• Nietzsche is the Only Important Philosopher
    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
    :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).
  • How Different Are Theism and Atheism as a Starting Point for Philosophy and Ethics?
    Any idea what the "substance" meant in Spinoza? Could it be Aristotelian? Or something else? — Corvus
    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.
    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
    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)'.

    Again, read Spinoza's Ethics or the SEP article:

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/#GodNatu

    *

    Anyway, back to the OP's topic (as I understand it) which is the foreground of this thread discussion:

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/875902
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    :mask: 30Jan24 predictions:

    • US courts will deny that a president or former president has "absolutely immunity" from criminal prosecution.

    • By March/April, SCOTUS will uphold the "states' rights" to individually decide whether or not to disqualify Insurrectionist/Criminal-Defendent/Rapist-Defamer/Fraudster-1 from appearing on the 2024 federal election ballot pursuant to the 14th Amendment, Sec. 3 (Insurrection Clause) of the US Consitution.

    • By 31Jan24, the Trump Org will be effectively dissolved in NY State by order of Justice Engoron and no less than $300 million USD (re: "ill-gotten gains") will be disgorged as well as Fraudster-1 (maybe Beavis & Butthead too) will be barred for life from the real estate industry in NY State. NB: Liquidations to commence soon in order to put up a $300 million or more cash bond that's required by law to Appeal the civil judgment – Loser-1 clearly isn't that liquid (thanks, Ms. Carroll! :clap: :kiss: :flower: Loser-1 also has to put up a total of $88.3 million in order to Appeal both her judgements too) – otherwise, without that combined half-billion in cash (USD), the collection agencies for NYS will slap enforceable liens on all defendents' personal & real properties asap and savage TF out of them like piranha. :wink: :party:

    • As of 1Feb24 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 ... So suddenly the upcoming GOP primary races are going to look pretty shaky even to the RNC, GOP senators & even a larger share of GOP-MAGA voters who might just stay home allowing Nikki Haley to be competitive in SC, etc.

    • 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).
  • The Eye Seeking the I
    ↪Joshs
    :up: :up:
  • What are you listening to right now?
    Shred Zeppelin :cool:


    "When the Levee Breaks" & "For What It's Worth (Stop, Hey What's That Sound)" (8:56)
    Live @ The R'n'R HoF 1995
    writers M. Minnie '29 & LedZep, 1971
    writers Stephen Stills, 1966
    performers LedZep, ft Neil Young (headbangin' like a grand mal and DGAF – grunge on, Old Man!) & R. Plant on guitar :lol:
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Living through a genocide happening before our eyes, with 10000+ children dead, and yet apologists think this time it’s an exception.

    History will view them poorly     — Mikie
    :up: :up:

    Why didn't the ICJ demand a cease-fire? — RogueAI
    C'mon, the ICJ issued a report that's only preliminary and is not a UN policy-making agency.
  • The Eye Seeking the I
    How is it I could be a mind that cannot know what a mind really is? — Fire Ologist
    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 Different Are Theism and Atheism as a Starting Point for Philosophy and Ethics?
    Does it mean then, Spinoza was an atheist? — Corvus
    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.

    Perhaps would it be the reason why he had been excommunicated from his religious authorities?
    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.

    In that case, what is Spinoza's definition of God or reason for non-existing God?
    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 summary

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/#GodNatu

    How does he explain the physical world we live in, souls and the meaning of human life?
    Again, Corvus, read the Ethics or this article

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/
  • How Different Are Theism and Atheism as a Starting Point for Philosophy and Ethics?
    Could it be Spinoza? — Corvus
    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)).
  • How Different Are Theism and Atheism as a Starting Point for Philosophy and Ethics?
    I am asking to what extent does the existence of 'God', or lack of existence have upon philosophical thinking. — Jack Cummins
    :fire:

    Deus, sive natura (i.e. reality is impersonal à la "Brahman" or "Dao")

    ergo

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/875902

    ergo

    Non fui, fui, non sum, non curo     (i.e. personality is ephemeral à la "anicca, anatta" or "wu wei")

    :death: :flower:
  • Nietzsche is the Only Important Philosopher
    Nothing about eternal return or the ubermensch rings true for me. — schopenhauer1
    That's okay, Last Man ... :smirk:

    From an old thread Schopenhauer on suffering and the vanity of existence...
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/529871

