• Is climate change overblown? What about the positives?
    I'm unsure about global warming, but I think that we have bigger environmental problems than merely global warming.
  • Your Greatest Opposite Philosopher (only theists/atheists)
    ↪anonymous66
    Yes but consider Epicurean writings. The Gods are eternal - what's eternal in Epicurean metaphysics? Only atoms and void. Thus the Gods have to be formed of atoms and void too. For everything that exists - so holds the Epicurean - is atoms and void. There's no other substance.
  • Tao Te Ching appreciation thread
    ↪Ying
    Excellent! The Daoist writings are one of the few writings in the world that communicate what the reader and student needs to be communicated to them. In other words, each finds what they are looking for at that time in it. In this way it is empty and formless.
  • Your Greatest Opposite Philosopher (only theists/atheists)
    ↪Thorongil
    Well I'm never too certain what I mean by the word God - that's the place of faith. When I say one believes in God, I don't mean they have a certain knowledge that others don't. It's more about how they relate to the world/reality. And I do believe that debating "Does God exist?" is meaningless to a large extent.
  • Your Greatest Opposite Philosopher (only theists/atheists)
    ↪Thorongil
    Well I am kind of an ignostic theist :D
  • Your Greatest Opposite Philosopher (only theists/atheists)
    ↪anonymous66
    I see. So who would you consider as the most convincing atheist then? (taking that as the opposing view to what you hold now)
  • Your Greatest Opposite Philosopher (only theists/atheists)
    Believe it or not Epicurus was not an atheist. He had an argument for the existence of gods. He just also believed they had nothing to do with us, and that we are on our own. — anonymous66
    Although I should add to my previous response that according to Epicurus the gods were still made of atoms and belonged to the universe - there was no transcendence. So his notion of gods was tongue in cheek atheism ;)
  • Your Greatest Opposite Philosopher (only theists/atheists)
    That means the opposite of my views also consists of classical scepticism — Ying
    That's why:
    The thing with Hume... it's very easy to take out his atheism and replace it with theism given his philosophical framework. Johann Georg Hamann did exactly that. — Agustino
  • Your Greatest Opposite Philosopher (only theists/atheists)
    The most "serious" atheist philosopher, in my view, is probably David Hume. Problem is, his arguments only work against the moderns. They don't really apply to the classic and medieval philosophers. — ThePhilosopherFromDixie
    The thing with Hume... it's very easy to take out his atheism and replace it with theism given his philosophical framework. Johann Georg Hamann did exactly that.
  • Your Greatest Opposite Philosopher (only theists/atheists)
    Maybe Kant. — Michael
    Why?
  • Your Greatest Opposite Philosopher (only theists/atheists)
    So part of what I'm saying is the view (or unanalyzed assumption as it often is) that "Joe is getting beaten up" somehow (a) has meaning, and (b) matches or fails to match states of affairs in the world independent of someone thinking about it is nonsense. — Terrapin Station
    But truth - when you consider the meaning of truth besides merely "truth value", applies to the world. The truth includes the facts that hold true, and their connections. So certainly "Joe is getting beaten up" is true if Joe actually is getting beaten up regardless of whether there is someone to affirm it. The notion of truth is built into the notion of fact - a fact is something that is true. I can't speak of false facts. If they are false, they aren't facts at all.
  • Your Greatest Opposite Philosopher (only theists/atheists)
    Is there any room for deists in this discussion? Or pantheists, or panentheists? Or believers in Logos? — anonymous66
    Sure, but what would you take your opposite to be? :P
  • What direction is the world heading in?
    ↪Emptyheady
    Think about it. To kill 10% in today's world, you'd have to kill 700 million people. That's not easy. Pretty much the only way to do that is to throw a nuclear bomb. And probably you have to throw more than one.

    To kill 10% in a tribe of 100 people, it's sufficient that you have a lunatic who goes on a rampage one night, and the deed is (more than) done. That doesn't mean that one society is more peaceful than the other. It means that the lunatic has a larger effect percentage wise in one case, because the population is small. Thus, in terms of percentage, the larger society is more protected from the lunatic as an effect of its size.

