It was, until I refuted it. Same as with the loose way you used the word "help".

<Stairway is splendid, truly splendid. The spatial interpretation is innovative. The use & choice of color is nothing short of brilliant.>

This is part of your response, and it does not hold, as pleasing the senses and intellect is not morally good necessarily.

As far as edifying, that is your assumption and assertion. You simply make this bald assertion, but such an assertion is the same both spoken and unspoken. It has no meaning, no validity, no weight, no agency to act upon reason.

Yes, you said edifying, but you based that on the beauty, the helping and the innovation. In the absence of these as moral goods, what then is left in the essence of this edification?

I understand you don't like to be told you were refuted, but the very factors that underpin your said edification are no longer there, so this undermines your argument.

But that's not all, because you never showed how art really edifies one. The language is vague, and edification is used loosely and I doubt a strict application of this word fits in this context.

<My argument is that people can be, and are, edified by those things, for example, by a spectacular work of art that incorporates those things, and that this edification is good, when it is manifested in the edified person's relationships to others>

Edified only if beauty, help and innovation are moral goods - and I falsified those assumptions that you made.

It's very important to realize that even if I hadn't falsified the idea that beauty, help and innovation aren't necessarily good, you still wouldn't have an argument because you would have a difficult task in showing that the art can cause edification in anyone.

The idea that beauty is a moral good, falsified.

The idea that help is a moral good, falsified.

The idea that innovation is a moral good, falsified.

The idea that edification based on beauty, help and innovation is good is falsified.

The idea that edification can even obtain from art sans beauty, help and innovation is a vacuous assumption.

So whereas before you thought that creation of art was a moral good because it brought beauty, help and innovation to people, you now know that those are not good reasons to think that art is morally good.

This is not going round and round, this is going forward very quickly.

<If you want to argue that I didn't really do a good job of presenting my argument, I will accept that. But as for refuting my argument, no.>

The scientific method cannot help to make certain philosophical assumptions, and the justification of such assumptions is philosophical and not scientific.

As the renown cosmologist George Ellis observes, <“These criteria are philosophical in nature in that they themselves cannot be proven to be correct by any experiment. Rather their choice is based on past experience combined with philosophical reflection” (Ellis, 2007, Section 8.1).> http://www.nus.edu.sg/teachingacade...

<Tga: But when a discussion boils down to the fact that we have to define which definition of "good" we mean, when we write good, well, I don't have a lot of patience for it.>

Most people don't, so you are in good company. But of the people that do, I am in better company.

Philosophy is the love of wisdom. That is the translation. A philosopher is one who loves wisdom and seeks it.

One day, when it dawns on someone that everything in their life is ultimately meaningless, and they search for meaning in life, true meaning, they begin philosophy.

Philosophy centers on what is important, ultimate importance. Philosophy is for those who value truth.

I am often perplexed as to why more people don't spend time in the examined life. The unexamined life is for sleepwalkers. Socrates likened himself to a horsefly that wakes up the sleepwalkers, so that they begin to think philosophically about life, because if they don't then they sleepwalk right through life, and the unexamined life is *not worthy* of a human being. It's more suited to a beast than a human.

I think the real problem with doing philosophy comes down to maybe two things.

The first is that it requires the kind of thinking we do during a game of chess. You know how chess is not for everyone because most people do not find enjoyment in that sort of intense thinking. So philosophy is not for the weak minded, the lazy minded, or the uncaring mind.

Second, and this is quite common, philosophy, if done right, usually ends with many assumptions being torn down. This is the only way progress is made, but this is precisely what people resist in doing philosophy. Yes, we should argue our points as strongly as possible because it does no good to let assumptions be taken down if they are true! So we must fight hard, but most people hold on to their assumption long past the point where they need to take them down.

It's all about pride and foolishness. Pure stupidity. Most people are tightly bound up with foolishness, pride and stupidity, and all three go together. They get frustrated because when it's time to put their assumptions to rest, they stubbornly engage in futile resistance, which yields nothing but frustration. That's how it feels when the ego dies - frustration.

But you should be really good at philosophy because you have a trained scientific mind. You understand the value of the process of falsification. You understand the value of being precise in your language. You value rigor, as a scientist. These are the same things that are applied to philosophy, upon which science sits, perches comfortable upon its assumptions.

At least, for my sanity's sake, I hope there is.>

LOL.

Look, if you didn't lose your sanity wasting a week with <Mark> on the words "heart of gold" then WHAT could possibly cause you to ever lose it!?

It's helpful in doing philosophy if you look at it as team work. The goal is to falsify the propositions, the assumptions. Someone has to make them, and then were are all supposed to falsify them, philosophically, otherwise no progress can be made. I think looking at it this way helps.

