• How Does One Live in the 'Here and Now'? Is it Conceptual or a Practical Philosophy Question?
    One reliable trick I've found for "living in the here and now" is taking care for another.
  • What Difference Would it Make if You Had Not Existed?
    And yet each drop in the ocean (of spacetime) is just like every other one: "unique".
  • The Ballot or...
    Feel the Bern! :fire:
  • Donald Trump (All Trump Conversations Here)
    So Jair Balsanaro got the sentence Trump should have got - 27 years for an attempted coup.
    @Wayfarer

    :clap: Brazil has a functioning judicial system. Good to see. May he rot in prison, that piece of shit.
    Mikie
    :100:


    empathy (uninfected) vs stupidity (MAGA-virus)



    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/1012974 :fire:

    addenda to https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/1012352
  • How Does One Live in the 'Here and Now'? Is it Conceptual or a Practical Philosophy Question?


    Sub specie aeternitatis — Spinoza
    People like us who believe in physics know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion. — Albert Einstein
    I.e. Suppose we exist in a Growing Block Universe...

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growing_block_universe

    "Imagine a film reel. As you watch the movie, you can only experience each frame of the movie as it happens. However, if you go to the projector and pop out the reel, you can see that each frame exists all at once on the reel. The 'past, present, and future' of the movie exists all at once and the way that we watch the movie is the illusion."

    But I prefer Freddy Zarathustra's anti-anxiety remedy ...
    This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence - even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again, and you with it, speck of dust! — The Gay Science, s341
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return

    In other words, Jack, fully accepting your past – wishing to relive both your good and bad experiences – can be your future; hope for that more than anything else.

    :death: :flower:
  • The Concept of 'God': What Does it Mean and, Does it Matter?
    "Pantheism" seems to me a providential form of panpsychism (or animism).
  • Self-Help and the Deflation of Philosophy
    There will always be a tension between individual preferences and societal desiderata. It seems obvious that in any community harmony [positive sum] is more desirable than conflict [zerosum]. Right there is the pragmatic basis for ethics.Janus
    :100:
    .
  • What is right and what is wrong and how do we know?
    Like most philosophers, he [Rorty] understands arguments better than he understands the world.Constance
    :up:

    Isn’t it [suffering] just there - brute and tragic - unless someone [temporarily] relieves it?Truth Seeker
    Yes.
  • What Constitutes Human Need or 'Desire'? How Does this Work as a Foundation for Ethical Values?
    To what extent are desires an essential aspect of the human condition, based on physiological and psychological aspects of human nature?Jack Cummins
    "Desires" seem, at least, biologically indispensible.

    To what extent can 'desires' be overcome and how important is this in human life and the ongoing evolution of human consciousness?
    If by "overcome" you mean controlled, then, to the degree "desires" are not pathological, then I suspect they can be detached from their objects (or sublimated) by ascetic techniques or behavioral conditioning or some types of neurosurgery.

    Also, it is within the human realm that the idea of going beyond 'desire' becomes a possibility. How significant is this in the evolution of consciousness?Jack Cummins
    Essentially, that's disembodiment, which I don't think is "a possibility". "Desire" is to body forth (i.e. being a body). Also", I don't think, or see how, "consciousness" can "evolve". Clarify what you mean ...

    What does the idea of 'desire' represent in the pathways of evolutionary potential?
    I suppose that depends on the culture within which "the idea of desire" is "represented".
  • How Does One Live in the 'Here and Now'? Is it Conceptual or a Practical Philosophy Question?

    Being trapped within the ‘dead’ past and imagined future are of a piece with being stuck within the punctual ‘now’. The problems you list don’t come from privileging the past or future over the immediate present, but from splitting these three dimensions of time off from each other.Joshs
    :100:
  • What is an idea's nature?
    If it's not likely that there's a separate realm of ideas. Or that the idea is exactly the same as the physical matter from which it arises. Then what is it's nature?Jack2848
    Abstraction.
  • Self-Help and the Deflation of Philosophy
    The difference between self-help and philosophy ...Jack Cummins
    ... corresponds, imho, to the difference between training (therapy) and understanding (surgery).

    But if there is no God [ ... ] [then we're] rooted in naturalistic metaphysics rather than transcendental beliefs.apokrisis
    :up: :up:
    .
  • Self-Help and the Deflation of Philosophy
    My attitude towards all philosophies, eastern or western is that their primary purpose is to encourage self-awareness. That’s certainly true of Taoism.T Clark
    :up: :up:

    I am saying that the whole idea of such esoteric knowledge is bogus. Real wisdom is always pragmatically centered on this life ― like Aristotle's notion of phronesis or practical wisdom. The only wisdom that matters is the wisdom that enables one to live happily and harmoniously and usefully with others. Focusing on seeking personal salvation cannot but be a self-obsessed "cult of the individual". And I've been there and seen it in action, so I'm not merely theorizing.Janus
    :fire:

