or
Join Now!
|
|
These are answers that Oldstillwild has provided in Philosophy
| Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 09/17/08 - Can the laws of nature explain the whole of reality? Many people believe that everything can in principle be ultimately explained by the laws of nature. They regard a physical event like the Big Bang as the origin of the universe and all that it contains, including the human race. For them the only satisfactory explanation is retrospective because causality is a temporal chain of events. In other words the past is the only explanation of the present - and the present is the only explanation of the future.
Is looking backwards really the best way to interpret reality? Is it the only method we use to make decisions and run our lives? Surely we take the future into account and let it influence our actions. We obviously don't know for certain what is going to happen but many of our beliefs are virtually certain, e.g. that we shall continue to exist and not suddenly disappear into thin air...
I believe the most comprehensive and reasonable explanation of reality is one that takes the past, present and future into account. Why should the past be the most significant element? Very often the outcome of events is more revealing than the starting point. The end throws light on the beginning. So it is more instructive to consider the whole process rather than one part of it. The astonishing results of evolutionary development make molecular activity a hopelessly inadequate explanation.
That is why the universe seems pointless to physicists who see every other type of explanation as dependent on physics. If your initial assumptions exclude freedom and purpose you cannot expect them to appear by magic at some point in the history of the universe. Either they existed at the beginning or they don't exist at all! Oldstillwild answered on 09/17/08:Everything that exist in our minds is a product of our minds.
Do we know it all?
No.
So whatever laws we might have discovered,its only a part of the truth about reality as we do not know it yet.
So,laws of nature is after the fact.After the Big Bang.
The question is whats before the Big Bang and what caused it and where is the rest and what is the rest about?
The only thing mankind knows about reality is the reality mankind discovered.
Mankind decided to dedicate all not discovered facts to a god,of which there are thousands,depending on time,race/choice and place.
So,
such a solution is only temporarily and not to be taken seriously(as proven over the decades).
There is no god.
hi. | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 09/11/08 - Could the laws of nature be different? If not why not? It is sometimes suggested or implied that the universe must be as it is and could not be different. In other words this is the only possible universe! The gravitational constant, for example, could not have any other value.
What do you think causes things to be as they are? Oldstillwild answered on 09/11/08:Well, being a layman in this field,here my reaction:
First of all its a pity you dont explain at all,what brought you asking this.
You probably recall my "just IS " statements.
So,its my opinion to accept circumstances of this magnitude as it IS.
Moreover,what we know, is the result of studying of what is presented to us.We are studying results.Not possibilities or alternatives.
The universe is the product of "eternal" developments,which are to be considered being "natural" developments.
Of course it could be possible,that there could be influences from outside our universe with impact on the development of our universe.But who can tell.
Let alone the possibilities,that beyond our universe totally different circumstances might be possible.But that obviously is also totally beyond our reach.
So,as we know it,"nature" ,laws of physics,determined the development of our universe.
What we know about the universe to date is about 5%.
In Geneva we are trying to get to know some more percents.
But still:we are studying things as they are and its not plausible,reasonable to expect,that we would be able to study these kind of things how they alternatively could have been.At least not for the time being.
For the time being,what we see is physics and phenomena how they are presented to us.
Maybe in the far future we will be able to determine,why it has become as it is or even,why certain developments did not happen and why.
I guess Im talking about 2000 years from now,exploring the limits of the universe,traveling thru black holes to other,totally different environments,watching different results and maybe even moving to better circumstances,whatever that might be.
hi. | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 09/08/08 - Are there limits to what random events can achieve? According to neoDarwinists both the origin and development of all living organisms including human beings are the result of random events. This implies that chance is more powerful than intelligence since there are many immensely complex natural phenomena that scientists cannot understand let alone emulate. It also implies that given enough time there are no limits to what random events can achieve: order from disorder, harmony from chaos and thought from matter!
Oldstillwild answered on 09/08/08:"It also implies that given enough time there are no limits to what random events can achieve: order from disorder, harmony from chaos and thought from matter!".....
that depends.....:
if we do not understand the working of LIFE , of course we must keep all options open,but that does not necessarily imply the quote above.It might,but not necessarily.
It depends on the qualities of LIFE itself and I guess,nobody really knows that.
Its only proven,that LIFE is able to create all kinds of lifeforms under an extreme variety of circumstances.
At the same time,it is known,that LIFE isnt able to survive in many circumstances and,that all lifeforms have their own very limited capabilities of survival ,defined by special circumstances.
So it can be said,that life is very diverse,but every kind of life does need specific circumstances AND life isnt present unlimited.
So there are limitations as to the total volume of lifeforms as well as to each specific lifeform.
The "only" problem is,that we aint able to define circumstances lifeforms can be created in,other than by specifying all lifeforms discovered and studied.
So,
Are there limits to what random events can achieve?(that is re to LIFE)
Yes,obviously.
(Otherwise Earth would be overcrowded with all kinds of lifeforms,leading to just one option:struggle for survival.And absolutely nothing else).Let alone the given fact,that we the people are capable(obviously) to control LIFE-as far as we know it-,which in itself is a limitation to the "at random" organisation of lIFE.
We just do not know the specifics to define LIFE and its limits as to environmental specifics, necessary to create the forms.
And we do not know,to what extent LIFE is organising itself in direct relation to the actual present situation on Earth.
Maybe LIFE has already satisfied itself.....,maybe we are bound to be defeated by some future, more powerful lifeform......
hi.
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 09/05/08 - What explains the origin of purposeful activity? The unique and outstanding feature of purposeful activity is that it is not restricted to the present. Unlike any other physical process it is directed towards the future. Inanimate objects are trapped in the present whereas living organisms are geared towards survival - which obviously lies beyond the here and now. What enabled them to traverse this immense gulf? Oldstillwild answered on 09/05/08:Im not sure I understand your question.
Here's my reaction.
There is only the here and now.
One can think,talk,fantasize about the future in the present(of course),but nothing is more realistic than that very moment of the present, of which all these thoughts,phantasies,talks are truely part, as everything else, whatever it is, is.
Even purposeful activities.
Purpose isnt part of the present,only the present is.
Many people need imagination to follow a path,to define the present over and over again in order to avoid losing oneself in the present.
Other people do not need imagination like that,accepting the present as it is and acting from that.
So,
basically,the explanation of the origin of purposeful activity is unsecurity about the present.
Im a person of the present.
hi.
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 08/31/08 - What are your views on the value of life? . How valuable is life? What is the basis of its value? Oldstillwild answered on 08/31/08:There is no value.
Life just is.
The universe just is.
All subjective(....) valuations are just subjective - human - ordeals and do not have any other purpose than to please these human beings themselves.
There will be a time (again),that there will be no more humans (left) and infinity takes over ( again) in its massive silence, awaiting some other (re)surrections of some sort or none.
Where does that leave us?
Where does that leave me?
well,
compare it to a beautiful flower.
It comes,enjoys,contributes,enjoys and goes.
Enjoy life!
(The value of life is in its enjoyment).
hi.
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 08/27/08 - Is it possible to live without any any values? To continue living implies valuing your life - or at least your comfort. Otherwise you wouldn't choose to eat or drink or do anything. You might eat or drink from force of habit but would any reasonable person do everything from force of habit? Although we can choose to be unreasonable on occasion it is contrary to our nature to go against reason constantly. Doesn't this show that values are an integral part of a rational existence and not human constructs? Oldstillwild answered on 08/28/08:
"To continue living implies valuing your life - or at least your comfort" ......well...This would imply a totally free choice to kill oneself at any moment.However,thats not practice.
Fear is ruling more living beings than you might think.
Thats the main reason to keep eating and drinking.
Yet, even then are values an integral part of that rational existence.
Rationality doesnt go without values.
So,
in my opinion,this is an impossible question about a non-problem.
I guess, you have to modify,alter,change,precise your goal or even skip the question at all.
Whats a value other than any goal at all?
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 08/24/08 - When is a fact not a fact? ! Oldstillwild answered on 08/25/08:Well.....,
a fact is always a fact.
Its only not a fact,if I say so.
so,
its a fact,that a fact mentioned is not a fact when that fact appears not to be true.
hi. | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 08/17/08 - What is the foundation of the right to life? Rights are regarded by some people as human conventions. Is it true that those who kill others are simply unorthodox? Is justice no more than expediency and laws solely the opinion of the majority? Oldstillwild answered on 08/25/08:What is the foundation of the right to life? tonyrey 08/17/08
Rights are regarded by some people as human conventions. Is it true that those who kill others are simply unorthodox? Is justice no more than expediency and laws solely the opinion of the majority?
Life just is.
Thats difficult to most people.
But thats what it is:It is.
Whats next ,is co-existence and all the interrelated phenomena that 'd come with it.
What you are addressing is human behaviour.And part of that is organisation.And opinions.
So,
the right to life just IS.
Untouchable. | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 08/10/08 - What are the distinctive features of a person? It seems a mistake to define a person as a human being because there is no reason to assume that human beings are the only persons that exist. A more adequate definition is "a rational being who has the right to life, liberty and happiness". But that implies that mentally defective children are not persons. What is your view? Oldstillwild answered on 08/10/08:Well,
I suggest you to present some alternatives first, so that we know,what wyou are talking about....
Until then:
human being = person
person = human being
and 4thewreckord:your definition excluding any human beings must be a false one.....
hi. | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 08/03/08 - Do you believe the mind is located in the brain? If the mind is located in the brain it cannot exist without the body nor can it be independent or responsible for its activity. If all our thoughts and feelings are produced by minute electrical currents we are not free to choose what to think or how to behave. We are no more than biological computers which function according to physical laws. Truth, goodness, justice, freedom, equality, friendship and love are merely terms derived from complex biochemical reactions. But if we cannot choose what to think we have no guarantee that any of our thoughts are valid. In fact "we" do not exist because there are only collections of brain cells which have evolved as the result of random mutations and combinations of atomic particles. Nothing has any purpose, value or meaning.
Does this explanation strike you as an adequate explanation of the mind? Oldstillwild answered on 08/03/08:The mind isnt an issue at all.
Youre pretty much on the right track now.
Congratulations!
Really! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 07/22/08 - Simplicity versus complexity................. It is always tempting to oversimplify but often it is a mistake. So it is with Darwinism which on analysis turns out to be inadequate, inconsistent, incoherent, infertile, imprecise, improbable, unintelligible and unverifiable. This is because it assumes that evolution is ultimately due to chance rather than design. Yet chance and design are not mutually exclusive. There is no reason why they should not co-exist. Accidents have occurred and species have become extinct but the general trend of evolution has been towards greater complexity, sensitivity, consciousness, autonomy and control of the environment. Is it not more reasonable to believe chance events occur within a framework of design? The alternative is to attribute order, purpose and organization to random combinations of atomic particles...
Oldstillwild answered on 07/22/08:Hi Tonyrey!
Of ourse one canargue and discuss design and accident endlessly,but there is a third factor,which is simply: coherent development!
I wonder if the analysis of Darwin is rightly characterised by the term:chance.
I dont think so.
To make it more complex,I must add,that I dont agree with Darwin neither.
LIFE itself is an independent transparent material phenomenon,always creating.
Evolution as such is just an insignificant feature to the whole of the concept.
Its not Environment and Life.
Its LIFE and Opportunity.Interaction including spontaneously creating new lifeforms.
hi. | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 05/28/08 - A mathematical interpretation of reality? ........ It is possible to regard reality as either positive and negative. Inanimate matter by itself is neutral (although it is the basis of physical life) but with living organisms there is a definite distinction between creation and destruction, development and stagnation, survival and extinction. The positive and negative elements in human beings are even more pronounced because of our ability to control the course of events. What could be more negative than the deliberate destruction of life on this planet and even the planet itself? What can be more positive than the preservation of species and their habitat?
The need to compromise inevitably arises sooner or later. Sometimes it becomes necessary, for example, to destroy in order to survive. This does not alter the fact that our day-to-day existence consists mainly of enriching or impoverishing our own life and the lives of others. To promote happiness or to spread misery are our basic options. To adopt the principle of doing nothing is obviously negative. What is the point of being alive if life consists of inertia and inactivity? Doesn't that indicate that our primary purpose and duty is to be positive? Oldstillwild answered on 05/28/08:There is no duty.
There is only choices.
The art of living is to make the right choices.
People would make the wrong choices.
Thats why it is an art.
People wouldnt know...
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 05/23/08 - Is it reasonable to believe other minds exist? We take it for granted there are other minds apart from our own. The problem is that we cannot communicate directly with others (unless you believe in telepathy). As with the physical world we infer other minds exist from the evidence of our senses. A solipsist believes only one mind exists and everything else is an illusion. How would you refute that argument? Oldstillwild answered on 05/24/08:What i know as you know is ,that our origin is one.
thats why all = one
So,
from that standpoint and view there is one (big/small/nihil/whatever) one.
Life on earth are just forms ,which can Communicate with our origin.
So,thru our origin,we all are one and connected.
The forms,which we are,all have their own
individual mind.
This mind we can use to communicate thru our origin One with each other and our environment.Which happens all the time if you want it and if you let it.
As this form of "dualism "( mind versus origin One)does exist , our minds must be individual minds.
Otherwise,we wouldnt be able to make/feel/experience a distinction between our origin One and our own mind.
At this point one could argue,that there are maybe only 2 entities: one mind and our origin One.
But apart from this being not logical,we know,that we are all separate individuals on common earthly level,with our individual thoughts.
So speaking of minds,there are as many minds as living forms.
Then one could argue,that all minds together,would make one mind.
Here its getting a bit complex,because I know,we are all one,so I should think,that that is the case.However I stick to my view,that,although we are from the same origin(One) and although we are connected on the ONE-level(which we might profit from if we let it) and our minds originate from that ONE and even might be a whole all together if you would like to think so,the function of the minds of the lifeforms is individual.
It is however not logical,that all minds together would be one whole,as continuously mutations are being made.(although one could argue the mind being partly functional and partly virtual present.I think however,that only people who deny the One as our origin,could think that).
So,there are as many minds as living beings,connected with our origin One on what one might charactarize as a spiritual level.(although its not spiritual at all,but only natural).max.
hi. | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 05/20/08 - Do you think we are trapped inside our minds? We believe things exist because we interpret stimuli received via our senses. Our only direct knowledge is of our thoughts and feelings. We alone know exactly what is going on in our mind. This means we cannot "get outside ourselves". We can speculate about the thoughts and feelings of others but we do not have the same intimate knowledge of them that we have of ourselves. We are in what has been described as the "egocentric predicament".
What is your view? Oldstillwild answered on 05/21/08:well.....,
my experience is,that I didnt experience any open mind here so far.....
hi. | | Question/Answer | | Jim.McGinness asked on 05/18/08 - Intelligibility of the universe? Near the end of our last discussion, Tony claimed: The success of science demonstrates that the physical universe is intelligible - to a certain extent. And intelligibility implies thought...
I'm probably just dense on this subject; to me, the universe is what it is. Perhaps the factors that allow us to exist in the universe are the same as the factors that allow us to - within limits - understand the universe around us? As with the stronger versions of the Anthropic Principle and fine tuning arguments, deriving conclusions from a statistical sample of one seems highly suspect.
What do you conclude from the intelligibility of the universe?Oldstillwild answered on 05/18/08:Well,its interesting.....
Our environment(rather,then using the term universe) is infinite.
Our known universe seems to have boundries,due to the fact,that scientists would claim the BIgBang.
I dont think it all ends with the BigBang as far as thoughts about the environment is concerned.
Within our environment a BigBang occurred and as a result thereoff our Milkyway etc. came into existence.
What we commonly experience as our universe therefore cant be anything else,then the follow thru of the BIgBang within our environment.
If we would consider everything that happens ,as part of intelligent activities,then there is intelligence in all laws of nature, in what we do , in a blast ,in our thoughts , in everything.
Its highly academical and of no use at all,to give intelligence that all-inclusive superior role.
Its in us, around us ,in everything all-inclusive,so what?
To conclude,that the universe is just there would have the same impact,meaning,consequences,coz it wouldnt change anything,even this thought itself would be part of that all-inclusive intelligence.Implicitely!
It will always be an idea,coz we wouldnt be capable to determine our own defining overall origine,coz we are it.Everything is.
We cant look beyond those all-inclusive everything defining infinite boundries.
So I am perfectly willing to accept either thought.
It doesnt violate my experience,that LIFE itself is our intelligent consciousness source and would help us managing our lives.(If we let it)
And even this source LIFE could be the influential intelligent force in the universe,coz I do not know its boundries.
It could be the connection in all kinds of "mystical" features like astrology.
Its obvious,that "the stars " do have an impact on life on earth.And I wouldnt be surprised.
It also can be just an intelligent power within the overall functioning of the universe,whatever the source of that might be , if an additional source does exist at all.
hi! | | Question/Answer | | Mary_Susan asked on 05/14/08 - Einstein writes Philosopher Gutkind in 1954 LONDON (AFP) - "Albert Einstein described belief in God as "childish superstition" and said Jews were not the chosen people, in a letter to be sold in London this week, an auctioneer said Tuesday.
The father of relativity, whose previously known views on religion have been more ambivalent and fuelled much discussion, made the comments in response to a philosopher in 1954.
As a Jew himself, Einstein said he had a great affinity with Jewish people but said they "have no different quality for me than all other people".
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.
"No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this," he wrote in the letter written on January 3, 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind, cited by The Guardian newspaper.
The German-language letter is being sold Thursday by Bloomsbury Auctions in Mayfair after being in a private collection for more than 50 years, said the auction house's managing director Rupert Powell.
In it, the renowned scientist, who declined an invitation to become Israel's second president, rejected the idea that the Jews are God's chosen people.
"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions," he said.
"And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people."
And he added: "As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them...."
-------
We have Einstein coming down firmly on the side of atheism.
What do you think of his view that belief in GodAlmighty is "childish superstition" and "product of human weakness"?
Other comments welcome. Oldstillwild answered on 05/15/08:well,well...how about 'm the very Einstein!
Okay,
Im an atheist.
A Lifeaeist in fact.
Religion is the result of false interpretation of what we see and experience.
So religion cant be categorised as childish superstition.religion is just an error.
It is a product of human weakness though.
The reason is,that mankind fails to recognise LIFE as such.
Although there is life,nobody seems to be able to accept the source of life-forms as being in fact LIFE itself.
So Einstein might be given credit for the assessment,that religion is crap,but he fails majestically by not addressing occurring events,which would be given ( a ) god credit for.
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 05/12/08 - Is total scepticism intellectual suicide? If there are no unassailable truths all our knowledge and beliefs are tentative and provisional. In other words we have no solid foundation for any reasoning whatsoever and must be completely in the dark. This is a preposterous view because the assertion that there are no assailable truths must itself be assailable.
This implies that all our knowledge may be an illusion! If nothing is certain even scientific discoveries and inventions may be figments of our imagination Yet we spend our whole lives relying on the very things the sceptic claims are open to doubt...
It would be interesting to know how anyone who denies there are unassailable truths justifies that belief. What is the point of denying anything if you are not sure whether anything exists? How would you know you are thinking, let alone exist? If we know nothing then it is pointless to try to draw any conclusions or make any statements. The rest is silence... Oldstillwild answered on 05/12/08:
Total scepticism?
Whats the subject?
What we have to deal with is life.
Thats the one and only truth that counts.
How do we deal with it?
Look around you....
Ground for scepticism?
Plenty of.
Where did it all go wrong?
People would like to think they are bigger than life.
The talents mankind got,should be used to deeeeper life-experience.....
and you are right:
Silence is rest.......
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 05/09/08 - What do you regard as unassailable truths? My own list:
1. The fact that I am thinking
2. The existence of other persons
3. The existence of the physical world
4. Our ability to influence the course of events
5. The difference between good and evil
6. The inestimable value of life
7. Happiness for ourselves and others as our prime goal Oldstillwild answered on 05/09/08:Whatisthis?!
The baldbold&beautiful?
hass philosophy been developed to mathematical precision?
Okay,
here's my list:
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 04/17/08 - What are your views on the future of humanity? . Oldstillwild answered on 04/17/08:Devastation all around you.......
Only the top of the mountain you are on, is peacefully absurd......
Wave! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 04/15/08 - Is interplanetary war inevitable? ............. (assuming that other intelligent beings establish contact with us). Oldstillwild answered on 04/15/08:Well....,
its all phantasy and speculation of course...,
but chances are 99 to 01.....
hi. | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 04/13/08 - Would it matter if we discover that ETs exist? . Oldstillwild answered on 04/13/08:Well....,as I pointed out before...it would be a disaster! | | Question/Answer | | Mary_Susan asked on 04/12/08 - Biologist Richard Dawkins Note: Richard Dawkins will appear live tonight on Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO at 10:00PM, and on reruns of this show all week.
Advance notice so we can discuss in question form what is said on the show.
Enjoy! Oldstillwild answered on 04/12/08:well...would anyone take Bill seriously then.....? | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 04/07/08 - Would non-human persons have rights like us? (assuming that they exist) Oldstillwild answered on 04/07/08:I wonder why earthlings are so eager to discover , even meat(.....(<:)~....),extra-terrestials.......
Most probably,as outlined so many and not just so many,but almost every time ,most probably the result would be war.
Its my wish,never ever to meet any alien....,sorry, any extra-terrestian!
The rights-issue ,as history shows,isnt really an imminent one.......
hi. | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 04/05/08 - Are we the only intelligent beings? The Drake formula provides a means to estimate the number of intelligent civilizations in a galaxy or in the universe. Essentially, the likelihood of a planet evolving biological life that has created sophisticated technology is tiny, but there are so many star systems, that there should still be many millions of such civilizations. Carl Sagan's analysis of the Drake formula concluded that there should be around a million civilizations with advanced technology in our galaxy, while Frank Drake estimated around 10,000. And there are many billions of galaxies. Yet we don't notice any of these intelligent civilizations, hence the paradox that Fermi described in his famous comment. So where is everyone?
According to most analyses of the Drake equation, there should be billions of civilizations, and a substantial fraction of these should be ahead of us by millions of years. That's enough time for many of them to be capable of vast galaxy-wide technologies. So how can it be that we haven't noticed any of the trillions of trillions of "needles" that each of these billions of advanced civilizations should be creating?
My own conclusion is that they don't exist. If it seems unlikely that we would be in the lead in the universe, here on the third planet of a humble star in an otherwise undistinguished galaxy, it's no more perplexing than the existence of our universe with its ever so precisely tuned formulas to allow life to evolve in the first place.
http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_17.html Oldstillwild answered on 04/06/08:Intelligent?
We?
The only ones?
I suggest you to rephrase.... | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 04/02/08 - The miracle of life... Richard Dawkins has stated that "natural selection is the only theory so far suggested that could, even in principle, explain life on any planet". He has also described natural selection as the "non-random survival of genes". Yet survival presupposes life so how could natural selection possibly explain it?
"Where and how did the complex genetic instruction set programmed into DNA come into existence? The genetic set may have arisen elsewhere and was transported to the Earth. If not, it arose on the Earth, and became the genetic code in a previous lifeless, physical–chemical world. Even if RNA or DNA were inserted into a lifeless world, they would not contain any genetic instructions unless each nucleotide selection in the sequence was programmed for function. Even then, a predetermined communication system would have had to be in place for any message to be understood at the destination. Transcription and translation would not necessarily have been needed in an RNA world. Ribozymes could have accomplished some of the simpler functions of current protein enzymes. Templating of single RNA strands followed by retemplating back to a sense strand could have occurred. But this process does not explain the derivation of “sense” in any strand. “Sense” means algorithmic function achieved through sequences of certain decision-node switch-settings. These particular primary structures determine secondary and tertiary structures. Each sequence determines minimum-free-energy folding propensities, binding site specificity, and function. Minimal metabolism would be needed for cells to be capable of growth and division. All known metabolism is cybernetic – that is, it is programmatically and algorithmically organized and controlled."
In other words life entails an incredibly complex information system. Is it likely that it originated by chance?
Oldstillwild answered on 04/02/08:Well....,
as chance seems to be the issue here:
the more complex the systemm,
the more likely it all is the result of multipletrilliongezillion efforts to come to some sort of a surviving entity,maybe striving for the optimum,whatever that might be,because we are surely not....
and as you may know,
this struggle hasnt ended yet.
It is an ungoing process of development,adapting to the environment.
There are millions of life-forms;all efforts.....
or maybe lifeforms are just a display of sickness of Life itself,contaminated by the earthly atmosphere.....
Coz,
Life itself is a material,yet totally transparent entity.
Maybe all lifeforms are to Life,what meazles is to man.
hi. | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 03/28/08 - The ultimate possibilities... There seem to be only three:
1. A void
2. Chaos
3. Order
The first presents formidable difficulties. How could everything emerge from nothing?
The second is hardly less daunting. How could order emerge fortuitously?
The third seems the most reasonable explanation - even though it raises further questions. Is the order that exists in our universe the only possible type of order? Could there be other forms of order, i.e. other universes with different characteristics? Oldstillwild answered on 03/28/08:well,let me add:
Emerging from nothing?Piece of cake,baby!
Chaos?There is no such thing as chaos,baby!
Order?Thats how we see it ,baby!
The universe is in spite of us and beyond us.
We need to order things in our minds,but that doesnt say anything about reality.
Order?What is that?!!
Chaos?What is that?!!
names,just names.....and definitions fabricated by us......,because we dont know better...... | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 03/24/08 - What are your views on creativity? . Oldstillwild answered on 03/24/08:Creativity is a means to express oneself and to use known objects and patterns in a new and different way.
Its therefore also one of the very ways to discover new things....,exploring new views.
Creativity is a required condition to be able to be open minded for views and discussions in various directions and preferably requires also to be willing to explore that for its implications and not avoiding issues....
Philosophers with no creativity will end up in a dead end street,getting nuts trying to move mountains or die unsatisfied never having reached any usefull or decisive conclusion,rather having chosen for endless quarreling to never getting anywhere.
A creative person is a yes-person.
No-persons are deadly for philosophy. | | Question/Answer | | sirocco asked on 03/20/08 - Consciousness Is consciousness just awareness of ourselves and our environment? Oldstillwild answered on 03/22/08:I might add,that
Consciousness is bigger than us. | | Question/Answer | | sirocco asked on 03/20/08 - Consciousness Is consciousness just awareness of ourselves and our environment? Oldstillwild answered on 03/20/08:no...............................................................................................,
the way you put it it is all-inclusive...,
so including self-consciousness and
sub-consciousness and
virtual consciousness,which is an extra functioning consciousness,most people arent aware of or even denying it.
yes,
consciousness is all-inclusive any form of spiritual communication.
Consciousness is what we are coming from.
hi. | | Question/Answer | | sirocco asked on 03/19/08 - Happiness Can happiness be measured? How can you tell whether you are happy, very happy, very very happy....etc? Oldstillwild answered on 03/20/08:Of course happiness can be measured by yourself.
Its a matter of degree of you feeling some sort of extacy...,temporarily or enduring or basically and adding to it....etc.
How can you not tell.....!
If you aint able to tell if you are happy,then I suggest you to organise your life in a way,that youd encounter opportunities,happenings,activities,which would have the potential(.....) to please you(if youd know,what would give you that feeling or should give you feelings of pleasure).
If you dont feel happy ever,I suggest you to see a psychologist or psychiatrist.
And if you feel unhappy reading this all,
you should just give some clarification to your question.
Happy(.....) Easter Holidays!
hi. | | Question/Answer | | sirocco asked on 03/16/08 - The traits of philosophers What are the traits of philosophers? If they view things and situations philosophically, wouldn't they be cool, calm, less impulsive and less temperamental? Oldstillwild answered on 03/16/08:well....,
thats interesting.....
Who am I?
What am I?
Is that philosophical?
And if not,why still...?
Philosophers often appeared to be morons in various ways....
And there is a reason for that:
First of all,very few philosophers are substantially correct about their perceptions.....
Many philosophers arent able to cope with the world as it is.....
Its only logical.
Whats definite true,is that the world as we mke it function is a mad,mad world......
So,you have to get in great difficulties if your view is totally different from it and not true still.....
Well....,how about me.....?
Ive sorted it out and am I able to cope with the mad world?
The answer is:Yes!!YES! Hurray!HURRAY!I am!!
And of course I am!
Im cool,calm,passionate,impulsive,less temparamental,Oldstillwild,coping very well with all the morons around me....LOL!
I can handle the truth!There is nothing left!
But I must confess....its a lonely world!!
Therefore I am trying so passionately to make things happen here:
There is only one condition:
You have to be willing to discover the truth by yourself.....!
hi.
| | Question/Answer | | sirocco asked on 03/16/08 - The power of believing Do you believe in the power of believing? Does it work for you? Please give examples. Oldstillwild answered on 03/16/08:Well,baby,this question needs some clarificationalspecification.......
and further more Ill answer this question in the knowing-mode.....
Confusing?
Its just hard to get it over the lime-light in a way,that it would be clear to you,how things "work".
If you believe the right things these believes could be powerful and will be if you live up to it.
The question is,do these believes work or is it the truth that is working.
And how do you know,its the truth?
Well,
I know,that what I know about life is true and that these things I know are powerful if I live up to it.
Apart from this ,it happens to be that true believers might experience,that their believes are working powerfully....but that is solely,because occasionally their believes coincide with the truth.
Or in other words:
Believers have a chance of powerful experiences.
Knowers will experience powerful things.
Or in other words:
There is no god.(believers)
Its about Life itself.(knowers)
Yes,this KNOWING thing works for me.
Not,what I just believe,because believing is never powerful.Only by chance believing looks like being powerful(but in reality its Life itself thats powerful).
examples?
I can make the sun shine,moving the clouds.
Anything I wish for,within an unreasonable range of lets say being realistic,will happen to me,sooner or later,depending on how long it takes for Life to create the right circumstances,to make the right connections,to accomodate the environment,to make it happen.
Of course it only works for positive thoughts.
And only positive people can make it work,because Life itself needs entrance to you thru your energy, to do its works for you.
So if you need your energy for producing cover-ups,if you have a bad conscience,it cant be available to Life.The negatives are blocking the necessary connections.
hi | | Question/Answer | | sirocco asked on 03/15/08 - existing and living What is the difference between existing and living? Were you living or existing when you were a baby? Oldstillwild answered on 03/15/08:.......living and existing.
Anyway,not just existing in this context.
Just existing would imply,no will,not connecting,passiveness....,arrived at the final state of mental development.
An only-existing baby should be brought to the attention of a doctor....
A baby should be fully alive and well......
At least I was......
| | Question/Answer | | sirocco asked on 03/15/08 - Platonic love The Platonic ideal of love from its origin was that of a chaste but passionate love, based not on lack of erotic interest but on spiritual transmutation of the sex force, opening up vast expanses of subtler enjoyments than sex.
In its original Platonic form, this love was meant to bring the lovers closer to wisdom and the Platonic Form of Beauty. It is described in depth in Plato's Phaedrus and Symposium, where the examples given refer exclusively to the love between a man and a boy.
In Symposium, Alcibiades, Socrates' male pupil, attempts to seduce Socrates, but Socrates rebuffs this pursuit and responds that if he does have this power to make Alcibiades a better man inside of him, why would he exchange his true beauty (i.e. the intellectual realm) for the image of beauty (i.e. the physical beauty) that Alcibiades would provide.
Plato and his peers did not teach that a man's relationship with a youth should lack an erotic dimension, but rather that the longing for the beauty of the boy is a foundation of the friendship and love between those two. However, having acknowledged that the man's erotic desire for the youth magnetizes and energizes the relationship, they countered that it is wiser for this eros to not be sexually expressed, but instead be redirected into the intellectual and emotional spheres.
So why did Plato have a change in opinions in the late period of his life which were reflected in the last dialogue, Laws, where he condemns homosexuality as "unnatural"?
source:wiki Oldstillwild answered on 03/15/08:Wellll....,ask Plato I would say......
Its only trivial....unless youre looking for some basis or sort of support for your own reflections......
quoting you:
"Plato and his peers did not teach that a man's relationship with a youth should lack an erotic dimension, but rather that the longing for the beauty of the boy is a foundation of the friendship and love between those two.".....
I dont see an opposite....longing for is still platonic.....
Therefore,the way I see it,he would stick to his opinion till the end....,rejecting the physical part of it. | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 03/07/08 - Why do persons and things exist? . Oldstillwild answered on 03/07/08:Just because.....Be Cause..... | | Question/Answer | | sirocco asked on 03/03/08 - Philosophers What do you want to achieve in life as a philosopher? Have you been successful so far? Oldstillwild answered on 03/03/08:Hi Sirocco!
Yes!
Thx!
why?
Well,
Im living my philosophy.
Why?
Because its true.
Why?
Because its about the truth.
Why?
Because its about what life is about.
Why?
Because it works.
hi.
| | Question/Answer | tonyrey asked on 02/27/08 - "P
Is physical reality is an illusion? Why (not)? Oldstillwild answered on 02/27/08:Well....there are two things:
reality
and
Reality
reality is what we perceive as real.
Reality is what is Really Real.
the question is:
Is our perception equal to Reality?
Im convinced it is not!
so,
Is physical reality is an illusion?
it yes it is is | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 02/22/08 - Are there limits to what Chance can achieve? ... The existence of human beings is sometimes attributed to a series of fortuitous events. Yet scientific discoveries continue to reveal the immense complexity of the ecosystem and the genetic code.
Professor Colin Blakemore, a leading expert in neuroscience, has recently stated that we may never fully understand how the human brain functions, so enormous is its complexity. It contains 100 billion neurons, each of which has 1,000 to 10,000 synapses, transmitting signals at up to 200 mph. Nevertheless
such astonishing organization is still regarded by some people as having originated accidentally.
Is it reasonable to believe there are no limits to what Chance can achieve? If there are limits what are they? If the limits cannot be specified then the hypothesis is untestable, irrefutable and therefore vacuous! It becomes an argument based on ignorance and ceases to be a rational explanation.
Oldstillwild answered on 02/22/08:Who is Chance? | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 02/19/08 - What are you? .......................................... One answer is that we are highly complex molecular systems that have been produced by fortuitous events. The overwhelming difficulty with this hypothesis is that complexity alone does not explain the differences between persons and things. How can an atomic structure functioning according to physical and chemical laws become aware of itself, have abstract ideas, experience emotions, control itself and even destroy itself? Oldstillwild answered on 02/19/08:Because thats LIFE.
All living things,animals,plants,people,flora,fauna,its all a form ,an exponent of LIFE , with individual qualities.
Objectively,there is no such thing as complexity.
just accept life for what it is.
nothing special.
So,
What am I?
Just a form of LIFE.
nothing special.
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 02/15/08 - To what extent can random events be predicted? . Oldstillwild answered on 02/15/08:LOL!
I predict,that the Moon will go square within 10 years from now! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 02/13/08 - Would you regard this as corruption? ....
They are among Britain's wealthiest businessmen, with access to the heart of Downing Street. Yet little has been known about the elite group of multinational chairmen, or exactly what they talk about during their breakfast meetings with the prime minister. Until now, that is.
Downing Street documents disclosed to the Guardian reveal how the secretive lobbying group, which consists of the heads of Britain's most powerful corporations, including BP, Unilever, HSBC, Shell and British American Tobacco (BAT), have used their private access to protect the pensions of the ultra-rich.
The exclusive club, known as the multi-national chairmen's group, consists of fewer than 10 executives. Its members are invited to Downing Street to tell the prime minister how they believe government policies are affecting international corporations.
Downing Street has been forced to release the prime ministerial documents after a two-year battle over freedom of information. They show the executives:
· outmanoeuvred Gordon Brown, then chancellor, to shield "fat cat" pensions from his proposals to tax them more heavily;
· wanted Tony Blair, then prime minister, to lobby George Bush to treat corporations more favourably in return for supporting the invasion of Iraq;
· and lobbied for less "burdensome" red tape so multinational corporations would continue basing themselves in Britain.
The behind-the-scenes personal approach to Blair helped persuade the government to back down on Brown's plans to tax the pensions of super-high earners more punitively. More "business-friendly" measures were then brought in. These allow a few highly paid executives to amass tax-free pension funds of up to £1.8m.
Oldstillwild answered on 02/13/08:Of course,this is a peanut problem,compared to how the USA is run.......,
nut alas!
Is this corruption?
Well,
I dont think so.
If it is anything,it might be blackmail....!
Its common procedure to weigh all interests in country-economy-matters.
Therefore its important to invite captains of industry ,to hear their voices.
Chances are,that a government,an administration,would drive away highly (and expensive) qualified CEO's and alike....
The great and therefore most important economical parties must not become sitting dead ducks under poor leadership.....
Im confident,that these guys are able to paint the dangerous consequences of bad policies vividly.
No,
no corruption.
Its weighing interests and consequences.
And maybe a bit chickening out.....
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 02/10/08 - Is there genuine academic freedom in the US? "SCIENCE NOW KNOWS THAT MANY OF THE PILLARS OF DARWINIAN THEORY ARE EITHER FALSE OR MISLEADING. YET BIOLOGY TEXTS CONTINUE TO PRESENT THEM AS FACTUAL EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION. WHAT DOES THIS IMPLY ABOUT THEIR SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS? -- JONATHAN WELLS."
"In 2001, biochemist Franklin Harold admitted in an Oxford University Press monograph that "there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”[9] Other scientists have gone much further.
Over 700 doctoral scientists have signed a public statement asserting their agreement that they "are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life."[10] But what are these scientists to do when the top scientific organization in the U.S. proclaims that evolution is as unquestionable as the existence of atoms or the heliocentric model of the solar system? Clearly the NAS’s statements threaten the academic freedom of scientists to dissent from Neo-Darwinian evolution."
http://www.discovery.org/a/4405 Oldstillwild answered on 02/11/08:"It is more reasonable to believe the development of rational beings in the universe is due to Design rather than Chance... "
what is this?
one-track mindedness?
lack of sound imagination?
Misconception of natural processes?
There is no Design!
Nowhere!
There is only Outcome!Development!Time and time and over and over again and again!
Every Picture tells its own life-story!
And Every life-form is a display of intelligence!
"more reasonable"?? To whom?!!To what level of intelligence?!!To what level of ability to imagine ?!!
There is much more reasonability beyond your capabilities,Im afraid!
So,remember,that your perception of ultimate reasoning, is only the elementary start of it! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 02/03/08 - How reasonable are we? ..............................."Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them." (David Hume) Oldstillwild answered on 02/04/08:well....., I guess he wrote a book about it.......
Let me then add the following remark:
reasonability tends to end where the passion begins.
(just remember your reaction if someone else is unreasonable in your reasonable viewohhhh my....!.....) | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 01/30/08 - What of Duty?.................... In all its forms. Oldstillwild answered on 01/30/08:All inclusive:
Its one's duty to follow one's conscience. | | Question/Answer | | frick asked on 01/26/08 - Greatest..................................................... Who is the greatest philosopher?
Why? Oldstillwild answered on 01/26/08:There is no doubt in my mind,that I am the greatest philosopher,cause I have all the answers which go for me and no philosopher to date has done more,than developing philosophies,beside any reality,but their own mind.
No books needed,cause its a waste of energy and never is anyone capable of owning the thoughts laid down in those books.Copying beyond one's own capabilities at the most;leading to unrealistic crap-discussions with no meaning whatsoever!
so,
everyone is one's best philosopher if you experience the truth (being reveiled)in your existence.
The true philosophy is in you.
Just FIND IT!
The only philosophy that counts is the practical truthful philosophy you own.
note:
(just consider the lack of capability to interprete bibles,koran and such so-called generally accepted religious books!Which would stand for the real thing!) | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 01/22/08 - To what extent do we let emotion rule us? . Oldstillwild answered on 01/22/08:well....lets see......,
some moron used 2 say:I think,therefore Im alive....
wrong!
it should be : I feel,therefore Im alive!
We are being ruled by our emotions.Always!
The thinking is secondary,but can be decisive in the actions taken.
Nevertheless the drive is of emotional origin!
well,
lets see,who's getting emotional about this.....! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 01/22/08 - To what extent do we let emotion rule us? . Oldstillwild answered on 01/22/08:Whatthehellof aquestion is this?! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 01/19/08 - To what extent do we let chance rule our life? . Oldstillwild answered on 01/19/08:Life is a great deal about chance.
More,than youd think on first sight.
In fact,most people are constantly busy minimizing chances in striving for as much security as possible in life,because if you dont,youd live your life totally by chance.
Chance is virtually everywhere.
So,
chance is ruling our lives,while we are trying to bring the chance-factor back to proportions we'd feel comfortable with.
Every person has his/her own level,which may vary,dependent of character,circumstances,opportunities,attitude,disposition,goals etc. you name it.
Keywords:feeling comfortable-level,goals. | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 01/15/08 - What do you think of the Boltzmann brain? . Oldstillwild answered on 01/15/08:The Boltzmann brains paradox is that it is more likely that a brain randomly forms out of the chaos with false memories of its life than that the universe around us would have billions of self-aware brains.
I totally agree with that.(and have explained that in the past already) | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 01/10/08 - How fundamental is the will to power? ............... "Physiologists should think before putting down the instinct of self-preservation as the cardinal instinct of an organic being. A living thing seeks above all to discharge its strength — life itself is will to power; self-preservation is only one of the indirect and most frequent results" (Nietzsche) Oldstillwild answered on 01/10/08:Well,
here is some mixing-up of things at hand.
The basic force is the will to survive.
Thats not equal to the will to power at all.
so,
Life itself is not at all will to power.
so,
lets distinguish between the surviving "power " (the self)
and the will to "rule " (others)
....... | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 01/06/08 - What explains the insatiable lust for power? . Oldstillwild answered on 01/09/08:okay,lets put it antother way.....,
(if this site allows me....)
Im not part of the "insatiable lust for power "-clan.
leaders by definition are minorty people,let alone "insatiable lust for power"-leaders.
History shows,thats easy to mislead the masses.....
Its a bridge too far,to assess that as massess driven by "insatiable lust for power ".
"insatiable lust for power " is not a recognized property of mankind at all.
So again,
if you aint able to identify 'the insatiable lust for power " as a disease,youre most probably suffering from it! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 01/06/08 - What explains the insatiable lust for power? . Oldstillwild answered on 01/07/08:Its just a disease.....
Its about mental instability....
about overcompensating deficiencies,insecurity,fear,low self-esteem etc...
Dont forget,
it s only a tiny minority suffering from this and exploiting it! | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 01/05/08 - What is rational is real. true or false, and why Oldstillwild answered on 01/06/08:false
well,
just a quickly review of scientific developments........
The weakness here is Humans!
(as always)
arrrghhh! | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 01/01/08 - universal good ..................................... Is there a universal good and if so, what is it? Oldstillwild answered on 01/02/08:no | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 12/29/07 - historical perspective............................ It is impossible to understand present events without some historical perspective. It is not as though our minds are blank tablets that we can right on. In order to understand the historical perspective we must know the definition of words from that particular perspective, which are for the most part nothing like they are now. Therefore, understand cannot be tied to definition.
Agree or disagree? What is wrong with the argument?
Oldstillwild answered on 12/29/07:The premisses here is,that there is no awareness of any environment to definitions.
But of course,there is ,and people like to think,they can imagine how people felt in "ancient" times.
With that the use of definitions would be validated.
If only,it would be true.....its an effort at the most.
Yet,definitions are valid,because they are directly linked to the present and old definitions can be altered or commented for better understanding the influences of the time-factor.
We are living in a dynamic world by all means,so the use of definitions must be adjusted to that.
By definition,understanding is something for the present,including:
To understand the perspectives,definitions should be clarified if necessary.Its proper common practice, always to reconsider the validity of definitions.
So,its more about the proper use of (older)definitions,rather than jumping to the conclusion mentioned in the question.
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 12/22/07 - How do you think the mind and body interact? ....(Probably the most difficult question in psychology). Oldstillwild answered on 12/23/07:Its about attitude.Trust.
Its about giving LIFE the opportunity to do its works.
Its not about the mind-body-thinking connection.That wouldnt work.
Its More.
If you let LIFE live it will (also!)heal.
(within bounderies,of course).
hi.
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 12/20/07 - What does a rational being consist of? ! Oldstillwild answered on 12/20/07:Rational beings?
What is that?
You have to identify the rational being first in order to be able to determine what it is.
Sofar,
there is no rational being.
(except for me,of course(<:)~ ) | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 12/19/07 - thought-objects .................................. Are thought-objects purely subjective phenomena?
Can concepts arise out of immediate, individual perception, or are they acquired by individuals through social practice.
Oldstillwild answered on 12/20/07:ya,
a famous example is Jesus Christ.
On a purely subjective and individual basis of perception,
he managed to make this personal perception conquer a greater part of the world.
And this,in spite of his false interpretations of experiences.....!
Of course there are numerous examples of how,many people are mislead by individuals,purely on the basis of "leadership".
The keywords here are connection, persuasion and weakness......! | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 12/18/07 - more on Spirit Why is gravity a concrete term- or an abstract term?
Why is Spirit a concrete term- or an abstract term?
Oldstillwild answered on 12/19/07:gravity is a concrete fact.
(we know,its proven,that there is gravity)
spirit to most people is not a concrete fact.
(most people think, it IS or Could be A or The spirit,while others think its accidental or something else or not at all....).
Personally,
to me,there is no spirit as such.
there is LIFe
and its works,
and there is
NATURE
and its laws
so to me,
both are concrete terms.
So ,
if spirit is concrete or abstract is subjective.
(although most if not all people wouldnt agree (<:)~.
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 12/13/07 - What are your views on......... history? ........ (e.g. Can we draw any philosophical conclusions from past events - as Hegel and Marx attempted to do?) Oldstillwild answered on 12/13/07:
To me,
History is the burried solid basis of progress in the now.
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 12/10/07 - What are your views on.............. mysticism ? Oldstillwild answered on 12/10/07:mysticism should rather be called missticism.....
Its a practice based on false assumptions.
However,
sometimes it would work by accident,because of the then integer intentions.
equal to praying......
that would work too if (occasionally)the
basics are in accordance with the principles of Lifeaeism.
Thats why,occasionally all kinds of religions or missticisms would seem to work:
Always by accident.......because the basics aint right,though just fit in occasionally....
hi. | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 12/07/07 - What is the most important question ? Oldstillwild answered on 12/07/07:Am I ?
Am I doing the right thing?
Where did it all go wrong?
(not for me,of course....(<:)~ ) | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 12/02/07 - What are your views on...............science ? Oldstillwild answered on 12/02/07:well....,
this is asking for the obvious .....,
as you might know.....,
therefore in short:
where did it all go wrong?
where mankind didnt succeed properly interpreting its talents......
so,
about a gezillion years ago. | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 11/29/07 - What are your views on........ mathematics ? (From a philosophical point of view!) Oldstillwild answered on 11/29/07:well,
thats an interesting additional clarification between those brackets....
what do we feel?
what is that we feel?
well,
what we feel is numbers.
nobody wants to be a number,
but we all áre just numbers.
thats the essence of humanity:
always denying the truth.
Too blind to see.
or rather,
to blind to feel what feeling is about.
nowadays science is mixing up all those numbers they refuse to recognize;
Always doing maths,
but never knowing what they are really dealing with.
I know I am numbers.
Dont dare anyone,to try to alter one of them!
Its just a matter of dialing right!
Its just a matter of dialing,right?
A lifetime achievement!
hi! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 11/25/07 - What are your views on......... aesthetics ? Oldstillwild answered on 11/26/07:Ahhhhhh.....aesthetics....!
Well......,I suggest you to look into the mirror and then decide....!(<:)~
We can discuss it here then!
(I already did it:very aesthetical....!)
I think,its very personal.
Sometimes people would render an opinion and discover similarities,which would result in some sort of protest.
That would be the aesthetical morals of that group of people then.
Most of the time,there is a silent majority.
But in spite of that,the (urbanic)minority would succeed in their actions.....
I do not know of truely majority aesthetical issues.....
Its always about problems.
There is no such thing as deliberately creating something aesthetical.(although one could speak of aesthetical responsible models).
The issue depends on the parameters at hand/mind/mood/opportunity/morals/whatever.
Most of the time its pathetic,seeing people acting against a aesthetical challenged creation.
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 11/19/07 - What are your views on............. ethics ? Oldstillwild answered on 11/19/07:Well....,ethics stink.....!
Not because of ethics itself,but because of the way so-called scientific people manipulate it,in order to shift boundries....!
There is no sound basis for ethics in practice.
People wouldnt know,what it would be at all!
So,again,
its the practice of a stinking eggics culture!
Have anice day!
(dont forget to mention the freedom of speach!) | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 11/15/07 - What are your views on........ politics ? Oldstillwild answered on 11/15/07:politics stink!
There is no representation of anyone;
there is only power,how to get it,how to live it and how to capitalize on it and all just for personal gain.
Have a nice day! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 11/11/07 - What are your views on logic? . Oldstillwild answered on 11/11/07:Logic helps, but has its important not to forget limitations if logic itself is defined in a too constraint fashion.....
The definitin of logic isnt the same for eveyone.....
So,
define logic for me,please! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 11/06/07 - What are your views on metaphysics? . Oldstillwild answered on 11/09/07:well,
there is far more less metaphysicalamaty Jane or so,as one would believe.
Most of the described metaphysicallatious events are of spiritual origin.
So,
whats my view on metaphysics?
nice,
but there is none.
Its all about YET to be discovered natural events, if ever of course.
Even spiritual events are natural and
based on transparent material phenomena.
So,
in the end of the knowing,if ever,there is no spirituality or meta-physicaliciousness at all.
Just Nature.
Just Natural events.
"Just wait" till stupidity is conquered....
mwaaaahhhhhaha!!!!
Well,
that would be a long,long waitress!
ohhh,sorry,
I mean waistress!
ohhh,sorry,
I mean waitstress!
well,
Ill bother better a graceful waitress with a nice waist.
Maybe that would be a waste for the waitress,but Id enjoy it anywaste!
Thats all folks!
Little metaphysiciousness about it!
Maybe a bit ual.
Thats just me.
A bit ual.
Nobody knows what it is....
(well,I thought so....just wait....!
there might be some experts here...!
mwaaahhhaha!) | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 10/30/07 - What are your views on idealism? .........(The theory that mind is the fundamental reality)......... Oldstillwild answered on 10/30/07:.......KEEEEENUUUUU!!!!!!! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 10/27/07 - What are your views on dualism? ...............(The theory that mind and matter exist
independently)............ Oldstillwild answered on 10/28/07:The only reason why it seems right is the limited capabilities of humans to assess phenomenons,due to patterns of thinking ,directly related to the limited capabilities of perception by most people.
Humans tend to view and accept these limited patterns for absolute truth.
There is no dualism.
The human kind seems to be poised to analize IT all.
yet,
it is not to be.......
If Shakespeare said anything usefull its the phrase:
To B Or Not To B.
Most people are going for the latter......!
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 10/24/07 - What are your views on materialism? ............(The theory that everything is derived from matter)...... Oldstillwild answered on 10/25/07:Well,lets see.....,ehhhh,ehh......errrr......errrr...,
my keyboard is pretty materialistic although not perfect.
Another materialistic entity in my view is my monitor.......a pretty good materialistic one......!
Further I have a room with a view too,although asking my room for a view on materialism wouldnt result in much..............,strange.......
well,
a quick view around........,
Id say,everything is materialistic.
No exceptions!
Ohh,yeah....,of course.....view doesnt equal visible........!
........Just 2b sure......
So,
all is related to materialism,even life itself!
My mouse too! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 10/17/07 - Is decision-making a biological process? ... Please elaborate... Oldstillwild answered on 10/20/07:We are biological.
So all we do is biological.
By definition.
If youre thinking that youd be never a terrorist or would have thought the same things you are thinking now,no matter your place or circumstances of birth,youre nuts....and thats biological too!
We are a biological product of a very precious and vulnerable balance of biological parts.
And even you would be surprised in your changes in your behaviour if you were placed in very drastic other circumstances right now....! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 10/12/07 - How did altruism originate ? Oldstillwild answered on 10/13/07:Its an attitude and of course of all times.
I guess,everybody has to find out if and how altruism fits one's personality.
Altruism is when acting without regards to any (direct)personal gain,without a hidden agenda and might go to self-sacrificing one's life on behalve of others or other things/interests,serving a bigger goal than oneself.
Its always difficult to ascertain which act would be altruistic.
Personally,I do not believe in pure altruism,as there is always a personal spiritual gain:One believes,that what one does is good.
Even by sacrificing one's own life!
Most altruism is in the eyes of the public,more than in one's own mind....
Altruism ,in my view,is the result of one's personal morals and values and one's admiration and valueing one's environment.
Altruism cannot be a permanent characterization of someone;Nobody is a pure altruistic.
So,Its my thought,that
Altruism will result if one's morals and values and one's projection of one's own role in the present circumstances,lead to the conclusion,that the better thing to do with respect to others and/or the environment ,is acting altruistically.
The bottomline is one's character.It should fit the conditions in which acting altruistically is embedded.
Well,
just my thoughts.
hi. | | Question/Answer | | MarySusan asked on 10/10/07 - Who Should Have the Right to Control....???? 1. Scientific Thought
2. The End of your Life
3. The Definition of Evil.....
Your thoughts greatly appreciated. Oldstillwild answered on 10/12/07:No control!
Only the moment counts.
You can only let the moment count if youre able letting things go.
Loosen your mind.
Free yourself from control-mechanisms.
Without that you just aint able to enjoy life as such to the fullest.
1.Science is a poor life-control only based on the very limitations of the human mind and from the urge to know and control things.(science = poor judgement of life as such).
Knowing is life being captured in illusive constraints.
2.End of one's life shouldnt control your whole life...what a waste and a hurrying!Time is your enemy!You will never be "ready".
3.Definition of evil:
If youre free,there is no evil in your mind,what so ever.
If there is evil in your mind,youre not free.
If you make your fears control your life,you aint free neither,always cautious and suspicious.How joyfull!
So
free your mind and cherish the moment and youre virtually always "ready'to die,without being conscious about that.
No regrets!
well....
How Much Time Do You Have Left,MurpySusan?! | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 10/06/07 - What is freedom? Is slavery or employment the path to freedom?
Are Aethics and morals are against freedom? Do they hinder pure freedom from being realized?
Is Freedom is the absense of unfair restrictions created by other people.
Oldstillwild answered on 10/06/07:well,
there is
physical freedom,
mental freedom,
freedom of expression,
freedom of speech,
freedom of convention,
freedom of settlement,
freedom of the press,
freedom jadajadajada etc. whatever freedom.
Anything short of freedom is compromise and if this compromise has been established in democratic fasion,then one might say,that the result
is still a voluntairily agreed status quo of freedom.
All other situations are violating freedom as such and more particularly the feeling of freedom.
If there is no freedom,there is always a road to freedom and the startingpoint of that road is defined by the existing situation.
Moreover people are not robots,but thinking individuals with changing needs.
The organisation of communities therefore is always moving and changing and the scope of the agreed upon freedom will alter dynamically over time.
Conclusively one might say,that there is no absolute freedom in existence,because people always have to negociate situations.
People do not need absolute freedom per se.
Freedom is a feeling.
If you feel free in (functioning in)your community,whatever that personal perception of freedom might be,then its fair to state one's living in a free country.
Every situation calls for its own restraints regarding one's behaviour.People are very creative to seek situations and circumstances to be able to fulfill there personal needs,without disturbing the feeling of safety and freedom of others.
One should be aware not to seek freedoms,one wouldnt really need......
So,now you are free now.....,what else....?
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 10/02/07 - How would you show that everything is relative? (Assuming you believe that everything is relative. Otherwise there is no need to do so!) Oldstillwild answered on 10/03/07:Well,
that is simply not the case at all.
The universe is an absolute.
Even Einstein's theory of relativity!
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 09/25/07 - When should extreme suffering be permitted? . Oldstillwild answered on 09/25/07:Suffer you go baby! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 09/20/07 - How can science influence moral decisions? . Oldstillwild answered on 09/20/07:Science , almost by definition,is exploring boundries and beyond.....,trying to understand the unknown.
People,however,have already by far decided,what the unknown would be.
In a process of ages,we see
would-be-boundries shifted by scientific results.
However,people may have build beliefs and institutions on morals and values, based on scientifically untrue premisses.......
Therefore,it is common practice to have a bridge-lobby to overcome difficulties between science and the ordinary,the accepted common.
Its called ethics.
Ethics committee.
Science of ethics.
Its purpose is to prepare the community for necessary shifts in moral thinking in order to get approval for further investigations in fields,which are part of the supposedly inviolable settled moral domain.
Practice is,that science is one of the most important booster of changes in morals and values.
At the cost of many lives,though...... | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 09/18/07 - What is the mark of a fundamentalist mindset? . Oldstillwild answered on 09/18/07:Very friendly, set off against a very judgemental attitude based on his beliefs and easily prepared to take any corrective action if needed in his opinion,which would be justified in the eyes of and best for the community ,in his thoughts.
So,in short:
Innocent and righteous, guard and judge.
What would be the answer of a moslim fundamentalist if asked about the moral standards of Europe?
It would illustrate the hugh mental GAP between 2 worlds....... | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 09/15/07 - To what extent is selfishness self-destructive? . Oldstillwild answered on 09/16/07:Well....let me put it the intelligent way.....LOL!!!
An intelligent selfish person wouldnt be destructive to himself ever.....!
Kindergartenbreak now! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 09/11/07 - What could be done to end child poverty? . Oldstillwild answered on 09/14/07:Killing them....? | | Question/Answer | | Mary_Susan asked on 09/11/07 - Are Governmental Bureaucracies Always "Bad"? Tonyrey mentioned a couple of questions ago that Switzerland was a true democracy and cast bureaucracies as being intrinsically "bad", a part of government that separates the people from ruling power.
But, isn't it correct that bureaucracies aren't all "bad"?? Oldstillwild answered on 09/11/07:well,
as you mentioned before,
this site is only fun!(must be.....)
I love bureaucrazies!
hi. | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 09/07/07 - Where does genuine democracy exist? . Oldstillwild answered on 09/07/07:Well....,thats a nice question....!
Whats a genuine democracy?
Id say a community where the people make the decisions.
In practice this is unworkable,so we developed indirect ways to represent the people.
That would make a genuine democracy when participating 100% of the population.
Well,for practicle reasons and because older people like to defend their authority all persons younger than 18 are excluded.
That would make a genuine democracy if all people > 17 are participating.
I do not know such a country.... | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 09/05/07 - Do you agree with Jefferson about honesty? "The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest." Oldstillwild answered on 09/07/07:Well....,
its an art alright....!
few artists , though....! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 09/01/07 - What are the merits and demerits of democracy? . Oldstillwild answered on 09/02/07:It all depends on the fundamentals.
And from which perspective....
the individual;
the people at hand;
the rest of the region/world.
And how it is functioning in relationship to its fundamentals(quality;participation).
The general disadvantage to the individual is the compromise.
The functioning is the degree of will to compromise.
The quality is the nature of the functioning of the outcome(institutions).
The definition of the bounderies is the most weakest part of democracy.
This worriest me the most.
In all,democracy in my view ,is the best form of government at hand.
So the disadvantages of democracy in relationship to other forms of government are not really relevant.
The weak point of democracy is the degree of participation and the apparent difficulty to motivate people to take part in it.
Moreover the general less virtuous properties of people in power always play a role.How accessible are the democratic bodies.
It may result in governing by the "few".Or in other words,it deminishes the quality of the democratic decisions.
In addition,there is always a time-lag.One has to live with the outcome for a certain period of time,whatever the result of elections.
The result of elections might lead to a bigger participation and another outcome just a week later........
well.....,
time for a Heineken now....
hi
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 08/30/07 - Why are some legal systems superior to others? considered to be unjust? Few people believe all legal systems are equally worthy of our allegiance. How do we determine which are superior?
Oldstillwild answered on 08/31/07:Well,
as I pointed out earlier,its about the community.
So one would say,rather yes than no,that a community would consider its own system the better one.
But not by definition.
In my country one would talk about different systems,not necessarily better or superior systems,when talking about other (civilized)countries.
Its a matter of culture and respect.
Superiority comes in play if for example the "generally accepted" human rights are violated in the system.Or the issue of the death penalty is in play.
Not to speak about dictatorships and arbitrairiness.
The legal system would say something about the community and/or the country and/or the political system,which one may repudiate.
So,
How do we determine which are superior?
In some cases its obvious.
In others its just a matter of opinion.
For example:
In my opinion a system with death penalty can never be superior to a system without.
| | Question/Answer | | Mary_Susan asked on 08/28/07 - The First Archer Principle I couln't find out what the First Archer Principle is by a search on the net(not that I'm good at that sort of thing), anyway,
I think it has something to do with how religious inclined folks rig scientific experiments so they give results they want. Oldstillwild answered on 08/29/07:
Well oh my,
The only thing I could find is,
that humanity only can be held responsible for acts which are consciously prepared for in the mind.All other results and occurrences are Gods will.
In addition:humans can only initiate movement or rest.E.g shooting an arrow.
Humanity cannot create bodypower,life or a body.
Well,
I hope it helps....(<;
hi.
| | Question/Answer | | Mary_Susan asked on 08/28/07 - Science and the Problem of Evil I don't think that religion(monotheism) helps humanity address, clarify or answer the problem of evil in the world. In fact, I think religion HINDERS that understanding.
