• What exists that is not of the physical world yet not supernatural
    Quantum Science has undermined¹ the materialistic beliefs² of Classical science. — Gnomon
    1.(In your own words) How so?

    2 (Again, in your own words) "Materialistic beliefs" such as?

    ... "physical"³ Energy ...
    3. As opposed to "nonphysical Energy"?
    If so, please cite an example.

    ... philosophical (metaphysical) belief⁴ systems ...
    4. If philosophy consists in criteria for forming and judging "beliefs" (i.e. epistemology), then philosophy cannot itself be a "belief system", right? (Re: the epistemic regress problem.)

    If so, then "belief systems" are not "philosophical (metaphysical)" ... maybe they are religious or political, social or psychological, normative or practical "belief systems" ... and therefore not what's at issue when we "clash & balk" at each other's disparate, seemingly incongruent, mis/interpretations of texts, concepts or phenomena. Then what's at issue? The usual suspects: fallacious arguments, obfuscating / evasive rhetoric, insufficient subject-matter knowledge, unwarranted neologisms, pseudo-science masquerading as speculation, etc. :sparkle: :eyes:
    .
    Which came first, the mind-making brain or the logical structure of the universe?
    The universe, then brains, then grammar-based cognition (i.e mind), then "the logical structure" of any X (e.g. X = "the universe, then brains, then ... etc"). Otherwise, "idealism" (i.e. anti-realism). :yawn:
  • What does "real" mean?
    ↪dimosthenis9
    Check out the links provided here
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/751787 (@ the bottom)
  • On Thomas Mann’s transitoriness: Time and the Meaning of Our Existence.
    So, the human race must ultimately, globally unite in such common cause or go the way of the dinosaurs. — universeness
    I don't think the survival of our species depends in any way on "the human race ... globally united". In fact, I'd bet against it. And when 'life extension' engineeriing really takes off, Malthusian population pressures will go critical and policies of 'strategic gigacide' will need to be implemented. What survives on the other side of that global cataclysm might not be recognizably "human" to us (i.e. their ancestors).

    The alternative, however, may be that 'radical life extension' will only be available to people who work and live permanently in space (e.g. orbital habitats, moon stations, planet colonies, deep space travel, etc) – AI-automated fleet of "worldships" populated by a total of a million? half-million? hundreds of thousands or less? "Post-human" immortals – leaving billions of mortals behind on a flooded, toxic, storm-ravaged, burning Earth.

    Do you see any other way forwards towards what I think MUST BE the natural direction of our species almost as a natural imperative of all sentient life.
    'The species imperative' does not require most of the current populations of the species (or their descendants) to survive, only enough of us to carry our DNA and cultural artifacts forward through the coming millennia and epochs. AI-automation + space habitation + immortality engineering are what h. sapiens' "Post-human" future looks like to me ...

    Extinction or apotheosis? :eyes: :monkey:
  • What does "real" mean?
    So at the end you think that "our real" is just one form of how real can be presented? — dimosthenis9
    "Our reality" consists in every possible "form of how real can be presented". Analogously, chess consists in every game that it is possible to play, whether or not they are ever played, and not just instantiated by a single representative (perfect? ideal?) game of chess..

    One of numerous other possible forms that can be?
    No. Every "possible form that can be" known and unknown.

    Or you mean something else?
    See above (and links at end of my previous post).
  • On Thomas Mann’s transitoriness: Time and the Meaning of Our Existence.
    I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve immortality through not dying. I don't want to live on in the hearts of my countrymen; I want to live on in my apartment. — Woody Allen

    ↪javi2541997
    Mann seems to assume that immortality lacks "transitoriness" (e.g. personal losses happen, the world is a thermally dissipative mega-structure of countless chaotic systems, etc) and is not finite (re: to choose necessarily excludes other choices); he conflates, or confuses, aging with time and the prospect of death with the urgency to live. It's a 'romantic existentialist' assumption that doesn't hold up well under psychological or philosophical scrutiny. I suppose, until general senescence is medically controlled (i.e. immorbidity) and natural death becomes optional, the 'aesthetics of ephemerality' will remain the prime motivator of culture, especially religion and war, and decadence. :death: :flower:

    I don't want to die now. I'm having a good time. But I certainly don't want to live forever. — T Clark
    Same here. I want to live long enough to quit life on my own terms and to desire nothing more from living. Not "forever", I agree, but as long as it's psychologically possible for me to go on.

    I've generally thought of life as a brief flickering of light in the infinite darkness. It's entirely up to the individual how they wish to inhabit this brief flash of illumination. Generally I think it helps an individual to get out and do things and not dwell on their own needs or thoughts too much. Rumination leads to endless potential forms of dissatisfaction. In my view, doing things for others is more likely to lead to satisfaction and personal transformation — Tom Storm
    :100: :fire:
    .
    A free man thinks of death least of all things, and his wisdom is a meditation not of death but of life. — Benedict Spinoza
  • Value of human identity and DNA.
    What value is there to the self if we are nothing more than physical beings, and it is likely everything is predetermined? — TiredThinker
    The answer depends on what you mean by "value": to what or to whom? under what circumstances? moral, aesthetic, religious, economic, political, or social value?

