• Are non-human animals aware of death? Can they fear it?
    ↪John
    :-} try a bit harder John, maybe you can convince yourself too! At least you're smart enough to avoid answering my objections to your Spinoza misinterpretations - that way you think you can fool some people.
  • Resentment
    It's all about sexual deviancy, dude. — Mongrel
    :s
  • Resentment
    Plus we have a ginormous nuclear arsenal and the ability to deliver warheads anywhere anytime with ICBMs, medium range missiles, bombers, and submarines. Think about it. — Mongrel
    What's that got to do with anything though?
  • Resentment
    Re the initial post in the thread, I also don't see where you're getting the materialistic/non-materialistic idea from re Nietzsche's Noble/Slave morality dichotomy. (Maybe he does say something about this, though, that I just don't recall.)

    In any event, I think the dichotomy is a false one. And I don't buy the idea of their being conflicting "packages" of morality that different socio-economic categories of people accept.     — Terrapin Station
    Yes I made the same point in my reply but it was never addressed here:
    http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/47611#Post_47611
  • Resentment
    What would you call that.. anti-Jewish sentiment? I guess you could call it anti-Semitic, but that would include hatred of the Phoenicians. — Mongrel
    It's less important what you call it. The point of the Borat movie is that the supposedly "civilised" Americans are more often more racist, more bigoted, and more sexually deviant than even he himself, the savage, is - as illustrated by the American's reaction vis-a-vis Jews in this scene. That's what makes the movie genius.
  • The psychopathic economy.
    ↪unenlightened
    I kind of agree with your description of our present situation as I've outlined here

    However, I'm not sure in the future you have proposed - I think that's too hard for anyone to predict. Furthermore I don't think anyone controls capitalism - I think capitalism is the one that controls people.
  • Are non-human animals aware of death? Can they fear it?
    ↪Punshhh
    :-}

    You haven't understood what I've said all this time.

    Indeed, I allow a broad spread of definitions of substance. — Punshhh
    Yes and using substence in a way that doesn't follow the use of it that has been philosophically established. You're just redefining words.

    The problem with what Spinoza is saying (as you have presented it), is that there are two unfounded conclusions, conclusions which cannot be supported using logic. — Punshhh
    How are they unfounded? Can you explain this when I just provided you the reasons for why there is only one substance, and the reasons for why this substance must be God? :s

    You should know by now that we cannot think God into existence, or think eternity into our own guise. — Punshhh
    Yes unfortunately Spinoza's ontological argument works - unlike that of Descartes or St. Anselm. Your only option is to retreat into irrationalism if you want to deny Spinoza's point. Reason itself demands that we adopt such a conception if reality is to be intelligible at all. Of course you can say "fuck it, reality isn't intelligible", but that's your only option. And if you choose that, you're not really doing philosophy anymore. So if that's what you want to do, be my guest.
  • Resentment
    N drops the scenario straight onto the Jews. There's no doubt that the Jews had a unique problem with the concept of justice because their religion teaches that they have a special relationship with God. They have a deal or covenant in which God protects them if they meet his requirements as laid out in the Mosaic law. Anytime bad things happened, the Jews would try to work out how they had failed God so they could get it right. Eventually that technique was strained to the point of absurdity. — Mongrel

    I think that quite possibly it's not the Jews that express ressentiment in their morality, but, as this video illustrates, many of the other peoples have hated and some still continue to hate the Jews. This is quite unfortunate in my opinion, and it is exactly why the Western world must help protect Israel.
  • Is sex as idolized elsewhere as in the West?

