• A first cause is logically necessary
    A first cause 'is'. — Philosophim
    And thus, as I've pointed out already
    ↪180 Proof
    , it's not a "first cause" but is the only cause (e.g.) à la Wheeler's one electron postulate.

    In your case, the universe has no start, but has always existed.
    Not quite. For me, existence itself (i.e. no-thing / vacua (à la atomist void or spinozist substance)), not "the universe" – a random inflationary fluctuation (according to QG), "always exists" (how could it not?)

    There are now no more questions of prior causality to explore.
    This is so because "prior causality" is as incoherent as "prior existence" or "prior randomness" or "prior spacetime" ...

    Thus the start of the causal chain, or the first cause.
    Analogously, the number line itself (i.e. infinity) is not the "first" number. Zero is not the "first" number. Logically, there cannot be a "first" number, Philo. Wherever we happen to "start" counting is not necessarily "first" in the sequence of events.
  • Do we live in a dictatorship of values?
    True values arise from the culture of individual societies, they are relative and must be linked to each other in a globalized world by being translated like languages. — Wolfgang
    Paradoxically, this 'cultural-value relativity' is ancient (i.e. pre-modern, pre-"Enlightenment", pre-capitalist) yet also universalist: cosmopolitanism. A horizontally-integrated (i.e. municipal-centric pluralist > "bottom-up") order contra the prevailing vertically-integrated (i.e. hegemonic / nation-centric globalist > "top-down") order – why throughout "official" history such flourishing milieux have always succumbed to (domestic / foreign) tyrannies of one kind or another and not have prevented or withstood them (and the subsequent "emancipatory" need for the (republican yet imperialist) "Enlightenment" project of "Human Rights" universalism)? And if neither cosmopolitanism nor human rightsism, then what – international communism? anarcho-syndicalism? transnational corporatism? autocratic / theocratic populism? :chin:
  • Existentialism
    ↪Banno
    :up:
  • Existentialism
    ... a perfect definition of existentialism? — Rob J Kennedy
    FWIW, my very very short take on (the ethical dimension) of existentialism ...
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/719420
  • Existentialism
    ↪Banno
    :smirk:
  • A first cause is logically necessary
    My question is: as far as we know everything in our universe is contingent- — Tom Storm
    and also that "our universe" itself – a fact – is contingent
    -but what of potential realities outside of this, outside of our knowledge?
    What of "them"? Whether or not "they" are (or consist in) non-contingencies, such "potential realities" would be both astronomically remote from and fundamentally unrelated to "our universe" (and its, as Witty says, totality of facts.)

    Or before the singularity, etc?
    "Before" (a temporal relation) spacetime does not makes sense ... and accounting for QG (rather than just GR), Hartle-Hawking hypothesizes that the BBT does not require an initial "singularity".

    Do we know enough about reality to know if contingency is a necessary phenomenon?
    I don't think "we know" anything at all about "reality" except that it constrains reasoning and thereby whatever is/can be known. When I wrote
    ... [an] impossible to change or be changed (i.e. necessary), fact — 180 Proof
    I'd assumed facts (only) as constituents of "our universe" and meant for you / someone to posit either a concrete (i.e. known) or a conceivable (i.e. rationally understood) fact that is impossible to change or be changed.
  • Death from a stoic perspective
    Why should I fear death?
    If I am, then death is not.
    If Death is, then I am not.
    Why should I fear that which can only exist when I do not?     — Epicurus
    A free man thinks of death least of all things, and his wisdom is a meditation not of death but of life. — Spinoza
    I.e. memento mori, memento vivere. :death: :flower:
  • A first cause is logically necessary
    My issue with contingency is that we don’t know enough about reality to know if all things are contingent. — Tom Storm
    Well if so, name at least one non-contingent, or impossible to change or be changed (i.e. necessary), fact. :chin:

    A -> B -> C Nothing caused A. A is a first cause[effect] — Philosophim
    With all due respect, Philo, I think you are mistaken: nothing causes A, etc (re: random vacuum fluctuations).
  • Existentialism
    One definition said: "The existentialists argued that our purpose and meaning in life came not from external forces such as God, government or teachers, but instead is entirely determined by ourselves." [ ... ] Baloney. People do what they can to get through the day in one piece. — BC
    :100: :smirk: Like the rest of nature, almost everyone takes paths of least resistance (or effort).
  • Existentialism
    Are you an existentialist? — Rob J Kennedy
    I guess I'm an absurdist (e.g. epicurean-spinozist).
  • How May the Idea of 'Rebellion' Be Considered, Politically and Philosophically?
    ↪Jack Cummins
    It seems your emphasis is on psychosociological conditions, or impacts, of "conformity and rebellion" rather than on their philosophical (e.g. moral, political) significance. My mistake for not getting that from the OP.
  • What the science of morality studies and its relationship to moral philosophy
    ... literary phil seems quite dead outside the existentialist frame. Where are the poetic epics looking at the philosophical implications of quantum foundations or extended evolutionary synthesis!? — Count Timothy von Icarus
    :up: :up: Actually, there are quite a few speculative fiction authors on the margins ...

    (to be continued when i get home)
  • How May the Idea of 'Rebellion' Be Considered, Politically and Philosophically?
    ↪Jack Cummins
    Sorry, but I don't understand your reply to my post. Maybe that's because I wasn't clear enough answering your questions. I don't see your "dichotomy", Jack: we conform to norms of justice (i.e. reducing injustice) to the extent we rebel in solidarity against manifestly unjust situations or systems. Assuming, however, this conception is either incoherent and/or too inpractical, what else could be the basis – enabling-constraint – for political freedom in today's 'post-Enlightenment' world? :chin:
  • What are you listening to right now?
    I laid a
    divorcee
    in New York City
    ...
    She blew my nose and
    then she blew my mind


    "Country Honk" (3:10)
    Let It Bleed, 1969
    writers Jagger-Richard
    performers The Rolling Stones
  • TPF Quote Cabinet
    I was drowned,
    I was washed up and left for dead
    I fell down
    to my feet and saw they bled, yeah yeah
    I frowned
    at the crumbs of a crust of bread
    Yeah, yeah, yeah
    I was crowned
    with a spike right through my head     — Mick & Keef
  • How May the Idea of 'Rebellion' Be Considered, Politically and Philosophically?
    Do you object to and reject the system? Or just your status within that system? — 0 thru 9
    Insofar as "the system" determines my "status within that system" (i.e. caste) that's detrimental to me and my community, the answer is I opppse both.

    I wonder to what extent is rebellion a choice or an affliction? — Jack Cummins
    Substitute flourishing (or freedom) for "rebellion"...

    So, I am asking how do you see the idea of rebellion in relation to philosophical and political choices in life?
    I think opposition to unjust policies and laws is a moral imperative. The alternative is immoral because it allows for – permits by neglect – injustice and thereby conforms to unjust situations.

    Also, I am asking to what extent do you see yourself as a rebel? — Jack Cummins
    To the extent I am the precariate who are systemically discriminated against and exploited, in solidarity I lucidly revolt, as Camus says, wherever and whenever I can.

    Or do you value conformity and sticking to rules?
    I reject "conformity" to any "rules" which unjustly discriminate against and/or violently exploit – immiserate – individuals and communities.

    How do you see this dichotomy between conformity and rebellion in your own value system and approach to life?
    My moral "approach to life" is, in part, that of a negative consequentialist and so I tend to conform to norms, or systems, to the extent they enact harm-injustice reduction and rebel against those norms, or systems, which (by policy or happenstance) fail to reduce harm-injustice.


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_consequentialism
  • What the science of morality studies and its relationship to moral philosophy
    I was just rereading Boethius' "The Consolation of Philosophy," and I've decided it might be the pound for pound greatest moral work of all time. — Count Timothy von Icarus
    Spinoza's Ethics is a bit shorter and IMO much more than "therapy". An even shorter, Platonist work The Sovereignty of Good by Iris Murdoch ranks highly with me as does the very succinct, Naturalist work by one of Murdoch's oldest friends Philippa Foot: Natural Goodness. I think those three are also among the greatest works of moral philosophy "pound for pound" (along with a handful of other works written (or inspired) by Epicurus, Epictetus, Kǒngzǐ, Buddha ... )
  • What the science of morality studies and its relationship to moral philosophy
    @Mark S
    Indirect reciprocity? [ ... ] if I have spare resources, it should go towards helping another life live well. This is not cooperation. This is sacrifice. Altruism. You don't get to twist everything into, "But you see, if we twist the word around its really indirect cooperation." Be better than that. — Philosophim
    :smirk: :up:
  • What the science of morality studies and its relationship to moral philosophy
    I'm not feeling like you're engaging with questioning, but dogmatically harping that your theory is right because 'science'.

