-
The overwhelmingly vast majority of truth cannot be expressed by language
You have not shown that this is the case (i.e. a belief that is neither justified nor true).The nature of reality is simply like that. — Tarskian -
The overwhelmingly vast majority of truth cannot be expressed by language
Perhaps your OP topic only indicates that "the epistemic JTB account" is inadequate in some way.If you look at the epistemic JTB account for knowledge as a justified true belief ... — Tarskian -
US Election 2024 (All general discussion)Today in Trumpenfreude
23Sept24 - $12.15 per share :down:NASDAQ (DJT) :rofl:
19Sept24 - $14.70 per share
(NASDAQ 18,013.98) — 180 Proof
(NASDAQ 18074.52) :up:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4897015-judge-rejects-trump-request/amp/ :smirk: -
The overwhelmingly vast majority of truth cannot be expressed by language
Assuming this statement is true, what do you think is its philosophical significance?The overwhelmingly vast majority of truth cannot be expressed by language — Tarskian -
Can the existence of God be proved?
Fyi: I derive 'necessary non-contingency' of existence (i.e. no-things) from the "metaphysics" of classical atomism (re: void) that predates Aristotlean 'substance' by a few centuries, Christianity by several centuries, and Anselm's 'necessary being' by about a millennium and a half.Christian metaphysics — Bodhy -
What is the most uninteresting philosopher/philosophy?
:up:PS But yeah, antinatalism for sure. — SophistiCat
Oh yes, he "tried" this "modern idea" like a few others, iirc: Laozi-Zhuangzi, Heraclitus, Socrates, Pyrrho, Epicurus-Lucretius, Seneca-Epictetus, Sextus Empiricus ... Montaigne, Spinoza, Hume, Hegel, Nietzsche, Peirce-Dewey, Wittgenstein et al.What Heidegger tried to do was to root thinking in practice, which is a rather modern idea. — Tobias -
Can the existence of God be proved?
:100:How could there possibly be nothing? [ ... ] Not even a quantum vacuum. What does that even mean? — T Clark
I agree 'the universe is contingent' (i.e. necessarily non-necessary) but the universe – any existent – is only a property of existence (not the other way around) and is not itself existence as such (which is necessarily non-contingent (i.e. existence = not-nonexistence / not-nothingness)). -
US Election 2024 (All general discussion)22September24
(April 2024)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/894200
Addendum:6August24
Roevember 2024:
VP Kamala Harris & Gov Tim Walz
("pro-democracy" Democrats) :victory: :mask:
versus
The Criminal Clown & MAGA Mini-me
(neofascist "weirdos") :lol: — 180 Proof
Race to 270 electors via swing states*
Harris-Walz
• blue states 229 electors > needs 41
• wins: *AZ, MI, NC, PA, WI = 71 (44) electors :party:
Big Clown & Lil Clown
• red states 219 electors > needs 51
• (probably) wins: *GA, NV = 22 electors :cry:
I predict Harris-Walz will win the 2024 Presidential Election with at least 300 electors (Biden-Harris won 306 electors in 2020). I also guesstimate that Texas [40], Florida [30] & Ohio [17] are in play and any or all three might be flipped from Red to Blue and add 17 to 87 electors to the Harris-Walz victory: 317 to 387 electors. Yes, I'm predicting a Roevember blowout!
IMHO, that's a reasonable and low estimate, nowhere near a landside (like 486 electors for Johnson in 1964, 520 electors for Nixon in 1972 or 525 electors for Reagan in 1984). -
Why does language befuddle us?
Ok, then I'll look more deeply into his work and ignore what's on YouTube. However, imho, his seemingly Kantian version of QBism (with its personalist/subjectivist conception of probability) is quackery to me. Thus, I focus on his engagement with Meillassoux (since I'm not a physicist) in assessing Bitbol's philosophy.I've read several papers by Bitbol on quantum mechanics and didn't find anything remotely quacky about them. — Pierre-Normand -
What is the most uninteresting philosopher/philosophy?
"What is the meaning of Being (orHeidggers' main question? — TobiasSeyn)? I believe is Der Rektor-Führer's "main question" ... At any rate, "why is there anything at all?" on my profile page is just a prompt, or TPF conversation starter – dismissal of the Leibnizian (ontotheo) fetish – and has never been my aporia¹. :smirk:
(2019)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/326211 [1]
:up: :up: Btw, I prefer Merleau-Ponty's phenomenology (and those variations derived from, or influenced by, it e.g. David Abram's ecophenomenology, enactivism, etc) to any other version including Husserl's which is much too Cartesian/idealist for me.I personally believe Heidegger, for the most part, hijacked Husserl's line of investigation and fixated on one tiny aspect of it effectively throwing the entire point of the phenomenology out of the window. — I like sushi -
Why does language befuddle us?Fwiw, from one fly looking for my way out of this fly-bottle to another ...
