New Discovery

[peacegirl]

I too need a little instruction about replying, quoting, and replying without quoting.
To begin with: What is a "tag" ?

Thanks Belinda. Maybe we are both considered stupid. At least now I'm not alone.

Stupidity takes different forms. I could tell you some inglorious facts about me, but I won't.

I guess we all can attest to stupidity at one time or another, but we really aren’t stupid at all. As adults, we know this. I hope no one calls a child stupid. That label could stick with them for life!

[Belinda]

Thanks Belinda. Maybe we are both considered stupid. At least now I'm not alone.

Stupidity takes different forms. I could tell you some inglorious facts about me, but I won't.

I guess we all can attest to stupidity at one time or another, but we really aren’t stupid at all. As adults, we know this. I hope no one calls a child stupid. That label could stick with them for life!

I am not a child, and being called stupid does not bother me in the slightest.

[peacegirl]

Stupidity takes different forms. I could tell you some inglorious facts about me, but I won't.

I guess we all can attest to stupidity at one time or another, but we really aren’t stupid at all. As adults, we know this. I hope no one calls a child stupid. That label could stick with them for life!

I am not a child, and being called stupid does not bother me in the slightest.

That’s good to hear, but children could be seriously harmed. We all know this.

[Belinda]

I guess we all can attest to stupidity at one time or another, but we really aren’t stupid at all. As adults, we know this. I hope no one calls a child stupid. That label could stick with them for life!

I am not a child, and being called stupid does not bother me in the slightest.

That’s good to hear, but children could be seriously harmed. We all know this.

But none of us here is a child, Peacegirl. Don't you see your little scenario is irrelevant?

[peacegirl]

I am not a child, and being called stupid does not bother me in the slightest.

That’s good to hear, but children could be seriously harmed. We all know this.

But none of us here is a child, Peacegirl. Don't you see your little scenario is irrelevant?

I don't see it that way. I have no idea who these adults are, and the things they say are hideous. It makes me wonder if they use hurtful words to their kids, or just here where it's behind a computer screen.

[Belinda]

That’s good to hear, but children could be seriously harmed. We all know this.

But none of us here is a child, Peacegirl. Don't you see your little scenario is irrelevant?

I don't see it that way. I have no idea who these adults are, and the things they say are hideous. It makes me wonder if they use hurtful words to their kids, or just here where it's behind a computer screen.

One does wonder about the real lives behind the various personas of this this online habitat. Why not interact only with the personas and leave the real actors alone?
You will eventually become inured to online insults, then you can better address the actual material.

[peacegirl]

But none of us here is a child, Peacegirl. Don't you see your little scenario is irrelevant?

I don't see it that way. I have no idea who these adults are, and the things they say are hideous. It makes me wonder if they use hurtful words to their kids, or just here where it's behind a computer screen.

One does wonder about the real lives behind the various personas of this this online habitat. Why not interact only with the personas and leave the real actors alone?
You will eventually become inured to online insults, then you can better address the actual material.

I don’t like insults that take away from the purpose of a discussion. I’m pretty thick-skinned, but to me, it’s plain old bullying! People either habituate to this kind of environment, or they leave. I believe a lot of good conversations end too soon because of this.

[FlashDangerpants]

Whole lotta self pity going on.

[Eodnhoj7]

1. Real simple...if satisfaction can always be greater than it is never enough thus what is greater satisfaction in one context is always less than the future. Effectively now is never enough.

IT IS MOVEMENT. IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT NEVER ENOUGH, FINE. IF YOU ARE HUNGRY, YOU MOVE IN THE DIRECTION TO FIND SOMETHING TO EAT. YOU COULD CALL THAT NEVER ENOUGH. IF I AM UNCOMFORTABLE AND CHANGE POSITIONS IN THE DIRECTION TO FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE, YOU COULD CALL THAT NEVER ENOUGH IF YOU WANT TO.

2. Real simple: The past always exists as the pattern by which we filter "now".

THAT IS TRUE. BUT, IN REALITY, THE PAST DOES NOT EXIST EXCEPT IN MEMORY. WE USE OUR MEMORIES FOR EVERYTHING, WHICH IS WHY THE FEAR OF LOSING OUR MEMORY IS VERY REAL.

3. See point 1. Dually if everyone is naturally moving towards greater satisfaction than naturally the book is not necessary.

NOT TRUE. Here is why.

