Watch raindrops, sliding down a window. One plus one equals one. — Banno

Twice the size!

Hey there’s a really good current essay on this subject....quick google....here, I’ve been meaning to start a thread on it, perhaps I will, it’s a bit tangential to this one, but have a read. — Wayfarer

I read the essay, and the answer came to me. Numbers exist in the relations between objects. One apple is one apple. One apple and one apple is two apples. The number exists in the relation of one apple to another; not in the apple itself, not in some platonic ideal beyond time and space - but in the relation between objects. It's too simple, too obvious. Why ain't it that?

Fair enough, and of course I agree, but the point was that there is no need to prove such simple facts. And I’m a Platonic realist about numbers, so I also agree that the integers are real. — Wayfarer

I was just looking to prove that 2+2=4, but it seems like I've cracked open a whole other can of worms. I've read a couple of short essays, and I'm not sure now where I stand on the question of whether numbers are real. At the very least, there is a question - as to what a number actually is, and in what sense it can be said to exist? Apples isn't the answer - because apples are a number of objects, as opposed to numbers as objects in themselves.

Platonism assumes the existence of ideal forms - but you qualify that with realism? So, what - no ideal forms for you?

I seem to have missed your post somehow. Sorry about that.

Ah, I see. For me, philosophy is a means to an end - and that end is the continued existence of the human species.
— counterpunch

But "why is that the end?" is a philosophical question itself. — Pfhorrest

I take a materialist view because that's all I can speak intelligibly about, and in those terms - existence is a pre-requisite to everything else. The continued survival of the human species is what makes anything else matter.

But phenomenalism? Phenomenalism is essentially subjectivism. "Phenomenalism is the view that physical objects cannot justifiably be said to exist in themselves, but only as perceptual phenomena or sensory stimuli." Do you run back into rooms to see if everything is still there? Science is objectivism. Science assumes an objective reality exists independently of our experience of it.
— counterpunch

Did you miss the part earlier in this thread about distinguishing different kinds of "objectivism" and "subjectivism"? — Pfhorrest

I thought that's what you were doing; I don't remember why I thought that. My objection is that science is not phenomenalism - because phenomenalism is subjectivism, and science is objectivism. Science assumes that objects exist independently of our experience of them. Phenomenalism does not.

Science is objectivist as in universalist, as in not relativist. — Pfhorrest

Epistemically, as in the knowledge it seeks to establish in general universal principles or laws that describe the way things are, and the way things act and interact. Sure!

But it's also subjectivist as in phenomenalist, not transcendent. — Pfhorrest

How so? I think you're conflating senses here.

Science deals entirely with the world as it appears in our observations (which is to say, our subjective experiences), — Pfhorrest

No. Take light - and the famous experiment by Newton with a prism. I'm sure you've heard of it. If science were subjective, it would be satisfied that light is white - but instead, Newton uses a device to begin to break down the electromagnetic spectrum, much of which is not apparent to the senses at all.

Science seeks to get beyond the surface appearance of things, to account for observer bias and eliminate the subjective from the universal in the formulation of universal laws that apply to how things really are, not just how they appear. True, human beings subjectively experience reality - but that's not a welcome fact. Subjectivism is a methodological problem science seeks to account for, and eliminate from its findings.

Consequently, science is not phenomenological. You've conflated senses - as I might have done had I said something like: "but the theory of relativity is science" - when you said "science is universalist, as in not relativist."

It's like you're asking 'but why does two plus two equal four? You can't prove it.' — Wayfarer

I can. Let's use apples, no, oranges. No, wait - apples.

Take two apples - put them in an empty bag.
Take two apples - put them in the same bag.
How many apples are in the bag?

It's not a mere convention that there are four apples in the bag.

One could use a different word to represent the number four, but the integer exists in reality - insofar as the universe is not considered a whole, and everything in it an indivisible part of that whole, individual objects exist - so numbers exist, and because one object and one object is two objects, then 2+2=4.

Think about what you read after you read it.
Take notes.
Write papers.
Walk up and down and talk to yourself.
Rehearse the ideas, and they'll stick.

