Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Angelo Cannata]

Can you clarify what you mean by : "clarify", please?

I know this for a fact that my definition of "clarify"
is very much different than your definition. Trust me.

I adopt common definitions given by dictionaries, such as Oxford Dictionary: "to make something clearer or easier to understand". I agree with this definition. If you need further definitions of the words used in this definition, you can look up in dictionaries, I just agree with them.

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

I have also been searching for a Religion of Coexistence for a long time,
and I finally found it here, on our philosophy discussion forum :

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=19194

Can you clarify what you are specifically referring to? Do you mean that this forum itself works to you as a religion of coexistence? Or are you referring to Buddhism? Or what else?

Can you clarify what you mean by : "clarify", please?

I know this for a fact that my definition of "clarify"
is very much different than your definition. Trust me.

I adopt common definitions given by dictionaries, such as Oxford Dictionary: "to make something clearer or easier to understand". I agree with this definition. If you need further definitions of the words used in this definition, you can look up in dictionaries, I just agree with them.

The problem I see with: to make something clearer is that it may never end.

And, you want me to make it easier to understand" for you ??
if you have problems with understanding what I wrote above, you can look it up in Oxford Dictionary.

[Angelo Cannata]

if you have problems with understanding what I wrote above, you can look it up in Oxford Dictionary.

My question was clear, as it is clear that the answer was up to you, and it is clear that no dictionary can answer the question “Can you clarify what you are specifically referring to?”; it is also clear that you cannot hide your rejection of my question behind sophisms like asking to clarify what “clarify” means. More clear things: philosophy cannot hide the naked emperor, because, before being any kind of reasoning and sophisms, philosophy is humanity. You cannot hide your humanity behind philosophy: it is just impossible, because you are talking to humans.

[Lagayascienza]

if you have problems with understanding what I wrote above, you can look it up in Oxford Dictionary.

My question was clear, as it is clear that the answer was up to you, and it is clear that no dictionary can answer the question “Can you clarify what you are specifically referring to?”; it is also clear that you cannot hide your rejection of my question behind sophisms like asking to clarify what “clarify” means. More clear things: philosophy cannot hide the naked emperor, because, before being any kind of reasoning and sophisms, philosophy is humanity. You cannot hide your humanity behind philosophy: it is just impossible, because you are talking to humans.

Well said. We can ask for all the clarification we want but at the end of the day there is only human "feelings", the phenomenon of human "valuing" that underpins the whole show.

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

if you have problems with understanding what I wrote above, you can look it up in Oxford Dictionary.

My question was clear, as it is clear that the answer was up to you, and it is clear that no dictionary can answer the question “Can you clarify what you are specifically referring to?”; it is also clear that you cannot hide your rejection of my question behind sophisms like asking to clarify what “clarify” means. More clear things: philosophy cannot hide the naked emperor, because, before being any kind of reasoning and sophisms, philosophy is humanity. You cannot hide your humanity behind philosophy: it is just impossible, because you are talking to humans.

Well said.

We can ask for all the clarifications we want but at the end of the day
there are only human "feelings", the phenomenon of human "valuing"
that underpins the whole show.

Well said, Gay Science.

And my main point is that Angelo Cannata did hurt my feelings by asking me his stupid and dumb questions. This is how I subjectively value it !!!

You can ask me for all the clarifications you want,
but I am under no obligation here to do your basic homework for you, pal.

[Pattern-chaser]

The problem I see with: to make something clearer is that it may never end.

And that is a problem because...?

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

The problem I see with: to make something clearer is that it may never end.

And that is a problem because...?

Have you ever seen a 5-year old boy replying to his mom's every
explanatory statement by asking her this very important
philosophical question : WHY ?!

Because I have seen such a boy once, during a long bus ride,
and the boy went on like that for literally more than 20 minutes,
before he got tired and hungry.

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

The problem I see with: to make something clearer is that it may never end.

And that is a problem because...?

Have you ever seen a 5-year old boy replying to his mom's every
explanatory statement by asking her this very important
philosophical question : WHY ?!

Because I have seen such a boy once, during a long bus ride,
and the boy went on like that for literally more than 20 minutes,
before he got tired and hungry.

There is no other unconditional end to the otherwise inherently endless chain of philosophical explanations than to honestly say : I don't know.

[Pattern-chaser]

The problem I see with: to make something clearer is that it may never end.

And that is a problem because...?

Have you ever seen a 5-year old boy replying to his mom's every
explanatory statement by asking her this very important
philosophical question : WHY ?!

Because I have seen such a boy once, during a long bus ride,
and the boy went on like that for literally more than 20 minutes,
before he got tired and hungry.

And so the moral of your story is...?

It seems to describe a young philosopher, seeking knowledge or understanding of Life, the Universe, and Everything. Admirable, I would think? I still cannot see any evidence of the "problem" you mention.

[Pattern-chaser]

There is no other unconditional end to the otherwise inherently endless chain of philosophical explanations than to honestly say : I don't know.

The joy of philosophy, IMO, is the infinite length of that chain. We *never* run out of questions, no matter how much we learn.

[Philosophy_of_Guitar]

Two days after my mother’s funeral, I read of the continuing violence in the world and felt the deep sorrow that I felt at my mother’s passing. The sadness is related because, for me, humanity is family, and we are all related. Whether we are close or near, we are siblings, and the pain of one or many should affect us all. The most important science in the world should be that of coexistence.

But there isn't a specific scientific discipline called the "science of coexistence," the concept is explored through various fields such as sociology, anthropology, psychology, political science, and ecology, as well as through understanding how individuals and communities coexist involves examining social interactions, cultural dynamics, psychological factors, and environmental influences.

In ecology, coexistence theory refers to studying the mechanisms that allow different species to coexist in the same environment. Concepts such as symbiosis, competition and mutualism provide insights into the mechanisms that enable different organisms to live together in balance. This involves studying factors such as resource partitioning, niche differentiation and competition to understand how different species can share the same ecological space without one species excluding others. Anthropologists study the diversity of human cultures and societies. They explore how different communities have historically coexisted, the development of cultural norms that support cooperation, and the impact of cultural differences on interactions.

A similar theory of coexistence in sociology or political science might refer to ideas or frameworks that explore how individuals or diverse groups can live together peacefully. This might involve the study of concepts such as multiculturalism, tolerance and the role of institutions in promoting social harmony. Sociologists study the patterns of social relations and interactions within societies. This includes examining how different groups live together, the structures that facilitate or hinder this, and the impact of social norms on cooperation.

Psychologists study the behaviour of individuals and groups, including the factors that promote or inhibit cooperation. Understanding the psychological mechanisms behind empathy, trust, and conflict resolution is crucial to studying coexistence. Political scientists analyse the structures and processes of governance that facilitate coexistence at local, national and international levels. This includes the study of diplomacy, conflict resolution and the role of institutions in promoting peaceful coexistence. A similar coexistence theory might relate to strategies or principles that promote peaceful interaction between nations in international relations. This could include diplomatic approaches, conflict resolution techniques and global cooperation models.

Is there a spiritual tradition that fundamentally promotes coexistence, or are they all in competition with each other?

We may disagree on what God is or whether it's possible to know whether or not God exists... But we surely share the same moral intuitions. Gimme a bit of time to fully to reply to this.

[Philosophy_of_Guitar]

There is no other unconditional end to the otherwise inherently endless chain of philosophical explanations than to honestly say : I don't know.

The joy of philosophy, IMO, is the infinite length of that chain. We *never* run out of questions, no matter how much we learn.

Exactly... Amen!

[Philosophy_of_Guitar]

The joy of philosophy, IMO, is the infinite length of that chain. We *never* run out of questions, no matter how much we learn.

I meant "Amen" (This emoji lol)

[Philosophy_of_Guitar]

Check out the story of the dude in blue about a FIVE YEAR OLD BOY...

This, my friends, is a psychopath. Observe. Avoid. Banish psychopaths from society so they don't touch your child (or your girlfriend!).

[Pattern-chaser]

There is no other unconditional end to the otherwise inherently endless chain of philosophical explanations than to honestly say : I don't know.

The joy of philosophy, IMO, is the infinite length of that chain. We *never* run out of questions, no matter how much we learn.

I don't have infinite time to carefully sift through [that "chain"]. [Further expletives deleted.]

Of course you don't. There are an infinite number of questions, so all we can do is to choose the ones that we find the most interesting, and hope our intuition guides us well...