Your attack on Lewisian modal realism has no specific content. You're just saying it is useless. You're just saying it is insignificant. I don't think that it is useless. I don't think that it is insignificant. You just hate Lewis because you don't understand him. — mosesquine

Actually I gave quite specific criticism.

Who, in their right mind, would create an infinity of possible worlds in order to explain this single reality that we experience... that's nuts - it is crazy! Has he forgotten to shave with Occam's Razor? — Agustino

Which is fair - because modal realism wants to create an infinity of unnecessary entities - the possible worlds - which it actually claims exist.

Obviously because by the principle of contradiction, nothing can be eliminated, and every A has a ~A. But again that's saying nothing significant. It's lazy. Every fact has a counter-fact. So? Do I need to postulate an infinity of possible worlds in order to describe reality? That's nonsense. — Agustino

The fundamental distinction that Lewisian modal realism relies on is empty of content - it doesn't state anything about reality precisely because it states everything.

You on the other hand have done nothing except point fingers and claim I don't understand Lewis or modal realism. When I pressed you to stop pointing fingers and explain/justify modal realism, you ignored it. That's no philosophy.

You merely show that you hate Lewis. Lewis is smarter than you, anyway. — mosesquine

Good for him! >:O

Very few philosophers accept modal realism, not because it is useless, but because it is extreme. Many philosophers endorse that modal realism contributes to metaphysics. — mosesquine

Yeah, a small picayune and insignificant contribution to metaphysics, I too agree.

Your information about Lewis is 100% incorrect. What are you attacking? — mosesquine

Then present the correct view, stop sitting there doing nothing except pointing fingers.

Even Wikipedia entry is better than you. — mosesquine

Let's see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lewis_(philosopher)
It says: "very few philosophers accept Lewis's particular brand of modal realism" - exactly as I expected. Relegated to the dust bin of history.

The head of Agustino has 100 holes. — mosesquine

Yeah in some possible world, I'm sure it does >:O

Lewis can cut holes in your head. — mosesquine

In this world, Lewis is dead, so he can't do anything. He can only do stuff in the possible worlds in which he still exists... >:O

Your interpretation of Lewis is not standard. Maybe you don't understand Lewis. — mosesquine

Yes, or maybe what Lewis says is useless bullshit.

What you criticize Lewis are all that Lewisian philosophers respond like "what the fuck is that guy talking about?" — mosesquine

Why does Lewis' metaphysics matter? He has no way to prove there exists even another single possible world. All his framework is empty sophistry, and it is completely useless. Who, in their right mind, would create an infinity of possible worlds in order to explain this single reality that we experience... that's nuts - it is crazy! Has he forgotten to shave with Occam's Razor?

However, Descartes is smarter than you. — mosesquine

Unfortunately, even taking into account my meagre intelligence, I doubt that's the case >:O

Meh. I'd say all of Western metaphysics is in trying to explain how Descartes must have gotten it wrong. — Hanover

>:O The problem with Descartes is that he got almost nothing right. His ideas are the absolute worst that probably any philosopher has had. Cartesian doubt, the homunculus, substance dualism, mind-body problems, etc. Absolute disaster! Philosophy would have been better off if it had been spared of the tragedy that was Descartes. That's why philosophers after Descartes, like Spinoza, tried to dress Aristotelianism as it was passed through Averroes into the clothes of Cartesianism which was gaining popularity, merely to save philosophy from a great sophistry. And after the likes of Spinoza, Hume et al. laughed at Descartes!

I'm not so sure. I understand that for Aristotle the forms are inextricably bound with matter in an object, but we can ask: are the forms immaterial? — Thorongil

The forms are immaterial only qua universals - ie in the mind. But the forms as they are in particular objects aren't immaterial. They are just the structure of matter.