Yes, I agree with that. It's not that I never mention God, but I know I don't know if God exists. I know I don't know where the universe came from, or what it's expanding into. I know I don't know how life began or what happens after we die. But I am quite well versed on a middle ground scientific understanding of reality, and taking in physics, chemistry and evolutionary biology - have found much wisdom and real hope follows from thinking in those terms. I can speak meaningfully about morality and religion, politics and economics - as evolutionary developments, and as sociological and political phenomena. All that is lost to me is speculative; that which, even if interesting, is bound to be inconclusive.

I see that the moral sense of a real basis for human action, but I am trying to figure out what you think about when it is reliable. What conditions do you think have to met before I can trust my moral intuition to guide my actions correctly? — Anthony Minickiello

I'm inclined to suggest, the moral sense is not reliable. It takes work to develop a moral sense for yourself. Either that or painful experience. You could always adopt the moral code of a religion, and just do as you're told. Probably easier, but I'm inclined to suspect someone doesn't really learn if their morality is mere obedience, rather than agonised and recriminated over.

As you alluded to, perhaps I need to have a grasp of all of the morally relevant information within a situation before I can make correct ethical inferences from that data. — Anthony Minickiello

Valid understanding of any situation is a pre-requisite of valid decision making, whether that be moral decision making, or deciding which technologies to apply to combat climate change. If the basis of decision making is factually inaccurate, the outcome cannot be right - either morally right, or sustainable.

If moral sense is not finely-tuned to correctly respond to fact in the first place, as you seem to suggest here, how can I trust it to lead me to lead a good life? This is where my doubt surfaces. Two people may accept the same morally relevant information about a situation but react in different ethical manners to that data, so how can I know which moral sense is correct? — Anthony Minickiello

Therein lies the choice; accept someone else's moral code, or develop one for yourself through hard work - and/or painful experience. Go out and live your life, and rest assured that whatever stupid thing you do, your moral sense will be there in the morning to make you feel terrible about it. Pretty quiet beforehand - but afterwards, it gets real loud! Ha ha ha! Seriously though, trust yourself. You don't seem bad, mad or stupid. If you have a moral problem, learn all you can about it - and go with your gut.

Success is not a measure of correctness. — Kenosha Kid

That's the slogan for the Labour Party conference sorted!

I found a really good essay on the subject.

https://philarchive.org/archive/PETDOT-3

Get this:

The importance and degree of certainty that Descartes accords to his account of the heartbeat cannot be overemphasized. Descartes reiterates every chance he gets, that his explanation of cardiac motion sits at the very core of his physiological endeavors.

“It is so important to know the true cause of the heart’s movement that without such knowledge it is impossible to know anything which relates to the theory of medicine. For all the other functions of the animal are dependent on this,” he states in the Description of the Human Body (AT XI 245 / CSM I 319).

...and he was totally wrong!

In the Discourse of 1637: “Being the first and most widespread movement that we observe in
animals, it [the motion of the heart and blood] will enable us to decide
how we ought to think about all the others.” (AT VI 46–47 / CSM I 134)

So that's a large affirmative on the condescension question!

I think I get what you're saying. My worry is that if existence does not accurately tell me anything about how things ought to be, then does that mean all of my ethical beliefs are wrong? Or are they unjustified as a result? I am concerned that talking about a right way to live morally is vacuous because of the "is/ought" gap. — Anthony Minickiello

This is very helpful to me because I can't make head nor tails of Willow's post and don't know how to handle it politely. "I think I get what you're saying" How simple and diplomatic. I don't get what she's saying, and was preparing to tell her so in no uncertain terms.

The is/ought distinction gets confused because people mistake it for a suggestion morality is not.. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I was about to suggest that sentence looks like it was scrawled on the wall of a toilet by an idiot child dipping its fingers in a mad woman's shit! Sorry Willow. No offense sweetie. It's my problem, and I'm learning how to deal with it!

If we cannot be sure whether or not "ought" statements could ever be correctly derived from "is" statements in the first place (as you seem to suggest...correct me if I got the wrong impression), then don't we run into the possibility that all normative statements could be baseless? — Anthony Minickiello

"Baseless" is a strong term. The moral sense is a very real basis for human action; but often, people are quite ill-informed, or worse yet, deliberately misinformed. BLM spring to mind.

