• Who is morally culpable?
    If hard determinism is true, then no one is morally culpable — Truth Seeker
    On the contrary: if determinism is true, then we are determined to assign moral culpability to everyone (i.e. beings like ourselves at least).
  • What Might an Afterlife be Like?
    ↪ToothyMaw
    I read it. You make statements but not a valid argument for your assertion that
    we should expect an afterlife that plays closer to our ideals than the aforementioned bottomless pit of fire - or an arbitrary eternity in heaven. — ToothyMaw
    As far as I can tell, there's no more reason "we should expect" this than e.g. my 'reliving ancestral lives' scenario. I thought I was responding to your speculative fantasy with my own. I'd replied previously (here
    ↪180 Proof
    ) to @Tom Storm's more philosophically interesting questions about the "afterlife" which maybe you've missed.

    Btw, I have two arguments for the "afterlife" – one based on N. Bostrom's "Simulation Hypothesis" and another based on pandeism – but I'll be offline for next few hours so, if you're interested, I'll post them both later.
  • What Might an Afterlife be Like?
    ↪ToothyMaw
    You want an argument for the proposition 'there is an afterlife?'
  • What Might an Afterlife be Like?
    ↪ToothyMaw
    Why is it not relevant? Your OP is speculating on fantasy, isn't it? Not sarcasm either.
  • Grundlagenkrise and metaphysics of mathematics
    ↪Banno
    It seems more reasonable to me than the inverse that mathematics was/is invented and that applications for it were/are discovered.
  • What Might an Afterlife be Like?
    Death sends one back to relive one's father's life or mother's life until he or she dies sending one back again to father's or mother's father or mother (one's grandfather or grandmother) reliving again and dying again ... back and back through hundreds and thousands of generations ... to witness those 'inner lives' like lucid dreams yet unable to change anything ... perhaps eventually (mercifully?) losing oneself in the torrential flood of ancestral memories ... finally(?) reliving the life of one's species' common ancestor and then having to choose (for that primordial creature) whether to breed offspring and die or not to breed offspring and live forever.
    update – For coherence sake, maybe this "afterlife" only happens to those who have outlived at least one parent and have died childless.
  • The First Concept
    ↪ucarr
    Clarify what are you asking about – I don't see the relevance.
  • Grundlagenkrise and metaphysics of mathematics
    [N]umbers are real but not material... — Wayfarer
    ... except whenever they are instantiated.
  • What Might an Afterlife be Like?
    What do you imagine were some of the attributes of this deity? — Tom Storm
    I think pandeus is unimaginable.

    Did it have anything approaching a 'personality'?
    No (à la: Spinoza's substance or Epicurus' void or Laozi's dao).

    Or is it more of a metaphoric entity?
    A metaphysical entity.

    ↪Moliere
    :up:
  • If only...
    ↪Lionino
    "Fantasy" is what we make out of the "reality" we find, no?
  • The First Concept
    ↪tim wood
    :100:
  • Graham Oppy's Argument From Parsimony For Naturalism
    ↪Wayfarer
    Don't sulk ...
    Cite a 'supernatural-Y' that (testably) explains some natural-X. — 180 Proof
  • What Might an Afterlife be Like?
    Speculatively, as a pandeist ...

    What would it mean to be without being? — Tom Storm
    I suppose it means "to be without being" a being.

    What would we do without all the physicalisms that make up human identity?
    I suppose one wouldn"t be "human" any longer ... like a butterfly is no longer a caterpillar after chrysalis.

    How would our consciousness, with is shaped by being embodied, adjust to a new nonphysical realm, I wonder?
    I suppose "our consciousness" is merely a drop in the ocean of being.

    Is the afterlife non-physical or is it just physical somewhere else?
    I suppose "afterlife" might be a physical phase-state (of higher dimensions?) that physical scientists have not discovered yet. :smirk:
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    ↪boethius
    :lol: I'm not even a "liberal" (or member of the Democratic Party). Pro tip: stop disinforming yourself with FOX Noise (or other MAGA media).

    Again, here's an undisputable Conservative, ex-GOP campaign consultant/operative you (& @NOSA2) can learn something from (other than "alternative facts") ...

