTUAL 'problem', seeking to be 'solved', is put into 'question form', and thus ABLE TO then be 'answered', and thus then be ABLE TO BE FINALLY 'solved', ONCE, and for ALL.

So, what, EXACTLY, is the perceived 'ethical/moral problem' here, which you would like ANSWERED and SOLVED, forever more?

What I discovered when I found 'the answer' to 'the question', What is 'the answer' to 'solving' ALL of 'our', [human made], 'problems'? was that 'this answer' was 'the solution' to ALL 'the problems' in Life. Which, when REALLY thought about, is NOT all that remarkable AT ALL. And, in fact, it was PLAIN and OBVIOUS anyway.

'This solution' is ACTUALLY 'the resolution', and thus 'the answer' to, and for, ALL 'problems', ONCE, and for ALL, for ever more.

Now, 'the point of' some 'thing', like 'philosophy' all depends on how one is defining the 'thing', which here is the word 'philosophy'. But, as you see things here, if 'the point of philosophy' is 'the solving of problems' and 'the answering of questions', then having 'the answer' to the question I just proposed, means also having 'the solution' as well. Therefore, 'the point of philosophy' is finished or over and done with.

But, a lot of us see 'the point of philosophy' differently than you do.

As for there being an ethical/moral 'basis', from which to be able to make eithical/moral 'decisions' from, this ALREADY EXISTS, and 'ALWAYS' HAS EXISTED. Just because some do NOT YET KNOW what 'it' IS, nor HOW to find 'it', does NOT mean that 'it' is no longer available to 'you'.

and to make this clear requires a bit of the past...

during the rise of and perhaps the reason for the modern world,

What is the word 'modern' in relation to, EXACTLY?

From my perspective 'that world', in which this was being written, was NOT 'modern' in ANY context regarding moral or ethical issues. In fact 'that world' could be argued as the most 'backward world' that ever existed. So, what you class as the 'modern world' we class as a very 'old world'.

comes several revolutions in we viewed the universe.. we had a
"scientific" revolution, Newton and the like, we had a revolution of the
expansion of the universe... and that is the explorations of the universe,
lead by explorers who went everywhere, who measure, times, weighed
and touched everything they could get their hands on.. Think Darwin...
and we discovered that millions of people thought differently, prayed
differently, viewed government differently, and even had a different
math, writing and numbering systems then the west did...

I am NOT sure how 'the explorations of the universe', 'led by explorers who, supposedly, went EVERYWHERE', could even be remotely true, let alone actually true. But anyway,

another revolution that came about was the political revolution,
think the American/French revolution...

and in discovering that people had vastly different spiritual differences..
which created the problem of which spiritual system was actually the "best'',

Well this question is EASILY answered, very SIMPLY I will add.

we human beings found out that in the midst of hundreds of possibilities of
religions, we can't point out why our system is the best one of all...

This is because NONE of those 'old systems' were ever ALWAYS FULLY correct and right.

and if our spiritual system isn't the best, then why do we need to "bend the knee?"

What does 'bend the knee' even mean, or refer to, EXACTLY?

And, WHO or WHAT even SAYS and CLAIMS that 'you' NEED TO?

and eventually came Nietzsche who simply pointed out the obvious...
and came the realization that indeed, 'god is dead" and we have killed him...

Who is this 'obvious' to? (Besides, OF COURSE, those who ALREADY BELIEVED that God NEVER existed anyway.)

and then came the point I am bringing up, if indeed ''god is dead",
on what basis do we justify our moral/ethical beliefs?

The EXACT SAME way if God is STILL alive.

If " god is dead" then how do we know "what is right and wrong?"

The EXACT SAME way as 'you', human beings, have ALWAYS KNOWN.

From an INSTINCTUAL Knowing WITHIN of what is Right, and Wrong, in Life, in which EVERY one could be in AGREEMENT WITH and could ACCEPT.

I use the 'could' word here because there are just some people who WILL 'disagree' just for the sake of 'disagreeing'. But, if what is being SAID can NOT be 'refuted' by absolutely ANY one, (and remember the difference between 'refute' and 'dispute'), then that is what IS Right, in Life.

As for 'moral' or 'ethical' Rights, and Wrongs, then all one has to do to Know what is Right, or Wrong, in Life, is just put "them" 'self' INTO the "other" and LOOK AT and SEE 'things' from 'their' perspecitve.

