And this means what? Not 'seeking union with a transcendent being/reality' (because Spinoza, in effect, argues that 'transcendence' is incoherent, illusory or superstitious).Spinoza was a mystic. — Wayfarer
Spinoza says philosophy seeks understanding and that our freedom expands as our understanding deepens.[W]hy bother with philosophy? — Wayfarer
Probably because the very young Spinoza wouldn't keep to himself his critical view that the Torah fundamentally consists of 'superstitious myths' (which years later he expounds on in the masterful Tractatus Theologico-Politicus).For what reason was Spinoza exiled from the Jewish community?
Those who wish to share their understandings – wrestle with nontrivial conceptual & existential aporia – with other reflective thinkers read and write philosophical texts.Why undertake the laborious task of composing such complex and lengthy philosophical works, and why read them?
Unlike many philosophers, the "man in the street" simply isn't explicitly aware that he, like "the wisest", often doesn't know that he doesn't know or what he/we cannot know.Why is not any man in the street equal to the wisest?
:up: :up:If you [Wayfarer] want to understand Spinoza you need to actually read him. — Janus
:100:Future generations will see that trying to establish a Jewish state was a bad idea which just stained their religion with blood. — frank
With respect to (subpersonal) "life" in general, except conatus (i.e. "to persist in being" ~Spinoza), there is not any "purpose". As for "human life" in particular, neither to survive (i.e. "evolution") nor to thrive (i.e. "history") are "inherent" as far as I can tell.is there any inherent purpose in life, including the evolution of human life and history? — Jack Cummins
@Jack Cummins it's also not clear to me (Epicurean-Spinozist by day & absurdist bluesman by night ... mostly) what you're asking in the OP.Are you looking for discussion on what past and current philosophers have stated regarding 'meaning,' 'happiness,' and 'pleasure,' or are you asking for what these terms mean in the everyday lives of any TPF poster, including philosophy novices such as myself? — universeness
:up:You have suggested that the point is moot, as developments in AI will make the point moot ... — universeness
I know the notion is quite ancient but Nietzsche conceives of 're-experiencing – consciously re-living – one's exact same life eternally' as a psychological (i.e. conative) thought-experiment, or test, of the degree which one affirmatively lives (i.e. becomes). Existentially, IMO, not a "silly" exercise at all.Eternal recurrence strikes me as rather silly. After all, one doesn't know one is a recurrence — Banno
:100:Israel has been beating a dog for years and now wants to retaliate because it was bitten. I'm quite certain many now feel justified to kill the dog, looking only at the bite, but any sane person realises that's not the real problem here. — Benkei
Maybe not. Why would we rationally want that?Of course modern AI is becoming a necessary tool in neuroscientific experiments, but maybe there is a limit to the extent to which we want AI's to understand us better than we understand ourselves? — wonderer1
:up:A passive-aggressive front allows you to hide behind the pretence of innocence, even victimhood. Meh. I think your arguments are just poor. — Banno
:roll:Bottom line The learned belief system for democracy with liberty is- democracy is rule by reason and all citizens need education for good reasoning. — Athena
I am not (consciously) "anthropocentric" at all.I agree with you that I am far more anthropocentric than you are. — universeness
I'm also not "misanthropic" at all.I think by now, you know that I celebrate that difference between us, and I would love to convince you to be less misanthropic than I think you are.
FWIW, I found your meaning perfectly clear. :up:Individually, we have done surprisingly well at letting the law or God carry out our vengeance. In groups, we have much less self-control; in mobs, none at all. — Vera Mont
Reread the preceding two-thirds of the sentence in question in order to grok the last third.I just do not understand how you arrive at that. — universeness
We "create meaning and purpose" for ourselves, that's all we "know" – which is merely parochial and anthropocentric – so big whup! Evidently, the universe doesn't care one wit. Copernicus' principle is consistent with Zapffe-Camus' absurd. On a cosmic scale, universeness, the whole of our quarter-milluon year young species is infinitesmal in significance (though that might change ever so slightly with the advent of our "last invention": AGI—>ASI). H. sapiens is only a few footprints in a cosmic surf which postbiomorphs might 'rediscover' as an anomalous fossil worthy of study. Apparently you've repeatedly ignored my stated position: We – all human civilizations – are just a cocoon, mate, not the butterfly. Denial of our manifest cosmic insignificance is, to my mind, religious. :sparkle: :pray: :eyes:I assumed, that you have previously agreed, that humans create meaning and purpose in ways that no other existent we know of, can or does. Do you disagree with that?
It was just fine without human beings during the 13.8 billion years prior to a quarter million years ago so I suspect – consistent with the mediocrity principle – that the universe would be neither worse nor better off without us.How would you respond to a poll question like:
Ignoring any bias from being one, do you think the universe would be a better place without humans? — universeness
I'm referring toI am not sure which mammals you are referring to with 'other higher mammals' ...
Your proposed "optimistic technopaganism", Bret, seems suitable for maximizing (A) & (B) – far more completely than any human religious tradition or mystical practice ever has – at the expense of minimizing / eliminating (C). Ramification of bio-physical law: paths (A & B) of least effort / action, especially when facilitated-amplified by orders of magnitude (re: OP's 'ubiquitious, continuous cognitive automation'), trump any path (C) of more-than-least effort / action; in other words, a species-wide cyber-lobotomy. :eyes:(A) taking customary questions and/or answers for granted (i.e. living somnambulantly)
(B) faith in miraculous answers which we do not know how to question (i.e. living religiously)
(C) contemplating fundamental questions which we do not know how to answer (i.e. living philosophically)
So some impersonal entity, not me (i.e. not mine-ness), "gets reincarnated"? If that's the case, then I need not care about "the soul" and live as I like (maybe finding a purely immanent, this-worldly basis by which to survive and thrive in the here and now). :fire:... it is the soul that gets reincarnated; that thoughts, feelings, the body are not the self. — baker
How collectivist of you ... :mask:... if we are to survive as a species. — NOS4A2
:up:Individually, we have done surprisingly well at letting the law or God carry out our vengeance. In groups, we have much less self-control; in mobs, none at all. — Vera Mont
:fire:... the interpretation of the pagan philosophers who acknowledged that there was but one God [Brahman, Dao, Void, Substance] and considered the many gods of traditional religion to be aspects [maya, ten thousand things, atoms, modes] of the one God. — Ciceronianus