The Philosophy Forum

  • Forum
  • Members
  • HELP

  • A debate on the demarcation problem
    [N]ature doesn't prescribe—it occurs. The term "Law (of Nature)" seems like a linguistic artifact. A more accurate expression would be "stable regularities of the physical world" or simply "physical invariants." — Astorre
    :up: :up:
  • What is right and what is wrong and how do we know?
    ↪Truth Seeker
    :fire:
  • What is right and what is wrong and how do we know?
    Without compassion, the circle breaks into chaos. — Truth Seeker
    True ... and yet, yinyang-like, "compassion" presupposes "chaos" (just as every ceasefire presupposes a war), no?
  • The purpose of philosophy
    So much of what we know and do is unstated and unconscious. For instance, we use language fluidly, and so clearly we all 'know' the rules of grammar, but when asked to explain them we are often at a loss. Words too: we 'know' what they mean, as we use them with ease, but we grope for definitions. The same goes for concepts, purposes, ideologies, worldviews.

    And so goes the majority of our lives, acting without knowing why, doing without quite knowing what we do. This is the unexamined life. Philosophy remedies this: it can make the implicit explicit, the unconscious conscious.

    As we bring the unconscious to light, more often then not, we realize that these implicit beliefs we've carried with us don't really make sense. Then we have the opportunity to replace the unconscious and irrational with the conscious and rational. This is growth, the transition to true adulthood that so many make all too late, or never at all. The conscious cultivation of a worldview which is consonant with the world, rather than an artifact of upbringing.

    This is the purpose of philosophy.
    — hypericin
    :100: :fire:
  • Cosmos Created Mind
    I'm not being contrarian. I'm being irritated because your OP is so vague and inconsistent and you [@Gnomon] present half-baked ideas without support and without a willingness to take responsibility for them. It's not philosophy at all, it's a book report. — T Clark
    :up: :up:

    The two implementations, or messengers, deliver the same message of being; it's like a music CD [eternal, nonlocal] versus a live band [present, local]. — PoeticUniverse
    Exactly.
  • What is right and what is wrong and how do we know?
    [O]ntology opens the space for encounter; ethics [even more than "love" pace Iris Murdoch/Plato] keeps that space from closing into self-sufficiency [solipsism, egoism, narcissism]. — Truth Seeker
    :fire:

    Yes, thanks for this insightful formulation.
  • What is right and what is wrong and how do we know?
    the ethical and the ontological are not two regions but two inflections of the same opening — Truth Seeker
    What of Levinas' meontological notion of 'ethics as first philosophy' (from Totality and Infinity)?
  • The purpose of philosophy
    Perhaps (non-trivial) 'philosophical questions' are only those which cannot have empirical answers (i.e. first-order propositions about non-abstract states-of-affairs) and tend to be answered, without begging questions, by more probative questions (or paradoxes) and/or with speculative generalities (i.e. conceptual or methological proposals). :chin:
  • Cosmos Created Mind
    Pantheism and panpsychism are entirely different things. — T Clark
    :100:
  • Are trans gender rights human rights?
    So, are trans gender rights human rights? Some of them are. Some of them are not. — Philosophim
    ... a form of wishful thinking.

    A "right" which isn't a legal right (i.e. enforceable and subject to protection under the law, the violation of which is compensable) is nothing more than ...
    — Ciceronianus
    :up: :up:
  • Cosmos Created Mind
    I agree that if there is something similar to pneuma it will be established [falsified] through science, not philosophy. — Ciceronianus
    :up: Like a vacuum or atom or aether ...
  • Cosmos Created Mind
    ↪T Clark
    :up: :up: Yeah, (@Gnomon's) pseudoscience —> ridicule.
  • Cosmos Created Mind
    a Dan Brown novel — T Clark
    :lol:

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-science-of-self/202510/the-secret-of-secrets-is-the-science-accurate :monkey:

    ↪Gnomon
    :sparkle: wt_?
  • The purpose of philosophy
    a type of rationalization of ones own prejudices — DifferentiatingEgg
    :chin: That's sophistry, not philosophy. (Plato)
  • The purpose of philosophy
    To be a lowly worm and ask a question of the divine is to understand the value and purpose of philosophy. — Philosophim
    :fire:

    In Australian culture low status workers habitually question and sometimes harass the management and ruling classes. — Tom Storm
    Here in America, we fuckin' precariats need to grow some Aussie balls.
  • The purpose of philosophy
    [Philosophy]'s about one thing, and one thing only: "Thinking in the face of the pressure not to."

