🧠｜serious-chat

[last mantle]

Wassup fam

[shy summit]

Sup

[upper peak]

And humans are deciding everything !

[void arch]

well, actually many studies done on non socialized kids and show same result as other kids

[last mantle]

Yoooo

[shy summit]

That still doesn’t rule out like two of those things so sure its not just ONE things its a culmination of a bunch of things

Hell probably way more than three

[void arch]

well ,actually we dont

[shy summit]

Already seeing where this going.

Sigh

[muted patio]

What about humans r decided by everything

[void arch]

thats a circular reasoning

[muted patio]

“conjuncter”

[shy summit]

It’s the same reason other species don’t attack members of their groups unprovoked.

[muted patio]

oops spelling mistake

[void arch]

ur there just explaining some source of acquired knowledge and not the innate knowledge.

[upper peak]

Why not , so why are we in enormous, like see , we are highly populated..

[muted patio]

true dude

humanitarian ideology maybe

[void arch]

it s like we are logical creatures, bcz we are logical creatures .see why

[shy summit]

There isn’t such a thing.

[void arch]

u dont believe in that ?

[shy summit]

You’d have to prove the source. Which can’t be done.

[void arch]

the result is an enough proof

if there is a result there is a cause

[upper peak]

What we are talking about btw ,I didn't get..

[muted patio]

me too()

wait,me neither(?)

[tender vessel]

👀

[shy summit]

Basically it’s a dumb argument for god

[void arch]

ohhhhhhhhhh Flare

[tender vessel]

Discussing the philosophy of ethics?

[void arch]

is back

[shy summit]

One I have no interest in entertaining

[upper peak]

Yeah ayoub favourite topic , always 😎😂✌️

[void arch]

its the most important argument for me

[tender vessel]

Error theorists may disagree with this.

[tender vessel]

Hey bro! 👋

How is it going?

[void arch]

Good alhamdolilallah ,how about u

[mystic bay]

No doubt they would

[tender vessel]

I'm good, alhamdulillah.

[tender vessel]

By the way, would you consider yourself a proponent of moral realism? It seems to be what you're referring to in that statement.

[shy summit]

How’s your eggs? @tender vessel

[mystic bay]

Yes, I would say that I am a moral realist, and an ethical naturalist.

[tender vessel]

Deontological?

[upper peak]

Okay..
Do you harm other living sentient beings or not ?

[mystic bay]

No, I subscribe to virtue ethics

[mystic bay]

Not as far as I'm aware

[upper peak]

Okay nice..
So are you vegan ? 😀

[tender vessel]

Great! I'm not that familiar with virtue ethics, sadly. I'm a deontological non-natural realist.

[void arch]

Platon

[tender vessel]

@mystic bay
What do you think about the error theory?

[void arch]

whats the deff bro?

[upper peak]

Feeling chest pain after hearing "are you vegan"😂

[thorny steeple]

This was an article

[tender vessel]

Deontology (deontic ethics) is one of three popular normative ethics positions, with the other two popular ones being consequentialism and virtue ethics.
It's kind of complicated. In ethics, there are three important topics:
meta-ethics: which deals with what is ethics and where does it come from, and is usually split into two categories: coginitivism and non-cognitivism.
normative ethics: which seeks to give us a framework for how we ought to live and behave.
applied ethics: which seeks to apply normative ethic theories to specific issues, e.g., abortion, animal rights, justice, death penalty etc...

You don't really need to learn all of that, you actually don't need to learn the philosophy of ethics altogether as a Muslim... Unless you're firm in Aqidah and want to refute certain philosophical arguments aimed to attack Islam in regards to ethics.
That's how I learned these topics.

[mystic bay]

Well, as a moral realist, obviously I would say that error theory is in error. There are different flavours of virtue ethics, but in its classic form it maintains that there are certain traits of character which lead to human flourishing (such as courage, prudence or temperance). Virtue ethics is distinctive because it does not consider rules or norms to be central. There is a place for them, but they are secondary to character traits.

If we think of the content of morality as consisting of moral rules, then moral realism would seem to amount to the claim that such rules are somehow stitched into the very fabric of reality. I would agree with the error theorist that this is an implausible picture. But the Greek concept of the 'ethical' is more concerned with identifying what makes for a flourishing life for a human being, and I think there are plausibly objective truths about that.

[thorny steeple]

It mainly explained the admiral the Nazis had for Native Americans and also their feeling towards German tribes

[mystic bay]

And especially Aristotle. He was the first to write an ethical treatise. Plato's comments on virtue are much more scattered.

[dapper laurel]

They were very similar after all, both had many aspects of society related to the esoteric. Their school system at that time wasn't bad, considering the naturalistic policies

A healthy society comes from a healthy environment

That's not wrong at all

[tender vessel]

I see.
So, you don't believe in a transcendental grounding for morality, right?

[thorny steeple]

I know nothing about Nazi school system, but they may have raised the standards

To prevent the ones they considered inferior from thriving. Is that right?

[void arch]

i see, thanks for the explanation .

[dapper laurel]

Let's say it is questionable in many aspects, but it wasn't below average

[thorny steeple]

Why questionable?

[dapper laurel]

Being socialists, they put a lot of effort into social policies, which is not bad and public services were above average

[dapper laurel]

Think about the racial aspect

[mystic bay]

That's right. I don't believe in transcendental moral laws. Similarly, I don't think there are any transcendental laws of nature. I think that there are such laws, but they are abstractions we draw from regularities in nature, and especially in the natures of particular things. They're real, but they don't have any kind of independent subsistence. It's a subtle view, which threads a needle between Platonism and nominalism. I think it is theoretically attractive though.

[thorny steeple]

Yeah, right. But I mean, I wonder how much they raised the standards

Probably thought things that were way much difficult for the average person to have a grasp on

But this is just a conjecture

[dapper laurel]

Most of the people there were illiterate, so I don't think so in the end, maybe they just had better tools

[thorny steeple]

Better tools why?

[tulip drift]

Are you vegan ×100 ?

[ruby vector]

I got u lil bro

[urban echo]

hello

hru everyone

[void arch]

U know that u have to prove that Transcedental laws are : abstractions we draw from regularities in nature, and especially in the natures of particular things.
and not the idea that moral principles are rooted in the very nature of human reason and universal principles .

[upper peak]

Yes I'm vegan , but don't know about "×100" .

[mystic bay]

Well, I think that our moral principles are rooted in the nature of human reason and universal principles. I just don't think that this means they are have to be transcendent.

[void arch]

bcz our understanding of nature is structured by the innate categories of our mind (like space, time, causality). These categories aren't derived from experience but are preconditions for experiencing the world in a meaningful way. So, while we experience the world as orderly and governed by laws, these laws are partly a product of our own minds.

[mystic bay]

This is textbook Aristotelianism: universals are real, but they are immanent within particular things rather than 'hovering above' them.

[tender vessel]

Aha. I understand your point.
What do you think about G. E. Moore's argument against moral naturalism?
He argued that moral goodness and badness are irreducible concepts.
So, for example, if we would to equate moral badness to a natural property like pain, then how can we describe pain as bad?
In such case, if one says "pain is bad" he would seem like tautologically stating that "pain is pain", therefore, it would be meaningless.

[gusty hazel]

Hi guys

Anyone here from USA?

[upper peak]

If we are not able to recognise or consider sentient beings suffering then we are not morally sound and ethical..

[tender vessel]

She is talking about abstract objects. Nominalism is the rejection of all abstract objects, which would include arithmetic numbers for example. Some argue these numbers are abstract objects that actually exist somewhere.

[void arch]

seems u do agree with the premises but rejecting the conclusion ,what is the reason?

[void arch]

A-ha ok ,i see... i do disagree that there there are abstract numbers ...

[tender vessel]

I don't necessarily agree or disagree with nominalism, though.
As Muslims, we believe transcendental moral laws are derived from the nature of Allah and his commands. It's important to note that we don't view Allah as a spirit or a soul, though. We believe there is nothing like unto him, and therefore, he is not a soul or a spirit.

[mystic bay]

In a way, I think that this represents a general problem with meta-ethics as an enterprise. Meta-ethics is concerned with the general meaning of our ethical language. But this makes advancing a meta-ethical theory rather presumptuous. Who's to say what I mean by the ethical language?

As a rough-and-ready response, I would just say that there is a tradition of equating moral goodness with certain natural qualities, and that it is intelligible and coherent. It's one of those things where the proof is in the pudding. There are certain traits of character which are identifiably a part of a flourishing life, and others that are not.

My concern with making morality something totally sui generis, which is what I understand Moore as wanting to claim, is that he trusts that speech about morality can continue to be intelligible. This is something I doubt.

I should say, although I do not subscribe to ethical intuitionism, I do have sympathies with it. I think that Michael Huemer's book on it is very good (as are many of his books).

Intuition plays an important role in virtue ethics, although it is not the whole kit and caboodle

[mystic bay]

Respectfully, I just don't think you understand what is being discussed well enough to make a judgement like that

[lavish river]

Yyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeew what up Ladies and gentlemen

Who want talk about nazi about history about lgbt about ANDREW TATE 😼.... ABOUT SIGMA

I just wanna , I haven't argued with anyone since yesterday.

[void arch]

no seriously i want to know why , bcz if were our moral principles that "are rooted in the nature of human reason and the universal principles" : => are aligned with a transcedental source in relation to reason, univeral principles .. why would u reject it ??

if that was the case

[upper peak]

Oh gawd !

