Philosophy Discussion

Epistemology and Metaphysics :: RE: Primacy of the Mind, and Why It Matters

Meleagar — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:22:26 GMT

Author: Meleagar
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 7:22 am (GMT -5)

Belinda wrote:

Because idealism leads to solipsism which is very uncomfortable. Because human freedom depends upon understanding the system as much as possible, if system it is. It seems to be ordered system and it's important to understand how it can be ordered system wthout having recourse to solipsism.

Let's see, which is a better way of understanding the system: referring to what you know exits, or referring to what you imagine exists, but can never know exists.

Idealism can lead to solipsism, but "solipsism" is what a materialist calls a primacy of mind view when examined from an objective-reality framework. It's like saying I'm going to imagine that the flying spaghetti monster exists, and then imagine what the flying spaghetti monster would think about me if I didn't believe in him.

That's exactly what solipsism (as defined by a materialist) is; the materialist imagining that something exists outside the cave and then imagining how people who don't base their lives on what might be outside the cave would be evaluated by a system they imagine exists outside the cave.

An objective exterior reality cannot be rationally considered anything other than the speculation of the mind; whereas mind is directly experienced at all times.

While I understand the commonly-held misgivings about moving from an exterior-reality perspective to a primacy of mind perspective, I suggest that those misgivings (and misidentifications) are based on a programmed perspective of what primacy of mind appears to be, and appears to lead to, from an objective-reality perspective. Such misgivings are not based on, or derived from, a primacy of mind perspective.

IOW, it's like having a debate about god and the anti-theist only arguing against a Judaic god, and constantly bringing up the problem of evil. That's a narrow interpretation of god from an anti-god perspective. Solipsism is a narrow interpretation of primacy of mind from an objective-reality framework.

Primacy of mind doesn't insist that everything exists in "ones" mind, nor does it insist that everything exists in the total aggregate mind; it just rightfully insists that mind is primary because it is the condition of our known experience, and is rightfully skeptical about making any statements of supposed fact about the speculated existence of an exterior reality.

"Objective exterior reality" is a model that can be used to describe and predict certain experiential phenomena; primacy of mind doesn't require that one dispose of the model, but rather steps back from adopting that model as ontologically true.
_________________
http://spiritualintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/

Ethics and Morality :: RE: Is animal abuse any different from child abuse?

boagie — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:35:14 GMT

Author: boagie
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 4:35 am (GMT -5)

Isidorus wrote:

The cause of a lot of things wrong on this planet, including factory farming, is a too large population of humans. At this point in time, almost every problem humans face would be nonexistent if the human population were considerably smaller.I think it is time to do some family planning before nature does it for us, in a drastic manner. It may be too late, however.

Nothing like the voice of Doom.

Isidorus,

I could not agree more, in the present state of things and in the unlikelyhood of them being addressed, there is no collective consciousness/intelligence to which we might appeal for reasonable control. So much for man's superiority to his animal cousins.
_________________
�The Christian religion not only was at first attended with miracles, but even at this day cannot be believed by any reasonable person without one� David Hume

Ethics and Morality :: RE: Is animal abuse any different from child abuse?

Deepeco — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:32:05 GMT

Author: Deepeco
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 4:32 am (GMT -5)

Isidorus wrote:

I agree that we have a human overpopulation, and we'll have to solve that problem by creating fair opportunities for a voluntary pregnancy limitation.
Now, there is not only a human overpopulation, but also a created livestock overpopulation. The biomass of livestock far exceeds the biomass of the human population. And livestock has a huge carbon, ecological and water footprint. So we have a double overpopulation, and that's why I am a vegan and I decided not to have any children.

Philosophers' Lounge :: RE: Man's Natural Violence and Race

Belinda — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:30:08 GMT

Author: Belinda
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 4:30 am (GMT -5)

I am not hogging this thread because anyone can join in at any time they like and preempt me.

But I will, unfortunately for me, disagree with what Stormeyy said about cannibalism, if Stormeyy meant that the act was evil in Platonic sense.If Stormeyy meant that cannibalism as portrayed by H Lecter is evil then I do agree that this is as good a picture of evil as can be seen. I insist though that even in the case of H Lecter we have a duty to seek the causes of the evil. There are causes for the evil because evil is alienation from the good which is the Aristotelian form of the human , the default description of the human, and what causes a human being to stray from it?