Secondly, he thought we could abstract from particular forms and particular bits of matter to more basic (and real?) things: the prime mover, which is certainly not a material being, and prime matter, which, ironically, isn't exactly material. — Thorongil

They aren't any more real than anything else. The Prime Mover isn't more real than the chair you're sitting on. They're equally real, except that the chair cannot exist without the pure activity of the Prime Mover. So in the sense of what depends on what, sure the Prime Mover is more real, and there still is a hirearchy of being. But, ultimately, they are equally real, in the sense that there is no transcendence being referred. Transcendence is what's at stake. If you say that Aristotle is an immanentist, then he certainly isn't a transcendental idealist as Kant or Schopenhauer is. The noumenon, for those two, isn't equivalent with the Prime Mover in Aristotle. For Aristotle, it's not the case that the world as we perceive it through our faculties and senses is the Prime Mover. For Schopenhauer for example, the noumenon doesn't cause the world (as the Prime Mover causes the world in Aristotle), but rather IS the world, ultimately and fundamentally, below the appearances, below the veil of Maya that's drawn over our eyes. There are no "appearances" in Aristotle, and no reality beyond those appearances. There is no transcendence, so there can't be. Aristotelianism isn't compatible with Kantianism.

I define realism (at least one kind of it) as asserting the mind independent reality of the objects of sense. Does Aristotle do this? — Thorongil

He absolutely does this! The forms exist in the object even if there is no (particular) mind to perceive them. According to Aristotle, it's not the mind which imposes space and motion (time) on the world. These are real parts of its structure, which exist independent of the mind.

'Everything is possible' means 'everything has its counterparts'. Have you ever read his counterpart theory? I think that your accusation is not justified. — mosesquine

Obviously because by the principle of contradiction, nothing can be eliminated, and every A has a ~A. But again that's saying nothing significant. It's lazy. Every fact has a counter-fact. So? Do I need to postulate an infinity of possible worlds in order to describe reality? That's nonsense.

His possible worlds metaphysics is a muddle. He refuses to answer what the metaphysics actually are, and instead throws up his hands and goes like - "oh yeah, everything and anything is possible!" Thanks, but no, that's a lazy answer. That's what someone who can't think at all says. That's how computers play chess - checking every single possible move, even the stupid moves. That's not being smart and great, that's being an idiot.

Who picked Hannah Arendt? >:O

It's between Plato, Aristotle and Kant. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't have a clue what they're talking about. All other great philosophers can be reduced to those three -

Wittgenstein applied Kant's critique to the presuppositions of thought, language
Schopenhauer platonised Kant
Spinoza is Aristotle sneaked into the form of Cartesianism
Aquinas is an improved Aristotle
Hegel tries to Aristotelianize Kant
Plotinus is an appendage of Plato
David Lewis - fuck, are we even putting that guy on the same level with those previously listed?
St. Augustine is Plato by another name
Kierkegaard - is he even a metaphysician?
Russell - The Hume copy-cat
Wilfried Sellars - a recast of Kant, except of a transcendental realist kind
Plantinga - a latter-day St. Anselm coming up with novel, but ultimately petty theological arguments
St. Anselm - the result of when you put too much Plato in your philosophy, and too little Aristotle
Dummett - doesn't even appear on my radar.

Really - all of philosophy can be reduced to three words - Plato, Aristotle and Kant. These are the well-springs that have given birth to almost everything that philosophy has to offer. There are exceptions like Kierkegaard (although you could argue that here lies a Platonist in hidden clothes), Nietzsche (although again you could argue that here lies an Aristotelian who disparges anything that has to do with Platonism in the modern world), and their ilk, but they are always merely reactions against the mainstream of Plato/Aristotle/Kant, and thus ultimately also defined by the triumvirate.

So who is the greatest in terms of the three? I'm not sure - it depends whose metaphysics you find more cogent. Personally, I lean away from Plato, and towards Aristotle and Kant. Plato spends too much time in the sky, and too little on the ground, Nietzsche was right. He's lost in his own mind, Plato. Perhaps if I had to make a choice between Aristotle and Kant - I'd pick Aristotle, because he was extremely pragmatic and his expertise was so wide ranging that he literarily was all the science that existed for more than a thousand years - no one was ahead of him. Kant sometimes, however, does have deeper ethical insights than Aristotle, and it's very difficult to "clash" their two different metaphysics, because they proceed from different presuppositions entirely. When I study Kantianism on its terms, I am a Kantian, when I study Aristotelianism, I'm an Aristotelian. I can't really see significant internal criticisms that would crumble either one, and therefore it's difficult to choose objectively. So at this point, I will unashamedly rely on my ethical bias, and cast my vote with two arms and two feet on Aristotle.