When this natural law becomes a permanent condition of the environment, attempting to gain at the expense of an individual or of an entire nation could never be a source of greater satisfaction. It will be IMPOSSIBLE for anyone — regardless of their political or religious affiliation — to receive satisfaction whatsoever from being excused for that of which the responsibility could never be denied or justified. Therefore, let me continue by asking the same question again: Of what value is having an army and police force when there is no possibility of war or crime? Can you think of anything more humorous or ironic? Now that we understand man’s will is not free, we know that nothing causes people to go to war unless they want to, and there is nothing that can make them want to once the tacit blame of armaments is removed. In the world of free will, we were justified because our lack of understanding created an atmosphere in which being different than we were would only have made matters worse; therefore, we had no choice. But with our understanding as to why man’s will is not free, mankind is able to veer in a different direction for satisfaction, removing the causes for which blame, punishment, and retaliation were previously necessary.

4. Punishment is an interpretation, a context. I have seen people view punishments as no punishment at all, and others a simple little necessary job as punishment.

I THINK MOST PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO BE PUNISHED BY BEING PUT IN A JAIL CELL FOR LIFE. I THINK MOST PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO BE TORTURED AS A FORM OF PUNISHMENT. I DON'T THINK PEOPLE WANT TO BE HELD HOSTAGE AS A FORM OF COLLATERAL DAMAGE. IF SOMEONE LIKES BEING BEATEN AS A FORM OF PUNISHMENT FOR SOMETHING HE DID, THEN IT WOULDN'T BE PUNISHMENT TO HIM.

There are only effects of a cause as further cause, we know this as the natural act of distinction.

I AM NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN "AS A NATURAL ACT OF DISTINCTION."

5. I am not saying they are evil. I said they love darkness/pain/fear/madness.

WHAT ARE YOU SAYING THEN?

Objectively, people are just centerpoints from which distinctions unfold.

YOUR WORDS ARE OBTUSE. PLEASE BE MORE CLEAR.

6. Your interpretation "just is"....one of innumerable that occur and then dissolve.

IT IS NOT AN INTERPRETATION.

1. Perfect....then we can agree that the pursuit of satisfaction never ends and as such is a futile pursuit.

2. All is mine by degree of interpretation of reality, to separate reality from mind and one could not speak of it. You cannot prove or disprove determinism outside of mind.

3. Non sense. "When this book...." is an interpretation. There is no proof or disproof of "when or if" the book reaches such a state. What you are saying is that interpretation is determined, but if that is the case then it is determined that there will be counter interpretations for if there is no contrast then there is no meaning. I think you fail to see that for the book to be accepted it requires an antithesis of people who do not accept it.

4. Nonsense, people self-destruct by choice all the time. I have worked in a jail before. Some people actually prefer it. Your views of what people want and do not want are naive assertions.

5. Simple, it is natural to make distinctions. That is how we interpret reality, that is why reality is composed of things.

6. Yes what you provided is an interpretation as you claimed that the definition of determinism has to be redefined. Definition is interpretation.

[Eodnhoj7]

Whole lotta self pity going on.

Read the early portion of the thread....I warned her philosophy can be "ruthless". Apparently she thought she knew better.

[peacegirl]

1. Perfect....then we can agree that the pursuit of satisfaction never ends and as such is a futile pursuit.

NO, IT IS NOT A FUTILE PURSUIT UNLESS YOU ARE SUICIDAL, BECAUSE ALL OF LIFE MOVES IN THE DIRECTION OF SATISFACTION.

2. All is mine by degree of interpretation of reality, to separate reality from mind and one could not speak of it. You cannot prove or disprove determinism outside of mind.

HOW IS ANYTHING DECIDED OUTSIDE OF MIND. DO YOU THINK EINSTEIN MADE HIS DISCOVERIES OUTSIDE OF HIS MIND? YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVEN'T UNDERSTOOD THIS AUTHOR'S PROOF OF DETERMINISM AT ALL. AND IT IS AN ACCURATE PROOF, BY THE WAY.

3. Non sense. "When this book...." is an interpretation. There is no proof or disproof of "when or if" the book reaches such a state. What you are saying is that interpretation is determined, but if that is the case then it is determined that there will be counter interpretations for if there is no contrast then there is no meaning. I think you fail to see that for the book to be accepted it requires an antithesis of people who do not accept it.