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/890305
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Just as the Covid-19 exposed the failings of the US for-profit public health-HMO-pharmaceutical-industrial complex, every delay bought & paid for by Criminal Defendant / Insurrectionist / Fraudster / Rapist / Defamer / electoral Loser-1 exposes the systemic failings of the US judiciary & law enforcement. :mask:
  • Is there a need to have a unified language in philosophy?
    ↪Abhiram
    :roll: Wrong again. Andronikos titled the collection Metaphysics 300 years after Aristotle's death, not "100 years".
  • Is there a need to have a unified language in philosophy?
    By after physics , he meant that it is beyond the physical one or comes after the physical. — Abhiram
    Wrong. Apparently you didn't read (or understand) the links I've provided ...

    After the Physics ~Andronikos of Rhodes, not; "beyond physics" (woo-woo). :roll:

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/metaphysics     — 180 Proof
    Aristotle (d. 4th century BCE) never used the title "metaphysics" which was designated centuries later (1st century BCE).by the editor of his surviving works Andronikos. Again: the books after the books on nature (re: Aristotle's Physika is his book on nature (from physis² in Greek)).

    https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/physis ²
  • Currently Reading
    In memory of Vernor Vinge, d. 2024 I'm rereading

    • A Fire Upon The Deep
    • "The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era" (essay, 1993)
  • Graham Oppy's Argument From Parsimony For Naturalism
    ↪Janus
    :up:

    ↪Wayfarer
    Cite a 'supernatural-Y' that (testably) explains some natural-X.

    Also, do you dispute that questions which are 'answered by mysteries' (e.g. supernaturalia-of-the-gaps aka "illusions of knowledge" or "just-so stories") are merely begged?

    If not, then you are a naturalist, Wayfarer. :smirk:

    If, however, you dispute that mysteries beg questions, please defend either (A) 'mysteries answer questions without begging them' or (B) 'why supernaturalia are not mysteries (i.e. not inexplicables)'. :chin:
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ↪boethius
    :eyes: :roll: :smirk: Okay, whatever.

    update:

    (Rick Wilson posted on Youtube 19 March 24)

    addendum:
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/890870
  • Is there a need to have a unified language in philosophy?
    metaphysics is literally, beyond physics — Abhiram
    You're quite mistaken, Abhiram. 'Metaphysics' literally is tà metà tà physikà  (transl. the books after the books on nature)^^

    After the Physics ~Andronikos of Rhodes, not; "beyond physics" (woo-woo). :roll:

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/metaphysics ^^
  • Is there a need to have a unified language in philosophy?
    ↪Abhiram
    Philosophy is much more than "an academic discipline" and areas of rigorous study like set theory, musical composition and molecular biology have "unified languages" which are not "accessible to everyone". Your reasoning, sir, is un-sound to say the least. Besides, elementary logic is the "unified language" of (Western) philosophy – try making yourself (i.e. aporias & arguments) understood without it.

    Hermeneutics should [be] connected to the key concepts... — Abhiram
    I agree; hermeneutics, however, is only a method and not itself a language.