    You're a smart guy but it's a pity to see you listening to this sort of crap without thinking about it. You must think in practical terms regarding data. Data is never telling the truth. Data is mostly irrelevant. Go back to the basics. Use your imagination. What are/is the process that could give rise to such a data? That is the relevant question. Analyse mechanisms that could lead to such data, and see which mechanism is most likely to be the case. Don't just look at data, scratch your head, and ask what is this data telling us. You can, and you will many times be given data to trick you into a certain way of acting. You have to understand where that data is coming from, and how in practical terms it comes about, because quite often it may not be the first answer that comes to mind. Giving someone data is a very easy way to fool them in today's world. Data is very easy to produce, manufacture, and sell as fact.
  • What direction is the world heading in?
    Do you understand proportionality? — Emptyheady
    Yes I do, but I also understand the effect that the size of the population has on proportionality. You don't seem to understand it.
  • What direction is the world heading in?
    ↪Emptyheady
    Fuck man not this again! The data does not speak for itself. You're deluded. 10% in a tribe of 100 people is 10 people! 1% in a world of 1 billion is 10 million. What were the populations of those tribes? Small!!! That's why you see big percentages! If I have a small business making 1 dollar a year, and then I make 2 dollars the next year, woah, 100% growth be jealous of me! This is the old sales trick of giving data in percentages to make it sound more impressive. Nothing special. It's not even about the data, it's how you interpret it. This whole ideology of "the facts", "the data" is bullshit. There is no data in a vacuum. No facts in a vacuum.

    The fact remains unchanged that the world in the past century (not today) was more violent than ever before in its history. Now we're living in relatively more peaceful times, in some parts of the world that is. But there is no trend towards peace. This is bullshit.
  • Your Greatest Opposite Philosopher (only theists/atheists)
    I would say that truth-value depends on who is assessing a proposition. — Terrapin Station
    Say person X is getting beaten up. Does the truth value of "X is getting beaten up" depend on who is assessing the proposition?
  • Your Greatest Opposite Philosopher (only theists/atheists)
    theory x would be the theory in question. — Terrapin Station
    No wait a minute. You said if it's true under theory x. So "everything depends on who is assessing it" is true UNDER "everything depends on who is assessing it". That doesn't follow.

    y is some incompatible theory, yours for example. — Terrapin Station
    What's my theory?
  • Your Greatest Opposite Philosopher (only theists/atheists)
    All you're saying is that if it's true (under theory x), then it really isn't true (under some different theory, y). — Terrapin Station
    Okay, what exactly is theory x and what is theory y? Get down to specifics, I doubt you'd be able to pass one of your own introductory classes with such general writing.
  • Your Greatest Opposite Philosopher (only theists/atheists)
    It's not like I have some stupid little 5, 10, 50 line argument for it or something like that. That's not how I formulate views or how I think they should be formulated. I might have some compact argument about some very specific thing, but that's not the case here--this isn't some very specific thing. — Terrapin Station
    Well your view seems to have serious logical and conceptual difficulties. First of all, it can't even be true, because if it's true, then it really isn't true, because it's just an opinion. That's fucked up.
  • Your Greatest Opposite Philosopher (only theists/atheists)
    ↪Terrapin Station
    Not to mention that you don't seem to see the very obvious logical incoherence in what you're saying. If "everything depends on who is assessing it" is true, then that truth also depends on who is assessing it. If it depends on who is assessing it, how is it different from opinion? >:O
  • Your Greatest Opposite Philosopher (only theists/atheists)
    Yeah, it's an abbreviation for the decades worth of particular material, which understandably, I'm not going to write a set of books detailing on a message board (assuming I'd even be able to remember all of it, which I wouldn't). — Terrapin Station
    So effectively you refuse to provide a reason why you take your statement as true?
  • Your Greatest Opposite Philosopher (only theists/atheists)
    Decades of observations, thinking and doing philosophy about it. — Terrapin Station
    The decades themselves aren't a reason for holding that it's true. What's the actual reason? What are the observations in question?
  • Your Greatest Opposite Philosopher (only theists/atheists)
    Which isn't what I said. I just said that everyone who has a different view about truth (such as me) also thinks that it's right. You think your view happens to be the one right one contra everyone else's view. I hope you do not believe that you're unique in that. Everyone else, with all of those different views, thinks the same thing. — Terrapin Station
    Okay so? What reason do you have to think that your view (that everything depends on who is assessing it) corresponds to reality for example?
  • Your Greatest Opposite Philosopher (only theists/atheists)
    but you're rather saying that per your view, truth is something where there's only one objective thing that's universally correct. Of course, that's just another view about what truth is, and you think it's right, but so does everyone else who has a view about truth. — Terrapin Station
    Yes, that's what I'm saying. And no, it isn't an argument that just because others think their own views are right, therefore they also are right. Thinking that your view is right doesn't make it right - what makes it right is correspondence with reality - with the way things are.
  • Your Greatest Opposite Philosopher (only theists/atheists)
    Believe it or not Epicurus was not an atheist. He had an argument for the existence of gods. He just also believed they had nothing to do with us, and that we are on our own. — anonymous66
    That's practically for all means and purposes an atheist - I am aware of that though.
  • Your Greatest Opposite Philosopher (only theists/atheists)
    There would be no way to square this with the actual body of stuff that is conventionally considered philosophy. — Terrapin Station
    I mean yes we can have different views about truth, but either (1) one of us is wrong, or (2) we're both wrong. — Agustino
  • Your Greatest Opposite Philosopher (only theists/atheists)
    ↪Terrapin Station