IT HAS NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH INTERPRETATION. DO YOU INTERPRET THAT WHEN YOU FALL FROM A TREE, GRAVITY ISN'T RESPONSIBLE, OR DO YOU THINK IT'S UP TO YOUR INTERPRETATION TO DECIDE WHETHER IT'S GRAVITY OR NOT?

4. Nonsense, people self-destruct by choice all the time. I have worked in a jail before. Some people actually prefer it. Your views of what people want and do not want are naive assertions.

YES, PEOPLE DO THINGS THAT GIVE THEM INSTANT GRATIFICATION EVEN WHEN THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING CAN HURT THEM IN THE LONGRUN. DRUG ADDICTS KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING CAN KILL THEM, BUT THEY DO IT ANYWAY BECAUSE THE HIGH OUTWEIGHS THE STRENGTH TO SAY NO AT THAT MINUTE. PEOPLE MAY PREFER JAIL BECAUSE IT GIVES THEM SECURITY RATHER THAN HAVING TO GO OUT IN SOCIETY AND FEND FOR THEMSELVES. IT MAKES ABSOLUTE SENSE THAT IT GIVES THEM GREATER SATISFACTION. WHERE DOES THIS NEGATE HIS CLAIM?

5. Simple, it is natural to make distinctions. That is how we interpret reality, that is why reality is composed of things.

IT IS OBVIOUS THAT CONTEMPLATION INVOLVES DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN THINGS OR WE WOULDN'T HAVE THE ATTRIBUTE OF DISCERNMENT. WE MAY INTERPRET WHAT WE SEE CORRECTLY OR WE MAY NOT. IF SOMEONE SEES A TREE AND SHE THINKS IT'S BIGFOOT, THIS MAY BE HER INTERPRETATION BASED ON STORIES TOLD TO HER WHEN SHE WAS YOUNGER. I WILL ASK YOU AGAIN: WHERE DOES THIS CHANGE ANYTHING? FOR EXAMPLE, IF EVERYONE IS TELLING HER IT'S JUST A TREE, NOT BIGFOOT, SHE MAY FINALLY ACCEPT THAT BIGFOOT IS JUST A MYTH.

6. Yes what you provided is an interpretation as you claimed that the definition of determinism has to be redefined. Definition is interpretation.

IT ALREADY HAS BEEN. IT IS NOT AN INTERPRETATION. ONE PLUS ONE EQUALS TWO IS NOT AN INTERPRETATION. AS HE SAID: DEFINITIONS MEAN ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHERE REALITY IS CONCERNED UNLESS THEY REFLECT WHAT IS GOING ON IN REALITY.

[Eodnhoj7]

1. Perfect....then we can agree that the pursuit of satisfaction never ends and as such is a futile pursuit.

NO, IT IS NOT A FUTILE PURSUIT UNLESS YOU ARE SUICIDAL, BECAUSE ALL OF LIFE MOVES IN THE DIRECTION OF SATISFACTION.

2. All is mine by degree of interpretation of reality, to separate reality from mind and one could not speak of it. You cannot prove or disprove determinism outside of mind.

HOW IS ANYTHING DECIDED OUTSIDE OF MIND. DO YOU THINK EINSTEIN MADE HIS DISCOVERIES OUTSIDE OF HIS MIND? YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVEN'T UNDERSTOOD THIS AUTHOR'S PROOF OF DETERMINISM AT ALL. AND IT IS AN ACCURATE PROOF, BY THE WAY.

3. Non sense. "When this book...." is an interpretation. There is no proof or disproof of "when or if" the book reaches such a state. What you are saying is that interpretation is determined, but if that is the case then it is determined that there will be counter interpretations for if there is no contrast then there is no meaning. I think you fail to see that for the book to be accepted it requires an antithesis of people who do not accept it.

IT HAS NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH INTERPRETATION. DO YOU INTERPRET THAT WHEN YOU FALL FROM A TREE, GRAVITY ISN'T RESPONSIBLE, OR DO YOU THINK IT'S UP TO YOUR INTERPRETATION TO DECIDE WHETHER IT'S GRAVITY OR NOT?

4. Nonsense, people self-destruct by choice all the time. I have worked in a jail before. Some people actually prefer it. Your views of what people want and do not want are naive assertions.