[tender vessel]

I see.
G. E. Moore's notion of non-natural realism does support judgement by experience (proof in the pudding); yet, he contends that the attribution of moral goodness or badness to natural properties cannot be grounded in the very same properties in question.
As I understand it, his argument perceives morality as an irreducible concept much like the color yellow. Reducing it to simpler concepts may be problematic.
I'm not attempting to challenge moral naturalism, though. Just wanted to hear from you as a PhD holder in the philosophy of ethics, and your inputs have been definitely insightful. ✨

[mystic bay]

I mean that, if our moral principles are rooted in what makes for a good and happy life for a human being, and if what makes for a good and happy life is simply present in us and in how we are naturally constituted, then there really does not need to be a transcendent source for morality. What is or is not moral is something that is rooted in the very nature of human beings.

[void arch]

A-ha ,wouldn't the existence of some exceptions of intellectual creatures as humans see what u think is objectively bad as Good or the opposite , wouldn't that make a logical necessity for a transcedental source as to determine objectively Goodness and Badness ..

[mystic bay]

But even if we take judgements like 'pain is bad', I don't see any reason to think that this is true without exception. And even if it is only true other things being equal, I don't think it is difficult at all to make sense of this from within a naturalistic framework.

I would agree with Elizabeth Anscombe that a lot of our intuitive ethical judgements, about what is good or bad or right or wrong, are a kind of relic from a much older and much richer way of thinking which prevailed in the ancient world. Ancient ethics just takes it as given that ethics is fundamentally about what form of life is conducive to specifically human flourishing, and is therefore naturalistic in its outlook. What has happened is that these bread-and-butter ethical notions have become unmoored, for various historical reasons, from that naturalistic foundation.

[tender vessel]

I agree with this point.
I'd say Ayoud does agree as well that morality is known by intuition, evident from how all cultures and civilizations throughout history upheld identical fundamental moral principles (e.g., lying and murder are wrong), despite the factual errors that caused varying exceptions for when certain immoral acts would be justifiable etc... (such as burning women thought to be witches etc...).

[void arch]

i do agree 👍

[mystic bay]

Not at all. It would only require an objective fact about who is right and who is wrong. But that fact need not be transcendent.

There is an objective fact about whether ingesting bleach is good or bad for you. But that fact does not need to be an otherworldly law which is imposed on the world from above. It's objectively true just by virtue of what human beings are like intrinsically.

[void arch]

do u know that this is an Islamic ethical argument , bcz in Islam we believe that everyone is born with innate disposition to recognize Goodness and badness , this make sense when u say Humans would held accountable for there actions .

it a proof for Divine assignment

[upper peak]

I don't agree with you all ,we talk about moral and ethical values but still we lack...Only we talk and argue but Heck we consider

[mystic bay]

No, I did not know that. I am not sure what is especially 'Islamic' about it. Christians also believe this, and so did the stoics, and so did the greatest of the Greek philosophers. Indeed, this is just how ethics was understood in the ancient world.

[void arch]

I know it s not special only to Muslim, but generally that argument suggest a Divine Assignment, thats it.

[manic juniper]

N9

[mystic bay]

Perhaps, but not immediately. That would require further argumentation.

[void arch]

yes ,thats true .

[last mantle]

Tae

[muted patio]

Good night guys

I can't fell asleep

[plush geyser]

https://tenor.com/view/walk-andrew-tate-walk-top-g-top-g-walk-savage-gif-26857321

[plush geyser]

Wht time there

[muted patio]

1.46am

1.28.2025

[plush geyser]

Tuesday

[muted patio]

Yep

[plush geyser]

From where in Asia

[muted patio]

China

I drank too much tea before i went to bed

tragedy

[dapper laurel]

Try some melatonin

[muted patio]

Thanks a lot

[dapper laurel]

Or if you don't have it, you can read a book, it usually helps you fall asleep at night

[muted patio]

sleepiness coming.

[tender vessel]

Well, G. E. Moore contends that the implications of moral naturalism are tautological, and therefore, meaningless.
Like if we say "well-being is good", we would be stating that "well-being is well-being", if moral goodness is equated to well-being. In other words, he is asserting morality must be stemming from a non-natural source, because natural properties are inadequate for explaining moral judgements since they are themselves can be judged morally.
The fact "pain is bad" has exceptions may be a further support in favor of moral non-naturalism, given that pain in those cases wouldn't be able to explain moral badness.
Furthermore, the is/ought is another problem in moral naturalism.
Basically, moral judgements are inherently prescriptive, while natural properties are descriptive.
E.g., assuming we see someone trying to kill another, this mere fact doesn't tell us what ought to be done (assuming we completely lack the innate, intrinsic moral faculty).

I personally don't think the position is that coherent. It seems coherent at first glance, but as we dive deeper, natural properties and moral judgements begin to appear more distinct.

[mystic bay]

I'm at work but I'll try to reply to this tomorrow

[tender vessel]

Alright. No worries. Thank you very much for this respectful dialogue. ✨
Have a good day.

[hard wind]

Have you sold lots of good chocolates today

[mystic bay]

Not many, but the night is yet young

[hard wind]

you work very late

it's 7pm

[quasi needle]

i just got out of bed so there can be.. exceptions

[hard wind]

haha and i thought waking up at 4:30pm was bad

[quasi needle]

i’ve been taking the 2x4h sleep approach and to be honest i feel way better

over 1x8h

[mystic bay]

I am very poor

[waxen shale]

What kinda job ?

[mystic bay]

I work in a chocolatier

Smart move

[thorny steeple]

happy new year

[waxen shale]

Very sweet job.

[mystic bay]

It would be, if I were allowed to take any home with me

I do lick the spoon when no one is looking though

[thorny steeple]

If I work in job like this
I would steal some of the chocolate without they know

[waxen shale]

They don't give you some bonus or some leftover?

[thorny steeple]

You don't have to ask for permission

[waxen shale]

I mean surely you got some chocolate that nearly expired right?

[mystic bay]

It's luxury stuff. Very high quality. Very expensive.

Too good for a peasant like me

[torpid dirge]

Skepticism philosophical issue?

[waxen shale]

Steal it and sell it on eBay or some

Anyone ever read mein kampf?

[mystic bay]

It's a bit of a struggle

Especially since Amazon stopped stocking it

[torpid dirge]

Is naturalism philosophical term ?

[mystic bay]

Yes

But it means different things in different contexts

[torpid dirge]

In Nature?

[mystic bay]

In ethics, it means that facts about ethics are determined by, or depend up, or are reducible to, facts about nature

And especially the natures of individual things

[torpid dirge]

Like metaphysical naturalism,nd ontological

[waxen shale]

@mystic bay what a degree of philosophy get you ?

[ashen mortar]

PhD

[waxen shale]

Well yeah i suppose... But phd in philosophy feels like meh.... No?

[mystic bay]

Well, I work in a chocolate shop

[mystic bay]

So there's that

Seriously though, I'm not really in it for the money

[waxen shale]

The it means your life ? Or your job?

Majoring philosophy seems like alot of read

[torpid dirge]

Where should I start in philosophy if I am beginner for it ?

[mystic bay]

Life, education

[mystic bay]

Is there a specific part of philosophy that interests you? Or just philosophy generally?

[torpid dirge]

How many parts philosophy has ?

[mystic bay]

There's metaphysics, ethics, epistemology, philosophy of mind, political philosophy and many more

[elder seal]

Ontology 🙂‍↕️

[tender vessel]

Yes. It's a philosophical issue, but I don't encourage any Muslim to study the philosophy of ethics unless they possess a solid understanding in Aqidah and are doing it to respond to critics effectively.
Other than that, there are many philosophical notions, especially in that field, which are flawed, deceptive and may be considered Kufr. So, it's important to be wary of that.
I personally learned this branch only to respond to a particular argument made by an atheist in another server.

[torpid dirge]

Which one of them is easier to understand?

[mystic bay]

I would say that depends on the individual

[mystic bay]

I'd consider that to be part of metaphysics

[mystic bay]

Discouraging learning?

[torpid dirge]

Who's he ?

[elder seal]

So would the rest - Neoplatonism's metaphysics also insinuates a strong reference to ethics, especially in the notion of 'the good.' Metaphysics is just fixated on the illumination of a first principle 🤷🏻‍♂️

[mystic bay]

That looks like Quine

[mystic bay]

Maybe on a certain conception of metaphysics . . . But not as
standardly understood

[torpid dirge]

So whole philosophical concept depends on the individual?😹

[elder seal]

As far as I'm aware, it's the general definition. Ontology, epistemics etc., are often used within it. Hegel's theories are as epistemic as they're ontological

[elder seal]

Personal understanding does

[waxen shale]

they get scared in terms of learning philosophy. One priest even said that philosophy is forbidden. It certainly considered something to be look down upon, in the sphere of Muslims

[elder seal]

I don't know if that'd necessarily agree - "Well-being" would be good; but so too would many other objects, goodness is just a universal describing a series of objects. It's sort of like asserting that "reality" doesn't exist because it's tautological to anything that's real. But as a universal it differs from its individual components.

To expand: To say "this tree is a tree" is not meaningfully tautological, because while it's true that tree = tree, this tree is a particular, while 'tree' is a universal, it's merely that the this is an object within the universal of >>tree<<

[torpid dirge]

Wilard van orman quine

[mystic bay]

No, I just mean that individuals have different talents, interests and capacities

[torpid dirge]

Well I'm just beginner so i just want to start with at some easier or self understandable philosophical concept

[elder seal]

There's way too many philosophers for anyone to ever know everything

Even if you're good at philosophy, there'd always been that one philosopher you're unfamiliar with

[torpid dirge]

What about general philosophy?

