-
Is the truth still owed even if it erodes free will?Deontologically:
If the truth shall kill them, let them die. — Immanuel Kant -
A Transcendental Argument for the Existence of Transcendent Laws
:100: :up:The ground of a transcendental argument presupposes a given. Depending on the choice of definitions, to construct an a priori judgement in the form of a transcendental argument, but with transcendent conceptions, is always invalid, insofar as no transcendent conceptions are given, re: that, the negation of which, is impossible. — Mww -
A Transcendental Argument for the Existence of Transcendent Laws
Not unless there is a metaphysical necessity – (transcendental) reason – 'why there is anything at all'. Only "X is ultimately necessary" (i e. absolute) precipates an infinite regrees of "whys" (or "laws").If I were to grant your point here, then, it seems like reality would have to have, assuming there are laws, an infinite regress of them—no? — Bob Ross
I think fundamental physics overwhelmingly suggests, though does/can not prove, that Order is (only) a phase-transition of Disorder such that the more cogent, self-consistent conception of this universe (of atomic event-patterns, or fields-excitations) is that it is a random 'non-zero' (CCC ~Penrose?) fluctuation of vacua. Perhaps this is an Everettian (per)version of Spinozist substance and/or Epicurean void ... Q. Meillassoux's metaphysical term for this sort of concept is 'hyper-chaos' (aka ... sunyata ... dao ... Heraclitus' logos ... ) :fire:If it’s contingent ‘all the way down’, then how is it not chaos? — Wayfarer -
A Transcendental Argument for the Existence of Transcendent LawsIf the nonexistence of nature, like the nonexistence of a sunny day, is a non-contradiction, then nature, like a sunny day, is contingent (i.e. non-necessary; can change, become otherwise; possibly 'comes to be, continues to be or ceases to be'). Therefore, if nature as a whole, as well as each of its constituents, is contingent (NB: nature could be otherwise =/= "anything" within nature could happen), then its "laws", or inherent regularities-relations, are 'necessarily contingent', no?
Also, contra Kantianism, isn't 'the human brain-body adaptively interacting with its environment' (i.e. embodied agency) – an emergent constituent of nature – the necessary precognition for 'the human mind' (i.e. grammar, experience, judgment)? -
Cosmology & evolution: theism vs deism vs accidentalism:up: :up:
(2022) re: @Gnomon's occult teleology (aka "seeing faces in the clouds")
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/770004 -
Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development & Christian Ethics
:up: :up:Christianity is pretty irrelevant to ethics.
The view on sex and marriage expressed in the OP is pretty patriarchal. — Banno -
Cosmology & evolution: theism vs deism vs accidentalism
:100:Some other methodological Naturalists are so dogmaticthat I don't waste my time dialoging with them.
— Gnomon
Funny how those same naturalists see through your bullshit and don't hesitate to call you on it.
It's not dogmatism, it's just that there is so much evidence which proves that you spew bullshit, and I happen to know somewhat about such evidence. — wonderer1
@Gnomon spews that as if 'methodological Supernaturalists' like him are not "dogmatic" and do not spectacularly fail in every instance to produce testable, explanatory models of natural phenomena.
:up:I think there is another, quite independent, way of undermining the argument from fine-tuning. — Clearbury
Also, given that only a vanishingly insignificant fraction of the volumn of the observable universe is hospitable to any form of life that we can recognize as such, "the fine-tuning argument"^ is not sound. Like "the cosmological argument"^ which is unsound as well insofar as the universe (i.e. spacetime) had developed from a planck radius of (eternal) a-causal, or random, activity. Such medieval dogmas^, in fact, amount to nothing but 'god-of-the-gaps' appeals to ignorance, of which the OP is a pseudo-scientific, "creationist" specimen. :sparkle: :eyes: :pray:
To wit:
:roll: And 'mysterian¹ apologetics' gets us where?Thomas Nagel had this to say ... — Wayfarer
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_closure_(philosophy) [1]
(vide CS Peirce re: abductive reasoning²)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning [2] -
Cosmology & evolution: theism vs deism vs accidentalism:up:
:up: :up:
for fact-free, non-corroborative stories (rationalized with pseudo-philosophizing) rather than fact-based, corroborative stories (interpreted via critical philosophizing)belief in gods—or in any supernatural guiding principle—is more like a preference — Tom Storm -
Cosmology & evolution: theism vs deism vs accidentalism
No doubt.There is no atheist worldview. — Tom Storm
However, do you agree 'there is a naturalist (or anti/non-supernaruralist) worldview of the few' in contrast to 'the supernaturalist (or anti/non-naturalist) worldview of the many'? (i.e. like 'Jacob and the angel' (or 'Sisyphus and his stone'), Logos-seeking self always struggling with Mythos-pretending ego, respectively?) -
Cosmology & evolution: theism vs deism vs accidentalism
Perhaps some emotionally need certitude, or an illusion of knowledge (i.e. severe allergy to admitting what (that) they don't know (e.g. woo-of-the-gaps)), whereas others do not have such an acute anxiety and even thrive from exploring intractable unknowns, indicative by their willingness to say "I/we don't know". The latter seems to me (I don't mean to stereotype / caricature) an artistic-philosophical-scientific disposition and the former more magical-mythic/cultic-mystical than not.It seems to me that some people need answers to certain quesions, others don't. I often wonder why that is. — Tom Storm
:up: e.g. Thales and the other Milesian as well as Ionian & atomist Pre-Socratics ...an alternative physicalist cosmology to the ones provided by mythologies -
US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
:fire: :death:The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. — FDR, as Adolf Hitler becomes Chancellor of Germany, 1933
-
Should I get with my teacher?:smirk: Well ...
... a student's pov:
https://youtu.be/7grUgixqH8I?si=7SxW3vFpDEV2X9Rg
or a teacher's pov:
https://youtu.be/ITnL7-2RwUQ?si=RaALyxM10i0c95Hs -
Cosmology & evolution: theism vs deism vs accidentalism@Gnomon – An interesting summary of Stephen Meyer's polemical thesis; however, dress-up "Intelligent Design" any way – with any jargon – you wish, it is always both fallacious (re: argument from ignorance (i.e. god-of-the-gaps)) and scientistic pseudo-science (re: non-explanatory (i.e. "god did it" ), ergo experimentally untestable (i.e. does not make any unique predictions). Thus, he has not made a compelling case, or sound argument, against contemporary cosmological or evolutionary theories and/or in favor of (a) more testably explanatory model(s).
Fwiw by contrast, here is the link to a short summery of particle physicist and philosopher Victor J. Stenger's God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist (2007) ...
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God:_The_Failed_Hypothesis -
The Cogito
No. Yes. Re: the last sentence of my post that you left out of the quote:Do you think anything can be inferred from the cogito, whatsoever? Or is it entirely different from the philosophical subject, or are they one and the same and yet meaningless tautology? — Moliere
In other words, the latter [pathology] cannot be said and the former [tautology] need not be said: neither expresses a distinction that makes a[n ontological] difference. — 180 Proof -
Things that aren't "Real" aren't Meaningfully Different than Things that are Real.
Circular reasoning & compositional fallacy.If we live in a simulation, it would also be the real world, because the simulation exists in the real world. — Hyper
So how do you designate the distinction between a copy / counterfeit and the original? or distinguish a fictional account from a nonfictional account?The term "fake" is misleading because everything exists in a sense.
Anyway, consider "Meinong's Jungle" ...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meinong%27s_jungle
:lol:Try living in a picture of a house for a week, and get back to us.
— unenlightened
Yo mamma was so fat, her picture weighed 10 pounds. — T Clark -
The CogitoCaveat: dubito, dubitans accidit. :smirk:
Yes, "the subject" is what an object does and, as Spinoza suggests, a complementary way of attributing-describing an object's predicates. In other words, "for itself" is only a kind – phase transition – of "in itself" (pace Sartre).Descartes’ mistake: the subject isn’t as much a different substance than the object, as it is differently conditioned than an object.
(2020)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/539399 -
US Election 2024 (All general discussion)Maybe that explains why non-MAGA cultists voted for The Clown but does not explain why about 7 million Democratic voters who had voted for Biden in 2020 did not vote for Harris (or The Clown) this year.
Maybe. :smirk:Or... maybe I'm full of shit and we are all fucked. — Fooloso4 -
US Election 2024 (All general discussion)Yes, assuming this post-election autopsy is correct:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/946060 -
US Election 2024 (All general discussion)18Nov24
I'm not mad at MAGAs, a majority of white women and "low information" citizens for again voting for The Clown. Instead, I'm pissed at the ten-plus million of Dems who didn't bother to vote for the second time in 8 years (2 out of the last 3 general elections) most likely because the Dem candidate for president was female.
