I just came across this video ("synchronicity?")Of course, I know that I am so influenced by Jung, as you are with Spinoza. I wonder how can the Jungian worldview can be compared and contrasted with that of Spinoza? — Jack Cummins
I think probabilities (epistemic), not just "possibilities" (speculative), are existential modalities which matter more for flourishing.The reason why one might be open to the possibility of a ‘life beyond’, or not, or why one might think it ridiculous, is the philosophical question at issue. — Wayfarer
David Bohm's conjecture is, I think, much closer to Spinoza's 'substance & modes' than to Plato's 'forms & appearances' because "the explicate order" (à la natura naturata (e.g. waves)) is immanent to – does not transcend – "the implicate order" (à la natura naturans (e.g. ocean)) as the forms do transcend appearances ("Plato's Cave").Bohm's ideas on the idea of the implicate and explicate order. — Jack Cummins
Square this circle for me – "non-dualism" + "the Platonic sense".I go towards the position of non-dualism.
I am a mystic in the Platonic sense. — Jack Cummins
Again, I say: Explain why "nature" requires a "source" (that is, why isn't the "source" itself also "nature"?)But, the question of source does seem important ... — Jack Cummins
Why assume "something" is not uncaused? not infinte? not eternal?... and is connected to the issue of how did something come from nothing?
F[eu]rerbach's 'projections' raise the question as to whether God created man in his own image or vice versa.
I agree with Feuerbach: projections.... whether there is a 'higher power' or not, which may come down to whether spirit or 'the supernatural' exist in any meaningful way. Or, are they mere projections of the human imagination? — Jack Cummins
More plausibly than not, a "transcendent realm" is an example of a "mere projection". :sparkle:I am inclined to think that there is a transcendent realm.
If "nature" has an edge, or limit, then "beyond" makes sense. Afaik, "nature" does not have an edge, or limit (i.e. is finite yet unbounded), therefore, imo, your question, Jack, doesn't make sense. Explain why "nature" requires a "source" (that is, why isn't the "source" itself also "nature"?)There is nature but does anything exist beyond this, as [the] source.
How is that different from reality? "Quantum reality" seems to me another woo-woo phrase that doesn't make sense.... 'quantum reality'.
:meh:... cultures the world over have reported [FLAT Earth] experiences, along with narratives of other planes of existence, re-birth (and there is substantial corroborated evidence of children with past-life recall) and so on. Might it be that the [ROUND Earth] worldview is deficient in some respect. — Wayfarer
:cool: :up:Yes, all the [emo] kids of my era were cheerfully fixated with deconstruction in the 1980’s. I never had the temperament to make it through the texts. They were so turgid and took time from women and booze. — Tom Storm
:confused:I have to say that NDEs are a serious anomaly in physicalism — MoK
:monkey:According to its believers, experience is something extra to physicalism ... — MoK
:100:My point here is that if we take the mind/body interaction problem seriously, we don't just shrug our shoulders and claim that ghosts exist as a seperate substance in a mysterious way, but we say instead that ghosts must be physical as well. Once you start observing and measuring, you're a physicist, and you need to categorize your discoveries scientifically. That is, it is impossible to physically prove the non-physical. — Hanover
:100:@Sam26
You're trying to make an apple pie with strawberries.
@Hanover gamely pointed out that people can't see without using their eyes, and all of the reports you rely on are of people seeing without their eyes and hearing without their ears. — Srap Tasmaner
These conceptions are independent; neither are necessary properties of or entailed by atheism. To my mind "shallow atheism" denotes a lack of belief in some gods but not others (i.e. all gods).When I spoke of shallow atheism, I was referring to scientism and materialistic determinism. — Jack Cummins
:fire:First [and last] comes daily life, then comes philosophy. — T Clark
... as well as, maybe especially, how not to and when not to apply what one (thinks one) knows.Knowledge is stuff you know and wisdom is understanding how and when to apply such knowledge. — I like sushi
:up: :up:My arguments are is that naturalism is very successful at explaining. The supernatural is not successful. — Apustimelogist
:100:You [@Sam26] are making a scientific claim about the way the universe is. Just as physics and biology require replicable experiments to show that their theories are empirically adequate, you need to do the same to show there is no possibility that scientific theories can account for the same phenomena. — Apustimelogist
:up:If you [@Sam26] do not have a strong basis to do so, people are justified in not believing you given a confidence in naturalism.
