• Magnetism refutes Empiricism
    In any case, yes I have a tactile sensation of the attraction between the magnet and the iron. — wonderer1

    No, you don't. No one does. You have the tactile sensation of the magnet, and the tactile sensation of the iron. You don't have the tactile sensation of the attraction between them.
  • Magnetism refutes Empiricism
    The bolded portion seems an odd way of expressing whatever you may be trying to express. Have you actually done the experiment? — wonderer1

    Yes, I have done the experiment, many times. And you can do the exact same experiment. Anyone can. That's what makes it scientific.

    (Edited)
  • Magnetism refutes Empiricism
    No I'm not assuming ill intent. Ignorance on your part seems a simple enough explanation. — wonderer1

    Assuming ignorance on my part also goes against the Forum guidelines, since it goes against the rule that says this:

    those who are willing to give their interlocutors a fair reading — Site Guidelines

    By assuming ignorance on my part, you're not willing to give me a fair reading as your interlocutor. Therefore, I have flagged your most recent post as well, for the consideration of the moderators and administrators of The Philosophy Forum.
  • The Musk Plutocracy
    ↪frank
    Thanks. I promise that I'll try to make things a bit easier in that sense as well. :up:
  • A Thomistic Argument For God's Existence From Composition
    Hey Bob, what do you think of the SEP entry on Divine Simplicity? Courtesy of
    ↪Banno
    .
  • The Musk Plutocracy
    @frank I don't want there to be any acrimony between us, so please try to make things a bit easier in that sense. Just a request.
  • The Musk Plutocracy
    You are probably thinking of Hobbes. — Paine

    No, I think it was either Machiavelli or Robert Nozick. Completely different thinkers, that's why I said "the conservative". I can't remember which one it was, for the life of me. I learned this stuff when I was a student, I think I learned it in both Early Modern Philosophy as well as Political Philosophy,
  • Magnetism refutes Empiricism
    1. You seem to be attacking an archaic/straw version of empiricism, by stipulating that some sort of 'direct sensing' of properties must be available to humans for empiricism to stand up to scrutiny. — wonderer1

    If you accuse me of strawmannig, then you're accusing me of charlatanry, hence sophistry, and therefore you are assuming ill intent on my behalf, and that goes against the Forum guidelines. I have flagged your post for the consideration of the mods and administrators of this website.

    Types of posters who are welcome here:

    Those with a genuine interest in/curiosity about philosophy and the ability to express this in an intelligent way, and those who are willing to give their interlocutors a fair reading and not make unwarranted assumptions about their intentions (i.e. intelligent, interested and charitable posters).     — Site Guidelines

    2. I have many ways of detecting the presence of a magnetic field. A simple one is just to hold a magnet near a piece of iron, in which case I will sense the force of attraction between the magnet and the iron. — wonderer1

    False. You do not sense the force of attraction in that case, you simply feel an increasingly solid sensation, in a tactile sense.

    Try again, without accusing me of strawmanning.
  • The Musk Plutocracy
    No, it isn't, because there's no such thing as being incorrect without further ado. If it's incorrect, then it's incorrect for a reason. A sufficient reason, to be more precise, as demanded by Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason. If you cannot grant such a reason, then you are in the wrong here, not me. — Arcane Sandwich


    This is poor post quality.     — frank

    No, it isn't, because there's no such thing as poor post quality out of context. The quality of a post is determined by the context of the Thread in which the post is made. My post is an above-average response to your average, baseline, lowest-common-denominator style of posting. Therefore, in comparison to your own posts, my posts have an above-average quality.
  • The Musk Plutocracy
    Because he believes that Democracy is the system that is closest to human nature. Human nature, according to him, is naturally good. Democracy corrupts human nature, according to him, but it's the least corrupting option, in his view. — Arcane Sandwich


    This is incorrect.     — frank

    No, it isn't, because there's no such thing as being incorrect without further ado. If it's incorrect, then it's incorrect for a reason. A sufficient reason, to be more precise, as demanded by Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason. If you cannot grant such a reason, then you are in the wrong here, not me.
  • The Musk Plutocracy
    ↪Arcane Sandwich

    Why does Rousseau believe democracy is the cure for human evil?     — frank

    Because he believes that Democracy is the system that is closest to human nature. Human nature, according to him, is naturally good. Democracy corrupts human nature, according to him, but it's the least corrupting option, in his view.