Also, to be frank, I think your mindset is a bit foul right now, after spending 50 freaking posts arguing with the site <idiot> about his nonsense, so you probably carry that baggage over with you when you come here to look at philosophy.

I bet if you hadn't been wasting your time with the <idiot>, you would have had a much different disposition and your patience wouldn't even be a part of this.

When I do philosophy with people, I never need to call upon my patience. Sure, if they abandon the philosophy and turn to trolling, then yes, patience is called for. But when doing real philosophy, I never feel the need to call upon my patience. I'm always feeling good and enjoying it, like eating fresh, warm cookies.

<God, Patience>

Indeed. When one asks what is good, the question is easy to answer, at least right away. If God exists and God is good, then goodness is something like God. No "round and round" necessary.

Then the question becomes, what does God want? Or, what is God like?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbq...

Floyd Mayweather says you can call him black if you want, but don't call him an African American. He says he was born here in America, not Africa. He says the white people came from Europe and you don't call them European Americans, you just call them Americans, so call him an American too.

"The Socratic method, also known as maieutics, method of elenchus, elenctic method, or Socratic debate, is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presumptions. It is a dialectical method, often involving a discussion in which the defense of one point of view is questioned; one participant may lead another to contradict themselves in some way, thus weakening the defender's point. This method is named after the Classical Greek philosopher Socrates and is introduced by him in Plato's Theaetetus as midwifery (maieutics) because it is employed to bring out definitions implicit in the interlocutors' beliefs, or to help them further their understanding.

The Socratic method is a method of hypothesis elimination, in that better hypotheses are found by steadily identifying and eliminating those that lead to contradictions. The Socratic method searches for general, commonly held truths that shape beliefs and scrutinizes them to determine their consistency with other beliefs. The basic form is a series of questions formulated as tests of logic and fact intended to help a person or group discover their beliefs about some topic, exploring definitions or logoi (singular logos) and seeking to characterize general characteristics shared by various particular instances."

In this worldview, we can't say that there was anything really wrong with the holocaust, objectively speaking. All we can say is that we think the holocaust was wrong and that is all.>

Some people are natually inclined to know themselves. Such people tend to be those who are naturally introspective, thinking, philosophical, intelligent.

<Do you know yourself?>

Yes. I constantly am noticing how little self-awareness people have so this has always been a part of my thought process. I recall a conversation at work once where a person came up to me and said "You know, people might like you more if you weren't so arrogant." I replied, "Okay." They said, "Well?". I said "Well, what?" One of my close friends was there and said about me, "He doesn't care if you think he's arrogant. He doesn't care if people like him. You aren't hurting his feelings by telling him something he knows." I was like "Well said". I am always surprised by people who have such obvious and transparent faults being surprised when someone else points those faults out.

<How do you get to know yourself?>

Quit watching The Kardashians. Read the opeds and not only the sports page. Read, read, read. On those occasions someone you respect mentions some area of your life in less than glowing terms, pay a whole lot of attention to them.

One specific area of knowing yourself that is woefully lacking in most people today is knowing your place. I often cite the thought of carjacking when I discuss this point. And yes, I do have real world conversations about this stuff. Had one 3 days ago, in fact. Per the carjacking, if someone forcibly takes a car I'm driving, what is going on? Well, I have that car because in some fashion, I've (or possibly someone who bought the car for me) provided something of value to society. Society rewarded me by giving me money, to use as I see fit. I saw fit to buy a car. That car was made by other people providing a service to society and society is rewarding them by giving them money. And then some unthinking animal comes along, and their entire thought process is: "Me want. Me take." It's probably a disservice to the animal kingdom to call them animals, but so be it.

With no consideration for the immediate and long term consequences, and obviously no self-awareness, those animals are tearing the safety net of society. They have no realization that if everyone was like them, there'd be no cars. They have no realization that if one other person is like them, that other person may likewise take the car from them.

A big part of who we are is what we think. We all have lots of ideas about what is true and what is not, concerning the big things and the little things. I think taking a good hard look about those things that become our assumptions is a big part of knowing thyself. I guess this is sort of covered under your word "introspection".

Would one hate to find out that all of the knowledge that one prides himself on is actually false? It would be terrible to be one of those people that think they know everything (okay, not everything) but it turns out they know next to nothing. We all hate to interact with such people and we never think that person is us, because we've had humbling experiences before, but it may be the case that many more are needed!

We could just say, like Socrates, "I know nothing except..." but that would be false modesty, and that's even worse than being an ignorant fool who thinks he knows things.

