Posts by Mark Torres14

steelridge58 said:Right now, we’re sitting at a four-way tie

😉))

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.

😁

Since there’s zero scientific criteria or actual methodology for grading answers—which usually just boil down to a single sentence or a quote anyway—I don't see why we can't have multiple questions within one cycle.

steelridge58 said:I’m looking for some honest input here since there isn't a formal poll set up 😉 regarding those tie scenarios we're seeing more and more lately where two people end up with the exact same number of votes; I'm wondering if we should just stick to our old way of doing things where the folks tied on votes basically chat it out and decide amongst themselves who gets to pose the next question, or if we ought to implement a fresh rule where the person who actually kicked off the current round of voting gets the deciding vote to break the tie.

The issue isn't the ties; it's the voting system itself. You can only vote for one answer. Anything else—like voting for multiple answers—is just an invitation for people to manipulate the results. It’s obvious some folks mark everything while others pick just one... you get the idea. Given how few people actually vote, the whole thing feels pointless. If there's a tie, it's only fair that both contestants get a shot at asking their own question. I don't see the big deal. 🙂

Nicholas Gonzalez87 said:Yeah, I guess that depends on whether you actually exist. Honestly, who knows? Maybe every truth is built on facts. 🙂

👍

Harold Doyle3 said:Honestly, I think it would be more accurate to just use the terms "half-truth" and "half-fact."
Now, "half-truth" makes a certain amount of sense... but "half-fact"? 🤔

The whole idea of a "half-truth" feels contradictory to me. Something is either true or it isn't. Period.

Nicholas Gonzalez87 said:Look, I see things differently. Math is purely abstract until you actually apply it to something. You could call 2+2=4 an abstract fact, but something like "x+y=y+x"? That isn't even a fact—it's just what happens when you pick specific numbers for x and y.

The reality is, you're looking at an equation.

Nicholas Gonzalez87 said:Yeah, you got me there. Maybe a better example: 2+2=4 doesn't consist of "facts," even though that truth was definitely reached by observing facts. Or just "x+y=y+x".

I disagree. Every math expression relies on facts. It can't just exist in a vacuum. Like, what's 2 of nothing plus 2 of nothing? It equals 4 of nothing. Mathematically sound, but totally pointless. 🙂

Harold Doyle3 said:Look, truth can be subjective—it has an opposite, which makes it relative. But a fact? A fact doesn't have an opposite. It either exists or it doesn't. Simple as that.

Look, the terms "truth" and "fact" are so broad I doubt they can even exist independently. There's always someone's version of the truth—absolute, relative, whatever—and you could slap those same adjectives onto the word "fact" too.

Nicholas Gonzalez87 said:I'm thinking about axioms and theorems here. 🤔

"Parallel lines never intersect." That doesn't contain any "facts."

If they intersected, they wouldn't be "parallel." Point blank. Stating that two parallel lines exist is both a truth and a fact at the same time.

If there’s actually a gap between truth and fact, does that mean you can have a truth that lacks facts? Or even worse, facts that aren't actually true?🤔

I’m reading this and I’m lost. I still can’t wrap my head around the difference between "truth" and a "fact." Can someone give me a real-world example?

We create because we’re flawed. That flaw manifests as dissatisfaction. We try to fix that dissatisfaction by chasing needs, but those needs just trigger a whole new cycle of useless desires because nothing actually fixes our fundamental imperfection. We solve one need by creating something else, and the loop just keeps spinning. It’s constant. Even the Olympic motto, Citius, Altius, Fortius, has basically bled into every single part of our lives. Deep down, though, 😁 we just want to be Brešan's "bird of paradise."

I voted for Slavko’s question: "In my view, the most critical issue facing modern philosophy is how to interdisciplinary it with other fields." Though, personally, I’d cut out the word "social."

I get the sense that philosophy has retreated into its own little bubble, specializing itself into a corner because it thinks it can survive on its own. That is diametrically opposed to the ancient philosophy I actually respect and value. Then again, maybe I'm just becoming obsolete. 😁🤔

Sandra Murphy33 said:Take the concept of being "concrete," for instance...
Look, Cervantes, if you’re so fond of examples, why don't you provide one? Give me something that applies equally to an ant and a human being, provided it isn't just some basic biological fact like "we're both made of matter" (and everything else that follows from that). 😉 😛

If we strip away any superficial similarities—like being living, finite, or limited—all that remains is the fundamental difference known as self-awareness.

Self-awareness is essentially the process of detaching oneself from the Whole. It was a necessary step to allow for a meaningful relationship with that Whole, enabling us to return to it in an entirely new way.