[elder seal]

What do you mean?

[waxen shale]

You mean stoicism?

[elder seal]

Stoicism isn't general philosophy 😭

I mean, most people within philosophy know of Aristotles and Plato if those are the one's you're thinking of

[waxen shale]

It famous in you tube

[torpid dirge]

I mean should I start at general philosophical concept so I can understand whole of it ?

[waxen shale]

And books

[elder seal]

Most youtubers who talk about stoicism haven't read a single piece of stoic literature and don't even know what stoicism is

[tender vessel]

Yes.
As Muslims, we already have a moral framework and compass for what is deemed good and what is deemed bad.
So, studying the philosophy of ethics in particular, for us Muslims, is neither necessary nor do I encourage it due to the amount of the positions that conflict fundamental principles in Aqidah (Islamic creed/theology).
In such case, if a Muslim is not knowledgeable enough in Aqidah, may be negatively affect by such positions and may cause them doubts.

[waxen shale]

Is about controlling your emotions right?

[elder seal]

That'd be a simplification. It's technically true, but it fails to appreciate the point of stoicism. Stoicism isn't about 'removing' your emotions, as it's often framed as, but to let reason come before emotions and help direct it. To say "control emotions" is technically true, but incorrect, insofar that your emotions is a part of you, and stoicism doesn't disregard emotions

[torpid dirge]

Stoicism is hellenstic philosophy not general as far as I think

[tender vessel]

Certain types of knowledge are more harmful than beneficial.

[elder seal]

Most modern philosophies are derivatives of hellenic philosophies

Either directly or indirectly. So it'd be fair to associate it with 'general' philosophy

[waxen shale]

Hmmm... Interesting.

[elder seal]

Also important to understand that stoicism has its own theory of divinity - Pneueba, or "breath," which forms the whole world

Stoicism being pantheist

[waxen shale]

Well i don't think its general either. It just some jokes that i made

Sorry i shouldn't made a joke in this channel

[tender vessel]

Not scared, cautious.
In Islam, we don't have priests. So, I'm not sure if you're referring to a Christian or Muslim. However, indeed, certain branches of philosophy are considered forbidden, some of them are even Shirk (outright disbelief).
So, of course Muslims would be cautious regarding these types of harmful knowledge that twist logic to support distorted ideas and notions.
Even some philosophers consider certain philosophical positions as being incredibly absurd and are relying on deeply flawed reasoning.

[torpid dirge]

stoicism is not considered as modern philosophy but there can be principal of stoicism which claims stoic modern principal of contemporary life

[elder seal]

It isn't - Nor would i say it has as much an influence on modern philosophy. But the point is, hellenistic philosophies do - Stoicism of course isn't one of those; but Aristotles, Plato, etc., has substantial influence. Aristotle's influence on both the Islamic and Christian world is fairly well-known, while Plato's influence on philosophers like C. S. Peirce and Frege is another

[torpid dirge]

Eudimonic virtue ethics idk but it's kind type of stoicism

[elder seal]

I'm not as concerned with ethics - I primarily read ontology and metaphysics

[waxen shale]

I mean technically they used a philosophical thought of ibn sina. Or Avicenna. To prove god existence Right?

[torpid dirge]

So tell me who's this guy

[elder seal]

Heidegger

[torpid dirge]

Sounds like philosophical joke's

[waxen shale]

Thats a sarcasm?

[void arch]

u mean Ghazali... bcz as far as ik ibn Sina was the father of modern Medicine and not the one of Cosmological arguments

[torpid dirge]

@elder seal you didn't answer my question

[tender vessel]

I'm not sure I understand.
A statement is tautological when mentioning the same word multiple times redundantly. In such case, it's indeed meaningless.
It's true that tree is a tree, but what does it add in terms of knowledge or facts? Nothing. It's stating the obvious, and therefore, meaningless. That's what is intended to be implied there.

It seems you're implicitly agreeing with G. E. Moore's argument there. Since you distinguish between moral goodness and badness from natural properties such as pain and well-being.

[waxen shale]

No. I'm pretty sure ibn sina came up with the argument of necessary existence

[elder seal]

I don't know what you're asking. What's "general"? The real difficulty with philosophy lays in the fact that when you jump from tradition to tradition, you've got to familiarize yourself with a new series of terminologies and taxonomies that often distinguish themselves from each other. So Heidegger has his own taxonomy build on his understanding of ancient Greek will not be accessible to someone familiar with C. S. Peirce

[void arch]

its the same the Cosmological Argument bcz there are types of his Cosmological arg and not only the typical one ppl know.

[torpid dirge]

Ibn Sina also philosophist in arebic language along with complete philosophical system

[elder seal]

I don't think this meaningfully dealt with my inquiry. I'm merely noting that "goodness" as a universal is an adjective composed of a series of things which are 'Good.' Same way that 'tree' is a universal composed of a multiplicity of objects that are 'trees,' to say it's a tautology strikes me as a simplification, because "This tree" is not all trees as a universal, and hence, to say that 'this tree' is tautological with 'tree' would be the same as saying there's only 'this tree.'

I may be - I'm not particularly familiarized with ethics, I'm merely asking about subject.

[waxen shale]

You said that ghazali also made the same cosmological argument?

[elder seal]

Ibn Sina's argument is difficult to place, because it's also similar to the ontological argument in certain ways. he bases it on a derivative of a misattributes work of Plotinus which in the Muslim world during his time was known as "Aristotle's theology"

[void arch]

Ghazaly does not have one Cosmological argument he has a lot

from it the "necessary existence"

the causality one is the typical one ppl usually come across with

[lethal sparrow]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1py5YrP21Ug

[void arch]

yes ,It could be similar

[elder seal]

Well, it is. Proof of the truthful is an argument that's difficult to place given its twin influences

The point of course of the Enneads is that there's a "necessary existence," (term not used by Plotinus, but for all intents and purposes essentially what he says) that's prior to the rest of existence

[tender vessel]

Ibn Sina was actually a Qarmatian Ismaili (a Shia sect). So, he wasn't really a Muslim.
He held the position that prophets were lying for people's best interests, he denied the day of judgement, and deemed disbeliever by nearly all Muslim scholars at the time. He also believe the universe was eternal and was never created.
Actually, many Muslim scholars labelled him as an atheist for how contradictory his beliefs were with Islam and even with one another.

So, Muslims didn't take anything from him. His philosophical thoughts were essentially atheistic.

[elder seal]

He also believe the universe was eternal and was never created.
Which is funny given that Aristotle debunked that theorem in his physics

[void arch]

i never knew of that , besides that I read his book Ganon f Teb

his book is very beneficial

that almost 8 centuries was the reference of medicine in the European Universities

google says was hanfi suni:

Janssens demonstrated that Avicenna was a Sunni Hanafi. Avicenna studied Hanafi law, many of his notable teachers were Hanafi jurists, and he served under the Hanafi court of Ali ibn Mamun. Avicenna said at an early age that he remained "unconvinced" by Ismaili missionary attempts to convert him.

it says unconvinced

he repented in the last of his life https://www.bakkah.net/en/the-reality-of-ibn-sina-avicenna-famous-scientist-and-philosopher.htm

ibn kathir, ibn khallikan, al munawi wrote that ibn sina had repented at the end of his life

im not really sure btw

[elder seal]

I think flare's point isn't that Avicenna explicitly believed these things, but that his own metaphysical doctrine is effectively identicaly to them,which by virtue would make him one even if he didn't recognize himself as one

[void arch]

👀

[elder seal]

If I believe X, and X is identical to the belief of X1, I may identify myself with Y, even though my beliefs more strongly resemble X1

[void arch]

i see ,but the thing is he mentioned things about islam ... so i said he had repented..

as many sources say

[elder seal]

🤷🏻‍♂️ If he had, then you'd also accept his earlier work as 'dangerous'

which would be the point, to my understanding, again

[void arch]

not his works but :
(a) the pre-eternal nature of the cosmos,
(b) denial of bodily resurrection, and
(c) stating the God’s knowledge did not relate to particulars.

For this reason, scholars such as al-Ghazali, Ibn Taymiyya, and Ibn al-Qayyim considered Ibn Sina to be a disbeliever. Similarly a number of other scholars had extremely harsh words for him referring to him as a heretic or a “devil”, such as Ibn al-Salah and Imam al-Kashmiri.

However, some scholars, such as Ibn Khalikan and al-Munawi, mention that Ibn Sina repented. Given this, one should affirm that the beliefs he held were heterodox, while possibly suspending judgment regarding his faith as an individual. And God knows best.

[remote walrus]

Cute kitty profile picture awww

[elder seal]

I mean, those would be aspects of his works. At least conclusions derivative of his labour - Whether we acknowledge them as true or not

[void arch]

well ,that in regard to some of his philosophical tautological works and not to what has relation with other natural sciences

[elder seal]

Don't know if the term tautological fits here. And you'd be correct, obviously view of one object doesn't translate to another. Einstein was a splendid physicist, but a subpar economist, so to believe that his economics is good because his physics is would be absurd

[tender vessel]

I see.
You're probably confused. The comparison between different instances of trees with moral goodness and badness isn't entirely analogous. It's not that simple.
For example, in certain scenarios, pain may be considered good. Can any of the instances of tree be the opposite of tree? Obviously not. Morality is much more complicated than that.

Moral judgements are inherently prescriptive, they are not descriptive. They don't describe what is, they prescribe what ought to be.
Reducing moral goodness, for example, to a group of natural properties such as well-being, happiness etc... would mean selfishness is good, greed is good and many other traits that are already deemed immoral. So, your theory, while being a plausible explanation, is inadequate to explain morality.

