-
A question for panpsychists (and others too)
I agree. :up:Consciousness is not in need of explanation ... — bert1
For instance, Spinoza's double-aspect parallelism dissolves Descartes' "MBP – substance duality": mind describes (degrees of) voluntarily behaving and body describes involuntarily behaving. "Consciousness" (i.e. mind) is not an entity, but how we predicate a class of actions that we cannot account for mechanistically. Besides not explaining, or making sense of, anything, this is why I find "panpsychism" conceptually incoherent as psyche-of-the-gaps appeal to ignorance woo-woo. :sparkle:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-aspect_theory
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychophysical_parallelism
'How X becomes Y?' is a request for cause/s that can be answered by the inquirer herself by '(under specified conditions, we can observe that) Z causes X to become Y'. However, to ask 'why X becomes Y?' is a request by the inquirer of the motives of another who is the only one who can answer 'Z was the motive (for me) to cause X to become Y'. In clear, ordinary usage, how pertains to causes or correlations (re: bodies) and why pertains to motives, or justifications (re: minds). -
The Philosophy of Mysticism
And, imo, this "object" conceals (its) absence. In broad strokes, I think religion (to worship) idolatrizes-fetishizes-mystifies '(the) absence' and mysticism (to meditate) denies – negates – 'whatever conceals absence' in order to "experience" absence as such whereas philosophy (to inferentially contemplate) describes – makes explicit – 'presence concealing absence' and science (to testably map-model) observes 'only fact-patterns (i.e. states-of-affairs concealing absence) in order to explain dynamics.There is ... One object of experience. — Fire Ologist -
Is atheism illogical?
AFAIK, "logic" doesn't "explain" anything; its "applicability" consists in providing formal consistency to arguments (re: valid inferences, sound conclusions).the applicability of logic to explain — Fire Ologist -
Is the real world fair and just?
It seems to me that every (human) "individual" is a (eu/anti)social being first and foremost.But does every individual have to be fair and just or should we build a social system that is on average fair and just? — apokrisis -
Is the real world fair and just?
Yes; however, we h. sapiens have not been "fair and just" enough – too often not at all – to one another for the last several (recorded) millennia at least.Is the real world fair and just? — Gnomon -
A Reversion to AristotleYour mentions of him in the OP are simply contrary to Nietzche's moral philosophy.
-
Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body
:sparkle: :lol:The experiences of NDErs... — Sam26
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/912509
-
To What Extent is the Idea of 'Non-duality' Useful in Bridging Between Theism and Atheism?
In light of Spinoza's dissolution of the "MBP" derived from the illusion – conceptual incoherence – of Descartes' substance duality (or Aristotle's substance plurality) which I've previously alluded to here , what actual "problem" remains to be discussed?The mind-body problem is made so complicated by an apparent duality of mind and body, but a clearconnection between[complementarity of] the two. — Jack Cummins -
A Reversion to AristotleMaybe you should actually read Nietzsche's writings (especially e.g. BoT, GS, BGE, OtGoM, TotI & EH – preferably W. Kaufmann's translations), Bob, and not just secondary / tertiary derivative sources and polemics against his ideas.
:up: -
Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems Import on Natural Languages?Very marginal, imho. Read Philosophical Investigations instead.
-
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
The unintelligent (i.e. weak-minded) often, occasionally even ubiquitiously, oppress the intelligent ... with (e.g.) pseudo-scientific nonsense, religious dogmas, conspiracy theories, ethno-nationalist demogoguery, PC/Woke-identitarian ideologies, etc. And afflicted by D-K as you seem to be, BC, you're obviously oblivious to the prevalence of such insidious forms of oppression. :mask:Show me examples of when the weak are more oppressive than the strong. — BitconnectCarlos -
The Philosophy of Mysticism
In contrast to the philosopher who reflectively contemplates (i.e. unlearns 'learned denials of') how every presence conceals absence, I think the mystic meditates (i.e. unreasons (paradoxically / dialectically) 'inferential reasoning') in order to encounter, or surrender to, (the) absence that encompasses and dis/en-closes (un/en-folds) every presence. In other words, simplistically, they seem the opposite ends of a telescope or like complementary photo negatives of one another.I think in many ways a philosopher is somewhat of a mystic, wouldn't you say? — Outlander -
A Reversion to Aristotle
:sweat: Maybe diagnosed, certainly not "influenced" ...I would hypothesize it is substantially influenced by Nietzschien thought. — Bob Ross
:100:
:up: :up: -
Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
:up: :up:When a clown moves into a palace, he does not become a king. The palace becomes a circus.
— Elizabeth Bangs · Jan 23, 2022 — jorndoe
If you haven't already, please consider this . -
To What Extent is the Idea of 'Non-duality' Useful in Bridging Between Theism and Atheism?
I (mostly) agree but, since the relevent context of this thread discussion implicitly concerns "religion" (and explicity and more broadly concerns metaphysics), I think anti-supernatural is more precise and specific than "anti-delusional" (or, as you said earlier, "rational/logical").Because belief in the supernatural is one type of delusional belief. In being logical one rejects all types of delusion. — Harry Hindu -
To What Extent is the Idea of 'Non-duality' Useful in Bridging Between Theism and Atheism?
Why do you think so?I think that anti-supernatural is too restrictive. — Harry Hindu -
Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)This summary legal analysis and discussion might be useful to understanding the practical impacts to Executive Branch (Article 2) of the 1July24 SCOTUS decision in the context of US legal and political history.
https://youtu.be/7cGT9EVvS7U?si=08Vx04UGMrH18UZw -
To What Extent is the Idea of 'Non-duality' Useful in Bridging Between Theism and Atheism?