When the rioting began, I went looking for statistics - and it's quite clear from the Bureau of Justice statistics website that the BLM social media narrative is false. Nonetheless, people seemed to believe US police were engaged in some sort of racist killing spree, and were outraged. They took to the streets, burning and looting, attacking police.

The statistical evidence shows that police arrest 10 million people per year, and less than 1000 die in the process - so it's clearly not the case that there's some sort of systematic, racist killing spree.

The footage shared on social media of George Floyd was carefully edited. Only later was police bodycam footage leaked showing George Floyd fighting like a wild animal to resist arrest. He needed to be restrained. He was restrained. Unfortunately he died. But because people were misled, an unbiased observer must agree - the moral outrage generated was massively disproportionate to the facts.

What I'm trying to get to, I suppose - is that just because morality is a sense, does not mean it is not a finely tuned instrument responsive to "fact" - whether merely believed, or actually true. So when you say 'baseless' - while that's true in the sense that no moral response is logically necessitated by the facts, it remains - many people had exactly the same response to the false narrative created by BLM, and so baseless isn't quite the right term. Instead, one might argue that the normative value of morality is in the normative value of morality.

So, the question remains... — Anthony Minickiello

Hit the "post comment" button by mistake. I'm done editing now.

Here's what Hume said:

"In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not."

By descriptive statements, I assume you mean "the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not." Or facts.

By normative statements I assume you mean "no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not." Morals or values.

I would argue that Hume misunderstood his own observation because he believes there is a God given objective moral order; whereas, for me - I think morality is a sense, and religion, law, politics, economics are expressions of that sense.

But I am unable to make the logical leap between the fact that morality is a "sense" and the notion that "is" statements can imply "ought" ones. How are those related? — Anthony Minickiello

Hume says it himself. It's what people do. He's right insofar as 'is' does not necessitate 'ought' because people have different values. We can look at the same list of facts, and think they imply different moral responses. But the implication of ought from is, is what people do. We know things, and then act morally on the basis of what we know. (ideally)

But are humans correct in such inferences? How can we be sure? — Anthony Minickiello

We cannot be sure. Is does not necessitate ought, but is does imply ought - a different ought for me than for you perhaps, and so we have philosophy forums and democracy to argue it out. The problem with the suggestion that is does not imply ought is that it devalues the significance of the 'is' - and this is an entirely deliberate feature of western philosophy since Descartes; currently playing out through left wing post modernist identity politics.

In other words, descriptive statements do not imply normative statements, as in "is" does not imply an "ought". — Anthony Minickiello

Yes, they do. Descriptive statements do not necessitate normative statements. But they do imply them, and they do so because morality is fundamentally a sense - fostered in the human animal by evolution in the context of the hunter gatherer tribe - and only made explicit when hunter gatherer tribes joined together to form societies and civilisations. Human beings cannot look at a list of facts without inferring the moral implications of those facts.

What is Russel's paradox?

Yikes. Well you can see that I have many unanswered comments ... — khaled

I bet you do.

No not my role. I just enjoy calling out pricks. — khaled

You think repeatedly calling me a prick is how you should behave? Because clearly, you're seeking to illicit a response - which is consistent with you being annoyed by the unanswered post. If you couldn't care less - leave me alone. If you had a point to make you've more than made it. Now begone!

Fair enough. But you didn’t mention the thread in the op in my defense. — khaled

So you accept that you don't know what you're talking about? How magnanimous of you! Now remind me again why this is any of your business?

Well I haven’t seen evidence to the contrary. Once I do I’ll stop. — khaled

You've repeatedly insulted me using vile language - and I haven't responded in kind. I'm not the one coming across as aggressive, insulting and BREAKING THE RULES OF THE FORUM!

2) Tone matters:
A respectful and moderate tone is desirable as it's the most likely to foster serious and productive discussion. Having said that, you may express yourself strongly as long as it doesn't disrupt a thread or degenerate into flaming (which is not tolerated and will result in your post being deleted).

I'd call your behaviour flaming.

Flaming is the online act of posting insults, often laced with profanity or other offensive language on social networking sites. This term should not be confused with the term trolling, which is the act of someone going online, or in person, and causing discord.

And trolling!

Get back under your bridge, you flaming troll!

What you say sounds correct to me. — Bartricks

People are so susceptible to flattery.