Furthermore, if you can judge each individual part of goodness (assuming goodness is a composition of well-being, happiness etc...) as being good, on what basis can we judge them? If they are the essence of goodness, how can you use goodness to judge parts of goodness?
In other words, if you say "well-being is good", I could always ask "why is well-being good"? You could respond "because it brings happiness" in which case I'd ask "why is happiness itself good"? And so on.
So, based on these reasons, G. E. Moore argues that natural properties cannot be the essence and grounding for moral truths.

[tender vessel]

Not only Aristotle, many other scientists also proved that in light of physics and cosmology that the universe is finite and not eternal, like Heinrich Olbers who proved the universe is finite through the amount of stars in the sky. He asserted that if the universe is eternal, since it's expanding, and constantly producing stars, should leave us with an infinite amount of stars.
The universe can't be eternal while not being stationary or static.

[tender vessel]

He was a genius scientist. Many Muslim scholars also mentioned that, but that's the only good knowlege he produced.

[elder seal]

I don't know if I did - My point is merely the Goodness, like 'tree,' describes universals. So when we say 'well being is good' we're not necessarily describing a tautology, because "pleasure is also good," so well-being would only be an object within the category we grant the term 'Good.' So, the analogy would still stand.

I'd presumably not consider it to be 'my theory,' given I'm merely entertaining a subject. I'd however argue that goodness can be both descriptive and normative; and not just one - Virtue is good describes virtue as Good, while of course assuming the object of "goodness." Goodness being assumed in any claim of 'good.' What we ought may be normative, but any moral description can also be descriptive as opposed to prescriptive.

I'd consider this a fairer contention than the previous one - And I'd largely agree with it. Also why I did mention I'd not consider this 'my theory,' given that by assuming any prescriptive or descriptive statement assuming 'goodness' we've already supposed an object of "goodness" as its prior. I.e., if "you are good" I've already assumed 'Goodness' before I describe you the object of goodness.

[elder seal]

I'm mentioning Aristotle given his influence on Ibn Sina. Ibn Sina should've known of Aristotle's objection to infinite regress and 'eternity' prior to making his work

so my point of bringing up Aristotles is that It's weird he'd even believe in an 'eternal universe,' unless he prescribes the universe divinity and make it identical to God

[void arch]

thats true.

[void arch]

which he didn't....thats kinda weird.

[elder seal]

It's the only way his argument makes sense. Aristotle argued that if there's an eternal series of change and time, then there's an infinite amount of time 'backwards' in time, and if it's an infinite amount of time, it'd take an infinite amount of time for us to be here and now, meaning we'd never be able to be here and now.

[void arch]

i know about the infinite regress fallacy

its logical so far

[elder seal]

Well, just important to remember. Because a lot of people meet the cosmological argument by an argument that's already been met by Aristotles around 2000 years ago

Granted, most people that propose the cosmological argument often don't even know it themselves

[remote walrus]

I’m scared. You guys have been discussing philosophy for a whole hour please no more

[torpid dirge]

You guys have asserting on this concept almost over 1 hours or more 😹

[elder seal]

Also, it could be that Ibn Sina never read the parts of the work by Aristotles. Most works during these times were fragmented, so it may be that the reason he didn't was that he simply hadn't read it. Works weren't as easily accessible back then as they are today

[thorny steeple]

They have the will power y'know

[torpid dirge]

That channel should be named as an argument chat rather then serious chat

[void arch]

The argument runs as follows: There is existence, or rather our phenomenal experience of the world confirms that things exist, and that their existence is non-necessary because we notice that things come into existence and pass out of it. Contingent existence cannot arise unless it is made necessary by a cause.

so he wouldn't need to make that arg

[tender vessel]

I understand, but the property of being "good" isn't universal in the sense that it's absolute. In such case, we would be arguing for moral absolutism.
In other words, as I've mentioned earlier, in certain scenarios, pain could be considered morally good, while well-being may be considered morally bad. In contrast, a tree can never be the opposite of tree. It's absolutely a tree. I hope that makes sense.

When I'm saying "your theory", I just mean your idea or understanding. I don't mean you quite literally made a whole ethical theory or something, especially given the large ethical landscape, that notion you're describing might be already a preexisting ethical theory.
Regarding morality being descriptive, in philosophy, stating "this is good" is a prescriptive statement, not a descriptive as many would think. In any case you are judging a behavior, you're making a prescriptive statement, not a descriptive one.

[elder seal]

You're correct, he wouldn't

[tender vessel]

Oh, yeah, you're right.

[elder seal]

I understand - Though, I'm merely asserting that Goodness and tree would be 'universal' in the sense that they're categories applied to objects which they describe. So any particular 'tree' is a category describing 'trees' in the plural. Like what's "Good" describes anything sharing in the adjective Good.

I mostly mean that by 'my theory' you mean I subscribe to it - Which I don't. I'm merely entertaining the theory, as opposed to agreeing with it.
And you're correct - Any ought or normative claim is prescriptive, though whenever we entertain something 'Good' we're not necessarily considering it in prescriptive terms, but descriptive. My point is that when we affirm something is morally correct, we're of course being prescriptive. But when we assert it axiomatically, we're often descriptive.

[elder seal]

Yea - So unless Avicenna failed to read either physics or metaphysics, then I don't exactly know why he'd entertain such an obvious error

[void arch]

its not

he wouldn't need it

[elder seal]

What do we mean by 'it'? the theory that the universe is eternal, or either metaphysics and physics?

[void arch]

infinite regress

in completion of his CA

[elder seal]

The idea that the universe is eternal assumes that it'd have taken an infinite amount of time for anything to exist in it, sort of the same error as mentioned above.

That's why the universe must be created in the first place, and the first mover must be outside of the universe

[void arch]

He argued that cosmos has no beginning but is a natural logical product of the divine One. The super-abundant, pure Good that is the One cannot fail to produce an ordered and good cosmos that does not succeed him in time. The cosmos succeeds God merely in logical order and in existence.

[elder seal]

I can see why he was accused of atheism

[elder seal]

Though - This is where the more obvious characteristics of his neoplatonic influences come up - At least in Plotinus, everything persists 'within' the one , so the universe exists 'within the one' and may as well be eternal, though cannot exist without The One (the good) - I assume that's the argument he's presenting

But it makes more sense in that way, I can see why he'd believe that; though this is also why the argument is probably more ontological than it's cosmological

[tender vessel]

Yes. I'm aware that this is what your assertion is implying. I'm saying it's not analogous because trees and tree are not similar to goodness and good as categories.
Goodness is the essence, meaning that it's the starting point in which you judge other things. Good is the quality of aligning with what goodness prescribes.
That's why stating that "well-being is good", while claiming this natural property of "well-being" is itself the grounding of good, would be like saying "well-being is well-being", because they should essentially be identical terms. This is a tautological statement, and therefore, is meaningless as G. E. Moore argues.
Hopefully, that makes sense now.

Anyhow, I've gotta go now. It's late and I have to hit the sack.
@elder seal
Thank you for this interesting discussion. 🤍
See ya later. 👋

@void arch
See ya, Ayoub. Assalamu Alikum. 👋

[elder seal]

That comes down to the point of the analogy. Something not being 1-1 does not mean it cannot be used as an analogy; the point is merely that particulars v. Universals are necessarily distinct, even if a particular is an object of a universal. That's true with goodness as much as with tree(ness) was the only reason of bringing up the tree.

Yes - Though, It made sense before, that's why i acknowledged the objection against the naturalistic position you made above: "if you can judge each individual part of goodness (assuming goodness is a composition of well-being, happiness etc...) as being good, on what basis can we judge them?" Because the problem with the naturalistic framework is that it either regards goodness as tautological, or it regards the objects of goodness as being 'before' goodness, but then it isn't really "good" but just well-being.

Goodness must be 'first' in sequence. I.e., Goodness -> well-being, as opposed to well-being = goodness or wellbeing -> goodness

Also - see you 👋🏻

[elder seal]

Also, by the way, your description of why he believed the universe was eternal makes sense within the framework he's working under - Though, i don't know if it actually meets the objection raised.

In either case, this statement is very obviously Plotinus inspired; I'd actually recommend reading 'the enneads' if you ever get the time.

though, it's definitely sounds closer to an ontological argument, in that it doesn't need time and change to prove its object of interest. In this sense, the universe might as well have been eternal because it's of no interest whether it is or not in that it isn't concerned with change

[odd gulch]

Wassup guys

[feral river]

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/SaW3G1al5oY

🫡

[severe arch]

What are you guys talking about

[hard wind]

Loada bullshit

[thorny steeple]

https://x.com/rohanpaul_ai/status/1883601254318039148?s=46

Rohan Paul (@rohanpaul_ai) on X

Deep seek interesting prompt.. From Reddit

X · Jan 26, 2025, 7:41 PM

This video has me laughing omg

DeepSeek is a Chinese artificial intelligence tho

It is a great app i think ngl

[muted patio]

Thank you lot dude i had a perfect sleep after i read some Kant

[alpine dragon]

Historical records, really?

[lethal sparrow]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyZbhavRvi4

[dire aurora]

💀

[gusty sage]

[cursive junco]

Hello guys

How's is going'

[feral river]

that vid boring as fuck

and full of nonsense

basically leftist propaganda

[normal dawn]

Hello peopes

I see... we have got ourselves in politics huh>?