Lesson: (If I'm not profoundly mistaken) many working class, non-college educated men & women would rather not vote than vote for an "Alpha Woman" to be POTUS.
So will the DNC learn this lesson? :mask:
I doubt it ... TBD. -
A Secular Look At Religion
There isn't any significant anthropological evidence of "religion" before ca. 50-80,000 years ago (i.e. before the Upper Paleolithic era)¹ in a period – the Lower Paleolithic era – when "evolutionary" pressures might have still been at work on (modern)² H. sapiens, so your notion of "beneficial", Brendan, does not make sense in this context. Evolution has nothing to do with it insofar as "religion" has only been operative – manifest – via cultural development for about the last 2% of the entire existence of the Homo genus (2.8 million years).I meant "beneficial" in the evolutionary sense — Brendan Golledge
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_religion [1]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_modernity [2] -
A Secular Look At Religion
:roll: At best, sir, this premise does not make any sense (re: "common" therefore "beneficial"? like e.g. poor hygiene, bigotry, sex/child abuse, theft/fraud, bullshit/lies, ignorance, superstitions, scapegoating, conspiracy theories, war, poverty, etc) "Religion" is a cultural phenomenon, imo, symptomatic of human commons afflicted by both material scarcity & biological morbidity; my guess is 'post-scarcity¹, immorbid² persons' will not be in any recognizable (Bronze/Iron Age) sense "religious" (i.e. magical thinkers).Anything that's common must be good at existing in one way or another, or else it would not exist. So, since religion is common amongst humans, it must serve some beneficial purpose, ... — Brendan Golledge
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scarcity [1]
https://healthylongevitychallenge.org/the-quest-for-immorbidity-what-if-you-could-live-a-long-life-disease-free/ [2] -
US Election 2024 (All general discussion):up:
e.g. Dune.Monarchy is a very robust form of government, even more so when linked to a state religion. We'll pretty much all go back to monarchies as climate change sets in. Democracy is just a tool. It's not a good in itself. — frank -
A Secular Look At Religion
Yes, magical thinking in performative forms of woo-of-the-gaps superstitions, immortality fantasies, folk/fairy tales, etc – no doubt the childhood of our species. :sparkle:religion's intrinsic, cultural, or existential significance — Wayfarer -
US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
:up:Biological men should not be in women's sports. — RogueAI -
With philosophy, poetry and politics on my mind...Re: The Myth of Siayphus by A. Camus; also, section 2.5 (esp. re: Camus) of the SEP article "Hope" ...
Same reason anyone wears "lipstick".Why 'lipstick'? With its female connotation?
I used it to paraphrase the old (American?) saying 'lipstick on a pig'. :kiss: -
With philosophy, poetry and politics on my mind...:chin: Denying "the nightmare" – e.g. prayers in foxholes – 'nostalgia' (philosophical suicide) to evade the absurd (re: disorder, uncertainty, catastrophe, transience, loss, death). Sorry, more Camus ...
-
I know the advancement of AI is good, but it's ruined myself and out look on things"AI" cannot harm our species – retard our development, sabotage our potential – more than we have harmed (and continue to harm) ourselves in so many ways. Imo, "AI" offers a possibility, however improbable, of slowing down (or even once and for all breaking) civilization-scale "boom-n-bust" cycles: not "utopia" but posthumanity (i.e. agency sans scarcity-conditions (via automated metacognition ("AGI")). It seems to me that we're now living through either the Anthropocene-ending chrysalis ... or a gradual extinction-event (e.g. global burning, autocratic / theocratic populisms, WMD proliferation, etc). Unless we're too late, building "AI" is the Copernican Revolution – "the last human invention". :fire:
-
Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
:monkey:And into the china shop, walks the bull. — Wayfarer -
Earth's evolution contains ethical principles:up: :up:
Here's a topic-adjecent discussion ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/904662 -
Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
As always, comrade, I keep on laughing to keep from crying. I'm not a left-wingnut accelerationist but ... we're so fucked. :cry: :sweat:Don't know whether to laugh or cry. But probably the latter. — Wayfarer -
US Election 2024 (All general discussion)21Jan25: MAGA¹ America officially becomes an oligarchic (corporatist) kakistocracy.²
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/945323 [1]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakistocracy [2]
180 Proof
Start FollowingSend a Message
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2026 The Philosophy Forum