(Gideon Levy, 2016)


@BitconnectCarlos @neomac @schopenhauer1 @RogueAI @Moses @tim wood


10 mo. ago
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/858338

Abortion - Why are people pro life? — Samlw

As an American, my two bits: "pro life" folks, especially those who are also pro-guns, pro-death penalty, pro-voter suppression & anti-immigration / ethno-nationalist, seek to control (reverse) demographic trends by controlling women's bodies and use 'Bronze Age superstitions' (rather than modern science / medicine) to 'justify' their movement. :mask:

↪Shawn I think it's like a preschooler asking if her parents also hate the monster in her closet tormententing her. For some it goes further; asking why her supposedly loving parents allow monsters to occupy her closet — ENOAH

:smirk: :up:

God didn't allow anything. — javi2541997

According to Genesis, God created Adam and Eve with free will too weak to resist temptation and not disobey. God also created the serpent and the Tree of Knowledge. Adam and Eve are set up to fail by God then, when they do fail, God punishes them for His failure to make their free wills strong enough as well as for His failure to tell them that He, not the forbidden fruit, would cause them to die (i.e. denied access by God to the fruit of the Tree of Life). Adam and Eve didn't Fall, God set the trap for them and all of their descendants; thus, Evil was created – "allowed" – by God in the first book of the Torah. :fire: :eyes: :pray:

One solution to that problem is divest God of omnipotence. — BC

If so, then why call it "God"? (Epicurus)

According to the Bible, God very much dislikes evil in its various forms. — BC

:chin:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. — Isaiah 45:7, KJV

But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? — Job 2:10, KJV

Bob paid for the sculptor's work.

If whatever exists is ultimately God's will and if evil exists, then ultimately evil is God's will. It also follows morally that we have agency to the degree we, like Sisyphus, struggle against, or resist, evil, and therefore oppose God, no?

Apologies, but I haven't read much of tthis thread.

How are the clay and the statue related? — frank

Simply, like footprints in sand on a beach, "the statue" (pattern) is a secondary quality and "the clay" (material) is a primary quality; thus, unlike the latter, the former is not physically conserved.

Insofar as it is part of His "divine plan", "evil" is in accord with His "will". Thus, this "fallen" Earth aka "best of all possible worlds". I think such a "God" is either a sadist or a fiction, and therefore, is not worthy of worship (e.g. as a 'moral ideal').

If you (or ChatGPT#) say so ...

Approximation can be incomplete ... — ucarr

:roll:

Reification has only a weak form under strategic incompleteness because no systems are finalized into hard boundaries.

Another non sequitur.

your Deist god ...

Ad hominem. Besides, I'm not a "deist" and do not espouse "deism".

... to initiate existence

I have neither claimed nor implied that "existence" is/was "initiated".

How do you know that what you believe in is true if you can't express it? — Manuel

↪Tarskian Yes, yes, all that. So what? Give an example of one of these unstatable true sentences... — Banno

:smirk:

:roll: Big effin' whup. Nothing new in this insight – approximating, not "incompleteness" (another reified / Platonic abstraction) – since Eudoxus' method of exhaustion¹ (e.g. squaring the circle). Also, merelogy²: parts (e.g. reason) cannot equal, let alone exceed, the whole (e.g. reality) to which they belong (i.e. in which they are inscribed-entangled) – i.e. reality is in our reach yet also exceeds our grasp because we are real and nothing more – e.g. Gödel has only axiomatized and Heisenberg / Schödinger have only instrumentalized this formal-merelogical limit that constrains epistemic / cognition (pace Kant).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_exhaustion [1]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereology [2]

He isn't "important" to me.

The nature of reality is simply like that. — Tarskian

You have not shown that this is the case (i.e. a belief that is neither justified nor true).

:up: :up:

If you look at the epistemic JTB account for knowledge as a justified true belief ... — Tarskian

Perhaps your OP topic only indicates that "the epistemic JTB account" is inadequate in some way.

Today in Trumpenfreude

NASDAQ (DJT) :rofl:

19Sept24 - $14.70 per share
(NASDAQ 18,013.98) — 180 Proof

23Sept24 - $12.15 per share :down:
(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 — Tarskian

Assuming this statement is true, what do you think is its philosophical significance?

Christian metaphysics — Bodhy

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.

:up: :up:

PS But yeah, antinatalism for sure. — SophistiCat

:up:

What Heidegger tried to do was to root thinking in practice, which is a rather modern idea. — Tobias

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.

How could there possibly be nothing? [ ... ] Not even a quantum vacuum. What does that even mean? — T Clark

:100:

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)).

22September24

(April 2024)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/894200

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

Addendum:

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).

:up:

[deleted]

I've read several papers by Bitbol on quantum mechanics and didn't find anything remotely quacky about them. — Pierre-Normand

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.

Heidggers' main question? — Tobias

"What is the meaning of Being (or Seyn)? 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]

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

: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.

Fwiw, from one fly looking for my way out of this fly-bottle to another ...

Regarding the statement about philosophy being the bewitchment of our intelligence by the means of language, then why is that so? — Shawn

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:

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?

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'.

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:

Michel Bitbol is definitely worth knowing about. — Wayfarer

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.

Or in more traditional Buddhist parlance, 'all compound things are subject to decay' (reputedly the last words of the Buddha.) — Wayfarer

That's atomist parlance as well. :wink:

:up:

:up:

True. :mask:

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:

There’s no actual summary of his philosophy. — Joshs

You're right, just a summary of my objections. Heidegger's philosophy: "Nothing noths". :eyes:

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:

NASDAQ (DJT :rofl:)

13Sept24 – $16.12 per share (-31% past month)
(NASDAQ 17,395.53) — 180 Proof

19Sept24 - $14.70 per share :down:
(NASDAQ 18,013.98) :up:

Pretty much what Richard Wolin did in his Heidegger in Ruins book. — Joshs

I appreciate the mention. Maybe my local public library will have a copy.

I would love to hear your summary of Heidegger’s philosophy ...

Gladly. Here's some old posts ...

(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:

From 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).

I've been a Chomsky fan boy since the early 80s but not for his "philosophy" per se.

I would love to hear your summation of Heidegger’s contribution to philosophy. — Joshs

Well, fwiw, I'd begin here ...

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:

My view is pantheistic more than anything and probably Spinozist. — kindred

Afaik, Spinoza is an acosmist² and not a "pantheist"¹ like (e.g.) Hegel.

(2023)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/825698 [1]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acosmism [2]