THE ONE AND ONLY TRUE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE FACTS
Why can't we just stop using the word "objective" to describe OPINIONS?
JUST CALL A TAUTOLOGY A TAUTOLOGY AND AN OPINION AN OPINION.
The word itself seems to hold some almost magical implicit religious concept and leads to the worst aspects of scientism.
What? That seems a tad too conspiratory for me, whenever somebody says objective in regards to being it, it is understood that they mean to mitigate biases or to make a decision in spite of it, it is simply easier and more succinct to say "objective", and because most people aren't this pedantic, they understand what the mods mean.
The misuse of this word demonstrates a foundational misunderstanding of science itself.
The goal of a "neutral 3rd party" is to adopt the shared biases of BOTH interested parties.
Bias is not a quantifiable, one dimensional scale with a gigantic "MORE" painted on one end and "LESS" on the other end.
EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE IS BIASED.
SOME ARE SIMILARLY BIASED AND OTHERS ARE DISSIMILARLY BIASED.
It's just like an accent. Nobody thinks they have one. And they think other people who have their same accent also don't have an accent.
A TRULY "NEUTRAL 3RD PARTY" WOULD NEVER GET INVOLVED IN 1ST AND 2ND PARTY DISPUTES.
Human "creativity" is (EITHER) caused by previous influences (OR) indistinguishable from random
WILL cannot be random
FREE action cannot be caused by previous influences
FREE is incompatible with WILL
Perhaps anarchy already exists and "THE COMMUNITY" is merely the highest manifestation of organized crime. – special thanks to @thoughts-in-time
I'm afraid that rights are mostly granted by mob democracy. A man's right to life and liberty can be taken away by any group larger, better armed and/or better organized than his. The mechanism is and always has been concerned citizens fighting against the status quo for the betterment of the status quo.
In effect, this is somewhat true. Though, I wouldn't necessarily characterize them as "rights" in this context given that, as you pointed out, they can be taken away. "Legal privileges" would be more apropos. With that said, my arguments will always be in service to the "ideals" or rights. If we conform or concede the ideal in order to be, as I often see in response, "more practical," then there is no point to rights.
It's simply contracting with mobsters for temporary periods of survival.
SEARCH ROKU TV FOR "LOGICZOMBIE"
SEARCH YOUTUBE FOR "LOGICZOMBIE"
SEARCH LBRY.TV FOR "LOGICZOMBIE"
SEARCH ROKU TV FOR "GROKALL"
ZOMBIEBASICTRAINING
+proHUMAN +proFAMILY
Your scathing critique is requested.
The problem is there are very few objective facts.
Our entire reality, what we call reality, is based on a certain focus that excludes an immense amount of reality that is right in front of our eyes.
Such as, in our space, what we call earth, their exists Angels, demons, sprites, elves, fae,...
And most people never interact (see, smell, touch...) with any of these.
There are many dimensions that we are embedded within, but most people only acknowledge 3, maybe 4.
Further, many studies show that different people experience the same happening differently.
Their may not be any objective facts.
Until you look towards higher truths.
I agree.
Most people call their beliefs "facts".
Most people don't know the difference between an AXIOM and a TAUTOLOGY.
I concur with the idea that the more we try to be part of the herd andconsent to the indoctrinations, we lose our freedom of being unique individuals.
The TMFRC shop-club is for people who believe their table might be able to be improved by second party analysis.
I understand that I have bias-blind-spots. And the only way for me to mitigate these bias-blind-spots is by seeking scathing critiques.
I'm also a life-coach but I exclusively coach life-coaches.
thank you very much for the post, have a good day and a great mood
Hear hear, too many things are 'objective' today according to too many people
I agree.
Most people call their beliefs "facts".
Most people don't know the difference between an AXIOM and a TAUTOLOGY.
thank you for the post, have a nice weekend
Congratulations @logiczombie! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Your next target is to reach 6000 comments.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPCheck out the last post from @hivebuzz:
IS: Being alive AND being motivated to entertain moral questions AND being capable of comprehending abstract concepts.
=
IS: Motivated to continue living.
+
IS: You (EITHER) already care about at least one other person (OR) you
=
OUGHT: CARE ABOUT AT LEAST ONE OTHER PERSON
Ok.
