Real universal rights

[Rational ethicist]

So, you could NEVER logically say NOR prove that what "another" says or claims is wrong nor false about 'ethics', as long as what they say or claim about 'ethics' is done under sub-section titled 'Ethical theory', right?

no. I'm not following.

Here is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of WHERE and WHEN one does NOT understand AT ALL what the "other" is SAYING and MEANING,

sure That is what I meant with "I'm not following"

AND has absolutely NO interest AT ALL in LEARNING and BECOMING WISER either.

my statement that i'm not following doesn't allow you to derive that I don't have interest in learning...

Anyway, we are on a philosophy discussion forum, so that means we have to define philosophy first, before we can move on?

If you say and BELIEVE SO.

It was a question, and my answer would be no, so I don't believe so.

BUT, this CONTRADICTS what you SAID and MEANT previously.

how so?

You start: what is philosophy? (I will make it myself easy by copy pasting your answer)

To me, the word 'philosophy' once meant and referred to having the 'love-of-wisdom'.

Fine, then I will define philosophy as the same thing: love of wisdom. Now don't you dare asking me to define love and wisdom

BUT the 'real discussion' has NOT YET BEGUN.

of course, if you ask for definitions of concepts ('morality',...) that are irrelevant in the real discussion because those concepts are not used in the discussion.

If yes, then this would mean and entail that absolutely ANY thing could written or said about 'ethics' and it would ALL be fine and all right.

not necessarily.

WHY, 'not necessarily', EXACTLY?

I don't see how it follows, and I can easily imagine counter examples, i.e. that it doesn't follow. for example saying something about properties of prime numbers...

[

quote="Rational ethicist" post_id=616481 time=1672390381 user_id=23251]
The fact that we did not first define philosophy does not yet mean that absolutely ANY thing could written or said about philosphy on this philosophy forum.

But I have ALREADY defined the word 'philosophy'. 'We' are just WAITING for 'you' now. [/quote]
I did not know you defined philosophy. This basically shows that defining philosophy is irrelevant. If you didn't write that definition, it would not change anything of importance.
You don't have to wait for me: I copy paste your definition of philosophy.

Also;
1. Absolutely ANY thing could be written or said about 'philosophy', on this or ANY OTHER philosophy forum.

Not sure what you mean. Is it like saying "This sentence is not true"? Is that something that could be said?
Anyway, we are not capable of writing everything, because we are finite beings. Legally, there are things we can (in the sense of should) not write. And we cannot write things that have nothing to do with philosophy while saying without lying that they have something to do with philosophy.

[Harbal]

Your interpretation is not only illogical, but also a distortion of the spirit of the comment.

Okay.

And, what was the so-called 'spirit' of the comment, EXACTLY?

Okay, let’s break it down:

I said, “It seems rather arrogant of us -human beings- to think that we are entitled to bestow rights on anything other than ourselves.” In your response, which I took as a criticism of my view, you included this: “let alone for ALL of the OTHER creatures on earth.” Even though you presented that as a challenge to what I said, it actually agrees with it. We are both saying that we -human beings- are not in a position to give rights to “other creatures”.

Your objection to my comments seems to be based on the opinion that we -human beings- are falling short in our moral and ethical conduct, which may be the case, but I never said anything to the contrary. I was only suggesting the principles that I thought we should apply to ourselves.

My comment was intended to convey the idea that we should behave ethically towards all other living creatures, and that we should approach that endeavour by placing moral and ethical demands on ourselves, rather than by giving rights to creatures that neither understand what rights are, nor can do anything about exercising them. Our presence on the earth has had, and continues to have, a massive impact on everything else that lives on it, which puts a correspondingly massive responsibility upon our shoulders. That was the nature of the spirit of the comment, which is far from the spirit in which you seemed to take it.

You seem to think that the moral and ethical conduct of human beings is pitiful, but I have made no implications about that one way or the other.

