Since there is no rational reason for the existence of life, existential nihilism is the rational answer. — Tarskian

Nonsense. If "existential rationalism", then there can be no "rational answers" for an existential nihilist. :roll:

There are only spiritual reasons ...

Such as?

(Btw, when you say "spiritual reasons", do you mean 'reasons given by spirits'? :eyes: )

There is no salvation ...

"Salvation" from what? 

In its essence, like philosophy, religion is metaphysics first. — ENOAH

Unlike philosophy being 'metaphysics derived by deductive / dialectical reasoning', religion consists in 'metaphysics expressed through symbolic myths' (e.g. "Platonism of the masses" according to Nietzsche)..

[P]hilosophical attempts to alleviate human suffering ...

If by "suffering" you mean folly (i.e. ignorance of one's own ignorance, unexamined living, habits of poor reasoning, magical thinking, reality-denials, etc), then I agree with you.

None of these approaches are apodictic.

Why does that matter?

there is no rational reason for the existence — Tarskian

Why assume "rational reason" is applicable to "existence" especially since "existence" (a) cannot be nonexistence and (b) "rational reason" presupposes "existence"?

always leads to existential nihilism — Tarskian

This phrase doesn't make sense. "Existential nihilism" is chosen and not entailed, otherwise it wouldn't be nihilistic. "Rationalism", as you say, assumes that reality – existence – is logical (i.e. inferential, algorithmic, computable) but that logic must be learned (i.e. signals filtered from noise), that the aptitude for reasoning – orderliness / regularities ("laws") of nature – is intrinsic, or "innate", and competence with reasoning – testable modeling ("sciences") of nature – is an acquired set of skills. "Existential nihilism" is the choice to reject "rationalism" as a way of life (i.e. existential project) as well as rationality, or logic, as an epistemic method/criterion of judgment, and therefore, not the inevitable consequence of "rationalism". Spinozism, for instance, does not entail "existential nihilism".

No doubt, yet the act is not rational (i.e. false hope).

Both sets of exams can be independently verified by a third party (audit) if Biden's campaign is serious about getting the maximum effect (no matter how marginal). If not, if the "perception" is so irreparable", then he needs to step aside like Lyndon Johnson did in 1968 – of course, VP Harris might also lose (after a brutally divisive convention floor fight) like VP Humphrey lost to Nixon. :brow:

The disgraced puke (former US Rear Admiral) Dr. Ronny Jackson is a MAGA (morons against great america)-stooge congressman from Texas.

Yes, of course, the ballot box will be the final arbiter but if Biden stays in the race he has to address the "senile, enfeebled" issue with evidence his surrogates and down-ballot Dem candidates can use while campaigning to better inform voters. Biden's duty is to drop out and failing that I think he has a duty to the US electorate to provide medical reasons as well as performative displays which corroborate why he doesn't step aside. And the contrast with The obsese, neofascist, criminal Clown's response to a medical & cognitive exams challenge will not be lost on the still persuadeable +5% of voters in "the swing states" which will decide the election in the Electoral College.

your moral judgment against me — T Clark

I have not stated or implied any "moral judgment against" you or anyone in the current discussion. I've only taken issue with your concepts and conception of moral philosophy for being uselessly vague and arbitrary.

[R]eligious doctrines posing as a philosophy of consciousness ... mysticism as anything other than a pacifier of sorts (albeit somewhat essential in its role on mental stability). The path to woo woo is the way. The destination of woo woo is delusion/madness. — I like sushi

:up: :up:

I think Biden should have a complete physical and cognitive exams which witll then be released in document form (minimally redacted only for national security) and summarized by his physicians in a public press conference asap. He should also publicly dare The obese, neofascist, criminal Clown to do exactly the same, and let the chips fall where they may with the voters. :mask:

Ceding life as we know it to the incorrigible morons is bad enough. Ceding it to senile bitch Biden? It's too much. Biden has to go. — hypericin

:roll: Stop being hysterical. Biden's competent, effective administration is not populated by "senile bitches"; however, The Clown's "Project 2025" will be populated by a fanatically loyal horde of "incorrigible morons" just like him. Neofascist autocracy is far far worse than the neoliberal status quo, and whoever can't see that will no doubt F-A-I-L the national IQ test in Roevember. :mask:

:100: :up:

No. It seems that in the US at least,"the police" – established by laws – only enforce the 'controls of society' which are instituted by laws passed by legistlators and reviewed/applied by courts.