The only one I like is Anscombe - so she gets my vote! Anscombe has profound things to say. Maybe I would've picked Philippa Foot but she's not on there.

Still, considering his total output, the vast majority of it is theological. — Thorongil

This is so false though - what about Aquinas's commentaries on Aristotle's works? On Metaphysica, on De Anima, and so forth?

I'm not actually certain how to classify Aristotle, since he doesn't use the same terminology that realism and idealism are predicated on. — Thorongil

Classify him in relation to Plato. If Plato is the idealist, then Aristotle is the realist. For example, Aristotle didn't believe that the Forms pre-existed in some realm other than this world. In his hylomorphism, a substance was composed by the unity of Form and Matter. Aristotle solved the problem of the One and the Many that Plato started with. Triangularity - if it applies to all triangles (it is universal), then it cannot be applied to particulars - have you ever seen a triangle that is neither scalene, nor isosceles, nor equilateral? And particulars, if they are particular, cannot be applied to more than one object. The way Aristotle resolves the problem is by having the forms present in both the object and in the intellect. Furthermore, triangularity exists in a particular triangle concretely, not abstractly or universally. What is present to the mind on the other hand is triangularity considered universally, as it applies to all triangles. But - triangularity in-itself is neither particular, nor universal - neither one, nor many. For if it was One - then it couldn't be shared by different objects. And if it was many, then it couldn't apply to particular objects - "universals as such exist only in the soul, but forms themselves, which are conceivable universally, exist in things"

Plato is an idealist with regards to the forms, Aristotle isn't.

There are further differences between the two, in that Aristotle is always focused on this life and this world, and Plato is not (and in this sense too, Plato is an idealist, and Aristotle a realist). Aristotle is about living in this world, Plato is about transcending this world. And the differences apply even further down the line. That's why I said Kant - and especially Schopenhauer are Platonists par excellence, and not Aristotelians. Kant, you could argue has elements of both with, for example, his Kingdom of God becoming manifest on Earth. That's one way in which Schopenhauer crudely mis-treated Kant's philosophy, in that he brought it back to Platonism, instead of keeping it as a unity of Platonism/Aristotelianism. And Hegel brought it into an objective idealist Aristotelianism, instead of again, keeping it a unity.

which distinguishes between reality and appearance, which, in turn, is one way to couch idealism — Thorongil

Not at all, for Aristotle it's all one reality, there is no element of transcendence in it. The Forms aren't separate from the world. There is no "realm of the forms". Neither is the Prime Mover separate from the world, but rather, the Prime Mover is always present, and always acting, at all times, and at all places within the world and sustaining it.

Look at poor old Augustine, the sex maniac! — John

Eh not by today's standards. In his day, sure old Augustine used to have lots of sex as a young man, but it was mostly (perhaps always) with the same woman.

It's probably Kant, with Spinoza/Schopenhauer as close seconds from the list you have given. Though I suppose there are some who will vote Hume. Nietzsche is a popular choice, but he lacks the perennial nature of Kant/Spinoza/Schopenhauer. Many atheists/pomo lovers will vote Nietzsche though, because of his passionate invectives against religion/tradition and his pre-empting some of their themes. If you had added Kierkegaard, many theists would have voted for him too :P

I've edited my comment above too

But I thought you are a person "who hates capitalism" :P

Ahh too late, you edited your post. It's quite a good book. From memory it has very interesting ideas as well, which don't apply only to economics. For example, it teaches that evolution isn't necessarily the survival of the fittest. For example, when trees grow in a forest, the trees which grow tallest, will take the light from the other trees, and hence the tall gene will get selected for. But tall trees aren't efficient - they consume a lot more energy carrying the nutrients through-out their whole body, than the small trees. The most efficient is the bush. So the "best" scenario is if they all remained bushes - small trees. But the small trees isn't the outcome that the "free hand" of nature selects for - unfortunately. Instead it makes less efficient trees beat out more efficient trees. And of course this same idea can be applied to markets, and so forth. Very eye-opening book.

