The question is whether there are any prominent philosophers who dont consider Marx to be a philosopher, and the answer is no. — Joshs

It is like the "all historians agree Jesus was a real historical person".
Since there is no name for this yet, I will call it the authority survivalship bias.

Most historians agree that Jesus was a historical person (this is a claim that is unfounded, but let's say it is true) because most historians who even engage with the topic are those that have skin in the game. Secular historians of WW2, Buddhism, Greece, China, Persia don't go out of their way to study whether there is evidence for Jesus, and even if they do, they won't make public statements on the matter (so you can't find their opinions). Historians of the Bible are a very, very, very small section of historiography.
Likewise, most prominent philosophers don't come out and say whether Marx is a real philosopher or not, because they don't mostly care about Marx, and even if they did, you would not be able to find their real opinion on the matter, as it is not something someone with a reputation would go out of their way to announce publically. The prominent philosophers that we know consider Marx to be a philosopher are those that care about him, that is engage with him. Philosophers that draw from Marx are a very small section.

If Russell doubts the philosophical spirit of perhaps the most important medieval philosopher, I wonder what some think of a sociologist trained in philosophy.

I’m calling conservative philosophers deniers of the validity of post-Hegelian philosophy. — Joshs

Heidegger was conservative, wasn't him? And isn't him one of the namesakes of philosophy after Hegel?

I would call him someone who doesn’t understand philosophy — Joshs

I doubt NDT understands much. Regardless, he is not conversative — on the contrary, he goes with whatever the current news-approved opinion is — and he consistently denies philosophy.

When someone puts something to admire, to the eye - what is he hiding? — MorningStar

If someone paints a painting and hangs it by the sidewalk, is there something to hide or something to show?

Thank you, I will add that one to my non-reading list as well.

these are all things — Mark Nyquist

What things?

the pattern — Mark Nyquist

What pattern? That the thoughts that portray abstract concepts come from the brain?

By the examples you gave, you simply put the word brain followed by an abstract thing. How is that helpful, since I don't even understand what it is trying to convey?

Between the black and white of hand-holding or handing a 900 page pdf without context, there are many shades of grey.

the paradox is right there in the initial version of Principia Mathematica; that is, an "invalid" statement was implied by the formalisation of mathematics in a first order logic. It looked as if the whole edifice would collapse — Banno

So what should be done instead?

No doubt, even if 1, 2, 3, 4 goes on forever, an infinite number of numbers will never be reached. — Philosopher19

You can't apply natural language words to mathematics. Things like "goes on" and "be reached" mean nothing in mathematics, those phrases can only informally refer to real mathematical concepts such as addition or limits, otherwise you end up with gibberish like here.

1, 2, 3, 4... goes on forever. The verb go implies movement. Therefore the natural set of numbers moves through time and space!

Ok, I’ll bite. How much do you think has been caused by us? — Joshs

I don't have enough information so I suspend belief. For something, I have the feeling that at least in metropolitan areas, the climate has been noticeably changed, especially due to pollution.

but I’m not sure what it would mean to call Marxism and its progeny disingenuous. — Joshs

I called the "woke" movement disingenuous, not Marxism. My issues with Marxism broadly are other than disingenuity.

Its philosophical contributions have been acknowledged by many 20th and 21st century schools of philosophy — Joshs

Karl Marx (1818–1883) is often treated as a revolutionary, an activist rather than a philosopher — SEP

The only ones rejecting the philosophy in toto are conservatives , who generally haven’t ventured past Kant in their thinking — Joshs

Like all popular movements, conservatism has its philosophy deniers, but I’m not sure what it would mean to call conservatives philosophy deniers.



I would not call NDT a conservative.

I was just reading "Defining Atheism and the Burden of Proof" by SHOAIB AHMED MALIK (recommended by a presup).
I don't agree with it, but it is an interesting read nevertheless.

What topics or issues do you think should still be kept secret?

Is there an inner circle today? — Fooloso4

I don't think any topic should be kept a secret, though some topics are a secret¹, it is a matter of us admitting that some are not accessible to us.

1 – How it is like to be a bat.

But my comment did not refer to that. Speaking of certain topics does result in persecution and censorship today.

