• What are the philosophical consequences of science saying we are mechanistic?
    "Purposelessness," as some sort of "bedrock idea" seems to me to be more a historical - philosophical moment, starting with the decline of idealism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries...

    It seems to me like the most common scientific response to largely philosophical claims about the essential and apparent meaningless and purposelessness of "the world" has been to shrug, say "well that's just philosophy," and to go right on assuming purpose exists in theories. Only is biology does this become a flash point. Physics and chemistry don't deal with things that seem to have purposes and the social sciences don't seem to take the "no purpose" claim seriously (how could they?)     — Count Timothy von Icarus
    :up: :up:

    It's not that modern science dispenses with "purpose" categorically, only that telos in almost ever case of natural phenomena does not explain anything (like g/G). Anachronists like @Wayfarer usually forget that Aristotle's teleology (i.e. finalism) falsely "predicts" that the vacuum is impossible – horror vacui – because one "purpose" of matter is to fill space whenever possible; and that one of the brain's "purposes" is to be a radiator that cools the heart and blood. "Geocentrism" (later exemplified by Ptolemy's model and its epicycles) is also a consequence of this sort of occult storytelling (e.g. because the "purpose" of heavier matter is to fall to the center of things and lighter things like stars to stay far from the center). :roll:
  • Kennedy Assassination Impacts
    ↪ssu
    If you says so ...
  • Culture is critical
    Don't believe me; compare the democracy index with the academic standings. — Vera Mont
    :100: :up:

    As this thread amply shows, I'm afraid Athena is extremely allergic to contrary evidence or apples to apples comparisons of "the human development / cultural data of rich nations".
  • What is love?
    ↪Wayfarer
    :up:

    From an old thread "AMOR" ...
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/769996
  • Kennedy Assassination Impacts
    Just a guess out of left field: No Kennedy Assassination in '63 ... no Nixon in '69 ... no Reagan in '80 ... ultimately no Dubya - Obama - Trump from 2000 to 2016. Things that followed could have been worse or better than 'our timeline', we'll never know. Even traveling back in time and preventing the assassination in Dallas, I suspect, would only have branched-off an alternative timeline that itself would have no downstream effects on this one (i.e. our present). Perhaps in the far future it will be possible to observe (all) alternative, possible past events (i.e. counterpart worlds); by then, however, Kennedy will probably be nothing more than a footnote of a footnote of a footnote.

    Happy Pilgrims Unfortunately Saved From Starvation By Natives Day, folks! :yum: :party:
  • What are the philosophical consequences of science saying we are mechanistic?
    That is what is implicit in Aristotle's 'telos', and conversely the rejection of telos or teleological principles, implies 'purposelessness'. — Wayfarer
    Okay, clearer, though this observation concerns modern science and not, as you have said, "much of modern thought", and does not entail "nihilism" either (pace Nietzsche; vide Spinoza & vide Peirce). Apparently, you prefer pre-modern science ... :mask:
  • Reason for believing in the existence of the world
    ↪Tom Storm
    Thanks.
  • Reason for believing in the existence of the world
    ↪Corvus
    "Proof?" I make no positive claim that requires "proof"; simply there are no compelling grounds to even consider that the world is "a long vivid dream or some realistic illusion or hallucination", and therefore, the existence of the world remains self-evident or presupposed by all other true statements of fact. Your OP raises a perennial pseudo-question (à la "Cartesian doubt"), Corvus, and maybe as a cure for what's ailing you, consider Peirce's "The Fixation of Belief" and Wittgenstein's On Certainty.

    ↪flannel jesus
    :up:
  • What are the philosophical consequences of science saying we are mechanistic?
    ↪Wayfarer
    None of that addresses the question I raised with you, sir. I want clarity on
    what you mean in this context by "purpose"... — 180 Proof
    in your comment to Gnomon.
  • Joe Biden (+General Biden/Harris Administration)
    81 candles vs 91 felonies (plus 77 farts)? No contest. Happy BDay, sir. :cool:
  • What are the philosophical consequences of science saying we are mechanistic?
    Note the connection between reason and purpose, which was implicit in earlier philosophy, now called into question in everything, hence the nihilism of much of modern thought. — Wayfarer
    So in your estimation, "much of modern thought" lacks purpose? Maybe if you clarify what you mean in this context by "purpose", Wayf, I'll grok this statement better.
  • Forum focused on people of (non-western European) color?
    ↪TiredThinker
    Is such a dedicated forum really a way to "discuss" and "better understand cultural differences"? Any examples would be appreciated.
  • Should there be a license to have children?
    ↪Lexa
    The problem seems too complex for "licensing" criteria which reliably predicts "good or bad" potential parents; compounded by problems of "unlicensed" procreation, etc. Rather, I think biological parents, or any legal caretakers, should be held civilly or criminally liable for their child's 'antisocial violations', along with the child himself, from birth until age twenty-five – statutes of limitation do not apply – and the penalties for which increase accordingly with repeated offenses. Such a 'legal regime' should focus a society's policies-resources on a full-spectrum of public health & welfare, educational & occupational services in order to support familities ... this downstream radical reprioritizing (aka "expense") is largely why such a parental liability law won't be implemented and, if legislated, will be short-lived principally for lack of sufficient public policy follow-up.
  • How to define stupidity?
    We'll see that in about a year. — baker
    Why "a year"? It's quite evident everyday, all day, even on this thread. You believe Bank/Tax Fraudster & Criminal Defendent-1 has a snowball's chance in hell to be reelected, baker? Yeah, I guess innumerates follow "the polls" they like. :rofl:
  • Does Religion Perpetuate and Promote a Regressive Worldview?
    ↪baker
    Why don't you talk to nonbelievers who are literate in a religion or several religions and / or theology? They're not hard to find. :roll:
  • Reason for believing in the existence of the world
    Such doubt only arises when reason is abstracted and treated as if it were independent from our being in the world. — Fooloso4
    :100:
  • Reason for believing in the existence of the world
    ↪flannel jesus
    :up:

    ↪Corvus
    Apologies for not reading the thread and perhaps repeating what's already been said. As far as Im concerned, "the reason for believing in the exisrence of the world" is that there aren't any compelling grounds to doubt the existence of world. :smirk:
  • Quantum Physics, Qualia and the Philosophy of Wittgenstein: How Do Ideas Compare or Contrast?
    ↪Wayfarer
    As an anti-supernaturalist I can agree with your assumption without inconsistency.
  • Quantum Physics, Qualia and the Philosophy of Wittgenstein: How Do Ideas Compare or Contrast?
    ↪Wayfarer
    Yes, Hoffman rather than Kastrup. Sorry, I often mix-up antirealists. Anyway, I thought Rovelli's comments on "the subject" "ideas" "relations" "noumena / ultimate reality" etc would interest you. I agree with Rovelli that mentality is at least as constructed as non-mentality based on evidence from neuropathology and psychopharmacology how "the subject" (i.e. self-awareness & judgment) are easily modified, or impaired, by non-mental stressors (e.g. toxins, traumas).
  • Quantum Physics, Qualia and the Philosophy of Wittgenstein: How Do Ideas Compare or Contrast?
    Kastrup on Rovelli — Wayfarer
    vs Rovelli on Kastrup ...
  • Does Religion Perpetuate and Promote a Regressive Worldview?
    @Count Timothy von Icarus @baker @Wayfarer
    Does religion perpetuate and promote a regressive worldview? — Art48
    Yes, religions tend to perpetuate and promote 'communities' of magical thinkers who talk to – placate – ghosts. :sparkle: :eyes:.

    Or with a lot of lipstick on that swine ...
    It is customary to blame secular science and anti-religious philosophy for the eclipse of religion in modern society. It would be more honest to blame religion for its own defeats.

    Religion declined not because it was refuted, but because it became irrelevant, dull, oppressive, insipid.

    When faith is completely replaced by creed, worship by discipline, love by habit; when the crisis of today is ignored because of the splendor of the past; when faith becomes an heirloom rather than a living fountain; when religion speaks only in the name of authority rather than with the voice of compassion – its message becomes meaningless.     — Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel
  • Culture is critical
    @Vera Mont – Your patience with Athena is remarkable. I try to resolve facts in dispute but I'm quickly exasperated since discussion and argument only seem worthwhile based on a set facts which are not in dispute. Nonetheless, I appreciate your succinct and lucid posts. :flower:
  • How to define stupidity?
    ↪baker
    Yeah, but calling out stupid does.
  • How to define stupidity?
    ↪Tom Storm
    :up: :up:
  • How to define stupidity?
    ↪BC
    I frequently use the advanced search function for relevant keywords. Almost all topics have been raised a few times before so I usually find I've contributed to those old threads. I'd rather not rewrite something unless my views on the topic at issue have changed.

    Btw, if you know how I can store my entire post history as (indexed?) text files, please let me know.
  • Western Civilization
    ↪Benkei
    I haven't read much of this thread. Context?
  • What are you listening to right now?
    A little Friday psychedelia ... goo goo g'joob! :party:


    "I Am the Walrus" (4:33)
    Magical Mystery Tour, 1967 (2009 mix)
    writers Lennon-McCartney
    performers The Beatles


    "Glass Onion" (2:17)
    The Beatles, 1968 (2018 mix)
    writers Lennon-McCartney
    performers The Beatles
  • How to define stupidity?
    Prejudices are what fools use for reason. — Voltaire

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/853053
  • A Holy Grail Philosophy Starter Pack?
    ↪javi2541997
    I feel similiar. I'd never think of myself as a 'philosopher'; rather, at most, just a lifelong freethinker. :death: :flower:
  • Culture is critical
    I spit on all notions of aristocracy, no matter how you try to dress such a category up, to make such seem clean and attractive. — universeness
    :100:
  • A Holy Grail Philosophy Starter Pack?
    ↪dani
    :cool:

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/567313

    Good luck & welcome to TPF.
  • Immortality
    ↪Benj96
    Older people with impaired memories nonetheless seem to retain (much of) their 'wisdom'. I suspect higher metacognitive functions such as 'wisdom' or language-fluency are products of (self(?)-organizing) memories and not memories themselves.
  • Ethical naturalism vs. non-naturalism
    ↪Pantagruel
    :up:

    ↪Bob Ross
    GE Moore's "open question" is besides the point for actual moral agency. The bases of my position on ethical naturalism is summarized in the old post "An inquiry into moral facts"

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/540198

    ... from which I conclude, as expressed in another thread "Can Morality ever be objective?"
    Thus, my metaethics is Ethical Naturalism (i.e. "good" is agency (i.e. capabilities – virtues, habits – for nonzero sum caring for the functional defects of self, others & commons) optimized by praxes of preventing and reducing harms & injustices, respectively); my normative ethics is Negative Hedonic Utilitarianism (i.e. "right" judgments and conduct which prevent or reduce harm); and my applied ethics is Negative Preference Consequentialism (i.e. "right" policies-practices which prevent or reduce injustice). — 180 Proof

    As for "ethical non-naturalism" ...
    It seems a bit like projecting one's own tastes as matter of fact masked in the form of an intuition. Likewise, if there really are non-natural moral facts (that are something akin to platonic forms), then what faculty do we have to intuiting them? It seems, to me, like we don't. — Bob Ross
    :up: I agree.
  • Culture is critical
    ↪Vera Mont
    :up: :up:

    According to the wiki linked below, Germany ranks 14th and the United States ranks 30th :yikes: on "The Democracy Index (2022)".

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

    There are quite a few other NGO & university indexes available via Google which more or less corroborate this disparity.

    The way @Athena tells it the USA's so-called "democracy" has declined greatly "since 1958" with the wholesale importation of "the German Bureaucratic Model" blah blah blah and yet Germany ranks (as well as all of its 'highly bureaucratized' Germanic / Nordic neighbors) higher on this "democracy index" than America. :chin: No doubt this discrepancy in expectations is due to the fact that "the 1958 bureaucracy-über-alles" had next-to-nothing to do with American decline – Athena's conspiracy-like "theory" is just another simplistic solution to – diagnosis(?) of – an enormously complex historical and political economic problem that's peculiar to the well-documented, structural and social maldevelopments of the American Republic since its illiberal founding. :mask:
  • Help Me
    ↪T4YLOR
    Don't look for answers in philosophy to satisfy – silence – your questions (which amounts to dogma) but rather seek questions from which you can proceed to patiently explore other, broader, more fundamental questions. This is what over four decades of philosophizing – study, critical discussion, argument, more study & reflection / contemplation applied to lived-experience – has culminated in for me to date. "Kierkegaard & Dostoyevsky" are as good as any places to start if the questions they raise and explore are those that keep you awake at night. Anyway, just my two bits – good luck.
  • What are the philosophical consequences of science saying we are mechanistic?
    ... re-situate the basis of objectivity within intersubjectivity. Not just human intersubjectivity but the intra-agential relations within non-human nature. — Joshs
    :ok:
  • Does Religion Perpetuate and Promote a Regressive Worldview?
    ↪Count Timothy von Icarus
    Like @Tom Storm suggests, I understand atheism to denote lack of theism (i.e. lack of one, some or all god-beliefs). Theists also lack god-belief but with an exception for one or more god-beliefs; today atheists, however, simply tend to be more consistent insofar as we lack all god-beliefs. I find that mere dictionary definitions (such as yours, Count, (e.g.) focused on "the existence of god" instead of the existence of one's god-belief (i.e. theism or not?)) are colloquial shorthands which more often confuse rather than clarify the concept at issue, especially in philosophy,.

    Neoplatonism? — Count Timothy von Icarus
    A philosophical 'doctrine' coopted by early Church theologians but "Neoplatonism" was not itself ever a creedal or congregational religion, or religious practice. Doesn't meet my stated criteria (re: Pascal's distinction of the religious 'God of Abraham', not a conceptual 'god of philosophy').
    ↪180 Proof
  • How to define stupidity?
    Stupidity: n, thinking philosophy can be found in a dictionary. :wink: — unenlightened
    :smirk:
  • What are the philosophical consequences of science saying we are mechanistic?
    ↪Wayfarer
    :rofl:
  • What are the philosophical consequences of science saying we are mechanistic?
    The fact that quantum physics appears to undemine the concept of objectivity — Wayfarer
    And how does it "appear to undermine" "objectivity"? With objective findings. Your argument(?), sir, is as self-refuting as a 'positivist' argument. :lol:
Home » 180 Proof