But, because adult human beings are the one's who are NOT YET ABLE to SAY and CLAIM what is IRREFUTABLY True and Right, in Life, then all one has to do is put "them" 'self' INTO being a 'child' AGAIN. Then, through those COMMON lived experiences, which ALL and EVERY one HAS SHARED, then what IS, IRREFUTABLY, morally Right, and Wrong, in Life can be SEEN, and UNCOVERED.

Like what IS NEEDED, in Life, from what is just WANTED, in Life, can be DISCERNED, and thus KNOWN, ALSO. Which NO one could, logically and accurately DISAGREE WITH.

The ethical/moral basis upon which we base our moral/ethical systems upon
have no validity.. we have no way of knowing what is ethical/moral anymore...

Here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of HOW and WHY ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS get in the way of being ABLE TO FIND and SEE what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY.

By the way, WHEN do you propose that you DID have a 'way of knowing'? And, what happened EXACTLY to cause you to, 'now', have NO way of knowing AT ALL, anymore?

and that has been the entire point of philosophy since before Nietzsche...
indeed both Wittgenstein and Heidegger and Sartre all thought of themselves
as moral/ethical thinkers... trying to recover what ethical/moral means when
''god is dead" and you can think of the last 150 years of philosophy as an attempt
to define what is ethical/moral beliefs...

But what ARE ethical/moral 'beliefs' ARE just whatever one BELIEVES.

"What is being ethical/moral and how do we make that judgement?"

Are you ASKING from the perspective of just being a CURIOS and INQUISTIVE creature, trying to LEARN and UNDERSTAND MORE?

Or, are you just "asking" this question, with a deep-seeded BELIEF that there is NO answer POSSIBLE?

Once the Honesty here becomes common knowledge then whether a Truly philosophical discussion can take place or NOT also becomes CLEARLY KNOWN.

On what grounds can we say we are being "ethical/moral?" and that question
has haunted modern philosophy.... since before Nietzsche..."what is the ethical/moral
standard we can use to judge what is right and wrong?''

If this is being ASKED, from a Truly OPEN, INQUISITIVE, and CLARIFYING perspective, then 'the answer' is, REALLY, VERY SIMPLE and EASY to OBTAIN, and thus KNOW.

To KNOW what the so-called 'ethical/moral standard' is, EXACTLY, is to FIRST discern between the two.

Then, 'the standard', which can be used to 'judge' what is Right and what is Wrong, in Life, is just AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE.

Once EVERY one IS AGREEING, and ACCEPTING, on some thing, then that IS IRREFUTABLY True, Right, or Correct, or IRREFUTABLY False, Wrong, or Incorrect, obviously depending on what 'it' is that IS IN AGREEMENT and BEING ACCEPTED with and by EVERY one. And, NO the 'ad populum fallacy' does NOT and will NOT EVER apply here.

answer that problem/question and philosophy is back...

and that is one example of seeking out the problems/questions of our
modern times...

Kropotkin

I suggest if you just want to, seriously, 'seek out' 'the problems' and/or 'the questions' of ANY time, then just 'seek out' the "other" to PRESENT 'the problem' in 'question form'. Which is OBVIOUSLY the ONLY True way that 'problems' AND 'questions' can be 'answered' and 'solved', properly AND correctly.

K: the other day, I wrote an elaborate and drawn out response, but I erased it due
to the fact, much of what you wrote, made little sense to me.. then this morning,
I wrote out another long, elaborate response but ran into the same problem...
an example of this is here:

Kropotkin: "during the rise of the modern age"

AGE: What is the word "modern" in relationship to?
From my perspective, "that world" which this was being written,
was NOT modern in ANY context, regarding ethical issues.
In fact, ''that world" can be argued as the most "backward world"
that ever existed. So what you classed as the modern world, we class
as very "old world"

K: I am not quite sure what you mean? Ask 100 people, and 99 of them
will know and understand what the "modern world" means.. but that creates
a problem for you... and I am not sure why?

another example is this:

"Then "the standard", which can be use to "judge" what is Right and what is Wrong,
is just AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE.

