Moderator: Only_Humean
What if there is no God and all those who believe that there is, are simply mistaken?dan25 wrote:As for myself, I'm here looking for a change of mind..
I have become quite depressed since loosing my faith in God, and I want (in vain?) somebody to convince me that there is a God, to convince me that when I die I don't just stop existing....
I want to believe in God, the after life; but like Spinoza pointed out, belief by its very nature can't be forced..
Urwrongx1000 wrote:How often are those who spout rhetoric about "bettering humanity" or "being a better christian" genuine and honest with their convictions? Or, are they liars?
As-if philosophy must be to the benefit to all, rather than a few? If people forego hard work, gaining wisdom, then what right do they have to it?
That's like saying, "I'm entitled to the fruits of your labors ...because humanity."
Peter Kropotkin wrote:K: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights,
that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.......
if we hold these words to be true, and I do, then we must to the best of our
abilities, share what we can with those who need it.......even if they
don't met our "standards" of working hard or unable or unwilling to gain
wisdom.....in the pursuit of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness",
which is the minuim in regards to what one should expect out of life,
because being human is enough to justify our investment in both people
and the human race......is enough to give to people even if they don't met with
our approval.....I happily give my taxes to give to those who need it, even
if I don't approve of them......
this lies in the idea of society in which we are connected.....
there isn't you and me, there is us.....that idea of society is
the one we need to follow......it is about the betterment of society.....
and the fact is, like any system, the system is only as strong as the
weakest link.... and if we don't take care of those who need it, then
what does it say about us, as human beings......and the betterment
of society is about all of us, not just the strong among us.......
the strong can take care of themselves, it is those who can't take
care of themselves who we must do everything in our power to take care of......
why?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal"
and being created equal, means we must treat everyone equal and promote
the values that equality suggest... for from equality comes justice....
to treat equal is to be just......Equality and justice are the same thing......
but I am sure you have a problem with justice also...
for the nature of man requires both equality and justice......
Kropotkin
Pandora wrote:Peter wrote: “What is the point of philosophy?”
Why not instead of jumping to “better” human being first finding out who or what a human being is and what his role in the universe is. Somewhere along the line a man has decided that he can be whatever he wishes and be able to justify whatever things he wants to do. So, “better” becomes relative to one’s perception of who one is, which as we can see today, can be anything whatsoever.
WendyDarling wrote:Doesn't it come down to...who are you producing philosophy for...yourself only or others? Communication and human connectivity, sharing, are strong motivators for letting the cat out of the bag, of course, put pride and ego on top of that and you have sunken ships from loose lips or typing finger tips. Billions of individual perceptions or misconceptions mess intentions up no matter how pure they were set upon so ideas are loaded weapons to be handled by those who care.
Urwrongx1000 wrote:Peter Kropotkin wrote:K: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights,
that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.......
if we hold these words to be true, and I do, then we must to the best of our
abilities, share what we can with those who need it.......even if they
don't met our "standards" of working hard or unable or unwilling to gain
wisdom.....in the pursuit of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness",
which is the minuim in regards to what one should expect out of life,
because being human is enough to justify our investment in both people
and the human race......is enough to give to people even if they don't met with
our approval.....I happily give my taxes to give to those who need it, even
if I don't approve of them......
this lies in the idea of society in which we are connected.....
there isn't you and me, there is us.....that idea of society is
the one we need to follow......it is about the betterment of society.....
and the fact is, like any system, the system is only as strong as the
weakest link.... and if we don't take care of those who need it, then
what does it say about us, as human beings......and the betterment
of society is about all of us, not just the strong among us.......
the strong can take care of themselves, it is those who can't take
care of themselves who we must do everything in our power to take care of......
why?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal"
and being created equal, means we must treat everyone equal and promote
the values that equality suggest... for from equality comes justice....
to treat equal is to be just......Equality and justice are the same thing......
but I am sure you have a problem with justice also...
for the nature of man requires both equality and justice......
Kropotkin
I'm unconvinced. How is taxation any different than theft? If a man hires me for a job then why are you and your cronies entitled to a % of it, and which %? 25%? 50%?
Would you raise the tax rate to 100% if given the opportunity? Complete slavery to the state?
Isn't taxation a deprivation of the rights of men and individuals? What "Right" do you have to another man's work or his business dealings?
Peter Kropotkin wrote:I've spent an entire thread on defining man and discovering what a human being is....
see "a new understanding of today, time and space" thread
I've written over 1350 posts on who a human being is and what is their role in the universe is.....
I have worked harder on this area then
anyone else around here.....
Urwrongx1000 wrote:Arminius wrote:The 80% are the effect of the 20%. So, the 80% are here because of the 20%.