Yes – e.g. Epicurus and/or Spinoza.... a simple person, with ordinary views, with simple desires and good intentions. Perhaps philosophy teaches us this? — Astorre
My two bits from a 2021 thread ...Personally, I wouldn’t say I am wise, but I do have experience and competence in some areas. Do I actively cultivate wisdom? I rarely think about it. — Tom Storm
"Ethical contradictions" have yet to "arise" in (my) everyday life. However, when faced with a dilemma / tradeoff, I try to discern (mostly by habit) the lesser harmful alternative and choose that one.How do you personally resolve ethical contradictions that arise in your everyday life? — Astorre
No.Does your knowledge of philosophy help you deal with life's difficulties, losses, or existential anxiety?
I try to regard them as persons – Others in Levinas' sense (or I-You's as per Buber) aka "ends-in-themselves" / "fellow sufferers" – before I judge that they are "superficial" (or anything else).How do you find a balance between your philosophical mindset and the superficiality you encounter in others?
Only in so far as it makes my "approach" more reflective and much less instrumental.Does philosophical thinking change your approach to relationships, friendships, and love? If so, how?
:up: :up:Can an uneducated person be wise?
— Tom Storm
No.
— L'éléphant
That’s ridiculous. I think it shows, perhaps, a lack of wisdom. — T Clark
except for slaves, indentureds, girls and women ...Jefferson held that universal education ... — Athena
However, it's not a sufficient condition for robust liberty.... is the most effective means of preserving democracy and good government.
:100:[A] flat EEG reading isn't a sufficient measurement for defining brain death. — sime
:smirk:... It just gets tiresome. Everything is amazing. Let's leave it at that. — Outlander
:up:All we can do is be[come?] the change we want to see. — Baden
I.e. dogmatism (or superstition).I'd rather lose on argument than bluff my way through one. That's the beginning of outsourcing your personality.
:clap: :lol: Welcome to the Matrix!The end is human jello permanently plugged into AI-Tik Tok, gurgling its way happily to death.
Funny thing about "liberal education" is those few with the most of it have always, in theory and practice, substantially denied it to the many who need it to help liberate themselves. Modern history shows that "liberal education" (as e.g. Jefferson / Paine / Marx suggest) is only a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for liberty of the many.... liberal education ... — Athena
:up: Works for me.Systems are coherencies of (self-recreating in the case of autopoietic systems) differences between themselves and an environment. — Baden
:roll: Yeah, and if "reincarnations", "alien abductions" or "astral projections" are veridical, then ... :sparkle:... if NDEs are veridical, then the standard mind–brain equivalence is challenged - along with the assumption that humans are wholly or simply physical ... the metaphysical implications can’t simply be wished away. — Wayfarer
:up: :up:... [M]odels of God have no bearing on whether there is a God or not, only on what people claim about God. — Tom Storm
The 'god of deism' is transcendent – ontologically separate – from the universe in contrast to Spinoza's immanent substance that is not ontologically separate from the universe. Read Spinoza more closely, Bob.I've read his Ethics and it seems to me like he believed in a form of deism ... — Bob Ross
Well, actually, Spinoza's substance is incompatible with "classical theism (like Aristotle's)" because e.g.... but, crucially, I don't see how it is incompatible with historical classical theism (like Aristotle's).
I said deconstructed (i.e. shown to consist of inconsistent or contradictory predicates), not "outdated". Again, ...Can you elaborate on what you mean by classical theism being outdated but Spinoza's Substance is not?
Read [Spinoza's] Ethics - Part 1 "Of God" pp. 1-31 (iirc) — 180 Proof
:smirk:It seems that you are leaping ahead, identifying a being, rather than just an eternal permanence that 'IS' (has being), such as the quantum vacuum, that is absolutely simple, but never still, providing for change. — PoeticUniverse
No. My "cognitive abilities" (seem to) benefit mostly from exercising them unaided (as much as possible) here and elsewhere.Would you say that those cognitive abilities have benefited from exposure to the intellectual stimulation and challenge provided by the ideas others offer on forums like this one? — Joshs
Read his Ethics - Part 1 "Of God" pp. 1-31 (iirc)Can you elaborate on Spinoza's critiques [deconstruction] of classical theism? — Bob Ross
I agree.I think God is Being itself; so perhaps Spinoza's "Substance" is another way of describing it: what do you think?
:up:↪Bob Ross
What you describe seems to express the view of Deism ... — Paine
If so, what's the "explanation" for this "mind at large"? or evidence for each "mind being a filter"? or is Bergson's idea only a speculative analogy (rather than an "explanation") and not intended to be taken literally?Henry Bergson's idea of the mind as being a filter of 'mind at large' offers a fuller descriptive explanation. — Jack Cummins