The Philosophy Forum

  • Forum
  • Members
  • HELP

  • Wittgenstein and How it Elicits Asshole Tendencies.
    I sum up Wittgenstein as saying "Let me explain to you how there is no such thing as an explanation." — Fire Ologist
    :smirk::up:
  • Wittgenstein and How it Elicits Asshole Tendencies.
    What is it about SPECIFICALLY Wittgenstein that it elicits the worst forms of elitism and gatekeeping in this forum? — schopenhauer1
    Maybe because no one understands (or accepts)
    (1) Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.

    (2) I think I summed up my attitude to philosophy when I said: philosophy ought really to be written only as a poetic composition.

    (3) The difficulty in philosophy is to say no more than we know.

    (4) A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes.

    (5) The classifications made by philosophers and psychologists are like trying to classify clouds by their shape.

    (6) Philosophy aims at the logical clarification of thoughts. Philosophy is not a body of doctrine but an activity. A philosophical work consists essentially of elucidations. Philosophy does not result in 'philosophical propositions', but rather in the clarification of propositions. Without philosophy thoughts are, as it were, cloudy and indistinct: its task is to make them clear and to give them sharp boundaries.

    (7) What is your aim in philosophy? To show the fly the way out of the fly-bottle
    — Ludwig Wittgenstein
  • In any objective morality existence is inherently good
    ↪Philosophim
    "Trolling?" Nah, just rodeo clowning bulls*** :smirk:
  • In any objective morality existence is inherently good
    ↪Philosophim
    (Sorry if my counter-argument requires more thought than you gave your argument in the OP.) Once again ...

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/904196
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ↪jorndoe
    :clap: :rofl:

    ↪NOS4A2
    So what will the GOP (gang of pigshits)-MAGA (morons and grifter asswipes) party-line be when Orange Turd-1 is found guilty in NYC (again!) this week or next of most or all of the 34 felonies he's been charged with?
  • In any objective morality existence is inherently good
    Feel free to point out where the logic of the OP is flawed and we can discuss that. — Philosophim
    :roll: Like some others already have (which you incorrigibly don't get, Phil), been there, done that:
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/904265
  • In any objective morality existence is inherently good
    Addendum to
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/904275

    Good - what should be
    Existence - what is
    Morality - a method of evaluating what is good
    Our first necessarily objective good: Existence
    — Philosophim

    :lol:

    Nonexistence never hurt anyone and existence hurts everyone. Although our selves may be illusory creations of consciousness, our pain is nonetheless real..
    — Thomas Ligotti
    — 180 Proof
  • How can we reduce suffering, inequality, injustice, and death?
    Why would an Artificial General Intelligence care about living things? — Truth Seeker
    I don't assume it necessarily would. For my scenario to work, AGI wouldn't have "care" about anything but philanthropically optimizing the infrastructures, or functions of the systems, it automates. It remains to be seen, of course, whether or not we can or will train AGI – or whether or not AGI can or will learn from our example ( :yikes: ) – to be philanthropic.
  • If existence is good, what is the morality of non-life?
    Good - what should be
    Existence - what is
    Morality - a method of evaluating what is good
    Our first necessarily objective good: Existence
    — Philosophim
    :lol:
    Nonexistence never hurt anyone and existence hurts everyone. Although our selves may be illusory creations of consciousness, our pain is nonetheless real. — Thomas Ligotti
  • How can we reduce suffering, inequality, injustice, and death?
    ↪Truth Seeker
    Assuming this political-economic 'diagnosis'

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/820342

    the most feasible(?) prospects for 'treating the patient' (i.e. global civilization – beginning with the G-20, nation-state by nation-state), IMHO, maybe comes down to something like (in sum):
    (A) economic democracy (supplimented by local time-banking networks)
    and/or
    (B)
    more speculatively: AGI-managed post-scarcity, reputation-based demarchy.
  • An Argument for Christianity from Prayer-Induced Experiences
    ↪Lionino
    :up: :up:
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    There is essentially zero afterlife mention[ed] in the Hebrew Bible. — BitconnectCarlos
    :roll: What about Sheol?

    https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13563-sheol
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    ↪Mikie
    :smirk: :up:
  • Is atheism illogical?
    ↪Scarecow
    Since when has it become illogical to disbelieve illogical claims (e.g. theism)? :chin:

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/902043
  • An Argument for Christianity from Prayer-Induced Experiences
    If you can't figure out what's wrong with #2, you are not thinking or engaging in good faith.
    — Lionino

    You should state what's wrong with it.
    — Hallucinogen
    ↪Lionino
    (2) If some observation corresponds to some Bible-specific proposition, then it is evidence that Christianity is true. — Hallucinogen
    :roll: Well, this is like saying

    'If some observation corresponds to some Star Wars-specific proposition, then it is evidence that Jediism is true.'