In what ways does science help us address, clarify and answer problems of evil?
In what way does religion fail?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[I'm reading a book about anti-social personality disorder(psychopathology, sociopathology)hence the interest.
Thanks, Mary Sue Oldstillwild answered on 08/28/07:Science doesnt help at all,because evil is about attitude and evil scientists wouldnt help very much.
Religion does fail,because Humanity isnt able to distant from itself.
The only thing,that would have a ghost of a chance is a basis that is genuine and common and that is Life itself.
So,the moment,people would recognize Life itself as the basis for the very philosophy we all strive for,evil wouldnt stand a chance,because one would lose it all,the moment you lose your basis.
well,
Im sure,you wouldnt understand this at this point and I am sure,
you wouldnt accept the consequences of this ,the moment you would understand....
Thats not only your problem.....but everybody's ........
Which makes this problem unsolvable:
Humanity has a fate and in its own hands and it will never be able to handle that properly....!
hi.
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 08/27/07 - Do the majority determine what is right or just? If not what does? Oldstillwild answered on 08/27/07:In general:
The community determines.(period!)
The community will determine a set of rules,according to which decisions are taken,so that the community will function.
If decisions are taken according to the rules of the community,then these decisions are to be considered right or just to that community.
If you want to change the rules,you have to organise the majority needed(as determined in the rules).
Its all a matter of opinion(of the community).
My opinion is,that the kind of majority needed,depends on the issue at hand.
In general:
All issues of all people should be taken care of properly as much as possible.
This means No Dictate of a simple(50+%) majority!
Democracy is about the will of the people.Not about the will of 51% of the people!
| | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 08/26/07 - What is the difference between a quarrel and an argument? ... Oldstillwild answered on 08/26/07:The quarrel is:
What a stupid question!The header should be in the description area!
The dots above!
The argument is:
What are you doing here!!! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 08/23/07 - How does truth fit into your view of reality? ... Does the fact that it is intangible mean it exists only in the mind? Oldstillwild answered on 08/23/07:Truth doesnt even exist in the mind!
Even?!!
At all!!
And then such a question after years and years on the philosophy board.......!
What a shame......!
And then if knowledge would be an illusion.....<<<<>>>!
Its the illusion,you stupid!(referring to the economy-phrase....).
I am not going to go into that again,.......!!!!Oh my.....!!
help!
| | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 08/18/07 - I wonder........................ Aristotle, said, “philosophy begins in wonder.” I wonder how Consciousness expanded our awareness further. Oldstillwild answered on 08/19/07:Consciousness implicitely gives us the ability to widen up our awarenesspotential.
The direction of our awareness expansion would be towards consciousness.
We've been given tools to do that.
The limitations are in the stupidity of mankind(one-track mindedness and such).
Go back a few months and try to answer the wondering about;
Where did it all go wrong....?
more seriously.
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 08/10/07 - What do you regard as the scope of science? . Oldstillwild answered on 08/10/07:in short:
mecano
or by another shortcut:
anything other than life itself. | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 08/07/07 - Scientifically inexplicable events- your views? . Oldstillwild answered on 08/08/07:Scientifically inexplicable is the word.
And the word rules....
I dont think so.
Science is by definition inferior to experiences as such.
Its an artificial effort to be able to dismiss truth or reality.
Truth and reality dont need to be proven or catched into frameworks.
Everybody has to live with his/her own truth.
It doesnt matter what anybody else would hold of that.
The art of living is maybe to catch truth and reality as wide as possible.It would give you room for the broadest personal spiritual development,experience and sense,awareness of life.
And thats what it all comes to in the end....
Ive lived in spite of science.
Science couldnt take away any richness of my life's experiences.
Science is as cutting the beautiful high and low tones out of life.....a flat,shallow experience.... | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 08/02/07 - To what extent has philosophy changed your life? . Oldstillwild answered on 08/02/07:My Practical Life-Philosophy(Lifeaeism) IS my life.
All I can say is,that my postings here are based on personal experiences,rather than reading books.
This philosophy is fully incorporated in my life,what I do,how I think,what I feel,how I develop.
It requires a state of mind open to the reality of Life,identifying how it reveals itself to you.
It makes any god-thinking redundant and all explanations natural.
It makes it possible to explore your (mine)personal life to the fullest capabilities of your(my) source of life.
It makes spirituality down-earthed.
hi. | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 07/30/07 - Has philosophy advanced human knowledge? ....... If so how? Oldstillwild answered on 07/30/07:As Socrates said(maybe that helps....),
we all have everything within us.
So,
--not for Socrates though--
that being the case,
anyone who would seek the value,truth,principle,reality of LIFE and what it is all about,will acquire
advanced human knowledge.
The art of living or getting that truth is a big step towards truthfulness and selffulfillment..
Many people however,do not have the capability or do not feel the need to make such a journey.
They have no choice,then to await the moment,that they will recognize the voice,which would tell them to start this journey towards the truth about life.
You dont need Socrates or anyone else for that.
Yes,
Has philosophy advanced human knowledge?
The philosophy about life = the truth about life and within yourself.
However,it is not easy to follow that path!
hi. | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 07/25/07 - What do you think of Bertrand Russell's... "The secret to happiness is to face the fact that the world is horrible" ? Oldstillwild answered on 07/25/07:Well....,if it makes you feel the calling to make the world a better place and acting upon it,then he has a point......
However,
its not only my experience on a daily basis,that the majority of people tend to choose for joining in......
Yet,
both reactions to that horrible world experience would make people feel happier....
the question is,
whats making more happier:
Fighting the world
or
Joining in.....
Its my conviction,that the latter is a surrogate happyness.
The first one requires happiness within in order to be able to "fight".
So,
conclusively,
Happiness is before experiencing whatever the world's shape is.
Russell has to explain what his subjective testimonial is about....
Untill that:
Russell is wrong.(after that most probably still....).
hi. | | Question/Answer | | MarySusan asked on 07/19/07 - Communication and Fantasy From a philosophical viewpoint, what do you think is the reason for the television programs which show communication with the dead and show dead people interacting with reality?
Why all these shows at a time in history when science has never been so powerful and valid? Oldstillwild answered on 07/19/07:First of all,
I dont think,science is powerful an valid at all.
and about the topic:communication with the dead and show dead people interacting with reality?
Ive never seen a dead person communicating or interacting.....
you,Chou?!
so,
its just entertaimnent.
Even if its not meant to be just entertainment it is.
people like to be entertained.
Moreover,many people are dealing with spirituality in all kind of ways and most people are very curious and infantile....
Many people have unanswered questions.
As history shows,people are willing to believe anything.
Money!
hi!
| | Question/Answer | | Jim.McGinness asked on 07/15/07 - Does your cat have a conscience? Your dog? Do you ever get the impression that your pet is "acting guilty" after it has done something you don't allow? Does it watch for you not to be looking before it tries something you've supposedly trained it not to do?
Oldstillwild answered on 07/15/07:well,
you ask cat and dog,but refer to pet.
I stick to pet cat.
Cat:yes
Dog:no
Of course it depends on if I or anyone else is able to read the cat....
To me,my cat never goes below the level of haughty independence.He just goes his/her way and maybe another time....
Dogs are easy to read.
They can feel guilty.
Well,
thats my experience/interpretation.
hi.
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 07/13/07 - Is the mind just a set of electrical currents? Materialists believe the brain is the source of all mental activity. But how can a physical organ grasp abstract ideas like truth and justice and know it exists? How can a set of electrical currents form an entity which is responsible for its behaviour? Oldstillwild answered on 07/15/07:Materialists believe the brain is the source of all mental activity. But how can a physical organ grasp abstract ideas like truth and justice and know it exists? How can a set of electrical currents form an entity which is responsible for its behaviour?
Well,
it depends on the definition of source....
but,as stated before,
We are just a flow,a current.
There is physically absolutely nothing to pick up.There never will be found anything "personal" in a brain.
The brain is just accomodating the flow,stream,current,fluid or whatever you may call it,and conditioning perceptors for memory purposes.There are no pictures in your brain.
The source of all mental activity is life itself.
We are just forms,with life flowing thru it.
Life is totally transparent(yet matter). | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 07/08/07 - Do you agree with the "selfish gene" theory? Why (not)? Oldstillwild answered on 07/09/07:Yes,
that is why we have to fight so much to act responsibly.
We are part of nature as any other animal.
We know how nature survives.
That is not pleasant,yet commonly regarded as beautiful.
We have to fight our genes and in fact,thats what we are doing.
When it comes down to critical situations,people would choose for themselves almost all of the time.
Basically,all people are hypocrits,but hypocrits for the better.
If people would live according to their selfish genes,we would be living like the animals in nature.
The difference is our common sense,which is able to ("hypocritically")supersede the influence of the selfish genes.
hi. | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 07/03/07 - Like a ship in a storm........................ Possess a central belief and like the backbone of a ship, you will have something on which to attach other beliefs.
Like a ship in a storm, what is attached to the backbone cannot be torn away; so that the ship may weather the storm, and again experience calm seas.
A ship with-out a backbone, in fair weather slips from one side, and then to the other, this is easily corrected; but in foul weather, the same ship is broken with high seas.
But where to discover this magical central belief, and are there more than one?
The answer to this question continues to evade me like a ghost in a fog.
Who can answer this question for me?
Oldstillwild answered on 07/03/07:Well...,
first of all,
You wouldnt have felt the need for asking this if youd have had an open mind to my answers over the years.
"are there more answers than one?"
The simple truth is,that there is only one simple truth......
Sadly,I cant answer your question any more....
| | Question/Answer | | Jon1667 asked on 07/02/07 - The Oppressed I note that two of the oppressed terrorists who had no opportunities in Britain were physicians. There must be cognitive dissonance going on somewhere. Don't you think? Oldstillwild answered on 07/02/07:Well.,I guess for the not so gifted philosophers it would be hard to imagine things,other than whats familiar to them.
These are the truly dangerous ones....
Even so dangerous as any other fanatic. | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 07/01/07 - What are your most cherished beliefs and values? . Oldstillwild answered on 07/01/07:well....,
I like 2 think,Ive some....
You can get some.....!
no kiddin'
My belief is,that there is none.
My basis is knowledge.
I value the nature of Life itself most and the ability of mankind to feel and to take responsibility within that framework, for the sake of both the individual and the community as a whole.
hi.
| | Question/Answer | | MarySusan asked on 06/05/07 - The Road to Destruction in America? "Today, as China looms large as a growing scientific and technological superpower, is a very poor time for the United States to take two steps back. The new creationism “museum” in Kentucky is a giant leap backward. I am not going to go through the facts, the volumes of confirming evidence favoring the theory of evolution by natural selection. There’s little sense resuscitating a galloping, conscious horse. But it is worth addressing what the opening of this attraction means for the United States at this particular moment, and the ***MISCONCEPTIONS OF WHICH RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISTS AND POSTMODERNISTS ALIKE ARE GUILTY** in condoning the slander of empiricism and the scientific method.
Not every method of inquiry is equal. Since the dawn of the scientific revolution, we have learned one thing consistently: observation and evidence provide reliable knowledge. Revelation does not. Religious texts gave us a skewed view of a universe that was created for our benefit and took us and our planet as its center. As observation of the heavens revealed things not predicted by sacred texts, the Church tried first desperately to suppress those observations, then struggled to reinterpret the texts to allow for dogma and scientific truth to somehow coexist without contradiction.
Finally, well into the Enlightenment, “enlightened” religion admitted that religious texts could not be literally true and must largely be conceived as metaphors. All but the most recalcitrant believers became convinced that science works for worldly things and that religion should pertain only to the realm of the spiritual. For a time, as the nation whose enlightenment legacies included a constitutional separation of church and state, the United States rose as a great technological and scientific power. Before World War II, our technological ascension was fueled by pragmatic and entrepreneurial hard work. Inventors led the way, encouraged by a more-or-less affordable patent system and a market-driven desire to improve everyday living through the development of useful tools.
The spirit of American invention was rooted, of course, in empiricism. The process of trial and error led Thomas Edison to try a legendary number of filament materials before settling on that used for the last century in incandescent bulbs. Technological progress and the pace of invention was fueled by market forces, but American scientific supremacy was the result of necessity created by the advent of World War II. By harnessing the talents of fleeing European scientists as well as domestic scientists and technologists, and building a scientific and financial infrastructure that would germinate the National Science Foundation, America would rise in the 1950s and 60s to be a true scientific superpower.
At the heart of U.S. scientific supremacy was a Cold-War driven competitiveness and investment in scientific education and research. We prevailed. We reached the moon in the symbolic culmination of our scientific journey from Scopes trial to spacefarers. Our success was built upon the proven role of evidence in overcoming obstacles and achieving dreams.
We observe radioactive decay and know that it happens at certain rates. The rocks of this world are billions of years old. We also observe the light from suns billions of light-years away and, knowing that light travels at a fixed rate, calculate that the universe is at least 14 billion years old. The evidence is overwhelming. Ultimately, one silly museum that ignores it doesn’t threaten our scientific future. But it is clearly symptomatic of the sorry state of science in the United States and an indication that we are losing ground in ways that ought to concern us. Although the money raised is private, and thankfully not governmental, it displays a strange thrust of our priorities.
More than half of those completing Ph.D.s in science in the United States now come from abroad. In a few short years, the Chinese will have a strong space program. Our own aged fleet of shuttles has been virtually grounded. American schoolchildren’s knowledge of science and math decline steadily for each year of education. According to the 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), U.S. students “remain primarily in the middle of rankings among those nations that are most advanced or nations that have taken part in TIMSS consistently since the study’s first assessment.” The rankings are of forty-six developed nations.
Next year, the CERN physics laboratory in Switzerland will complete its Large Hadron Supercollider in an effort to find the final link in the standard model of particle physics. The United States essentially opted out of the race to understand matter when Congress defunded the Superconducting Supercollider in the early 1990s. It’s beginning to look like the next few decades of scientific achievement will occur abroad, and Americans will become spectators, with only our fading military superiority as the last bastion of our national pride. And so it bears asking, what does it indicate about us as a nation when $25 million is raised and spent on a “museum” with as much scientific value as Space Mountain? I fear it shows how the mighty have fallen." David Koepsell, Exec Dir. Council of Secular Humanism in On-Line Newsletter
*capital letters mine*
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Was the goal of the now defunct Christo-Republican political movement which culminated in the Bush Presidendy to hobble American schools, create a nation of predominately ignorant automatons, destroy civil liberties, create an imperial Presidency which in effect, would turn America into a dictatorship. All in order to bully and control the rest of the world? Or, something like that??? Oldstillwild answered on 06/05/07:well.....,
religion is power over the people.
The weakness of the mass is,that it needs something,anything to clutch at.
But the mass doesnt only need someany-)thing,the mass also wants to have a cheap excuse not to be held accountable for developments in society.
History proves on all levels,that it is relatively very easy to get power.People are too desperately eager to believe.(.)
So,power mights as well be considered as given away.
(Too many villains would know that......).
So,thats the downside.
The other side is that power is corruptive.
And in the hands of people who seek power because of That,power is disastrous disruptive.
"All in order to bully and control the rest of the world? Or, something like that???".
Yes!
Nor ayneything else.
People are too little concerned,whom theyll give power to.
So,
not only power to the fiddlersticks!
Power to the people!
The only thing is,that the People dont want the power......
hi.
| | Question/Answer | | Jon1667 asked on 06/03/07 - Distorted Thinking? A plot was uncovered to destroy JFK airport and much of the surrounding part of New York City by exploding the lines conveying jet fuel to the airport by Islamic militants based in the Caribbean.
According to the leader of the plot, he concocted the plot because "The Jews always get a pass, while Moslems suffer" and, if the plot succeeded, it would put the United States into mourning since they loved and admired John Kennedy so much, and it would be as if he had been "killed twice".
On the first point: So far as I know, "the Jews" have never plotted, let alone succeeded, in mass murder murder of innocents of the kind perpetuated on 9/11 or contemplated in this latest grotesque idea. An utter lack of proportion is shown. On the second point: it is just nonsense to think that JFK airport would be thought of as a kind of shrine. These people must be confusing it with one of their mosques. Furthermore. it is again, grotesque to believe that Americans would care as much for the loss of an airport, as they would for the loss of life, had the plot succeeded.
What sort of people are these? Oldstillwild answered on 06/05/07:It shows how people are put together.
Other environment,other circumstances.......other thinking patterns.....
no individuality.
yet,we're all the same.
all hypocrits,thinking we have substance...even better substance than others....
while in fact, we are nothing at all...just floating little streams of nonsubstantiality.....
we could be them.
It doesnt matter to them,what we think about what they are thinking.
In fact it doesnt matter at all.
What does matter is how to solve this huge problem of clashing cultures....!
| | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 05/21/07 - Do you believe it right or wrong to use artificial insemination to prevent the transmission of sex l For instance: A man who is colorblind can have his sperm separated out into separate male and female producing fractions. If he uses the male fraction to inseminate his mate then none of the children produced will be color blind. Oldstillwild answered on 05/21/07:no | | Question/Answer | | MarySusan asked on 05/20/07 - Stunning Discovery "Experts say they are "lost for words" to describe the importance of an extraordinary discovery found hidden in a medieval prayer book.
The prayer book was written in the 13th century by a scribe named John Myronas. Instead of using fresh parchment for the book, he used paper from five existing books by scrubbing off the original text and then writing over it. High-tech imaging has now been able to decipher those original words that Myronas thought he scrubbed away hundreds of years ago.
In 1996, researchers at the Walters Art Museum in Baltimore, Maryland found in the prayer book a unique work by the mathematician Archimedes, which caused them to name the volume the Archimedes Palimpsest. (A palimpsest is a manuscript page that has been written on, scraped off and then used again.) A few years later in 2002 using an improved imaging technique, they found in the prayer book the only known manuscript of Hyperides, an Athenian politician from the 4th century B.C.
Then in 2007, this same team used an even more advanced technique called multispectral imaging and made another stunning discovery: a commentary on the philosopher Aristotle. Using photographs taken at different wavelengths, this digital imaging technique enhances particular characteristics of the imaged area. Hidden words were suddenly visible. Project director William Noel of the Walters Art Museum told the BBC, "At this point you start thinking striking one palimpsest is gold and striking two is utterly astonishing. But then something even more extraordinary happened." He called it a "sensational find."
"Even though I couldn't read ancient Greek, just the fact that I could see the words gave me shivers," Roger Easton, a professor of imaging science at Rochester Institute of Technology in New York, told the BBC News. An international team of scholars who could read ancient Greek were called upon to analyze the text. Using a series of clues, such as a name written in the margin, they deciphered the subject. "The philosophical passage in the Archimedes Palimpsest is now definitely identified as a relatively early commentary to Aristotle's Categories," Reviel Netz, professor of ancient science at Stanford University told the BBC. Aristotle's Categories have served as the foundation for the study of logic throughout western history. The work is currently being translated.
The most likely author of this unique commentary is Alexander of Aphrodisias, an important ancient critic and analyst of Aristotle. "There is no more important philosopher in the world than Aristotle. To have early views in the second and third century A.D. of Aristotle's Categories is just fantastic. We have one book that contains three texts from the ancient world that are absolutely central to our understanding of mathematics, politics and now philosophy," Noel explained to the BBC. "I am at a loss for words at what this book has turned out to be. To make these discoveries in the 21st century is frankly nutty. It is just so exciting." "
--From the Editors at My ISP
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Comments?
Oldstillwild answered on 05/20/07:Well,interesting to discover where taxpayer's money is going to so passionately..... | | Question/Answer | Dark_Crow asked on 05/20/07 - What are the eugenic consequences of an unassimilated immigration?
. Oldstillwild answered on 05/20/07:....does it really matter.....? | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 05/10/07 - State should encourage ........................... Do you believe that when young students display talent in a particular field, the State should encourage the child to pursue that line of study, then pay all university costs so long as he or she persists? Oldstillwild answered on 05/10/07:I believe there is too much encouraging nowadays.
The present shows an decrease in studying results and quality of science.
Children are too much focussed on education in comparison to other (even so or more important)aspects of life.
There should be a sound balance in anybody's life.
The quintessence of life remains:
Life is not about competition or materialism.
Children should be made more aware of this. | | Question/Answer | | MarySusan asked on 05/07/07 - Four Objections to Religious Faith "There are four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum of servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." Slate an article by Christopher Hitchens.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Do GodBelievers have any argument against these four points? Argument about origin of "Goodness" not acceptable as I posted a refutation earliew this year.
Comments? Oldstillwild answered on 05/08/07:five!
Fear by Blind Power!
Illustr:
Mother Earth is flat by inquisition!
(these are still the same people)
| | Question/Answer | Dark_Crow asked on 05/02/07 - How important are emotions and what role do they play in our lives?
From Hume, Rousseau, and Kant’s theory of virtue back to Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics the philosophy of Emotions has been written about.
Today that philosophy has been brought to the point that it is believed to be a form of intelligence by some philosophers.
What are your thoughts about emotion being a form of intelligence?
Oldstillwild answered on 05/02/07:Emotions are the exposure of an overflow in data to be processed by the brain.
Emotions tell us,that we just were not capable of managing all the data mentally in a proper fashion.
Thats all.
Emotions in itself is not a weakness.
Never!
Its only human.
Whats left for interpretation is the behaviour in relationship to the events during which the emotions were showed.
One might cry about an event and simultaneously just proceed daily routine or whatever activity.
The relationship of emotion and intelligence is,that the intelligence working on an emotional moment,just isnt capable of processing that input in a properly fashion.
Its coming with the intelligence being processed.
In a way emotions are an additional alternative way of working thru the process,although the intelligence present will not stop doing its job.
Emotions can be seen as a form of intelligence output;a result of the process of intelligence, and are therefore important in the cause of dealing with events.
I wouldnt say,that emotions are a form of intelligence.They are a result of the intelligence process. | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 05/01/07 - How can we tackle "metaphysical probability"? Not all metaphysical theories seem equally probable. It seems improbable, for example, that solipsism is true and very few people are solipsists. Materialists believe idealism is far less probable than materialism and idealists believe materialism is far less probable than idealism. But are their conclusions based on reason or emotion? Oldstillwild answered on 05/01/07:Well...,
lets take a look at this improbaballisticalissionism.....
There are so many isms,because a bit of any ism would be true.
The one view that is probaballisticalissionist therefore, is the holistic view.
Starting point would be,how life is functioning in this holistically considered entity.
Life is,although of totally transparent materialistic origin,spiritual by character.
So,
its only reasonable to eliminate materialistic probaballisticalissionism.
Its about spirituality.
Spirituality happens to be connected to physical reality.
Spirituality requires some sort of idealism and is non-materialistic and non-compatitive by nature.
Its all by reason,truth and reality.
The only emotion involved is the happiness having made the right analysis,proven by its results.
Once there,youd never leave this principle.
hi!
| | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 04/28/07 - What single person has most affected your thinking and your worldview? . Oldstillwild answered on 04/28/07:Virtuall none.....!
Im happy to be able to say,that I could tell Socrates,that he is right with respect to the ultimate references people have...
I just learned the other day,that he came to the same conclusion as I did....
hi! | | Question/Answer | | MarySusan asked on 04/28/07 - Mouse Brain Simulated on Computer From BBC on line:
Mouse brain simulated on computer
BlueGene L under construction, IBM
It takes a supercomputer to mimic a mouse brain
US researchers have simulated half a virtual mouse brain on a supercomputer.
The scientists ran a "cortical simulator" that was as big and as complex as half of a mouse brain on the BlueGene L supercomputer.
In other smaller simulations the researchers say they have seen characteristics of thought patterns observed in real mouse brains.
Now the team is tuning the simulation to make it run faster and to make it more like a real mouse brain.
Brain tissue presents a huge problem for simulation because of its complexity and the sheer number of potential interactions between the elements involved.
The three researchers, James Frye, Rajagopal Ananthanarayanan, and Dharmendra S Modha, laid out how they went about it in a very short research note entitled "Towards Real-Time, Mouse-Scale Cortical Simulations".
Half a real mouse brain is thought to have about eight million neurons each one of which can have up to 8,000 synapses, or connections, with other nerve fibres..."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
WOW
If you want, write your own question and answer it.
Thanks to any participants. :) Oldstillwild answered on 04/28/07:Well...,
to me and for real its all an illusion.
This shows the kindergarten-character of scientists....
they would really believe,that they accomplished such a thing....
Like little children covering their head with their hands,believing being unvisible.....
This is science....in full disclosure....
Dont forget this...rather remmber this visiting a doctor....!
hi! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 04/19/07 - Is optimization by blind evolution credible? "Stable systems are not very sensitive to disturbing influences. Chaotic systems however, are extremely sensitive to differences in the situation of origin. For example, in the computer models which Kauffman used to simulate the interaction between genes of the genome, or between the various species within an eco-system, it turned out that the system could either be stable or chaotic, depending on the value of certain parameters (such as the number of interrelations between genes or species). However, at certain parameter values, the system hovered between both extremes: the edge of chaos. This is the area where the ability to evolve, the evolvability, turns out to be the greatest. This is easy to imagine: an evolving system can benefit from stability (it needs to be strong) as well as from flexibility (it must be able to adjust). The border between stability and chaos provides precisely this compromise. Miraculously, the evolving systems of Kauffman's simulations turned out to assume precisely the parameter values which brought the system to this border between stability and chaos. The blind process of evolution appeared capable of finding the spot where the possibilities for further evolution are greatest! An amazing outcome indeed."
http://www.mediamatic.net/article-5611-en.html
Oldstillwild answered on 04/19/07:We simply are not able to determine what optimizations is.
Chaos might perfectly be an optimized situation.
Optimazation as we know it is not a goal.
Evolution has not a set goal.
Evolution is an ongoing process of Adaptation.
There is always change.
There is always a changing balance.
We dot even know,what to look for if we are talking about optimization.
So its eventually just crap to use that terminology.
Evolution is an ungoing process of adaptation and if anything is optimized it would be the universe as such, as a whole or maybe evolution as such, as a whole process and part of the universe.
A process,we are unable to oversee.A process we just have to accept.
A process,that no matter what,will adapt to our stupid mutilations of life or nature as a whole.With outcome,we can only fantasize about or can we????
hi. | | Question/Answer | | denberg asked on 04/17/07 - Can someone explain this phrase in simple english... "...the feedback mechanism between human society and technology was a positive loop, and that growth was not exponential but hyperbolic."
Thanks. Oldstillwild answered on 04/17/07:My shot:
People love technology so much,that developers would never stop inventing new things in order to satisfy ever more desiring consumers. | | Question/Answer | | ttalady asked on 04/15/07 - Why question? It is free will... What we are who we are is free will. Belief in a God, no belief, it is all free will.
Sad to say my Mother has come to question her own beliefs. Her own, free will. It is that of another that brings such question in her mind, free will.
It is the power of your own mind, soul, and heart that holds that will in what ever you belive and do not believe in, free will.
When you loose that, free will, you are a puppet to the world.
Why so much pain, free will, why do people die, free will, why do I question free will!
Focus on what you can do and what you want to do. Never give up!
TTA Oldstillwild answered on 04/15/07:Youre right TT!
If you are unhappy:free will!
If you decide to stay put:free will!
If you deny yourself getting hapier:free will!
The art of living might be never stop to manage your free will to your advantage ....
hi! | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 04/13/07 - Is the Universe self-regulating? .................. If it is self-regulating, why would it care? If it is not self-regulating, what is regulating it?
What conclusion do you draw from the Anthropic Principle or the Gaia hypothesis?
Oldstillwild answered on 04/13/07:Is there really any other option?
Yes , the universe is to be considered holistically and not because it is such nice a word ,but because everything is inter-related.The universe and its environment is one whole.
Any other interpretation is mankind's vain idle fancy fairy tale.
meow! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 04/07/07 - What is the factual basis of the Problem of Evil? If evil is subjective and exists only in the mind of man how can it be used as an objection to the existence of God? Oldstillwild answered on 04/07/07:Well...,
there is no such thing as there is no god...
However,
lets assume,that this question is valid with respect to that,
God didnt create just a part of mankind or do we have a partial god now with partial allmighty power,taking the easy way out,not having responsibility for creating( the option of) evil as well....?
No matter the subjectivity assumption,in any case god created mankind implicitely all inclusive.....
So,
What is the factual basis of the Problem of Evil?
Sorry pal,
You!
| | Question/Answer | | MarySusan asked on 04/06/07 - Philosophy Is secular humanism considered "philosophy"?
I understand that various religions can be discussed under the heading of "philosophy or religion", and since there is a word called 'religion', Catholicism is not strictly philosophy...it is religion.
Thanks in advance for intelligent answers.
Mary Sue Oldstillwild answered on 04/06/07:As I stated before,humanism is to be considered a reactionary movement against religion.
Its more a "sensible" way of thinking,than believing in some super natural.
The word philosophy can be used easily on anything,but I dont think,humanism is to be considered a philosophy.It lacks core.
Its about LIFE,you stupid!Id say.
LIFE is and should be the core of thinking,the point from where to start.
Thats the only philosophy that counts.
There is no philosophy,other than my own discovered,factual,practical experiencing
based-on-LIFE-AS-SUCH philosophy.In fact hardly a philosophy,because its based on facts.
There is no God.
There is LIFE as our FACTUAL transparent materialistic concrete origin.The core of our existence.(You could shake its hand if it would become visible...)
meow! | | Question/Answer | | MarySusan asked on 04/06/07 - Rumblings in the Secular Humanist Arena This is a letter from Paul Kurtz today via e-mail. Note: There is a new movement at Harvard to launch a "New Humanism" in order to bring together the many elements of secular humanism under one umbrella. It is interesting to note that the New Secular Humanism is not necessarily atheistic in approach....the New Humanism can be loosely naturalisticly "spiritual". So, here is Paul Kurtz:
"It is intriguing to note that Greg Epstein (Humanist Chaplain at Harvard) is about to launch “The New Humanism,” which he hopes will bring together the disparate elements of humanism in America. Humanist organizations in the United States are pluralistic, perhaps reflecting the competitive character of the culture, with contending factions arranged on different sides of every question—though no doubt with some shared values. Many of these organizations are small enough to fit into a telephone booth; some were established because wealthy donors were able to underwrite them. Free-market capitalism rules the day; as it does with organizations in other areas of human interest. Has anyone counted the number of Protestant sects in abundance today? And there are over three thousand universities and colleges competing for students and grants.
On the scene today in the United States there are wide differences among humanists that cannot be easily papered over. On the one side are the outspoken atheists who take the attack on God and religion as their primary agenda, and on the other side are those who consider themselves to be “religious humanists,” chortling loud hosannas in praise of “religiosity” and “spirituality,” though no doubt in naturalized form.
At the center of the spectrum are secular humanists, who do not avowedly identify as atheists per se. Although highly skeptical of God talk, they wish to submit religious claims to scientific examination. They deny that humanism is a religion, though they are not anti-religious per se. They wish to emphasize the affirmative aspects of naturalism and humanism, and they seek to provide ethical alternatives to the reigning religious orthodoxies and to defend democratic secular society from religious incursion.
Greg Epstein is himself apparently a religious humanist. Ordained as a rabbi by the Society for Secular Humanist Judaism, he wishes to form a consensus out of the discordant viewpoints among the humanists. No doubt a commendable goal. He has coined a new term, The New Humanism, which is offered to develop a more inclusive, nonconfrontational humanism—a bold move indeed!
However, perhaps Epstein is unaware of the fact that a movement with precisely the same name was spawned in the early twentieth century—at Harvard University no less—by Irving Babbitt (1865–1933), an American literary critic and professor of French at Harvard, and Paul Elmer More (1864–1937), likewise a critic and essayist. The New Humanism was considered to have been a conservative, even reactionary, movement in its day, for it wished to return to the morality of earlier cultures in contrast to the modern era of materialism and industrialization. The New Humanists also attacked utilitarianism and naturalism, with which many American humanists are sympathetic. The New Humanism, in turn, was denounced by Harold Laski, Sinclair Lewis, H. L. Mencken, and Edmund Wilson, among others; indeed it was summarily demolished by Harvard philosopher George Santayana for its abandonment of naturalistic ethics (see Santayana’s classic 1931 essay, “The Genteel Tradition at Bay”).
Greg Epstein is to be applauded for his ecumenical efforts, and the thirtieth anniversary of the Harvard Humanist Chaplaincy, formerly under Tom Ferrick, deserves recognition. But does he mean to return to “The New Humanism” already proclaimed by Harvard’s Babbitt, or should he call his “The New New Humanism?”
I am sorry to bring forth a dissenting viewpoint, but some historical perspective seems to be in order, especially since the many critics of humanism in America are bound to raise this same point."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I detect a note of disapproval of the new ecumenism on Paul Kurtz's part!! lol
Do you think that this is an attempt by (Rabbi?) Epstein, the Humanist Chaplain at Harvard to organize the humanists (and give disgruntled religionists a place to belong) as a counter to the anti-intellectual, anti-rational Fundi-ev Christian movement in America and elsewhere?
Do you have any inside information or other information about this movement?
Cordially,
Mary Sue
Religious babbling not called for or welcome.
Oldstillwild answered on 04/06/07:Well...,
I dont know what to think,but it seems to me,that this is an effort to organise the religious who would claim having faith only in their personal God ,which wouldnt be the ordinary God,yet still God.
Making a bridge to humanists,many of which,while not knowing precisely what humanism would be,would create a God of their own as well!
Well,
I dont think this will work.
Im not religious and I dont think Im a humanist(I believe,nobody knows,what a humanist would be...)
The few times I encountered humanism,it wasnt anything much more,than a reactionaristic movement against religion.....
To me,it sounds like a dead end street.
Its about LIFE,you stupid!
meow! | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 04/05/07 - What is absolutely the most fundamental thing in the universe. . Oldstillwild answered on 04/05/07:change.... | | Question/Answer | | MarySusan asked on 03/28/07 - Re:The Biological Origins of Goodness "Evolutionary biology's interest in goodness can be traced back at least as far as Charles Darwin. It is hard to image that anyone could think of goodness as a problem, but Darwin did. He saw the little worker bees that sacrificed themselves to protect their hives─the ultimate example of animal altruism─as especially troubling to his theory of evolution by natural selection. Darwin said the bee's behavior drove him "half mad." If his ideas on natural selection were correct (and, of course, they were and are), then this sort of altruism should be extraordinarily rare in nature. How could sacrificing one's life ever be favored by natural selection? If increased reproductive success is what drives the evolution of behavior, then altruists should disappear─and fast. But, in the case of the bees, they didn't disappear, and Darwin was so puzzled by this that he spoke of altruism as "one special difficulty, which at first appeared to me to be insuperable, and actually fatal to my whole theory."
And then a solution to this nasty conundrum hit Darwin like a ton of bricks. Worker bees weren't being altruistic for just any old bunch of bees, they were protecting individuals in their hive. And their hive contains a special class of individuals─blood relatives. Blood relatives are by definition genetically similar to one another, and so even though worker bees may have been giving up their lives, they were potentially saving the lives of hundreds of blood relatives by doing so. Darwin didn't know about genes per se, but he did know that something like what we'd call genes were passed from parents to offspring and shared by blood relatives, and that this was enough to solve the problem of altruism. In modern language, we'd say that the workers bees were indirectly saving copies of their own genes─copies that just happen to reside within their blood kin.
Darwin wasn't the only 19th century scientist who was enamored with the question of the evolution of goodness. His dear friend, Thomas Henry Huxley--arguably the most famous scientist in all of Europe--was as well. Huxley, in fact, got himself into quite a heated argument over whether blood kinship could or could not explain altruism. His opponent was Peter Kropotkin, a former chief page to the Czar of Russia, naturalist, and the most famous anarchist of the 19th century. Huxley argued that all goodness could be traced to blood kinship, while Kropotkin proposed that goodness and blood kinship were completely divorced from one another─one had absolutely nothing to do with the other. Of course, neither was right, but it would take almost a hundred years before a shy, reserved, and brilliant British biologist named William D. Hamilton would settle all the arguments about blood kinship and altruism with a nifty little mathematical equation.
Hamilton, an evolutionary biologist by training, came at the question of altruism and blood kinship the way that an economist would; indeed his Ph.D. in biology was done in part at The London School of Economics. He began by defining three terms─the genetic relatedness between individuals (labeled r), the cost of an act of goodness (c), and the benefit that a recipient obtained when someone was nice to him or her. Then, using some eloquent--in fact, beautiful-- mathematics, in 1963, Hamilton found that altruism and blood kinship are not linked by an all-or-nothing relationship. Instead, what is now known as "Hamilton's Rule" states that altruism evolves whenever r times b is greater than c. In other words, if the cost of altruism is made up by enough genetic relatives receiving benefits, then altruism spreads; otherwise it does not. Phrased in the cold language of natural selection, relatives are worth helping in direct proportion to their genetic relatedness.
Literally thousands of experiments in both nonhumans and humans show the power of Hamilton's Rule. This little equation is evolutionary biology's version of e = mc2. Over and over, we see that an analysis of the costs and benefits of altruism, along with genetic relatedness, allows us to predict the presence or absence of altruism. This is a truly remarkable finding.
Hamilton's Rule, of course, does not explain all altruism, nor did Bill Hamilton think it did. Another large chunk of goodness falls under the category of reciprocity--you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours. Individuals are sometimes willing to be altruistic to someone now in the expectation that they will, in turn, be helped when they need it. Evolutionary biologists have been almost as interested in this type of altruism as in kinship-based altruism. And, amazingly enough, it was Bill Hamilton, along with political scientist Robert Axelrod, who formalized the models behind the evolution of reciprocity. Following up on some work done by Robert Trivers in the early 1970s, in 1981 Axelrod and Hamilton used a mathematical technique called game theory to predict when "reciprocal altruism" should evolve. Again, scores of empirical studies followed up the model. Reciprocity can be complex, but an evolutionary perspective has cleared the haze here the same way it did when it came to blood kinship and altruism.
If goodness is a problem, then the answer─or at the very least, part of the answer─can be found in evolutionary biology." by Dr. Lee Alan Dugatkin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So we see that goodness is easily a product of Evolution. Oldstillwild answered on 03/28/07:Well....,
interesting....
Whats the question?
Why not:
Do bees understand what altruism is?
Or
Is the way humans developed their way of thinking the proper way?
What are bees and humans defending?
Are animals as conscious about death as humans are?
Is death part of individual lives or should it be seen in The Bigger View?
Is death part of animal thinking at all?
Shouldnt life be considered from IT's view?
Well,
Life is to be considered holistically.
It doesnt matter what people THINK at all.
(Well,let 'm play...)
All is in function of Life itself.
There is no altruism at all.
What we see is Life functioning.
It isnt special at all,that WE see,that functions of Life seem to be devided over more individuals than one.
The conclusion is,that people still dont know,what to think,what to be occupied with.....(well,let 'm play....)
meow. | | Question/Answer | | ttalady asked on 03/24/07 - Will we ever meet? You all have been such a great influence in my life, a great being that there are even times I really, really miss you. Is there any time that Answerway would do some kind of a "meet your buddies" deal?
It's funny because it's one of those "do you want to be a face or just words"? Words are easier! I don't even have any imagine what you think I look like, am in person, ect. I am just curious. I would just love to see you all, just meet you. I imagine you in my mind, Mary , Hank (I saw the old old picts),
Then again what if you are a neighbor or something? I don't know?
Any one live in upstate NY?
I would love to really meet you all!
Oldstillwild answered on 03/24/07:Nice words TT! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 03/23/07 - What does the pursuit of philosophy imply? . Oldstillwild answered on 03/23/07:well....,
lets see.......,
errrrrrr....,
Im thinkin'.......,
what does that mean......,
geeee,
I cant stop.....
Id say an implicit quest for self-optimization,which would be the key of all for all.....
(so,be sure ,youre aware what youre witnessing here!)
meow. | | Question/Answer | | CeeBee2 asked on 03/20/07 - Words and music -- three questions for consideration. 1. Which is more important in a song, the words or the music?
2. Why?
3. Teen boys tend to focus on the music, whereas teen girls zero in on the words. What is it about males and females that causes this statement to be true? Oldstillwild answered on 03/21/07:The music is most important.
The lyrics can be anything,not necessarily the original wordings!Just make your own version!
Maybe girls are more focussed on the details out of their gossiping curiosity and in order to be able to determine how to feel empathetically,.....
While boys tend to be more practical and taking the lyrics for granted,enjoying the music for what it is:multifunctional and appealing in itself,more joyful and somewhat more distant from emotions,yet emotional.
hi. | | Question/Answer | | MarySusan asked on 03/18/07 - Can the Absence of Proof Can the absence of proof be proof?
Proof of what? Oldstillwild answered on 03/19/07:The absence of proof is the proof that
people didnt search fanatically enough
or
that the proof isnt to be discovered
or
that the proof isnt in existence at all
or
that the proof is manipulated to not being recognised as proof
or
that it is too hard to proooofprfve
anyway
PROOF enough one might say!
Conclusion:
Can the absence of proof be proof?
Yes!Multiple times!! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 03/18/07 - What are your criteria of personal success? .
Oldstillwild answered on 03/18/07:Only one:
Happiness. | | Question/Answer | | henriyaz asked on 03/18/07 - time(contd) help:-( Hello! My fav teacher,
many txs 4 ur kind reply......
Wonder if you can please re-check 4 me reg.the time.I'm not so good at this:-(...
Hope you can explain to me step by step as ususal, my expert teacher!
Given that the time in Alaska is GMT-09:00
a)Find the time in Alaska when it is 11:00 PM in Greenwich.
Pls see if this looks ok?
GMT is -9.00(hours/am)
if this is given number is subtracted, better to add up to
11.00 + 9.00 =20.00 HOURS =8.00 PM?
b)Find the time in Greenwich when it is 11;20 AM in Alaska.
GMT=?
ALASKA =11.20 am
we know given GMT is -9.00
so we have to add now
11.20 +9.00 =20.20 =8.20 pm
Thanking u very much in advance, my fav teacher:-) Oldstillwild answered on 03/18/07:Well,my dear Henriyazzy!
As I explained before,this is not quite the way to do it.
GMT - xx:xx means,that the time at the place referring to is earlier in numbers.
So,
a)
Alaska ALWAYS is 9 hrs earlier IN NUMBERS as opposed to Greenwich.
So,
If Greenwich is 11:00PM(23:00hrs),then it is
in Alaska 11 minus 9 which makes
02:00PM(14:00hrs)
This means,that if you wanna make a call in Alaska at 02:00PM ,the guy in Greenwich has to be ready at his time 11:00PM.
b)
IN Alaska it is IN NUMBERS(IN DISPLAY)09:00 earlier(ALWAYS) than in Greenwich.
So,if it is 11:20AM in Alaska , then it is 09:00hrs later in Greenwich.
Therefore Greenwich time would be
11:20 plus 9 ,which makes 20:20hrs (08:20PM).
So,From Alaska, if you wanna call the guy in Greenwich,while he is watching prime-time television at 20:20,youll have to call him at 11:20hrs AM.
So,your answer in b) is right.
Youre making progress!
Note:under a),youre saying:
"GMT is -9.00(hours/am)"
This makes no sense,Henriyazzy!
GMT=GMT.(period!)
ALASKA is GMT-9.00!!(period!!)
Alaska is always 9hrs earlier than GMT.(Day and night;AM and PM!Whatever!)
Success pal!
hi! | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 03/16/07 - Do you think that mankind is living in its last days? I do. Ever since the beginning of time, every form of life has faced challenges that threatened its survival.
For every new problem that our technology or inventions have created, mankind has somehow managed to develop another form of technology or ability to fix the problem. Up until now, that is.
In my humble opinion, man has reached a turning point. Unlike any time in history before, we are now capable of creating global disaster or chaos on an unprecedented scale.
Nuclear weapons are a prime example. We have reached the point were we are able to create more problems than we could ever possibly be able to fix.
In the past, all wars and battles were localized. By this, I mean that the effects of a war usually stayed within a certain region. If a war broke out in africa, people living in France would most likely be unaffected.
This, however, is no longer the case. With the push of just a few different buttons, countries are now capable of destroying a large percentage of the earth's population living thousands of miles away.
In conclusion, I give mankind no more than 500 years to live. People, today are all concerned about fixing Global warming, yet an even more immanent issue threatens us today. I personally do not think that mankind will be around long enough to see the negative affects of global warming. By that time, a huge portion of the earth will be unihabitable due to high levels of radition, or something such as that.
In addition, Terrorism is a new enemy, of which we are poorly equipped to deal with. Terrorism is on the rise. New epedemics(sp?) such as AIDS are still at record levels, and new strains of deadly diseases are popping up everyday.
To be sure, there have been many times in the past in which people thought that doomsday was knocking at the door (such as the Cold War era, etc). However, technology has made the world a more dangerous place to live with each passing day. And it will only get worse, at an increasingly faster pace.
So, what do YOU think? Do you really think that mankind will be around to witness the next Millenium?
.....and that, is my thought-of-the-week.
I came across this and wondered what your reaction might be.
Oldstillwild answered on 03/16/07:No.
Life is everlasting.
We can mutilate it,(which we are doing....)but not destroy it.
We are just forms.
Life will adjust. | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 03/15/07 - How would you explain the deepest emotions? A friend of mine went into a coma and was apparently unaware of her surroundings yet she groaned when some one started playing a piano. Why does music evoke such powerful feelings? Oldstillwild answered on 03/15/07:well,
let me give it a shot.....
We are from vibes,as scientists have discovered.Vibrating chaotic particlevibrating.
Music is all vibes.
So,
its only logical,that our particles are set to vibrate by the musical vibes.All people have favorite music,because music has the ability to connect to feelings,to represent memories.
These vibrations seem to have easy access to our emotions and our emotions are based on saved memories,hence a reaction is to be expected.
Music is emotion.
Voices are vibrations too,but the connection to our emotions are not undisputed pleasant.
Severely ill about halucinating people often would show a lot of anger towards their beloved ones...we all have our hidden emotions.....
To me,that explains,why people would react more receptive to music,than to known or unknown voices.Music would connect to personal memories/feelings,while voices first of all would connect to other persons in the room and After that,maybe to emotions/memories.
Well...,
just my thoughts.
I wish you strength and hope your friend will recover from this.
hi. | | Question/Answer | | Rosekeeper asked on 03/14/07 - Insane People? Define insanity?
Insanity is trying to do the same things over and over again and getting the same results. Does anyone know who made this up? I think their good words, just can't remember the way it goes?
Oldstillwild answered on 03/14/07:Well,
Im nice to my wife over and over again and.................guess what............
it still works....!
I think anyone wholl adapt this definition of insanity is insane over and over again!
meow. | | Question/Answer | | Choux... asked on 03/12/07 - Religion as Adaptive "To an evolutionary psychologist, the universal extravagance of religious rituals, with their costs in time, resources, pain and privation, should suggest as vividly as a mandrell's bottom that religion may be adaptive". Marek Kohn
Can you explain this quote more fully to me so I can understand it better??
Perhaps a good paraphrase would help.
Thanks Oldstillwild answered on 03/12/07:For what its worth:
Given the potential of those religious rituals,it should be obvious,that religion will change colors with the circumstances, like evolution itself.
or in other words,
obviously religion is a going with the wind build in feature.
or in short,
religion is a twister.
or
very short,
religion stinks.
meow. | | Question/Answer | | Choux... asked on 03/11/07 - Previously Unpublished Article by Churchill (AFP) - "The Second World War prime minister Winston Churchill argued that Jews were "partly responsible for the antagonism from which they suffer" in an article publicised for the first time Sunday.
Churchill made the claim in an article entitled "How The Jews Can Combat Persecution" written in 1937, three years before he started leading the country.
He outlined a new wave of anti-Semitism sweeping across Europe and the United States, which was followed by the deaths of millions of Jews in the Holocaust under the German Nazi regime.
"It would be easy to ascribe it to the wickedness of the persecutors, but that does not fit all the facts," the article read.
"It exists even in lands, like Great Britain and the United States, where Jew and Gentile are equal in the eyes of the law and where large numbers of Jews have found not only asylum, but opportunity.
"These facts must be faced in any analysis of anti-Semitism. They should be pondered especially by the Jews themselves.
"For it may be that, unwittingly, they are inviting persecution -- that they have been partly responsible for the antagonism from which they suffer."
The article adds: "The central fact which dominates the relations of Jew and non-Jew is that the Jew is 'different'.
"He looks different. He thinks differently. He has a different tradition and background. He refuses to be absorbed."
Elsewhere, Churchill praised Jews as "sober, industrious, law-abiding" and urged Britons to stand up for the race against persecution.
"There is no virtue in a tame acquiescence in evil. To protest against cruelty and wrong, and to strive to end them, is the mark of a man," he wrote.
The article was discovered by Cambridge University historian Richard Toye in the university's archive of Churchill's papers.
At the time, Churchill's secretary advised him it would be "inadvisable" to publish it and it never saw the light of day.
Churchill was voted the greatest Briton ever in a nationwide poll held by the BBC in 2002." Yahoo News
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Was Churchill just another anti Semite based on his comments here?
Oldstillwild answered on 03/11/07:Well,
first of all:
No,thats far too easy to conclude.
He's just trying to analise the problem along the well known pattern:
Where two're fighting there are two to blame.
And I think he has a point.
One very big weakness of mankind is jealousy,envyness and its a fact and for sure,that a vast minority of people simply is not able to handle these feelings and of that vast minority,there is a minority who is so vicious to try to exploit these feelings of jealousy.
Well,
thats a fact.
So,
given the flamboyant culture of jewish people , being very successsful in business,in trade and often very explicit in their religion and at the same time living apart together,it is not difficult to predict,that the weaker and viciously talented people would feel,to act their lack of self-esteem out on this so successfull group of people.....
And what Churchill is saying,is that if the jewish would acknoledge more,these vicious weaknesses of other people and adapt their behaviour a bit to that,taking more part in society empathetically and sympatheticaly,there would be less activation of these negative feelings of people.
So far Churchill.
As far as the present is concerned,in the west and especially in Europe,there are big problems of integration of immigrants.
In the beginning one of the biggest reasons for resentment was the feeling,that they were taking all the jobs away.....
Still,those immigrants couldnt and cannt be labeled as a very successful group of people.......,let alone the situation,that they indeed would get and be very successful as a recognisable group.....
It is not hard to imagine,what would happen.....
So there is an analogy between jews and immigrants in large numbers,although,of course, the jews are more identifiable as a group,hence their history.....
Anti Semitism as a basic feeling is nothing special to people.If it can be focussed on a group its far more easier to handle,but far more little groups and individuals are subject to these feelings.....
What is making anti-semitism special is history and the fear of repetition and (Churchill) the character of the jews.
Well,
I think he has a point.
Im not saying and I think,Churchill is not saying,that Jews should alter their behaviour.
Its just an analysis,to be aware of.
Jews are not to blame.
The vicious racists,anti-any people are!
meow. | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 03/08/07 - And we call this “Science”?.................. “We live in the aftermath of a great explosion. This awesome event, called somewhat frivolously the big bang, took place about 14 billion years ago. We can actually see some of the cosmic history unfolding before us since that moment—light from remote galaxies takes billions of years to reach our telescopes on earth, so we can see galaxies as they were in their youth. But there is a limit to how far we can see into space. Our horizon is set by the maximum distance light could have traveled since the big bang. Sources more distant than the horizon cannot be observed, simply because their light has not yet had time to reach Earth.
But if there are parts of the universe we cannot detect, who can resist wondering what they look like? Until recently physicists thought that the answer to this question is rather boring: it’s just more of the same – more galaxies, more stars. But now, recent developments in cosmology have led to a drastic revision of that view.
According to the new picture, distant parts of the universe are in the state of explosive, accelerated expansion, called “inflation”. The expansion is so fast that in a tiny fraction of a second a region the size of an atom is blown to dimensions much greater than the entire currently observable universe. The expansion is caused by a peculiar form of matter, called “false vacuum”, which produces a strong repulsive force. The word “false” refers to the fact that, unlike the normal “true” vacuum, this type of vacuum is unstable and typically decays after a brief period of time, releasing a large amount of energy. The energy ignites a hot fireball of particles and radiation. This is what happened in our cosmic neighborhood 14 billion years ago – the event we refer to as the big bang.”
And we call this “Science”? This sounds as plausible as the Creation Story, but not nearly as coherent. Is there anyone here who can add some clarity to this wild claim?
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/vilenkin06/vilenkin06_index.html
Oldstillwild answered on 03/08/07:Well,
lets just remain rational as possible.
We are not alone.
Our universe is not alone.
There is no end and there is no beginning.
So,
OUR Big Bang-originated from a dot,an atom- must have been part of an environment,where this Big Bang could take place.
Its only plausible,that this would be an environment with more of the same......
and its even as plausible,that we're going to and still be part of this ongoing process......
So,
in my view,
there's nothing new to this....
and still rational.....
which the creation story is not.....
meow. | | Question/Answer | | Choux... asked on 03/07/07 - Virtue vs. Vice Self-evident truths that we think support social morality are not self-evident....the belief that there is a difference between virtue and vice is an illusion.
What are some examples of how the difference between virtue and vice being an illusion? Oldstillwild answered on 03/08/07:Well.....,
therefore,you must get caught,baby!
(oh yeah....,tell me how you feel....) | | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 03/07/07 - Perfection:
Is there a TRUE interpretation of PERFECTION? (Subjective involvement should make you aware of your own existence)
HANK
Oldstillwild answered on 03/07/07:No. | | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 03/07/07 - Speculation:
Henry David Thoreau relates, "Talk of mysteries! Think of our life in nature -- daily to be shown matter, to come in contact with it - rocks, trees, wind on our cheeks! the solid earth! the actual world! the common sense! Contact! Contact! Who are we?" He also tells us, "Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk."
Is there a sensible side to speculation?
HANK
Oldstillwild answered on 03/07/07:It depends on where the spill-over has been dumped....!
Well,
I wouldnt say speculation.
Id say randomly apparently,but not really accidental,occurrences,we wouldnt understand.....therefore calling speculations beforehand and wonders,or unexplanable occurrences afterwards...... | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 03/06/07 - What is the basis for reverence for life? (Assuming that it has one!) Oldstillwild answered on 03/06/07:Well,
the reverence is IN YOU....!
So,
its a matter of acknowledging,that it is.....!
that would be a great plus to start with.....
Next....,
FIND IT!!!
success! | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 02/27/07 - Are there laws of Nature....................... Are there laws of Nature; if so, it follows that there must be causal powers: Can we make sense of scientific claims if we allow that there are not real regularity-determining causal powers? Oldstillwild answered on 02/27/07:Well,
I dont agree with your implicatios.....
Are there laws?
Yes,there are phenomenons we would call laws....
But,its still kindergarten-approach.....
| | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 02/25/07 - What’s the #1 attribute, in you opinion, for humans? . Oldstillwild answered on 02/25/07:a dildo....? | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 02/24/07 - On what principles is Christian theology founded On what principles is Christian theology founded, for if there are none, it is the study of nothing. Oldstillwild answered on 02/24/07:"the study of nothing" would be the best characterization of all religions.....
the word "all" says it all,doesnt it......!
Religion has been invented,because of the lack of understanding the real facts about life and the universe..... | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 02/23/07 - Is human memory located in the brain, or in the mind? For if human memory is located in the brain, and not the soul (Spirit) it would seem to follow that there would be no recollection of what happened on earth; therefore immorality loses Gods purpose, that is, reward and punishment, for without memory, punishment loses its sting reward its pleasure. Oldstillwild answered on 02/23/07:well,
most of the above is crap of course...
Nobody is punishing anybody....
Everybody is denying him/her self a good life by not being positive,having to deal with a troubled life in stead.
There is no god,therefore no god's purpose.
Human memory is located in the brain as well as in the soul.
After death there is a short out of the body existence of the soul including these life experiences and even still capable making decisions and aking actions.
This soul-entity is capable of choosing a place or vehicle to go to places and finish appl. jobs like saying goodbye,which message will be recognized by truely spiritual people.
After that the soul will be completely re-emerge with consciousness.
All = One before,during and after life.
Recognizing the During Life-part is essential to any livig being in order to establish best circumstances in their lives.
meow.
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 02/22/07 - Is consciousness caused by brain processes? ..... If so, all our thoughts, feelings and decisions must be caused by physical events - and self-control and responsibility are illusions. Do you agree? If not why not? Oldstillwild answered on 02/22/07:No,
we are from consciousness.
We are forms and virtually a tool hosting the consciousness virus.(as are all creatures);
Yes,
all is physical.
As I said before,
although totally transparent,LIFE itself is part of the physical world;
No,
self-control and responsibility are not illusions,
they fit in in our self-conscious world and therefore are part of our illusive selves.
We simply are and have to deal with our limitations of illusiveness.
meow. | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 02/22/07 - Will global capitalism destroy itself? ................ "Then there is inequality. One feature of globalised capitalism seems to be that it rewards its high performers disproportionately, not just in the City of London but also in Shanghai, Moscow and Mumbai. What will be the political effects of having a small group of super-rich people in countries where the majority are still super-poor? In more developed economies, such as Britain and America, a reasonably well-off middle-class with a slowly improving personal standard of living may be less bothered by a small group of the super-rich - whose antics also provide them with a regular diet of tabloid-style entertainment. But if a lot of middle-class people begin to feel they are personally losing out to the same process of globalisation that is making those few fund managers stinking rich, while at the same time outsourcing their own middle-class jobs to India, then you may have a backlash. Watch Lou Dobbs on CNN for a taste of the populist and protectionist rhetoric to come.
Above all, though, there is the inescapable dilemma that this planet cannot sustain six-and-a-half billion people living like today's middle-class consumers in its rich north. In just a few decades, we would use up the fossil fuels that took some 400 million years to accrete - and change the earth's climate as a result. Sustainability may be a grey and boring word, but it is the biggest single challenge to global capitalism today. However ingenious modern capitalists are at finding alternative technologies - and they will be very ingenious - somewhere down the line this is going to mean richer consumers settling for less rather than more.
Marx thought capitalism would have a problem finding consumers for the goods that improving techniques of production enabled it to churn out. Instead, it has become expert in a new branch of manufacturing: the manufacture of desires. The genius of contemporary capitalism is not simply that it gives consumers what they want but that it makes them want what it has to give. It's that core logic of ever-expanding desires that is unsustainable on a global scale. But are we prepared to abandon it? We may be happy to insulate our lofts, recycle our newspapers and cycle to work, but are we ready to settle for less so others can have more? Am I? Are you?"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2018451,00.html Oldstillwild answered on 02/22/07:Yes... | | Question/Answer | | ttalady asked on 02/21/07 - Is it possible to truly love material things? I sold my Jeep today and it is almost like selling a pet. Not quite but pretty close. I wonder if having attachment with material things is healthy?
It was amazing how fast she went, then again I asked much less than I could have gotten $500 vs $2000. A "Do unto others deed", it was and very worth it.
I am to defend the healthy part of it that my girl (Jeep) took me to work, got me home (most of the time), started when I really needed her, and gave me lip when she was being un-cared for. She cost me 4 years of payments and 3 years of freedom after that. I worked to have her, to care for her, and in turn she got me to where I needed to go. There were times I wanted to kick her in the butt-kiss but in all her issues were my own fault.
The unhealthy part is that I call her a her, a she, a relation to a person/human. Like a vehicle even has a sex? OMG!
To think and look around the house there are certain things that could break my heart if gone/broken. No the TV is not one! The computer, not being able to reach to you all, yes it is heart breaking but fixable.
There has to be something said for those things that we love, depend on, and take care of that are not that of a person or even close. Have you ever loved a fuse?
Maybe it has to do with control. A material thing is there for the fact of a person and is only there in care/or not of a person. Maybe it is just simpler to love something material than it is that of animal/human. Maybe to see the results of caring so easily vs that of time to see that caring did matter.
I am proud of my Jeep! A 1993 with 150,000 miles and she still ticks like a time clock. She needs TLC no doubt but I only hope the 70 year old bus driver man will love her as I do. Then again I have no doubt! He was so... excited when he saw her. Leather seats, automatic car starter, electric every stuff (some of course not working 100%). He got a winner and one that he can work on. Keep him busy and she loves it when you work on her. Here I go again....
Best part is he is a neighbor therefore I can see her from time to time. We'll honk back and forth, if he gets the horn fixed. If not a friendly wave will do as long as they stay in their own lane!
OMG I have to call my Mom. My bros are leaving for Hawaii Sunday and I know there is a calling in this post.
Oldstillwild answered on 02/22/07:yes,
its possible to attach yourself,to commit yourself to anything,as you might know.....
Its purely psychological.
Whatever the (maybe sick or sickening)reason,(sh)it happens...
Remember E.T.,japanese toys wich will "die" if you dont care for them enough and in time,your car.....
Eventually,however,(hopefully),youll find,that missing a superficial loved one is much easier to overcome,than a real loved one.
Most of the time you can replace IT one way or another.
meow.
| | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 02/21/07 - the concept of everlasting life. ........... I find the concept more bazaar, that humans are part of one, or much great consciousness, than the concept of everlasting life. Why, because a persons consciousness lies solo within themselves. The proof of that is the fact that you don’t need me, nor I you, and the proof of that is that you may live or die without me, or me without you, each without the other.
