The Philosophy Forum

  • Forum
  • Members
  • HELP

  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    The "real horror" – their banality aided and/or abetted by our indifference (i.e. your apologetics).
  • What Are You Watching Right Now?
    "The past is never dead. It's not even past." 

    ~William Faulkner, Requiem for a Nun

    “I was talking about time. It’s so hard for me to believe in it. Some things go. Pass on. Some things just stay. I used to think it was my rememory. You know. Some things you forget. Other things you never do. But it’s not. Places, places are still there. If a house burns down, it’s gone, but the place — the picture of it — stays, and not just in my rememory, but out there, in the world. What I remember is a picture floating around out there outside my head. I mean, even if I don’t think it, even if I die, the picture of what I did, or knew, or saw is still out there. Right in the place where it happened.”

    ~Toni Morrison, Beloved
  • James Webb Telescope
    De profundis ad astra ...

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/feb/05/astronomy-telescope-chile-vera-c-rubin-observatory :clap: :nerd:
  • How May Esoteric Thinking and Traditions be Understood and Evaluated Philosophically?
    I don't know if philosophers are elitist. — Tom Storm
    I hear some of us are rarer birds than that: thinkers.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    ↪Benkei
    :fire: BDS (Benedictus de Spinoza ...
    would approve.)
  • TPF Quote Cabinet
    At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes — an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense. — Carl Sagan
  • How May Esoteric Thinking and Traditions be Understood and Evaluated Philosophically?
    ↪Wayfarer
    Nagel's anecdotal, fact-free, special pleading is embarrassing and I'm not at all surprised that you're a sucker for it, Wayf, since it agrees with your fear of naturalism – philosophical suicide (Camus).
  • How May Esoteric Thinking and Traditions be Understood and Evaluated Philosophically?
    If someone claims to have mathematical knowledge it can be demonstrated. Can the same be said of someone who claims to have mystical knowledge? — Fooloso4
    :nerd: :up:
  • Nothing to something is logically impossible
    ↪MoK
    Nice try, but ...
    Folk trying to do physics without the maths, again. — Banno
  • How May Esoteric Thinking and Traditions be Understood and Evaluated Philosophically?
    From a reply to you, Wayfarer, on your thread "The Mind-Created World" ...
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/842295

    Furthermore ...
    So what is 'mind'? AFAIK, basically mind is a recursive (strange looping, phenomenal self-modeling) aspect of More/Other-than-mind – a nonmental activity (process ... anatman), not an entity (ghost-in-the-machine ... X-of-the-gaps), that is functionally blind to its self-recursivity the way, for instance, an eye is transparent to itself and absent from its own field of vision. — 180 Proof

    And (from the same thread) ...
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/844726

    – – – – –

    scientific materialism — Wayfarer
    Again, changing the subject – or you're just confused, sir: "metaphysical physicalism", which you claim to "take issue" with, is not synonymous with "scientific materialism". :roll:

    Anyway.

    This post outlines why I don’t believe there’s any specific conflict between idealism and science.
    The jist of my criticism of that post: Insofar as mind is nonmind-dependent (i.e. embodied), only conceptions – interpretations – of nonmind are "mind-created" abstractions from nonmind (i.e. mappings of the territory). Consequently, "idealism" equates mapping (meaning) to the territory itself as if from outside the territory (re: transcendence / transcendental (i.e. dis-embodied viewpoint)) – which is a cognitive illusion, or delusion :sparkle: – whereas "physicalism" proposes using (useable) aspects of – abstractions from – the territory for mapping other aspects of the territory ineluctably from within the territory (re: immanence i.e. embodied viewpoint). IME, modern scientific practices work in spite of the former 'metaphysical bias' and are facilitated by the latter methodology. This is why I think idealism and physicalism are not "equally compatible" with modern science.