Once EVERY one is AGREEING, and ACCEPTING, on some thing, that
IS IRREFUTABLE True, Right or correct, or IRREFUTABLE False, wrong or incorrect
obviously depending on what ''IT'' That IS IN AGREEMENT AND BEING ACCEPTED, with
and by EVERY one."

K: I find this to be so, I guess "bizarre" that I am not actually sure you believe this?
There are so many diverse beliefs and opinions, that I am not sure you can get any two
people to agree on what is up and what is down, little less values like "right" or "wrong".

as far as I can tell, there is nothing in the universe that is IRREFUTABLE true,
right or correct... just as clearly there is no such thing as IRREFUTABLE false,
wrong or incorrect... regardless how many people may or may not agree...
or to say another way, you seem to hold that there is an absolute right or wrong,
and I hold that there is no such thing as "absolute" right or wrong...
the world seems to be black and white to you, whereas I believe
the world to be shades of gray... That there is no such thing as
an "absolute TRUTH"... IT is the young that seems to hold to such
things as "Absolute TRUTH"....SO, I guess, you are in your twenties,
perhaps in your thirties? As you get older, one loses this absolute
belief in "absolute" beliefs..

One does not need to hold to such truths, that even if EVERY SINGLE PERSON on
planet Earth agrees that something is true, doesn't make it so..

In fact, I would question the idea that there is such a thing as an
''Absolute Truth", one "TRUTH" that is unquestionable true to
everyone on planet Earth...which is kinda what was the point of
Descartes, to find something that is unquestionable true, no matter
who you are or where you are.. he failed...because of how he
guaranteed his statements, with god being the guarantee of Descartes
reality... Descartes was a good Catholic, but not a very good philosopher...
had he dumped god being the guarantee of Descartes reality, he would
have been, perhaps, the greatest philosopher of all time..

so, I must say, I really don't quite grasp your beliefs because there are
aren't, at least to me, anywhere near reality.... but hay, that's me.....
I am not saying you are wrong, I am simple saying, that there are many beliefs
under the sun, and that there is no such thing as "absolute truth"....

Kropotkin

[puto]

A human being seventeenth century CE was capable of making a choices, yes analytically, "One who solves problems." According, to Immanuel Kant existence was not a predicate. Tolerances were tactic, and to be proved, however your use of the term, you choose your opinions. Metaethical, for me justifies, to the person or culture. To a complete life, implied a rational principle. You brought up good questions that needed to be answered. Nietzsche did not really had meant metaphysically for truth and rationality. Judah in the festival of Hannukah, Nietzsche did not give up spirituality, but transformed it. Science knowledge of the external world was for Descartes' was an assumption for beliefs. Sure, an atheist can be an ethical and moral person. The Seven Deadly Sins were just that human behaviors. I make my judgements with evidence. Scholasticism means modern. Kropotkin that was well worth the data. Thank-you for making me think.

[Age]

One of the working definitions of a human being is
"one who solves problems"
and one of the things that is lost in all the noise of existence,
is the fact that in front of us, lays several problems/questions,
and the point is to, if we can't answer those questions/problems,
then at least to make sense of the problem/question facing us...

so us "philosophers, in the midst of the creating noise, at least pretend to be
solving a problem/question and if you are not working on a solution,
then make the problem/question to more understandable, clarify
problems and questions to the point that maybe if you can't solve it,
but others with a different skill set might be able to solve that
problem/question....

I think part of the problem in "modern philosophy" especially on philosophy websites,
is forgetting that our engagement is to solve problems/questions of existence
and not as many here and on most philosophy websites, which is to engage with
scoring points, and trying to prove "OUR POINT" is the point worth pursuing...
(I have been guilty of this) where proving my point was more important than
solving the problem/question...

in our creation of noise, we forget the point of philosophy, the solving of
problems and questions...

one of the problems/questions, I focus on is the problem/question of
the ethically/moral problem of the modern times...
which is to say, we no longer have any ethical/moral basis upon to
make such ethical/moral decisions...

Here I find the first mistake, which is continually made when people talk about 'the problem'. Like, for example, 'the ethical/moral problem', 'the starving population problem', 'the drug or alcohol problem', 'the (whatever) problem', et cetera, et cetera.

If NO 'problem' is PRESENTED, then there is NO 'thing' to fix, NOR solve.