Arguments anyone? Oldstillwild answered on 02/21/07:"The proof of that is the fact that you don’t need me, nor I you, and the proof of that is that you may live or die without me, or me without you, each without the other."
sleep well.....
| | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 02/20/07 - Why do some practice this evil thing, or is it a justified practice? If Proselytism is any attempt to convert people to another point of view then doesn’t it follow, that given an Atheist who attempts to convert people to their point of view, is practicing religion?
Oldstillwild answered on 02/20/07:well,
I guess,
I should feel addressed although,its clear that Dc will never succeed in interpreting postings the proper way.....
anyhow,
Im not trying to convert people.
Im not trying to convert people to any other belief.
Reality is not religion.
Feel free to find out facts,making the need to fabricate religion redundant.
Im only offering the opportunity to discover reality about LIFE.
I could sit down and enjoy my findings and experiences....
I choose to share it.
Anyone is free to accept or not or to try to find out for him/herself to get the truth about LIfe.
At one hand,its no big deal for me;at the other hand,at least I should share it.
It only needs an open mind to discover,that there is reality AFTER religion!
meow! | | Question/Answer | | Choux... asked on 02/19/07 - Clearing up Tom's Lie "Atheism is commonly divided into two types: strong atheism and weak atheism. Although only two categories, this distinction manages to reflect the broad diversity which exists among atheists when it comes to their positions on the existence of gods.
Weak atheism, also sometimes referred to as implicit atheism, is simply another name for the broadest and most general conception of atheism: the absence of belief in any gods. A weak atheist is someone who lacks theism and who does not happen to believe in the existence of any gods — no more, no less. This is also sometimes called agnostic atheism because most people who self-consciously lack belief in gods tend to do so for agnostic reasons.
Strong atheism, also sometimes referred to as explicit atheism, goes one step further and involves denying the existence of at least one god, usually multiple gods, and sometimes the possible existence of any gods at all. Strong atheism is sometimes called “gnostic atheism” because people who take this position often incorporate knowledge claims into it — that is to say, they claim to know in some fashion that certain gods or indeed all gods do not or cannot exist.
Because knowledge claims are involved, **strong atheism carries an initial burden of proof which does not exist for weak atheism**. Any time a person asserts that some god or any gods do not or cannot exist, they obligate themselves to support their claims. This narrower conception of atheism is often thought by many (erroneously) to represent the entirety of atheism itself.
Because strong and weak atheism are often called “types” of atheism, some people develop the mistaken idea that these are somehow akin to “denominations” of atheism, not unlike denominations of Christianity. This serves the bolster the myth that atheism is a religion or a belief system. This is unfortunate, in particular because the label of “types” is not entirely accurate; rather, it is simply used due to a lack of better terminology.
To call them different types is to imply on some level that they are separate — a person is either a strong atheist or a weak atheist. If we look more closely, however, we will note that almost all atheists are both on various levels. The primary indication of that can be seen in that the definition of weak atheism, lacking belief in the existence of any gods, is in fact that basic definition of atheism itself.
What this means is that all atheists are weak atheists. The difference, then, between weak and strong atheism is not that some people belong to one instead of the other, but rather that some people belong to one in addition to the other. ***All atheists are weak atheists because all atheists, by definition, lack belief in the existence of gods***. Some atheists, however, are also strong atheists because they take the extra step of denying the existence of at least some gods.
Technically, saying that “some” atheists do this isn’t entirely accurate. Most, if not all, atheists are willing to deny the existence of some gods if asked — few only “lack belief” in the existence of Zeus or Apollo, for example. Thus, while all atheists are weak atheists, pretty much all atheists are also strong atheists with respect to at least some gods."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tom, please apologize to the board for your lie.
Thank you so much. Oldstillwild answered on 02/20/07:Well,
maybe you feel so,
but i think,there is a big difference between creating a fantasy entity,avoiding the reality option,
that nothing,which is a common accepted phenomenon , would be the origin of all(or eternity or infinity for that matter.
Its the choice between accepting what is
and
making up fantasies for real.... | | Question/Answer | | Choux... asked on 02/19/07 - Clearing up Tom's Lie "Atheism is commonly divided into two types: strong atheism and weak atheism. Although only two categories, this distinction manages to reflect the broad diversity which exists among atheists when it comes to their positions on the existence of gods.
Weak atheism, also sometimes referred to as implicit atheism, is simply another name for the broadest and most general conception of atheism: the absence of belief in any gods. A weak atheist is someone who lacks theism and who does not happen to believe in the existence of any gods — no more, no less. This is also sometimes called agnostic atheism because most people who self-consciously lack belief in gods tend to do so for agnostic reasons.
Strong atheism, also sometimes referred to as explicit atheism, goes one step further and involves denying the existence of at least one god, usually multiple gods, and sometimes the possible existence of any gods at all. Strong atheism is sometimes called “gnostic atheism” because people who take this position often incorporate knowledge claims into it — that is to say, they claim to know in some fashion that certain gods or indeed all gods do not or cannot exist.
Because knowledge claims are involved, **strong atheism carries an initial burden of proof which does not exist for weak atheism**. Any time a person asserts that some god or any gods do not or cannot exist, they obligate themselves to support their claims. This narrower conception of atheism is often thought by many (erroneously) to represent the entirety of atheism itself.
Because strong and weak atheism are often called “types” of atheism, some people develop the mistaken idea that these are somehow akin to “denominations” of atheism, not unlike denominations of Christianity. This serves the bolster the myth that atheism is a religion or a belief system. This is unfortunate, in particular because the label of “types” is not entirely accurate; rather, it is simply used due to a lack of better terminology.
To call them different types is to imply on some level that they are separate — a person is either a strong atheist or a weak atheist. If we look more closely, however, we will note that almost all atheists are both on various levels. The primary indication of that can be seen in that the definition of weak atheism, lacking belief in the existence of any gods, is in fact that basic definition of atheism itself.
What this means is that all atheists are weak atheists. The difference, then, between weak and strong atheism is not that some people belong to one instead of the other, but rather that some people belong to one in addition to the other. ***All atheists are weak atheists because all atheists, by definition, lack belief in the existence of gods***. Some atheists, however, are also strong atheists because they take the extra step of denying the existence of at least some gods.
Technically, saying that “some” atheists do this isn’t entirely accurate. Most, if not all, atheists are willing to deny the existence of some gods if asked — few only “lack belief” in the existence of Zeus or Apollo, for example. Thus, while all atheists are weak atheists, pretty much all atheists are also strong atheists with respect to at least some gods."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tom, please apologize to the board for your lie.
Thank you so much. Oldstillwild answered on 02/20/07:What a crap!
Weak or strong atheists....!
there is no god.
at all.
nowhere.
non-atheists are fairy-tale believers if not plaine dumb stupid liars,trying to impose fantasies on people for real in stead of admitting their stupidity.
(only human....most people wouldnt admit ,even deny,their blindness,taking it out on others......)
Atheists are just realistic,most of them not knowing the real answers,but at least realistic about the fantasies.
Being an atheist is not that a big deal,to make any classifications.
Im an atheist.
An atheist who discovered that LIFE is and what LIFE is and about......implicitely experiencing and proving,that all gods are fantasies.
Im a Lifeaeist.
Everybody should be a Lifeaeist....it only needs an open mind....
Lifeaeism is not a belief.
LIFE is real.
Lifeaism is based on the real thing.
Have a nice,although not particularly fruitfull discussion....!
hi!
| | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 02/19/07 - Is Metaphysics Pointless? Given that all cause and effect proceeds by way of natural laws, why ought a irreligious view of reality be of interest to the Atheist? Oldstillwild answered on 02/19/07:pEACE...! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 02/18/07 - Mind, matter or x? In explaining reality there seem to be only three reasonable possibilities: mind, matter or a third unknown factor (neutral monism) which produces mind and matter. Any other theory is both uneconomical and unsupported by evidence. Which explanation do you think is the most likely? Oldstillwild answered on 02/18/07:Well,
there is more to it.
People tend and would think of the unknown factor as an omnipotent entity.
That is not reality.
Life is a separate independent source in itself with limitations and bounderies,yet to be considered as part of matter,although totally transparent.
What remains is infinite and eternal and must be understood and accepted as such,which means,that there is no origin
(no end,no beginning) to it at all,as a whole.
Therefore,there is no "unknown factor".
| | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 02/17/07 - NAZI PHILOSOPHY:
"The Nazis were very male-dominated and anti-feminist. Nazi PHILOSOPHY idealised the role of women as child-bearer and creator of the family:
The Law for the Encouragement of Marriage gave newly-wed couples a loan of 1000 marks, and allowed them to keep 250 marks for each child they had.
Mothers who had more than 8 children were given a gold medal.
But not all women were happy with the Nazi regime:
Job-discrimination against women was encouraged. Women doctors, teachers and civil servants were forced to give up their careers.
Women were never allowed to serve in the armed forces - even during the war."
Source: www.johndclare.net/Nazi_Germany3.htm
Any comment?
HANK
Oldstillwild answered on 02/17/07:Well Hank,
I wouldnt react to a question like this,normally.......
Nazi Philosophy had nothing to do with women,HanK!
Nazi philosophy was about as many germans on this plantr as possible,hank!
Its all about fuckarthafuckfuck you white uberpeople!
Please,save this board from any such stuff,Hank!
thanks! | | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 02/16/07 - JUST WONDERING:
Is ATHEISM a religion or a philosophy?
HANK
Oldstillwild answered on 02/17/07:Atheism is by definition closer to reality.
Atheism is not by definition closer to the truth.
Religion is more an attitude to cope with reality than something else.
Philosophy is more in search of truth about reality.
The truth is not to be found without leaving religion.
Atheism is no guarantee at all,that truth will be found.
Religion or atheism.
Does it matter?!
Im a Lifeaeist.
I pretend to be closer to reality and truth than anyone else on this planet.
| | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 02/15/07 - COMPATIBILITY:
"We are birds of the same nest, We may wear different skins, We may speak in different tongues, We may believe in different religions, We may belong to different cultures, Yet we share the same home – our Earth." - Atharva Veda
Do most people stop to think about the meaning of this quote? It's quite obvious!
HANK
Oldstillwild answered on 02/15/07:Well....,
what does it say.......?
Obviously , the meaning is beyond any doubt....,
but what does it litterally say.....?
Ever been in a "same" home with 10 people living across and together?
So,even not stop thinkin about this quote,wouldnt change anything a bit,dont ya think?!
Hi.
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 02/12/07 - Can we assess whether beliefs are reasonable? If so how? Oldstillwild answered on 02/12/07:Any reasonabe person would reasonably conclude,that it is unreasonable to build upon just a belief.
So,
it is not or rather,it should not be very hard to reasonably argue,that beliefs are not a reasonable basis to build upon as such.
I interprete your question "Can we assess whether beliefs are reasonable? "in a mathematical materialistic fashion.
I am NOT saying,that the moral fruits of religion are of no use.
Of course not.
Good morals are useful and "reasonable ",no matter their origin!(and considering environments like social structures etcetc).
So,
reasonably spoken it is unreasonable to make a belief ,an abstract , a materialistic statue or socle......
So,
the assessment is present in every individual....
It is however,only human,and many examples are happening in many lives,to hold on to personal fantasies,trying to make them true,in spite of multiple signs proving the contraries......
So,
in a practicle psychological way it is not easy to assess whether beliefs are reasonable or not.
This issue should therefore be tackled psychologically in addition to seducing people to go for the discovery of LIFE itself......and to accept the unmeasurable....
| | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 02/08/07 - Hmmm!
Has any Philosopher ever said that people would be better off without religion since religion has caused more conflicts since day one than any other entity known to mankind?
HANK
Oldstillwild answered on 02/08/07:Well....,
is that important then....?!
Its true!
And if no philosopher is available(which i doubt,because youd better ask if there is any philosopher who hasnt....!)
Then Im the first one!!!!
Hi Hank! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 02/04/07 - How far do your beliefs affect what you do? .
Oldstillwild answered on 02/04/07:Truth is my core business....! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 02/02/07 - What is the answer to the fundamental question?
{ @ <> @ } Oldstillwild answered on 02/03/07:well,
as to my perception of this individual:
Sit down and relax! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 02/01/07 - "Where there are no sentences there is no truth"... "To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations."
What do you think? Oldstillwild answered on 02/01/07:What a crap!
So a mute has no truth?!
LOL! | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 01/30/07 - Is the scientific study of religion possible? If so, then is it worthwhile to pursue such a study? Oldstillwild answered on 01/30/07:Everything can be studied scientifically.
What would you study about religion?
Other than already has been done.
The factsside?
The humansside?
The what or the why?
Anyway,
dont forget to include the variety of religions and the non-religionside,so that all can be considered in perspective and in comparison to the open-end left-overs....
| | Question/Answer | | cheriskae asked on 01/30/07 - Literature At a time when films were made in color,Truman Capote required that the first film of In Cold Blood be in white and black. Why is that? Why is the medium suited to the book? What insight does it give to the book? Oldstillwild answered on 01/30/07:Well,Cheri,
it doesnt contribute to another insight to the book.Color or B&W is a matter of taste and effect.
B&W is especially chosen to bring the attention to the naked events.
Colors tend to distract from these facts.
Obviously TC wanted to be the events itself focus of attention of the public,rather then any subordinate effects caused by the use of colors.
Besides the filmdirector would be forced to interprete the film to the facts,rather than producing cheap effects.
People should remember the facts,rather than how bloody scenes were........
That would result in a better understanding of the book in stead of just remembering
the impact of the movie.
hi. | | Question/Answer | | Choux... asked on 01/29/07 - God: The Failed Hypothesis I know there are some Atheists who frequent this Board, so I would like to point out a new book published on the 25th. It is "God: The failed Hypothesis" by Victor J Stenger.
Here are a few comments by Richard Dawkins:
"Darwin chased God out of his old haunts in biology, and he scurried for safety down the rabbit hole of physics. The laws and constants of the universe, we were told, are too good to be true: a set-up, carefully tuned to allow the eventual evolution of life. It needed a good physicist to show us the fallacy, and Victor Stenger lucidly does so. The faithful won't change their minds, of course (that is what faith means) but Victor Stenger drives a pack of energetic ferrets down the last major bolt hole and God is running out of refuges in which to hide. I learned an enormous amount from this splendid book."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Quite a rave review from such an educated Professor.
Enjoy. Oldstillwild answered on 01/29/07:There isnt but an universal explanation to life,which is present in each individual......
It just would take some effort to escape the indoctrinations,to truly experience the truth about life.
....people are lazy......and afraid because of social structures....
Who of all would read that book...?not even you Chou!
So,it doesnt take a book,to discover the truth......
We all know..........,yet(bis)
Hi!(<:)~ | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 01/27/07 - What do we know for sure about consciousness? . Oldstillwild answered on 01/27/07:That we can use it. | | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 01/22/07 - PHILOSOPHY;
"The word ‘philosophy’ must mean something which stands above or below, but not beside the natural sciences." - Ludwig Wittgenstein
Your interpretation please!
HANK
Oldstillwild answered on 01/22/07:Hi hank!
Wittgendude is right.
Philosophy is hors category.
Philosophy is the starting point.
Science is a derivate,trying to prove
the philosophical truth.
Never forget:
The scientific proof is redundant to the truth,for proof or not,truth will prevail!
Have a nice week!
hi. | | Question/Answer | | Choux... asked on 01/15/07 - DELETE QUESTION OPTION DOES NOT WORK tony, I did the complete falerol to delete excess questions from the board, AND THE OPERATION DID NOT WORK per your experience, too. The question I ended and deleted on the Politics Board remains atop the question board, not deleted.
I didn't expect that Jim. would make a mistake about computer matters or I wouldn't have repeated his remedy, untried.
Cordially,
Choux Oldstillwild answered on 01/15/07:Have enjoyed these developments--stop--
eyeopener--stop--
never thought id experience this kind of problem ever--stop--
seriously contemplating to give up--stop--
how deep can you go--stop--
very deep--stop--
happy with our findings--stop--
its final,that there arent only desperate housewives--stop--
not sure,ill be back--stop--
please,advise--stop--
ho! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 01/13/07 - Why should our conscience be the final arbiter? Are we morally infallible? When faced with difficult choices we may be uncertain about what is right and wrong. This suggests we may make the wrong decision - although not through our own fault. It also suggests everyone else is in the same boat, i.e. capable of making a mistake with regard to moral issues. So does it follow that for each one of us our conscience is the final authority?
If not why not? Oldstillwild answered on 01/14/07:Well,it seems to me,that your conscience is
giving you quite a bit of trouble.....
Are there accidents?
(<:)~?
We all may have an individual conscience,but
what really matters is the collective.
Everybody can make mistakes.
If and when identified,to correct them in one way of another.
So,the balance of the conscience,idealy would be zero.(excluding independent good behaviour results,because they dont have any influence on a bad conscience).
The (final??) authority of each individual is is/her perception of his/her personal life.
That is NOW and NOW and NOW!( so final in the sense of the end of this moment....?).
People with a bad conscience will suffer from it NOW!
There are people without a conscience.They would be identified and educated,helped,in order to act conscientiously.
Final in the sense of the moment of death could be worse of course,as one isnt able to correct his/her actions any more by themselves or at all......
The conscience thing however isnt the most important thing that matters......Keeping a clear conscience by way of one's goal in life isnt particularly a goal one should prefer.
The goal of life,is life itself and only in borderline situations,conscience is there to make you take the right decisions.
So,
idealy,one wouldnt be bothered by one's conscience frequently or at all,with the right goals and attitude towards life.
If you are happy now,implicitely having a clear conscience,you will die happily without any reason or unresolved remorse!
(At the other hand,people with bad conscience will also die happily.Feeling glad,its all over......)
So,
stay away from your conscience!The area for positive actions is too wide!
hi!
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 01/12/07 - The amusing spectacle of irrational prejudice. One star ratings are frequently handed out on this board without a word of explanation or justification. One can only infer that those responsible are incapable of dealing with the points that have been made. It would be interesting and entertaining to compile statistics of those who reveal to what extent their prejudice is based on emotion and wishful thinking rather than reason and logic. Don't you think they would be better to refrain from rating altogether rather than display their ignorance? Oldstillwild answered on 01/12/07:Well...,
occasionally,very rare Id use the 1star rating.
I dont think,that crap needs more comment than that.
Its no use,trying to rebut a crap-answer other than by presenting my answer ,free to read for everyone on the www.
Moreover,Idnt get any response or serious feedback on a 1star rating or any reaction to my contribution.....That does say a lot,dont you think?
Everybody is free to respond or comment to my answers or ratings and will react seriously if applicable..
What rating or what serious comment I may give,I rarely get any serious response to that.
My conclusion is,that there is nothing wrong with 1starratingcrap.
Sadly is your conclusion about the implicit ignorance in 1starrating.Its precise the way ignorant people would react to messages
they dont like to hear,although true............hang the messenger!
hi. | | Question/Answer | | tomder55 asked on 01/11/07 - Virtuos Atheists Carol Iannone is editor-at-large for 'Academic Questions'at The Journal of the National Association of Scholars ....an organization of professors, graduate students, college administrators and trustees, and independent scholars committed to rational discourse as the foundation of academic life in a free and democratic society .
She recently advanced this for discussion :
In the recent and ongoing flare-up of antagonism between believers and non-believers—especially common on campuses—some of the self-professed atheists claim that human beings do not need God and religion to be good, and they cite the sterling behavior of many pronounced atheists as proof. British Prof. Richard Dawkins, for example, amuses audiences by noting that the members of scientific academies are mostly atheists and yet exhibit exemplary moral behavior with nary a murderer or rapist among them. But this is a very low standard of proof. To be absolutely scientific about it, we would need about two millennia of purely atheistic culture in order to learn for certain whether human beings on their own would generate what we today consider moral behavior. Without that, we are perfectly justified in concluding, not scientifically of course, but in a common sensicalway, that the saintly behavior of today's atheists comes from their having absorbed the morality that mankind has developed through centuries of religious belief and that is part of the cultural oxygen we all breathe. As C.S. Lewis says, if you are challenging the Tao, or the idea of a transcendent moral law, it's because you have been cultivated within it. Someone outside of it could not even have the wherewithal to challenge it.
Interesting question . If we take it as a given that most atheists exhibit moral behavior ,then is it due to absorbing the cultural mores of a religious society ? Oldstillwild answered on 01/11/07:Well...,how about that!
It doesnt say ANYTHING about a GOD at all.
It only shows,that people were capable to develop morals.
Secundary,totally secundary,is,that mankind apparently would need ALL KINDS OF creations,to make such a development feasible for communities.
All kinds of cultures would develop high moral standards.
ALL KINDS!
It really doesnt matter a bit,what kind of vehicle mankind would fantasize,to base morals and standards upon!
And finally:
THERE IS NO GOD!
There is only LIFE!
And LIFE requires high morals and standards in order to be able to profit from it.
All religions are based on the misunderstanding about what LIFE's really about.
For Christians this misunderstanding did result in the fantasy of their God,exaggerating its power and everything else about it,for thats the most convenient and easy way to solve it all....isnt it....?!
No,of course not!
There are,have been cultures,without the western god,with far more higher standards of living.
All Christianity should be ashamed of themselves.
Morals and standards are in existence despite that god thing!
Im glad,I didnt live in the Middle Ages!
So,that crap of Iannone doesnt prove or say anything about the origin of high moral standards!
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 01/09/07 - When you harm others do you harm yourself? If so, how? Oldstillwild answered on 01/09/07:.....deliberately.
yes.
You need a working and clear conscience in order to profit from the inter-action of your self with your LIFE,your source,our source.
If your energy is consumed by hushing up your actions,then authomatically your connections to the energy of LIFE are blocked,unaccessible.
LIFE cannot work for you then.
People who'd experience the additional works of LIFE,would know,what they would lose.....
hi.
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 01/02/07 - What reasons are there for optimism in 2007? . Oldstillwild answered on 01/02/07:well....,
lets see.......,
....
.......
........
...........
........
Ill call you later.....
A Happy New Year!
(is this site slowing down or what.....?) | | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 12/26/06 - FOR YOUR INFORMATION: "We are also planning to move Answerway to a new hosting prodiver for 2007 and will need to take the site down starting on the 27th of Dec. around 8pm PST and hope to have it back up on our new server way before the 1st of Jan."
You can see this on the Home Page. I certainly hope WHOEVER learns how to spell PROVIDER between now and then!
HAPPY NEW YEAR, GUYS AND GALS! 2007 SHOULD BE A HUMDINGER IN MORE WAYS THAN ONE!
HANK Oldstillwild answered on 12/27/06:A Happy New Year 2u2,Hank! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 12/26/06 - How can the risk of nuclear war be reduced? . Oldstillwild answered on 12/26/06:Happy New Year and celebrations , Tonyrey!
Nuclear bombs have already be thrown some 60 years ago.....
So,all we have is hope.
Its been proven,that one nation with nuclear bombs is no guarantee at all.
The best option seems to be NO nuclear weaponry at all.So,destroy these things!
Still people are human.
What are the odds?
What are the (war-)alternatives?
This is a topic too big and wide for me this moment and these days,Tonyrey....!
The only way to reduce (nuclear)violence is the will to live together in at least statos quo if not in peace.
Happy New Year!
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 12/24/06 - A Christmas thunderbolt for Richard Dawkins! Ive read your book, The God Delusion, which calls for the elimination of religion and belief in Me. I do not wish to berate you; after all, as a poet once wrote, hatred of God may bring the soul to God. For what many atheists loathe is not God at all but the false representations of Me.
But consider the wise warning of GK Chesterton. When people cease to believe in God, they come to believe not in nothing, but in anything. Its that anything that concerns Me. You recommend in almost every line of the book that your readers should replace Me in their hearts and minds with you...
You define God as a superhuman, supernatural intelligence which deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us. This is typical of militant atheists who constantly define me purely in terms of the criteria of science alone, rather than in terms of a quest for spiritual contact that becomes a reciprocal loving relationship between creature and creator.
Hence you reduce Me by declaring that any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything (for that is what you think I do all day!) comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution.
Richard, when theologians attempt to describe My reality (My Mind, say) they are all too well aware of the trap known as anthropomorphism: of treating Me as a human creature. Yet it seems pointless to remind you that thousands of studies have been published on this theme down the centuries. So your consistent image of Me resembles nothing so much as a megalomaniac designer-scientist. Should I say it? Your God resembles a Great Big Professor Dawkins in the sky!
THE sun has gone down and the monks are chanting vespers. Im reminded, Richard, that you were once a choirboy. Fancy.
The tradition of choral evensong, preserved in the churches and cathedrals of your islands, points back to the rhythm of the monasteries founded by St Benedict in the 6th century. While considering all the hateful things that believers have done down the ages supposedly in My name, you might spare a thought for the monks who lived, and still live, by Benedicts rule.
During the troubled period in Europe known as the Dark Ages, which resemble in many ways the barbarism and fragmentations of the world today, it was the monasteries that preserved civility, education, scholarship, moral intellectual life, care of the poor and the sick, the arts of husbandry, and community building. So. Why dont you occasionally slip into your college chapel for evensong to ponder that thought. It might make you less antagonistic towards religion. And it might help to relax you a little.
For now I bid you farewell. But be assured: you have not heard the last of Me.
Till then I remain yours affectionately, and faithfully
God
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2517335,00.html
Your reaction?
Oldstillwild answered on 12/24/06:Well....,
inshort,
Merry Christmas,Tonyrey!
This was God's answer to the ME-god.
Rightfully so.
There is no god!
We should celebrate LIFE!
For THAT is our origin and THAT we should preserve and worship and THAT is what we would find in our selves.
Its part of us and we can INDIVIDUALLY and thru that AS A WHOLE make it work for us!
So, in celebrating Christmas , its a sublimation for the REAL thing,
AS IS ANY OTHER RELIGION OR BELIEF!
So Dawkins is right about god and lets say,on the right track,but still wrong about ME.
What would be right is to say THRU ME we all are able to connect to LIFE , our source!
Happy Celebrations,Tonyrey! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 12/21/06 - What are your views on the rights of robots? Research compiled by the Outsights-Ipsos Mori partnership and the US-based Institute for the Future suggests that at some point in the next 20 to 50 years robots could be granted rights. If this happened, the report says, the robots would have certain responsibilities such as voting, the obligation to pay taxes, and perhaps serving compulsory military service. Conversely, society would also have a duty of care to their new digital citizens... Oldstillwild answered on 12/21/06:Well...,Tonyrey,
to me,this is all fantasy,never to become true....
Its my wish and hope,that mankind will never allow to happen,that people be modified into robots.....
Robots will never be modified into people.Thats impossible.
And if developments would get into the direction of implementing human parts into robots,its my wish and hope,mankind wouldnt allow this to happen....
The sophisticated robots may look and act like humans,they will nevr BE human.
I know,that this is a tough statement to adhere to,because people are weak and right now,there are (japanese)robotplaytoys which can "die",if you dont care about IT enough and people,im afraid not only children,get emotional attached to these toys as if IT were alive....Thats worrysome....!
Let alone,if "real human robots" are in existance....., and people are seducing themselves,deceived by these homemade creations(not: creatures)...it could really turn out to become an undesirable situation,that some people,united in actiongroups are going to fight for rights for these human robots,forgetting,that the emotions in play are only theirs and none whatsoever the robots'.....!
Robots should always be owned by people,who will remain responsible at all times,no matter how self(re-)programmable these robots might get.
All robots should at all times be subject to the possibility of shutting them down by remote-control......by humans.
Software must never get into ultimate charge.
Mankind should approach the robotproblem like the weather:
An attitude of always trying to be ahead of possible problems.
The weather we cant shut down.Robots we can!
Hi. | | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 12/20/06 - The PHILOSOPHY of a FRUITCAKE:
According to "The Joy of Cooking," by Irma Rombauer and Marion Becker, "Many people feel that these cakes improve greatly with age. When they are well saturated with alcoholic liquors, which raise the spirits and keep down mold, and are buried in powdered sugar in tightly closed tins, they have been enjoyed as long as 25 years after baking."
Source: "How Stuff Works" - Short article by Marshall Brain
No word yet on how they got attached to Christmas. Do you know?
MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL OF YOU AND HAVE A GREAT HOLIDAY SEASON! WE HAVE ALOT TO BE THANKFUL FOR!
HANK
Oldstillwild answered on 12/20/06:Well,Hank.....,
Even in ancient times plenty of fruitcakes walkin'around....,gathering with Christmas 'round an open fire.....
Even fruitcakes like to celebrate,Hank!
Merry Christmas 2u2! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 12/18/06 - If God exists how likely is divine revelation? ... Oldstillwild answered on 12/19/06:Its all so funny!
Thanks guys!(<:)~ | | Question/Answer | | alijan asked on 12/19/06 - Separationism or Integrationism I am asked to write a five paragraph essay on the following question. I am totally clueless on the topic. Can you give me some basic information / idea in order to finish this essay? This is the question that I must write my essay on:
"Which of the 2 philosophies of black empowerment (separationism or integrationism) do you find most apprpriate for today? How would you decide the proper understanding of tolerance regarding both ethical and religious diversity in America today?"
I really depend on your ideas. Thank you!
Oldstillwild answered on 12/19/06:Well,Alijan,
If you dont have any ideas about this,than just go to the movies or so.....,if there is any,because its more likely than not,that youre livin'on youtube or something like that......
Get real and into the real world dude!
Im sure youve ideas!
Write 'm down!
hi! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 12/10/06 - What facts can be confirmed by introspection? . Oldstillwild answered on 12/10/06:What facts can be confirmed by introspection?
My thoughts about this subject:
Although introspection may lead to confirmation,it is not the goal.
The goal of introspection is to investigate one's own behaviour
in the light of all virtues you can think of,leading to a result,a conclusion,which is in itself the goal.A kind of internal organised feed-back.
Introspection is exercised in the course of one's desired,self-defined, attitude towards life,one's social behaviour and a tool to controll if one's still on the right track.(Or a better-you-start-one-now-moment).
Its an exercise of conscience to be able to identify mistakes.
One might have to reach the conclusion,that it went wrong somewhere down the line,which would lead to actions of healing.(or even,that all went wrong thusfar and thats better to stick to an other,a better behaviour from now on).
If introspection may lead to confirmation , it would be the confirmation
of (still) being on the right (conscientious)track.(one can be surprised,though!)
hi.
| | Question/Answer | | Choux... asked on 12/09/06 - Different Forms for the Mystery of God From Salon dot com books Nov. 27, 2006 | "The debate between science and religion typically gets stuck on the thorny question of God's existence. How do you reconcile an all-powerful God with the mechanistic slog of evolution? Can a rationalist do anything but sneer at the Bible's miracles? But what if another religion -- a nontheistic one -- offered a way out of this impasse? That's the promise that some people hold out for in Buddhism. The Dalai Lama himself is deeply invested in reconciling science and spirituality. He meets regularly with Western scientists, looking for links between Buddhism and the latest research in physics and neuroscience. In his book "The Universe in a Single Atom," he wrote, "If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims."
B. Alan Wallace may be the American Buddhist most committed to finding connections between Buddhism and science. An ex-Buddhist monk who went on to get a doctorate in religious studies at Stanford, he once studied under the Dalai Lama, and has acted as one of the Tibetan leader's translators. Wallace, now president of the Santa Barbara Institute for Consciousness Studies, has written and edited many books, often challenging the conventions of modern science. "The sacred object of its reverence, awe and devotion is not God or spiritual enlightenment but the material universe," he writes. He accuses prominent scientists like E.O. Wilson and Richard Dawkins of practicing "a modern kind of nature religion."
In his new book, "Contemplative Science: Where Buddhism and Neuroscience Converge," Wallace takes on the loaded subject of consciousness. He argues that the long tradition of Buddhist meditation, with its rigorous investigation of the mind, has in effect pioneered a science of consciousness, and that it has much to teach Western scientists......and so on..." [Edited because of length]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is no reason to believe that the Middle-Eastern GodAlmighty/Allah bears any resemblence to the God of the Universe, is there?
When people talk of "God", most folks automatically assume it is the God(s)in the Bible. It is self-evident that this is an immature "God idea" based on crime and punishment, if you will.
Is the term "God of the Universe" sufficient to distinguish between the GodAlmighty/Allah concept when visualizing and cogitatin' when reading about people's ideas of "God" in sophisticated books? Is there another term? Oldstillwild answered on 12/09/06:"But what if another religion -- a nontheistic one -- offered a way out of this impasse"
Note:
There is no need for any religion.Religion is an exercise for the human mind.Nothing else....till something better will come up....(thats what history tells us,bytheway)
"If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims."
Note:
I can hardly believe,mr. Lama is serious here....The fact of the core of the matter is,that science has no role what so ever in establishing the core of truth.As a spiritual man,he shwould know that....!If it is anything,its just a polite remark towards science.....
"The sacred object of its reverence, awe and devotion is not God or spiritual enlightenment but the material universe," he writes."
Note;
Well,he may write this,but he's makin'the traditional,typical mistake to go for his view entirely:
Spirituality is the medium mankind needs to connect to the material universe.
"In his new book, "Contemplative Science"
Note:
He's aiming short,or so you will,beyond the goal.Life is about contemplation,closely connected to spirituality.Science has nothing to do with contemplation as such.
On the other hand,he might get on the right track if it would lead to the inevitable and only possible conclusion,that science is falling too short to discover ever the truth.Unless.....the conclusion would be,that the definition of "science" should be challenged and revised to be inclusive spiritual findings......
"There is no reason to believe that the Middle-Eastern GodAlmighty/Allah bears any resemblence to the God of the Universe, is there"
Note:
This should be left out of the discussion,because its a polution of the issue at hand.
There is no godfigure necessary at all,so dont bring it in.
"It is self-evident that this is an immature "God idea""
Note:
Isnt it immature whatever....!
"Is the term "God of the Universe" sufficient"
Note:
Irrelevant is the word here.
Whats interesting,though,is that the God-entity is elevated to Universe-level only.
Although I fear,that this is of no material importance to religious people,to me it gives me hope,that its a direction to rule god out of daily life.That he is far away something up there,beyond the universe,biding his time and that we,here on earth,really have to deal with reality on our own,using the spiritual interface to our origin,which is part of reality.(WHICH IS PART OF (MATERIAL) REALITY.
IT "IS"!(so use it!)
The entity that is most describing it,though, is REALITY.
So worship REALITY,use it to the fullest,leaving nothing out,bearing in mind,that life is about contemplation,more than anything else!
Hi.
Thanks for reading.
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 12/05/06 - What are the effects of false beliefs? . Oldstillwild answered on 12/05/06:That is not to say.
It depends of the context!
True belief would lead to true behaviour.
Violence is not part of a true belief.....
Or putting it another way,
believing in the god of rain,thunder,fire or water(etc),
is far more leading to true behaviour,
than what we presently sea happening around......
Its about a true state of mind.
If the basis is sound it doesnt matter what you believe.
That would be a sound start to further development in depth seeking truth.....!
For, of course,there cant be but one.....
Present religions are more shallow,than any belief in history!It lacks true respect! | | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 12/02/06 - FROM A DISTANCE:
Carol's 'up there' and I'm 'down here.' We've both found a little extra room in our hearts for all of you Experts, come Christmas and the Holiday Season. This is a PHILOSOPHY post! Loving and helping "thy neighbor" is what life is about.
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek and ye shall find; knock and it shall be opened unto you." - Matthew 7:7.
Stay well, safe and happy! MERRY CHRISTMAS to all of you.
HANK & CAROL
Oldstillwild answered on 12/02/06:Hi Hank!
Thanks 4 your philosophical best wishes!
Wish you happy holidays and a fine New Year as well!
oldstillwild | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 12/01/06 - Should the state intervene in family life? . Oldstillwild answered on 12/01/06:Well...,
it depends of the context....
If social functioning is troublesome with respect to children and or environment and help is needed and there apparently(....)are no other options,
then it is required,that help should be given by state-supported help-entities. | | Question/Answer | | ttalady asked on 11/30/06 - I love you thank you. Is that not what we should say more often?
You wonder how people can be so... very simple yet difficult at the same time. Why is it we dig our own holes and have the hardest time finding the way out? Why do we enjoy the pain more over the joy?
My problem is HUGE! Maybe not to you but to me my Grandmother has her hands on me holding me to do my best to work my mojo.
My parents are in pain, the purest of pain. They have two sons (my bros) still living with them at 28 and 29. They are just feeling like failed parents when I have to reassure them it is just as much my bros failing as theirs. This is just an ongoing deal but not the rath.
My parents have raised my sisters son since he was 1-2 then 5-now. A child with major emotional issues and of course on the meds. I never agree with the meds, I believe in tougher love than that, just my opinion though. He is 14 now in a 7 year old state of mind (emotionally),
My sister had another baby 7 years ago, we took her on a Disney trip and she never went home to her mother. She went home to Grandma and Grampa with 2 adult sons and the grandson, her "brother". My niece and nephew are not of the same father, let alone we have no idea whom either father is. My sister is of another father too, just for fact here.
So my sister is here, in the same state as I, some where, her two children live with my parents their grandparents, along with my two bros. Hunky dory right?
I call the family once a week at least and the two youngest of the household (in age LOL) are screaming and crying and fighting. This house is not healthy, peaceful, just plain insane. If it is not the two manipulating kids pulling the screaming it is one of my brothers or my father or my mother screaming. My niece said my mother and brother "belong in hell".
It was never like this, this was never there, the issues like they are now.
My sister was missing for 2 weeks. She had all plans to move out there, with nothing, but her bio father changed his mind due to conversation between her and her father. Terrible conversation that was just my sister. She lives on social security benifits from her dead husband and does not believe in work.
The last time I saw her 11/06 she looked like death. A complete look of just kill me, I am so... sick. High as a kite on pot and drugged out, I took her to brunch like that, yes I did. People joke, and some just want, that, her death. Not me, that solves nothing and in reality makes things worse.
Something has hit me so... hard that it really kills me to even think it. I have to find her and save her. I will not give her money, I just want to give her me and hope for the best. I want to do what no body has ever done for her, less maybe her deceased husband, and just give me to her.
She scares me, she makes me face that of what I might be a little or even have been at times. It is like having a devil on your shoulder and needing to face it.
I have dreams, incredible dreams. Dreams of berries making me drunk. With a man not of my husband, he starts out that way and then the face changes. This man tells me the story of his father, a black man, and there are pictures on the wall of each. Gentle like he wants to just keep me and I give in but I wake up and that is it.
It is what it is but the answer is never there. Do I face it? My strenght is at the best it will ever be better in belief, it is beyond what you would expect of a person. I just need some guidance, help in working this out. I'll be 32 Saturday, that is a lucky number.
If you listen and respond, then that is all I need. Support and "I love you thank you". I need the power of a million angels for this to work but I am willing to believe.
Please give me a hand angels...
TTA Oldstillwild answered on 11/30/06:Hi Ttalady!
Im afraid , I upset you with my post.
I never meant to upset anybody.
It was just a (self-) reflection on my part with no meaning of causing any feelings of guilt what so ever.
The reality though,is that youre making yourself having problems growing above your
head now,TT!
You dont need to force upon yourself saving another person,not even your sister:You cant do that!It will cost you your life,it consumes all your energy and in stead of saving one person,there will be two persons in need.........
You dont deserve that,TT!
Be good to yourself!
Just be there in case somebody ask you for help,acknowledging your limitations.
Just ,as for anybody else,for you goes too:
I love you thank you........
Take care!
(of yourself)
hi! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 11/29/06 - Education, Darwinism, and Indoctrination... Is it right to indoctrinate children with Darwin's theory that natural selection explains the existence of human beings and give them the impression that life is ultimately an accident? Oldstillwild answered on 11/30/06:Well,I guess its about the word "indoctrinate" here....
Children should learn about Darwin.
It seems inevitable,however,that parents teach their children their convictions.....
Apparently,its even just as inevitable,that community or society would teach children "its" religious convictions....
I think,that this inevitability shouldnt be there.
Parents shouldnt indoctrinate children,nor the community or society should.......neither religion nor Darwin nor any other conviction......
Children should be teached as objectively as possible,so that theyd FEEL FREE to draw their own conclusions and form their own opinions and convictions......
Parents,community or society would deny this FREEDOM to children,though.....
So in short:
No , its not right to indoctrinate ANY conviction to children!
"At what age do you think children are capable of figuring out the truth?"
Well,
I think its about "figuring out" , rather than "figuring out truth".
Children are figuring out from inside the womb already!
Every human being,even children(!),is entitled to make mistakes,to learn,to discover his/her truth.
No one other is entitled to force this truth to his/her wishes!
The personal freedom and integrity of children should always be respected from the very start!
Parents have to realise,that they do not OWN their children!
Hi.
| | Question/Answer | | ttalady asked on 11/25/06 - Loosing Grace ... I have always been known for my kindness, however with deep problems you loose grace.
Those problems, not of yours that you just know you were ment to fix. To solve, and bring peace to those you love the most. You work and work, it is your destiny in life and you know it. No stopping it. Then you loose grace...
God love me for what I am and accepts me for what I am not. My challenge is so... very hard but I believe I can do it.
I will bring family back into this life. My sister will join us and once again we will be strong. Then I will go.... It is my relief, my destiny.
I was born to love and give love. I dream of real life, I am a fallen angel.
Support me on my journey!
TTA Oldstillwild answered on 11/25/06:Dear Ttalady!
Whatever you may think youre losing....,
at any age or moment in time of your life,your just as beautiful as ever!
hi. | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 11/23/06 - To what extent are we ruled by the unconscious? . Oldstillwild answered on 11/23/06:Well....,
would you like to know that.....! | | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 11/23/06 - THANKS, GUYS & GALS!
I'd like to THANK YOU for being the people you are and I hope all of you live long, long lives! Watch the calories today! HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO YOU ALL! I've really enjoyed the four years I've been posting on this Board. Just wish I had more time to do so!
HANK
Oldstillwild answered on 11/23/06:Hi Hank!
Happy Thanksgiving 2u2!
The art of living could be ,
feeling grateful all the time!
hi!
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 11/21/06 - What are the causes of sex inequality? . Oldstillwild answered on 11/21/06:Splendid not-done question!...LOL!
Is there a difference?LOL!
Where are my glasses?!LOL!
Well,
let me try to answer this question short and quickly.
There is a difference between male and female because of nature and mind/emotion.
The natural differences are physical with an impact on differences in physical properties/abilities as well as differences in mental/emotional properties.
The mind/emotion refers to the impact of these differences on the social development of man and female.
As I stated before,I am of the opinion,that emotion played too much a role in decisive developments as to how equal women are in their unequality as compared to men.
I am also of the opinion,that this equality is superficial and that in the future women will volontarily come to the conclusion,that common sense asks for a more modest attitude.......,holding up the option of moral equality.
hi.
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 11/18/06 - Is there a war between the sexes in society? "One cannot understand the psychology of women, and for that matter the psychology of men, and one cannot understand the element of sadism, of hostility and destructiveness in men and women if one does not consider that there has been a war between the sexes going on in the last six thousand years. This war is a guerrilla war. Women have been defeated by patriarchalism six thousand years ago and society has been built upon the domination of men. Women were possessions and had to be grateful for every new concession that men made to them. But there is no domination of one part of mankind over another, of a social class, of a nation or of a sex over another, unless there is underneath rebellion, fury, hate and wish for revenge in those who are oppressed and exploited and fear and insecurity in those who do the exploiting and repressing." (Erich Fromm)
http://www.uta.edu/huma/illuminations/kell8.htm(Fromm 1975, p. 59). Oldstillwild answered on 11/19/06:There is nature,
there are emotions,
theres is common sense.
Its about the balance or unbalance that has been defined and will define future social developments and generally in all its aspects.
My common sense tells me,that mankind walked away from nature and that emotions where chosen to be the decisive factor over common sense, too often...... | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 11/18/06 - What is the best test of a person's character? . Oldstillwild answered on 11/18/06:Not2testitatall......! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 11/16/06 - Should you ever act against your conscience? If so when? If not why not? Oldstillwild answered on 11/17/06:No.
A clear conscience is an unconditional condition for achieving any fundamental happiness.
One could violate this condition of course,but it requires hard serious conscientious work to repair the damage......
So,
the answer to this question should be no and will be no , if you understand the virtue-al power of Life!
hi!
Oldstillwild
(or how life works) | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 11/16/06 - Should you ever decide to act unreasonably? If so when? If not why not? Oldstillwild answered on 11/16/06:Well.....,
looking forward to reasonable unreasonable answers.....?
or
unreasonable reasonable ones.....? | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 11/14/06 - What are the criteria of insanity? . Oldstillwild answered on 11/14/06:Well....,
here we are in a field,which hasnt been explored properly yet.....
Im of the opinion,that there is , generally spoken(to protect all those ,who are yet labled as such),no such thing as insanity....
There are differences in abilities between people.
The most insane people are people who are considered being sane......
Insane is about taking insane decisions,while being considered sane.
There are people who would take weird decisions in the eyes of the sane.....,
yet the question ,who is the sane one must still be properly addressed........
Im not giving any criteria here,simply because I dont know,what insane is....
The question is if insane is to be defined from the eyes of the majority or from the perspective of the individual.......
In my opinion the latter.
Evenso it is not sure,if the majority always should be considered sane......
There are different people with different talents.
People should be judged on their decisions and actions in the first place.Taking into account specific circumstances in the second place.
Its a very difficult area in which to determine if someone isnt to be held accountable for his actions at a specific moment and in specific circumstances!
Thats very arbitrarily.
Generally spoken,there are not so much insane people,rather than insane decisions.
Poorly talented people would rarely take insane decisions from their perspective in comparison with so-called sane people.
well....,
you notice that Im fighting the subject.
More people should do that..... | | Question/Answer | | ttalady asked on 11/13/06 - self reaching into the body... sage.. love.... really feeling. minus food/but notwanting to eat. All self, incorporated. Change BIG NO!
What am I? Oldstillwild answered on 11/13/06:You are living somebody other's life. | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 11/12/06 - What is the self? How does it control itself? . Oldstillwild answered on 11/12/06:Your self is you as the down to earth spiritual entity defined by your dna and as close as possible to your source.
No mindbased deviations,
No ego airbags,
Just you on the pillow of your source,ready to submerge....... | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 11/09/06 - How would you explain "collective wisdom"? In winter a certain number of the birds in a particular area hibernate, a certain number migrate to a warmer climate and a certain number feed on food available through the winter. Birds rarely freeze to death. Somehow they know how many should stay, how many should go, and how many should sleep. What is the explanation?
Oldstillwild answered on 11/09/06:The answer is,that collective wisdom is of nature as a whole,
except for humans,
who are voluntairy choosing for collective stupid thinking in fatalistic circles,without any respect for anythink,
but their own troubled minds...... | | Question/Answer | | Choux... asked on 11/02/06 - Giant Human Brain Proves There is No God "...consider the size of the human brain. If God exists, then it necessarily follows that a **fully functional mind can exist without a body**--and if that is true, God would have no reason to give us brains. We would not need them. For being minds like him, being "made in his image," our souls could do all the work, and control our thoughts and bodies directly. At most a very minimal brain would be needed to provide interaction between the senses, nerves, and soul. A brain no larger than that of a monkey would be sufficient, since a monkey can see, hear, smell, and do pretty much everything we can, and its tiny brain is apparently adequate to the task. And had God done that--had he given us real souls that actually perform all the tasks of consciousness (seeing, feeling, thinking)--that would indeed count as evidence for his existence, and against mere atheism.
In contrast, **if a mind can only be produced by a comparably complex machine**, then obviously there can be no God, and the human brain would have to be very large--large enough to contain and produce a complex machine like a mind. Lo and behold, the human brain is indeed large--so large that it kills many mothers during labor (without modern medicine, the rate of mortality varies around 10% per child). This huge brain also consumes a large amount of oxygen and other resources, and it is very delicate and easily damaged. Moreover, damage to the brain profoundly harms a human's ability to perceive and think. So **our large brain is a considerable handicap, the cause of needless misery and death** and pointless inefficiency--which is not anything a loving engineer would give us, nor anything a good or talented engineer with godlike resources would ever settle on.
***But this enormous, problematic brain is necessarily the only way conscious beings can exist if there is no God nor any other supernatural powers in the universe.*** If we didn't need a brain, and thus did not have one, we would be many times more efficient. All that oxygen, energy, and other materials could be saved or diverted to other functions. We would also be far less vulnerable to fatal or debilitating injury, we would be immune to brain damage and defects that impair judgment or distort perception (like schizophrenia or retardation), and we wouldn't have killed one in every ten of our mothers before the rise of modern medicine. In short, the fact that we have such large, vulnerable brains is the only way we could exist if there is **no God**, but is quite improbable if there is a God who loves us and wants us to do well and have a fair chance in life. Once again, atheism predicts the universe we find ourselves in. The Christian theory does not." <<< Carrier in an essay
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, we see proof that **the mind** cannot exist without the giant human brain we all have. Oldstillwild answered on 11/03/06:Well,
this is a joke of course......
Im glad someone proved that there is no god...
So,now at least, we all know that......
SPREAD THE NEWS!
and quickly,because there's a lot of religious crap going on....violent religious crap.....!
A lifeform is a derivate, with only a delicate connection with its source,LIFE,which is transparent and a powerfull help if the form succeeds in acknowledging that connection and in fullfilling the requirements,which will make this connection work.
We are all connected by LIFE itself.
ALL = ONE
The "mind" has absolutely nothing to do with this in the sense as mentioned above.
The mind is the intermediair in between the form and the Source.A kind of Route66.
Wich currently is in a state of deterioration.
People are using all the wrong roads predominantly.....
SPREAD THE NEWS! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 10/31/06 - Can a person transcend natural causes? If so how? . Oldstillwild answered on 10/31/06:Whats not natural?
Is the definition of Natural, one would use a valid one?(compared to natural.)
Is it right to make science the basis of all natural things?
(I dont think so)
| | Question/Answer | | Choux... asked on 10/30/06 - TOE The purpose of science is to understand reality. The ultimate goal of physics is to understand everything by a single all-embracing principle called the Theory of Everything (TOE).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I read this somewhere.
Is this a correct assessment in your opinion? Oldstillwild answered on 10/30/06:Yeah!
I think this is a correct assessment of the illusion......
As there always will remain a residu of never scientifically to be proven reality,
this ultimate goal is an illusive one.
However,mankind will always act upon its findings as if they were part of the absolute truth all to be discovered.
That explains all scientifically disasters in past and future.
As bad as it gets perfectly,
the slogan of science. | | Question/Answer | | Choux... asked on 10/30/06 - Metaphysical Naturalism Sense and Goodness without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism
Richard Carrier
Excerpt:
Metaphysical Naturalism is the only worldview that is supported by all the evidence of all the sciences, the only one consistent with all human experience, the established truths of history, and reason itself. No other worldview, including theism generally or Evangelical Christianity in particular, is supported by any evidence of any of the sciences. The only remotely plausible exception, 'fine tuning,' is not very convincing evidence for the divine, and supports no doctrine of salvation. Science doesn't necessarily contradict alternative worldviews, for one can adjust most of them to be compatible with almost any evidence, but no other worldview is directly and substantially supported by any scientific evidence, whereas all scientific evidence so far does support Metaphysical Naturalism, often directly, sometimes substantially. Though naturalism has not yet been proved, it is the best bet going.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Is "Metaphysical Naturalism" a relatively new worldview? How does it relate to Naturalism, if at all? What is Naturalism?
Any information appreciated! Oldstillwild answered on 10/30/06:The truth is not in science.
Science is by definition too limited to even only approach the truth.
Following the science-track is leading nowhere....at most an imperfect illusion.......,
leaving the truth laughing forward....... | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 10/27/06 - What would constitute evidence for a miracle? . Oldstillwild answered on 10/27/06:Well,
to me,thats easy to answer.
(or not.....).
First of all,there is Life.
Most "miracles" are easy to understand.
(if you understand life as such).
Then there is nature.
Then there are coincidences.
Then there are subjective at random interpretations and perceptions.
Well......,
where do miracles fit in?
my guess is the latter.
A miracle would be a phenomenon,not to be explained by Life,nature,coincidence or at random perception.
Most "miracles" are due to lack of knowledge.
Im not aware of any miracle to date. | | Question/Answer | | ttalady asked on 10/26/06 - The Cave man I wonder, how where they really? Did they beat the logs on the heads of a woman when she is ill and can not cook?
The "knock knock are you there"? LOL
A society that is 50/50, half old school and half women's lib. Is there a middle? I have rights as a person female or male. But also have duties, yes means of life, woman or man. The change kills me! Where does a man or a woman fit in in this life.
Are we suppose to be gentile woman or man, are we suppose to be conservative woman or male, are we to be outspoken? To what degree does society survive with out boundries?
Change sucks, however it happens. It is real! I've been sick, simply sick. But all the same. Would you all give me some energy?
My work is not done yet!
TTa
Oldstillwild answered on 10/27/06:WellTtalady!
First of all,I wish you all the best for yourself.
yeah!
Im a knockknock person myself.
Longing for forgotten caveman times.
Where nature was still on her best.
What are you suppose to do?
Get yourself a path of happiness,Ttalady!
Youre not supposed to do anything!
All changes of moderntimes,make people think,that they are supposed to go along with the changes,caused by a few!
Just be yourself,Ttalady!
Make your own move towards happiness!
Remember,most people arent happy at all!
Most people are trying to cope and adapt!
Most people are busy with topics,not of their own!
Dont feel any need for anything!
Just follow Your track!
Youre good as you are.Thats the best you can get and deserve!
Hi!
| | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 10/23/06 - TELL ME ...
Are there any MORAL rewards or benefits for being a President or a Congressman in the United States?
HANK
Oldstillwild answered on 10/23/06:Hi Hank!
I think,the only (moral) reward for a president is his so-called legacy.
If it is a reward or not,the president himself can tell in the first place.....
It depends on the total-general outcome-perception of the rest of the worlds non-/appreciation.....
In the case of GWBush,Id think,he'd better prefer to emigrate.....,although Im not sure to where.....
If he'd find a place,it surely would be a place,where immorality is worshipped.....
That may feel rewarding to him,though..... | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 10/23/06 - What is intelligence and how did it originate? . Oldstillwild answered on 10/23/06:Intelligence as a property of consciousness is were we are coming from and with.
That is what Life is.
We would distinguish intelligence per species and per individual,but the phenomenon itself is an indissoluble part of life.
Intelligence comes with life and becomes physical by te actions taken by the individual lifeform.
The quality of the individual lifeform is the determining factor.
Flora ,fauna, it all is intelligent.
The question is,are we more intelligent than a plant.
I dont think so. | | Question/Answer | | MarySusan asked on 10/21/06 - Ethics, Morality, Laws and Police Forces I wonder if the above social institutions are really part of what contribute to the large numbers of criminal and dangerous elements in society.
Leave people alone in their social group and let them work out survival. I wonder what would happen. I think of the Amish, for one.
I think of a minority ghetto in a major city. Let those who are victimized kill-off the predators, they know who they are.
Make each society's focus would be on the children. All efforts would be made to raise healthy children in healthy households. Women would have special priviliges...they could have anyone who abused them or their children killed.
No more pretense of justice; no more mockery of morality. No rules, just be mannerly(Good morning, Bob, can I help you repair your garage?), or risk getting killed. :D If a "Pat Robertson" type comes to town, just blow his head off. If a "Donald Trump" type came to town, blow his head off. Anyone you find undesireable, blow their head off.
I think a side benefit would be population reduction on a sizeable level, lower pollution, great reduction in anti-social people and the terrible results of their behavior. Honing the population into the most competent.
I think that is the way human beings developed originally until ethics, morality, laws and police forces caused so much trouble.
What do you think? Oldstillwild answered on 10/22/06:Well,
I think you are holding us for nutty professors.
I think you are nuts.
I think,that would be nice:
A nut community.
Thanks for the inspiration!
Well.......,
Im curious to read your own answer now.....
Hi nut!
High nuts!
Hi high nut society!
Well......,
I cant get enough of the nuts!
Lets establish the knitting nuts foundation!
Hi Lollo! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 10/20/06 - What is morality? Is it limited to human beings? . Oldstillwild answered on 10/20/06:I doubt that.
We are not unique at all.
Mankind is overestimating its form over all other forms.
Our form is nothing special. | | Question/Answer | | MarySusan asked on 10/18/06 - 101 Most Influential People Who Never Lived "NEW YORK (Reuters) - They influence everything from how we look and act to eat and speak and have even helped sway the course of history -- but they are not real.
And topping a list of "The 101 most influential people who never lived" in a book released on Tuesday is the Marlboro Man -- a macho American cowboy who emerged in the 1950s and helped boost sales of Marlboro cigarettes.
"The figments of our imaginations, the creatures we push out of our minds into the real world are fully capable of pushing back with surprising consequences," Jeremy Salter, one of the U.S. book's three authors, told Reuters.
Coming in at number two on the list is Big Brother of George Orwell's 1984, followed by King Arthur, who the authors say embodies for many the ideal monarch, and Santa Claus comes in at number four.
"Santa Claus governs our entire economy for the last quarter of the year and without him businesses would go broke," said co-author Allan Lazar.
Barbie "the bodacious plastic babe who became a role model for millions of little girls, setting an impossible standard for beauty and style" makes the list at number 43.
But Rosie the Riveter, the buff, blue-collar factory worker who the authors say helped jump-start the women's liberation movement comes in at 28.
"The idea came to us that influential characters didn't have to exist, that fictional characters were just as important in our lives, even in maybe some cases more so than real people," Lazar said.
Even the Loch Ness Monster makes the list at number 56.
"As the most popular tourist attraction in Scotland, Nessie's influence on the cash flow of that country has been significant," wrote the authors of "The 101 most influential people who never lived."
At 101 was Paul Bunyan, a mythical lumberjack who the authors say was created by U.S. lumberjacks during the 1800s "to bring some good cheer, and esteem into their lives of drudgery."
10/17/06 17:09 Copyright Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What does this say about the world, if anything?
[Will leave out a my belief that God is the most influential person who never lived for another time]
Oldstillwild answered on 10/18/06:Well,
the most interesting part,is that you feel allowed to rate personal reactions to your
personal wellbeing.
I wont deny you this opportunity.
I like to be rated for no sense by a figure that doesnt even exist.
You are number 102. | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 10/16/06 - What rights do animals have? . Oldstillwild answered on 10/16/06:Lets say....,
the right to live.
Just as we do. | | Question/Answer | | ttalady asked on 10/15/06 - (For fun) Dear Abby,
It is Sunday and I bought the NFL Sunday Ticket, the Seahawks are playing, I live in NY so do not get the game. The moral judgement on this was really tough for me. My hubby and I have not been getting along lately, we are finding many differences in what we want in life. He hunts, I do not yet, might try it next year. I am a passionate person when it comes to what I believe in, as he is.
The Sunday Ticket cost us $250 for a season. I consider it my birthday present even so.... very expensive. The Seahawks have always been a football team of mine, even through the many loosing years. There is just something about them, hope maybe!
Despite my feelings for the Hawks my husband was in hind sight supporting the Rams today. Maybe for the reaction, $250 is alot for some men slapping butts(as he would call it)!
He left to take on the buck with his bow and arrow and as he was stepping out the door I told him,"If the Seahawks win tonight plan on sex"! He looked at me, smiled HUGE and screamed, "Go Seahawks!!!!!"
Question one, do I have to stick with the deal? Nothing in contract, I did not shake his hand, and he has no interest really in football.
Question two, would it be wrong to get a bigger TV to watch my Sunday Ticket on, I can get it in high definition?
***Just for fun folks, all true though! My Hawks WON, there is always hope and prayer that does work! Passion holds the keys to your happiness, hold it dearly and never let it go. Simple passions that you believe in, trust and know are right may have give worry some at points in life but if you believe the outcome is all worth the worry!
Always,
TTA
Jen Oldstillwild answered on 10/16/06:Well,Ttalady,
I think,you should shake his hand yet....
I think,
he would love it.... | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 10/13/06 - What are the merits and demerits of pantheism? . Oldstillwild answered on 10/13/06:Virtually none.
Pantheism is no religion,yet God may be part of it.
Pantheism's basis might be one = all , but no pantheist ever made the connection to a practical form of pantheism.
There is no pantheist community.
So,
so far Pantheism failed being of practical influence on world's affairs.
However,
maybe,
it will work out for the better if pantheists would succeed in leaving the God-idea and connect all human action with that all = one pre-sumption.
It would change the world!
It would disquallify a lot if not all science to a form of mutilation of nature.
It would bring back humanity and the world to its natural basis and its respect for LIfe for what it really is.
So,in short.
Pantheism is an effort to reach the core of existence,however failed so far in leaving the God -idea as such AND in defining practical consequences to the very core of pantheistic thinking all = one. | | Question/Answer | | Jon1667 asked on 10/12/06 - Genocide, again. Reprise to last month, and whether philosophers should be interested in (mere) words. Think that's right?
