I don't think the causation runs in that direction. I don't think one can philosophizing themselves to becoming a good person. I think that we only use philosophy to justify our bad actions or support oit good ones after the fact.

What (in everyone’s opinion) are some good foundational philosophies for living a good, upstanding life?

> there is also the problem of inadequete education.. > > > > I think this is underlying the whole ball of wax.

And who sets educational criteria? :)

I don't know about you, but I smell a rat.

"Chaos reigns."

From an ethicists standpoint...

Moral relativism is simply the position that the truth of a moral claim is dependent upon the belief of either the person (individual relativism, sometimes referred to as subjectivism) or the majority of a culture (cultural relativism).

Let's say Sally has an abortion. Under individual relativism if Sally believes abortions are okay, then there is nothing wrong with what she did. It doesn't matter what anyone else, nor the majority of the culture she is within believes. Under cultural relativism if the majority of the culture believes abortion is okay, then what she did is okay. However if the majority believes abortion is wrong, then she acted immorally.

As a side note, relativism in a moral sense is distinct from relativism in a anthropological sense. Anthropologically relativism is just committed to the idea that different cultures have different beliefs, e.g., Culture A believes abortion is murder while Culture B believes abortion is okay under certain circumstances.

:( true..

there is also the problem of inadequete education..

I think this is underlying the whole ball of wax.

Self interest is not sufficiently enlightened.....

I'm not trying to talk you out of your position. I respect anyone who engages in rational thought on any given topic.

When I look at UFO/alien visits, I'm struck by two things.

First, Occam's Razor (as an example) would tell us that the argument that requires the least assumptions should form our starting point of investigations. The explanation for most UFO incidents would seem to have terrestrial explanations that, to me, require little assumptions compared to the large assumption that foreign living beings are visiting us. So I try, as a sceptic, to start my investigation assuming these phenomena are of "ordinary" origin.

Second, in the absence of any clear evidence, I struggle to imagine any conclusion about alien life that I can develop that isn't built on speculative premises. Having no clear body of facts, I can build no compelling conclusions.

Because of these two premises, I hold that any rational investigation of UFO is so rich in speculation and assumption, it can offer me very little certainty. And while exciting and sometimes compelling, I am personally forced to relegate it to entertainment rather than philosophical examination.

I'm a total amateur in this field though. I have a few undergrad courses and a lot of personal study, but I am hardly philosophically literate yet. Still a fun thought exercise!

> The flaws appear over time as people and organized interest groups seeking power take advantage of overlooked weaknesses and/or create them through corrruption and sponsored legeslative.

And if the flaws are not identified and fixed (as is the case now), then I propose "less flawed" is not yet adequately implemented.

I've been thinking about this recently because I don't think I have a good understanding. I feel like I understand the textbook definition but not how it applies to real life. It's generally defined as "understanding that morality is not fixed/objective, is malleable, and changes throughout time/cultures" etc, however, I feel like I often get roped into a discussion wherein a party is trying to convince me that if I think someone from Culture A is being immoral AT ALL then I can't possibly adhere to moral relativism. I believe that you can accept that different cultures have different means of measuring morality without FINDING those things moral. You can observe their units of measurement without adopting them, if you will.

Entirely fair about what you’re saying but there’s just some things I cannot come to terms with and don’t understand. Let me preface by saying I believe understand your perspective and the perspective of the general sceptic. I put myself In your shoes. But, I am genuinely curious. Wouldn’t you, in fairness, agree that if our planet was being visited by an extraterrestrial intelligence, we would have something of a philosophical obligation to enquire and understand the phenomenon? If there were any chance of it being true, shouldn’t we investigate, like how we investigated god? I’m just a fuckin idiot but my special power is logic.

Today, UFOlogy is a science first and foremost I would argue. It is data driven. It’s no longer the public that is espousing the potential of an extraterrestrial phenomenon, it is in fact the US government. The pentagon released the Nimitz encounters story and 3 videos to the New York Times in 2017. You can find all this on Google. It’s no longer stupid fucks like me talking about it, it’s our governments, who, let’s be real, they would be the only people who know about this besides anecdotes from an unfortunate few.

I would argue that philosophy has some catching up to do with science.

What does the fox say?

What is moral relativism according to you?

We are destined for a meta world, but are we also destined to rebel against it?

I am huge fan of the matrix and fan of the idea that no matter how comfortable a simulation is, humans will always rebel against it. But now seeing that reality inching closer and closer I wonder: Will we rebel against a cyber world or beg for it? With humans in such a state of depression in reality I wonder if given the option to rebel against the system, will humans choice reality over fiction?

I find much of it interesting as an artistic expression, but I don't (personally) find that line of though overly compelling as a philosophy. I've brushed up against these ideas (if I'm interpreting your post correctly) through Philip K Dicks work and through some of the spiritual side of Jung.

I guess in my mind, there are greater scientific arguments to be made against this line of thought than there are philosophical arguments for it. That said, I respect that there is a philosophical discussion to be had around paranormal issues, and while I don't share the fascination, I'd never want to take it away from anyone else.

Any alien believers in the chat? I’m sure most of you are aware of the Nimitz encounters or Roswell or whatever else have you.

I’ve been searching for a while for post-disclosure philosophy but haven’t had much luck. I mean I didn’t look too hard either but I don’t think much of it exists. I guess I’m a fairly big hippie so I started investigating the phenomenology of conscious experience and altered states of conscious experience, the likes of Terrence McKenna, Aldous Huxley, philosophies descending from Nietzschean thought, Schopenhauer, Eastern spirituality and Buddhism but no reference to the new paradigm that must urgently be assessed and understood.

From my experience, UAP phenomenology research is the subject of tremendous ridicule, the scientists want nothing to do with it for fear of their status and careers and philosophers don’t seem to care. Anyone out there who cares?

What is this from?

Ibn Arababi is the abbreviation of his full name Mohamed Ibn Arabi Literal translation would mean Mohamed son of arabi(arabian) would equate to something like Jhonny English for instance

The flaws appear over time as people and organized interest groups seeking power take advantage of overlooked weaknesses and/or create them through corrruption and sponsored legeslative.

In case your comment was tongue n cheek. ... :)

[deleted]

I've read through most of this thread and I thought you had a good go at arguing it well. The downvote crowd was uncalled for. I'd ask you though, what did you expect? It's a divisive subject that people believe passionately, dare I say religiously about. Both parties are going to find the other sides views repugnant.

Cheers for posting that, I didn't know about it but it hits at the heart of the unease I've felt about discussing certain subjects.

[removed]

It was a family thing to watch it for me. I wouldn't've watched it otherwise. I'm not sure whether or not to say I'm thankful I watched it. I enjoyed watching it, though.

Impossible. Names can't mean things. Name two American names that mean things.

If duality were solved mathematically then it would be a science. If duality were a science, it would be relativity because it explains all reality. Duality is intrinsic knowledge that’s simple and broad and pertains to all things.