For many, especially the young, discovering a new meaning in the midst of the fallen world is thrilling. And social-justice ideology does everything a religion should. It offers an account of the whole: that human life and society and any kind of truth must be seen entirely as a function of social power structures, in which various groups have spent all of human existence oppressing other groups. And it provides a set of practices to resist and reverse this interlocking web of oppression — from regulating the workplace and policing the classroom to checking your own sin and even seeking to control language itself. I think of non-PC gaffes as the equivalent of old swear words. Like the puritans who were agape when someone said “goddamn,” the new faithful are scandalized when someone says something “problematic.” Another commonality of the zealot then and now: humorlessness. — PuerAzaelis

Perfectly said. Despite claims of the contrary, "woke" derives at least half from the Frankfurt school, of Marxist basis. Some believe that Neo-Marxism is antithetical to religion, especially Christianity; it may be so, but for me Neo-Marxism is the polluted sea of modernity where the river of Christianity leads to, one is the conclusion of the other. Victimism and disingenuity is a core tenet of both.

I have just found out that I am in fact the ubermensch, not OP. No one can convince me otherwise — it has been ubermenschlich revealed to me.

εξωτερικός: that is outward, so as to be in contact with the space beyond the object
εσωτερικός: that lies inwards.

Aristotle works are divided into esoteric (or acroamatic) and exoteric (page 5). For much of the Ancient Age, the known works of Aristotle were the exoteric works, and the esoteric were only known by some inner circles. Today it is almost the reverse, as the exoteric works have been mostly lost.
Make of that what you will.

Tom, I doubt that you deem your views to be on a par in value to those views you vehemently disagree with and thereby are averse to. — javra

It feels to me as if people in the past had some modicum of honour. It was possible to respect, and even love, those that wanted you dead, because you also wanted them dead, so it was that history pitted us against each other. Or maybe I am romanticising the epics of the past.

That is no longer as much of a problem — Fooloso4

That statement is more about you than it is about the politics of our times.

I ask you to give proof that the terminology was changed because of people's stupidity. I imagine there was some press conference or (real) journalism of science of the 2000s and early 2010s, when "global warming" was more popular than "climate change", discussing how the terminology should be changed. So I hoped you would give me something concrete, like the aforementioned, that would convince me.

I did not get that, I got the "go read some by experts". What is it that you have been reading, when you say things such as "sigma scales of probability" and "proven scientific field", which hints at a scientific education that is not nowhere near enough to read brand new research?

Everytime people link me scientific research papers, I ask them what their qualifications are, so I don't waste my time reading something that ultimately does not prove them right.
In an ideal world, intelligent laymen would discuss scientific findings with their own qualificative limitations in mind — some fields and papers are more laymen friendly than others. But this is not an ideal world, and people, who don't even know what a p-value is, feel themselves free to flaunt content that is made by doctors and masters for other doctors and masters.



Obviously you are referring to me. Here is the funny thing, I am not a denier of anthropogenic climate change, or whatever histrionic label is used in the Anglosphere. I am very concerned about the environment, from the Amazon, to the water of our rivers, to the climate, to the expansion of deserts.

With this ignorance you are just giving more fuel to people who are stopping us from intelligent policy making. But I don't think that either of you are the kind to contribute to good policy making, more like the kind who would shut down nuclear powerplants in Germany to increase coal burning instead.

Overall, it is all very tiresome, and sad.

It's one of the most proven scientific field of all — Christoffer

getting high into the Sigma scales of statistical probabilities — Christoffer

How does one "prove" a scientific field? A theory is proven, not a whole field.
Speaking of field, meteorological science is extremely faulty. Chemistry, astronomy, physics, all of these are more reliable fields. Meteorology cannot even get the weather of next week right. The claim that meteorology is "more proven" does not pass through common sense.
Sigma scales of statistical probability? You mean the standard deviation of a bell curve? I don't see how that relates to the topic. Is there some "research paper" by someone who compares replicability of different scientific fields? Because that would be bunk.
It feels as if you are just repeating buzzwords from CNN and BCC. Or that you are not being specific at all with the terms you use.

it is scientifically accurate in that the world is globally warming up — Christoffer

The global average temperature has risen — 1 degree compared to the 20th century average. From "global warming" to "global average temperature" is a big semantic shift.

