Fair enough. It is solely an abstract inquiry then I am not that bothered by abstract justification. I would also say that belief is not at all relevant for such argumentation either as what is true is true and demonstrable by abstract means.

A purely rational argument (viewed as wholly abstract) against naturalism/materialism/physicalism is waste of everyone’s time due to the obvious cross contamination.

I would still be interested to hear what ‘true belief;’ is in the context of your views here?

Someone brave and willing to carry the burdens of others. As in ‘be a man’.

I have never heard the term ‘scare quotes’. You used ‘exist’ so think of it in those terms. I was being cautious with your possible interpretation of what ‘exist’ means.

I would like you to explain what you mean by ‘true belief’ if you have the time. I have a feeling you do not wish to dive into any epistemic issues here but given that what I said makes no sense to you there must be something I failed to take into account?

My general point is that rationality is applied to experience. I felt like there was an error with mixing abstract and real.

A lot of what people call philosophy is undoubtedly useless. On this forum it is mainly a practice in rhetoric.

Arguing semantics can devolve a discussion. I generally view philosophy as a means to explore and understand language rather than as something to elicit ‘truth’. This is not exactly useless to be fair but I think the use falls far shorter than what many have in mind.

Validation is kind of important. If it was not validated then what. If something happens it happens and if it does not it does not. The logic and rationality behind it are determiners but they are useful guides.

If your position that Rationality exists in some supernatural realm that is fine. Logic is flawless in an abstract realm becuase it is discrete. Reality may or may not map 1 to 1 onto some logical principles or it may not.

Any such arguments always fall sort as we are limited. I will state though that we know things due to experience (including rationalism).

This really makes no sense. Again the argument is about the means by which reasoned inference may result in true beliefs. And any argument which has to place reality in scare quotes ought to be looked at askance. — Wayfarer

Logic is abstract. Reality is not. Any abstract argument should be applied to reality with care. Non-natural and non-material are nothing/other. If there is some other means we have yet to bring it into the light.

What are your thoughts on replacing "true" and "false" with "more accurate" and "less accurate"? — wonderer1

No problem whatsoever. You would then need evidence though and come to the conclusion that the claim is nonsense because there is no possible non-physical or non-material evidence.

You paint morality like shackles, holding back the dark and violent nature of man, but I disagree with that. — Judaka

‘Shackles’ maybe but certainly not as necessarily holding back any darkness.

@Judaka I am curious what you would make of an old thread I started titles The Use of Hypotheticals if you have time.

The general problem in the argument is framing things as True or Not True in relation to phenomenon instead of understanding it as an abstract game that helps guide us through ‘reality’ rather than something that is directly applicable to ‘reality’.

Because a theory only has meaning if it can be tested. It is not a theory that god exists it is a belief. They are quite different. If proof of gods existence was provided it would necessarily constitute something that refers to a ‘physical’/‘materialist’ framework rather than based on some pure logic.

Miasma theory did not hold up when explaining malaria BUT there was a material/physical connection. If we are searching for a COMPLETE understanding I think that is a faulty approach to begin with.

I think it is just a matter of not knowing. Any ‘theory’ that is given will necessarily be one that is ‘physical’/‘material’.

‘Love’ can be said to have ‘physical’ markers yet in and of itself there is more to experience than mere physical reduction. I am most convinced by Hussel’s approach when it comes to consciousness. There need be no answer just because we can ask a question. The problem is likely not understanding that some so-called ‘questions’ posed are not really questions at all.

Crisis was an attempt to highlight the problem of reducing psychology to materialism/physicalism.

Mine too … but she is more blunt than that! :D

I am assuming English is not your first language? That or you are new to philosophical discussions in this area?

Maybe try to write shorter sentences and get your thoughts across more clearly?

You clearly didn't read the OP. — Philosophim

Read it twice. I told you that. Why would I lie? Never mind … not interested anymore. Enjoy.

I have used this system of knowledge to solve all of the problems and paradoxes that I know of in current day epistemology. — Philosophim

If you are going to make bold claims like above and then snap at people you are on your own.

What you have done looks pointless. I was trying to direct you to compare and contrast what you say with Husserl because there are obvious parallels.

I’ll leave you to it. Enjoy.