There's more than one book with that title? I'm referring to the economics one -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filthy_Lucre:_Economics_for_People_Who_Hate_Capitalism

filthy lucre — Bitter Crank

Haha you liked that too - that was a good book! :P

I think that's an image. People think and say that, but I don't think that's how most people behave — TheWillowOfDarkness

It's their intentions that matter more than behaviour. Their intentions - like worms - grow in their heart, and give birth to immorality. However, for most, their immorality is restrained by elements of decency they have learned to respect from society. Because they never question such norms, their immorality can never truly manifest itself completely in their behaviour.

Don't get me wrong, plenty of people have sex for a social status, but they don't do it with just anyone. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I never claimed they did it with just anyone, and in fact, if they are seeking it for status, this is exactly what we would expect. (Maybe they'd be morally better [but still immoral] if they did it with anyone than if they did it for status with select few people actually)

Those people tend to try and possess particular people-- the attractive, the popular, the know, those people at the party or those they know will accept their advances. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes.

In practice, the abusive don't just seek to obtain pleasure. They seek to obtain others, to possess and mislead ignore them, to obtain them for only their own benefit. I would say that the idea that these people are just trying to obtain pleasure is part of the atomistic pretence that sex is this isolated from everyone else.

You say such people are trying to obtain pleasures if it is all they are seeking. It's not. They are seeking to use, possess, mislead, ignore and hurt others. — TheWillowOfDarkness

What you're describing here is merely something that is more immoral and outrageous than the immorality that most people practice. But just because there are worse people out there, doesn't mean that what most people are doing is fine. It's like comparing killing a child, with hitting a child. Both are immoral - it's just that one immorality is worse than the other.

Why is it, in fact, more immoral and outrageous? Because there is even less love in it - they don't only want to gain pleasure from others - and hence use them as a means to an end - they want to humiliate them, deceive them, dominate them, and so forth. This means they want to gain pleasure from others' suffering, not merely to gain pleasure regardless of others' well-being.

If I care for someone, I cannot just care for them for the 30 minutes we're having sex for, or for just the night we have met. That's simply impossible, and I would be deceiving myself if I thought I care about them. I may appreciate them, I may find them interesting people, and so forth - but CARE about them? Impossible. If I actually care about them, then I will go on caring tomorrow, and the day after, and the day after that, and so forth. That's what caring means.

It's eternal. The expression of the one night when they were meant to have sex doesn't die because they don't continue a sexual relationship. Desire for each other may be shot-lived, but that doesn't take away the meaning of what happened.

Indeed, that's why it works. If a participant did desire an ongoing relationship, this eternal expression would be lost. Someone would be hurt badly and the night of casual sex would be unethical in one way or another. — TheWillowOfDarkness

It's not eternal if it ends. Nor do they intend for it to be eternal, which is the even bigger problem. And the idea that they were "meant to have sex" is nonsense. There was no destiny compelling them to do it. It's their own choices that led to it. Furthermore, the fact that both of them will be hurt is inevitable - anything which is lost, will be - sooner or later, perceived as a loss. And even if this isn't so - it would still be running a Russian Roulette. One never knows if they, or their partner, may actually fall in love and hence end up hurt badly.

I'm curious if Kant is getting voted by both theists and atheists in this poll, and hence winning because of it. It's very possible to vote for Kant as an atheist, because he is taken to demolish the proofs of God's existence. But the same cannot really be said regarding voting for Augustine for example. I'd be curious if there are atheists who voted Kant, if they can specify why they have done so.

Sometimes casual sex is a mutual expression of a a short term desire. — TheWillowOfDarkness

A short term desire cannot be love, love by its very nature is eternal. Thus, when sex is the result of whatever short-term desire you're talking about, it is merely another selfish act, which desires (temporary) possession of and pleasure from the other.

My point was the idea was an illusion. People who think sex is only the obtaining of pleasure are pretending. — TheWillowOfDarkness

But for most people sex is simply obtaining pleasure, or, in some cases, self-esteem. Many - perhaps most people - measure their self esteem by who they manage to have sex with or not. For most folk, sex is just some other activity one needs to do in order to be considered a good-standing human being, just like - I don't know - confessing your sins used to be considered an activity that everyone of good standing would engage in in the past. Most people, for example, can't even imagine there are people who aren't that interested in sex. They think people like me don't even exist! That's how ingrained it is in the cultural understanding - that life without sex is impossible. They cannot even think of themselves as existing without thinking of sex >:O and I just find that hilarious!