[Rational ethicist]

BUT, reading what "others" have written about the definition or meaning of a word, will NEVER REVEAL what 'you' ACTUALLY MEAN when 'you' USE that word.

I suggest doing the following. Assume the speaker uses one of the most common definitions of the word, and when the speaker then says something confusing, something that doesn't seem to fit with that definition, only then ask the speaker for the definition he is using.

Asking for a definition of rights in a discussion on rights is meaningful.

But what is the word 'rights', under the title 'Real universal rights', in relation to, EXACTLY?

I refer to the wikipedia article on rights...
You remind me of a strange guy I met in a Belgian city, a weird artist who claimed to have invented a perpetuum mobile. He asked people on the street, like me, "what is energy?" As a physicist, I responded: "a property that is conserved in universes that have time translation symmetry". But he didn't understand that, so he kept asking about the definition of energy...

Is that word to do with 'morality' and/or 'ethical' issues, for example, or is that word in relation to the 'rights' one has while driving a motor vehicle, for example?

why not both? Let's keep the notion of rights very broad. It can include a right to life, a right not to be killed, a right to drive a car, a right to drive a car when one is qualified to do so,... It can include legal, moral, ethical, cultural and whatever rights. It can include active and passive, positive and negative rights.

But asking in that same discussion for a definition of philosophy or morality is not.

When this issue of it being 'good communication' to define meanings, it was in relation to the terms BEING USED. Like, for example, the term 'rights' in a discussion on, 'Real universal rights', for example.

In a discussion about rights it is meaningful or useful to ask for a definition of rights. In a discussion not about morality it is useless to ask for a definition of morality. In a discussion not about philosophy it is useless to ask for a definition of philosophy.

[Age]

no. I'm not following.

Here is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of WHERE and WHEN one does NOT understand AT ALL what the "other" is SAYING and MEANING,

sure That is what I meant with "I'm not following"

AND has absolutely NO interest AT ALL in LEARNING and BECOMING WISER either.

my statement that i'm not following doesn't allow you to derive that I don't have interest in learning...

1. 'you' do NOT CHOOSE what does or does NOT allow 'me' to derive. Understand?

2. 'your' statement, 'I am NOT following', ONLY, PROVES IRREFUTABLY that 'you' do NOT have ANY interest AT ALL in LEARNING ANY 'thing' more NOR further, in regards to what I wrote and said above there.

Anyway, we are on a philosophy discussion forum, so that means we have to define philosophy first, before we can move on?

If you say and BELIEVE SO.

It was a question, and my answer would be no, so I don't believe so.

In case you are NOT YET AWARE that was A statement, WITH a question mark at the end of THAT STATEMENT.

Questions are worded DIFFERENTLY.

BUT, this CONTRADICTS what you SAID and MEANT previously.

how so?

Well this will now DEPEND ON if you are going to CLAIM that 'that' was NOT A STATEMENT AT ALL, or NOT.

You start: what is philosophy? (I will make it myself easy by copy pasting your answer)

To me, the word 'philosophy' once meant and referred to having the 'love-of-wisdom'.

Fine, then I will define philosophy as the same thing: love of wisdom. Now don't you dare asking me to define love and wisdom

Do NOT TELL me what to do. UNDERSTOOD?

BUT the 'real discussion' has NOT YET BEGUN.

of course, if you ask for definitions of concepts ('morality',...) that are irrelevant in the real discussion because those concepts are not used in the discussion.

BUT the 'real discussion' has NOT YET BEGUN.

not necessarily.

WHY, 'not necessarily', EXACTLY?

I don't see how it follows, and I can easily imagine counter examples, i.e. that it doesn't follow. for example saying something about properties of prime numbers...

I do NOT see how this follows.

[

quote="Rational ethicist" post_id=616481 time=1672390381 user_id=23251]
The fact that we did not first define philosophy does not yet mean that absolutely ANY thing could written or said about philosphy on this philosophy forum.

