Karl

Reality is just as is it is, therefore there isn't anything to be said about it until somebody opposes that view point. I would be careful to avoid describing it as emptyness/nothingness but I can understand what is being said. Look at an object and what is seen? An object ? No, not even that.

It was colourful language, I usually refrain from that, but was making the point that it wasn't what people thought it was. The Nazi regime were very good at that kind of caper. I particular refer to the people's car saving scheme which doesn't seem very much different. The people didn't get their cars, they paid for the machinery of war instead, but on the face of it, a nice low payment scheme with the end result of 'affordable' transport for everyone was very popular. I think anyone quoting Godwin's law has a weak argument :-) fascism and communism are two sides of the same collectivism coin. It's entirely acceptable to compare to much of the Nazi policies because they are well known. I could have picked Franco, Stalin or Mussolini. I admit however that the direct reference to Nazi, was, intended to produce discussion.

That's because you cling to mysticism. You believe in miracles and so that is what you will see. I would be no more interested to see a man walk through a wall than I would be to see a dog bark. If I want to walk through a wall then I use a doorway. I have no reaction one way or the other. Logic is merely the sensing mechanism for what I feed my consciousness. Man cannot walk through solid walls unaided and that is my assertion. It is you that must prove beyond doubt that this is possible for me to alter that position.

I don't really need to. I think I understand it, I'm not sure you do? Joy does not end suffering, I would agree with that and that is not what I implied. I asked if he got any joy from life, as currently he believes his entire life is suffering. Desire is inherent in humanity, but there are false desires which do not match against reality. The desire to be free of pain is one such desire. The desire that a new car/job/partner will make you into the person you imagine you should be and thus bring final relief from the doubts. However joy of life is a different thing. All things are equal. Therefore there is a separation of likes and dislikes from unconditional love of life's realities. That means you can leave likes/dislikes untouched, yet never stop loving what is. It means I love my enemies as deeply as my friends, but it does not mean I like my enemies behaviour. I love the reality of pain, but I do not enjoy pain, but it was never intended to be enjoyable. I like Pizza, but if I do not receive Pizza I love that I don't. I'm not a Buddhist, but this seems to run through pretty much all religions generally. That is the end of suffering. This is how it is for me. It is a commitment to life, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, for ever and ever. All that and I've never been part of any religion.

Then we fundamentally disagree on human nature.

And if you used logic then you would see the fallacy in that argument immediately. Funnily enough I couldn't possibly have known it had I not learned it. It tells me that reasoning developed at the same time as language. It was a necessity to communicate more complex concepts beyond simple warnings.

You know that isn't true don't you ? The are reasoning animals and these are the rules we use already but formalised like a series of filters designed to weed out the fallacies. It's all we have, unless we fall back on intuition.

A logical error is an invalid argument that has broken one or more logical rules. An omission of experience is as Rumsfeld would say 'an unknown unknown'. In inductive reasoning we make generalisations based on what is known at a particular moment. We don't know what we don't know and this is of key importance to understanding what logic is and what its limitations are. It's only what can be proven at any one point in time. However, the onus is on the proposer of the argument to provide the proof. Certain inductive leaps can be made, then later they might have to be changed as new information appears.

A free market voluntary insurance scheme is the ultimate in social medicine. The Government has to get out of the way or corruption will remain. The logic here is simple. Everywhere there is socialism and state intervention things are worse. History confirms this over and over again. Why anyone would imagine this would be different for the medical business is beyond me ? Im not sure of your argument in the second paragraph ? Socialism didn't exist at that time and the point about logical reasoning doesn't follow. It's a non sequitur.

Trump. I have no words.

I haven't even read that on any of the more libertarian sites. Fascinating stuff.

It was purely an example. I don't know the historical reality. They were finned creatures that lived in water. Maybe Mariners knew they weren't fish and extrapolated they were mermaids ?

Some of this we don't get over here so I hadn't realised it had been stated openly.

Doing one thing at a time.

That's an excellent summation. So this is totalitarian collectivism in approach ? In which case my colourful description of Nazi isn't far off the mark.

It isn't an error of logic, but an omission caused by lack of experience.

More likely classified as pointlessly-abled and sent to the assessment centre.

Logic says nothing about suffering. We can define 'the best of the best of the best, best, best, best. Then that becomes the datum for the argument in which we will use logic as the tool. From the Wiki quote Buddhism does not say it either. Pain is not suffering. Suffering is believing there should not be pain. You have no joy from life ?

Few who use reason well that is true, but then neither did I. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is King.

Ok cool. We once defined a dolphin as a fish, but later it was reclassified as an air breathing mammal. Inductive logic isn't as reliable as deductive logic, it's a leap to a generalisation.

Not an infinite number, it is clearly a finite number, some of which-within our knowledge base define it as a dog. A biologist would define it further, he might discover that our definitions were erroneous-but that's what happens with inductive reasoning and all science is based on it. Your adding a host of complexity where there is none. Each dog has a separate identity beyond its genus. It is this identity which is objective fact and it's that reality that washes your argument away. I see precisely where you are going, but you are going to fall into the same trap when eventually you are forced to confront identity and you will then have no where to go but back to the subjective. I assume you will see that flaw before it comes up and body swerve :-), but I'm several steps ahead of you and pointing it out ahead of the event.

A body is as it is. That's objective reality. Logic only proves things are what they are.

Pain just tells us something isn't quite right with our bodies. It's a pretty good mechanism. People with diabetic neuropathy can't feel their feet for instance and can damage their feet without ever knowing.

Blimey, I think you are going to have to be a tad more explicit. I said this might be how a child defines a dog, he might fine humans as A pink blob that make noises. Take a look at a child's drawings.

Classic straw man :-) at one time I wouldn't have caught that. It isn't helping anyone, it's made medical care even more expensive and less reliable. It hasn't done what it promised. I shall leave you to go research it. Even those that supported it have grave worries now. It has though been an absolute boon to the big pharma and medical industry that designed it. Your second paragraph deserves no reply, so it won't get one. :-) Your