Aren't you assuming that I am highly sexed? — John

Yes, people have already been telling me about it!

In any case testosterone is not, as far as I am aware, fungible. :D — John

Ahhh, you want to keep it all for yourself - yes, I see, I understand how you're playing this ;)

Even causal sex, in a relationship which lasts no more than a night, needs "love" to be ethical. If it's not understood to be the mutual expression of people, it becomes destructive. People become content to use each other. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Casual sex can't be ethical, because by default, by its very means of happening, it involves using the other as a means of obtaining pleasure. If you really cared about the other, you wouldn't forget about them the next day, and go on living your life as if they never existed.

The atomism of sex exists only in pretence. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Ehm... no, in practice, this is most often the case, for probably 99% of people, including, unfortunately, those who are married.

Maybe you're a bit low on the testosterone? — John

>:O Do you want to lend me some from your big sack then?

Once he's done with the praeambula fidei, which doesn't amount to much of his writing, Aquinas is pretty straightforwardly a theologian and not a philosopher. — Thorongil

Have you read De Veritate for example? That's mostly metaphysics discussing the nature of truth. Aquinas has wide ranging works, and he outlines, explicates and corrects Aristotelianism.

Kant — Thorongil

Indeed a lot seems to revolve around Kant, a man of a kind for certain. Both his "apprentices" - Schopenhauer and Hegel - don't quite reach up to him, although Schopenhauer fares much better, but he also "corrupts" Kant's metaphysics, and gives it a tint that Kant would probably not approve of. I'm not sure what to say about it - I appreciate transcendental idealism but Aristotelian realism also seems an appealing alternative. I can never be decided which conception I favour. Kant seems an improvement upon Plato, but Aristotle goes in a different direction entirely.

"During love" doesn't make any sense. If one is having sex, there isn't anything one is doing in addition to that. — Thorongil

Replace "during love" with "while in love". Certainly sex doesn't occur in a vacuum and it occurs within the framework of the entire relationship that's going on between the two people in question.

Because Kant has some of the most penetrating philosophical insights into the nature of religion. — Thorongil

Which work(s) are you referring to?

I should think the onus is on you to defend the claim. I will simply say that sex is an amoral act, whereas an act of love is intrinsically moral. — Thorongil

Fine, if sex is an amoral act, there is nothing contradictory in sex occurring during love. However, there is something contradictory when sex occurs outside of love, because the intention is always to use someone else as a means to your own end - your own pleasure - rather than an end in itself.

Given this list, I said Kant. — Thorongil

Really? Why Kant over Aquinas?

Hmm I see. Which philosopher of religion who is pro do you find most convincing then? (well I know you find none convincing but certainly one has to be the closest)

but I would disagree. — Thorongil

Why?

Johann Georg Hamann or Ludwig Wittgenstein

Love =//= sex. — Thorongil

Not necessarily. That doesn't mean that love can't include sex.

Plantinga — Terrapin Station

Why Plantinga? I've read about 2 of his books, but I wasn't too impressed...

I don't know, what do folks think? I voted Aquinas. (although I think Augustine is close - as for interesting positions, Spinoza and Kant would be there)

As for the list... please remove William Lane Craig >:O In fact, you can replace him with Edward Feser, a much better choice.

The other issue is that the list only has Christian philosophers of religion. What about Maimonides? What about Averroes, or Al-Ghazali? What about Nagarjuna? And so forth. And if you include Nietzsche, Berkeley, why not Heidegger?

So, the power art has for us is humanistic in a sense because we feel our own spiritual potential when we create and experience art. It's powerful, because it's the divine element moving in us to create new being. And the symbols we end up with instead hint at the divine element in us; they nudge us; the best art always suggests a limitless potential, and we feel as if we're a part of this potential when we experience it; we don't feel like outside observers, we participate in the art itself. The audience is always fifty percent or more of the art. — Noble Dust

But this is most certainly not all from the perspective of the audience. For the perspective of the creator of art, this makes sense - they seek to create something. But from the perspective of the one who experiences art, this doesn't explain much. What effect does art have on the soul? They aren't creating new being. So what enthralls them about art? Why did, for example during the Renessaince, rich patrons of art use a large share of their family fortunes to finance artists? Why did cave men paint, and other cave men regard and care for their paintings?