But I have ALREADY defined the word 'philosophy'. 'We' are just WAITING for 'you' now.

I did not know you defined philosophy. This basically shows that defining philosophy is irrelevant. If you didn't write that definition, it would not change anything of importance.
You don't have to wait for me: I copy paste your definition of philosophy.[/quote]

Your first sentence here you CLAIM that you did NOT know that I had defined 'philosophy', then three sentences later you CLAIM that you 'copy pasted' my definition of 'philosophy'. So, WHICH 'one' is the ACTUAL Truth here?

Also;
1. Absolutely ANY thing could be written or said about 'philosophy', on this or ANY OTHER philosophy forum.

Not sure what you mean. Is it like saying "This sentence is not true"? Is that something that could be said?

No, absolutely NOTHING like that AT ALL.

Anyway, we are not capable of writing everything, because we are finite beings.

Okay, but I am NOT sure what this has to do with ANY thing here.

Legally, there are things we can (in the sense of should) not write.

Like 'what', for example?

And we cannot write things that have nothing to do with philosophy while saying without lying that they have something to do with philosophy.

EITHER 'you' have a love-of-learning and becoming-wiser, or 'you' do not.

[Age]

Your interpretation is not only illogical, but also a distortion of the spirit of the comment.

Okay.

And, what was the so-called 'spirit' of the comment, EXACTLY?

Okay, let’s break it down:

I said, “It seems rather arrogant of us -human beings- to think that we are entitled to bestow rights on anything other than ourselves.” In your response, which I took as a criticism of my view, you included this: “let alone for ALL of the OTHER creatures on earth.” Even though you presented that as a challenge to what I said, it actually agrees with it. We are both saying that we -human beings- are not in a position to give rights to “other creatures”.

Yes, we are both saying the same 'thing', in this regard.

Your objection to my comments seems to be based on the opinion that we -human beings- are falling short in our moral and ethical conduct, which may be the case, but I never said anything to the contrary.

I am NOT even sure WHY you thought I was objecting to ANY thing you said and wrote here.

I was only suggesting the principles that I thought we should apply to ourselves.

Okay. I did NOT think otherwise.

My comment was intended to convey the idea that we should behave ethically towards all other living creatures, and that we should approach that endeavour by placing moral and ethical demands on ourselves, rather than by giving rights to creatures that neither understand what rights are, nor can do anything about exercising them.

I NEVER thought otherwise.

Our presence on the earth has had, and continues to have, a massive impact on everything else that lives on it, which puts a correspondingly massive responsibility upon our shoulders. That was the nature of the spirit of the comment, which is far from the spirit in which you seemed to take it.

But that was the EXACT 'spirit' I TOOK, from your comment.

You seem to think that the moral and ethical conduct of human beings is pitiful, but I have made no implications about that one way or the other.

Depending on what you mean with the use of the word 'pitiful' here, to me, the 'moral and ethical' conduct of adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, could be IMPROVED, TREMENDOUSLY.

But, as I was pointing out and explaining adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, had so far FAILED to bestow, 'moral or ethical', 'rights' on ANY 'thing', in a logical, true, nor right way.

But all of this does CHANGE, soon enough.

[Harbal]

Okay.

And, what was the so-called 'spirit' of the comment, EXACTLY?

Okay, let’s break it down:

I said, “It seems rather arrogant of us -human beings- to think that we are entitled to bestow rights on anything other than ourselves.” In your response, which I took as a criticism of my view, you included this: “let alone for ALL of the OTHER creatures on earth.” Even though you presented that as a challenge to what I said, it actually agrees with it. We are both saying that we -human beings- are not in a position to give rights to “other creatures”.

Yes, we are both saying the same 'thing', in this regard.

Your objection to my comments seems to be based on the opinion that we -human beings- are falling short in our moral and ethical conduct, which may be the case, but I never said anything to the contrary.

I am NOT even sure WHY you thought I was objecting to ANY thing you said and wrote here.

