• Strong Natural Theism: An Alternative to Mainstream Religion
    And what is so wrong with atheism? — ProtagoranSocratist
    If "atheism" denotes rejection of theism, then nothing seems wrong to me; however, "disbelief in God(s)" is cognitively indistinguishable from "disbelief in ghosts".

    The problem is avoided with agnosticism ...
    Perhaps in theory but not in practice. To neither believe nor disbelieve (out of ignorance, indecision or indifference) is existentially indistinguishable from disbelieving. An agnostic is, at best, just an uncommitted atheist.

    ↪Janus
    :up: :up:
  • We have intrinsic moral value and thus we are not physical things
    ↪Clarendon
    'Consciousness' is spatiotemporal (i.e. embodied, causal) and therefore physical (i.e. a very rare kind of physical process). Also, whether or not 'we are conscious', we are bodies and therefore physical beings (i.e. biological organisms). "Moral values", however, are
    non-physical (i.e. abstractions).
  • Immigration
    Yeah, 500 years of White out-migration (i.e. colonization, resource extraction) has generated the last century or so of "Colored" in-migration (i.e. "immigration crisis" backlash due mostly to maldeveloped (failed/failing) nation-states and/or post-colonial, internecine conflicts perpetuated by rapine, global market-forces). Ethno-populist scapegoating, I guess, will continue to grow (especially, though not exclusively, in White-majority countries) as the ramifications of wealth inequality multiply and intensify. All things being equal, I suspect that nations further ravaged by climate change, pandemics, increasingly aged populations and severe economic dislocations due to ubiquitous automation / robotics, in the next decades migration flows to the EU/NA countries (i.e. Climate-Arks) might be reduced (e.g. by Autonomous Surveillance/Weapons Systems aka "unmanned drone swarms") to zero or a tiny fraction of what they are today. :mask:
  • Donald Trump (All Trump Conversations Here)
    < PSA >

    A simulacrum curb-stomps the fat(uous) orange avatar of American imbeciliity ...

    :mask:
  • What Constitutes Human Need or 'Desire'? How Does this Work as a Foundation for Ethical Values?
    ↪bert1
    On the contrary, I think desire does "play a role in behaviour"(e.g. Spinoza's conatus).
  • Hume and legitimate beliefs
    ↪unenlightened
    :up: :up:
  • Is there a purpose to philosophy?
    Oh I almost forgot, neither of those links answered the question or had anything to really add to it. — Darkneos
    What kind of answer to "what is reality?" are you looking for?
  • Is there a purpose to philosophy?
    I have tended to describe myself as a methodological naturalist and not a metaphysical naturalist. — Tom Storm
    :up: The older I get the more comfortable I am with the latter (which entails the former); however, I prefer philosophical naturalist instead.

    What is reality?

    (2022)
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/747203

    (2023)
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/871001
  • Is there a purpose to philosophy?
    ... philosophers can't agree on reality. — Darkneos
    Yeah, just like physicists "can't agree on" the ontology of quantum physics, and yet ... :mask:
  • Is there a purpose to philosophy?
    Philosophy's "purpose" is flourishing –
    to understand and practice aligning expectations (i.e. judgments) with reality.
  • Was I wrong to suggest there is no "objective" meaning in life on this thread?
    ↪Darkneos
    :up: Nothing else besides ...
    ... deciding how we choose to spend whatever time we have. — 180 Proof
  • The value of the given / the already-given
    I like 180 Proof answer - dancing. Just force yourself to act joyous, listening to a favorite jam, and gratitude and laughter follow. — Fire Ologist
    :up:
  • Was I wrong to suggest there is no "objective" meaning in life on this thread?
    What matters most, it seems to me, is deciding how we choose to spend whatever time we have.
    — 180 Proof

    Yep, and we choose to spend it right here.     — Hanover
    :up:

    Yeah, but you don't ask how we got upon the ship.
    That'd be an idle question – the existential fact remains: we're (stranded) on a storm-tossed ship indefinitely
  • Is there a purpose to philosophy?
    ↪T Clark
    :up: :up:
  • The value of the given / the already-given
    It often seems we only realize the true value of something after it's lost. But is there a way to consciously experience gratitude, recognition, and sober appreciation without having to go through loss? — Astorre
    Love of life. Ja sagen! (F.N.) Listening to music. Dancing. Wu wei. Platonic love. Lasting friendship. Gardening ...
  • Is there a purpose to philosophy?
    That's generally the main issue I hear people talk about with philosophy, it doesn't really enhance our lives. — Darkneos
    My guess is that such people do not pursue philosophy as a way of life.
  • Was I wrong to suggest there is no "objective" meaning in life on this thread?
    That is not what matters most. — Darkneos
    If so, then what else matters most?
  • Laidback but not stupid philosophy threads
    If you want humility and open-mindedness , you’re more likely to find it in a discussion of Heidegger, where no one is quite sure what he is getting at. — Joshs
    :smirk:
  • Is there a purpose to philosophy?
    Imagine a happy group of morons who are engaged in work. They are carrying bricks in an open field. As soon as they have stacked all the bricks at one end of the field, they proceed to transport them to the opposite end. This continues without stop and every day of every year they are busy doing the same thing. One day one of the morons stops long enough to ask himself what he is doing. He wonders what purpose there is in carrying the bricks. And from that point on, he is not quite as content with his occupation as he had been before. I AM THE MORON WHO WONDERS WHY HE IS CARRYING THE BRICKS.
    :fire: From satisfied swine to sad Socrates ...
  • Was I wrong to suggest there is no "objective" meaning in life on this thread?
    We're passengers and crew on a great, ancient ship tossed about in an endless storm. What matters most, it seems to me, is deciding how we choose to spend whatever time we have. :death: :flower:
  • Panspermia and Guided Evolution
    ↪Tom Storm
    :smirk:
  • Panspermia and Guided Evolution
    I think the naturalistic and supernatural explanation would be equally valid ... — kindred
    The latter does not explain anything in a testable – predictive – manner unlike the former which (even if only in principle) tends to be very testable. They're clearly not "equally valid" as "explanations".

    ["Supernatual explanations"] are helpful because they comfort and amuse us. — Nils Loc
    :up: Yep, like placebos.
  • Was I wrong to suggest there is no "objective" meaning in life on this thread?
    ↪Darkneos
    I think you overstate the case ... though I agree with the gist of your comments but for a different reason:

    Even if there is an ultimate "purpose", we cannot know it because we do not have an ultimate perspective – a god's eye view from nowhere – from which to perceive / conceive of the whole of reality; we are partial (i.e. ephemeral, proximal) beings for whom 'ultimates' (e.g. purpose with a capital "P") are merely illusions (i.e. "projections" ~Feuerbach, or "hollow idols" ~Niezsche, or "nostalgias" ~Camus ...)
  • Panspermia and Guided Evolution
    ↪RogueAI
    No.
    ↪T Clark
    :up:
  • AI cannot think
    The conscious mind is defined as a substance ... — MoK
    Spinoza's 'conception of substance' refutes this Cartesian (Aristotlean) error; instead, we attribute "mind" only to entities which exhibit 'purposeful behaviors'.

    The thinking is defined as a process in which we work on known ideas with the aim of creating a new idea.
    A more useful definition of "thinking" is 'reflective inquiry, such as learning/creating from failure' (i.e. metacognition).

    An AI is a mindless thing, so it does not have access to ideas ...Therefore, an AI cannot create a new idea either.
    Circular reasoning fallacy. You conclude only what you assume.

    So, an AI cannot think, given the definition of thinking and considering the fact that it is mindless.
    "The definition" does not entail any "fact" – again, Mok, you're concluding what you assume.
  • The Concept of 'God': What Does it Mean and, Does it Matter?
    What is wrong with the idea of the 'supernatural'? — Jack Cummins
    Nothing except it's an incoherent idea that lacks any natural referent.

    Is it because it is disembodied?
    More or less.

    [It] could be argued that [ ... ] ideas of God are metaphorical.
    Agreed.

    I am left wondering about metaphor and metaphysics. Metaphysics seems more concrete but metaphor seems too reductive.
    I don't understand what you mean by "too reductive". Are you referring to a 'particular metaphysics' or 'metaphysics itself as a topic'?