    Obviously I don't agree with any of this. I already told you, I'm on Locke's side here.
  • The Musk Plutocracy
    According to some, Rousseau was wrong. — frank

    Two people, specifically: John Locke, and some conservative thinker whose name I can't remember.

    Anyway, the conservative, unlike Rousseau, believes that humans are evil by nature, and as such, they need to be kept in line. This is why we have checks and balances, this is why we have a prison system, etc.

    According to John Lock, unlike Rousseau, and unlike the conservative, human nature is neither good nor evil.

    I find Locke's ideas to be the correct ones, here. Rousseau was wrong, human nature is not good. But the conservative is wrong, I believe, when he claims that human nature is evil. Human nature is neither good nor evil. It just is.

    That's not to reject moral realism. I believe that good and evil exist, but only in a moral sense, not a natural sense. The question is actually about universality, not existence. Are good and evil universal moral notions, shared by all cultures? Or are they relative to each culture? I say that they are universal. The notions of good and evil are common to all cultures. It does not follow from there, though, that good and evil are the only moral values. For there is such a thing as moral neutrality, which is neither good nor evil. It's the "mirror image", if you will, of Locke's ideas on the human nature: it's a third possibility, beyond natural good and natural evil: it's natural neutrality. Moral neutrality, on the other hand, is artificial neutrality, "cultural" neutrality, if you will.
  • Climate change denial
    People, I propose that we get this thread back on track.

    Have the magnetic poles of the Earth been disrupted in some way, as of 2025? That doesn't seem to be the case.

    Has the weather system of the Earth been disrupted in some way, as of 2025? That doesn't seem to be the case either.

    But I'll tell you what's the case, you already know it: tons of plastic in our oceans, pollution in general in our cities and towns, and I think that we, as human beings, need to take the blame here. Yes, volcanic eruptions are not due to human action. Mass extinction events like the one that killed the T. Rex are not due to human action. But, by parity of reasoning, the existence of tons of plastic in our oceans, such as empty water bottles, or plastic bags, for example, are due to human action. So, in that sense, we're definitely affecting different ecosystems.

    Is that the same thing as climate change? That's debatable. But let's debate it with a bit of, I don't know, intellectual sophistication. Insults are for adolescents. We're way past that point. So, let's discuss, as is expected of men and women.

    Is climate change real? Yes, it is, because the climate exists, and it changes. Have we caused that change? Not all of it, but some of it. And yes, it has to do with the tons of plastic that pollute our oceans. Because those plastics were made despite the fact that massive carbon emissions would be required for producing them. Factory farming is also negatively impacting ecosystems, and the climate more generally. Thousands of acres of tropical rainforest are cut down as we speak, and this has been going on for decades, both in the Amazon rainforest as well as the tropical jungles of Southeast Asia. These patches of land are cleared for cattle raising. In a few centuries, at this rhythm, there will be no more tropical rainforests or jungles, and we don't know what effect this will have on the climate (just think of how difficult it is to make an accurate weather prediction in professional climatology, to say nothing of professional meteorology). What we do know, is that tropical storms have something to do with heat waves, and we also know that plants absorb light, heat, and water. So, destroying tropical ecosystems might actually make tropical storms more potent, and more chaotic. And since we've been destroying tropical flora for decades now, it is entirely possible that human beings have caused some of the most destructive effects that climate change itself causes as of 2025.

    Hope that made sense. Feel free to disagree.

