• What are your positions on the arguments for God?
    But certainly in most contexts burden of proof applies to any claim, positive or negative, and so asserting that no gods exist carries a burden of proof like any other assertion. But like I said, I wasn't talking about burden of proof, but about the incoherence of a certain class of claims and arguments about God (the "ontological argument" and its variations, and this terminology about "necessary" beings/existence/facts) — Enai De A Lukal

    i.e. there is no burden of proof if the question is incoherent. God must not exist if God is definitionally incoherent. The only "proof" comes about from demonstrating this incoherence.

    Do I understand you correctly?

    When other sorts of claims are made (atheistic ones, for instance), the burden of proof rests on those claims as well. — Enai De A Lukal

    :up:
  • What are your positions on the arguments for God?
    The reason why I ask is because I cannot differentiate bad philosophy from good philosophy. — DoppyTheElv

    Honestly, it's probably because most philosophy is bad philosophy. I believe it takes many years to develop a sense of what good thinking looks like, and to practice it yourself. The vast majority of human opinion is just bullshit, through-and-through.

    My experience has led me to believe that it is easier to develop a bullshit-detector than it is to cleanse yourself of bullshit.

    Neither do I know all of the intricacies of the structure arguments should have. (modus ponens, valid and sound) While there are a whole lot of people pushing these arguments. And there are also a whole lot of people pushing against them. I can't help but feel that the majority of the discussions that happen about these arguments aren't well grounded. — DoppyTheElv

    A lot of people pretend and/or fool themselves into believing that they know how to think well, that their opinions are worth listening to, or that there is nothing wrong with bullshitting people.

    I think you are absolutely correct to feel this way. Public discourse has little actual content. It is mostly noise produced by folk yakking about things they know nothing about.
  • Currently Reading
    Just finished Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck. Never read it back in secondary education. I liked it a lot.
  • Is silencing hate speech the best tactic against hate?
    It doesnt change their minds. — DingoJones

    I think the idea is that it helps prevent the spread of these harmful ideas.

    In fact, it could be argued that the silencing of folks has made it easier for people to be sucked in or sympathetic to those hate groups. — DingoJones

    How could it be argued thus?

    Actually this seems like an empirical inquiry: how does censorship of hateful ideas influence the spread of them and/or impact those who already believe in them? Does censorship help stop the spread of hateful ideas? Does censorship make hateful people even more hateful?

    No, really, does it? I don't know if this is something we can figure out just by thinking about it. A few examples is not enough to give us a clear indication one way or another.

    Censorship might be done also out of respect to whom the hateful ideas are directed at. It might not serve a "purpose" beyond this. Perhaps by allowing hateful ideas to be expressed, we show that we do not care about those who are harmed by them.
  • What are you listening to right now?
  • Most Fundamental Branch of Philosophy
    Ethics, i.e. radical alterity, the demand that I do not murder that-which-is-not-me.
  • Feature requests
    Tea works too.
  • Feature requests
    Can we get a drinking coffee emoji?
  • Yes, No... True, False.. Zero or One.. does exist something in the middle?
    Yes, it's called propaganda.
  • Does systemic racism exist in the US?
    ↪Tzeentch
    PragerU, are you serious
  • The Self
    ↪Outlander
    The experience of selfhood is just that, an experience. The experiencer is an experience.
  • The Self
    ↪Outlander
    What would you wish I elaborate on
  • Fashion and Racism
    Do those discriminated against have any culpability due to their choice of fashion? — Pinprick

    Do women who dress in "revealing" clothing have any culpability when men objectify them? oh shit wrong thread
  • The Self
    “”I” is a verb disguised as a noun”

    I’m curious as to what your reflections are on “the self”     — Mike5

    There is a sense of self, but there are no selves.

    There are feelings of being someone, without there being anyone.

    People are zombies - there never were any people to begin with.
  • On Antinatalism
    Yes I am. — schopenhauer1

    lmao
  • Why does the brain destroy itself and its body?
    Why should it ever have a tendency to harm its body if it were to be just the product of biological evolution and natural selection. As far as I know natural selection does not select detrimental/life destroying tendencies. Why does the brain have this ability to destroy it's own existence/ obliterate itself and or its body and what is the reason this self destructive capacity ever developed in the first place? — Benj96

    Those with detrimental/life destroying tendencies can still reproduce before these characteristics manifest and cause the end of the organism's life.

    From the point of view of natural selection, it matters not whether an organism lives a hundred years or two minutes, or if its life is filled with joy or agony, so long as the organism successfully reproduces.
  • The Objectification Of Women
    Well we're in agreement then. But I suspect you have a higher bar for what you consider to be a "genuine connection". — jamalrob

    I am personally not comfortable having sex with someone unless I have an ongoing relationship with them. I think if I truly care about someone then I want to continue to care for them in the future. It is hard for me to imagine caring about a person I have a one-night-stand with (beyond the usual care I give towards strangers). Upon reflection I suppose this might mean I take sex more seriously than others. I guess I consider it to be a more privileged activity, idk.