    However real talk now - philosophy is a search for truth, and truth is the opposite of opinion. There can be different opinions, but the truth has to be one. So there is no possibility for different views with regards to truth. I mean yes we can have different views about truth, but either (1) one of us is wrong, or (2) we're both wrong.
  • Your Greatest Opposite Philosopher (only theists/atheists)
    Don't skip step (6) — Terrapin Station
    I didn't forget it, but I can still hear the TV you know...
  • Your Greatest Opposite Philosopher (only theists/atheists)
    ↪Terrapin Station
    Doesn't work mate, I left the TV open!
  • Your Greatest Opposite Philosopher (only theists/atheists)
    stuff with no possibility of different views? — Terrapin Station
    How quaint, that sounds like a good definition for truth no? :-*
  • Your Greatest Opposite Philosopher (only theists/atheists)
    ↪Terrapin Station
    Good! Then to the garbage can it goes! :D
  • What direction is the world heading in?
    ↪Kazuma
    Agreed.
  • Rational Theist? Spiritual Atheist?
    What does this mean? I don't get it. You could have skipped responding to my post if you didn't like it for whatever reason. — Thorongil
    Yes but to things which trouble you, you just have to respond you know ;)
  • Your Greatest Opposite Philosopher (only theists/atheists)
    Depends on who is assessing it, obviously. — Terrapin Station
    And does this statement also depend on who is assessing it? >:)
  • What direction is the world heading in?
    Really I almost can't believe how easily people are fooled by sophistry. All you have to do to change perspectives is talk in percentages. Oh ain't that cute now no? The fucking Pinker is gonna come and tell us how we're all wrong, and everything we thought about is wrong. And guess what, we're going to start salivating like dogs and listening to him tell us something exciting (because it's new!). Right... That's what's wrong with the world.
  • What direction is the world heading in?
    Consumption is a basic fact of the human condition, we consume.
    This cannot be avoided.     — m-theory
    *facepalm* Nope. We have avoided it for centuries quite successfully.
  • What direction is the world heading in?
    I think you are not being very reasonable.
    Pinker does not imply that violence in more recent centuries is less appalling.
    He points out that it is a trend that is actually in decline.
    That is a good thing.     — m-theory
    No, the trend in absolute numbers is NOT in decline. So don't give me this bullshit. Who cares that 10% died in the past, and now only 1% die? The 1% now is greater than the 10% back then.
  • What direction is the world heading in?
    Yes but if no one consumes their material they will not succeed in that intention. — m-theory
    Yes but consumption isn't the essence of what an author should be doing. If he writes shit and everyone consumes it, then he's failing. If he writes truth, and no one consumes it, he's not a failure, he just didn't have the skill of communicating except to a few.
  • What direction is the world heading in?
    Well Pinker addresses that in the vid. — m-theory
    Ehmm yes he commits the sophistry of looking at it in terms of percentages. Ahh only 1% of the world's population died during the World Wars! Not a big deal! It's 1% - look in the past, more than 1% died! In the tribe having 100 people as population, 10 died per year, much bigger you see? 10% - not a big deal! Just another statistic as I've said. The chance of dying violently was much greater! 10 times greater in fact! Woah, what a discovery!
  • What direction is the world heading in?
    Aren't all authors intended to be consumed? — m-theory
    No. Non-fiction authors should intend to communicate the truth to others, not to be consumed.
Home » Agustino