[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Unless they want. Or seem to require a hand (some people don't ask for help simply to not cause discomfort in other's, it's a nice gesture when you do things for others that they need but would never expect).

[removed]

[deleted]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

There's a very interesting podcast called Living Myth by Michael Mead which specifically addresses this aspect of your sharing. How Mythos (myth/mysticism) is equally important as logos (logic/rationality). It is the balance of these two that creates a much better understanding of human life and its balance with nature.

>unless they want, or seem to require a hand

So whenever you decide that they seem to want or require a hand, the rule is off.

Pretty convenient rule.

Yes my logic is inferior because you say so. Just like a fetus “molests” it’s mother because the lass above says so.

You have no idea how ridiculous you are. I spent years avoiding people like this in University just to find them online populating spaces that could otherwise be productive.

None of you have any intent or ability to argue honestly which is why I just “lol” and move on. Because it’s a pointless exercise in frustration with the online narcissists.

“Lol” to the fact that your logic is inferior, and you chose to stick your head in the sand instead of adjusting your POV or presenting a novel counter argument.

The trick about equality is that it leads to system where inequalities don’t exist. So we don’t need to guess ex post which systems are a result of an equal contracting.

We can measure with Pareto efficiency what is rational in general in a state of nature. It is intuitive and does not even require referring to values. It can be argued for behind the veil of ignorance or not.

But it would require a calculation about how much there is stuff in the world so it can be redistributed.

>"I wasn't using required in the manner you think. When someone says "logically required" they're talking about deductive logic, consider these premises: all frogs can jump, the animal in question is a frog, therefore the animal in question can jump. This is deductive logic (as opposed to inductive logic). Assuming the first two premises are true and accurate (I'm not saying they actually are, but lets say they are for the sake of the argument), then it is logically required that the animal in question can jump. That's what logically required means, it means that the conclusion put forth is consistent with deductive logic."

I already understood what you meant and I apologize for my rigid stance on certain things overriding diplomacy.

Someone elsewhere just suggested "logically entails" as a surrogate that wouldn't provoke my "logical dislike".

>"Sure, I agree. But saying it's a myth is a bit of a weird way of saying it, its just subjective."

No. It is neither subjective or objective, it is imaginary. It is a myth.

>"What any one person should do, based on deductive or inductive logic, is based on an incomprehensible number of variables, and based on their own goals conscious and unconscious."

False. There is nothing any person "should" do. Nothing in the universe "should" do anything differently than what it is doing nor "should" it be doing whatever it is doing.

>"But you are wrong, morality in philosophy is a normative study, aka the study of what you should do."

Then philosophy is doomed to never get to the truth as it does not involve actually pursuing it, it just goes chasing its own tail.

>"If you disagree with that, then it'd be wise to find another word instead of morality as you are using it in such a way that most people educated in philosophy won't understand what you're trying to say."

You're saying "most people educated in philosophy" are so stupid they can't anticipate a stranger's idea of morality may not conform to that of their philosophy teachers'.

>"This is just a contingent or definitional truth."

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

>"I disagree that evil or immorality has anything to do with malevolence."

Sure but how do you disagree? You can disagree with me saying the Earth orbits the Sun rather than vice versa.

>"If you think it does, that's fine, but you're definition of immorality is in no way logically required or objective."

Kindly explain that to me. I am saying that the universe doesn't care about the U.S. President nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki and sees it no different from Jack the Ripper butchering women in London or you killing a fly... however, the malevolence of the U.S. President nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki (the victimizing of the people) is tempered by the circumstantal elements of benevolence (ending WWII sooner) which leads to the debate of it being moral or immoral to drop those nukes.

Levels of benevolence and malevolence -> levels of good and evil -> How moral or immoral?

That's what I'm saying. What are you saying? That the universe has an opinion on what the U.S. President "should" have done?

[removed]

I would add “Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind.”

Metaphors and shared mythologies are useful tools for the purpose of having multifaceted concepts better understood by more people. As long as no one’s taking those things literally. There’s definitely people low-key building internal philosophies and general moral codes from all those Marvel movies, but no one’s turning to a friend and saying, “so I was praying (attempting a telepathic link) to The Hulk last night, and I really think he’s finally gonna do something about the cancer in my foot”.

Emotionally understanding a thing is an empathetic understanding, or feeling, which also furthers understanding. The shared experience of the confusion of “I don’t know what that is” comes from the expected empathetic response. Or the courage to be lacking the understanding. It allows a call to utilize shared knowledge, experience, and understanding to further the use of reason, when the depth of reason regarding a certain matter has reached its limits of being understood under current circumstances.

The algorithmic dopamine machine really is something. I get caught up with it, and I’m fully aware of the sensation of what’s happening as I’m getting sucked into a good scroll. I’m of the opinion that wider discussion of that shared sensation is necessary to have us all reasoning our way out of it. Because that shit’s a drug, yo.

So. Metaphor is useful in expanding understanding of current circumstances via the addition of similar circumstances. Getting caught up in a scroll, to me, feels somewhat like getting subtly pulled into a field of slot machines in a casino. Even though I don’t gamble, I feeeel the pull. I don’t like it. It makes me feel weird. But not good. I wonder if anyone else feels this way, and sometimes have the opportunity to inquire about the empathetic sensation, as well as if there is a known reason.

[Like now. Seriously. Having everyone pull out of the dope web would be super helpful to society. Any ideas towards how that could be peacefully finessed are more than welcome.] But I digress.

There is no reason without understanding. And understanding is expanding by empathy. A person can easily and unreasonably reason that a thing is so, but shared understanding is the agreed-upon reasoning that establishes the limits of the knowledge-stacked truth of a matter.

Some might even argue that metaphor is just an interpersonal form of direct propaganda. Even absent it being misleading. Or that sharing emotions is manipulation. Even absent malice. We need emotion. IT is the spice of life which is manipulated through the dope web. It is the understood intention, based upon internal reason, that justify any given communication or act with another person. Most of us possess empathy, which enables us to more easily process interpersonal exchanges. This allows for both enjoyment and expanded understanding, which is the best way forward towards more-better reasoning.

Significance defines reality, for the observer. Key moments in each person’s unfolding quest for understanding are often motivated by their identifying with a key part of a story, popular phrase, or even meme that seem insignificant to others. Yet their emotional contents are necessary to allow for people to reach opportunities to share collected understanding that will contribute to expanded collective reasoning. Especially if expanded knowledge is being conveyed to a person whose reasoning is limited by their lack of a similar understanding.

If we can know that “this is that” or even that “this is like that”, we can run data through the process of the the gospel of memory towards knowing that we don’t know, and choose to seek to know. Together, and with understanding.

>I think we need to either redefine what equality means or replace the word altogether

I don't necessarily disagree. What do you propose? Maybe just an acknowledgement that people don't all have exactly the same needs but we should still try to meet as many peoples' needs as possible?

That being said, our needs are not necessarily that different. We may not all have exactly the same dietary needs, but we all have dietary needs. We may not all have the same medical needs, but we all have medical needs. We may not all need the same kind of shelter, but we all need shelter, etc.

Plus, there are things that are intrinsically shared, like culture, language, belief systems, etc. Those are things human beings need to live a good life, and those things are social in nature.