dimreepr

Having just watched the USA version of the reality show "Traitors" (I know, it's highly filtered), the level of "I know I'll be great" would have popped Popeye's thermometer, I think it's more of a cultural assumption. Have you seen the number of your fellow Americans that gets locked up, for essentially steeling a sandwhich bc their starving? In Europe, we sometimes just give sandwiches away, just in case your hungry.

He thinks there's a better option than the slave morality as described in most religion's. Now that we've killed god, the greatest thinkers can seek for a better way to replace a morality that gives agency to everyone that wants it, in spite of the context of one's situation. The ubermench has already spoken.

Way to miss a metaphor, their economy is worth, an order or two of magnitude, more than $12 billion. It's simply laughable to suggest that's not, at least, part of the motivation. Personally, I think that's just an added bonus, to the true motivation of China's, noted, aspirations... China is just sitting back and learning and rubbing its hands with glee as the balance of power is being tipped in their favour, with every trick play Putin is throwing our way... Oh wow, I never suspected that you are Chinese... It's not without reason that my greeting is "hello" Can you show a logical reason why the two doesn't mean the same thing, but from a different POV?

I think it depends on your motivation, if you want to learn enough to impress your friends, then you could memorise as many abstracts of different paper's as you can and hope that one of them is relevant to the topic your friends are discussing. Otherwise: There's an FB page called IFLS (I fucking love science), they post all sorts of interesting science news, and when something pops up that interests you, read on for fun; then you'll be the one leading the conversation, with your friend's, with a deeper understanding, but on fewer topics.

Well, apart from the pot of gold that is Taiwan, I think you lack the cultural context at play and therefore the understanding of the motivation China might have...

How can you tell the difference?

What I mean is, I don't know bc I lack the context to make a best guess, there was clearly a nod and a wink between them at the start of this, maybe as strong as a NATO article 5; perhaps an antipode version, where China agreed to not let them lose. What exactly would trigger that agreement, only China really knows, meanwhile Putin keeps nudging them and winking. Indeed, but not everyone is equal. 😉

It's complicated...

Indeed, but when one of his innocent pilots is shot down during a routine flight, who's he going to go crying to... As stalin said "one anecdotal death is diplorable, a million deaths is a statistic"... Indeed, but I wonder if the, recent, Russian version of the Eurovision song contest is designed to draw in his allies; he can't win on his own. Let us not forget the initial timing; how many day's after China hosted the Olympic game's did he choose to start this?

His deliberate incursions into NATO members airspace is obviously trying to get a positive reaction from the West. I don't buy the idea that he's testing for weakness, I think he's hoping to drag China into the conflict. Otherwise he's just poking a bear for fun.

No backsies... 😉 What makes you think karma has a rollover? Karma is about damaging ones soul, cause and effect is a purely internal affair. "Damaging one's soul At Apology 30c7–e1, Socrates cautions his jurors about the risk they face. The risk Socrates himself faces is obvious but, as he explains it, the danger he faces is far less grave than the one the jurors may inflict upon themselves: Now, the claim that trying to kill a man unjustly is a greater evil than being killed unjustly may seem simply obvious from a moral point of view."

If you think about, properly, we can only have faith in our reason/perception, not in a solipsistic way, but in a human way; for instance, we tend to assume that our culture is the correct one, we also tend to assume that we are correct, we also tend to assume that only other people are biased etc. But thanks for the downvote, I shall wear it with pride (irony). Patronising much!!!

Maybe, you only think you know?

Then Nietzsche piped up and suggested that Hitler could be the one, if he wished hard enough...

Indeed, but you can believe in the wisdom of the people that spawned it...

I'm not trying to be tricky, I'm just asking you to debate/discuss honestly. If my hypothesis is correct, then this is the pattern we'd expect to see: His teaching was passed through the filter of many generations and different cultures before it was committed to paper, so yes the details are slightly different for each writer, but at the time of writing, the meaning was understood; but 3 centuries later, the politicos decide what's relevant despite the lack of understanding/context of the original meaning...

Please, be specific...

When did I suggest otherwise? It's interesting that you choose to respond to a redacted version of my post, rather than argue my point.

Perhaps, but like Socrates maybe his students, ignored his thought's on the limitations of writing down our cultural wisdom. Besides, how does this argue my point? If anything it confirms the degradation of meaning through time, of a fixed position.

I sugest the opposite might be true, in the written word, the information remains whilst the context is degraded as the generations change; data without context is useless. The many cultures that relied on the oral tradition, Aborigines for instance, understood why the changing language and other details, doesn't change the fundamental message of how to live meaningfully with in that culture; Camus' observations on the myth of Sisyphus is kinda relevant here. Edit. this reply was merged. Isn't that why we never seem to learn from history?

I suggested it's more reliable at conveying the correct context, of the information, for understanding across the generation's. The written word is an essential part of our society, despite its limitations in terms of context; so for me @iNow it's more of an Heisenberg type question. 🙂

Yet a rabbit foot does seem to be ubiquitous across many culture's without a natural border. Convergent evolution, perhaps...

Indeed, but a teacher telling a story usually is, even if they're just a parent talking about santa.

Of course they change, that's my point...

Indeed, but why is just a guess.