PARIS (AFP) - France has sought to calm an uproar in Turkey and in the European Union after the French parliament approved a bill that would make it a crime to deny that the 1915-17 massacres of Armenians by the Ottoman Turks constituted genocide.
The French foreign ministry insisted that Paris was still "very keen" on dialogue with Turkey and wanted its "strong ties" with that country to continue.
But a furious Ankara -- which strongly contests the use of the term genocide -- was in no mood to listen, saying that France had dealt "a heavy blow" to longstanding bilateral relations.
Turkish parliamentary speaker Bulent Arinc called the vote "shameful" and said it reflected a "hostile attitude".
The European Commission also criticised the French bill, saying it would hinder efforts to heal the wounds caused by the Armenian carnage nine decades ago.
Oldstillwild answered on 10/12/06:This is what belief is.
This is what religion is all about.
This is what belief and religion do with people.
There cant be a better example and demonstration of how wrong this kind of an indoctrinated basis can work out.
If there is anything , people could learn of this........,
would they....?! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 10/11/06 - What is the significance of natural selection? . Oldstillwild answered on 10/11/06:Well.....,
Its all about (what we call) nature.
nature IS.
There is no such option ,to establish,to determine, the significance of Nature.
It sounds like:
What is the significance of the significance........?
Another question is:
What is the significance of human interfering,human disturbing........?
Well.....,
Nature will teach us that! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 10/07/06 - Can there be science without evidence? ...........Even if there were no actual evidence in favor of the Darwinian theory, we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories.
(Richard Dawkins - The Blind Watchmaker) Oldstillwild answered on 10/07/06:Well....,
as long as youre aware of the relativity of what you think you know,its okay with me.
Does this fellow say:
...........Even if there were no actual evidence in favor of the a theory, we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories.????
I dont think so.
So,Dawkins should be(and pobably is?)more specific about his motives.
In general.
You know my standpoint on science....
The need for evidence is purely human.
The way science is defined is purely human.
Both have nothing to do with truth.
Only with human uncertainty etc.and the generally accepted basis on which "society" is willing to accept "things".
THe philosophy of life comes down to what you think and experience as an individual.
I dont need science.
Nobody should.
| | Question/Answer | | ttalady asked on 10/06/06 - Nature's way What are your opinions on the (sp) homeopathic way of living and healing? One of my very close friends is really into this. A given, she is a veggie-tarian, fears death, but I can say she believes that God gave us everything we needed to live.
She believes that doctors are not so good for you, when it comes to handing out medication. She believes most medications kill you faster than that of the problem, ie anti-biotics. She has gone so... far as to not have her dog vaccinated for rabies. WE ARE WORKING ON THAT!
I do believe in 1/2 of what she says but the other 1/2 is scarry to me. When her child has these hive looking things on his arm, had them for a couple of months, and she treats him (with a "professional" advice) natural way and they are still there. Then I am really concerned.
There is a point, is there not? When you have to take what you know and incorporate it into what you don't know.
What are your thoughts with this whole nature's way? There is always an extreme to everything in life. Is it possible to be wrong and be right at the same time?
TTA Oldstillwild answered on 10/07/06:Well....,
in my opinion its neither way thats right.
You just should do,what you feel you should do.
Homeopathologic is more of believing and longterm.
Common medical care is more of illusion and guinea-pigging trial and error and more focussed on symptoms than on life as a whole.
Generally speaking,mankind dont know anything about life and sickness.
Science is a farce.
You will know the moment youd need them.... | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 10/06/06 - What has given you the greatest joy in life? . Oldstillwild answered on 10/06/06:Well....,
to be able to have fun!
(Im not going into details.....(<:)~ | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 10/01/06 - In what circumstances would you choose to die? . Oldstillwild answered on 10/01/06:When I feel,I cant live no longer up to my
spiritual being.
That is ,when other people dont let me.
Spiritual life's boundries are in a practical sense,the physical environment.
In fact,thats whats happening all the time to the world as a whole.
I dont want to be part of that. | | Question/Answer | | MarySusan asked on 09/27/06 - Science v Religion "The true essence of 'science' as a particular activity is systematic observation under the rules of reason. ......only observations under those rules yield 'knowledge.' It is almost redundant, then, to discuss the philosophy and method of science, since they are basically the philosophy and method of reason."
David Eller "Natural Atheism" pg 188.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Science is the only road to knowledge.
Comments? Oldstillwild answered on 09/27/06:Well,
where are we going to......?!
Im not a scientist.
Im intelligent.
is all I know,based on science?
I think not!
Most of my knowledge has nothing to do with science.
Am I glad!
Science has no meaning what so ever for spiritual growth.
Only in spiritual growth lures happiness....!
Poor scientific world!
How come,I feel scientifically happy?!
Who is the true scientist here?
Well,
I dont bother....!
At all!! | | Question/Answer | | MarySusan asked on 09/27/06 - IQ and Personality 'People who are grouchy, grumpy, feisty and difficult to get along with in their youth and middle age are getting the last laugh. It turns out that people who have this personality type are the most intelligent senior citizens.
That's the word from Morgan State University psychology professor Jacqueline Bichsel, who co-authored a study that found when people reach age 60, those who are disagreeable maintain a higher level of intelligence than their more easy-going friends, reports The Baltimore Sun. "These individuals have a higher vocabulary," she told the paper. "They have a better use of words, a better knowledge of facts."
It doesn't end there. All those grouchy senior citizens are in many ways smarter than the young whippersnappers they probably spend a good portion of the day criticizing. And this has turned the world of psychology upside-down. Aren't we supposed to become more addled in our old age? Forgetful and a little goofy? Bichsel says not--provided you're a crab at heart. "People are just intrigued by the fact that disagreeableness can be a good thing, particularly in old age," she told Sun reporter Joe Burris.
The study: 239 women and 142 men ages 19 to 89, some of whom had only attended a few years of high school and others of whom held graduate degrees, were given two tests. The first was a personality assessment that measured experience, continuousness, extroversion, agreeableness and neuroticism. The second was an intelligence test.
The results: The researchers found that personality was a prime factor predicting general intelligence, that is knowing facts and vocabulary--the kind of intelligence that you would use to play "Jeopardy." Interestingly, those who were under 60 did not outperform those who were over 60 in any cognitive measure, but those who were over 60 and had disagreeable personalities had higher intelligence scores than the younger group. The study findings were presented at the American Psychological Association meeting in New Orleans."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I posted this on the Philosophy Board because this board has the most intelligent participants(my observation)at AW, and some of the eldest and most grumpy.
Grumps rule? Oldstillwild answered on 09/27/06:No,
grumps rule not!
Thats a fact!
What is also a fact,is that society's morals,behaviour,rules,acceptance,demands and alike do have a great impact on the ABILITY of people to handle,to get access to,to use their proper intelligence.
With aging comes a learning process,that would help individuals to cope better and to grow.
Most people will get closer to their selves over the years,becoming more independent of stressing demands.
Relativism is an important part of the learning process.
In the end,everybody is far more stronger than before!
"Aren't we supposed to become more addled in our old age? Forgetful and a little goofy?"
Whatever this means,of course do health-factors have an important impact,but all of the above is of course applicable to healthy seniors and not to healthy seniles.
But again,
grumpies do not rule.
They enjoy!
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 09/27/06 - How would you evaluate cumulative arguments? Interpretations of reality such as materialism, idealism and dualism seem unfalsifiable but they are not all equally convincing. Solipsism - the view that only oneself exists - is generally regarded as false for a variety of reasons, none of which is conclusive by itself. This suggests that several arguments taken together are sufficient to establish the most rational conclusion. What is your opinion? Oldstillwild answered on 09/27/06:Well...,
most of the time,
if you sum things like these up,
the result would be nil.
So,
thats my opinion.
It does not matter. | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 09/24/06 - Where is cultural superiority to be found? "In his book Late Victorian Holocausts, published in 2001, Mike Davis tells the story of the famines which killed between 12 and 29 million Indians(1). These people were, he demonstrates, murdered by British state policy. When an El Nino drought destituted the farmers of the Deccan plateau in 1876 there was a net surplus of rice and wheat in India. But the viceroy, Lord Lytton, insisted that nothing should prevent its export to England. In 1877 and 1878, at height of the famine, grain merchants exported a record 6.4 million hundredweight of wheat. As the peasants began to starve, government officials were ordered to discourage relief works in every possible way(2). The Anti-Charitable Contributions Act of 1877 prohibited at the pain of imprisonment private relief donations that potentially interfered with the market fixing of grain prices. The only relief permitted in most districts was hard labour, from which anyone in an advanced state of starvation was turned away. Within the labour camps, the workers were given less food than the inmates of Buchenwald. In 1877, monthly mortality in the camps equated to an annual death rate of 94%.
As millions died, the imperial government launched a militarized campaign to collect the tax arrears accumulated during the drought. The money, which ruined those who might otherwise have survived the famine, was used by Lytton to fund his war in Afghanistan. Even in places which had produced a crop surplus, the governments export policies, like Stalins in the Ukraine, manufactured hunger. In the North-western provinces, Oud and the Punjab, which had brought in record harvests in the preceding three years, at least 1.25m died."
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/12/27/how-britain-denies-its-holocausts/
"The Lewis and Clark expedition marked the beginning of a vast genocide of the native peoples of the West, one of the worst atrocities in human history. An entire continent of people were slaughtered and wiped out, or very nearly so. Land was grabbed, and the exploitation of both people and land became systematically formalized. That is the American story. While the United States today has museums dedicated to the Nazi holocaust, it still unapologetically celebrates its own holocaust..."
an American, Colorado, USA Oldstillwild answered on 09/24/06:Well..........,
I guess,this is a moment for silence,introspection,devotion and cheer......?
and last but not least,your question:
still looking.........!
or rather,
There is no such thing as cultural superiority if the aim is to classify peopel inferior on moral grounds!
Of course,one might say,that there are diifferent cultures,even one might classify certain levels to certain aspects,
but never to determine inferiority of any peoples of any culture.
Different cultures are to live along each other on the basis of human(Life) equality.
So,
the true answer to the character,the context, of your question is,
Nowhere.
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 09/23/06 - What is the source of voluntary behaviour? . Oldstillwild answered on 09/23/06:The source is shere genuine owned motivation within the integer illusion of freedom.
All persons are limited in their capabilities.
From inside and from internalized outside.
There are too much "voluntaries" denied by
"unvoluntaribilities".
Well......,
how about that......(<:)~?
5 more stars! | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 09/20/06 - A question of fact?........................................... I have done something of which I am ashamed; could I, by an effort of the will, have resisted the temptation, and done otherwise? Oldstillwild answered on 09/20/06:no | | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 09/17/06 - PETER SINGER:
Peter Singer may be the most controversial Philosopher alive! His belief that animals should be treated like people gave birth to the animal rights movement. I agree -- 2000%!
Is Singer the most controversial Philosopher alive?
HANK
Oldstillwild answered on 09/17/06:I dont no peter singer,although I am one.
Life is universal.
So,
whats controversial about that? | | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 09/17/06 - DREAMSCAPE:
Is life a DREAM? Is death a DREAM? Are we living an ILLUSION?
HANK
Oldstillwild answered on 09/17/06:Are you awake? | | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 09/17/06 - MINDBOGGLING:
Tell me somethin', guys and gals. Everything has a beginning and an end. What was outer space before God entered the picture? What came before outer space? (Am I crackin'up? No - I don't think so!)
HANK
Oldstillwild answered on 09/17/06:Hi Hank!
As I have mentioned before many times:
People would think in terms of beginning and end,but eventually
in fact there is no such thing at all! | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 09/16/06 - The connection between relativism and religion. Can any of you experts explain to me the connection between relativism and religion. Oldstillwild answered on 09/16/06:There is no connection. | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 09/15/06 - Why distinguish between "right" and "wrong"? ... If all our mental activity has physical causes does it make sense to discuss what we should or should not do? If all our thoughts and decisions were derived from electrical currents in the brain surely our behaviour would be predetermined and the power of self-control would be an illusion. How could we choose what to think if our minds were no more than biological machines? Oldstillwild answered on 09/15/06:Well,
to be honest,
right and wrong , as well as all
other "decisions",
are just results......... | | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 09/14/06 - SOCRATES:
Socrates is often called the father of Western philosophy!
Why?
HANK
Oldstillwild answered on 09/15/06:I have no idea. | | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 09/14/06 - LIFE:
Is all of life philosophical? (You might wish to include science and mathematics, per se, in your answer)
HANK
Oldstillwild answered on 09/14/06:Hi Hank!
Id think so.
Imagine you couldnt think.......,
nobody at all.
What remains is plain physical being.
So apart from our physical presence,
my answer would be,yes,
all our thinking is purely philosophical.
no substance at all. | | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 09/14/06 - LIFE:
Is all of life philosophical? (You might wish to include science and mathematics, per se, in your answer)
HANK
Oldstillwild answered on 09/14/06:Hi Hank!
Id think so.
Imagine you couldnt think.......,
nobody at all.
What remains is plain physical being.
So apart from our physical presence,
my answer would be,yes,
all our thinking is purely philosophical.
no substance at all. | | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 09/14/06 - LIFE:
Is all of life philosophical? (You might wish to include science and mathematics, per se, in your answer)
HANK
Oldstillwild answered on 09/14/06:Hi Hank!
Id think so.
Imagine you couldnt think.......,
nobody at all.
What remains is plain physical being.
So apart from our physical presence,
my answer would be,yes,
all our thinking is purely philosophical.
no substance at all. | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 09/09/06 - To what extent is Islam a threat to peace? "Islamism is a reactionary ideology which kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present. Its success can only lead to a world of domination: man's domination of woman, the Islamists' domination of all the others. To counter this, we must assure universal rights to oppressed or discriminated people.
We reject cultural relativism , which consists in accepting that men and women of Muslim culture should be deprived of the right to equality, freedom and secular values in the name of respect for cultures and traditions. We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of "Islamophobia", an unfortunate concept which confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers."
http://tundratabloid.blogspot.com/2006/03/anti-islamism-manifesto Oldstillwild answered on 09/09/06:Well.....,
the fact of the matter is:
MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!
However,this is totally lost out of sight and mind.
The wwwwwwworldcommunity is overseeiing the power of communication and information and has totally lost its connection with its own history.
(In the Middle Ages,religious terror was unprecedented!).
We have several communities here and each community has its right to evaluate,to evolve.
Its a clash of different degrees of civilisation.
In this wwwwwwwwwworld,this wanwideworld or widewanworld it is hard to escape each others involvement in each others worlds.
So,what we should do is starting to respect each other worlds and acknowledge,that it is not possible to mingle easily and not done, to interfere in each others world.
This is purely a practical thing,that is to be clinsed from the wanwideworlwide hypocracy,especially the West,and from the wanwideworldwide imposing of ancient cultures,especially the East.
So,that particular rejection , mentioned above, is the nasty basis of all difficulties from West to East.
The striving for worlddomination is the nasty basis of all difficulties from East to West.
The bottomline is RESPECT.
Every community/culture has its own human right for development of, and on its own.
The word is RETREAT.
The word is RESTRAIN.
THE word IS RESPECT. | | Question/Answer | frack asked on 09/05/06 -
Are we good or bad? Should all laws, from theConstitution down to the lowest level municipal parking violation, bow to the philosophy 1) that all people are by nature good so fewer laws and regs are necessary, or 2) that all people are by nature bad and more laws and regs are necessary?
("All people" isn't absolute, but is more than the majority.) Oldstillwild answered on 09/05/06:Hi Freak!
Well,what shall we say......
laws are made for flaws.
The question is,are these flaws only on purpose flaws and are the flaws always fundamentally flaws and are no mistakes possible and is there no need for plain regulation and are there never particular flaw circumstances.........
I dont think,that the reason for laws is motivated in the good or bad nature of people in the first place.
Laws are based on majority-opinions.
If I were a cannibal in canniballand,well......,you know.....
For anything and everything the community agrees upon nearly 100% in the field of behaviour,there is no need for a law.
In theory (and in practice....)legislation may result in crimes against humanity-laws......,
depending in whch community you live...
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 09/02/06 - When, if ever, is assassination morally justified? Would you have supported the plot to kill Hitler? Oldstillwild answered on 09/02/06:I find it hard ever to morally justify an assassination.
The aim would be to eliminate a danger.
That doesnt and wouldnt necessarily mean killing someone.
However , had i lived at the time and given my zero possibilities and/or influence, and given the general Hitlarian circumstances and being human,for that matter,Id have morally supported the plot to kill Hitler,although at the same time I wouldnt have known if that would have changed the war-situation for the better....
Most of the time Followers are far more worse than the initiator-leader.......
So,practically:
When, if ever, is assassination morally justified?
Could be, depending on severe circumstances in general or personally.
philosophically:
When, if ever, is assassination morally justified?
In far less situations,than factual practice.
The difference is in the psychology of humans(masses) and the limitations of the individual and his/her circumstances.
I think,judiciary practice reflects the exceptional circumstances,that must be at hand to be able to justify an assassination.
(survival is a major aspect in this).
Certainly emotions must not be part of the justification,ever!
| | Question/Answer | | ttalady asked on 08/31/06 - Gut feelings Keifer Sutherland's character in the movie "Sentinel" has a great line. In converstation with another detective regarding a murdered man one detective says he has a gut feeling about what happened. Keifer then says something to the point of, "You want to know what I hate about gut feelings.... once you get them you will look only for the evidence which supports that."
How true, for most! That line alone makes me want to look outside the box of what I may have for gut feelings.
Would you say a gut feeling and intuition would be different or very similar?
He also mentioned that such is basic human nature, if so would that make it impossible to make wise decisions based on a gut feeling?
TTA
Oldstillwild answered on 08/31/06:Hi Ttalady!
Gutfeeling doesnt equal law,nor makes you perfect in your wisdom.
Gutfeeling might set you on the right track,but professionals should always widen their view to other possibilities.
If two or more persons are on the same case,then there are as many gutfeelings and if only one has a gutfeeling,it isnt wise for the others to adopt the gutfeeling of someone else.
Gut feeling and intuition in general are precious and worthy for each individual and based on individual capabilities and experiences and they could save lives.
Gutfeelings and intuition are an individual thing and anyone using his gut or intuition should and will always seek verification in order to be able to decide to build upon it.
If a detective has gutfeelings about a case,he will seek verification as soon as possible and a good detective will not impose his intuition on his collegues.
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 08/30/06 - What are your views on secular humanism? ..... To what extent is man "the measure of all things"? Oldstillwild answered on 08/30/06:Man isnt the measure of all things:
LIFE is the measure of all things.
Man,without the acknowledgement of LIFE is
no measure to anything,only a devastation. | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 08/29/06 - When should homicide by neglect be punished? ... If I see a person collapse in the street would it be wrong not to do anything to help? If so should that moral obligation be legally enforced? If not, why not? Oldstillwild answered on 08/29/06:Test case?
Yes,it would be wrong not doing anything.
Ever seen Seinfeld?
Using the company's airplane,getting nowhere,videoing the mugging of some fat guy,not doing anything,being arrested for that?
lawfully so! | | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 08/27/06 - RATIONALE:
Epictetus, a Roman Stoic, relates, " In order to live in a manner befitting our rational nature, we must make the best of what is in our power, and take the rest as it occurs."
Any comments about the penniless, the indigent, the destitute? Is my post a senseless evaluation of want and dearth that don't require reasoning?
HANK
Oldstillwild answered on 08/27/06:Well...,Hank,
in this context this question is too suggestive.
It would imply a precise distinction between "in our power" and "the rest" and the build-in excuses between them......and all on an individual bases....,virtually no acquired need for ethics.....
Although,there are more answers to your question,I think this question is more an accuse,than a starting point....
| | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 08/26/06 - MINIMUM WAGE:
"These unhappy times call for the building of plans ... that build from the bottom up and not from the top down, that put their faith once more in the forgottten man at the bottom of the economic pyramid." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt
Should ethical MOTIVATION be mandatory for all those who 'pull our chains?'
HANK
Oldstillwild answered on 08/27/06:Yes. | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 08/25/06 - Are mental events reducible to physical events? "At the present time the status of physicalism is similar to that which the hypothesis that matter is energy would have had if uttered by a pre-Socratic philosopher. We do not have the beginnings of a conception of how it might be true. In order to understand the hypothesis that a mental event is a physical event, we require more than an understanding of the word 'is'. The idea of how a mental and a physical term might refer to the same thing is lacking, and the usual analogies with theoretical identification in other fields fail to supply it."
http://members.aol.com/NeoNoetics/Nagel_Bat.html
How would you explain the alleged dependence of mental events on physical events? Oldstillwild answered on 08/25/06:Well,
let me solve the problem.
Is electricity dependent of physical events?
Id say so.
Mental events are often linked to elctricitificial activity.
Apart from that and without thinking of electricity at all,
anything in existence in whatever form,would be physical dependent.
I suggest anyone to prove,that there is anything in existence not dependent.
Anything.
Just one thing.
One very itchypitchyoolawitchy small transparent little not physical anything.
| | Question/Answer | | ttalady asked on 08/22/06 - Is there any philosophical... meaning to our inhibitions? Reason why we have such? Lord knows I have lost mine from time to time, wine always claims that one! I am always dying to get it out though.
Just wondering if we have some good meaning or reason behind what we hold onto? What is the purpose? It is my understanding that the best of the best never hold back. "Say it like it is"!
Your thoughts/quotes/ect please!
tta Oldstillwild answered on 08/22/06:Well.....,Tt,
the only reason is fear.
In short,
fear to lose what you think you have....
Well.....,
what do you think you have and could lose...? | | Question/Answer | | Coup_de_Grace asked on 08/21/06 - *Liberals* I read an opinion poll and sorta study of the American people...this was last year.
The results were that the majority of American people agreed with the programs of Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration and the Liberals that followed....that would be Medicare, Social Security, regulation of Capitalism and money products, etc.
The people who call themselves Moderates are most probably Liberals. Hence, some of the confusion about political labels in America. Oldstillwild answered on 08/21/06:Wel....,
just for the record........
This is basically the opposite of conserving
egoism. | | Question/Answer | | MicroGlyphics asked on 08/21/06 - What are Conservative conserving? It seems to me by definition, Conservatives are seeking to conserve some past not fully grasping that (1) nothing is permanent and (2) time moves only in one direction...forward.
If I were to take Conservatisism to the absurd, I would say we should not progress past the Palelithic period. All progress was at one time Progressive (as the word "progress" might relate). Conservatives want to go back to some past, whether it be the fantasy of 1950s Americana or Victorian England, or the days of the Magna Carta.
I understand Conservatives want to hold onto the the past under the auspices of it might be considered tried and true, but in the end, time waits for no one.
So, I restate my question: What are American Conservatives conserving? Oldstillwild answered on 08/21/06:Egoism. | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 08/19/06 - What is our best hope for a final explanation? "Perhaps our best hope for a final explanation is to discover a set of final laws of nature and show that this is the only logically consistent rich theory, rich enough for example to allow for the existence of ourselves."
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14263 Oldstillwild answered on 08/19/06:"a set of final laws of nature and show that this is the only logically consistent rich theory"
Its my experience,that there will never be a set that will show,because the final set is TO EXPERIENCE.
As long as people are not willing to experience,there will be no WORKING or accepted final explanation. | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 08/18/06 - What would be your reaction to the following? "I cannot refute your argument but I know you are mistaken." In what circumstances do you think this defence would be justified? Oldstillwild answered on 08/18/06:I think,the secret is in "I cannot refute"......
What does that really stand for?
Is that (1)REALLY what he/she said(would say) or
is that (2)the CONCLUSION/PERCEPTION of the other person(you).......
In (1),my answer would be:None
In (2),my answer would be:Lack of trust/willingness to doubt.
I think (2) is critical , as (a)it makes truth dependent from so-called scientific proof,while scientific proof itself is inferior to the true and practical philosophical analysis of life and science as such has absolutey no forward worth,but only back-up(non-progress),
and
as (b)the surrogate must be ANY illusive thought, surrounded by a wall of fanatic defense in order to protect the self chosen vulnarebility ,which would be left without it,having a blind eye for the destructive consequenses of this attitude........
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 08/16/06 - Silence implies consent, confusion or contempt? Often there are no replies to a clarification. It is unreasonable to expect discussions to last indefinitely but if an important point is ignored what conclusion would you draw? Oldstillwild answered on 08/16/06:Well....,
that says it all.
The level of this board is not. | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 08/14/06 - To what extent is the public brainwashed? . Oldstillwild answered on 08/14/06:I have no idea.
I also have no idea,what the ground is for your question.
I have no idea what public you mean.
I have no idea who was washing.
I have no idea what the washed state of mind would be.
I have also no idea,what state of mind had to be washed.
I only can say,that I dont feel brainwashed.
I take a shower everyday.
Hi. | | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 08/13/06 - CONVICTION:
I have learned that peace at the individual, family, community and world levels are inter-related, and a natural progression. I have learned about the power of one person, with a conviction, to make a difference in our communities and world.
Do these words apply to President Bush?
HANK
Oldstillwild answered on 08/13/06:.....and the difference is...........
Oscar...........Wilde.........
.....Wildebeast..........
Woscar.................
war.............
Worldwar..............
worrysome.....! | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 08/11/06 - I don't care what my Daddy did, no one in their right mind has the right to hold me responsible. Do you agree or disagree? Oldstillwild answered on 08/11/06:No.
Its not plausible for any son,not being interested at all in what his father did.
I am sure any son is very much interested. | | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 08/11/06 - TIME TO QUIT?
It's very hard to look into the soul of a person but perhaps it's much easier to appraise the thinking of a barbarian. I just heard over the news that Israel has AGREED to the cease fire terms laid down by the United Nations. It's 5:40 p.m. 8/11/06 where I live. I'll predict that the Hezbollah will not agree to the cease fire and contiunue to kill, kill kill. Tomorrow just might be a very hard day for our Israeli friends.
HANK
Oldstillwild answered on 08/11/06:Well,
If Israel agrees its fine with me.... | | Question/Answer | | Jon1667 asked on 08/11/06 - The Benighted Nations "The U.N. Human Rights Council on Friday condemned Israel for "massive bombardment of Lebanese civilian populations" and other "systematic" human rights violations, and decided to send a commission to investigate."
As usual, the Benighted Nations. Zambia and Uganda, among other enlightened folk.
The question is how anyone can take the BN seriously?
Oldstillwild answered on 08/11/06:I think,what counts is,what really is happening.....
And so far,the terrorists are being eliminated...
In all "games' all parties seek and would get some sort of satisfaction.
As long as the necessary process isnt affected,anything goes.... | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 08/09/06 - Is infinity relevant to human life? If so, how? It is often argued that the immensity of time and space detracts from the value and significance of life on earth. What is your opinion? Oldstillwild answered on 08/09/06:Well,
from what standpoint?(not to ask what that would be:importance)
lets try to be as objective as possible...
Historically:
Life on Earth is of no importance.
Who's talking:
The question itself will vanish with mankind...who's to ask/bother this nanomicropinpoint in infinity....
Future:
Its evident that life will not last , if only for the sun......,so
life on Earth cant be of significant importance in the cause of infinity.
However,here's some uncertainty as to the question if life will succeed in prolonging its existence beyond Earth and beyond its own degenerationprocess.......
and
which major influence could life develop in the cause of changing infinite important processes......?
Well,
Factual,I wouldnt know,but mobilising my boundries of reasonableness(my gutts(<:)~),
I tend to be convinced,that our nanomicropinexposure
is not capable of disturbing the future of the Universe dramatically......
There arent Earth's enough to make that happen......
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 08/08/06 - Why is it normally wrong to kill a person? Would killing a person in normal circumstances cease to be wrong if the majority decided it is not wrong? If not why not? Oldstillwild answered on 08/08/06:Morals ,as is "normal",are subject to environment.
If the majority of a defined community (a country)agrees to kill,then its moral to kill,or for that matter,if the country's majority agrees to do or not do anything,than it would be morally justified whatever that is.......within that community.Legislation is the result of current morals.The minority has to accept.
Outsiders or the minority, of course might be of a totally different opinion.
A country could be prosecuted by the rest of the world.
At any later point in time a new majority in power could decide to prosecute the former [government].
It is not sufficient if only a majority(of what?)would decide to kill.Everybody is to obey the law.
Example:Death penalty.
How odd it sounds to me,but in the USA the Death penalty is morally justified as the majority appears to accept this punishment.
States that do not have the death penalty ,nevertheless are responsible as well for states having it under the federal umbrella.
As morals are subjective and taking my own responsibility in this:
Killing a person in normal circumstances is wrong.Always.
Hi.
| | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 08/07/06 - Do you categorize large segments of people as being evil, or idiots, or traitors? If a person does this are they necessarily wrong. Oldstillwild answered on 08/08/06:yes. | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 08/06/06 - Why bother to discuss moral issues? If goodness and justice exist only in the mind why bother to discuss whether a war is justified? Oldstillwild answered on 08/06/06:Well,Tonyrey,
because thats where we exist at all as well........,
so,the true solution is to ban all but goodness out of our minds.......,even justice..... | | Question/Answer | | ttalady asked on 08/05/06 - He smelt of... just be nice. There was a man that once said, "Just be nice". A concept, belief, or really philosophy we normally don't perceive. He was a man of age, his hair was null, his body was of stank, his breath needed a mint. His truth, that I live by, Just be nice.
When others try there best to take the best away from you, just be nice. A smile is worth a million gold coins! A smile is the worst thing in the world, less a nuclear bomb. It tells you you are all right with me, what is your problem? We don't have to hold hands but I would like for you to admit hate is not the way to go...
TTA Oldstillwild answered on 08/05/06:Wll,TT,
I smellNsmile all the time....,
people just dont manage to make the proper decisions.....(<:)~ | | Question/Answer | | MicroGlyphics asked on 08/03/06 - Can one religion be superior to another religion? Given that religion is derived from the same matter as myth and faery tales, can one religion be superior? What would make it superior? Would the number of gods make a religion more superior? Would the cool religious outfits make it superior? What about the cool hats and regalia? Does the architecture of the places of worship come into play?
I was just wondering... Oldstillwild answered on 08/03/06:Of course not! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 08/02/06 - What is racism? Is it ever justified? . Oldstillwild answered on 08/02/06:Well,
I remember a group of people, Adam and the ants and they were all very happy with the situation......,so I guess,thats the bottomline.... | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 08/01/06 - What is a Palestinian?............. What makes a Palestinian a Palestinian and not a Syrian, Iranian or Hezbollahian? Oldstillwild answered on 08/01/06:well,
if youd say youre american,id believe you,in spite of the fact,that there always would be a percentage of liars,which Id take for granted....
In this case, the law of the big numbers is applicable and its no use questioning the outcome of the survey. | | Question/Answer | Jon1667 asked on 07/30/06 -
Fighting with one hand tied behind your backUnhappily, Israel seems to have taken an unfortunate leaf from the American book and decided to fight a war with one hand tied behind its back, against an enemy that is fighting with both arms, and using its feet too. Why they have decided on this unfortunate strategy is anyone's guess. They never had before. Something, no doubt, to so with compunction about the effects of doing so on civilians, and fear of world criticism. Of course, as America showed in Viet Nam, and now, in Iraq, this kind of thing never works and end up by causing far more suffering and death, than attacking at full strength and getting the matter over does. And, in addition, going to war half-heartedly, ends up causing more criticism and blame, than if it had been quickly done.
The Israeli military had learned to be as feckless as the American military. Perhaps, neither deserves to win. And as Hezbollah as just pointed out, reasonably enough, there is no reason for them to make any concessions for peace since no military victory has been scored over them. Sounds right to me. Oldstillwild answered on 07/30/06:Israel is following the proper tactics and my assessment is,that their goal will be achieved.
And thats what its all about,isnt it! | | Question/Answer | | jackreade asked on 07/30/06 - Meaning of Life "On the time scale of the history of the Earth an individual human lifetime is a mere blink of an eye. We're born, we live, and we die--and then we are "heard no more." Death is like a dreamless sleep from which we will never awake, our consciousness snuffed out forever [1]. If this life is all there is, what is the point of living? If we're all going to be dead in the end anyway, what difference does it make what we do with our lives? We may influence the lives of others, but they too are doomed to death. In a few generations most of our accomplishments will be totally forgotten, the memories of our lives reduced to a mere name etched on a tombstone or written on a genealogy chart. In a few centuries even our tombstones will be unreadable due to weathering; our skeletal remains will be all that is left of us. Barring fossilization, these too will be disintegrated into the earth and no trace of us will remain. The matter from which we were made will be absorbed into other organisms--plants, animals, even other human beings. New species will appear, flourish, and disappear, soon to be replaced by others filling in the niche left by their extinction. Human beings too will succumb to extinction. All life on Earth will be wiped out when our dying sun expands into a red giant, finally engulfing the Earth. Ultimately the universe will be incapable of supporting any life as it expands forever, leaving only residual heat and evaporating black holes, or contracts back on itself, fusing all matter and energy into a final Big Crunch. Either way, all life in the universe will disappear forever.
Such considerations once led Bertrand Russell to conclude that any philosophy worth taking seriously would have to be built upon a "firm foundation of unyielding despair" [2].
Does the finality of death make life meaningless......." Keith Augestine.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Changing the question, assuming an afterlife, does an afterlife give life meaning?
Any comments welcome... Oldstillwild answered on 07/30/06:Well,
1) There is no point of living.
If we're all going to be dead in the end anyway, what difference does it make what we do with our lives?
2)Well,selfishness can be no satisfying reason for living.......
We may influence the lives of others, but no trace of anyone will remain.
3)So,only the now is what really counts.
Ultimately the universe will be incapable of supporting any life as it expands forever, leaving only residual heat and evaporating black holes, or contracts back on itself, fusing all matter and energy into a final Big Crunch. Either way, all life in the universe will disappear forever.
4)Indeed.
Such considerations once led Bertrand Russell to conclude that any philosophy worth taking seriously would have to be built upon a "firm foundation of unyielding despair" [2].
5)Stupid man.Despair is the basis of all religions and present philosophies.(except one(<:)
Does the finality of death make life meaningless......." Keith Augestine.
6)Well,another guy in despair.....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Changing the question, assuming an afterlife, does an afterlife give life meaning?
See
2)
| | Question/Answer | | jackreade asked on 07/30/06 - Degrees of Truth How many logics?
If we think about logic at all, we probably think of it as one and indivisible - truth is truth and an argument is either valid or it isn't. But perhaps we need a logic that is more subtle than that, one that allows for degrees or truth. Adapted from another philosophy site.
Do you agree that there are degrees of truth? Oldstillwild answered on 07/30/06:Well,
its obvious to me,that youd like there to be more degrees of truth,
but there is only one,
and the rest is all make-believe....... | | Question/Answer | | jackreade asked on 07/30/06 - THE BLOB From USA dot com:
"An enormous amoeba-like structure 200 million light-years wide and made up of galaxies and large bubbles of gas is the largest known object in the universe, scientists say.
The galaxies and gas bubbles, called Lyman alpha blobs, are aligned along three curvy filaments that formed about 2 billion years after the universe exploded into existence after the theoretical Big Bang. The filaments were recently seen using the Subaru and Keck telescopes on Mauna Kea.
The galaxies within the newly found structure are packed together four times closer than the universe's average.
Some of the gas bubbles are up to 400,000 light years across, nearly twice the diameter of our neighboring Andromeda Galaxy. Scientists think they formed when massive stars born early in the history of the universe exploded as supernovas and blew out their surrounding gases. Another theory is that the bubbles are giant gas cocoons that will one day give birth to new galaxies.
The finding will give researchers new insight into what the structure of cosmos looks like at the largest scale.
"Something this large and this dense would have been rare in the early universe," said study team member Ryosuke Yamauchi from Tohoku University.
"The structure we discovered and others like are probably the precursors of the largest structures we see today which contain multiple clusters of galaxies," Yamauchi said.
Copyright 2006, SPACE.com Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Scientific discoveries are fascinating. There is always something new, something new to think about. Why anyone clings to ancient ideas about "God" puzzles me. Time for a new Philosophy of God, wouldn't you say? Oldstillwild answered on 07/30/06:Well,
read my faq.
There is no god.
And that has nothing to do with absolutely useless , but costly by all means "scientific discoveries" about what we call universe , stars,galaxy or whatever, by children playing in their sand-pit as if they're still wetting their pants...... | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 07/29/06 - Does moral subjectivism correspond to reality? There are frequently discussions about moral issues, e.g. whether the Allies were justified in bombing German cities during WW2. This suggests morality is not a question of opinion but of fact. For example, either the Allies were justified or they were not, regardless of an individual's point of view. Otherwise why bother to have a discussion? Oldstillwild answered on 07/29/06:Well,
discussions will alway be started,if.....
Appropriate or not.
You can take part or not.
Politically it depends on the degree of support for the issue,whatever the use of the issue itself might be.
As far as reality goes,time should be considered an important aspect,as well as who started the discussion.
Moral dismay is more an issue of the now(=the moment of events occurring),than of the future,despite later discussions,who in turn could be useful nevertheless.
So,
the 'moral subjectivism' as you call it,is more corresponding to reality as it happens more at the time of events itself.
The later, the more danger of bias of developed insights,changed morals,misuse of topics and......less usefulness and lessor level of realityworth.
At the end of the line we'll always have evaluation by historians,so virtually,discussions never end.......
The moment of the discussion about well or not bombing German cities at the time was "a question of fact" as you call it.
Hi!
| | Question/Answer | | MicroGlyphics asked on 07/28/06 - Israeli-Arab Conflict Why is it that if you want Israel to stop bothering people, you are considered to be anti-Semetic, yet if you want the Arabs to stop bothering people, you are considered to have "the right idea"?
The Israeli government would like nothing more then total genocide; yet when al-queda wants the flip side of this statement, the West's panties get in a bunch. Israel, al-queda, Hamas, and Hezbolla are all sponsors of terrorism, as is the United States (sic). Oldstillwild answered on 07/28/06:Well,MicroSpyro,
What is the question?
Do you want people to argue against your bias or
would you like to be convinced of other opinions or
are you just ventilating your opinion for what it is or
do you think,that your bringing up the truth
or
Do you want others to think,that they are wrong?
Well,
in my view youre entitled to your opinion,ut its really a bridge to far to expect from others(me at least)to find your statements reasonable.
You live with your bias,
Others live with them and
I live with my more mature analysis of the situation.
It no use argueing opinions like this,because its obvious,that you arent going to accept other opinions,let alone going to move.... | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 07/27/06 - "War against Terrorism"........................... It appears obvious that America, the UK and Israel are losing the "War against Terrorism". What, in your opinion must be done to accomplish this. Oldstillwild answered on 07/27/06:Its hard to fight terrorism.
Nobody can tell its outcome for sure,though......
If I had the recipe,I wouldnt reveil it here.....
However,
lets take Lebanon.
This country embraced a terrorist organisation in its democracy and whats more,its government.
That makes it impossible to fight that terrorism effectively.
So,the present strategy to tackle hezbollah is the only way.They dont need my advice there.....Im sure,they will make sure to reach hat goal!(a long way to go,though)
Nobody should be impressed by hezbollah-publicity provocations.
Israel is doing an effective and excellent job.
So,
till now nothing new.....
Then Afghanistan.
Fighting terrorism is tough and a longterm effort.We are currently busy,doing a reasonable job,so,they dont need my advise over there neither.....
Iran.
Is closely under surveillance.No need to escalate circumstances at this point.
Iraq.
Lately new measures have been announced and taken,to improve police exposure.Terrorism in Iraq is and should be handled as a domestic problem.Its tough,but there are no signs of giving in.
Overall.
I cant reach the conclusion,that we are losing the war on terrorism.Its a longshot and tough process with a lot more casualties to go.
I am convident,that eventually,terrorism will be beaten.
The overall goals include also financial means,tracking down networks,taking on supporters.
What Israel is doing,as sad as it is,shows,what ultimate measures are at hand to eliminate terrorists and their bases.
The main goal is to control events and minimize terrorist threats.
I think,that goal will be reached.(Re-)Educating people from within would be of great help to.
It happens too much,that people are forced to support terroristic groups(social control).
Once the (domestic)threat is taken away or people feel supported by the regular government,influence and possibilities of terrorits will deminish.
Dont give in and be confident.
Its my assesment,that the world is tackling terrorism as good as it gets,with plenty of options left. | | Question/Answer | | MicroGlyphics asked on 07/27/06 - Media Bias and the Problem with Talk Show Hosts I listen to both Right Wing and Left Wing radio talk shows during drive time. Both sides accuse the Mass Media, of which they are each components, of media bias. It happens that the Right insists the media is biased Left, and the Left insists the media is biased Right. Obviously, then, the media may well not be biased but rather is shoddy and diluted.
I read articles from both sides, too. Sure some so-called reporters might be biased. Just as sure some reporters are even competent, but on balance, reporting is like Swiss cheese, full of holes replete with omissions, intentionally and otherwise. Editors are complicit in this, too.
Talk show hosts on both sides, generally presumed to be preaching to their respective choirs, making all sorts of false and misleading statement as well as statements out of context with poorly research support (or lack thereof).
The way I attempt to get a fuller picture is to read and listen to both perspectives. Of course this is not an optimal approach because the world is not 2-dimensional. I know most people are guilty of Group Think and tend to flock like sheep to an ideological base. I also know that most people tend to single-source there news or severely restrict their input in an attempt to diminish cognitive dissonance, I suppose.
Do you feel the media is slanted or biased? If so, which way? How do you get your news? Oldstillwild answered on 07/27/06:Well,
first of all,its no use listening to various channels if the listener is stuck in his or her own bias....
secondly , be sure there truely are differences between sources.....
its no use to listen to different people but all of the same wing......
And now the question:
Do you feel the media is slanted or biased?
All media is.Nothing wrong with that.
So, be sure to get multiple views on events,so that you will be able to form your own balanced opinion.
However,
to stretch the point,
Would you seriously listen to Al Jazeera?
And give their and alike opinions a serious chance?
Would you be willing to consider to change your opinion or sides,for that matter?
Well,
there are always boundries.........
| | Question/Answer | | MicroGlyphics asked on 07/26/06 - Would tensions in the Middle East be as high as it is now if the US hadn't invaded Iraq? Now that the US has beaten the hornets' nest of the Middle East, the hornets are restless and stinging. The US is upset that it cannot seem to put the hornets back in the nest, and so continues to attack the nest directly and through proxy. While I agree that some hornets have been stirring for years and decades, would they be as agitated if the US hadn't bothered them?
The US has given as rationale WMD and 9/11 as provocations for having attacked the sovereign nation of Iraq, an impoverished and despotic yet secular state. None of this was proven true, so the rationale was shifted to Democracy, but the US does not respect a democracy when it isn't fashioned in a manner acceptable by the US, say, Iran, Lebanon, and Venezuela.
Soviet-style Communism was an abject failure in part by two large reasons: attempts to micro-manage the macro-economy (let's call this meddling), and offensive interference by Western powers (let's call this meddling). So, meddling appears to be at the root of failure. Why, then, have we not learnt our lessons and stopped meddling in the affairs of otherespecially sovereignnations?
Of course it should not be a secret that I am opposed to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, but that does not diminish the quality of the question: Would tensions in the Middle East be as high as it is now if the US hadn't invaded Iraq? Oldstillwild answered on 07/26/06:Well,Microspyro,
thats an interesting question.
Energy-aspect.
Invading Iraq had primarily a longtermaspect:Energy.
Whats been changing eversince?
Well,I happen to notice a shift in onetrackminded stupidthinking of the Bushadministration about energy-supply developments.
Its my guess,that if alternative energy-resource developments really can be fastened,one might regret this aspect of the motivations to invade Iraq.
However,sadly this invasion was needed to have the energy-policy of the Bushadministration shifted!
So,no invasion,no shift,hence longtermthreat,hence invasion.
Its clear,that The Middle-East would be not sympathatic to the West.
We could have lived with Sadam Hussein a bit longer.
However,there was still a job to finish since Kuweit......
After all Bush still is a onetrackminded stupid thinker.
Maybe it seems,The Middle East is a mess,because of the invasion of Iraq,but in fact,everything in the Middle East would be as it is now,except for Iraq,without the invasion.
So,
my answer to your general question about tensions in the Middle East,would be,
No,it wouldnt have made a big a difference,given Lebanon,Hamas,Hezbollah,Bin Laden,Israel,Palestinians,Iran,Al Qaida,Syria.......
I think,its even an advantage,that USA , being a potential threat to Iran and others,is currently present in the Middle East.....and Iraq would have been a serious pain in the ass in all developments re Israel etc,without it presence....
So,
the mess in the Middle East could have been possibly even worse,without the invasion of Iraq!
But a mess it is.....
Another fine mess......
Its such a mess,that I experience such a mess of possible messes,that the capacity of this forum would be too limited to process it all.......
Somtimes a mess just couldnt be bigger than it is......
Well,
thats my mess-age.
| | Question/Answer | | MicroGlyphics asked on 07/26/06 - Talking Points: World War III So the Right Wing agenda is couching the current fiasco in the Middle East as World War II. I have heard over a half dozen references, including Matt Lauer this morning on the Today show and affirmed by his guest Bill Bennett. This is not to mention Newt Gingrich and the Sunday shows. (It is funny how often I hear the term Islamofascists and how it is rendered as a term somehow scarier than the fascism we face here under the Bush-Cheney cabal.)
Are we in the midst of World War III? Does this undeclared so-called war even qualify as a war? What scope must one have to qualify as a World War, political rhetoric, and aggrandisement aside? Oldstillwild answered on 07/26/06:Well,I guess they are right.
We're fighting allover the place.
We might as well call it WWIII.
Saying that,brings all this action a bit more homewad and gives a more realistic feeling about it.
Its a very concerning situation nowadays and it doesnt need a lot,to have it ignite truely ww-action on a larger scale.
At least I cant see,how to prevent escalations......
All fighting is escalating gradually......
You name it!
Enjoy the moment! | | Question/Answer | | MicroGlyphics asked on 07/25/06 - Fundamental Flaw in Liberalism Among the tenets of Liberalism is the concept to live and let live. Conservatism does not have the same constraint. Taking these statements as true, is Liberalism doomed to failure?
Liberalism abiding be this live and let live mentality espouse tolerance as a model. This is to say that a Liberal can tolerate (in principle) a Conservative (so long as it doesn't encroach unreasonably on him). Conversely, a Conservative eschews tolerance in favour of laws derived from On High. Therefore, the Liberal does not have to tolerate the Liberal (or the heathen or the whatever).
Of course once the Liberal feels encroached upon, his level of tolerance has been breached and he reacts, but given the dichotomy of vantages, can there ever be a truly (not superficially) amicable coexistence for these two groups? Oldstillwild answered on 07/25/06:Well,what do you think?! | | Question/Answer | | MicroGlyphics asked on 07/25/06 - Why is Christian Fundamentalism Better than Islamic Fundamentalism? Is Fundementalism in and of itself a "bad" and failed concept? Oldstillwild answered on 07/25/06:Well,
in my view,
fundamentalism of the true principles
is the very best and only concept to go......
(So,
its not about fundamentalism,its about what youd be fundamentalistic about!) | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 07/25/06 - What can we learn from history about war? ... Oldstillwild answered on 07/25/06:Its an unncessary necessity..... | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 07/24/06 - How can nuclear conflict be prevented? ............ Oldstillwild answered on 07/24/06:Well....,
my question would be:
Why? | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 07/24/06 - Who is benefiting from the Middle East conflict? ... Oldstillwild answered on 07/24/06:How about a question like this!
I wouldnt know. | | Question/Answer | | hmghaly asked on 07/23/06 - Lebanon!! I cannot believe how almost everybody here view the situation in Lebanon. How can the response to the kidnapping of two soldiers be the destruction of a whole country, with all indescriminate killing and maiming... and when Hezbollah responds- then everyone points to it and says: "see what the terrorists are doing!" I am just so sickened of all international hypocracy surrounding this issue...
All the best,
Hussein Oldstillwild answered on 07/23/06:Taking sides wouldnt clarify anything ,just leading to condemnation of one of the two.
whats here at stake is a government(Lebanese),who is allowing a terrorist organisation(Hezbollah),opeating from its territory,allowing them to use thousands of previously installed missiles only for the purpose of terroristic acts against civilians;
and
a country,thats been attacked without any warning or inflicting cause,retaliating against this government as well as against the terrorists,trying to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties at the same time,which is difficult,because the terrorists are (mis)using civilians in their tactics.
What is needed is a (provisional)solution and not a condemnation.
The goal should be,Lebanon to become terroristthreatfree to Israel. | | Question/Answer | | ttalady asked on 07/19/06 - A hunch.... .... I am thinking that Bush might be in on this war. Call it what you will but strategy wise it is a win win for America. Israel on the offensive, makes me wonder, did Bush say "Just go for it". That is well before the bombs began.
I hear Bush, I really listen to what he does and how he handles some sticky situations. He is a risk taker. For the sake of the US, I believe yes, we'll see I guess. He defiantely makes mistakes. He stands strong and his beliefs are more than most can say.
In my opinion Americans have dealt with the worst, we can handle pretty much anything. Not even talking 911, we have a history. He is trying to look into the future, we can handle the pain right now.
So do you think such a hunch is silly, plain wrong, or a possibility? My Father is still pondering, he is fearful of WW3, it is here. Time to deal with it!
TTA Oldstillwild answered on 07/21/06:Well...,Ttalady,
I agree with you,that Bush supports whats going on in Lebanon.
Over his entire presidency to date,he wouldnt care a bit about Israel,though,
so,he's just hitchhiking on events and I am sure ,he will gracefully accept all occurrences in favour of his
anti-terrorists-pro-oil policy-goals.
I bet,he strongly hopes for any Iranian mistakes.....
Hence,its in the interest of Bush,that Israel asap will get its hands free for any supportive actions on Bush's behalve.... | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 07/18/06 - What was the origin of the genetic code?...... "One half of the modern system of coded chemistrythe genetic code and the sequences it conveysis, from a chemical perspective, arbitrary. The other half of the system of coded chemistrythe activity of the proteinsis, from a chemical perspective, necessary. In life, the two halves are coordinated. The problem follows: how did thatthe whole systemget here?...
The question, of course, is which of the two steps came first. Without life acquiring some degree of foresight, neither step can be plausibly fixed in place by means of any schedule of selective advantages. How could an ancestral form of RNA have acquired the ability to code for various amino acids before coding was useful?
Could the two steps have taken place simultaneously? If so, there would appear to be very little difference between a Darwinian explanation and the frank admission that a miracle was at work. If no miracles are at work, we are returned to the place from which we started, with the chicken-and-egg pattern that is visible when life is traced backward now appearing when it is traced forward."
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Archive/DigitalArchive.aspx?panes=1&aid=12102024_1 Oldstillwild answered on 07/18/06:Well...,
in my view it just happened.
Genetics is not at all about fixation.
The genes are very dynamically,totally free with millions and trillions of possible combinations in a constant process of modification.
Its absolutely an area to draw no other conclusion,than that its a no go area if one would like to ever leave the speculation
fase,while yet there is even no room for any speculation at all!
Maybe it looks like a code has been found,there is no ground what so ever to jump to the conclusion,that it is a fixed,usable,phenomenon.
Being it a no go area,never to be controlled or responsibly used,its of no importance what of which was first,because people wouldnt know,what they are talking about.
EVER!
Or in other words:
People are more than just like criminals,who are using gentechnology in their effort to control Life!
| | Question/Answer | | jackreade asked on 07/18/06 - Why Now? I have been thinking a bit today about why Iran is directing its flying monkeys(Hezbollah) to start a war with Israel NOW?
It seems that Iran has "won" the war in Iraq...they now have a Shi'a Crescent, greatly increased presence on the world stage, widening influence......yet scorn for their nuclear ambitions and programs.
Or, are America and Israel likely to have a greater advantage in the eyes of President Immadinthehead.
Why Now?
Comments? Oldstillwild answered on 07/18/06:I dont think,that Iran is directing anything.
Years of preparation by hezbollah made hezbollah to decide what to do and when.
I think the Gaza developments are more important in this respect.
Its quite possible,that hezbollah would have anticipated vaste support of surrounding countries.
Well,
thats the mistake hezbollah made.......
| | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 07/15/06 - Is a persons appearance a symbol of a persons moral character? Is a persons appearance a symbol of a persons moral character? Oldstillwild answered on 07/15/06:Well.....,
I think so,yes.
However,
who's to identify which morals that are..... | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 07/13/06 - What keeps criminals under control in a society? What keeps criminals under control in a society? Is it just laws, courts and Police? The answer seems clear enough, what keeps criminals under control is the majority. However, what if the society is not civilized? What then? Let us take for instance a suicide bomber of the sort like those who died on 9/11, or one who blows up a caf full of people in Israel, what is their ultimate aim, for apparently the actual destruction is not the goal, in a military sense. Oldstillwild answered on 07/13/06:What keeps criminals under control???????
Nobody!
We only are able to clean the mess up!AFTERWARDS!
All communities are "civilized".
Even criminals.
The goals of people are as different and as many as there are people.
There is no difference.
You just have to take care of,that you are in the right community,otherwise youll just feel afraid all the time.....,because you dont fit in..... | | Question/Answer | | NCohen asked on 07/10/06 - Quality of Philosophical Arguments The following quotation is taken from Russell's "History of Western Philosophy":
"There is little of true philosophic spirit in Aquinas. He does not, like the Platonic Socrates, set out to follow wherever the argument may lead. He is not engaged in an inquiry, the result of which it is impossible to know in advance. Before he begins to philosophize, he already knows the truth; it is declared in the Catholic faith. If he can find apparently rational arguments for some parts of the faith, so much the better; if he cannot, he need only fall back on revelation. The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading. I cannot, therefore, feel that he deserves to be put on a level with the best philosophers either of Greece or modern times."
Why it's so difficult to have a genuine philosophical conversation with someone who firmly believes in God? The Catholic Philosophy section in Russell's book demonstrates how philosophy was largely dead in the dark ages, and was only revived after the reformation.
While there are a number of theologians who did make some significant philosophical contributions, their philosophy was still essentially guided by faith and thus significantly 'tainted'.
Aren't atheists and agnostics the only people in an intellectual positon to philosophize about the nature and possibility of God?
Many thanks,
Nigel Oldstillwild answered on 07/11/06:Well....,
anyone can.
Philosophy is no goal,but a means.
A means to find the truth about what we would call existence,reality.
In this truth there is a spiritual part.
No doubt about that!
The difference between religion and most philosophies,is that religions would claim to have reached the goal.
This goal,God,is false.
Much of religions is about respect,however,which would be a major issue in the ultimate philosophy.
If youve reached your goal,there is no need for searching,only for convincing.
So,
youre right as far as stuck fundamentalists,not willing to listen,argue or discuss are concerned.
But it is important to include all people in finding what we would call truth,reality etc.
The most easy,although unfruitfull thing one could do is discussing issues with likeminded....
Hi! | | Question/Answer | | NCohen asked on 07/11/06 - Origins Do you think that Art and religion come from the same human yearnings? Is religion a off-shoot of Art?
I think we can all agree that language is the greatest invention of mankind, what are the next greatest inventions? Medicine second? Art? God?
I am hopeful for your thoughts.
Nigel Oldstillwild answered on 07/11/06:I think,there rather are discoveries than inventions...,
the best discoveries still to come.
In the field of unity,unifying,sobriety,humility and contemplating.
Hi! | | Question/Answer | | Coup_de_Grace asked on 07/11/06 - Inventing an Emotion I have been having a discussion with my wife, Susan, who insists that romantic love was an emotion invented and popularized by William Shakespeare. To bolster her argument, she quotes me Professor Harold Bloom. I have to admit, she makes a lot of sense.
Are there other invented emotions? Self-pity, is that one?
Ben
Banjamin and Susan Grace
Oldstillwild answered on 07/11/06:Well,Coup de Grace,
Nobody is to invent emotions......
not even Shakespeare...!
The most a man can do is describing emotions.....
Maybe you are to invent your surprising emotions now.....
Congratulations!
Hi! | | Question/Answer | | cheriskae asked on 07/10/06 - Sociology William Golding wrote "Lord of the Flies " after taking part in the bloody D-Day landing in France during World War II . Do you agree with his belief that violence is part of human nature?
Oldstillwild answered on 07/10/06:Life is about survival.
At all cost.
Survival does include the possibility of violence.
So,violence eventually,is part of the survival strategy of life.
People are not perfect.
People would lose the patience to communicate and the willingness to share.
People would lack the willingness to prevent violence.
Therefore its justified to conclude,that people are unable to avoid violence.
Based on this unability its fair to state,that violence is part of human nature.
The violence thing will always prevail over anything else.
or in other words:
There wont be ever in the future a state of quality of society which excludes any violence.
We are able to disallow violence and to condemn it,but never to prevent it.
All=One
we are all responsible.
Save one life and youll save humanity.
Kill one life and youll compromise humanity.
Hi! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 07/10/06 - To what extent do we make ourselves what we are? "Liberty, in other words, is not indeterminism, but self-determination; for "our choosing affects ourselves no less than the chosen or rejected objects, and ... it is up to each of us to decide for himself what he is to make of himself".
http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Acti/ActiSmit.htm Oldstillwild answered on 07/10/06:Id modify this:
"Liberty, in other words, is not indeterminism nor self-determination; for "our choosing affects ourselves no less than the chosen or rejected subjects, and ... it is up to each of us to decide for himself what he is to make of himself,within the constraints of genetic properties and social relations and the structures of society ".
Hi! | | Question/Answer | | ttalady asked on 07/07/06 - Complicating human issues Why is it the human emotion blocks some basic facts in life?
Example "prejudice". I still have yet to meet a person that is not, as they may claim they are not, everyone is prejudice in one way or another. Whether it be color, religion, sexual orientation, or get to the nitty griddy of life style (rich/poor), children/no children, married/not married, ect ect.
Call me naive, maybe I am, I view being prejudice as the mear natural concept Survival of the Fittest. Human emotions tend to try and erase this fact of life.
For instance, I always use the canine as an example, a pack of dogs in the wild will have a leader, followers, and the ones that wish to take over the pack. There is an order of how things go and how they have no emotion when there is a sick dog, they take it out. You can not infect the pack. This comes to everything this pack lives for, food, land, lively-hood. This is how they survive.
"Man" messes this working concept and natural order with emotion. I call it the "deserving concept". That everyone should live like I, no way. You live as you serve yourself, your family, your pack. I do not need to feed your family, you don't need to feed mine, you get it. This is life, this is a pure fact and no matter how the human emotion trys to change that, that will always be a fact. We live survial of the fittest, we are prejudice in what takes away our survival. We all have different prejudices however what they are is what makes us think that our survival is threatened.
Being prejudice is knowing the "Fight or Flight" emotion. It is not a good day bad day emotion.
I am prejudice with illegal immigrants, welfare recipiants, government officials, credit card businesses, and anyone that believes they deserve a hand out in life that has not handed out in life.
American Indians still want pay back, African Americans want pay back, Katria Victims want pay back, and none the less those 9/11 people are not happy with the million they got. We are all victims in life some way or another, get over it!
Survival of the Fittest. Keep your pack close to you, know that being prejudice is only surviving (using my definition), and take some emotion out of facts in life.
All right, give it to me! I'm a wacko huh?
tta Oldstillwild answered on 07/07/06:Yeah,youre a wacko huh,Ttalady!
and
youre not alone huh......
Well.....,
let me say,if you really think,that prejudice is the issue here,then youre really acting from prejudism....
No one else can argue this,because you are the only one,who is able to determine if prejudism is your leading motivation.....
The very and only thing I can say is:
Dont project your prejudistic way of thinkin' on others.....
because there is a lot more other than prejudiction that motivates people in decision making....... | | Question/Answer | | ttalady asked on 07/07/06 - Peace in your life? Do you have true peace in your life? I suppose not everyone would define peace the same, some look for it around them, some look for it with in them, and others are just looking.
I find peace in myself with the love I share with my husband, family, pets, and just the fact the lord gave me one more minute on this Earth to live. Such a hard concept to get to really. A journey of facing your own evils and letting go of the ones around you. To hold on to what is true in your life right here and now and planning a way to handle every day like it is the best day of your life.
I have been away from this site for a while now and have grown in many ways. My marriage is wonderful, my family is the still same old family it has always been, and our land is becoming such a beautiful place. I have learned not to rush in life. One day at a time, take the detour even if you can get to your destination with a road block well past it. Listen, listening is so... very important.
We are planning on trying to get pregnant next year. Planning, I know, everyone says, "Just do it, you can not plan it". Why not? I am 31, he is 34, we are finacially stable, we love eachother and are best friends. Don't you need a foundation before you build a house? I have that foundation now, perfect, no such thing, stable yes. I have shocked my girlfriends with saying, "I am just enjoying my husband right now, he's all mine, I'm all his". It brings them to a wondering look like, "I need that", but with babies, oh they change EVERYTHING. We are both equally excited and ready.
Have you found peace in your life? If so what is your peace, what brings you to having true comfort, understanding, a non-restlessness being?
Best to you all!
tta Oldstillwild answered on 07/07/06:Ill just congratulate you with your current
way and feeling about life,Ttalady!