The change in terminology is due to people being too stupid to read below the headlines, not that it is scientifically inaccurate. — Christoffer

Cool. Proof?

You’ll find a few climate deniers on here you exist merely to voice their uninformed “skepticism” about this topic. Ignore them. — Mikie

Nobody besides flat-earthers deny that the climate is changing. It has been changing since the Earth came to be.

Did anyone ever wonder why they changed their brand from "global warming" to "climate change"? — Tzeentch

Because global warming ended up being scientifically inaccurate. Some countries, that fortunately still haven't caught up to the schizophrenic political zeitgeist of English-speaking countries, still use their language equivalent of "global warming" instead of the more accurate "climate change", even though those countries already know that some parts of the world are becoming colder instead of warmer.

"Climate change" is a platitude of a phrase, "anthropogenic climate change" is not; climate is undeniably changing, as it always has been. The only debate is how much has been caused by us, and more importantly, regardless of whether it is caused by us or not, how much can we control the climate to keep it at a range that is most beneficial to modern society.

From the article you sent, some relevant passages:

As a consequence, it is warranted to hold that logical principles may stand in need of revision on the basis of empirical findings, and even that logical principles (such as the PNC) have an empirical basis

After that we have a mention of Priest and dialetheia.

Tahko considers it [the PNC] as ‘a fundamental metaphysical principle’ and ‘a true metaphysical principle concerning the world’

The author [Tahko] points out, first, that there are various interpretations of quantum mechanics, there being no consensus with respect to the question of what the right interpretation is, and, second, that it is not clear whether quantum mechanics is incompatible with the PNC
...
He maintains that even if it were granted that the truth of the PNC cannot be said to be observed on the microphysical level, that given would not detract from its manifestation on the macrophysical level, to which he refers as ‘the deep structure of the world’

Suppose one says: “This statement is pungent”. What is said is neither true nor not true, since smelling or tasting has nothing to do with the statement: it cannot be determined to be true or not true. Incidentally, the statement may in one sense of course be determined to be not true: the statement does not smell or taste like anything, so that it is not pungent.

The statement “This statement is not true” must refer to something (a state of affairs) in order to be able to determine that it is (not) true, but that complement is lacking. Since it is lacking and therefore not part of what is expressed, neither the truth nor its opposite is at issue.

“This statement is not true with respect to X”. In the latter case, there is no doubt what ‘X’ says. In the case of the liar paradox, conversely, ‘X’ has no content. The lack of content is problematic as it is a necessary condition for the truth (and falsity) to become apparent.

The lack of truth or falsity follows from the given that no statement is made, so that the issue of whether it may be true or not true does not present itself. This is a welcome outcome, since the alternative approach to ‘truth’ with respect to the liar paradox that consists in maintaining that a hierarchy of different levels of truth values exists appears difficult to uphold, as becomes apparent from Walker’s analysis

That seems related to an intuition that I always had about "This sentence is not true". The sentence starts with a reference to something that has not even been finished yet, for it is only when you say "false." that the sentence is complete and thus can be evaluated. But the end of the sentence itself includes an evaluation to something that has not even brought into existence yet, what OP illustrates with an empty set. Thus we end up in a loop of "if this is true, then it is false, but if it is false, then it is true, but if it is true...". It feels as though "sentence is not true" is sentence A and everytime we try to evaluate it we in fact create a new sentence A1, then A1.1, then A1.1.1, and so on.

I have argued that the liar paradox is a paradox in name only. It has the potential to be a paradox, a potential that cannot be realized unless it is complemented with something on the basis of which its truth (and its opposite) is expressed.

If this is a satisfactory solution, no need for dialetheias, in this case...

Liar sentences are "ungrounded". Them being true or false isn't meaningful. — Michael

Yea, all of these approaches seem connected.

Time and space are conceptions we apply toward the understanding of our surroundings. Kant calls them pure a priori intuitions. It does not make sense to say that they are a part of the things which surround us, just like it doesn't make sense to say that numbers and geometric shapes are a part of our surroundings. — Metaphysician Undercover

It does not mean that Kant is correct. Scientists showed us in the 20th century that time and space are affected by physical facts.

