The Philosophy Forum

  • Forum
  • Members
  • HELP

  • Is the harmfulness of death ante-mortem or post-mortem?
    ↪jgill
    :up:
  • Is the harmfulness of death ante-mortem or post-mortem?
    "Death" is not harmful to one when one is dead. Also, insofar as life has "intrinsic value", it is manifest only in the living and only recognized by the living.

    :death: :flower:
  • The Concept of 'God': What Does it Mean and, Does it Matter?
    What does one expect or hope for from such arguments? — Fooloso4
    I expect to show that theism is an irrational belief system.

    Can the existence or non-existence of God be determined by argument?
    Theism can be shown not to be true or conceptually incoherent which entails that any theistic deity is fictional.

    Or is it a matter of finding reasons for or against believing?
    It's a matter of exposing – making explicit – the insufficient evidence or unsound arguments in reasoning "for and against believing".

    Or is it a matter of the possibility of God?
    For me, it's a matter of the truth-value of what believers say about what they call "God".

    What hangs on the existence or non-existence of God?
    Only a conception of reality.
  • The Concept of 'God': What Does it Mean and, Does it Matter?
    ↪emancipate
    I never said babies are stupid.
  • The Concept of 'God': What Does it Mean and, Does it Matter?
    180 Proof
    Your own development of ideas, including pantheism [pandeism], is interesting in the sense that it goes beyond the shallow aspects of atheism.
    — Jack Cummins
    What are "the shallow aspects of atheism"?
  • Reverse racism/sexism
    ↪Olivier5
    :up:
  • What a genuine word of God would look like
    ↪Hanover
    I have mentioned "apophatics" (re negative theology) here and on several other threads. It's a tradition I've been acquainted with since the early 1980s and have incorporated into (my own) negative ontology. So not "late to the party" by any stretch.
  • Fear of The Dark Night
    Don't confuse Capitalist consumerism with Epicurean materialism.
  • Most Important Problem Facing Humanity, Revisited
    ↪Tom Storm
    :smirk:
  • Most Important Problem Facing Humanity, Revisited
    I'm aware of when I gotta piss or shit, when I gotta eat or drink, when I hurt or feel sympathy for another's hurt, and whenever I daydream or I'm bored. It seems to me that any more "inner awareness" than this and I'd be too distracted to dance, drive, get laid, etc.
  • What a genuine word of God would look like
    ↪Agent Smith
    :up:
  • Most Important Problem Facing Humanity, Revisited
    Addendum to
    ↪180 Proof
    ↪180 Proof
    ...

    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/aug/31/an-inconvenient-apocalypse-climate-crisis-book

    :death: :fire:
  • The Concept of 'God': What Does it Mean and, Does it Matter?
    ↪Jack Cummins

    I pray to God to make me free of God. — Meister Eckhart
    Once upon a precocious youth I'd been a Catholic teen apostate, an undergraduate negative atheist and then postgraduate positive atheist. Decades on, finally I suspect, I am an antitheist in theory and practice.
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/403860

    Speculatively, however, pandeism appeals to me.
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/718054

    Not long ago my devout Catholic mother, who turns an alarmingly youthful 80 this Friday (Sept 2nd), found a letter I'd sent her when I was 25 to reply to her nagging that without "god" or "the church" I must "believe in nothing". I wrote to her ...
    I'm a realist – whatever is shown to be real is all that matters to me, so i don't believe in much else. If anything, I believe in evidence and sound arguments. i don't believe in anything that's only subjective or imaginary; therefore, I'm neither religious nor spiritual. "God" just isn't my drug of choice.
    More than thirty years later, though my arguments have been significantly refined, my realist position, enriched by life experience and greater understanding, remains substantially the same. Still, when I take her to Mass (most Saturdays), waiting in the car for her and before she goes into church, I remind her to "pray for me" and she nods, and sometimes squeezes my hand, with a quiet "Always". :flower:
  • The Concept of 'God': What Does it Mean and, Does it Matter?
    ↪Metaphysician Undercover
    :eyes:
    As Pascal points out, (the/an actually worshipped) "God" =/= "the Idea, or Form, which precedes ... in time". Just meta-babytalk, MU. :sweat:
  • What a genuine word of God would look like
    The problem is, it seems to me, worship – idol-making – not g/G per se. Theism is idolatry. The apophatics got it right, I think: anything said or imag(in)ed (e.g. "graven images", scriptures, theologies, sermons) about the infinite is necessarily finite and thereby false; even (especially) the belief that the infinite "exists" is idolatrous.
  • The Concept of 'God': What Does it Mean and, Does it Matter?
    For me god/s have no explanatory power. — Tom Storm
    :100: :up: "Goddidit" is babytalk.
  • The Concept of 'God': What Does it Mean and, Does it Matter?
    I am raising the area between theism/ atheism, but also other possibilities, including pantheism and the various constructions of reality which may be developed — Jack Cummins
    Before I reply to the OP directly, I paste the link below to an old post replying to you on a related topic last year, just to add some context to a later post that illustrates those "other possibilities" you suggest.

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/599848
  • Is space 4 dimensional?
    ↪TiredThinker
    Sounds like String theorists' "holographic principle" (derived from "black hole thermodynamics")
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle
  • Why are people so afraid to admit they are wrong here?
    ↪Noble Dust
    Doubtless you are mistaken.
  • What a genuine word of God would look like
    Nothingnes[nonbeing] If he would exist I would imagine him as the pure representation of silence and emptiness. — javi2541997
    :up: E.g. the Democritean void (à la vacuum energy).

    As much as we tend to understand death.
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/507756
  • Is space 4 dimensional?
    ↪TiredThinker
    IIRC, dimensionality corresponds to degrees of freedom of movement. 3-d space describes the freedom to move backward-forward, up-down and right-left in space. That we are – every 3-d thing is – moving (i.e. "arrow of time") adds a 4th-d. Thus, only (Euclidean) abstract space is 3-d; physical (relativistic) spacetime is 4-d.
  • What a genuine word of God would look like
    IMO, to date, the best candiddate (via-à-vis natural theology) that believers have for "God revealed" is


    Previously, the next best and oldest candidate, I suspect, has always been


    Either way, "revelation" without dogma or commandments, without chosen people or the damned, without martyrs or magical thinking. Just – what Plato metaphorically called "the Form of the Good" – universal, ancient light. :fire:
  • The End of the Mechanistic Worldview
    ↪Tzeentch
    I'm pointing out that you have not persuaded me that Desmet is saying anything new and insightful, just rehashing others who are far less derivative. I'm also suggesting that you read more widely and deeply than what have exhibited here.
  • Why are people so afraid to admit they are wrong here?
    As I've said to a number incorrigibles, dogmatists or bullshitters here on TPF
    I'm here to expose poor thinking and not to persuade you of anything.
    It's either pride or insecurity that blocks one from admitting one is wrong when one has been shown to be wrong.
  • Philosophy vs Science
    ↪A Christian Philosophy
    Pax. :victory:
  • The End of the Mechanistic Worldview
    Synthesize works from different writers and turn them into something [shits] that sheds light on contemporary issues? — Tzeentch
    In other words, derivative dumbing down for "ease of use" by middle-brow consumers. (or maybe undergrad litcrit / humanities courses). The works I've cited have philosophical import and should be studied in order to make explicit what is implicit yet still operative in "contemporary issues".
  • The Fine-Tuning Argument as (Bad) an Argument for God
    By an overwhelmingly astronomical prepondance of the evidence in the Hubble volume, this universe is apparently "fine-tuned" for lifelessness. — 180 Proof
  • Authenticity and Identity: What Does it Mean to Find One's 'True' Self?
    ↪Jack Cummins
    Okay, sort of like Freddy teaching "how to become who you are" ...