I have a question. Say, A and B are two companies who started a joint venture. But things started heating up. And soon both of them realised that they couldnt work together anymore. Before starting this contract, there was an exit clause that mentions that the party that initiates it will have to provide 1/3 of all the assets included. But the assets are not cleary defined. So, when one party introduced that exit clause they said that the money provided was not enough. Whats even more crazy is that now both parties are showig different contracts. One that is stamped and the other that is unstamped. So, how do we solve this issue?

[weak birch]

Can we be friends?

[lethal sparrow]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcdufLc3QSA

[muted patio]

Capitalism maybe

[high lynx]

[severe token]

Wanna hear a fun fact about insects ?

[dapper laurel]

No problem mate, a good book at night can help to avoid the screen, which is important to have a good sleep

[shy summit]

This sentence is getting old, you call everything propaganda bro pls stop

[feral river]

I don't think so and that's propaganda

I'm just telling the truth, it's pretty hard to find another word to replace 'propaganda'

[shy summit]

Not really

[feral river]

and I don't like propaganda have you ever see me sharing a bunch of rightist stuff ?

I just don't do that

[shy summit]

Nothing in that video was false

[feral river]

everything in that video was based on a ridiculous way of viewing these issues

[shy summit]

It was based on solid definitions

[feral river]

left definitions

[shy summit]

….

[feral river]

....

that's it

[shy summit]

Sociology definitions are left definitions now…

Kay

Nah nah no need

[feral river]

hard to say if that was a sociology one

[shy summit]

It literally is

Anyways I have work to do, you know finishing my degree

On this subject

[feral river]

yeah have fun with that tomorrow's lunar new year

i got a lot work to do to celebrate that with my fam

and happy lunar new year

[shy summit]

Eat good food don’t drink to much and pace yourself with water.

[feral river]

ah or by propaganda, happy chinese new year

[shy summit]

Oh and don’t get pregnant

[feral river]

55 kg myself

[hazy panther]

Hi guys

[main bison]

there is no way Elon musk is nazi

[umbral narwhal]

https://youtu.be/z1f8cWcbEk8

[thorny steeple]

I'm here

[umbral narwhal]

Where are you from?

Guys please subscribe to my channel;

https://youtu.be/z1f8cWcbEk8

[waxen shale]

It just silly

They cranking up on the nazi accusation lol.

[rose eagle]

Happy lunar new year

I'm waiting for that moment so I can get my "lucky money"

that amount can be up to 100usd

In China, how much lucky money can a child receive on average during Lunar New Year?

[dusty orbit]

Me too. Even though I'm not Chinese my uncle usually give me "Lucky Money"

Is that same on your side?

[rose eagle]

Yes

Where are u from?

[dusty orbit]

Indonesia LOL.

[dusty orbit]

that's cool. how much do you usually get?

[rose eagle]

Around 90usd or 80usd

[dusty orbit]

also, since I am not a little child anymore I barely get it. ugh, now when I need it the most no one give it to me

[dusty orbit]

impressive.

[rose eagle]

Is it because of the Chinese influence there that you still get lucky money in Indonesia?

[dusty orbit]

of course it's because the Chinese influence. otherwise they would never do that

[rose eagle]

In Vietnam too, besides your uncle, does any of your relatives give you lucky money?

and do you get off work on lunar new year?

[dusty orbit]

My sister. Ah that's so cool that you're from Vietnam. I just watched this one Vietnam YouTuber making Vietnam dish in Germany.

she did make a lot of food. the one that is intriguing to me is the braised pork with coconut. that's very unique!

[rose eagle]

Oh, and my mom is making Chung cake.

[main bison]

What is lucky money

i also want that

[dusty orbit]

I think I've heard of it before. It's that dish that made of pork then wrapped in a leaves right? cmiiw

[dusty orbit]

don't you get that during Christmas or sth?

[rose eagle]

The dish is made of rice, green beans, and pork inside.

[rose eagle]

Where are u from?

[dusty orbit]

I see. Is the rice a sticky rice or it's just a normal rice?

[rose eagle]

Hmm i think is normal rice

[dusty orbit]

tempting

are you from Da Nang by any chance?

[main bison]

Iran

[main bison]

no

[zenith salmon]

#💭｜general message

[verbal torrent]

Mechanic

[zenith salmon]

Thanks

[feral river]

100 - 200 bucks lol

[rose eagle]

Wtf

[feral river]

not much lol

[rose eagle]

Wtf!!??!?

Why?

The average rich person doesn't think they are rich.

in my country that is a huge amount of money

[lavish river]

Y'all chat , how learn deutch . Its difficult language for me . Like that as structure of speech , words how pronounce some words so hard . so has anyone ever learned Deutsch lngl , if yup tell how m1Fc

[obtuse eagle]

hi animals

[upper peak]

Hii human !

[feral river]

What you can buy with 100 bucks ?

[obtuse eagle]

heeeeee

[hollow plume]

Heey

[thorny steeple]

Anugya

[rose eagle]

That's a lot of money for kids like us.

Only*

Hmm....

[cinder quartz]

https://tenor.com/view/cat-strawberry-gif-25029369

[prisma cipher]

They just can't stop

They don't know we have pc gaming culture. But I prefer consoles

[feral river]

we use computer play games lol

I don't even have a console for all the time

[rose eagle]

do you live in russia ?

[prisma cipher]

Yes

[rose eagle]

Can I buy games on steam in Russia?

[prisma cipher]

Sure

But it might be a lil bit tricky

[manic juniper]

https://tenor.com/view/medi-evil-sir-gif-27207642

[prisma cipher]

But it easier than buying games on consoles

I mean digital version

[wooden loom]

anyone here like chatting vedio ? ( just speakinf for english not something else )

[prisma cipher]

https://tenor.com/view/spyro-waving-wave-hello-hi-gif-26355414

[rose eagle]

I thought international payment methods were banned.

[silk ermine]

Hello

[rose eagle]

In russia

[main bison]

cutieee

[upper peak]

Yeah John Don 😎✌️ ,
everything fine??

[thorny steeple]

Hello, there is an English native speaker here

[gusty hazel]

Guys i need to ask 1 question

Did the Pope allow homosexuals?

[prisma cipher]

It works.

[shy summit]

Kind of yes

Christians are becoming more and more tolerant of LGBT partially because of realizing it only comes from a mistranslation

[gusty hazel]

Thats mean If I am gay, it is not forbidden?

Regarded to god

[shy summit]

You can’t forbid a state that happens naturally outside of your control

[gusty hazel]

The last question: Do homosexuals go to heaven or hell?

[shy summit]

Frankly?

It doesn’t matter

But technically the former

A lot of Christians will fight me on this out of hate or plain ignorance

[gusty hazel]

I was shocked

Because God forbade this in the Bible.

[shy summit]

Christians are slowly becoming less hateful. I wish others grew as culturally as they have in the past 50 years but sadly they are busy surviving

[shy summit]

He didn’t

Its a mistranslation from Hebrew

Man shall not lay with boy

Not with man

The whole Leviticus quote is meant to say don’t be a pedophile

[gusty hazel]

"You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination." (Leviticus 18:22, NKJV)

[shy summit]

Yeah

Mistranslated

The word man there is actually “Boy”

[gusty hazel]

What is the correct translation, even though this is the Septuagint translation, which is the most accurate version

[gusty hazel]

What is the difference

[shy summit]

The difference is that it’s telling you not to sleep with a child

[gusty hazel]

I understood you

But there are many other verses

[gusty hazel]

And how did you know that .
Are you studing?

"For this reason, God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." (Romans 1:26-27)

"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine." (1 Timothy 1:9-10)

What is your interpretation in that ?

I don't know how the Vatican allowed homosexuality with all these verses

[shy summit]

I’ve studied the old testament some

[gusty hazel]

I think There must be respect for homosexuals, but we must advise them to refrain from this.

[dusty orbit]

does that mean like, pedophilia or sth?

[gusty hazel]

The Orthodox Pope completely forbade this sin.

[shy summit]

Exactly

[shy summit]

Sadly I have to disagree with ‘forbidding’ anything we can’t make policy on Faith you need actual data.

[gusty hazel]

We are almost defying God

[shy summit]

Yes, according to your faith but you can’t make policy on faith

[gusty hazel]

Right

[dusty orbit]

I am completely agree. The idea of God punish one's individuals had drive me insane since I was young. And so does the idea of human needs to be scared of God.

[shy summit]

Your faith is for you alone, you may self impose greater restrictions but not apply them to all of society.

[gusty hazel]

He must have a parental relationship between man, by God, and we should not do this sin, not out of fear of God, but out of respect for him.

[dusty orbit]

Got it.

[gusty hazel]

I like your responses

[shy summit]

Indeed the evidence based medicine surrounding LGBT topics is clear, despite the decries individuals who otherwise try to fight evidence based medicine and research. I suspect they may reply to this hostilely I’d discourage them from doing so.

The fight at home for my rights already has me fired up so.

[gusty hazel]

Does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father and the Son or from the Father only?

That question is very very very important

[shy summit]

That would depend on your denomination

[lethal sparrow]

“When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were a foreigners once. I am the Lord your God."

Leviticus 19:33-34

[gusty hazel]

How do I know my denomination correctly? How do I know if this thing is correct or not? I don’t understand anything.

Because I was born Orthodox, I must believe in it and not change it. No, of course I must know what each religion is and what each denomination is... No one has a correct religion except Christianity, but which sect is correct, no one knows.

[shy summit]

You don’t. Granted from my perspective there is no objectively true religion.

[gusty hazel]

This is a complex matter that the human mind cannot understand.

[gusty hazel]

What is the religion or denomination that you believe in?