    This discussion was interesting. Now I don't agree with Muhammad Ali that women should "cover up", but neither do I agree with indecent ways of dressing which are clearly undertaken to sexually provoke. There needs to be a balance. Decency is a virtue - of course decency differs from culture to culture - for example from Islam to Christianity, but there are some universalities between them - some limit below which a way of dressing becomes indecent, and hence immoral.
  • Is sex as idolized elsewhere as in the West?
    Now that we have e gotten sex out of the way, we can talk about masturbation. — Question
    In my opinion masturbation is immoral, but since it only involves the self and not another person there are few grounds for "campaigning against it" so to speak. When you masturbate you're not harming anyone except at most yourself - so it's a sin like gluttony is a sin. The fact that someone commits such a sin is a personal matter, and doesn't trouble anyone else. Having sex though involves other people, hence sexual sins are more significant because they are also social sins - those are the sins which trouble us.
  • Is sex as idolized elsewhere as in the West?
    One of Planned Parenthood's tag mottos is "Every child a wanted child." Most of Planned Parenthood's efforts go into family planning. What have you got against that? — Bitter Crank
    Repeal and replace! :D
  • Are non-human animals aware of death? Can they fear it?
    ↪Wayfarer
    But I do agree that the quote is aimed at pointing towards the same thing. The problem with Buddhism generally in my opinion is that it is confused - it says everything and nothing, and hasn't clarified its teachings, the way say, the Catholic Church has. This is a serious problem - it means pretty much anyone who labels themselves as a Buddhist can be one. I gave you a series of links to have a look for yourself at this - but it seems you haven't bothered. In addition to this Buddhism is purposefully adapting itself to the West to gain converts - this is a KNOWING adaptation. This I find to be quite inadequate for a religion - Christianity for example isn't "adapting itself" to gain converts, for the most part.

    And Buddhists themselves are saying this. Have a look here for example:
    http://www.mysticbanana.com/i-would-really-like-to-practice-buddhism-but-will-i-be-faced-with-leftist-loons.html

    Read the comment by Roshi Bill Yoshin Jordan for example. Buddhism has become corrupted, because it wasn't sufficiently structured - and therefore it has failed because it has allowed the virus to get in. Once the virus is in, it will be almost impossible to change - the preachers of Buddhism themselves become twisted. Which is a pity because Buddhism had some valuable insights and good potential - if only it hadn't formed such an alliance, we may have envisioned a different future for it. But now in the bottles with the label Buddhism we can either find poison or good wine - and how to distinguish them without drinking them - they bear the same label! ;)
  • Are non-human animals aware of death? Can they fear it?
    'Nirvāṇa is the one dharma that exists without being the result of a cause'. — Wayfarer
    This is not a very clear definition because we don't know if there exists such a thing. Spinoza ties it with Substance being in itself (not depending on other things) and requiring nothing but itself in order to be conceived. Because Spinoza makes such a distinction it ends up clear that substance is something that we MUST conceive in order to make sense of reality (and hence there definitely exists such a thing). Descartes' definition, and the definition provided by the Buddhist dictionary don't make this clear.

    With respect to Descartes definition of substance — Wayfarer
    Which is precisely how Spinoza could subvert Cartesianism ;)

    A lot of the confusion here rests on the notion of what constitutes 'substance' — Wayfarer
    In philosophic discourse the notion of substance is pretty clear at least in my opinion.
  • Are non-human animals aware of death? Can they fear it?
    ↪John
    ↪John
    As for these posts....

    You lack even the basic shame required of a man to avoid humiliating himself even more than he is already humiliated. It seems that in your old age you have realised that young minds have achieved far more than you have in far shorter time, and there is no possibility for you to catch up. Thus you choose to resort to ressentiment, and cast as sour and untrue all that you cannot reach up to because of your own weakness and lack of character. Accuse them of failing because they are young, and all sorts of other non-philosophical and philistinic rationalisations. You claim:

    The fact is that I really don't care about this kind of bullshit; I'm not here to trade insults or to play boring games. — John
    And on you go, post after post engaging in insults and playing boring games. You should really be ashamed of yourself, there is no greater shame than to have a man let his own jealousy conquer him. Your jealousy is so great in fact, that you even have the audacity to suggest:

    Why not start a thread and ask others to honestly express their opinions, no holds barred, about your behavior on these forums; you might be surprised! — John
    But of course, you don't care about this kind of bullshit. Why suggest it then? I think you really do care, and the fact that you care tells the rest of us a lot about you. But again I really think you ought to meditate on this and bear the shame you have accumulated in silence instead of opening that mouth again and pushing yourself even deeper down in the pit. Shame on you John, shame on you.
  • Are non-human animals aware of death? Can they fear it?
    OK, so what is substance then? If you cannot clearly say what it is, then it would seem to be utterly senseless to claim that it is the only real. — John
    After all those years of you claiming you studied Spinoza you still can't understand even the basics of his system. Have you bothered to read how Spinoza or Descartes CLEARLY define what substance is?