The permafrost is no longer permanent and the polar ice sheets are calving like demented rabbits — Vera Mont

:meh:





And a very cool one.

I hope I'm not being too pedantic — Ludwig V

You are not, I was just unclear :-P fixed now

There is already a global warming thread. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11305/climate-change-general-discussion

Spicy thread, lots of soap opera.

I think Hume hit the nail on the head with his criticisms. Ultimately, to me causation is a word that exists to account for a human intuition, without referencing an external fact.

Perhaps a physically reductionist causation is something worthy looking into. Surely, it does push the issue further and does not solve the problem of induction (what could?), but at least it allows us to clear up our language.

Sorry for double posting, I pressed post as an accident.

why can no one show a tangible argument to refute anything I've said? — Brendan Golledge

You haven't replied to some of the concrete criticisms in this thread.

Everyone is doing their best — Vaskane

Nah, I am lazying around lots.

That could work if a religion primarily of practice works. Depending on the details of the practice, that could be an intellectually respectable way to go. Perhaps that's why Bhuddhism is so popular these days. — Ludwig V

Buddhism is very interesting, especially because there are so many sects. Some people hesitate to classify it as a religion.

Are you referring to this?

The conservative radio host Wayne Root claimed without evidence in a tweet shared tens of thousands of times that Hunter Biden's laptop contains videos of him sexually abusing Chinese children. — Joshs

No, for me that is called poisoning the swamp, as I have seen no evidence of that.

I am referring to the shirtless picture of Hunter Biden against a metal pole and a small child (looks Southeast Asian) next to him. If we are giving it the benefit of the doubt it could be a very short and young looking Malaysian escort of age; but I don't think so, especially when there are other pictures, though less concrete.

No, impugning the ethics of a family you’ve never met — Joshs

I don't need to personally meet a family to judge their attested actions, that is a ridiculous claim.

you do redeem — Joshs

I don't need to redeem myself when I talk about your pet politician. I see things the way they are, and I say as such.

Arent you a little embarrassed babbling about a stranger’s crack problem? Why don’t you share the skeletons in your own closet with us? I’m sure we’d LOVE to hear about them. — Joshs

Oh, I didn't know I was talking to someone from the Biden family, I really grinded your gears. For one, the skeletons in my closet are not from kids I have touched.

then it sounds like it is not in the realm of the objective system — Corvus

Philosophy does suck like that sometimes, sadly.

1. All knowledge comes either from sensory perception (e.g., visually perceiving a mountain) or reasoning (e.g., solving an algebraic equation).

2. Both perception and reasoning occur in our minds.

3. The external world is, by definition, “external,” which is outside our minds. — Thales

Fine.

Therefore:

4. Because everything we know exists in our minds, we can not have any knowledge about the external world. — Thales

That does not follow.

The argument seems to be more that "Everything that happens inside our minds relates exclusively to our minds".
So you would have:
P1 – Everything that happens inside our minds relates exclusively to our minds.
P2 – All of our knowledge are things that happen inside of our minds.
C – All of our knowledge relates exclusively to our minds (that is, not the outside world).

The argument is valid, the issue is that P1 is debatable. A silly counter example: I hit the billiard ball into the hole, everything that happens inside the billiard table relates exclusively to the table. Well, no, because how fast the ball goes through the hole depends on how strongly I hit the ball. It also depends on the gravity of the place (higher altitudes have slightly lower gravity than sea-level).

Likewise, perception does happen inside our brain, but perception is caused by outside factors — or so someone defends. If we believe that different causes have different consequences, each different perception we have is caused by a different outside object, so we do have information about the outside world — at the very least, that we are interacting with something different from the one before.

And if we take a tabula rasa view of knowledge, reasoning would also not just be something inside of our minds.

But all we know about our "external world" is through our senses and our experiences. Saying that we can't know anything because all we have is our senses is self-contradictory and makes no sense. — Alkis Piskas

I think OP is trying to argue for a brain-in-a-vat kind of thing, but more like mind-in-a-vat instead.