I did not say that. I asked a question and you went ultra defensive. I read the OP a second time to see if I missed anything - after you accused me of not reading it - so ball is in your court. Either respond to my question or do not.

How is it different?

Any such assertive claim that the creature is definitively one or the other, would be contradicted indirectly by my inability to observe the face of the entity. Such a belief would be inductive. — Philosophim

https://www.britannica.com/topic/eidetic-reduction

US civilisation is not the same the world over.

‘Civilisation’ has a specific definition historically. It involves divided labour and writing. That is why we know civilisation began in the middle-east.

So I just wasted my time reading your post? Thanks. Bye.

Me too. Sadly you are still here :D

How anything you are saying is different from what he was outlining with phenomenology.

Read Husserl.

There is no problem. Nothing refers to absence. Kant did a pretty good job of highlighting this in terms of noumenon.

Nothing exists ionly in a ‘negative’ sense not a positive one. So when you frame the term as what think is in a ‘positive’ sense you are just fooling yourself and others as well it seems. You may as well ask about thr existence of ‘colourlessness’ or ‘emptiness’.

So you think a modern Luddite (mor form of one) is one that attempts to recuperate nature? In what ways may this return jobs to people? I get that taking down dams can serve ‘nature’ but how will that replenish the workforce?

Thanks for the answer. Bye bye

I continually work to enunciate existential ontological precepts in the plainest possible language. — quintillus

Is this sarcasm or stupidity?

The actual Luddite activity lasted less than a decade and the real important movement was the workers movement, trade unions etc. — ssu

They had the same concerns though didn’t they?

Plain English might help you out if you want a sensible response to whatever that is meant to mean.

I guessed. If you were trying to say what I stated above you failed to get it across clearly. I just thought about what may or may not be the underlying thought/idea of what you were thinking/saying.

Note: Satre was a dickhead imo.

I have a feeling what you are getting at (albeit in a round about manner) is that agreed rules set out by people have limited jurisdiction … meaning in smaller communities people can negotiate and trade effectively all under the umbrella of common ‘rules’/‘laws’ that are somewhat pliable, whereas once we begin to talk about greater numbers of people over greater distances and areas the ‘meaning’ of the ‘rules’/‘laws’ falls away into the distance for most.

The ‘ignorance’ of laws/rules makes people vulnerable to persecution. So ‘law,’ aimed at millions of peoples across thousands of miles, will inevitably result in chaos.

Desiring not to have desires is still ‘desire’.

I generally avoid/shun anyone who adheres to any ism with rigidity and persistence.

As a general rule it helps to pursue ‘pleasure’ where you do not expect to find it and measure the lasting ‘pleasure’ gained through work and commitment. Advice given though is usually due to one’s own failings in following it! :D

Just to be clear … I am interested in this from an anthropological and psychological perspective. The question can be asked about whether or not someone may or may not be regarded as a ‘philosopher,’ an ‘artist’ or some other such title/label/whatever.

I have strong opinions about who I would call and artist just like I would about what I would call art. I am quite willing and open to except that other people will undoubtedly use these terms differently to me and that at the end of the day is doesn’t really matter as long as we understand each other enough not to degrade, belittle or abuse one another (with exceptions therein too of course!).

Should I care is someone calls themselves ‘gay’ or ‘Brian’? I have no reason to care therefore the ‘should’ is irrelevant to me. If someone ‘demands’ that I address them as such and such I am far less likely to comply because I have certain ‘anarchistic’ tendencies - it is more about the context than the ‘demand’/‘request’.

Note: I do find it peculiar how some people ‘request’ somethings and then act ‘abused’ when such a ‘request’ is denied. If something is genuinely ‘requested’ it should be done so with the expectation of a refusal (depending on the request and the explanation of the person being asked of).

It depends and there are exceptions. That just about sums up reasonable social interactions I think.

My point was you assume it is a yes/no answer? As always ‘it depends,’ and even then it may be revealed that to declare what ‘should’ or ‘should not’ be done is in error in and of itself.

Should we police thoughts and beliefs? Or more to the point CAN we and to what degree? That is what I read in the question of ‘should’.

The problem word loaded into the question is ‘should’.

We are all far more alike than we like to think we are. I sometimes wish we embraced this more than we seem to at times, yet still I am far more scared of mobs rather than singular persons.

He is certainly entertaining if nothing else.