An everlasting moment..... | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 07/06/06 - Evil and psychopathy .........................................."A psychopath is defined as having no concern for the feelings of others and a complete disregard for any sense of social obligation. They seem egocentric and lacking insight and any sense of responsibility or consequence. Their emotions are thought to be superficial and shallow, if they exist at all. They are considered callous, manipulative and incapable of forming lasting relationships, let alone of any kind of love. It is thought that any emotions which the true psychopath exhibits are the fruits of watching and mimicking other people's emotions. They show poor impulse control and a low tolerance for frustration and aggression. They have no empathy, remorse, anxiety or guilt in relation to their behavior. In short, they truly are devoid of conscience." (wikipedia)
Do you believe all evil behaviour is caused by psychiatric disorders, e.g. psychopathy?
Oldstillwild answered on 07/06/06:Well....,
its easy to say yes......,
it would include all of us..........,anyway.
Its easy to say yes.......,
it would maybe open eyes of many,who arent diagnosed as such.
Its dangerous to say yes......,
it would include the possible conclusion,that no one ever is to be held accountable for his/her deeds......
Its easy to say yes......,
it would mean,that we all are normal......
Well.....,
here's what we should do:
consider ourselves being normal and accountable for all we do at all times.
We may use diagnostics as a tool in order to help other people curing or to protect the community,but never to determine guilt.
The phenomenon psychiatric disorder is a human defined phenomenon to make distinctions.
Im not a doctor.
Often I feel (normal) people are crazy.
If I were to define disorder,Id say,any behaviour short of love is disorderly behaviour.
This means,that we all can do something about it,if we want to.
Disorders to be defined are those which apparently would function beyond one's will.
So,
I refuse to let people get away with would- be disorders!
Most evil we can prevent from happening ourselves!
The answer to your question therefore , should be:NO
How!
| | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 07/04/06 - THIS IS NO TRICK QUESTION:
The other evening I had a friend over for supper. She helped me prepare the food. While doing so, she asked, "Honey, why are you using a dish towel with a hole in it?" I quickly responded by saying, "A towel with a hole in it can do the same chore as a towel without a hole."
Question: Is my answer common sense or philosophy?
HANK
Oldstillwild answered on 07/04/06:I think,both,Hank,both.
What happened? | | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 07/02/06 - ART:
Its pretty difficult to come up with a good definition of art. A recent attempt from John Carey in "What Good are the arts" is this: "A work of art is anything that anyone has ever considered a work of art, for whatever reason."
Do you have your own definition of art?
HANK
Oldstillwild answered on 07/02/06:Well,Hank,
the problem with art is,that you have to know what art is,to be able to define it.....
Nevertheless,Ill try to find a definition...
First of all Ill bring the object of art down to a single piece,for art in general isnt suitable for findinga definition.
Furthermore,Ill exclude any materialistic value,because art is as subjective as subjective can be and as soon money is involved it becomes trade...
So,
I imagine encountering one object of any kind and will find out,when I would be willing to caracterize it as art.
Furthermore Ill exclude arts of nature,although Im not sure if thats all art there is ,as well as,that all arts would be from nature's origine....
Now,
where am I,
The object must be made on purpose and skillfully.
The object must be a very example of creativity and originality.
I should feel great admiration and a feeling of being moved by this creativity
(I wouldnt necessarily find it beautiful.
The creator should stand for it,preferably having signed the piece,trying to sell it and/or I should feel the desire to own it or would imagine,that others would desire to own it and/or I would wish,I would be able to create such a thing or alike too.
Well,Hank,
These are the aspects,that come to my mind......
So,what is art according to Oldstillwild:
A genuinely original object,purposely created by a person who would or could stand for it and which nature it is to move people.(<:)
Hi! | | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 06/30/06 - DEMOCRACY & EQUALITY:
Did John Locke base much of his philosophy on FREEDOM and CHRISTIANITY?
HANK
Oldstillwild answered on 06/30/06:I found this on:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/
John Locke (b. 1632, d. 1704) was a British philosopher, Oxford academic and medical researcher, whose association with Anthony Ashley Cooper (later the First Earl of Shaftesbury) led him to become successively a government official charged with collecting information about trade and colonies, economic writer, opposition political activist, and finally a revolutionary whose cause ultimately triumphed in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Much of Locke's work is characterized by opposition to authoritarianism. This opposition is both on the level of the individual person and on the level of institutions such as government and church. For the individual, Locke wants each of us to use reason to search after truth rather than simply accept the opinion of authorities or be subject to superstition. He wants us to proportion assent to propositions to the evidence for them. On the level of institutions it becomes important to distinguish the legitimate from the illegitimate functions of institutions and to make the corresponding distinction for the uses of force by these institutions. The positive side of Locke's anti-authoritarianism is that he believes that using reason to try to grasp the truth, and determining the legitimate functions of institutions will optimize human flourishing for the individual and society both in respect to its material and spiritual welfare. This in turn, amounts to following natural law and the fulfillment of the divine purpose for humanity. Locke's monumental An Essay Concerning Human Understanding concerns itself with determining the limits of human understanding in respect to God, the self, natural kinds and artifacts, as well as a variety of different kinds of ideas. It thus tells us in some detail what one can legitimately claim to know and what one cannot. Locke also wrote a variety of important political, religious and educational works including the Two Treatises of Government, the Letters Concerning Toleration, The Reasonableness of Christianity and Some Thoughts Concerning Education.
Maybe its of any help,
Hi! | | Question/Answer | | jackreade asked on 06/29/06 - Is God Belief Required for Objective Moral Values? "Moral arguments for theism include attempts to establish the existence of God from some (alleged) fact about morality. Many people hold that objective moral values are required to make sense of certain facets of human life, for instance, and that God is the only possible source of such values. The metaethical moral argument contends that the existence of objective moral values either entails the existence of God or at least is best explained by theism (e.g., William Lane Craig, Robert Adams). One version of the argument runs as follows:
1. If there are objective moral values then God exists.
2. There are objective moral values.
3. Therefore, God exists.
Even if we grant the existence of objective moral values, the argument fails because the first premise is groundless. The rationale for thinking that objective moral values require God is the assumption that only God could ground the objectivity of ethics. But, in fact, there appears to be no way that the existence of God could ground moral truths--anymore than it could ground mathematical or scientific truths. The standard objection to the divine command theory of ethics, discussed elsewhere on this site, shows that the objectivity of ethics cannot be grounded in God.
A related epistemological moral argument contends that our knowledge of the existence of objective moral values entails that God exists. Other moral arguments include the prudential moral argument, which claims that we should believe in both God and an afterlife so that fear of judgment after death will deter us from committing immoral acts. (Belief in an afterlife is held to be necessary because consistent judgment clearly does not occur before death, and belief in a just God is necessary to ensure that the good are rewarded and the evil punished in the afterlife.)"
-- Keith Augustine
From website infidels dot org as is my previous post.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Oldstillwild answered on 06/29/06:Well.....,
In the absence of acknowledging LIFE AS SUCH , being worth and deserving all possible objective moral values,
people will create an object like a god......
But,
most of all,
what really counts,
is the way people deal with their convictions!
Its absolutely absurd to give any god any role in violence,killing,war or terrorism!
And the very most of all sad aspect to this topic is,that there isnt any god at all!
and the very most sorrowful thing about that is,
that LIFE itself wouldnt give people any ligitimacy to use violence as a means of imposing their views!
The sting which should be taken away and dealt with in this ,is the illusion,that their would be any gain to self-sacrifice or violence in general at all!
Conclusively anyway,its not a god-thing,its a peoples-thing.
There is no god,but IF there would be such a phenomenon,it would be appallingly shocked by the moron stupidity, people show in their creativity to gloze over bloodbathing!
Plain common sense(which has been allienated from religion)should come to this conclusion!
It means ,that people,imposing any power,based on religious convictions,are plain criminals. | | Question/Answer | | jackreade asked on 06/29/06 - Atheists Wonder.... ...whether Christianity has the resources going forward into the future to provide meaning through their doctrines as problematic as requiring another to pay for your own sins.
Comments? Oldstillwild answered on 06/29/06:Well......,
Its only a very,very good idea,to bring the religion topic back to
plain human sense!
......(how dangerous this is......!)......
help! | | Question/Answer | | rosends asked on 06/27/06 - "Goodness" I've decided to tilt at windmills and try to figure out what "goodness" is. A silly quest, I know.
I came up with the following definition and have proceeded to poke holes in it. I ask for your input to help me refine it.
"Goodness is the practice of not being self-centered."
This definition, though, ignores motives and could result in my action being "good" without my intending it to be.
"Goodness is the intentional practice of not being self-centered."
The of course I can ask the same question I always think of: "Can anyone ever do something truly altruistic?" Isn't the satisfaction of doing good enough to negate the label altruism?
I don't know. Oldstillwild answered on 06/27/06:Hi Rosends!
I think,goodness is about intention first of all.So in that I agree with you fully.
Then I think,that doing things at the cost of oneself isnt goodness per se.
This would be self-sacrifice and I am of the opinion,that life isnt meant to be self-sacrificing for anybody.(Im speaking of general behaviour,not of very exceptional circumstances)
So,in the definition oneself shouldnt be excluded at all!
Therefore the bottomline of goodness in general behaviour should be,doing no harm to oneself to a degree,that one is feeling uncomfortable with one's deed.
This makes the behaviour honest with respect to oneself and others.
Altruism would be doing good to others with on the positive side of oneself only the spiritual pleasure.
Doing good is anything in between altruism and treating others as thy wished to be treated by others.
How about that?
Hi! | | Question/Answer | | ttalady asked on 06/25/06 - One last chance.... I believe it's been a year and a half, closer to two. I have missed you all and have grown so.... very much. I left when a certain person on this site opened up my eyes. I always thought she/he liked me/understood however I hurt this person enough to block me. I heard you and hope you will except my apology!
From there, I have learned much. About this world, myself, and people in general. I really wanted to start fresh, new poster, but it would not let me. I am stuck with my maiden name, LOL!
So let me start with this:
Why can American boys not play futbol?
Just kiddin'
There is just one question really, how are ya'll?
Oldstillwild answered on 06/25/06:Well,TT,we just had the TT overhere and because Americans cant play football,let alone futbol,and because Im in a best mood,I say to you,Cheers!
Hows Cliff? | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 06/22/06 - What is the solution to this predicament? .........."We know that we are animals, parts of the natural order, bound by laws which tie us to the material forces which govern everything. We believe that the gods are our invention, and that death is exactly what it seems. Our world has been disenchanted and our illusions destroyed. At the same time we cannot live as though that were the whole truth of our condition. Even modern people are compelled to praise and blame, love and hate, reward and punish. Even modern people. . . are aware of self, as the centre of their being; and even modern people try to connect to other selves around them. We therefore see others as if they were free beings, animated by a self or soul, and with more than a worldly destiny. If we abandon that perception, then human relations dwindle into a machine-like parody. . . the world is voided of love, [moral] duty and [aesthetic] desire, and only the body remains."
Roger Scruton, An Intelligent Person's Guide To Modern Culture, p68.
What is your opinion? Oldstillwild answered on 06/22/06:I dont feel part of this analysis at all.
Its all about perception and the perception
of perspective and the ability or state of mind to cope with the this perspective.....
This guy,Roger,seems to feel to be able to cope with what he says or maybe he was shocked first and could write about it,anyway,if he can write this down and cope with what he was writing,then why shouldnt anyone else be able to cope with this kind of thinking?
So,
lets say,all he says is true,all he says is the true perception.....
So what?!
Did he hang himself?!
I dont think so! | | Question/Answer | | Erewhon asked on 06/21/06 - Dali on Memories ... ... ...
"The difference between false memories and true ones is the same as for jewels: it is always the false ones that look the most real, the most brilliant."
-Salvador Dali, pixit (1904-1989)
Is Dali right about this or not, and why?
Oldstillwild answered on 06/21/06:He is right.
People are wishful thinkers.
They prefer to remember the old days as they wished them to be.
Even fantasies can be so strong,that they become "true".
Some people start to truely believe their lies,totally forgetting the truth.(for real) | | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 06/20/06 - THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE:
Is English on its way to becoming the world's unofficial international language?
HANK
Oldstillwild answered on 06/20/06:I wouldnt know.
If China really becomes a worldly nation,then ,maybe we all will be speaking Chinese in a couple of decades....
http://www.friesian.com/upan.htm | | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 06/20/06 - A HARD ONE:
Who was the first PERSON to speak the English language?
HANK
Oldstillwild answered on 06/20/06:Maybe Ill do some more research on this,Hank,but I think,this would be a very interesting link to the subject of ancient and the origin of (english) language. | | Question/Answer | | jackreade asked on 06/20/06 - Critical Thinking Re: Iraq Isn't it true that America won the War on Iraq and claimed that victory in the (in)famous speech by Bush on an aircraft carrier....THE MISSION ACCOMPLISHED SPEECH...when he declared the war over!....war was over then because the US Military Forces invaded Iraq, captured the capital city, scattered their army, sent their leader fleeing (and he was eventually captured and put on trial). War over.
The problem for America has been THE OCCUPATION. An extremely short war, a very troubling and bloody occupation.
I'm correct, aren't I?
Oldstillwild answered on 06/20/06:Its not clear 2 me what u are trying 2 say.
Saying"The war is over"would imply , but doesnt mean by definition,that the war is over.
The war is still on and was never over.
The army simply got underground,developing guerilla activities,nowadays called terrorists attacks.
Of course the presence of the Americans became a problem in stead of a liberation to many Iraquis,developing to occupation.
So,much went wrong and what went wrong is a combination of underestimation,unprepairedness,false conclusions,wrong measures,bad behaviour,wrong attitude,wrongdoing,lying,etc.
Its my guess,that the seed of failure was already there from the beginning,while betraying the trust of worlds nations.
| | Question/Answer | | Crazy_Ape asked on 06/19/06 - Why is North Korea doing this now, going to test a long-range missile? On February 10, 2005, North Korea declared that it had acquired nuclear weapons.
North Korea spends about 25% of its GNP on the military.
What should U.S. policy be toward North Korea? Oldstillwild answered on 06/19/06:The only cound choice there is to make is
Live and let live.
No one is to be trusted more...... | | Question/Answer | | keenu asked on 06/18/06 - Why you don't know what you're talking about Saw this today and thought some of you may enjoy it.
Why you don't know what you're talking about
Posted on Sunday, 18 June, 2006 | 11:08 | Comments: 13
Ken Korczak:
So, you think you know what youre talking about? Ive got news for you -- you dont know what youre talking about. The problem is that youre using words, phrases and sentences which have only their own meaning; that is, the words you use to describe a reality which is not the real reality. All reality is suspended in language. But human language is not reality. Language is an artifical invention. At best, language is only an approximation of reality. Human beings using language have essentially mistaken the road map for the road.So if youre not talking about reality when you speak, what are you talking about? The fact is, there can only be one answer: Nothing. Youre talking about nothing. You are enjoying your own self-invented game impregnated with its own artifical meanings -- meanings which inevitably circle and fold back on themselves, attached to nothing but themselves, and describing only themselves.The great physcist Neils Bohr realized this and found it deeply troubling. What led him to question the very nature of langauge itself were his attempts to describe the underlying nature of quantum reality. Bohr realized that quantum theory does not allow for the existence of independent elements of reality. Einstein objected deeply to this notion, saying: I refuse to believe that the moon does not exist when we dont observe it.
But Einstein argument could not stand upon the discovery and verification of Bells Theorem. Bell's Theorem states: No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.But, of course, many will argue that language breaks down and becomes meaningless on the quantum level, but in the ordinary world -- the macro world regulated by classical Newtonian physics, language serves us just fine and helps us to not only model our reality, but actually represent reality. But what happens is, just as physics divides the world into objects in interaction so too the mind partitions experience into concepts that are bounded in thought. Our language grabs things and represents them as nouns or objects in our brains. But the model that forms in our brain is not that which is out there -- if there is anything out there at all. More on that in a minute.Think of a baby lying in a crib. The baby has yet to form language in its brain. A bird flies through the the window of the babys room. The baby goes wild with delight at the incredible miracle it is witnessing! It has no verbal definition for what is what this thing is! Its wonderful beyond imagining! But sooner or later, the babys mother will tell him: Thats a bird! A bird! At that point, the word bird become the dominant association with the former flying miracle, and it becomes something dull and known. But the word bird cannot possible describe the entire reality of what a bird really is, if at all.
From the that point on, the child becomes ensnared in a lesser, more artifical reality. When he or she thinks of a bird or says bird the child has a greater association with the definition and the word than with the reality. We believe that naming something makes it what it is. It does not. In fact, the definition is so far removed from reality as to become meaningless.But it gets even worse when we come to more abstract concepts -- internal words and thoughts that have no solid match in the exterior world. Think about the word the or spirituality or about. Theyre utter abstractions and have meaning only we invent for them. When we speak, we use all of our baseless, abstract words to tie together words that supposedly make acccurate representation of physical reality, which they dont. The result is -- meaningless babble -- about nothing. This is what the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein was getting at when he concluded: "My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless".In his book, The Day the Universe Changed, James Burke writing about scientific knowlege, says: Knowledge acquired through the use of any structure is selective. There are no standards or beliefs guiding the search for knowledge which are not dependent on structure. Scientific knowledge, in sum, is not necessarily the clearest representation of what reality is ... Discovery in invention. Knowledge is man-made. And we are always working with a structure that is suspended in artifical language.So you might say: Okay, oaky, so our words amd meanings are not reflecting reality. Well, at least we have some meaning -- the meaning we invent for ourselves. But there is a huge problem with that to. This is an assumption based on Rene Descartes famous statement: I think; therefore, I am. The problem is that Descartes was wrong.
He made a whopping, unsupportable and false assumption. He assumed there was an I. But an I cannot be proven to exist. An I cannot be proven to not exist. And finally, an I cannot be proven to exist and not exist at the same time. So relying on Descartes is hopeless.In a previous column here at Unexplained Mysteries, I argued that all existence is an illusion, and that, in fact, nothing exists, and there simply is no reality. Part of the reason we have the persistent and extremely tricky illusion that something does exist is our suspension in the unreality of language. If we could somehow de-tangle ourselves from the trap of modeling everything we know through the use of language, we would find ourselves experiencing a much richer and greater reality. It would be like some kind of psychedelic, magical realm of infinite meaning. It would be marvelous! But yet, there is someplace further to go. And if we could go beyond that vast, magical realm of language-free reality -- we would ultimately experience what is beyond that -- the nonexperience of Nothing -- which is the ultimate experience.
Ken welcomes you to visit his Web page: www.starcopywriter.com
Oldstillwild answered on 06/19/06:Well,
Lets say its nice crap.
I can say that,because it wouldnt mean anything.......
What here's at stake is
subjectivity,
imperfectness of communication,
differences in experiences,
language being a means of projection,
or in one word:
truth.
Fact is,that,we'll never be sure about the truth.
No need to write a book about that! | | Question/Answer | | margie asked on 06/16/06 - What is an idea? Where does it come from? Oldstillwild answered on 06/16/06:I suppose , youd mean an ,what we would call, an "original" idea".......
Well,
its emerging from the great "Consciousness".
Everything already IS.
We just have to discover it. | | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 06/16/06 - PRETTY GOOD, HUH?
"Character cannot be developed in ease and quiet. Only through experience of trial and suffering can the soul be strengthened, ambition inspired and success achieved." - Helen Keller
Comments?
HANK
Oldstillwild answered on 06/16/06:No. | | Question/Answer | | jackreade asked on 06/14/06 - Stephen Hawking Today in the news, there was a story that states that Stephen Hawking thinks human beings should start colonizing other planets in order to survive as a species because he believes we have roughly 100 years before humans go extinct by destroing the earth as a fit place to live.
I have been thinking aobut this off and on today. There is a possibility that a person born this year could be alive at the end of the world. Stephen Hawking out and saying his views adds immediacy to all the problems everyone faces.
Anyway, I am filled with questions and concerns.
Would it be moral or ethical to forceably reduce human population in view of our dire straits(assuming that would be beneficial)?
Take other steps that might be considered extreme?
Is surviving as a species and saving the living inhabitants of earth an ethical must?
Should we just accept the inevitable? Oldstillwild answered on 06/14/06:Well,well,
well,
quite a dilemma here.
Ive posted several times about death.
It should be incorporated and accepted more in life.
The answers to your dilemma's depend on the developments......
If there is no escape otherwise and we are stuck to Earth,decisions should be made as to the policy to keep Earth livable.
Inevitably,choices should be made,leading to positive answers to your questions.
In the end,we should accept the inevitable,of course,but before we are at that point,whatever it may look like(Im sure it will be nasty....),we should come to a population-control as well as to any other controls re to prolonging our existence and the existence of Earth.
In China we have already seen family-control(birth-control).
Surviving isnt so much an ethical must.I believe,surviving isnt ethical at all.
Life is about survival,accepting death is about ethics.
And of course,how we are dealing with surviving,with respect to Earth's population as a whole is a very ethical and actual issue.......
(because Argamedon,or whatever you may call it is factual present in larger parts of this world...........,so if anyone would like to know,what this nastyness is about......,go and visit Africa). | | Question/Answer | | jackreade asked on 06/13/06 - Reality What is the best way to investigate reality, or perhaps, combinations of ways? I am thinking of the following possible ways, but would like some input on how to think about it.
Ways To Discover Reality
1. Scientific Inquiry
2. Reality Testing (Therapy)
3. Cracking open a Bible
4. Reading reputable Non-Fiction Books
5. Go and experience life
6. Engaging in mystical experiences
7. Sitting and thinking about reality
8. Etc.
What is your opinion? Can you build a case for it?
Many thanks,
jackreade Oldstillwild answered on 06/13/06:Closest to reality is what youre experiencing.
The rest is interpretation.
In mot going to research interpretations.
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 06/10/06 - To what extent is (a)theism intelligible? ..............We do not fully understand the mind but we believe it exists because we have direct knowledge of our thoughts and decisions. We do not have direct knowledge of other minds but we deduce they exist from the evidence of rational and purposeful activity similar to our own. Although we do not fully understand the concept of a Supreme Mind we can deduce it exists from the evidence of rational and purposeful activity on a scale that far exceeds human activity.
We can understand the proposition that there is no Supreme Mind but we cannot understand how minds or purposeful activity originated in the absence of a Supreme Mind. Oldstillwild answered on 06/11/06:"a Supreme Mind we can deduce it exists from the evidence of rational and purposeful activity on a scale that far exceeds human activity."
Is that so?
"We can understand the proposition that there is no Supreme Mind but we cannot understand how minds or purposeful activity originated in the absence of a Supreme Mind."
Cant we?
It seems to me that ego-centricism isnt only an individualistic mental disease.... | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 06/09/06 - Do human beings have an innate moral sense?...... "Wilson's basic argument is, then, that human beings are born with an innate moral sense, rooted in our biological matrix as social animals, the result of millennia of evolution. This sensibility can vary in intensity and expression as a result of genetic factors, cultural patterns, and family up-bringing, but it is universal, appearing across societies, across history. Whatever the society, Wilson maintains, sympathy, fairness, self-control, and duty can be found at the heart of social life, even as they come into conflict with less benign natural impulses or with each other. Cultural relativists have focused too much on the disparate rules found from one society to another; the moral sense is best understood as a series of dispositions that will appear differently in differing circumstances."
http://www.stlawrenceinstitute.org/vol14and.html Oldstillwild answered on 06/09/06:What do you think?
This topic has been addressed before,so you should have an opinion by now.
Im genuinely immoral.
Does that imply,that there is moral?
And which is the better one?
Was I born immoral?
Can anyone be born immoral?
How about the innocent child?
Is that immoral too? | | Question/Answer | | NCohen asked on 06/09/06 - A Question on Morality Good evening, experts,
I have been reading various opinions about the assassination of al Zarqawi today, and I would like your comments about Alan Dershowitz'position. Specifically, addressing the moral topics of hypocricy and the morality of targeted assassination.
"As the civilized world justly celebrates the long overdue killing of Abu M al-Zarqawi, it must recall that his death was brought about by what has come to be known as "targeted assassination" or "targeted killings." This is the same technique that has been repeatedly condemned by the international community when Israel has employed it against terrorists who have murdered innocent Jews.
When Israel targeted the two previous heads of Hamas, the British foreign secretary said: "targeted killings of this kind are unlawful and unjustified." The same views expressed at the United Nations and by several European heads of state. It was also expressed by various Human Rights organizations.
Now Great Britain is applauding the targeted killing of a terrorist who endangered its soldiers and citizens. What is the difference, except that Israel can do no right in the eyes of many in the international community. Surely there is no real difference between Zarqawi on the one hand and terrorist leaders from Hamas and Islamic Jihad on the other hand. If it is argued that Sheik Yassin was merely a spiritual leader of Hamas (a total lie since he explicitly authorized numerous terrorist acts), then it must be noted that one of the people targeted by the United States was Sheik Abd-al-Rahman, who was also described as a "spiritual advisor."
When the United States and British forces have engaged in targeted killings of terrorists, there have often been collateral deaths of non terrorists, as there apparently were in this instance as well. The military announced preliminary findings that a woman and a child were among the dead. Collateral deaths are inevitable when terrorists hide among civilians and use them as shields. Both Israel and the United States make great efforts to reduce the number of collateral deaths and injuries but they do not always succeed.
I applaud the targeted killing of Al Zarqawi. His death will save many innocent lives. But I also applaud the targeted killings of anti-Israel terrorists whose deaths save numerous lives. All decent people must insist on a single standard of judging tactics such as targeted killing. It is nothing short of bigotry to approve this tactic when used by the United States and Great Britain but to condemn it when it is used by Israel." A Dershowitz
Thank you. Oldstillwild answered on 06/09/06:"I applaud the targeted killing of Al Zarqawi. His death will save many innocent lives. But I also applaud the targeted killings of anti-Israel terrorists whose deaths save numerous lives. All decent people must insist on a single standard of judging tactics such as targeted killing. It is nothing short of bigotry to approve this tactic when used by the United States and Great Britain but to condemn it when it is used by Israel." A Dershowitz"
There is theory,practice,integrity and interpretation.
Dershowitz seems to make a mixture of this,especially theory and practice.....
We would say this is a political correct statement.
If mr D. is serious about this and would imply,this is based on current practice--and this seems to be the case.The omission of the word "would" is heavily felt here--
than,mr. D. should be ashamed of himself!
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 06/08/06 - How do you interpret the term "conscience"? . Oldstillwild answered on 06/08/06:Well,
lately I let go of my conscience.
I discovered,that there is lots of crapworrying before the real conscience is starting to be usefully getting me occupied.
In fact the less conscience,the more fun for the time being!
So,my interpretation so far is:
Wht conscience?! | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 06/06/06 - moral justice ------===== From whence arose the concept of moral justice? Oldstillwild answered on 06/06/06:well,
this topic has been addressed before,so its time 4 a different approach......
There is no such thing as moral justice.
There are no morals.
There is no justice.
There only is a compromise,which differs from state to state from group to grouop from community to community from person to person.
The latter doesnt need to compromise.
The outcome of the compromise depends on the input by the individuals.
Therefore all kinds of sets of rules about whatever are based on individuals,who are striving to live together peacefully,as they all want to survive and more.....
The ultimate moral justice is to kill your enemy. | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 06/05/06 - Economy and Simplicity...................... How would you distinguish them? How highly should each be rated? Atheism seems economical in not postulating an intangible Being but theism seems simpler in deriving all phenomena from one Being rather than a plurality of particles. Oldstillwild answered on 06/05/06:How economical is it to live upon a fairy tale.....?
Simple it is,allright....... | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 06/04/06 - What is your religion?.......................... Leo Tolstoy proposes that everyone has a religion because everyone stands in relation to the world, and whatever that relationship is, to that individual is their religion.
"The essence of any religion lies solely in the answer to the question: why do I exist, and what is my relationship to the infinite universe that surrounds me?
.. It is impossible for there to be a person with no religion (i.e. without any kind of relationship to the world) as it is for there to be a person without a heart. He may not know that he has a religion, just as a person may not know that he has a heart, but it is no more possible for a person to exist without a religion than without a heart".
~Leo Tolstoy Oldstillwild answered on 06/04/06:Yes | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 06/04/06 - What is your religion?.......................... Leo Tolstoy proposes that everyone has a religion because everyone stands in relation to the world, and whatever that relationship is, to that individual is their religion.
"The essence of any religion lies solely in the answer to the question: why do I exist, and what is my relationship to the infinite universe that surrounds me?
.. It is impossible for there to be a person with no religion (i.e. without any kind of relationship to the world) as it is for there to be a person without a heart. He may not know that he has a religion, just as a person may not know that he has a heart, but it is no more possible for a person to exist without a religion than without a heart".
~Leo Tolstoy Oldstillwild answered on 06/04/06:Well,
Leo is outdated,obviously....
Ive no religion,
yet a relationship........,
based on REALITY! | | Question/Answer | | Jim.McGinness asked on 06/02/06 - Rapoport Debate A friend brought to my attention a protocol sometimes known as Rapoport debate (after Anatol Rapoport). In a conventional debate, the winning side presents its own position more persuasively than its opponent. In a Rapoport debate, the winner is the first side to present its opponent's position to its opponent's satisfaction. The idea behind this unusual device is that you do not really understand an issue until you can argue persuasively for the side with which you disagree.Thanks to
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~licklide/syll-319.2003-2-fall.doc
for the succint description. Has anyone here participated in such an exercise? How well does it work?
One difficulty I am curious about is the opportunity for unfairly "holding out", that is, to pretend that the representation of your own side by the other side, is unsatisfactory even if it is, in fact, entirely satisfactory.
Oldstillwild answered on 06/02/06:This board isnt about growing.....
This board is about cutting down..... | | Question/Answer | | jackreade asked on 06/01/06 - Former Republic and Democracy I tend to agree with Noam Chomsky that America is no longer a democracy.
Those running for election take much money from large donors so they must vote the donor's agenda or not get money for reelection. Their will is more important than the people's will.
Lobbyists write a lot of legislation and give away lots of money in order to further their agendas.
Most Republicans and Democrats are bought and paid for . Everyone knows that.
Therefore, the rich and powerful individuals and Corporations are able to use politicians to further their programs. A few manor corporations control the media, the newspapers and television media are primaily promote right wing agendas, there are only a few media outlets that promote a true left wing agenda. Lightweight Katie Couric is the new CBS 6 o'clock anchor. Fluff. Bill O'Reilly tells outright lies with a straight face. Most talking heads can't hold their jobs if they don't bash democrats.
Congress has been effectively rendered powerless. Bush can dismiss what they pass if he "doesn't agree with it". The executive branch can order the search of a Congressman's office in the middle of the night and seize his computer...no private Democratic election strategies there, I bet. Bush/Cheney can invade Iran if they want to.
WE have an Imperial Presidency with Dick Cheney at the head and George Bush as the genial but stupid spokesmodel.
So, do you agree with me?
If not, why not?
Regards, jack Oldstillwild answered on 06/02/06:Well,
I guess , Norman did read my comments here on the forum.... | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 06/01/06 - Clarity and rationality "SOME YEARS AGO, being with a camping party in the mountains, I returned from a solitary ramble to find every one engaged in a ferocious metaphysical dispute. The corpus of the dispute was a squirrel - a live squirrel supposed to be clinging to one side of a tree-trunk; while over against the tree's opposite side a human being was imagined to stand. This human witness tries to get sight of the squirrel by moving rapidly round the tree, but no matter how fast he goes, the squirrel moves as fast in the opposite direction, and always keeps the tree between himself and the man, so that never a glimpse of him is caught. The resultant metaphysical problem now is this: Does the man go round the squirrel or not?"
http://horan.asu.edu/ced522readings/james/pragmatism/james.htm
Well, does the man go around the squirrel or not? Oldstillwild answered on 06/01/06:Well,
as the squirrel is moving in the opposite direction,the man will frequently see the squirrel.......and is going around the squirrel.
And now in case the squirrel is moving in the same direction and just as fast as that the individual cant spot it.......
The individual is moving around the tree and everything on it,however,
the squirrel is moving ahead of the individual,who is moving around the tree,trying to spot it.It doesnt matter,that the squirrel is using a path,that is on a treetrunk.It could as well run straight forward hidden behind a car or so.
Also,you could imagine,that there is no tree at all.The individual can see the squirrel all the time and is running around the cirkel,the squirrel is using,but never around the squirrel itself.
You can also replace the squirrel by a piece of wood or imagine a dog running after his tail:Is the dog running around his tail?
Well,
I leave you answering this question!
Therefore the individual is (virtually)behind the squirrel all the time.
So,
now its time for a nice cold Heineken.......
How! | | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 05/29/06 - GOD WANTS US TO BE FREE:
The torrid aspects of our United States Constitution would be situated elsewhere if sovereignty resided in only the people. We should be able to work freely and become devoted to the same national causes without being exposed to political propaganda. I like the expression VIRTUE OF INFLECTION while considering my true definition of a Republic. To inflect means "to turn from a straight or usual course." In this instance, it means a group of people who are willing to change their destinies by changing their present attitudes and values to realize common interests in one locale. This locale, of course, could be your neighborhood. To inflect this virtue would then allow us to delete 'subject to the same laws' and keep what's left because we'll be cognizant of SELF-DISCIPLINE. We must start somewhere if our country is to survive morally.
Any commments?
HANK
Oldstillwild answered on 05/29/06:Well,Hank......,
There is a lot of work to be done......!
How! | | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 05/29/06 - DEATH:
Memorial Day is all about sacrifice and death. How WE approach death is going to depend upon our fear of life, how much WE participated in that life, and how willing WE are to let go of this known expression to venture into a new one. Fear and unfinished business are two big factors in determining how much resistance WE put into meeting death.
I must ask YOU, "Do you procrastinate?"
Oldstillwild answered on 05/29/06:Hi Hank!
death belongs to life as life belongs to death belongs to being prepared belongs to livingNbeing ready to die belongs to living the moment belongs to fullfilling your life.....
How! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 05/27/06 - Science or Nonsense? ............................................
The other possibility is that the "last event" loops back to the "first event" causing an infinite loop. If you were to call the Big Bang the first event, you would see the end of the Universe as the "last event". In theory, the end of the Universe would be the cause of the beginning of the Universe. You would be left with an infinite loop of time with no real beginning or end. This theory eliminates the need for a first cause, but does not explain why there should be a loop in time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism Oldstillwild answered on 05/27/06:Well.....,its my guess,that there would be a loop of dis- and contracting.
Its totally redundant wanting to know where the beginning or end would be or what the loop specifically is about....
I dont believe this loop has anything to do with the ultimate beginning or end of existence as such.....
In my view there is no end nor beginning entirely whatever ever some or anything.
Eternally yours.....,
How!
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 05/21/06 - What are you?................................... "You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules." (Francis Crick)
What is your view? Oldstillwild answered on 05/21/06:I tend to agree with mr Prick.
Every person is a balance.
A balance with a vast number of variables ,most of which unknown.....
Once I compared the human mind with a fluid.Nobody could imagine ,let alone agreed of course....
We are nothing and still something.... | | Question/Answer | | jackreade asked on 05/20/06 - Justifying Can terrorism of any kind ever be justified? Oldstillwild answered on 05/20/06:From who's view........? | | Question/Answer | | jackreade asked on 05/19/06 - Puzzles I was thinking, with the advent of sophisticated language(words for abstract ideas, say) and education(someone putting information and ideas into another's mind), long abo in the distant past, did a human life become more how to figure out and create "puzzles", instead of just enjoying life? Oldstillwild answered on 05/19/06:Well,Jackreade,
these are the things,people started to do,in the cause of the discovery of the real goals of Life of which humanity as such is still not aware............
hi! | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 05/16/06 - Is there a connection between aesthetics and morality?.... What connection, if any, is there between the two. Oldstillwild answered on 05/16/06:Well....,one could say,that aesthetics is the morality of good taste..... | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 05/16/06 - Can we know what is real? If so how? ........................ We all think we know what is real but there is good reason to think we are mistaken! In fact we don't even know what "we" are and what "thinking" is. "We" believe that there is "mental activity" but we only make that inference from what we call "thoughts". In fact, every word we use presupposes thinking yet we finish up in the bizarre situation where thinking is explained in terms of physical events which are inferred from our sensations... Oldstillwild answered on 05/16/06:Well....,This topic was addressed about 3 years ago.....
apparently not real 2 u........ | | Question/Answer | | jackreade asked on 05/15/06 - Quandry regarding Anonymous I would like the opinion of expert philosophers about anonymity on the internet. I have posted poetry on the internet-most of it was trash, but there were a couple of gems.
Since I was an anonymous person, a username, if a student uses one of my good poems, how can s/he give me credit since I am anonymous(assuming s/he doesn't claim it as his own)?
Does this matter at all?
Opinions appreciated. Oldstillwild answered on 05/15/06:Well....,
if one chooses 2 be anonymous,one must accept the consequences.......
If one chooses not to be anonymous one has 2 deal with the anonymity of the internet as a medium.
If one wishes to get real (financial) credits or any other feed back,one should choose to fully disclosure of one-self , so that from the beginning there can only be the slightest ore no doubt about who is the original source of the material.
Starting anonymously,one has virtual no chance earning any revenues from internet activities.
In your case,you may approach someone using your quotes,asking gently , if he/she would be willing to donate......
If not,
well......,
Hers's the judge,Im the judge.....(<:) | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 05/13/06 - Proof and verification.................. It is generally accepted that human beings have a right to life yet this principle cannot be proved or verified scientifically. How would you justify it? Oldstillwild answered on 05/13/06:Well....,like you said....,
it is generally accepted......(grosso modo).
The justification is in me. | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 05/12/06 - Just society By what reasoning might one justify that a society in which some people accumulate great wealth, while many others live in poverty, is just? Oldstillwild answered on 05/12/06:There is no justification for that! | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 05/10/06 - Scientific evidence is as muddled as Religion, and maybe more so. The book Is God the Only Reality? observes: The religious quest for meaning . . . is the common experience in every culture and every age since the emergence of humankind.
From where does this seemingly inborn awareness of God come? If man were merely an accidental grouping of nucleic acid and protein molecules, why would these molecules develop a love of art and beauty, turn religious, and contemplate eternity?
Sir John Eccles concluded that an evolutionary explanation of mans existence fails in a most important respect. It cannot account for the existence of each one of us as unique self-conscious beings. The more we learn about the workings of our brain and mind, the easier it is to see why millions of people have concluded that mans conscious existence is evidence of a Creator who cares about us. Oldstillwild answered on 05/12/06:Well.....,Id say,
that the progress in here is the direct relationship of "muddled" and religion..... | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 05/09/06 - The Demise of Darwinism?...................... "The past five decades of research in genetics and molecular biology have brought us revolutionary discoveries. Upsetting the oversimplified views of cellular organization and function held at mid-century, the molecular revolution has revealed an unanticipated realm of complexity and interaction more consistent with computer technology than with the mechanical viewpoint which dominated the field when the neo-Darwinian Modern Synthesis was formulated...
How all of this modularity, complexity, and integration arose and changed during the history of life on earth is a central evolutionary question. Localized random mutation, selection operating "one gene at a time" (John Maynard Smith's formulation), and gradual modification of individual functions are unable to provide satisfactory explanations for the molecular data, no matter how much time for change is assumed. There are simply too many potential degrees of freedom for random variability and too many interconnections to account for...
First, then, all cells from bacteria to man possess a truly astonishing array of repair systems which serve to remove accidental and stochastic sources of mutation... It has been a surprise to learn how thoroughly cells protect themselves against precisely the kinds of accidental genetic change that, according to conventional theory, are the sources of evolutionary variability. By virtue of their proofreading and repair systems, living cells are not passive victims of the random forces of chemistry and physics....
The point of this discussion is that our current knowledge of genetic change is fundamentally at variance with neo-Darwinist postulates. We have progressed from the Constant Genome, subject only to random, localized changes at a more or less constant mutation rate, to the Fluid Genome, subject to episodic, massive and non-random reorganizations capable of producing new functional architectures. Inevitably, such a profound advance in awareness of genetic capabilities will dramatically alter our understanding of the evolutionary process. Nonetheless, neo-Darwinist writers like Dawkins continue to ignore or trivialize the new knowledge and insist on gradualism as the only path for evolutionary change."
http://www.bostonreview.net/br22.1/shapiro.html
What is your view? Oldstillwild answered on 05/09/06:Well,my view was , is and always will be , that the limitations of the human mind will lead us to increased processes of degeneration and malfunctionings.
Unless people will recognize,that this wrong curiosity is the basis of disaster , mankind will continue to apply his limited capacities to an extend,that there is no room for knowledge-independent evolutions.
Life is not to control by humans.
Only mutilation.
In this,darwin's view or how he is explained or whatever view, isnt of any importance,other than a potential and inevitable platform for evil to life. | | Question/Answer | | quixotic_Choux asked on 05/06/06 - Offshoot of Philosophy "Today is Sigmund Freud's hundred and fiftieth birthday, and the basic motives he revealed -- sex and aggression -- still fundamentally power our lives and provide us with the clearest way of understanding who we are and why we are.
That he is reviled and pilloried was anticipated and expected by the good doctor as proof of the enduring power and truth of his theories.
Freud tells a story that nobody wants to hear. Human beings have no clothes.
We don't like to think of ourselves that way (although we don't mind looking at animal behavior and evolution though these primitive lenses). So high is our disgust for these elementary Darwinian principals -- that have led to human survival and triumph over all other living things, -- that we spent our much of our lives denying the dark side of our lives.
We lock these thoughts up in a special part of our brain - Freud called it the unconscious -- which we can't see or understand - as an adaptive behavior that lets us thrive. But sometimes these thoughts keep popping out, causing conflict, and affecting our activities in mysterious and disturbing ways, that sometimes makes us unhappy and engage in self-destructive actions.
Ironically, this unconscious (and the inevitable conflict between the rational self and our drives) --- which is **so widely rejected by religions, individuals and societies alike** --- is what makes us human and different from other animals. Humans are the only animal that wears clothes. Why is that? What are we covering up?
**This basic Freudian roadmap is accepted - in one way or another - by all educated people who grapple with the issues of self-knowledge and human motives**. Who among us has not been baffled and threatened by our own strange behavior, over which we often have no control? Who among us wants to admit that there is something unknown driving us, that our conscious thoughts are just the tip of a mental iceberg?
The Nazi invaders in World War II banned and attacked Freud, as did the Communists afterwards. In a February 27th New Yorker story editor David Remnick quotes a Hamas leader saying that Israel must be destroyed because "the media-it's controlled by the Jews...Freud, a Jew, was the one who destroyed morals."
In 2004 when asked about his decision to topple Saddam, and the widely attributed Oedipal desire to overthrow his real father, President George W. Bush said he wouldn't "go on the couch". Freud bashing -- or acknowledgement of his ideas -- is an almost daily part of everyone's life nowadays.
But Freud, while not always flawless, viewed rejection whether by Nazis or anyone else, as to be expected. "What progress we are making. In the Middle Ages they would have burned me. Now they are content with burning my books."
So thank you, Dr. Freud for the exquisite legacy of ideas that you have left us". Blake Fleetwood **mine
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Any comments? Oldstillwild answered on 05/07/06:"sex and aggression -- still fundamentally power our lives and provide us with the clearest way of understanding who we are and why we are."
Well,
I didnt read any further,
as this happen to be the most misunderstood ,misjudged,denied,aspect by us........including you.
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 05/05/06 - Atomism and holism....... What is the philosophical significance of Aristotle's dictum that "The whole is more than the sum of its parts". Oldstillwild answered on 05/06/06:In extenso realize that all = one ,
and if you do,
youd recognize the strength of that phenomenon.........,
but,
4 a start......,
think of yourself,
being more than your physical appearance,
being more than your spiritual surroundings,
being part of your physical environment,
being part of your spiritual environment,
the physical environment being part of you,
the spiritual environment being part of you.
If you realize all that,
youll experience this integration of these phenomenons as a powerfull asset,of which youd never let go.....
Hi!
| | Question/Answer | | CeeBee2 asked on 05/04/06 - Universals yet again............................. from my Japanese cyberson:
"I want you to find out several of the most influencial philosphy books on universals, whose range is from the ancient Greek time to Latin medieval, or simply medieval."
After I sent him some titles over the past few days, he searched for them on amazon and discovered they are quite expensive. He sent me this email this morning:
"I want a(n inexpensive) book with a general view over the medieval problem of universals by the authority in this field. And if you could, please find such a book more to the details in the aspect of metaphysics than in semantics or language philosophy. If the book is more on metaphysics-side of the problem of universals than on semantics and language philosophy-side of it, then it doesn't have to be so general, it is ok if it is on a more specific subject like that book you found for me today."
(That book was Scotus vs. Ockham : a medieval dispute over universals / John Duns Scotus; William, of Ockham; Martin M Tweedale, 1999, English, 2 v. ; 23 cm., Lewiston, N.Y. : E. Mellen Press.)
Any suggestions? I have immediate access to library databases including WorldCat. Oldstillwild answered on 05/04/06:$ 27,-
Spade, Paul Vincent, 1994. Five Texts on the Mediaeval Problem of Universals: Porphyry, Boethius, Abelard, Duns Scotus, Ockham. Indianapolis, Ind.: Hackett. Includes a complete translation of Ockham's discussion of universals from Sent. I.2.4-8.
| | Question/Answer | | jackreade asked on 05/01/06 - Free Will "I take it that what is meant by 'choice' is free 'choice' for it is obvious that we all have choices in that there are many instances where something is selected from a number of given options; as long as one is selected, it can obviously be said that you finally chose what you selected. However, FREE choice refers to a choice that is made ultimately by you, and not determined by some other factor.
I'm more inclined to believe that we have no free choice at all. I don't say this because there are many influencial factors such as culture, religion, guilt, upbringing, etc...; rather, I say it for the following reasons:
Whenever I perform any kind of action, I either perform an action that is automatically triggered by reflex, impulse, conditioning, or, I perform an action that would typically be said to involve free choice.
With regards to the first kind of action, reflexsive etc..., I suppose that everyone will agree that these clearly do not seem to involve any free choice.
With regards to the second kind of action, I believe that there is always a thought of some sort (or a reasoning process) that is just prior to the action and can be said to be the final decision to make that action. If we agree, then let us focus on this decisive thought; for if we agree that this is what determines the action, then all we need to figure out is whether or not we choose this decisive thought. If we do, then we have free choice in these kinds of actions; if not, then we don't.
Now, for one to make a choice, it is necessary that one is aware of his or her options to choose from. However, when we have a thought or idea, we only become aware of it once we have already had it and NOT before it was brought into mind. This shows that we cannot be the choosers of our thoughts or ideas. Again, this is because for us to be the choosers of them, we should be aware of them prior to making the choice of having them. However, we are never aware of an idea or thought prior to having the thought. Thus, thoughts and ideas happen without us choosing them.
Now, there are instances where we are in fact presented with options to 'choose' from. But even in these instances, the decisive act of choosing that selects one of these options is itself a thought or some other perception such as a feeling, will, or inclination. But these are similar to thoughts, for we could not choose to have them since we aren't aware of them until they have already occured.
Thus, it seems to me that we never ever have free choice; Although we do end up choosing many things, it is never a free choice but always determined by our thoughts, which are never chosen, or by our reflexes."anon
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I ran across this essay by an anonmous person on another website.
I was interested in it because I do not think that most people operate with free will at all.
What do you think about so-called free will? Oldstillwild answered on 05/01/06:....we have bounderies ourselves....,
so not only a limited spectrum to choose FROM.
Moreover,
Youre asking in fact,who is laying the eggs......
Life is bigger than us and self-sufficient;
We,being exponents of that phenomenon and only temporarily, are subordinate.
Free will is only there if youre blind to where youre coming from.
Most people are blind.
| | Question/Answer | | jackreade asked on 05/01/06 - What is the Difference? What is the difference between:
1. A professor of Political Science who writes a book based on his ideas about his speciality.
2. The professor of the Philosophy of Political Science who writes a book about the philosophy of political science.
???
Thanks, jack Oldstillwild answered on 05/01/06:....sense of reality..... | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 04/25/06 - Are we the same persons we were seven years ago? ......... Since we no longer have the same cells in our bodies why are we regarded as being the same persons?
If we are not the same persons why are we regarded as being responsible for what we did seven years ago? Oldstillwild answered on 04/25/06:Well....,
we are not the same.......and.....
It often happens,that someone isnt held responsible for his/her earlier actions!
So,your premisses isnt quite right!
Hi! | | Question/Answer | | katekat asked on 04/24/06 - Hempel's raven deal Thank you MT for taking me seriously, which Bradd did not. I appreciate it. Are you available for discussion?
katekat Oldstillwild answered on 04/25/06:Okay guys,the 3 of you:Stay here! | | Question/Answer | | katekat asked on 04/24/06 - Hempel's Paradox 1. If "all ravens are blackbirds" is true, does it logically follow that "some ravens are not blackbirds" as being false? Y, N, can't determine
2. If "all ravens are blackbirds" is true, does it logically follow that "all blackbirds are ravens" as being true as well? Y, N, can't determine
3. If "no ravens are blackbirds" is true, is it also true that "all ravens are non-blackbirs"? Y, N, can't determine Oldstillwild answered on 04/25/06:Well,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1.N
Though.................2.N
Yet--------------------3.whats a blackbir? | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 04/24/06 - Is an International Arms Trade Treaty needed? ...........How effective would it be? Oldstillwild answered on 04/24/06:well....im a bit reluctant 2
answer this question?
Arms industries rule the superpowerworld,so
is this feasible at all.....
America has to get reorganised,completely overhauled.......
The only treaty thats relevant is
all arms out of this world......
I dont think so...... | | Question/Answer | | kalicam2000 asked on 04/22/06 - Glaucon- the myth of gyges how does gluacon argue for the claim that the only reason people obey the rules of society is because it is in their self interest? Oldstillwild answered on 04/23/06:Glaucon thinks that this natural fact is demonstrated by the shepherd Gyges, who found a gold ring which made him invisible whenever he twisted it on his finger.On realising the rings power, Gyges used it to seduce the queen, murder the king, and take the throne. Glaucons claim then, is that every one of us, however law-abiding and good we might seem, would do as Gyges did, or something else in our self-interest, if we could avoid detection and punishment. And, Glaucon claims, we would be right to do so, since each human beings only interest is their own self-interest, and we have no interest in justice and morality for their own sakes. | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 04/20/06 - how the Universe adapts to its environment. Alfred Korzybski it is said explained: Plants adapt to their environment through their awareness and control of energy, while animals adapt to their environment through their awareness and control of space, and then humans adapt to their environment through awareness and control of time. What I am interested in is how the Universe adapts to its environment. Oldstillwild answered on 04/20/06:Well....,conclusively so, the universe is adapting by expansion.
So,
now its time for a big cold splash of Heiniken!
Dont bother,
you wouldnt understand! | | Question/Answer | | Coup_de_Grace asked on 04/20/06 - Argument against Atheism Here is a quote by C. S. Lewis in his book "Mere Christianity"(page 39). My wife used it to try to get me back in the fold of "believers".
"Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should have never found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning."
This argument seems strange, but I don't know how to refute it. Isn't the analogy like this...if there were no dogs in the universe, there would be no dog food?
And, isn't the first sentence a straw-man.
Help would be appreciated.
Ben
Benjamin and Susan Grace Oldstillwild answered on 04/20/06:"If the whole universe has no meaning, we should have never found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning."
We did "find" out,so........
Meaning here,should be read as "coming from" and "going to" and "whats its purpose" and "who is steering".
The human thinking pattern would be
limited(!!!) to limited(!!!) patterns in order to reproduce limitations(!!!) in definitions of any subject.
In the meantime,we use terms like:
infinite,endless,eternal.
These are valid understandings,which most people fail to understand or comprehend completely(!!!).
So,
there are no bounderies.
Nobounderies should be one word.
The universe is and endless,eternal and infinite.
Notice the smallest word in this sentence:
.....is......
The universe just IS.
IS is as IS is can be!
We might say,we IS.
However,we are too limited to be satisfied with IS.
So,all and everything we added to IS was fabricated by us.
We tend to impose our limitations to everything we're experiencing.
There is no beginning,there is no end,there is no driver,there is no use.
Hi!
| | Question/Answer | | Coup_de_Grace asked on 04/19/06 - The Human Brain and Consciousness/Toughts I have a question and it is basically a question of clarification of what a discussion is really about. Keep in mind that some(all) of us are amateur philosophers.
We were arguing about what is the relationship between the human brain and consciousness. A couple of guys said that thinking and consciousness and a "soul" were separate from the human beings physical body.
One guy said that consciousness and thinking and spirit, every mental process is based on the physical brain. We are just one physical body which includes consciousness. He offered this analogy. That consciousness is to the physical brain as flatulence is to the human bowels.
Is this a valid analogy?
Ben
Ben and Susan Grace
Oldstillwild answered on 04/20/06:No
Our spirit is our transparent origin. | | Question/Answer | | Coup_de_Grace asked on 04/19/06 - Nihilism At a dinner party a week ago Saturday, the after dinner conversation drifted to politics and philosophy, as usual.
We were discussing nihilism, I'll put down the definitions that are the closest to what we understood it to be and how we were using the word.
[In philosophy A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.
2. Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief.
3. The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement. (Excerpts from On-Line Dictionary)]
Now, I'm no nihilist, but I would assume that nihilists are very few. Later, the more I looked at the definition, the more I felt that the nihilist philosophy has merit (as long as a society is not based on nihilism). It seems to me that a few nihilist thinkers here and there would add a lot to philosophical thought and discussions.
What is your educated opinion of nihilism? Who are some philosophers(whose names would recogize) who had nihilistic leanings? Do you think nihilism has to ultimately be "negative"?
Can a thinker's ideas or concepts be "nihilistic", for example, the religious idea of original sin, I can't remember whose idea it was, be called a "nihilistic idea/concept"(my wife and I in a few minutes of heated debate on this topic of nihilistic ideas).
Thanks,
Ben
Benjamin and Susan Grace
Oldstillwild answered on 04/20/06:some links:
http://www.nodogs.org/nihilism.html
http://www.nihil.org/
http://www.counterorder.com/
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11074a.htm
http://ws5.com/nihilism/
http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nihilism.htm
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/nihilism.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism
| | Question/Answer | | Jon1667 asked on 04/18/06 - Do the ends justify the means? Bradd has asked, "Do the ends justify the means?" and replied, 'Almost every moralist will say "Never".' But, to start with, it is false that almost every moralist will say "never". A Utilitarian moralist would say that it would depend on whether the value of the end was worth the means. For the Untilitarian moralist would depend on the utilitarian principle that an action is right if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Thus, for example, building a road which would allow great numbers of people to reach a particular destination (say an airport) would be worth displacing people whose homes stood in the way of building the road as long as more good was done by the road, than inconvenience to the people whose homes had to be destroyed. But, second, as I have already pointed out, it is impossible to answer the question of whether the end justifies the means unless one knows what are the means, and one knows what is the end. It would be as silly to lay down the principle that the end never justifies the means, as it would be silly to lay down the principle that the end always justifies the means. Clearly, for instance, amputating a leg to save a life is justified, so in that case, the end does justify the means. But would murdering 1,000 people in a restaurant be justified in order to take vengeance? Obviously not.
Moral thinking requires-thinking. Not sloganeering. Oldstillwild answered on 04/18/06:This forum is to be used for questions.
You have an opinion for a change.
Therefore youre using this format to venture this unique occasion,rather than it is a question.
You like to bash people from your hightower(thats probably your name....).
I think,your misusing this formats integrity.
Does your end justify this means? | | Question/Answer | | jackreade asked on 04/16/06 - Monotheism and Masochism On Line dictionary of masochism:
1. The deriving of sexual gratification, or the tendency to derive sexual gratification, from being physically or emotionally abused.
2. The deriving of pleasure, or the tendency to derive pleasure, from being humiliated or mistreated, either by another or by oneself.
3. A willingness or tendency to subject oneself to unpleasant or trying experiences.
I think that there is a connection between monotheism and masochism after some reading I have done recently, and remembrance of assorted things I have seen or read about previously.
Experts, do you know of any books on the subject? Oldstillwild answered on 04/16/06:Well..........................,
its no use walkin'this road again......
as suffering is to be considered and accepted as an integral part and the price of dedicated devotion.
Its not a privilege to religion!
I am not religious.
There is no god.
Im am devoted to my findings about Life and living up to my principles,the outcome of which is always rewarding...........,
but not without suffering!
The Strength of a person is not in trying to avoid.
The stength of a person is in the ability to enjoy. | | Question/Answer | | CeeBee2 asked on 04/14/06 - Meekness............................... meek = weak?
Xenophenon: meek = the wild horse that has been tamed but whose spirit has never been broken. Tamed becomes useful; an unbroken spirit remains lively, vigorous, energetic.
Plato: meek = the victorious general who spares a conquered people. Triumph allows and encourages generosity.
Socrates: meek = the person who can argue his point effectively without losing his temper.
Aristotle: meek = the person who is angry at injustice yet whose anger never degenerates into ill-temper or vindictiveness or the desire for revenge.
Jesus said the meek will inherit the earth.
On the other hand, Nietzsche said strength must overcome all weakness, meekness, and pity, and man must become Superman. Any religion or philosophy that glorifies meekness, the poor, humility, and such is condemned.
Atheist and philosopher Emma Goldman believed that "consciously or unconsciously, most theists see in gods and devils, heaven and hell; reward and punishment, a whip to lash the people into obedience, meekness and contentment."
Ayn Rand (Objectivism) wrote, "The temperate virtue is that which [lies] between the two extremes : the short-term and the long-term, abstinence and overindulgence, meekness and intolerence."
Has religion given meekness a bad reputation, misdefined it? What was your first experience with meekness? How would you define meekness? Oldstillwild answered on 04/14/06:......y.....e......s......? | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 04/14/06 - What is truth? ................................... Instead of saying "It is true we are alive" we can simply say "We are alive". Do you think this shows that the concept of truth is unnecessary? If not, why not? Oldstillwild answered on 04/14/06:Well.....,
Im tired. | | Question/Answer | | CeeBee2 asked on 04/14/06 - Meekness............................... meek = weak?
Xenophenon: meek = the wild horse that has been tamed but whose spirit has never been broken. Tamed becomes useful; an unbroken spirit remains lively, vigorous, energetic.
Plato: meek = the victorious general who spares a conquered people. Triumph allows and encourages generosity.
Socrates: meek = the person who can argue his point effectively without losing his temper.
Aristotle: meek = the person who is angry at injustice yet whose anger never degenerates into ill-temper or vindictiveness or the desire for revenge.
Jesus said the meek will inherit the earth.
On the other hand, Nietzsche said strength must overcome all weakness, meekness, and pity, and man must become Superman. Any religion or philosophy that glorifies meekness, the poor, humility, and such is condemned.
Atheist and philosopher Emma Goldman believed that "consciously or unconsciously, most theists see in gods and devils, heaven and hell; reward and punishment, a whip to lash the people into obedience, meekness and contentment."
Ayn Rand (Objectivism) wrote, "The temperate virtue is that which [lies] between the two extremes : the short-term and the long-term, abstinence and overindulgence, meekness and intolerence."
Has religion given meekness a bad reputation, misdefined it? What was your first experience with meekness? How would you define meekness? Oldstillwild answered on 04/14/06:Well,CeeBee2,
You made me aware of it....
"....the meek will inherit the earth...."
I feel rich!
Thanks! | | Question/Answer | Dark_Crow asked on 04/13/06 - Education is a progressive discovery of ignorance.
William DurantWhat do you think motivated Durant to say that? Academic knowledge is for the most part, not bad. A fact is that much of it is very interesting and can be used in many ways. Perhaps what moved him to say that is when all you learn is to know, and to repeat knowledge, progress is pretty much non-existent. Oldstillwild answered on 04/13/06:Well,he meant,that any progress in knowledge does create an exponential number of new questions.
That si to say,if scientists aint stupid.
e.g gentechnology:
the stupid ones(criminals) think they know it all,
the smart ones acknowledge,that there is almost infinite more after last discoveries,that is to be explored..... | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 04/12/06 - How did purposeful activity originate?....... Scientific explanation is retrospective, i.e. backward-looking : it seeks to explain the present and future in terms of the past. Purposive explanation is prospective, i.e. forward-looking: it explains the past and present in terms of the future.
At the outset it cannot be assumed either explanation is sufficient by itself. There is no a priori reason to suppose either the past or the future is more significant than the other.
For science the future cannot influence the present. Causality is a one-way process which leads in no particular direction. Biogical evolution, for example, is thought to be the result of a series of accidents caused by favourable genetic mutations which need not have led to the emergence of man.
Yet even non-human living organisms are necessarily goal-seeking. Their activity is "teleonomic" in stark contrast to inorganic processes which lack the "plasticity" of life. It was this fact that caused Henri Bergson to postulate an "elan vital".
"Why?" remains as significant as "How?" and cannot be ignored in any balanced view of reality. In practical terms the question of purpose is usually more important. What are your views? Oldstillwild answered on 04/12/06:Maybe,yet surely the explanation is as simple as Life is unknown by complex simplicity.
Life is the basis of all.
Any being is just a form,caused by Life.
