• A Case for Analytic Idealism
    The idea that life can be explained with reference only to the laws of physics is physicalism, right? — Wayfarer
    Wrong. :lol:
  • Why Monism?
    ↪Janus
    :100:

    In short, as I see it. abstractions are not primary or fundamental they are abstracted from particulars, so they are therefore secondary and derivative. — Janus
    :up: :up:
  • A Case for Analytic Idealism
    ↪Wayfarer
    Non sequitur. I'll take that as a concession to the points I made in my previous post. You're welcome, sir. :victory:
  • Naturalism problem of evil
    The religious narrative of mans sinful nature and possibility of redemption is more optimistic than the idea we are frequently facing evil and suffering with no reason and no redemption. — Andrew4Handel
    I'll grant you that intoxication "seems more optimistic" than sobriety – if some "religious narrative of redemption" is your placebo of choice and it works for you, Andrew, then keep on keeping on. :pray:
  • A Case for Analytic Idealism
    The reason that I'm not a physicalist is that matter does not act. — Wayfarer
    Action = energy = matter. Wtf, sir. :sweat:

    It is only acted upon.
    Newtonian laws & conservation laws – typical 'dualist', I guess you've never heard of those. :roll:
  • A Case for Analytic Idealism
    Idealism seems to me an example of philosophy poisoning. — wonderer1
    :up:

    Phenomenology seeks to remedy this condition by returning attention to the primacy of being - the reality of lived experience - *not* as something to analyse through science or metaphysics but through attention to 'what is’ - ‘dasein’. — Wayfarer
    Heideggerian phenomenology – in other words, privileging secondary qualities over primary qualities by conflating epistemology with ontology. Anthropocentric antirealism (contra Mediocrity Principle) aka "idealism". :zip:
  • The Debt Ceiling Issue
    Well, apparently, these a*holes are going to drag this nonsense out until the 11th hour and 59th minute before they slam on the brakes to stop this trainwreck. Wtf, Dems? :brow:
  • Naturalism problem of evil
    "The problem of evil" is only a problem for those theists who claim that there is an "all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving g/G that created the world". Naturalists claim that nature was not "created" and is 'blindly' self-organizing at different, emergent levels of complexity; ergo there's nothing like a "problem of evil" for them, but rather an ethical problem of good (i.e. How is good possible and Why ought we to prefer good to bad / evil living in such a pitiless, indifferent, monstrously sublime natural world?).
  • A Case for Analytic Idealism
    What I'm arguing is that 'how the object appears' is dependent on the observer. 'What it is' can be specified in the case of physical objects, in terms of its quantifiable attributes, which appear to be observer-independent, but may better be thought of as 'measurably consistent for any observer' ... — Wayfarer
    in other words, secondary and primary qualities, respectively. :up:
  • A Case for Analytic Idealism
    ↪180 Proof :down: — Metaphysician Undercover
    :lol:
  • What are you listening to right now?
    Tina Turner (1936-2023)


    "Proud Mary" (4:57)
    Workin' Together, 1970
    writer John Fogerty, 1969
    performers Ike & Tina Turner



    original version, 1969
    https://youtu.be/5hid10EgMXE
  • A Case for Analytic Idealism
    ↪creativesoul
    :fire:

    ↪creativesoul
    :100:

    ↪Fooloso4
    :up:
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    ↪Wayfarer
    :clap: :smirk:

    Putin's Bitch goes on trial in NYC for 34 felonies (so far) on 25 March 2024 during the middle of the GOP primaries. By then the NYS Attorney General and E Jean Carroll (et al) will have bankrupted Loser-1 with punitive damages fines. His "presidential candidacy" is DOA. :lol:

    Addendum.

    (Update pending on imminent US Federal indictments for Obstruction of Justice, Espionage, etc.)
  • A Case for Analytic Idealism
    ↪Fooloso4
    :up:
  • Philosophy is for questioning religion
    ↪Jamal
    :up:
  • Why Monism?
    ↪Gnomon
    Your silly projections aside, Gnomon: given that X is "immaterial" (i.e. not instantiable), what (non-trivial) difference does this X make (i.e. how is X consequential)? :chin:
  • Philosophy is for questioning religion
    ↪wonderer1
    :up:

    For the religious, IME, philosophy is a rope around their necks more often than a way to pull themselves out of themselves. Thinking for oneself, like courage, is much much harder for most than ritualized make-believe (i.e. false hope).
  • The matriarchy
    Would society be better off as a matriarchy? — Benj96
    A scarcity-driven society? No. A post-scarcity society? N/A
  • The Debt Ceiling Issue
    The Dems + 5 or more Repubs will force a vote in the US House and they will pass a bill to raise the Debt Ceiling. The US Senate will pass that bill within 24 hours, and then the Congress will recess for Memorial Day. McCarthy will still be the Speaker for a while longer and POTUS will sign the law by the first of June. US Federal Budget negotiations to resume in earnest in the Fall. The sky isn't falling – even though Federal Indictments of Putin's Bitch seem imminent followed by Fulton County, Georgia Indictments in July/August. :party:
  • A Case for Analytic Idealism
    ↪Wayfarer
    What are you talking about?
  • Philosophy is for questioning religion
    "Cosmic purpose?"

    If there is one, I think it's an inexorable and ubiquitous process like gravity: whether or not we "know" it, we cannot not fulfill this "purpose" because we are infinitesmal, ephemeral constituents of the cosmos. As the cosmos goes, so we go necessarily. :point:
  • A Case for Analytic Idealism
    settled science — Wayfarer
    What's that? :roll:
  • A Case for Analytic Idealism
    ↪Wayfarer
    :up:
  • A Case for Analytic Idealism
    ↪Wayfarer
    Good luck with reading Metzinger when you get around to it. My point of mentioning his work is that it disproves your assertion that "there is no scientific account of the unity of subjective experience". Whether or not it's correct is another issue altogether.

    Btw, I'm not going to "explain" anything science related to you – especially re: cognitive science – given your repeatedly demonstrated misunderstandings of modern natural science as somehow, you quixotically believe, corroborate your idealist-mystical (i.e. supernaturalist) worldview. I dispute your claims with actual facts or sound arguments when I can and let our disagreements stand for others to interpret.
  • Why Monism?
    ↪Janus
    :up:
  • A Case for Analytic Idealism
    Their remains no scientific account of which neural systems are able to generate the subjective unity of experience. — Wayfarer
    On the contrary, sir – for example, (my preferred "scientific account") Being No One (or its non-technical synopsis The Ego Tunnel) by the neuroscientist, philosopher & (afaik) practicing Buddhist Thomas Metzinger. I'm sure I've cited him and his works many times in our exchanges over the years, but apparently you're still incorrigibly stuck on your 'idealist' dogma. :sparkle:
  • Why Monism?
    For example, ↪180 Proof has made his implicit emotional reaction explicit, as in the post above: "@Gnomon "Im-material" = not instantiable (i.e. un-observable), ergo in-consequential." — Gnomon
    Your silly projections aside, Gnomon: given that X is "immaterial" (i.e. not instantiable), what (non-trivial) difference does this X make (i.e. how is X consequential)? :chin:
  • Incels. Why is this online group becoming so popular?
    If one reduces themselves to physical harm towards those that wish to do physical harm, then are we really any better? — Benj96
    Maybe not, but we can refuse to be worse by doing nothing to stop those a*holes from harming anyone. Watch out for that pacifistic false equivalence, Benj – it has only ever encouraged bullies, segregationists & fascists.
  • A Case for Analytic Idealism
    ↪Philosophim
    :up:
  • Incels. Why is this online group becoming so popular?
    ↪T Clark
    I don't respect misogynists or those who defend them.
  • Incels. Why is this online group becoming so popular?
    ↪ChatteringMonkey
    :up:

    ↪Benj96
    Yeah, big fat tongue in my cheek ... but I am intolerant of the intolerant (even antisocial with regard to the antisocial), what I call 'responsible freedom' (i.e. engagée). IMO, radicalized violent misogynists / racists / fascists ought not to be coddled or excused, medicalized or given any quarter whatsoever.
  • Incels. Why is this online group becoming so popular?
    How would one go about defusing that? — Benj96
    In 180 Proof's utopia, we'd castrate and/or lobotomize incels. Or maybe, less invasively, heavily medicate the shits with opiods & sedatives. I suppose the more bleeding-heart lefty factions would advocate for the least fiscally responsible solution: AI-Companions (age & body type-specified gynoids / androids à la "pleasure model Replicants"). However, like porn, even fully immersive VR "sex-on-demand" likely won't scratch the incel's misogynistic itch for long. :strong: :shade:
  • A Case for Analytic Idealism
    This is exactly why dualism is called for. — Metaphysician Undercover
    Yes, property dualism (or reflexive monism) but not unparsimonious substance dualism.

    ↪Christoffer
    :fire:
  • About Freedom of Choice
    Either there is no "free will" or there is no "God" or there is neither; therefore, there is no problem of reconciling "free will" with "God". — 180 Proof
    What? But suppose there is both "free will" and "God"? Then "God" allows time to branch-off human time (i.e. futurity) from "His" eternity whenever we act – our gate infinitely widens but for us "His" narrow gate becomes infinitesmal. :naughty:
  • A Case for Analytic Idealism
    No it [immaterialism] does not entail solipsism. — Bob Ross
    Well, Bob, this is how I see it:

    If one only "knows" ideas because there are only ideas, and if ideas are properties of minds, and if each mind is an idea, then all minds are properties of each mind or, in effect, one mind. QED. — immaterialism, ergo solipsism
    This is just like pixels in a hologram each of which containing all of the information that constitutes the hologram (à la Leibniz's monads).
  • Why Monism?
    ↪Janus
    :fire:

    @Gnomon "Im-material" = not instantiable (i.e. un-observable), ergo in-consequential.
  • A Case for Analytic Idealism
    ↪Wayfarer
    Thus, we cannot know whether or not this "transcendental" (subject / mind) is anything more than a convenient fiction (i.e. confabulation)? :roll:
  • Name for a school of thought regarding religious diversity?
    ↪Hallucinogen
    :roll: Words used in a theory doesn't mean that those words are theories.
  • A Case for Analytic Idealism
    ... transcendental in the Kantian sense. — Wayfarer
    So is this "transcendental" conception of 'mind-dependence' also mind-dependent? :chin:
  • A Case for Analytic Idealism
    We can form no meaningful idea of what exists in the absence of the order that the mind brings to reality. — Wayfarer
    So star light, for example, from distant galaxies (or the CMB) that predates by millions (or billions) of years the human species – it's capability of "mind" – is not a "meaningful idea" or a "real" (mind-invariant) referent?
Home » 180 Proof