I was only suggesting the principles that I thought we should apply to ourselves.

Okay. I did NOT think otherwise.

My comment was intended to convey the idea that we should behave ethically towards all other living creatures, and that we should approach that endeavour by placing moral and ethical demands on ourselves, rather than by giving rights to creatures that neither understand what rights are, nor can do anything about exercising them.

I NEVER thought otherwise.

Our presence on the earth has had, and continues to have, a massive impact on everything else that lives on it, which puts a correspondingly massive responsibility upon our shoulders. That was the nature of the spirit of the comment, which is far from the spirit in which you seemed to take it.

But that was the EXACT 'spirit' I TOOK, from your comment.

You seem to think that the moral and ethical conduct of human beings is pitiful, but I have made no implications about that one way or the other.

Depending on what you mean with the use of the word 'pitiful' here, to me, the 'moral and ethical' conduct of adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, could be IMPROVED, TREMENDOUSLY.

But, as I was pointing out and explaining adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, had so far FAILED to bestow, 'moral or ethical', 'rights' on ANY 'thing', in a logical, true, nor right way.

But all of this does CHANGE, soon enough.

In the light of your response, Age, it seems that I am the one guilty of misinterpretation.

My apologies.

[Age]

BUT, reading what "others" have written about the definition or meaning of a word, will NEVER REVEAL what 'you' ACTUALLY MEAN when 'you' USE that word.

I suggest doing the following. Assume the speaker uses one of the most common definitions of the word, and when the speaker then says something confusing, something that doesn't seem to fit with that definition, only then ask the speaker for the definition he is using.

Besides the ASSUMING part, I do ask questions, for CLARIFICATION, for CHALLENGING, and/or for DEFINITION when the speaker/writer says/writes some thing that APPEARS confusing and/or appears to NOT fit in with definitions that do ACTUALLY WORK.

Asking for a definition of rights in a discussion on rights is meaningful.

But what is the word 'rights', under the title 'Real universal rights', in relation to, EXACTLY?

I refer to the wikipedia article on rights...
You remind me of a strange guy I met in a Belgian city, a weird artist who claimed to have invented a perpetuum mobile. He asked people on the street, like me, "what is energy?" As a physicist, I responded: "a property that is conserved in universes that have time translation symmetry". But he didn't understand that, so he kept asking about the definition of energy...

And, did you FAIL to EXPLAIN, in a way that made sense, to that so-called 'strange' human being?

Is that word to do with 'morality' and/or 'ethical' issues, for example, or is that word in relation to the 'rights' one has while driving a motor vehicle, for example?

why not both?

GREAT QUESTION.

It would have been much BETTER if I added, 'Or both?'

Let's keep the notion of rights very broad. It can include a right to life, a right not to be killed, a right to drive a car, a right to drive a car when one is qualified to do so,... It can include legal, moral, ethical, cultural and whatever rights. It can include active and passive, positive and negative rights.

Okay GREAT. Now we are FINALLY getting somewhere.

So, 'rights' in a discussion about so-called 'Real universal rights' includes absolutely ALL 'rights', right?

But asking in that same discussion for a definition of philosophy or morality is not.

When this issue of it being 'good communication' to define meanings, it was in relation to the terms BEING USED. Like, for example, the term 'rights' in a discussion on, 'Real universal rights', for example.

In a discussion about rights it is meaningful or useful to ask for a definition of rights. In a discussion not about morality it is useless to ask for a definition of morality. In a discussion not about philosophy it is useless to ask for a definition of philosophy.

This may well be true if the words 'morality' or 'philosophy' were NOT being USED in the discussion. But, for example, if the words, 'ethics' or 'moral' WERE USED in a discussion about 'rights', then some would SAY and CLAIM that in this discussion about 'rights' it could be meaningful or useful to ask for a definition of the 'ethics' and/or 'moral' words.