    Other people might feel that sex is an ordinary activity that can be shared with strangers. It's not my place to judge, even if it's difficult for me to understand. Live and let live.
  • The Objectification Of Women
    For you it might be. For others, casual sex is most often a much more complex and interesting connection between two people than mere masturbation, no matter how brief the encounter. — jamalrob

    I stated that meaningless sex is equivalent to masturbation. I did not state that casual sex is equivalent to masturbation.

    Having sex with someone can be extraordinarily intimate and meaningful, even if it doesn't carry long-term commitment. As you said, casual sex can be a much more complex and interesting than mere masturbation.

    My point was the difference between using your hand and using a person is minimal when there isn't any care involved.
  • The Objectification Of Women
    ↪jamalrob


    A person who does not have a deficiency of self-esteem will require that objectification not be the only form of attention they receive. It is not nourishing enough to be told they are physically attractive; more is needed for any of it to mean anything. Nor will they consider deception as anything but a disregard of their dignity.

    If sex doesn't mean anything, then it's masturbation. If it does by itself, then it's cheap validation.

    This is only a moral condemnation of the behavior of those who deceive unsuspecting people, or deliberately prey upon those with low self-esteem, in order to have sex with them. Otherwise it's a statement of my thoughts and feelings on the matter, based on introspection, personal experience and observation of other people.
  • The Objectification Of Women
    Perhaps I am strange in finding this extremely uncomfortable, it seems deeply transgressive to me. — fdrake

    I find it uncomfortable as well. Sex without genuine connection seems to me like masturbating with someone else's body. You pretend to care so that you can use someone else.

    And to know that another person doesn't care about you beyond your appearance, and to be okay with that, makes it sound like you don't really care about yourself.
  • The Objectification Of Women
    I wonder if he said this before or after he pushed a woman down a stairway because he thought she was too loud. Later, he gloated when she died thereby ending his obligation to pay damages for her injuries.
    Charming fellow, Schopenhauer.     — Ciceronianus the White

    Not at all defending Schopenhauer's behavior, but this story always makes me chuckle just because of how ridiculous and petty it is.
  • The Objectification Of Women
    'We're free to objectify ourselves without licensing you to objectify us.'

    (Re: Coopting social-sexual alienation ... the way we blacks coopt racial slurs in order to reclaim (some of the) power to hurt from racists).     — 180 Proof

    Really insightful point, made me think. Would you expect this coopting to disappear if racism/sexism disappeared?
  • Kant and Modern Physics
    The science/philosophy pissing contest I'm not aware of. — Kenosha Kid

    I had in mind the "new atheist" thing and counter-thing, which seemed to generate some pissing.
  • Kant and Modern Physics
    I've never really understood this widespread detestation of physicists among philosophers. I've seen it in every philosophy forum I've been in. Whether you're interested in it or not, it's been extremely successful on its own terms. Complaining it doesn't operate differently seems no more sane to me than berating a spoon for not being a hammer. — Kenosha Kid

    Someone once told me that an insult only hurts if it's true.

    In the words of Graham Harman, philosophy has an inferiority complex. A few scientists have a big dick and like to show it off. A few philosophers get emotionally hurt, take the bait and make an even bigger fool of themselves than the scientists did.

    It's all very pathetic, since the majority of scientists and philosophers are mature and too busy to care about this sort of thing.
  • Currently Reading
    ↪Maw
    The Anatomy of Fascism was good.
  • Can one provide a reason to live?
    I would like to develop a previous point: Life cannot be both worth living and acceptable in ending. One of these premeses has to be false — JacobPhilosophy

    This is a non-sequitur. A life may be worth living at some point, but turn sour later on. Furthermore, a life can be worth living without its end being a bad thing. Indeed someone whose life is well-lived seems to me to be someone who is not overly-concerned with keeping it around. They do not fear death but neither see any reason to bring it about.

    Life is of so little importance that to ponder suicide is somewhat absurd. You spend so much energy to bring about the end of something that will end on its own anyway. Certainly it is understandable if you are experiencing a great deal of pain, but otherwise what's the big hurry?

    But this only pertains to a life that already exists. If we are instead talking about life in the sense of the entirely of one's journey between birth and death, then the question is not so much is life worth living (aka is life worth finishing) but rather: is life worth starting. These are two very different questions.

    A life can be worth finishing, even if it was not worth starting.
  • What are you listening to right now?
  • Currently Reading
    What We Can Never Know by David Gamez. Thank you
    ↪180 Proof
    for thanking
    ↪jorndoe
    , the title piqued my curiosity. Very interesting read!
  • Where do you think consciousness is held?
    Where does consciousness reside? — Benj96

    in the balls
  • Computer Programming and Philosophy
    Programming, as well as computer science, have been built around the notion of abstraction, i.e. simplifying complexity by ignoring details. Abstraction requires a mind that can detect and then assign identities to repetitions in the form of metaphors, i.e. useful make-believe. Working with computers is as much of a material exercise as it is an imaginative and magical (autistic) one.

    Programming teaches reductionism and abstraction. Break it down, then build it back up, and in doing so transform the real into the ideal, a castle-in-the-sky.
  • What is Philosophy?
    The business of philosophy is to teach man to live in uncertainty - man who is supremely afraid of uncertainty, and who is forever hiding himself behind this or the other dogma. More briefly, the business of philosophy is not to reassure people, but to upset them. — Lev Shestov, All Things Are Possible
  • Currently Reading
    All Things Are Possible aka The Apotheosis of Groundlessness by Lev Shestov.
  • The Philosophy Writing Management Triangle
    whatever you do, just make sure it's translated to french
  • Bullshit jobs
    ↪Banno


    Thank you for sharing. As someone who has the leisure of working from home during this crisis and also secretly believes their job is mostly bullshit, this made a lot of sense.

    I worked harder and got paid significantly less at my high school jobs than I do today in my post-graduate job. My job hardly requires a college degree; I have learned nearly everything I need to while on the job. And while I do enjoy many aspects of my job (such that at times it does not feel like a job), it isn't a job that really needs to get done.

    How come I get paid more for less work, work that by all accounts has little-to-no, or even perhaps negative, value? I think I should be getting paid equal or even less than those with real jobs.

    I think largely I continue to work at my job because I am afraid of the consequences if I didn't. To a certain extent, I have to look out for myself.
  • Currently Reading
    The Recursive Universe: Cosmic Complexity and the Limits of Scientific Knowledge by William Poundstone.

    RIP John Conway.
  • Communism is the perfect form of government
    Can there be a perfect form of something that ought not to exist?

    The perfect murder, the perfect addiction...
  • Antitheism
    Atheism is the lack of belief in gods; the absence of belief in gods; disbelief in gods; or not believing in gods. — Baden

    Correct me if I am mistaken, but these do not seem to be equivalent. Not believing in god is not the same as believing that god does not exist. The latter entails the former, but not vice-versa.

    I understand the colloquial term of atheism is nebulous and often just means "I doubt the existence of god." I live my life as if there were no god, because action requires decision, and also I just sort of feel like there is no god. I have a hunch, an inarticulate collection of considerations that influences how I view the world. Perhaps others have more than hunches, but I am not one of them.

    When I participate in philosophy I try not to present my hunches. I try to be more precise and would call myself an agnostic, because while I can come up with reasons to doubt the existence of god, I can also present reasons to think god may exist. I do not think atheism is an appropriate term here, even though I do not have a belief in god.

    Would you consider me an atheist?
  • Antitheism
    ↪Pinprick
    I appreciate the link, but I don't see what we gain by making these divisions between claims of knowledge and belief.

    As I see it, behind all of this confusing machinery lurks a different debate: naturalism. If someone is a naturalist, then it might make sense to say that atheism is a lack of belief. For a naturalist, everything is natural (unless shown otherwise). If there is no evidence for god, then god is taken to be unreal: not without argument, but because the argument just is the naturalist point of view. If we do not have any reason to think that god exists, but we do have reasons to think that everything real is natural, then we have reasons to think that god does not exist.

    But we can step back and ask, is naturalism true?, in which case this "agnostic atheism" is found to be exactly what it was from the start: atheism. One lacks of a belief in god because they do not think such a being is compatible with a naturalistic universe (i.e. they don't believe god is possible, they don't believe god exists).

    I do not see how the supposed dichotomy between knowledge and belief is helpful. To be frank, nobody really cares whether you think (i.e. believe) you know if god does/does not exist. All anyone should care about are the reasons for why you believe what you do. Perhaps this is related to the increasing need for people to apply labels to themselves as "identities", to differentiate themselves from others (to be individual/unique/special), while simultaneously belonging (to a clan/tribe/family); but that's just speculation on my part.

    There's a simple test to tell if one is an agnostic or not. Do you know for sure if any gods exist? If so, then you're not an agnostic, but a theist. Do you know for sure that gods do not or even cannot exist? If so, then you're not an agnostic, but an atheist. — that link you posted

    Does anyone know "for sure" if they will wake up tomorrow? Does anyone really care about "how sure" you are in your beliefs? To be clear: this is not about knowledge per se, it's about what someone believes about their knowledge, which is not relevant. I wanna know why you believe what you do, not how confident you are in your beliefs.
  • Antitheism
    ↪180 Proof
    I was not responding directly to you, but I can see why it would seem like that since my comment came right after yours. I saw a few comments already that seemed to defend the notion of atheism as an absence of theistic belief, yourself included but also
    ↪Baden
    and
    ↪DingoJones
    .
  • Antitheism
    Wait, hold up, I thought agnosticism was the absence of belief...? Somehow this keeps getting brought up, like a weed in your yard.

    How I understood it was that if I am agnostic, then I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of god. I simply lack a belief one way or the other. And If I am atheist, then I lack a belief in the existence of god because of my belief that god does not exist.

    Atheists and theists have convictions. Agnostics don't. At least that's how I understood it. And plenty of academic philosophers of religion have pressed this point: atheism is a belief that has reasons that must be justified and can be scrutinized, and it should not be taken to be the "default" position. The default is agnosticism, no-conviction, no-belief.
Home » _db