    What do you want me to say?
    Nothing we ain't eternally said before.
  • How Different Are Theism and Atheism as a Starting Point for Philosophy and Ethics?
    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
    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)).

    addendum to:
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/875881
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    ↪jgill
    :up:
  • How May the Idea and Nature of 'Despair' be Understood Philosophically?
    ↪Jack Cummins
    I hope things work out better for you soon and more so as the new year unfolds, Jack. I've struggled with health problems and financial losses much more and persistently since 2020 than I ever have in my adult life. Despair and I are old dance partners often switching-up who leads whom. Humbled by this ordeal, my meditation on 'courage' up-thread is not an empty boast of false bravado or posturing machismo. I'm still breathing because of 'courage' as a first principle (e.g. Sisyphusean spite ...) and apparently, in your own way, Jack, you are as well.

    The idea of nihilism ... — Jack Cummins
    "... is as dead as God." ~T. Ligotti :fire:

    IME, contemplating – lucidiry of – the absurd is preferable to – healthier than – "nihilism".
  • How Different Are Theism and Atheism as a Starting Point for Philosophy and Ethics?
    If god doesn't exist, then it's business as usual. Philosophical thinking thrives on argument. — jkop
    :up: :up:

    Ethics do not depend upon a transcendent lawgiver but are based on the pragmatic need to live harmoniously with others. — Janus
    :100:

    , I am asking to what extent does the existence of 'God', or lack of existence have upon philosophical thinking. — Jack Cummins
    As an axiom, or first principle, ~G/G is definitive; however, as a conclusion, ~G/G is merely suppositional.

    ... what does the idea of 'God' signify in itself?
    Absolute power in every way.

    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
    Atheism is compatible with either materialism or idealism as well as with "a belief in spiritual reality".

    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?
    Maybe. I don't know. I suspect "ideas and ideals" are (mostly) degrees of "understanding" "existential conundrums".

    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?
    I don't think any of these disparate "ideas" are attempts to unify, or synthesize, them with each other (or all other "ideas").

    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
    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.

    I wonder to what extent if God does not exist, if as Dosteovosky asks, whether everything is permitted? — Jack Cummins
    IIRC, Camus supposes, however, "this does not mean that nothing is forbidden."

    *

    Posts from an old thread of yours Jack "What Does It Mean, Philosophically, to Argue God Does or Does Not Exist?"

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/734883

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/734817

    Another post from your older thread "Are science and religion compatible, or oppositional philosophical approaches?"

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/541625
  • How Different Are Theism and Atheism as a Starting Point for Philosophy and Ethics?
    ↪wonderer1
    :sweat:
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    I still hope for a moderate candidate to arise from the quagmire in which we wallow. — jgill
    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.

    ↪Tom Storm
    ... aka "FOX Noise Pollution" :mask:
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    I despise the far left — 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.

    And I despise both Biden and Trump equally.
    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?

    (I guess, jgill, it's reasonable to assume, based on your reply, that in sum your answers to my previous post are: yes, yes, & difference in degree.)

    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
    :up: :up:
  • How Different Are Theism and Atheism as a Starting Point for Philosophy and Ethics?
    ↪wonderer1
    :smirk: :up:
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    I despise the two candidates. — jgill
    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:
  • Absential Materialism
    So, there is no category of apriori facts?
    — @Wayfarer

    "A priori facts" as far as I can tell are generalizations derived from experience. They cannot be discovered in the first place without concrete experience     — Janus
    :up:

    (i.e. ideality is merely abstracted from materiality)

    If a mind can know neither itself nor its thoughts, how can you call it a mind? — ucarr
    :smirk:
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    The ICJ's preliminary report:

    https://www.dw.com/en/un-court-ruling-on-gaza-hard-to-ignore-for-israels-allies/a-68099139

    ↪Benkei
    :up:

    also this:

    I've never been a fan of the NYTimes' (elite opinion) columnist Thomas Friedman, but can any of TPF's resident Israel/Netanyahu regime apologists @Rogue AI @schopenhauer1 @tim wood @BitconnectCarlos ... explain where Friedman's 'analysis' goes wrong? :chin:

  • What would Aristotle say to Plato if Plato told him he's in the cave?
    Get out of my light. — Tom Storm
    :cool:

    ↪NotAristotle
    :smirk:
  • Nietzsche is the Only Important Philosopher
    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
    "Beware lest a statue slay you." :zip:
  • Nietzsche is the Only Important Philosopher
    ↪schopenhauer1
    So decadent you go on resenting 'this abject life' which you apparently lack the courage to quit ... you're welcome to your fashionably shallow caricature of N.
  • How May the Idea and Nature of 'Despair' be Understood Philosophically?
    There is an infinite amount of hope in the universe ... but not for us. — Franz Kafka

    From on old thread "Questions of Hope, Love and Peace" ...

