Posts by David Miller15

Regarding the segment of the competition centered on philosophical terminology, Verve made an astute observation: there was a significant amount of chaos, even within what is supposedly the "objective" portion of the event. I suspect—and please, correct me if my reasoning is flawed—that the issue stems from the fact that every student group approaches those sets of 50, 25, or 15 terms with a completely different set of definitions. Some derive them directly from their textbooks, while others rely entirely on how their professors interpret them. Wouldn't it be more prudent if the philosophy competition committee provided the specific definitions they expect students to use alongside the list of terms? It might actually mitigate some of this friction. It seems to me, though my own experience isn't quite as extensive as Verve's, that there is a surprisingly high degree of arbitrariness woven into almost every stage of these philosophy competitions.

So, here is a profile of one "competitor"—well, an ex-competitor—who placed third in the county finals in a city similar to Santa Barbara after 😁 a massive storm was kicked up over my essay. Apparently, the professors found it offensive and "overly critical." One professor actually gave me a measly 2 out of 50 points. They eventually begrudged me a total of 10 points, if you can believe it. 😬 I don't have that specific essay on hand at the moment, but I can copy-paste the version from school (they are remarkably similar in both tone and core arguments) just so everyone can get a sense of what exactly bothered them. (I am, of course, fully aware of why it did.) If anyone is interested, please, speak up.

It is heartening to see people recognizing that something needs to change, because I personally realize how fundamentally flawed this entire competition concept is. Fortunately, I caught onto this before the actual state championship, and I told my teacher straight out that I "wasn't going to go far." She, however, was convinced I had "tremendous potential," blah blah blah, and was already picturing us winning some prestigious award in Europe. Charming, certainly, but entirely delusional.

Here is the crux of the matter: we are dealing with absolute non-objectivity and a complete impossibility of being objective when grading essays. Calling it "evaluation" is a stretch, my friends; what we are actually witnessing is nothing more than personal bias. Yes, I know there are five specific criteria—I even memorized them for a while—but it still boils down to heavy subjectivity. Should we implement evaluators for the evaluators, and then evaluators for those evaluators? How far does it go? A single human perspective will never be inherently "more valuable" than another, except through someone's subjective judgment. Perhaps the most objective criterion available is how strictly one follows the laws of logic when presenting a stance and defending a thesis. But what happens when the judge simply lacks the capacity to grasp what the student is trying to say?

The issue is that most philosophy professors are quite "set in their ways." To put it plainly, they have their idols, and they expect students to tread carefully when presenting theses and even more cautiously when defending them. They are terrified of accidentally offending the unimaginable greatness of, say, Marx or Aristotle. They are incapable of entertaining a sharper, more critical viewpoint. Yet, simultaneously, they swoon over certain critiques of famous philosophers, provided those critiques come from other famous philosophers. For them, the existing system is sacrosanct. Period. They aren't innovative; they merely maintain the status quo and keep the gears turning. For them, progress is only permissible within the pre-established boundaries.

I believe the idea of discussing the essays is excellent, provided there is no preliminary filter. In other words, every participant should be given the chance to discuss their work. Imagine if the entire group read an essay aloud and then engaged in a discussion: hearing the praise, the opposing views, and allowing the professors to pose a few questions. Interaction. Only then could we perhaps determine, based on some metric, how "persuasive" someone is (though even that is shaky ground—any assessment in this realm is precarious), how much their argument "holds water," how logically sound it is (which is hard to discern from an essay alone, especially if one ventures into metaphysical spikes), and ultimately, whether they are capable of "defending" their own position. From that, you could create a selection process. Not as a scoring system, but rather, as mistyfox812 suggested, choosing the winners. You can't escape subjectivity that way, but you can avoid the pretense of objectivity. And that pretense is precisely what is dangerously missing from philosophy competitions.

swiftseal69 said:So, should I just give up?
Look, I’ve tried stepping back for a while,
but that didn't solve anything either.

It seems she might be one of those people I simply cannot help.

It is highly probable that she simply refuses to accept help. I actually have a patient of my own whom I eventually had to walk away from. Some people truly enjoy wallowing in their own mess—to put it bluntly—and they even use that misery as an excuse to avoid fully engaging with life. At least, that was the case with my patient... not that I'm rambling, though I could easily go on since I've been observing and studying her closely for four years now... but perhaps this person you're dealing with is exactly that: someone who subconsciously rejects assistance. Or, quite possibly, the timing just isn't right for them to finally pull themselves out of the wreckage.

blue bird said:I find it perfectly clear that both forgiveness and sinning are inherent parts of the human experience. Honestly, I can't even fathom how a society would function without them. My actual grievance here—or perhaps it’s more accurate to say my surprise—is simply how often we discuss forgiveness in such broad, sweeping strokes. It's treated almost as this unconditional "just forgive" mantra, regardless of the actual gravity of the offense...