I think Schopenhauer is closer here, in that art gives a quietus to the striving of the will.

Language is another element of humanity that is inseparable from things like culture and art. It's not so cut and dry that we can differentiate periods of time before/after language, and thereby before/after culture or art. This feels tangential to the topic, though. But any thoughts are welcome. — Noble Dust

This is an interesting point. Note that man is probably the only animal who is an artist in the real sense of the term. We painted before we really developed language. Men in caves painted. That is a tremendous difference between man and animal.

There was admittedly a time in my life when getting laid was the primary motivation of my actions. — Erik

This sounds strange - to me. There never was such a time in my life. I did see it in others, but I've never been that way. I've had other sins, or what you'd consider base desires, but certainly not this one. In a way it is strange. Given theism, I can see why one is overly concerned about sex. It's seen as a sacred, and special act of bonding with the beloved person. But given atheism, why? Just why? If sex is something that all the other animals do, and sex serves just reproduction, why "get laid" instead of say, masturbate? What's the easiest way, least likely way to bring about consequences, to get sexual pleasure? Masturbation right? So if all one cared about was sexual pleasure, why not become like the Japanese who don't have sex anymore? (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/20/young-people-japan-stopped-having-sex) Seriously, why would anyone in their right mind go after something that requires effort, that involves other people, that has multiple ways it can backfire in serious ways (STDs, unwanted pregnancies, etc), when they could just masturbate - especially given all the technological advances and sex toys that must be available today? If sexual pleasure is all one cares about it makes no sense - sure, sex can be somewhat better than masturbation (however I think technology may be catching up, which is why the Japanese, which are very much into technology - don't have it anymore!), but the marginal benefit, is never greater than the potential marginal cost. So Epicurus is right - it can be a very rational option, given atheism, to avoid sex at all costs - run away from it like monks run away from the plague! >:O And indeed - I have met quite a few atheists who have that attitude towards sex - and it's impossible to convince them otherwise (they're not interested in love - they think love is a disease, they're interested just in friendship with the opposite sex). They're harder to convince than theists.

For me, before I ever had a girlfriend, it was never about having sex, so much as it was about having other girls interested in me. Having a lot of girls interested in me always gave me choice, but I never exercised it until I got a girlfriend. I only got very much more interested in having sex once I had a girlfriend, but that was because I loved her. If that wasn't the case, probably I wouldn't have bothered.

I guess I could simplify my take on this as a contrast between practical and spiritual conservatism. I think the former is grounded in something much more precarious than the latter: I restrain my natural impulses out of fear of the possible consequences of my actions (shame, dissolution of my marriage through my wife's anger, STD's, unwanted children, bad for business and the like)--but I do so out of fear rather than out of the sublime sort of love that flows from a heart genuinely gripped by a firm faith in the inherent value of existence beyond it's brute materiality. Poorly articulated, perhaps, but that's the gist of it. — Erik

I am not so sure. I don't restrain my natural impulses out of fear at all. I simply understand what my natural impulses are aimed towards (and I seek with all my strength to satisfy that). I don't have a natural impulse just to have sex for example (and I would doubt you have such an impulse). I have a natural impulse to have sex in such and such a circumstance and with such and such a person. So there's no question of restraining anything. My natural impulses are what they are because of intelligence - not because of love nor fear for that matter.

What happens to you if you ever end up in a position where you morally fail? What if temptation overcomes you? For me, there's no excuse of temptation overcoming me. Either something is intelligent, or something isn't. If it's not, then I probably won't do it. If I still do it, then I've made a mistake. You must, on the other hand, have some "firm faith" in some inherent value of existence beyond brute materiality - if your faith is shaken, is it fair to say, as Spinoza put it, that I will see you return to your natural dispositions? :P And if so, aren't your natural dispositions the real you anyway, and everything else a mask - a projection of who you would rather be?

including of course my friendly nemesis Agustino. — Erik

8-)