So,basically all all = one in all basic aspects.
So it comes down to the specific species and accidental evolutions,whereby the common factor would be surVIVAl.
So,
LIFE purpose SURVIVAL , AS GOOD AS IT GETS.
hI!
| | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 04/08/06 - What is self-sacrifice?........................ Some examples would be helpful. Oldstillwild answered on 04/08/06:Well...,Im sacrificing myself on a regular basis,answering your questions...... | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 04/08/06 - Liberty, equality, fraternity?............. "Of the three revolutionary ideas now written up on every wall, the first, the principle of political liberty, essence of the republican system, has destroyed not only the citizen's respect for the laws of the state which he regards as the commonplace expression of a passing whim (no whim is permanent), but also and above all his respect for those other laws, profound and solemn; leges naturae, offspring of nature's union with reason, laws in which the caprices of man or the citizen count for less than nothing. Oblivious, negligent and disdainful of these natural and spiritual laws, the French state threw discretion to the winds and exposed itself to the gravest dangers and corruptions.
The second of the revolutionary ideas, the principle of equality, essence of the democratic system, handed over power to the most numerous, that is to say the most inferior elements of the nation, to the least vigorous producers, to the most voracious consumers, who do the least work and the most damage.
The Frenchman is continually discouraged, if he is enterprising, by a meddling administration legally representative of the greatest number, but finds himself, if he is meek and humdrum, in receipt of the favors with which the same administration gratefully blesses his idleness, and so he has resigned himself to being an office parasite to such an extent that the flame of French national life burnt low and almost died because individuals are not helped to become people or rather because people are dragged down to the level of a herd of individual sheep.
Finally the third revolutionary idea, the principle of fraternity, the essence of cosmopolitan brotherhood, imposed on the one hand a limitless indulgence towards all men, provided they lived far enough away from us, were unknown to us, spoke a different language, or, better still, had a skin of different color. On the other hand this splendid principle allowed us to regard anyone, be he even fellow citizen or brother, as a monster and a villain if he failed to share with us even our mildest attack of philanthropic fever. The principle of universal fraternity which was supposed to establish peace among nations, has taken that frenzy of anger and aggression built by nature into the secret mechanism of that political animal, that political carnivore rather, called man, and turned each nation upon itself, upon its own compatriots. Frenchmen have been instructed in the arts of civil war.
And that is not all. The same ideas, distributed worldwide as French merchandise to all our customers, brought great harm to them and returned with interest upon our own heads."
What is your opinion? Oldstillwild answered on 04/08/06:So,Im a customer....well,allright then....
Liberty,equality,fraternity,first of all must be seen in the course of historical EVENTS.
Numerous are the occasions,that people feel united in their cause.....
Thats the only sensible true perspective to view this in.
So,betrayal always is imminent AND soon.
Lets take America.
There is no liberty.
There is no equality.
There is no fraternity.
Yet,it would clim itself to be the best and first and most genuine democracy of all....
Which it isnt,of course.....
America isnt even a democracy.
Wouldnt each individual support liberty,equality and fraternity.......!
Sadly so,its only human to be weak and distrustful,selfish,violent,AMONGST the masses.......anonymously.....cowardly,mean,
hypocrithically.
It demands great character and strongness not to give in on corruptive lures of being successful in anyway......
liberty,equality,fraternity it is.......
an illusion.
| | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 04/06/06 - WHAT IS MAN?.............................. a. Man the Machine.
b. Personal Merit Oldstillwild answered on 04/07/06:Well....,Id say
a.A SEXmachine
and
b.Beautiful kids
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 04/06/06 - Mind and Brain............................... How did the mind and brain originate? Three possibilities:
1. The mind is derived from the brain.
2. The brain is derived from the mind.
3. They originated separately.
How are the mind and brain related? Again three possibilities:
4. The brain controls the mind.
5. The mind controls the brain.
6. They control each other.
1 and 4 are compatible, as are 2 and 5.
1 and 5 seem incompatible, like 1 and 6, 2 and 4, 2 and 6.
3 and 6 seem compatible but 3 seems the least likely.
What is your opinion? Oldstillwild answered on 04/06/06:Well....,I sort of already answered this question earlier.
First there was(is) LIfe.
Than there is the materialisation of Life.
Closest to Life is the "Brain-Thing".
That is gutts plus brain.
From here it depends on circumstances,environment(land,water)etc.,which developments would occur.
Mind is directly related to the Brain-Thing and not really a separated phenomenon.Mind is BIOS-program("what have we got here" and probably even: "what do we need").
And
"what weve got" is the result of earlier mentioned developments related to the Brain-Thing.
The brain-thing,is very , very, vulnerable.(as you know).It needed protection and/by helping-parts, in order to survive.
So,it developed all kinds of other parts if necessary.
E.g.In the deepseas the Brain-Thing didnt feel the need for much protection.There we see beautiful transparant creatures.
On land,the Brain-Thing needed much more protective body and other hardware(parts).
So,
as to OldstillwildNwise:
First there was the Brain-Thing and than the helping parts-evolution.
The mind,rudimentary present from the start,developed along with this evolution.
and now this 1 thru 6 thing of yours......:
1 thru 3 n/a(see above)
I tend to consider the rest of the brain,apart from the mind,just as hardware.
The mind is in control.
If you were not in control,than one might say,the brain took over,but in my view,there is nothing substantial left and I wouldnt speak of new control,but just of loss of control.
So I opt for BIOS and that would make nr. 5 my pick.(although there still would be feedback-traffic).
Hi!
Thanks for the question(<:)
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 04/05/06 - What do you understand by "an act of will"? . Oldstillwild answered on 04/05/06:an act youd accept youre accountable for.
| | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 04/04/06 - In what sense do you make a choice? Machines make choices, from instructions that they do not choose. What choices do people make, and on what basis do they make these choices?
It seems to me Freedom is to be free to be what you are. So, for example, if you are ultimately an "ABC," then free will means that any choice you make will ultimately be based on you being "ABC".
Free will is not freedom to be something that you are not. Oldstillwild answered on 04/04/06:What choices do people make, and on what basis do they make these choices?
It seems to me Freedom is to be free to be what you are. So, for example, if you are ultimately an "ABC," then free will means that any choice you make will ultimately be based on you being "ABC".
Free will is not freedom to be something that you are not.
So this is not a question.
The question is:
Do people have boundries?
Yes people have boundries. | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 04/03/06 - Is determinism compatible with the ability to do otherwise? Is it possible that Memes are the basic building blocks of our minds and culture,that is, in the same sense that genes are the basic building blocks of biological life. Oldstillwild answered on 04/03/06:Well....,there are no blocks.
Genes are multicomposed dynamically functioning entities in a numerous numerous numerous number of combinations,never to be controlled by mankind as there is no constant factor at all!
Genetic manipulators are crmininals , not knowing or rather I should say , IN SPITE OF knowing what they are dealing with! | | Question/Answer | | Jon1667 asked on 04/03/06 - The efficacy of prayer. Science and religion, encore! "CHICAGO (Reuters) - A study of more than 1,800 patients who underwent heart bypass surgery has failed to show that prayers specially organized for their recovery had any impact, researchers said Thursday."
Most interesting were the letters that came into the NY Times explaining why such a test "prove nothing" about the efficacy of prayer. One pointed out that prayers to God had to be conducted in secret (according to the Bible) while expressing gratitude for what God has already done. Another argued that although God hears our prayers, there is no reason to believe that God will always answers them with giving the petitioners what they want. In other words, although God always answers prayer, sometimes his answer is, no.
All very interesting, especially from the Duhem-Quine perspective. Oldstillwild answered on 04/03/06:Absolutely stupid survey.......,
immeasurable by definition.........,
no other outcome would be possible........
Besides ,there is no god......,
Experiments should be done on tangible assets.......,
Its the power of Life,thats working and that power is limited......!..,
As "we" would know......!
Calling upon the power of Life under the "right" circumstances would work,even on an individual basis!
Stupid survey!
Incredible people!
Maybe the materialistic part of life can be taken for granted...,not so the truely and most important spiritual part!
Stupid survey!
Stupid people!
Of course,there would be a greater majority,eager enough to spread the "good" news!
Stupid survey!
Stupid people!
I bet your parrot does not speak! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 04/03/06 - The Argument from Ignorance............... Is any explanation better than none? Provided an explanation is consistent with the existing body of knowledge I believe that in the absence of a rival it should be accepted provisionally, no matter how improbable and unpalatable it may seem. The value of this strategy is that it provides a basis for investigation whereas the alternative offers nothing! Oldstillwild answered on 04/03/06:Well....,
this IS the condition,without which there will be no real progress,ever!
Given todays world........
Its interesting,that this process would be at work within the same individual.....,
so whats at stake here is trust,confidence,trustworthyness,integrity,
confidence,introspection,truth..........
Its time the world yet to be discovered.... | | Question/Answer | | raezzoul asked on 04/02/06 - music and concentration What is the effect of music, at different levels of dissonance, on the student's ability to concentrate?
Not everyone can work with the music in the background. Oldstillwild answered on 04/02/06:Not everyone can work with the music in the background........ | | Question/Answer | | HerrAirhorn asked on 04/02/06 - Robots Full Members of Society? New York Times International
SEOUL, South Korea
"South Korea, the world's most wired country, is rushing to turn what sounds like science fiction into everyday life. The government, which succeeded in getting broadband Internet into 72 percent of all households in the last half decade, has marshaled an army of scientists and business leaders to make robots full members of society.
Jupiter, is a robot built by a South Korean company for domestic use.
By 2007, networked robots that, say, relay messages to parents, teach children English and sing and dance for them when they are bored, are scheduled to enter mass production. Outside the home, they are expected to guide customers at post offices or patrol public areas, searching for intruders and transmitting images to monitoring centers.
If all goes according to plan, robots will be in every South Korean household between 2015 and 2020. That is the prediction, at least, of the Ministry of Information and Communication, which has grouped more than 30 companies, as well as 1,000 scientists from universities and research institutes, under its wing. Some want to move even faster.
"My personal goal is to put a robot in every home by 2010," said Oh Sang Rok, manager of the ministry's intelligent service robot project."
I was shocked by this article. How can robots be 'full members of society'? Robots are machines, for heaven's sake.
What are your philosophical thoughts about this? Oldstillwild answered on 04/02/06:Im afraid youre fooled,Herr! | | Question/Answer | | omarjavaid asked on 03/31/06 - Time Dear Sir
I would like you to ask you that what is the definition of and duration of present? The harder I try to figure out the answer the more clear it becomes that the present is just the most resent imprint of our senses on our consciousness. In a moment this imprint is transferred into our memories and it fads away. This gradual fading away of imprints from our senses gives us a feeling that time is passing. I think that the feel of time is a function of the fading process of our imprint on our memory. That is why in different situations we feel differently about the passage of time.
I think there is no duration of present. Future is directly converted into past. Some part of our consciousness is in future and some of it is in past.
Please comment on my thought
Thanks and regards
Omar Javaid
Oldstillwild answered on 03/31/06:There is only the now.
The now has no dimension.
Its impossible to grasp the now.
Another thing is perception.
Thats apart from the phenomenon time or present or now.
The now is objectively "not"there for the taking.
Perception is by definition subjective.
All your brain or consciousness is dealing with belongs to the now.
There is only the now.
Hi! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 03/31/06 - Metaphysics and Ethics...................... Aristotle believed fulfilment and happiness are the result of living virtuously, ethics being related to metaphysics. To extent, if any, do you agree? Oldstillwild answered on 03/31/06:Fulfillment and happiness are the result of living virtuously, ethics being related to metaphysics;
virtue is necessarily leading to happiness and the highest good is contemplation!
I foolly agree with that!
Its the truth.
| | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 03/29/06 - Is their a relationship between human nature and war? Thomas Hobbes so says in Leviathan CHAPTER XIII. Oldstillwild answered on 03/30/06:Good for Hobbes....
Going to war is a DECISION!
making DECISIONS is human nature.
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 03/29/06 - Science and Ethics ................................ Science and ethics are generally considered totally unrelated but is this the case? To pursue science surely implies that science is worth pursuing and probably that scientific discoveries are important and will benefit mankind. So science must be based on a value judgement, don't you think? Oldstillwild answered on 03/29/06:There is no value judgement at all by definition included here.
Its purely curiosity.
What will come out of it , is as random as a sweepstake.
During scientific research one might encounter ethical aspects amongst all other aspects re scientific work.
Within the scientific environment there is NO ETHICS AT ALL.
The only bounderies is the individual conscience.
Ethics is the superficial layer to the outside world. | | Question/Answer | | jackreade asked on 03/29/06 - Some things independent of God Spinoza said, I believe, that God exists, but only philosophically.
Leibniz accepted, and even endorsed, the fact that some things are independent of God. These are necessary truths, such as: all squares are not circles.
Are these views consistent with atheism?
Jack
Yeah, I'm back; nowhere else to go. :) Oldstillwild answered on 03/29/06:These are variations on a theme.....
There is no God.
Thats atheism.
Yet,there are happenings that would show,that there is more than we "know".
People are trying to determine and to define,what there would be if it isnt god.
And thats totally consistent with being an atheist.....one is just trying to cope with some reality.....
Leibniz,obviously,is not an atheist.
What is clear and important to assess,is that it is not sufficient being just an atheist,for then one is denying a piece of reality.
There is no god,so I am an atheist , but
I am a lifeaeist too.
There is no god,but there is Life,our source,which is very powerful.
All not purely natural or accidental caused occurrences are due to LIFE itself.
We have access to that power.
Hi!
| | Question/Answer | | HerrAirhorn asked on 03/28/06 - Three Years Ago Three years ago on this Board there was a lot of discussion about what the US policy should be in the midddle east, precisely, should America invade Iraq, and all ancillary questions and ideas. I have cut and pasted part of an article from dailynews dot com for you to read and comment on.
"Eric Haney, a retired command sergeant major of the U.S. Army, was a founding member of Delta Force, the military's elite covert counter-terrorist unit. He culled his experiences for "Inside Delta Force" (Delta; $14), a memoir rich with harrowing stories, though in an interview, Haney declines with a shrug to estimate the number of times he was almost killed. (Perhaps the most high-profile incident that almost claimed his life was the 1980 failed rescue of the hostages in Iran.) Today, he's doing nothing nearly as dangerous: He serves as an executive producer and technical adviser for "The Unit," CBS' new hit drama based on his book, developed by playwright David Mamet. Even up against "American Idol," "The Unit" shows muscle, drawing 18 million viewers in its first two airings.
Since he has devoted his life to protecting his country in some of the world's most dangerous hot spots, you might assume Haney is sympathetic to the Bush administration's current plight in Iraq (the laudatory cover blurb on his book comes from none other than Fox's News' Bill O'Reilly). But he's also someone with close ties to the Pentagon, so he's privy to information denied the rest of us.
We recently spoke to Haney, an amiable, soft-spoken Southern gentleman, on the set of "The Unit."
Q: What's your assessment of the war in Iraq?
A: Utter debacle. But it had to be from the very first. The reasons were wrong. The reasons of this administration for taking this nation to war were not what they stated. (Army Gen.) Tommy Franks was brow-beaten and ... pursued warfare that he knew strategically was wrong in the long term. That's why he retired immediately afterward. His own staff could tell him what was going to happen afterward.
We have *fomented civil war* in Iraq. We have probably fomented internecine war in the Muslim world between the Shias and the Sunnis, and I think *Bush may well have started the third world war*, all for their own personal policies.
Q: What is the cost to our country?
A: For the first thing, our credibility is utterly zero. So we destroyed whatever credibility we had. ... And I say "we," because the American public went along with this. They voted for a second Bush administration out of *fear, so fear is what they're going to have from now on*.
Our military is completely consumed, so were there a real threat - thankfully, there is no real threat to the U.S. in the world, but were there one, we couldn't confront it. Right now, that may not be a bad thing, because that keeps Bush from trying something with Iran or with Venezuela.
The harm that has been done is *irreparable*..."
HerrAirhorn comments: This seems to me to be a realistic assessment of the outcome of neo-Con philosoply Bush implemented as the War in Iraq....WORLD WAR THREE.
Do you agree or have any comments? Oldstillwild answered on 03/28/06:Well....,some wishfull thinkin from my part here.....
I dont think WWIII is imminent ,let alone has already started....
I hope , that my assesment is right as to the cleverness of the leaders of the rest of the world......
Puppet on a string Bush represents a dangerous power of industries,which have taken over government 4 a long time now......
This war was not a mistake...its precisely what Bush c.s was after from the beginning....
Bush is not to pull out of Iraq and Im not so sure if he wont redirect his war-activities to Iran....the first "warnings", of course thru the United Nations, have already gone out........
The future of violence in the world is in the hands of the people of the United States.....
Can a nation be great in his "defeat"? is a question really to be addressed....!
My guess is,that in a couple of years the American people will feel,that anything is better than continuing this war....
In fact,Bush is tired of this war already,yet not having the gutts to betray his stringpeople,or to admit it for that matter at all......
I think it was his last State of the Union,that he put emphasis on independence of energy-resourses and alternatives....in other words,to get independent of the middle east in stead of persuing the need to be there in order to control resources....
Mark my words:Bush is striving to be remembered as the driving force behind energy-independence,developing alternatives,trying to avoid being remembered as the puppet on a string War-lord....
In vain, of course......
| | Question/Answer | | Coup_de_Grace asked on 03/26/06 - Ethics in the Twenty-First Century Is It Ethical to Use Enhancement Technologies to Make Us Better than Well?
"Background to the debate: A variety of biomedical technologies are being developed that can be used for purposes other than treating disease. Such enhancement technologies can be used to improve our appearance and regulate our emotions, with the goal of feeling better than well. While these technologies can help people adapt to their rapidly changing lifestyles, their use raises important ethical issues".
What is your position on this issue?
Thank you. Oldstillwild answered on 03/26/06:Well Coup de Grace!
Developments are not particularly gracious to life and it is not difficult to see,that such developments will get back to life itself.
Technologies like this will wear out life.
It will work like replacing sound nutricion by one pill a day,which happen to be malnutricion.
Last question was about egocentrical people and developments like this are egocentrical selfish developments at the cost of the quality of life itself.
Degeneration will proceed only faster....
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 03/25/06 - Are we really in an Egocentric predicament? ........ This problem is related to the last question. Just as we cannot feel another person's pain or pleasure so too, it is argued, we are limited to our own perceptions, trapped inside our minds and cannot have direct knowledge of anything but our thoughts, feelings and sensations. What is your reaction? Oldstillwild answered on 03/26/06:First of all,lately this board is dominated by Freudian slips,issues and questions of certain individuals.
Therefore its only logical,that this question is coming up,as freudian slip people arent capable of anything like"feeling another person's pain or pleasure so are limited to their own perceptions" and incapable of proper argueing as they are blinded by their own egocentric views.
Conclusively , its of no use continueing argueing issues based on such a egocentric limited fashion.
So,its important to dismiss the premisses.
which is in this case:
"as we cannot feel another person's pain or pleasure so too.......".
Only a person who is egocentric limited this way is capable of posing a question like this!
Empathic people are perfectly capable of feeling the sensations of other people.
In fact,in that field I happen to be announced extremely gifted by professionals.
Most people have empathetic capabilities to different degrees.
So"as we cannot feel another person's pain or pleasure so too"is a false premisses and an insult to most people.
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 03/24/06 - What is the nature of explanation? ............ Are there different types of explanation which are equally valid or does one of them have precedence? Are we bound to be ultimately confronted by that which cannot be explained? If so, how would we know we have reached that point? Oldstillwild answered on 03/24/06:Well......,let me say this in this regard......:
Explanation is the mother of all misunderstanding.
The best explanation is no explanation.
The best way to reach goals is to adapt in integrity.
There will be no sound change without confidence.
As long as people are in the scientific mode,all future will be limited to and distrastically so,to the results of the as such conditioned human mind.
There is nothing to explain.
Life is about experiencing and learning from within.
There is no book about truth.
There is no master to follow.
There is nothing to explain. | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 03/24/06 - Does motion exist? Suppose you intend to travel from point A to point B on a straight line. In order to do that you have to reach the midpoint C between A and B. In order to reach point C you have to reach the midpoint of A and C, say D, ad infinitum. Therefore it takes you an infinite amount of finite movements to reach point B which is in contrast with the notion of constant speed.
Therefore motion does not exist. Do you agree? Oldstillwild answered on 03/24/06:
It only says something about aiming successive midpoints in the cause of other things and in reverse order.
You are changing your goal as you (dont) go along......Youre just trying to determine which point you want to reach first and youll find out,that youll never reach determination about that point......,so you wouldnt start at all.....because there is no decision about the goal
Conclusively its just logical,that there is no motion as there never was the decision to move!
But in reality you just ARE passing all these points while going to B,which is your goal,you decided about.
The midpoints are totally irrelevant to the decision to reach point B.
The only effect of this way of thinking is not coming to any decision to start at all......
So,if we all would THINK this way,there would be no people in motion and nuts of course,as we would experience,that we would be already there,without having reached the true goal,whilst no escape is possible.......!
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 03/22/06 - How do we know we are thinking?............... Is it by inference or direct awareness? Oldstillwild answered on 03/23/06:Well,
some people would say,I think,therefore Im alive!
Not me.
If Id say anything,it would be:
I feel,therefore Im alive! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 03/22/06 - How do we know we are thinking?............... Is it by inference or direct awareness? Oldstillwild answered on 03/23/06:We must not forget,that all we can do is calling names......
So,
what the hell is thinkin'!
Do I have to think?!
Do I have to know that Im thinking?!
Do I have to know?!
We call some sort of awareness thinking...
So what!
Whats the use of it!
Every description of our self,our being cant be anything else than a poor vehicle to describe it,while at the same time it doesnt represent anything close to Being at all!
Thinking in itself is of no importance.Its an aspect of our awareness and lacks any true connection with ...anythink...
So,although i know,that in the last five minutes I did some thinking,I would care less about what thinking is,let alone why I would doing it,let alone,why I should know,that Im doing it or what it really is that I an doing.
Hi!
| | Question/Answer | | Coup_de_Grace asked on 03/20/06 - Human Brain Last night at dinner, we all got into a heated discussion about the capacity of the human brain. My wife posed a question...since so little of the human brain is used by most(all)human beings, why has it evolved into such a complicated sophisticated "mechanism"....like far more advanced than the use to which it is put now or ever was in the past? It seems at first glance that other bodily organs are adequate, not super-adequate like the brain.
Do you experts have any thoughts and speculation about this?
Thank you.
Ben
Benjamin and Susan Grace Oldstillwild answered on 03/20/06:This is pure speculation of course....
"It seems at first glance that other bodily organs are adequate, not super-adequate like the brain."
Well,Coup de Grace,
It seems to me , you just demonstrated the not so adequate working of the human brain...........
First of all,I dont know,
Secondly, you dont know,
Thirdly,a peace of metal does better work,
Fourthly,there is much redundancy,
Fifthly,where is my mouse!
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 03/18/06 - In what sense do facts, concepts and numbers exist? Are they "real" in some sense other than that applied to material objects?
Truth, for example, is generally regarded as correspondence. It seems independent of time, space and human activity. It is intangible but not imaginary. We can hardly describe truth as a fiction! It cannot be linguistic convention because art can express truth.
Numbers present a similar problem. They are distinct from the symbols used to refer to them. They are abstract and intangible yet not fictitious. Otherwise why do we distinguish between "real numbers" and "imaginary numbers"?
What are your views? Oldstillwild answered on 03/18/06:We are so limited....
and redundant.....
If we werent here at all,
would there be facts,concepts and numbers?
I think not.
Not in this sense.
They disappear with the human mind.
Truth is there despite humans.
But be careful,not to get mixed up here!
My truth will disappear with me even so!
So,in what sense they do exist?
They exist in the Big Knowing,the Big Conscious and have their own lives,totally independent from physical reality.
They are chimera's....
(In what sense do chimera's exist....)
Well.....,you know......!
| | Question/Answer | | jackreade asked on 03/18/06 - Resign Board I am resigning the board because it does not meet my needs for fun open and controversial discussions. I enjoyed my stay here.
Regards, Jack Oldstillwild answered on 03/18/06:Welll.....,
that was a short period of time visit......
If youve problems,lets sort it out.....
It should be fun,being here....
if not,
well....,as I said......,
if youve problems,lets sort it out.....
Have a nice universial remaining stay,Jackreade!
By the way....,
is tthat ddone......?
resigning without notice...? | | Question/Answer | | jackreade asked on 03/18/06 - Science and the Origin of the Universe IN view of the conversation recently about science and metaphysics, I thought this article might be of interest to Board members.
"Scientists investigating the origin of the universe have found new evidence deep inside the earliest light that supports the idea of a rapid cosmic inflation before the "Big Bang" expansion.
Data collected from a new satellite map of the 13.7 billion-year-old universe backed the concept of inflation, which poses that the universe expanded many trillion times its size in less than a trillionth of a second.
The results of a team of US and Canadian researchers were announced Thursday by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
The latest data from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe is based on three years of continuous observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), the afterglow light produced when the universe was less than a million years old.
WMAP polarization data allowed scientists to discriminate between competing models of inflation for the first time, NASA said in a statement.
"This is a milestone in cosmology. We can now distinguish between different versions of what happened within the first trillionth of a second of the universe," said WMAP research team leader Charles Bennett, a professor at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland.
"The longer WMAP observes, the more it reveals about how our universe grew from microscopic quantum fluctuations to the vast expanses of stars and galaxies we see today."
Previous WMAP observations focused on the temperature variations of this light, which provided an accurate age of the universe and insights into its geometry and composition.
The new WMAP observations give not only a more detailed temperature map, but also the first full-sky map of the polarization of the CMB".
Conversation welcome. Oldstillwild answered on 03/18/06:Welll....,
just awaiting the conclusion,that the universe is only a part of it all and the result of an ungoing process of inflating and expansion.....
The suggestion ,that we're all one and originating from a dot is older than 25 years,by the way. | | Question/Answer | | NCohen asked on 03/17/06 - Philosophy of Science Sometime ago I was involved in a discussion concerning whether scientists should limit themselves (or not)in setting any limits on their investigations....because the decision on how to use (positively or negatively) the applications of their investigations are partly the responsibility of the politicians and corporations?
- Are scientists responsible negative consequences of their discoveries ?
- If so, should scientists limit their investigations?
- Are politicians and corporations responsible enough to apply new discoveries in a constructive way? Should this be a concern of scientists?
Many thanks. Oldstillwild answered on 03/17/06:Is it possible that technology and evolution go hand in hand? Has technology slowed down evolution, or at least slowed the idea of "survival of the fittest" since with more advanced technology there are less requirements for one to adapt to their environment? I am concerned with people's thoughts about how technology has effected the rate of evolution. Could it actually be exponentiating evolution to the point where we may be able to notice it within our own lifetime?
Well,McCohen,
We are part of evolution.
Besides,do we know what the pace of evolution is.Do we know,what the pace of evolution should be.
Do we know,what evolution looks like?
Arent we conducting and concluding and using life as if there is no evolution at all?
Nevertheless,ALL we do by definition will affect where were going to.
So,given all of the above,there is absolutely no reason to believe,that we're capable in anyway,of determining anything according our evolution,with the slightest probability of accuracy. | | Question/Answer | | NCohen asked on 03/17/06 - Technology and Evolution Is it possible that technology and evolution go hand in hand? Has technology slowed down evolution, or at least slowed the idea of "survival of the fittest" since with more advanced technology there are less requirements for one to adapt to their environment? I am concerned with people's thoughts about how technology has effected the rate of evolution. Could it actually be exponentiating evolution to the point where we may be able to notice it within our own lifetime?
Many Thanks, Oldstillwild answered on 03/17/06:Well,NCohen,
your premisses is,that science is a positive......,
I doubt that. | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 03/16/06 - Science and metaphysics.......................... Once again science is alleged to be more informative than metaphysics - which is said to be mere speculation. Yet if science is based on metaphysical assumptions how can it be a superior form of knowledge? Without solid foundations science must be a castle in the air...
What is science based on, if not the following assumptions (amongst others)? That the universe exists, that the universe is intelligible and fundamentally orderly, and that there are causal relations between objects. Are these scientific or metaphysical assumptions? Oldstillwild answered on 03/17/06:metaphysical has always been there,no matter what......
science basically, is the urge of the sceptic to establish and prove anything....
Universe,did we prove that , did we establish its existance and to what extend?
Well,we know there is an enormous room up there,but we dont know how big it is and what we still would find there or if there are more universes and what the universe is coming from specifically.....
Intelligible and fundamentally orderly.....,Well,
Science has concluded,that "reality"is based on a merger of chaos and order and still searching for the connection between the two.......
Causal relations between objects.....,well,
science yet failed to reveal the overall causality of things,certainly not to be expected than until order and chaos are properly analised.....
The conclusion cant be other than,that a big part of the scientific picture is still WISHFUL THINKING , commonly translated by the terms LOTS OF RESEARCH STILL NEEDED ON THIS.......
My conclusion therefore is , that the scientific area or arena ,is biased by a degree of uncertainty ,which is probably as big as 99,9 % of all knowledge potentially available.......and maybe even more....
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 03/15/06 - How plausible is materialism? .............................Where are thoughts, beliefs, desires, intentions and sensory experiences located in the brain? In which part of the brain does a rational decision occur? Where is the seat of consciousness? In the absence of precise answers is it correct to describe materialism as an unverified hypothesis? Oldstillwild answered on 03/15/06:I wouldnt know....
What I know,is that life is not about materialism at all.(both....,all...ways).
| | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 03/15/06 - in general...................................... Is it the scientist, or, the metaphysician who want to get closer than, in general, to what is considered knowledge? Oldstillwild answered on 03/15/06:The scientist is trying to prove what the metaphysician already might know(for decades)....... | | Question/Answer | | HerrAirhorn asked on 03/14/06 - Essentialism Essentialism a belief in natural, immutable sex differences is anathema to postmodernists, for whom sexuality itself, along with gender, is a social construct (Wendy Kaminer).
Do you believe that sex differences are immutable?
Or, that sexuality itself along with gender is a social construct?? Oldstillwild answered on 03/14/06:Gender is from genes..... | | Question/Answer | | Bradd asked on 03/13/06 - First Questions How did it all begin? Not why (a subsequent question), but how?
Science has given us the Big Bang but seems stopped at that moment - ten to the minus 43rd power of the first second. the Planck time.
If one asks, "What about before that time"?, Science replies, "There is/was no 'before' - time did not exist. Or, the Universe arose from "quantum vacuum fluctuations". (Stephen Hawking).
In either case, Science being limited by what it observes, it ends the question essentially claiming that the question of origins is irrelevant since we can never observe it.
On the other hand, an unknowable "God" may be equally true, although Science will be quick to criticize this "God" notion as false or unscientific, while, in essence, maintaining the identical position.
This is not a question about religion or how religion can be misused for bad purposes, but is not a "God" as ultimately rational as "it's irrelevant" or "quantum vacuum fluctuations"?
Oldstillwild answered on 03/13/06:Well...maybe its as simple as eternity and endlessly.....
There is no beginning and there is no end.
Just cope with that.
And about the big bang:
That was the beginning of the universe As We Know It.
Understandings,terms, like beginning and end are purely human and based on the limited ability to cope with the practicality of terms like eternity and endlessly and infinite and nothing.
So,reality goes beyond the Big Bang.
Thats how I see it.
Hi! | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 03/13/06 - Where does this desire to self-sacrifice come from? Do you suppose it to be instinctual? Of course, not, so we can eliminate that from the start of the inquiry. Oldstillwild answered on 03/13/06:Its just Social pressure.Compare it to peer-pressure.
Scientific researchresults show,that people are willing to do virtually Anything if the surrounding conditions are inviting enough to do so.
Psychologically Self-sacrifice is really nothing special at all.
Its about convincing people of doing the right thing.
Anyone would be willing to do the right thing.
(no quotes!)
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 03/11/06 - When and why should emotion prevail over reason? ..... "Should" is not necessarily moral. Oldstillwild answered on 03/12/06:Its hard to determine if and when emotion is the driving factor ,totally abandoned from reason.
Panicking is an example of purely emotional
acting.
The result would be purely at random.
Than,we have all kinds of situations,whereby emotion and reason are both in play.
Most of the time if not in all cases,its reason,which determines where to go:
the emotional way or the purely reasonable way:Eventually we are always responsible for our actions.
Yet,we may decide to go the emotional way.
The risk of that is,that we might lose control and getting purely emotional,things running out of hand.
Still,its possible to choose rationally for the emotional side of a case and not letting things run out of hand and reaching a proper and best result in the cause of things.
These things happen:
Imagine:
Keenu is slapping her husband.He gets angry about that(inside),but he thinks;She cant help it,so he leaves his emotions for what it is and continues reading Dr. Phil's book.
Purplewings is slapping her boyfriend.He feels angry and gives her a peace of well you know....he decided to act upon his feelings.It never occurred ever since again....
One might let prevail emotion over reason within reason.....although one's never sure about what within reason would be.....
My dog brings me my shoes.A lovely dog.I love him.Would like to give him a cookie everytime(emotion),but I dont do that for obvious reasons.
Darkcrow has one bible left.A sinner comes along.Darkcrow loves his book derely,but at the same time,he'd want to help that woman.So he gives her his last book.In both
cases emotion has the upperhand over reason and the greater passion did him give his book away.
I didnt feel like answering this question at all,but evenso I didnt like the feeling about my external harddisk getting broke,stuck,unwilling to cooperate or whatever,so I decided just to start a conversation with myself and here it is:
A negative emotion as basis for endless elaboration over a case of do or die for the love of Ivy.....
So in this case one might conclude,that Ive myself carrying away from my negative feelings ,producing a peace of crap from here to eternity,yet with some valuable ingredients.....
My external drive is still broke....Shit!
| | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 03/11/06 - Do we have a Self and do we know what it is? What of people who do not have an original thought in their lives, or, who have no epiphanies? Oldstillwild answered on 03/11/06:As I stated before all questions are valid and all answers are.
They all have its own meaning.
This remarks must be seen in the light of freedom using one's imagination and creative
abilities.
Beyond this meaning , questions as such may be questioned.
I question the question about "What of people who do not have an original thought in their lives".
While we all know indecent proposals,this is an indecent question.
There is nobody on the face of this earth,who has the ability,let alone the right,to determine or decide if anyone should be classified as such,nor the right even to suppose,that there would be "people who do not have an original thought in their lives".
There is no human being at all,without the ability to be creative.
| | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 03/09/06 - How did religion begin? The study of the origin and development of religion is a comparatively new field. For centuries, people more or less accepted the religious tradition into which they were born and in which they were brought up. Most of them were satisfied with the explanations handed down to them by their forefathers, feeling that their religion was the truth. There was seldom any reason to question anything, nor the need to investigate how, when, or why things got started. In fact, for centuries, with limited means of travel and communication, few people were even aware of other religious systems.
During the 19th century, however, the picture began to change. The theory of evolution was sweeping through intellectual circles. That, along with the advent of scientific inquiry, caused many to question established systems, including religion. Recognizing the limitations of looking for clues within existing religion, some scholars turned to the remains of early civilizations or to the remote corners of the world where people still lived in primitive societies. They tried to apply to these the methods of psychology, sociology, anthropology, and so forth, hoping to discover a clue as to how religion began and why.
0 What was the outcome? Suddenly, there burst upon the scene many theoriesas many as there were investigators, it seemedwith each investigator contradicting the other, and each endeavoring to outdo the other in daring and originality. Some of these researchers arrived at important conclusions; the work of others has simply been forgotten. It is both educational and enlightening for us to get a glimpse of the results of this research. It will help us to gain a better understanding of the religious attitudes among people we meet Oldstillwild answered on 03/10/06:Religion is a terribly,terribly mistaken monster , based on a false perception of life.
The need for religion is basically the feeling of the necessity to preserve conscience ,yet not recognized as such...
In practice,religion is based on the obsession to force views on people by violence,based on the unnecessary fear for a not understood greater power,which in turn is based on the inadequacy and cowardness of mankind to take responsibility for its actions and to accept reality as such.
The core of each religious movement is shameless compulsion,not leading to anything else than violence.
The core of religion is "Jail or die"!
There will always be religious wars,as long as mankind is failing to recognize its true
lovely origine and its commitment to peace.
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 03/09/06 - What is your concept of God? ..........................................regardless of belief or disbelief....... Oldstillwild answered on 03/09/06:okay....,regardless....
Jail or die! | | Question/Answer | | CeeBee2 asked on 03/09/06 - Moral phenomenology. What is the phenomenological difference between the virtuous and the non-virtuous? Oldstillwild answered on 03/09/06:Well....,
that is a tough question.......!
Id say , the phenomenological difference would be something like......:
Gee......,
Tough,tough......
Well the differrence would be
distinguishably abiding to his/her conscience.
That sit.
Note:
Distinguishably re to clearly independent and higher morals,than the community or than commonly usage and to an extend,that its hardly imaginable that he/she ever might do something "wrong" or would be compromised ever.
Well.....,
how about that....?(<:)
plenty of room for the lessor virtuous to respond appropriately........
| | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 03/07/06 - Is tolerance bound to conscience? In the small town of Rengasdengklok, Indonesia, ethnic groups lived together in peace for years. Apparent tolerance, however, came to an end on January 30, 1997. Violence erupted when a little before three oclock in the morning on a religious feast day, a believer started beating his drum. Responding to the noise, a man of another religion showered insults on his neighbor. Shouts were exchanged, and stones started to fly. Day broke, and rioting increased as others joined the fray. By the end of the day, two Buddhist temples and four of Christendoms churches had been destroyed. The International Herald Tribune newspaper reported this incident under the title Spark of Intolerance Lights Fires of Ethnic Rioting.
From Craige McMillan a commentator for WorldNetDaily.
"Matters of conscience. "Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties," wrote the English poet John Milton. Or as Albert Einstein was quoted in an obituary, "Never do anything against conscience, even if the state demands it."
Harsh words. Yet today there are millions, the polls tell us, who demand that we do precisely that: protestors are now routinely routed from abortion clinics, using special laws, and homosexuals have mounted a fevered campaign to extend the institution of marriage to their unique lifestyle. But for millions of people of a variety of faiths, abortion or homosexuality are grievous sins punishable by God, oftentimes using the individual conscience as His chosen vehicle. Furthermore, people of faith and conscience are not asked to tolerate these acts in faraway places or other cities, but in the very schools and neighborhoods where we raise our children and make our home. " Oldstillwild answered on 03/07/06:Well...,its no use discussing this topic from this point of depart.
Its full of prejudice and facts,which just show the opposite of abiding conscience.
New points of view are not to be found in history.
Conscience is bigger than tolerance.
Decisions based on intolerance , being violent,have nothing to do with being conscientious.
Nothing at all!
Any killing is inconscentious.
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 03/06/06 - What is your concept of a perfect world? ........ Please indicate how it could be implemented. Oldstillwild answered on 03/07/06:There is only one perfect world:
Its in you!
There is only one way to get there:
Thru you!
That is:
If you want it!
So lets emerge deed and word! | | Question/Answer | | HerrAirhorn asked on 03/06/06 - How on Earth? In this day and age, what possible argument can a person make for the opinion that death and illness and illness related pain are EVIL? These are all "natural" occurences.
How about using the proper words...maybe unfortunate, sad, untimely, etx. Can anyone make the case?
Oldstillwild answered on 03/06/06:Well...,If nobody is applying;
Ill play the devils advocate.
There are quite a lot of people who do believe in Evil as an entity.
That makes all negative occurrences a display of Evil.(or Devil,for that matter)
So , if you get sick,ill,dismembered or catch a cold,it would be that Evil entity working.
Its a matter of definition,belief and perception.
It makes clear,that questioneers should be clear and specific , what they mean,if they are asking questions.....
Believers should now rather make their case about the relation between Evil and God.
For example:Who is more powerful.
Or
Can there be any omnipotent entity if there are two "ghosts"(God and Evil)
or
If you look around at this planet and you are totally new here,
What first entity youd start to believe in:Evil or God?
or
why not play the role of the devils advocate by believers:
Which believer would dare to make a case ,that ,assuming being new at this planet,it would be pretty clear to them sooner,that there is no reason at all to start to believe in God or Evil or other fabrication,as there is plenty of evidence of the fruits of human resources..... | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 03/05/06 - Evil (continued)......................... Opinions about evil range from its non-existence to its significance that God does not exist. Some deny that pain and suffering are evil while others regard pain and suffering are the worst evils of all. Yet others believe only moral evil exists and natural evil is an illusion. So what is the truth?
If we go by practice rather than theory it is evident that pain and suffering are generally avoided and regarded as undesirable - not only because they are unpleasant but also because they prevent a person from living and enjoying a full life. Often pain serves a useful purpose but the pain of an incurable disease is useless and pointless when it destroys rather than develops the personality of the victim. It is the negation of life and development that is objectionable, whether or not it is caused by human beings. We may argue about terminology but the facts are indisputable: failure, misery and death are realities that devalue and spoil life.
When we assess the value of life, and human life in particular, we have to determine whether the cost is too great - particularly in view of the unnecessary waste and harm caused by homo sapiens. That is why this question is important... Oldstillwild answered on 03/06/06:"Torture and murder would not cease to be evil even if everyone approved of such actions. "
A beautiful sentence and its seducive to let go , because it does sounds so logically..........
As stated before evil is a judgeMental term.
"Approved" in the sentence above should only be read as approving to commit evil as such.
But what , if people agree , that actions FORMERLY considered being evil,torture and murder,now are being agreed upon being good and just and morally totally accepted?
Its obvious , that such actions would cease to be evil,because there is nobody left of the opinion,that it would be evil.
so again:"Torture and murder would not cease to be evil even if everyone approved of such actions."
....is a false statement!
| | Question/Answer | | HerrAirhorn asked on 03/04/06 - Ethical Dilemma Say a runaway trolley is heading down some tracks toward five workmen who will be killed if the trolley continues. You are on a footbridge over the tracks. Next to you is a stranger who happens to be very large.
The only way to save the lives of the workmen is to push the stranger off the bridge and onto the tracks in order to stop the trolley. The stranger will die, but the workmen will be saved. You cannot throw yourself onto the tracks because you are not big enough to stop the trolley.
What you think Kant would say should be done? It seems to me that the Categorical Imperitive would prevent me from pushing the man off of the tracks. It would be my will to do it to save the men but I could not want it to be a universal law. This is because I would not want someone else to push me onto the tracks if I were to take the place of the stranger.
It also seems Kant would say not to push the stranger because we are treating him as a means to some end. That end being to save the workmen.
NOW, Say that I am big enough to stop the train (second scenrio). Should I jump in order to save five lives?
Any input appreciated. Oldstillwild answered on 03/04/06:Someone once said:
Save one life and you save mankind.
Im not interested what Kant would do.Nobody knows that.
I can only say what I would do,as this is a personal dilemma.
Nobody should say what anybody should do at the cost of his/her life.
Its THE very personal choice.(.)
So,my answer to this question is:
Re others:Thats none of your(or mine) business.
Re yourself:Thats not anybody else's business.
If you push,youre committing murder.
What would I do?
I would cry,scream,throw , whatever, I could do at the circumstances to try to save these 5 men.All other than committing murder or suicide.
ONE exeption:
If I were that big to survive the collision,Id jump.
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 03/03/06 - How would you define evil? ......................... In theory there could be as many types of evil as there are creatures, e.g. "canine evil", "feline evil" and "leonine evil"! Or even a type of evil for every individual: Jack's evil and Jill's evil since "one man's meat is another man's poison"... This is an absurd extreme but it does indicate that definitions often oversimplify the issue.
The traditional division into "moral evil" and "natural evil" is misleading because a so-called evil person may not be evil at all. A rapist or serial killer may not be responsible for his crimes, yet the crimes are undoubtedly evil in causing needless suffering and death. So there seems good reason to include "personal evil" in the list. What do you think? Oldstillwild answered on 03/03/06:My view:
Evil has two important aspects:
The experienced result and
the cause.
Therefore the definition of evil would be:
Wrongdoing.
so all wrongdoing is evil?
No,
there must be an intention to it , willingly or unwillingly an expectational result.
That makes the definition:
Intentional and/or to be expected wrongdoing.
Is there something or someone purely evil?
If so , it would always be unwillingly.
In practice , I dont believe it exists.
Nobody is purely evil.
There are always circumstances possible and to create,that a person , known being "evil", wil behave not evil at all.
That brings me to the definition:
Evil is intentional and/or to be expected wrongdoing under defined circumstances.
This is as close as I can get.
It makes Hitler with power evil.
It makes Hitler(possibly) a loving husband.
It makes a "madman" evil in between people(Watch out!)
It makes (possibly) a "madman" privately lovable.
Evil would be a judgemental term.
Mentally challenged people are not to be judged evil ever!
| | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 03/02/06 - Possibilities The planet shudders with the force of ten thousand earthquakes. A shock wave of displaced air sweeps over the surface of the globe, flattening all structures, pulverizing everything in its path. The flat terrain around the impact site rises in a ring of liquid mountains several miles high, exposing the bowels of the Earth in a crater a hundred miles across. . . . A vast column of dusty debris fans out into the atmosphere, blotting out the sun across the whole planet. Now the sunlight is replaced by the sinister, flickering glare of a billion meteors, roasting the ground below with their searing heat, as displaced material plunges back from space into the atmosphere.
Professor Davies goes on to link this imaginary scenario to the prediction that comet Swift-Tuttle would hit the earth. He adds the warning that although such an event may not be likely in the near future, in his opinion sooner or later Swift-Tuttle, or an object like it, will hit the Earth. His conclusion is based on estimates that suggest that 10,000 objects a quarter mile or more in diameter move on Earth-intersecting orbits.
Do you believe that such a frightening prospect is real?
A surprising number of people do. But they brush aside any concern by reassuring themselves that it will not happen in their time. Why, though, should planet Earth ever be destroyedeither soon or millenniums from now? Certainly, it is not the earth itself that is the main source of trouble for its inhabitants, human or animal. Rather, is not man himself responsible for most of the problems of this 20th century, including the possibility of completely ruining the earth? Oldstillwild answered on 03/02/06:Reality is bigger than Earth or mankind.
We are passing mortals,without any true impact in or on Universe.
How contradictionary it might be,its reassuring to realise,that some day ,we might be gone in an instant.
Philosophically spoken(......),its the NOW that counts.
The Now ,that has a profound infinite depth , when you realise eternity is in it.
And for those ,who fail to understand this point(!) of view:
We are coming from a dot!
or rather:
The infinite universe has originated from a dot.
We have been originated from a micronissimonumentallysmall part of that dot.
In the cause of the existence of the Universe a moment has more depth and meaning,than any other perception of time.
Conclusively,
The Hitting-problem is of no significance.
It may happen , just demonstrating what we're part of.Its part of us. | | Question/Answer | | Coup_de_Grace asked on 03/01/06 - A Riddle I posted this on the Christianity Board, but was disappointed in the answers, save one. Would members of this board please comment on the three quotes stating reasons why they agree or disagree of a combination of both?
ONE. Epicuris posed the following riddle:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
In other words:
If god is all good, whence comes evil? For evil cannot come from good any more than thistles can come from apples.
I'd prefer no comments about free will as I am familiar with this piece of Christian theology unless you have a sophisticated argument, of course, and can relate them to the Riddle above.
======================================================================= ======
TWO. Nietzsche said, "The Christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad."
What do you think of this particular Nietzsche quote? What are the ramifications of seeing the world ugly and bad?
THREE. "Nothing is so firmly believed as what we least know." Montaigne
Did Montaigne hit the nail on the head? Why?
Thank you.
Ben
Benjamin and Susan Grace Oldstillwild answered on 03/02/06:Well....,
My reaction to nr. 1:
there is no God.
(there is only Life and the Power of Life and all the evil is from mankind and all other sorrow is from (natural) accidents)
nr2:
The historical truth about christianity is
sorrow,violence and evil practice,because one felt the need to fight the ugly and bad......
nr3:
Thats why people believe in (a) god..... | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 02/28/06 - what we see is so determined The world as immediately given to us is a mixture of sense perception and thought. While the two may not be separable in our experience, we can nevertheless distinguish the two. When we do, we find that the perceptual alone gives us no coherence, no unities, no "things" at all. We could not even note a patch of red, or distinguish it from a neighboring patch of green, without aid of the concepts given by thinking. In the absence of the conceptual, we would experience (in William James' words) only "a blooming, buzzing confusion." by Stephen L. Talbott.
But, what is a concept, where does it come from? Oldstillwild answered on 02/28/06:Plato believed in a pre-existing ideal reality awaiting humankind's incremental discovery. His idealism denies any ongoing creation. It denies any real change or evolution's incremental and novel creation. One may easily see how idea and concept are philosophical siblings.
So in extenso , We simply are discoverors and can never be creators.
(sounds familiar in one way or the other....?)
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 02/25/06 - Pleasure and happiness. ................................It seems evident that pleasure alone is not sufficient to make a person happy. What else is required? Oldstillwild answered on 02/25/06:Well...,that depends on your definition of happiness.....
My Thai girlfriend used to ask me "Are you happy?".....and indeed I would be happy....
Happiness isnt only there in degrees its also would last shorter or longer......
Let me go for the long lasting profound happiness.
Thats a state of mind.
That happiness has a basis of spirituality.
Not dependend of occurrences ,but can be deepened further of course thru more or less lasting happynings or deeper lasting in itself by development and growing.
Necessary is a rich experienced life and a deep understanding of life as basis of a practical spiritual philosophical knowledge and conviction,giving the strength of wisdom and independence in life and the strength and ability to overcome life's surprises in a positive fashion.
These are the ingredients of my happiness.
Happiness is personal.
What would be described as happiness,depends on the personal experiences.
One cannot imagine or describe not experienced states of happiness and therefore honestly do believe being happy and content,notwithstanding the possibility of existence of deeper , more profound and lasting forms of feelings of happiness without one's reach.
The happiness Im experiencing would make anybody not leaving its basis.
So,the ingredient missing,would be that basis to reach the level of longlasting happy state of mind.
| | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 02/22/06 - Hegel's Idea of Freedom Can freedom be equated with rational self-determination?
Hegel seems to follows Kant in conceptualizing freedom as rational self-determination.
"It was first the Germanic peoples, through Christianity, who came to the awareness that every human is free by virtue of being human, and that the freedom of spirit comprises our most human nature."
~Hegel
Is this gift by Christianity just suppositious nonsense dreamt by Hegel or is it to be counted as knowledge? Oldstillwild answered on 02/24/06:Its about the implification you put in it...
Whats in my mind is the present......
It might be ,that you feel trapped,not being able to escape from common patterns,but you shouldnt project that on everyone else......
Its about the scope of horizon you see for yourself.Is it near or is it far,far away,hardly visible.......
What is generally known , is , that change is difficult and very hard work.
Most people arent able to change their lives,stuck in their patterns and feelings of security.
Dont stop trying to make your life an adventure , Darkcrow!
| | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 02/23/06 - Free at last! Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain, and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do (Bentham 1789).
Aristippus (born c. 435 BC, Cyrene, Libya - died 366 BC, Athens), was one of the disciples of Socrates.
His motto was, "I possess, I am not possessed."
Free at last! Oldstillwild answered on 02/23/06:"Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain, and pleasure".
Well...,just another peace of crap ,I suppose....!
What am I doing here....!
Am I addicted to the pleasure of pain? | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 02/22/06 - Hegel's Idea of Freedom Can freedom be equated with rational self-determination?
Hegel seems to follows Kant in conceptualizing freedom as rational self-determination.
"It was first the Germanic peoples, through Christianity, who came to the awareness that every human is free by virtue of being human, and that the freedom of spirit comprises our most human nature."
~Hegel
Is this gift by Christianity just suppositious nonsense dreamt by Hegel or is it to be counted as knowledge? Oldstillwild answered on 02/22/06:Well....,it seems crap to me....
(who am I?!)
......rational self-determination.....
WHAT IS THAT?
Im freee and totally irrational....! | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 02/21/06 - U.S. ports in the hands of a state-owned Arab company "It is not as if they will fire all the unionized workers at P&O's U.S. ports and replace them with Arabs."
"Powerful Washington lawmakers citing security concerns on Tuesday pushed emergency legislation to block a controversial deal that would place management of six major U.S. ports in the hands of a state-owned Arab company."
President Bush has stated we (America) are going forward and, "I will veto any legislation that stops us from going forward.
I am not up to date on this matter. Can anyone tell me why we would allow a foreign Corporation to manage our ports?
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-02-21T184041Z_01_N19219437_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-PORTS.xml&archived=False Oldstillwild answered on 02/21/06:Well , Darkcrow,
Economics is about money,
Money is about power,
Trade is not about terrorism,
Industry is international,
So,power is where the money is and it was only a matter of time to see,that the Eastern Companies would come Westward.(Which has been happening for years now...)
There is no difference compared to USA-led companies buying European companies.
This time its just about companies managing ports.
In fact thats nothing special.
Control of borders and coast is still by USA government.
Of course it does sound kind of scary,given present terrorist threats,but those threats would still be in existence , no matter what company is managing the ports.
Its about,who's managing the borders.
USA is a capitalistic country pur sang.
Even your president is willing to sell his near-soul for money.......
Honestly,I wouldnt like it at all neither, to learn,that terroristfriendly country originated companies would settle in my country , let alone manage our ports......,but Im afraid youd have to learn to live with it as long as money is ruling the Big thinking......
Be sure to watch your ports closely now! | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 02/20/06 - The Problem of Knowledge (continued).......... Taking in knowledge solely for the pleasure of doing so.
As one historian well observed: Intellectual pleasures give only a brief satisfaction, unless directed to a practical end. . . . Never should we stimulate the intellect merely to feed upon itself. Unless intellectual culture is directed to what is useful, especially to the necessities or improvement of others, it is a delusion and a snare.Beacon Lights of History, Lord, Vol. 5, p. 299.
To take in knowledge merely for the pleasure of it is like living to eat instead of eating to live. It calls to mind the ancient Epicureans, who gorged themselves and then took emetics to vomit out all they ate so they could again enjoy the pleasure of eating. Taking in knowledge merely for the pleasure of it is but little better. When such a one dies, that marks the end of his knowledge; it has neither profited others nor brought joy to them, nor does it continue on. One who does not translate into action the knowledge he takes in is deceiving himself by false reasoning.
Incidentally, even worse than taking in knowledge for its own sake is taking in degrading, depraved knowledge. Scandal sheets, pornographic magazines, sexy best sellers, whether classical or popular, and pseudoscientific works. A class of pseudoscience, Pseudoskepticism, refers to skepticism that is itself erroneously presented as scientific, and pander to a depraved craving for knowledge. Pseudoscience is distinguishable from revelation, theology, or spirituality in that it claims to offer insight into the physical world by "scientific" means.
Even as a good book is like a good friend, so bad books are like bad associations that spoil useful habits.
There actually is only one sound reason for taking in knowledge. All our taking in of knowledge should be for the practical application of it in our own lives and/or for the purpose of instructing others.
Or is it? Oldstillwild answered on 02/20/06:There actually is only one sound reason for taking in knowledge. All our taking in of knowledge should be for the practical application of it in our own lives and/or for the purpose of instructing others.
Maybe there is a comment needed on a few things:
"and/or"........
I think it is and......,to the best of one's ability ,but never to take over responsibility......one is free to take in what one wishes to....
"instructing "........is negative in this sense.....
Id prefer the neutral informing rather than instructing......
What "application".....
Id say a positive one....
So rephrasing your statement a little , but not unimportant....:
All our taking in of knowledge should be implicitely aimed at positive social implementation of it in our lives.
Well...,Im sure , someone will come up with a better one.....
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 02/19/06 - The Problem of Knowledge (continued).......... What are your views on the following critique:
"At the beginning of his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume, having argued that all ideas come from antecedent impressions, describes a test of his theory:
Those who would assert that this position is not universally true nor without exception, have only one, and that an easy method of refuting it; by producing that idea, which, in their opinion, is not derived from this source. It will then be incumbent on us, if we would maintain our doctrine, to produce the impression, or lively perception, which corresponds to it. [Shelby-Bigge edition, Oxford, 1902, 1972, pp. 19-20]
Here the challenge and the burden of proof is clear enough: If we produce an idea that we contend is not derived from an original impression, or lively perception, then it is Hume's business to produce that impression or admit that his theory, his empiricism, is not correct.
The difficulty with this test for Hume is that he himself discovers many ideas which evidently have not been derived from an original impression. Thus, later in the same Enquiry, we find Hume saying:
There are no ideas, which occur in metaphysics, more obscure and uncertain, than those of power, force, energy or necessary connection.... [pp.61-62]
Now, in terms of Hume's own challenge, one might say that he has discovered several ideas that refute his empiricism. However, he has already protected himself against such refutation: Having proposed his test, Hume almost immediately took it back and shifted the burden of proof:
When we entertain, therefore, any suspicion that a philosophical term is employed without any meaning or idea (as is but too frequent), we need to enquire, from what impression is that supposed idea derived? And if it be impossible to assign any, this will serve to confirm our suspicion. [p. 22]....
Hume's empiricism, while ruling out various metaphysical entities (free will, the soul, God, etc.), to the applause of his many admirers, also ruled out many of the future developments of science, which few admirers this side of deconstruction are likely to applaud:
Our senses inform us of the colour, weight, and consistence of bread; but neither sense nor reason can ever inform us of those qualities which fit it for the nourishment and support of a human body. [p. 33]
These ultimate springs and principles [of events in nature] are totally shut up from human curiosity and enquiry. Elasticity, gravity, cohesion of parts, communication of motion by impulse; these are probably the ultimate causes and principles which we shall ever discover in nature. [p. 30]
The course of science in the 19th and 20th centuries would have astonished Hume, as it certainly discredits the foundation of his predictions for the future of human knowledge. That proteins, vitamins, carbohydrates, minerals, etc. explain the basis of human nutrition, and that electromagnetism and atomic, nuclear, and particle physics explain much of the fundamental behavior of matter, are not just things that escaped Hume's imagination -- they escaped everyone's imagination until the discovery of them was effected -- but they are things that occupy a cognitive space whose very existence Hume explicitly denied: They do not correspond to "impressions" any more than God or the soul do. By Hume's criterion they are "without any meaning or idea."
Thus, when Hume shifts the burden of proof to protect his empiricism, he shuts off any possible understanding, not just of metaphysics and religion, but of much of mathematics and science. That is a price some, like Wittgenstein and Rorty, are still willing to pay: That mathematics and science really tell us nothing about the world but are elaborate tricks we have devised that unaccountably produce results that we want in practical matters. Such a dismal aspiration can be found to have motivated few, if any, historic scientists."
http://www.friesian.com/hume.htm Oldstillwild answered on 02/19/06:All = One
We're just discovering/revealing/reproducing......
We cant fabricate , only fanatasize...and even the fantasies arent original,though still fantasies!
We can discover reality.
We wont discover fantasies, like some God or so.Ever. | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 02/16/06 - Superiority of the Christian philosophy. And perhaps the truth of that is reflected in St. Augustines City of God.
Jeremiah urging the people not to fear exile in Babylon: Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its peace you will find your peace. Oldstillwild answered on 02/16/06:"Pray to the God of Thunder on its behalf, for in its peace you will find your peace.
This will have the same effect.
Whats important is,that the premisses is wrong.
There is no God and no justification for the powerful organisations based upon Gods!
One can organize or do anything on behalf of any some kind of God one believes in and thats exactly whats been happening over centuries....
And look where the world is today.....
Well...,keep quoting centuries old books from ignorant wise men....! | | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 02/15/06 - MY ANNUAL LETTER TO ALL OF YOU: After making a fool of myself for over four years at Answerway, I have found that your desires are my desires that offer me just one reservation - OPINION! But, who am I to judge your convictions, beliefs and sentiments? Conversely, these mind-sets may offer me reasoning while considering knowledge, fact, misgivings and skepticism. You're the ones who are important to me. I want you cheerful, contented, pleased and glad you're living. Let the miserable, the gloomy, the sorrowful harass the harbingers of the ill-natured, the disagreeable, the unpleasant. They are no longer a force of one, thanks to our foundation based on excessive friendships, faith, reasoning and plausible personalities. All of us are unique! Time, place and actions defy the agility of what is commonplace, ordinary and typical. Our playground is Society and our necessity pleads for the temperament of benevolence!
God embraces truth, life and love. Freedom of religion speaks to be heard and dealt with by all who breathe what's necessary to live and progress! Our spiritual foundation offers us a system of religious beliefs which are not accepted by some but ... who cares? Only remission can be granted by the Almighty. As a free citizen, you can either accept or deny these teachings of moral goodness. Your free-will allows you to adjust what's lacking in your decision to 'crawl or run.' Life is not an illusion or a dream because of just one reason -- PAIN. This damn albatross torments both the mind and body. If you enjoy self-abuse, you're not normal! If you enjoy hurting others, you're a sadist. Why don't you relinguish your right to being ignorant and enjoy awareness, it opposite?
"I've got a little cat,
And I'm very fond of that,
But I'd rather have a bowwow, wow."
-- Joseph Tabrar
Go with God, my friends. There's still plenty of life to be lived!
HANK Oldstillwild answered on 02/15/06:
Thanks for your letter , Hank!I value your thoughts , although youd know,that we arent thinkin particularly equal ways.....
"Why don't you relinguish your right to being ignorant and enjoy awareness, it opposite?"
Well Hank1,
believe it or not....
Im living my ignorance!
Of course a statement for joy and toy.....
How ignorant can one be....
well,
the minimum is your own experiences and introspection and the fruits of that....
Thats how ignorant I am.
No burden of hearsay or thick books,which for many people represent the truth....not being able to think for themselves or to evaluate life-experiences.
Books are always , always , no matter what book , about interpretation and always , always , or rather never , NEVER , these interpretations equals the source's thinking.........Conclusively , people are carrying forward misinterpretations of books....
Think about it Hank!
Life is not about books.
Life is about now.
Life is about you.
Hio!
| | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 02/15/06 - JUST WONDERING ... ... if Philosophy is useful?
HANK Oldstillwild answered on 02/15/06:Well,Hank1,
My practical philosophy is ,as it says,the philosophy I live by...
I still hope , one day , to meet someone ,who also can say with great integrity,that he or she is living his or her philosophy too....... | | Question/Answer | | NCohen asked on 02/15/06 - "Philosophy" of Suffering How do various religions deal with suffering?
Buddhism, as Nietzsche points out, is truthful and honest as to how the world works. It is a religion of reality while Christianity is a religion of endurance. How can the Christian be satisfied in the world the place he desires to leave for his "true" home?(I'm hoping my memory hasn't failed me here) The Buddhist does not deny suffering; he hopes to overcome it.
What are your opinions about various major religions philosophy and teachings about inevitable human suffering. Was religion born out of suffering? If so, what kinds of suffering? Oldstillwild answered on 02/15/06:Well,Darkcrow,I guess youre happy with your thoughts....I guess too,that you missed the books-burning ritual....
Reality is NOW! | | Question/Answer | | NCohen asked on 02/15/06 - "Philosophy" of Suffering How do various religions deal with suffering?
Buddhism, as Nietzsche points out, is truthful and honest as to how the world works. It is a religion of reality while Christianity is a religion of endurance. How can the Christian be satisfied in the world the place he desires to leave for his "true" home?(I'm hoping my memory hasn't failed me here) The Buddhist does not deny suffering; he hopes to overcome it.
What are your opinions about various major religions philosophy and teachings about inevitable human suffering. Was religion born out of suffering? If so, what kinds of suffering? Oldstillwild answered on 02/15/06:Well.....,NCohen,
This is a sneeky way to introduce religion on this board....
You are on the wrong place here! | | Question/Answer | | NCohen asked on 02/15/06 - Certainty What, if anything, is certain? By certain, I mean a fact or statement that has always been true(describes a property of our external reality) and is true now. What is certain fellow Philosophers?
Nigel Oldstillwild answered on 02/15/06:Well....,NCohen,
Nothing is certain!
Next question! | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 02/14/06 - Closing of the American Mind "Closing [The book, The Closing of the American Mind.] touched a nerve. At the time of its publication, it had become clear that the worst lunacies of the drug-rock-sex ``counterculture'' of the late 1960s had, over the subsequent 20 years, never abated on the nation's campuses; in fact, many of the leaders of that counterculture--now equipped with Ph. D. s--had become the dominant minority in college faculties and administrations. This minority was consciously training their students to be a thought police enforcing ``political correctness,'' ready to denounce and punish any student or instructor deemed guilty of racism, sexism, insufficient sensitivity to the homosexual ``lifestyle,'' or too high an appreciation of Western Judeo-Christian culture.
In the five years since Bloom's book, the situation on campus has become worse. Even as Bloom's thesis was being debated, students at California's Stanford University, supported in person by Jesse Jackson, were successfully overturning the university's Western Civilization course requirement as ``racist'' at their demonstrations, the students chanted, ``Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho, Western Culture's got to Go.'' Across the country, students have successfully demanded that readings from ``DEMs'' (``Dead European Male'' writers) be replaced by supposedly more relevant female and Third World authors. Most major universities now subscribe to quotas, to ensure a politically correct mix of whites, blacks, Hispanics, and homosexuals. Most schools now also have speech codes, like the model code promulgated at the University of Wisconsin, which, for instance, permits a black studeno call a white ``honkie,'' but would punish a white student for calling a black ``nigger.''
This article has two purposes. First: I shall demonstrate that all manifestations of ``political correctness'' are generated by a single core philosophy which is actively evil. The antics on campus often appear humorous, and make good news copy; but, what stands behind them, is evil--a philosophy of evil that is responsible for genocide and untold human misery, and represents a danger not only to American education, but also to the continuation of the American form of government.
Second: The politically correct rampages that gall so many observers will not be defeated until the evil philosophy underlying those atrocities is confronted with an opposing philosophy which comprehends the actual function of education. LaRouche is the only thinker today who is still asking the question, ``Why educate?'' The only effective means of combatting political correctness is bringing the ideas of LaRouche onto the campus."
Personally, I agree with much I quoted, nevermind that the author quoted is complaining about these things.
"ready to denounce and punish any student or instructor deemed guilty of racism, sexism, insufficient sensitivity to the homosexual ``lifestyle,'' or too high an appreciation of Western Judeo-Christian culture.'.
Am I wrong somewhere in my thinking. Oldstillwild answered on 02/14/06:Why educate ,is not a integer question without giving the answer at the same time....there is no species on the face of this earth without education in its upbringing process.....
Political correctness is a means to establish change for the better.....
The danger of it is the lack of criticism to AND by the people involved....which might and will (people are weak)lead to overshoot the mark!
The bottomline however is ,that political correctness in itself is positive and having a moral basis,which gives people subject to it ,the room to responsibly free themselves from constraints.
The importance here is in the word responsibly.
It cant be denied,however,that amongst positively driven people,there are and have always been subversive elements , ready to misuse situations anarchistically.
Society itself is responsible for giving the anarchists the power and the people subject to political correctness too much freedom.
Im afraid,this is what happened,not only in the USA , but also in other countries.(e.g.The Netherlands).
Hi!
| | Question/Answer | | NCohen asked on 02/14/06 - Introduction I am new to Answerway. I have been looking around the various boards and found this active board. My name is Nigel Cohen, and I'd like to join all of you in stimulating conversation.
Nigel Oldstillwild answered on 02/14/06:Well,NCohen,I really dont know what youre doing here.
It seems to me,that youre using the wrong motivations to join this particular board.
So, my advise to you is to search a little bit further for the right one(s). | | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 02/13/06 - ANOTHER SUPER HARD QUESTION TO ANSWER: What would happen to the United States if ALL minority races would leave America on a permanent basis? (Goofy answers will get a black star)
HANK Oldstillwild answered on 02/13/06:Well.....,Hank1,Im Goofy ,so I guess,this doesnt go for me.....
Its my guess,that the whites will slaughter each other over the dirty work to be done.....
Ive always supported the Red Sox , anyway!
Id emigrate , Hank! | | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 02/13/06 - A SUPER HARD QUESTION TO ANSWER: What would happen to the United States if the Caucasian (white) race would leave America on a permanent basis? (Goofy answers will get a black star)
HANK Oldstillwild answered on 02/13/06:Well....Hank1,
Im Goofy ,so I guess,that doesnt count for me.....?
I suggest you to separate the caucasians from the American people.....
Id desert that army.....
I favour the asians part of caucasians!
Let me try to look at the future , without this separation exercise:
EAST is UP!
ANYWAY! | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 02/13/06 - feminized academy Why is Academia so biased toward leftism? Is it perhaps femininity? Are the men attracted to Academia of the effeminate type? Isn't rightism masculine? Oldstillwild answered on 02/13/06:Well...,its always fun bashing pottish feminism , but in this serious case , I must ask some demonstration of pseudo-scientificity to support your accusitions.
So were did you meet a left pottish academia and did it bother you? | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 02/13/06 - Why is there something rather than nothing? . Oldstillwild answered on 02/13/06:The simplicitateous answer is:
There is no nothing....
every "nothing" is a something. | | Question/Answer | | Jon1967 asked on 02/13/06 - Time on the Sun? Come to think of it, when it is 3:30 Central Standard Time, what time IS it on the Sun? Oldstillwild answered on 02/13/06:WHAT A S-T-U-P-I-D QUESTION!
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 02/13/06 - What have philosophers achieved? . Oldstillwild answered on 02/13/06:Well.....,
Im workin' hard...
Its my experience,that its not for the philosopher to achieve anything other than
selling books and adressing issues to audiences,who'd know less or at least other things....providing alternative ways of thinkin' and alternative views on issues of life,existence and the universe, leading to alternative ways for science to investigate these alternatives.....
However,the credibility of a philosopher is limited to the ability of the audience to cope with his views......
Im sure the best philosophers are experiencing no credibility at all.....
So,at the most , philosophers are closing the gap between illusion and reality....
...time for a quick beer now....
Im working hard still......
| | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 02/12/06 - THE TIME: It's 3 p.m. Central Standard Time in the MidWest over here in America. What time is it in the United Kingdom? Could this question have anything to do with Philosophy?
HANK Oldstillwild answered on 02/12/06:Well ,Hank,its not my habit to answer questions I dont know , although certain other subversive individuals might think otherwise,but in this case Ill proof by exception,that Im right....
I assume you know how to relate Eastern time to CST.
I dont....(<:)
So take the equivalent of Eastern Time.
Lets assume,that CSTmidwest 3 p.m. is equal to 4 p.m. Eastern Time.
4 p.m. E.T equals to 10 p.m. on the continent of Europe, which differs 1hr with United Kingdom time,which would be in this case 9 p.m. then.
So,Hank,its easy to reconcile.
Another way to find out is,larry King on CNN is at 3 A.M. at the Continent and therefore at 2 A.M. at the U.K.
Just relate to your local CNNLarryKingTime and youll know.
The philosophy behind this is , that although time is on your side , its another timecoffeetable and at the same time a different time at the same moment in time taking a breath together.
We can overcome timedifferences , Hank!
Just put your hand in the www-line at your time and Ill take it at my time at the same moment in time!
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 02/12/06 - Is philosophy dead? . Oldstillwild answered on 02/12/06:Well....if you put it this way ,
...or
Do you mean Philo Sophy ?
or maybe Sophy Philo?
I wouldnt know.
Maybe Philo is dad,
or maybe Dr. Phil o so physiognomical?
Id say,
If philosophy turns out to be endless circular,then it could be dead as well....
If philosophy no longer adds to the learningprocess,then it could be dead as well.....
There will always be philosophy.....,
maybe mankind is failing to pick up the thread of thruth. | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 02/10/06 - Philosophical argument. Does anyone know the circumstances surrounding the first recorded, "Philosophical argument"? Oldstillwild answered on 02/11/06:The first philosopher we know by name is Thales.(about 600 B.C.)
He thought water was the source of all.
So , its only logical to assume , that this water -'argument" would be the first known philosophical argument. | | Question/Answer | | Bradd asked on 02/09/06 - The Goal of Philosophy Leibniz said, "The goal of philosophy is theology", i.e, to live a life of virtue and piety.
What is the goal today? Oldstillwild answered on 02/09/06:Leibniz said, "The goal of philosophy is theology", i.e, to live a life of virtue and piety.
What is the goal today?
The ultimate goal is truth.
Truth is life.
Life is love.
So , Leibniz was close....
| | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 02/08/06 - Pragmatism as Romantic Polytheism Pragmatism reveals itself to be a romantic utilitarianism; or so the claim goes. Perhaps this is true at times. Do you consider this to be true, always?
"You are a polytheist if you think that there is no actual or possible object of knowledge that would permit you to commensurate and rank all human needs. Isaiah Berlin's well-known doctrine of incommensurable human values is, in my sense, a polytheistic manifesto. To be a polytheist in this sense you do not have to believe that there are nonhuman persons with power to intervene in human affairs. All you need do is to abandon the idea that we should try to find a way of making everything hang together, which will tell all human beings what to do with their lives, and tell all of them the same thing."
~ RICHARD RORTY
Your thoughts on this Oldstillwild answered on 02/09/06:I totally agree with you ,Darkcrow ,about the most important part of the quote.
However,
"is that your idea of the goal of Philosophy?"
No , of course not.
Philosophy is a means and maybe the ultimate means, to find Truth.
(and if truth is .....etc,than so be it!)
The inevitable implicit conclusion about Truth must be ,that it goes for all "implicit" us.
Nobody can escape the universal whole.
So ,whatever rules would be in existence,even the rule of chaos;it would apply to either one of us.
As you know , my findings are about LIFE and if you want to profit of the powerful properties of life , one has to be positive minded.
Anyone can choose not to.
So , eventually my philosophy is about the freedom of choice.
For all!
Hi!
| | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 02/05/06 - is it wisdom................... "He who is merciful when he should be cruel will in the end be cruel when he should be merciful."
This quote is from Jewish rabbinic text however, I find it ironic the Muslims seem to employ it in their dealings with the world while Israel seems to ignore the wisdom of it.
My question- do you believe it wisdom and if so why? Oldstillwild answered on 02/05/06:There is no "should be " cruel in the first place,
so this cant be wisdom at all....
Nevertheless,obviously , there are people who feel , they have options to be cruel or merciful.
As they feel it an option,they eventually will choose for cruelty.Obviously.
| | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 02/05/06 - JUST WONDERING ... ... what a SIMPLE definition would be for a recursive algorithm.
HANK Oldstillwild answered on 02/05/06:well.....,
let me give it a try......
damnmad! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 02/05/06 - What are your views on the problem of knowledge? .... In connection with our recent discussions I've come across an interesting article in which the following lines occur:
"Today's philosophers indeed seem singularly unfit for the job. When it comes to foundational tasks, and even more to constructive tasks, there is massive failure of nerve on the part of the philosophers. It has become so complicated to know what it is to know that philosophers despair of knowing and urge us all to renounce the notion of philosophy as a foundational discipline, much less a constructive one, and to just carry on the conversation that constitutes our culture.
It is tempting to acquiesce, so enormous are the problems and complications. But we must not, for the world cannot afford this epistemological paralysis, this ontological despair."
http://www.comms.dcu.ie/sheehanh/unitysc.htm Oldstillwild answered on 02/05/06:Well,
this doesnt seem to be my problem..... | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 02/04/06 - What is the value of introspection? .................... Recent discussions have highlighted the role of introspection in interpreting reality but, like perception, introspection may be deceptive. Assuming it is possible, how can we overcome this problem? Oldstillwild answered on 02/04/06:"the role of introspection in interpreting reality "
Well,
the question is ,what is introspection and what reality.
Everything is subjective at all times.Introspection is about values and subjective absolute truthful confrontational reality,because conscience and conscientious inner research is heavily involved in here.Deepness.
Deception is in lack of introspection,which may cause unnecessary false conclusions and bad (re-)actions.Shalowness.
Introspection is the only way to peace.
Lack of introspection will eventually and inevitably lead to unnecessarily war.
We all can make mistakes.
Without introspection we would act irresponsible risktaking, making errors,mess and war.
Introspection is a sign of civilization.
The deception chance of introspection is far to choose over the deception chance without introspection.
What we see in the present world is a lack of introspection on both parts East and West.Without introspection the chance of mutual respect is remote.
History proofs ,that its difficult to maintain an introspective considerate attitude.
Is individual introspection important , the effect of together introspection would make the chance of any war remote.
| | Question/Answer | | hmghaly asked on 02/02/06 - Hamas again... Dear all,
Apparently this issue has been raised before, but didn't any of those calling for "Political Reform" in the Middle East recognize the possibility that such groups will reach power due to this??
Hussein Oldstillwild answered on 02/02/06:Democracy isnt an isolated phenomenon.
Even Hamas will learn,that they just entered the land of compromise.....
So,
in the end,this will all work out fine and better than any other negotiation opportunity ifnt any! | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 02/01/06 - Freedom of expression vs. respecting religious beliefs http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx/2006/02/01/afx2490632.html
In response:
"Yes," the newspaper, France-Soir, declared on its front page, "One has the right to make fun of God." Underneath, it offered its own cartoon showing Jesus, Jehovah, Buddha and an upset Mohammed sitting on a cloud. "Don't whine," Jesus is telling the Muslim prophet, "We've all been made fun of here."
Is this carrying freedom too far? Oldstillwild answered on 02/02/06:No | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 01/31/06 - What, if anything, can we learn from history? Philosophers like Hegel and Marx have drawn philosophical conclusions from historical events. How far have such attempts been successful? Oldstillwild answered on 01/31/06:Well,
as far as my philosophycal approach is concerned,history doesnt matter a bit.
Only the now counts.
Id be perfectly happy in my cave....
Hi! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 01/29/06 - Consciousness and language .................................What are your views on the theory that the evolution of consciousness was an outgrowth of the development of language? Oldstillwild answered on 01/29/06:Well....,language is a "physical" body of consciousness.
All languages are representing the same consciousness.
Consciousness is the Source.
So,as many people would do in circumstances a like , never knowing where to look or to clue,just thinking that theyd know it all:
They reverse things,fitting it all together to their narrow minded illusioclusions....... | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 01/26/06 - What is mythology? Science, writes Alexander Escobar, is a mythology just another way of understanding the universe."
He defines mythologies as the symbols and stories humans access to understand profound truths about themselves and the universe around them. "Given this definition, I believe that religions and philosophies including science) fall under the same umbrella. In Mythology, I use the example of the blind men that come upon an elephant each comes in contact with a different part of this large animal. One touches the trunk and describes the elephant as a snake, another touches a leg and believes the elephant to be like a column. In the end, it is the wise elephant that resolves the conflict by stating that each has a partial grasp of the truth. I believe the universe is a complexity that goes beyond our comprehension. Each tradition whether religion or science touches the universe in its own way, and so each has a truth to share with the other. By sharing our understandings, we will develop a perspective that is much more complete and clarifies the connections we share".
What do you think of his definition? Oldstillwild answered on 01/27/06:Well.....,I completely agree with Esco.
Science is just creating mythes.
Of course scientists wouldnt agree.....
One has just too look at the history of science in order to understand this definition.... | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 01/24/06 - Is there evidence for collective consciousness? ... How could individual consciousness be related to collective consciousness? Have they always co-existed? And will they exist forever? Oldstillwild answered on 01/25/06:Well....,Tonyrey,
this is about the core of life itself.
As at least I pointed out earlier,we are coming from consciousness,still being part of it.
So,the asnwers to your question is yes,yes,yes and yes.
We are connected and we can use that to our advantage if we want to.
Anyone , who tries and under the right personal state of mind conditions , will experience results ,WHICH ARE COMMONLY EXPLAINED REFERRING TO (A) GOD,
but in fact its life itself,that makes wishes come true or wonders for that matter.
I can do it.
You can do it.
Anyone can do it.
And the more people concentrate on the same issue at the same time under the right mental conditions,the greater the results!
You may call it consciousness or spirituality or....
I prefer to speak about the core of life itself,the source which is in each of us and which we are able to mobilise to make our , even unspoken wishes come true,to arrange the necessary encounters to reach our goals.
We are just forms and life itself will work for us if we want it. | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 01/23/06 - Hamas: Talks With Israel 'Not a Taboo' A leader of the Islamic militant group Hamas on Monday raised the possibility of negotiating with Israel through a third party, an overture made on the final day of campaigning for this week's Palestinian parliament elections.
"Negotiation is not a taboo," said Mahmoud Zahar, a prominent Hamas leader in Gaza and a top candidate for the group. He said Hamas would be willing to talk to Israel through a third party, similar to past negotiations between Israel and Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon.
The U.S. advocates the spread of democratic elections in the Mideast, and did not pressure Abbas to block Hamas from the race. But because it considers Hamas to be a terrorist organization, "if members of Hamas become members of a Palestinian government, we will not deal with those individuals," U.S. Embassy spokesman Stewart Tuttle said.
My Grand Pappy had more sense than the current Administration/ "Don't make a decision until forced to," and I take by that as meaning, "Don't be close minded to new information".
Israel's response/ silence Oldstillwild answered on 01/23/06:In the Middle east talking is the thing to do.
Hamas is a terroristic party,but whats at stake here is sunstantial and therefore important to consider.
Bin Laden is atotaly different thing,because of the plain terroristic actions without any substantial goal about which could be negociated.
In the Middle east in principle two countries are fightin each other.
The palestinians suffer a power-vacuum at the moment.Nobody has really power there.
So every opportunity should be taken ,just for the even remote chance,that developments toward a more structured administration can be established.
That should be the first topic to discuss;Makin sure,that youre talkin to true representants of the palestinian people and helpin them to get unity.
Dont tell me,about other and hidden agenda's,because they might be in existence.
We dont have a hidden agenda,so we should advice the best thing to be done and thats
talktalktalk to the animals if necessary! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 01/21/06 - What are your views on consciousness? ........ My own view is that it is a state of mind and cannot exist independently of mind. In its most developed form it implies the power of abstraction in order to recognise oneself as an individual. Like rationality, consciousness does not seem to me adequately explained as a by-product of physical processes. Oldstillwild answered on 01/21/06:Consciousness is what we are coming from.
On the basis of this consciousness ,we got the property of being able selfconscious.
So , consciousness was already there,transferred to the forms of life as well.
There is no life-form without consciousness.
All life-forms are by-bye-products.
Consciousness 4 ever!
Go Con! | | Question/Answer | | Bradd asked on 01/20/06 - Morality and Religion Is morality (or the social contract) feasible without religion?
Atheists, relatively few in number, say yes, but are they simply projecting an altruistic view which they, composed mostly of high-minded individuals, naively assume everybody else will accept?
From Socrates to Spinoza, religion, believed or not, is seen as the glue that holds societies together.
As religion declines in the affluent societies, and immorality increases, what will take its place? Social Darwinism?
By religion, I don't mean any particular creed, but rather the common mythos that all social groups tend to pass on to their children. Its strength is that it is not reduced by "science" - it transcends mere logic and resonates in the human psyche.
Could there be something of ultimate truth in such an a-rational aspect of the human condition?
Oldstillwild answered on 01/21/06:Religion is a surrogate for truth.
Religion has been created out of need for explanation of not understand experiences.
Its false , to believe(!) , that all(!) these translations are truth(!)ful.
So , there is no ultimate truth in any(!) religion.
Now about morality.
The basis of morality is and should be life itself , which we all consider precious ,dont we.
So , thats the true basis of morality.
Or in other words : the FACT of life is the basis of morality.
All truth is in FACTS.
Im a lifeaeist.
Based on the fact of life. | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 01/19/06 - Bin Laden Makes Truce Offering Bin Laden Makes Truce Offering On Latest Terror Tape
01.19.2006 5:47 PM EST
White house response:
"During his daily briefing, before the voice was authenticated, White House spokesperson Scott McClellan said bin Laden was desperate and "clearly on the run," adding, "we do not negotiate with terrorists. We put them out of business. The terrorists started this war and the president made it clear that we will end it at a time and place of our choosing.""
Is this a wise response? Oldstillwild answered on 01/20/06:There is no wiser response other than simply ingoring this.....!
I am sure , bin laden feels hilarious about any serious reaction to what he said!
I think,the White House looked stupid just once more,giving this response! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 01/18/06 - Is beauty entirely in the eye of the beholder? It would seem not, given facts like the golden ratio:
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/online/science/story/0,12450,875198,00.html Oldstillwild answered on 01/18/06:Interesting....
It just proves,that maths is the building stone again and in this case a very special one.....
Nevertheless ,beauty is entirely in the eye of the beholder.
I cant for the fact ,that an artist would use a certain mathematical basis.
Logically spoken , there must be a certain consistency in any understanding.
That would go for a certain uglyness as well as a certain beauty.
In fact thats not very special.
Some things are beautiful from uglyness.
I think , beauty is an personal and individual experience,not withstanding the fact,that more people may find the same thing beautiful as well........Besides, many people would find that piece of art ugly,not beautiful at all......
And think about this:
The Man with the golden helmet, was a famous beautiful painting by Rembrandt of the museum in berlin.Busses of tourists would come especially for this painting.....till the experts found out,not that the golden ratio didnt apply to the painting , but , that the painting was from a contemporain painter of Rembrandt......Now,nobody would pay any attention to this painting,which is stored in the cellar of the museum now....
So,my assesment is,ALL THINGS of certain quality may have certain properties,even defined mathematically,but not all discovered yet by mankind or to be discovered at all.
Only the very unique special ones are to be revealed.Such as the golden ratio.Its just one little stone.One mustnt make the commonly made mistake,that we can discover all about our existence.There are just only a few unique numbers.All the other numbers would puzzle us or we dont even recognize the relations,which would be there....!
Think about genetechnology,whereby scientists would claim properties AS IF THAT WOULD BE ALL there is to.
I am not a handsome man,but I am sure ,that I have a unique mathematical defined constitution.And the number is........
Well...,its so unique....,you wouldnt believe me....
Hi!
| | Question/Answer | | Choux asked on 01/16/06 - Mathematics Geeks Rule the World ""Math geeks now rule the world -- at least according to BusinessWeek. With access to inordinate amounts of data on the Internet, mathematicians are transforming many businesses -- from advertising to media, even food and beverage. The downside is a further erosion of privacy, but for businesses the upside is enormous. One study shows Ford could have sold more than $625 million of trucks had it upped its online ad budget from 2.5 percent to six percent. Guess what? Ford promptly decided to put 30 percent of its $1 billion budget in media targeted to individuals. Investors scratching their head over why their stock hasn't budged despite a jump in buybacks now have their answer: much of that money goes to compensate employees with options.""
Interesting.
How does one decide about who 'runs the world'? I have my own opinion about that, what is your idea(s)???
Comments please. Oldstillwild answered on 01/17/06:Well....you are part of this math-world , for a start....
What privacy!
Economics have been math all the time , so no news there.
Frequently my other doormat has been and would be covered with promotional flyers,so no news there.
The only factor is math.....,quicker and cheaper.
Although understanding privacy is personal , I fail to understand this issue in the light of internet , spam etc.
Just read and/or delete.
No rulin' at all here.
Tryin to create a topic?
Fine.
Enjoyed to participate this non-issue!
NEXT!
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 01/14/06 - What is mathematics?........................ It has been argued that both logic and mathematics are manmade systems, the truths of which do not exist outside the human mind. Yet the affinity between mathematical equations and the physical world, for example, seems to require explanation. Is it a coincidence that the Poisson distribution describes so beautifully a wide range of scientific phenomena? Radioactive decay is the only truly random process known in nature and yet it can be mathematically predicted with remarkable accuracy.
I believe both logic and mathematics are rooted in reality and other minds in the universe would discover the same truths and principles known to us. Numbers do not exist in a Platonic realm but nor are they are fictions devised by man!
Oldstillwild answered on 01/14/06:Mathematics is the language to describe the interrelationships between the materials of the universe.
So,it is the language of analysis and the source of creation. | | Question/Answer | | Choux asked on 01/14/06 - Creationism(Intelligent Design) I saw a leading Evolutionist interviewed on The Colbert Report, and he stated that the main and obvious reason that Creationism is not valid for any consideration is that it is too simple.
Sometimes the most obvious is the difficult to see.
Comments? Oldstillwild answered on 01/14/06:Well....,what do you think:
A. at all
B. by choice
:
Would you be
A. Created:
1. Randomly
2. by choice
B. the product of which evolution
:
1. Randomly developed
2. Preciously bred
and if so
WHY?
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 01/13/06 - What is truth?................................... Attempts have been made to explain truth as nothing more than linguistic convention. According to this theory, if language did not exist neither would truth! Yet truth is widely regarded as correspondence between belief and reality, e.g. our belief is true if we believe the world is round and the world is in fact round. Correspondence is a relation and not a human construct. So the truth is not invented but discovered.
Bertrand Russell tried to evade the reality of "universals", i.e. abstract ideas like truth and beauty. He gave up the attempt when he realised that it is impossible to deny that similarity exists whether we recognise it or not. Even if no human beings existed the facts would remain the same... (except the fact that there are human beings!) Oldstillwild answered on 01/13/06:There is
the absolute truth: the truth we'll never come to know for certainty.
Then we have existentialistic truth: truth as we are , including all.
Then we have the more commonly truth,which refers to objectively acquired data.
Then we have the subjective truth,which refers to any relationship with personal issues.
I think the best way to describe truth , is , that we live in truth and that it depends on what we add to that by our actions, if this truth remains pure and if poluted already,if we succeed in repairing the damage.
With that,truth becomes mainly a moral issue,which it should be.
The best thing one can do is read love for truth and act accordingly. | | Question/Answer | | CeeBee2 asked on 01/11/06 - Beauty or Truth John Keats (1795-1821) wrote at the end of "Ode on a Grecian Urn,"
Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou say'st, 'Beauty is truth, truth beauty-—that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.'
Is beauty truth and truth beauty? If not, why not? If you had to choose one or the other to rule your life, which would you choose and why? Oldstillwild answered on 01/12/06:Life is about truth.Thats it.
Truth is beauty,but this perception is subjective and factual redundant.
It all starts with truth.beauty is IN truth.
You dont find the truth:there will be no happiness for you,only illusionair hope and or despair.
Hi!
| | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 01/11/06 - Speaking of Hume- I wonder why anyone would believe there was not, a reality external to a mind. That is to say, on the very face of it that appears to be a fact.
You have a conscious mind. That statement may seem basic, but it sums up something that unquestionably makes you exceptional. The mind has been described as the elusive entity where intelligence, decision making, perception, awareness and sense of self reside. As creeks, streams, and rivers feed into a sea, so memories, thoughts, images, sounds, and feelings flow constantly into or through our mind. Consciousness, says one definition, is the perception of what passes in a mans own mind.
Frankly, how and why consciousness arises from physical processes in our brain is a mystery. I dont see how any science can explain that, one neurobiologist commented. Also, Professor James Trefil observed: What, exactly, it means for a human being to be conscious . . . is the only major question in the sciences that we dont even know how to ask And just studying the physiology of the brain may not be enough. Consciousness is one of the most profound mysteries of existence, observed Dr. David Chalmers, but knowledge of the brain alone may not get [scientists] to the bottom of it.
Who, or where the idea originated, that there was not a reality exterior to us must have been quite the skeptic. Can anyone tell me? Oldstillwild answered on 01/12/06:Well...there is no reality exterior to us...!
We are part of the reality of life and we must not pretend to have the ability to proff everything "scientifically".
The reality of "our" life is just somewhat extended,because we are just material exposures,forms of Life,so , part of a bigger entity,which in itself is totally transparent,yet traceble.
I am not interested in who,when , where the idea youare mentioning originated.Its of no importance.We have our own capability of perceiving our existence.
Consciousness is part of Life itself.
Brains is a tool.
Brains die with us.
Consciousness remains.
Medical science is to be a surrogate for not accepting the spiritual.Ever! | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 01/11/06 - When a Fact Is Not a Fact Ken in the previous post brought up the subject of "Dogmatism" that Choux thought was "super," and I agree. However, I would like to point out another "Dogmatism" that, I feel is a great mistake taught in our Public School system here in the U. S.- The theory of organic evolution.
A fact is something that exists beyond question. It is an actuality, an objective reality. It is established by solid evidence.
A theory is something unproved but at times assumed true for the sake of argument. It has yet to be proved as factual. Nonetheless, sometimes something is declared to be a fact that is only a theory.
The theory of organic evolution falls into this category.
ON September 30, 1986, The New York Times published an article by a New York University professor, Irving Kristol. His contention is that if evolution were taught in the public schools as the theory it is rather than as the fact it isnt, there would not be the controversy that now rages between evolution and creationism. Kristol stated: There is also little doubt that it is this pseudoscientific dogmatism that has provoked the current religious reaction.
Though this theory is usually taught as an established scientific truth, Kristol said, it is nothing of the sort. It has too many lacunae [gaps]. Geological evidence does not provide us with the spectrum of intermediate species we would expect. Moreover, laboratory experiments reveal how close to impossible it is for one species to evolve into another, even allowing for selective breeding and some genetic mutation. . . . The gradual transformation of the population of one species into another is a biological hypothesis, not a biological fact.
The article touched a raw nerve in Harvard professor Stephen Jay Gould, a fervent defender of evolution as a fact, not just a theory. His rebuttal of Kristols article was published in a popularized science magazine, Discover, January 1987 issue. It revealed the very dogmatism Kristol deplored. Oldstillwild answered on 01/12/06:Well...,fact is , that if you do not take life for THAT it is ,youre denying reality,favoring theorethical belief,which is religion. | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 01/10/06 - Science versus Philosophy and Religion? ........."If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity, or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames. For it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."
This attack by David Hume seems to consider science as the most reliable, if not the only, form of genuine knowledge. Yet Hume's view that the mind is no more than a "bundle of impressions" is metaphysical and unscientific. It implies that reality consists of "impressions", whatever they may be.
Many people today regard science as more informative than philosophy and religion, although most scientists would agree that all their conclusions are provisional and may be modified in the light of further discoveries. The only certainty related to science is the fact that science exists!
I believe all knowledge is based on consciousness. This is a matter of fact but it is not based on abstract or experimental reasoning concerning quantity or number. It is a consensus of individual experiences which is based on introspection, logic and abstract reasoning. Oldstillwild answered on 01/10/06:Science is a derivative from a human property.
Science isnt based on anything else than curiosity.
And curiosity in itself is a derivative from our core business,which only few people would recognize:"introspection, logic and (abstract) reasoning."
Introspection mainly refers to one's functioning.
All other 'science' in itself is not the goal of living,nor should exist at all or given the place it currently has.
The curiosity we experience shouldnt be aimed at anything else than introspection and related activities.Thats the goal of this urge.(Life isnt about materialism)
What does that make science than?
Well...,science is the toy of humanity.A product of derailment.The surrogate,reciproke for introspection.The result of failing insight.The easy way out.
Months earlier I posted the question "where did it all go wrong "and nobody would understand my question.....,odd non-answers I got.(as far as I remember).
Well ,where it went wrong is with the false or non-interpretation of our urge of curiosity.
Hi!
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 01/08/06 - What are your views on equality? ................... Individual lives are so different it is surprising the principle of equality was ever established in legal systems throughout the world. I don't believe the principle is simply a human convention because it is linked with the value of life. It wouldn't matter how people were treated if life were valueless.
One example of equality is equality before the law, e.g. that everyone has the same right to be presumed innocent. This presumption is based not on emotion but on reason. Why should some be presumed guilty simply because of their ethnic origin or social status? There is no rational basis for such a presumption.
But is being reasonable necessarily valuable? Yes, because the pursuit of the truth requires integrity. Although logic (or science) and morality are not generally associated, the decision to be logical or scientific presupposes acceptance of the need to be objective, to adhere to certain rules and to accept conclusions which may be undesirable. So belief in inequality based on racist prejudice has to be abandoned in the face of the facts about human beings.
Far from morality being a matter of emotion it is a case of reason overcoming emotion! Oldstillwild answered on 01/08/06:Well....here's much at stake , isnt it?
Humans always fail to remain decent.
Power is corruptive , hench the abusive use of the word equality......
Some are more equal than others.....
There is no equality.
Its a word not to be used for the purpose we're talking about here.
Lives are different.People are different.We all have a unique identity.All lives have an unique identity.
Yet, all are equal and therefore there is no such thing as equality.
People would say there is no beauty without uglyness.
Although this could be argued,at this moment its appropriate to concude:
As there is no equality , there is no unequality.
Hi! | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 01/06/06 - What does meditation mean to you? What does meditation mean to you? If you follow the teachings of some Eastern religions, you may believe that it is something that brings greater clarity of thought or special enlightenment. Meditation practiced in Buddhism encourages emptying the mind of all thought. Other forms of meditation are said to encourage filling your mind with universal truths of wisdom.
I lean towards the Hebrew word translated meditation which comes from a root word literally meaning speak with oneself. Oldstillwild answered on 01/06/06:To me meditation is the way to keep all communicationchannells clean and open.
Its a - continuously incorporated in dailylife in a transparent fashion - state of mind.
There is no need to assign special times to a meditation mode.
Its part of my daily life practical philosophy.
Its part of me.I feel it.Others may notice it in some way(if they have an eye for it).
Its part of my personality.Its making me strong inside and to be noticed by others.
Although,its no guarantee for success,it makes me too strong to be harmed in any way.
Hi! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 01/05/06 - What is the foundation of morality? ...........................I believe human life is valuable because it is a source of opportunities for development and enjoyment. That is why it is unreasonable to harm or kill a human being except in self-defence. Morality is not therefore subjective, relative and based on human convention but objective, universal and based on facts about human nature. Oldstillwild answered on 01/06/06:My thoughts about the subject:
Morality is a product of life and lives.
Even animals have morals.
People differ.Therefore its important to understand that the basis of life is:
All = One.
Or in other words,there are worst people and there are best people.
Morality is an average outcome of a community,a culture,a certain group of people,a society.
However,morality does not depend on communities,but on life itself.
This introduction was needed,in order to understand the following proposition:
Imagine the first man on earth and imagine,that man is a best man.
He would develop morals as he discovers life.He would love nature,flowers,animals,all living beings and he would be kind and therefore make sure,not to hurt nature,flora or fauna more,than needed for his survival.
The basis or foundation of his morals is selfconsciousness and feelings.He would feel responsible for his actions in relationship to his environment.Sympathy and empathy are important aspects in this.
The best man meets a best woman and they'd live happily ever after.
Sadly,as stated before,present moralities are an average,as people differ and have to compromise.
The true basis of morals is in ONE,because ONE is life itself.
We have to deal with us,being devided and therefore have to settle for an average.
There are many kinds of morals and all suit its community,which developed them,always changing though,as people change and with them the composition of society,which....... etc.etc.
Well....,now its time to have a beer or two....
Cheers!
| | Question/Answer | | Lukas asked on 01/04/06 - time/space Hello
There is an expression "no time and space" that i came across a few times while reading different books. For example "there was no time and space for him" or " he was the enemy of time and space" How to understand this TIME and SPACE. Is it connected with some specific current in philosophy? What it may mean that there is no time and no space? Does it make sense?
thank you!
Oldstillwild answered on 01/04/06:Hi Lukas!
Im sure youll find a lot of more information on this if you google Eistein.
Time and space are connected!
success! | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 01/01/06 - human knowledge Is all human knowledge is derived from human experience. Oldstillwild answered on 01/01/06:No,
of course not.
Current standings of physics is totally unverifiable.
Just theory. | | Question/Answer | | Choux asked on 12/31/05 - Leopold Kronecker, German Mathematician "God created the integers, all the rest is the work of man."
Would someone explain this quote to me?
Thanks in advance. Oldstillwild answered on 01/01/06:Well....,
Id say you read 2 much,Chou!
Be alittle more selective,Id say 2.
Maybe I say 2much.
There is no god 2.
At least its all about 1 number...ehh 2.
You see...,2 is 1 and still 2.
God must be a very intelligent 12.
That makes 3.....ehh no.......4
..........no...5.....no......6.....
so..., you see,Chou,that its easy 2 develop
numbers as you go along....
Far 2 easy 41 intelligent person like god!
You see...,Im already at 41.....,no 42!
Hi!....or
High?
Whatever...,time 2gaf.
(<:) | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 12/29/05 - What is the evidence that God exists? ........ Amongst the reasons for my own belief are:
The upward trend of evolution in the development of rationality, consciousness, sensitivity, autonomy and spirituality.
The astonishing history of the Chosen People who believe in the Unknown God and the Messiah, and have suffered persecution throughout history culminating in the unparallelled horror of the Holocaust.
The life, death and teaching of Jesus of Nazareth whose moral code of love and unforgiveness remains unsurpassed.
The fact that life is a constant struggle between good and evil - which exist not simply in the minds of human beings but in the conflict between creation and destruction, integrity and corruption, nobility and degradation.
The fact that countless miracles have occurred in answer to prayer.
The exquisite beauty in art and nature. Oldstillwild answered on 12/29/05:There is no evidence.....
There is only evidence,that life exist and that people are best in screwing up life.
Moreover,there is no such thing as beauty or exquisite beauty....there is only is.
Most if not all life-related miracles are due to Life itself.All the rest are due to nature or the other laws of the universe.
The moral code is for the positive part , part of the conditions to make life selffulfilling successful.( I recognize the values you mentioned and I feel its explanable,that these values were developed,but in the wrong (god-)context,in stead of in the context of Life itself.In fact it was too easy and obvious to invent a God as opposed to connect happenings to life itself.)
(Im running out of options to explain,that all miracles are due to Life and its interactions and if not to the laws of nature and universe).
Anyone , who has a thoroughly positive attitude towards life , doesnt need to "pray",because the "miracles" will happen anyway,because his/her state of mind.(And they will not be experienced as miracles , because for example I understand life and the powers of it.And so can/will anyone!).Its a natural life-phenomenon.
Happy NYeve!
| | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 12/28/05 - miraculous and the providential What is the difference between the terms miraculous and the providential when associated with the concept of "Divine Providence"? Oldstillwild answered on 12/28/05:Well.....,some people think the Providence making miraculous things happen,so in that case tehre's rather a connection than a difference.
At the other hand,miraculous refers to miracles and miracles aint defined by Providence per se,as miracles would happen even without Providence,so lets assume there is Providence,who is to determine,that the miraculous are connected with anything let alone Providence....?
Personally its my opinion that the difference is,that miracles,whatever it may be , happen and that there is no Providence.
Miracles are the result of unidentified orders.(not the new Worldorder...!)
Happy NYeve!
2MakeMiraclesHappen!
Oldstillwild
| | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 12/28/05 - How many Analytic Philosophers does it take to change a light bulb? None-its a pseudo-problem...light bulbs give off light (hence the name)...if the bulb was broken and wasn't giving off light, it wouldn't be a 'light bulb'
now would it? Oldstillwild answered on 12/28/05:Well....,see.....here's the Wizzkidding......coming out.....
Good thinkin DarkCrow! | | Question/Answer | | Choux asked on 12/27/05 - Fallacy What is the fallacy of many questions.
Thanks. Oldstillwild answered on 12/28/05:There is no fallacy.
if you feel yourself being fallicidated,well....,
maybe you just cant answer the question.....,
or maybe you just cant imagine yourself in the person of the questionposter.....,
or maybe you should throw the gauntlet and address the fallacy in relationship to that question specifically......,
or you should just ignore the question.....,
or you should just watch the question being answered by others.....,
or you should just embrace other criticasters,unwilling to leave their throne.....
Happy NYeve! | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 12/26/05 - Why do we have nipples? Males have nipples, an organ which serves a purpose to females but is entirely useless to men. So why do men have nipples? Oldstillwild answered on 12/26/05:To make the females jealous,because men have all the advantages of their nipples ,while women have to carry the burden also! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 12/24/05 - What is wrong with atheism?! . Oldstillwild answered on 12/25/05:Well....,
it will take more than a genius to disqualify atheism in any way in a believable fashion...... | | Question/Answer | | Choux asked on 12/21/05 - What is Wrong with GodAlmighty Belief.... What is wrong with GodAlmighty belief? Oldstillwild answered on 12/25/05:There is no almighty....
There is no god....
There is only life and life is bigger than most people think......so big,that men invented god for the works of life itself.
We should life give a chance and acknowledge,that even life is not almighty , yet very powerful.
Its a blessing,that there is no almighty...
So , no need and no chance to not take responsibility for anything and no need and no chance to disqualify nature for what it is.No need to "postpone" life.
So , every need to make life happen to the utmost,which we can(!), here and now!
Everything is wrong to believe in an almighty whatever,because people are imposing this on their environment.
Life is not for the too blind to see.
| | Question/Answer | | Choux asked on 12/24/05 - What is the meaning of hope.... in the lives of human beings.
Is hope always positive?
Are there negative aspects of hope?
Definition of hope::: noun 1. A wish or desire accompanied by confident expectation of its fulfillment.
2. Something that is hoped for or desired: Success is our hope.
3. One that is a source of or reason for hope: the team's only hope for victory.
4. often Hope Christianity. The theological virtue defined as the desire and search for a future good, difficult but not impossible to attain with God's help.
5. Archaic. Trust; confidence.
Thoughtful comments appreciated. Oldstillwild answered on 12/25/05:Well....,
hope is a state of mind.....
a means of survival of expectations or against fate, by a positive mind.....,
even maybe against all odds......
so in fact there is no hope....
therefore there cant be any meaning of hope....
Whats at stake here is a state of mind...
This particular state of mind has the meaning of survival....the will to survive....the will to let the positive prevail.
Its time to give death a chance..... | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 12/11/05 - What is consciousness?..................... Is it a state of mind? How fundamental is it? Oldstillwild answered on 12/11/05:Well,Tonyrey,
the same answer:
We're from consciousness.
Its time people come learn to know,what we're coming froms.(!)
We're just forms.
So,consciousness is as fundamental as it can get.
No consciousness,no Tonyrey!
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 12/09/05 - What are your views on consciousness? . Oldstillwild answered on 12/09/05:Well.....,we are from consciousness. | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 12/08/05 - When and how do minds originate? . Oldstillwild answered on 12/08/05:let me try.
You need to be.
You need a brain.
You need data.
You need an ability to process data.
You need to be able to think.
You need to be self-conscious.
You need an ego.
Its my guess,this is about it.
I think,that although we wouldnt recall , we have a mind of ourselves from the very start in the womb.
Hi! | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 12/07/05 - What is the Natural State of Man? It seems to me to boil down to two Doctrines; the one of Optimism, which says that the universe is constantly tending toward a better state, and Pessimism, the belief that the world and life are essentially evil. With strong arguments for both theories, the only way to settle the paradox seems to be Augustines most unsatisfactory conclusionthat everything in the universe is good, even things that appear evil. Oldstillwild answered on 12/07/05:Well....,Augustine must be a holistic person and I tend to agree completely with him.
The only thing is,there is no good or evil at stake here.
The universe just is.
But as it is my opinion,that the very fact of just being is a good thing,I agree with Augustine completely.
So,
now its time for a fresh cold pint of beer..... | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 12/06/05 - How does first person experience arise? Peirce seems to ascribe mind and thought even to the physical
world, when he writes Thought is not necessarily connected with a brain. It appears in the work of bees, of crystals, and throughout the purely physical world; and one can no more deny that it is really there, than that the colors, the shapes, etc., of objects
are really there. (CP 4.551). Oldstillwild answered on 12/06/05:Well,he is right if he means,that the origin of life is consciousness and that all forms of life are projections of (the thoughts of)this consciousness.
Its a view.
| | Question/Answer | | Choux asked on 12/05/05 - Language Do men and women experience language differently?
I had the media on today, and an expert was talking about language and being male or female. He said that women had more brain receptors that dealt with language. For example, if a man and a woman have the same kind of stroke, a man will lose far more language than a woman. The reason, a woman has language areas in both hemispheres of her brain.
I wonder.
Any comments would be appreciated. Oldstillwild answered on 12/05/05:Well , let me try to handle this with my limited brainmud in my had:
I have not enouph brain to have this investigated by my self,butt,
I happen 2 learn,that there indeed is a difference in brainquality-propperties between men and women.
I apears to be,that women have the better talent to learn a language,using both sides of the brainsubstance , while men have more praktical and math abilities.
I dont know,what Chou means by experiencing language differently:
Es far es I understood the metter it all comes down to the ability to learn and the use of the physikal brainsubstance with respact to language.
There is no difference in "language-eksperience":men and women would use language the same menner,once learned to use it.
So, if a man says "Oooooohhhhh,Ahhhhhhh,Yessssss!",it would mean exactly the same for both sekses.
Hi!
Looking forward 2 this eksperience.....
| | Question/Answer | | Jim.McGinness asked on 12/05/05 - Limits of our understanding...do we know what these are? Keeping the topic of Obscurity and Profundity alive:
In his comments, Tony said ... it is possible that the obscurity is due to the limits of our understanding. which set off a small alarm bell. What do we know about the limits of our understanding? Do we know enough about them for an assertion like this one to be considered substantive?
Look, I'm not trying to say that it's meaningless to contemplate limits to human understanding. I'm simply questioning whether any current lack of understanding of a topic merely represents evidence of where the potential limits may lie or if it isn't tautological to claim that the reason we don't understand something currently is due to (unknown) "limits of our understanding."Oldstillwild answered on 12/05/05:Welll.....there are limits,alright.
And of course there are limits to our understanding,
no sane person could argue that....
I think more actual are the limits of understanding each other......
And another factor is , limits in willing to understand each other.....
So,there are lots of limits,the limits to understanding itself is of minor importance compared to the other factors.
The other strongly related topic is the limits of understanding due to the limits of communication......
Ill never succeed to point out,what I exactly mean by saying:I see a beautiful red tulip in front of me,yet you would state,that you fully understand me.
So,there are different dimensions to the understanding of the word understanding itself too.
I think,that the degree of understanding needed,is dependent of the circumstances.
And that precise understanding/communication is impossible,yet mostly not required and therefore not leading to misunderstanding.
Of course,I should have defined understanding first,but I fear,that that wouldnt be understood enough,to base a discussion upon.
I hope,you understand,that it is impossible to me,to precisely communicate to you,what I think about this topic in full.... | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 12/03/05 - Is a "theory of everything" a chimera? ... Oldstillwild answered on 12/03/05:No.
Its likely to be the very explanation of All.
There is no other option.
The chimera,though,may be the illusion for mankind,ever to be able to discover the formula.....
(including the stars.....)
(<:)
Hi!
(dont bother,Im not human) | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 12/02/05 - "person" and "human being" Does the term, "person" and "human being" mean different things? Oldstillwild answered on 12/02/05:What dou you think?
Am I human? | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 12/01/05 - Is this supposed to be a philosophical question? ...
Oldstillwild answered on 12/01/05:Its my opinion,that you should have posted this question being an reaction to a question as an answer 2 that question.....
As you are so long present on philosophical boards,its time 4 u to start 2 act like 1. | | Question/Answer | | Choux asked on 11/30/05 - Dying Dying
"I heard a fly buzz when I died;
The stillness round my form
Was like the stillness in the air
Between the heaves of storm.
The eyes beside had wrung them dry,
And breaths were gathering sure
For that last onset, when the king
Be witnessed in his power.
I willed my keepsakes, signed away
What portion of me I
Could make assignable,-and then
There interposed a fly,
With blue, uncertain, stumbling buzz,
Between the light and me;
And then the windows failed, and then
I could not see to see."===Emily Dickinson
An odd thing happened last night at about 2:30AM. I was preparing to lie down, Nick the Cat was in bed with me all in a furry circle, the lights were off and as my head almost hit the pillow a teensy flying insect went into my ear. Tiny zzzz'ts zz'ts echoing softly in my ear.
I ran out of Q-Tips about two months ago, so I just lay my head down and tried to think what to do. My head was turned so that my ear was open to the air.
I could feel that the little guy was stuck; I felt the soft movement of wings zzzz't zzz't brushing the inside of my ear ever so slightly. I thought that this may be the final incident to send me out the front door screaming. zzzz't zzz't
I thought of Emily Dickinson's masterpiece....[printed above] zzz't just passing time........stuck my finger in my ear a few times....too short....zzzzt....
Today is another day. I would say to all the philosophers who read my true story from tosay, 11-30-05, when you run out of Q-tips, go straight to the store and replace them.
Mary Sue
Oldstillwild answered on 11/30/05:It was nice being so close to you,my little Chouchou......
(I knew you were run out of Q-tips....)
(<:)
I guess,youre hearing muchbbetter now.... | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 11/29/05 - in a word, 'crude' hedonism! Well, What to make of that!
Should I be the one with that lineage, what confidence I should posses, what certainty to be without doubt such Saintliness. What could this man believe aside from the Empirical fact in a word, 'crude' hedonism! But what of metaphysics? What of thought itselfwhat of modes of Being? Surly he must confuse fact with knowledge!
Wait I say! Have I judged this man unjustly for have I not assumedhim to hold that belief, must he believe in the manner his lineage suggests?
You see, good to my word I shall be but a mere purveyor of fact. Doubts belief, I shall get to the bottom of this matter, with the help of Timarte. Oldstillwild answered on 11/29/05:Wish you a safe journey.Dont forget your matches! | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 11/27/05 - no amount of thought will reveal this knowledge If a person does not attend to the meaning of terms, he may begin to sound absurd. Shall I explain this matter to you Darkcrow?
And explain he did That I had been in error on at least one account became apparent soon enough: that he was not a peasant! He traced his linage to the very near beginning of knowledge: to what is known to be a fact.
For it seems my guide is no less than a direct decandent of Hypatia the Philosopher Daugher of Theon and wife of Isidrus. Add to that Aristippus of Cyrenefounder of the The Cyrenaic school of classical Greek Thought. As it turns out Aristippus was home schooled by Arete of Cyrene, his mother and, the namesake of Timarte (Socrates claimed that arete is a kind of knowledge. Others believe that arete is more than a matter of knowing; it is, some people think, also a matter of willing.)
Timarte; too was home schooled and revealed to me that knowledge passes from father to father though one generation after another. Knowledge is not to be found dusty books the likes of Diodrus Siculus nor Friedrich Nietzsche or Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel nor one G.E. Moore, or David Hume. Knowledge requires action and is not to be generated in ones mind. If you believe there is water in the cup you only need taste it, and if the thirst is quenched, it is water enough; no amount of thought will reveal this knowledge. Oldstillwild answered on 11/28/05:Well.....,in this case.....,the knowledge is in the dead....... | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 11/26/05 - Knowledge Sir; everyone knows that. Where was I! Oh yes; the course of events, to which I bear witness, the, comings and goings to the very Gate Post of the underworld and, not to forget: by one, mere purveyor of fact.
Ever so long ago I happened upon a man, nay, a man among men: a peasant, as any aristocrat would cheerfully attest; but with the clarity of thought of the likes of any G.E. Moore, or David Hume. I had hired him as a guide; for only a fool would travel the Nile from Alexandria to Sudan without a reliable guide; even at the present time. My guide, Timarete; (and nevermind the female name that is another story for perhaps another time.) swore the journey by which we would proceed was the very route taken by Herodotus; that is, we would travel when the Nile was near its height we would pass by water but not the channels of the river, rather over the midst of the plain: from Naucratis to Memphis, and then to the foot of the very pyramids themselves.
As we were carried along I could not help thinking the scene resembled more nearly than anything else the islands in the gean Sea, only the cities rising above the sea. And I wondered aloud, What were all the great Pharoas seeking, and Timarete replied, as if in wonder, Knowledge Sir; everyone knows that. Oldstillwild answered on 11/26/05:Id say,keep on going on your ongoing endless everlasting infinite quest for anything you still can be endlessly filled with and let the world know,Darkcrow!
The advantage of chaos over order is,that you never have to care for generally accepted patterns and therefore no need wasting energy to recall anything especially,because all is of equal importance......the pharoas are still seeking..... | | Question/Answer | | Jim.McGinness asked on 11/25/05 - Should drawing, music, and dance be considered language? Dan (roseneds) in a comment on my answer to an earlier question said: Just one note -- drawing, music and dance are languages also, just not necessarily verbal ones. I wonder about this. In the context of Tony's earlier question, does it ring true?
I had claimedIt is certainly possible for thought to be expressed without language: music, drawing, dance are alternative modalities. I am aware of efforts to encode language into dance (e.g. Rudolf Steiner's eurythmy). Both ballet and mime can act out a story for the audience without using words. I acknowledge that these are means of communication, but I find it curious to claim they amount to language. American Sign Language and similar signing languages for the deaf may count as languages in their own right (as opposed to encodings of oral languages).
Is this merely a question of two different meanings for the word language? Did Dan misunderstand me or have I misunderstood Dan?Oldstillwild answered on 11/25/05:Well....,I dont need help.Im a big fan of the simple minds! | | Question/Answer | | Jim.McGinness asked on 11/25/05 - Should drawing, music, and dance be considered language? Dan (roseneds) in a comment on my answer to an earlier question said: Just one note -- drawing, music and dance are languages also, just not necessarily verbal ones. I wonder about this. In the context of Tony's earlier question, does it ring true?
I had claimedIt is certainly possible for thought to be expressed without language: music, drawing, dance are alternative modalities. I am aware of efforts to encode language into dance (e.g. Rudolf Steiner's eurythmy). Both ballet and mime can act out a story for the audience without using words. I acknowledge that these are means of communication, but I find it curious to claim they amount to language. American Sign Language and similar signing languages for the deaf may count as languages in their own right (as opposed to encodings of oral languages).
Is this merely a question of two different meanings for the word language? Did Dan misunderstand me or have I misunderstood Dan?Oldstillwild answered on 11/25/05:"I acknowledge that these are means of communication"
Language is a means of communication.
So,tha question might be:
Is communication equal to language.
I dont think there is any room for miscommunication here....
You can say,you have the language of the painter,the language of the dancer,the language of the drawer,the language of the musician........etc.
Are these languages fit to aim the same goal?The same sort of communication?
Can I draw,paint or play "Im going to the theatre at nine olock tonight,wearing sunglasses and a hayfork.
Well,I guess,opinions will differ herein.....will the receiver understand,without having to learn the respective vocabularies first.....?Or has each language its own messages?
Well,anyway,I would say,that there are no different meanings to the word language here.....only the vocabulary differs.
Hi!
| | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 11/25/05 - A continuing saga, pitch in if you like. The term Inference literally means that which follows. Thus inference is knowledge which follows other knowledge.
Draw an Inference, what a strange combination of words! Someone, and never mind for the moment who, once said, Inference, means gathering the clues, and then making a best guess. Nonsense! The fact, and that is as you might remember the importance of a matter, the fact is that to draw inference means, knowledge follows knowledge.
Colebrooke describes the Nyayasutra analysis of an argument schema as follows (this volume, pp.47-8):
A regular argument or syllogism (nyaya) consists of five members (avayava) or component parts, 1st, the proposition (pratijna); 2nd, the reason (hetu or apadesa); 3rd, the instance (udaharana or nidarsana); 4th, the application (upanaya); 5th, the conclusion (nigamana). Ex.
~Narayana Moorty Oldstillwild answered on 11/25/05:Nice work Darkcrow!5 stars! | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 11/24/05 - Eastern and Western Thought A Comparative analysis
Of
Eastern and Western Thought
Darkcrow
My name is Darkcrow although the point is moot for everyone has heard of me; I am told my words are by a definitive adjective, in a word Obscure. However, what I set down before you now I shall endeavor, to make clear what was shadowy disclose what was once darkened facts In a word make known what hitherto was unknown; for who better than I, me who must abide in this world and to the very Gate Post of the underworld. What I have seen coming and going would shake the very foundation of both Mount Olympus and, the Pyramids of the Nile the very origins of thought.
Yes, on my word I shall become a mere purveyor of fact I shall lay bare the greatest, to the most minute, with the clarity not like the scribbling and pleonasm of such men as Friedrich Nietzsche or Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel but rather the succinctness and clarity of one G.E. Moore, or David Hume.
Alias, but I suppose too much; I suppose you have read the prose of these writers of purported knowledge, and now, for the sake of clarity find another example.
A continuing saga, pitch in if you like. Oldstillwild answered on 11/24/05:Hi Darkcrow!
I must say,having read your contributions primarily on the asking side on this site and given your feedback at times,that Im not particular optimistic about the degree of geniality which will be displayed by your upcoming revolutionary findings.
Lately I wished you strength in your endeavour to get a hold of your thoughts and I surely hope you will succeed in this without losing contact with "reality".
Its your challenge now,to show that Im wrong,which I hope of course.
Im giving this reaction,because I feel its only fair to let you know where I stand beforehand.
I will not hesitate to give you all the credits you deserve.
Yours Truely,
Oldstillwild | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 11/20/05 - To what extent does language obscure thought? For example, to define is to impose limits where they may not exist. Definitions tend to lead to an atomist view of reality and ignore the continuity of processes. Yet it is impossible to dispense with definitions... Oldstillwild answered on 11/20/05:Yeah....,thats why there is so much misunderstanding around........
Nobody can be somebody else.
There are no easy manageable definitions.
To build a building , the definition is a pile of detailed documents.
To manufacture a table ,you need a definition by way of extensive descriptions and drawings and even then you cant be sure,that it will be exactly according to your wishes...
Besides,there is no guarantee,that your definition tomorrow is exactly like today!
Draw my dot for me:you cant do that!Trial and error!
I better exactly draw my own dot and even than it would take a while before I'd be satisfied,if ever or rather accept the result.....
Yes,Tonyrey,language is a very poor means to define one's wishes or even plain objective material objects.
We're living in a world of understanding in tolerance and still adjusting....We should.Otherwise we'd all become zombies.
But lets not turn the world upside down:
language is a tool,needed because without it,we would be exactly nowhere at all.... | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 11/17/05 - Secondness of a mode of being. 100% pure doubtlessness is a property of habit and a habit is acquired by experience; that is, action taken with-out syllogism which has proved itself true; what CS Perice calls Secondness of a mode of being.
Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, with respect to a second but regardless of any third.
A sign that stands for something to something i. e. object of the sign.
Note: A sign may refer to more than one object or group of objects
A proposition or a description is a sign which may be interpreted to refer to a factual existing object.
A syllogism is a sign of a general law or of a conclusion which leads to the truth.
