Welcome to Gaia! ::

First topic: What is your view on Heraclitus' claim, "Ever-newer waters flow on those who step into the same rivers," hence you cannot step into the same river twice? Is everything in constant flux or do things ever remain the same?
This may be taken into any context - both physical and psychological.

I think what is meant by Heraclitus is that; although a situation might seem similar, no two situations are the same. As events in life consists of a massive amount of systems and subsystems, with even more unknowns and variables, this statement isn't at all too obnoxious. Its implications and interpretations are up for grabs though, and I expect different people to take different messages from it. One possible implication is that one should never enter any situation over confidently, be wary of all the different possible outcomes and be ready for anything.

It is generally thought amongst Men that the universe is static in form and direction of flow to causality's end. For thought processes based on natural, biological substrates are inclined to see only the facade of reality as perceived with vision, the limited gaze. To break this spell, of assumptions ruling over perception in the mind, contemplation is needed.

The sway of change stirs both the mental and the physical, as the mental is superseded upon the physical.

Basest of the particles conjoined to form a whole in the world abroad, is encoded within: entropy, change and a whim to be replaced. All structures that lays in the spectrum of causality is at its heart models with parts. In this very revelation lays the truth of the matter: If a model has parts then it is but the sum of its parts and those parts can be supplanted and inter-joined.

The replacement and reassignment of atoms goes forth on time intervals related to the part. With this process of change in all that goes about only persona's of people remain, an illusion to the untrained. The original form of a personality comes into doubt for the substrate upon which it is superseded is in flux by means of collisions, the architect of change.

Stating, by unsubstantiated and inapplicable references, that a participant of a discussion has brought forth logic fallacies and then strategically negating further debate on the matter can easily be perceived as a faux pas.

Here follows my answer to the new topic at hand:

Many a view in the world abroad casts evil in the light as an absolute power. Many a view casts evil against good in a spectrum of moral orientation.

These views has roots in ages past when mankind did not justly understand the world, unknown, unfold around them. Attributes and the metaphysical were assigned, to problems not yet mastered, to placate their fears of superstitious dread.

In the age of the modern world, anew in thought, new revelations has been revealed about the thinking of mankind. Central to these revelations is the helm of thought: the brain, biological substrate of thoughts brought to being.

Quintessential evil states such as psychopathy is but mutations or malfunctions, as yet to be discovered, in the brain at large. The code of action by which the helm of thought is directed is based upon the structure of the brain itself. Choices is based purely upon a substrate of a yes/no paradigm and structural changes steers the result in one perceived as evil.

Evil as a thought and a thought as a computational aspect of a biological substrate bound by change negates the view of evil as absolute.

I now declare this a temporary "unofficial" contest topic.

New discussion topics:
1) Define stupidity.
2) What do you think is the best moral code (may include philosophies based on religion if you like) and why? Share some key principles to substantiate. (This is not a debate topic, but rather one of sharing and getting to know the other guildies.)
3) How should one pursue happiness and what does happiness mean to you?
4) If you could choose to live on another inhabitable planet, what would you take with you, who (what type of people, not necessarily specific persons) would you ask to go with you, and why? What and who would be the ingredients to form the ideal society if we could start anew?

Comment on the others too. Haha It's not quite fair if you post the theory we've discussed and decided on, and produce no new insights.

So, best moral code. I don't think there's one absolute moral code which covers every possible situation in the best possible way, rather I would suggest mixing the moral code of different philosophies and religions.

Personally, I grew up in a christian house, thus the foundation of my moral compass is built upon many of the basic ideas such as respect others, honor agreements, don't lie, don't commit adultery etc etc. Obviously as I grew a little bit wiser I started to reason why those are necessary. Most have an obvious reason if you entertain the thought for a while, greed for example, if you always want more you'll never live a satisfying life because by definition being satisfied means not wanting more. Or adultery, sleeping with every person you meet will lead to the inevitable outcome of having no respect for people or yourself and not being able to form close bonds.

Obviously situations arises where you can't simply say something is right or wrong, and that's where I take a more utilitarian approach. The needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few. Obviously not in a very drastic way, logic still applies, can't always give people what they want.