But wasn't the entire discussion initiated in such a generalized tone? It seems to me you've already installed a mental filter that categorizes those who forgive as "good," while those who struggle to do so, or refuse entirely, are labeled as "bad." It’s as if there’s an implicit assumption that anyone advocating for forgiveness is merely playing the part of some self-righteous moralist.

As for my own perspective...
In my relatively short time on this planet, I've noticed that forgiveness comes quite naturally to me. The stance I shared earlier in this thread isn't some ethical dogma forced upon me by external standards; rather, it’s something that emerged from me analyzing why I react this way. People have actually called me "crazy" for it, claiming they could "never" do what I do. It is simply how I am wired...

So, there is a less generalized viewpoint, if that holds any value at all. 😬

David Miller15 said:One forgives primarily for their own sake—to reclaim a sense of personal satisfaction and internal peace. A person left to simmer in hatred and a thirst for vengeance eventually burns themselves out; by choosing to "forgive," they effectively shed those heavy emotions and find some semblance of tranquility. Or, perhaps, one has simply been conditioned to believe that forgiveness is a noble, virtuous act, allowing them to feel a sense of moral superiority through the process. It’s a way to feed one's own ego. Ultimately, forgiveness is an internal negotiation with oneself. Most of the time, the person we are supposedly forgiving isn't even aware of the gesture, let alone impacted by it.

In short, that is my perspective, merely rephrased 🙂

I tend to view forgiveness as an act we perform for our own sake rather than a favor for someone else. It’s quite simple, really: when someone treats us poorly or causes us harm, they essentially pass off a certain amount of "negative energy" to us. If we refuse to forgive, we end up hoarding that toxicity within ourselves, obsessing over revenge and nursing old wounds. Eventually, we find ourselves sitting in my grandfather's old recliner—a man who grew bitter toward the entire world because he spent decades clutching onto that same resentment. And who would have guessed ( 🙄 ) that he ended up dealing with stomach ulcers several times because of it?
When we choose to forgive, we are essentially "releasing sins," to borrow a phrase from a certain preacher; we are letting go of that "negative energy" someone else tried to dump on us. Therefore, in my estimation, forgiveness isn't some grand service we provide to the person who wronged us—though I suppose it can be viewed that way—but rather a primary method of liberating OURSELVES from that malice. We simply let it go.

I hope I haven't wandered too far off my point 🙂

David Miller15 said:Listen, Grizzly, I’m not sure who exactly you think you're educating here.

Honestly, if there were actually anyone worth enlightening—and if free will weren't just a convenient little myth we tell ourselves—then maybe we'd have something substantial to discuss.😬

Ahu Soph Nia said:Poly, I've curated some tracks just for you: 😘 😘 😘

David Miller15 is absolutely melting 😍

hollowtrucker said:It’s simply because I am correct.😘

🤣 I had a feeling that Karen Sanchez19's post would stir up this kind of reaction 😬

Though, if one considers the matter closely, perhaps it is less about the reaction itself and more about the fact that Karen Sanchez19 didn't actually care about her own opinion to begin with 😉—quite a departure from certain other individuals present here 😘

But really, haven't you heard? Isn't it common knowledge that God wrote the Bible?! 😲 😬

Jason Johnson4 said:And what about masturbation? 🙂

Neither one nor the other. 🙂

Jesse Sullivan2 said:And now I’d want to ask you, why would God cast us out of Eden if He can't even distinguish between good and evil? But then again, you don't believe in God.

Also, just to reiterate... Sin is an offense against God. That is a Christian concept. If you don't believe in the Holy Word, why are you even questioning things like "what is sin"?

Look, I know what sin is. I also know quite a few other things regarding sin and God. But the point is, I believe—and I want to believe—and I know from experience that this is the true path.

Good grief, everyone watching is blind to it.
Including you. You can claim the Church is just a flock of "sheep," or that God is far too invented just to grasp certain concepts. But the point remains: there are those of us who see that there is indeed something "there." And we live within that (even through direct experience).

Now, it is quite difficult for me to explain anything to you, perhaps because you simply don't want to know.🙂

Look: I was raised Christian; I sing in the choir every Sunday. I was a Christian and I know how it works. Actually, I was deeply, deeply involved in all of it; my faith was incredibly important to me, I adhered strictly to the "commandments," and I spent a great deal of time obsessing over the question of "sin." So, my Christian "software" is very familiar. Besides, I have a mother back home who is totally wrapped up in the world of lambs, and she will find it extremely difficult to accept the fact that her daughter might one day marry someone outside of the church or something like that.

Yes, I do not believe in God. Generally, I avoid using that term because it carries so many (unnecessary) connotations. Throughout my entire youth, I have grappled with these questions, and I can say that I "know" that "God" "exists." But I also feel that He does not. However, I suspect this isn't appropriate for this already heavily contested topic.

As for the stories about being cast out of Eden, they carry deep allegorical meanings; they are anything but literal.