[Age]

Okay, let’s break it down:

I said, “It seems rather arrogant of us -human beings- to think that we are entitled to bestow rights on anything other than ourselves.” In your response, which I took as a criticism of my view, you included this: “let alone for ALL of the OTHER creatures on earth.” Even though you presented that as a challenge to what I said, it actually agrees with it. We are both saying that we -human beings- are not in a position to give rights to “other creatures”.

Yes, we are both saying the same 'thing', in this regard.

Your objection to my comments seems to be based on the opinion that we -human beings- are falling short in our moral and ethical conduct, which may be the case, but I never said anything to the contrary.

I am NOT even sure WHY you thought I was objecting to ANY thing you said and wrote here.

I was only suggesting the principles that I thought we should apply to ourselves.

Okay. I did NOT think otherwise.

My comment was intended to convey the idea that we should behave ethically towards all other living creatures, and that we should approach that endeavour by placing moral and ethical demands on ourselves, rather than by giving rights to creatures that neither understand what rights are, nor can do anything about exercising them.

I NEVER thought otherwise.

Our presence on the earth has had, and continues to have, a massive impact on everything else that lives on it, which puts a correspondingly massive responsibility upon our shoulders. That was the nature of the spirit of the comment, which is far from the spirit in which you seemed to take it.

But that was the EXACT 'spirit' I TOOK, from your comment.

You seem to think that the moral and ethical conduct of human beings is pitiful, but I have made no implications about that one way or the other.

Depending on what you mean with the use of the word 'pitiful' here, to me, the 'moral and ethical' conduct of adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, could be IMPROVED, TREMENDOUSLY.

But, as I was pointing out and explaining adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, had so far FAILED to bestow, 'moral or ethical', 'rights' on ANY 'thing', in a logical, true, nor right way.

But all of this does CHANGE, soon enough.

In the light of your response, Age, it seems that I am the one guiltly of misinterpretation.

My apologies.

Please NEVER apologize for misinterpreting what I write and say here, it happens FAR MORE than the people here realize, YET. I still have a LOT MORE TO LEARN in how to communicate better. So, ANY misinterpretation here is ALL of my fault.

But I REALLY DO APPRECIATE when informed that I have been MISINTERPRETED, as this helps GUIDE me to what I NEED TO CHANGE.

[Skepdick]

Anyway, we are on a philosophy discussion forum, so that means we have to define philosophy first, before we can move on? You start: what is philosophy?

Why start there? Don't you have to define "define" first? What's a definition?

[Rational ethicist]

Anyway, we are on a philosophy discussion forum, so that means we have to define philosophy first, before we can move on? You start: what is philosophy?

Why start there? Don't you have to define "define" first? What's a definition?

What is a question? What is "why"? what is "start"?

[Rational ethicist]

2. 'your' statement, 'I am NOT following', ONLY, PROVES IRREFUTABLY that 'you' do NOT have ANY interest AT ALL in LEARNING ANY 'thing' more NOR further, in regards to what I wrote and said above there.

WHY, 'not necessarily', EXACTLY?

I don't see how it follows, and I can easily imagine counter examples, i.e. that it doesn't follow. for example saying something about properties of prime numbers...

I do NOT see how this follows.

So you are not following. That proves irrefutably that you do not have any interest at all in learning

If you say and BELIEVE SO.

It was a question, and my answer would be no, so I don't believe so.

In case you are NOT YET AWARE that was A statement, WITH a question mark at the end of THAT STATEMENT.
Questions are worded DIFFERENTLY.

Do NOT TELL me what to do. UNDERSTOOD?

is that a question?

BUT the 'real discussion' has NOT YET BEGUN.

I doesn't seem like you intend to start the real discussion.

Your first sentence here you CLAIM that you did NOT know that I had defined 'philosophy', then three sentences later you CLAIM that you 'copy pasted' my definition of 'philosophy'. So, WHICH 'one' is the ACTUAL Truth here?

both are true

Legally, there are things we can (in the sense of should) not write.

