• Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body
    The question of the meaning of life need not and should not be forbidden from scientific inquiry, but, in my opinion, this does not mean that the supernatural has thereby earned a place at the table of what is fundamentally an investigation of nature — Fooloso4
    :fire: :100:

    @Wayfarer
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    ↪Benkei
    :lol:

    19August24


    Harris-Walz 2024 :point: taking out the tr45h!

    Roevember is coming. :victory: :cool:
  • The Sciences Vs The Humanities
    ↪ucarr
    :up:
  • Is the real world fair and just?
    Can you give some reference/arguments to argue that he was an emergentis? — boundless
    I don't know as an empirical matter whether or not Spinoza is an "emergentist"; metaphysically he's certainly not.

    Also, I would say that the holistic character present in Spinoza was absent in Democritus, Ep[ic]ur[us], Lucretius et al. This doesn't mean that one can [can't?] build a 'Democrito-Epicurean Spinozism' of sorts but I believe that the ontological primacy of the 'whole' was completely foreign to the classical atomists.
    – and, I think, "foreign" to Spinoza as well (re: infinite =/= "whole"). Anyway, apparently I wasn't clear enough:
    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). — 180 Proof
    [M]y view is that sub specie durationis (e.g. Husserl's "natural attitude") acosmism seems cogently pandeistic (or consistent with classical atomism). — 180 Proof
    In other words, sub specie durationis I interpret Spinoza's natura naturans as ontologically deterministic and unbounded (i.e. unmanifest ... vacuum ("void")) and natura naturata as ontically chaotic and bounded (i.e. manifest ... fluctuation-patterns ("swirling recombining atoms")).

    For the sake of discussion, boundless, I concede your "holistic" point about Spinozism but only sub specie aeternitatis.

    But if 'compatibilism' is strictly deterministic ...
    ... which is why I describe compatibilism as conditionally deterministic. Neither strict determinism nor strict indeterminism are compatible with "free will / free action" (i.e. human agency).
  • The Sciences Vs The Humanities
    ↪ucarr
    Afaik, natural sciences make use of hypothetical-deductive reasoning; "abductive reasoning" is only used to evaluate rival versions of a theory (or rival theories about the same phenomenon). Other non-empirical disciplines in the humanities are mostly hermeneutical. And, imo, "the difference between science & art" is profound (i.e. explanatory (factive) & imaginary (fictive), respectively) even though both are essentially creative endeavors.
  • How 'Surreal' Are Ideas?
    The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy':

    'The word was first used by Liebniz, for Plato's ontology, to contrast with Epicurus's materialism.'     — Jack Cummins
    Lame definition. Btw, I'm Epicurean ... about (instantiated) "ideas". See here
    ↪180 Proof
    .

    from a 2022 thread Speculations in Idealism ...
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/715277

    ↪Amity
    Thanks. :cool:
  • Identity of numbers and information
    Reality is bound by finitude. — apokrisis
    I don't grok this. :chin::

    real insofar as they can be grasped by reason — Wayfarer
    Semantic quibble: ideal, not "real".
  • Is A Utopian Society Possible ?
    ↪schopenhauer1
    :lol: Whatever, man.
  • Identity of numbers and information
    I think ultimately the difference between information and numbers is only pragmatic. — hypericin
    Afaik, it's "the difference" between pattern-strings and mathematical structures, respectively, such that the latter is an instance of the former. They are formal abstractions which are physically possible to instantiate by degrees – within tractable limits – in physical things / facts and usually according to various, specified ("pragmatic") uses. I think 'Platonizing' information and/or numbers (as 'concept realists', 'hylomorphists, and 'logical idealists' do) is, at best, fallaciously reifying.
  • How 'Surreal' Are Ideas?
    The thread was intended to explore the debate over idealism, but with reference to semantics. — Jack Cummins
    What "debate"? You haven't even stated the proposition in contention we're supposed to either be for (thesis) or against (antithesis). Please clarify ...