I can get a ref for the following from my history book, if anyone really wants it. During the famines of the 13th century in England people's personalities changed as a result of the changes in body chemistry because they did not eat. Not only did their stomachs swell up, they also became apathetic and despairing. They stole food from their child's hand, and even cannibalism is evident.There is a cause for any event and all events are natural i.e. within the holistic circles of causation in which we all live and love.

Someone who is a cannibal because of some mental perversion and not because of a physical perversion as I just described,someone like H Lecter for instance, is also within these circles. Thus we have to look at violence because it is here.

I must read that Carl Jaspers work that Stormeyy recommends. I have read about the Axial Age in Karen Armstrong's book. The Axial Age is not nature though in the sense of genetics, it's a leap of culture.I am glad that Stormeyy is a Christian existentialist. The more of these the better.

The axiom **of the Axial Age still resounds after two or two and a half thousand years. It reincarnates time and time again.It lives now. Violent acts have to be known for what they are, not for what they are not and that is a worth while goal for philosophers, artists,and scientists.

** I dont think the Axial Age is so called because of the resemblance between the words axial and axiom. I think it's so called because of the axle of a wheel which is what links the roadway, rim and spokes with the body of the cart.But then, that is what axioms do anyway, so maybe Carl Jaspers intended both meanings, take your pick.
_________________
Socialist

Philosophers' Lounge :: RE: Searching for a word or theory

Belinda — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 08:56:54 GMT

Author: Belinda
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 3:56 am (GMT -5)

What I have in my head and noggin gives me a feeling of lightness not extra weight.I don't come here from any sense of duty to self, man or beast.I am sorry for fat old men who have to get on to the tractor if they would much rather be doing something else, but duty is a Good Thing too.
_________________
Socialist

Epistemology and Metaphysics :: RE: Primacy of the Mind, and Why It Matters

Santini — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 08:34:32 GMT

Author: Santini
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 3:34 am (GMT -5)

A related question to the question I asked at the bottom of page 7 is, If all experience is subjective -- subjective in the sense that what a person believes is true, is true for that person -- then what accounts for what seem to be objective facts? Why do any of us ever believe the same thing that virtually everyone else believes if no objective facts exist?

For example, if truth is subjective, then why do ALL of us who are sane believe that gravity holds? Shouldn't at least some of us believe that gravity does not hold and then wouldn't it be true that gravity does not hold for those few?

But the fact of gravity (and other similar facts) seems to be an objective fact that is true whether or not anyone believes that it's true.

Stormeyy,

The parts that you found somewhat offensive, however, I don't find offensive at all.

It is a fact that Meleagar stated that he had rid the world of cancer, the "world" in this case being the "world of his experience."

It is also a fact that Meleagar after responding to post after post of mine failed to respond to the post in which I provided him with a link to a kids with cancer site and asked him to use his miraculous powers to heal those kids' cancers.

I don't see what is offensive about stating facts.

General Philosophy Forum :: RE: the ironic importance of the ego

ape — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 07:06:50 GMT

Author: ape
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 2:06 am (GMT -5)

I was hoping Truth wd have replied by now so that I cd have answered him before answering you, Stormeyy, but here goes. Thanx for your patience.

Stormeyy wrote:

So, we have a murderer running around rampant on open forums expressing irrational and suicidial ideals with out any regard to anyones safty.

If no one else has noticed this I wouldn't be suprised.

One has to love and respect oneself as any ego or as any murderer or as any etc one sees "running rampant on open forums expressing irrational and suicidial ideals with out any regard to anyones safty" so that one could and would love that other ego or murderer or whoever else as oneself.

It does take one to know one.

Works like Spell-Check.

Before one can love others, one has to love oneself as others.

Charity begins at home.

So too, Misery or Hatery begins as home.

Then that attitude of the Life of Love in one's own mind then gives one the insight and the safety of mind to see or understand that any ego or murderer one sees in others is simply a reflection of oneself in the mirrors of others.

Song: Man In The Mirror by Michael Jackson.

No one but oneself will notice this at first.

For instance, I love and respect myself as you and so love and respect you as myself and so see me in you and you in me.

In other words, I am you and you are me.

Example:
The Apostle Paul was a murderer as the Rabbi Saul.
Acts 9.