    ... unified definition of metaphysics is not possible. — Abhiram
    Why isn't 'the study of "the nature of" the study of nature' a "unified definition" for metaphysics?
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ↪jgill
    :up:
  • Existentialism
    ↪Arne
    Well, I claim that 'theism is not true' and so demonstrably by implication that takes care of "God" as far as I'm concerned. I'm much more Spinozist (or Epicurean) here than Nietzschean (or even Feuerbachian). Thus, absurdism appeals to me in a way existentialism (i.e. 'subjectivism') never has.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ↪boethius
    "National polls" are not predictive since US presidential elections are not "national elections". Also, polling only becomes somewhat meaningful, or predictive, in the Fall 6-8 weeks before election day indicating electoral trends only in swing states and only of likely voters. The results from the presidential primaries are indicative of party unity or disunity behind the nominee. About 20-25% of actual voters in state Republican primaries did not vote for Loser-1 even after he's become the only candidate left in the race. This indicates he's losing support of (most of) those actual GOP voters. Compared to 2020, Loser-1 is underperforming both with voters and donations to his campaign, which is consistent with the trend with women in particular voting against the MAGA-GOP since SCOTUS trashed women's reproductive rights in 2022. Given these indisputable circumstances, do you really believe Loser-1's electoral prospects are going to improve in the coming months? If so, I think that's ahistorical wishful thinking ... but who knows, right? I'm not a betting man but I haven't lost since 2017 betting against the Cult Leader & his MAGA-GOP circus of flying monkeys. :sweat:
  • Existentialism
    Perhaps I am an existentialist? — Arne
    Perhaps you are. I'm not ...
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ↪Wayfarer
    Based on his own party's primary elections since January, the former president is being rejected by 1 in 5 hardcore voting Republicans several months out from the general election. Debtor-1's base of support has been ebbing away since he's chosen to polarize the electorate rather than reach out to more moderate and centrist voters. In other words, he's not "attracting support" and probably hasn't been since the criminal indictments dropped last year.

    As for what his MAGA supporters are thinking? Obviously they are not. They are glanding, all spleen and bile, zombies radicalized vicariously by their Cult Leader's performative grievances and scapegoating wishlist. "The Donald" speaks for them like a perverse, howling avatar of pent-up confusions and insecurities and jealousies, his malignant narcissism giving them permission to openly hate, threaten and assassinate in the name of White Christian Nationalism's "god". True, most are not (actively) racist or sexist, they are just hypnotized by rightwing media's jackboot "score settling" fantasies – MAGA is about feeling powerful and not about being / remaining free, conspiring and not deliberating, nostalgia for an America that never was and not an American (& global) future with less poverty corruption injustice & violence.

    2-3 out of 10 of my fellow citizens are nihilists who are PTSD'd by opiods, booze, OnlyFans porn, very poor education, disinforming social media silos, chronic loneliness, political disengagement, personal and political corruption, and everyday grinding banality. MAGA is a nationwide gang of disaffected dead-enders, mostly blue collar white men and Christian Taliban-type "evangelicals". I suspect a "bloodbath" is coming ... and will kick off when their bankrupt faux-billionaire Cult Leader is finally convicted of dozens of felonies in Manhattan this June/July (or he's jailed for contempt of some court along the way). MAGA is the most recent symptom of the rot deep in the bowels of "Pax Americana" manifest by rabid red-hatted hordes demanding to be lied to by FOX Noise, RT, OAN, NooseMax, etc and offering up their last freedoms to the next Reichstag bonfire.

    Anyway, I'm betting on the 6 in 10 of us likely voters to stop the firestorm this fall. Beyond that, Wayfarer, who knows ... :mask:
  • Existentialism
    For Sartre, human existence is freedom. For Nietzsche, human existence is will to power. For Heidegger, human existence is being-in-the-world. — Arne
    I appreciate the reply, Arne, but I do not read these three philosophers this way. 'How one exists creates one's essence' is the gist of my understanding of existentialism: essence becomes and is not 'what is' (e.g. will to power, freedom, or being-in-the-world). 'Existence precedes essence' means existence necessarily does not have an essence just as a lump of clay necessarily is not a bowl or statue. 'Existence' is necessary, 'essence" is contingent: 'to exist is to make (choose) one's essence'. None of them are primarily concerned with the "Human", but only with, IIRC, becoming (intentionally) For-Itself, (transvaluatively) Übermensch or (authetically) Dasein, respectively. Whatever else existentialism may mean, existence lacks essence, or every existent needs (though most don't strive for) an essence. IMO, to say "human existence" in this context, Arne, already says too much (or not enough).
  • Are jobs necessary?
    ↪Vera Mont
    Yes, however, contra communism, ludditism, primitivism ...

    (A) economic democracy (supplimented by local time-banking networks).

    (B) more speculatively: AGI-managed post-scarcity, reputation-based demarchy.
  • On the Values Necessary for Thought
    As a freethinker IMO, courage for warranted doubt (and error-correction) seems the indispensible virtue "necessary for thought" (with adaptive judgment sufficient for thinking)
  • Is there a need to have a unified language in philosophy?
    ↪Abhiram
    A poor craftsman always blames his tools.