And so it is that I can say the Bible has literal meaning, and syllogism is the proper means of investigation, not blind faith.
As now, as Christians, ought not, they be testing their words against the whole of the Bible. And if them, certainly all who wish to speak of it in any knowing way. If I want to know a man I listen to his words, not what others say about him and, the same with the Bible; how can one believe, that is, be with-out doubt unless they see for themselves.
Matthew 22:37
Jesus said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. Faith by reason as opposed to blind faith.
My bold Oldstillwild answered on 11/17/05:What comes up into my mind,is wishing you strength,Dark Crow!
Life maybe a struggle,yet isnt meant to be a spiritual struggle.
Id say,
Follow your heart and forget books.
Any! | | Question/Answer | | Choux asked on 11/16/05 - Dark Crow Where is Dark Crow? I miss him. Oldstillwild answered on 11/17/05:He'd pop-up every now and then......
really nothing new..... | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 11/16/05 - How relevant is size to significance?......... It is often argued that life is insignificant in the vast reaches of time and space. How valid is this argument? Oldstillwild answered on 11/16/05:Well...,another open end question.....
Our individual lives are insignificant .
2 lives are....still insignificant .
Mankind is insignificant .
Life on earth is insignificant .
If life itself is insignificant.......I cant tell,because I --and nobody does--dont know the scope of life itself.....
It may be possible,that the nature of life,the phenomenon itself, is spread all over the universe and not necessarily exposed in (visible)Forms.
So,the answer to your General Question must be:
The validity isnt to be determined by us.
| | Question/Answer | | Choux asked on 11/15/05 - Said and Done When all is said and done in one's life, what is your opinion about this, "What is the most important objective an individual must accomplish in his/her life"? Oldstillwild answered on 11/15/05:Nothing.
The only important thing is to be in an enduring state of clear consciencely happily pursuing one's
happiness........and taking care,that thats never reached. | | Question/Answer | | Nocturne asked on 11/15/05 - Something Why is there something rather than nothing? Oldstillwild answered on 11/15/05:Well.....,
not in your case..... | | Question/Answer | | Nocturne asked on 11/12/05 - Proving Something Exists Can you prove that something exists without being able to see, touch, smell, taste, or hear it? Oldstillwild answered on 11/13/05:I can prove.................................................thats there is wind..........
I can prove....................................................that there is rain............
I can prove................................................that there is snow............
I can prove................................................that there is hail.........
I can prove...............................................that there is warmth.........
I cant prove...............................................that I am not flying........ | | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 11/10/05 - WANT SOME WISDOM?
Thomas Merton wrote, "I will not permit myself to become emotionally involved in matters that should not be my concern. I will not interfere with the working out of another's difficulties, however dear and close we may be to each other. Detachment is essential to any healthy relationship between people. EACH OF US IS A FREE INDIVIDUAL WITH NEITHER ONE IN CONTROL OF THE OTHER. Although all men (and women) have a common destiny, each individual also has to work out his personal salvation for him (or herself). WE CAN HELP ONE ANOTHER FIND OUT THE MEANING OF LIFE. BUT IN THE LAST ANALYSIS, EACH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FINDING HIMSELF." (This also applies to women, Chou. I didn't forget the female gender, per the equality bit)
Don't jump the gun. THINK about what Merton had to say and then answer truthfully. This will make your answer sincere.
HANK
Oldstillwild answered on 11/10/05:Id always state this all the time.....
Nothing new to me......
Have a nice weekend Hank! | | Question/Answer | | Nocturne asked on 11/07/05 - Reliability of Memory If memory is not to be trusted, what can courts of law rely on? How can they establish what 'really happened'? How can things from the past, be proved? Oldstillwild answered on 11/07/05:Well...,as youre implying....everything is relative.
Everything....,that means we're part of this relativity too.....
So.............(!) | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 11/06/05 - Evolution and intelligent design.......... Are they necessarily incompatible? Oldstillwild answered on 11/06/05:Well.....,in the light of the intelligence of the great creator of life,because thats the scope of the general understanding of the terms "intelligent design" in combination with evolution,
they are unevitably incompatible.
So if youd like to use a different or personal understanding of the terms: intelligent design,you should provide us of such.
The only good answer to your question is:yes.
Looking forward to your ratings,of which I could care less moron my account....(<:) | | Question/Answer | | Bradd asked on 10/31/05 - Logic Can Be Fun - Or Can It? Read the following sentence.
"This statement is a lie".
Is the sentence a lie or not a lie?
If it's a lie, then the sentence is not a lie. If it's not a lie, then the sentence is a lie.
True or false, in place of lie, works too. Oldstillwild answered on 11/01/05:Well....,I am not impressed at all.
I am not going to quibble.
This sentence is a lie.
To consider it as a lie or not is kind of inbreeding.And we all know,that thats not a sound thing to do.
This sentence is a lie , doesnt say or mean anything in itself or about itself or whatever.Its just a statement,lacking reference.Or at least suggesting,that it is referring to an earlier/other statement or sentence.
All those articles and books on Liar paradox........what a waste!
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 10/26/05 - Why are humans more altruistic than chimps? ... Oldstillwild answered on 10/26/05:Is that so?
And if some moron came to this conclusion,because it looks like it,
maybe its because chimps apparently cant anticipate future. | | Question/Answer | | keenu asked on 10/24/05 - There goes my theory Well, that pretty much shoots my theory all to heck.
I was wondering if perhaps procrastinators perceived time as going by more quickly than non-procrastinators.
My answer:
I perceive time as going by very quickly and I am a procrastinator. I was thinking that maybe the act of putting off things caused one to perceive the passage of time differently...
7 out of 10 say no
I know it has to do with brain-wave length.
Altered states. If one is happy the time seems to pass quickly. If one is unhappy or bored or in pain then time seems to pass slowly.
I also know that when falling asleep there is that state when time is non-existent. When you can dream a whole detailed long dream and look at the clock and no time has passed at all, fall asleep again, dream another dream and then wake up again and look at the clock and still no time gone...
Any thoughts?
Oldstillwild answered on 10/24/05:Well.....,
yes
still no time gone....
I noticed for a long time,that dreaming takes no significant time.
In my opinion its true,that brainspeed is demonstrated in dreaming.
You can have a "long" dream(perceived as long),but in "reality" all that dreaming happenend in a nanonanosecond.
Now,being a procrastinator.
One can in fact be very very very busy while
procrastinating.
When one is busy(busy being lucky,happy,or in sorrow etc--so just "busy")the perception of time is lost in the Moment(of being busy).So being busy is to be considered as one Moment.
The perception of time depends therefore on the state of mind and if your state of mind is being busy procrastinating all the time,time will pass quickly.
Even if your mind is at a continuous state of idleness time will pass by very quickly.
The perception of time will slow down,if youre being bored,WHILE longing for something else.Because,then, youre in fact busy with time itself and it will pass second by second(as mankind would define it).
As far as myself is concerned:
Im living my practical spiritual philosophy,of which living the Moment is an important aspect.So, there is no space for time.
And as part of that Im very occupied with my goals of selffulfillment.So ,busy all the time.
I used to have one special moment,that I realise that time is passing by so quickly and normally that is at New Year.
I am wondering if and in what way aging itself is debet also to the faster perception of time.Maybe one has more data to process the older one gets and therefore being more busy.....I have no idea.
For the moment Im blaming my "business" and the way my mind is busy(the state of my mind) for the speed, time is passing by.
Hi!
| | Question/Answer | | keenu asked on 10/22/05 - Second question (You don't have to answer on both boards)
Are you a procrastinator?
Again, a simple yes or no is necessary.
Thanks in advance! Oldstillwild answered on 10/23/05:....................................................................................No | | Question/Answer | | keenu asked on 10/19/05 - Time perception Do you perceive time as going by quickly or slowly?
Thank you in advance for your answers!
All I need is a simple yes or no.
(This is quesion 1 of 2)
Oldstillwild answered on 10/19/05:yes | | Question/Answer | | Choux asked on 10/19/05 - Crimes against Humanity Saddam Hussein has objected to being put on trial for Crimes against Humanity citing that the court has no jurisdiction over him.
Since we have been speaking of justice, I wonder how any body has authority over the actions of a head of state. Is there a genuine authority?
I am aware of the Nuremberg Trials after WWII, and thr trial of Milosevic of former Yugoslavia.
Under what authority? Oldstillwild answered on 10/19/05:Im totally a layman,but
let me give it a try.
Im living in a kingdom and not even the queen is hors category.
I guess,that Bush isnt neither.If he would commit a "normal" crime, e.g. killing his mother,he would be subject to prosecution as any other civilian.
Now,about "crimes" in the name of the administration.Its common and logical,that these crimes are to be addressed primarily by the opposition and/or the international
community.
Therefore the international community has established the International Court of Justice in The Hague (Netherlands).
Crimes against humanity can be addressed there,upon which this will be investigated and prosecuted.
If home-developments this allow,the former head of state will be prosecuted by the new authorities under normal inland laws.
So,in short:heads of state are not beyond the law.
Hussein will be prosecuted in Iraq under Iraq law.
Milosevic is being prosecuted under international law. | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 10/13/05 - But what of doubt; what is the role of doubt? Belief, I believe as E. A. Poe claimed that, Belief [Truth] is the satisfaction of the intellect. And C. S. Peirce similarly claims, "Hence, I hold that what is properly and usually called belief, that is, the adoption of a proposition as a {ktma es aei} to use the energetic phrase of Doctor Carus, has no place in science at all. We believe the proposition we are ready to act upon. Full belief is willingness to act upon the proposition in vital crises, opinion is willingness to act upon it in relatively insignificant affairs. But pure science has nothing at all to do with action. The propositions it accepts, it merely writes in the list of premisses it proposes to use.[] Now that which you do not at all doubt, you must and do regard as infallible, absolute truth. Here breaks in Mr. Make Believe: "What! Do you mean to say that one is to believe what is not true, or that what a man does not doubt is ipso facto true?"
But what of doubt; what is the role of doubt? Notice that young children rarely exhibit doubt Oldstillwild answered on 10/14/05:I am not going to say very much (as usual) about doubt,other than that doubt is subordinate to spiritual reality.
In fact absolute unimportant in the light of a special role or so.
Doubt in various degrees is constantly an integrated part of our decisionmaking as is everything else.
Its no use paying special attention to it.
If you do,youre out of balance and youll need to work on that. | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 10/11/05 - how how is belief in the real to be distinguished from belief in fiction? Oldstillwild answered on 10/11/05:There is no difference......
The result is Belief.
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 10/10/05 - Philosophical expertise? What is your opinion of a member of this board who first resorts to verbal abuse and then makes derogatory remarks about another member of this board? Oldstillwild answered on 10/10/05:Well......,
Im having interesting fun here and just taking things for what they are and everybody is free to feel about anything the way he or she chooses to.....
Each and every post has a reason and the way anybody takes a post has a reason too.....
The internet in general is a perfect place to learn about yourself,how you take a certain post,how you react to it ,if you do , where your vulnerabilities are and what you do to that , if youre open-minded or not , if youre willing to take others seriously , if youre using the internet just to dump your opinion or if you just want to hear the things you like.....
Its my experience,that there is a vast chance to misunderstandings and miscommunication,due to the limitations of the forum in addition to the limitations of the participants themselves.
Philosophy is an excercise of the brain in combination with having an open eye for the environment and most people demand high so-called scientific standards to what others might say,trying to disqualify "non prooven"findings in stead of trying to be respectful.
I have no objection to verbal abuse of any kind.
Derogatory remarks toward another member might be appropriate in cases.
Im not a person who'll feel offended easily
anyway.
Do you fit the shoe,well....take it.
Dont you....,well,just ignore.
Just dont forget,that between the two persons concerned it might be working out well in the end and if youre not addressed,just ignore.
I think,posts like this are pretty useless and boring,because if you have the "right" attitude,you wouldnt choose to be bothered a bit.
I have no idea,why I am writing this,......
I seem to be kind of abusive at times,allthough nobody is able to determine the degree of abusiveness properly in accordance with how I feel and what my intentions are.The greater part of the way one would take things is within oneself.Dont forget that!
Im a forgiving loving honest person.Maybe provoking at times.I have my dark sides too.
Hi!
Next time,if you want to discuss an issue like this,be more specific as to who and when and pasting the things youre referring to,so that everybody knows,what youre talking about.
Nobody is perfect.
Its about the greater picture.
And about the opinion youre asking for:
Ive no opinion about this.
Hi!
| | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 10/09/05 - Every premise, in reality, is a conclusion. Isnt every premise in reality conclusion by previous Syllogism? But then how did the first premise ever come about? Oldstillwild answered on 10/09/05:Both are products of the mind.
So,if there would be any which is first question,the answer here is:the mind was first and defining. | | Question/Answer | | Choux asked on 10/08/05 - On which facts is religion based? Thanks in advance for your responses. Oldstillwild answered on 10/08/05:Religion is based on the mental vulnerability and limited mental capabilities of mankind,combined with the almost perfect denial of that.
Hi! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 10/08/05 - On which beliefs is science based? ... Oldstillwild answered on 10/08/05:Well.......,is that a splendid question!
Ill leave it with that......
Hi! | | Question/Answer | | Bradd asked on 10/07/05 - Back to Quantum Mechanics At the end of the 19th century, physicists were claiming that nothing is left in science except for the engineers to exploit what had been discovered.
Within 25 years, Max Planck and Einstein turned physics on its head like it had never been turned before Newton.
Now we have quantum physics. And string theory. And many universes. And more (see the latest book).
Does reality truly depend on a "conscious" observer? The Niels Bohr/Copenhagen school is rejected by most physicists. An instrument performs equally well in any double-split experiment. Same goes for Schroedinger's cat.
If time is truly non-linear, how are we to know? You must admit, it works very well in toasters and bombs and computers.
Can we be victims of "modernism" - the notion that all that needs to be known is known? Haven't we gone through this in the past - beginning with the classical Greeks? Yet, no one today would think science stopped then.
Is quantum physics the end, or just a new stepping off place? Is its mystery a reflection of an absolute finality - or simply another reflection of our limitations?
Oldstillwild answered on 10/07/05:I think here's infinity at stake.
Although mankind would talk about infinity,nobody seems to realise what it would be for real.
Mankind is never to reveal the infinity of creation,whether it is infinite small or infinite wide,infinite short or infinite long in time.
So , "the notion that all that needs to be known is known",will remain infinitely illusive and consequently knowledge and science as a whole,as the broader perspective will by definition remain out of sight.
So,consequently,the answer to your last question must and will be:Yes,we are not to discover the secret of creation itself.(if any)
Note:
Its my opinion,that there is no such thing as creation.
The "basis" of existence is eternity and all we'd notice is re-arranging
(in-)substance.
Hi!
| | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 10/05/05 - The effect must have existed in some causal state. It has been argued that, Cause cannot be what something is. Cause brings into existence, or into presence that which is, but as such it cannot ever be that "something". The morning is not the Sun and the rotation of Earth. The sun and the rotation of Earth is the cause of the morning (simplified) - but what the morning is is different.
It has also been argued that, In creation, a new thing is not created, because nothing can come from nothing. If a new thing is to be created, it must have been produced out of nothing. How can 'nothing' produce 'something'?
It seems to me that in Nature the effect is in the cause. The effect is in the cause and the cause exists in the effect. Cause and effect are essentially one Oldstillwild answered on 10/06/05:Its hard not to get mixed-up in this problem.....
There are conditions in which the cause can lead to several effects at the same time or to one of several possible synchronous effects or to starting a process or processes.
It seems to me,that cause must not be confused with ingredients or analysis.
Its obvious,that where cause is equal to ingredients or analysis,the effect implicitely is intrinsically thereein.
Sunlight is a cause,but you cant state,that
the effect is life or growth or green or blue or whatever.
You cant state,there is sunlight and therefore there must be life,growth,green or blue or whatever.
You may state,that sunlight,warmth,water,etc are the cause of life,but in saying so,one is just mentioning all the ingredients,which makes the efect allinclusive authomatically.
Moreover I believe,that life came (practically)from nothing.Anyway from anything beyond our grasp.
In general there are cause and there is effect.The two should be separated from each other in order to be able to speak of cause and effect.
e.g.The wind blows,the leaves move.
The wind blows,the roof is separated from the house.
The tree might stand behind a wall.The wind might be a little breeze.
So you have to specify or analize to make a perfect cause-effect match.But as said,done so,its only logical,that cause and effect appear to be virtually one.
You mentioned "simplified"in your question,but that simplification is essential.The moment you are specific,youve analised the phenomenon at hand and made a logical connection given all the ingredients.
So, cause and effect are essential one , IF SPECIFIED properly.
Which takes away a meaningful sense to this proposition.
Hi!
| | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 10/03/05 - What, mind you, would be a philosophy that could be expected to be transparent to uncultured minds a But, thought, like the process of fanciful-tales, is the profoundest mediation of spirit, and he who would get an insight into the speculative thinkers of whatever time, must labor as only as spirit can labor. Oldstillwild answered on 10/04/05:Philosophy is of all times of all minds on all levels.
Philosophy is a quest.
Science is only obscuring truth,never revealing it.
Intelligence is the only way.
Intelligence for observation and discovery of what life really is.
Uncultured minds would go for the primitive
and would need guidance.The world is organised exactly to the abilities of mankind in all its levels.
The "philosophy that could be expected to be transparent to uncultured minds "therefore is not in existence.The question is rethorical,given the present as (logical) outcome of mankind's abilities and diversification.
What one should look for is the philosophy transparant to the world as a whole,which could become the basis for social behaviour and organisation.
This philosophy should be based on plain intelligence for observation ,evaluation,dedication and application of life's properties.
99,9% of world's population is uncultured in this sense.
Therefore,people will keep on going in the wrong way for the wrong goals and maybe for the right goals,but never reaching them.
All = one.
Many people are aware of this,few abide to it.
We exist from Chaos and live into Chaos.There are as many realities as observations.The total of this chaos is One.
The only common factor underneath this is life itself.
So , the philosophy one should look for should be based on life itself.
No religion.
As long as religion does exist,no transparent philosophy will be accepted.
As long as mankind isnt focussing as one on the philosophy of life based on life itself,no transparant philosophy will be developed.
The few,who maneged to get focussed on the right issue,will remain the voices in the wilderness...........
as may be demonstrated below.....
Hi!
| | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 10/03/05 - Thought, we are in thought Accordingly, just as we say that a body is in motion, and not that motion is in a body, we ought to say that we are in thought, and not that thoughts are in us.
-- Charles Peirce, Writings 2: 241,227,227n
Thoughts anyone? Oldstillwild answered on 10/03/05:Well,
Motion IS in a body as we know now from quantum mechanics,
so Thoughts are in us is pretty much in line with that,
although this is more academic than not an issue rather than wells fargo.
Hi! | | Question/Answer | | Bradd asked on 10/01/05 - "Quantum Theory"-------------------------- Is it necessary to know "quantum theory" in order to understand reality?
What is "quantum theory"? What is its relationship to philosophy? If any. Oldstillwild answered on 10/02/05:Reality is what we experience.There is no other reality.All the rest is academical.Of no importance at all.Only would-be important.Kind of snobistical importance.No one is ever going to understand or experience quantum-existentialismathicallyexperienciatingalations.
We dont even understand chaos.
We will never know or understand,that even chaos is not what we think it is not.
Undefined changes occurring in matter while watching doesnt proove anything in relation to this observation itself,let alone drawing conclusions as to concrete specific influences of human observations to matter.
Its not that easy.
Whats at stake here is the influence of life itself and that we have the ability to consciously accomodate this phenomenon to make all the right things happen.
Its time to accept life for what it really is.
As long as we do not and keep trying to manipulate matter in stead of working with it,not-understandable unpleasant chaos will be our deal in stead of heavenly paradise-like chaos! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 09/24/05 - Is any form of knowledge self-validating? ....... Can science, for example, claim to be the most fundamental form of knowledge? If not, what can? Oldstillwild answered on 09/24/05:most fundamental form of knowledge........
what is that?
most fundamental form of knowledge?
Let me say,what I experience as the most fundamental knowledge......
That is all of my personal experiences,my evaluations of that,being the basis of my every next moment......
Thats the most fundamental knowledge.
Its the basis of who I am.
Nobody can live without that basis.
So the most fundamental,most fundamental knowledge,is the knowledge about the most fundamental knowledge.
Science in itself is nothing.
Hi! | | Question/Answer | | hmghaly asked on 09/22/05 - Apology sorry everyone for the last post, I put it by mistake here. Well, I've not been here for a while, but at least I'm alive if anyone is interested :)
Hussein Oldstillwild answered on 09/23/05:Well........,what did you write.....? | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 09/20/05 - a right, and a privilege There seems to be some different definitions of just what Rights are, and how they differ from Privileges. What is the main difference between a right, and a privilege?
For my part, it seems that Privileges are what other people grant you, and Rights are what you grant yourself.
Any thoughts about this? Oldstillwild answered on 09/20/05:Right is anything you are entitled to and can be acquired by anyone,basically.Right is therefore all inclusive privileges.
One might say,Ive been granted the privilege and therefore I have the right to.....
If you grant yourself(take) a right,this might result in giving yourself a "privilege"!
Privilege is a right,granted to only a (group of ) person(s),basically.
Apart from that,one can "feel" privileged for whatever reason. | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 09/18/05 - Knowledge vs information Knowledge is not something that is stored in the brain/cells; that would be to confuse knowledge with information. Gilbert Ryle suggested that knowledge as facts "Know-That" and knowledge as ability "Know-How" need be considered in a definition of knowledge. Knowledge in French: le savoir, and know-how in French: le savoir-faire to this should be added le savoir tre which means, acting in given situations. That is, knowledge acquisition is an activity; we cannot recall knowledge, as we can recall information; the best that can be done is to experience a situation as similar and react to it in a similar way.
Knowledge of facts often vary with the source. For instance, the history of the French revolution varies greatly between French and Italian authors from the respective countries and time, and the history as read in Wikipedia; a source used far more often as a final word on a matter. Oldstillwild answered on 09/18/05:Hi dark Crow!
Nice weather today!
I went for a bicycletour today and it was great fun!
Tomorrow seems to be earlier too today,so I decided to take a peek.
However no peek at hand,but no panicbutton!,for I saw a peak in stead and went for it.
I arrived at the top and see.....Moses was still there.
I asked him,what he knew and he gave me interesting information.
So we went back together in formation and
I wrote in my now ledger that this was quite an experience.
Sadly the geese didnt want to come along,so I have to settle for a turkey now.
Well.....,you cant have it all....,I guess.
Good luck in your attempts gathering some more knowledge here,dark Crow!
Be sure you are well prepared to catch the clues!
Hi!(world) | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 09/16/05 - approximation vs absolutes To reject approximation and replace it with insistence on absolutes carries with it the symptom of a nihilism; a nihilism with aversion to something intensely, such as freedom, tolerance, and equity. The French Revolution bears this out; it was less about liberty and more about equality, at any price.
Comments please Oldstillwild answered on 09/16/05:I dont agree,that nihilism is the topic here.
Fundamentalism is just ignoring other options,while nihilism means,that one lives by a way of thinking in which all things are subject to nihilsm.
Nihilism is a way of thinking and a way of life.
A fundamentalist cant be a nihilist by definition,unless he is fundamental nihilistic.
A nihilists' absolutes are all his thoughts.
Going for an absolute goal,ignoring other options,cant be called nihilistic.
Its just a limited mindset,without a nihilistic motivated view.
Approximation means the relativity of things and mostly in a broader perspective.
But it is also possible to go for the absolute in all aspects!Many people want to have it all......!So in your words,to reject approximation and replace it with insistence on absolutes can be all-inclusive all topics.
And for the sake of simplicity(as philosophically spoken,there surely would be still room to address some nihilism),there is no nihilistic aspect left in that endavour!
HI!
| | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 09/14/05 - paradigm-dependent or theory-dependent If a paradigm is a type of theory, which it seems to be, what is the distinction between the two words? For instance, what might be the difference between claiming knowledge of evolution is paradigm-dependent or theory-dependent so that under usual circumstance one cannot examine a theory from with-in the theory? Oldstillwild answered on 09/14/05:My shot:
paradigm is a basic thread , a kind of basic model.
The paradigm could be:humans are dependent on a belief.
So , all societies organised (more or less) on the basis of a belief ,answer to this paradigm.
(and as virtually all societies happen to be organised on the basis of a belief,this paradigm goes for humanity in general).
So , in my view paradigm is a model , based on a view,theory or (virtual)reality and is to be applied to other situations,understandings or data.
Or,
other situations or data can be analised,brought back, to the paradigm,which is the basis of these.
There are all kinds and combinations of (properties of)paradigms.
Allthough a paradigma could be a theory,basically the meaning of it is that of a model.
"knowledge of evolution is paradigm-dependent or theory-dependent".
Id say:The paradigm could be:
Knowledge of evolution is to be found in religion;
or
Knowledge of evolution is to be gathered by researching nature;
based on the fact,that both are to be considered valid approaches(theories) by people.
The first approach may lead to direct paradigm related/based knowledge;
The second approach leads to theories based on the findings.
Well...., I leave it to this,because I strongly feel ,moving into a mine-field of possible combinations of interpretations of misunderstandings of theories about paradigms.......
Hi! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 09/09/05 - What is your concept of an ideal society? .........And to what extent do you think it could be implemented? Oldstillwild answered on 09/09/05:There is only one ideal society......,
thats the society striving for the ideal society......
Hi! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 09/06/05 - Which facts are not scientific? ... Oldstillwild answered on 09/06/05:supposedly scientific is:
anything repeatedly controllable being proven independently
Hi! | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 09/04/05 - Pseudophilosophy and pseudoscience all rolled into one How is it that those least in touch with reality know the most about metaphysics and the least scientifically literate the most about quantum physics? What I have in mind are books the likes of The Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukav, The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra and Space time and Beyond by Bob Toben and Alan Wolf. Or another example, Space Time and Beyond, which purports such things as There is life in everything. Consciousness is the origin of space-time. We are intimately connected to every part of the universe. Matter, energy, space are the same thing. Oldstillwild answered on 09/04/05:The question is if science as defined by scientists should be the basis of all knowledge........
Isnt science nothing else,but trying to confirm thoughts, basically.......
Most people would demand evidence.....,evidence.....,evidence.....
As far as the philosophy of life is concerned , all the answers are in you.....
The best evidence is your own evidence.....
Its nice , that so many people are publishing their thoughts and findings.....and everybody is free to buy that stuff and/or deny that stuff.....
It is not a advantage to any personality, to feel the need to read such stuff , hoping to be able to cling on if there is evidence included,hopefully so.......
The only thing you need , is an open mind.The evidence is the book itself.
Its up to every individual to try to understand such revelations and either give it the benefit of the doubt,or investigate it her/himself,or reject it on the basis of already present personal experiences contradicting to the stuff.
People feeling the compulsive need to rely on science are "poor" people ,thinking in a closed-mind mode.
Ther will ALWAYS be more (truth) than science is able to reveal in its "proving" fashion......It is simply there.....All the time......
And last but not least.....most people value their BELIEF over any science.....!
So , its not a complete new idea , not to demand scientific evidence for important issues.....
Maybe ,thats the only true aspect to religion......Dont rely on science!
Hi!
| | Question/Answer | | QueenChoux asked on 09/01/05 - Christianity versus Philosophy The False Divide Between Religion and Science by Alan Dershowitz. The following is from a blog featuring guest bloggers.
""In the current debate over "intelligent design" versus "evolution," my dear late friend and colleague Stephen Jay Gould is often cited for the proposition that science and religion occupy separate but equal "magisteria." Science deals with questions of fact while religion holds sway over "questions of ultimate meaning and moral value."
The reality is that traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs are based on assertions of fact: namely, that Moses literally received the Torah at Sinai; that the body of Jesus literally disappeared from the crypt; and that Mohammed literally ascended to Heaven on his horse. When Gould and I taught a course
together at Harvard, I asked the students whether their acceptance of religion was premised on the truth of these factual assertions. If a video from a far distant galaxy could prove that these events had not, in fact, occurred, would they reject their religions? Most traditional Christians, Jews and Muslims said yes. (Unitarians, Reform Jews and some others said no.) Although we do not have the tools to prove or disprove the empirical assertions underlying traditional religious beliefs, they are issues of fact that are subject, at least in theory, to the laws of science. Gould was confusing religion with philosophy. Philosophy deals with questions of moral value. ****Traditional Judeo-Christian religions claim their authority over moral values on the basis of supernatural scientific and empirical claims. Without these claims, religious authorities are mere philosophers.*** Hence the conflict, which is not as easily resolvable as Gould would have had it.
***astericks mine.
What are your comments to Prof Dershowitz's essay? Oldstillwild answered on 09/01/05:Nice talking......Id say science would deal with facts , that are , though often evolving , provable over the cause of time at any time, independent from opinions, basically.
Religion may have some facts which would be provable to a certain extend ,but the main topic is belief ,searching for evidence.
So to discuss "facts" as common ground is pretty beside any ratio,but always a nice try.....
Besides.its my opinion,that people wouldnt reject their belief easily on the basis of "facts" well or not proven,because proof isnt important at all.All true believers will always question the "negative" and always holding on to any shred of a hardly probability.So these students were pretty underestimating the scope of the basis of their belief.
I know,their is no god and all no-nonsense people should know,there is no God,but nevertheless,there still are plenty of gods being worshipped......
So in conclusion:religion, BELIEF, has nothing to do with science.
And now philosophy.
Thats the rational alternative for not-surrendering to Belief.It keeps all your holes,senses,mind open to the experience of Life and is the only sound basis for the quest for truth.
Hi! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 08/30/05 - Is intuition ever reliable? ... Oldstillwild answered on 08/30/05:Intuition is absolutely reliable!
For those who would understand what intuition is....
The hardest part is to really act upon intuition.....the hunch of it is passing by(bye,bye) even quicker and swifter than consciousness is......
So whats not reliable is the ability to act upon intuitive hunches!Because it takes an absolute peaceful unprejudiced caring and loving open mind....
Reminder to yoll:
Do not reveal your lack of knowledge and poor judgement by your ratings......
Hi!
| | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 08/24/05 - Does 'Consciousness' Exist? To deny plumply that 'consciousness' exists seems so absurd on the face of it -- for undeniably 'thoughts' do exist -- that I fear some readers will follow me no farther.
William James Oldstillwild answered on 08/25/05:Hi Consciousness!
How are you?
Can I say that.....?
I tend to think not ( (<:) ).
Although think not in itself is impossible........
Consciousness is virtually always there and still is not.......
Can I say that....?
Yes ,I can say that.......
Consciousness is complementary to time , especially "moment".
Hi moment!
How are you?
Can I say that.....?
I tend to think not ( (<:) ).
Although think not in itself is impossible.........
Consciousness is a moment ,always there and still not......
Consciousness and moment are like roadrunner......never there to catch.......
Avoiding the need to define 'exist'.......
Consciousness is equal to impression......
the value of which is depending on all possible parameters possible at any moment in time,which is in itself volatile......
Consciousness is equal to time,always there,but non-existing.
HI!
maybe I can do better next time......
| | Question/Answer | | Nocturne asked on 08/21/05 - Wisdom What is the ultimate source of wisdom? Oldstillwild answered on 08/21/05:The ultimate source of wisdom is INSIGHT.
INSIGHT is ALL=ONE
The ultimate source of wisdom is never used...
Hi! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 08/20/05 - Does omnipotence entail predestination ? Oldstillwild answered on 08/20/05:Hard 2 say.
If I am omnipotent , than I can do whatever I want, with or without anything whatever,whatevery.
If somebody else is omnipotent,he might decide to leave me alone totally......
or he might decide to give me omnipotency ,only himself excluded and staying aside totally passively enjoying himself......
or he might decide just to totally leave me alone.....
or he might decide to leave alone all and everything.....
etc.
So this omnipotentialpotencedpotentative figure , being totally free to decide whatever to do or not to do might not have anything to do with my factual existence at all.....
Besides.......,if this omni...etc-figure is totally unaware of his possibilities or completely nuts and insane,he wouldnt know what he is doing at all..........who is to decide then,what is predestiny at all......
So,this impotent figure might latently have the power to predestine everything.......,there is nobody able to determine if he is living up to his possibilities....,
So my answer to your question is......
No!Absolutely not necessarily.
(he/she/it would surely be my friend,enjoying yoll people trying to figure out what he is doing or not...(<:)
Hi! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 08/14/05 - How far is power based on mental activity? ... Oldstillwild answered on 08/14/05:Thats a very interesting and intriguing question with respect to the positive side.
I cant but just elaborate about that....
And my priliminary conclusion is,that mental influence is as great as the ability to credibly,in the eyes of the receiver of the information, fulfill the (un)conscious mental needs/dreams/uncertainties of that person,with respect to his/her own illusion or view on the short/long-term goals of life in well or not and more or less independency.
The most intriguing part however,is the mental power based on presence only.....,based on passive communication...
About that,my preliminary conclusion is,that every person is reflecting in his physical appearance his/her mental strength,which will be increased by the vibrations,when that person starts to speak.(or the first impression will be fully smashed,by what he/she appears to be able to communicate verbally...!At the other hand a bad physical appearance can be off-set also...but I limit myself to the most positive).
Mental power is increasing the more down to earth that person physically is.
Mental power is increasing the more down to earth that person spiritually is.
(However the latter can be dangerously replaced by the projection/illusion,receivers of the information are building on their desire to be led to a greater,otherwise impossible, future!)
Here morality comes in.
So,till now and in short,the most important ingredients determining mental power are:communication by appearance and accessibility(both both ways).
Hi! | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 08/09/05 - castles of abstraction Pseudo-philosophy Nicholas Rescher, in The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, gives the following definition of the term:
Pseudo-philosophy consists in deliberations that masquerade as philosophical but are inept, incompetent, deficient in intellectual seriousness, and reflective of an insufficient commitment to the pursuit of truth." Rescher adds that the term is particularly appropriate when applied to "those who use the resources of reason to substantiate the claim that rationality is unachievable in matters of inquiry.
But is it the pursuit of truth that is most important or is solving problems most important? Oldstillwild answered on 08/10/05:As to this definition most philosophies happen to be pseudo.
There is no proper way to achieve the philosophical goal,than thru intellectual processes.
If these processes are (all the qualifications...)is only to be judged by pseudo-philosophers.....They dont matter.
The question here is:Are there pseudo-philosophers......
Disqualifying other thinkers for what ever reason this way is improductive and a testimonial of own incompetence.
Its clear,that the truth prevails.The pursuit of Truth is part of philosophical thinking by definition.
I do not know any philosopher,rightfully to claim the truth.
Solving problems is of course important too,but no problem is being solved eventually,than if all parameters reflect the truth.
If not,it cannot be more than a temporarily solution,however it might be useful in one way or the other.
History of science is full of ""definitive"" truths,which happened to be in fact temporarily "" truths"".
So the only truth we know,is that we never can be sure.....
Hi! | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 08/06/05 - reality of evil in the world? How do you conceptualize Gods relationship with the reality of evil in the world? Absent revelation. Oldstillwild answered on 08/06/05:There is no god.
Its that simple.
Mankind is responsible.
Nature is an independent phenomenon.
Most of trivial things,God given credit for,is due to the power of life itself.
Hi! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 07/31/05 - How would you justify morality to a sceptic? ... Oldstillwild answered on 08/03/05:A sceptic tank.....or what?
A sceptic think....er.....,ahh,ok.
I know a lot of sceptics here on the board........
So,I am not sure if I should try to respond....
Still thinking.......
Still thinking..........
Maybe you can convince me of my moral duty to use my potential to answer this question..............?
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 07/18/05 - How would you decide whether a criminal is insane? ... Oldstillwild answered on 07/18/05:I would ask him. | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 07/03/05 - Where does a personal decision originate? ... Oldstillwild answered on 07/03/05:That is hard to say,but lets give it a try....
There is instinctive reflex
There is intuition
There is conscious deliberation
As far as reflex,I feel,that the body is"could not help" deciding,using all the senses.
Acting on intuition is kind of in between reflex and consciously deciding without deliberation,using the senses.
I guess that consciously deciding is a combination of all of the above,not necessarily using the senses.
In addition we can do things while sleeping or in trance.
In all cases the brain is the centre of activities leading to action.
The core of any personal decision might be the instinct of plain survival.
Hi!
| | Question/Answer | | Choux asked on 06/28/05 - Love and Selfhood "Is the self that is conscious of being alive in the present meaningfully continuous with any version of the self in the past? That question has vexed many writers since the dawn of modernity, and Proust's reflections in the opening section of In Search of Lost Time surely rate as among the most nuanced novelistic treatment of the problem. Now Umberto Eco, in The Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana, his fifth novel, attempts to explore this issue through a fascinating narrative premisethe story of a man with abundantly lucid consciousness who is radically cut off from his own past. But there is an odd discrepancy between the fictional form of the book and the way it conceives the problems of memory and identity.
The novel invites us to see it as an absolutely up-to-the-minute artifact of contemporary literature. High and low culture are yoked together (though the latter becomes the lead horse). Visually and textually, the book is an extravagant palimpsest. Joining science with the culture of citation, it begins with a learned disquisition by a neurologist on different kinds of memory and their correlation with different spheres of the brain. The underlying assumptions about memory and selfhood, however, are unexpectedly traditional. The notion that identity is necessarily grounded in the pastan idea that invites some rigorous speculationis taken as axiomatic. Love, somewhat surprisingly, turns out to be the very bedrock of selfhood (an idea that Proust, the supreme analyst of at least certain kinds of love, might not have subscribed to). And the issue of whether cultural texts actually define the selfthe postmodern possibility the novel plays with elaboratelyis, predictably enough, never resolved."
So you think that love is the bedrock of selfhood as Eco postulates?
Sadly, we have no definition of Eco's meaning of "Love" here, but for those who answer, give your definition and go from there. You should be very close. Oldstillwild answered on 06/28/05:I thought you read the book.....(<:).
You must DO the things you love.....not read them....(<:)
Anyway.....,enjoy.....(<:)
Thanks. | | Question/Answer | | Choux asked on 06/28/05 - Love and Selfhood "Is the self that is conscious of being alive in the present meaningfully continuous with any version of the self in the past? That question has vexed many writers since the dawn of modernity, and Proust's reflections in the opening section of In Search of Lost Time surely rate as among the most nuanced novelistic treatment of the problem. Now Umberto Eco, in The Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana, his fifth novel, attempts to explore this issue through a fascinating narrative premisethe story of a man with abundantly lucid consciousness who is radically cut off from his own past. But there is an odd discrepancy between the fictional form of the book and the way it conceives the problems of memory and identity.
The novel invites us to see it as an absolutely up-to-the-minute artifact of contemporary literature. High and low culture are yoked together (though the latter becomes the lead horse). Visually and textually, the book is an extravagant palimpsest. Joining science with the culture of citation, it begins with a learned disquisition by a neurologist on different kinds of memory and their correlation with different spheres of the brain. The underlying assumptions about memory and selfhood, however, are unexpectedly traditional. The notion that identity is necessarily grounded in the pastan idea that invites some rigorous speculationis taken as axiomatic. Love, somewhat surprisingly, turns out to be the very bedrock of selfhood (an idea that Proust, the supreme analyst of at least certain kinds of love, might not have subscribed to). And the issue of whether cultural texts actually define the selfthe postmodern possibility the novel plays with elaboratelyis, predictably enough, never resolved."
So you think that love is the bedrock of selfhood as Eco postulates?
Sadly, we have no definition of Eco's meaning of "Love" here, but for those who answer, give your definition and go from there. You should be very close. Oldstillwild answered on 06/28/05:"The notion that identity is necessarily grounded in the pastan idea that invites some rigorous speculationis taken as axiomatic. Love, somewhat surprisingly, turns out to be the very bedrock of selfhood.And the issue of whether cultural texts actually define the selfthe postmodern possibility the novel plays with elaboratelyis, predictably enough, never resolved."
--So you think that love is the bedrock of selfhood as Eco postulates?--
I think it would be very confusing to state,that"love is the bedrock of selfhood".
Thinking of all 5 billion people ever lived on the surface of this earth and looking at our achievements....
Conclusively, in that sense,the definition of "love" would be very diverse,taking the presumption that all acts of mankind would be based on "love".
The only "love"that would fit in here would be the ultimate goal ,the love for one's self,for oneself.
It would show,that ultimately there is no altruism,but only the selflove and in that sense,I think the statement is true,although altruistic-like but still selfish-acts are not to be excluded.
I think,that every person if the need is high enough and the ultimate choice has to be made,only the (spiritual)love for one self counts and would be fullfilled.
One might even fully agree with the statement above,slightly modified:
Selflove is the bedrock of selfhood.
What makes people different,is that there is no need to pursuit it.That there is no need to show it.That there is no need to consciously make it your lead.That there is plenty of room,to just take it as axiomatic as the statement about the "past".
We might all be the same (Selflove is the bedrock of selfhood),but happily so,we all are different in how we choose to be , to do, to act.How we fill in the room between one's self and our conscience.
To be complete:
I dont agree with "Love is the bedrock of selfhood"
I agree with:
"Selflove is the bedrock of selfhood".
Hi!
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 06/24/05 - What are your views on this quotation? "Seven Blunders of the World"
1. Wealth without work
2. Pleasure without conscience
3. Knowledge without character
4. Commerce without morality
5. Science without humanity
6. Worship without sacrifice
7. Politics without principle
Mahatma Gandhi Oldstillwild answered on 06/25/05:I just pick the overall best worst one,acknowledging the other 6 already:
Knowledge without character.
and in all humility adding one more;
Mankind being wouldbe wise:
Wisdom without substance.
Hi!
| | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 06/23/05 - The critic maintains The critic maintains the very notion of a thing with no properties is absurd: Agree or disagree? Oldstillwild answered on 06/23/05:As long as the critic recognizes invisible,untouchable,odourless,totally transparent things too,
I agree.
| | Question/Answer | | CeeBee2 asked on 06/21/05 - Do you agree with the great philosopher............... Yoda, who once said, "There is no 'try' - there is only 'do' or 'do not'? Why or why not? Oldstillwild answered on 06/21/05:I know Yoda personally.Nice to see you quoting her.
There is a world of trying and there is a world of doing.
Trying is from the premisses "Sorry,it may be possible that I wont reach the goal".
Doing is from "I go for reaching the goal".
Trying is of the world of excuses.
Doing is of the world of achievement.
Trying is of the world of failure.
Doing is of the world of success.
Trying is of the world lacking of confidence.
Doing is of the world of self-fulfillment.
Trying is of the world of not really wanting to be held accountable.
Doing is of the world of feeling responsible.
So in short:
In order to REALLY achieve goals,you have to REALLY do some things.Trying wont do!
Hi! | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 06/15/05 - survival of the fittest Psychologist Herbert Spencer coined the term survival of the fittest," and I wonder, is the theory behind that, which says defective persons procreate more rapidly and breed more readily than normal and the result being that society is flooded with inferior and unproductive people? Oldstillwild answered on 06/15/05:Im afraid I must pretend understanding your question....
Survival of the fittest,means the law of the jungle applied to life.
So in extremis all the weak and inferior are already killed before ever being able to breed.
Hi!
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 06/14/05 - How can we assess the significance of an event? process? ... Oldstillwild answered on 06/14/05:You need:
parameters
and
values
and
evaluation
and
definitions
Hi!
| | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 06/13/05 - Jackson not guilty all ten counts just or unjust Oldstillwild answered on 06/13/05:Hi! | | Question/Answer | | keenu asked on 06/12/05 - Our concept of the perfect self I have come to ask another quesion. If anger is caused by fear of feeling inadequate, or not good enough, by WHAT standards are we measuring ourselves against? Where does the concept of our perfect self come from? Is it innate? Is it acquired through societal conditioning? Are parents responsible?
Oldstillwild answered on 06/12/05:Anger isnt caused by fear of feeling inadequate or not good enough by definition.
The cause with respect to the self is the fear to reveil one's own true feelings.
This would be the fear of the negative reaction of the other to the reveiled "inadequacy",which can be anything up to the own unconsciously present inadequacy to acknowledge the real cause of one's own anger.
Often one chooses to get angry in order to camouflage their fear(and make things worse).
Much anger with respect to the self however, is based on jealousy.A very mean kind of anger.
All those ways of CHOOSING to be angry are based on forms of projection and hiding the truth about oneself in order not to have to arrive in a situation of vulnerability.
People who are doing this,are measuring themselves against "others".They choose not to be vulnerable and in fact are choosing to lie, often resulting in damaging others (for no reason).
It is true,that some people are innately more capable of being angry,but this kind of anger can always be identified as being
genuinely related to that person him/herself.
But most of the time one's state of mind is based on former experiences from childhood to adolescence.
If one didnt learn how to express and deal with their feelings,it may happen that people expose their anger only if the build up is such,that there must be a relief of the steam.This can lead to very unappropriate and exaggerated bursts of anger not in proportion with the circumstances what so ever.
Often people choose their parents as rollmodels.It isnt hard to understand why one reacts in certain situations in that case.
The concept of the perfect self.Where does that come from.
Basically this is a disease.....
It is based on the fear to get punished (in any way)if one doesnt do things right.
People who are trying to be the perfect one,didnt manage to discover,what life is really about and got stuck in the socalled requirements of the environment.
Or in short:They are obsessed with peacekeeping,whilst the art of living is being in peace with oneself.
So,EVERYBODY is responsible till youre capable of making your own decisions.
After that you are yourself responsible for all your actions and behaviour and CHANGE (or not).
Of course one can be genuinely ligitimately anger in situations.
The chapter of anger and fear and selfesteem and dealing with feelings and social behaviour is complex.
Maybe youll find some material for contemplation here.
Hi! | | Question/Answer | | keenu asked on 06/12/05 - Anger Where does anger come from?
Exactly what makes us get angry?
Does it vary from person to person,
or is it always based on a perceived injustice of some sorts?
What do you think? Oldstillwild answered on 06/12/05:Anger comes from the collision of one's (moral or physical) values with the environment,while all credits if any are gone.
For instance:how feminists feel about men in combination with an encounter with a man,behaving not especially like feminists desire,if they already would grant any acceptable manners....
Anger is very subjective.Often based on fear,not to be exposed or recognized.Often based on generalisations.
Apart from that,there is of course very much ligitimate anger.
I just like to take the opportunity to address this kind of anger.
Hi! | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 06/10/05 - Why is anger the greatest evil? The gift of justice surpasses all gifts, or does it? Oldstillwild answered on 06/10/05:Anger isnt the greatest evil,so there is no why.
I dont think justice surpasses all gifts.
It isnt a gift at all.
Its a necessairy "odd".
This brings me to the question whats a gift.
A gift is a talent.
The talent to love seems to me the greatest gift.Or maybe the gift to forgive is even a greater asset.
One would say:Justice must be done(with pain in the heart sometimes).
A world without justice would be a harsh world.
A world with justice is still a harsh world.
Justice shouldnt bring joy,ever.If it does,there is something wrong....
A world without love would be a harsh world.
A world without forgiveness would be an even harsher world.
There will be always occurrences troubling people,so if there would be no forgiveness,then there would be no more love within 24 hours......
So,the gift to forgive must be greatest gift of all.
It makes loving-again possible!
Hi!
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 06/09/05 - Why do moral issues arouse so much emotion? ... Oldstillwild answered on 06/09/05:Do they? | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 06/06/05 - What is character What is it to say, ones own sense of character and, is there individual character or just character molded by society? Oldstillwild answered on 06/06/05:Character mostly refers to the degree of strength.
I believe a strong character is genuinely individually present or not.Its about what one can bear without falling apart,while sticking to one's believes and principles.
(Not to mixup with stubbernness).
Also character would refer (a.o.)to the degree of kindness(or not).
I believe people are subject to big influences in/of society,through events to develop this kind of reference.
My shot:
Having sense of(for) character is being able to recognize the true genuine being one or the situation is/demands and handle accordingly with style.
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 06/04/05 - Which vices (if any) are harmless? ... Oldstillwild answered on 06/05/05:Its not about vice or harmlessnes....
Its about mental (spiritual)disposition.
What would you prefer:
A bucket or a bucket with a little hole....
You may overcome the little hole,even ignore it,but in itself,the hole is not harmless. | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 06/04/05 - What are the drawbacks of being dishonest? ... Oldstillwild answered on 06/04/05:You dont want to know!
Being dishonest opens the door to one's personnal fight against destruction.
Of course it depends on how you react to your being dishonest how severe the consequences will be.
One can always repair oneself.
One would say:Good things happen to good people.
More accurate would be:Good things only happen to good people.
There is no fundamental spiritual happiness to accomplish for dishonest people.
Most if not all dishonest people aint aware of the influence of a dishonest mind.
All energy,needed to work things out well,is being absorbed to camouflage the practical consequences of dishonesty.
As people wouldnt know,how easy it is to live a spiritual strong and happy life,they try to reach happiness despite dishonesty,always complaining of course,never being introspective......always feeling unhappy and discontent and blaming others.
Have a honest life!
Hi! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 05/30/05 - What is wrong with atomism? ... (The theory that everything is derived from atomic particles) Oldstillwild answered on 05/30/05:The 'only ' thing thats wrong with atomism , is the fact that we think we "know". | | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 05/28/05 - inherent meaning If all humans (B's) are mortal (A), (major)
and all Greeks (C's) are humans (B's), (minor)
then all Greeks (C's) are mortal (A). (conclusion)
Is the conclusion something that could accurately be described as inherent meaning?
Oldstillwild answered on 05/28/05:The proper use of the word inherent in this is:
Its inherent to being human,that all Greeks are mortal. | | Question/Answer | | Choux asked on 05/27/05 - Does Morality Hold Society Together?? Obituary 5-27-05 Chicago Tribune. Donte Thomas, 19
"Donte Thomas loved basketball, his family, and his role as the protective elder brother. He was only 2 minutes older than his twin brother, Durae.....
.....Mr Thomas, 19, of Chicago died of multiple gunshot wounds Sunday....."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I don't think that it is morality that holds society together, I think society is held together by something(s) else.
Consider how acceptable anger and violence is with so may Americans; how lying is acceptable(spin, propaganda, for personal gain etc); stealing is everywhere; murder a rite of passage; child abuse and elder abuse de rigor; married people cheating on their spouses via internet relationships and downright subterfuge at motels; etc...
Morality? Where???
As I said, I think that other things hold society together.
What do you think holds society together? Oldstillwild answered on 05/27/05:This is easy to ask and complex to answer,Chou,and I know you know.
I think one way to discover this,one should try to compare different societies.
The smallest society we know is friendship between two friends.
What will break up this society:
Cheating.
What happens thereafter:both people will go his/her own way.
Trust is an important ingredient.
If there is little trust,people will go their own way.
What is keeping society together?
The institution society itself with its powerstructures.
Feelings of national identity.
Lack of alternatives.
Too busy to get involved into a revolution.
Happiness.
Until there is no common denominator as basis for upraisal and revolution,society will be kept together.
People dont like change,although they are continuously subject to change.
As long as people feel society itself is functioning to a degree that people dont get the feeling to have to organise themselves in order to take over,society will be kept together.
Lack of interest.
Selfishness.
A too low a level of common dissatisfaction.
Society is to struggle along for a long period of time, before dramatic changes will occur.
The wording kept together itself is of course subject to a wide range of degrees of (un)solidity.
We all know,that in times of national grief
the feeling of solidarity is at his peak.
I leave it this way.
Hi!
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 05/25/05 - Should a person always be treated as an end? .....(rather than a means to an end?) Oldstillwild answered on 05/25/05:Peculiar way to look at interhuman relationships.....
Using people for the sake of one's own cause without letting him/her/them know or even making him/her/them believe that you are helping them in stead of yourself, is disrespectful and reprehensable.
One should always treat other people with respect , dignity and with integrity.
This would be my description of the word end.
Note:Its always possible,that I misunderstand the word "end".If so,Im sure you will let me know.
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 05/24/05 - How did morality originate? ... Oldstillwild answered on 05/24/05:My shot:
Morality originates from our ability to make choices having a conscience and (empathatic/sympathatic or as such)feelings.Society itself is only a catalist.
Would there be only one person ever on the face of this earth,this person would develope his/her own sets of morals regarding all other life-forms or any other issue in his environment and perception of being.
| | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 05/22/05 - The Law Of Equivalency:
The intent of the law of retribution was to ensure that the punishment corresponded to the crime in order to control the punishment inflicted on the guilty one, e.g. Jesus and the law of equivalency. In Matthew 5:38-42, Jesus was not abrogating this important legal principle, but was rather inviting Christians in their daily lives to go beyond the letter of the law.
Brown (1975) attempted to define vigilantism, saying it represented "morally sanctimonious" behavior aimed at rectifying or remedying a "structural flaw" in society, with the flaw usually being some place where the law was ineffective or not enforced.
What do you think?
HANK
Oldstillwild answered on 05/24/05:The intent of the law of retribution was to ensure that the punishment corresponded to the crime in order to control the punishment inflicted on the guilty one, e.g. Jesus and the law of equivalency. In Matthew 5:38-42, Jesus was not abrogating this important legal principle, but was rather inviting Christians in their daily lives to go beyond the letter of the law.
Brown (1975) attempted to define vigilantism, saying it represented "morally sanctimonious" behavior aimed at rectifying or remedying a "structural flaw" in society, with the flaw usually being some place where the law was ineffective or not enforced.
What do you think?
Well,
in short:
Society is an ungoing developing organisation.Things do occur in certain ways.If society as such recognizes an event as being undesirable,the lawgenerating organs would go do their work.
Vigilantism as I see it is undesirable in itself.I feel to much aggression and fear coming with that word.
I tend to get sick of "morally sanctimonious behaving" people.
But apart from that , I fully agree with you....(<:)
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 05/23/05 - Why are moral rules (un)necessary? ......... Oldstillwild answered on 05/24/05:In short:
Moral rules wouldnt be adressed if mankind were good by definition;innate goodness.
Innate goodness.....LOL ! | | Question/Answer | | keenu asked on 05/21/05 - Are we improving or not? What do you think?
Since the dawn of man, do you think that we are evolving into more intelligent beings or transgressing into idiots?
Personally I see many reasons to go with the idiots theory.
Oldstillwild answered on 05/24/05:Well,whatdoIthink?
WhatdoIthink.....eehhhh...
WhatdoIthink..........ehhhhhh...
....
Whatwasthequestionagain?
Yeah..right...
ehhhh....
WhatdoIthink........ehhhh...
Yeah....thats right....
WhatdoIthink......ehhhh...
ehhh....
Whatwasthequestionagain....eehhh?
Yeah....ofcourse.....
Idiot!
WhatdoIthink......ehhhh....
...whatdoIthink.....?
...I give up.....
| | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 05/14/05 - To what extent can the mind control the body? ... Oldstillwild answered on 05/15/05:Nobody knows to what extent the mind can control the body.
What is certain,is that the mind can contribute to a process of healing and conditioning the body in an assertive healthy state.
This is due to the fact,that life itself is the core of our physical appearance and always willing to move mountains to keep the body healthy.
The only condition is,that we keep an open mind to this process by a positive attitude towards life,ourselves and our environments.
Fatalism, a state of mind, will prevent it from happening,because life,our core,will understand such a state of mind, such a sign from the 'outside' as a sign of danger.
Just as we, ouselves only are able to blossom in a safe environment,life itself needs safety to dare to come out to help.
So,the boundries of our possibilities is not 'contrl',but 'accommodation'.
The process of controll is conscious,the process of healing and conditioning is unconscious,however the results are very
much conscious!
Our mind is responsible! | | Question/Answer | | DesertRose asked on 05/11/05 - Other catagories. What are some good catagories to sign up in on answerway. I think I might like to expand alittle. :-)
Sara Oldstillwild answered on 05/11/05:Hi!
Maybe:" Baking fristy sandcookies".
or
"How to treat a thirsty rose".
or
"Roses for desert-recipies"
or
"Discovering Fata Morgana's"
or
"Creating sandcastles"
or
"Discovering paldesertflowers"
or
"Making parfume of rose-leaves"
or
"How to think to really figuring this out by myself"
Just a few ideas.
You might start a board by yourself!
Greetings | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 05/11/05 - To what extent is happiness attainable? ... Oldstillwild answered on 05/11/05:Happiness is in you.
So its 100% attainable.
To reach that state should the first aim of
anybody, everybody.
As it is not,one who has found his lifepath ,resulting in and at the same time based upon (growing) happinesslevels,one's personal happiness is a solid base to overcome and to deal with everyday's encounters and easy to share.
One who has truely reached his/her base of happiness,which life itself is,will always experience this heigher level of enlightment,no matter which difficulty he or she may encounter.
So in shorter:
Happiness is 100% attainable in solitude and a very sound,always present level of spiritual wellbeing, in everyday's life.
Happiness to you and all.
Find your lifepath! | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 05/04/05 - What is the "greatest good"? ... Oldstillwild answered on 05/04/05:There is no greatest good.
It would suggest,that there are limitations to doing good.
You will discover,that you always can do better. | | Question/Answer | | tonyrey asked on 05/01/05 - What is the worst evil? ... Oldstillwild answered on 05/03/05:Hi Tonyrey!
In absolute sense of the word,there is no measure to evil.
No one willing to be evil is to be trusted as to the degree of evilness as experienced subjectively by people.
So the worst thing one can do is to start any evil,giving the opportunity to others to build upon that to their wishes.
So,again,in short:
The (worst) evil is to start (any) evil. | | Question/Answer | | ttalady asked on 04/24/05 - Rules of religion I guess a reason I claim no specific religion however I truly wonder how so... many do, so... many that with an excuse or reason go directly against said religion.
In my direct life, Catholic. Not to shun the believe at all, I respect this religion, not 100% but enough to appreciate it's meaning. My Father's side ancestors ago were strickly this religion. My Grandmother's cousin 100% Catholic however I don't understand the booz part. They are major drinkers. Her sister in-law, past away, was a nun.
Anyway, I have a very dear and close friend whom is "Catholic" by her religion. She lives with a man, whom she had a child by, not married, however takes it to heart to eat her fish during that time no meat on Friday's. She does not attend church on Sunday's except for the holidays, not often at Christmas, Easter is a big one though. She believes in abortion.
She says she is Catholic proud and clear, she even seems to have a bragging right to no meat on Fridays when need be, maybe a complaining right.
I believe it is some 80 million that claim to be Catholic, as any religion has a number. I wonder how many out of the 80 million truly live the Catholic life? Or Muslim, or Baptist, or Methodists, ect ect.
Out of the many that claim to be of a religion are more of a sinner of that religion than that of I that claim no religion. I believe, I question, I don't believe in any one set of rules however believe in a mix of most religions. Sunday worshippers having affairs, divorcing, having abortions, approving abortion, living together without marriage, children out of wedlock, ect ect. But they won't eat meat on Fridays.....
I guess what my real question or need of understanding is that anyone that claims to be something, living life with so many descrepancies of such, does that not make them false in life and who they really are? In religion there are rules, laws if it must be said, the truth of the religion and for one not to follow them to the upmost of understanding such that makes that person a false person does it not?
tta
Oldstillwild answered on 04/24/05:Hi Ttalady!
"...does that not make them false in life and who they really are?"
I think,youre describing pretty much what religion is NOT.
And that is a conviction about the perfect perception of life.
Religion(there are many as you stated already)is a bunch of manmade rules ,based on the need of mankind for explanation of the universe.Somehow we think that we need securities.
Life practice shows however ,that people change their rules,their believes according to their mental state,which again is dependent of social circumstances and alike.
So in short,not the people are false,the rules are false.
People are good in bending....and people will continue to bend as long as they fail to understand life for what it really is.
| | Question/Answer | | Dark_Crow asked on 04/17/05 - "what is it to be human?" That thought gives rise to attitudes, which give rise to acts which seem basic human value (to be inherent in human understanding) such as Truth, Care, Peace, Duty and Justice are uniquely Human. How is this so of course has been asked from the beginning, and what is answered has been called Idealism by those that doubt.
What do you think is the most objective answer to the question "what is it to be human?" Oldstillwild answered on 04/19/05:HI DarkCrow!
Being human is no more and no less than what one does and experiences.
| | Question/Answer | | picassocat asked on 04/18/05 - Decriminalisation of Drugs Should drugs (eg marijuana, cocaine etc) be decriminalised? Oldstillwild answered on 04/19/05:Hi Picassocat!
Drugs are innocent.
Things are innocent.
So they cant be criminal and therefore not be decriminalised.
There will always be crime as long as people choose to be criminal.
There shouldnt be drugs.
People shouldnt feel the need to use drugs.
There is a way of living and thinking that prevent people from longing for drugs ,because all excitement is already there,within themselves.
Therefore its time to help people to get aware of this.
Although innocent judicially,drugs are very harmful,trying to hide bad feelings and thoughts.
People should work on those in stead of taking drugs.
Its the responsibility of society to make drugs "redundant".
People using drugs are not criminal.
People dealing drugs are criminals.
Criminals because they are dealing drugs and criminals because they are breaking the law.
Should we make using drugs legal?
I dont think so,because that would be too easy a way to go in all the wrong directions.
We shouldnt stop making this world a better place to live consciously..... |
|
|
|