So to love the apostle Paul as a murderer or as Saul, one first has to first love oneself as a murderer and as Saul and as Paul so one can automatically love Paul or Saul as a murderer as oneself, and so show him how to love himself by loving him and help him to love himself and so stop murdering or killing with Hatred. Why? How? Because Hatred is the spirit of murder and is why murderers murder and is how to hate muderers is to be a murderer too, and is how and why Love makes all the difference because no one murders who they first love: neither himself nor herself nor their beloved family members nor their beloved friends nor loved strangers.

Stormeyy wrote:

IMHO, you have failed to comment to any positive regard to my post.

Please humbly explain yourself.

stormeyy

Thanx for asking and for your patience. You have been so patient!

For instance, I love me as a failure and as a success, as positive and negative so that my Love is always positive and never fails as per 1 Corinthians 13:8, and so that I love all others as myself no matter who they are or what they've done or where they come or are coming from.

Hope that that humble explanation makes you proud of me by first making you proud of yourself by first loving yourself as humble and proud.

Which reminds me:
Any capitilizations or color in my posts are only for emphasis: please read them in a low and soft tone of voice in Love: no highs and no shouting in Hate--although one can be high or shout in Love!

Hope you love that explanation, pal Stormeyy, and it was well worth waiting for.

Your friend, who loves at all times as per Proverbs 17:17,
ape

Ethics and Morality :: RE: Is animal abuse any different from child abuse?

Isidorus — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 06:43:02 GMT

Author: Isidorus
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 1:43 am (GMT -5)

The cause of a lot of things wrong on this planet, including factory farming, is a too large population of humans. At this point in time, almost every problem humans face would be nonexistent if the human population were considerably smaller.I think it is time to do some family planning before nature does it for us, in a drastic manner. It may be too late, however.

Nothing like the voice of Doom.

Philosophy of Politics :: RE: What can a Progressive Sales Tax do for you?

DanDocere — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 05:39:18 GMT

Author: DanDocere
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 12:39 am (GMT -5)

If I go off in a tangent here, I'm sorry, but I've read the views and we must define where the axiom of both thoughts to understand the system at work when agreeing with or against a Progressive Sales Tax.
A pure capitalistic thought holds that the economy, based on individuals who compete their prices on goods and commodities with the consumers. It sounds great, having an economy as the distributive power, however chaotic it may become. The idea behind this view is that competition drives production and innovation, however, the history of capitalism is quite different than this simple notion. You may say that capitalism may be justified by a comparison of America to the world and how it has succeeded, but the reason behind any way of succeeding was to colonize and economically empower "other" countries to gain the capital for the industries America has today. This imperialism is what paralleled itself with the view that capitalism IN America was great because of all the production it created. There is not proof whatsoever without the aid of other countries that pure competitive capitalism actually creates a better country, a better individual without the imperialism of another country. Here, we cannot assume Laisezz Faire the best way to run an economy because of this additive detail that other countries were a necessity to America's growth on the idea of capitalism. It sounds great, our empirical and rhetoric truly speak this is the right way to live, however, in my opinion its only an illusion, truly a romance.
So how does this go with a progressive sales tax? Well, first off lets face the fact that there is no evidence that it will destroy innovation in America, it can only be assumed under theory that Laisezz faire capitalism work based on the above description. Secondly, the construct to tax certain industries and not on others does not infringe on any right. There are limited resources in the world, food is a resource, land in some consideration is a resource. Taxing other commodities progressively will change the system and new adaptations will exist. How they will exist I cannot explicitly tell you, its a trial and error sort of thing. However, to whom the companies that get picked for greater taxation ought to be on a need of resources for survival. Food is necessary, Shelter is too. We cannot say everyone has equal opportunity, we cannot say work as a set price by the work done. We ought to attribute production to those who produce, but to HAVE to define it in monetary value is utterly insane. How can one�s achievements in life be monetary and based on the idea that freedom consists of how much money one can spend. There is always an angle that one is a slave to the system, which in this case is deep rooted in American culture. However, this involves the cultural aspect that freedom is money, where it doesn�t have to be necessary, only the system we�ve lived in for thousands of years says it is. I sound a bit radical here, but my basis for comparison is based off of evidence and how the European system colonized the world, taking only a �European History� of the world.
However, here I will no longer be off in a tangent. Creating a progressive sales tax offers freedom to opportunity AND freedom to choose what to buy and what to produce. There is no coercive control, only an obstacle for certain industries that aren�t necessary for the human survival. Like I said these industries will not go out of existence because of higher taxes, however, it may even help prioritize society better and decrease impulsive spending on the unnecessary. An argument here is people choose. This is too simplistic because the roots of culture will support people have a choice WITHIN the particular culture they are into and the system of government they are set up to be in. People have already adapted to the system, which is why choice seems so blatantly simple to describe, however is truly not. People ought to have freedom to choose, however it�s the system I�d like to see changed as people will still be able to choose freely. Rights are those that should be concerned with the survival of the individual. Shelter survives the mind and thus is part of the individual. Why live in a system that HAS to create a system of imbalance between people. One says that motivation is driven, though this motivation is driven by fear of not being the lower people! Fear is what drives capitalism to where it�s at. A progressive sales tax is like a medium temperature cup, neither too hot nor too cold, but just right.
Yes, it will cause an imbalance of �industrial� power per se, however it will not be as adverse and infringe on freedoms to live, both physically and mindfully. It�s only coercion will be the change to those business that are in existence at this moment if these are businesses that have to have higher taxes, then from there on it is just new prioritizing for new businesses and different risks. Same basic system, however, people will have an easier time surviving. Will their expectations differ and relate to the system like the old one? Let�s try it out and see what happens, because this isn�t going to effect a singular group, but everyone. It�s history that defines our present moment, the present moment does not define HISTORY. This is essential to the view to the Laisezz faire capitalistic system. It is not objective, but subjective. (Poor Ayn Rand�Social systems are not objective, Physics, most probably yes). Marxism sounds great, this may look and feel like it, but it uses a Marxist analysis to analyze society, but I�m not directing this argument towards the belief in Marxism. We should not think right or wrong 100% in the use of any mechanistic tool for analyzing a society. I know I�ll get feedback on this, and I believe I can clarify any generalities set forth in this.

