What kind of answer to "what is reality?" are you looking for?Oh I almost forgot, neither of those links answered the question or had anything to really add to it. — Darkneos
:up: The older I get the more comfortable I am with the latter (which entails the former); however, I prefer philosophical naturalist instead.I have tended to describe myself as a methodological naturalist and not a metaphysical naturalist. — Tom Storm
What is reality?
Yeah, just like physicists "can't agree on" the ontology of quantum physics, and yet ... :mask:... philosophers can't agree on reality. — Darkneos
... deciding how we choose to spend whatever time we have. — 180 Proof
:up:I like 180 Proof answer - dancing. Just force yourself to act joyous, listening to a favorite jam, and gratitude and laughter follow. — Fire Ologist
:up:What matters most, it seems to me, is deciding how we choose to spend whatever time we have.
— 180 Proof
Yep, and we choose to spend it right here. — Hanover
That'd be an idle question – the existential fact remains: we're (stranded) on a storm-tossed ship indefinitelyYeah, but you don't ask how we got upon the ship.
Love of life. Ja sagen! (F.N.) Listening to music. Dancing. Wu wei. Platonic love. Lasting friendship. Gardening ...It often seems we only realize the true value of something after it's lost. But is there a way to consciously experience gratitude, recognition, and sober appreciation without having to go through loss? — Astorre
My guess is that such people do not pursue philosophy as a way of life.That's generally the main issue I hear people talk about with philosophy, it doesn't really enhance our lives. — Darkneos
If so, then what else matters most?That is not what matters most. — Darkneos
:smirk:If you want humility and open-mindedness , you’re more likely to find it in a discussion of Heidegger, where no one is quite sure what he is getting at. — Joshs
:fire: From satisfied swine to sad Socrates ...Imagine a happy group of morons who are engaged in work. They are carrying bricks in an open field. As soon as they have stacked all the bricks at one end of the field, they proceed to transport them to the opposite end. This continues without stop and every day of every year they are busy doing the same thing. One day one of the morons stops long enough to ask himself what he is doing. He wonders what purpose there is in carrying the bricks. And from that point on, he is not quite as content with his occupation as he had been before. I AM THE MORON WHO WONDERS WHY HE IS CARRYING THE BRICKS.
The latter does not explain anything in a testable – predictive – manner unlike the former which (even if only in principle) tends to be very testable. They're clearly not "equally valid" as "explanations".I think the naturalistic and supernatural explanation would be equally valid ... — kindred
:up: Yep, like placebos.["Supernatual explanations"] are helpful because they comfort and amuse us. — Nils Loc
Spinoza's 'conception of substance' refutes this Cartesian (Aristotlean) error; instead, we attribute "mind" only to entities which exhibit 'purposeful behaviors'.The conscious mind is defined as a substance ... — MoK
A more useful definition of "thinking" is 'reflective inquiry, such as learning/creating from failure' (i.e. metacognition).The thinking is defined as a process in which we work on known ideas with the aim of creating a new idea.
Circular reasoning fallacy. You conclude only what you assume.An AI is a mindless thing, so it does not have access to ideas ...Therefore, an AI cannot create a new idea either.
"The definition" does not entail any "fact" – again, Mok, you're concluding what you assume.So, an AI cannot think, given the definition of thinking and considering the fact that it is mindless.
Nothing except it's an incoherent idea that lacks any natural referent.What is wrong with the idea of the 'supernatural'? — Jack Cummins
More or less.Is it because it is disembodied?
Agreed.[It] could be argued that [ ... ] ideas of God are metaphorical.
I don't understand what you mean by "too reductive". Are you referring to a 'particular metaphysics' or 'metaphysics itself as a topic'?I am left wondering about metaphor and metaphysics. Metaphysics seems more concrete but metaphor seems too reductive.
From 2021 ...This is how I see the conundrums of the philosophy of myth and religion. In other words, I am not sure what myth and symbols stand for.
Spinoza says Deus, sive natura (i.e. call reality "God or Nature"). NB: 'Quantum foam' works for me (an antisupernatural pandeist :wink:)The question may be to what extent may an objective picture of the 'absolute' be found within the diversity of subjective experiences of the 'absolute' and renderings of the idea of 'God'? — Jack Cummins
:100:
Sub specie aeternitatis — Spinoza
I.e. Suppose we exist in a Growing Block Universe...People like us who believe in physics know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion. — Albert Einstein
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_returnThis life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence - even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again, and you with it, speck of dust! — The Gay Science, s341
:100:There will always be a tension between individual preferences and societal desiderata. It seems obvious that in any community harmony [positive sum] is more desirable than conflict [zerosum]. Right there is the pragmatic basis for ethics. — Janus
:up:Like most philosophers, he [Rorty] understands arguments better than he understands the world. — Constance
Yes.Isn’t it [suffering] just there - brute and tragic - unless someone [temporarily] relieves it? — Truth Seeker
"Desires" seem, at least, biologically indispensible.To what extent are desires an essential aspect of the human condition, based on physiological and psychological aspects of human nature? — Jack Cummins
If by "overcome" you mean controlled, then, to the degree "desires" are not pathological, then I suspect they can be detached from their objects (or sublimated) by ascetic techniques or behavioral conditioning or some types of neurosurgery.To what extent can 'desires' be overcome and how important is this in human life and the ongoing evolution of human consciousness?
Essentially, that's disembodiment, which I don't think is "a possibility". "Desire" is to body forth (i.e. being a body). Also", I don't think, or see how, "consciousness" can "evolve". Clarify what you mean ...Also, it is within the human realm that the idea of going beyond 'desire' becomes a possibility. How significant is this in the evolution of consciousness? — Jack Cummins
I suppose that depends on the culture within which "the idea of desire" is "represented".What does the idea of 'desire' represent in the pathways of evolutionary potential?
:100:Being trapped within the ‘dead’ past and imagined future are of a piece with being stuck within the punctual ‘now’. The problems you list don’t come from privileging the past or future over the immediate present, but from splitting these three dimensions of time off from each other. — Joshs
Abstraction.If it's not likely that there's a separate realm of ideas. Or that the idea is exactly the same as the physical matter from which it arises. Then what is it's nature? — Jack2848
... corresponds, imho, to the difference between training (therapy) and understanding (surgery).The difference between self-help and philosophy ... — Jack Cummins
:up: :up:But if there is no God [ ... ] [then we're] rooted in naturalistic metaphysics rather than transcendental beliefs. — apokrisis
:up: :up:My attitude towards all philosophies, eastern or western is that their primary purpose is to encourage self-awareness. That’s certainly true of Taoism. — T Clark
:fire:I am saying that the whole idea of such esoteric knowledge is bogus. Real wisdom is always pragmatically centered on this life ― like Aristotle's notion of phronesis or practical wisdom. The only wisdom that matters is the wisdom that enables one to live happily and harmoniously and usefully with others. Focusing on seeking personal salvation cannot but be a self-obsessed "cult of the individual". And I've been there and seen it in action, so I'm not merely theorizing. — Janus
:smirk:... rather than jerking off about their spiritual journeys. — Tom Storm