Thanks Bartricks! You understood my point. — charles ferraro

Agree with me and I'll ask you why!

What I have argued for, WHILE ALWAYS SIMULTANEOUSLY SUBSCRIBING TO THE INDUBITABLY CERTAIN INTUITIVE TRUTH OF THE COGITO SUM... — charles ferraro

But it's not a fundamental certainty, because it's arrived at by a method of sceptical doubt. Had Descartes plunged his hand into the fire, he would have found he could not doubt the existence of his physical self, or the objective reality of the fire. In a manner that is fundamentally prior to cogito - the pain pleasure response inherent to the biological organism would force him to accept the truth of objective reality. And thus, that the thinking thing is really the biological thing, and not the soul thing.

This is a public forum every post is everyone’s business. If you want to talk to one person in particular DM them, there is that feature. The fact that you’re not using it implies you want people to read and reply to you. But then you throw a hissy fit when they disagree or call you out. Are you sure you should be using a public forum? — khaled

It is a public forum. Which only makes your behaviour all the more puzzling. Are you policing this public space? Do you see it as your role to tell people what they can and can't say? How they should and shouldn't behave? Who appointed you guardian of public morality?

False. I didn’t notice how old it was. Don’t be purposely obtuse just so make a “comeback statement” like this. — khaled

Oh, because when I found this thread again, I suspected the reason you inserted yourself into the argument between Tobias and myself, was that your post was left unanswered for quite some time. Then when you volunteered that you didn't notice how old it was - I knew that was it. That unanswered post was grinding on you for days - an insult to your ego. No-one can ignore little Khaled!

Which amounts to: “I worked really hard on my ideas therefore they’re right” — khaled

You don't know the context. This thread is a continuation of a discussion on another thread - of which you were not a part. The apparent form, to which you are responding, is not where the meaning lies. Those observations refer to mistakes in thinking identified on the other thread, of which Issac may or may not have been aware.

Ah yes. Calling you out for being a prick is “making matters worse”. — khaled

Don't call me a prick again!

You’re not worth the time I spend writing this. — khaled

Nothing you write is worth the time it takes to write it.

You think that any disagreement is due to the other side being stupid, disingenuous, or mentally ill. This site isn’t a circlejerk. People won’t just agree with you. Yet you can’t handle that, and just paint any sort of opposition as stupid or disingenuous so you don’t have to argue with them. Furthermore when someone calls you out for being a prick you cry about how it’s none of their business (on a PUBLIC forum). — khaled

And yet you continue.

You may have some thoughts of value but it’s not worth it for me to try to tease through your close mindedness and inability to be cordial to get at them. Good luck dude. Hope you get out of your own head one day. — khaled

Thank you so much.

"In a textbook example, if all I know is that you spent $10 on apples and oranges and that apples cost $1 while oranges cost $2, then I know that you did not buy six oranges, but I do not know whether you bought one orange and eight apples, two oranges and six apples, and so on."

And the scientist would know this, be the first to admit it, and seek alternate methods of investigation. Looking in the bag springs to mind!

Underdetermination only becomes a problem if it is the basis of illegitimate claims to knowledge, but every scientific paper I've read goes to enormous lengths to equivocate, by setting conclusions in the context of the limitations of the methods of investigation employed.

I thought it was a lot more recent than it was. Didn’t realize I was commenting on something from weeks ago. — khaled

So you didn't know what you were commenting on...

"Your understanding of it is flawed."
— counterpunch

How so? Here is what happened — khaled

Yet proceed to defend your understanding of it anyway!

not everyone who disagrees with you is a moron or biased. — khaled

That's true. There's also the mentally ill!

Your replied with, effectively: “Because I worked on my philosophy really really hard so I must be right” a piss poor defense, because you then asked Isaac if he has done the same and it turns out he has and yet you two disagree. You then asked him “Then why do we disagree” and got no reply as far as I can see. — khaled

Bu that isn't what I said, is it? What I actually said was:

Then why do we disagree?
Let's start with epistemology:
What can we know and how can we know it?

Issac didn't reply. That's his problem not mine. I'd have put in the work to discover where our paths diverge, and who is on the high road. If he will not, then he effectively concedes.

So I wanted to hammer the point home in case you didn’t get it. — khaled

What point?