We are alive and being alive has a few logically necessary requirements or you might say, prerequisites.
One of these logically necessary prerequisites is "human survival instinct".
One of these logically necessary prerequisites is "human social instinct".
Because "human survival instinct" and "human social instinct" are both indisputable FACTS, they are both "IS" statements.
Our "human survival instinct" and "human social instinct" by their mere indisputable and logically necessary EXISTENCE motivate our sense of what humans "OUGHT" to do.
In other words, "IS" + "IS" = "OUGHT".
We just derived an "OUGHT" from an "IS".
Hume's Guillotine is defeated.
I am perfectly willing to accept Ethica, Ordine Geometrico Demonstrata as perfectly logical and indisputable evidence of some logically necessary GOD.
The first part of the book addresses the relationship between God and the universe. Spinoza was engaging with a Tradition that held: God exists outside of the universe; God created the universe for a reason; and God could have created a different universe according to his will. Spinoza denies each point. According to Spinoza, God is the natural world. Spinoza concludes the following: God is the substance comprising the universe, with God existing in itself, not somehow outside of the universe; and the universe exists as it does from necessity, not because of a divine theological reason or will.
Dear my friend @logiczombie , Your metaphysical point of view and interpretation always gives me difficulty and interest.
It is difficult to understand your emotions and thoughts in my awkward English, but I will tell you my thoughts.
In Spinoza's era, Catholic and Protestant religious wars were taking place in Europe. It was a tragic era of massacre, looting, rape, and arson among the same Christians.
The Pope and Protestants have waged cruel wars, claiming that each other is a true agent and apostle of God.
They argued for a theology that God abandoned the world and left because they became gods and waged a religious war.
The reason they made this claim was to rationalize the wars and atrocities they commit in a world where God has left.
So, they offered to become gods themselves and give humans a ticket to heaven.
Spinoza, watching the Catholic and Protestant religious wars, opposed the action of claiming that the popes, emperors and Protestants were each other's true agents of God.
He opposed the theory that God left after creating the universe, and insisted that God is the universe itself.
He opposed religious war, arguing that God directly created and governed the universe.
He insisted that the act of determining Christian orthodoxy and heresy should be left entirely to the judgment of God.
From my point of view, we seem to be living in an era of religious war.
Well stated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=TLPQMjYwMjIwMjFuI0X5QeVcGw&t=53&v=753cCnAXR6E&feature=youtu.be
All claims require EXPLICIT AXIOMS.
For example,
(IFF) the sun is your chosen "center point" (THEN) the earth revolves around the sun and the milky way galaxy also revolves around the sun.
(IFF) the earth is your chosen "center point" (THEN) the sun revolves around the earth and the milky way galaxy also revolves around the earth.
I think you might be confusing the term "objective" with "dispassionate, unchanging, procrustean, universal".
Even a dispassionate, unchanging, procrustean, universal standard is SUBJECTIVE.
For example,
A computer program that determines your credit score.
Ideally the computer would treat everyone "equally" (but not really equally because then everyone would have the same credit score).
Ideally the computer would apply the same factors the same weight for everyone.
BUT THE PART WE FORGET IS THE HIDDEN AXIOMS OF THE COMPUTER PROGRAMMER.
Just because the program isn't INTENTIONALLY unfair, this immunity to INTENTIONALITY does not mean that the computer program IS ACTUALLY AND OBJECTIVELY FAIR.
Your statement requires EXPLICIT AXIOMS.
Einstein himself insisted, with his famous train metaphor, that ALL MOTION IS RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER.
There is no "neutral" or "objective" vantage point.
Within a few weeks the Israelites were starving, so Moses appealed to God, who promised: "I will rain down bread from Heaven for you", [Exodus 16] and delivered the mysterious, but nutritious, manna which was "white like coriander seed and tasted like a wafer made with honey"
So now approximately 3.1 million children die from undernutrition each year (UNICEF, 2018a). Hunger and undernutrition contribute to more than half of global child deaths, as undernutrition can make children more vulnerable to illness and exacerbate disease. What does God do? Nothing, so God is amoral or as Nietzsche said, God is dead.