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/759520

    and from an even older @Jack Cummins thread ...

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/511013
  • Nietzsche is the Only Important Philosopher
    Nietzsche goes hand-in-hand with individual self-involvement, and so it resonates with the modern man's sensibilities. — schopenhauer1
    So you blame 'a philosophy' for the fads which misuse and fools who misread it? :roll:

    'My Nietzsche' is primarily a cultural diagnotician-poet rather than a romantic individualist-decadent. Consider this old post, schop:

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/684298

    Lastly,
    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
  • Absential Materialism
    [deleted]
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    Well, as US Senator Tim Scott's proud and dignified "twin", I'm praying to the Light Fifty for a "Second Amendment solution" with extreme prejudice to this MAGA Cult problem no later than the Fourth of July 2024. :pray:
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    And Canada might build a border wall. :) — jorndoe
    :up:
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    ↪AmadeusD
    As things stand today, I can't imagine Loser-1 pulling a Grover Cleveland (1892) this fall. Of course, 9½ months is like many lifetimes in US electoral politics and so much could happen, no matter how improbably, to snatch Biden's & the Dems' defeat from the jaws of victory; in that case however, well, the banana republicanization of the US would be complete (spasibo, Vlad :shade:) and then I'd whole-heartedly support the secession of N. California, Oregon & Washington in order to form the independent Republic of Pacifica (btw, I'm a resident of Washington state) – or just resign myself and my community to riding out the obligatory, likely catastrophic, attempt to restore regular 'constitutional' order by military coup, etc. :mask:
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    ↪jgill
    IMO, all things being equal as of the 24th day of the year, Biden doesn't need to "start a war" to get reelected against a party that has lost every popular vote (i.e. general, midterm, off-year & special elections) since 2016 and against a (prospective) nominee whose support has shrunk since 2020 because he has done – continues to do – nothing to expand his support. The MAGA-GOP is a shrinking dead cult walking (à la Jim Jones) off of an electoral cliff. Just my $0.02. :mask:
  • Lost in transition – from our minds to an external world…
    ↪Vera Mont
    :100:

    That's how I see it: indivisible. But then, I'm a simple-minded biped, not a philosopher. — Vera Mont
    :smirk:
  • How May the Idea and Nature of 'Despair' be Understood Philosophically?
    ↪Jack Cummins
    Despair? If
    What is hell? I maintain that it is the suffering of being unable to love. — Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov
    then this must be despair.

    addendum to ...
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/874452
  • TPF Quote Cabinet
    Courage. That is the enabling virtue. All the other virtues are empty without courage. — Cornel West
  • The Blind Spot of Science and the Neglect of Lived Experience
    ↪Manuel
    :up: :up:
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    ↪Pantagruel
    Reddit & X(Twitter) are calling you, dude.
  • Absential Materialism
    ... you claimed that mind is matter. — Corvus
    I did not "claim" this. :roll:

    So you can't answer my questions
    ↪180 Proof
    .

    Okay, I'll move on to someone who has some idea of what s/he is talking about.
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    I'm not here to [think] challenge your beliefs. — Pantagruel
    'Challenging beliefs' is what a site dedicated to philosophy terms dialectic. "Your true colors" are quite evident: mere dogma (of an unthinking pedant). I welcome all challenges to my ideas (in order to learn) which you are obviously too insecure (or vapid) to handle. Maybe you'd feel less threatened, Pantagruel, on sites like Reddit or X (Twitter). :sparkle:
  • Absential Materialism
    ↪Corvus
    Mind is a process or activity like respiration or digestion and not a static thing. Mind-ing is what sufficiently complex brains (which are material-physical systems) do. To ask "where is mind?" is nonsensical like asking "where is breathing?" or "where is walking?"

    But you have not answered my questions, Corvus.
    Mind is immaterial substance.
    — Corvus

    How do you/we know this? How does the "immaterial" interact with materiality, as "mind" apparently does, without violating material-physical laws of conversation?     — 180 Proof
    I'll wait ... :chin:
Home » 180 Proof