    The idea of the surreal was meant to point back to the idea of life as a dream. This was an obscure reference to the view of life as a dream, captured in the Hindu concept 'maya'.
    Dreamt by whom/what – isn't the dreamer more than a "dream" – or is "life just a dream" within a dream within a dream ... all the way down? And, besides, what existential-pragmatic-ethical difference does it make, Jack, if metaphysically (according to some ancient tradition) "all is maya"?
  • Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body
    Rather than provide an explanation it forecloses the search for explanations, as if a mystery behind the mystery does more than multiply mysteries. — Fooloso4
    :100: :up:


    @Sam26
  • Is the real world fair and just?
    ↪boundless

    All I can do is guess — Gnomon
    Yes, of course, you can't even bother to rationally speculate or honstly admit you have no effing idea what you/we are talking about. wtf :sweat:
  • Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body
    Your mind is made up, why bother? — Sam26
    My mind is made up about what? You've no idea what my mind is or is not made up about so stuff the ad hominems & strawmen and stick to the questions raised by your muddled dogma.

    What is explained? 
    An unknown – unknowable – mystery (re: "intelligence behind the universe") doesn't explain anything because answering with a mystery only begs the question of the how/why of anything. And so my straight forward question remains, Sam, and it appears you can't answer non-fallaciously or supported by sound reasoning:

    What exactly is explained by "a mind behind the universe"? — 180 Proof
    :chin:
  • How 'Surreal' Are Ideas?
    ↪wonderer1
    :up:
  • Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body
    It depends on what you're looking for and what your questions are. — Sam26
    Since it's your posit, Sam, again I ask you:
    What exactly is explained by "a mind behind the universe"? — 180 Proof
    :chin:

    the source of what we are experiencing — Sam26
    Apparently, this "we" excludes p-naturalists (i.e. immanentists, pandeists), strong atheists, freethinkers, absurdists et al. For us, evidently and parsimoniously, "the source" is the universe ‐ natura naturans – itself; we don't bark at shadows (pace Plato). :fire:
  • How 'Surreal' Are Ideas?
    ↪Jack Cummins
    So if I understand correctly what you mean by "muddles in the philosophy of ideas", the ancient and postmodern or secular and spiritual "viewpoints" are like comparing apples and oranges – incommensurable perspectives on, or interpretations of, the "sur/reality of ideas"? i.e. different kinds of maps for navigating different aspects of the same terrain (or even completely different terrains)?
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    ↪Mikie
    :up: Yeah, but the devil's in the policy details ...
  • How 'Surreal' Are Ideas?
    mere partial perspectives — Jack Cummins
    Maybe you can clarify this phrase ...
  • How 'Surreal' Are Ideas?
    ↪Jack Cummins
    I don't understand your reply to my previous post.
  • How 'Surreal' Are Ideas?
    I am aware that 'real' is a human construct. — Jack Cummins
    So 'you are aware' is only "a human construct"? Or 'mortality' is not nonmind-dependent (which I prefer to 'mind-independent'), or real? :chin:

    ... there is always someone in a forest. — Amity
    Yes, the forest itself (e.g. "Fangorn"). :wink:
  • Is the real world fair and just?
    Well, Spinoza's Natura Naturata would be cover both the 'vacuum' and the 'atoms', the union of them (also, according to him, the attributes are independent from each other, so emergentism is not compatible with Spinoza). — boundless
    Of course this is so ... sub specie aeternitatis.

    For instance, if a compatibilist argues that my choices are 'free' because they do not have 'external' causes but they are still deterministic, I fail to see how this can be true 'freedom ...
    If not conditionally "deterministic" (i.e. constrained by your (my) nonlinear dynamic, ecology-nested, embodied cognition), then what makes any "choices" yours (mine)?
  • Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body
    I'm trying to point out that a mind behind the universe is the best explanation ... — Sam26
    What exactly is explained by "a mind behind the universe"?
  • How 'Surreal' Are Ideas?
    Despite materialism and postmodern deconstruction, NeoPlatonism is making a resurgence. What is the significance of this? — Jack Cummins
    Secular mysticism redux.