I see people arguing about self-awareness over on another thread, but there’s no reason we can’t tackle it here too.
What does it actually mean? It's the ability to step back from yourself. Being aware of your own existence in space... and so on. In our case, it ties directly into reason, giving us this ego trip where we think we're the ones reshaping and building the world. But let's be real: God is the one changing the world. Because, for heaven's sake, we just sit here thinking.
Then look at an ant. It's trapped in a tiny world of instinct, pheromones, workers, soldiers, and queens—a purely collective entity. Most of us just view them as biological automatons, like some high-tech washing machine. But if you scratch the surface of a human, you see the same thing: instincts, chemical drives, social structures, and collective hysterias. Ants have been around for over 100 million years. Humans? Maybe 7 million. And we've got plenty of ways to destroy this little corner of Earth in the near future.
Personally, I think "reason," paired with this glorified self-awareness, is nothing more than an evolutionary dead end. It just created a creature that's obsessed with its own reflection. If anything actually mattered, it probably wouldn't exist.

steelridge58 said:You guys actually just reminded me of an old post I wrote about sixteen years ago
back when my username was viviana

👍 Great read.
I'm totally floored.😵

Sandra Murphy33 said:Here is where I think your logic falls short:
1. While ants and humans inhabit the same physical world, they experience it through entirely different lenses—at least within the context of this single reality we occupy.

2. The fact that we can't communicate doesn't inherently signal "weakness or ignorance." It might simply be that there is no functional necessity for such communication, despite our shared biological foundations. You seem to imply that shared origins mandate a capacity for communication, which is a questionable assumption.

3. Philosophical truths applicable to humans don't necessarily apply to ants, primarily because an ant doesn't engage in philosophical inquiry. This leaves us with a vague question: what exactly would "hold value" for an ant in the way it does for a human?

Let's not derail the thread. I get your point. Personally, I think philosophy should be bigger than just "humanity." That’s the biggest flaw of "modern" philosophy if you ask me—it's too obsessed with people. To me, real philosophy is the old stuff (Aristotle, Plato, Democritus, Epicurus...), back when philosophy and science were actually one and the same. Today? It's just hyper-specialized word games. It’s all about people trying to out-talk each other with nonsense like, "I am something, and the thing around me is something, and both things share nothingness."
The old Greek thinkers loved using examples, so I do too.

Sandra Murphy33 said:When we talk about what a human being actually is, we aren't discussing biology; we are engaging in philosophy. It is fundamentally an inquiry into existence itself—an investigation into why anything exists at all.

Humans are the only creatures that pose this question, and the only ones attempting to find an answer.
This isn't some matter of "anthropocentrism." It is simply the reality that humans, unlike ants, are thinking beings.

One could argue that we lack definitive proof that an ant isn't also a thinking entity. It’s entirely possible. However, if such a mind exists, it operates within an ant-centric reality that shares zero common ground with our own. If there were any overlap, we would be able to establish a cognitive connection; we would recognize a sense of "thought" in them that aligns with our own understanding of the concept.

Look, ants and humans both live in this world. We’re built from the same biological building blocks. The fact that we can't talk to them just shows how limited and ignorant we are. If something holds philosophical truth for a human, it should hold true for an ant too. Or did I post this in the wrong subforum?

OK

Nicholas Grant20 said:If I actually am a person, and if I’m some kind of thinking being, then I guess the real question is just "what even is a human?" To me, that's the only thing that matters, mostly because my own self-awareness is pretty much the only thing I can actually be sure of.

Isn't that just pure philosophical anthropocentrism?

Joseph Murphy10 said:Look, it's a fair question, I guess—but I don't have the answer since I'm not some biologist specializing in ant life cycles. Go ask a scientist. And if you're talking about humans? A biologist isn't even the only authority you'd need to talk to to get a real answer.

Your question is basically a textbook example of a fallacy.

Biology covers ants just as much as it covers humans. Or what, do you think there’s some special branch called "humanology"? This is a philosophical question. What *is* an ant? Biology definitely won't give you that answer.
It's not a fallacy. It just bugs me how obsessed everyone is with human consciousness, the concept of "self," those Kantian questions like "what am I?"... etc. In the end, it all boils down to universal patterns, which leads people to claim—and I'm exaggerating here—that "existence is thinking." The fact is, this world survived for billions of years without humans, and it'll keep spinning long after we're gone.

Joseph Murphy10 said:Honestly, that’s the million-dollar question—it never ends. What even is a human being, where did we come from, and where the hell are we headed?!

Sent from my Galaxy S9 using Reddit

What about an ant? Where does it come from, and where is it going?! 🙂