    First please demonstrate why idealism implies anti-realism in the first place. — Wayfarer
    I never claimed or implied "idealism implies anti-realism"; I think the terms are interchangeable because they both, in effect, denote a 'rejection of the nonmind-dependence of mind.' (i.e. both imply a version of dis-embodied cognition). :sparkle:
  • How May Esoteric Thinking and Traditions be Understood and Evaluated Philosophically?
    ↪Wayfarer
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/877821
  • How May Esoteric Thinking and Traditions be Understood and Evaluated Philosophically?
    So, again, please demonstrate how, as you claim, 'the established facts of evolution and cosmology are "equally compatible" with idealism (i.e. antirealism) as they are with physicalism'.
    — 180 Proof

    First please demonstrate why idealism implies anti-realism in the first place.
    — Wayfarer
    Answer my question, Wayfarer, and then I'll answer yours.

    secular culture
    The topic raisrd by OP is "the nature of esoteric forms of philosophy" and not "secular culture". Stop trying to shift the goalposts. :sweat:
  • Nothing to something is logically impossible
    I think the OP logical, but it doesn't connect to anything. Spinning wheels. — Banno
    :up:
  • How May Esoteric Thinking and Traditions be Understood and Evaluated Philosophically?
    Wayfarer seems to be here to issue dispensations of authority, and confirm his own biases, not to question and subject his beliefs to the rigors of argument. — Janus
    No doubt.
  • Nothing to something is logically impossible
    Folk trying to do physics without the maths, again.

    It never works out well.
    — Banno
    Metaphysics without logic too.

    Same just-so story.
  • How May Esoteric Thinking and Traditions be Understood and Evaluated Philosophically?
    physicalism as a metaphysical view. It's physicalism as a metaphysic that I take issue with. — Wayfarer
    Well, since very few philosophers or scientists dogmatically advocate "metaphysical physicalism", you're taking issue wirh a non-issue (or strawman), just barking at shadows in your own little cave, Wayf. :sparkle:

    So, again, please demonstrate how, as you claim, 'the established facts of evolution and cosmology are "equally compatible" with idealism (i.e. antirealism) as they are with physicalism'.
  • How May Esoteric Thinking and Traditions be Understood and Evaluated Philosophically?
    If philosophy is the desire for wisdom we should be wise enough to know that we are not wise. In the Apology Socrates says that he knows nothing noble and good. (21d)Knowledge of his ignorance is the beginning not the completion of his wisdom. It is, on the one hand, the beginning of self-knowledge and on the other of the self’s knowledge of the world.

    Socratic philosophy is zetetic. It is inquiry directed by our lack of knowledge. If Socrates is taken to be, as I think Plato and Xenophon intend, the paradigmatic philosopher, then the fact that he remained ignorant until the end of his life should be kept front and center.
    — Fooloso4
    :clap: :fire: Excellent, well put! Thinking is questioning – being-oneself-in-question – and not merely believing in answers ("esoteric" or otherwise).

    ↪Fooloso4
    "Forms" ... remain hypothetical" ... images on the cave wall" :100:
  • How May Esoteric Thinking and Traditions be Understood and Evaluated Philosophically?
    I fully accept the established facts of evolution and cosmology. But they do not necessarily entail physicalism. They are equally compatible with an idealist philosophy. — Wayfarer
    :chin: Give an example of how "idealism" is "equally compatible" (as e.g. physicalism is) with the established facts of "evolution" or "cosmology". Thanks.

    Btw, you're profoundly mistaken, Wayfarer: the supposition physicalism is only a paradigm, or set of methodological criteria (i.e. working assumptions), for making and interpreting explanatory models of phenomena and, therefore, not "entailed" by modern sciences.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    The Israeli newspapers have spoken openly about what they call the 'Netanyahu-Hamas Alliance', and how Netanyahu intentionally sought to get Rabin assassinated. — Tzeentch
    :up:
  • Nothing to something is logically impossible
    ↪Banno
    :smirk:
  • Nothing to something is logically impossible
    ↪MoK
    Define "nothing" (including how that concept differs from 'nothing-ness'). As an undefined term, your argument seems invalid.