This is why I like to take a very close, philosophical look at all the little assumptions behind every thought that I hold to be true, or apparent. It helps me to realize that I'm not operating on that much truth after all and that the things we think we know, many of them we don't actually know and can't answer about them when asked or pressed.

It's the ages old Socratic Method.

I think some people would be confused by the question, "do you know yourself", because they think that since they are themselves, it's impossible not to know yourself. Or, they think it's redundant to ask, as if, I'm me, of course I know myself. How could it be possible to *not* know yourself.

I have been gratified by the number of people who, like me, deplore YouTube’s attempt at to be the gate-keeper of ideas. Julian Assange—who knows a thing or two about censorship—called the suppression of my video “a clear attempt at social engineering.”>

https://www.amren.com/commentary/20...

I was a short time out of high school before I realized how much influence a handful of my teachers had on me. All of them Democrats, all of them that sort of ugly anti-rich caricature, and all of them in a position to influence the minds of the next generation.

A hugely defining moment in my political beliefs came in an economics class in college. We had a professor who would take questions from the class in writing, and the next session have a printed sheet with the various questions and his answers. He encouraged us to read the questions and consider our own answer before reading his. Just a tremendous learning tool and I am shocked more teachers/professors don't use it. Maybe it only works in a few fields, eg, economics, political science, and philosophy come to mind. Anyway, I recall a question I asked, and realize that the underlying assumptions in my question came from my high school teachers. I thought I had a bit of a Louis Stumpers for him. Fairly early in the semester, I discovered that like most economists, he was pretty much a free market advocate, so I was hoping to get over on him. The question was very close to this:

"Oil companies routinely invest in other ventures that have nothing to do with energy. Pray tell, Exxon, how does your capital investment in _______ (I forget now what other areas they were in, but no matter) help generate any oil for the world's use?"

His one line response: "That would indicate the marginal profits in oil production aren't as high as they are in ______"

By consistently testing/challenging your ideas, and putting yourself on the line.

My first idols were: Jimi Hendrix, Muhammad Ali, Bobby Fischer. I liked people who challenged conventional wisdom, were unique, and individual. (but you had to be good, not just doing it to do it)

Work: I've found out the most about myself when I've had to do things alone. No scapegoats, no one to hide behind.

Music: Playing an instrument is an individual endeavor. I eventually started building my own guitar effects. This led to me building my own home recording studio. This led to me repairing the effects and equipment of visiting musicians, and reworking their guitars.

Chess: In the days following Fischer/Spassky 72, I played the Dutch Stonewall, the French, and Caro-Kann.
You want to talk about looks!
I can remember folks manipulating league matches so I would play white. (They wanted me to play, but didn't trust the openings I played!) Looking back I probably had 70-80 percent win rates as black.

In the late 70's Ken Thompson came to my club looking for players to play and evaluate Belle, his Bell Labs chess playing computer. I was the only one who responded! I couldn't believe people feared computers.

My screen name comes from actual casino gambling. After never having placed a bet in my life, I told my girlfriend I was going to take on casino gambling and win! Needless to say, if you want to examine the human condition, spend some time in a casino.

My politics: Obviously, liberalism is the gutless, easy choice. I've seen little to convince me it's real. Much to convince me it's a horrific lie.

This all comes down to putting your ideas out there, standing for what you believe in, and making someone prove you are wrong if they disagree.

Still no word from Paul Ryan though.
>

https://www.amren.com/news/2017/08/...

Check out the article. A good read.

I will have the philosophical question of the week at the top, and then, perhaps, a biblical question, or, another philosophical quote. Maybe I will just keep it simple and post only the philosophical question of the week.

“Anti-racism” smells like violence.

AR Podcast

https://www.amren.com/podcasts/2017...

Is there a better and more honest place to check in on what's really going on?

That should elicit a response. However I will abstain since I'm sure the debate will be long and possibly harsh. But maybe not since you are on a lot of people's ignore list so they won't see your thought.

For sake of your thought I would believe when you say liberal you mean extreme left, right? (I have a standup routine with that left-right play on words)

Liberal means liberal, and we all know what a lib is. It doesn't matter if you think it's far left or leaning left - a lib is a lib. A liberal is someone without common sense, a contrarian who profanes the sacred while lifting up the unholy. A liberal is "liberated" from God, especially in that he rejects traditional Christian moral values and has replaced them with so called secular values i.e. pro homosexual, pro feminism, pro abortion, anti-Israel, anti-America, anti-white man and so on. A liberal Christian is an oxymoron. A liberal Christian is a liberal first and a Christian second. A liberal Jew is liberal first and Jewish second. A liberal Muslim is liberal first and Muslim second.

Liberalism is the science of rationalizing ones sinful desires and sinful behavior. In order to make liberalism more acceptable, liberals everywhere have been attacking the foundations of western civilization by attacking Christianity, and in particular, the Christian white man. This means creating a culture where it's suddenly offensive to say "Merry Christmas". That's a liberal. A liberal will hesitate to say Merry Christmas because it might be "offensive".

A liberal is someone who is lead by a feelings-first world view rather than a worldview based on rationality. A liberal is someone who says that America is overpopulated, so we need abortions, but they want to allow millions of illegal immigrants into the country, and by the way, it's not illegal to be illegal - if you're a liberal.

Liberalism is the religion of all those who are anti-Christian, including atheists, agnostics or even other pseudo-religious groups. Liberalism adheres to political correctness, which is the new and improved secular Ten Commandments, as it were, of humanism. Political correctness is the transvaluation of moral values that Nietzsche talked about, after realizing that "God is dead".

Political correctness replaces Christian moral values as the new, improved, modern moral value system based on, well, nothing more than societal trends and values established by liberals.

Since liberals do not believe in God, they worship the earth as their so-called higher power. This leads us to a neo-pagan inspired environmental extremism expressed in ways such as global warming hysteria. This is how the godless liberal becomes magnanimous and tries to transcend selfishness by serving a higher good, sans God.

Liberalism is about self gratification first and foremost. At the top of that list is sex. In order to indulge in as much sex as possible, Christian moral values need to be replaced with liberal, hippy values, promoting sex with anyone at any time. This produces unwanted children. So, in order to continue to worship the Self, liberals must kill the unborn child in the womb, lest the orgy be called to a halt. This is a culture of death, child sacrifice and unmitigated hedonism. A shameless spectacle of satanic self worship.

The person that wants to show that it is *not* better to be a racist than a liberal needs to show:

1. That racism exists
2. That racism is objectively morally inferior to liberalism.

Right away we can exclude atheists from responding to this, as they do not think that moral values exist objectively. They think that moral values are just opinions based on societal conditioning and so forth. Or they think that moral values are really just survival instincts bred into us over time by evolution and that morality is just sort of a herd mentality, but that does not mean in any way that moral values exist objectively.

All the atheist can say is that it is their subjective opinion that racism is worse than liberalism, morally speaking. But we all know that opinions are just opinions. The next guy can say, no you're wrong, liberalism is worse and it's just as valid, on atheism.

This is a very tricky rabbit hole.

If the atheist is to be consistent, he needs to read my statement, "It's better to be a racism than a liberal" and say, "He is not wrong about that".

Now, he might not agree, but there is no way for him to say I am wrong, because that would be to appeal to some moral standard which doesn't exist on atheism.

But there are other people with opinions on my statement that aren't atheists, but their heads have been filled to the brim with secular, humanistic, liberal nonsense, and they now would instinctually be repelled by my statement - but for no good reason!

My polemic here is designed to challenge and undermine culturally based axiomatic assertions of right and wrong. To do this, I will follow up with lots of simple "why" question after each statement my interlocutor makes.

Racism is an invented word and concept. It's been foisted upon our culture in order to affect yet another aspect of cultural creation. These words are introduced in order to manipulate the masses and it's done by intellectual liberals. A close look at the concept of racism shows that it is an unnecessary word, an invented concept, an invented problem and, as such, there is no solution to this invented concept.

If you say that racism is an invented word and concept you are allowing that racism does indeed exist albeit as an "invented" concept.>

It's a concept that people appeal to but it does not reflect something that exists. For instance, the number three does not exist but it is a concept we appeal to in mathematics. Abstract objects do not exist, like, say, a point on a line as it has no dimension or temporal becoming. Abstract objects do not exist.

A concept is an abstract object, like a set for instance. Racism is such a concept, an abstract object, and it does not exist.

This concept also does not reflect anything in reality. There is nothing in reality that exists that can be conceptualized as racism.

Liberalism is also a concept, and abstract object, but there are people that manifest this concept with lifestyle choices and actions, and they are liberals. Their policies and actions cannot be explained in some other way other than liberalism. With "racists", their "racist" actions can be explained in other ways making "racism" a victim to Occam's razor.

So this first hurdle is one of conceptual necessity for the word racism.

The next hurdle would come if it could be shown that racism does exist.

Let's suppose just for a minute that racism exists as a real thing. Just for the sake of argument. If racism really did exist, it would still be better to be a racist than a liberal for the reasons I gave above when I described liberalism.