    "By substance I understand what is in itself and is conceived through itself" (E1d3) Spinoza
    OR
    "By Substance we can understand nothing other than a thing which so exists that it needs no other thing to exist" (I, 51) Descartes

    Spinoza believed the self to be utterly subject to the determinism he believed to be inherent in nature. He believed that the freedom we experience ourselves as being is an illusion due to the fact that we cannot be aware of all the causal factors determining our actions. — John
    >:O Yeah maybe if you stop after reading the fourth book "On Man's Bondage", and never move to the fifth ("On Man's FREEDOM") :-d
  • Are non-human animals aware of death? Can they fear it?
    This notion that there can only be one substance is an unfounded assumption. God may be constituted of a multitude of substances, one of which is in our case the same substance as that of which the world and or our being is constituted. While God also partakes of a multitude of other substances, or unknowns elsewhere in existence. — Punshhh
    This is incoherent - you're using a notion of substance that would be completely foreign to Spinoza, Descartes, Aristotle, and the whole philosophic corpus. Substance is what necessarily exists - God can't partake of substances - rather God can be substance. Maybe what you're saying is that God is a substance with multiple attributes, say attributes A, B, C, D and we're a substance with attributes A and B only. Now let's see, why couldn't that be the case? (Spinoza actually DOES go through this and explains why it can't be the case)

    Spinoza explains that the nature of a substance is described by its attributes. Since the attributes are the essence of substance and substance is always logically prior to its modes, then that means that what we must use to distinguish two different substances are their attributes. Spinoza defends E1p5 that in nature there cannot be two or more substances having the same attribute by citing E1d3, and E1a6. Now, Spinoza following Descartes and the tradition defines substance as what is in itself and is conceived through itself (E1d3) and defines the correspondence of a true idea to its object in E1a6. Now suppose we have two substances with the different attributes as described above. Can we distinguish the two substances by the attributes they have in common? No. So it must be by the attributes they don't have in common. How do we conceive of a substance? Through its essence via E1d3 (ie through any one of its attributes E1p10). So to conceive of an extended substance, we just need to make reference to the attribute of extension and to no other attribute. But in the case we have previously mentioned, if I try to conceive substance 1 through attribute A that isn't enough, because how would it be different from conceiving substance 2 which also has attribute A? So because we cannot conceive of a substance if it shares an attribute with another substance, we know that substances cannot share attributes (E1p5). Now neither can Substances be distinguished through their modes, because the Substance is logically prior to its modes. Therefore still E1p5.

    Now substance necessarily has all possible attributes (from E1d6). If you claim it doesn't, and say there's substance with attribute A, and substance with attribute B, than a substance with attributes A and B can always be conceived which incorporates both "substances" (and indeed MUST be conceived). Because, say, an extended substance only requires the attribute of extension to be conceived, the attribute of thought or any other kind of attribute is not necessary when conceiving the substance qua extended substance - and thus there's nothing in the substance being an extended substance precluding it from being a thinking substance also. Since God - or Substance - can be conceived, and God necessarily has all the attributes (because God has the most reality and power), then it follows that whatever substance that exists must have all the attributes (E1p11). From the fact that substances cannot share attributes (E1p5) and whatever substance exists must have all the attributes (E1p11) we conclude that there can only be ONE Substance and ONE God - E1p14.
  • Are non-human animals aware of death? Can they fear it?
    ↪John

    So I make a remark about how much I've learned from 180 Proof, and what a tough opponent he was (and that I have found no one like him - which is true! I haven't!), and suddenly you're up in arms about my philosophical ability and that of 180 Proof - really have you lost even the last shred of reason? Maybe you're growing too old and senile John. Who would even bother to get on the tirade that you're getting on and talk about other people's philosophical ability etc. I did indeed expect a young man to do this, not a grandfather. If you had even one shred of the wisdom you claim you have, you would never have started any of this. I really think you should be ashamed of yourself.

