Interesting, but I am curious if this person understands the gravity of what he is trying to censor here. For it goes well beyond video games:

>Perhaps you—dear reader—are still not convinced. I ask you, then, to try this experiment at home. The experiment comes in two stages. Stage One: Take a photograph of someone you love and stab the eyes out. Are you hesitant to do it? Does it make you feel uneasy? Are you unwilling to stab out the eyes? Remember, it’s just a glossy piece of paper. If you can stab the eyes out, then you can move on to Stage Two: leave the maimed photograph in a place where your loved one will find it. When they find it, give them a lecture on the metaphysical status of images and why your actions didn’t mean anything because photographs lack moral status.

The first act is just the destruction of a photo. Not a big deal, you can print more. The second part is a statement, no longer part of a virtual environment, no longer part of just your own perception. It is a deliberate statement to others who will observe this.

By this argument, video game violence is more morally justified then watching a violent movie or even watching the news on TV. Because a video game remains local to your own perception. You choose the violence, if any, and aside from a multiplayer game (which face it, participants consent to the application of violence to themselves and others in), rather then to have it pushed upon you by the media you may only observe.

But would this professor call for the censorship of news and TV series? I rather doubt it.

[removed]

As a catholic christian who really likes philosophy, I find your comment to be similar to the syllogisms used by the stoics.

I dislike some concepts of psychological diagnosis, not because it can sometimes be useful, but because it encourages people diagnosed with mental disorders to act like if they were aliens and free from the law. My parents agree with my opinion too: in fact, they told me that at the age of 3, after i took some tests, I got labeled with High functioning autism (Asperger's). They never told me that until now (I have recently celebrated my 14th birthday) and I'm glad that they always treated me like a normal human being: yeah, i had some psychological problems, like weird speech and extreme anxiety, but I fixed them with the help of my psychologist. On the right side, they often tell me that I am a genius, even though I acutally don't believe it. People who got labeled with autism usually are treated like wild beasts and eventually become wrathful and dishonest. PS: Who cares if I have autism or not after all. Nobody should care about that. If you have problems, don't use a label like autism as a pass just because you are too lazy and you don't want to fix them.

When I read the original comment it said something along the lines of, “philosophy gave me a tool box of why one white guy was more logically consistent than another” it was funny because I’m in a modern philosophy class and it resonated bc I’m literally just reading dead white guys arguments about why they think they are right. Idk how that makes me racist… it wasn’t that deep hunny. I understand the philosophy is much greater than dead white guys, and the practice in itself serves a much larger purpose, but I found the comment funny. It literally got a chuckle out of me. Chill bro.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Please, for everyone's benefit, learn basic logic and skepticism. Basic. Even if you jump past causality, that in no way proves anything supernatural was involved. You can't just jump from "I found God belief and now feel better, therefore a God exists."

I made an introduction video (2 mins) to Christian Philosophy, designed for non-Christians and non-philosophers. Here. Could I obtain some input on the content to know if it is too simple or too complex?

Thesis: If Christianity is true, then believing in its claims does not have to start with blind faith in divine revelations but can start with philosophy.

Simply put, the argument is:

1. Philosophy is the search for truth,
2. And if Christianity is true,
3. Then Philosophy will (likely) find Christianity.

Well if you're only going to cherry-pick my quotes for self-confirmation, you can believe anything you want about me.

The next bit, I said

>Now it's all gone

That's been logged with my doctor. I had mental illness, now I have none. I'm happy, productive, clear-thinking, and have fun in life.

That's a real change.

How can a real change be caused by something that isn't real?

[removed]

> I suffered huge anxiety, PTSD, depression, etc from a childhood of sustained abuse. I met God.

That explains quite a bit actually. You’re incapable of being objective due to this.

I hope you don't mind these delays in my replies. I've been ruminating in the meantime.

My list for B was actually a disjunctive list (facts OR reason-logic OR higher being). So rejecting one of the list does not mean that B is wrong.

But it doesn't really matter. Let's pretend I only gave the "higher being" option and so you don't agree with B.

You seem to say that you accept that there are people who believe B but you believe in A. (Option 1 in the second set of questions).

Preferring A to B is a philosophical position, is it not?

(On the other hand, I may have misunderstood you. Are you arguing for B after all? Does the emergent phenomenon you are referring you actually justify the value? I continue to assume that you don't hold that, but I wanted to raise the possibility just in case.)

[removed]

🤡

🤡

🤡

🤡

More 🤡

🤡

You don’t understand the basics here enough to understand why your response makes no logical sense. You don’t understand logic at all. I would avoid using the word if I were you

I had no idea! I'll give the original a read as well. Thank you!

Now kiss :)

Nice essay! We live in a globalised village is possibly one way of reconciling being free now or saying in Daniel Kahneman words, ‘Thinking fast snd slow’, when compared with living in a village thousand years back . Mankind could have progressed over many issues over man generations which every man who thinks faces again and again, but he can’t go to the root of all the issues and find a solution, and he possibly is not encouraged by his possibly ignorant or wise society not that they want to make him stop from progressing, but also possibly could be from not becoming another Socrates questioning and trying to inspire his generation or society but failing in a way to live the personal life well and facing a questionable death; who will take care of his family ? The past history may not be as sweet as the present experiences and kindling may only bring out a recurrent unwanted phenomenon or experience; the individual soul could undergo the torture in its search but not the other souls associated that has helped it for a cause of living or has their own dreams .

A question regarding Interstellar movie and Kant’s transcendental idealism

As per Kant’s transcendental idealism, time and space are not determinations that belong to things in themselves but features of our own mind. Long story cut short, the protagonist finds in a similar position in the Interstellar movie. Is there any similarity or am I making any straw man fallacy kind? If somewhere posted, request for some link please. Thanks 🙏

An erudite argument with many good points. Sadly, it hasn't convinced me. Sorry. :)

Well then, compare your experience of unicorns to others to see if they corroborate.