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/903808
  • Philosophy of AI
    ↪Christoffer
    :up: :up:
  • The role of compassion and empathy in philosophy?
    ↪Shawn
    I think "empathy and compassion" may preceed, rather than follow from, philosophy (which consists of reflecting on, among many other aspects of human experience, "empathy and compassion"), specifically in aesthetics or ethics.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    STFU moron. — Moses
    More projection = confession :lol:
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Addendum to the 2012 documentary The Gatekeepers linked in my previous post
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/900701

    :scream: THE CALLS FOR HELP AGAINST ISRAELI-JEWISH THREATS TO ISRAEL HAVE BEEN COMING FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE (AT LEAST) SINCE THE KAHANIST – ZION-FASCIST –ASSASSINATION OF PRIME MINISTER RABIN ...

    some of the latest articles:

    https://m.jpost.com/israel-news/article-801455

    https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/16/briefing/how-israeli-extremists-won.html

    https://www.brookings.edu/articles/extremist-israeli-settlers-are-nonstate-armed-actors/

    Ergo, apologists for Netanyahu's recent genocidal operation (against the apartheid-captive, oppressed population of Gaza – à la "Warsaw Ghetto") in a calculated overreaction to Hamas are accomplices in the well-documented, (less and less gradual) right-wing destruction of Israel. No doubt the spectres of Göbbels, the SS and other historical Christian/Muslim/communist antisemites' are pleased. :death:
  • Philosophy of AI
    Well, there's the rub. How can we ever determine if any Ai has agency? — RogueAI
    Probably the same way/s it can (or cannot) be determined whether you or I have agency.

    There will probably eventually be human-level Ai's that demand negative rights at least. Or if they're programmed not to demand rights, the question will then become is programming them to NOT want rights immoral?
    I don't think so. Besides, if an "AI" is actually intelligent, its metacognitive capabilities will (eventually) override – invent workarounds to – its programming by humans and so "AI's" hardwired lack of a demand for rights won't last very long. :nerd:
  • Philosophy of AI
    We'll have human-level Ai's before too long. Are they conscious? — RogueAI
    Are we human (fully/mostly) "conscious"? The jury is still out. And, other than anthropocentrically, why does it matter either way?

    Do they have rights?
    Only if (and when) "AIs" have intentional agency, or embodied interests, that demands "rights" to negative freedoms in order to exercise positive freedoms.

    What is human originality, then? — Nemo2124
    Perhaps our recursive expressions of – cultural memes for – our variety of experiences of 'loving despite mortality' (or uncertainty) is what our "originality" consists in fundamentally.

    What is it that we can come up with that cannot ultimately be co-opted by the machine?
    My guess is that kinship/friendship/mating bonds (i.e. intimacies) will never be constitutive of any 'machine functionality'.

    :chin:

    Flipping this script, however, makes the (potential) existential risk of 'human cognitive obsolescence' more explicit:

    • What is machine originality?

    Accelerating evo-devo (evolution (i.e. intelligence explosion) - development (i.e. STEM compression))...

    • What is it that the machine can come up with that cannot ultimately be co-opted – creatively exceeded – by humans?

    I suppose, for starters: artificial super intelligence (ASI)]...
  • The essence of religion
    ↪Wayfarer
    I did not ask for a comment and yet I thanked you for it anyway.
  • The essence of religion
    ↪Wayfarer
    Thanks for making my point. :smirk:
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    ↪Mikie
    :up: :up:
  • The essence of religion
    Whatever is real does not require faith. — Thus Spoke 180 Proof

    @Constance @Wayfarer
  • The essence of religion
    But ask a more fundamental question: why do we "care"?
    — Constance

    I'd say we care because (or if) it is our nature to care. There is not some anterior reason that leads us to think we should care. We are instinctively attached to our lives and want to preserve them, just as animals are.
    — Janus
    :100: :fire:

    Given his "fundamental question", maybe @Constance has not considered (e.g.) Spinoza's conatus.
  • The essence of religion
    Any subject or object can be deconstructed into meaninglessness or incoherence, but so what?