  • Ontology of Time
    Time is making present according to Aristotle, (the present at hand) and in so doing is a counting of time as now, now, now. — Joshs

    This is the most brilliant combination of Aristotle and Heidegger that I've ever seen. Kudos to you for accomplishing this in just one sentence.
  • Arguments for and against the identification of Jesus with God
    The Victorians and the rest of the world were shocked when the 'On the Origin of the Species' came out in 1859 — PoeticUniverse

    If the misery of our poor be not caused by nature, but by our social institutions, then great is our sin. — Charles Darwin
  • Why is it that nature is perceived as 'true'?
    @Wayfarer
    If the misery of our poor be not caused by nature, but by our social institutions, then great is our sin. — Charles Darwin
  • God changes
    Arcane Sandwich
    I read the quotes that you mentioned a few times but I have difficulty understanding them. So, I searched on the net and I found an article from Christian Klotz entitled "Substance and Subject, from Kant to Hegel". From my reading, it seems there are two interpretations of Hegel's idea of what the subject is. Let's discuss the first interpretation first: "Thus, Charles Tayler explains the Hegelian claim that the Absolute is equally subject in the following way: “God thus posits the world in order to think himself in it” (Taylor, 1975, p. 108). According to Taylor, in Hegel’s conception the world is understood as that expression of God which is necessary for God’s selfknowledge. In this interpretation, the notion of subject which is involved in the Hegelian claims signifies a mode of being which essentially involves self-consciousness or self-knowledge."

    What do you think of this interpretation?     — MoK

    It's the standard, mainstream interpretation of Hegel, and it's more or less correct.
  • God changes
    Because we are no longer mortal creatures when we are in that state of contemplation. And since we are mortal creatures right now, we cannot comprehend it. — Arcane Sandwich

    Are you saying that we cannot contemplate when we are mortal?     — MoK

    No, Mok, that's not what I'm saying. Let me quote Meillassoux again:

    The Christian dogmatist claims to know (because he has supposedly demonstrated it) that our existence continues after death, and that it consists in the eternal contemplation of a God whose nature is incomprehensible from within the confines of our present existence. — Quentin Meillassoux

    Notice that he says eternal contemplation. That sort of contemplation is impossible for us, since we are not eternal. We can only contemplate in a non-eternal way. You might say "but it's still contemplation in both cases." And you would be correct. But non-eternal contemplation is distracted by other things, such as our need to hydrate, eat, and sleep. Presumably, none of those needs exist in Heaven, so our contemplation in that state (presumably) is not distracted by anything. All of this is just speculation, though.

    What do you mean by contemplation then? — MoK

    To contemplate something, in the literal sense, is to look at it. For example, when I look at my kitchen table, I am contemplating it. In a figurative sense, to contemplate something means to think about it.

    Elsewhere in this thread, you mentioned that we cannot understand God's essence even in Heaven. — MoK

    Exactly. Suppose (if only for the sake of argument), that after you die, you go to Heaven. It follows from Meillassoux's suggestions that all there is to do there, is to contemplate the Image of God. But here's the point: God is not identical to his Image, just as you're not identical to your appearance. In general, nothing is identical to its appearance. God's being (understood in the manner of Harman's interpretation of Heidegger) unlike His Image, is inaccessible to us, and even to Himself.

    I then asked what the point of contemplation is if we cannot understand God's essence. — MoK

    Well, what is the point of contemplating your kitchen table, if we cannot understand its essence? No essence can be understood, not even the essence of fictional characters.
  • Arguments for and against the identification of Jesus with God
    I can't claim to have understood the idea of Absolute Spirit. or the 'end of history'. — Janus

    Neither can I. I just believe in it.
  • Arguments for and against the identification of Jesus with God
    Real art: — PoeticUniverse

    Again, A.I. "art" is not art, just as a statue is not a living creature, even though it looks like one.
  • Arguments for and against the identification of Jesus with God
    more great AI art: — PoeticUniverse

    None of that is art. It may look like art, but it isn't art. When you see a statue, do you think it's a living creature, just because it looks like one?
  • Arguments for and against the identification of Jesus with God
    Great AI art: — PoeticUniverse

