This is something a LOT of philosophers think about, not just theists. E.g. Plato would say that mathematical truths are eternal--they exist independent of time. Physicist Roger Penrose, an Agnostic, would likely agree.

Penrose has some really out-there conceptions of time if you're interested in philosophy of time, especially with an angle towards physics. He's been doing some great interviews on IAI.

So are ghosts!

That's silly. The world is not meaningless. Meaning is everywhere we look.

Also, we have no "need" for meaning. "Necessity" is an egomaniac's myth to make the universe revolve around him.

It's only funny if you pretend you don't care about others

should those who spread the lies be held accountable like a person shouting fire in a crowded cinema?

For the love of God, yes

Edit: I hate that they didn't respond to you. You clearly gave THE answer that corrects their mistake. Yet they straight up refuse to acknowledge it.

I think it's actually about emotion, rather than logic.

Leftists often use logic to argue with regressives, because leftists accidentally treat them as if they're being rational.

But I think in reality, the regressives are operating based off of emotion. Then they use logic to hide that. So really, he's just angry about something. He's probably mad about general societal issues, like small micro aggressions that he receives regularly.

Because there's just no way he actually got to that conclusion through logic. And he refused to acknowledge your sound argument. That shows that he is blocked by something. Im guessing it's some kind of emotional damage.

Maybe he sees your comment as some kind of insult. He feels "stupid" when he's corrected. So some kind of shame emotion. Or maybe he just gets rage whenever he encounters any political topic. Similar to road rage. He can't communicate, or he feels out of control. So he feels bottled, and starts spluttering, and becomes angry and rageful. Maybe the rage is another cover up for his feeling of shame and inadequacy.

So I think leftists need to reach out and help these people understand how to deal with conflicts. In order to resolve conflicts, you have to just step back and find a neutral center in your mind, where you can feel calm and uneffected.

I think you're being way too generous. Intolerance is very common. It's not all rodney king or massacres or horrendous brutality. It is often idle and minor abuses, that are just quiet enough to be socially acceptable. They do just enough to be able to get away with it. Those that do more than that, obviously don't get away with it.

For example, when an angry poor person says "welcome to reality" to a small child who gets mistreated and tries to defend themselves. That is a form of intolerance. And it's a common saying and widely used.

I guess it's not directly tied to any demographic. But it is generally hateful behavior. Maybe it's more just an attitude of intolerance, and melodrama. By your definition, tolerance is allowing something to exist without interference. So in this example, they would be interfering with someone's right to defend themselves, or to experience happiness.

I guess you probably didn't make this comment with the hopes of being disproven or argued with. And I'm sorry for doing that. But I do honestly think you might be mistaken.

Yeah this article is complete garbage.

I don't think "it's pointless to be tolerant" though.

But I think I understand what you're getting at. Tolerance is a sort of oxymoron in and of itself.

If you're truly "tolerant", you don't really see it as tolerating.

But tolerance is still important. Because, we're not perfect. Even those of us who are truly tolerant. We still need to actively engage tolerance, or patience, when we encounter new things, or difficult things

That sentence doesn't quite make sense

They're not asking a question. People can make statements and implications in the form of a question. Don't play dumb.

There's a healthy amount of denial behind your logic

What is eco??

They have freedom of speech. As do we all. They don't forfeit their freedoms once they do that. That behavior is simply not covered under the umbrella of "free speech." Just like shouting fire in a crowded theater is not covered. Or in England, fighting words are not covered.

You are being defensive and biased, by the way. When you are looking at a philosophical question (or any question really), you want to step back from your emotions. Think rationally about the topic. Acknowledge your emotions, because they have indications as well, but don't let yourself be ruled by them. Sometimes emotions can cause to make mistakes. Like the saying about fighting when you're angry. The angry man always loses in a fight. Because his opponent can easily predict his moves, and he also completely loses control. So his swings become wild and erratic. Rather than controlled and strong and striking true and on target.

Positive experience for everyone is different. I think both of you are saying the same thing in different ways.

A positive experience for someone may just be a heroin filled couple weeks. Others may be knowing that their name will be on a building after they are gone. Others yet may feel positive knowing their interactions with their community have direct effects on those people.

You could call that someone’s view on the meaning of life or you could call that their positive experience. Seems like two sides to the same coin.

Elaborate

[removed]

"Though the interpretation of Popper in the discourse thus misses the point, the original problem remains. When are ideas dangerous and intolerant enough to be censored, and when should they be fought with words?"

The original problem does not remain. The intolerance paradox is succinct and clear. There is no confusion. Any confusion the author has, is irrational.

It's just putting yourself in their shoes.

The premise is nihilistic, pretending it's not.

[removed]

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Np friend

Thank you for the elaboration...

“A true nihilist becomes catatonic; and a powerful existentialist finds nirvana”…ofm 2023

Nietzsche's Birth of Tragedy cribs from Schopenhauer the notion that life is inherently painful, tragic, full of suffering. This is a metaphysical view (as all views are) that I simply do not accept. The notion that life is valueless or meaningless (and from this meaningless arrives suffering) is itself a valuation. It's language games all the way down.

Nietzsche in the revisions of Birth of Tragedy writes about how he was still operating with the framework he learned from other philosophers and how he regrets this. Nietzsche's later work does preach about about having life-affirming values, which I agree with and support.