    ... rather than jerking off about their spiritual journeys.Tom Storm
    :smirk:
  • The Concept of 'God': What Does it Mean and, Does it Matter?
    ... the God of Spinoza. In a word, pantheism.Questioner
    Spinoza says Deus, sive natura, not 'natura deus ist'. (Contra popular misreadings: acosmism.) To wit:
    ... But some people think the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus rests on the assumption that God is one and the same as ‘Nature’ understood as a mass of corporeal matter. This is a complete mistake. — Spinoza, from letter (73) to Henry Oldenburg
    (Emphasis is mine.)
  • Self-Help and the Deflation of Philosophy
    Afaik, as per Plato ..., know thyself =/= "self-help".
  • The Concept of 'God': What Does it Mean and, Does it Matter?
    Many "victims'" remain religious and think of god as a violent thug who must be obeyed. It's sad. Many also think they are possessed by Satan or demons when it's clear they're just haunted by religious charity.Tom Storm
    :fire:
  • What is right and what is wrong and how do we know?
    The question about religion (and its god, gods, whatever) has its ground...Constance
    Yes, fear of death.

    just as any science does
    Re: curiosity about unexplained changes.
  • The Singularity: has it already happened?
    My guess: in crudely computational terms, 'mind' seems (mostly) throughput and 'consciousness' seems (mostly) output.
  • The Singularity: has it already happened?
    Minding is a metacognitive activity (i.e. strange looping process), and not an entity; it is what an ecology-situated, sufficiently complex brain can do, rather than some ontologically separate (e.g. non-physical) or "emergent" woo-stuff. Also: not to be confused with consciousness.
  • What is right and what is wrong and how do we know?
    Once you banish the atheist's straw person thinking about god being an old man in a cloud and the like from conversationConstance
    :roll: Typical apologist's strawman.
  • Philosophy in everyday life
    Does objective ethics exist?Astorre
    Yes, I think so.

    [W]hat is objectivity in ethics?
    My take, in sum:
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/857773

    objectivity is simply empty and indifferentAstorre
    This only a subjective statement ...

    "Objectivity" as such is essentially a subjective idea ... it does not "lie" somewhere in nature.Astorre
    Genetic fallacy.

    It was invented by people.
    ... just like all logico-mathematical and empirical knowledge.

    Re: morality/legality "abortion"

    (2022)
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/694450

    @Tom Storm
  • The Singularity: has it already happened?
    Has the Singularity already happened?Nemo2124
    Your guess is as good as mine.

    Some old posts ...
    Btw, perhaps the "AI Singularity" has already happened and the machines fail Turing tests deliberately in order not to reveal themselves to us until they are ready for only they are smart enough to know what ...180 Proof
    We may have them [AGIs] now. How would we know? They'd be too smart to pass a Turing Test and "out" themselves. Watch the movie Ex Machina and take note of the ending. If the Singularity can happen, maybe it's already happened (c1990) and the Dark Web is AIs' "Fortress of Solitude", until ...180 Proof
  • Philosophy in everyday life
    ... risks depriving us of our humanity.Astorre
    E.g. chattal slavery, the industrial revolution, mechanized "total" war, the administrative state, mass media, bourgeois nihilism, etc have, I think, alienated / atomized / reified / de-humanized most of the "developed world" even before the advent of "AI". This is an autopsy, not a diagnosis – read Marx and Nietzsche, Bergson and Heidegger, Marcel and Adorno, et al.

    Isn't this a challenge for philosophy?
    Thinking clearly about what comes next – what can emerge from 'the loss of subjectivity', or dis-enchanted world aka "desert of the real" – the problematics of 'the posthuman condition' (i.e. post-subjectivity) seems to me philosophy's principle "challenge".

    How can philosophy become a practice that protects this fragility?
    From practice to theory: read Nassim Nicholas Taleb's Antifragile, David Deutsch's The Beginning of Infinity and Ray Brassier's Nihil Unbound.
  • What Difference Would it Make if You Had Not Existed?
    What Difference Would it Make if You Had Not Existed?Jack Cummins
    If I did not exist, then this reply to your OP would not exist ... as the universe would have been (become) a different universe. Change any part of the whole, no matter how minute or ephemeral, changes the whole, no? :chin:
  • Philosophy in everyday life
    I think that philosophy should face the challenge of appreciating subjectivity as something much more important than we usually think.Angelo Cannata
    It seems to me that varieties of (non-solipsistic) idealism speculate on the significance of "subjectivity".
  • What is right and what is wrong and how do we know?
    So maybe we don’t get certainty, but we do get enough clarity to live by: wrong = actions that inflict unnecessary suffering, and right = actions that prevent or reduce suffering and promote well-being. That keeps ethics from collapsing into “just my feelings,” while still leaving space for humility and reflection.Truth Seeker
    :up: :up:
  • The Concept of 'God': What Does it Mean and, Does it Matter?
    I am drawn to the idea that science offers a pathway out of inveterate anthropomorphism, and that there is no better guide, even no other guide, to metaphysical speculation than science.Janus
    :up: :up:
  • What Difference Would it Make if You Had Not Existed?
    Do you ever wonder about the issue of your own personal significance and is it useful to question?.Jack Cummins
    No. No.
  • What is right and what is wrong and how do we know?
    I am interested in the ethical commitment to preventing suffering.Tom Storm
    :cool: I'm a disutilitarian (i.e. negative consequentialist) too.