This "bewitchment" happens often when philosophy is meta-discursive, or uses language to talk about language itself. Instead, at minimum, philosophers should make explicit such (usually) implicitly self-referential failures to makes sense as reminders to avoid (or minimize) bewitching themselves further (e.g. with disembodied entities, 'transcendental illusions' & woo-woo) :sparkle:Regarding the statement about philosophy being the bewitchment of our intelligence by the means of language, then why is that so? — Shawn
Language does not "behave this way" or "behave" at all – an example of going on holiday (i.e. nonsense via meta-discourse). This happens whenever a philosopher "behaves this way" (e.g.) attempts to say what is true about 'saying what is true'.I mean to say, why does language behave this way or what makes this true that language going on holiday is all that some philosophy amounts to?
Science, like philosophy, proceeds only from recognizing its limits: what we do not know in order for us to learn about nature and what we must remain silent about in order to reduce talking nonsense (especially about ourselves), respectively. In this sense, philosophy is prophylactic with respect to language. :mask:
Perhaps, but I reserve judgment on Monsieur Bitbol's apparent quantum quackery until an English translation is available of his book Maintenant la finitude. Peut-on penser l'absolu? which is allegedly a critical reply to 'speculative materialist' Q. Meillassoux's brilliant Against Finitude.Michel Bitbol is definitely worth knowing about. — Wayfarer -
The Sciences Vs The Humanities
That's atomist parlance as well. :wink:Or in more traditional Buddhist parlance, 'all compound things are subject to decay' (reputedly the last words of the Buddha.) — Wayfarer -
Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)The latest well-documented autopsy of the ever-bloviating, bloated corpse of The Senile Fascist Clown titled Lucky Loser:
https://ig.ft.com/sites/business-book-award/books/2024/longlist/lucky-loser-by-russ-buettner-and-susanne-craig/ :clap: :mask: -
What is the most uninteresting philosopher/philosophy?
You're right, just a summary of my objections. Heidegger's philosophy: "Nothing noths". :eyes:There’s no actual summary of his philosophy. — Joshs -
US Election 2024 (All general discussion)Today in Trumpenfreude
Vote for Trump – what do you have to lose? — The Old Fat Fascist Clown's speech to MAGA suckers and losers
Roevember is coming! :victory: :lol:
19Sept24 - $14.70 per share :down:NASDAQ (DJT :rofl:)
13Sept24 – $16.12 per share (-31% past month)
(NASDAQ 17,395.53) — 180 Proof
(NASDAQ 18,013.98) :up: -
What is the most uninteresting philosopher/philosophy?
I appreciate the mention. Maybe my local public library will have a copy.Pretty much what Richard Wolin did in his Heidegger in Ruins book. — Joshs
Gladly. Here's some old posts ...I would love to hear your summary of Heidegger’s philosophy ...
(2020) from a thread titled Martin Heiddeger
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/421047
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/431182
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/427142
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/431469
And from one our an old exchanges which I'm sure you've forgotten. :smirk: -
The anthropic principle and the Fermi paradoxFrom a distance I think technosignatures are more detectable – but I agree the so-called "Dark Forest" strategy can't work (and is, due to interstellar distances, unnecessary).
-
What is the most uninteresting philosopher/philosophy?I've been a Chomsky fan boy since the early 80s but not for his "philosophy" per se.
Well, fwiw, I'd begin here ...I would love to hear your summation of Heidegger’s contribution to philosophy. — Joshs
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/790451
... and whose "thought" has engendered a few pseudo-intellectual (according to Chomsky et al) generations of "post-truth" p0m0 populism. No doubt, Heidi is very important but, imho, more as a negative example – how not to philosophize – than anything else. :mask: -
Was intelligence in the universe pre-existing?
Afaik, Spinoza is an acosmist² and not a "pantheist"¹ like (e.g.) Hegel.My view is pantheistic more than anything and probably Spinozist. — kindred
(2023)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/825698 [1]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acosmism [2] -
Was intelligence in the universe pre-existing?
