Recent comments in /f/philosophy

Longjumping_Let4897 t1_jdzdrmz wrote

Hope,

Hope makes you weak, it gives you a false belief that one-day, something good will happen.

The society has made us fool. We were never meant to accomplish greatness in our life. Our purpose was to born-live-die.

But how can you make humans live, there would be chaos if they know that most of them doesn’t even matter. Its hope, always this hope, it’s a drug, a drug which this society forces you to consume, because if you don’t, you will start to see things what you were never meant to see.

The more you give humans this drug, the more they become addicted to it, the more they chase it.

We have consumed this drug so much, that we think, we can’t live without it. We believe we will simply die, or go mad if we don’t have hope.

But that’s not true, it was never meant to be true.

Hope shatters you from within, the moment your hope breaks, you simply fall and you will be at your lowest which you could have never imagined. During that moment you will start to question yourselves, all of your beliefs begins to shatter, the only question that comes to your mind is- Why, Why Me?

Hope is like devil's apple, we eat it because we believe it makes us strong, but what we don’t realise that at its core, the presence of its poisonous seeds. But we still eat it till we start to consume that seed too and it starts to poison us, choke us. But do we stop, NO, we still keep eating it, because that’s what devil wants, that’s what society wants. And we keep on eating it till the poison consumes you, and now even we can’t save yourself.

How is the life without hope, one may ask. It’s not beautiful, it’s not heaven. But what it really is, it’s the Reality, the world that humans were meant to be in. The world where you live only to fulfil your duties without asking for something in return, where you are at least live in peace because you know, in the end you don’t matter to this world, and this world was never obliged to give something to you in return.

Do, humans will ever live without hope, Never, because that’s what makes us humans. We would rather live a beautiful lie rather than live a harsh reality.

But now I will not cling to this Hope. I once had hope, but after it has always betrayed me, I have realized how evil it is.

1

Xavion251 t1_jdzazg1 wrote

>The fact that even you admit this scenario is impossible is the exact problem. You cannot derive knowledge via an impossible process.

Taking real things to a hypothetical (but practically impossible) extreme is actually a very good way to logically work through something.

>Even the claim that all logical statements are true is not something that is proven, it is assumed to be true because it has not be demonstrated to be wrong.

It is impossible to understand anything (including science) if logic does not work. So we can't really even have a discussion on whether or not logic works, all conversation necessarily assumes that logic works.

>First you are assuming an infinite regress of provable premises,

No I don't. Eventually all premises boil down to direct, shared experiences that everyone (or almost everyone) can agree on. So does science. So does everything, really.

1

Xavion251 t1_jdzafia wrote

>Aren’t they experiences?

All experiments are experiences, but not all experiences are experiments.

>Do you think science doesn’t involve reasoning?

All science involves reasoning, but not all reasoning is a part of science.

>Do you think mathematics is not reasoning?

Mathematics is logic, not necessarily reasoning depending on definition. Even so, not all reasoning is math.

>Do you have knowledge of things you never experienced?

Nope. Everything must be experienced in some form. If I learn something from reading a book, I still had to experience the book in some way (usually reading via eyesight).

1

BerkelMarkus t1_jdzaa8m wrote

How is this paradoxical in any way? The more clearly you try to define cold, the more clearly that definition is tied to heat.

Plus, this is a completely obvious result from social networks (not the Faceshit and Twitshit nonsense) but from mathematical models as far back as the 40’s. We can individuate; ie identify, people based on their social network.

4

Efficient-Squash5055 t1_jdz3lae wrote

Yea my pleasure. Very nicely written. I’d never heard of professor Taurek before. I can’t believe he even shared his theory out loud! What difference do numbers make he says????

Uh.. only that pain, or suffering, or violence is multiplied that many times! What a blind spot in his thinking.

1

Efficient-Squash5055 t1_jdz1pgz wrote

Good article. Regarding Prof. Taurek, I think he’s full of shit with that theory numbers don’t count. What a dummy!

Personally I don’t think morality can ever be qualified in strict binary (this or that) terms across the board. Certainly there is a central section where moral response would be near universal in agreement.

A lot of it has to do with circumstances being defined in narratives and narratives are less objective. Or when sticking to facts; facts not accounting for nuance.

It’s not easy being human 🤷‍♂️

I think a heart genuinely centered in love and compassion will come as close to proper moral response as one can.

1

Zondartul t1_jdz0c1m wrote

Not something I thought of before, but obviously true in hindsight. Uniqueness is, by definition, a relation object A has to similar objects B1...Bx. The relation being that A is only one in that group that has a certain set of properties.

So you can he unique among all the people, but you can't be "just unique".

Now, whether the culture of "be unique" and the need to distinguish yourself from other people makes sense, is an entirely different discussion.

1