YES, PEOPLE DO THINGS THAT GIVE THEM INSTANT GRATIFICATION EVEN WHEN THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING CAN HURT THEM IN THE LONGRUN. DRUG ADDICTS KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING CAN KILL THEM, BUT THEY DO IT ANYWAY BECAUSE THE HIGH OUTWEIGHS THE STRENGTH TO SAY NO AT THAT MINUTE. PEOPLE MAY PREFER JAIL BECAUSE IT GIVES THEM SECURITY RATHER THAN HAVING TO GO OUT IN SOCIETY AND FEND FOR THEMSELVES. IT MAKES ABSOLUTE SENSE THAT IT GIVES THEM GREATER SATISFACTION. WHERE DOES THIS NEGATE HIS CLAIM?

5. Simple, it is natural to make distinctions. That is how we interpret reality, that is why reality is composed of things.

IT IS OBVIOUS THAT CONTEMPLATION INVOLVES DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN THINGS OR WE WOULDN'T HAVE THE ATTRIBUTE OF DISCERNMENT. WE MAY INTERPRET WHAT WE SEE CORRECTLY OR WE MAY NOT. IF SOMEONE SEES A TREE AND SHE THINKS IT'S BIGFOOT, THIS MAY BE HER INTERPRETATION BASED ON STORIES TOLD TO HER WHEN SHE WAS YOUNGER. I WILL ASK YOU AGAIN: WHERE DOES THIS CHANGE ANYTHING? FOR EXAMPLE, IF EVERYONE IS TELLING HER IT'S JUST A TREE, NOT BIGFOOT, SHE MAY FINALLY ACCEPT THAT BIGFOOT IS JUST A MYTH.

6. Yes what you provided is an interpretation as you claimed that the definition of determinism has to be redefined. Definition is interpretation.

IT ALREADY HAS BEEN. IT IS NOT AN INTERPRETATION. ONE PLUS ONE EQUALS TWO IS NOT AN INTERPRETATION. AS HE SAID: DEFINITIONS MEAN ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHERE REALITY IS CONCERNED UNLESS THEY REFLECT WHAT IS GOING ON IN REALITY.

1. So the pursuit of satisfaction is never ending...and yet it is not a futile pursuit....by what reasoning?

2. Determinism is an interpretation, accurate by what standard?

3. You are assuming this book will be accepted by the masses...by what reasoning?

4. Real simple...punishment is a means of interpretation and as such you cannot assumed people will share the same interpretation of it. What is punishment to some is not to others. The book will negate negate the act of punishment occuring by people percieving it is occuring.

5. You asked what I meant by the "natural act of distinction making". So I clarified it.


6. So definitions mean nothing unless they reflect reality and yet reality not only changes but the very act of defining is a part of reality. You cannot prove or disprove determinism outside of definition.

[Atla]

Whole lotta self pity going on.

I don't understand why people are being rude to me. All I'm asking is that the world acknowledges my charlatan father and me as the saviours of the universe, and get treated accordingly. Is that too much to ask? I'm such a victim and these people should feel ashamed.

[peacegirl]

1. So the pursuit of satisfaction is never ending...and yet it is not a futile pursuit....by what reasoning?

2. Determinism is an interpretation, accurate by what standard?

3. You are assuming this book will be accepted by the masses...by what reasoning?

4. Real simple...punishment is a means of interpretation and as such you cannot assumed people will share the same interpretation of it. What is punishment to some is not to others. The book will negate negate the act of punishment occuring by people percieving it is occuring.

5. You asked what I meant by the "natural act of distinction making". So I clarified it.


6. So definitions mean nothing unless they reflect reality and yet reality not only changes but the very act of defining is a part of reality. You cannot prove or disprove determinism outside of definition.

I answered every one of your questions. This is just a repeat.

[Belinda]

I don't see it that way. I have no idea who these adults are, and the things they say are hideous. It makes me wonder if they use hurtful words to their kids, or just here where it's behind a computer screen.

One does wonder about the real lives behind the various personas of this this online habitat. Why not interact only with the personas and leave the real actors alone?
You will eventually become inured to online insults, then you can better address the actual material.

I don’t like insults that take away from the purpose of a discussion. I’m pretty thick-skinned, but to me, it’s plain old bullying! People either habituate to this kind of environment, or they leave. I believe a lot of good conversations end too soon because of this.

I agree. Good conversations are positively aided by ordinary politeness.There is a third choice----one can opt to not receive posts from selected posters.
This platform as far as I know has no method of selecting only posters who are able philosophers and who seek to learn from discussions.
Having said what I said I am puzzled as to your motive for using this website.