:100:An alternative to feeling good, there is feeling at peace — T Clark
:fire: :up:I’d put it this way: I’m not concerned with discovering some final or objective truth about reality. The idea that such a truth lies hidden, waiting to be uncovered, depends on a representational view of knowledge I find unconvincing. My position isn’t based on logic or simplicity, but on the sense that our ways of thinking and speaking are practical tools for getting by, not exact reflections of the world. Speculative metaphysics adds nothing to that. I simply go on treating the world and my experiences as real, because that’s the only way any of us can make sense of it and act within it. — Tom Storm
Yet (any) "cosmic rationale" itself is merely a "fluke of" [the gaps]. There's no getting away from (some kind of) a fundamental "fluke" – I prefer one that is scientific, however, rather than merely mythic / mystical.... a kind of cosmic rationale for the existence of life, rather than seeing it as a kind of fluke of biochemistry. — Wayfarer
This is because "materialists" do not mistake – equate – their maps with the territory whereas "idealists" tend to do so (i.e. ontologize, or reify, ideas/ideals).Teleology isheresy for[irrelevant to] Materialists [antisupernaturalists], but may be unavoidable for Idealists — Gnomon
:meh:Yes, the only possibility for a return to universally shared life purpose is totalitarian. — Janus
Conclusion ∴ All belief is irrational. — Millard J Melnyk
:snicker: Ninja'd.Believing all belief is irrational, is irrational. — Banno
:smirk: :up:strictly philosophical.
— Wayfarer
If by strictly philosophical, you mean free to just make shit up, then of course guilty as charged now. I don’t take that intellectual liberty. The facts constrain me. — apokrisis
Well, at lease since Parmenides, "nothing" certainly is a "philosophical issue", we agree on that much.If trans gender is not a philosophical issue, nothing is. — Philosophim
The conclusion doesn't follow: hasty generalization fallacy (at least).[4] Insisting on an idea’s truth beyond the limits of its epistemic warrant is irrational.
Conclusion ∴ All belief is irrational. — Millard J Melnyk
:100:Our metaphysical conclusions should be derived from, and not stray away from, the whole of the pre-reflective experience that linguistically mediated reflectivity is parasitic upon. Otherwise we land in a "hall of mirrors". — Janus
:100:Thus, to avoid circularity, it is necessary to posit a transcendent ground of being.
— Dogbert
This is such poor thinking it beggars belief. — Banno
Everest is the tallest mountain on Earth. Olympus Mons, which is on Mars, is over three times taller – neither are "the tallest" possible mountain, so your analogy fails. "Transcendent" only means beyond or exterior to and not (the) absolute limit; ergo "transcendent ground" is like the illusion / horizon of "the largest number" (or "final number") and therefore is surpassable (i.e. Cantor's set theory proves there are infinitely many larger infinities).Imagine a mountain that is the tallest in the world. — Dogbert
:yikes: :lol: :rofl:But, how do neurons & electrons create meaningful ideas? ... immaterial radio signals (mathematical waves ... immaterial stuff like metaphysical Minds & Cosmic signals ... the possibility that some cosmic intentional (teleological) Mind created ... all we know about the world is subjective ideas in a Mind. — Gnomon
Imo, "trans issues" are psychosociological or anthropological much more so than "philosophical".What are male and female is science, but cultural associations with sex, aka gender, is a goldmine of philosophical discussion. — Philosophim
:lol:In modern days, "the interaction problem" is brought up as a hoax. — Metaphysician Undercover
Tell that to neo/Kantians ... :roll:Idealism is monistic ... — bert1
Clearly, you're in denial ...Therefore there is no reason to assume an interaction problem. — Metaphysician Undercover
I.e. folk psychology (akin to superstition). Smells of a fallacious appeal to popularity / tradition, 'gruel – there are no 'immaterialsis' in foxholes. :mask:... the validity of the intuition of Idealism — Pantagruel
Once more: I'm a compatibilist – my conscious volition (i.e. decision-making, choosing) is a function of, or constrained by, prior unconscious involuntary processes (i.e. one brain-body out of many other brain-bodies ecologically-situated in the cosmos structured by invariant regularities and constants). In other words, "free will" (free action) is not un-conditional much as chaotic systems as such (e.g. weather, radioactive decay, disease vectors) are not in-deterministic.You believe your behavior, being personal, operates freely [in] spite of deterministic events that control your life? — ucarr
:up: :up:I also hold that my experience of the world does not have need for most metanarratives; I am a fan of uncertainty. I am also a fan of minimalism and think that people overcook things and want certainty and dominion where knowledge is absent and where they have no expertise. — Tom Storm
I've no more idea of what you mean than you do, 'gruel.By the inference of the interaction problem drawn from the intuitions of the material you mean? — Pantagruel
No I don't. I'm a compatibilist.Since you argue forhumandeterminism ... — ucarr
I'm not at all familiar with these terms.How do you explain deterministic atheism being valid whereas deterministic theism is invalid?
Not at all. Unconscious-deterministic speculations e.g. Spinoza's substance, Epicurus' atomic void, Laozi's dao, etc[T]o preclude cosmic consciousness, must embrace cosmic randomness. — ucarr
The conceptual incoherence of which is made explicit by "the interaction problem" (as well as violation of physical conservation laws) entailed by Descartes' mind-body (substance) duality, thus rendering idealism (re: mind as ontologically separate from / logically prior to body) a much less parsimonious – less cogent – philosophical paradigm than naturalism.The culmination of the Cartesian ego cogito. — Pantagruel
I don't grok you.Regarding magical_wishful_group thinking, why do you think there's a logical skein extending from you to a scale of consciousness larger than you? — ucarr
:lol:Spinoza's philosophy is both pantheistic and panpsychist ... — Gnomon
Like magical / wishful / group thinking – no I don't "deny" it.Do you deny that God consciousness is a component of human psychology? — ucarr
Yes, defeasible reasoning.Do you have criteria establishing the falsifiability of ...?
Tautologies are empty expressions. Truth claims require truth makers.If truth emerges from an identity correspondence - a=a[/u]
I.e. delusions, fantasies, etc... theistic narratives as ... real human psychology?
There's no such thing.The atheistic belief — Hanover
No. The most direct and effective counter-argument to theism concludes by claiming theism is not true.The best argument the atheist can mount against theism is claiming it’s irrational, which is true. — ucarr
Yes. In evidence we trust. :chin:Does the atheist, on principle, always shun the leap of faith?
Well I prefer apophatic theology ...This is the simulation of God’s uncontainable presence.
Perhaps so, but only because you are not "God"; the "Almighty" otoh can "save a person" without "doing evil" or "allowing evil", thus every occurrance of "evil" in creation caused or allowed either by "Creator" or creature, the "Creator" is ultimately responsible for – "thy will be done!", or as scripture sayeth:E.g., if I can only save a person from getting murdered by doing evil, then allowing the evil of that person getting murdered is morally permissible and, in this case, obligatory. — Bob Ross
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. — Isaiah 45:7
Like e.g. suffering / vulnerable beings ...There are varieties of moral realism which suppose that moral facts are much the same as physical facts, found lying about the place. — Banno
:fire: Again, well said, TS; our respective positions seem quite convergent. As an ecstatic naturalist (à la Spinoza's natura naturans sub specie durationis in metaphysic (e.g. Carlo Rovelli's RQM in physics)), for me ... 'relation is substance'.So perhaps my position could be described as dialogical naturalism: compassion as the empirical face of a metaphysical truth - the truth that relation precedes substance. — Truth Seeker
:fire:In that sense, compassion isn’t an invented rule but an encountered reality - the felt structure of coexistence itself. When I harm another, I don’t merely break a social convention; I diminish the field of meaning that connects us. The “realness” of ethics lies in that experiential invariance: wherever sentient beings coexist, the possibilities of care and harm appear as objectively distinct modalities of relation. — Truth Seeker
