Philosophy Now Forum

Ben JS wrote: ↑Thu May 08, 2025 11:57 pm If something exists, it exists - regardless of one's direct awareness of it.

Some folks say only the physical exists, and to examine the truth of that requires first assuming that it is true, then figuring out how in the world in can be true, and along the way perhaps discovering some assumptions of your own and reordering a premise or two to make it true. If the conditions don't exist to make the assumption true, are there any feasible conditions that would make it true? If nothing can be found to lend credence, then give it some time to naturally fall into the personal hogwash trough where it won't risk any clearwater revival.

- Cause is like a hollow sphere and inside the sphere, much like dust motes swirling in the breeze, is every cause for every thing.

- Each cause is connected to every other cause in the sphere, at one time or another, the proximity depending on the way the wind blows in its relationship with time.

- You are also inside the sphere as a cause, and the bits of close mote radiate out to touch every other bit of animated dust. Some of those motes are far away.

- Now that the words inside have made their way into manifestation, they are no longer inside and thus no longer mine, if they ever were. Now they have become part of a synergy with you, to be interpreted by you and either forgotten, taken higher, or sublimated and someday, perhaps completing the form* that would have been created by two, and also created by everything else, perpetually changing and developing along a natural, somewhat predictable course … much like what happens to the human form that begins as a germ, for some.

*Completing the form and liberating it from the half-formed, inchoate receptions.

Ben JS wrote: ↑Tue Jun 03, 2025 9:49 am I think if you claim solipsism and that the wellbeing of others doesn't matter because it's all in your head:
society should declare all your rights moot, and that it's acceptable to abuse you.
As, if society is only in your head, you're doing it to yourself, right?
No one else to blame.

So claiming solipsism & proceeding to abuse others,
becomes a fuck around and find out scenario.

To the solipsist:
Why shouldn't society do this to you?

-

Solipsism is a destructive & selfish perspective.
What incentive does anyone have to adopt it,
other than justifying abuse?

[I'll respond to the fools in my own time.]

Furthermore,
If solipsism is true -
then all those who attack the declarer of solipsism can claim:
"It is only I who is real, thus I need not show regard to this specific figment of my imagination -
especially if I'm not at all partial to your whole vibe of disregarding all others."

This would create a defense against abusive solipsists.
Declare others don't matter, and they can now fuck you up.

Ben JS wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 9:01 am I suspect:

We're human resources - acceptable losses - pawns - collateral damage.
When we're not of utility to those with power, we're a burden - to be cleansed.
To a psychopath:
whether it's a dead Israili, Palestinian, Ukranian, Russian, American...
Of zero consequence or relevance.
If it leads to them getting theirs, then death to any who would inhibit their end.

----

If we want peace, we must forego some rights - make some sacrifices.
Society isn't stable if we allow murder and injustice.
So we forego some impulses, for the common good - which is also the overall personal good.

I think all land should be free and preserved by society - with everyone an equal claim.
Rid ownership, set the tally equal across the board.
We must be willing to accept modesty,
and work towards increasing the living standards of all.

Where land in high demand can only be booked like a temporary hotel.
And cultural areas are preserved for access by all.

We are all of earth.
Our ancestors stretching back billions of years,
we are it's children.
We each have a right to be here.

That you exist, demonstrates your worthiness.

If we want to remove catalysts for war & suffering,
we must forego personal ownership over resources/territory.
This is a method to neutralize a classic source of war.

"A new consciousness is developing
which sees the earth as a single organism and recognizes that
an organism at war with itself is doomed.
We are one planet." - Carl Sagan

Everyone could be offered permanent residence in places that aren't the top desired places,
or could agree to temporary access to the top desired places.
And we could learn to appreciate far more modest lifestyles,
where our wellbeing / fulfillment isn't tied to materialism.

What is the expense of creating art?
How much may it be grown?

There a measures of wellbeing that are increased by larger communities -
meeting the condition of 'the more the merrier'.

With the advent of digital spaces,
we can come to create virtual abundance,
whilst minimizing physical expenditure.

It's not to say everyone should live virtually,
but that many could lead fulfilling lives so.
And that engagement with the physical world,
could be done sustainably and respectfully.

Why would war emerge,
if the community loved the community,
and wished to preserve it's wellbeing?
If the community was committed to this end -
and continually sought to ensure it.

-

Those in power,
readily tread society into mud,
to reach their vision of utopia.

Divide & conquer.
We are poisoned -
whipped into rage,
and unleashed upon each other.

Whilst those in towers,
through decadent eyelashes,
scowl at ants with contempt.

Ben JS wrote: ↑Wed May 07, 2025 12:19 pm can something exist that affects other things,
but is never affected itself?

what is the opposite and equal reaction to an effect that itself is never affected?

how would we ever test it's presence,
and would it be wrong to associate this unaffected effect (UE),
as an action / capacity of the thing the UE affects?

if the UE can affect multiple known things,
then could we say multiple things have the capacity
to act in a way that the UE causes them to react?

are attributes/actions of a thing,
partially the sum of UE's that interact with it?

how would a UE look different than an inherent behaviour of that which it affects?

God, (of) the ultimate solipsist (infinite set). One of His alleged attributes is impassibility after all. Furthermore He causes infinite eternal nature without a trace of affecting it.

(Haven't finished watching)

Joe wrote:What will give people's lives meaning if not 'work'?

People can create/discover their own personal meaning.
And we can teach people to value existing,
and pursuing their own interests.
Creating a more vibrant world through arts & creation.
Seeking the development of the self, and understanding the universe -
expanding the capacity of life's achievements & standard of living.

There are many who don't find meaning in monotonous work.
Does he care that they're forced to dedicate large portions of their life,
to something they don't find meaningful -
under the threat of their own & loved one's welfare?

So work often serves as an additional burden,
on top of confronting meaning in an indifferent universe.
It takes a level of conceit to believe one has the right to decide another's life on their behalf,
in spite of the other's own beliefs and ideals.

===

Devil's advocate:

Removing all work responsibility could in it's void -
create anarchy, destruction and civil unrest from a displaced workforce,
who weren't psychologically / emotionally prepared for such adjustment.

So until we have a strong answer for how to replace this void,
in a manner the the general populace will accept,
it may be wise to intentionally inhibit change
in the interest of ensuring stability and security.

Possible solution:

Cultivate a new value system without the population,
such that they're adaptable to a transition away from mandatory activity.
Where their motivation can come internally,
in the pursuit of meeting their own ideals.

Hopefully in a manner that contributes to the community,
as others will contribute to their own benefit via community.

How much is too much meaning?
How much is too much art?
...culture?
...possibility?
...value?
...wellbeing?

Ben JS wrote: ↑Tue Jun 03, 2025 9:49 am I think if you claim solipsism and that the wellbeing of others doesn't matter because it's all in your head:
society should declare all your rights moot, and that it's acceptable to abuse you.
As, if society is only in your head, you're doing it to yourself, right?
No one else to blame.

So claiming solipsism & proceeding to abuse others,
becomes a fuck around and find out scenario.

To the solipsist:
Why shouldn't society do this to you?

-

Solipsism is a destructive & selfish perspective.
What incentive does anyone have to adopt it,
other than justifying abuse?

[I'll respond to the fools in my own time.]

A pseudo-solipsist is an idea that forms an artificial character known as a finite “someone “ that then negates the idea of their own finite mind or self as obscuring the true nature of reality which is solipsistic. After the negation, there’s simply solipsistic reality left. This takes deep self introspection to fully grasp.

Meaning: the infinite mind or consciousness is what “pseudo-solipsist” means. It doesn’t mean, a finite mind known as a “someone” is a solipsist, it means no one is a solipsist, there’s just everything and no knowledge of anything existing outside of what is already being everything, and that realisation takes you to the real and true nature of reality which is solipsistic.

Oneness can’t be anything other than solipsism. It's actually way more radical and insane.

Absolute Truth feels very solipsistic. Truth is unfalsifiable.


“There is absolute truth and relative truth, beware of half truths”- The Kyballion