Philosophy Now Forum

james1951 wrote:
yes lets just observe as we destroy our planet by deforestation, air, sea land and fresh water pollution, unleashing, deadly biologically engineered diseases, nuclear, negligence and pollution topped of by a systematic destruction of human rights through American and Israeli backed terrorist nations to plant puppet governments around the world.
lets just observe our world as it self destructs ....

Your sarcasm is my only complaint. I believe we should approach such an issue as objectively as possible, with a starting point of examination. I believe you are right to point out species issues instead of existence issues. We all need to first pick a 'most' important object to define individual purpose. When those purposes are looked at against every individual’s idea of 'most important' we will discover the direction of our economies, our politics, and our consumption habits. Having that data, we could then analyze which of the peoples goals are actually wiser to have first, and a short explanation for argument.

For instance, Now I believe it is a great evil that our children may not even have a planet worth living in of due to foolish species trash policies, pollution policies, and basically global warming fed by greed.

In my opinion, the most important thing is species (mankind) and the most important thing to species survival and evolution is our children. If we fathers, mothers, and leaders do not take care of business today, they may not be able to later. And what will history remember? Will it look at our generation as the generation that had the opportunity to keep the planet from becoming unlivable over 50% of today's livable surface, but because of hardheadedness and greed we don't, and tell our children what exactly? Point fingers? That’s hardly a good parent. We each need to say we tried. We did our part, because we love our children.

You will find my philosophy is rooted in a belief that our immortality is through our children.

Now I know that my vision of world peace doesn't match everyone else's. I'm also not exactly sure that in this conversation any way to combat the current issues or discover a solution to such issues. But I'd like to try.

How can we go about a serious conversation concerning 'ultimate purpose' should we begin by defining what can 'not' be considered? How do we approach the issue of God which for many will ultimately be declared the object in which 'purpose' exists?

Tesla wrote: Now I know that my vision of world peace doesn't match everyone else's. I'm also not exactly sure that in this conversation any way to combat the current issues or discover a solution to such issues. But I'd like to try.

How can we go about a serious conversation concerning 'ultimate purpose' should we begin by defining what can 'not' be considered? How do we approach the issue of God which for many will ultimately be declared the object in which 'purpose' exists?

Well said.

My vision of world peace matches very few indeed.
As a historian. I work with what we are now as a result of what we where and did.
It is not pretty.
And there is no indication we have changed much.
As a conceptualist. I speculate using what i have to work with.
Mans future will be bloody.. but we can come through. With the earth intact.. is we choose to do so.

Prill

Well said.

My vision of world peace matches very few indeed.
As a historian. I work with what we are now as a result of what we where and did.
It is not pretty.
And there is no indication we have changed much.
As a conceptualist. I speculate using what i have to work with.
Mans future will be bloody.. but we can come through. With the earth intact.. is we choose to do so.

Prill

Quite right. I believe education is the key, now that global communication is easy. But education is not very important in definition next to war and resource rights (economy), by definition of the definers, those who have control over media and leadership. Those that decide what to address are thinking in a relativity of 1800 terms next to 2012 issues. We are more intelligent and evolved than we were then. With great power comes great responsibility. Is it wise to give power to fools? But if the fools rule, then the fool’s judgment is considered wise. Even a fool can see when a house is on fire. So instead of trying to teach the foolish how to attain more wisdom, it might be a better path to just point out the house is on fire.

We need to find the first step to the path of education for the sake of cooperation. I would like to propose that the first step is to empower government with government power: another words, take the banks out of the equation. To do that will take a global agreement on capping personal wealth. The rich can finally 'win'. Now before you go screaming I'm a communist, I'm not. And neither is the proposal. It models a free market society with a cap on the top and the bottom, to disperse wealth more evenly throughout the species to give a better opportunity for the greatest minds and hearts to find success, not limiting the search to a pool of the few wealthy.

if we cap the top and the bottom say, 300 million USD for a top, and 18 thousand/year as the bottom, who could complain they cannot live a comfortable and powerful life doing great things with many choices at 300 million USD? To have more is choking economies, storing water in towers during a drought, and they will soon be alone with all the water.

What are your thoughts on my musing?

Tesla wrote: if we cap the top and the bottom say, 300 million USD for a top, and 18 thousand/year as the bottom, who could complain they cannot live a comfortable and powerful life doing great things with many choices at 300 million USD? To have more is choking economies, storing water in towers during a drought, and they will soon be alone with all the water.

What are your thoughts on my musing?

Nikola T [Tesla is one of my heroes]

I quote most 2nd half of your post because
A. I'm not a communist. And neither are you.
And capping is an idea that is new to me. And anything new is worthy.

Not that i want 300 million. I'd be happy with lower cap.. i don''t need much at all.
Envy greed and hate. Is what is being fought.. Wealth is illusory. Materially.
Great wealth is is friends and fellow thinkers in my book.

