Posts by James Lee77

mistybison said:I thought you still had them... That's a shame.

Decisions don't necessarily need to be made publicly, nor am I interested in influencing them. They just need to happen, because the current state is illogical. It has been six months since anyone logged in, and even longer since they announced they were stepping down from moderation.

I understand how you feel 😁 , but this is the reality of the situation:

Those who are acceptable to the administration don't want to moderate. Those who actually want to moderate aren't deemed suitable by the administration for various reasons. The search for a moderator is ongoing—suggestions are made and candidates are considered—but we haven't seen any real results yet.

Nica stops by the subforum occasionally to help out where she can, but her schedule is so packed that it would be truly unreasonable to expect her to read through hundreds of pages of threads and provide detailed moderation.

On my end, I do what I can. When things get chaotic on a subforum and users start calling for 😁—I will request in the moderator corner that someone take a look or that a specific thread be temporarily closed or removed until a moderator arrives, though I find I no longer have the energy for it.

The subforum has become a playground for trolls, spammers, and provocateurs, to the point where I avoid it entirely. My ignore list consists exclusively of users from the "philosophy" section. 😁 I never imagined I would need to use an ignore list until I started visiting that subforum regularly. To me, it speaks volumes about the type of crowd gathering there and the behavior taking place...

Because of the rest of you, I sincerely hope the moderation issue is resolved quickly and that the atmosphere in the subforum becomes more pleasant. 🙂

Well, I guess I’m just left doubting if those reasons actually make sense. I mean, I don't even know what they are, but I honestly can't imagine them being valid, especially considering how much those people moderated before, and looking at how unmoderated things are right now—which is exactly what you were just talking about.

mistybison said:My suggestion is to log in with your old profile, which still has access to the moderator corner, and start a discussion there regarding the moderation of the "Philosophy" subforum. This might go against some of your personal principles, but I believe it is the only way to get real answers and perhaps even influence how that section is managed. As you know, decisions regarding moderators and oversight are never made in the public areas of the forum.

I don't have access anymore. As soon as I stepped down as a mod, I asked them to strip those permissions from me too. Look, decisions don't need to be made publicly, and I'm not even trying to meddle in them. I just want them to actually make some decisions, because this whole thing is just nonsense. A guy hasn't logged in for six months, and it's been even longer since he announced he was done moderating.

ruggedraven36 said:I don't buy the idea of nuking the entire thread. Even if only 10% of the posts are actually decent, those should stay.

As for moderation—honestly, maybe nobody actually wants the job. And even if they do, there's no guarantee they'll actually pull their weight. That’s why I'm backing the Freudian suggestion that users should have some kind of veto power over moderator decisions.

I know two people who actually stepped up to help. Honestly though, that was like four or five months ago, so I'm not sure if they'd still be down.

And even then, you have to wonder if they'd actually do the work right.

Both of them were philosophy mods before (for like, ages), and they were totally fine. They didn't get kicked out or anything messy like that. But, I don't know, it feels like the admins think it's better to just have zero mods rather than deal with them again. I just don't get it.

One of the best users on this board here:

addx said:I’d honestly suggest all the decent people on this forum just take a break from this board until a moderator shows up. Maybe head over to some other forums for a bit until we see how things settle down here.

The internet really brings out the absolute worst in people, and I feel like we have that exact "internet energy" embodied by a few certain characters. They’ve already been banned from other sites, yet they come here and act totally free to bring everyone else down. If someone who isn't like them even tries to support them, it just feels like those toxic types are successfully dragging them down too.

Somied is offline
Moderator
last active on:: 09.15.2019. 15:20

In just about a week, it’ll be six months since the only philosophy moderator last logged in here. Honestly, things are getting pretty messy, and I guess the admin's occasional check-ins aren't really enough to fix the vibe in that subforum.

Some of the best people over there have either left already or are planning their exit. I mean, in just this past week, at least three regulars have basically said goodbye—and that's in a section where there's barely even a dozen decent people talking anyway. Meanwhile, some banned psycho is running around cursing people's kids, his little ideological buddies are actually cheering him on, and there's nobody around to handle the reports.

Maybe three or four months ago, PM Nica mentioned they were still looking for a new moderator. There are definitely experienced, good people who would step up (at least two of them), so I don't really get why this is dragging on forever and just killing the whole subforum.

hiddenpuma75, once you realize they're actually looking for a new mod for the Philosophy sub, you'll get it. I mean, we haven't had one for like six months or a year now, maybe even longer since we had that last guy who actually gave a damn about moderating Philosophy. I guess you'll see that during this weird transition phase, you can't really expect the head admin—who honestly just stops by the Philosophy section once in a while out of the goodness of her heart to delete some random stuff—to worry about all the little details.

I mean, being reasonable should basically mean anything anyone can agree is right, regardless of their vibes, culture, worldview, or whatever. In math or logic, that’s easy to pull off, just like you said. In science, we do it by making sure experiments can be repeated by anyone, anywhere, anytime—so it doesn't matter who's doing the work. When it comes to ethics or politics, though, the best tool we've got is Rawls's "veil of ignorance."

So, you try to describe the situation as clearly as possible (like, Person A wants this, Person B wants that, Person C is pushing for this, etc., even if they're all clashing). Then, assuming you have no clue which role you'll end up playing—like it's all just a random coin toss—you look for a solution. Since any of those roles could be yours, you'll naturally try to find a fix that’s pretty much fair for everyone involved.

Of course, just like science needs more than one smart person—it needs a whole "scientific community" where people check each other's work—rational ethics or politics would need a community of people using this "veil of ignorance" to reach logical conclusions. If we follow that logic, it also means some things might just be impossible to agree on, no matter how hard we try. In those cases, the rational move is to just let individuals handle things based on their own feelings, culture, or whatever. But honestly, I guess it's not super clear where that line is between what we can agree on together and what we just can't.

The real kicker, though, is that alongside this "pure" rationality, there's also this thing called instrumental rationality. That's when someone starts with their own personal goals—things based on their specific tastes, background, or whims—and then uses rational methods to get them. It's like building a gadget: the goal is just whatever you want, but the way you build it is logical, which is why it's called "instrumental." Given how that works, the most effective move is actually kind of shady: publicly argue that everyone should be totally rational (in that "veil of ignorance" sense), while acting that way only when people are watching. But once nobody's looking? You just go after your own private interests. Basically, being a hypocrite. Because if your goals aren't "rational" but just personal, it's perfect for you if everyone else plays fair while you do whatever you want. It gives you less competition for what you actually want.

hiddenpuma75 said:...BEING 🤔

Honestly, what on earth is this concept of BEING?
How does an American even wrap their head around the distinction between "being" as a verb and "Being" as an actual entity or state of existence?
I’m asking for a breakdown so simple that even one of Einstein's most vocal assistants could grasp it—complete with visuals and examples, and hopefully without anyone needing to grit their teeth or shed tears of frustration.

=====
SPIRIT 🙂

For instance, I’ve noticed that our friend Sigmund uses the term "spirit" with such sovereign confidence and intimacy—it’s almost as effortless as you all reading these lines and tapping away at your keyboards.

And yet, Cave and Wand always seem to stumble over that very word— SPIRIT 🙂 because whenever they hear it, they immediately jump to some invisible entity that exists outside our 3D world, like some kind of gaseous, formless phantom...

My hope is that in this thread, we can finally clarify both the things we know and the things we don't regarding these fundamental concepts. We tend to toss them around so casually and recklessly, often with an unearned sense of certainty. ...