Like 'what', for example?

You may legally write "what". And you know some examples that you may legally not write (assuming you live in the US, Canada, or a European country, I don't know much about the law in other countries). There are also things that you cannot (in the sense of should not) write according to the moderators of this philosophy forum.

And we cannot write things that have nothing to do with philosophy while saying without lying that they have something to do with philosophy.

EITHER 'you' have a love-of-learning and becoming-wiser, or 'you' do not.

first define 'love', 'learning' and 'wise'

[Rational ethicist]

You remind me of a strange guy I met in a Belgian city, a weird artist who claimed to have invented a perpetuum mobile. He asked people on the street, like me, "what is energy?" As a physicist, I responded: "a property that is conserved in universes that have time translation symmetry". But he didn't understand that, so he kept asking about the definition of energy...

And, did you FAIL to EXPLAIN, in a way that made sense, to that so-called 'strange' human being?

Yes, because 'energy' is a fundamental notion in physics, not reducible to something else. That means that guy could never be satisfied by any definition I gave. If I define energy in terms of something else, he could ask to define those other things. If I said it is a fundamental notion, he replied that that is not a definition. I guess he felt like being really smart and wise when he could play a very simple socrates-style game of always asking "what is...?" and saying "that is not an answer to the question." He felt proud when he could continue with the next "and what is...?" I bet he would compare himself to Socrates.

[Skepdick]

Anyway, we are on a philosophy discussion forum, so that means we have to define philosophy first, before we can move on? You start: what is philosophy?

Why start there? Don't you have to define "define" first? What's a definition?

What is a question? What is "why"? what is "start"?

What is "what"?

Hence... define "define". Before you define any of the other things.

[Ben JS]

Beliefs cause action.

I [still] contend that it is belief-holders that cause actions,
which are generally aligned with the tenants of a belief.

Any singular belief, isn't inherent to a reasoning being -
they can be removed, and the being can still exist.
However, the opposite: removing all reasoning beings,
erases any & all capacity for a belief to affect reality.
Furthermore, beliefs aren't an inherent aspect to reality, by the above logic.
Beliefs are imaginary concepts, which on their own merit / 'feet',
cannot affect reality - as they are detached from reality.

It is the belief-holders utilization of a belief that causes change.
Imaginary concepts used by belief-holders to their own ends.
The physical mechanisms, by which a belief-holder imagines a belief, are real.
These mechanisms are affecting reality and the belief holder,
but these mechanisms aren't the belief - they are the behaviour of the belief-holder.

The contents of a belief, do not need to correspond to reality.
There are beliefs labeled 'delusional', which do the above.

That's total idiocy. There's no rule that says your beliefs have to correspond to reality.

I believe there's a misunderstanding here, likely due to my phrasing.
I was trying to say delusional beliefs, are a subset of beliefs which don't correspond to reality.
I was not trying to say every belief that doesn't correspond a physical aspect of reality is delusional.
If you re-read my above quote from this perspective, I hope you will see this distinction - even if poorly phrased.

We never speak of beliefs not held. Who would speak of such beliefs if nobody holds them?

A belief that was previously held, but not longer held by anyone, would fit into this category - a non-held belief, that one is aware of.
We could be discussing why people once believed something, and no longer do.

Alternatively, someone could propose a belief system, which is yet to be held by anyone, in the process of analysation & testing.
This again falling into awareness of a belief, without holding the belief or giving it weight.

It's possible for a universe to exist without gravity also.
In this scenario gravity wouldn't exist.

What's your point?

In reality, we cannot pick and choose whether gravity exists.
It exists, regardless of our beliefs regarding it.
In reality, we can pick and choose which beliefs are held, including rights.
In this current reality, we can [theoretically?] discard any & all of them.
We certainly can discard particular ones.

Thus the weight / integrity of gravity in comparison to beliefs / rights,
is vastly different and I argue, ought be held at different heights.

