No. Give me the quick & dirty (no doubt it's worth reading if you mention it).Have you read Nietzsche, The Aristocratic Rebel by Domenico Losurdo? — Maw
... what pluralities(?) of voters really want: "trickle down" plutocracy (i.e. Reaganism (B-movie actor –> reality tv performer) on steroids) – strong man politics, sugar daddy economies. Maybe a half century or more of neoliberal globalism (& keynesian US militarism) has groomed most(?) proles, or precariats, to demand "freedumb" (i.e. licence, libertinage) over liberty (i.e. accountably self-governing) and fascistic clowns like Trumpstain (& his sugar daddy Mr DOGEbag) are "the poorly educated" rabble's Id-wanking avatars.[Trump] is literally enacting fascist ideology, as it was formulated by a celebrated fascist ideologue.
Perhaps this crisis of democracy is really ... — Pantagruel
I disagree with your semantic jugglery here, J. I may come back to this "problem" when I have more time later.Now this is a problem, not an explanation. — J
And again, as I've pointed out ...I ask again, if two people disagree about the terms, how can they resolve the disagreement? — J
For example, having greater scientific efficacy (i.e. unfalsified predictive model) "resolves the disagreement" a chemist and an alchemist have about the definition of "heat" or an astronomer and astrologer have about the definition of "planet". In philosophy, however, e.g. a German idealist (i.e. disembodied X) and a French materialist (i.e. embodied X) can only "resolve the disagreement" they have about the term "existence" by either one adopting – becoming convinced via arguments of – the other's metaphysical framework. Competing terms / definitions, in effect, belong to competing vocabularies; one simply learns to speak the other's language (game) in order to use the other term / definition in a way other than one agrees with in one's own language (game).Afaik, only better, more sound, arguments can resolve rational disagreements. — 180 Proof
A "definition" is a statement without a truth-value and therefore cannot be used to "resolve a disagreement"; rather, in a given discursive context, it's either useful to some degree or not at all. Mary's conceptual definition is either more or less coherent consistent & sensible than Joe's. Afaik, only better, more sound, arguments can resolve rational disagreements.Joe offers a particular doctrine about existence, Mary offers a different one. Is there anything either can appeal to, in order to determine whether one is correct? Let's just pick "conceptual definition" from your list. Would Joe and Mary be able to consult such a definition in order to resolve a disagreement between them? — J
Re: Meinong's predication (OP), the definition I think is more useful – less ambiguous – in this context is (a) 'exist' indictates a non-fictional, or concrete, object (or fact) and, by extension, (b) 'existence' denotes the (uncountable) set of all non-fictional, or concrete, objects (and all facts). I'm open to any definition more useful than mine. Maybe I should read past this post ...Let's just pick "conceptual definition" from your list.
The primary beneficiaries of alt-right politics are members of the 1% / ruling class. Their rag-tag army of supporters and voters are not material beneficiaries. — BC
:100:White workers bear the double burden of recognizing how they themselves are the victims of discrimination (as wage slaves) and how they may discriminate against other workers. Don't feel guilty about it; just recognize reality and do better in the future. Blacks are not your #1 enemy: it's the 1%, the rich man who is your enemy and the black man's enemy alike. Unite in solidarity. — BC
Yes.This assumes that the only way to be "mine" or "yours" is to be embodied, doesn't it? — J
Yes, afaik, makes sense.[energy is] a property of space from which particles emerge
So is "experience, or subjectivity" embodied or disembodied? Seems to me easily answerable.The question of how experience, or subjectivity, can be "in the world" if the world is understood physically is currently unanswerable. — J
:100:MoK, the problem with your argument is that it ignores basic science about the brain. Your mind is caused by your brain. That's a pretty well established fact at this point in history. Philosophy has to be constructed on the science and current understanding of the day or else its just logical fiction. — Philosophim
These misplaced concreteness & anthropomorphic fallacies render your (latest) OP "argument" gibberish, Mok. At best, as far as I can tell, you've expressed nothing but a half-arsed verson of "Zeno's paradox" (that's been debunked for millennia). Maybe something's lost in translation – English isn't your first language?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
:up:Either the argument a person presents is logically sound or it isn't. — Philosophim