See, to me, 'a problem' is just 'a question' posed, for ;a solution'. Nothing more and nothing less, and in this sense, there are NO 'problems' in Life, other then the ones human beings make up and create. So, as you were somewhat getting at above, if 'the problem' is NOT presented in 'question form', then REALLY there is, literally, NOTHING to 'solve', NOR 'answer'.

When 'a problem' is just LOOKED AT only being 'a question', 'posed for a solution', then ALL 'problems' can be 'solved'. Which CAN BE and WILL BE demonstrated.

This is because there is, literally, AN 'answer' to EVERY 'question', even if 'the answer' is, "I do not know".

By the way, if a so-called 'working definition' of a 'human being' is; 'one who solves problems', then let us NOT forget that a 'human being' is the ONLY 'one who asks 'questions', and thus, literally, creates or causes 'problems', in the first place'.

Now, ALL problems/questions can be solved/answered, and human beings will always continue to ask questions/make problems. Being INQUISTIVE creatures, which human beings NATURALLY ARE, they will continue to ask questions, and thus create problems. This is inevitable, however, and as you so rightly POINTED OUT, 'put the question/problem into some sort of resemblance of 'making sense'. If the question/problem is NOT, literally, SENSIBLE, then 'it' is NOT 'able to be made sense of'. ANY and ALL 'problems' NEED to be sense-able [abled to be made sense of] BEFORE they can be 'solved' once and for all. Which just translates to; 'Just put 'the problem' into 'question form'. Like, for example, there is, LITERALLY, NO 'ethical/moral problem' UNTIL the ACTUAL 'problem', seeking to be 'solved', is put into 'question form', and thus ABLE TO then be 'answered', and thus then be ABLE TO BE FINALLY 'solved', ONCE, and for ALL.

So, what, EXACTLY, is the perceived 'ethical/moral problem' here, which you would like ANSWERED and SOLVED, forever more?

What I discovered when I found 'the answer' to 'the question', What is 'the answer' to 'solving' ALL of 'our', [human made], 'problems'? was that 'this answer' was 'the solution' to ALL 'the problems' in Life. Which, when REALLY thought about, is NOT all that remarkable AT ALL. And, in fact, it was PLAIN and OBVIOUS anyway.

'This solution' is ACTUALLY 'the resolution', and thus 'the answer' to, and for, ALL 'problems', ONCE, and for ALL, for ever more.

Now, 'the point of' some 'thing', like 'philosophy' all depends on how one is defining the 'thing', which here is the word 'philosophy'. But, as you see things here, if 'the point of philosophy' is 'the solving of problems' and 'the answering of questions', then having 'the answer' to the question I just proposed, means also having 'the solution' as well. Therefore, 'the point of philosophy' is finished or over and done with.

But, a lot of us see 'the point of philosophy' differently than you do.

As for there being an ethical/moral 'basis', from which to be able to make eithical/moral 'decisions' from, this ALREADY EXISTS, and 'ALWAYS' HAS EXISTED. Just because some do NOT YET KNOW what 'it' IS, nor HOW to find 'it', does NOT mean that 'it' is no longer available to 'you'.

and to make this clear requires a bit of the past...

during the rise of and perhaps the reason for the modern world,

What is the word 'modern' in relation to, EXACTLY?

From my perspective 'that world', in which this was being written, was NOT 'modern' in ANY context regarding moral or ethical issues. In fact 'that world' could be argued as the most 'backward world' that ever existed. So, what you class as the 'modern world' we class as a very 'old world'.

comes several revolutions in we viewed the universe.. we had a
"scientific" revolution, Newton and the like, we had a revolution of the
expansion of the universe... and that is the explorations of the universe,
lead by explorers who went everywhere, who measure, times, weighed
and touched everything they could get their hands on.. Think Darwin...
and we discovered that millions of people thought differently, prayed
differently, viewed government differently, and even had a different
math, writing and numbering systems then the west did...

I am NOT sure how 'the explorations of the universe', 'led by explorers who, supposedly, went EVERYWHERE', could even be remotely true, let alone actually true. But anyway,

another revolution that came about was the political revolution,
think the American/French revolution...

and in discovering that people had vastly different spiritual differences..
which created the problem of which spiritual system was actually the "best'',

Well this question is EASILY answered, very SIMPLY I will add.

we human beings found out that in the midst of hundreds of possibilities of
religions, we can't point out why our system is the best one of all...