But From your heart

[shy summit]

I’m an Atheist.

No religion is true. The burden will always be on the believer and the evidenced produced has been insufficient to support the ultimate claim.

[gusty hazel]

What is your family religion?

I studied atheism a lot..and for me Christianity and atheism are the two strongest religions

But it is never easy for a person to change his religion or denomination for fear of his family and society, especially in Arab countries.

[lethal sparrow]

you "studied" atheism and you think its a "religion"
....ya blew it m8

[gusty hazel]

you misunderstood

I don't mean it's a religion, but it's a group of people.

I don't know what the term is

That's why I said religion

[feral river]

Is that really the point ?

The point is they got no solid evidence to proof their legitimacy, saying a bunch of unreal stuff and try to use tribalism to expand their cult, then rule people based on their outdated fucked unreal dreaming system

It’s 100% more terrible than leftism one lol

And they are outdated, they are totally out of the power center

Even some islamic states were literally based on military dictatorship

Lmao

[gusty hazel]

True

[gusty hazel]

What do you mean? I don't understand.

[manic juniper]

To be fair I don't think it's very important, the Son also proceeds from the Father so the Filioque never made sense to me. It was pretty much a different way to say the same thing

[gusty hazel]

This question is important because the difference in it occurred among denomination

Thats why i am asked for it

[manic juniper]

The biggest disagreements between the Orthodox churches and the Catholic one are about books nowadays

I don't think God would care that much if it's about differences of views on the nature of the Holy Spirit either

[main bison]

@feral river
https://youtube.com/shorts/tEjukyQpBg4?si=cj7OMlNLhCUmJSYf

[umbral escarp]

Hello

[stoic cedar]

Hi guys

[lethal sparrow]

https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1ibqyil/white_house_pauses_all_federal_grants_sparking/

[shy summit]

Tf

[rose eagle]

Happy lunar new year in vietnam!!!

[shy summit]

https://x.com/krassenstein/status/1884198343737315475?s=46&t=_4te3tAT61vk9Mlvl0m7cw

Once again he’s lying. This did not happen.

Brian Krassenstein (@krassenstein) on X

FACT CHECK from the California Department of Water Resources:

“The military did not enter California. The federal government restarted federal water pumps after they were offline for maintenance for three days. State water supplies in Southern California remain plentiful.”

In

X · Jan 28, 2025, 11:14 AM

Please stay safe out there

[lethal sparrow]

RFK is about to get his HHS nomination....

[shy summit]

Cancer Research is now on pause

Wtf

Its been 7 days and people are already dying because of this motherfucker

[lethal sparrow]

the first trump term killed 1 million americans from covid. new high score?

[shy summit]

Jesus christ

Imagine pausing care for cancer patients holy fucking shit

[rigid flicker]

Yooo

Hello m'y brothers

Oh shoot

*my

[shy summit]

Bro got fact check by our depot of water

[main bison]

BLAME CHINA FOR THAT

the covid was lab made

[shy summit]

That hasn’t been proven

[manic juniper]

China will take over Taiwan before the end of Trump's term

This is on my bingo card now

[shy summit]

He’s trying to appoint a guy who thinks wifi causes ‘leaky brain’ to the head of our medical sector

He’s also blocked said sector from releasing health information

[formal pilot]

Freezing funding for Title I is absurd

[shy summit]

Yeah this is disgusting…

[mystic bay]

Sorry it took me a while to respond to this. Busy busy.

I'll start with the is/ought problem. For me as a virtue ethicist, moral 'oughts' certainly have a place, but they do not take centre stage. This is because virtue ethics takes an agent-centered perspective, rather than an action-centered perspective. That is, qualities of character are primarily 'good', and actions are considered 'good' only derivatively, as actions that would be exemplary of a good person.

This doesn't circumvent the is/ought problem, but it does refocus it. The problem might alternatively be framed in terms of facts versus values, and this, I think, is a more helpful way of thinking about it. I will say something about 'oughts' in a little bit though.

Goodness, I think, is a teleological notion: something is good only in relation to some end. This might seem to suggest a subjectivist theory of goodness, since different people have different desires and goals. But, from an Aristotelian naturalist perspective, nature is pregnant with teleology (or 'final causes'). So goodness is perfectly natural.

This is most clear in the case of health and wellbeing. All judgements about health and wellbeing presuppose teleology. When we say that someone has a good heart (or a bad heart), this judgement presupposes some function which the organ is supposed to carry out. The fact that there is something the heart is supposed to be doing is just that: a fact. Then there is also the fact of whether the heart is--or is not--carrying out that function. And thus we have a natural, evaluative fact.

The heart's natural function is one thing. Whether this particular heart is carrying out its function is another thing. But this is not a difference between a non-factual evaluative judgement, on the one hand, and a value-free factual judgement, on the other. Both judgements are evaluative and factual. Now, this is not always the case; sometimes a judgement might be 'purely' factual and genuinely value-free. But the point is that the 'evaluativeness' of a judgement does not preclude its also being a fact about the world.

From the perspective of virtue ethics, virtues are traits of the will. And the will, like the intellect or the imagination, is a natural human faculty. Like all natural faculties (of organisms, at least), it has a function, one which allows for the possibility of functioning well or malfunctioning. One way in which the will might malfunction is if it wills things which will lead to its own ultimate frustration. This, I believe, is the general characteristic of all vice: greed, vengefulness, etc. By contrast, I believe that it is a general characteristic of the virtues that they are part of a profound and tenacious happiness. I could say a lot more about this, but I'm speedrunning it.

Once we acknowledge the reality of natural (and especially organic) function, we have an objective teleology, and thus an objective natural basis for evaluative judgements. Extending these judgements to the will, we have the beginnings of a system of objective ethics rooted in human nature.

How virtue ethics provides action-guidance--how it tells you what to do--is a fascinating and controversial subject in itself. But the fundamental principle is this: everything we do is an expression of what we are like as persons, and everything we do feeds into the kind of people that we will become. So, we can reasonably make judgements about people's actions based on the virtues or vices they disclose or cultivate. A judgement like 'Murder is wrong' may be understood as a convenient shorthand for identifying whatever vices are on display when a murder is committed (greed, vengefulness, wrath, etc.). And if vices are defects of the faculty of the will, as I maintain, then they are as objective and natural as judgements about the state of a person's heart.

[dapper laurel]

China won't do any shit, nothing ever happens

[manic juniper]

It's exactly why they will invade, because USA won't react

Or they will be too busy with the next stupid thing going on

[dapper laurel]

Taiwan is an important asset for the US, I don't think they will let it go so easily

[manic juniper]

They just announced tariffs on Taiwanese chips

The EU is important as well yet he threatens a war over Greenland, just why

[dapper laurel]

They just started with Panama, they will eliminate Chinese influence there and then move on to Taiwan if necessary

[dapper laurel]

Trump was doing TV shows and business before he got into politics, he's used to talking big, I think he always wants a compromise

We've already seen a Trump mandate, and it hasn't been that catastrophic

[young robin]

sup isfrun

[manic juniper]

Forcing compromises all the times in just few days isn't really a great look

[manic juniper]

He didn't seem this stupid or crazy before

[dapper laurel]

It's the old age 😂

[manic juniper]

He just seemed like a bad politician meanwhile he now looks like he's either a sleeper agent or on a payroll

[ocean galleon]

You guys always should explain something in Feymann technique, the explanation which people grasp easily and understand properly

[dapper laurel]

I know, unfortunately this is his policy, and sometimes he doesn't even get good results from it

As it happened with Biden, the one who will really command during his mandate will be the vice president or some member of the internal government

[humble mortar]

Yo folks I am new here or you can call me noob

I am really into politics as well, gonna side with capitalism and Trump comeback is necessary, new era begins from now

[unique light]

https://tenor.com/view/trump-gif-9479146

[shy summit]

Medicaid is down across all 50 states right now oh my god

Holy shit fuck fuck fuck this is bad

[shy summit]

Bro millions of americans can’t get healthcare rn

[ashen mortar]

https://tenor.com/view/honest-gif-27574448

[mystic bay]

A well-oiled machine

[elder seal]

Damn - we writing essays about ethics now 😎

[mystic bay]

https://tenor.com/view/my-apologies-cheese-kitty-cat-sorry-my-bad-gif-1026852287997442026

[elder seal]

It was a good essay though 🙂‍↕️

[mystic bay]

Thank you

[elder seal]

No problem - Last time I wrote something that long was when I had a discussion on Hegelian dialectics 😭

[elder seal]

While I doubt any significant thought has gone into it - The EU has been distancing itself from the U.S for a few years by now. There's been a push for increasing foreign policy independence since the mid 2010s

So, in that sense, the EU is a potential problem for the U.S in the future. The most likely reason is that we've got a threat of China investing freely in Greenland without any substitute; meaning that Greenland can become a place for Chinese foreign investment; given its proximity to the U.S, that's a threat to the U.S

Specifically, in 2021, the Danish military intelligence agency, FE, released a report noting the threat China is to the Danish commonwealth. To quote the abstract:

At the end of January 2018, China published its long-awaited Arctic Strategy. It stands as a provisional culmination of recent years’ development of a more assertive, proactive and sophisticated Chinese diplomacy in the Arctic. Beijing has intensified efforts to establish strong and comprehensive relations with all Arctic actors and gradually increased China’s presence and influence in Arctic institutions. More Chinese investments and infrastructure projects are also finding their way to the Arctic. This is largely driven by increasing Chinese interest in Arctic resources and sea routes, which are now officially included in President Xi Jinping’s major prestige project ‘The New Silk Road’. The brief analyses China’s Arctic Strategy with a focus on potential implications for Greenland and for the Commonwealth. The main message is that China’s increasing role and presence in the Arctic represents both a challenge and an opportunity, depending on whether Copenhagen and Nuuk manage to have open, respectful and constructive dialogue and cooperation on this.
https://research.fak.dk/esploro/outputs/workingPaper/Kina-som-stormagt-i-Arktis-potentielle/991815890703741

[main bison]

Whats the meaning of life as someone with phd in phisolopphy?