What you "asked", Mok, is a red herring that lamely avoids addressing my critical objections to both your claims and how you're (mis)using "mind" and "physical" throughout this thread discussion.I asked you what the mind and physical are to you and you refused to answer. — MoK
:roll:The Mind is the uncaused c[aus]e. — MoK
This reification fallacy is what's confusing you. Sorry, I can't follow the rest of your post.Experience is a separate thing. — MoK
So ... "non-physical" "ability" and "acts" are dis-embodied occurences?The mind has non-physical properties, such as the ability to infer meaning and interpret symbols such as language and mathematics. These acts are not determined by physical causes in that there is no way to account for or explain the nature of the neural processes — Wayfarer
Yet ... ah, but Lord Kelvin speaks again; how dogmatic of you, sir. :smirk:that there is no way to account for or explain the nature of the neural processes
I can't discern what it is you're asking for: a conceptual definition? or a logical demonstration / mathematical proof? or a fundamental physical theory? :chin:That is, apart from usefulness in laying out a metaphysics, is there a truth of the matter? If there was -- if there was a correct way to conceive of existence, and/or talk about it -- how would we show this? — J
:up: :up:Things that exist I would say have real predications [sosein und sein]^ and fictions which are constructs of the mind have predications also, but those predicates are every bit the imaginary construct [sosein ohne sein]^ that the fictional object is [ ... ] The properties of "real" objects and fictional objects are not the same category of things. — philosch
:100: :up:Anything that can improve the quality of schools should be good, but putting control in the hands of conservative ideologues strikes me as dangerous, especially these days. — T Clark
:up: :up:I find it is much easier to diagnose other people's stupidity than my own. That is surely stupid of me. — unenlightened
:up: :up:Efforts to criminalize drugs have destroyed many many lives and done a number on the countries to the South of us. Maybe it would be better to just legalize it all and addicts can do it in licensed safe spaces. — RogueAI
:fire:Very often stupidity is not a failure of intelligence, it is a moral failure. Selfishness ignores the good and leads to behaviors that others find incomprehensible. As you say, intelligent people can do stupid things. This is because they use intelligence in the wrong way - they are clever. Selfishly so. Stupid behavior is often about putting the intelligence in the service of self interest, at the expense of the good. — EnPassant
... or anyone other than the users themselves (either directly or indirectly as a downstream consequence).I am okay with people doing drugs if I, or people I care about, are not harmed — Paine
Afaik, any addictive, mood/mind-altering substance e.g. (processed) sugar, nicotine, caffeine, liquor, (prescription) painkillers, etc.What is a drug, in practical terms ...? — Arcane Sandwich
In disutilitarian¹ terms (of flourishing (i.e. moral good) as absence of suffering), one ought to "use drugs" in a way that prevents or reduces harm to another (and thereby oneself (re: virtue)); therefore, one ought not "use drugs" in any way that does not prevent or reduce harm to another (and thereby oneself (re: vice)).... the Ethics of not doing drugs ...
P1) Physical and experience exist and they are subject to change — MoK
"Experience" is a feature (output?) of "mind" and mental and physical – the former either an epiphenomenon or emergent (strange loop-like) from the latter – are complementary descriptions of the manifest activities of – or ways of talking about – natural beings (i.e. property dualism¹). For example, both a stone and a human are manifestly physical but humans manifest, or exhibit, purposeful activity that we describe as mental whereas stones do not.Accepting that experience is real, how the experience can affect physical? — MoK
:roll:What is non sequiturs here? — MoK
:sweat:I believe in De Broglie–Bohm's interpretation of quantum mechanics, so no Schrodinger cat paradox, no particle-wave duality, Wheeler's delayed-choice experiment is explained well, etc. — MoK
:smirk:And thanks for all the fish. — unenlightened
Me too! :100:It must take its toll on those who have been dedicated to the site for 10yrs...
I couldn't do it for 5 minutes. — Amity
Nonsense. Abstractions do not "exist" (A. Meinong) and are not "subject to change". Thus your conclusions are invalid.P1) Physical and experience exist and they are subject to change — MoK
Thanks!↪180 Proof ↪180 Proof Nice summations! :up: — Janus
:up:I was drawn to Whitehead's philosophy and struggled on and off for years to penetrate what I thought must be the sense of it, only to conclude in the end that it is pretty much vacuous, unintelligible.
:up: :up:
