@Pfhorrest

I understand your views.

As I said it's all speculation designed to bolster a materialist view.

It contradicts phenomenal experience and facts.

And precisely how do you know that this process is over millions of years and started with matter?

@Wayfarer

Exactly. Scientists have had a lot of time to really explain or show this,but they just resort to asserting it as true.

A real sleight of hand from science.

@Pfhorrest

So you didn't explain you just asserted that life is matter.

Any examples of matter suddenly becoming lifelike?

Any lab mixing of chemicals suddenly sprouting life?

My subjectivity sure doesn't feel like matter or seperate gluons.

Does all matter have the potential for life?

What drives matter to become more complex?

And why does most matter remain inorganic?

Finished " the future of an illusion".

Boy freud is an angry atheist in this one! Reminds me of some posters here.

He admits at one point that secularism could be an illusion just like religion. Then backtracks and rants about reason being the "god" of science and the way to truth.

He's more self aware than most secularists and a clear writer but still,when under pressure retreats to the opium of science and propoganda.

"Next up, "Civilsation and its discontents" by freud,and a whole stack of freud books in the post.

Then Edward bernays with "crystallising opinion" and "Propoganda".

And Washed down with chomsky on "manufacturing consent",and the cigar is Austins "How to do things with words". About speech acts and language.

Remember words are actions and desires!

@Pfhorrest
But you haven't explained how matter turns to life.

@Tom Storm
But there are foundational truths as well.

They are axiomatic.

@Joshs
With respect joshs. Why can't you explain in your own words.

The word truth is used fine in my life and many others.
We know what we mean in normal language.

Why do Rorty and these kinds of philosophers want to dictate how people speak?

And all those who say the mind is non physical do themselves no favours.
Of course your desire is physical. Every time you raise your hand that is physical direct will and desire.
Not material but physical. Like breathing.

The latest from 180. More tripe.
This is not philosophy,it's science based materialism.

Spinoza is spinning in his grave!

@Tom Storm
But saying we cannot access truth is still positing the myth of the Gods eye view.

How does Rory justify ideas.

Why the allergy to the word truth?

@Tom Storm:up: For your above post to valentinus.

@Joshs
I agree with dewey.

But a lot of those guys still believe in science.

Rory may be an exception

But making a truth out of "no truths" or everything is a narrative is once again epistemic behaviourism.

None of these guys has escaped the bottle of philosophy or has a genuine criterion for truth.

@Joshs
I'm not conversant with those 3. Did they reject?

But the main thing is what's their criteria for truth?

And that's one of my points,half the philosophy world would kick out folks who don't follow plato.

And I'm yet to be shown those continentals explicitly reject reason.

@Joshs
OK. But whats their criteria for truth?
They are philosophers so how do they try to explain or argue for their ideas? Or are they just asserting them or?

Any anytical philosophers who reject justified belief?

@Gregory

Well the gods eye view has always been nonsense,so of heidegger says that,I agree.

Does heidegger say go with your gut?

My two pennies:

After reading 180's lack of responses, I must say, Golly Geee:



180 tends to use political statements instead of philosophical arguments (I know we all have to be careful there, but c'mon man!). Here you go again 180, projecting your own lack of understanding onto other's. I think most have figured him out, including Hanover. For instance, when he has nothing, he projects in this case, his own straw man and non sequitur fallacies to make himself look like he knows something. When Hanover points it out, 180 then pivots to attacking the 'process' and not the substance. Very 101. It's just a smoke screen and an illusionary budding intellect... .

Oh well, nothing new under the sun there. Another disappointment. Hanover did his homework, where 180 so far did not. (Actually, not sure why 180 even agreed to the debate... .) Hanover also calls him out and corrects his misuse of ad hom's. Sorry for the tough love 180, really, you gotta give us something man; not just the usual smoke and mirrors. :razz:

Anyway, be that as it may, Hanover has been more than gracious, and has offered some other interesting arguments that have real import.

1. I liked the notion of Subjective truth. NICE.
2. SD: " It admits to the obvious metaphysical difference between hats and perceptions of hats, and that the latter cannot be experienced except by the subject." YEP.
3 "we each walk around daily with the freedom to choose, something that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever in a physically limited universe.That is to say, SD gives a path for a meaningful free will, entirely lacking in a purely physical world." I loved the notion and/or suggestion of Metaphysical Will ala Schop and others! Or how about this, someone explain the Will period, without positing some dualist metaphysical concept.

Also, this is an interesting supposition below. I would like to see both 180 and Hanover exploring this one a bit (180 hasn't touched it yet). This could prove interesting. In the meantime, someone here provide some insight to its implications:

"And there is a critical distinction between not detected and not detectable, with the latter suggesting that no amount of technology can locate its existence. I get that I can't hear extremely high frequencies, but they are detectable, not just not detected. On the other hand, you will never experience my experience. Ever. That is what makes mental states different from physical states."

How does this relate to independent existence?

For example, 180 supposedly said through Hanover's interpretation of same that: "is that I [Hanover]deny specifically that there are physical properties that are completely incapable of being sensed in some capacity and so measured, including dark matter."

Is 180 suggesting there is independent existence?

↪Protagoras

Great Post!
A lot of good insights.
Be good to see both read this and expand.

What do you mean by independent existence? @3017amen

@Hanover
@180 Proof

Be good if your discussion expanded on these points.

@Tom Storm
I think nietzsches writings are clear enough to not have the numerous interpretations that academia like to churn out.

I agree partly with your version. I just think it rare for it to be genuine.

@Joshs

Did they both reject platos justified true belief?

Are you saying that both say truth is subjective?