[elder seal]

philosophy*

😊

[main bison]

phiosophy

Philosophy

[mystic bay]

https://tenor.com/view/chocolate-spongebob-fish-rage-love-chocolate-gif-4938413

[main bison]

bruh 😭

[elder seal]

Chocolate

[shy summit]

Cancer Funded Treatments and medicaid are all on pause Americans cannot seek covered care until said pause ends

[gusty hazel]

Why do you spend so much time on discord ,Nale ?

You still here from the morning

Can i know why

Sorry if I was nosy

[obtuse eagle]

anyone got book recommendations to improve english speaking skills?

[gusty hazel]

Nice question

Where are you from

[obtuse eagle]

Why does it matter

[gusty hazel]

To recommended a book in your country

[gusty hazel]

Trifling question

[obtuse eagle]

I’m from japan

[gusty hazel]

Its very far

[obtuse eagle]

Yup

[obtuse eagle]

What’s trifling

[gusty hazel]

Why did you need to learn english

For a job or studying?

[obtuse eagle]

I plan to study abroad specifically in america

[gusty hazel]

Very nice

Its my plan also

[obtuse eagle]

Do you have any advice

Cool

[gusty hazel]

How older you

[obtuse eagle]

17

[gusty hazel]

I am 18

[obtuse eagle]

And youre from?

[gusty hazel]

Egypt

[obtuse eagle]

Egypt is also very far

[gusty hazel]

We have the same goal

[gusty hazel]

And very poor

[obtuse eagle]

What do you want to study in america

[gusty hazel]

I planned to take an English course and take a scholarship

[gusty hazel]

I need Any place not america only

[obtuse eagle]

@gusty hazel

[gusty hazel]

But america is the best

[obtuse eagle]

Oh good to know

[gusty hazel]

You should to have a big determination because its not easy to learn language

And never be disappointed

And you must watch english films to practice your english

And speak to people who need to learn english

[obtuse eagle]

Ok noted

[gusty hazel]

If you need We can practice our english together

Because it is necessary to talk to foreigners

If you want, we can talk to each other.

[obtuse eagle]

Ofc we can but i don’t have any topics to talk about

[gusty hazel]

This will help you a lot to practice the language.

[gusty hazel]

Just Talk as a friends

[obtuse eagle]

We can update each other tho

[gusty hazel]

I will send you friend request

[obtuse eagle]

Ok

[true lark]

Oh how I love it when people think they can treat you like you aren't a human because you're a bit different and then they end up shunned by everyone for doing that

[elder seal]

🤨

[true lark]

[elder seal]

.... Uhm, you good?

[true lark]

Yea

[elder seal]

Doesn't sound like it 😭

[true lark]

Why?

[elder seal]

Though, I don't know how well this fits in serious as opposed to general

[true lark]

I wanted to start a serious conversation about people who don't treat others like they're also people

What made you think I wasn't okay? I think the person there got what they deserve and they might even learn to treat others how they should

[elder seal]

Sounds like you're projecting experience. That's why. Also, I don't know if that's true at all - there's no "karmic justice" in this world, many of thosee people end up being highly successeful individuals without ever changing

[true lark]

Oh I was talking about something that just happened

[elder seal]

Exactly why i asked if you were okay

[true lark]

So of course there's not always karma

But this time there was

[true lark]

Yeah I'm fine, people like to think I'm not a person because I'm autistic, I'm used to that

[elder seal]

Aren't we all?

[true lark]

It's nice when others stand up for you is what I meant with it

[elder seal]

Sure - Can't say I've ever experienced that. But no good deed ever goes unpunished, so that's probably a short-lived experience

[true lark]

Idk, honestly it's usually fine, I guess it would be awkward if you don't have a choice but to associate with the person like at work

[elder seal]

Mhm - I've got autism, I'm fairly decent at masking it though so I've no issues generally with people unless I disagree with them on something; in which case, most people think I'm "scary" 😭

Important to remember that autism is associated with an inverted perception among neurotypicals because of difficulty interpreting autistic people's facial patterns and expressions

[true lark]

I never actually heard of that, could you explain more?

[mystic bay]

[elder seal]

It's a fairly well-known phenomenon in psychology. Historically, autistic people were assumed to be without empathy and had poor emotional expressiveness. Later research discovered that this is only true when faced with neurotypicals, and that it's reciprocated among those without autism

So it's not that autism results in deficient empathy, but that those not on the spectrum has less empathy for them in turn

It's known as the double empathy problem

[true lark]

I see, that does make sense yeah

[elder seal]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_empathy_problem for reference

Specifically, recent research based on the double empathy problem indicate that autistic people have average level of empathy when presented with other people on the spectrum

[thorny steeple]

https://tenor.com/view/china-scream-if-you-love-china-scream-if-you-love-country-brock-lesnar-gif-4232401349897427919

[lethal sparrow]

haha

[obtuse eagle]

hey so that’s not nice

[lethal sparrow]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2vUI1461Cg

[feral river]

Happy Lunar New Year Guys

Love you and everyone in this channel

In the new year we will work better for conquer the entire world

[waxen shale]

You too

[still gazelle]

you too

[feral river]

https://x.com/america/status/1855114343219671334?s=46

Make America Red Again

[fleet vault]

do you mean nazi by red

[feral river]

America’s never a nazi

[lethal sparrow]

https://www.youtube.com/live/oqifSCvzaFI

[vocal quest]

What a cute Shiba

Are you the owner miss pjeong

[feral river]

https://x.com/ai_for_success/status/1884253239966875995?s=46

We will use those robots in our military

The new order will come along with the China’s domination

[shy summit]

This is EXTREMELY misleading

Land

Does

Not

Vote

This only shows who won what counties

Problem is,

Fuck all live in most of those red counties,

[feral river]

Oh good to hear how this system suck for all the time if that’s the case in a democratic state

But I can assure you things are not just easy when you can get 50% more of your population voted for “nazis”

But by both I think you are all clear with the current situation

And it will continue to be like this, for now

[shy summit]

Uh bro

[feral river]

Didn’t expect that much when Elon showed up his face on a afd’s rally

[shy summit]

He nearly destroyed the country in one move today

Like

I don’t think you realize

[feral river]

Enlighten me about that

[shy summit]

The only reason we aren’t in flames right now is because our checks and balances kicked in

He tried to just put the entire gov on pause

[feral river]

But you don’t have to worry about it if Biden administration could stay in power

[shy summit]

And a judge was like “fuck you don’t”

[feral river]

Forever

[shy summit]

That’s no better

A permanent leader is not always a stable one

[feral river]

Cuz he faces opposition dude, remember the last south korean guy’s thought on how to deal with it ?

Martial law dude that was cooked

[shy summit]

Yeah and if trump did that, he’d be cooked to

Facing opposition is not an excuse to try and destroy the entire fucking country

[feral river]

We are technically stable with permanent leaders for almost a hundred years

[shy summit]

Bro really said, “oh you have cancer? Try dying faster,”

[feral river]

But how to make it better if he faces opposition lol

That contradicts to his agenda

[shy summit]

You vote his dumbass party out in two years?

He has legal limits

[feral river]

Almost every administration with a great leader would have a purge in the first place to consolidate power dude

That was written in history lol

[shy summit]

He has to work within them or face punishment

[shy summit]

That’s not great

That’s bad

[feral river]

But that happens all the time and benefit a lot of people

I mean majority of people

[shy summit]

Okay

First off

Do you like kids

Or old people

[feral river]

We have to care them because of stability

If we don’t care them, how could you assure that you would be cared by somebody when you are an old

Or you will have a kid without protection

That’s a national/society stability issue

[shy summit]

Yeah

What he tried to do today

Would have killed hundreds of thousands

No medical care

No food

Boom

Just

No pay for gov workers

If the money came from the gov

It would have just stopped

Just

Poof

That’s fucking retarded

[feral river]

What

What was that shit would cause it

Fire some employees would be normal in everywhere dude

[lethal sparrow]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kt1KVS6BO8E

[humble mortar]

China AI model is dominating now DeepSeek is on fire 🔥

[main bison]

it cant even generate a photo

And also its memory in chat is signficantly shorter than openai

[covert quiver]

https://tenor.com/view/trump-trump-dance-donald-trump-trump-dancing-trump-2024-gif-8568283597161173672

[main bison]

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1047115243500875819/1263440192178618368/youtube-E2m11DM9A0U.mp4?ex=679aa99f&is=6799581f&hm=d9edf5416c639ef0e81440557674e3af75842f13b4ea692da2746d07cedf3d96&

Uncle Trump has infinite Aura ∞±

[shy summit]

Its not firing imagine your boss just decided to stop paying for anything

[shy summit]

Its literally just open ai

Its cloned code

[feral river]

Equivalent to fire everyone, and that’s what they do

They are going to dismantle most useless departments

After that they may reduce the burden for caring kids and olds by raising social benefit

But first they have to get rid of those abundant amount of bureaucrats

That’s why they got DOGE

Don’t worry dude he’s just creating a China in the US

Can’t be more obvious

[shy summit]

It’s illegal

So the judge stopped him because it would have killed people

[shy summit]

That’s not a good thing

[shy summit]

DODGE has no government power

[feral river]

Dude what do you want

I just don’t get it

Wasn’t it even worse if he seemingly care everyone and randomly fuck you on some issues

[shy summit]

Mine i need you understand this

[feral river]

You won’t be fucked is all what I know

[shy summit]

Imagine you worked for a business okay?

