Neither.

And like it or not, humans are as much a part of nature as any other animal. — Ciceronianus

:fire:

Influenced by Ravi Shankar's music and John Coltrane's album Impressions, particularly the piece "India"

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/870442

"Eight Miles High" turned on Western listeners along with the psychedelic-raga rock groove of the mid-1960s ...


"Eight Miles High" (3:34)
Fifth Dimension, 1966
writers G. Clark, R. McGuinn & D. Crosby
performer The Byrds

along with


"Tomorrow Never Knows" (2:58)
Revolver, 1966
writers Lennon-McCartney
performer The Beatles

followed-up and surpassed by


"Within You Without You" (5:05)
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, 1967
writer George Harrison
performer The Beatles (only G. Harrison & members of the Asian Music Circle)

[ ... ]

and eventually back to Miles ...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/870507

"Shhh/Peaceful" (16:16)
In a Silent Way, 1969
composer Miles Davis
performers M. Davis, W. Shorter, J. McLaughlin, C. Corea. H. Hancock, J. Zawinul, D. Holland & T. Williams

my own conclusion that 'anitnatalism is futile'
— 180 Proof

Hey mate - would you mind bumper-stickering your basic reasoning here? — AmadeusD

Gladly. From a previous post ...

Antinatalism proposes 'preventing future suffering' that neither undoes – compensates for – the suffering of past sufferers nor, more significantly, reduces the suffering of current, or already-born, sufferers. — 180 Proof

So of what value is it?

"India" (14:10)
Impressions, 1963
composer John Coltrane, 1961
performers J. Coltrane, E. Dolphy, M. Tyner, J. Garrison, R. Workman & E. Jones

Ok, but how, why? — schopenhauer1

Besides our many previous exchanges on the topic in the last few years, schop, this post sums up my outlook:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/870315

Ligotti isn't really pessimistic enough (like e.g. P. Mainländer was) about his pessimism (which is kind of funny). Antinatalism proposes 'preventing future suffering' that neither undoes – compensates for – the suffering of past sufferers nor, more significantly, reduces the suffering of current, or already-born, sufferers. Useless, futile, absurd. :sweat:

I did not state or imply that I agree with Ligotti (or Zapffe), only that his book inspired – reinforced – my own conclusion that 'anitnatalism is futile' (which I only characterize as 'Zapffean').

We're alive. No amount of bewailing will change that; in fact, it will likely make us miserable (more miserable, if you prefer). Horror can be self-imposed, particularly that horror claimed to be cosmic. This is the ultimate example of disturbing yourself over matters beyond your control. — Ciceronianus

:clap: :100:

:up: :up:

Trying to slip spirituality or Zen into physics is like trying to win Chess by presenting a full house. — Banno

:smirk:

I suspect you just lost @Wayfarer @Gnomon et al.

The discussion is about physicalism, not physics. Physicalism is a philosophical doctrine. — Wayfarer

Told ya. :roll:

'Spirit' comes from the Latin word 'to breathe.' What we breathe is air, which is certainly matter, however thin.
— Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

Should I be a smart-ass and disprove Carl Sagan? — Lionino

Yes please.

It is with sadness that every so often I spend a few hours on the internet, reading or listening to the mountain of stupiditie dressed up with the word 'quantum'. Quantum medicine; holistic quantum theories of every kind, mental quantum spiritualism – and so on, and on, in an almost unbelievable parade of quantum nonsense.
— Carlo Rovelli, Hegoland, pp. 159-60 — 180 Proof

For those who wish to avoid pseudo-science traps and quantum woo sophistry, I recommend as a start The Unconscious Quantum¹ (reviewed here). — 180 Proof

https://www.skeptic.com/insight/the-fifth-horseman-the-insights-of-victor-stenger-1935-2014/ ¹

I'm a huge fan of T. Ligotti's horror fiction and love his book The Conspiracy Against the Human Race the arguments and insights of which have convinced me of the futility (i.e. Zapffean absurdity) of 'antinatalism'.

:death: :flower:

I had gf for over a year who was half-Ojibwe and I can't recall now (three decades later) her or her dad (or our friends from Red Lake) telling me about this "game". :cool:

How are “essential” and “fundamental” distinct? Webster’s Thesaurus .... — ucarr

Maybe you should consult a 'dictionary of philosophical terms'. :roll:

I don't recall that critter so I can't say I have been "bitten", unless by "snow snake" you mean frostbitten which I definitely have (e.g.) on both ice fishing trips I took up to Bemidji :groan: and International Falls. :cry:

:100:

Number is an essential, material property. — ucarr

Hylomorphism? :chin:

IIRC paraphrasing Peirce / Wittgenstein, arithmetic (e.g. counting) is a practice, therefore material in effect; numbers, however, signify patterns (i.e. ideas) abstracted from the arithmetic practice and so themselves are not material. In other words, we assign "properties" to objects (à la Kant) rather than "discover" that objects "have" them. Or as Meinong might say: 'arithmetic exists' whereas 'number subsists'.

