Why is Morrissey treating his esophagus cancer if he has always wanted to die?

[Calamine Lotion]

Doubt is good!
But what is doubt? A method to establish if something is true or not and using the outcome to create a certainty, a base from which you can use to accomplish " something ". To create things, visible, factual, things that are now part of technology. When I look outside my window I can see many of those things, like cars, houses, and I'm using a tablet to type things, that couldn't be made if 1+1 wasn't 2. Mind you before that, there had to be an imagination, a fantasy, of a house, a car, a phone.

That, for me is evidence based logical reasoning. In principal.
It's a bit like a scientifical method.
The supposition: The terrible snowman exist is a useful one cause you can prove it by finding him.
The supposition: The terrible snowman does not exist is not useful cause by not finding him you didn't prove, can't prove, he doesn't exist.

In science the only question that can be answered is a logical question.
Illogical questions can be answered but the answers are bound to be illogical too.
There are many standards, I agree. But the only one based on hard, coldstone facts and useful is a logical standard in the scientific sense.
I agree the jurisdictional system is a system based on another type of so-called logic. The Aristotelian one.
But that is not based on mathematics, like 1+1=2. And therefore not scientific.

I like to think, suppose, that creating art, like music, literature, prose, poetry, films, photography, painting, architecture, is like researching science but without prove. Without evidence. It uses the same method. Is it therefore of a lesser value? Not to me, but I know there are different opinion on that.

By the way I found out that not that many years ago but before my time, the entity Academy consisted of 3 territories; Education, Science and Arts. They were for a long time considered to be belonging to the same environment in a classical sense. Deriving from the Greec and Roman culture.

Due to developments like specialisation this is no longer the case although I read 2 articles promoting it, and reasoning there would be great or greater benefits from it. I don't know, not an expert but it sounded great.

Doubt is a necessary component of Faith. All I'm really saying is that we all have certain primary beliefs which we base all other beliefs on. Those primary beliefs work and are useful, but all of our proofs are based upon them and they can't be proven.
"Consensus Reality" is the best we can do, but reality is an illusion. All those things that can be created because 1+1=2 are all "real" because we can see them, feel them, weigh them. But how do we know we can trust our own senses?

 

[Anonymous]

The thread starter and the headline is of course spot on here and I ask myself that every time I eat healthy and take my vitamins and minerals and run and care about my health when deep down I know I just wanna die.

If I could go to the swiss death clinic even if not dying from disease I would. Some are just tired of life and all the routines day after day.

I envy the bears hibernating and wish I could do that for about 5 years at a time all year round.

Some people enjoy being depressive and plaguing the rest with their own problems, those who off themselves at least have some dignity in my opinion

 

[Quando quando quando]

Doubt is a necessary component of Faith. All I'm really saying is that we all have certain primary beliefs which we base all other beliefs on. Those primary beliefs work and are useful, but all of our proofs are based upon them and they can't be proven.
"Consensus Reality" is the best we can do, but reality is an illusion. All those things that can be created because 1+1=2 are all "real" because we can see them, feel them, weigh them. But how do we know we can trust our own senses?

We don't.
The only thing we have is the 1+1=2 we agreed on.

 

[nicky wire's legs]

ohhh c-low's having fun, i see

star magazine must have had a special excerpt on consensual reality

 

[Calamine Lotion]

We don't.
The only thing we have is the 1+1=2 we agreed on.

So then you can see that arguing that "we can't really know" is an extreme position. The analysis of literature would be impossible if we didn't agree that "in this instance we will choose to agree that 1+1=2 until further information becomes available."
And so if someone has a history of making statements over a span of decades those statements can be used to determine their attitudes. And if those attitudes can be determined we can apply that knowledge to an understanding of their written works. And if that knowledge and understanding can be applied then we really can draw a best conclusion and not pretend that "we can't really know."