[of course i know of capping but economically.? I spend too much time with Rome, ww2 and Cosmology. My bad.]
To make that happen would require HUGE END to powers that be. A human project. Against the bureaucracy.
It could be done.. And there in is hope.
If it can be done.. they have much to fear, and blood will floww to make ww2 look like a walk in park.
That is the choice. Do or do not do.. there is no try.

If we took all those funds and the 1.5 trillion spent on defense.
We could do just about anything.

We could shift 5% of humanity to O'niel colonies.
So all our eggs are not in one basket.

Yes im a dreamer.. but im not the only one.

Prill

.













...............................................................................













.

The m2 . 50 cal turrets could have plexiglass dome.. Why dont they/

too many dollars to save a grunts life

.











.....................................................................................................








.

The problem with having a military historian on site is you can't spout crap.

I may no t have served in the wars you speak of. But i know the material'.
From the spaceguard to infantry weaps.
Roman gladus to proton partical beam tech.

prill

Hjarloprillar wrote:
Nikola T [Tesla is one of my heroes]

I quote most 2nd half of your post because
A. I'm not a communist. And neither are you.
And capping is an idea that is new to me. And anything new is worthy.

Not that i want 300 million. I'd be happy with lower cap.. i don''t need much at all.
Envy greed and hate. Is what is being fought.. Wealth is illusory. Materially.
Great wealth is is friends and fellow thinkers in my book.

[of course i know of capping but economically.? I spend too much time with Rome, ww2 and Cosmology. My bad.]
To make that happen would require HUGE END to powers that be. A human project. Against the bureaucracy.
It could be done.. And there in is hope.
If it can be done.. they have much to fear, and blood will floww to make ww2 look like a walk in park.
That is the choice. Do or do not do.. there is no try.

If we took all those funds and the 1.5 trillion spent on defense.
We could do just about anything.

We could shift 5% of humanity to O'niel colonies.
So all our eggs are not in one basket.

Yes im a dreamer.. but im not the only one.

Prill

Capping is an idea that I have been advocating for about three years with much resistance. Spread the word, because it is a necessary key part of government and people empowerment. It needs further debate and argument for the amounts, and some statistics to advocate a global agreement. If there isn't a global agreement it will not work. government powers run by banks will resist for fear of economies moving because the super wealthy billionaires moving to preserve their money (Money they don't really need and have invested to grow into 'more' by taking from those too poor to 'buy' who must borrow and pay interest to hopefully one day 'own'.)

It will be a heated debate if it ever reaches government and world discussions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y92NgQxg8BQ

100 tons of thrust.
He is my hero. The stupid SOB

" i did it , i did something"

brilliant. even if it was terminal

I take it you mean that everyone, anyone, is guaranteed 18 thousand annually, yes?

Who ponies up the 18 thousand (per person, annually)?

That is: Jack determines he can get along nicely with 18 thousand...if I understand you, Jack doesn't have to do squat to get that 18 thousand, so, he doesn't do squat except collect his (let's call it a) stipend.

Who pays Jack?

Whatever the individual man (or woman) says it is.

Whether the man (or woman) succeeds in achieving that purpose is irrelevant to self-determining the purpose.

No other interpretation makes any sense.

There's nothing intrinsic to the universe that can be considered 'purposeful', therefore no individual purpose can be gleaned by observing the universe.

Purpose, then, is wholly subjective, wholly in the head of the one who chooses to do 'this' action or actions for 'this' reason (a reason that may be so singular to the one so as to be incomprehensible to everyone else).

Tesla wrote:
It will be a heated debate if it ever reaches government and world discussions.

A heated debate? they will kill you and all you hold dear.
you cannot argue when your dead.

henry quirk wrote:I take it you mean that everyone, anyone, is guaranteed 18 thousand annually, yes?

Who ponies up the 18 thousand (per person, annually)?

That is: Jack determines he can get along nicely with 18 thousand...if I understand you, Jack doesn't have to do squat to get that 18 thousand, so, he doesn't do squat except collect his (let's call it a) stipend.

Who pays Jack?

I'm glad you asked. it is called social security in the United States. it is also found in the form of 'Food Stamps' or 'Families First'
It's basically social programs with stipulations. yes you are guaranteed the money, but there is a catch. a stipulation of education if no work can be found, to gain the benefits. basically when you cap the bottom, you are either taking care of elderly and disabled, or paying for the education of citizens who cannot find work that pays enough to live. and with the cap topped, more money will be dumped into paying workers since profits do not aid a person or entity that has reached a 'cap' and the money can either go to the government for the programs of education, or it can go to workers, or both. it's free market with a range.

There is much to discuss, and many issues will arise. each need debate. Did I answer enough of your question?

Hjarloprillar wrote:

Tesla wrote:
It will be a heated debate if it ever reaches government and world discussions.

A heated debate? they will kill you and all you hold dear.
you cannot argue when your dead.

And life is not worth living if your passion is not followed. My passion lies in my desire to have a world I want to raise my children in. we do not have that, and so it is better to face repercussion than to allow what we have for our species to exist in. my weapon is reason, my armor is the voice of the many.