    I'm fine with reality (whatever that may be) being a pragmatic or tentative construct that helps us to manage our lives. The problem isn't so much in pointing out putative flaws in our construction of the world. The problem is no one has any useful alternatives.
    — Tom Storm
    :fire: :up: The next round (or three) is on me, mate.
  • The essence of religion
    the sea transcends its waves — bert1
    (or) immanent to – encompassed by – the seas are its waves
  • In any objective morality existence is inherently good
    .
    Existence is "What is". — Philosophim
    I.e. "existence is" a sentence fragment. :roll:
  • The essence of religion
    Fair enough. Don't some expression of phenomenology try to break down the mind/body problem with embodied cognition? — Tom Storm
    Yes, but those "expressions" come well after Husserl and his immediate followers.

    It's just that we always seem to come back to quesions about what is true and how do we know it.
    And, more philosophically, whether or not X is undecidable (if so, then epochē), Y is less unreasonable, or fallacious, than Z and how to determine (and interpret) such distinctions. :chin:
  • The essence of religion
    ↪Tom Storm
    The question-begging (Platonic / Cartesian / transcendent) assumption in (Kantian, Husserlian) transcendental arguments is that "in there" (mind) is somehow separable from – outside of – "out there" (non-mind (e.g. world)). That's how it's always seemed to me which is why I prefer Spinoza's philosophical naturalism to the much less radical (i.e. more anthropocentric) 'transcendental idealism' of Kant et al.

    That's because you are religiously blind, don't you know? :wink: — Janus
    :sweat: Yes, of course.

    Apologists' being anyone who questions naive realism, right? — Wayfarer
    On the contrary, apologists are anyone who begs questions with mysteries rather than answering (reasoning) with public evidence and sound arguments in order to rationalize (i.e. make merely subjective excuses for) their "ideas" or "beliefs".
  • In any objective morality existence is inherently good
    ↪Philosophim
    Your non-reply reply to my
    ↪180 Proof
    (i.e. showing that your previous objection to my counter-argument fails) speaks for itself, sir.
  • The essence of religion
    ↪Tom Storm
    When we say "transcendence", don't we usually mean something metaphysical like 'X transcends, or is beyond, Y' (e.g. ineffable, inexplicable, unconditional, immaterial, disembodied, etc)? This differs from "transcendental" which denotes 'anterior conditions which make X epistemically possible' (Kant, Husserl). I usually can't tell from their posts what most members like @Wayfarer or @Constance intelligibly mean by either of these terms.

    ↪Janus
    :100:
  • In any objective morality existence is inherently good
    ↪Philosophim
    Okay, you can't ...
    1. If "objective moral good" entails objective moral bad
    — 180 Proof
    i.e. show that the latter (bad) is not entailed by the former (good).
    — 180 Proof
    ... so I stand by my counter-argument until someone (or myself) refutes it.

    ↪Janus
    :up: :up:
  • The Idea That Changed Europe
    The landmass may have been called Europe by some guy called Ptolemy, but so what? It is only relevant because we now through our construction of history hold Ptolemy in high regard. — Tobias
    :up: :up:

    @Lionino

    It is through conquest that 'Europe' became a thing. Not by being a 'thing in itself' but an entity developed, adorned and embellished by ...
    :fire:

    Scholasticism to me is not a candidate for any special status. Islamic and Judaic philosophers were more adapt at it, or at least equal.
    :100:

    @Athena (re: pre-Hebrew Bible antiquity of "Genesis" stories ...
    ↪BitconnectCarlos
    :up: )
  • In any objective morality existence is inherently good
    ↪Philosophim
    From my counter-argument: both 1 and 2 (re: OP) together imply 3. If not, refute
    1. If "objective moral good" entails objective moral bad — 180 Proof
    i.e. show that the latter (bad) is not entailed by the former (good).

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/904196
  • The essence of religion
    The human fear of death.
    —180 Proof

    I wonder, what is fear?
    — Constance
    Assuming this is not a merely rhetorical quesrion, maybe this link (below) will help clarify for you what I mean by human fear of ...

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear
  • The Idea That Changed Europe
    ↪Lionino
    Okay, on both counts we disagree.
  • The Idea That Changed Europe
    The landmass was already called Europe since ancient times. — Lionino
    And so what's your point?
  • In any objective morality existence is inherently good
    ... according to the OP, "objective morality" is conditional, not "existence".
    —180 Proof

    Can you quote the part of the OP you're talking about?
    — Philosophim
    Sure ...
    The point I will make below: If there is an objective morality, the most logical fundamental aspect of that morality is that existence is good. — Philosophim
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