By the way, is there any way we could actually pick multiple options here, like voting for all the answers we actually like instead of being forced to just settle on one single choice? Or, I don't know, maybe if there had to be some kind of limit, we could at least pick three?
Come on, everyone, please weigh in so we can figure out our next move, because honestly, Mark Torres14, it really bums me out that you're losing interest in participating in these Q&As just because the voting system is so frustrating.
So, does that mean each of the current four people should just go ahead and submit a brand new question of their own?
Yahoo! We'd end up with four new threads plus four more to comment on, and the whole forum server would probably just crash under the weight of it all.
😁
The person who has posted the fewest questions up to that point should submit the next one. If there is a tie, the original poster should make the final call on the best answer.☕
I think questions should start with "What does ... mean."
Courage means acting to achieve something good, even when conditions are grueling or life-threatening. While logic and emotion might signal danger, the choice to act remains a deeply personal one. It requires free will and a conviction that you possess the inner strength to see a positive outcome through.
There is a certain grace in experiencing something good. In our search for what is right, we inevitably encounter beauty. It remains a deeply personal sensation, making it impossible to pin down via any rigid philosophy. Every sense is engaged when beauty presents itself. It is everywhere, yet everyone discovers their own unique version—one that others might never even notice.
Beauty is fleeting, but nostalgia stays with you.👍
steelridge58 🙂, Derrida 👍 and Eco 👍 serve as my mentors. I engage them in lengthy dialogues whenever I find myself searching for answers to the questions swirling in my mind. I appreciate you seeing me as a peer to Derrida 🙏, though in reality, I might just be his shoe cleaner.
Nicholas Gonzalez87 said:Gödel's work absolutely floored me. I honestly thought I was diving into the most rock-solid, foolproof discipline out there, and then... boom. There's one silver lining, though, at least for my own peace of mind: math can't just be derived from pure logic—even if Amanda Jackson5 would argue otherwise. To me, that actually solidifies math as its own independent field with its own set of axioms and methods.
I’m still stuck wondering if mathematical facts and objects exist in some separate realm outside our minds, or if they're just constructs we've agreed upon. If aliens showed up tomorrow, would they use the same math we do, or something totally different? 😁
Mathematical objects themselves are pretty indifferent when it comes to truth or falsehood; it's only the actual statements within mathematical logic that carry those labels of true or false.
As I’ve mentioned before, mathematics is simply a tool. Mathematicians are constantly refining it so that various professionals in their respective fields can achieve better results, whether those outcomes align with their original goals or not.
Here is my daughter, a mathematician, playing bridge and seeing some great results. 🙂
Creation begins in the mind through visualization. Everyone thinks, and therefore everyone creates. However, turning those mental images into a tangible reality that others can see is a different matter entirely. That requires both raw talent and disciplined craftsmanship.
Take the Sistine Chapel as an example.
Pope Sixtus IV (the visionary) wanted to bring the Old and New Testament to life on the chapel walls, so he hired the finest Renaissance painters of the era back in 1485.👍
Later, Pope Julius II (the visionary) sought to realize his vision for the ceiling, so he commissioned the young, already proven genius Michelangelo.👍
So, now tell me: who actually created the painted Sistine Chapel?🤔
Jonathan Brooks8 said:A truly good life is one defined by the capacity to love and be loved in return; however, the absolute best kind of life—the one that actually matters—is the one where we are cherished even after we're gone, through the legacy we leave behind for the world... whether that's in this modern era or any other age.
Kindness always comes back to you. If you don't believe me, just try it.
Noah Johnson63 said:What could kids possibly know about recommending books by the world's greatest geniuses? That’s a job for older, more experienced people who have actually read them. You won't find those types of experts on a middle schooler's subreddit or even a literature forum. Go stick to threads about "Which picture books should I read."
Don't butt in if you clearly don't get it. Go play with your toy cars instead.
You seem to have a pretty low opinion of students (based on who you know, I assume). 😢
Use some common sense to figure out where to host the topic you care so much about. If you don't like my suggestion, come up with a better one. Arguing with me isn't going to help. 🙂
Amy Stewart said:It’s a decent suggestion if you rearrange things slightly. Move the topic back to Philosophy and move the moderator over to the student corner PDF. That way her democratic nature and tolerance can actually shine, because as Jacob Thompson76 pointed out, she simply isn't qualified for Philosophy. The moderation in Philosophy is unfairly discriminating against highly intelligent minorities.
I have no interest in discussing competence by whining about competence.
As for this "highly intelligent minority," they can use the Miscellaneous PDF if I'm not mistaken, or the Complaints and Grievances PDF if they just want to grumble.🙂
Noah Johnson63 said:This might be the largest online Forum in America. A list of books by the greatest geniuses should have been created the moment this site launched. Now, after a seven-year delay, we're finally trying to do it, and people are pushing back. It's an embarrassment to the Forum and to those opposing it.