    You should learn to respect your opponents, if even by your age you haven't yet learned it. Anyway, this is my last comment on this matter, if you want to continue satisfying your jealousies, you can do so by yourself.
  • Are non-human animals aware of death? Can they fear it?
    Of course! Anyone who expresses an honest opinion about you that you don't like must necessarily be small, right? This is a common ploy you commonly employ. :-} Better try some arguments instead if you want to impress people. — John
    An argument to do what, to show what a fool you are?

    Is this meant to convey that you think I'm lying, or what?

    Really, Agustino, I'm finding conversing with you less and less appealing. I'm really not interested in the kinds of bullshit games that you seem to be intent on playing.
    Say what you really think and why, or just don't bother; otherwise it's a waste of time. :-d     — John
    I did in fact write what I think and why. If you bother to read it. Really you're disappointing.
  • Are non-human animals aware of death? Can they fear it?
    LOL, who do think I am being jealous of? Not yourself, surely! To be honest, your a young guy, and it shows; I see you as a philosophical pup, so to speak. I certainly think you have good potential.
    Note, I said "if you think your philosophical ability is superior". I didn't say you did think that but some of your comments do make it seem so, to me at least.     — John
    Sometimes I think you don't even realise how small you're becoming :)

    Sorry man, It's really too much hassle for me. I have no recall even of what the thread was called where the exchange took place. — John
    :-} Right... >:O It's easy to defame people when they can't defend themselves, and when others can't defend them because you refuse to give them the chance to do it. But whatever, you defame me and 180, we'll let other people say what they think about us. Maybe you got jealous you never got more than +2 likes on PF or whatever. I don't know what's up with this attitude of yours.
  • Are non-human animals aware of death? Can they fear it?
    To be honest if you think your philosophical ability is superior to all of those on this forum, then I would say you are woefully deluded. I believe 180 also had an exaggerated idea of his own philosophical abilities, I found he always withdrew when I challenged his assertions; so maybe you were good for supporting each other's self-delusions. — John
    I haven't said it is superior to all those on this forum (gosh who would even think about that). I've said that amongst people I disagree with here, most aren't challenging.

    You say you can "dispatch others easily" but I think you haven't considered the possibility that this perception is not of the reality but of your own little fantasy. — John
    No, I actually said that in the context of referencing people I disagree with. People I disagree with don't make me question myself. Their arguments are flimsy and weak. 180 Proof made me question myself. There are some I agree with here, and I think they have good philosophical aptitudes, and have honed in on the truth to a large degree.

    The rest of the comment is just your own opinion, nothing more. Apparently you seem to be resorting to petty jealousies and the like, but that's your choice, so I wish you goodluck with that.
  • Are non-human animals aware of death? Can they fear it?
    I'm not that computer savvy and I don't know how to find the stuff on the old PF; which is a pity because I would have downloaded my posts for future reference. — John
    Okay let me teach you :P

    type "site:forums.philosophyforums.com Something" without the quotes into google. This will allow you to search the domain forums.philosophyforums.com . Replace something with whatever you're looking for - the thread name, your username or whatever you would want to search PF for. So for example, I type: "site:forums.philosophyforums.com 180 proof spinoza" and the second thread that comes up is Spinoza's Critique of Cartesian Will . So I click it, and I can't access it anymore because PF is fucked. So I copy the URL/link :

    http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/spinozas-critique-of-cartesian-will-30044-2.html

    and paste it into the cachedpages.com and click first google cache, if that doesn't work, then I click archive.org

    Now not all threads will be archived, but some will. So maybe it will be there. In addition, if you don't find the respective page, maybe you can find other pages from the thread. For example - in the previous example I gave, in the link, you notice the "-2" at the end of the URL right? That means you're on page 2 of that thread. So maybe there is no page 2 archived, but the previous pages are archived. So you can remove "-2" and search for: http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/spinozas-critique-of-cartesian-will-30044.html which might exist.

    Once you're in the archived page you can just navigate it normally.
  • Are non-human animals aware of death? Can they fear it?
    ↪John

    I don't think idealism is incoherent - I just think Aristotelian realism is more simple and seems to describe the world much better. I've been reading a lot of Thomas Aquinas recently - this shifted my impression away from people like Berkeley, Kant, Schopenhauer, etc.