As for antisocial psychopathy, I'll point you to the Emerson quote I just used in my previous response to fdrake. — T Clark

I don't see the point you're making with this reference except that Emerson seems to "morally" excuse e.g. antisocial psychopathy ... almost as Heideggerian / Sartrean (romantic) "authenticity".

So if your definition of God is that God is the highest form of consciousness... — Pantagruel

Whatever that means, it's not that. Usually atheism is a reasonable rejection of 'any god described by theism' (with predicates entailing empirical facts about the universe which are lacking ...) just like other imaginary entities.

Well anyway ... Sleepy Joe In A Coma still beats The neofascist criminal Clown like a dog in Roevember. :victory: :mask:

:up:

... my actions will be in accordance with the guidance of my intrinsic nature, my heart if you will. — T Clark

What makes this "guidance of my intrinsic nature" moral? Suppose you are an antisocial psychopath: is acting "in accordance" with psychopathy also moral?

[F]ormal moral philosophy [ ... ] It’s a program of social control - coercive rules a society establishes to manage disruptive or inconvenient behavior

Laws, legistlation & jurisprudence correspond to "social control". I think learning techniques of self-control (from e.g. exercises, stories, exemplars, dilemmas, conflicts, etc) which are independent of – not enforceable by – "social controls" is what primarily concerns moral philosophy.

... any philosophy that specifies how other people should behave, is not moral at all, ...

Does this also mean that to specify "how other people should" reason, "is not" logic?

Anyway, by "moral" do you mean (something like) 'cultivates flourishing'?

... or even really a philosophy.

 I suppose it depends on what you mean by "really a philosophy" in contrast to "really" not "a philosophy".

[deleted]

28June24

[deleted]

The cosmos and time are entirely unaware of humanity. As for evolution, it's given us the bum's rush - fast climb to dominance, even faster gallop toward self-immolation. We think we're important and we managed to convince dogs - nobody else. — Vera Mont

:fire: :monkey:

27June24

(addendum to )

Yeah, damn Dems fucked up bigly :shade:


Even so, Sleepy Joe at his worst is still a better candidate and a better POTUS than The Fascist Clown (aka "Fraudster-Ra(p)ist-Insurrectionist-Convicted Felon-1").. :mask:

Fraudster-Ra(p)ist-Insurrectionist-Convicted Felon-1 "outperformed" POTUS tonight. :sad:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/912686

Sleepy Joe. :zip:

The Clown wins, no need to debate again this fall. He dodged a bullet. Biden campaign over-prepped POTUS to "debate" (pander to the base) rather than to take out The Clown (moving swing state independents toward Dems).

Yes, they are not identical phenomena.

:100: :up:

:roll: :snicker:

fyi Natural sciences are both "reductive" and "holistic" – by fallibilistic abduction, each defeasibly explains various levels (e.g. hierarchies) of 'self-organizing wholes' mereologically. On the other hand, sir, "metaphysics" is a synoptic (not "holistic") interpretation – categorical idealization – of, among other things, the presuppositions necessary for natural sciences and their findings to rationally make sense.

Well "dying" =/= death (i.e. being dead), so ...

How about the question “how” instead of “why?” — Fire Ologist

"How" would be a scientific question (i.e. to explain empirically) instead of a philosophical question "why" (i.e. to clarify-justify conceptually). For instance, imo, "panpsychism" – (i.e. that's just the way woo is (aka "woo-of-the-gaps")) – begs a philosophical question about "the cause of consciousness".

Dude, you propose an answer that merely begs the question (i.e. precipitates an infinite regress). Argument from incredulity – lack of imagination – is also fallacious. Talking out of your bunghole, Dude. "That's just the way it is" – brute fact of the matter – suffices.