    What is language and its connections to symbolic forms of interpretation?
    The latter are messages – signal-to-noise ratios – and the former is a medium.

    Are ideas mind-dependent, subjective, objective or intersubjective
    constructs in human semantics?
    Yes.
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    Today in Trumpenfreude ...
    NASDAQ (DJT) :rofl:

    26March24 – $57.99 per share
    (NASDAQ 16,315.70)

    15April24 – $26.61 per share :down:
    (NASDAQ 15,885.02)     — 180 Proof
    16August24 – $23.06 per share :down:
    (NASDAQ 17,631.72) :up:

    Loser The Clown's pump-n-dump scam is down 40% in five months. Not bad for an OG grifter who even 3x BANKRUPTED A CASINO. :clap:

    *

    Biden-Harris DIJA "Boom Market":
    6Nov20 – $28,325.53
    16Aug24 – $40,659.76 :up:

    Roevember is coming! :victory: :cool:
  • Is A Utopian Society Possible ?
    "Those who lack the courage will always find a philosophy to justify it." ~Albert Camus

    The Nietzschean emphasis ... — schopenhauer1
    Stop with the strawman, schop. My counter argument emphasizes the following
    As daoists, epicureans, pyrrhonists, spinozists, absurdists et al know first-hand: humor & creativity, friendship & compassion also provide "relief" during the often tedious intervals between "sleep and death". — 180 Proof
    as I've pointed out in my previous post which your (& T. Ligotti's) special pleading evades. To wit:
    there are philosophies of defiance ("unselfing") such as those mentioned above contrary to sophistries of denial ("suicide") like fideism, anti-natalism or nihilism. :mask: — 180 Proof

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/925895

    Creating a false narrative cannot solve the problem of suffering. — schopenhauer1
    Yeah, like e.g. "anti-natalism" (i.e. destroying the village (h. sapiens) in order to save the village (h. sapiens)) – I agree, schop. After all, "suffering" isn't a "problem to solve" but rather an exigent signal to adapt one's (our) way of life to reality by preventing foreseeable and reducing imminent disvalue/s. :fire:
  • Is the real world fair and just?
    Still my question is: how can we have some degree of autonomy if we are not separate from the Whole? — boundless
    I.e. if we are more like droplets of spray from a wave of the ocean (or rays of sunlight from the sun) than e.g. passengers riding on a moving train...

    Even the 'co-determination' of some actualities ... something like Tolkien's concept of subcreation, in a sense.
    For Spinoza, no doubt an "inadequate idea" (i.e. imaginary, illusory) sub specie aeternitatis.

    it is Deistic ... specifically PanEnDeistic.

    Would Spinoza disagree?     — Gnomon
    Yes, because sub species aeternitatis Spinoza's immanent-monist (unbounded, self-organizing vacuum field-like) metaphysics is acosmist and your "pan-en-deistic" whatever, Gnomon, implies an unparsimonious, transcendent-dualist (Pythagorean / Neoplatonist / Leibnizean / panpsychist monadic-like) metaphysics.

    Fwiw, my view is that sub specie durationis (e.g. Husserl's "natural attitude") acosmism seems cogently pandeistic (or consistent with classical atomism). :fire:
  • Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body
    ↪Wayfarer
    Of course you do.
  • Is A Utopian Society Possible ?
    Masking the reality with heroism — schopenhauer1
    Neither claiming nor implying such, how does "heroism" equate to "masking the reality" when a hero is usually someone who defies reality, fatally risking herself, rather than someone who denies reality? :chin:

    Besides, I don't see what's wrong with, or dishonest about, cultivating any "coping mechanism" that actually reduces fear and harm more than it increases them.

    At the end of the day, there is no relief, only sleep and death. Everything else is MALIGNANTLY USELESS...
    — schopenhauer1

    As daoists, epicureans, pyrrhonists, spinozists, absurdists et al know first-hand: humor & creativity, friendship & compassion also provide "relief" during the often tedious intervals between "sleep and death".     — 180 Proof
    No "existential gaslighting" or "performative resiliance" – the fact is, schop, there are philosophies of defiance ("unselfing") such as those mentioned above contrary to sophistries of denial ("suicide") like fideism, anti-natalism or nihilism. :mask:
  • Is A Utopian Society Possible ?
    Yes. Do you think this requires a type of courage? — Tom Storm
    Absolutely. The indispensible virtue. With courage, cheerful-defiant pessimism (e.g. Nietzsche); without courage, resentful-defeatist pessimism (e.g. Schopenhauer) – singing the blues :death: :flower: or crippling anxiety :cry: :sad: , respectively.
  • Is A Utopian Society Possible ?
    At the end of the day, there is no relief, only sleep and death. Everything else is MALIGNANTLY USELESS ... — schopenhauer1
    As daoists, epicureans, pyrrhonists, spinozists, absurdists et al know first-hand: humor & creativity, friendship & compassion also provide "relief" during the often tedious intervals between "sleep and death".

    ↪Tarskian
    However you wish to interpret the relationship of the Torah & Quran, they are clearly not "the oldest records of moral rules" as you've claimed (and also they are subsequent derivatives from pre-Mosaic/non-divine sources).
  • The Sciences Vs The Humanities
    Science does require creativity as much as art. — I like sushi
    :up:
  • Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body
    Consciousness surviving the body? If you are dualist, perhaps. — Manuel
    :up:
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    Election 2024 is again a basic IQ test: neoliberals (pols) versus neofascists (cons)? Hint: you don't have to be antifa, BLM, pro-woman, etc to demonstrate that you're intelligent (i.e. not a bleach-swilling, MAGA-moron, weirdo). :mask:

    Roevember is coming! :fire:
  • The Sciences Vs The Humanities
    ↪ucarr
    Yes, a difference in levels and objects of analyses, therefore different representations (just as e.g. a topological map & a road map can be different (complementary) descriptions.of the same terrain).
  • Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body
    ↪Philosophim
    ↪Sam26
    Also contra "intelligent design" (i.e. creationism), consider the dysteleological argument:

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

    In sum: both the universe in general and organic life in particular appear defective, or suboptimal, just as it's most reasonable to expect it to be according to evident and explicable, nonintelligent processes of (e.g.) nucleogenesis and biological evolution (especially given that 99.99% of baryonic matter – the observable universe that has been expanding for at least 13.8 billion years from a planck radius of random (i.e. non-causal, ergo not "created / designed") fluctuations – is vacuum radiation inimical to organic/human life (in a universe evidently "fine-tuned" for lifelessness).
  • The Sciences Vs The Humanities
    ↪ucarr
    Afaik, the sciences are a subset of the humanities – interpretative-representational discourses explicating aspects of the human condition – which seek, via defeasible reasoning, testable answers to empirical questions.
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    It's just weird. — Benkei
    :smirk:
  • Is A Utopian Society Possible ?
    You can find the oldest record of moral rules in the Torah and the Quran. — Tarskian
    Not so. Consider ...

    • Code of Ani c2500 BCE
    • Code of Ur-Nammu c2100 BCE
    • Code of Hammurabi c1760 BCE
    • Law of Moses (Torah) c1000 BCE
    • Analects of Kongzi 475 BCE
    • Twelve Tables of Roman Law 451 BCE
    • Law of Manu 200 BCE
    • Code of Justinian 529 CE
    • Tang Code of China 624 CE
    • Sharia (Quran) 632 CE
  • Is A Utopian Society Possible ?
    Is A Utopian Society Possible? — kindred
    IFF, imo, it's a post-scarcity, philanthropic AGI-managed (automated), sprawl-free municipality (arcology) ... ideally, an O'Neill/McKendree cylinder (asteroid terrarium). :nerd:
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    So then I'm wondering what will the Trump cult morph into next? — Benkei
    Probably rabid domestic terrorists ...
Home » 180 Proof