    As such, I'm quickly losing interest. I'm not trying to convince you [@Mark S] of anything, I'm letting you know the glaring weaknesses of your claim ...     — Philosophim
    :100: Yes, scientism (or pseudo-science) is, at best, bad philosophy (i.e. sophistry).

    ↪Tom Storm
    :up:
  • What the science of morality studies and its relationship to moral philosophy
    ↪Tom Storm
    Given the factcity of disvalues (i.e. whatever is bad for – harmful to – natural beings)^^, it is a performative contradiction not to reduce disvalues; rationally, therefore, disvalues ought to be reduced whenever possible without increasing them. And, insofar as exercising this ought reinforces habits (i.e. virtues, customs (mores), commons capabilities (agencies)) for reducing disvalues, this ought, at minimum, is moral.

    Makes sense or not? :chin:

    ^^see lower half of the post
  • What the science of morality studies and its relationship to moral philosophy
    ↪AmadeusD
    :yawn:
  • What the science of morality studies and its relationship to moral philosophy
    Just to outright answer your question, you're asking me to prove a negative here. — AmadeusD
    You're mistaken again. I've not asked for "proof" of anything including for you to "prove a negative". Apparently, Amadeus, you don't have an answer for
    re: moral (i.e. obligates natural beings to care for one another) 

    In ethics, "moral" means something else?     — 180 Proof
    so your claim that my usage of moral is "an arbitrary assertion" is, at best, unwarranted.

    Emotivist [ ... ] squarely in emotivist territory. You are letting me know your emotional stance on the fact that ...
    Okay this strawman is obtuse. To wit:
    My stated moral position is not "emotivist". :roll:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotivism     — 180 Proof

    Since you spend the rest of your post quarreling with your (misunderstood) "emotivism" strawman instead, and rather than waste my time, I'll leave you to it accepting that you incorrigibly find my (briefly sketched) moral naturslism (aretaic disutilitarianism) unconvincing. I've argued for my moral position on this thread only as a critical objection to the OP's "morality as cooperation" scientism and not as a fully systemized argument (which is why I'd acknowledged several influential moral philosophers at the close of this post). Anyway, enjoy shadoxboxing with strawmen. :yawn:
  • How Different Are Theism and Atheism as a Starting Point for Philosophy and Ethics?
    But if you are a Christian, say, which bits of the Bible do you obey? — Tom Storm
    IME, for most members of amy congregation are engaged in groupthink and conform to sectarian traditions reinforced repeated ad nauseam sermons of their priests, preachers, imams, rabbis and, of course, apologists. I think the Gospels, Tanakh, Qur'an, Bhagavad Gita, etc have very little to do with how theists practice or which political policies they support (e.g. US religious right, Indian Hindu nationalists, Israeli militant zionists, Saudi wahhabists, etc). 'Sacred scriptures' are far more revered than read by most congregations which are then uncritically susceptible to the permissible interpretations of their clergy (& theologians). I suspect most secularists are not as tribal (or morally lazy) as most sectarians.
  • How Different Are Theism and Atheism as a Starting Point for Philosophy and Ethics?
    But the problem remains, what version of the good does theism exactly identify? — Tom Storm
    It's no "problem" for theists: "the good = God" and f*ck the Euthyphro! After all, the habit of believing long precedes – even trumps – thinking. The prevalence the gambler's fallacy and placebo effect are clearly related. :pray: :eyes:

    How does a theist decide this?
    S/He doeen't "decide", s/he conforms (even obeys) instead. The tried and true path of least mental effort, no? :sparkle:
  • A first cause is logically necessary
    ↪Gnomon
    wtf :clap: :rofl:

    "In the beginning there was no beginning" (i.e. there is no north of the North Pole just as there is no edge of a sphere or first point on a circumference).
  • How Different Are Theism and Atheism as a Starting Point for Philosophy and Ethics?
    "I do not know how to teach philosophy without becoming a disturber of established religion." ~Spinoza

    The problem with religious based morality is its notion of the good and its ongoing support of immoral ideas like misogyny, homophobia, slavery, genocide. — Tom Storm
    :100:

    The religious (dogmatic) mindset's categorical imperative, so to speak, is: 'sacred ends, without exception, justify every profane means' (i.e. theodicy excuses evil "for the greater/ultimate good" (e.g. Abraham "willingly sacrificing" Isaac; "redemption" of Jesus' cruxifiction; "72 virgins" for martyrdom; "political" Zionism / Jihadism; etc)). No doubt, faith is believing in the unbelievable in order to defend (and thereby commit) the indefensible. :brow:

    Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities. — Voltaire
  • What the science of morality studies and its relationship to moral philosophy
    ↪AmadeusD
    "Arbitrary?" In ethics, "moral" means something else? My parenthetical stipulation, which you've underlined, expresses empathy (absent some pathological condition) as an empirical assumption about – psychological fact of – humans (i.e. natural beings with sufficient, or unimpaired, agency). Explain why you think "moral (i.e. obligates natural beings to care for one another)" is "arbitrary" rather coherent within the context of those four statements (as well as the rest of that post).

    your emotivist crux
    My stated moral position is not "emotivist". :roll:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotivism
  • What the science of morality studies and its relationship to moral philosophy
    ↪AmadeusD
    Do tell – "not compelling ... various reasons"? (I can use all the help I can get. :smirk:)
  • What the science of morality studies and its relationship to moral philosophy
    And is it hte case that you apply that similar boundedness to Morality, but perhaps with different parameters? — AmadeusD
    Yes.

    Here's a recent post from another thread that might make clearer and more precise what I mean by moral naturalism ...
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/857773
  • What the science of morality studies and its relationship to moral philosophy
    ↪AmadeusD
    I'm not a "dentist" either and you're completely mistaken about moral naturalism as I've used the term in this thread. "Morality" is certainly not "innate" or "furniture of the world" any more than ecology or medicine are, and yet the latter are, at minimum, bound (i.e. enabled-constrained) by the laws of nature.
  • Why Do We Dream? What is the Significance of Dreams for Understanding 'Mind' and Consciousness?
    ↪Jack Cummins
    Empirical research, rather than philosophical reflection, is much more informative here – consider:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_study
  • What the science of morality studies and its relationship to moral philosophy
    In anycase, I understand moral naturalism to entail that it is empirically discoverable, as an aspect of the universe. — AmadeusD
    What "it" are you referring to?
  • What the science of morality studies and its relationship to moral philosophy
    ↪AmadeusD
    You're mistaken. I have not claimed or implied "morality is innate to the universe".
  • On ghosts and spirits
    ↪Tom Storm
    My brother and I were raised in the same observant Catholic family and educated for a dozen years in the same Catholic schools but he remains a life-long, devout supernaturalist and, openly since 15, I've been a freethinking naturalist (the family's "village atheist"). Mostly my brother is a brilliant man and so I'm convinced his religiosity is rooted in some deep emotional need, as it is for many other people, which I (like you, Tom) apparently lack.
  • What the science of morality studies and its relationship to moral philosophy
    ↪AmadeusD
    "Neither is Morality" what?

    Are you claiming that science cannot study what motivates/facilitates ethical judgment or moral conduct? — Mark S
    No. Why do you ask?

    Do you see anything illogical about science studying our moral sense and cultural moral norms that motivate/facilitate moral behaviors within a culture?
    No. The sciences I'd mentioned in my previous post, more or less, do just that.
  • On ghosts and spirits
    ↪wonderer1
    :smirk: :up:
  • Gender is mutable, sex is immutable, we need words that separate these concepts
    ↪Philosophim
    :up:

    ↪Jack Cummins
    If so, then tell me what you think of this argument ...
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/336888
  • Why Do We Dream? What is the Significance of Dreams for Understanding 'Mind' and Consciousness?
    My understanding is that non-pathological "dreams", like base emotions such as desires & fears, are offline (subconscious-involuntary) cognitions which 'are enabled or constrained by' as well as 'can enable or constrain' online (conscious-voluntary) cognitions such as thoughts, ideas, narratives & experiences. In other words, I think "we dream" because we are 'occasionally self-aware, thinking meat' and that our pre-cognitive, pre-verbal, 'vestigial bodies' repress/express themselves by defragging – deconstructing – our memories.

    Also, "dreaming" might be how idle minds play with themselves when they are not minding what their bodies are actively, voluntarily doing. Most mammalian species have been observed 'running in their sleep' and all have been observed 'playing' when awake, so it's reasonable, I think, to surmise from this indirect evidence that "dreaming" is a basic biological function of neurologically complex, sentient species.
  • On ghosts and spirits
    To a physicalist — AmadeusD
    And to a Spinozist ...
  • On ghosts and spirits
    One aspect of the idea of ghosts and spirits would be the idea of disembodied 'minds'. — Jack Cummins
    Yes, and that's nonsense which is why "ghosts and spirts" are merely (affective) ideas but not (non-mental) entities.
Home » 180 Proof