• What is real?
    ↪A Realist
    "What is real?" My guess – Horizons. Ineluctable relations (i.e. whatever is hazardous to ignore ... that which is the case whether or not we know (or believe) it to be the case ... mind/subject-POV/language/gauge-invariant referents). Contingent facts. The whole of existence....
  • The Insignificance of Moral Realism
    ↪Bob Ross
    :ok: Thanks.
  • The Insignificance of Moral Realism
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/835493

    Continuing from the post linked above, @Bob Ross, tell me what is "subjective" about the form of this (ethical / medical / ecological) hypothetical imperative ...
    If X deprived of Y, then do Z in order to restore X by mitigating Y
     (where X = homeostasis or health-fitness or sustainability, respectively).

    Whether or not one chooses to do a moral, or right, action (i.e. a hypothetical imperative to reduce harm) is no more "subjective" than whether or not one chooses to solve a mathematical equation because both are, I argue contra the OP, equally objective operations.
  • To be an atheist, but not a materialist, is completely reasonable
    ↪flannel jesus
    :up: :up:

    What I oppose about materialism is that it is exclusively the domain of what is real; of reality. — Bret Bernhoft
    In other words, you believe that reality is also "immaterial"? If so, how does the immaterial affect the material and vice versa?

    By "reality" I mean that which we encounter and can verify or measure.
    Give a couple of examples of how "we encounter and ... verify or measure" the immaterial. Thanks, Bret.
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    ↪frank
    Putin's Bitch definitely won't be the GOP nominee, Sleepy Joe might not be on the ballot either and I haven't seen a thing in the last seven or so months to change my mind in either case. I suspect, though, that if Harris is the nominee, low voter turnout will definitely benefit the GOP candidate. IMO, either Gavin Newsom and/or Gretchen Witmer would win at least as decisively as Biden won in 2020.

    From four months ago, my predictions have been on track and in some ways better than I'd imagined ...
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/807006
  • Culture is critical
    ↪universeness
    :fire:

    Going out and drinking and catering to one's impulses in the moment is a life without purpose. Family and saving Grace gives one's life purpose and this might be better than indulging one's impulses at the moment. — Athena
    "Family and saving Grace" also traumatize many in various ways which drive them into a "life without purpose" of "catering to one's impulses" via incessantly "going out" to self-medicate – numb themselves – with alcohol, drugs, porn / sport-effing, gambling, conspicuous consumption, bible-thumping literalism, magical / conspiracy groupthink, gang violence, gun-fetishism, etc as a social normative corollary of living in this highly atomized – individualistic – near-sociopathic, neoliberal republic (i.e. post-war corporatocratic America).

    The Hellenistic philosophies of ataraxia / eudaimonia had developed in response to the turbulent decadence of waning Greek and Roman imperialisms but the Epicureans, Stoics Kynics & Pyrrhonians could not prevent the inevitable (i.e. entropic) collapse of those Classical civilizations. Cultivation of philosophical practices as a way of life (P. Hadot) had in ancient times given many lives "purpose" (independent of "family and saving Grace" which had served – ideologically justified – tyrannies as they cannibalized their respective societies.)

    'Pax Americana' is the latest and greatest civilizational collapse due, in no small part, to its near-century long, corporatizing / plutocratic policies of atomizing decadence that has now become impervious to attempts at viable, effective public reasoning and equitable public cooperation. Conspicuously, (if we are honest enough to admit it to ourselves) the US is a failed state, riven by homegrown, populist tribalism since our national founding, that has become an unsustainable empire. For most Americans under fifty, I suspect "going out and drinking and catering to one's impulses in the moment" is what gives their postmodern (i.e. politically as well as philosophically disenfranchised) lives some solipsistic "purpose".
  • To be an atheist, but not a materialist, is completely reasonable
    Good reasoning requires following some laws of logic and your post is not a good example of that. — Athena
    Silly projection.