    Your question also implies that there is some unquestionable "value" if we are somehow "more than physical beings". What warrants this?

    And what warrants the assumption that "everything is predetermined" or that being "likely"?
  • Is someone's usefulness to work more important than their character or vice versa?
    One is useful in a tangible output way and the other is simply a nice guy but produces no output. — schopenhauer1
    Apples and onions. :roll:
  • What does "real" mean?
    ↪sime
    I do not understand irrealism as merely "perspecctival" or "subjective perception" but rather, in Nelson Goodman's sense, that the world is a composite of different (or all of it's) possible descriptions of the world – a complementary plurality – instead of a unity (i.e. univocity). In other words, the territory does not transcend its mapping so much as the territory is conceived of as an ensemble of all of its possible maps; 'reality as such' as a generalization from – simplification of – many different, particular realities (i.e. ways of depicting and modeling). I find this concerption of irreality very much related to the modal ontology of actualism.
  • Is someone's usefulness to work more important than their character or vice versa?
    Is someone's usefulness to work more important than their character or vice versa? — schopenhauer1
    Category mistake. Those 'qualities' are not comparable.

    Is the value of "being useful at the workplace" more important than having a good character? — schopenhauer1
    No. They are not comparable.
  • Is someone's usefulness to work more important than their character or vice versa?
    Is sentience the most important value for you? — schopenhauer1
    That's a different question, independent of – not related to – the one raised by the OP. Why don't ask plainly and clearly what you're trying to get at?
  • Is someone's usefulness to work more important than their character or vice versa?
    Ok, so I think my OP was sufficiently unclear, and that is my fault. — schopenhauer1
    :up:
  • Is someone's usefulness to work more important than their character or vice versa?
    I really am not restricting what is deemed as important. That is up to you — schopenhauer1
    Well okay, then you have my answer:
    If I say "important as sentient life forms", then both are equally important specimens. — 180 Proof
  • What does "real" mean?
    ↪frank
    So you let alt-right racists ' coopting one of the oldest human hand gestures stop you from using an emoji? How woke of you, frank. :mask:
  • What does "real" mean?
    ↪frank
    :ok: And your point is —?
  • Is someone's usefulness to work more important than their character or vice versa?
    You just can't say BOTH. — schopenhauer1
    Why? If I say "important as sentient life forms", then both are equally important specimens. You categorically rule out "both" as an option, however, which implies a restriction on what "important" can mean in your OP. So state clearly what is meant by "important" as I put it to yo in my initial post because, schop1, you can't have it both ways.
  • Is someone's usefulness to work more important than their character or vice versa?
    ↪schopenhauer1
    Go back to my initial post:
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/751604
  • Is someone's usefulness to work more important than their character or vice versa?
    ↪schopenhauer1
    You posed the "dilemma" but framed it ambiguously enough not to be taken seriously. Try again, make it clear and compelling.
  • What does "real" mean?
    ↪Banno
    :ok: :roll:
  • Is someone's usefulness to work more important than their character or vice versa?
    You have to pick one. Which is more important, to have a good character or to be useful? — schopenhauer1
    "Pick one" who "is more important" how,? in what way? for what reason?
  • What does "real" mean?
    I avoid the rain by staying inside. Hence, it is not ineluctable; and not real. — Banno
    When it is raining outside, you cannot "avoid" that it is raining outside "by staying inside". Btw, your example doesn't concern ontology, Banno, which, in the context of my remarks, isn't relevant.
  • What does "real" mean?
    It has struck me the concept is not usually defined explicitly or carefully. To me the way it is used often seems wrong-headed — T Clark
    This seems to me the idea raised by the OP.

    How is talking about ordinary human language not relevant to discussing the idea of 'real'?
    What am I missing?     — Amity
    I don't think"the idea of real" is relevant but rather that the term itself "is not usually defined explicitly or carefully" – and I'd add – in the context of discussions on ontology here on TPF. Talking about "ordinary language" here is like discussing playwriting craft in a review of the latest performance of Hamlet – interesting, maybe, but besides the point as far as I'm concerned.

    What does that mean? — Amity
    Here's some "ordinary language semantics" for you: follow the links in the post to which your quote of mine refers for the context (i.e. how I use "real" when discussing ontology).
  • A simple but difficult dilemma of evil in the world

    We are not a little lower than the angels. We're a little higher than the apes. It's a very different perspective. — John Shelby Spong
    :fire: :monkey:


    Fox the fox
    Rat on the rat
    You can ape the ape
    I know about that


    ↪Tom Storm
    :up:
  • What does "real" mean?
    Addendum to
    ↪180 Proof


    ↪T Clark
    The only context which I took as relevant is the one mentioned in the OP: (mis)usage vis-a-vis onrology on TPF. All the "ordinary language semantics" blather these last several pages seems to me besides the point raised in the OP.