Well, I think materialism (i.e. only 'the material' is real) is a form nondualism.I see both materialism and idealism as being a bit limited and 'flat'. Non-dualism may be one option amongst others. — Jack Cummins
On the contrary, they preceeded Berkeley by millennia in both Western and Eastern philosophical traditions.Naturalism and realism can be seen as a radical departure from the idealism of Berkley.
I.e.the dual existence of mind and body or their embodied unityDescartesor Spinoza. The scientific description of the latter is embodied cognition (A. Damasio, G. Lakoff, T. Metzinger).
-
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
:smirk:Maybe a philosophy forum isn't for you. — Benkei -
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank:lol: Go troll yourself, BitCunt.
-
Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)Whaaaaaaat TF :brow: :down:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/02/politics/trump-sentencing-date-delay-proposal/index.html
Sentencing11July2418September24 :grimace: -
Suicide
... but does not know because she cannot know. Her mere "belief" – desperate guess – is an unwarranted hope, or fantasy (i.e. ideation¹) – thus, the "choice" to kill oneself might be valid and yet unsound; and often is unavoidable, even involuntary.If the person believes ... — creativesoul
Perhaps, but my point is that suicide is always either unsound (choice) or involuntary (abject / pathological).suicide is not always irrational — creativesoul
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicidal_ideation [1] -
To What Extent is the Idea of 'Non-duality' Useful in Bridging Between Theism and Atheism?
Well, at best, theism is incoherent.What does theism mean by "separate from" if it still can affect its creation? — Harry Hindu
"Idealistic" (i.e. supernatural).What type of connection is it between a cause and its subsequent effects - physical, idealistic, something else or none of the above?
Yes. However, theism posits a supernatural creator of nature, which is incoherent.Would it not be a naturalistic stance to take to say that because God has a causal relationship with its creation that God is natural?
I prefer anti-supernatural (though absurdist (Zapffe-Camus) would do).There simply isn't any valid evidence to support any of these claims .. reasonable/logical? -
To What Extent is the Idea of 'Non-duality' Useful in Bridging Between Theism and Atheism?A stray thought ...
Insofar as theism posits a creator separate from, though affecting, its creation (duality), atheism means rejection of theism (non-duality), no?
Likewise, if idealism posits both minds and ideas (duality), then materialism posits that only 'matter' is real (non-duality)?
Perhaps idealism and materialism are also, in effect, generalizations of theism and atheism, respectively. :chin:
(NB: In my case over forty years ago, materialism (subset of naturalism) was a consequence of atheism rather than the other way round.) -
Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)Addendum to
Well, when the president does it, that means it is not illegal. — former president Richard Nixon, interview 1977
... for fuck's sake, like Rome, the Pax Americana has finally explicitly devolved from republic to dictatorship. :brow: -
Can the existence of God be proved?
:up:Whether we opt for the magic space wizard or the leader of the glorious revolution, we're probably fucked. — Tom Storm -
Gödel's ontological proof of God
:fire: :up:God's words are infinitely more puissant than mine. He can speak me into existence, allegedly, but I cannot return the favour, and nor can Gödel. — unenlightened -
To What Extent is the Idea of 'Non-duality' Useful in Bridging Between Theism and Atheism?You've misread me (so far): I'm saying that "duality" (or "the split" as you call it) is only an epistemological issue that's been mistaken for – incoherently reified into – ontology. As for your doubts of naturalism, Jack, I hope the (last) 2 links in my previous post provide you with some (more) food for thought that is both "theoretical", as you say, and also, more significantly, existential-pragmatic.
-
Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)Obviously, NOS, you have not yet thought through how the MAGA Six Justices just gave Dark Brandon a get out jail free card! If the MAGA caucus in Congress tries to impeach POTUS, "The King" can order any or all of those morons rounded-up and shot before the vote to impeach even happens. :mask:
-
US Election 2024 (All general discussion)1July24
SCOTUS rules, in effect, that POTUS is a "King" with Absolute Immunity from criminal prosecution for Official Acts.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-supreme-court-immunity-1.7251423
So, as an official act of National Security, POTUS aka "King Joseph I" SHOULD "decree" by Executive Order (A) immediately strip US citizenship and Secret Service protection from, (B) immediately freeze and then seize all domestic and foreign assets from, and (C) immediately incarcerate in The Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp Trump and his MAGA gang of January 6 & Russian Collusion co-conspirators indefinitely.
But will "King Joseph I" do this?
No. Even though, as of today, it's (apparently) legal for POTUS to do so. :angry: -
Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)1July24
SCOTUS rules, in effect, that POTUS is a "King" with Absolute Immunity from criminal prosecution for Official Acts.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-supreme-court-immunity-1.7251423
So, as an official act of National Security, POTUS aka "King Joseph I" SHOULD "decree" by Executive Order (A) immediately strip US citizenship and Secret Service protection from, (B) immediately freeze and then seize all domestic and foreign assets from, and (C) immediately incarcerate in The Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp Trump and his MAGA gang of January 6 & Russian Collusion co-conspirators indefinitely.
But will "King Joseph I" do this?
No. Even though, as of today, it's (apparently) legal for POTUS to do so. :angry:
180 Proof
Start FollowingSend a Message
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2025 The Philosophy Forum