    What are the differences between ma[tt]er and energy? — Athena
    Fermions and bosons. Nothing 'immaterial'. :roll:

    Sounds rather Stoic and, therefore, preferable as such things go, to me at least. All that acts or can be acted upon are "bodies" and therefore part of Nature, or the Universe. There are different kinds of bodies, though. — Ciceronianus
    :fire: Yes! Also sounds Democritean-Epicurean (& Lucretian).
  • To be an atheist, but not a materialist, is completely reasonable
    All materialists believe that matter moves around, right? And matter requires energy to move and interact and change directions and so forth, right?

    I've never met a materialist who doesn't believe in energy.     — flannel jesus
    :100: :fire:

    NB: ... "yinyang" ... "atoms swirling swerving in the void" ... "E=mc²" ... "fermions & bosons", wtf are woo-ologists talking about? :sweat:
  • To be an atheist, but not a materialist, is completely reasonable
    It is mind-blowing to me that we are still materialists. Everything is energy. — Athena
    "Everything" which causes changes is material, ergo "energy" is material, no?

    I might be playing the same game as theism, by looking to "a beyond" for something better. — Bret Bernhoft
    How can "a beyond" the here and now provide "something better" to us within the here and now?

    I am not a materialist. — Bret Bernhoft
    As a non-"materialist", what is it (ontically? epistemically?) about the material that you oppose?
    More simply, reality is mind/mental.
    What do you mean by "reality"?
  • A Case for Objective Epistemic Norms
    I would say that the type of existence is ‘mental’, which just signifies a nice shorthand for ‘everything that exists is mind’; but, of course, someone could point out that existence itself is mind-independent and is ‘physical’ in that sense. — Bob Ross
    A physicalist would say 'mind is physical' (just as processes like digestion and vision are physical).
  • A Case for Objective Epistemic Norms
    ↪Bob Ross
    :ok: But why do you call this substance – existence itself – "mind"? Seems to confuse more than it clarifies ...
  • A Case for Objective Epistemic Norms
    ... everything is mind-dependent in the sense that everything that exists is mind-dependent, but not ... existence itself, taken up as an entity itself, is mind-dependent. — Bob Ross
    So to paraphrase in Schopenhauerian terms: "everything that exists" is phenomenal, or only appearances (i.e. Representations), but "existence itself" is more-than-appearance, or noumenon (i.e. Will). :chin:

    Is this close to what you're claiming, Bob?

    And, as per the OP, "objective epistemic norms" are, in effect, justified by, as Schopenhauer argues, the (Platonic / Leibnizian) Principle of Sufficient Reason (à la "The Fourfold Root of ...")?

    Btw, my take on Bernardo Kastrup is that his "objective idealism" (cosmopsychism?) isn't much more than a quantum woo-woo riff on Spinoza's acosmism (or Hindu Brahman). He seems slightly more rigorous (or strenuous) than ... Deepak Chopra. :roll:
  • The Complexities of Abortion
    I don't see how that's slavery. — RogueAI
    Here is what I actually wrote if you care to critically assess my legalistic analogy instead of ToothyMaw's "stupid" (lazy) strawman:

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/566082

    In other words, how is forced pregnancy substantially different from forced labor?
  • A Case for Objective Epistemic Norms
    ↪Bob Ross
    IIRC, either Pythagoras or Plato has a stronger claim than Berkeley to being "the father of idealism in general" (in the western philosophical tradition). As for "misreading" what you actually wrote, Bob, I don't think so. And your attempt to clarify doesn't help.

    So, leaving aside Berkeley, you're not a Leibnizian? not a Kantian? not a Hegelian? ... but rather, an 'idealist' in the vein of Gabriel Markus? or Donald Hoffman? or Bernardo Kastrup? ...
  • God, as Experienced, and as Metaphysical Speculation
    ... another comment that made me think that the poster had not read anything in my essay [my entire, overly long, OP]. — Brendan Golledge
    :up:

    ↪Brendan Golledge
    In a similar sense as @FrancisRay's question: How can we know that what we "experience as God" is in fact "God" (especially if "God" is not one discrete fact among all other facts)?
  • A Case for Objective Epistemic Norms
    I can't follow your inconsistencies, Bob.
    I do not think that 'being' unfolds from a mind, as that mind would be 'non-being' then, which makes no sense to me. — Bob Ross
    Mind is non-being?

    Instead, there exists, fundamentally, one mind (at-large) of which we are minds within it.
    Ergo, "mind (at-large)" is being?

    This is what I think objective idealist theories tend to purport, but of course there are theistic accounts that posit God as some sort of producer of even existence itself.
    This account reminds me of Berkeley's subjective idealism (or Leibniz's monadology).
  • Does Entropy Exist?
    ↪ucarr
    I think both are distinctions without explanatory or ontologucal differences. The link provided, IMO, renders each functionally redundant in the 'cosmological picture' under consideration.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ↪T Clark
    :up:
  • Does Entropy Exist?
    ↪ucarr
    :chin: In other words,
    'the universe' is like a Möbius loop – an eternal cycle – wherein the topological 'twist' (ouroboros-like) corresponds to big bangs/big crunches (or white holes/black holes) Q-tunneling between bi-polar (i.e. positive-to-negative / matter-to-antimatter), quantum gravity manifolds consisting of strange-looping (or fractal-like) configurations (entropy gradients) of variable mass-energy densities ...
    Okay, as far as it goes; but it seems to me that Occam's Razor dispenses with ad hoc – unwarranted – notions like "panpsychism" and "super-nature" .

    @universeness
  • A Case for Objective Epistemic Norms
    ↪wonderer1
    :100:

    Well, (your) mind is nonmind-dependent unless solipsism obtains (which, of course, it does not).
    —180 Proof

    I don’t believe that is true at all.     — Bob Ross
    Okay.

    All that is required for idealism ... is that existence itself is mind-independent
    A typo – don't you mean "mind-dependent" instead?

    ... not that there exists any mind-independent entities within it.
    Non sequitur

    ... idealism (and solipsism I might add: not that they are similar at all) ...
    I didn't imply or state that they were.
  • To be an atheist, but not a materialist, is completely reasonable
    completely reasonable — Bret Bernhoft
    Clarify what you mean by "reasonable" in this context. Thanks.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ↪T Clark
    It seems to me you both make valid points. I don't bother engaging directly with NOS4A2, I just ridicule his nonsense by linking him to posts wherein I update the latest facts – nails in the proverbial coffin – damning RICO-defendant1 & other MAGA morons. I rub NOS' denial in his cult's shitstorm which has been for years my way of both dismissing his self-deceiving bs and countering it. You're right, Clark, we don't have to waste time arguing with incorrigible – disingenuous – Trumpster idiocy but, like @Benkei, I don't leave that noise unchecked, using it/NOS like a rhetorical piñata whenever it suits me. :smirk:
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ↪Benkei
    :up:
  • Žižek as Philosopher
    ↪180 Proof
    And so on and so on ...

    "Post-subjective anti-capitalism" :eyes:

    I WOULD PREFER NOT TO.

    :sweat:
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ↪T Clark
    :up:
  • The Complexities of Abortion
    You aren't the only one here being stupid, but you are the worst offender — ToothyMaw
    Your vacuous projection is duely noted.
  • The Complexities of Abortion
    ↪Bob Ross
    No. I have strong affinities for Spinoza's dual-aspect ontology (though pragmatically I prefer property dualism) and so l'm neither a neutral monist nor a Kantian empiricist.
  • Public Displays of Mourning
    Why do you think this happens? — Vera Mont
    For some, I think it's a proxy for grief in their personal lives, just like it can be easier to talk to strangers about personal troubles.

    Is it confined to a related group of cultures or is it world-wide?
    I don't know, but I suspect it's more wide-spead than not.

    Do you do this yourself - follow the procession on screen, or leave flowers and messages at the site?
    Nope.

    What do you think about the practice?
    I haven't given it much thought.

    How do you feel about it?
    Nothing expect I hope it's cathartic or helps those who need such public rituals.
  • A Case for Objective Epistemic Norms
    ↪Bob Ross
    Well, (your) mind is nonmind-dependent unless solipsism obtains (which, of course, it does not).
  • The Complexities of Abortion
    ↪Bob Ross


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-aspect_theory
  • God, as Experienced, and as Metaphysical Speculation
    ↪Ciceronianus
    :fire: :up:
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    "Stand back and standby!" :point: 22 years for Seditious Conspiracy, etc.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/05/enrique-tarrio-proud-boys-sentenced-jan-6-attack

    Jack Smith's coming for you, Seditionist-1. 4March24 – "Be there. Will be wild!". :lol:
  • God, as Experienced, and as Metaphysical Speculation
    ↪Brendan Golledge
    In a similar sense as @FrancisRay's question: how can we know that what we "experience as God" is in fact "God" (especially if "God" is not one discrete fact among all other facts)?
  • The Complexities of Abortion
    How is this not property dualism? — Bob Ross
    Dual-aspect monism is ontological whereas property dualism is epistemological; I prefer the latter but I think it's more precise to characterize Spinoza by the former.

    Are you, then, a necessitarian?
    Spinoza certainly is. I'm a compatibilist and contingentarian.
  • A Case for Objective Epistemic Norms
    Since I seem to be misrepresenting you, let me just ask for clarification: are you claiming that these promises are moral facts because (1) they are mind-independent (as biologically embedded into us as organisms) and (2) also obligations? Is that the idea? — Bob Ross
    Yes, more or less ...

    In any group of sufferers, suffering engenders an implicit promise to reduce each other's suffering as much as possible; this implicit promise is a fact (i.e. human eusociality) and it is moral (i.e. optimizing human well-being) because it constitutes participation in soliciting help and being solicited to help reduce suffering.
  • A Case for Objective Epistemic Norms
    So I am failing to see how I misrepresented you ... — Bob Ross
    Well, your quote cherry-picks its emphasis (indicative of uncharitably reading me out of context again) by missing / ignoring the following...

    To suffer is also to desire help to reduce my suffering; but there are only other sufferers who can offer, and effectuate, (some) help. This desire, or need, for help, however, implicitly promises to help others to reduce their suffering. This promise is natally prior to reciprocity, contract, cooperation, etc; it's implicit, fundamental, and inheres in each of us being individual members of the same species with the same functional defects (re: physical & psychological homeostasis) which if neglected or harmed render an individual dysfunctioning or worse [...] — 180 Proof

    In this eusocial-existential context, the fact of suffering is not 'value-free' – it's the disvalue – and therefore Hume's guillotine does not obtain; thus, again I refer you to the following article on "promises" with my stated reasoning on moral facts* in mind:

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/promises/

    *à la ecological facts & medical facts
    ↪180 Proof
  • The Complexities of Abortion
    I am misunderstanding what 'dual-aspect' means in your use of 'monism'. — Bob Ross
    From my study of Spinoza, by "dual-aspect" I understand there to be (at least) two complementary ways to attribute predicates – physical & mental – to any entity which exhaustively describes its functioning.

    What is modal-ontological determinism?
    This is my shorthand for Spinoza's description of substance (i.e. natura naturans) that, among other things, consists in necessary causal relations and is unbounded (i.e. not an effect of or affected by any external causes – other substances – because it is infinite in extent).
  • To be an atheist, but not a materialist, is completely reasonable
    I prefer more descriptive terms like e.g. immaterial or disembodied or nonphysical or spiritual or magical ... to the umbrella term "supernatural".

    Btw, back in the day, my atheism had preceded my naturalism.
  • A question for Christians
    It seems clear to me that Jesus has anticipated the self-defense/just-war question: What if someone attacks me? Do not resist evil ... I don't know how you can read Jesus's teachings as anything other than total pacifism. — RogueAI
    :100: :mask:
  • TPF Quote Cabinet
    'Spirit' comes from the Latin word 'to breathe.' What we breathe is air, which is certainly matter, however thin. Despite usage to the contrary, there is no necessary implication in the word 'spiritual' that we are talking of anything other than matter (including the matter of which the brain is made), or anything outside the realm of science. On occasion, I will feel free to use the word. Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or of acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both. — Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
Home » 180 Proof