    Personally I don't much miss his cryptic dribblings. But as I remember it, he certainly did occasionally come up with some original insights. — John
    In my opinion, the man was one of the few from whom I've learned A LOT from, even though most of the time I disagreed with him. I probably can't compare anyone else currently in this forum with him. He always brought the hardest arguments against me, and made me think. I always missed him because I don't feel as challenged without him. Most other people I can dispatch easily or see through them but 180 was hard, and he always fought back - and his responses - I could hardly predict what he will respond with, he always said something original. So I find here a few people I agree with - and I generally agree with on most important matters. And then a few that I disagree with, but those that I really disagree with, they're not that hard to deal with - I don't find their arguments plausible at all.
  • Are non-human animals aware of death? Can they fear it?
    I engaged in a discussion along these lines many years ago with a poster, a self-styled expert Spinozist and "entropist", on the old forum. — John
    180 Proof Ahh how I miss that man!

    When I pointed out that the self-causing principle cannot be anything in the world by Spinoza's own arguments concerning the difference between necessary and contingent beings, and that from this it followed that God must be transcendent (as well as immanent, mind) the other poster became all huffy and accused me of 'refusing to learn', and would not, or more likely could not, explain himself further. What a cop out! — John
    I'd be interested to see this discussion, if you could offer a link to PF via http://www.cachedpages.com/

    I pointed out that Spinoza makes a distinction between natura naturans (the self-causing priniciple) and natura naturata (the causal nexus that is the natural world) and asserts that God is the former but not the latter (to which the other poster agreed) thus saving himself from pantheism. — John
    180 Proof would go further and argue that Spinoza is an acosmist - only Substance is real.

    When I pointed out that the self-causing principle cannot be anything in the world by Spinoza's own arguments concerning the difference between necessary and contingent beings, and that from this it followed that God must be transcendent (as well as immanent, mind) the other poster became all huffy and accused me of 'refusing to learn', and would not, or more likely could not, explain himself further. — John
    Don't forget that according to Spinoza there also exist eternal modes (or infinite modes, can't remember how Spinoza calls them, it's been so long since I last read him). Before I say anything further, what arguments concerning the difference between necessary and contingent beings are you making reference to?

    Heidegger was an idealist — John
    Many would disagree - Heidegger bridges the gap between realism/idealism or at least attempts to.

    I think the very notion of substance is deeply flawed. But you obviously support it, so please explain to me exactly what a material substance is, and if you can successfully achieve that, then explain to me what an immaterial substance could be. — John
    Why is the notion of substance flawed per your view? Material or immaterial describes the characteristic of substance. For example, for idealists, the underlying substance is mental. Now whether substance is material or non-material is besides the point of whether the notion of substance is flawed or not. So why do you think the notion is flawed? I'll get back to you in more detail, but I'll need some time to dig into Ethics again, and into the many Spinoza commentary books that I have.

    The only cogent alternative is materialistic realism (although it is certainly arguable that the independent reality of things cannot be truly coherently thought); but there is really no room for God on that picture. — John
    So is there no room for God in that picture as an Aristotelian Prime Mover? Also I don't understand why realism has to be materialistic...
  • Resentment
    Some folks just naturally root for the underdog. Those people are more likely to end up being liberal — Mongrel
    Quite honestly, I almost always root for the underdog. If Trump had never been the underdog, probably I would never have rooted for him. And I'm the farthest you can get from a liberal. Just saying.
  • Resentment
    Humiliation? Real power is accumulated over generations. So though aristocracy doesn't really exist anymore, rich families do. I don't know if they subject their offspring to humiliation. I doubt it. — Mongrel
    Every rich/powerful family has a founder - a person who got them rich. In the case of, say, Donald Trump, it's his father. The founder is the one that bears the humiliations. I love reading Chinese history, Chinese history is replete of such examples in politics. Then they grow their sons and daughters in a strict and rigid environment because they know how harsh the world was to them. Then their sons and daughters become ruthless and expand the empire. Sooner or later, future generations will be like "WTF our parents were so harsh with us, we couldn't properly enjoy... let's let our kids enjoy!" and they will revert back to the baseline, become lazy, lose the virtues taught to them, and the family will fall, only to be replaced by another.
  • Are non-human animals aware of death? Can they fear it?
    So, you are saying God is "made of atoms"? :s — John
    ... No