Nothing except saying that amounts to an evidence-free fairytale – pseudo-science (e.g. "intelligent design") or pseudo-philosophy (e.g. "vitalism, panpsychism") – that does not explain anything.What is wrong with saying life/intelligence not just emerged but it has been there all along just not manifested to what we today recognise as life ? — kindred
No. As I've previously pointed out, the "clock analogy" doesn't work.Isn’t it like looking at the mechanism of a clock ... -
The Problem of 'Free Will' and the Brain: Can We Change Our Own Thoughts and Behaviour?Apparently, you don't recognize the relevance of my paraphrase of Nietzsche. :meh:
I imagine that AGI will not primarily benefit humans, and will eventually surpass us in every cognitive way. Any benefits to us, I also imagine (best case scenario), will be fortuitous by-products of AGI's hyper-productivity in all (formerly human) technical, scientific, economic and organizational endeavors. 'Civilization' metacognitively automated by AGI so that options for further developing human culture (e.g. arts, recreation, win-win social relations) will be optimized – but will most of us / our descendants take advantage of such an optimal space for cultural expression or just continue amusing ourselves to death? :chin:
Thus, as I've already pointed out, the human "need for wisdom" (e.g. ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics) will remain to be cultivated by us reflectively and dialectically (like other modes of hygiene & fitness) so long as the human condition (i.e. facticity) remains.– the advent itself of AGI will not change that. And compatibilism (re: embodied metacognitive volition, ergo moral agency) suffices, so I don't see it's conceptualization as either paradoxical or problematic (i.e. like the MBP, "free will vs determinism" is a pseudo-problem). -
Was intelligence in the universe pre-existing?
We can say anything without evidence.If life came from non-life can’t you say it was there all along ? — kindred
We don't know yet.For how could it emerge if it wasn’t? -
Was intelligence in the universe pre-existing?
Merely an article of faith. :sparkle: :eyes:Intelligence precedes the universe, and has eternally existed independently of it and it’s manifestation in nature is inevitable. — kindred -
The Problem of 'Free Will' and the Brain: Can We Change Our Own Thoughts and Behaviour?
AGI's "benefit" in the long run. To paraphrase Freddy Zarathustra: Man is rope stretched between animal and AGI ... :smirk:So, what I am querying is for whose benefit is AGI? — Jack Cummins
Nothing I've speculated on above is incompatible with your/my need for wisdom.Surely, what we need ismorewisdom... -
Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
We can only hope L'éléphant is not a voting-age US citizen. :mask:I did not find him [Trump] crazy.
— L'éléphant
Eating dogs and cats, and after birth abortion isn’t cray cray where you’re from? — praxis -
Was intelligence in the universe pre-existing?Repeating anthropomorphic fallacies does not make them any less fallacious. And yes, brains are intelligent, livers & gonads are not. :smirk:
-
The Problem of 'Free Will' and the Brain: Can We Change Our Own Thoughts and Behaviour?
:roll: Strawman. I never claimed or implied anything about "childhood trauma".The nature of childhood trauma and development of AGI are different. — Jack Cummins
Only to conspiracy paranoids who are terrified of a robo-apocalypse (e.g. The Terminator). Nonsense non sequitur.It signifies the idea replacing human beings with the non-human.
I don't have this "problem", Jack :sweat:Do you not see this as being problematic at all? -
Was intelligence in the universe pre-existing?
Yes. 'Intelligence' is an emergent feature of sufficiently complex living systems.Are you saying the universe is non-intelligent irrespective if there is intelligent life in it ? — kindred
Wtf :roll: Now a genetic fallacy. They are not "intelligent", the physicists are. Physical laws are only invariant features – artifacts – of physical theories.intelligent laws of physics
Since "a clock" presupposes the universe, an analogy of "clock" to "universe" does not work.It’s like looking at the mechanism of a clock ... -
Was intelligence in the universe pre-existing?
Compositional fallacy. :roll:... because the universe contains intelligence it would make it an intelligent universe — kindred -
What is your definition of an existent/thing?
:100:Energy and mass aren't existents (per se), they are properties of things that exist, and they can be converted to each other (that's entailed by E=MC^2). — Relativist -
If you were God, what would you do?
I would not ever do anything and be eternally at peace with that.So, supposing you were a deity, what would you do and why? — Benj96
Blissful contentment.What would be your characteristics?
I wouldn't define myself or anything else ever.As in how would you define yourself?
To be.And what would be your motives?
Neither. My eternal bliss would be complete (or sufficient enough) for me to be forever oblivious of everything including myself.Would you be an active force in the world/reality or merely a passive observer?
180 Proof
Start FollowingSend a Message
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2025 The Philosophy Forum