Safe to say that much of what passes as definitive scientific truth today is wrong. — Pantagruel

And we care when it's wrong because it has real-life consequences. When speculation is wrong it's quickly forgotten because it's just one theory out of many, none of which are known to be true.

Speculation can be valued but it's not authoritative. How could it be? I'd ask @Bartricks but he's become infatuated with coloring books.

For it is a fact that purely metaphysical ideas—and therefore philosophical ideas—have been of the greatest importance for cosmology. From Thales to Einstein, from ancient atomism to Descartes’s speculation about matter, from the speculations of Gilbert and Newton and Leibniz and Boscovic about forces to those of Faraday and Einstein about fields of forces, metaphysical ideas have shown the way.
~ Karl Popper — Pantagruel

I wonder how many metaphysical ideas have been off the mark. I guess that's the beauty of being a metaphysician, no one really cares when a theory is wrong.

I suppose my basic point is that metaphysicians are essentially theorists. Theorists are not authoritative in nature but speculative. No matter how well reasoned a theory might be, it is still just a theory.

No relevant example, how piteous.

An example of what, exactly, Pratis? — Bartricks

Dementia?

A metaphysician making a claim about God's existence that's not metaphysical. Something relevant that might support the claim that metaphysicians are authoritative on the subject, if that's not too much trouble.

if a metaphysician said that "the existence of God makes me feel lovely" then they have said something about God's existence that is not metaphysical. — Bartricks

Are they acting in the capacity of a metaphysical authority when they say such things? No. So why don't you give a relevant example, being the expert that you are?

Well, it doesn't follow from it being true that I should be able to give an example. But meh. As for an example, the claim "God's existence makes me feel lovely" is not metaphysical, yet it is about God's existence. — Bartricks

Remember you're trying to support the claim that metaphysicians are the authorities on the subject. This suggests otherwise. Surely metaphysicians can say things of more substance, yes?

Whether God exists or not is a metaphysical question. But it does not follow from that that everything that one might say about God's existence is metaphysical. — Bartricks

If true, you should be able to give an example. I won’t hold my breath.

do you have any credentials in this area at all? — Bartricks

No, and worse, I probably have below average intelligence.

I'll answer your question if you answer mine. :smile:

If the existence of God is a metaphysical question then how can any claim about it be anything else but a metaphysical claim? If the claim were somehow supported by science.
— praxis

I do not understand what you are saying. — Bartricks

I'll try to make it simpler for you. If a metaphysician made a claim about whether or not God exists, would that not be a metaphysical claim?

A metaphysician can necessarily only make metaphysical claims about the existence of God.
— praxis

Er, no. That's a metaphysical claim, and it is false. — Bartricks

Whether a god exists or not is a metaphysical question. — Bartricks

If the existence of God is a metaphysical question then how can any claim about it be anything else but a metaphysical claim? If the claim were somehow supported by science.

Yet you are confident that the empirical sciences do investigate questions such as whether a god exists. — Bartricks

I'm not aware of any such studies. I wrote that science can support or debunk metaphysical claims. Your reading comprehension could use more attention, my friend.

For example, reading 'The God Delusion' would be a big mistake if you wanted to find out whether a god exists or not. It is written by someone whose expertise is in biology, not metaphysics.
— Bartricks

Only metaphysicians are authoritative on the existence of a God? That doesn’t make sense. — praxis

Yes it does. Who else is an expert on it, then? — Bartricks

A metaphysician can necessarily only make metaphysical claims about the existence of God. A biologist, on the other hand, can offer physical evidence supporting or disproving metaphysical claims. For instance, biological evolution appears to contradict claims made about God. Even fields of study like history and sociology have a lot to say about the existence of God.

For example, reading 'The God Delusion' would be a big mistake if you wanted to find out whether a god exists or not. It is written by someone whose expertise is in biology, not metaphysics. — Bartricks

Only metaphysicians are authoritative on the existence of a God? That doesn’t make sense.

I suppose you’ll have to trust me when I say that no one needs support in a confrontation with the forum clown.

What are you talking about? I wasn’t even addressing you.

What fool would want to not give his or her true self under circumstances like these, eh? — god must be atheist

The problem must be that you don’t know yourself well enough, and that basically amounts to ignorance or the opposite of wisdom.

Apparently he's fully internalized victimhood. Tear. :fear:

Was there any moment of stress about death in your childhood that you remember? — Nils Loc

Not that I can recall. No one I knew died, which I imagine would have brought it to my attention if nothing else did. The earliest that I can remember someone I knew dying was when I was around 13. A neighbor drowned while snorkeling about 100 yards from our house. He was spearfishing and got stuck in a cave. I never understood how that happened because he was something of a waterman, surfer, young and fit, and he dived there a lot. Thinking about it now, I suppose he may have been drunk and/or stoned. Anyway, he was the first dead body I ever saw, though for only an instant from the shoreline when they pulled his body onto the small coastguard boat.

I don't recall being stressed about it, just mystified because the place where he drowned didn't appear dangerous to me at all. It was just a small cave.

Is there any explanation for the taboo surrounding death in our current Western culture? — Nils Loc

I'm guessing basic fear.

Were you exposed to any kind of education regarding death in school or your private life? — Nils Loc

I was taught to avoid it whenever possible.

Should we expose children to the dead in a sort of communal setting early on as a way to mollify this fear or is this a bad idea? — Nils Loc

I think it's a good idea, however, it would seem necessary to have sufficient context and not merely expose them to the dead. I suppose that means religion for most, and some sort of philosophy or meaningful secular outlook for the rest.

Anyone have hospice experience and has it changed how you think about the dead and dying? — Nils Loc

My mother had in-home hospice care at the end. It seemed ideal, given the circumstances. Far better than dying in a hospital bed attached to tubes and various machines. Perhaps your interest is with hospice care workers though.

I recently read a book called Being Mortal that somewhat changed how I look at aging and death. It's a rather depressing read, in how the elderly are so marginalized, and in contemplating the prospect of eventual disease and death. In terms of well-being, in many cases, the best way to die may not be aggressively fighting to live. You may even live longer not fighting it.

I’m trying to defend those you are lying to. — NOS4A2

You are truly a saint in the basket of deplorables.

In a healthier society (one less sickened by the depredations of capitalist predators like the Sackler family's opiate racket) we would live longer and/or happier lives. — Bitter Crank

Would we? And is it really that easy to pin the guilt on capitalist predators like the Sackler family? I think a healthy society could handle its predators.

Do you trust humans to give you an accurate model of the future? Extreme poverty is in decline, life expectancy has more than doubled since 1900. Is it really time to cower in some bunker? — NOS4A2

For the last three years life expectancy in the USA has declined, so something ain’t right.

Suit yourself.

Add on top of that the memes and shitposting, he is the anti-politician. — NOS4A2

He memes and shitposts for political reasons, numbnuts.

It's apparently even divisive to claim he's not divisive. — Hanover

No, I just didn’t think LuckilyDifinative’s argument would be amusing. I’m sure that yours would be hysterical though, if you would be so generous as to share it with us.

Anyone who would claim that Trump is not divisive is probably not worth arguing with.

Obstruction passed too.

I was just watching Trump at his Michigan rally just now for a few minutes and at one point he mentioned “in the Trump presidency 10 months is an eternity,” meaning that people will have a hard time remembering this crap a week after the senate vote, so no backlash for Liberals. Sounds about right to me.

‘meaning’ is more or less the department of ‘ethics’/‘religious institutions’. — I like sushi

Meaning that only some fool wearing a robe has the authority to say what the meaning of life is? :rofl:

He’s doing a great job. It’s hard to believe how much time we’ve wasted hiring politically-correct lawyers to run a country, when we should have been hiring billionaire playboys. — NOS4A2

Needless to say, when you say “we” you’re not speaking for liberals, or even workers in the rust-belt still experiencing a manufacturing recession.

This is the unconscious mind at work, where the conscious mind is akin to a whistle on a locomotive chugging along forward. — Wallows

Stoics believe that we have complete control of thought, judgment, and action. For my personal experience in controlling thought, I just check my meditation app and it says that over the last 12 months I've meditated for 127 hours and eighteen minutes. Very very little of that time was I able to control thoughts as I intended to. On the other hand, I did have some success and having had that success I know how to go about arranging the conditions that are conducive to quieting the mind (how I practice controlling thought in meditation). Basically the same story for judgment and action. I have biases and bad habits that are deeply ingrained but I can nevertheless make plans of action to overcome them, should I choose to.

So it's not quite as bad as you suggest, I believe. A more apt analogy might be something like a tugboat controlling an oil tanker. An oil tanker has such mass and momentum that it takes time for changes in speed and direction to take significant effect. Also, the oil tanker can be affected by other tugboats in ways that we may not be consciously aware of.

Whatever the case, the point of the Stoic dichotomy of control is serenity, or to put it in neurological terms, to deactivate a hyperactive default mode network. I don't know much about CBT but it sounds very similar, if not practically identical.

Only one group is screaming “apocalypse” while glueing themselves to buildings and streets. — NOS4A2

The other group is screaming various batshit crazy conspiracies theories of which Greta is merely a puppet.

Nor heroism.

Trump, through his twitter feed and economic posturing, can bring countries to their knees without shedding a drop of blood. — NOS4A2

His supporters will believe this is true regardless of whether or not it is true. He can’t lose in that regard.

Where did this theory originate? I’ve asked this before and received no answer. Also, can you back it up with any evidence at all?

I am abandoning the conversation with him on this topic for a while. — god must be atheist

It's not the stoic way, but for some it's good to stay within their comfort zone.

My point was that he claims you differentiate between the religious right and the religious left, while you never once did that in this thead. — god must be atheist

the religious right is so antisocialist — Pfhorrest

You don't value truth, God. May I call you God for short? What do you value?

To recap, pfhorrest claimed that the religious right (henceforth RR) uses charity to psychologically pressure the needy to support conservative causes
— praxis

You got that backwards. I’m not saying they use religion to further their political ends, but that they use politics to further their religious ends. — Pfhorrest

The conservative ends and religious ends of the RR differ?

I’m not trying to be oblique — I like sushi

Transparency is often overrated.

To recap, pfhorrest claimed that the religious right (henceforth RR) uses charity to psychologically pressure the needy to support conservative causes (increase the number of unwanted children in society or whatever). Then I wrote something. Then he wrote something. I wrote something else. He got cranky, having had a bad day at work. Then I said, “not the stoic apparently.” Not my best moment. Anyway, at some point I mentioned something about boats. Wait, no I said yhats... yachts? That’s hard to spell. What was I talking about?

Sigh.... — god must be atheist

I actually didn’t realize you’ve been fucking around from the beginning. Hook removed. :razz:

Maybe you can take some credit for Pigliucci bailing.

Where do you see an effect of the religious left not trying to win new members for their congregations? — god must be atheist

Where did I claim that was the case?

I think there are two Stoic philosophies... — god must be atheist