    I'm saying what whatever the basic stuff of the world is - whether this is a material substance or a spiritual substance - then everything is made of that. If the world doesn't include just atoms and void, then obviously there needs to be a substance formed of both atoms and void and whatever other spiritual things exist. The idea is that there is only one substance, a world formed of multiple substances cannot be conceived. Read Part I of Spinoza's Ethics - this is made abundantly clear by him.

    Can you explain what it would mean for an event to take place "outside experience"? — John
    We are always already outside of experience. We're thrown into the world, as Heidegger says.

    To say that we are "made of atoms" is just one among many other ways of thinking about our constitutions. We don't actually understand touching in terms of atoms at all, I can touch you because we both experience ourselves as embodied, material beings, whatever our "ultimate constitutions" might be. The every notion of embodiment and materiality comes from our experience, and so do all the scientific understandings of physicality. — John
    No - you can touch me because we're made of the same substance - whatever that substance is, whether it is material or not.

    I didn't say that experiences "take place" any where else, did I? Events take place, do experiences of events take place (in the sense of 'have a precise location')? Or is it not rather that events take place within experience. Can you explain what it would mean for an event to take place "outside experience"? What if the world just is experience, including let's say, God's experience. Then events would take place in experience and the world would be within experience. Experience is not an object or an event 'in the world'. — John
    I am starting to find this Kantian/Hegelian view more and more incoherent day by day. It seems to me that thought (and hence experience) presupposes an external world to even get started.
  • Resentment
    A person who has a lot of power was probably willing to do a lot of evil things. — Mongrel
    It depends on his character, but it is possible. However, even if he had little power, he would be willing to do a lot of evil things, only that he wouldn't have the means to do them.

    Maybe not all powerful people are evil, but generally, they're ruthless, greedy, and careless about the well-being of others. — Mongrel
    Depends - people who climb up the ladder of power generally have to bear humiliation after humiliation, and after a lifetime of being humiliated left and right by X and Y, then finally get to the top. Wouldn't you be ruthless, greedy, and careless by that point? So that is a natural evolution of things - they pay those who pulled them down with exactly what they paid them on their way up. Things are only different if they have character, and if they don't humiliate themselves on the road to power - if they have dignity and character, then they won't be vengeful.
  • Resentment
    How do you know what a person deserves? — Mongrel
    By using your judgement and judging objectively while doing that? There's obviously not way to get this right with certainty if that's what you're asking for. These are tentative judgements.
  • Resentment
    What is justice? — Mongrel
    What Plato said it is: to each as they deserve.
  • Resentment
    N says it's a reactive and requires external stimulus — Mongrel
    Can a sense of justice ever not be reactive? Doesn't justice always react to the way things are?

    I wonder if what N is calling slave morality is self-loathing one takes up on behalf of a world that seems to always proceed forward without ever feeling the weight of condemnation. — Mongrel
    Well I think it's a natural part of the functioning of a rational being. If I am working for a guy who is my boss, and he's more stupid than I am (and this is the objective fact now, not just a misjudgement on my part), shouldn't I feel upset that I'm working for such a person? Shouldn't I wish to replace him if possible, and become the boss in his place?
  • Becoming and Relation: Difficult Thoughts
    Yep, I've got it. So the question is the extent to which having a value for one argument for each level is comparable to knowing the original function to begin with, or what conceptually this buys you. — The Great Whatever
    What do you mean? Are you asking what the use of Taylor series is? Or?
  • Resentment
    It's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. — Mongrel
    Maybe but what does this have to do with the point I was making? The so called slave is upset at an injustice. This underlies that he has a sense of justice, which actually is functioning.
  • Resentment
    There is a brand of morality that simply rejects anyone who has power. — Mongrel
    I don't think this is too honest. The morality in question is formed of misjudgements about justice. When I complain that the dumb guy next door is rich and I'm poor, I'm really saying that he doesn't deserve to be rich (because he's dumb and I'm much smarter than him!). The injustice is that he gets what he doesn't deserve, and I don't get what I deserve. Most often though, these are misjudgements - meaning that my judgement that he's dumber than me or that because he's dumber than me he deserves to have less money than I do, or whatever is false.