    An oxymoron. Machines are incapable of creating art, because they are art themselves.
  • Arguments for and against the identification of Jesus with God
    ↪PoeticUniverse
    A.I. art is worthless, friend.
  • What are 'tautologies'?
    Then I wasn't referring to you. — Banno

    Gavagai, and all of that jazz?
  • Arguments for and against the identification of Jesus with God
    I don't do anger; anger has no brains. — PoeticUniverse

    Salam alaikum, friend.
  • Ontology of Time
    ↪Joshs
    :fire:
  • Ontology of Time
    What does motion imply if not spatial displacement of a self-identical object? — Joshs

    It's definitely a possibility, Einstein for example can be described as vouching for a sort of Parmenidean "Block Universe", where the temporal series of any process is more like a collection of cinematographic photograms. There is no movement there, there is only the illusion of movement.

    But I'm not convinced of this. I do recognize it as a live option, though.
  • Arguments for and against the identification of Jesus with God
    Speaking of Divinity, we have it that Divine Inspiration is the source for the writing of the two foundational chapters of the Bible, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, among other of the myriad claims layered upon the hoped-for Supernatural…

    As evolution obliterates Eden's immutable human formation, 'Divine Inspiration's claim falls flat.

    The Victorians and the rest of the world were shocked when the 'On the Origin of the Species' came out in 1859, quickly followed by the 'Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam'. 'Denial' was the best course of action for the wishers and the believers, as it still is today, somewhat, for church attendance is dropping, even in the once stable northeast.     — PoeticUniverse

    What happened to all of your "vibes" about the Elfin Queen and all of that "positive" stuff? You sound angry now.

    (The ship was named the Beagle) — PoeticUniverse

    Sure, I'm a Darwinist myself. Did you know that Gregor Mendel, the Founding Father of genetics, was religious?
  • Ontology of Time
    I understand it to mean "something that persists identically in time". — Joshs

    But mutationem means that it can change, that it can mutate. It has the potential (as in, capax) to do so. It is capable (capax) of it. What is that, if not the Aristotelian concept of potency as matter-in-motion? And this very capacity necessarily entails the reality of time itself. For how could something have the capacity to change, without ever changing?
  • Why is it that nature is perceived as 'true'?
    ↪Arcane Sandwich
    If 'artefact' means 'something made' then only h.sapiens can really manage that, courtesy of the famous opposable thumbs (although that is common to apes also). That passage I quoted the other day from Norman Fischer about the origin of ownership, tools and language, and with it, the sense of self - surely that's relevant.     — Wayfarer

    It is, but I'm not sure that he's right about that. Primatologists would disagree, for example. And there's evidence of mollusks arranging decorations (the famous "Octopus gardens"). Some species of birds, such as ravens, seem to understand the concept of "useful inorganic objects", etc.

    And stone tools were being manufactured long before homo became sapiens. So it goes back a long way, perhaps even a million years. But the more h.sapiens becomes reliant on tool use, clothing, possessions, and so on, to that extent they're already becoming separated from nature to some degree. And then with the advent of the Industrial Revolution and large-scale manufacturing, this takes on a whole new dimension doesn't it? — Wayfarer

    Yes, it does. In that sense, you're 99% right, I would say.
  • What are 'tautologies'?
    Yep. The mention of essence is a response to recent interest hereabouts, mostly amongst a small group of Thomists. A discussion of necessity here will probably the obliged to address less than clear ideas of essence. — Banno

    I'm interested in essence, and I'm not a Thomist. Understand, Banno, that there's a holiday in Argentina called "Spanishness Day", as in, "The Day of the Spanish Essence". I do not celebrate it myself. But understand that the discussion about essences has a lot to do with who I am, and the circumstances that I live in. I don't take any of this lightly. That's why I don't agree with Analytic philosophers when they speak so lightly about essences.

