Grist for the miill. 'Stories' which reflect on or puzzle over questions raised by "news in the media" intrigue me most and inspire me to re/tell them. As far as 'the tragic' goes, my creative stance is much more attuned to 'absurdity' – the distorted lenses through which I watch the world turn my stomach while I laugh to stop from crying. It's almost impossible to create at any level out of ashes or raw sewage of the daily bilge of wanton cruelty and duplicitous stupidity. And yet "You must go on. I can't go on. I'll go on" a master clown says more about 'making art', I imagine, than merely living. Nonetheless, I try to ground my story-telling in mere life (e.g. "Try again. Fail again. Fail better") without self-referentially – cleverly ironizing about – 'making art'. Maybe it's the social uselessness (ergo "sovereignty" someone said) of 'making art' that's 'tragic' today, and yet feeling the absurd compels some of us to try again and again and ... just in order to breathe freely. 'Well, there ain't no clowns in foxholes' – yeah but why effin' not (since that's probably where clowns are most needed)?! :fire: :monkey:One concern of mine is how 'news in the media' can overwhelm minds to the point where their own creativity is affected ... How have you found your story-telling affected? — Amity
:smirk:He was always of White heritage, and he was only promoting White heritage. I didn't know he was Orange until a number of years ago, when he happened to turn Orange, and now he wants to be known as Orange. So I don't know, is he White or is he Orange? I think somebody should look into that.
Interesting topic. (But why do you refer to "Fuller"? What does s/he have to do with Nuttall's book?)I am reading, 'Why Does Trajedy Give Pleasure? by A. D. Nuttall (1996) — Jack Cummins
That's merely a metastatement (@Lionino)a statement about another statement. — Tarskian
I'm not satisfied with this simplistic example but I think it works well enough. My point is that philosophy's sine qua non is her questions (even meta-questions) – the how what when & why of them – rather than any answers, or "statements". In Socratic manner, I think, philosophizing strives to reason to more probative questions (or more clear, precise formulations of a question) and not just the academic penchant for masturbating each other with cleverer and cleverer logical puzzles.Is the world (i e. a concept of "the world") deterministic or indeterministic?
If the world is deterministic, meaning that every event is caused by a prior event (i.e. non-random), then every person's choosing is epiphenomenal (or an illusion).
However, if the world is indeterministic, meaning that every event is uncaused (i.e. random), then, yet again, every person's choosing is epiphenomenal (or an illusion).
Suppose the world has both deterministic properties and indeterministic properties, meaning that any chain, or sequence, of events consists in alternating causal and noncausal relations, which therefore implies that every person's choosing is unconstrained-within-constraints, or compatible with the world conceived of having both deterministic and indetetministic properties.
Well, fwiw, I see no other way but to interpret Spinoza as both an immanentist and acosmist sub specie aeternitatis (though sub specie durationis also as a pandeist, which (for me) ontically relates him to that other great immanentist Epicurus).I actually interpret Spinoza as a sort of 'acosmist', so not sure I would call him an immanentist ... — boundless
For Spinozists, reality (Deus, sive naturans) is ineluctably immanent – the encompassing horizon that reason necessarily cannot encompass (i.e. explain, or transcend) – and exhausts all of our other rational ideas, concepts & categories. Absurdists might say "reality is the subject of transcendental despair" (i.e. void, anicca, dao, sunyata). Also, faith (i.e. "hope") isn't needed because in practice denying or ignoring reality tends to be hazardous. :smirk:Reality seems to have replaced God as a subject of transcendental hope. — Tom Storm
:100: Exactly.The Party is not a democracy and has its own process for nominating the nominee and had every option available to it to not nominate Biden at the upcoming convention. — Benkei
"The mind is the subject of experience" is inept or even deceptive. Experiences are had only by minds [subjects], so what might seem profound is little more than tautology. — Banno
Philosophy reflectively-critically examines whatever is assumed to be "obvious and central" (e.g. intuitions, folk psychological ideas, values, etc) no?both obvious and central — Wayfarer
This "knower" (i.e. perceiver) Bishop Berkeley calls "God" which, not by coincidence I'm sure, is functionally indistinguishable from @Gnomon's "Enformer". An infinite regress-of-the-gaps. :sparkle: :eyes:It is that which discloses such things as gravity and raditation and sub-atomic particles, amidst innumerable other things. It is the subject to whom all this occurs or appears. The ‘unknown knower’. — Wayfarer
Agreed. Mind(ing) is something sufficiently complex brains do – a (meta)activity, not an entity.[T]he mind is not ‘a thing among other things’ — Wayfarer
:up:... to head off the common notion that science seeks a "view from nowhere" ... Rather, science seeks a view from anywhere. A point worth making in a philosophy forum — Banno
:up: :up:It is one thing to say that things unperceived are not the same as we perceive them to be and altogether another to claim that when unperceived they don't exist. — Janus
IMO, not "a loser" versus two misogynists who advocate a National Abortion Ban (i.e. criminalizing women's reproductive healthcare) if elected.Two women on the ticket is, unfortunately, a loser. — Mikie
:up:The question is, why does he want to preserve that relationship? — Igitur
:lol: The only "deep state" is Project 2025 (i.e. The Heritage Foundation + The Federalist Society). Take your meds, dude. Roevember is coming! :victory:Survivor of an FBI entrapment case, more like it. It was planned by paid FBI informants. More deep state crooks elevated by deep state dupes. — NOS4A2
(a) So if "consciousness ... creates reality", then what "creates" "consciousness"?[C]onsciousness is the source of this reality, and probably all reality except base reality, which is consciousness itself. It could be that consciousness created something that then creates reality, but we don't know. Consciousness may be able to create reality by its own volition. — Sam26
:up: :up:The rules of chess encompass all the possible games of chess without themselves being one, and a game can provide examples of the rules in action, without being them. — tim wood