And your boss one day just said “I’m not paying you anymore but you still have to work for me,”

[feral river]

Yeah

Then go fuck yourself ?

Or strike, or sue

[shy summit]

Now imagine you can’t stop working for him

[feral river]

Why

[shy summit]

Because that business is your house

You can’t leave

[feral river]

Why I can’t leave to find another one

[shy summit]

But you can’t pay for your medicine

Food

Clothes

This is basically what happened

[feral river]

What

[shy summit]

It would have shut down everything

[feral river]

That’s ridiculous

[shy summit]

Are you starting to see why this piece of shit is retarded?

[feral river]

I thought it was like you are fired get the fuck out or I won’t pay you anymore

Then you have to find else where to settle

[shy summit]

Now imagine you’re a cancer patient

Maybe you’re a veteran

Circumstance is irrelevant

[feral river]

Oh yeah crazy rich veteran with huge government benefits

[shy summit]

The point is that the government pays for cancer research

All of a sudden your doctor tells you

[feral river]

Yeah every gov do that

[shy summit]

Yeah well

Trump tried to stop paying for that yesterday

Cancer patients were being told by their doctors that the government which is contractually obligated mind you, stopped paying for treatment

[feral river]

Oh privatization ?

[shy summit]

No

Not even

[feral river]

Sounds not too bad for a long-term reform

[shy summit]

Millions would have died within a week

[feral river]

But yeah it will cause some issues at least not a shutdown

Or people will fucked

[shy summit]

Mine you don’t understand

Apply this logic

To EVERYTHING

[feral river]

That’s the case if he cut off the money flow

[shy summit]

cops firefighters infrasyructure

Medical workers

[feral river]

They all fired though if that’s the case

[shy summit]

Yeah he can’t do that

[feral river]

Yeah like a total privatization in a state scale

[shy summit]

He is obligated to follow the law

The law says you have to pay this

Congress is talking about impeaching him again already

[feral river]

Oh so a freaking crazy reform would fuck millions of people and nobody knows if it will work or not, failed and done

[shy summit]

Its not a reform

[feral river]

That’s the case

[shy summit]

The country would cease to exist

Overnight it would turn into the fucking borderlands

[feral river]

Will ? I don’t think so as long as the military stays

[shy summit]

Who pays them

[feral river]

Ofc that would be easy to declare martial law if he achieved that

[shy summit]

Who pays the millitary mine

THINK

[feral river]

Gov

[shy summit]

No one would pay them

Because it uses gov money

That’s how retarded this is

[feral river]

He’s going to expand the military spendings

[shy summit]

How’s he gonna do that when the government can’t spend anything

The order freezes ALL gov spending

You can’t buy anything

[feral river]

Hummm he can do that actually if he cut off other stuff just for increase military spending

[main bison]

did u see the video i tagged u?

[feral river]

But people will be fucked

[feral river]

I did not, you can send it again

[shy summit]

Yeah but who’s gonna disburse those funds?

Mine you don’t get it

The guy

Is a moron

[feral river]

People

People will always foot the bill

[shy summit]

For free?

Who’s gonna collect the money?

[feral river]

He’s a president before dude

[shy summit]

Yes and he nearly tanked the ecconomy

[feral river]

Good point

Yeah that pretty strange sounds like

[shy summit]

Do you wanna know how much eggs cost compared to last week?

[feral river]

Idk

[shy summit]

500% more

They cost

Five

Times

[feral river]

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh reason ?

Did he just cut off the egg supply ?

[shy summit]

He prevented our health and safety orgs from reporting on it but there is bird flu going about

He literally won’t let our health organizations report on a major disease in Kansas

[feral river]

He is going to quit WHO

[shy summit]

But its the biggest tuberculosis outbreak in history

[feral river]

That’s all I know

[shy summit]

REALLY bad idea

[feral river]

But that org ain’t work well in history we don’t even report covid to them at the first time

Well we are kinda responsible for this lol

[shy summit]

MAYBE that’s why covid was a fucking PROBLEM?

Bro

[main bison]

https://youtube.com/shorts/tEjukyQpBg4?si=cj7OMlNLhCUmJSYf

[feral river]

But we can’t reverse a pandemic

[shy summit]

What the fuck do you think medicine is

It literally does reverse the effects of illness over time

The fuck you mean you can’t reverse the effects of a pandemic

[feral river]

Dude you can’t reverse that in just 3 months

We just did a late report we tried to stop it

Nobody has medicine at that time

[feral river]

We can’t you don’t have a vaccine, we neither

We did a late report because we wanna try to stop it at first in our territory

And when it was spreading which becomes a global pandemic, then we did report it

You can’t reverse that pandemic in just those 3 months nobody’s did that

And even after that came out, Trump did nothing about it and you guys….. done

And everybody done

Covid is super fast at against mutations so it’s hard to use one vaccine to combat against covid

Well blame Trump for that is fair, yeah

He’s responsible for that shit

[spiral jackal]

who wanna study / co work wih me. we can do promodoro and speak on break mwa

[thorny steeple]

Yeah, how're you Anu?

[waxen shale]

Covid still dangerous?

[tawny bolt]

me

[shy summit]

Yes though most variants are less lethal.

[feral river]

Ah do we really need WHO ?

I don’t think Americans or Chinese need that shit

We all have our intelligence agency to collect such information

[thorny steeple]

.

[somber light]

.

[wind tartan]

thats a good idea

[waxen sleet]

Hello everyone!!!

Let's improve our English

[mystic bay]

@elder seal ?

[elder seal]

I essentially got my answer after re-reading it

Though, if you'd like to answer regardless, I was merely asking if the point of Aristotle's ethics is that every end is caused by 'the good' - Or if i was misinterpreting something of what you wrote, which i realized after re-reading

[mystic bay]

Aristotle understands 'causation' in various senses (specifically, four), and he would identify the 'good' of something as the final cause, which is the end to which something is naturally directed. So there is a sense in which Aristotle would things are caused by the good.

[elder seal]

Right - So, it could be said that the prime mover would be the 'primary good'?

Or more so, source of all good?

[mystic bay]

Yes, and that is exactly how it was interpreted by the medieval scholastics.

[elder seal]

Ooh, neat - Thank you for the help understanding 🙂‍↕️

[thorny steeple]

🐮🐮🐮 that dude just called 911

[thorny steeple]

https://tenor.com/view/china-scream-if-you-love-china-scream-if-you-love-country-brock-lesnar-gif-4232401349897427919

[main bison]

Me quite

[thorny steeple]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DBLAVcptvfQ/?igsh=MWs0bzI3djVldWNuNA==

[west kiln]

We love taiwan 🇹🇼

[thorny steeple]

Why? Don’t like people Republic of china

[west kiln]

Because they trying to occupy taiwan

[manic juniper]

Taiwan is more polite

[faint viper]

Algeria is the best

[formal pilot]

Send minecraft to Taiwan, it will make china most polite in the world

[shy summit]

True taiwan do be polite

[upper peak]

No , Nepal is the best of all of you..

[ocean galleon]

Taiwanese are intelligent

[thorny steeple]

hello are there any native english speakers here?

[lime cobalt]

Greek may be intelligent, but they still lost to Rome.

[manic juniper]

Doesn't make Romans better

[lime cobalt]

yeah i know, but thats reality

[devout parcel]

I am, do you need help with anything?

[thorny steeple]

yea dm please

[manic juniper]

It's also reality that China lost to birds

[lime cobalt]

Are you referring to the Great Chinese Famine?

[dapper laurel]

🤨

We Romans are better than Greeks

[cinder quartz]

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1089887073181372568/1328268833047187506/video_2025-01-13_14-32-43_online-video-cutter.com_1.gif

[manic juniper]

Confused Byzantine noises

[manic juniper]

Yes

[lime cobalt]

Rome also fell due to internal decay, not because of enemies.

[manic juniper]

Did you really miss the Hunnic and German migrations? Lol

[dapper laurel]

Rome fell because of the Greeks

[manic juniper]

The wars in Italy ravaged it further

[lime cobalt]

But the major factor was its internal decay; with such great power, it should not have fallen easily. With a strategic attack, it would have been finished.

[dapper laurel]

The aristocratic Greek ways weakened the Roman warrior spirit, and made them gay contests

[manic juniper]

They had trade going on with every tribe, clan and country surrounding them, it was even split in two parts. It wasn't just internal decay

If anything they could have recovered with less invasions from other Romans or barbarians

[dapper laurel]

It is incredible that the period of decline of the empire began after Trajan

We slowly fell apart

But Rome lives ardently in our hearts

[lime cobalt]

It all starts with internal decay, like the USA being caught up in domestic issues, leaving them vulnerable to threats from enemies.

Maintaining hegemony was very difficult in the past, perhaps they were still using crows to send messages.

[manic juniper]

That's just a myth created by the Romans themselves, it existed even before the Empire peaked

[lime cobalt]

its not a myth bro, Unifying people is not easy. thats reality

[manic juniper]

They never were united

People still identified with their local rulers besides the emperor and the Senate

[lime cobalt]

thats it,They failed to unite into a strong Rome.

coz its not easy

[manic juniper]

You're forcing a modern view on the past, this never was an issue