-->
@sadolite
My point proved. My work is done here.
You ended it without making any friends. Most unrewarding ending.
Your philosophy
Posts
Total:
69
-->
@Shila
If your purpose is the pursuit of my truth, there is no such thing as losing. There is only growth.
-->
@FLRW
If your purpose is the pursuit of my truth, there is no such thing as losing. There is only growth.
Is that why your nipples look swollen?
-->
@ebuc
I totally agree!
-->
@MAV99
I totally agree!
Does he have swollen nipples as well?
-->
@MAV99
I totally agree!
Ok so that is five in agreement. If my accounting is correct interpretations of comments made are correct.
H,mm I wonder if DArt uses popular vote or electoral vote system. Kidding. I know there is no voting system at DArt.
Seems I do recall seeing some kind of a polling system around some time back. If DArt is going under soon, all is of less and less significance to some, and still signifcant to others. Significant enough buy DArt from the owner? Sorry, I dont think I can be of much help with the financial issue.
-->
@Best.Korea
Is that true?No. Nothing is true, not even this
Too bad. Just when we are getting used to it.
7 days later
-->
@Shila
Why don't you show everyone on this sight you have at least are not trolling and give a definition (or description if you cant quite put it in a definition) of the list I gave at the beginning of this thread, which is what this thread is for.
Why don't you show everyone on this sight you have at least are not trolling and give a definition (or description if you cant quite put it in a definition) of the list I gave at the beginning of this thread, which is what this thread is for.
See my case for the historical Jesus.
-->
@Shila
Do you have definitions of the the list I gave at the beginning of this thread?
-->
@MAV99
Do you have definitions of the the list I gave at the beginning of this thread?
You have already define the words in your list. They are reasonable definitions.
-->
@MAV99
I had definitions, but you ignored me.
Are you scared of me.
-->
@zedvictor4
I had definitions, but you ignored me.Are you scared of me.
It’s your philosophy that he is scared about.
-->
@zedvictor4
I read your definitions.
This thread was for those on this sight to give their definitions of these common philosophical terms.
I did not ignore them. I read them. They help me when reading your debates to understand what you are saying.
We could discuss them if you wished as I see more than enough in them to discuss, but I will leave that up to you.
-->
@zedvictor4
I had definitions, but you ignored me.Are you scared of me.
I brought forward your post which had the definitions.
Definitively, one might suggest that an affect might also be a cause...Especially as a part of a sequence of events.
Principle: Key data relative to an understanding, or to an hypothesis.
Knowledge: Recorded and retrievable data.
Will: The ability to make decisions within the context of the thinking unit. (Cause and effect, rather than randomness).
Being: Relative to knowledge...The principle of the assumed status of the self and others.
Real: Relative to knowledge...The assumption that sensory input is accurate.
Reality: See above.
Truth: See above.
Goodness: An indefinite principle.
True: Understood to be accurate. (Within the context of the thinking device or devices)
Good: Conforming with the indefinite principle of goodness.
Beauty: An assumption relative to conditioned expectation.
Evil: Another assumption relative to conditioned expectation.
Nature: Everything.
-->
@MAV99
Is there anything listed that you take issue with?
-->
@zedvictor4
Definitely your definition of nature.
Other ones like beauty and evil are not really a definition.
Your definition of goodness does not seem to explain what it is.
The other ones all give me the impression you think reality is a computer which is highly debatable.
-->
@zedvictor4
Is there anything listed that you take issue with?
He mentioned a few.
Nature, beauty, evil and goodness.
-->
@MAV99
Everything that occurs within a universe is naturally occurring.
Whether that be a nuclear bomb, or someone scratching an itch.
And Goodness is an indefinite principle.
Behaviour relative to one collective, but not necessarily to another.
Thank goodness for our nuclear stockpile, said the American
Nuclear weapons are the epitome of badness, said the American.
Collectives vary within collectives.
Or do you just simply mean, being nice.
Some people might find nice obsequious.
-->
@zedvictor4
Everything that occurs within a universe is naturally occurring.Whether that be a nuclear bomb
Nuclear bombs were created by humans and did not appear naturally.
-->
@zedvictor4
what exactly do you mean by "collective"?
-->
@MAV99
what exactly do you mean by "collective"?
Acting as a group.
-->
@Shila
Things evolve.
Why is human activity not a part of the process?
-->
@MAV99
Yep.
Acting as a group.
Strength in numbers is a survival strategy
Though acting as a group is certainly no guarantee of total agreement or cooperation.
Such is the fickle nature of the species.
We must always look out for number one.
And to a degree, but with no guarantee, we may also regard close family as number one.
-->
@zedvictor4
Ok, it was as I thought.
I would definitely disagree with that idea of goodness.
Your idea of it is purely subjective, giving it no real foundation in reality as seperate from our mind.
That would fall into the "good to him but not to me" problem which destroys any basis to morality and not to mention puts on the same level as opinion a things worth in existence. There alot of problems with that. If I apply that practically I could say that this person, who has done nothing wrong, should be murdered because I think it is good.
That is the problem of taking an objective thing and making it subjective.
-->
@MAV99
Well, I am of the opinion that everything we think we achieve, is the result of a subjective process.
We assume objectivity.
Is everything a simulation?
Yes and perhaps no.
A person does something, the right or wrong of it is an assumption based upon a set of collective criteria.
And if for you as an individual, murder is good. Then what am I to argue.
Though I would probably run with the collective ruling.
-->
@zedvictor4
I dont really think that. A collective ruling can still be wrong.
Practically speaking, this understanding would be disastrous for society. Common sense dictates it cannot be the right idea.
I certainly do not accept this idea of yours.
Practically speaking, this understanding would be disastrous for society. Common sense dictates it cannot be the right idea.
I certainly do not accept this idea of yours.
-->
@MAV99
Which idea in particular?
-->
@zedvictor4
person does something, the right or wrong of it is an assumption based upon a set of collective criteria.
This one.
I do bot think it is an assumption based on a set of collective criteria (a phrase which seems a little ambiguous).
Don't get me wrong, I do think there is a subjective element to the question of right or wrong, but that does not mean there can't be something objective to it also.
Regardless of ones perception, murder is still always wrong, for example. There is no amount of collective criteria that can change that.