19th-century Europeans believed that God gave Europeans the duty and power to conquer the world. So, they invaded the world and conquered colonies.
Nietzsche said that God died because the Europeans lost the love and sacrifice of Jesus. Just as the Jews executed Jesus and chose Barabbas
The Europeans abandoned Jesus and created imperialism as a new god.
The death of God, as Nietzsche said, means that the Europeans abandoned Jesus' love and devotion.
Excellent point.
Loyalty at its unhealthy extreme is corruption and organised crime.
Justice at its unhealthy extreme is brutality and tyranny.
Mercy at its unhealthy extreme is neglect and [CHAOS].
You see I'm not arguing that anything exists that we do not both agree exists. If you would like to say that morality cannot exist sans some god(s) then there just isn't any reason to believe in morality. Just people trying their best to get along with one another for... whatever reason. From there it is up to you to show that there is anything more to appeal to and then to demonstrate SEPARATELY that this something more is something more than some god(s) subjective opinion.
401K IS A SCAM
INSURANCE IS A SCAM
SOLUTION TO AWS PARLER = BLOCKCHAIN
FEELING = OPINION
"I'm hungry" is unfalsifiable and is therefore indistinguishable from OPINION.
DEMOCRACY INACTION
SPACETIME "exists" as more of a canvas and "exists" less like the paint on a canvas.
I AM THE ROSA PARKS OF COPYRIGHT LAW.
YES.
And in support of that claim, COUNTRIES WITH LOWER RATES OF RELIGIOSITY ALSO HAVE LOWER CRIME RATES.
The most religious societies include Nigeria, Uganda, the Philippines, Pakistan, Morocco, Egypt, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, El Salvador, Colombia, Senegal, Malawi, Indonesia, Brazil, Peru, Jordan, Algeria, Ghana, Venezuela, Mexico and Sierra Leone.
It is the highly secularized countries that tend to fare the best in terms of crime rates, prosperity, equality, freedom, democracy, women’s rights, human rights, educational attainment and life expectancy. (Although there are exceptions, such as Vietnam and China, which have famously poor human rights records.)
And those nations with the highest rates of religiosity tend to be the most problem-ridden in terms of high violent crime rates, high infant mortality rates, high poverty rates and high rates of corruption.
Take homicide. According to the United Nations’ 2011 Global Study on Homicide, of the 10 nations with the highest homicide rates, all are very religious, and many — such as Colombia, Mexico, El Salvador and Brazil — are among the most theistic nations in the world. Of the nations with the lowest homicide rates, nearly all are very secular, with seven ranking among the least theistic nations, such as Sweden, Japan, Norway and the Netherlands. **
EPIC CONVO
An INTP doesn't have "friends" in the traditional sense.
They have loose alliances of intermittent mutual critics.
DEITY = OMNISCIENT OMNIPOTENT OMNIPRESENT ETERNAL CREATOR OF ALL
MORAL = BEHAVIOR AND OR INTENTIONS THAT WILL BE REWARDED BY DEITY
IMMORAL = BEHAVIOR AND OR INTENTIONS THAT WILL BE PUNISHED BY DEITY
"EXISTS" = TREATED AS A FACT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS PROPOSAL
"NIHILISM" = ANYONE WHO DOES NOT HAVE UNWAVERING FAITH IN DEITY
(IFF) DEITY "EXISTS" (AND) (IFF) DEITY IS "MORAL" (AND) (IFF) DEITY CERTAINLY PUNISHES IMMORAL AND REWARDS MORAL (THEN) "OBJECTIVE MORALITY" "EXISTS"
(ELSE) "NIHILISM"
THEREFORE, YOU MUST DISCOVER AND OR OTHERWISE DETECT THE ONE TRUE SECRET MORAL CODEX IFF YOU FEAR UNSPECIFIED PUNISHMENT AND OR HOPE FOR UNSPECIFIED REWARD
YOU REALLY MUST WATCH THIS - ULTIMATE AI EXPLAINED IN 6 MINUTES AND 15 SECONDS,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=315&v=XuSeVdKvoHo&feature=youtu.be
"RACE" = PROXY FOR SOCIAL STATUS
LOGIC AND LAW
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=odHr45quPkg
THAT'S A BUG, NOT A FEATURE.