:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:As usual, 180 alcohol content responds to myphilosophical arguments--- in favor of a Cosmic Cause (hidden hand) for the contingent universe we living & thinking beings inhabit --- with ad hominem political attacks : e.g. liberal (logical) inference bad vs conservative (physical) evidence good. I assume he is appalled at the worldwide popularity of the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob, who frequently punished his chosen people with mass death and deportation. 180 may also have had a bad experience with pedophile priests or knuckle-rapping nuns. — Gnomon
Except that your interpretations consist in appeals to ignorance fallacies, as quite a few members have exhaustively pointed out over the years, and my interpretations do not.Note --- We read the same science books, but interpret their philosophical implications differently. — Gnomon
As a libertarian leftist and negative consequentialist, I find reductionist – simplistic – statements like yours, Brendan, meaningless (ahistorical). The last century or so of 'political' events and conflicts amply shows that, especially for most citizens, governing ideologies are not determined by – not consistently derived from – ethical principles (or practices), even though the domains (can) overlap. Of course, any concrete, real world counter-examples would lend some credibility to the OP.I think leftists are in the preconventional stage of morality, and MAGA are in the conventional stage. — Brendan Golledge
I can see her looking fast
in her faded jeans
She's a hard loving woman,
got me feeling mean
Sometimes
I think it's a shame
When I get feeling better
when I'm feeling no pain
Why do you ask? (I was) a New Yorker, I'd lived in their ruins ...Did you ever read the “Power Broker?” — T Clark
I think it's primarily our actions, practices, commitments & habits which 'define' us politically. My own pessimism can seem "conservative" in isolation from my other overt concerns and agitations.Yes, and I guess there's always a risk that my kind of reflections are effectively conservative. — Jamal
:clap: :fire:That’s what’s so compelling in Lefebvre—he rescues liberalism from the charge of moral emptiness not by denying it, but by reframing it. Liberalism isn’t a doctrine, it’s a discipline. It's what we do. A lived ethic of coordination, mutuality, and restraint. Less about asserting the good, more about making life together possible.
And I liked that Hadot echo too—quiet, but clear. Ethics as practice, not rulebook. That’s why the capabilities approach fits so well here: it’s not just about rights or choices, but cultivating the real power to live well. Not a retreat from meaning, but a wager that meaning can be plural.
And still, what is the alternative? — Banno
:victory: :cool:My dad was a communist turned socialist - how was I supposed to rebel against that? Oh, I remember now, "turn on, tune in, drop out". — unenlightened
:smirk:I do rather like the developing argumentum ad peanutem. — Banno
:fire: :up:Do onto others as you would have them do onto you, and communism: To each according to need from each according to ability. Neither can be achieved, or even approached, in the overpopulated, god-ridden, money-driven, propagandized societies of today. All liberals can do is attempt to mitigate the worst outcomes. In some countries they do fairly well; in others, they fail, get knocked on their keesters, get up and try again. And again, and again.... — Vera Mont
I don't think the answer is found in a dicitionary but a history book. Liberalism and capitalism developed in tandem and share core assumption about the individual, property and greedom (that was a typo but I like it). — Benkei
:100:A pessimistic view is that capitalists need freedom to operate, so they champion liberalism because it diminishes religious and governmental interference. — frank
Assume that the physical in the state of S1 has the caus[al] power to cause the physical in the state of S2. Physical however is not aware of the passage of time.Therefore, the physical in the state of S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause the physical in the state of S2.
—MoK
These misplaced concreteness & anthropomorphic fallacies render your (latest) OP "argument" gibberish, Mok. — 180 Proof
:strong: :mask:And the essence of liberalism is to justify capitalism with the ideology of equality, individual liberty and property rights.
And not only to justify capitalism, but to justify colonialism, slavery, and class hierarchy. — Jamal
:up: :up: e.g. Demarchic-Economic Democracy (i.e. libertarian socialism) ... as you, no doubt, know.most collectivist thought wants to maximise democratic processes where they are currently barred due to the structure of liberal/capitalism. — Benkei
:smirk:On your logic, if someone goes looking for the Loch Ness Monster, then there must be a Loch Ness Monster.
Very good. — Banno
Funny thing, though, Einstein didn't see a reason for "an update of Spinoza's Deus, sive nature, perhaps because he actually studied Spinoza, unlike you, Mr Enformer-of-the-gaps, and therefore does not conflate, or confuse, metaphysics with physics as pseudo-thinkers do. Fwiw, the philosophical speculation I find most parsimonious and consistent with "modern cosmology" is pandeism¹ (not your "PanEnDeism" or panentheism or pantheism).an update of Spinoza's deus sive natura, to accommodate modern cosmology — Gnomon
Fundamental physical regularities are not legistlated "laws" that need to be "enforced" but are mathematically derived from countless, extraordinarily precise observations (measurements) of the most explanatory physical theories available (SR, GR, QFT, Standard Model, etc). The term "laws of nature" is a metaphorical shorthand that it makes no sense to attribute some hidden (occult) agency such as "the Mind" to – which only begs the question 'and whence the Mind?' leading either to an infinite regress or unwarranted, arbitrary terminus (e.g. "first cause", "unmoved mover", "intelligent designer", "creator", etc).I agree that the laws of nature are enforced by an entity called the Mind — MoK
Why?But we need a reason for the existence of the laws of nature in the first place. — A Christian Philosophy
:up: :up:The search for metaphysical causes is essentially religious in its origins, and has been a great hindrance to the advancement of human knowledge. — alan1000
When you say "lack of self-awareness", are you referring to the article's author, American readers? American writers? or ???There is an impressive lack of self-awareness in that article — Count Timothy von Icarus
And the "sufficient reason" for (every instantiation of) the "PSR" is what exactly? :chin:Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR): For every thing that exists, there is a sufficient reason/explanation/ground for its existence or occurrence. — A Christian Philosophy
:roll:Matter doesn't exist. This is all an elaborate dream. — RogueAI
:up: :up:On the one hand you are saying it's all just chemicals and yet on the other you say that these thoughts about it all being chemicals are not due to chemicals but are "logical conclusions". Do you not see that you are contradicting yourself? — Janus
:100: :fire:Translating the bullshit we have been sold in plain English, the trade unions have lost their bargaining power, the population has been taught that it is not the rich that are responsible for their misery but gays and foreigners, and that a state that supports the poor and the sick is undesirable and cost them too much. Hence taxes have gone down, real wages have gone down, and government spending on social care has gone down. This is also partly because we no longer have an Empire covering a third of the world to exploit. Those wretched foreigners again wanting to run their own lives. — unenlightened
From what perspective? At what level of analysis? Why not instead: if it's all just quarks ...? C'mon, the premise is weak, reductive nonsense.if it's all just chemicals — Darkneos