I mean, maybe there’s actually some point to talking about the spirit in triads. I guess? Just a thought. Body, soul, spirit.So, if the cave and the wand don't end up running off, I guess you could just rename the whole thing to... Earth, the Universe, and the Multiverse.I mean, look at this place. You've even got some pretty legit minds weighing in on this stuff—people like Frege, Popper, and Penrose. They aren't exactly clueless, you know? The whole idea behind this three-fold structure—it’s pretty wild when you really sit down and think about it. I guess we’re talking about how everything just layers on top of itself, right? It’s like we aren't just living in one single reality, but there’s this constant movement between different levels of existence. Maybe it’s like looking at a fractal or something. You have the immediate stuff happening right in front of you, then there’s the deeper logic underneath, and then that massive, overarching framework that ties it all together. It feels almost overwhelming if you try to grasp it all at once, but I think there's something beautiful in that complexity. It makes me wonder if our usual way of seeing things is just too narrow. We tend to focus on the surface level, but there’s definitely more going on beneath the hood. I don't know, maybe it’s just my way of looking at it, but I feel like understanding these layers changes how you view everything else. It’s heavy stuff, for sure.

I guess I just can't get enough of Parsifal lately. It’s honestly such a trip. James Lee77 says:
...I don't know about this, man. It just feels... off. I guess maybe I'm overthinking it, but something about this whole thing isn't sitting right with me. Just my two cents, I suppose. 🤔

Man, what even is "Being" anyway? Like, seriously, how does an American even wrap their head around the whole concept of "being" vs. "Being"—you know, like the actual state of existence versus just... existing? It’s such a trip.

Look, I'll break this whole thing down for you so simply that even Einstein's maid could get it—with plenty of pictures and examples, and without anyone needing to pull their hair out or grind their teeth in frustration.

You know that classic high school definition? The one kids just parrot back during physics class, hoping they won't get grilled on philosophy during the next period? I guess fighting is just what being alive is all about. It’s kind of part of our DNA, you know? Maybe that's just how we're wired..

What does that even mean? I guess I'm just saying... bit by bit, right? It all adds up eventually. Maybe. So, there's this concept where something is just what it is because of its core essence—like, I don't know, "thingness" or whatever. Take a triangle. A triangle is a triangle simply because it has three sides. That’s the whole deal, right? That's the essential part. Whether it’s a right triangle or not, or if it's colored blue or red, or if the sides are 3 inches or 8 inches... honestly, that stuff is totally random. It doesn't change the fact that it's a triangle. It's like, a doctor is a doctor because they actually practice medicine. Everything else about them is just extra fluff that doesn't define their profession. I guess it's all about what really matters versus just random details.

So, what's up? I guess it’s just a little bit of a creature. Maybe?So, basically, anything that just *is*—like a rock, a person, a number, some genetic code, Beethoven's symphony, Americans, or even that Madeleine cake from Proust's memory, or maybe Gandalf... those are all beings. They exist, right? I mean, they all exist in their own way. Like, Gandalf is just a fictional character, while a rock is a physical object, but they both "are." So, what actually connects them? What’s the core essence behind all that? That's the thing. Yeah, they really are.. Ta I guess it’s just a little creature.So, if they actually are, then it’s called: essence. Essence is basically the core of everything—it's what makes anything exist at all, you know? It's like the fundamental soul of being.

Amanda Jackson5 said:To be honest, it’s not really. I meant to get back to you on this a while ago, but it slipped my mind. I suspect the confusion stems from some old-school scholasticism and the messy ways Aristotle's work was translated, especially regarding his distinction between passive and active intellect. If we look at the Latin term *intellectus*, which basically means the intellect, the Greek equivalent would be *nous pathetikos* versus *nous poietikos*. You could think of it as a rough parallel to the divide between empiricism and rationalism—or, if you prefer the heavy hitters, what Kant (and later Hegel) categorized as *Verstand* versus *Vernunft*.

Nah, reason is dianoia, while the intellect is nous, both in Aristotle and Plato. Reason is all about putting things together and breaking them down—you know, like linguistic or math analysis. But nous? That’s more like intuition. It’s almost like a direct perception; you either see it or you don't. There’s no building or deconstructing involved—Aristotle even uses the word "touch" to show how immediate it is. It’s still part of thinking, though. Maybe today we’d just call it an "insight." Like, basic logical principles don't come from analyzing; they're the prerequisite for any analysis. Once you see the truth of a logical principle, there's no going back. It’s kind of like Ramanujan, where he'd just get these math theorems handed to him by a goddess (that would be the nous part), but then he’d struggle to actually prove them (which would be the dianoia part).

