:up: :up:I also think that people gravitate towards arguments that support their preferences. These arguments can certainly be debated and explored. I think this is about all we have - a conversation that coalesces around personal experience, preferences and the values and beliefs which result from these. — Tom Storm
and surmised that you believe it's more likely than not that Biden will lose the 2024 election. My mistake.Is it psychologically uncomfortable for you to ponder that soon Trump could be president again? — L'éléphant
IMO, it's merely wishful thinking to believe that the eight year losing trend of 'suppressing minority voters, misogynist anti-choice, The Big Lie propagandizing' Republican candidates will not be reversed merely by Biden dropping out of the presidential race. Like 2020, most likely voters still oppose Insurrection/Criminal Defendent/Rapist-Defamer/Fraudster-1 rather than support President Biden.if one believes the current president might not be president next time, things happen. Simple. He could suddenly keel over, for example — L'éléphant
:love:Naw, he's just a fleshy manifestation of the American Nightmare. — Vera Mont
All true emancipatory politics has to have a universal dimension in it. It doesn't mean you renounce your particularity, but you somehow read your particularity as a sign of what is wrong in our universality itself. — Slavoj Žižek
Well if you really want to be learn for yourself how misinformed you are ...[T]ell me how misinformed I am. — schopenhauer1
:roll: Again, you should know what you're talking about, schop. As I've posted probably hundreds of times on TPF, (if anything more than a freethinker) I'm an Epicurean-Spinozist and haven't been a Nietzsche fanboy since the 1980s. That your statements about N are ignorant, not that they are "maligning", call for a response. I'd do the same if you or anyone spouted uninformed nonsense about e.g. Heidegger or Derrida both of whom I loathe.Look, I know he is a philosophical hero of yours, so me maligning might hit a nerve with you. — schopenhauer1
Btw, the J6 Conspiracy criminal trial in Wash. DC will conclude with a guilty verdict on all 4 felony counts by the end of August 2024 or sooner. I'm guessing (soon to be) Felon-1 will not be the GOP candidate by the Fall (or even by July). — 180 Proof
:sweat: Yes, you're misunderstanding N completely – put down your dog-earred old copy of Nietzsche for Dummies, schop, and carefully read some of N's books (from The Gay Science onward).Perhaps I misunderstand something, but Nietzsche seems at odds with himself. He seems to believe in the "overcoming" of oneself, and the embracing of Suffering in some aesthetic appeal to the Ubermensch who thrives on pain in the idea of manifesting one's own values (power) into the world. — schopenhauer1
Spinoza's conception of substance is derived from – and, in his mind, critically corrects – Aristotle's / Descartes' "idea of substance". For instance, there is necessarily one substance argues Spinoza – thus, acosmisn – rather than many / two substances.Any idea what the "substance" meant in Spinoza? Could it be Aristotelian? Or something else? — Corvus
Simply put, Spinoza's "substance means" 'natura naturans (i.e. reality (which, as he points out, most traditions and his contempories superstitiously called "God")) as distinct from natura naturata (i.e. existents/things)'.I understand Spinoza to be (mostly) an acosmist (for whom the cosmos exists though it is not real, only "divinity" (re: the logico-mathematical structure of the cosmos) is real ...) — 180 Proof
:up: :up:Living through a genocidehappeningbefore our eyes, with 10000+ children dead, and yet apologists think this time it’s an exception.
History will view them poorly — Mikie
C'mon, the ICJ issued a report that's only preliminary and is not a UN policy-making agency.Why didn't the ICJ demand a cease-fire? — RogueAI
It seems to me that just as an eye does not appear within its own visual field, a hand cannot grasp itself, and willing does not will what it wills ... "mind" is necessarily transparent to itself in order to mind – attend to – nonmind (which includes, among all other ideas, also the idea of "mind"); thus, "being a mind" is functionally perspectival.How is it I could be a mind that cannot know what a mind really is? — Fire Ologist
The 18th century romantic poet-philosopher Novalis referred to Spinoza as "a God-intoxicated man" because, when closely read, Spinoza's Ethics expressed a sort of religious nontheism (or rational mysticism) rather than mere "atheism". Like S. Maimon, JG Fichte, GWF Hegel et al, I understand Spinoza to be (mostly) an acosmist (for whom the cosmos exists though it is not real, only divinity (re: the logico-mathematical structure of the cosmos) is real instead.Does it mean then, Spinoza was an atheist? — Corvus
AFAIK, it was more likely Spinoza's irrefutably rationalist critiques of the Torah specifically and sectarian Judaism broadly, not any explicit statement of "atheism", that brought down the cherem upon him.Perhaps would it be the reason why he had been excommunicated from his religious authorities?
If my previous post is not clear enough, then you ought to either read Spinoza's Ethics, part one "Of God" or, at least, read this summaryIn that case, what is Spinoza's definition of God or reason for non-existing God?
Again, Corvus, read the Ethics or this articleHow does he explain the physical world we live in, souls and the meaning of human life?