General Philosophy Forum :: RE: Is the presumption of innocence valid any longer?

Donjehavon — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 05:29:09 GMT

Author: Donjehavon
Subject: Is the presumption of innocence valid any longer?
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 12:29 am (GMT -5)

In criminal case trialed by a juror of our 'peers' how is the opinion formed that a person is guilty? We are to assume everyone is considered innocent until proven guilty. But if that is the case why is that we have all these men convicted of rape and now being jail 20 yrs or more finally released on DNA evidence that existed at the time of the conviction.

This definitely makes you question the presumption of innocence. Men who were innocent were falsely convicted. How does this happen what kind of evidence is required to put an innocent man away. Should that be allowed? How can you really tell if someone is innocent? It it advisable to leave a man's guilt to smooth talk lawyers?

I find this most reprehensible

Philosophers' Lounge :: RE: Searching for a word or theory

Stormeyy — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 03:42:30 GMT

Author: Stormeyy
Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 10:42 pm (GMT -5)

Belinda wrote:

Quote:

Ok. It's a big old fat man sittin down with his hands in the ground that gets up to go to work and drive in his tractor truck- that feels down and out about his "dis" something "middle"- it's an area in the paintings of Michalengo where he is a middle man.

Do you mean that the old fat man evaluates his condition e.g. as a 'disability'? Then the middle thingy is evaluation or interpretation which are subjective, but are also conditioned by society or whatever cultural norms affect the old fat man.
BTW what's this about Michalengo(sic)?

Poetry, my dear Belinda, poetry.

Re-read that post as poetry.....

You'll find that it was posed poetically, fully intentional. Not a mis wording or mis calculation in the wording. It has something to do with what Immanuel Kant named the dispronounced middle ground or disa098uagr asmiddle area for a quick wording of what would be pronounced as the memory I have of the word. I can't say anything other than the fact that it has something to do with the stomach, the area where in one is at peace with himself and with the general feel of what he is for himself. The key is that if I don't find it it'll just fit in with my mindset anyway and I will not necessarially have to fit it into that frame or state of mind.

The best I can say here really is that I don't generally apply the principals, and once you apply enough you always end up with an overload. One can't have more on his back or his shoulders than he can have on top of his head nor can he have in his noggin. We're not predetermined computers as the people in the books would tell ya.

stormeyy

ps,
just inquiring about the nature of a question, not meaning to inspire thought or practice unless that person happens to be an inquirer.