Hegel is pretty harsh toward Schelling when it comes to rejecting that whole "intellectual intuition" thing, even if he still wants to keep that split between reason and intellect in a different way. I guess to him, the intellect is more like reason in motion—like a sort of meta-reason that sees how reason itself moves. 🤔

The biggest debate on Philosophy for like 15 years now:

Ethan Gomez82 said:"Objectivity" isn't some fragile thing that gets damaged by being ignored; whether people care about it or not is entirely up to them. There is so much scientific consensus out there that most people couldn't care less about, yet they obsess over trivialities instead. At the same time, ignoring the 99.9% of the population doesn't hurt the facts at all—the interest of the remaining 0.1% is more than enough to drive research and establish what is objectively true. We are living through a massive fragmentation of interest and perceived importance that is unprecedented in human history. In the past, because information was scarce, most people focused on the same core truths. Today, in this era of information overload and total fragmentation, that shared reality has completely vanished.

I mean, you're totally right—you can separate relevance from objectivity, but let's be real, in the real world, a group of people basically decides what's objective. Like, something is considered objective if the p-value is lower than a certain number, but the scientific community is the one that actually agrees on what that number should be: http://www.sciencealert.com/lowering...unter-argument

And they'll make those calls based on their own ideas about what's important—like, they're actually suggesting changing the threshold for the p-value just because it would be useful to... whatever. So, I guess this whole idea of objectivity is pretty much an unavoidable human thing in practice, even if the ideal is to cut out the human element as much as possible. Since it is, just like everything else we do, it ends up being subject to how people decide to rank importance.

Ethan Gomez82 said:What does an individual's capability have to do with anything? What they deem important is important to them, period. That’s why I brought up my dog. He’s incapable of many things, yet he has his own priorities—his own version of "importance" that is entirely his own and completely authentic. No one cares about the same things, and there is no such thing as objective importance. This doesn't change the fact that, as social creatures, we can reach certain compromises or agreements regarding what we value. Ultimately, anyone can pass judgment on what is "important," but that personal verdict only applies to them, not anyone else. You can try to force your personal values onto others like trying to shove a wardrobe through a keyhole, but it never works. Usually, those attempts just leave a trail of bodies in their wake.

But I mean, what's even the point of talking about "objectivity" if you aren't looking at how relevant something actually is?

How do we even decide what counts as "objective"? At the end of the day, objective is basically just whatever the scientific community mostly agrees on. And scientists only agree on things they actually bother to study. Scientists study things they think are worth their time, right? So that’s the funny part about most Nobel Prize winners: it's not that their work is "objectively" wrong, it's just that it's irrelevant. Like, super unimportant. There could be huge parts of reality that we can't say anything objective about simply because nobody is researching them since they don't seem relevant. For something to become "objective," it first has to be important enough to enough people that they actually go out and study it to make it an established fact.

hiddenpuma75 said:Our learned colleague urbanwalker72 offered a subtle, pedagogical nudge to hiddenpuma75—something he likely didn't realize was actually quite profound.

Well, hiddenpuma75 fired back, and his response serves as the perfect gateway to this massive topic.
==

Honestly, this question is so vital it deserves its own dedicated thread. My fingers are practically itching to start one myself, even though I’m currently lagging behind on my actual paid writing assignments.

To me—and hopefully to many others who aren't quite seeing what you see—could you please walk us through your logic?

Look, if physics is so "straightforward," then why does that very clarity come with about a dozen different interpretations? 🤔
If it were truly settled, there would be one single, clear interpretation.

=====

Could someone—anyone else besides me—please post that diagram showing all the various quantum physics interpretations? A single image really does say more than a thousand forum posts... 🙂

For instance, here is my little illustration of that famous quantum concept known as
Schrödinger's cat (the one stuck in a box where we can't tell if it's alive or dead).



