Also contrary to what you say in the video everything does actually interact with everything else
There are no gaps in reality because all is one - only from human interpretation can it be divided
Also value ontology cannot be the answer to philosophy because philosophy cannot provide answers only ask questions
If there are no gaps in reality because all is one then to love another is to love yourself because you and the other are one in reality.
Your first brings two words to mind.
Inquisitions and Jihads, promoted by the mainstream religions who scream blue murder if anyone gets near their freedom of religion.
They now use lower and less lethal inquisitions and jihads against women and gays and their freedom of thought.
Two faced bastards all.
Regards
DL
I disagree.
Animal experiments show that chimps, for instance, will cooperate nicely when they are both rewarded the same way but will stop when one is better rewarded than the other.
There are other experiments that show human children as great mimics, just like chimps, but that the chimp will take unnecessary steps in an experiment while the child does not.
In a sense, chimps are better innovators than humans.
Lower animals are smarter than we think.
Regards
DL
I like your wife’s --------- more than my wife’s. 
Regards
DL
What you mean is Socratic method. It’s a small part of the history of philosophy.
Thales, the first known philosopher, provided answers, as does Nietzsche, and there are thousands in between. So, I must say you are wrong in your assertion here.
However, philosophy’s answering questions does rely on asking the right questions, knowing how to ask questions. Which is how I arrived at VO; I asked a question into the nature of the assertions made any Nietzsche.
However for this to be possible, some understanding, and some wisdom must be held.
Value Ontology is only of those philosophies that explain things very thoroughly in such a way that will always help out in answering questions – in part because it allows to ask questions in intelligent ways.
If that were true how would you know? Cause that sure looks like an answer.
Further philosophy can answer all sorts of questions and has. A giant set of answers come around the implications of certain axioms. It can also help find out why something that seemed true turned out not to be the case. It can answer what assumptions were made or are being made that may or may not be true. Physics has been helped in understanding and even conceiving for testing a variety of things, some quite important.
Philosophy can help one decide what one’s own answers are in ethics or other values, given certain things one holds true.
Philosophy has helped people understand how the way people conceive of things - take for example language - can distort understanding of things like language. This includes all sorts of answers.
I should have said philosophy cannot provide objective answers since this was what I was referring to
One might find some truth within philosophy but that is a subjective truth only true to the individual
But truth which is by definition absolute is another matter entirely and one that I think is unattainable
Well, many philosophers and scientists think that absolute truth is not attainable or we can’t know if we have attained it. But that’s different from objective truth. As I said there are many objective truths that philosophy can arrive at. And if you somehow demostrate that absolute truth cannot be obtained by philosophy or objective truth cannot be obtained by philosophy, then you just contradicted what you said. Since these would be objective truths.
And then the things I mentioned in the previous post…
Still: What non-religious people in what set of circumstances in regard to what sets of behaviors that come into conflict over what particular moral prescriptions and/or proscriptions?
Though I certainly agree that to the extent any human community eschews moral and political objectivism [God or No God] there is a greater likelihood that interactions will revolve more democratically around the rule of law…revolving in turn around moderation, negotiation and compromise.
I only point out here that the arguments of those like Marx and Engels are an important consideration in regard to the role that political power plays. Political power is derived from economic power. And economic power is often decisive when laws are enacted.
In particular how this is manifested in the modern world through crony capitalism in the West and variations of state capitalism in nations like China and Russia.
I react here as I always do. By asking…
What authority do you believe acts to guide you in your moral judgments? How did you come to acquire this view given the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein in precipitating the existential contraption “I”? How would you go about demonstrating in a particular context why your own value judgments are said to be either the optimal manner in which to choose one’s behaviors or are in fact the only rational manner?
I’m all for interesting times ahead… I despise complacency, conspicuous consumption, and over-indulgence… qualities that don’t harbour the furtherment of humankind.
I actually think that we are currently living WW3… a war of chems… in our food, and in our meds, and in our vax, which disable the fight in us, and so we either live passively, or acquire system overload and die.