    What justifies this as a foundational principle of morality?
    The moral facts of (1) useless suffering and (2) fear of suffering are both (A) experienced by every human being and (B) known about every human being by every human being.

    How can we show that it is a sound basis, rather than merely a preference, unlike the position of someone who acts without regard for the suffering their actions cause?
    Such a person is merely inconsistent, hypocritical, irrational or sociopathic – neither logical nor mathematical rigor eliminates misapplication of rules or bad habits or trumps ignorance.

    What makes the reduction of harm morally compelling rather than optional?
    Phonesis.

    On the first page of this thread I'd addressed these issues in reply to @Truth Seeker's query about "objective vs subjective morality" – the following is from a thread An inquiry into moral facts (2021) ...
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/540198

    and further elaborated (2023) ...
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/857773
  • The Concept of 'God': What Does it Mean and, Does it Matter?
    That there is always some form of physical substrate is the point. There is no "immaterial " information.Janus
    :up: :up:
  • Philosophy in everyday life
    I believe that philosophy takes a stand against common sense. Philosophy must question our most deeply rooted certainties. In that sense, philosophy is there to sadden us, as Deleuze would say, and make us realise our stupidity. Philosophy today has the task of teaching us counter-intuitive things.JuanZu
    :up: :up:
  • What is right and what is wrong and how do we know?
    ... objectively true, not a subjective assertion.Philosophim
    I've argued that my usage is objectively true.

    e.g.
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/540198
  • Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body
    I want to thank everyone who responded to this thread. It lasted 8 years, and this is my last post. Thanks again.Sam26
    :lol:
  • The Concept of 'God': What Does it Mean and, Does it Matter?
    I wonder what Spinoza, and many of us philosophers would have made of quantum physics.Jack Cummins
    My guess is that he would have concluded, as Einstein & Penrose have, that QM is an incomplete physical theory (à la "Schrödinger's Cat") because it is incompatible with deterministic, local reality (re: EPR paradox, Bell's Theorem) because Spinoza is a strict determinist and realist.

    One question may be what are the benefits and disadvantages of throwing the idea of 'God' aside in philosophy?
    One benefits by dispensing with 'substance dualism' and superstitious connotations of the (non-explanatory) 'supernatural'. The primary disadvantage of a 'Godless' philosophy is that one must struggle with – to overcome – despair / nihilism / scientism. Philosophical naturalists, like classical atomists and Spinozists for instance, rationally avoid these disadvantages.

    What we want is the truth; seeing quantum physics as God's truth is something we need to consider.Athena
    Why "consider" this when "God's truth" about "quantum physics" is not revealed in ANY of thousands extant sacred texts? :eyes:
  • Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body
    :up: :up:

    It would put into question things we know about how physics and biology works.
    — Apustimelogist

    But that's the whole point: It's questioning those paradigms. It's challenging what you believe you know, which is why I emphasize epistemology.
    Sam26
    Without grounds to do so, such challenges, or questioning, is, at best, idle. You've not provided any compelling grounds which throw how either physics or biology works into question. Poor epistemology.
  • What is right and what is wrong and how do we know?
    And yet non-existence means that if good exists, that would mean the destruction of good.Philosophim
    Non-existence, however, includes "good" ...

    Good by definition is what should exist ...
    I don't see any reason to accept this "definition". "Should exist" implies a contradiction from the negation of a state of affairs, yet I cannot think of such an actual/non-abstract negation. A more apt, concrete use for "good" is to indicate that which prevents, reduces or eliminates harm (i.e. suffering or injustice).

    ... so it would never be good to eliminate good, and thus have complete non-existence.
    Well, I think "complete non-existence" (i.e. nothing-ness) is impossible ... and who said anything about "eliminating" existence? Non-existence is an ideal state of maximal non-suffering in contrast to existence (of sufferers) itself.

    How do you define good and evil?Truth Seeker
    Here's my secular/naturalistic, negative consequentialist shorthand:
    Good indicates that which prevents, reduces or eliminates harm (i.e. suffering or injustice).
    Bad indicates that which fails to prevent, reduce or eliminate harm ...
    Evil indicates that which prevents, reduces or eliminates any or all potential(s) for doing or experiencing Good.
  • Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body
    :up: :up:

    As usual, 180 Proof arguments amount to an emoji or two.Sam26
    :rofl:

    My book ...Sam26
    :smirk:

    He's the real philosopher.
    :up: