I think you’ve got that backwards. I think meaningless distraction is where boredom stems from. — ”I like sushi”
Freedom is also something to consider. All too often people believe they want more freedom when the real reason they feel bound is that they have too much choice and freedom and so get stuck in perpetual states of distraction. It is extremely common (in my life experience) for the remedy to any given situation to be the exact opposite of what you’d think it would be.
Lack of honesty with oneself creates ‘boredom’ and sometimes such states of ‘boredom’ are defence mechanisms that are there to balance our ‘mental wellbeing’. — ”I like sushi”
I can say with age that boredom seems to fade? I’ve not done a survey on this but it has been my observation for those around me. There may be more of a lull in middle age perhaps but generally I believe boredom declines with greater age. — ”I like sushi”
Sure, but, to the degree one makes an emotional decision, one makes a harmful decision that goes against one furthering their life. — Garrett Travers
Which still doesn't change that you started out as bored. — baker
Won how? — baker
If life—the craving for which is the very essence of our being—were possessed of any positive intrinsic value, there would be no such thing as boredom at all: mere existence would satisfy us in itself, and we should want for nothing. — schopenhauer
A false premise makes an argument invalid, meaning it can be dismissed — Garrett Travers
Here you are saying that we can most certainly dismiss what is invalid. — Garrett Travers
My original point was not that anything Nazi-Warpig said was true or not, but that his philosophy can be dismissed as invalid, and exctract that which can be shown to not be compatible with the destruction of human life. — Garrett Travers
This completely contradicts your above expressed understanding. — Garrett Travers
A singular philosophical insight within an ethical framework is negated by the implementation of the framework — Garrett Travers
unless it is the intent of any who interact with it to extract such a concept and diviorce from the framework entirely. — Garrett Travers
Inconsistency isn't the issue. — Garrett Travers
No, I would ignore the methods by which he justified such a discovery as dispicably evil, and to be ridiculed, ostracized, and reasoned into the dust bin of history where it belongs — Garrett Travers
But, we aren't talking about discoveries of objective nature, are we? Because objective standards could never be used to justify the genoiced of the Human Consciousness. — Garrett Travers
Didn't disagree with this. I said care and relate them to philosophy, no not happening. — Garrett Travers
No, they can't. — Garrett Travers
Nobody should give a shit what a Nazi said. — Garrett Travers
That's exactly what it sounds like to ethical philosophers when someone entertains the theories of people whose ethical framework allows for complicity in genocidal violations against the Human Consciousness, through imperial statism, as if they deserve to ever be brought into the same league as philosophers. — Garrett Travers
Quite. In my youth, I believed that such a piercing insight was obtainable, that it would penetrate the problems of existence and render religions obsolete. Now I’m not so sure. — Wayfarer
If you don't understand that, you do not have a place in this discussion. — Garrett Travers
Who's not up for punching a Nazi! — Isaac
That is particularly accentuated by Protestantism with its emphasis on salvation by faith (which is close to, or actually amounts to, fideism, which was not accepted in the Catholic Church). — Wayfarer
However some forms of religious culture are grounded more in attainment of insight, which is where the philosophical and religious tend to converge somewhat — Wayfarer
I've no idea what you're talking about on either account. — 180 Proof
No "false dichotomy" on my part as I've not made an argument (re: systems of control) with an "either-or" premise. :roll: — 180 Proof
By "system of control", Aaron, I mean the (socio-political) 'extrinsic constraints on populations which constitute – regulate – participation in a dominance hierrarchy'. — 180 Proof
I believe that we should reject the idea of moral relativism for several reasons. All of these reasons can be summed up in the overly generalized, not really accurate, statement: No one actually believes it. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
Most moral relativists, as stated above, are really absolutists who have just chosen another maxim to live their lives by than that of the current status quo — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
Moral relativism claims that morality is merely a whim of ours — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
Physicalism is the idea that nothing exists except for concrete objects in the material world — Dusty of Sky
But physics is the study of the mathematic principles which determine the behavior of these material objects. And these abstract principles (e.g. F=G(m1m2)/r^2) surely don't exist in the material world. You can't locate them under a microscope. So acknowledging that the laws of physics exist seems to contradict the theory of physicalism — Dusty of Sky
Today, saying there are mysteries...and then gratuitously suggesting those mysteries demand a "creator" "prime mover" "reason for ends"...is inappropriate. — Frank Apisa
To call the some other way" "god" is purely gratuitous — Frank Apisa
Can you guys clear up in more detail why exactly rationality isn't everything in relation to judgements like that of religion. Why is there room for the irrational? Especially when it isn't necessary to live with meaning and purpose or even enjoy life. — intrapersona
f an inanimate thing is determined by God to act toward God's end, then there is no freedom of choice, and the thing is not acting according to its own end, it is acting toward God's end. — Metaphysician Undercover
And there's the question of, if you suppose that the being of a thing is a kind of action, then who says that action must be toward anything. Why not just action in accord with being? Do you begin to discern the presuppositions of Thomas's argument? — tim wood
What makes you think there is any "tendency"? A rock simply is, unless something comes along and changes it. It itself doesn't tend toward anything; it's not involved with outcomes. — tim wood
The other alternative is that they do not exist. — tim wood
The way you expressed it makes it seem as if these outcomes just come about. Which, in turn, make it seem as If Thomas believes that order could be a product of chance. But I think that the words that I've put in bold leave little doubt that outcomes don't just come about, they are achieved. — Πετροκότσυφας
Wouldn't perfect chaos be a type of order? My point being, no reality can be conceived that does not include some type of order. Why would I then assume intention? — ZhouBoTong
I think Aquinas would reply the in the case of firemen heading towards a non-existent fire, the content of their belief in the existence of the fire provides the end toward which their behavior is directed. But I think Aquinas specifically chose to focus his argument on inanimate things because he wanted to avoid the whole question of intentionality.It seems possible to be directed towards an end that does not exist. Firemen heading towards a non-existent fire for example. — Devans99
Yes. Aquinas would not deny that. But I think he would say that in the case of arbitrary physical events involving inanimate objects occurring at remote locations throughout the universe, you (or any other finite being) certainly don’t have their ends in your mind. That claim seems absurd.I have the goal of keeping safe and that goal most definitely exists in my mind. — Devans99
Yes. But again, I think this is why Aquinas was focused specifically on inanimate things. His claim is that their behavior has ends as well, and it seems absurd to say that all of those ends exist in the minds of animals and humans as noted above.Also, he has missed the possibility that ends exist in material minds (of finite creatures). No need for an infinite mind at all... — Devans99
I think Aquinas would say that if inanimate things did not act towards ends, then the we would observe pure chaos. But we don’t, so things must act towards ends.What is the proof of 1)? — tim wood
I believe that being “directed toward an end” means something like “tends to do some things rather than others with consistent regularity”. The “ends” refer to those “things” or “outcomes” that the inanimate object’s behavior tend toward.What exactly, does it mean to say,"directed towards ends"? — tim wood
I think Aquinas would argue that the ends of inanimate objects don’t exist in material nature because this would require those ends to exist in the future. This was a common criticism of Aristotle’s account of final causality with respect to inanimate objects.3) Who says? — tim wood
What is the other alternative?4) False alternative. — tim wood
Things act in an orderly way, as if they are ordered towards an end. — Metaphysician Undercover