    I believe philosophy's central project has always been to optimize agency by helping one to unlearn 'self-immiserating habits' (i.e. foolery/stupidity) through various daily reflective practices (e.g. pythagorean, epicurean, stoic, pyrrhonian, cynical, neoplatonic, peripatetic ... pragmaticist, absurdist, etc). This is how I make sense of "true self" in the (western) philosophical tradition.
  • The Fine-Tuning Argument as (Bad) an Argument for God
    The fine tuning argument amounts to saying that if things were different they would not be as they are. It does not preclude the existence of a very different universe, a universe without us and our attempts to prove the existence of a god who has created a just so world for us. — Fooloso4
    :100: :up:
  • Poltics isn't common Good
    “Neoliberal democracy. Instead of citizens, it produces consumers. Instead of communities, it produces shopping malls. The net result is an atomized society of disengaged individuals who feel demoralized and socially powerless. In sum, neoliberalism is the immediate and foremost enemy of genuine participatory democracy, not just in the United States but across the planet, and will be for the foreseeable future.”

    - Noam Chomsky
    — Tom Storm
    :fire:
  • The End of the Mechanistic Worldview
    ↪Tzeentch
    Whether in politics or among the mid-brow masses, why does their "worldview" matter in philossophy? What's the alternative to an unreflective, or thoughtless, "common sense" by which the vast majority of people "get by"? You & Desmet seem fixated on a pseudo-problem; I don't see the point, and am not persuaded by your presentation to bother with Desmet's apparent rehash of e.g. Benjamin's "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) or
    Horkheimer & Adorno's Dialectic of Enlightenment (1947) or Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951) or Ellul's The Technological Society (1964) or Marcuse's One Domensional Man (1964) or Guattari & Deleuze's Anti-Oedipus (1972) or Feyerabend's Against Method (1975) ... etc.
  • Poltics isn't common Good
    ↪Agent Smith


    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/502217 :nerd:
  • Science answers to "how?", we need another system to answer the "why?" questions.
    ↪Agent Smith
    There's no "confusion" ...

    How A involuntarily happens (i.e. changes).

    Why B voluntarily decided and/or acted.
  • Poltics isn't common Good
    I find conceptual shorthands can be a clarifying as they are (overly) simplifying at the start of discussing a complex topic like this one. Perhaps in descending order of antiquity:
    Religion is organized submission.

    Politics is organized dissension.

    War is organized aggression.
    It seems that religion has always justified politics (i.e. war preparations / reparations) and war has always been a policy of failed politics (and therefore, of failed religion) by other means.

    NB: [Religion [ Politics [War ]]]
  • How exactly does Schopenhauer come to the conclusion that the noumenal world is Will?
    ↪Xtrix
    :fire:

    What I recommend, and I think most of us actually do, is to start somewhere and then move back and forth, expanding the picture, filling in gaps, and correcting the picture. — Fooloso4
    :100: :up:

    A second rate philosopher [Schopenhauer] as compared to first rates such as Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard and Heidegger — Janus
    :yikes: WTF?

    I think he pinched the idea [Will] from Spinoza's "conatus" in any case. — Janus
    No doubt.
  • The End of the Mechanistic Worldview
    The idea that through science everything can be reduced to a mathematical equation ... — Tzeentch
    This is a caricature of what most scientists and scientifically literate laypersons actually believe. For instance, a cake recipe cannot "be reduced" to the wavefunction of the cake's quantum constituents. Desmet is strawmanning modern science. :roll:
  • Currently Reading
    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
  • A Simple Primer for American Politics
    Race is also taboo, but in terms of explanatory power I think class is higher. — Xtrix
    :100:

    Discrimination is used by Exploitation to police the exploited. :mask:
  • Origin of the Universe Updated
    ↪Agent Smith
    Look at a donut hole. Think about what you can't remember. :smirk:
  • The End of the Mechanistic Worldview
    ↪Tzeentch
    So "extrapolations" make a worldview "mechanistic"?
Home » 180 Proof
More Comments

180 Proof

Start FollowingSend a Message
  • About
  • Comments
  • Discussions
  • Uploads
  • Other sites we like
  • Social media
  • Terms of Service
  • Sign In
  • Created with PlushForums
  • © 2026 The Philosophy Forum