[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Not sure what you’re saying here. And Sanskrit is the mother language of all. I’ll try to read your thoughtful words when I’m not so tired. Thx for a very thoughtful note.

Yeah, I expected that. Someone else wasted his time trying to reason with you about your „refutation“ of dictionaries already, I won‘t make the same mistake. Thanks for your answer though.

Depends on if I have good enough reason to disagree with it. Definitions are after all just aids to aid our communicating with eachother. Example: The definition for the Sun, the Moon and the stars used to all include "Orbits the Earth.".

So you wouldn‘t agree with the definitons in e.g., Merriam-Webster?

A myth is a fiction believed (in the past or present) by a large number of people to be a non-fiction.

You keep spamming this everywhere in this subreddit: Please define „myth“.

But people are animals?!

Thus why we probably won't stop blocking "ads" because most of them are malware

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

The way one experiences freedom has changed drastically under technocapitalism due to its increasing prevalence in society. Technocapitalism has pushed the economic and technological boundaries of the modern world, creating a system of globalized production and exchange of goods and services. This system has fundamentally altered the way people can experience freedom by giving them unprecedented access to goods and services as well as broader opportunities to connect with others, express themselves, and explore their passions. However, technocapitalism has also introduced a new set of constraints, such as surveillance, data-mining, and algorithmic manipulation, that have the potential to limit freedom and undermine the autonomy and power of individuals. Ultimately, the way one experiences freedom in the technocapitalist era is complex and multifaceted, with both opportunities and constraints.

The thing about “imagining Sisyphus happy” by Albert Camus. I understand that the meaning of it is that we need to find joy in the struggle of life. My issue with it, which I’m thinking through, is that I don’t really want to be complacently happy about constant labor with no real accomplishment. That sounds like meaningless purgatory. Can someone explain if I’m missing something? I haven’t really looked into Camus too much.

Time is the most valuable resource because you can never have it back . i would recommend Tomes More Utipa. he discuss the value of time

No worries, I'm no part of the 'toxic assclown' faction on Reddit and always assume commenters to have the best in mind when they answer. It's always nice to come across someone who puts some thought in their words

>They word”my” comes from the Sanskrit word “Maya”

Source? I'm seeing that the word "my" comes from proto-Germanic mīnaz (meaning "my") which itself comes from proto-Indo-European méynos (also meaning "my"). PIE predates the Sanskrit language so it doesn't seem there's a shared etymology at all.

Which is pretty much what I expected. The idea that a "myself" could exist is a more intuitive and basic assumption than that "myself" is illusionary; it would make no sense for this equally basic word to stem from such a philosophical perspective. Not that English borrows much directly from Sanskrit anyway. It sounds like someone is trying to push the idea that our 'wiser' ancestors 'knew' the self was illusory through this bad folk etymology. On the contrary I'm pretty sure most of our ancestors would've had a very strong sense of self lol

Nice one :)

One of the reasons r/askphilosophy is a load of bullshit is because that answer would have probably been deleted

I take the view that "free will" is poorly defined, roughly echoing Strawson's compatibilist view (if you are interested in this you MUST read Strawson's 'Freedom and Resentment' [1962], one of the greatest philosophy lectures ever which changed the minds of many in the field; it's only 15 pages!). What matters to me is 'choice'. Now, seeing as I also hold a materialist view of the brain-mind issue, and a materialist view of metaphysics, I fully accept that all things we typically call 'choices' are causally (fully deterministically or partially randomly) determined by the material world, included both brain activity and everything else. We slide between different definitions of choice in everyday language, considering choices free-er when for example not taken under duress. But these definitions of choice are slid between precisely because we wish them to align with our understanding of ethics; specifically, what a moral choice is and when a choice should or shouldn't be punished. And this is all above board because even though there isn't some external presence disconnected from the material controlling the mind, nevertheless choices are being made within brains. Choices you make are yours because they stem from your brain's activity, and this activity IS you. Note that if you read Strawson's paper, he makes his arguments without appealing to materialism; it's just easier and quicker for me to use it because I believe it.