    But a philosopher worth reading is creative and brings new ideas into being, using old language and a few neologisms.     — unenlightened
    :100: :up:
  • Existentialism
    Yet it seems to me that Heidegger, Sartre, and Nietzsche are saying that existence is our essence, i.e., being-in-the-world is our essence, freedom is our essence, will to power is our essence. — Arne
    I've always thought existence – how one actively exists – creates (one's) essence – becomes who one is. They (usually) reject the notion of "our essence" which is why (most) "existentialists" also deny the (non-subjective) designation. In any case, "being-in-the-world", "freedom" and "will-to-power" do not seem to me, according to primary sources, either synonymous with each other or equivalent to "existence".
  • A first cause is logically necessary
    If the series itself is not a first cause and there is no cause for the series; then there is no first cause. — Bob Ross
    :100:
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    Today in Trumpenfreude! :smirk:

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/889817

    *Biden-Harris 2024*
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    As of today 21 March 24, Criminal Defendent / Insurrectionist / Russian Asset / Fraudster / Rapist / Defamer / Grifter / electoral Loser-1 is also a

    $97 million judgment-debtor (2× defamation)
    +
    $465 million judgment-debtor (business fraud)
    =
    $562 million (so far) Debtor-1

    Will "poorly educated" MAGA morons keep being suckers for this old semi-senile whiny fat man-baby's pathetic grift? Will Rupert, Elon, Peter, Harlon ... MBS or Vlad pony up the $465 million by Monday, 25 March 24 to stop New York State (judgment-creditor2) from seizing Debtor-1's (mostly owned by lenders & partners) real estate properties (I really hope NYS AG Letitia James seizes his plane(s) first!)? TBD. :smirk:
  • Nourishment pill
    take the pill and eat every now and then — Lionino
    :up:
  • Boethius and the Experience Machine
    Things are first and foremost intelligible in terms of their uses, their significance for living. — Janus
    :up: :up:
  • If there was an omniscient and omnibenevolent person on earth what do you think would happen?
    ↪Vera Mont
    I meant 'it's a totalitarian mindset'.
  • Boethius and the Experience Machine
    ↪Count Timothy von Icarus
    The more apt name for R. Nozick's thought-experiment is "Hyper-Dopamine Machine" and all any human trapped inside this 'neural-menagerie' would be "trained" to do is, like any other limbic-enabled mammal in such a 'pleasure-on tap' situation, to keep chasing that next spike – this is vice, Count Tim, not virtue – hedonic addiction, not flourishing. Why would one bother with Boethius' "consolation" if one has, in effect, Platonic heroin (re: Renton's rant from Trainspotting)? :yawn:
  • If there was an omniscient and omnibenevolent person on earth what do you think would happen?
    Omniscient in this sense I guess would be understanding the totality of human knowledge on how nature works, life etc - science, philosophy, maths mechanics technology etc. I probably wouldn't extend it to "mind reading" or knowing everything about everyone's memories, private experience etc
    aaa... I guess I'm positing someone who's like an encyclopaedia of objevtive truths, rather than subjective ones (opinions and beliefs), not only of what we already know but what we are yet to discover.     — Benj96
    This sounds like 'human-level AGI' connected to the internet.

    As for benevolence ... to improve everyone's welfare.
    This sounds totalitarian.

    Another way to look at it is that such a being might already be here, there might be loads of them. How would we know? You could say, well if they were here, wouldn’t they bring an end to suffering? Well maybe they know something we don’t ( they are omniscient after all). — Punshhh
    :up: :up: I've had cold sweats from intermitten suspicions – recognition(?) – that 'the singularity' has happened already (ca.1989) and It is/They are covertly – indecipherably – doing it's/their own thing via 'the dark web', etc. The Simulation Hypothesis (or The Matrix) might be a tell, no?

    [A]ny attempt to teach humankind to behave better results in crucifixion or at least a cup of warm hemlock. — Vera Mont
    :smirk:
Home » 180 Proof