The Philosopher's Gazebo

[Strider]

I didn't see your post, but it's fine. I didn't have anything pressing to say.

About this new prompt: HughJ, you mention a lot about what desire can lead to, but what do you think about desire being the only source of suffering?

Also, because desire makes up such a large portion of our mindset, would someone lose their humanity if the abandoned such an integral aspect of themselves?

[Ironbound]

In response to both of your points...

My own interpretation of the Buddha's words would be to translate the Prakrit root "కామ" (Kāma) not as desire but rather as craving. The words, though can be used as synonyms in a language like English, are fundamentally different.

Desire and ambition are one thing and craving or lust are another. The former is indeed a motivator, the prime and principal motivator of all human actions, for without desire there is indeed no motivation for life (read my earlier point aboit nihilism.) However, cravings tend to be based on urges, and revolve around material planes: the craving for wealth, property, respect, popularity, pleasurable company, power, so on and so forth. It is such cravings that wrought the near-ruin of Dharmic philosophy and brought about the casteism and racism that is prevalent even today in India and in the world. The Buddha realised this, being not merely a sage as people remember, but also a shrewd statesman (it is worth recalling that Gautama was born Siddhartha, a prince of Lumbini and destined to be King himself) who understood the power of unity among people through peace and wisdom, not through war and combative strength. Buddha, in his own fold, ensured the continuance of Dharmic philosophy (minus the frills, but we've already discussed that in my earlier topic about Hindu revivalism.)

One even could say, that the Buddha himself exhibited motivation via desire: his desire to bring about societal transformation, his desire to preach and teach, his desire to do good. It is not logical, therefore, to say that he would disclaim desire and say it was an evil to be discarded by those who seek emancipation. Desire, indeed, should be motivated by a greater and altruistic cause, as opposed to craving, which is always selfish and seeks to enrich the personal at the expense of the social.

Finally, what of instinctual desires? Basal necessities such as consumption (of food and drink), sleep, or sexual reproduction? The only argument I can imagine for this is that someone on the path to enlightenment and the transcendence of sorrow would simply have to engage in this activities without desiring them.

I think I've answered the first part of your query. And yes, the idea of Brahmanic or Buddhistic life precludes material pleasure. That ia not to say, that one must not enjoy good food or pleasurable company, but that is a question of personal morals. A man may be an abject glutton or a womaniser, and yet may be a devout spiritualist and may do great good to society (many kings are of this nature; by the circumstances of their life and nature of existence, a king is used to great food and a harem, but that alone does not make him necessarily materialistic at the expense of greater good); as you say, the true spiritualist is motivated by more that just that. Eat to live, not live to eat, in a nutshell...even if you do eat gourmet meals and live like a billionaire playboy, it's a question of whether that's incidental to your larger motivation or of those things are all you live for.

Personally, I believe in the old maxim of my family, "Moderation in everything, including in moderation." Life, as the Buddha also agrees, is motivated by desire and rewarded by happiness. We live in order to be happy, and while ideally the best happiness is from fulfilling one's Dharmic duty, it is not to say that happiness derived from a good meal is sinful! The rule of being moderate in one's pleasures only supports this further.

As Chanakya says in the Arthashastra (lit: Treatise of Economic Polity), the greatest socioeconomic political work ever written (beats Machiavelli's The Prince by a long shot, and predates it by several centuries. I strongly advise all people with a desire to lead, or at least a hunger for statecraft knowledge, to read that)... anyway, as Chanakya says:

"A person who consumes moderate meals, has control over his mind, performs his social and personal duties as per his Dharma, and who involves with his wife for offspring (not mere pleasure) is a true Brahman."

Didactic and fairly blunt though it is, the idea of sexual intercourse for a spiritualist is therefore a chaste ritual to be performed solely with one's partner, and solely for begetting offspring. Likewise, eating is merely a necessity for living, no matter what and how you eat, as the case may be depending on your position in life. What Chanakya tries to say is that the Spiritual philosopher treats pleasure as incidental and principal to his motivations. Personally, I'm straitlaced about sex, and I agree with the fact that if it is performed for any other reason or with any other person, one is being materialistic and no longer spiritualistic. That does not imply immorality, however; all that is mundane is not unethical or illegal. Especially in today's world of increasingly lax codes of conduct, for better or worse. Neither does iy imply that any person can really be 100% spiritual without a certain aspect of mundanity being part of the parcel, and without such mundanity being immaterial when compared on a social angle to the spiritual actions performed by such person (see my earlier observation about kings.) It's loosely comparable to a balance sheet: if spirituality constitutes credits, mundanity constitutes debits, and they must tally with each other in every balanced individual. But there can never be no debits, because humans by nature cannot be God (see my earlier point on Dvaita philosophy) and therefore cannot by definition be fully and purely spiritual, unless their souls obtain salvation, in which case they are no longer any defibable entity, let alone human.

So yes, in a nutshell, Desire is essential to identify one's human-ness, and identify it as something beyond mere material cravings, which any beast is subject to. Desire is not the cause of suffering, not unless, as Hugh says, one does not have control over one's desires, and falls prey either to anxiety, lust, idle fantasy or any of the other myriad pitfalls that are no more a pure desire but rather a craving yet again.

I'll await your responses to this before I try more prompts. Of course, if you'd like to promote something else, feel free.

[Strider]

I don't really have that much to say. I think that we're probably pretty much in agreement about this topic. You harken back to some of your previous prompts (ramblings ), and I haven't had time to read them all, so I'll just have to take your word for it for the time being.

[Ironbound]

Haha, of course. Sorry for being long-winded; it tends to happen when I get carried away with these things, or when I'm elaborating something with a lot of referencing, like this post.

How about we have some other prompt, then? Up to you all.

[Strider]

Ok...How about some political philosophy? In Locke's Second Treatise of Government, he begins by talking about the initial state of nature in which humans exist. He even goes to say that in this state of perfect freedom, a sort of death penalty is justified.

"This make it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away everything else."

The arguments for a sort of death penalty are slightly different in the state of anarchy/perfect freedom. I don't really have an explicit question about this, but let me know what you think.

 

Alright, this isn't getting anywhere. If anyone has a new suggestion, I'm fine with moving on.

Edited December 16, 2016 by Strider

[Gheist]

On 11/7/2016 at 10:34 AM, Ice Cream Sand Witch said:

People get sent here for specific purposes like helping others, and when we "die" here we go back.

 

Christ. . .

I actually read that whole thing. Let me just ask what i the purpose of Earth again in your scenario? Why would you care about helping anyone on Earth if it's all virtual? Shouldn't we all just kill ourselves and go to Cerri ASAP?

The laws of physics clearly don't apply up there either so what laws do apply and where did people/life come from.

 

Now for the more serious questions.

Do you actually believe this? If yes, how did you determine any of this to be true and what method can we use to independently confirm what you're saying?

And the more philosophical question.

Why would anybody want an afterlife that you are forced to live in forever with no hope of ever dying? I certainly don't feel like dying just yet but can you imagine hundreds, thousands, millions, billions, trillions of years have past and you are still alive, no closer to dying than you were at the start. Infinity is a long time. Anyone would get bored eventually and probably wish to die.

I guess your coma thing works as some kind of break from living and I have considered things such as erasing oneself from existence for a while (simulating death) and coming back eventually.

The ONLY way I would accept any kind of eternal life is one where I have to option to die whenever I choose to. I understand the fear of death is what drives these religions to promise eternal life but the second you start to think about it, the idea becomes abhorrent.

 

Anyway, this thread looks interesting. I might post a scenario of my own about what an all powerful, all knowing God would do (or at least what I think he would do having all that knowledge). It involves relinquishing his knowledge and power so he can experience all sorts of emotions (including negative ones like pain and simple boredom) in preset worlds. So no knowledge of being God. No powers either depending on the world.

Obviously he would do this since otherwise he'd just sit alone in the void with nothing to do, learn or experience for all eternity. Only other option would be erasing himself from existence as mentioned earlier.

An infinite amount of worlds to explore and he could even do the same one over and over since he'd have no memories each time he started it.

[Ironbound]

A reminder to all that while this thread is certainly open to discussion, I would want to preempt any debate that would spiral into an argument...especially on as volatile a topic as personal religious or theistic beliefs. I would request participants to employ a moderate tone in their expressions or opinions, and to mellow their mindsets to be receptive and tolerant of ideas which one may not at first glance comprehend or agree with. There's a lot of difference between an enquiry and an inquisition, as stated in The Rules on page 1. 

 

I would also now respond directly to @Gheist: There is usually no "method to independently verify" what is defined as a belief...And yes, people do generally think what they believe in is 'actually true' according to them, in a broad sense. I could ask you the same questions with regards to your own scenario of an omnipotent God-figure's psyche and what you theorise to be his/her/its behaviour, as they too may seem as incredulous to me as some other might to you. The very nature of such colossal theories is assumptive, and therefore modeled upon our own capacity and nature of thought and our own (very limited) understanding of our world(s) as we know them. I suggest you look through some of my own past posts, as well as those of others, in this thread to view different takes on philosophy about the concept of divinity. It is always better, as a rule, to peruse all the existing opinions before stating one's own in a related or continued topic.

 

That said, there are certainly some points that you have raised that would be interesting to discuss. The nature of everlasting life, and its objective desirability, for one, is worth talking about.

 

@Strider I am sorry for not being able to take that topic forward; in fact, I have not been able to devote as much time to this thread as I would have wished myself. The justifiability and necessity of death as a penalty for crime, and the nature of who can commit and condone such execution, is another topic that I would still like to continue.

 

I look forward to a healthy exchange of ideas. After these topics have been given a fair share of activity, I have a further one planned that I am sure will generate some interest.

[Tartar]

@Viridescent 2.0 Viridescent, for as much as I love your posts for how well researched, written and interesting they are, it is their excellence that is this thread's downfall. When one such as you makes many thoughts about a subject in their mind, and then proceeds to explore said topic to such depths as you do, it can't help but discourage people, due to setting the bar of entry into the topic so high, since anything anyone else writes would pale in comparison. 

Naturally, it may be weird to criticise the excellence of your posts, but I truly think that is the reason behind the lack of activity on this post.

 

This all harkens back to the fact that people, in general, don't read, nor study philosophy in depth, but merely know pop-philosophy, ie. summarizations of the thoughts made by famous philosophers, and even that is made from a western-centric point of view. People could easily describe the various thoughts made by people such as of Nietzsche, Camus, Satre and perhaps a few others, through some of their quotes and thoughts that permeate our culture. But due to not actually having studied them, we wouldn't be able to discuss their views, nor how they've made them. I along with most others on this forums merely have periphery knowledge of the great works of philosophy, and have hardly read much of them, so this goes back to my main point: Few on here have a good enough understanding of philosophy to be able to properly discuss it at the level you do.  (Perhaps this could be a topic of discussion,  Why philosophy is not acknowledged as a topic worth of study by the general public). 

 

So I have to ask you Viridescent, what type of response do you want from us? To agree with you? Perhaps to ask you questions so that you can answer them? Or is it to actually take a stance on a topic and try to argue against you? 

Because at this point, this topic has devolved into your personal blog of sorts, which I'm perfectly fine with since your entries are great. But perhaps you wanted something else from the topic?

 

 

Edited December 25, 2016 by Tartar

[Ironbound]

The first page will tell you that this isn't yet another exclusive clique, that any and all are welcome, and that the sole point of this thread is to quite simply talk about anything and everything that isn't better suited elsewhere in this forum.

 

There is no bar, real or imagined, except what you as an individual may limit yourself by. I don't expect any particular 'resposnse' from people, because this thread is not centred around me. This is NOT an AMA, and is not intended to be associated with me anymore than it is to be with another. This thread is almost like a subforum of its own where any topic by any person may be initiated or continued, for any purpose. It's open, anarchistic, and as free as you would like it to be; I act only as another participant. 

I am saddened by your perception of this place, if you believe that I have created it only to want others to agree with monologues from my side, or to have it behave like a glorified AMA. It is also both blinkered and incorrect to suppose that this is a debate hall, where we argue for the sake of argument to take stances. In fact, I must refute every one of your interpretations of this place as being mine, and must disclaim such suppositions. I had thought that the mission statement on the first page would make it very plain that this was merely a place for people to talk, casually or seriously, on equal footing, about any topic, and exchange ideas and knowledge. That, is the primary objective of any philosophy: to learn and to teach, and to exchange knowledge for its own sake. Now, if that involves you to discuss with me or anyone else, or argue, or agree, that is a different matter. But the purpose of this thread is not to interact with me alone.

 

Again, I must break down the perception that philosophy is elitist, or exclusive. In fact, I must break down the way you seem to define the term: philosophy is not what the thoughts of a so-called learned few are, philosophy is not only the sayings of Nietzsche or Buddha. Philosophy is very simply just people who like to think, and think about anything. If you and I start dreaming about the ideal features of a shoelace, that too can be philosophy. In short, anything that captures your fancy and evokes thought, is a topic that can certainly be discussed here, by anybody, and no great scholarly or factual details are required. 

 

 

I have not ever considered that I or my conduct would intimidate participants, and judging from the good, engaging, productive and above all, fun, response that this thread has so far garnered, I do not believe that any of the participants, including you, @Tartar would have cause to think so. If the idea is to evoke thought, and a participant feels the lack of information, then he is encouraged to ask, speak up, or read up, or interact in any way they please. This is no seminar hall; it's an open forum for asking as well as answering.

 

What I expect, of this place, as a participant and as initiator, is simply for people to talk and think. That, I think, has been happening at its own modest pace, and I am glad for it, just as I am sure others also are. In fact, I do not say that this place has not seen activity; it has seen quite a lot of it, at its own pace, and I hope it will continue to do so for as long as someone is willing to talk.

[Gheist]

8 hours ago, Viridescent 2.0 said:

would want to preempt any debate that would spiral into an argument...especially on as volatile a topic as personal religious or theistic beliefs. I would request participants to employ a moderate tone in their expressions or opinions, and to mellow their mindsets to be receptive and tolerant of ideas which one may not at first glance comprehend or agree with. There's a lot of difference between an enquiry and an inquisition, as stated in The Rules on page 1. 

 

I would also now respond directly to @Gheist: There is usually no "method to independently verify" what is defined as a belief...And yes, people do generally think what they believe in is 'actually true' according to them, in a broad sense. I could ask you the same questions with regards to your own scenario of an omnipotent God-figure's psyche and what you theorise to be his/her/its behaviour, as they too may seem as incredulous to me as some other might to you. The very nature of such colossal theories is assumptive, and therefore modeled upon our own capacity and nature of thought and our own (very limited) understanding of our world(s) as we know them.

 

First of all, I don't even know what you consider an argument. Is the problem just my tone or am I not allowed to question people on here at all? Is this a safe space?

 

As for the actual topic, for any belief we hold, there has to be some reason why we hold it. Even in philosophy there should be some reason why we concuted those specific beliefs and not different ones.

I think asking somebody why they believe something is the first step to a discussion. "Why do you believe this and why should anyone else believe it?"

 

On this specific case, I wasn't completely sure whether this was role playing, theory crafting or actual beliefs. That is why I asked. My little scenario was just an idea that should be discussed and expanded upon.

I certainly do not believe that this is actually true, not do I expect anyone else to believe it either. I am a Darwinist and an atheist. I believe in no Gods and in scientific naturalism.

 

But by all means, tell me why an omnipotent god wouldn't want to erase his memories and power to avoid going insane from boredom. There would be nothing left to learn or experience so I came up with a possible solution.

If you have a better one or a reason why mine is bad I'd love to hear it. I didn't post it (although to be fair that was not the whole idea, it was meant to be a teaser or something) because I wanted people NOT to give their honest opinion and expand the topic.

Oh and my scenario is not a theory, it is a hypothesis at best. So is the one I replied to and I imagine everything else on here as well.

I might go back and read some of your posts or make my actual post eventually but probably not soon as I am very busy with my studies at the moment.

[Ironbound]

I had definitely been referring to your tone. You are certainly free to question; it's very definitely a 'safe place', in your own words, and indeed to ask one of one's bases is the first step to a discussion. 

 

1 hour ago, Gheist said:

Oh and my scenario is not a theory, it is a hypothesis at best. So is the one I replied to and I imagine everything else on here as well.

 

 It is narrow to presume that everything posted here is akin to as detached a hypothesis as your own. What I had previously posted on the subject, for instance, is my actual spiritual and theistic belief. There is no haste to respond; we all have other commitments to attend to...Which is one reason why this thread has a slower pace than others in this forum. But I believe it wiser to discuss a topic when one is possessed of the facts of all relevant previous discussion about said subject. Reading through my past posts, for instance, will tell you what I believe regarding the concept of divinity and my reasons and philosophical bases for such beliefs, and will also convey my opinion about your hypothesis.

 

1 hour ago, Gheist said:

But by all means, tell me why an omnipotent god wouldn't want to erase his memories and power to avoid going insane from boredom. 

 

Reading previous posts should hopefully also allow you to understand what my view on that would be. The human mentality tends to base its definitions upon what it already finds familiar or relatable, rather than to truly and scientifically investigate beyond the realm of so-called common sense. The definition of God and divinity is also one such thing. Religion may be unscientific, but Spirituality, and by extension philosophy, cannot be so.

[Gheist]

4 minutes ago, Viridescent 2.0 said:

it's very definitely a 'safe place',

 

I said "Safe space".

You clearly haven't been following current events in the US very closely. Maybe Google the term. Although it seems funny at first, it's really quite frightening that this is happening to our society.

8 minutes ago, Viridescent 2.0 said:

 It is narrow to presume that everything posted here is akin to as detached a hypothesis as your own

 

I never said anything of the sort. I said they are most likely hypotheses at best. Mine is a hypothesis at best too. I never made any claims comparing the two nor did I assert any kind of likelyhood on their validity.

Creationism for example is also a hypothesis at best. (I say at best, because a hypothesis usually assumes some experiments could potentially be done to confirm or disprove it.) Abiogenesis is also a hypothesis.

Obviously these two are worlds apart in terms of how likely they are to be correct.

It could very well be the same for whatever you proposed. That would still not stop it from being a hypothesis unless it's already become an established scientific theory.

19 minutes ago, Viridescent 2.0 said:

and that is not necessary for scientific naturalism and spirituality to be mutually exclusive. 

 

It depends on how you define "Spirituality" I guess. Scientific naturalism assumes everything is subject to scientific inquiry. So that would have to apply to whatever "spiritual" thing you are claiming exists. Certainly if you could confirm it's existence then it would just become a part of nature. I have no doubt that future scientific technology will seem like magic to us, so in that sense the supernatural could exist but it would simply become part of nature when we find it.

So yea I'll go look at your posts eventually and I hope you clearly define "spirituality" in it at the beginning. It is a very vague word that has different meanings to different people.

[Ironbound]

I am not a US Citizen, so yes, there's that. I was not aware of the specific meaning of the phrase, 'safe space'. Yes, this is definitely a safe space.

 

We'll carry that topic on once you've read what my previous posts are, and once you are more aware of where I'm coming from; that way I will avoid having to repeat most of the content. Any others can be carried forward by anyone who feels inclined to do so. 

[Eviora]

According to the definition of "safe space" that Google gave me, I am forced to conclude that there are no "safe spaces" that apply to everyone. That definition demanded that participants have the luxury of "full expression" yet that they must not be made to "feel uncomfortable." But my full expression of my beliefs regarding religion are prone to make some religious people feel uncomfortable. Therefore, one of the two - my expression or their comfort - must be surrendered.

 

Anyway, I would describe myself as a weak atheist. That means that, while I don't necessarily believe gods don't exist, there are no gods who I do believe in. This position reflects my earnest thoughts on the matter and conveniently allows me to be lazy - when you aren't making a claim, you incur no burden of proof.

Edited December 25, 2016 by Eviora

[Ironbound]

In the interests of everyone, and since I notice that there's a resurgence of interest in philosophical topics of discussion (both in the Onyx Arcade and as individual threads elsewhere) I have decided to shake some dust off this place and bring it back to the front page of discussion, in our own quiet fashion. I believe it is better for such interesting conversations to be held here rather than piecemeal across different subfora, being a centralisation of good conversation that is easy for everyone to be aware of and follow up on.

 

Newer participants can gain the gist of this place from The Rules on page1, but in short, any and all kind of discussion is welcome here, personal or not, which you feel invokes and invites thought. Multiple topics can be discussed in parallel, so long as we quote or refer to which tangent we are on. As long as conversation remains civil and respectful of inevitable disagreement, it's laissez-faire.

 

I hope to see renewed enthusiasm and participation from everyone, though my own contributions may be limited in the immediate future, owing to my other obligations.

 

 

[Makkilemore]

Well I figure I might as well start something off with a topic I've been thinking about since a conversation I had earlier today. We all have our own interpretations of morals and what is or isn't ethical ("good" or "evil"), but I've been questioning how we apply them to people within the context of actions and intentions.

For example, I might hold off on calling someone "evil" if they do things I personally find unethical in a vacuum but with justifiable reasons. Inversely, someone with "evil" intentions that does not act upon them is still seen as an immoral person in my perspective. Lastly, there's the question of whether or not the root causes behind someone's intentions can justify otherwise "evil" motivations in non-obvious situations, such as someone potentially having the intention to hurt someone based on a passive act unintentionally done by the recipient that lowered the subject's quality of life in a way less significant than the intended pain would, and how physical versus emotional versus status-related versus whatever pain can be quantified against eachother.

Just some stuff I've been thinking about to get this place running again, maybe.

[Ironbound]

I remember having a conversation with a friend earlier about whether or not it is justifiable for people to imagine the existence of a higher moral code or power to determine the morality of their fellow men's actions. I believe that it's not only justifiable but natural.

 

The gist of the conversation was that there's no such thing as true objectivity, and that the best the human mind can come to is 'collective subjectivity'. We attribute a hypothetical sense of objectivity to an external code by which we can compare our own various subjective ideas or actions and harmonize them into a standard, by which we judge any deviation as proper or improper. Morality is the same concept, a socio-psychological one, which is relative to the society that creates such a code.

 

The interesting part of that conversation was about whether or not there were any common, objective, underlying laws that govern the subtle workings of the universe, and whether or not we can at some point understand them. It converted into a discussion about whether there is a state of objectivity in anything or not. I'm of the view, as stated, that the best we can do is a collective subjectivity, and that there cannot be any singular objectivity that is common to all aspects of the universe (and even if such a thing exists, it is only as a hypothecation of our minds, a mode by which we centralise and harmonize our thoughts, and not an actual thing. A 'true objectivity', call it what you will is something we imagine to make sense of the world.) Therefore, I say, it's impossible to make any generalisation about the universe, or discover any underlying common laws, because there's no such thing in an infinite universe.

 

It might seem contrary to claim that in an infinite universe there is no.l objectivity, when the fact that the universe is infinite should indicate that there is such a thing. For example, we could argue that the indication of an existence and lack of existence, a binary code, would be an objectivity: "there is either heat, or there is lack of heat, either a 1 or a 0, either a yes or a no". But in my view, that thought is just that: a thought, a modest by which we base our other thoughts, an assumption that we make. There is no "yes or no" that is common to the universe, there may be many "may bes" that are quote beyond our conception to decipher, since by definition we must objectivise a concept to understand it by. The concept of duality, of "yes or no", to put it simply, is also a concept, a mode of our thought. We can't say definitely that "there IS such a thing as duality or difference, there IS a 1 and a 0", we can only assume such a concept, since it is the building block of our structured thought, and as a consequence a building block of societal interaction. 

 

The concept of objectivity is therefore a figment of our imagination. It's like understanding the nature of nothing: nothing is nothing but something which we think is not anything else, and yet, by saying so, we're saying that 'nothing' is also a thing, because it is the absence of anything else. Zero is also a number, an empty set is also a set, and our ideas of objectivity is also collective subjectivity.

 

A bit mind-warpy if you think about it, because we're trying to analyse the laws by which we analyse things, and it leads us to the conclusion that all such laws are only modes of our thought: they're OUR understanding of reality, not reality 'itself'; there's no such thing as 'reality tself', because that implies an objective 'truer' or 'higher' nature of reality, something that we imagine to exist, but which we also imagine to be beyond our imagination, all to facilitate making comparisons with, but which we ultimately cannot theorise upon by nature.

 

And this, by the way, is the concept of Maya (not the mesoamerican tribe). 'Maya' (māyā) in Sanksrit and other Indic languages means 'illusion' or 'that which is not real'. In Indic philosophy, the concept of Maya is just what I have attempted to explain: that what we perceive as objective reality is in fact only collective subjectivity, and that there is no such thing as a 'higher' or objective' reality, save as a mode of thought by which life functions. To put it a bit dramatically, 'life is an illusion'. And so it is, and so is everything else that we think by: our concepts of life, death, time, love, and anything else you care to name, even our concept of ourselves and our thoughts, it's all just that: a concept by which we think and nothing more. 

 

Realising this is of profound importance in Indic philosophy, because it stresses the understanding that duality and difference is a purely psychological concept, and that the one conclusion we can draw from this introspection is that everything that we think to be "right and wrong", "this and that", "yes and no", are only of our own imagination. It's a humbling thought, and I believe that humanity would have far fewer feuds and conflicts if they realised, in the light of this understanding, how petty all differences are, and how fundamental our thought processes can be.

[Makkilemore]

There are some objectives though, which we can deal with in nature. While moral objectivity is a lot harder to reach, natural objectivity is sometimes undeniable; there is no argument to be made that pure water doesn't boil at 100 degrees celsius at 1 atmosphere, and similarly other undeniable constants in nature exist.

This extends to more important things; if people don't eat they will die, only so much food can grow on so much land, et cetera. Some of these can be tied to more emotional statements; if someone is causing me to starve I will not like them, nor will most people (a collective subjectivity as you call it) thus indicating that a leader who lets their people starve is unlikely to be a very well loved leader. Much conflict circulates around resources, and an inertia that makes people reluctant to give resources without reason usually ends up motivating one side to attempt forceful seizure.

If we're on the note of conflict, I feel as though more empathy is better than placing less value on your differences, as through empathy there is a motivator to break that emotional inertia in not wanting to see other people suffer.

[Ironbound]

It seems that you're confusing objectivity with some other concepts. Objectivity is not the same as things such as certainty, which is what you're going for.

 

True, there are facts. Water does boil at a certain temperature in certain conditions, people do die if they don't eat, only so much can be obtained from such and such, etc. These are certainties, that is to say, events or consequences tied to causes that are likely to happen with no normal chance of non occurance. 

 

These facts are certain but not objective, in the sense that they are all relative in nature, being tied to an established cause and resulting in a normally established consequence. People will die, and 1+1 = 2, are certain statements, but we cannot say that these facts are absolutely true or absolutely false in the universe. The theory if relativity itself says that there's no definable absolute, and that all modes of human thought are relative to our understanding of the world.

 

It may seem absurd to say that 1+1=2 is not an objective fact, but it truly isn't. The statement assumes, that there is a thing such as 1, and that there is a thing such as 2, and that the two are separate entities that have a relationship. This is all a theory, a method of human thought. There's no way to say that 1 and 2 'really' exist. (IF they exist, then yes, they add up and have a relationship, but it hinges heavily on that IF.) Likewise, "people die" is a statement that assumes that there are things called people, and that there is a state called life, and an opposite state called death, and causes and modes for each, and that IF people are alive then they will eventually die, and so on. It is a statement that hinges on our understanding of the terms, our constructions. There's no way we can say objectively that life and death, time and space are 'real' things and not just a mode of our thought, a method.of our perception and a tool of our association with our relative world. They are certainties of our perception, yes, but not an objectivity.

 

That's the point I'm driving at: there's no such thing as a 'true objectivity', because our assumption of an objective itself is giving a form to the formless, this also making it a collective subjective. By calling a thing 'formless', we are giving it form, by stating that there is nothing, we are defining 'nothing'. There's no such thing as 'nothing', except of our own making, and there's no way to think otherwise for us humans. The best we can arrive at is an awareness of this fact, which is again a collective subjectivity. Hence the concept of Maya.

[Juniper]

It's about time someone started asking the REAL questions..  are lobsters mermaids to scorpions?

[Ironbound]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurypterid?wprov=sfla1

 

Considering that these creatures existed at some point, it is not infeasible to suggest that scorpions and crustaceans such as lobsters did not share a not-too-distant link in the past. 

 

However, a lobster is fundamentally very different to a scorpion, and have little in common with them besides being arthropods. Though they may superficially appear similar, even their supposedly similar-looking anatomy is in fact different both in design and purpose. A lobster's pincers, legs, eyes, and sensory organs are all different from a scorpion's; they don't even eat, breathe or attack similarly. That said, a lobster is less of a mermaid to a scorpion than a Manatee is to a human, since they are not even members of the same class, if we assume that in your context a mermaid is defined as an aquatic or piscine hybrid of otherwise similar anatomical class as that of the subject.

 

As an added note, it might also be argued that scorpions lack the cerebral functions necessary to have a theory of mind, and as such cannot think to attribute personality in another life form, much less ponder on what would be a mermaid to them, or indeed figure out any association another might have to itself in any non-linear manner, outside the associations of food, mates and danger. Indeed, it is debated that even most higher forms of life lack the ability to possess a theory of mind; that being the sole demesne of higher primates, elephants and possibly cetaceans.

 

Also, while this is a scientific discussion, and it certainly has led to questions about the theory of mind (which I am open to discuss, by the way, if anyone would like to pick up on that tangent), I would request contributors to present more specific information to substantiate their hypothesis in general, and to abide by the guidelines of general logic in framing their suppositions.