Philosophy

[Sculptor1]

You are misrepresenting me.
No group can have " A " purpose. If people accept certain beliefs they can adopt purposes imposed in them by the elites and the powerful, such as a policeman.
But what I have been saying is that neither purposes nor groups are unitary nor unchanging.
INdividuals within the groups can also have their own purposes, these also change.
Groups are unbounded and so purposes may join or divide from others.

What is real is present does not mean what is past or to be is unreal.

I disagree, we know what police, firemen, lawyers, politicians, and just about every job are, by their function and purpose.

The myriad of different purposes and motivations within those groups, that one man wants to become a soldier to defend his country, while another wants the paycheck, does not diminish nor negate that they both server a "higher" purpose than their own individual motivations.

To say that "to police" does not have "A purpose", doesn't make sense. The purpose of police is to enforce laws and apprehend criminals. It is not limited to this; but people know what the purpose of these jobs are.

Yawn.
You are still misrepresenting me.
I think we are done here.

[Wizard22]

You asked this before, and I thought I had answered. I do not seek to separate science and God. I merely observe that science is an inappropriate, ineffectual, and ineffective tool for investigating God.

So, to you there is no "physical evidence" that can exist that corresponds to God, correct?

There is an authority that accompanies Objectivity, the authority of being unchallengeably correct, because 'that which is' is the ultimate and only reference. If you, coincidentally, acquire a piece of Objective knowledge, you would be unable to verify its Objectivity, so you could not honestly apply the adjective "Objective" to it. Indirect access to 'that which is' conceals many pitfalls and misunderstandings that do not and cannot apply to actual Objectivity.

We don't need to complicate the matter too much.

Rocks are solid. Water is not. You can put your hand into a pool of water. You cannot put your hand into a boulder. These are "ultimate references"; yet they don't require any great authority. They are common sense experiences to All(?) organisms and lifeforms. Life does not delude the difference. Animals do not pretend that water is solid and rocks are liquid.

So Objectivity can refer to the inanely simple, not the absolutely complex.

[Wizard22]

Yawn.
You are still misrepresenting me.
I think we are done here.

That's too bad.

There are purposes within an individual and group. There are purposes ascribed to groups from outside. The difference is a matter of authority. Who decides the purpose of this or that? Who dictates the purpose of a hammer? You can hammer nails with it. You can use it as a doorstop. Its purpose is ascribed from the person, subjectively. People try to impose their 'purpose' upon others.

This is politics, an argument and fight over who gets to decide and dictate the purpose of individuals, groups, or even entire societies.

[Raggedy man]

Meaning of Life = You exist, you matter, you are living, if you meant Why am I here and what is My Meaning,.. ref points one to three. Its only when your dead life has no meaning, easy ! Nek question ?

Does God exist, and why, ?
this is a rethorical oxymoron,
If you ask you obviously dont beleive, if he does exist then no need to ask why.
If God exists, you know why.

What is the Nature of Reality ?
Maybe you want to rephrase ?
It is in its “nature to be” Logical acceptance of Now ! but at the same time it is an opposite to the place many people exist in but do not live in !

Any more easy questions ? This place done got soft since I been here last, must be ? 9 year or so. Returning Raggedy man as damaged goods now lol. Missed this place,. Hope all are well
.
In Searching
Raggedyman

[Wizard22]

Meaning of Life = You exist, you matter, you are living, if you meant Why am I here and what is My Meaning,.. ref points one to three. Its only when your dead life has no meaning, easy ! Nek question ?

Does God exist, and why, ?
this is a rethorical oxymoron,
If you ask you obviously dont beleive, if he does exist then no need to ask why.
If God exists, you know why.

I made this thread; I'm asking you. If you want to know what I think, then you can ask me.

What is the Nature of Reality ?
Maybe you want to rephrase ?
It is in its “nature to be” Logical acceptance of Now ! but at the same time it is an opposite to the place many people exist in but do not live in !

Any more easy questions ? This place done got soft since I been here last, must be ? 9 year or so. Returning Raggedy man as damaged goods now lol. Missed this place,. Hope all are well
.
In Searching
Raggedyman

It is in its “nature to be” Logical acceptance of Now ! but at the same time it is an opposite to the place many people exist in but do not live in !

That doesn't make sense, care to rephrase?

[Raggedy man]

Okies sure I will ask you. But you did pose the questions and so, logically it required an answer, and my answers are the correct and only possible answers! You did not ask me what you thought ?

Rephrased; A lot of people in reality exist ! But the do not live in the real world “Reality” they are away with the Faries.

[Pattern-chaser]

You asked this before, and I thought I had answered. I do not seek to separate science and God. I merely observe that science is an inappropriate, ineffectual, and ineffective tool for investigating God.

So, to you there is no "physical evidence" that can exist that corresponds to God, correct?

No, I don't think so. To me, there is no "scientifically-acceptable evidence" that can demonstrate the existence, or non-existence, of God.

There is an authority that accompanies Objectivity, the authority of being unchallengeably correct, because 'that which is' is the ultimate and only reference. If you, coincidentally, acquire a piece of Objective knowledge, you would be unable to verify its Objectivity, so you could not honestly apply the adjective "Objective" to it. Indirect access to 'that which is' conceals many pitfalls and misunderstandings that do not and cannot apply to actual Objectivity.

We don't need to complicate the matter too much.

Rocks are solid.

Only if the rocks you think are there, are really there. Philosophy looks deeper than what is obvious, sometimes. It even attempts to get to grips with 'that which actually is', which is no mean feat. Even if the conclusion is that we can't knowingly possess Objective Knowledge or truth.

The 'reality' you describe seems to be apparent reality, which may not correspond with 'that which actually is'. We don't and can't know. That's the issue with 'Objectivity', the issue that makes it pointless, in practice.

[Pattern-chaser]

Oops! Sorry about the 'orphan' sentence I left in by accident:

We don't need to complicate the matter too much.

[Mercury]

1. What is the Meaning of Life?

2. Does God Exist (and How)?

3. What is the Nature of Reality?


1. The quick answer is that life means animate - as opposed to inanimate. This is a truth relation; in that the animate must embody a truth relation to the inanimate physical environment at the physiological, behavioural and intellectual levels in order to survive. But I'm guessing the question is about the purpose of life, and I'll further assume you mean human life, and answer: "to know, to survive to know!"

2. I don't know, and I know I don't know. It's important to survival to acknowledge what one can and cannot know.

3. Again, I don't know, but it's the purpose of life to find out. To acknowledge what we can and cannot know, to survive, to find out, to find God, to discover the true nature of reality, following in the path of knowledge, knowing what's true and acting accordingly to survive, to know!