    I think it's best to lay our cards on the table showing how we intend to use problematic (i.e. specialized) terms in order to make ourselves better understood. This I try to do (though, admiittedly, not always effectively). Again, in case this was missed ...
    So I use "real" to indicate some X is ineluctable, subject-invariant and/or which exceeds-our-categories. — 180 Proof
    Context: ontology (and related, more specific topics e.g. facticity, alterity, agency, etc). Interlocators are free to accept or reject, supplement or replace my usage with a less defective alternative; maybe, then, I/we might learn something else about or gain more clarity on the topic at hand.

    Anyway, stipulative, or working, definitions, I think, suffice for non-fallacious (non-equivocating) philosophical discussions. It seems, more or less, you agree, TC?
  • What exists that is not of the physical world yet not supernatural
    ↪creativesoul
    :fire:

    ↪god must be atheist
    So you cannot cite from where you get
    180 proof insists that everything real is natural. — god must be atheist
    :ok: No need to take your OP seriously then since you're just making up context-free shit.
  • What exists that is not of the physical world yet not supernatural
    Existence is being not nothing. — god must be atheist
    Clear as mud. :shade:

    It will be hard to show your stance...
    I don't see why: you claimed I had "insisted" on something – show me by citing my own words (with a link to put those words into context).
  • A simple but difficult dilemma of evil in the world
    This is true where god is fiction and just an enlargement of human tendencies, a wish fulfillment fantasy with all the sins of its creators, hence, genocide, rape, slavery as part of the divine plan. :wink: The result is a god, which like humans, is perfectly compatible with evil and tyranny. — Tom Storm
    :fire:

    ↪unenlightened
    :clap: :naughty:
  • What exists that is not of the physical world yet not supernatural
    180 proof insists that everything real is natural. — god must be atheist
    Cite the claim/s you are referring to. Thanks.

    ... it is a thing without material existence that still exists.
    Clarify what you mean by "a thing ... exists".
  • A simple but difficult dilemma of evil in the world
    God is not evil. — god must be atheist
    From the King James Bible (OT):
    I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. — Isaiah 45:7
    Also, read the Book of Job. The "free will" theidiocy amounts to nothing more than vacuous and vicious blame-shifting doubletalk. :pray: :naughty:

    ↪Tom Storm
    :up:
  • Antinatalism Arguments
    ↪Bartricks
    :ok: :rofl:
  • The Book that Broke the World: Hegel’s “Phenomenology of Spirit”
    ↪Banno
    I applauded @Fooloso4 pointing out that the OP is mistaken in assuming that interpretations of Hegel's political philosophy are/were (mostly) based on the Phenomenology of Mind rather than the Philosophy of Right, etc. Do you disagree?
  • Antinatalism Arguments
    Tell you what, tell me what my argument is. — Bartricks
    It's invalid & trivial. That's what your "argument" is.
  • Antinatalism Arguments
    ↪L'éléphant
    :up:
  • Antinatalism Arguments
    ↪Bartricks
    Self-refuted re: (the usual) fatous premises. Thus, dismissed as per @Sir2u. :yawn:

    ↪Cobra
    :100:
  • How to begin one's day?
    I would like to begin my day by 1st checking my ... pyjamas — Agent Smith
    :sweat:


    "Good morning ..."
    "Woke up / Fell out of bed ..."
    (mono)
  • Antinatalism Arguments
    ↪Sir2u
    :up:
  • Antinatalism Arguments
    ↪Bartricks
    I gave your OP all the due consideration it warrants; you must've missed it –
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/750919
  • Currently Reading
    August-December readings:

    Due to laser surgery to treat acute retinapathy in early September and again a couple of weeks ago, I'm still reading the following:
    August-October readings:

    • Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning, Karen Barad
    • Critical Realism: An Introduction to Roy Bhaskar's Philosophy, Andrew Collier
    • The Origin of Phenomena, D. B. Kelley
    • Quantum Ontology: A Guide to the Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics, Peter Lewis
    • Defending the Axioms: On the Philosophical Foundations of Set Theory, Penelope Maddy
    • Giving Beyond The Gift: Apophasis and Overcoming Theomania, Elliot Wolfson     — 180 Proof
    Also added to the pile

    • Philosophy in Crisis, Mario Bunge
    • A Philosophy of the Unsayable, William Franke
    • Revolutionary Jews from Spinoza to Marx, Jonathan Israel

    rereading:

    • Philosophical Perspectives on Infinity, Graham Oppy
  • Antinatalism Arguments
    ↪Bartricks
    And clearly you're not very smart, Bratshitz. I guess that makes me the straight man in this clown show. :smirk:
  • The Book that Broke the World: Hegel’s “Phenomenology of Spirit”
    ↪Dermot Griffin
    Adorno's negative dialectics is more on point political-economically than Marx-Engel's "dialectical materialism" (i.e. inverted dialectical idealism).

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/699682

    Hegel's social and political philosophy cannot be adequately addressed without discussing his Philosophy of Right — Fooloso4
    :clap:

    ↪Banno
    :up:
  • Antinatalism Arguments
    I am not going to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. — Bartricks
    Of course you're not ...
Home » 180 Proof