    This is how I see the conundrums of the philosophy of myth and religion. In other words, I am not sure what myth and symbols stand for. 
    From 2021 ...
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/544753
  • What Are You Watching Right Now?
    ↪jorndoe
    :up: Yes, Horst Wessel is comparable. I think the US DoJ is collecting a database of "persons of interest" expressing "far-left" opinions. Public and private sectors employees are being fired everyday lately for even the slightest and apt criticisms of that pos Charlie Kirk. The actual victim of assassination turns out to be, in addition to a far-right advocate of 'free speech' (of hate, conspiracies, disinformation), free speech itself (i.e. First Amendnent of the US Constitution).
  • Self-Help and the Deflation of Philosophy
    ↪Janus
    :up: :up:

    ↪apokrisis
    :fire:
  • The Concept of 'God': What Does it Mean and, Does it Matter?
    The question may be to what extent may an objective picture of the 'absolute' be found within the diversity of subjective experiences of the 'absolute' and renderings of the idea of 'God'? — Jack Cummins
    Spinoza says Deus, sive natura (i.e. call reality "God or Nature"). NB: 'Quantum foam' works for me (an antisupernatural pandeist :wink:)
  • How Does One Live in the 'Here and Now'? Is it Conceptual or a Practical Philosophy Question?
    ↪Jack Cummins
    :up: :up:
  • How Does One Live in the 'Here and Now'? Is it Conceptual or a Practical Philosophy Question?
    ↪Jack Cummins
    One reliable trick I've found for "living in the here and now" is taking care for another.
  • What Difference Would it Make if You Had Not Existed?
    ↪Jack Cummins
    And yet each drop in the ocean (of spacetime) is just like every other one: "unique".
  • The Ballot or...
    Feel the Bern! :fire:
  • What Are You Watching Right Now?
  • Donald Trump (All Trump Conversations Here)
    So Jair Balsanaro got the sentence Trump should have got - 27 years for an attempted coup.
    — @Wayfarer

    :clap: Brazil has a functioning judicial system. Good to see. May he rot in prison, that piece of shit.     — Mikie
    :100:


    empathy (uninfected) vs stupidity (MAGA-virus)



    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/1012974 :fire:

    addenda to https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/1012352
  • How Does One Live in the 'Here and Now'? Is it Conceptual or a Practical Philosophy Question?
    ↪Jack Cummins


    Sub specie aeternitatis — Spinoza
    People like us who believe in physics know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion. — Albert Einstein
    I.e. Suppose we exist in a Growing Block Universe...

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growing_block_universe

    "Imagine a film reel. As you watch the movie, you can only experience each frame of the movie as it happens. However, if you go to the projector and pop out the reel, you can see that each frame exists all at once on the reel. The 'past, present, and future' of the movie exists all at once and the way that we watch the movie is the illusion."

    But I prefer Freddy Zarathustra's anti-anxiety remedy ...
    This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence - even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again, and you with it, speck of dust! — The Gay Science, s341
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return

    In other words, Jack, fully accepting your past – wishing to relive both your good and bad experiences – can be your future; hope for that more than anything else.

    :death: :flower:
  • The Concept of 'God': What Does it Mean and, Does it Matter?
    ↪Jack Cummins
    "Pantheism" seems to me a providential form of panpsychism (or animism).
  • Self-Help and the Deflation of Philosophy
    There will always be a tension between individual preferences and societal desiderata. It seems obvious that in any community harmony [positive sum] is more desirable than conflict [zerosum]. Right there is the pragmatic basis for ethics. — Janus
    :100:
    .
  • What is right and what is wrong and how do we know?
    Like most philosophers, he [Rorty] understands arguments better than he understands the world. — Constance
    :up:

    Isn’t it [suffering] just there - brute and tragic - unless someone [temporarily] relieves it? — Truth Seeker
    Yes.
  • What Constitutes Human Need or 'Desire'? How Does this Work as a Foundation for Ethical Values?
    To what extent are desires an essential aspect of the human condition, based on physiological and psychological aspects of human nature? — Jack Cummins
    "Desires" seem, at least, biologically indispensible.

    To what extent can 'desires' be overcome and how important is this in human life and the ongoing evolution of human consciousness?
    If by "overcome" you mean controlled, then, to the degree "desires" are not pathological, then I suspect they can be detached from their objects (or sublimated) by ascetic techniques or behavioral conditioning or some types of neurosurgery.

    Also, it is within the human realm that the idea of going beyond 'desire' becomes a possibility. How significant is this in the evolution of consciousness? — Jack Cummins
    Essentially, that's disembodiment, which I don't think is "a possibility". "Desire" is to body forth (i.e. being a body). Also", I don't think, or see how, "consciousness" can "evolve". Clarify what you mean ...

    What does the idea of 'desire' represent in the pathways of evolutionary potential?
    I suppose that depends on the culture within which "the idea of desire" is "represented".
Home » 180 Proof