If so,are there some subjectivities better than others?

In other words,why should I agree with the majority of heideggers or husserls philosophy?

@Ross Campbell

Well,academic philosophy sticks to appeals to authority and dialectic reason.

Myself,I think a person's intuition and desire is the criteria.

@Tom Storm
Of course real compassion is a tremendous virtue.

Nietzsche was talking about compassion being in reality a form of asserting power over the recipient.

However,he didn't discount a different type of compassion between elites born of strength.

Nietzsches ideas on normal compassion havent had any overall effect in the real world.

Folks will always use it to make the world run smoother and to keep bonds between people.

But genuine compassion is very rare.

@Joshs

But the bottom line is the myth of rationality is still adhered to.

Any philosophers claiming intuition or beliefs are primary yet?

@Joshs
Yes,freud was fuelled by resentiment as well,undoubtedly.

This does not mean anybody with resentment can write or thinks like these two. They have a lot of skill and relevant life experiences. They also specialise in writing.

Nietzsche himself used the concept of resentiment extensively in his works.

I don't trust scholars who turn nietzsche into some post modernist or nihilist.(even both of those are highly duplicitous concepts.)

Nietzsche was a political theorist and aristocratic radical.

Just like George brandes gleaned.

@Ross Campbell
Compassion would still be in the world without buddhism or Christianity. Sometimes in spite of them.

Any religion is only as good as its followers.

@Pfhorrest

So life just started randomly from dead matter?

Sounds like a fairy story.

. I thought the definition of philosophy was supposed to be logical or rational argument.— Ross Campbell


Your notion of philosophy is out of date by at least 100 years. So is your notion of empiricism. Philosophy has spent most of the latter half of the 20th century up till now critiquing ideas of truth as logic and rationality.

Yet the entire critique is still based on the primacy of "rationality". The myth of reason.
And this critique is only from continental philosophy,not analytic.

it is hard not to speculate that resentment fueled many of his ideas.— Tom Storm


What do you mean by ‘fueled’? As in ‘Einstein’s craving for fame fueled his discovery of relativity’? Or as in ‘I find many of Nietzsche’s ideas to be so superficial and unimpressive that I can reduce them to an arbitrary and simplistic causal motive’?

All nietzsches works are fuelled from resentiment,it's obvious from his writings,especially from zarathustra onwards.

But a lot of his psychological insights are correct.

@Tom Storm @Joshs

@Ross Campbell
OK,my bad. I wasn't saying all compassion or empathy is bad,of course not!

I'm saying that a lot of what is called compassion and those go around talking about it and signalling its values are hypocrites.

Most compassion that I see in public settings or in politics or even medicine is just a veneer to smooth life over and a form of virtue signalling. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's just very rare.

I agree you can be free-spirited and compassionate. But how few actually are or aspire to be.

Nietzsches insight is correct. But his solution as always are rubbish.

@Pfhorrest
But this is just materialism.

How does matter go from inorganic to organic?

Which came first,the inorganic or life?

@Pfhorrest

So your saying living things are made of matter?

Is there a distinction between matter and life to you?

@frank

But there are educated,healthy,employed people in secure surrounding who are Still religious.

Atheism science and philosophy are just as much opium as religion.

Also witness the new age movement in the west? A bunch of rich comfortable folks repackaging and inventing religion.

This equation of economics equals atheism equals happiness is false.

@Gregory
The feel good narcissism is a staple of the east and other cultures as well.

I know from experience.

@Ross Campbell

Nietzsche is bemoaning the fact that pity and compassion are overvalued in the Christian and secular West of his time.

He mentions that pity and compassion are really used as methods to aggrandise oneself over the recipient of pity.

And on this point hes mainly right. Most empathy and charity are just virtue signalling and a means to laud oneself over others.

Another insight that Nietszsche had that was exceptional was in the small book after this one, "nietzsche contra Wagner.

In this book he explain Artists can be of two types.

Those who create from resentiment and those who create
From an excess of Joy.

Now this is a phenomenol and true insight.

But herr Nietzsche himself is writing from resentiment,so he fucks that one up.!

His division of noble and slave morality is also bogus and idealistic. What he called noble morality is still based on resentiment and lack.

@Kenosha Kid
You think truth is the province of philosophy and or science?

How cute!

@3017amen
Hanover has spiced it up now with his last post.

But i don't have much faith in 180. The man cannot debate without being overemotional and barks like an
excited poodle.

My question is why don't posters and the mod address that 180 collapses the debate?
Surely the rules of the debate have a spirit of decency and commonsense?

I see @bert1 knows what's going on! :up:

@Pfhorrest
Are gluons living or material?

@Hello Human

The problem is professional philosophers invented and defined these fallacies and academic logic.

The answer is found outside academic philosophy.

This is the one of the truer comments for a long time on this forum. Applies also to scientists.

First part should be a pinned sticky.

But,it begs a question.
What is rigorous logic?

@Hello Human

180 claims logical fallacies from hanover yet most of his post is an appeal to authority to spinoza! And strawman and obfuscates hanover by mentioning leibniz and melanbranche.

One wishes 180 could for once use his own words and actually present some ideas of his own to express his case.

One wishes he could actually engage in an actual charitable discussion without handwaiving and repeating his previous posts.

@Hanover
For goodness sake express the fact that mind is desire. And desire is physical. Thus you establish an unassailable position. And put us out of the misery of this dodgy debater.

And yall blamed 3017 when it was obvious he is a very good debater,he just had a terribly uncharitable and poor debater who upended the debate.
@3017amen

@Olivier5
So what drove it be possible?

Possibility is not life. Possibility does not desire.

Life is the first principle.