Shit just got weird
No content again.
You don't have to party as per your own suggestion.
The Simpleton Notion of ‘God’ is Unveiled Here
- Thread starter SciWriter
- Start date
No content again.
You don't have to party as per your own suggestion.
lol i'm gonna party like it's 2999! /dance
OK, there are people, sciforum members among them, on the beach of Tahiti, somewhat away from Papeete City, with the Southern Cross in the sky, and Orion having three hunting dogs, not just two. While this night sky inspires some thinking on cosmology, it is more that existence must be ever taken to precede in importance the declared essence, which is highly debatable, and so it is that there is dancing, drink, music, food from the sea, songs, storytelling, and much lovemaking in this fortunate self-sustaining place of warm air, with some tents and pier huts for sleeping.
Hawaii is fine, too, and while French Polynesian Tahiti doesn’t have the extent of the Hawaiian flora, it is a bit more off the beaten track yet it still has the wonderful mixture of east and west, as well as north and south, a medium crossroads of the world.
Hawaii is fine, too, and while French Polynesian Tahiti doesn’t have the extent of the Hawaiian flora, it is a bit more off the beaten track yet it still has the wonderful mixture of east and west, as well as north and south, a medium crossroads of the world.
Our thoughts on what the human condition is are guided by similar principles as how we view individual persons.
When we talk about the human condition in general - Do we focus on faults? Do we believe that people are essentially good?
I recall MOM once saying that he is technically an agnostic, for example.
I have heard such things in religious settings but more so from religious people in private and several times here at the forums. Usually a bit between the lines, but it was enough to spot it.
There is a point where individualism turns into solipsism ...
That point. You'll know it in your heart when you reach it.
I think this is a word game that proves nothing.
Solipsism has that distinctive element of madness to it.
How come? How do you show this?
I was hoping for some gears to be turning rather than just a generalization, a "yes", or a "no".
What can we get from the observation that many single positive metaphysical positions taken alone seem to be absurd?
Last edited:
I don't think he is literally saying that nothing exists but his own mind.
We focus on behavior and identify patterns and try to reason why. This is behavioral psychology, I suppose.
Any response?
As I am inclined toward realism, the distinctions I have introduced, apply, at least for realists.
From the realist perspective, extreme individualism turns into solipsism.
This possibly is not the conclusion that, say, a relativist would come to.
But how we do behavioral psychology depends on our basic outlook; the basic outlook being our particular stance on what the human condition is.
How we do behavioral psychology depends on whether our basic outlook is theist, humanist, nihilist, Buddhist, etc.
This is how there are so many schools and approaches within Western psychology.
To begin with, it is not possible to do research by starting off neutral.
It is a word game that proves nothing (sic!).
In the beginning, there was nothing, and this nothing was something - it was something because it was there, even if it was nothing.
"Something" and "nothing" can function as pronominals or as numerals. In communication, confusion can arise when the two uses are conflated.
(Such as in It is a word game that proves nothing (sic!).)
This is why we need to use nominals, to avoid that kind of confusion.
Ie. we need to name phenomena, instead of merely pronominally referring to them.
Well, then you need to move past "something" and "nothing"!
What do you mean?
The uneasy feeling that comes when we become aware we have a metaphysical meta-awareness - ie. an awareness that a metaphysical position isn't a given, isn't something solid that would have always existed?
I think he is trying to say that we start with nothing and by the end of the day we still have most of it left.
:roflmao:I think he is trying to say that we start with nothing and by the end of the day we still have most of it left.
:bravo:
In one sense it can be construed as absurd, granted, but in another sense
it could be quite useful.
Universal knowledge is not known because it is universal knowledge, it is accepted as such due to our individual processing.
jan.