An old sparring partner ... :smirk:But few here would remember Landru Guide Us — Banno
Since my being "AWARE" is post hoc confabulation, I "CHOSE" before I became "AWARE" (as Libet's experiments¹, etc show) that I have "CHOSEN" (e.g. from prior "counterfactual" – imagined – options), therefore any "decision" is (mostly) unconscious² as I point out here without raising the concept of "determinism" (which is your strawman, schop1, not mine).... my point is that you are AWARE of counterfactuals and you CHOSE this one (whatever else might be the case surrounding this decision). — schopenhauer1
:smirk:There are various systems of paraconsistent logic that accomodate or mitigate explosive results, so I won't rule out some form of dialectic, but I won't rule it in, either. (see what I did there...?) — Banno
:up: :up:But it remains that the sort of contradiction seen in dialectic is not the sort of contradiction found in formal logic. What a dialectic contradiction is remains, I think, ambiguous.
And secondly, even if we supose that dialectic does not breach non-contradiction, the result is not clear. Given the Principle of Explosion, anything could follow from a contradiction, so given a thesis and an antithesis, the nature of the resulting synthesis is far from fixed.
So I would rather not glorify dialectic by calling it a "logic". — Banno
:100:Indeed, what we know is mental, but that does not imply that the world is mental...
The argument attempts to show that the world is partially mental, but only succeeded in showing that the what we say about the world is "mental".
That is, the argument presented here does not demonstrate it's conclusion. — Banno
Yes, and afaik it's this ...Does it matter what the primary function of religious thinking is? — Igitur
ergo[H]istory amply shows, imo, that 'religion' is required only (or at least mostly) for herding sheep, prophets making profits and sanguinary propitiating/martyring/scapegoating. — 180 Proof
Terror management (re: mortality) via reality-denial (i.e. fact-free, consoling myths & fairytales) seems the primary function of religious magical thinking (i.e. woo-woo), not "to find truth".[T]here is truth to be found and that the person is willing to find it. — Igitur
Yeah, in 2024 that "1 way to lose" will be the same as 2016: HRC. The Dems don't learn new tricks often ... though maybe VP Harris :yikes: (if Biden drops out of the race and the Dems don't nominate e.g. Gov Newsom, Gov Whitmer, et al) – HRC redux. — 180 Proof
Whitmer for President with running-mate Newsom for Veep works just as well for me too – maybe even better! — 180 Proof
:up:Trump never should be the nominee but the GOP has been shit since Reagan. — Benkei
:roll:It’s not a question of whether the ‘wave function’ is or isn’t mind-dependent. — Wayfarer
I grew up before wall-to-wall vidiocracy of 24/7/365 cable tv, video games, smart phones, social media & youtubing, so definitely not because my "early life" was "truly real" for me, especially as @Vera Mont so rightly points out, nature (i.e. wilderness – through which I, a fortunate though working class NYC kid, had often backpacked & hiked since early grade school).Has anyone else here had a sense that what they were experiencing in early life wasn't truly real or that it was highly stripped down? — TiredThinker
Ad hoc assumptions which raise more questions than they answer – not clear at all.To lay out in its clearest terms: — schopenhauer1
Whatever. I'm not a "Nietzschean" (though I share affinities with his anti-idealist naturalism) and in my previous post I raise objections to (your) "pessimism" referring instead to Camus, Zapffe, Epicurus, Epictetus & Spinoza without invoking "Nietzsche". Try addressing my actual argument, schop1, instead of copping-out by shadowboxing with a strawman. :wink:This will ever be my debate with Nietzscheans on this forum. I'm sorry but Schopenhauer cannot be surpassed by Nietzsche's contrarian view.
... are mostly not conscious decisions / choices according to (e.g.) Buddha ... Socrates, Pyrrho ... Spinoza, Hume, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Peirce, Wittgenstein ... and corroborated by (e.g.) cognitive neuroscience, behavioral economics, embodied cognitivism & CBT. :roll:... almost each and every moment you deliberate and decide. The reasons you chose, whatever they are ...
And yet you begin with his metaphysical terms "purpose" "telos" "final causes" & "essence". :roll:This OP is about Aristotle's Eudemian and Nichomachean Ethics; not his Metaphysics, Politics, or Physics. — Bob Ross
No. Maps are used to facilitate taking paths through a simplified abstraction derived from specific types of aspects of a (factual/formal/fictional) territory.A map is something used to know territories themselves, no? — Count Timothy von Icarus
Yet the OP concerns only Aristotle's notion of "essence".The idea of "essence" might be explained quite differently from how Aristotle goes about it ...
"Responsibility" to whom?We are the only species that bears a responsibility that no other animal must endure, that of justifying why we must do/endure anything. We are self-aware creatures, that know that we can do something counterfactual. — schopenhauer1
No, Camus (like Zapffe et al) recognizes 'existence' is a pseudo-problem only for idealists (or antirealists, subjectivists ... supernaturalists), that is, for those who adopt an egocentric stance of 'ontological transcendence' (pace Spinoza) that is inexorably frustrated by the ineluctable and immanent resistance-to-ego of existence (i.e. anicca, anatta ... dao ... swirling-swerving atoms recombing in void, etc). There is no "problem" that's "ignored", especially by lucid absurdists, who neither absurdly 'idealize non-ideal' existence (re: hope) nor absurdly 'nihilate non-negative' existence (re: despair), insofar as we strive – suffer – to create manifold spaces by and within which to thrive aesthetically and ethically between absurd extremes. :death: :flower:It is a form of "ignoring" of the problem. — schopenhauer1
... such as "the delusion" that our "species needs delusions", etc?... we are the species that needs the delusions ...
As schopenhauer1 suggests, the existential stance of "pessimism" is also a "delusion" for coping with, imo, a (mostly) maladaptive habit of neurotic overthinking – anxiously fearing for (pace Epicurus/Epictetus ... Spinoza) – our species-specific defects-dysfunctions aka "suffering". :fire:What are your "meta"-cognitive beliefs about pessimism, and what it may mean to a person? — Shawn
It's the age-old problematic: ignorance. — 180 Proof
A point of clarity: in this context, by "ignorance" I mean to ignore for whatever reason (e.g. naivete, sociopathy-narcissism, acculturation, ideology, remoteness-deniability, callousness-ptsd, magical thinking-otherworldliness, masochistic bias, etc).... the life of the ignorant, who do not understand or perceive the suffering of the world. — Shawn
:up: :up:... morality is more deeply rooted in emotional affectivity than in rational deliberation. — Tom Storm
Yes, through tacit experience (via childhood, socialization, pedagogy, trauma, etc) but explicitly by reflecting on experiences.I'd like to ask, in correspondence with the OP, whether only through experience can one come to learn, or even know, such basic moral facts? — Shawn
It's the age-old problematic: ignorance.The way the world seems to be working is that there's some kind of serious deficiency in this regard of being informed of moral facts or truths.
For f*ck's sake ... :roll:Have you read the Metaphysics yet?
–Count Timothy von Icarus
I haven’t,but I will. — Bob Ross
Yes, in this context "telos" is fallaciously anthropomorphic (à la animism). Aristotle mistook – literalized / fetishized / reified – his causal mappings for the territory and called them "essences".I don't see anything wrong with the concept of an essence or final causes (telos): do you? — Bob Ross
Yeah, buddy! JD Vance is the *misogynistic gift* that will keep on giving. More of the Ultra-MAGA Hillbilly speaking in public, please. :clap:Trump isn’t going to win. — NOS4A2
No doubt.I feel like a asshole. — bert1
My questions were for @Pantagruel to clarify his specific statement which he cannot because it's gibberish. And your response, bert, isn't "paradoxical", just more semantic jugglery.I concede. — bert1
:up: :up:We have billions of people that look into the sky and see that the Sun travels around the Earth. The Sun rises in the East, and sets in the West. No one is saying we don't have that unified and confirmed subjective experience. But is our interpretation of that subjective experience true? No. It turns out that the Earth actually orbits the sun. But from our limited perspectives, and can feel like its the other way around. — Philosophim
If so, then what makes "consciousness" mine? If it's not mine, then why should "consciousness" matter to me? If, however, "consciousness" is mine, then what does "trans-individual" mean and why should it matter to me?Consciousness, in its essence, is imminently trans-individual. — Pantagruel