    So it's not that one denies the value of riches in this case, but that one is upset at the injustice present, and this upset manifests by a rationalisation of the situation.
  • Are non-human animals aware of death? Can they fear it?
    but the idea that experiences of those events take place in the world is assumed to be correct just because the experience is of the events and the events are in the world. — John
    Where else do you think they could be taking place? :s

    We know what it means to say that events and things are worldly. — John
    What does this mean?

    The crux seems to be the claim that if God acts in the world ( which is itself questionable, and needs to be precisely explained as to what it could mean) then God must be "worldly". Even if the notion that God acts in the world were accepted what does it mean to say that God is "worldly"? We know what it means to say that events and things are worldly. — John
    Okay. Think by analogy. For me to touch you, I need to be physical, made of atoms just as you are, correct? If I'm not physical, how can I touch or interact with you? We need to be of the same substance to interact. So if God acts in the world, he must be of the same substance as the world. This substance is what we frequently use the word "world" for, and so God must be in this substance.

    And again, even if it were accepted that God is worldly if God acts in the world, what is the actual argument for that conclusion? It is nothing more than another 'argument from definition'. Otherwise show why it would be impossible for an agent who is not 'in the world' in the sense that objects and events are to effect changes int world. — John
    I'm not saying it would be impossible, I'm saying it is incoherent. How would we make sense of that? I can make sense of touching you for example, because we're both physical and made of the same substance - atoms - hence we can interact. That's what it means to be of the same substance - being capable of interacting. So if God isn't of the same substance, and is thus incapable of interacting with us, in what sense does he even exist? If I tell you that there exists this teapot, but you can't find it anywhere in the universe, and you can't ever interact with it in any way, shape or form, what's the difference between this teapot, and a non-existant one?

    I refer to Willow's as a woman, because I have come to believe due to comments she has made — John
    What comments made you believe this?

    her avatar that she is a woman. — John
    But for a very long time at the other forum he or she never had an avatar.

    I have noticed that you have several times referred to Willow's as "he". What makes you think Willow is a man? — John
    I'm not sure if Willow is either a man or a woman. I refer to Willow as a him more often than otherwise because he/she never indicated otherwise, and because that's the first term that comes to mind when I speak with someone whom I don't know more about on the internet.
  • Becoming and Relation: Difficult Thoughts
    The point is that you only need to know the value at some point for the multiple integrations, not the function itself. — The Great Whatever
    Yes, but you'd have to know one value from each derivative. Say I start with f(x) = 3 and the function I'm looking for is 3 integrations up. First integration I need one point on the line 3x+C1, which will enable me to find C1. Second integration I need one point on the curve 3/2 x^2 + C1*x + C2. And so on. Or if not I need as many number of points as the number of integrations I perform to get to the mother function that I'm looking to find.

    I don't understand Taylor series, but I'd still be curious to know what's to be said about the simple linear example. Doesn't a derivative of '3' determine an infinite class of linear functions, one for each y-intercept? — The Great Whatever
    To understand Taylor just follow the formula. Take an easy second degree order equation:

    f(x) = 2x^2+3x+2
    f'(x) = 4x+3
    f''(x) = 4
    f'''...'(x)=0

    Say you don't know anything about what the function is. All you know is that f(0) = 2, f'(0) = 3, f''(0) = 4, and f'''(0) and further equal 0. You could also know f at any other point - say you knew f(2), f'(2), etc.