Take care,
me.

Philosophers' Lounge :: RE: Man's Natural Violence and Race

Stormeyy — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 03:23:19 GMT

Author: Stormeyy
Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 10:23 pm (GMT -5)

Belinda wrote:

Quote:

pure theoretical idea of race.

I agree that philosophers should discuss concepts of race without anybody taking offence. Scott is right to point out the dangers of assuming that race is a genetic category.

So which theoretical idea of race are we going to look at first? I submit that genetics of race is a contradiction in terms.
I also submit that we dont confuse race with ethnicity, or with some traditionally salient feature such as skin colour.Race is also not the fact of certain genetic characteristics, such as sickle cell anaemia being geographically traceable to its origin where malaria is endemic.

Race is a heuristic that was once useful when tribes were the thing and tribalism was exploited for gain, but race is no longer a useful heuristic in the coming global village.

I completely agree with everything you have said here. I would make a few revisions for emphysis and show how you are supporting the correct side of the arguement from my own or- one would prefer to say from a different perspective...

Generally, as you are aware, race,- that is to say, - black, mexican- italian, chinese, Japaniese, Puertorician- and the blue people- these trides and individuals belonging to race are no more suspectible to any classification as met per in experience than anybody else on this planet. No body that I know is a part of any general race, and any superstition that is attributed is likely some fallacy.

With regards to the violence and other traits-

These are traits that humans naturally have, without prior consideration. So I commend the thread for discussing the issue in such an open way, and applaud the members for participating, for it is courageous to partake in such a thread.

Violence is very normal in common life- if nothing else, it seperates us from the animals.

There isn't a distinction here which is so clear cut and satisfied, except that both humans- as well as animals have- that desire- tendency- to fend for themselves. Take a look at the evil bastard Cannibal Lecter, to get a feel for what type of man we are looking at in this perspective. One can't get a more clear picture of evil than the cannibal, whom despises the ugly, eats what is most alive, and craves his own humanity- that which he cannot have. It's a profound example in my opinion, and it shows us the importance of the ethical persuite. Other examples come into play to further support it's importance. Equal pay equal oppertunity and other related and very positive discourse continue here. This is an edit and I am doing a bit of puppet mastery here. Generally there is no overall ethical principals which we can decide, and the comming "global village" would have tohave some general principal entitled to it's own ethical norms. I sense a form of idealism tending to relate to a realism of some sort that applies with regard to what we are. If one remembers the Lecture "the encompassing" by carl Jaspers one begins to get a feel for what this might be. As a christian existentialist philosopher, one would assume that the direction of the future is dictated somewhat to this degree. I would disagree with that, but would say that it shows where we seem to be............ I have no idea what to say after this. -end edit.

The one that I agree with the most is the distinction between the past, that is to say, - the history- the mythology and historiciziation of the species, without consideration taken to the other vantage point or perspective. That "view" which I am here supporting- is simply the view that we did decend differently and have a past which is equally supportable to go along with my view or perspective. I can say nothing other than that, as if no one else believes in mythology, than what reason would I have for beliving in it? Our past is a subject of debate-and it seems valid as well.
I would never dare to say that it isn't. Afterall, what race did we decend from if Charles Darwin is nothing but a blank book filled in stone?

What is you guys opinion on the further positive regard this thread is taking.

stormeyy

Philosophy of Science :: RE: It seems quite surprising that we're here at all.

Gearge — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 02:48:17 GMT

Author: Gearge
Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 9:48 pm (GMT -5)

Stormeyy wrote:

I'm afraid that all Im talking in is lay-mans terms. I mean to inspire others and bring a good feeling to the world. And so I posed the post as a proposition for further consideration.

Generally the world is just how it is meant to be- there's little further meaning or representation. Most of the time people are actually capable of living out the worst of their times and finding a general theme or feeling. Even the most intellectually superior people understand that their goal in life is to live it out- and so I would question those whom suffer the greatest ammount to understand the highest extent to which someone could understand life as simply self preservation.

