Spinoza identified God with nature — Gregory

... 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

Hegel taught ac[osm]ism, as did Spinoza. — Gregory

The "doomsday" part is from the fact that no people will be around to keep the economy going. But the idea of, "Oh no! What shall I do if there isn't a future generation" doesn't seem to be a factor in our individual habits or behavior. — schopenhauer1

It was reasonable to struggle, to suffer, perhaps even to die, for a more just, a more compassionate society, but not in a world with no future where, all too soon, the very words 'justice', 'compassion', 'society’, 'struggle', 'evil', would be unheard echoes on an empty air.

https://web.archive.org/web/20070526121608/http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/15/bowman.htm — P.D. James, interview (2007)

I prefer to talk descriptively. — Judaka

In the 1970's, I remember a Baptist preacher giving us a talk about race and the coming end of Aboriginal Australians. The line I recall was something like - 'It will be for the best at some time in the future when the Aboriginal person will be bred out and be no more.' This was Christian compassion and inclusiveness at its most perverse. Naturally, there was a preamble at the start about how the Good Reverend was not a racist.. — Tom Storm

What is the "referent" for the term "noumenon"? — jancanc

"Cui bono?"

Racism (again for the slow fuckers way in the back) denotes color/ethnic prejudice plus POWER of a dominant community (color/ethnic in-group) OVER non-dominant communities (color/ethnic out-groups). Whether Hutus over Tutsis, Israeli Jews over Israeli Arabs, Hans over Uyghurs, Turks over Kurds, Kosovo Serbs over Kosovo Albanians, Russians over Chechens, Israeli Ashkenazim over Israeli Sephardim, American Whites over American Blacks Browns Yellows & Reds, etc, this description of racism obtains. — 180 Proof

We can't read minds though, and we can't prove intent, ... — Judaka

... and the pattern more than anything proves the oppression.

For something to be considered racist, we need to interpret it to be harmful to the relevant demographic.

In fact, you've argued an unwillingness to upend the legacies of racism to be racist. The inaction's harmfulness is what makes it racist, yes?

Basically, we can't parse between what's racially motivated, and where some other motivation is at play, and we can't be expected to prove it, so long as we interpret harm, we'll describe it as racism, is that fair?

I just want to know in a descriptive sense, how you'd avoid calling any harm to the relevant demographic as racist.

So in the end, if we think of future generations at all, it is just plain old selfish ... — schopenhauer1

The Seventh Generation Principle is based on an ancient Haudenosaunee (Iroquois)* philosophy that the decisions we make today should result in a sustainable world seven generations into the future. 

You ain't gonna miss your water until your well runs dry ...

There's a book, Ars Vitae: The Fate of Inwardness and the Return of the Ancient Arts of Living, by Elizabeth Lasch-Quinn, which you may find interesting. — Ciceronianus

The idea is that the belief in a continuing future society serves as a driving force to prevent society from falling into chaos.

Is this assumption true, though? — schopenhauer1

So maybe the question is, if there is and can be something infinite, what would that be? — Gregory

I'd define reality as .. — Cidat

Here are some of my own attempts... — 180 Proof

How can we identify the "theory & practice"? Why is something part of the "theory & practice" of racism? — Judaka

I hope your answer can show why an interpretation of harm to the relevant demographic is inaccurate.

1) Is it correct that sexism, racism and other similar terms, do not function descriptively, and are moral terms that we use if and when we perceive something to be harmful to the relevant demographic? — Judaka

2) To what extent do you agree that the terms are ambiguous in terms of "how", and "why" and in describing the harm they cause?

3) Is "ending' racism & sexism, for you, referring to the simplistic definition (prejudice) or the comprehensive one (societal realities)?

I’m objecting to otherwise non-religious people who want it to engage in philosophical inquiry spending inordinate amount of time wallowing in — giving special attention to — mythical stories, just because they were raised with them. — Mikie

Proselytization is much more likely to come from the atheist side than from believers. — T Clark

The thing is, much of Western philosophy is based on esoteric or religious foundations. — schopenhauer1

Certainty has gone and society seems atomized - I find this exciting, but many fear it. — Tom Storm

I think the most important challenge we collectively face is dealing with the practical economic and ecological consequences of the 'continuous growth' paradigm, and the enormous problem of plutocracy and corrupted politics. — Janus

Western culture is undergoing a crisis of meaning — Quixodian

Any thoughts? — Jack Cummins

The irony here is that although with the image of the cave Plato is warning against the persuasive power of images he does so using images. And this is often taken to be not an image but the truth itself. — Fooloso4

To be African American is to be African without any memory and American without any privilege. — James Baldwin

Against stupidity we have no defense. Neither protests nor force can touch it. Reasoning is of no use. Facts that contradict personal prejudices can simply be disbelieved — indeed, the fool can counter by criticizing them, and if they are undeniable, they can just be pushed aside as trivial exceptions. So the fool, as distinct from the scoundrel, is completely self-satisfied. In fact, they can easily become dangerous, as it does not take much to make them aggressive. For that reason, greater caution is called for than with a malicious one. Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous. — Dietrich Bonhoeffer

He should have been hung for treason years ago. — Mikie

In other words, Platonism (or philosophy) and naturalism are contradictory positions.
— Lloyd Gerson, Platonism vs Naturalism — Wayfarer

There is no better source of why this is not true than the works of Plato. Several of the dialogues can be cited, but Timaeus, in which Socrates remains mostly silent, presents a clear picture of the inadequacy of the Forms. In this dialogue, much or which is a monologue, Socrates expresses the desire to see the city he creates in the Republic at war. He wants to see the city in action. The story of the city in the Republic is incomplete. It is a city created by intellect (nous) without necessity (ananke), that is, a city without chance and contingency. A city that could never be.

For a more detailed discussion: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12008/shaken-to-the-chora/p1 — Fooloso4

The contemporary proliferation of bullshit also has deeper sources, in various forms of skepticism which deny that we can have any reliable access to an objective reality, and which therefore reject the possibility of knowing how things truly are. These 'antirealist' doctrines undermine confidence in the value of disinterested efforts to determine what is true and what is false, and even in the intelligibility of the notion of objective inquiry. One response to this loss of confidence has been a retreat from the discipline required by dedication to the ideal of correctness to a quite different sort of discipline, which is imposed by pursuit of an alternative ideal of sincerity. Our natures are, indeed, elusively insubstantial — notoriously less stable and less inherent than the natures of other things. And insofar as this is the case, sincerity itself is bullshit. — Harry Frankfurt, d.2023