    Now, taylor says that the function can be approximated at a certain point by f(a) + f'(a)/1! * (x-a) + f''(a)/2! * (x-a)^2 + f'''(a)/3! * (x-a)^3 + .... and so on where a is any number in the domain of the function

    For simplicity pick a = 0;

    f(0) + f'(0) * x + f''(0)/2 * x^2 = 2 + 3*x + 4/2*x^2

    Is this the original function? Yes. So using the Taylor series, if you have one piece of information at each level you can reconstruct an estimate of the function. For polynomials, because derivatives all become 0 after a certain point, Taylor gives an exact answer. But for a function like sin(x) it doesn't because the derivatives go to infinity.
  • Are non-human animals aware of death? Can they fear it?
    ↪John
    How do you know Willow is a she? :s

    Okay let's take it sentence by sentence Dirty John >:)

    Such a God is a worldy actor. — TheWillowOfDarkness
    This means that God acts in the world, has effects in the world. Okay?

    Indeed, any vision can only be wordly because the caused state (the vision) is someone's experience. — TheWillowOfDarkness
    This means that even someone who is having a beatific vision, even that person is just having an experience. It is true that it is a different kind of experience, but it occurs via the mechanisms that exist in the world - his brain and senses, and is thus part of his more general experience.

    Without worldly mechanism (the experience which is the vision), there are no visions. — TheWillowOfDarkness
    Without the persons brain, eyes, etc. there is no such vision possible.

    It's the nature of God which discounts the transcendent. — TheWillowOfDarkness
    The nature of God was mentioned before. God acts in the world.

    If God does something to the world, God is worldly — TheWillowOfDarkness
    As Spinoza showed, for two things to be able to affect each other, they must be of the same Substance, and hence are part of the same existence - and necessarily so.

    On the other hand if God eshews the finite, then God is nothing, an infinite that does not exist or act-- an immanent substance only. — TheWillowOfDarkness
    If God does not act in the world, then there is no God - because what sense would it have to say something exists if it can never be encountered or related with in the world?

    The twin nature of being both worldy and beyond the world is a contradiction and incohrent. — TheWillowOfDarkness
    So God either acts in the world (in which case God is IN the world) or God doesn't act in the world (in which case God isn't in the world, and therefore doesn't exist)

    To suggest a transcendent God is to tell falsehoods about God. — TheWillowOfDarkness
    The notion of transcendence as you use it is incoherent for the above reasons. Happy?
  • Are non-human animals aware of death? Can they fear it?
    ↪John
    I'm full of shit as you very well noted! :D
  • Becoming and Relation: Difficult Thoughts
    I think, for the series, you must know the value of the function at some point, not the function itself. But then you have to know the derivative values at that point, and so on down the line. — The Great Whatever
    Yes that would obviously be sufficient if you're only integrating once.
  • Resentment
    Agree? — Mongrel
    No - why would you think so?

    Furthermore I'm curious according to what grounds did you draw the "materialistic" vs "non-materialistic" distinction? It seems to me that the one morality isn't anymore materialistic or non-materialistic than the other.
  • Becoming and Relation: Difficult Thoughts
    You can actually use a Taylor series to reconstruct a primitive curve (locally, around a singularity) with a single derivative. I couldn't tell you the details, but that's what the paper is referring to. — StreetlightX
    Without knowing the original function? In Taylor series the first element f(a) is the most important one in reconstructing the function - has the biggest effect, and then successive terms have lesser effects, the farther down you go with the derivatives. And anyway, Taylor series are useful to approximate and work with functions which have an infinite number of derivatives. Like ex for example. Or sin(x) or such functions. Definitely not polynomials.

    So TGW is right that you can't reconstruct unless you have the original function. The procedure of integrating gives you a range of possible functions and doesn't "zoom-in" to the correct one, you need to know additional information to get that.

    I've been dealing with this same problem for a client of mine actually in that some operations cannot be re-constructed backwards. Like my client uses rounding in the calculations of net salaries for his employees. He wants my database to back-calculate for a net salary given by him to give the gross salary, before taxes.

    So say I have something like: Gross Salary - Round(Gross Salary*Tax1) - Round(Gross Salary*Tax2) etc. = Net Salary

    If I give a Net Salary, I cannot back-calculate a Gross-Salary without error because I cannot take the rounding into account. When you round a value you round an entire set of possible values to a single value. 3.35 and 2.95 all round to 3 for example. It's the same with integration or taking derivatives. Thus it is impossible to get back to the original value that you rounded. There is no "unround" process.
Home » Agustino