Ok, this I get, And suppose I understand where your coming from, however finding answers to these kinds of questions helps me to live a comfortable life, It doesn't matter if what I know is true, just that I don't know it's false. Having an understanding of things that works helps one live out a happier life, hence my original question.
_________________
Apologies for the spelling.

I was not - I have been - I am not - I do not mind. - Epicuras

I abhor your views, but I am willing to die to defend your right to express them - Voltaire

General Philosophy Forum :: RE: New to Philosophy

Stormeyy — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 02:34:47 GMT

Author: Stormeyy
Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 9:34 pm (GMT -5)

Thetherapist wrote:

Now you have me even more intrigued. Its going to suck to see ya go if you choose to..What are you a spy or something or are ya like a philosophic bumble bee hopping from site to site leaving a trail of your wisdom as you go

I may not leave soon at all, for I have met a few friends. But I feel the unfortunate and reality comming towards me. That I am going probably to do that. And so I stop and think about it for a moment. And I say that I just might, and I might not.

I am nothing of the sort with regards a philosophical bumble bee, if you want to think about me like that feel free, but it leaves me the very most troubled for I am nothing of the sort.

Do you see my avatar. That avatar is the avatar of a type of art that I the most enjoy. I like magic, fairys, elves, Vanilla Ice, and other things like that. In general, I am just a normal guy, who has delved into the philosophy at a young age. You might say that I like ethics and have embraced it early on, and since forgotten it, even if I held on to it's principals. I really dont know how you would define me but the bumblebee thing is negetive.

Well it is. I am not wise either. If you wanted to call me wise, take a look at this website, then take a look at another. What principals, notions or excuses do they talk about there. Surely they talk about the same thing right. It's just an endless mess, piled and piled on top of what people call either "wisdom" or "knowledge" or "you are a bumble bee" and I see no proof to the contrary. I'm just a normal girl. I like fairys and video games.

I don't know what got me started other than at an early age being a role model towards my peers. So I take a lot of pride in my position of advantage, and rarely if ever have a chance to express myself without an attack or discrase criticism. And to this very day I have recieved no positive commentary to the regard. Ever.

And so if I continue to have faith for the rest of my life, maybe I'll be alright. Maybe not, who knows?

EIther way, I thank you for the positive remarks eariler, and good luck.

General Philosophy Forum :: RE: New to Philosophy

Thetherapist — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 02:22:00 GMT

Author: Thetherapist
Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 9:22 pm (GMT -5)

Now you have me even more intrigued. Its going to suck to see ya go if you choose to..What are you a spy or something or are ya like a philosophic bumble bee hopping from site to site leaving a trail of your wisdom as you go

General Philosophy Forum :: RE: New to Philosophy

Stormeyy — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 02:14:04 GMT

Author: Stormeyy
Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 9:14 pm (GMT -5)

Stormeyy wrote:

Thetherapist wrote:

Thanks Stormeyy you are great. I am reading a book now called 'The Examined Life" by Robert Nozick and Today I have been reading through the information on "Library of Halexandriah" website you mentioned on the earlier thread we were on. it;s thought provoking and I like that

you are being sarcastic.

I'm glad that you enjoyed that website.

I had thought that you would enjoy that, and it's good to see you are still at the board. I am new here myself and just joined two days ago or so. I cannot help this. I am new here and I probably won't stay. I have a busy scheduel. And much other things that for some reason I am not allowed to talk about right this moment.

But for whatever reason that it is I have to answer your question.

Sarcastic about me being great? Don't they have a left symbol. Isn't there a equal to the =>

Absurd!

General Philosophy Forum :: RE: New to Philosophy

Thetherapist — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 02:05:22 GMT

Author: Thetherapist
Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 9:05 pm (GMT -5)

im sorry sarcastic about what

General Philosophy Forum :: RE: New to Philosophy

Stormeyy — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 01:48:31 GMT

Author: Stormeyy
Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 8:48 pm (GMT -5)

Thetherapist wrote:

you are being sarcastic.

Philosophy of Science :: RE: An astounding state of affairs

Stormeyy — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 01:03:13 GMT

Author: Stormeyy
Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 8:03 pm (GMT -5)

As boagie wrote

Quote:

That saying by Schopenhauer that subject and object stand or fall together could mean more than providing our basic apparent reality, it could also speak to the quality of the subject, as in the quality of human consciousness. Any ideas around this thought?