And now, hiddenpuma75 is calling on urbanwalker72 to finally reveal the long-held secret.

Happy to help.

Calling someone a fascist is just a nasty insult. I mean, fascism is pretty much considered one of the absolute worst evils in history, and honestly, for good reason. You really need some serious proof before you throw a word like that around. But lately, it feels like people in society—and even here on this forum—are tossing it around way too easily.

I’m curious, though... is it actually allowed on this forum to call someone a fascist without having a massive reason to back it up? If it is, why? And if it isn't, what kind of punishment should we be looking at?

hiddeneagle98 said:Not quite, though you're definitely heading in the right direction; I'm certain that specific system plays a role in all of this.

At the end of the day, a person needs other people. We need that reflection from someone else, that back-and-forth exchange, just to maintain our very essence and actually feel fulfilled. Deep down, a human being is inherently incomplete, and we use these social interactions and reflections as a way to try and bridge that gap to become whole—even if we never truly succeed in doing so completely. If you take a person and drop them alone on a deserted island, something inside them starts to die off, it atrophies, and they eventually dwindle down into nothing more than some kind of zombie survivor.

Isn't the true essence of a human being found in simply being? ☕

I honestly think everything has its own way of being, so I don't really see how the act of being touches the core of humanity any more than anything else does, right?

So, the guy played by Tom Hanks actually tried "talking" to Woodrow Wilson—which was just a volleyball—since he had nobody else left.

ruggedbadger2 said:Can you actually give me an example of a goal that doesn't lead to satisfaction? I guess I can't think of any human activity that isn't either chasing pleasure or trying to eliminate discomfort (like nirvana, euthanasia, or suicide).

Try this thought experiment on for size: imagine you know for a fact that two different choices will give you the exact same amount of pleasure. One choice is totally selfless, while the other is just morally neutral. Since you aren't getting any extra "happiness points" for being a good person, what are you picking? Personally, I’d go with the one that brings some extra good into the world along with the pleasure. If you wouldn't, I guess you might be an outlier.

Man, if I had the energy or the patience for a full-on Socratic dialogue, I’d stop there. But since I don't, here's my take: if we agree that there are other motivations besides just pleasure, then we have to talk about how much those things actually weigh. Like, is it really true that a tiny, microscopic bit of extra pleasure is enough to outweigh a massive amount of something else that motivates us? I mean, probably not. It seems pretty plausible that there are situations where a huge amount of other stuff could easily outweigh a tiny lack of pleasure. Etc.

I was hanging out at one of those schools like an interested citizen, checking out "Battle and Time"—it’s actually pretty great. It's kinda wild that they’re running fourth grade this week, but they'll be on fifth by the fall. I guess Hasanbegović must've opened up the checkbook for the Matrix.

crimsonlynx23 said:I saw some pretty decent deals on laptops at Best Buy with 5-year warranties...

People always say, "Yeah, right, like a Best Buy warranty actually means anything." 😉

Here’s what happened to me:
- Hey there, I bought a computer from you guys five months ago, and something broke—it won't turn on. I've got the warranty.
- No problem at all. Just heads up, it might take maybe two weeks.
- Two whole weeks? Well, okay, I guess since it's under warranty, I don't have much choice.
Two weeks later:
- Yeah, we checked the computer, found the issue, just waiting on parts now.
Twenty days later:
- Yeah, it says right here that the hard drive and motherboard are shot, we're still waiting on parts, don't worry, we'll call you.
Twenty-five days later:
- Still waiting on those parts. We know it's been a while, but they should be arriving any day now.
Thirty days later:
- Look, the parts should be here any second, we'll reach out as soon as they arrive.
After 33 days:
- Unfortunately, we have to deny your repair request. We determined that the damage was caused by user error.
🤷

Check out this testimony from a former member: http://www.kelebekler.com/cesnur/txt/liv-gb.htm