Noooo. As they often say in the Twin Cities (from October to May back when I lived there): "Oh, it's too cold to snow." :smirk:

Zionism is littered throughout the Torah with God promising the land to the Hebrews and describing Israel as a "land of milk and honey." Zionism is biblical. — BitconnectCarlos

... ergo a fundamentalist ethnonational delusion; thus, the many generations of secular Jews who were/are conscientious anti-Zionists.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/858450

:up:

Michael Brecker's "Syzygy" &
Brick's "Dazz"

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/754042

Paradigm =/= model.

If one models the universe as beginning-less, and thus origin-less, does cosmology then cover the totality of existence? — ucarr

We don't know – possibly not. The observable universe is the only "existence", however, that matters significantly to us (i.e. terrestrial life).

Perhaps a categorical essence is out of domain, but essential things aren’t.

In this statement, for clarity's sake, I prefer fundamental to your term "essential".

This raises the question whether metaphysics has any place within a physicalist universe.

The doesn't make sense to me because I think of "physicalist universe" itself as a metaphysical construct, that is, merely a speculative supposition – way of observing and describing nature.

You clearly credit metaphysics with real status. How do you reconcile this with your physicalist identity?

These terms don't make sense to me. I am not a (logical) positivist or (Humean) empiricist. My methodological physicalism is a function, or corollary, of my philosophical naturalism which is a metaphysics (or speculative supposition).

Is it the case you think metaphysics not a categorical separation from physics but instead a higher-order physics?

No. I think metaphysics concerns 'a priori speculative suppositions about nature (i.e. humanly knowable aspects of existence)' and physics concerns 'explaining transformations in nature by making testable, hypothetical-deductive models'. I consider methodological physicalism only a paradigm for making/evaluating 'physical models' (sans non-physical ideas or entities) and interpreting their results, or problematics.

My read of (modern) history is that the pendulum, so to speak, swings back and forth from intolerance to tolerance, some times in faster-shorter cycles than most other times, and "social progress" is mostly a mirage because achievements in tolerance-inclusion tend to be quite fragile (e.g. in the US in recent decades, eviceration of civil & voting rights; increase in voter suppression policies, rise of virulent ethnonationalism and nonwhite immigrant scapegoating (à la MAGA-GOP politics); ahistorical expansion of 2nd Amendment & denial of women"s reproductive healthcare rights; rise in rate of hate crimes against LGBTIs Asians Muslims & Jews; etc). It seems axiomatic that while there is (mostly) "progress" in technosciences, struggle for dignity against injustice in social relations is an existential constant. IME, epithets, "reclaimed" or not, are almost entirely inconsequential.

I am openly not straight and being insulted for it doesn’t bother me because I’m not ashamed. — AmadeusD

:up:

:up:

I no longer listen to what people say, I just watch what they do. Behavior never lies. — Winston Churchill, British imperialist politician

In other words: "sticks and stones ..."

postpone progress? — GTTRPNK

As a Black man, I wonder what you mean by "progress" ... specifically "progress" of what and for whom?

IMHO, cosmology (physics) concerns only modelling the development of what we call "the observable universe" and not "beginnings" or "origins" or "essences" of all things (metaphysics).

align ourselves with our nature as a species: — Bob Ross

Describe "our nature as a species" and explain how you determine that to be so (unless you mean something like 'Aristotle's teleology', then never mind).

I finished my BS (it took me 6.5 years) at Syracuse U in the 1980s and had some good visits to Rochester & Buffalo during those years. Thought I knew what bad winters were like until I'd moved on to Minnesota for graduate school. :grimace:

Okay ... if you say so.

I'm not talking about "believing in"... — Hallucinogen

You misconstrue atheism which denotes 'lack of belief in god' and / or 'belief in the nonexistence of god' and is not a statement of knowledge (i.e. not a truth-claim) like agnosticism. It's you who are equivocating – confusing – belief and knowledge in order to conjure up an inconsistency where there isn't one.

If you know something, it is rational to believe it.

Yes, just as it can be "rational" to believe something without knowing whether it is true.

So do you think it is "irrational" to know that there is a god and not to believe in that god (just as a wife can know that her husband exists and does not believe in him)?

If so, please explain.

If not, then explain why your OP is not inconsistent with the disjunction of 'knowing that G' and 'believing in G' I've presented here. :chin:

I think your conflation of knowing (i.e. a proposition) and believing (i.e. to have trust in, or to be committed to, a statement or disposition), Hallucinogen, is clearly unwarranted.

'biologically wired to' see if they are not defective — Bob Ross

Are yoi referring to homeostasis?

Homeostasis?

P1: One should abide by the intended function(s) of their organism. — Bob Ross

"Intended" by who? Which or all "function(s)"? (Hidden premises again invalidate your demonstration.)

I appreciate your insights. :up:

I don't understand the question. Rephrase?

:up:

From an old thread ...

My 'anti-platonist pragmatics' (finitism?) comes to this: pure mathematics is mostly 'invented' (re: pattern-making) and applied mathematics is mostly 'discovered' (re: pattern-matching). — 180 Proof

Like the rules and strategies of (e.g.) chess, respectively (i.e. grammars and narratives).

I don't follow your line of questioning, ucarr. What's your point?