Okay, you can't answer. Never mind.

In fact, I think my miraculous existential fortune should be justified by something other than "it just is that way". — Dogbert

Why? – and what then would justify that justification?

Oh, then you mean ... "human consciousness"?

:100:

from p.28 of this thread ...

Resuscitation is not resurrection. "NDE" presupposes resurrection and yet none of the claimants, in fact, have been resurrected. — 180 Proof

... the emergence of the next new state of consciousness, which is what I take it AI is supposed to be. — Pantagruel

Why do you assume "AI" will ever be "conscious" or that it needs to be in order to function at or above human-level cognition?

26June24

From a purely rational standpoint,
are there sound, logical reasons to commit suicide? — Vera Mont

I don't think so.

After all, from a rational standpoint, suicide is a disproportionately (ir-ratio ... absurd) permanent solution to a temporary problem. :smirk:

Are there frivolous and silly ones that nevertheless compel people to do it? If so, why do they?

Again, I don't think so. A "why" might be divined by their survivors but does not "compel" suicides themselves. Maybe it's the subjective loss of "why" that compels them.

Are there reasons that seem to make sense from one POV, but not from another?

Insofar as such "reasons" are third-person, ex post facto guesses, I think so.

Should other people intervene?

No ...

What is your opinion?

... others usually can't help it (out of love), I suspect, whenever they do "intervene".

Everything--even value, thus, ethics--is "hiding" in the metaphysical. But where is the latter "hiding"? — ENOAH

Maybe within grammar (Nietzsche).

[W]hat is meant by Religion ...? — I like sushi

By "religion" I mean 'official cultus' (i.e. collective ritual telling of ghost stories) that denies – symbolically escapes from – mortality.

From 2021 ...

Fuck Assange. He helped the Russians interfere in the 2016 US elections. Another FSB/GRU tool. Thanks for Trump, Jules! Go. Rot. — 180 Proof

:mask:

Israel fights a greater evil. — BitconnectCarlos

Bullshit. Since 1948, Israeli occupier-oppressor terrorism has killed & dispossessed more Palestinian noncombatants than Palestinian occupied-oppressed terrorism has killed & dispossessed Israeli noncombatants. You shall know "greater evil" by its fruits. :death:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict

For a person to die is to cease being a person for whom anything could possibly be "bad". 'Your death' irreversibly decomposes you for you. I think death is the ineluctable, or ultimate, gift that liberates each one of us finally from suffering.

:death: :flower:

If that's it, then you're not philosophizing, as I see it, just misusing (e.g. reifying) logic. I prefer to use reality instead of existence (just as I prefer mind to consciousness / mindbody to subject) because the latter tends to be less dynamic and less contingent than the former.

What do you mean by the term "existence"?

In my opinion, the difference between "absence of belief" and "disbelief" is just ... — Tarskian

I.e. you can't tell the difference between ~b(G) and b(~G)? :pray:

It implies that the position could also be indeterminate.

This is only so for someone who (analogously) cannot differentiate 'nonassent from dissent' or 'remaining silent from spoken denial' or 'indifference from rejection'.

Why would there be a need to create that ambiguous overlap between atheism and agnosticism?

Right, there's no "need" for the muddle confusing you, Tarskian. Consider –

Given that (theistic) agnosticism denotes 'the truth-value of theism (claim that at least one providential/creator deity** exists) is unknown (or unknowable)':

(A) if theism is antirealist-noncognitive (i.e. belief in a deity** that does not entail truth-claims), then (theistic) agnosticism is incoherent ...

... in other words, to say 'I do not know whether noncognitive theism is true or false'. :roll:

(B) however, if theism is realist-cognitive°° (i.e. belief in a deity** that entails truth-claims), and using the natural world to search for truth-makers, I/we can show that theism is not true °° and therefore, (theistic) agnosticism is unwarranted ...

... in other words, to say 'I do not know whether cognitive theism is true or false.' :yawn:

In terms of logic, we have: yes, no, maybe. — Tarskian

More precisely +1, 0, -1 (true, unknown, not true).