• From the fascist playbook
    Critical awareness has never been our long suit.Vera Mont
    :up:
  • Thus Spoke Zarathustra
    Have you read Nietzsche, The Aristocratic Rebel by Domenico Losurdo?Maw
    No. Give me the quick & dirty (no doubt it's worth reading if you mention it).
  • From the fascist playbook
    [Trump] is literally enacting fascist ideology, as it was formulated by a celebrated fascist ideologue.

    Perhaps this crisis of democracy is really ...
    Pantagruel
    ... 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.
  • The Mind is the uncaused cause
    Now this is a problem, not an explanation.J
    I disagree with your semantic jugglery here, J. I may come back to this "problem" when I have more time later.
  • Meinong rejection of Existence being Prior to Predication
    I ask again, if two people disagree about the terms, how can they resolve the disagreement?J
    And again, as I've pointed out ...
    Afaik, only better, more sound, arguments can resolve rational disagreements.180 Proof
    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).
  • Meinong rejection of Existence being Prior to Predication
    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
    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.

    Let's just pick "conceptual definition" from your list.
    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 ...
  • The alt-right and race
    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
    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
    :100:
  • The Mind is the uncaused cause
    Demonstrable evidence of "disembodied" subjects / agents? If not, you're merely fantasizing rather than philosophizing.
  • The Mind is the uncaused cause
    This assumes that the only way to be "mine" or "yours" is to be embodied, doesn't it?J
    Yes.
  • What you can control
    Imo, your habits (biases & pathologies) control you; habitualize yourself wisely.
  • PROCESS PHILOSOPHY : A metaphysics for our time?
    So "space" is "disembodied" (i.e. non-physical)? What about gravity (re: GR)? :chin:

    [energy is] a property of space from which particles emerge
    Yes, afaik, makes sense.
  • The Mind is the uncaused cause
    The question of how experience, or subjectivity, can be "in the world" if the world is understood physically is currently unanswerable.J
    So is "experience, or subjectivity" embodied or disembodied? Seems to me easily answerable.

    If embodied (i.e. mine/yours), then "experience, or subjectivity" is physical (i.e. affected by my/your interactions with our respective local environments).

    If, however, "experience, or subjectivity" is disembodied, then how do we know – soundly demonstrate – this? I don't see how we can ...

    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
    :100:
  • Physical cannot be the cause of its own change
    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. 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?
  • PROCESS PHILOSOPHY : A metaphysics for our time?
    Either the argument a person presents is logically sound or it isn't.Philosophim
    :up:
  • The Mind is the uncaused cause
    :up:
    My request is not a red herring.MoK
    I think we cannot make any progress.MoK
    I agree.
  • The Mind is the uncaused cause
    I asked you what the mind and physical are to you and you refused to answer.MoK
    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.
  • The Mind is the uncaused cause
    The Mind is the uncaused c[aus]e.MoK
    :roll:

    An "uncaused cause" is indistinguishable from a random event and "mind" (i.e. what sufficient complex brains do ... contra a reification fallacy of "the mind") is not random, or "uncaused".

    Experience is a separate thing.MoK
    This reification fallacy is what's confusing you. Sorry, I can't follow the rest of your post.

    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 processesWayfarer
    So ... "non-physical" "ability" and "acts" are dis-embodied occurences?

    Explain "non-physical cause" (which your statement above implies counterfactually).

    that there is no way to account for or explain the nature of the neural processes
    Yet ... ah, but Lord Kelvin speaks again; how dogmatic of you, sir. :smirk:

    :up:

    :up: :up:
  • Meinong rejection of Existence being Prior to Predication
    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
    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:
  • PROCESS PHILOSOPHY : A metaphysics for our time?
    In my Epicurean-Spinozist (i.e. p-naturalist) terms: "beings" sub specie durationis are atoms of "becoming" sub specie aeternitatis void, which is why "process" (re: non-classical scale systematicity) seems rationally counterintuitive to and is often perceptually misrecognized by human "beings" (re: classical scale measurement). Imho, study Laozi-Zhuangzi (dao, taiji), Heraclitus (panta rhei, eris, "fire"), Buddha (anicca, anatta, moksha), Democritus-Epicurus-Lucretius (ceaselessly swirling-swerving atoms in / of void (i.e. stasis is impossible, ergo illusory)), early Plato (Socratic method), and Spinoza (conatus (vs bondage-passions)) ... for some pre-Hegelian (non-idealist, non-telos woo woo) foundational insights from which "process philosophy" is derived.
  • Meinong rejection of Existence being Prior to Predication
    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
    :up: :up:

    Thus, we can sensibly imagine and talk about fictions (or lies).

    (à la Meinong)^
  • The Boom in Classical Education in the US
    You're mistaken. I didn't change anything; I underlined text for added emphasis.
  • The Boom in Classical Education in the US
    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
    :100: :up:
  • How to define stupidity?
    I find it is much easier to diagnose other people's stupidity than my own. That is surely stupid of me.unenlightened
    :up: :up:
  • The Ethics of Not Doing Drugs
    I can't say it any simpler. What's unclear to you?

    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
    :up: :up:
  • How to define stupidity?
    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
    :fire:
  • The Ethics of Not Doing Drugs
    I am okay with people doing drugs if I, or people I care about, are not harmedPaine
    ... or anyone other than the users themselves (either directly or indirectly as a downstream consequence).

    What is a drug, in practical terms ...?Arcane Sandwich
    Afaik, any addictive, mood/mind-altering substance e.g. (processed) sugar, nicotine, caffeine, liquor, (prescription) painkillers, etc.

    ... the Ethics of not doing drugs ...
    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)).

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffering-focused_ethics [1]
  • The Mind is the uncaused cause
    P1) Physical and experience exist and they are subject to changeMoK
    Accepting that experience is real, how the experience can affect physical?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.

    A more fundamental, or metaphysical, version of property dualism is (Spinoza's) parallelism²: physical and mental are conceived of as parallel aspects of every natural being (not to be confused with panpsychism or epiphenomenalism) which do not interact causally (or in any other way) and we attribute to each natural being to the degree either or both aspects are actively exhibited.

    So whether a mental property¹ or mental aspect², it doesn't make sense to conceive of "experience" as an independent causal entity (re: Descartes' interaction problem ... disembodied mind).

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_dualism [1]

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychophysical_parallelism [2]

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-aspect_theory [2]

    Re: "experience" ...
    What is non sequiturs here?MoK
    :roll:
    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
    :sweat:
  • fdrake stepping down as a mod this weekend
    And thanks for all the fish.unenlightened
    :smirk:

    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
    Me too! :100:
  • The Mind is the uncaused cause
    :ok: Non sequiturs ... Whatever.
  • The Mind is the uncaused cause
    P1) Physical and experience exist and they are subject to changeMoK
    Nonsense. Abstractions do not "exist" (A. Meinong) and are not "subject to change". Thus your conclusions are invalid.

    Also, "mind" is what sufficiently complex brains do – activity / process (i.e. mind-ing) – and is not a concrete thing. "Mind(ing)" causes brains no more than 'walking causes legs' or 'digesting causes intestines'. After all, there is no evidence whatsoever of (anything like) 'disembodied mind'.

    Lastly, in nature "uncaused cause" is not unique since (e.g.) random – "uncaused" – radioactive decay causes EM static (i.e. radiation).

    NB: Read Spinoza, forget Aristotle/Aquinas.
  • fdrake stepping down as a mod this weekend
    Thanks for your dedication to the site, you will be missed. All the best.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    12February25


    SLAVA UKRAINI :strong: :fire:
  • What exactly is Process Philosophy?
    ↪180 Proof ↪180 Proof Nice summations! :up:Janus
    Thanks!

    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:

    It’s sorta hard to regard this well because @Gnomon not only doesn’t understand (or read) the things they cite but to think Terence McKenna is a better thinker than 80% of the forum is a red flag to me. I’ve read McKennas stuff and it’s effectively nonsense.Darkneos
    :up: :up: