that image is the one I like best
 

and: that's fine, Sky.

I have no problem with agreeing to disagree... ;)

I am not exactly disagreeing either. It's not about proving or disproving. I'm just picking and choosing. I choose to see this in a subjective rather than a critical or objective way. I know there must be a smidgen of truth in what you say. Much of science agrees with you.

Perhaps only critical and objective statements are best for a philosophy thread and I am way off the mark but there doesn't seem to be much critical analysis happening here anyway so I thought to have fun with it.

Sorry, don't know you that well other than being repeatedly offended by you and your generally unsupported, hard to read opinions Henry, but THIS post was completely uncalled for. Classic was asking for you to support or defend your opinion, simply because he had a conflicting opinion that he CAN support. You calling him names completely wiped away all respect I may have once had for you.

Just because you're lonely and sad and can't believe that any being might love you unless they SAY IT, doesn't mean you are right. I know my cat loves me, and I know lots of people on this planet are filled with love even though they can't SAY THOSE WORDS right now.

"I am not exactly disagreeing either."

Even among hardcore analytic philosophers ambiguity abounds, so, no worries Sky.

#

"THIS post was completely uncalled for."

I disagree.

There will only be peace once we are all crushed into a singularity

the word peace has lost its meaning.
its used to describe war.

it is not within our nature to have peace.
we've always made war, and we will always make war.
within human perception, war is as much a god as jesus or allah.

in this day and age, with human over-population, war holds greater value than peace.
war is a blessing if you think about it, much like a virus, aids, homo-sexuality and natural disasters.
our deaths need to start out-numbering our births.
some nations need to follow in china's footsteps.

Shawn, that's gonna call for you not to stay vulnerable to that. If the opposition can pants you and put you over a barrel, be sure they will. If they even think they can, they'll try. If they think your butt is cuter than LabRat's, they'll try all the harder. If they're old enough not to give a damn about cellulite, "old age and treachery" gets into it too. Hard to win when you're over a barrel.

There's a LOT of hemipygian philosophy written on the 'Net. If you don't like hemipygian, try sophomoric -- the word springs from "wise fool," you know.

(And maybe next time I come here I'll read the entire thread and say something really relevant instead of peripheral. 'Til then...)

Oh, I hope you say something relevant. I've been waiting for so long. I think it's somewhere buried deep inside your irrelevance. A relevance cocoon, if you will.

Keep me posted. Ta ta!

:D That was funny.

Peace, I think, is another of those great, but sometimes useful, fictions like equality, justice, morality, ethics, etc.

A wonderful carrot to focus everyone's attention on, a goal to chase and devote one's self to. Always unobtainable.

#

And: dogs still can't love...HA!

Peace, equality, justice, morality, ethics (did you skip 'love' on purpose?). They aren't fictions. They're quite important. They're just hard to define in concrete terms.

If what dogs do isn't love (or at least companionship), then it's a really good imitation.

Peace is relative and more often remembered than experienced.

"Peace, equality, justice, morality, ethics (did you skip 'love' on purpose?). They aren't fictions. They're quite important. They're just hard to define in concrete terms."


In a philosophical sense they are fictions: peace, equality, justice, morality, ethics, these and others, only exist as compact or agreement between individuals. That is: for peace, equality, justice, morality, ethics to exist they must cudgeled together by individuals, then, agreed upon. To agree upon something requires at least two individuals.

Love too is a fiction, but a slightly different order of fiction, one that requires only 'one'. For example: if I'm right and dogs can't love, then the wholly reasonable love you feel for Fido is not reciprocated. This one-way love doesn't invalidate the love. Your love is something 'you' do whether or not the object (or subject) of your love feels, or is capable of feeling, the same.

What makes them all fiction (philosophically) is -- again -- the necessity that 'you' and/or 'me' 'do' them.

Also: peace, equality, justice, morality, ethics, democracy, etc., I maintain, are essentially unobtainable because each requires at least two to agree. Plenty of agreement there is, in the short-term...

Love (along with hate) has the virtue (or vice), being as it is 'done' by one, of potentially existing as long as the one does.

Nonetheless: kill all humans, everywhere, one minute from now, and peace, equality, justice, morality, ethics, love, democracy, hate, etc. (all esoterica) die with us.

The world has an objective reality independent of what you or I think or feel about it. But only you and me, him and her, and them, bring subjectivity (meaning) to the world.

So: forgive my imprecision. I don't mean to denigrate these 'fictions', only to label them as such and to place them properly 'within' 'you' and 'me'. That is: peace, equality, justice, morality, ethics, love and all the others are what we, as individuals, 'do'.

#

"If what dogs do isn't love (or at least companionship), then it's a really good imitation."


Dogs make great companions! For reasons that have nothing to do with love as you 'do' it.

And: computers can be made to be quite convincing in text responses to questions, so much so that, initially, it's hard to tell if the 'person' on the other end is a person or not.

A prepared response (a programmed computer or informally trained dog) does not a person or lover make...