[/quote]

Belinda. I'm sure you've got a book of old Sartre lyin around somewhere. ..........................................
read below

For great criticism, you need to answer 3 questions about the player:

Where are they coming from? (How were they playing 3 months ago.)

How do they sound now?

Where are they going?

At the Harmonica Jam, we often have to infer (A) and (C) from (B), the only thing present. But, without (A) your criticism may be too harsh, and without (C) your criticism may be just plain irrelevant. What's a poor critic to do? I don't know --that's why constructive criticism is a bit of an art form.

If the criticism is too withering, then the act of practicing and uploading to the jam may cross the line from fun to stressful, discouraging people from participating.

On the other hand, if criticism is too light, it makes people feel no one is really listening so why bother. If there's no content then you don't learn anything, and we are all here to become rock stars as fast as possible (ahem) , so, man, we need that honest feedback.

Knowing the answers to (A), (B), and (C) is the best, but I do have a shortcut for getting around imperfect knowledge. After months of cogitation on this subject, I decided that Mom was just about right: Never say anything "bad" without saying something "good" to balance it. I call this Yin/Yang criticism.

Yin/Yang criticism has a way of generating answers to questions (A), (B), and (C). Suppose we have the worse case scenario where you listen to a solo you really don't like. Most likely, there is something good about the person's playing, and by forcing yourself to listen more closely to uncover it, the critic may learn something himself. Looking for the good in something you don't like is a way of forcing yourself out of your own pre-conceived notions. I also found it is a way of remembering stuff I forgot a long time ago. This learning/remembering process usually mysteriously provides clues for questions (A) and (C).

But, closer to Mom, you could justifiy Yin/Yang criticism from a psychological stand point also. Whether people admit it or not, they have egos, and if you sting them, you should always give them something good to hold on to because this will help them absorb the medicine. You could also call this the Mary Poppins principle.

Ethics and Morality :: RE: Nigeria violence escalates as over 500 killed in morning

Belinda — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:39:18 GMT

Author: Belinda
Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 7:39 pm (GMT -5)

Dewey I accept your critism of what I wrote. My opinions about US foreign policy is influenced by my dislike of the US aid financial aid to Israel.
_________________
Socialist

Philosophers' Lounge :: RE: Man's Natural Violence and Race

Belinda — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:28:59 GMT

Author: Belinda
Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 7:28 pm (GMT -5)

Quote:

pure theoretical idea of race.

Philosophy of Politics :: RE: What can a Progressive Sales Tax do for you?

whitetrshsoldier — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:10:49 GMT

Author: whitetrshsoldier
Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 7:10 pm (GMT -5)

Scott wrote:

Generally, I certainly would prefer revenue to be gained from an income tax than a sales tax. Again, just like with the sales tax, I would prefer an exemption for income earned below the poverty line, i.e. give everyone a deduction equivalent to the poverty line or to what they pay for necessities.

I'm not sure about the rest of the world, but I know in the USA very rich people pay less taxes than regular working folks in percentage of income. So I would very much prefer a real flat tax to the status quo, assuming truly poor people (those who not only don't have any luxuries such as cable TV but also who can't afford necessities like their rent or work clothes) wouldn't be taxed at least not anymore than they are now.

Scott,

I hate this argument, and I hate that Warren Buffet story that everybody uses to justify the fact that the rich don't "pay their fair share" ...

whitetrshsoldier wrote:

Alun wrote:

whitetrshsoldier wrote:

It is generally accepted nowdays that the rich should be taxed at a rate disproportionate to the "poor". Since when does the President [or government in general, for that matter] have the right to decide who should enjoy their wealth and who shouldn't? Whose right is it to establish a man's contributive value?

The point of redistribution is that someone who makes a huge sum every year is going to get a lot less out of that money than someone who does not. Obviously we don't tax entirely on the basis of equality, because that would be a dis-incentive for productivity, but at the same time there is some middle-ground between making society better overall and giving the hardest workers the most rewards.

"Some Middle-Ground"? How about this. In 2005, both the Treasury Department and the CBO had the same numbers. Here they are:

Share of Individual Income Taxes.

Top 1% = 38.8%
Top 5% = 60.7%
Top 10% = 72.7%
Top 20% = 86.3%
Bottom 20% = -2.9%

Yes, that's right. The Congressional Budget Office, and the Treasury Office, both show that the bottom 20% of Wage Earners not only DON'T contribute to society, but they actually TAKE AWAY FROM IT!