This is because NONE of those 'old systems' were ever ALWAYS FULLY correct and right.

and if our spiritual system isn't the best, then why do we need to "bend the knee?"

What does 'bend the knee' even mean, or refer to, EXACTLY?

And, WHO or WHAT even SAYS and CLAIMS that 'you' NEED TO?

and eventually came Nietzsche who simply pointed out the obvious...
and came the realization that indeed, 'god is dead" and we have killed him...

Who is this 'obvious' to? (Besides, OF COURSE, those who ALREADY BELIEVED that God NEVER existed anyway.)

and then came the point I am bringing up, if indeed ''god is dead",
on what basis do we justify our moral/ethical beliefs?

The EXACT SAME way if God is STILL alive.

If " god is dead" then how do we know "what is right and wrong?"

The EXACT SAME way as 'you', human beings, have ALWAYS KNOWN.

From an INSTINCTUAL Knowing WITHIN of what is Right, and Wrong, in Life, in which EVERY one could be in AGREEMENT WITH and could ACCEPT.

I use the 'could' word here because there are just some people who WILL 'disagree' just for the sake of 'disagreeing'. But, if what is being SAID can NOT be 'refuted' by absolutely ANY one, (and remember the difference between 'refute' and 'dispute'), then that is what IS Right, in Life.

As for 'moral' or 'ethical' Rights, and Wrongs, then all one has to do to Know what is Right, or Wrong, in Life, is just put "them" 'self' INTO the "other" and LOOK AT and SEE 'things' from 'their' perspecitve.

But, because adult human beings are the one's who are NOT YET ABLE to SAY and CLAIM what is IRREFUTABLY True and Right, in Life, then all one has to do is put "them" 'self' INTO being a 'child' AGAIN. Then, through those COMMON lived experiences, which ALL and EVERY one HAS SHARED, then what IS, IRREFUTABLY, morally Right, and Wrong, in Life can be SEEN, and UNCOVERED.

Like what IS NEEDED, in Life, from what is just WANTED, in Life, can be DISCERNED, and thus KNOWN, ALSO. Which NO one could, logically and accurately DISAGREE WITH.

The ethical/moral basis upon which we base our moral/ethical systems upon
have no validity.. we have no way of knowing what is ethical/moral anymore...

Here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of HOW and WHY ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS get in the way of being ABLE TO FIND and SEE what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY.

By the way, WHEN do you propose that you DID have a 'way of knowing'? And, what happened EXACTLY to cause you to, 'now', have NO way of knowing AT ALL, anymore?

and that has been the entire point of philosophy since before Nietzsche...
indeed both Wittgenstein and Heidegger and Sartre all thought of themselves
as moral/ethical thinkers... trying to recover what ethical/moral means when
''god is dead" and you can think of the last 150 years of philosophy as an attempt
to define what is ethical/moral beliefs...

But what ARE ethical/moral 'beliefs' ARE just whatever one BELIEVES.

"What is being ethical/moral and how do we make that judgement?"

Are you ASKING from the perspective of just being a CURIOS and INQUISTIVE creature, trying to LEARN and UNDERSTAND MORE?

Or, are you just "asking" this question, with a deep-seeded BELIEF that there is NO answer POSSIBLE?

Once the Honesty here becomes common knowledge then whether a Truly philosophical discussion can take place or NOT also becomes CLEARLY KNOWN.

On what grounds can we say we are being "ethical/moral?" and that question
has haunted modern philosophy.... since before Nietzsche..."what is the ethical/moral
standard we can use to judge what is right and wrong?''

If this is being ASKED, from a Truly OPEN, INQUISITIVE, and CLARIFYING perspective, then 'the answer' is, REALLY, VERY SIMPLE and EASY to OBTAIN, and thus KNOW.

To KNOW what the so-called 'ethical/moral standard' is, EXACTLY, is to FIRST discern between the two.

Then, 'the standard', which can be used to 'judge' what is Right and what is Wrong, in Life, is just AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE.