Exactly, the 80% are consumers and they are here to seek out the 20%, the producers.
Production in Nature is rare. Consumption is the norm. It is rare to "move things forward" or to "progress" in life, Evolution. And progress requires conflict, competition, overcoming adversity, etc.
Arminius wrote:Urwrongx1000 wrote:Arminius wrote:The 80% are the effect of the 20%. So, the 80% are here because of the 20%.
Exactly, the 80% are consumers and they are here to seek out the 20%, the producers.
Production in Nature is rare. Consumption is the norm. It is rare to "move things forward" or to "progress" in life, Evolution. And progress requires conflict, competition, overcoming adversity, etc.
20% of those who have income pay 80% of the income tax; 20% of the employees of a company are responsible for 80% of the profit; 20% of the products of a supermarket represent 80% of the sales; 20% of the scientists get 80% of the quotations, 20% of the scientists write 80% of the scientific texts. And just: 80% of the links on the internet point to 20% of the webpages. So the 80%/20% distribution concerns the world wide web as well. 20% of all internet links attrac 80% of all internet links.
80% of all ILP posts exist because of the fact that 20% of all ILP posts exist. 20% of all ILP posts deliver 80% of all really philosophical ILP posts. And if we assume that the number of the ILP perma-posters (those ILP members who are always posting) is about 40, then 32 (80%) out of 40 (100%)perma-posters post on ILP because of 8 (20%) out of 40 (100%) perma-posters. This also means that this 8 ILP members really deserve to be called "philosophers". But perhaps the number of the ILP perma-posters is not 40, but 20, so that merely 4 ILP members really deserve to be called "philosophers".
Peter Kropotkin wrote:Arminius wrote:20% of those who have income pay 80% of the income tax; 20% of the employees of a company are responsible for 80% of the profit; 20% of the products of a supermarket represent 80% of the sales; 20% of the scientists get 80% of the quotations, 20% of the scientists write 80% of the scientific texts. And just: 80% of the links on the internet point to 20% of the webpages. So the 80%/20% distribution concerns the world wide web as well. 20% of all internet links attrac 80% of all internet links.
80% of all ILP posts exist because of the fact that 20% of all ILP posts exist. 20% of all ILP posts deliver 80% of all really philosophical ILP posts. And if we assume that the number of the ILP perma-posters (those ILP members who are always posting) is about 40, then 32 (80%) out of 40 (100%)perma-posters post on ILP because of 8 (20%) out of 40 (100%) perma-posters. This also means that this 8 ILP members really deserve to be called "philosophers". But perhaps the number of the ILP perma-posters is not 40, but 20, so that merely 4 ILP members really deserve to be called "philosophers".
K: besides me, I wonder who the other three are?![]()
Kropotkin
Pandora wrote:I came here searching for truth, and so far it has been like chewing on nails and drinking acid. Wisdom i think is another thing entirely. I don’t think the two necessarily go hand in hand, maybe like a dichotomy between nature and society/nurture, or the question of what to do with the truth. Does wisdom not use lies even while knowing the truth? Should it? I’m inclined to say yes, and that’s why I don’t mess with it too much, because it deals with artistry. And who is not to say that truth is not to be protected from people, or vice versa? Have we not learned at least this one lesson in the history of philosophy? I mean, what is one lesson that we have learned through the history of philosophy. I’d say that the human mind itself is the corrupting factor in dealing with reality, and will mold it to fit its own nature, just as it does with nature (driven by own physical and psychological survival and well-being). So is not wisdom self-serving by default or could not wisdom be an art of manipulating the truth in order to serve particular ends? What is the use of wisdom without end or goal? What happened when people first used the expression of wisdom, or love of wisdom? Did it not morph into love of sophistry and rhetoric?
surreptitious75 wrote:Knowledge comes before wisdom and so someone who is wise will
have knowledge but someone who has knowledge may not be wise
I don’t see the connection between “natural”, “ethical”, “good for all” and “do no harm”. The closest concept to that in nature would be balance, but that has nothing to do with any of the other concepts. For instance, in nature, balance may imply harm to many. The problem with man is that he always sees himself as an exception. He IS nature and all is made in harmony with his views, which he then calls wisdom.Wisdom to me has more to do with the natural and right flow of a moral and ethical life and how to carry that out for the good of all.
Wisdom has the maturity and intelligence to carefully and deliberately *do no harm* but to do the *greatest good*.
Silhouette wrote:I come here to spar, to try to get people to poke holes in my philosophy and to test how it will hold up to the kind of thinking or otherwise that others might apply to it. I try to doubt my thoughts as much as possible as I gather them together, but there will always be ways of which I do not think and I want my ways to be as infallible as possible.
James S Saint wrote: another thread
Users browsing this forum: No registered users