• 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:
  • Death from a stoic perspective
    ... memento vivere. — 180 Proof
    Slaves live. But what does it mean to live? — baker
    To begin with, 'living' consists in finding out for oneself 'what it means to freely live one's life'. "Slaves" merely survive (i.e. function); as a rule they do not thrive (i.e. do not flourish).
  • Deep Songs
    Fuck the G-ride –
    I want the machines that're makin' 'em!
    ...
    Just a quiet, peaceful dance
    For the things we'll never have
    Just a quiet, peaceful dance
    For the things we don't have
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/889372 :fire:
  • What are you listening to right now?

    "Dance to the Music" (3:00)
    A-side single, 1967
    writer Sly Stone
    performers Sly and the Family Stone


    "Gin and Juice" (3:31)
    A-side single, 1994
    writer Calvin Broadus
    performer Snoop Doggy Dogg


    "Down Rodeo" (5:20)
    Evil Empire, 1996
    writers Rocha, Morello, Commerford & Wilk
    performers Rage Against the Machine

    Möbius twist ...
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/889377
  • Boethius and the Experience Machine
    Nozick's "Experience Machine"– — Count Timothy von Icarus
    – I think would render "virtue and The Good" moot for the person trapped inside. The thought-experiment seems more analogous to a fentanyl-induced, permenantly vegetative coma than "Plato's Cave".
  • If there was an omniscient and omnibenevolent person on earth what do you think would happen?
    ↪Benj96
    Elaborate on what you mean by "omniscient" and "omnibenevolent" and how we would recognize any being possessed such properties or capabilities.
  • Is there a need to have a unified language in philosophy?
    By unification I mean the unification of meaning of core concepts. — Abhiram
    Explain what "unification of meaning" means and what you mean by "philosophy" that needs a "unified language" now in order to do what it has done for c2,500 years without an Esperanto-like "unified language".
  • A first cause is logically necessary
    We're looking at a metaphysical binary structure for existence, and thus everything conceivable is metaphysically constrained to a fundamental binary. Can we liberate ourselves from this constraint? [ ... ] the existence binary  — ucarr
    I don't know what you are talking about (re: the underlined above).

    ↪ucarr Please explain how 'existence does not exist' without self-contradiction. — 180 Proof
    :chin:
  • Is there a need to have a unified language in philosophy?
    Is there a need to have a unified language in philosophy? — Abhiram
    What does "unified language" mean? Also, describe the function(s), or purpose(s), of "philosophy" as you see it in order to more clearly contextualize your question.
  • A first cause is logically necessary
    ↪ucarr
    Please explain how 'existence does not exist' without self-contradiction. Otherwise, necessary (eternal) existence.
  • A first cause is logically necessary
    If the earliest plan[ck] diameter is uncaused, or true randomness, then it fits the definition of 'first cause' — Philosophim
    This is the crux of our disagreement. I understand 'randomness' to mean uncaused, acausal, without cause; you are denying this, claiming the opposite – that randomness itself (as if its an entity rather than a property) is a "first cause". This difference is more than a semantic dispute, sir. One of us is spouting jabberwocky ... :roll:
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    As of 1Feb24[18Mar24[] the "great business man" will be, in effect, cash poor whining squatting & shitting his old man diapers on a pile of fire-sale depreciating assets & compounding civil lawsuit debts ... — 180 Proof
    Yeah, Putin's Bitch f*cked around and is finding out! :lol:

    https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/18/politics/trump-464-million-dollar-bond/index.html

    F*cking pathetic, gaslighting brokester!

    "I'm really rich." :rofl:
  • A first cause is logically necessary
    ↪ucarr
    I don't see how what you've written here is related to what I've written previously in response to Philosophim. I can't grok what you're saying, ucarr, possibly becauae of the way you're saying it.
  • A first cause is logically necessary
    "What caused this universe to exist?" is always, "Nothing". It is "0". — Philosophim
    "Nothing / O" = beginning-less =/= first (anything). As for "the universe", QG describes it as (in my words) a random inflationary quantum fluctuation, perhaps one out of infintely many; you commit a compositional fallacy, Philo, arguing from the causal structure intrinsic, or dynamics internal, to "the universe" to the conclusion that "the universe" is the effect of a "first cause" that is extrinsic, or external, to it when, in fact, our best science (QG) describes "the universe's" earliest planck diameter as a random event – a-causal. The "BB" didn't happen c13.81 billion years ago – the limit of contemporary cosmological measurements – but is, in fact, still happening ("banging") in the manifest form of the ongoing development – expansion – of the Hubble volume (i.e. observable region of spacetime). Again, neither logic nor physics agrees with your conclusion. Your argument only works, Philo, with pre-modern, non-scientific premises but today is, at best, not sound.
  • Death from a stoic perspective
    ↪Corvus
    Spinoza thinks least of death in the context of contemplating life. Thus: memento mori, memento vivere. Nothing in the quote cited recommends that a free man (or free woman) neglects or denies 'facts of life' such as death which we can neither change nor ultimately avoid.
Home » 180 Proof