Wouldn't it be the case, then to relate / attribute God to substance seem an ambiguous attempt in logical connection. — Corvus

Sorry, I don't understand what that means.

In what sense did he? — Corvus

I will have to be honest with you and tell you that I got that information off of the internet. I have not read Spinoza first-hand yet, only read about his philosophy instead from secondary sources, so I can't really say how Spinoza is clearly influenced by Descartes. I am a bit busy these days resting (no joke) and it's not a terribly exciting matter for me, so maybe you could bring us the answer to that question? :smile:

Or perhaps it is more revealing of your susceptibility to sensationalistic ‘news’ reporting, the circus you’re supporting by repeating their garbage. — Joshs

Right, pictures of a guy smoking crack are sensationalistic news.

Hunter Biden is inarguably a crack addict, though? — AmadeusD

You don't get it. It is actually the dark web AI deep fake Russian hackers from China sending fake news to Alex Jones.

But the funnier part is Hunter sending texts to Joe asking for money because he messed up again. I genuinely feel bad for Joe, despite supporting invasions of the Middle East and other unethical things, he comes across as a good dad that really loves his son, and his advanced age surely stops him from taking a strong stance about his son, a completely lost soul.

Oh, yes, CNN, "simple fact reporting".

In the meanwhile, Biden does not have dementia.

Most people can't read Nietzsche. Reading Nietzsche without having first read Kant, Hume, Plato and the pre-Socratics is like watching 2001 A Space Odyssey without having learned how to count.

But not just no dogma, no relationship with the creator at all. — Tom Storm

I was talking about two different things in the same paragraph. Epicureanism as about no relationship with creator. Non-religious theism as about god without dogma.

In the topic's theme, relating "America" with names like "Jefferson" and "McWhatever" sort of erodes grounds for intelligibility as those are contradictory theologies. The former is Catholic, and the latter two I would expect to observe them within a Wendy's praying to their tri-une god George Floyd.

"Yes, I think there is a creator, but we have no knowledge of this being and it has taken no interest in us, so all we can say is..." — Tom Storm

I think that would be epicureanism, yes? Gods exist but they don't care and can't bother.
Non-religious theism is just... theism without any dogma.

Transcendental arguments might get someone to arrive at the god hypothesis, but getting to 'Jesus died for our sins' was always going to be an additional leap. There are also Muslim apologists who use presuppositional apologetics to 'prove' Islam. — Tom Storm

Surely. I even talked about it here:

usually do is (try to) prove that God exists, and then go for the historical reasons why their religion is truer than Islam or Buddhism — which is always a stopping point, as the evidence surrounding Christianity is more detrimental than it is corroborative. — Lionino

Natural selection may have shaped our cognitive abilities in a way that prioritizes survival and reproduction over the accurate perception of reality. — Tom Storm

True, and perhaps what prioritises survival is the accurate perception —a pragmatic theory of truth. As in, things are true because the group with that belief F survived and the group with belief D died out.

'God is the necessary condition of intelligibility and guarantees reason on earth, but he allows humans to use reason for good or ill, via freewill.' — Tom Storm

If God grants intelligibility and autonomous reasoning is possible, doesn't this just allow for the Christian notion of free will? I have heard one presup deal with this problem with - 'God is the necessary condition of intelligibility and guarantees reason on earth, but he allows humans to use reason for good or ill, via freewill.' — Tom Storm

You can have a guarantee of intelligibility that is not a God. In any case, I am far from being experienced with presupism, that is something that I will only engage with later.

Alvin Plantinga, a leading exponent of the argument, suggests that if naturalism is true, it undermines its own validity. — Tom Storm

Ah, Platinga. Platinga, Kalam, Ehrman.

He seems to be using the concept of "Substance" to attribute the concept of God.
Any idea what the "substance" meant in Spinoza? Could it be Aristotelian? Or something else? — Corvus

Related to Aristotelian, but mostly how philosophers of the time were using it, basically: something that exists.

“By substance I understand what is in itself and is conceived through itself”; “By attribute I understand what the intellect perceives of a substance, as constituting its essence”; “By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of an infinity of attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence.” — SEP

Very in line with Descartes' use, he influenced Spinoza.