And aside from that, who are you to decide what "makes society better"? If it's not up to you to decide, who should? Once again, should it be up to the politicians who will only benefit from the free handouts that they give to those who vote for them, taken from those [the minority in the top 20%] that are forced to give it? How is that just?

Alun wrote:

It can further be said that people do not deserve all of their income from the market; that a majority of a person's income, especially among the "superrich," is determined by opportunities and systems established by society, not by the individual. Most of these benefits are 'free' to the individual, so something is owed back to society.

It can be said, but that doesn't make it so. Who are you to determine what is deserved and what isn't? If you don't like a product, you can choose not to buy it. You can also choose to boycott, to strike [as a worker], or to utilize some other method of denying a person his wealth by NOT VOLUNTEERING TO CONTRIBUTE to him. However, once you deprive him of wealth, you are openly admitting that thievery is just, and so should accept that you are deserving of the same. If you think that some 'select elite' has the right to determine what a person deserves and what he doesn't, then I guess I can just decide the same for you.

I can argue that you don't deserve your knowledge, wisdom, or right to breathe. Your knowledge, after all, came from your exploitation and plagiarism of others. Your wisdom is obviously copied and pasted from the "Communist Manifesto", and every breath you exhale further pollutes the earth, permanently contributing to the "problem" of "global warming"! In the words of Keith Olberman, "You, sir, are the WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD!!!" ..... I can "argue" all of that, Alun, but it doesn't make it so, does it?

In reality, the poorest people in our Nation actually get money back from the government each year. They are not required to pay at all! And the super-rich only get away with the lower tax brackets if they are able to claim the Capital Gains Tax, meaning that they are PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY TO OTHERS, while still paying an enormous amount of money to the government compared to "regular" citizens.

So maybe his Secretary was paying 30%, but he is employing thousands of people, so his money is more likely used to further employee others, which creates more wealth. That's the idea behind the "Earned Income Tax", although I do agree that I'd still rather have a Flat Income Tax and that alone.
_________________
"I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings! I'm just insecure with the obvious ineptitudes of my logic and rational faculties. Forgive me - I'm a "lost soul", blinded by my "ignorant belief" that there's such a thing as reality and truth in the world"

Epistemology and Metaphysics :: RE: Primacy of the Mind, and Why It Matters

Stormeyy — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:10:22 GMT

Author: Stormeyy
Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 7:10 pm (GMT -5)

Well

if you were serious about:

When asked why he didn't simply rid the entire world of cancer through the power of his intention and be done with it, Meleagar responded by saying that he had rid the world of his experience of cancer!

When I attempted to broaden the world of Meleagar's experience by providing him a link to a "kids with cancer" site, he abruptly broke off the discussion.

these remarks of yours,
I would assume the derrorigotory nature of the post to be similar to a threat, and any reader cannot fail to dismiss the fact that your observations here were not aimed particularly to the editor but at a visible - unknown- beknownst to you- individual. They foreshadow a hint of disrespect towards the like minds here whom share the same taste.

Philosophy of Science :: RE: An astounding state of affairs

Belinda — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:08:48 GMT

Author: Belinda
Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 7:08 pm (GMT -5)

Quote:

And your description of not me and set in concrete are not valid assersions. Yin and yang is a notion of indifference, and one with nature as you have asserted, and yet it does not complete the distinction of which is entirely a mistaken notion represented by the author and authors to be precise- of this opening post.

Yin and Yang can be applied to the feminine and the masculine, as indeed they are in LaoTse and I Ching. Yin, the feminine is wholistic, and Yang the masculine is individualistic.This symbolism is present in cultures other than the Chinese. The rose for instance is a hollow shape, poetically she, and the worm a phallic shape that invades her poetically is a he.

If the boundary of self is fixed or crystallised, that idea of self is too masculine and should be balanced by the feminine openness to the other,i.e. to the not-me.Taoism is strong on harmony.

As boagie wrote

Quote:

_________________
Socialist

Ethics and Morality :: RE: people who subject humanity to cruel views

Stormeyy — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:05:05 GMT

Author: Stormeyy
Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 7:05 pm (GMT -5)

I hope you throughly enjoyed that post pal.