Why is origin and connection to reality important?

See above.
Things inherent to reality, demand a higher level of consideration -
as they will still play their role, regardless of our preferences regarding such.
Again, not the case for beliefs / rights - these can be discarded according to our will.
Thus, some assign objectivity to gravity, and subjectivity to beliefs.
Not held with the same regard.

If you remove humans - humans will cease to affect reality.
If you remove gravity - gravity will also cease to affect reality.

We cannot remove gravity.
We can remove humans.
But more the point, we can alter our beliefs and rights.

Who would be doing this evaluation if go "beyod belief-holders"

I meant beyond the attachments / preferences of belief-holders,
with respect to assessing the origins and merit of rights / beliefs.
But I think this is a fairly trivial point on both our sides,
in the scheme of the arguments being made.

In so far as I can tell you are simply looking for some angle which lets you draw a distinction between the "human" and the "natural" so you can commit the special pleading fallacy.

Not the case. I made the point of humans and their creations being natural a decade ago on ILP:
https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p ... 3#p2310033
Also made it earlier on an alt account, but it does not share the name - so I wont post that one.

So on that particular point, I think we're in agreement.

[Age]

2. 'your' statement, 'I am NOT following', ONLY, PROVES IRREFUTABLY that 'you' do NOT have ANY interest AT ALL in LEARNING ANY 'thing' more NOR further, in regards to what I wrote and said above there.

I don't see how it follows, and I can easily imagine counter examples, i.e. that it doesn't follow. for example saying something about properties of prime numbers...

I do NOT see how this follows.

So you are not following.

Yes that is what I have CHOSEN to do here.

That proves irrefutably that you do not have any interest at all in learning

LOL How Wrong 'you' ARE.

Do 'you' KNOW what reason I wrote 'that' specifically for?

Now, to finish your UNFINISHED sentence here, I have NO interest in learning 'about you saying something about properties of prime numbers'.

In case you are NOT YET AWARE that was A statement, WITH a question mark at the end of THAT STATEMENT.
Questions are worded DIFFERENTLY.

Do NOT TELL me what to do. UNDERSTOOD?

is that a question?

NO it is NOT. My fault completely, and my apologies.

It would have been much better worded, 'Is that UNDERSTOOD?' Now, that is a question.

BUT the 'real discussion' has NOT YET BEGUN.

I doesn't seem like you intend to start the real discussion.

What IS the so-called 'real discussion '?

Your first sentence here you CLAIM that you did NOT know that I had defined 'philosophy', then three sentences later you CLAIM that you 'copy pasted' my definition of 'philosophy'. So, WHICH 'one' is the ACTUAL Truth here?

both are true

LOL Are you sure?

If yes, then will you explain HOW and WHY both of your claims here are, supposedly, true.

Like 'what', for example?

You may legally write "what". And you know some examples that you may legally not write (assuming you live in the US, Canada, or a European country, I don't know much about the law in other countries).

WHY would you ASSUME such a thing as this that I would know what I, suppose, I may legally NOT write?

I did ask you, 'like 'what', for example', for a very specific reason.

There are also things that you cannot (in the sense of should not) write according to the moderators of this philosophy forum.

ONCE AGAIN, like 'what', EXACTLY?

And, are these, supposed 'things' part of this supposed so-called 'Real universal rights'?

Also, 'should not' and 'can not' can be two very different things.

first define 'love', 'learning' and 'wise'

'love' here is relation to desire or want. EVERY human being when young has a desire or want TO LEARN. And, by the way having the ABILITY 'TO LEARN' ANY and EVERY thing is what separates human beings from all of the other animals on earth.

'learning' here is in relation to retaining information gathered and storing or keeping it in, and as, thought, or knowledge.

'wise' here is in relation to being in that state of always being able to keep learning, especially in relation to wanting to keep learning how to become 'wiser', or in other words just having the 'love' of 'learning' how to become more able to just keep becoming more 'wiser'.