Why am I talking about sin? Because that concept has, unfortunately, acquired a much broader meaning over time. Let's use your own logic: sin is an offense against God. Hmm. Okay. Do you honestly still think that God is a person?! 🙏 A "God" cannot be offended. Honestly, I barely get offended myself, so how could a PERFECT, OMNIPOTENT GOD be more easily offended than some minor muse?! 😢

Of course, there is something "there." Faith is a natural part of human development. I am not disputing that at all.
But when I am having a "serious" conversation, I couldn't care less about someone else's sacred cows, which are nothing more than mere attachments. If it bothers someone when I don't listen or read, then let them wonder "why" it bothers them. What is it within them that produces that feeling of "sacrilege"? I am familiar with that sensation. Even just a few months ago, I felt it, despite being outside of all that. Dogma carves itself under your skin, into the subconscious.

You don't need to explain it to me. Not only because I fully understand what you wrote 🥳 😎 🙂, but also because we are having a dialogue. Today, I am not in the mood for lecturing, but rather for an "exchange of views." 😬

bluewolf62 said:why on earth are we bickering over Christianity?

It simply is what it is. 🤣 🙂 👋 🙂 🙂

Balkanijan Pimp said:and then the religious crowd just starts philosophizing into a void. 🙄 🤣 😂

Honestly, if they were actually capable of philosophizing without looking for patterns where none exist, life would be much simpler... but they tend to see a fly on every single piece of garbage they encounter. 🙂

The main protagonist, having stumbled in completely distracted, says this:
Devil, if you want to truly grasp the concept of sin, there are a few fundamental principles you ought to understand.
God created the angels. Among them, one rebelled against God, and he is known as Evil. He goes by many other names as well.
God created Man to dwell in the Paradise he prepared for him. His only instructions were to multiply, live, and enjoy himself. There was only one restriction: do not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Evil lured Eve and Adam into sin. Thus, sin is a term denoting an offense against God—who represents the ultimate and most beloved Good—and an offense against the very essence of man: his own being.
Once they consumed that single bite from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, certain things transpired. Events that none of us would wish to have occurred. I shall refrain from delving into the specific details.

The point is this: had we simply listened to the One who desires our well-being, life would be quite pleasant; we would spend our days basking in peace and honoring the divine. But no, we refused to listen to what was for our own benefit. We desired to become like God, we consumed the knowledge of good and evil, we harmed ourselves, we did exactly what Evil desired, and now we suffer the consequences.

Is that sufficiently clear?

David Miller15 understands the concept of "sin" quite perfectly.😛

And she understands perfectly well that this is merely a fairy tale taught to you in Sunday school. She is actually laughing at your mindless parroting.

There is no "God." God does not know about sin. In fact, "He" doesn't even know Himself. Not a single divine... 😵 😍

I was simply asking for the WORD to start forming SENTENCES from "its own" head. Rather than from the teachings of an imagined, invented god who makes no distinction, let alone between GOOD and EVIL. 😲 😢

the word said:I am not Catholic😉

I never actually claimed you were Catholic. I simply said "parrot." Out of all the potential questions one could ask, not a single one yielded a concrete, lived-in response.

If you aren't Catholic, then who on earth taught you to recite these templates so perfectly?

the word said:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way and the truth and the life: no one comes to the Father except through me.

12 And there is no salvation in any other; for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

May the Lord have mercy on you on Judgment Day.
For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Parrot, parrot, parrot... beneath this veneer of "peace" and "unshakable faith" lies nothing but insecurity and pretension. It’s hardly surprising to see the Catholic Church crumbling at the seams. What will you people do then, you so-called "believers"? 🙄

How tragic...🙄

the word said:sin was simply there, always present, until the moment it is no longer tolerated and is cast into the lake of fire
now, go ahead and ask me who created God🙂

Where does this concept of sin even originate? Was it merely an inherent constant, much like how no one claims to have created God (unless one argues He 🤔 is eternal)? If we assume it has always existed, does that imply the existence of two infinite forces: God and sin? 😕 😕 Or, if it isn't an eternal fixture—if it actually had a point of origin—where on earth did it come from??

the word said:God created the earth, yet it wasn't perfect from the start; He made it perfect.

1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

2 The earth was still formless and void. Darkness lay over the deep, while the Spirit of God hovered over the waters.

3 Then God said, "Let there be light!" and there was light.

4 And God saw that the light was good. So, God separated the light from the darkness.

Just as the light was parted from the dark, so too will humanity be divided.
As long as you possess a physical body, you retain the power of choice.

That is all very beautifully taught,

BUT

FOR THE THIRD TIME, I AM ASKING

WHO created sin? Who created the one who created sin? And who created the one who created the one who created sin? ??????????????????????

Where are the answers???

Jamie Newman4 said:It’s not as if the right-wing wing actually understands what the left-wing side is up to...😵

What kind of political messaging are we even dealing with here? 🙂