    Peace be with you, friend.
  • Ontology of Time
    ↪Joshs
    Why do you think that Heidegger's phrase "remanens capax mutationem" is important? Can you explain that? Because it has to do with both the concept of Being as well as the concept of time. I would more or less translate it like this, focusing on its meaning:

    "It (Being) remains capable of changing".

    That sounds like a materialist thesis, from where I'm standing. You probably disagree.
  • Why is it that nature is perceived as 'true'?
    ↪Wayfarer
    It's similar to the age-old debate about the etymology of the word physis. Essentially, it boils down to the following dichotomy: does it mean nature, or does it mean nurture? Maybe it means both. Who says that artifice is exclusive to humans? Perhaps nurturing is the same concept as artifice.
  • Arguments for and against the identification of Jesus with God
    I'm confused here because you say even fictional entities have essences and then say that no essence can be understood. — Janus

    Indeed. Not even the essences of fictional entities can be understood. The Being of Spain (Hispanidad), for example, is incomprehensible, even though it's a human construct. There's nothing divine about it. And yet there's a national holiday about it, in several countries, including Argentina. It's called Día de la Hispanidad (Spanishness Day). I don't celebrate it myself. I am not a subject of the Spanish Crown. No Argentine is. Therefore, I am under no obligation to celebrate it. I wasn't born in Spain, I've never even visited Spain. It is a foreign country, from where I'm standing. The fact that I speak the Spanish language (a construct, comparable to Esperanto in that sense, or to common German) means nothing. I speak English as well, and yet that does not make me an Anglo-Saxon.

    The first statement seems to suggest that an essence cannot be some intrinsic thing like being because fictional entities have no substantive being beyond what is said or imagined about them, and also what is said or imagined can presumably be understood. — Janus

    Peace be with you, friend.

    But the idea of an essence as a set of defining or identifying characteristics would also seem to be ruled out because such sets must surely be understandable. — Janus

    Nothing to comment here, from me. I neither agree nor disagree with those statements.

    Whether or not Spinoza was a pantheist is a matter of interpretation. An alternative would be to see him as an acosmist. Spinoza held a distinction between 'natura naturata' and 'natura naturans' with the former being the manifest nature we experience via the senses and the latter being something like creative nature or the laws of nature that give rise to manifest nature. — Janus

    Deleuze says he was an atheist.

    It's possible. Kant didn't believe in intellectual intuition, yet Meillassoux does. In After Finitude, he says: — Arcane Sandwich


    Correct, and Hegel tried to reintroduce it. Yet the historicist character of Hegel's thought is not compatible with Spinoza's system of thought.     — Janus

    As far as I'm concerned, Hegel's concept of the Absolute Spirit is the Ultimate Truth about Reality itself. I do not intend that as a polemic. It is simply what I believe.
  • Climate change denial
    ↪Agree-to-Disagree
    Indeed.
  • Ontology of Time
    ↪Wayfarer
    I'm very critical of Meillassoux myself. I've proven, in print, that his philosophy of mathematics is incompatible with Bunge's, for example. Not that this would be any kind of major achievement, but it's a modest victory, among other modest victories that I've had over Meillassoux's philosophy.
  • Arguments for and against the identification of Jesus with God
    ↪Count Timothy von Icarus
    Your erudition is impressive. Are you a priest?
  • God changes
    Why should we get involved in contemplating something incomprehensible? — MoK

    Because we are no longer mortal creatures when we are in that state of contemplation. And since we are mortal creatures right now, we cannot comprehend it.

    It is eternal torture as well. — MoK

    No, it isn't. That's Hell, not Heaven.
  • Climate change denial
    ↪Agree-to-Disagree
    Your Forum name read backwards would be Disagree-to-Agree.

    Ever thought about that?
  • Climate change denial
    an equivalently fowl metaphor — unenlightened

    You're very smart. I say that unironically. It is rare to find people of your intellect, nowadays.
Home » Arcane Sandwich

Arcane Sandwich

Start FollowingSend a Message