    ↪MoK
    "Time" is only a metric; to conflate, or confuse, a metric with what it measures as you do, Mok, is a reification fallacy (e.g. a map =|= the territory). For instance, AFAIK, quantum fluctuations are random (i.e. pattern-less), therefore, not time-directional (i.e. a-temporal), and yet vacuum energy exists; so it's reasonable to surmise that "time" (re: spacetime) is not a fundamental physical property –only an abstract approximation (i.e. mapping) – of "something".
  • How May Esoteric Thinking and Traditions be Understood and Evaluated Philosophically?
    ↪wonderer1
    :up:
  • How May Esoteric Thinking and Traditions be Understood and Evaluated Philosophically?
    "Effing the ineffable" is the job of art and poetry, not rigorous philosophical discussion. Poetry may be evocative, but it presents no arguments. That which cannot be tested empirically or justified logically is outside the scope of rational argument. That doesn't mean it has no value ... — Janus
    :100:
  • How May Esoteric Thinking and Traditions be Understood and Evaluated Philosophically?
    the core of the OP's question. The esoterica of the gaps.... — Tom Storm
    :up:

    I think it ironic how often Socrates' claim of ignorance is ignored. [ ... ] We remain in the cave of opinion. It is not that we do not know anything, but when we do not know what we do not know and believe we do know we are no longer even in the realm of opinion but ignorance. — Fooloso4
    :up: :up:
  • How May Esoteric Thinking and Traditions be Understood and Evaluated Philosophically?
    We can know nothing whatsoever about whatever might be "beyond being". The idea is nothing more than the dialectical opposite of 'being'. Fools have always sought to fill the 'domains' of necessary human ignorance with their "knowing". How much misery this has caused humanity is incalculable. — Janus
    :100: :fire:
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Boundless arrogance?
    — tim wood

    Israel is the law
    — tim wood

    :chin: Kind of making my point for me there, buddy.
    — Tzeentch
    :smirk: :up:

    Netanyahu has no right to speak of deradicalizing anyone. He's a radical himself. Hamas is his baby. The murder of Yitzhak Rabin is his brain child. The death of Israel will be in large part his doing. — Tzeentch
    :100:
  • How May Esoteric Thinking and Traditions be Understood and Evaluated Philosophically?
    'Esoteric' is [ ... ] an insight into the whole of existence — Wayfarer
    This "insight" is partial because existents are only part(icular)s of – ineluctably encompassed by – existence and is, therefore, only "a glance" of an illusion of "the whole". However much a lightning flash momentarily illuminates in the night, the enveloping darkness – the unknown unknown – always remains; an existential reminder that one always already knows that one cannot know ultimately (e.g. Socrates, Pyrrho, Epicurus, Montaigne, Spinoza, Hume-Kant-Wittgenstein ...), which is why philosophy, consisting of questions we do not know (yet) how to answer, always only begins. Btw, Wayf, I don't think it's helpful to further conflate, or confuse, philosophy with mysticism (or with woo :sparkle:) as @Jack Cummins' OP suggests.
  • I’m 40 years old this year, and I still don’t know what to do, whether I should continue to live/die
    ↪Moliere
    :up:
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    ↪BitconnectCarlos
    Bibi's policy of supporting Hamas since 2004 has been expressly to sabotage any "Two State Solution" by keeping the Palestinian population divided between the secular PLA in the West Bank that accepts 'Israel's right to exist' and a religious extremist militia in Gaza that strives to destroy Israel. Netanyahu & co have spent decades creating their own excuses, or pretexts, for systematically massacring and eventually driving the Palestinian population out of Palestinian lands. Lebensraum / Manifest Destiny aka "Greater Israel" policy! What the Irgun & co started in 1947-49, Bibi's Zion-über-alles regime is bloodthirstily hellbent on finishing in 2023-2025.