No. Simply put, Spinoza argues that nature (i.e. infinite & eternal (i.e. completely immanent) substance) excludes the existence of a 'transcendent, supernatural person' (e.g. the God of Abraham, the OOO-deity of theology, etc). Thus for most Spinozists, nature itself counts as strong evidence against all forms of theism (& deism (except maybe pandeism)).Could it be Spinoza? — Corvus
:fire:I am asking to what extent does the existence of 'God', or lack of existence have upon philosophical thinking. — Jack Cummins
That's okay, Last Man ... :smirk:Nothing about eternal return or the ubermensch rings true for me. — schopenhauer1
Nothing we ain't eternally said before.What do you want me to say?
In my case, the 'g/G-question' affects my 'philosophical thinking' as follows: p-naturalism² (i.e. anti-supernaturalism, anti-antirealism, anti-immaterialism) follows from my atheism¹; and then following from p-naturalism² is my existential commitment to moral naturalism³ in the form of aretaic disutilitarianism⁴ (i.e. virtues –'habits – developed daily by anticipating, preventing & reducing suffering (i.e. personal harms, social injustices)).Ideas for and against God, which involve philosophy and theology, are a starting point for thinking about the nature of 'reality' and as a basis for moral thinking. — Jack Cummins
"... is as dead as God." ~T. Ligotti :fire:The idea of nihilism ... — Jack Cummins
:up: :up:If god doesn't exist, then it's business as usual. Philosophical thinking thrives on argument. — jkop
:100:Ethics do not depend upon a transcendent lawgiver but are based on the pragmatic need to live harmoniously with others. — Janus
As an axiom, or first principle, ~G/G is definitive; however, as a conclusion, ~G/G is merely suppositional., I am asking to what extent does the existence of 'God', or lack of existence have upon philosophical thinking. — Jack Cummins
Absolute power in every way.... what does the idea of 'God' signify in itself?
Atheism is compatible with either materialism or idealism as well as with "a belief in spiritual reality".However, in this thread discussion, what I am asking is about materialism as being compatible with atheism, or idealism with a belief in some kind of 'spiritual reality'? — Jack Cummins
Maybe. I don't know. I suspect "ideas and ideals" are (mostly) degrees of "understanding" "existential conundrums".Does the stripping back of ideas, and ideals, especially in terms of the philosophy of realism lead to the most objective understanding of the existential conundrums of human existence?
I don't think any of these disparate "ideas" are attempts to unify, or synthesize, them with each other (or all other "ideas").Where does materialism, idealism or philosophies of non dualism lead in the search to put such ideas together in the most synthetic and meaningful ways?
It seems that theism is consistent with a teleological, or essentialist, conception of life that is, in part, derived from 'divine command theory' which atheism rejects.So, I would ask how does an underlying assumption of theism [or] atheism result in an underlying philosoph[ical] viewpoint for living, including ethics, and a wider understanding of the purpose and ends of human life? — Jack Cummins
IIRC, Camus supposes, however, "this does not mean that nothing is forbidden."I wonder to what extent if God does not exist, if as Dosteovosky asks, whether everything is permitted? — Jack Cummins
Any more "moderate" than Biden would be useless, a complete corporate tool. I'm hoping for (at least) a solid left-liberal like Gov. Newsom or Gov. Witmer if Biden drops out.I still hope for a moderate candidate to arise from the quagmire in which we wallow. — jgill
With all due respect, sir, if you believe Biden in anyway represents "the far left" (i.e. to the left of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Nancy Pelosi, Ralph Nader, et al), then you've not been paying attention for the last half century to Biden's political career.I despise the far left — jgill
So in your mind, woke corporate welfare-statism IS JUST AS BAD FOR YOUR COUNTRY AS autocratic ethnonational populism? Biden the neoliberal EQUALS Trump the neofascist?And I despise both Biden and Trump equally.
:up: :up:I practice harm minimisation in politics. Clearly some options are far worse than others, even if the less worse is still fundamentally flawed. — Tom Storm
Do you equally "despise" what Biden & Trump represent? Are their respective parties (coalitions) equally bad for the majority of communities in the US or equally detrimental to US interests vis-à-vis international relations (e.g. trade agreements, political treaties, strategic alliances)? Do you believe, jgill, the adverse difference between them is one of degree or a difference in kind? :chin:I despise the two candidates. — jgill
:up:
:smirk:If a mind can know neither itself nor its thoughts, how can you call it a mind? — ucarr
"Beware lest a statue slay you." :zip:It has been said that all of today’s philosophy is built on Kant. I would add that all of postmodernist philosophy is built on [deliberately misreading] Nietzsche. — Joshs
There is an infinite amount of hope in the universe ... but not for us. — Franz Kafka
So you blame 'a philosophy' for the fads which misuse and fools who misread it? :roll:Nietzsche goes hand-in-hand with individual self-involvement, and so it resonates with the modern man's sensibilities. — schopenhauer1
I'm more Nietzschean (i.e. 'Dionysian' in approbation of the daily Sisyphusean grind) whereas Schopenhauer relies on music in a decidedly 'Apollonian' sense (i.e. to momentarily quell the (his) raging Will). — 180 Proof