That’s only a part of it. The biggest part is answering.
Philosophy cannot answer questions in any absolute sense it can only ask them
There are no definitive answers simply because it is not a deductive discipline
That’s not true. Asking a question is the same as answering a question … “what’s the best question to ask?”
In the same way that we can ask the best questions, we can answer them in the best way.
Answering a question in the best way is not the same as providing a definitive answer to that question
As philosophical questions are open ended and so do not have easy definitive answers to them as such
They may have many answers or none at all and if they have many what method determines which is the best one
No such method actually exists and so all one has to go on then is the answer that one finds the most satisfactory
Sounds like a defective personal problem to me. 
So, let’s add a few more
That’s not true either.
Like I’ve stated many times on this board: nobody wants their consent violated.
That’s a definitive answer to “what does nobody want”
It’s not up to subjective OPINION!!
Consent violation happens all the time because no one is in total control of their life
So whether anyone likes it or not is entirely irrelevant because it will happen anyway
Saying that no one wants their consent violated is just like saying that no one wants bad things to happen to them
But bad things will happen anyway as that is the nature of existence and so one has zero choice but to accept this
Someone may not want their consent violated at a specific time but may then change their mind about the same thing at another time
Also when someone says that they do not want their consent violated they may not be absolutely certain about it at that specific time
You are treating consent violation as a binary black and white choice where all violations are of equal magnitude
But in reality consent violation is on a spectrum ranging from very minor to very major and all points in between
The biggest consent violation of all is being conceived because from that single event comes the totality of ones existence
But most do not commit suicide so presumably had no problem with their consent being violated on that specific occasion
This is where your theory of consent violation fundamentally fails and why it therefore cannot be accepted
For had our parents never violated our consent like this we would not experience any suffering in existence
Birth is neutral. Consent comes later. Saying that all births are consent violations is like saying the leading cause of death is birth - birth is also the leading cause of life.
Consent violation is binary and most suicidal people live against their will because they don’t have a desirable method available to them.
Consent violation is ultimately, however, binary for this reason… if you believe that minor ones are acceptable (which ranges a lot between people), then you have accepted consent violation wholesale.
People don’t accept consent violations, they just have different things that violate their consent. Just because what violates most people’s consent doesn’t violate yours, does not mean, like you, that they accepted the “consent violation”. Just because they didn’t stab themselves in the heart with a spoon doesn’t mean they aren’t having their consent violated, in fact, if that’s their only option, they’re having their life consent violated AND their suicide consent violated as well.
The axiom still holds. Nobody likes their consent violated. I know for a fact that you don’t. I know for a fact that it’s binary for you.
I wanted to add more to this. The reason you’re not going to be successful with your type of argument is because your brain has less life experience (your ignorant comments about suicide) and is more narcissistic.
I say narcissistic because you’d consider it “extreme” consent violation for YOU if YOU were chained up in a basement for a few decades. BUT!! It’s not an extreme consent violation for YOU that this is actually happening to OTHERS right NOW.
You are not in a position to teach in this conversation…
Ask and learn.
Consent violations are an inevitable consequence of existence for all living things
And because they are inevitable there is nothing one can do but just accept them
Consent violations occur because the Universe is in part deterministic so things will happen that are beyond our control
The only way that consent violations could not occur is where free will was absolute and no one imposed on anyone else
Some consent violations can be tempered with a reward so that the violation is not seen as being as bad as it is
Other times the consent violation may be so small or common that it is not actually seen as a consent violation
It is most definitely on a spectrum because not all bad things are equally bad because some are obviously worse than others
To say they are equally bad is like saying all crimes are equally bad and that punishment for them should therefore be equal
To me consent violation only applies to things that I am experiencing and not anyone else
If someone is chained up in a basement there is nothing I can do about that unfortunately
But you claim to be an empath and so what are you Ecmandu doing about all of those poor souls chained up in basements everywhere
Arguing with random strangers on the internet is not helping them at all but as an empath should you not be helping them right now
Their consent violation is not bothering you too much because like me you cannot see them and so cannot help them
You cannot help the whole world no matter how empathic you are as you can only help a very small number of people
These holidays are hard on all, and so I wish All a good night.
Iambiguous definitely has a problem where he had dug his own deep-shit-hole and prefer to wallow in it with his defensive ‘contraptions,’ existential, intellectual, etc.
My suggestion to you is to take the helicopter view and see from that top view without being emotional engaging in it, else, you will be caught in a ruminating cycle of being splashed with his shit and mud continually.
To end philosophy will require faith.
The purpose of philosophy is to open up philosophy-proper.
Thus philosophy-proper is eternally an open-ended quest.
Not necessary must be the right question, even the wrong questions are welcome because if one keep question one’s wrong questions and answers, one will strive towards improving one’s knowledge continuously.
One cannot blame one’s viewpoint, on another’s dilemma! ergo… we, and he. No!
Surreptitious!
-
It is not a level of determinism that causes consent violation. Existence could be totally determined and violate no ones consent.
-
The idea that you’re the only one who can violate your consent is absurd. I don’t even know why you’re arguing that.
-
If consent can be violated in any instance, it can be violated in every instance. If I see someone flash me a peace sign, I know in that instant that the whole world is seriously shitty. Minor for me? No, because, I can abstract the implications.
-
Consent violation happens for two reasons:
1.) zero sum scenarios
2.) negative non zero sum scenarios
What am I doing to fix it?
Two things:
1.) I’m teaching people how to construct better zero sum scenarios in this world
2.) I’m constructing positive non zero sum realities in the form of hyperdimensional mirror realities
- you have a very narcissistic proximity problem (it’s very common) if your mother were chained in a basement and you knew it, but knew you couldn’t find her… you’d roil in agony your entire life. If it’s some child from Slovakia— you don’t give a shit. You don’t feel it at all.
Philosophy in the sense of debating and understanding arguments is indeed a useless loop, it takes a gigantic effort of power and intelligence to rise above that veil and attain power over ones mind. When this is accomplished, one is able to see through all arguments into the intention behind it, and from there on it is impossible to get stuck in the loop. Intention is not abstract.
One key to successfully battling Iambiguous would be to discern his intention. Few people have managed this on this site.
I thought the point to philosophy was to discover what is wisest to do. Perhaps the wisest thing to do is endlessly debate what is wisest to do. But that would make it a religion.
How could this conundrum be resolved without first resolving what is wisest to do? And then do it.
Isn’t every religion merely an attempt to follow what is wise (not necessarily what is true)?