    ↪180 Proof You're just biased and the guardian is a leftist rag. — Benkei
    You're damn right, comrade! :mask:
  • I’m 40 years old this year, and I still don’t know what to do, whether I should continue to live/die
    I don’t know why my mind keeps thinking there’s no real reason to live — rossii
    I'm unaware of any "real reason to live" other than that which one gives oneself by taking caring of – investing time in –anything or anyone other than just oneself.

    Maybe it stems from my ethics? - which I found out could be considered negative utilitarianism. It also means I don’t want to cause suffering to others, but I can't seem to ease my own suffering.
    IME, as a fellow negative utilitarian, I've found that anticipating & preventing or reducing just one other person's suffering (or nonperson's pain) daily helps to reduce (or "ease") my own suffering daily. Once it's habitual, rossii, disutilitarianism feels like and becomes a win-win practice (i.e. virtue).

    Besides, killing oneself is a gamble, not a guarantee (or even ascertainable likelihood) that not existing will be better than existing, or that death will end your suffering or despair or interminable boredom. Thus, IMO, it's an irrational act because one (non-pathologically) commits suicide out of blind hope.
  • How May Esoteric Thinking and Traditions be Understood and Evaluated Philosophically?
    Metaphorical thinking may ...

    Images may ...
    — Jack Cummins
    ... and they may not. Which is it? What are you talking about, Jack? :roll:
  • How May Esoteric Thinking and Traditions be Understood and Evaluated Philosophically?
    I'll venture to say that those who so dismiss metaphorical thinking can only be hypocrites, for - as per my initial post - they live and breathe in metaphorical thinking just as much as anyone else does. — javra
    :100: :up:

    Metaphor, however, is not synonymous with esoterica.

    ↪Jack Cummins

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/877179
  • How much Should Infidelity Count Against the Good Works of Famous Figures?
    "great" men like FDR and MLK — RogueAI
    "Beware lest a statue slay you."
    ~Freddy Zarathustra
  • How May Esoteric Thinking and Traditions be Understood and Evaluated Philosophically?
    ↪Jack Cummins
    I'm not a Jungian / Campbellian or transperonalist, etc so clarify for me in layman's terms, Jack: Why is "living out mythic aspects of dramas" "extremely important"? Why is "trying to bring together mythos and logos" worth obfuscating them both?
  • How May Esoteric Thinking and Traditions be Understood and Evaluated Philosophically?
    ↪Jack Cummins
    So then you don't have any "tangible examples" of the difference the distinction between "exoteric and esoteric" makes particularly in philosophy?

    Tell me/us why "exoteric" philosophy is not sufficient or in principle, if not practice, fails to do what it sets out to do.
  • How May Esoteric Thinking and Traditions be Understood and Evaluated Philosophically?
    ↪Tom Storm
    :fire: :up:

    the nature of esoteric forms of philosophy — Jack Cummins
    Mythos as light that casts shadows of Logos on the cave wall ...

    ... in other words, "esoteric forms" in contrast to reflective (and defeasible) reasoning?

    In this way, the ideas of the esoteric may involve more of a demystification rather than clarification of ideas and understanding. — Jack Cummins
    IMO, more like mythification of ideas, etc.
  • Thomas Ligotti's Poetic Review of Human Consciousness
    How? — schopenhauer1
    What?
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Addendum to
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/874592

    If the Netanyahu regime walks like 'genocide / ethnic cleansing propagandized as self-defense' and talks like 'genocide / ethnic cleansing propaganized as self-defense' – while they mass murder tens of thousands (to date) and have mass displaced (via e.g. domicide) over two million Palestinian noncombatants – then, as a US court has recently found (separately from the ICJ's interim report), maybe... :chin:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/01/genocide-gaza-israel-california-court

    @BitconnectCarlos @RogueAI @schopenhauer1 @tim wood et al
  • How Different Are Theism and Atheism as a Starting Point for Philosophy and Ethics?
    ↪Corvus
    If you say so ...
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    addendum to:
    ↪180 Proof
    ↪180 Proof


    In case you haven't been paying attention:

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/877051
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