I don't understand why there is so much anger toward the Forum and the moderator of Philosophy.😕
How can you be certain that specific topic belongs in Philosophy? In my opinion, it would fit better under the student corner or Literature.🙂
Don't blame others for your own lack of understanding or for being exclusionary. It isn't right, and it only creates unnecessary tension.🙂
Brenda Cook4 said:You definitely misunderstood my point. I wasn't talking about "seeking justice" in a vigilante sense; I was talking about holding the proper authorities accountable, which is a completely different thing altogether...
...whether that actually establishes true justice is a question, but without some form of accountability, nothing else is even possible...
Besides, my forgiveness isn't some magic wand that clears away all my internal tension. There’s a period of anger and grief. Honestly, suppressing those normal, negative reactions—which are necessary for emotional catharsis—can actually make you physically sick... and only after that does a person move forward...
As for that whole business with "God"... well...
Brenda Cook4, I understand you perfectly, and I’ll reiterate that sanctions alone can never deliver true justice in the face of a crime.
I agree with the quote and believe that ... after that, one simply moves on... — there is no other way. Whether forgiveness plays a role in that process is secondary.
Fortunately, I haven't lived through such horror, so I wouldn't dare lecture anyone who actually has.
Look, I was just responding to bluebison70's point; I wasn't trying to generalize or downplay the reality of actual crimes. My focus is specifically on that sense of inner peace—the kind you just can't reach if you're still carrying around unaddressed baggage inside you. When we talk about violent crimes, the weight of that is staggering. It’s an agonizing level of pain that I imagine tears apart those directly affected—not just by the initial injustice of the act itself, but by the secondary injustice often found in how the legal system handles it through inadequate sentencing, or simply the sheer gravity of what happened. There are countless examples of this, and horrific acts continue to occur all around us every single day. But when it comes to one's own soul? I truly believe peace is impossible without forgiveness. And that includes forgiving yourself—for not being there for the victim, or for failing to protect someone you would have died for. It's hard to look at this purely as an abstract concept... perhaps a person has to walk through their own private Calvary just to remain human, to keep from losing their mind to the agony. You simply cannot find tranquility if you're fueled by burning hatred or a desperate thirst for revenge, especially when nothing can change the past and lost lives can never be brought back.
I'm glad to see you diving back into philosophy.
...it starts with some initial catharsis, and then maybe you reach a sort of 'reconciliation' in terms of finally closing that chapter. (I'd leave "forgiveness" out of the equation here, because in this context, forgiving might feel like treating the perpetrator as if nothing actually happened...)
thx.
What exactly should be put on the other side of the scale to balance out the loss of a family, or even just one member?😕 How many times would you have to kill a murderer to make it equal to those who were killed?😕
True justice is impossible to satisfy or achieve. Courts simply penalize behavior that is socially unacceptable or harmful—nothing more.
When it comes to tragedies caused by pandemics, natural disasters, or similar events, people say God was unfair, but I have never heard anyone demand justice from God before asking Him for forgiveness.
Seeking justice usually boils down to committing an injustice, based on the simple idea of switching roles—essentially shifting the burden of seeking justice onto the person who committed the initial wrong.🙂
dustyorca3, my comment refers back to the original post. I honestly don't see where greed fits into this song. If you say it's there, then maybe it is. As far as I'm concerned, it's all fine.
No. While individual tragedies will certainly rise as more people fall into the trap you're describing, we won't see any global catastrophes. Human nature and the world are driven by entirely different forces.
To get straight to the point, listen to Zvonko Bogdan:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4DAJ...eature=related
The "Do Not Kill" directive only applies to community members deemed to have a "soul." For everyone else, lethal force is authorized.
So here we go. Some people cling to the scientific idea that only humans possess a soul, while others argue that pets have them too. Then you have those who extend the concept to all animals, or vegetarians convinced that plants lack a soul, or even those claiming stones have one. In this absolute chaos—fueled by stories written in heavy academic volumes—people just kill whoever they want.
I haven't seen the movie, nor do I plan to. Honestly, I'm tired of watching and listening to debates among the deaf.
Over here, Eminem surely doesn't assume Christians can't be free thinkers, just as Jonathan Brooks8 certainly doesn't think Muslims can't be free thinkers. They simply process what they know—and since they know so little, their conclusions are essentially zero.
Take this specific point from Jonathan Brooks8:
The core issue remains how the Muslim majority handles the extremist-terrorist minority acting on behalf of all Muslims.
It’s the same logic as that bus example from the thread about insults. We understand ourselves perfectly, so we assume everyone else is just like us. We conclude that if something doesn't offend us, it can't be offensive—meaning we think only extremists would feel provoked by things we find harmless.
The reality is that everyone is provoked. Extremists from every side respond the way they know best. Some make movies, some draw caricatures, and others use explosives to kill.
Ultimately, regarding the mutual understanding between Muslims and Christians...👎