    The reality is that there is often immense pressure to not think about things. For many, thinking about common ideas that hold society together is dangerous. 

    Never stop thinking and never stop questioning even basic assumptions and outlooks.
    — Philosophim
    In so far as 'thinking' helps one to thrive over above one's mere survival, I agree.
  • Do you think AI is going to be our downfall?
    Am I literally the only one left on the planet who is an AI optimist? — Colo Millz
    :smirk: Nah. Join the club ...
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/979621
  • What is right and what is wrong and how do we know?
    ↪Pieter R van Wyk
    I gave examples of ethical decisions that were politically defiant and not "expedient" – ethics is not as shallow (or conformist) as you suggest. Read Laozi, Kongzi, Epicurus, Aristotle, Epictetus, Spinoza ... Philippa Foot et al.
  • Ich-Du v Ich-es in AI interactions
    It's just easier to do it with an AI, there's so much less at stake, it's so safe, and you don't really have to put any skin in the game [ .... ] Practicing ich-du on AI's is cowardly. — baker
    :up: :up:
  • Donald Trump (All Trump Conversations Here)
  • What are your plans for the 10th anniversary of TPF?
    Happy 10th anniversary, folks. :wink: — javi2541997
    Gracias, señor.
  • What is right and what is wrong and how do we know?
    ↪Constance
    What do you mean by "God is a moral concept"? (or by "moral concept' itself?)
  • What is right and what is wrong and how do we know?
    [God] is a moral concept ... — Constance
    Please explain.

    If “God” is a moral concept, then its worth must be judged by the moral outcomes it inspires. A concept that sanctifies fear, tribalism, or subservience fails on its own moral grounds. — Truth Seeker
    :up: :up:

    Whether “God” is a phenomenological boundary-concept or an anthropomorphic myth, the question remains: What does belief in this fiction do to sentient beings? Does it cultivate compassion, or sanctify domination? — Truth Seeker
    :fire:

    Clearly, "God" infantilizes adults (e.g. Kierkegaard's teleological suspension of the ethical aka "holy ends justify any means").

    Please, can you give me a salient example where a decision has been made on good or evil that is not based on political expediency. — Pieter R van Wyk
    Consider: decisions risking their own lives to hide runaway slaves from a posse of slavers or to hide Jews / homosexuals from gangs of Nazis ... or families of murder victims opposing the
    executions of their murderers ...
  • Do you think AI is going to be our downfall?
    It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God – but to [build it]. — Arthur C. Clarke

    Like chatbox 'romance', another omen of our impending "AI downfall" –

    https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20251016-people-are-using-ai-to-talk-to-god :sweat:

    @Jack Cummins @Wayfarer
  • Strong Natural Theism: An Alternative to Mainstream Religion
    ↪Bob Ross
    This seems to me a non sequitur.
  • The Mind-Created World
    Consider this article a précis of 'the world-creates/embodies minds' ...

    https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/newsplus/new-way-to-map-the-unique-brain-organization-of-individuals/

    @wonderer1 @Patterner @Wayfarer
  • The Mind-Created World
    PSA reminder: Contra the incoherent speculations of idealists, mind-body dualists and mysterians, "mind" is not what it seems to itself – subjective first-person perspective – to be (e.g. like a sphere drawn on paper (i.e. a representation) seems only a 2-D circle) by which a map – how things seem (e.g. "mind") – is intuitively mistaken for the terrain – how things are (i.e. facts, nomological constraints) ...
  • The integration of science and religion
    Not the TRUE reality. — Copernicus
    In contrast to the FALSE reality? :roll:
  • The integration of science and religion
    'religion & science' are non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) — 180 Proof
    E.g. religions indoctrinate "we don't know this or that g/G (woo) must have created / caused this or commands us to obey that" contrary to sciences which demonstrate "we don't know this or that yet until we learn (i.e. critically self-correct) more and more about the what and the how of this or that" – the latter requires and the former discourages defeasible thinking. :mask:
  • On how to learn philosophy
    Some TPF posters are offended by my unorthodox views, but most accept a bit of oddity as typical of independent thinkers.
    — Gnomon

    Not always offended, but puzzled that you would be resistant to learning of the philosophers and scientists already saying much the same thing in a more nailed down fashion.
    — apokrisis
    :up: :up:

    ... Or one can go the "independent" route which at best can only end up with you repeating the semi-obvious in a suitably obscure way.
    In @Gnomon's case: ... too often in a confused and un/mis-informed way (i.e. full of woo-woo).

    My current "research" is mostly Googling names and terms I'm not familiar with .... so the philosophical inferences are my own amateur musings — Gnomon
    :sweat: Yeah, it shows ...
  • The integration of science and religion
    ↪T Clark
    Still no argument. – that's telling.
  • The integration of science and religion
    ↪T Clark
    You claim NOMA is "baloney" but don't even try to make your case.
  • The integration of science and religion
    I agree with SJ Gould, Wittgenstein, Spinoza et al that 'religion & science' are non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA), or in other words ...
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/553997

    Religion denotes ritually following / reenacting myths based on magical thinking and superstition (i.e. merely subjective avowals).

    Science denotes collective pursuit of testable models which best explain possible transformations of aspects of nature based on defeasible thinking and abduction (i.e. more-than-inter/subjective, fallibilistic / approximative truth-claims).
  • Donald Trump (All Trump Conversations Here)
  • Is sex/relationships entirely a selfish act?
    Somebody is doing it wrong. — T Clark
    In a world teeming with unwed mothers and unwanted bastards, absentee fathers and neglected children, I suspect very few are doing it right (whatever that means) while the majority routinely confuses chemistry (attraction, arousal) for "connection".
  • amoralism and moralism in the age of christianity (or post christianity)
    I'm wondering what it would take for a universal morality to be achieved, or if it's even possible. — ProtagoranSocratist
    If you do, explain why you (seem to) assume that "a universal morality" is more beneficial than the absence of one.

    One of my goals is to read Copleston's entire works on the history of philosophy ...
    FWIW, I'd recommend more contemporary (& secular) histories such as

    • Peter Adamson's podcast & book series A History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps

    • Bryan Magee's The Great Philosophers: An Introduction to Western Philosophy
  • Transwomen are women. Transmen are men. True or false?
    A transman is a 'male who expresses with female gender'. A transwoman is 'a male who expresses with male gender'.

    So are transwomen women? Are transwomen men? No. The terms man and woman indicate a person's age and sex, not gender. Are transwomen men who act with a female gender? Yes. Are transmen women who act with a male gender? Yes.
    — Philosophim
    :100:

    A related post from 2019 ...
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/336888
  • Banning AI Altogether
    I think the point is that you can’t let your guard down anywhere, and you never could. — praxis
    :mask: True.
  • Banning AI Altogether
    I avoid reading lengthy and didactic posts which are often poorly written. The AI stuff I’ve seen often seems peculiarly worded and difficult to read. — Tom Storm
    :up: :up:
  • Banning AI Altogether
    I come here to listen to what others think and discuss ideas with them, not with chatbots. — Janus
    :100: I don't bother reading or responding to any post that I even suspect is chatbot/LLM chatter.
Home » 180 Proof
More Comments

180 Proof

Start FollowingSend a Message
  • About
  • Comments
  • Discussions
  • Uploads
  • Other sites we like
  • Social media
  • Terms of Service
  • Sign In
  • Created with PlushForums
  • © 2025 The Philosophy Forum