Once EVERY one IS AGREEING, and ACCEPTING, on some thing, then that IS IRREFUTABLY True, Right, or Correct, or IRREFUTABLY False, Wrong, or Incorrect, obviously depending on what 'it' is that IS IN AGREEMENT and BEING ACCEPTED with and by EVERY one. And, NO the 'ad populum fallacy' does NOT and will NOT EVER apply here.

answer that problem/question and philosophy is back...

and that is one example of seeking out the problems/questions of our
modern times...

Kropotkin

I suggest if you just want to, seriously, 'seek out' 'the problems' and/or 'the questions' of ANY time, then just 'seek out' the "other" to PRESENT 'the problem' in 'question form'. Which is OBVIOUSLY the ONLY True way that 'problems' AND 'questions' can be 'answered' and 'solved', properly AND correctly.

K: the other day, I wrote an elaborate and drawn out response, but I erased it due
to the fact, much of what you wrote, made little sense to me.. then this morning,
I wrote out another long, elaborate response but ran into the same problem...
an example of this is here:

In that time did it ever occur to you to just CLARIFY with me what I was SAYING and MEANING?

If no, then I suggest that if you did just ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, then MORE SENSE can be MADE, and/or what I MEAN can be MADE MORE CLEAR.

Kropotkin: "during the rise of the modern age"

AGE: What is the word "modern" in relationship to?
From my perspective, "that world" which this was being written,
was NOT modern in ANY context, regarding ethical issues.
In fact, ''that world" can be argued as the most "backward world"
that ever existed. So what you classed as the modern world, we class
as very "old world"

K: I am not quite sure what you mean?

A LOT of what I write is to SHOW the way people thought and behaved, in the days when this WAS being written, (or what you might call "the modern age"). I write in a WAY that could appear somewhat MISLEADING, or CONFUSION, AT TIMES, but what I ACTUALLY MEAN could be VERY EASILY, and VERY SIMPLY, CLEARED UP just through some CLARIFYING QUESTIONING.

Ask 100 people, and 99 of them
will know and understand what the "modern world" means..

And you might just be the 'one' who does NOT know and understand what the words 'the modern world' means, as it was 'I' who ASKED 'you' what the word 'modern' was in relation to, which is quite funny really as it was 'you' who WROTE the words, "the modern world".

If 'one' KNOWS and UNDERSTANDS what the "modern world" REALLY IS, then it would be NO issue AT ALL for that 'one' to just INFORM the rest of us what the 'modern' in that term is in relation to, EXACTLY.

but that creates
a problem for you... and I am not sure why?

1. 'that' does NOT create A problem for 'me', AT ALL, (in the sense of 'problem' that you are thinking of and meaning).

2. The main reason WHY you are NOT SURE, WHY, IS BECAUSE there WAS and IS NO 'problem' for me here.

3. One of the main reasons I ASKED 'you' that CLARIFYING QUESTION was to HIGHLIGHT and SHOW how the people, in those "olden times", when this WAS being written, continually made CLAIMS, most of the time they could NOT actually back up and support THOSE CLAIMS.

4. Another reason was to just SHOW that what EACH and EVERY generation class as "the modern age", always just ends up being 'the old age', (or 'old world'), wiith VERY OLD and OUTDATED thinking and behaviors.

5. So, I was QUESTIONING what 'modern age' were you referring to, EXACTLY?

The WAY 'you', adult human beings, LOOK AT and SAW 'things', (in the 'age' when this WAS being written), IS VERY OLD and OUTDATED to 'us' in the MORE 'modern age'.

another example is this:

"Then "the standard", which can be use to "judge" what is Right and what is Wrong,
is just AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE.

Once EVERY one is AGREEING, and ACCEPTING, on some thing, that
IS IRREFUTABLE True, Right or correct, or IRREFUTABLE False, wrong or incorrect
obviously depending on what ''IT'' That IS IN AGREEMENT AND BEING ACCEPTED, with
and by EVERY one."

K: I find this to be so, I guess "bizarre" that I am not actually sure you believe this?

When, and IF, 'you' KNOW 'me', then 'you' WILL KNOW what I BELIEVE.

Oh, and by the way, AS I WAS SAYING,

'The standard' that CAN BE and IS USED to JUDGE what IS Right and Wrong, in Life, is JUST 'universal agreement'.

Do you STILL find 'this' "bizarre"?

If yes, then WHY?

There are so many diverse beliefs and opinions, that I am not sure you can get any two
people to agree on what is up and what is down, little less values like "right" or "wrong".

ONCE the BELIEFS, and individual OPINIONS, ARE REMOVED, then what is left is 'that', which IS in AGREEMENT.

Also, if this is your BELIEF or OPINION here, then so be it. But are your BELIEFS or OPINIONS ALWAYS or USUALLY 'right' and 'correct'?

If yes, then WHY 'yours'?

Oh, and by the way, 'universally' there is NO ACTUAL 'up', NOR 'down'. Some people just have the BELIEF or OPINION that there IS, based on their OWN very limited life, and thinking.

as far as I can tell, there is nothing in the universe that is IRREFUTABLE true,
right or correct...

If there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, then think about what that would MEAN to your OWN BELIEF, OPINION, or CLAIM here.

just as clearly there is no such thing as IRREFUTABLE false,
wrong or incorrect... regardless how many people may or may not agree...
or to say another way, you seem to hold that there is an absolute right or wrong,
and I hold that there is no such thing as "absolute" right or wrong...

Well we can NOT BOTH be 'right' AND 'correct', true?

Or, CAN WE?

ALSO, ANY CLAIM that CLAIMS that there can NOT be ANY absolute, NOR irrefutable, truth is a self-refuting CLAIM in and of itself.

the world seems to be black and white to you, whereas I believe
the world to be shades of gray...

AND, it is BECAUSE of YOUR BELIEF here, WHY you SAY and CLAIM what you DO here.

That there is no such thing as
an "absolute TRUTH"... IT is the young that seems to hold to such
things as "Absolute TRUTH"....

LOL

What do 'you' think or BELIEVE THE CLAIM:
There is NO such thing as an 'absolute TRUTH' IS EXACTLY, if IT is NOT a CLAIM of 'absolute TRUTH', ITSELF.

As for YOUR CLAIM, BELIEF, or OPINION of, and about, 'the young' I will leave alone.

SO, I guess, you are in your twenties,
perhaps in your thirties? As you get older, one loses this absolute
belief in "absolute" beliefs..

And what? Supposedly GAINS the absolutely BELIEF that There is NO such thing as an 'absolute TRUTH', INSTEAD?

Have you found a REAL USE in just 'losing one BELIEF' and REPLACING 'IT' with ANOTHER BELIEF?

One does not need to hold to such truths, that even if EVERY SINGLE PERSON on
planet Earth agrees that something is true, doesn't make it so..

NO one HERE EVER said such a thing.

But you did NOT RECOGNIZE 'this Fact', BECAUSE NOT much of what I have SAID, and MEANT, made much sense to you, correct?

In fact, I would question the idea that there is such a thing as an
''Absolute Truth", one "TRUTH" that is unquestionable true to
everyone on planet Earth...which is kinda what was the point of
Descartes, to find something that is unquestionable true, no matter
who you are or where you are.. he failed...because of how he
guaranteed his statements, with god being the guarantee of Descartes
reality... Descartes was a good Catholic, but not a very good philosopher...
had he dumped god being the guarantee of Descartes reality, he would
have been, perhaps, the greatest philosopher of all time..

Talk about MISSING 'the point', and NOT replying to what I ACTUALLY just SAID and MEANT, and just DEFLECTING INSTEAD here.

so, I must say, I really don't quite grasp your beliefs because there are
aren't, at least to me, anywhere near reality....

What 'beliefs' do you BELIEVE I have?

but hay, that's me.....
I am not saying you are wrong, I am simple saying, that there are many beliefs
under the sun, and that there is no such thing as "absolute truth"....

Kropotkin

While you are continually BELIEVING and SAYING;

There is NO such thing as an 'absolute truth',

then, IF another one is SAYING that;

There ARE ACTUALLY 'absolute and irrefutable Truths',

Then WHY would you NOT be saying to the other, "You ARE wrong"?

To say, that you are NOT saying, 'you are wrong' in this situation appears to be COMPLETELY CONTRADICTORY and HYPOCRITICAL.

[Peter Kropotkin]

OK, I gotta admit reading that "wall of text", my eyes glazed over.
(and I routinely read books that are over 800 pages long)

ok, let us try this...Are there ''absolute truths?"
and if so, what are they? and how do we know they are absolute
truths? What standard/s do we use to judge such truths?

lets start there...

Kropotkin