• Ethics of practicality - How "useful" is uselessness/inefficancy?
    An alternative to feeling good, there is feeling at peaceT Clark
    :100:
  • Math Faces God
    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
    :fire: :up:
  • Cosmos Created Mind
    ... a kind of cosmic rationale for the existence of life, rather than seeing it as a kind of fluke of biochemistry.Wayfarer
    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.

    Teleology is heresy for [irrelevant to] Materialists [antisupernaturalists], but may be unavoidable for IdealistsGnomon
    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).
  • The Predicament of Modernity
    Yes, the only possibility for a return to universally shared life purpose is totalitarian.Janus
    :meh:
  • Ennea
    Heart is core ... the essential, central part of beingDogbert
    – does not "transcend" being anymore than the center of the Earth "transcends" the Earth. Only not-X (nonbeing) "transcends" X (being).
  • Is all belief irrational?
    Conclusion ∴ All belief is irrational.Millard J Melnyk
    Believing all belief is irrational, is irrational.Banno
    :snicker: Ninja'd.
  • Cosmos Created Mind
    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
    :smirk: :up:
  • The purpose of philosophy
    If trans gender is not a philosophical issue, nothing is.Philosophim
    Well, at lease since Parmenides, "nothing" certainly is a "philosophical issue", we agree on that much.
  • Is all belief irrational?
    [4] Insisting on an idea’s truth beyond the limits of its epistemic warrant is irrational.

    Conclusion ∴ All belief is irrational.
    Millard J Melnyk
    The conclusion doesn't follow: hasty generalization fallacy (at least).
  • Ennea
    the transcendent heartDogbert
    Sorry, more evocative gibberish – "heart" cannot transcend – your analogy makes even less sense now.
  • Idealism Simplified
    :up: :up:

    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:
  • Ennea
    fully transcends existenceDogbert
    – is only nonexistence.
  • Ennea
    :smirk:
  • Ennea
    Thus, to avoid circularity, it is necessary to posit a transcendent ground of being.
    — Dogbert

    This is such poor thinking it beggars belief.
    Banno
    :100:

    Imagine a mountain that is the tallest in the world.Dogbert
    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).
  • Ennea
    ... transcendent ground does not precipitate infinite regress.Dogbert
    Explain why it doesn't.
  • Cosmos Created Mind
    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
    :yikes: :lol: :rofl:
  • Ennea
    justification for existenceDogbert
    Existence is a brute fact and does not require "justification". Besides, even a "transcendent" why begs its own question / precipitates an infinite regress (i.e. every "transcendent" terminus e.g. "god" is arbitrary and unwarranted).
  • The purpose of philosophy
    What are male and female is science, but cultural associations with sex, aka gender, is a goldmine of philosophical discussion.Philosophim
    Imo, "trans issues" are psychosociological or anthropological much more so than "philosophical".
  • Idealism Simplified
    In modern days, "the interaction problem" is brought up as a hoax.Metaphysician Undercover
    :lol:

    Idealism is monistic ...bert1
    Tell that to neo/Kantians ... :roll:

    :up:
  • Idealism Simplified
    Therefore there is no reason to assume an interaction problem.Metaphysician Undercover
    Clearly, you're in denial ...
    . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_dualism#Arguments_against_dualism

    ... the validity of the intuition of IdealismPantagruel
    I.e. folk psychology (akin to superstition). Smells of a fallacious appeal to popularity / tradition, 'gruel – there are no 'immaterialsis' in foxholes. :mask:
  • Math Faces God
    You believe your behavior, being personal, operates freely [in] spite of deterministic events that control your life?ucarr
    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.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism

    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
    :up: :up:
  • Idealism Simplified
    By the inference of the interaction problem drawn from the intuitions of the material you mean?Pantagruel
    I've no more idea of what you mean than you do, 'gruel.
  • Math Faces God
    Since you argue for human determinism ...ucarr
    No I don't. I'm a compatibilist.

    How do you explain deterministic atheism being valid whereas deterministic theism is invalid?
    I'm not at all familiar with these terms.
  • Math Faces God
    [T]o preclude cosmic consciousness, must embrace cosmic randomness.ucarr
    Not at all. Unconscious-deterministic speculations e.g. Spinoza's substance, Epicurus' atomic void, Laozi's dao, etc
  • Idealism Simplified
    The culmination of the Cartesian ego cogito.Pantagruel
    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.
  • Math Faces God
    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
    I don't grok you.
  • Cosmos Created Mind
    Spinoza's philosophy is both pantheistic and panpsychist ...Gnomon
    :lol:

    Only silly blinkers like you, sir, who have not themselves closely read (and comprehended) the Ethics, so conspicuously misunderstand Spinoza's philosophy. To wit

    – not "pantheistic" (2020)
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/528116

    – not "panpsychist" (2020)
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/509905
  • Math Faces God
    E.g. celibacy is not a sexual position or preference. Sad Socrates thrives (reason) whereas a Satisfied Swine merely survives (faith).

    Do you deny that God consciousness is a component of human psychology?ucarr
    Like magical / wishful / group thinking – no I don't "deny" it.

    Btw, ucarr, what do you mean by "God consciousness"? :sparkle:

    Do you have criteria establishing the falsifiability of ...?
    Yes, defeasible reasoning.

    If truth emerges from an identity correspondence - a=a[/u]
    Tautologies are empty expressions. Truth claims require truth makers.

    ... theistic narratives as ... real human psychology?
    I.e. delusions, fantasies, etc
  • Math Faces God
    The atheistic beliefHanover
    There's no such thing.

    Also, whereas theism is a belief (either noncognitive or cognitive), religion is an institutional practice; and 'false hope to pacify false fear' (e.g. E. Becker's terror management) seems, as far as I can tell, the primary motivation for most persons throughout recorded history comforming to either or both of these complementary forms of life (i.e. traditions).
  • Math Faces God
    The best argument the atheist can mount against theism is claiming it’s irrational, which is true.ucarr
    No. The most direct and effective counter-argument to theism concludes by claiming theism is not true.

    (2019)
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/391820

    (2020)
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/463672

    (2021)
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/563185

    Does the atheist, on principle, always shun the leap of faith?
    Yes. In evidence we trust. :chin:

    This is the simulation of God’s uncontainable presence.
    Well I prefer apophatic theology ...
  • The Old Testament Evil
    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
    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:
    I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. — Isaiah 45:7

    (2020)
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/523586
  • What is right and what is wrong and how do we know?
    There are varieties of moral realism which suppose that moral facts are much the same as physical facts, found lying about the place.Banno
    Like e.g. suffering / vulnerable beings ...
  • What is right and what is wrong and how do we know?
    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: 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'.
  • Cosmos Created Mind
    ↪Gnomon
    Thanks for the information.
    Ciceronianus
    :smirk:
  • What is right and what is wrong and how do we know?
    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
    :fire:

    This conception of compassion reminds me even more of Buber (dialogic I-Thou) than Levinas (infinition of the Other) and almost naturalistic instead of just existential (e.g. – in ethics I think it's reasonable to trust "intuitions" (pre-cognitive biases) only to the degree they align with concrete circumstances).