You think you’ve “figured it all out” and all opposition is due to people being morons or disingenuous. — khaled

But that isn't what I said either. And again, you don't understand the context. I wrote the opening post in response to ill treatment on another thread by left wing ideologues - utterly in thrall to their post modernist, politically correct dogma. I maintain, there is such a thing as truth, and it matters. Which is why I said, lets start with epistemology - and Issac ran for the hills with his tail between his legs, because left wing epistemology is indefensible. I know it. Issac knows it. The only person who doesn't know it is you! And that because THIS IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!

What you might wish to concern yourself with is why you would insert your uninvited opinions into other people's business. Here, and on another thread in an argument with Tobias. You popped up out of nowhere as soon as we began trading insults, and sought to make matters worse. Why do you do that? That is your business. Why are you a shit stirrer? What does that say about you?

Yes. And who also knows that others suffering fulfills this appetite. — khaled

You did not contribute to the discussion between Issac and myself. Your understanding of it is flawed. You also inserted yourself into an argument between me and Tobias and gleefully attempted to aggravate the situation. Why do you do that?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/497983

Presenting my own philosophy I have experienced this problem; there were two natural starting points. Discovery of the theory of evolution, or the evolutionary history of humankind. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. The former assumes scientific method, while the later allows us to understand the long struggle from ignorance into knowledge over time. The latter assumes evolution, without the advantage of theoretical explanation. I do not seek to explain the origin of the universe, or even the origin of life on earth. I don't know if God exists, or does not. Seeking out some absolute, from which to look back at humankind and tell us what truth is, seems obviously flawed - in that its contrary to knowledge that begins at the fingertips and is built from the bottom up, not the unknowable top down!

Two truths cannot exist in contradiction.

Thanks for your opinion, such as it is. You're kind of a shit stirrer, huh? — khaled

There is not scientifically valid reason to build and atomic bomb I agree with you. Then again there is no scientifically valid reason not to either. I said they are both products of science. through science we acquire knowledge of the world and we can use that knowledge for a variety of different reasons. One is to wipe out enemies. Science has nothing to say about it except perhaps warning me about the consequences of my actions, but that's it. — Tobias

Okay, but you're talking about science as a tool. I'm talking about science as a understanding of reality - as opposed to ideology. Do you realise that human beings used science as a tool to create 70,000 nuclear weapons because two groups of people disagreed about how to organise an economy?

The problem is, people draw their identities and purposes from overlapping religious, political and economic ideologies, that are invested with the most extreme sacred significance; such that they justify utter irrationality. Alternatively, science is rational, sane, matter of fact - the same for you as for me, and it works!

Only the whole environmentalist movement since the beginning the 20th century.... — Tobias

Not so. The climate crisis is largely attributed to over-population - and has been since Malthus Essay on Population in 1798, as the godfather to 'limits to growth' theory. Both are incorrect, as is the whole carbon tax this, stop that, cycle to work and eat grass approach to sustainability. It's scientifically false. In fact, resources are a function of the energy available to create them - which is why we need more energy, not less. We need to mainline magma power, not subsist on windmills and happy thoughts!

Is there any of your business here? I don't think so.

What does one have to do with the other? — Tobias

You're not very bright, are you?

You failed to understand my basic idea of a disparity between a scientific understanding of reality and an ideological understanding of reality. When I explained it again, you burst into floods of tears.

"Boo hoo - I've been condescended to!"

Do you think philosophy is easy? Do you imagine that you'll never have to go back and re-examine something?

Get over it!

Saying “I’m sorry” then proceeding to be a prick is not very effective. — khaled

I only tried to help the guy understand and he threw it back in my face. I apologised. My apology was not accepted. I've been more than reasonable.

I was sorry you felt condescended to. Now I'm sorry you're not willing to work at philosophical understanding. You just sit there with your fucking mouth open. Someone will surely be along to spoon feed you some easily digested surface level shite presently!

Thank you for your post, do you have a concrete literature recommendation like a specific title or author? — Trachtender

I'm sorry, no. I don't know of anyone else who attributes the climate and ecological crisis to a misapplication of technology, in turn attributed to a mistaken relationship to science that dates back to the trial of Galileo. That distinction between a scientific understanding of reality and an ideological understanding of reality is almost impossible to put across to people, and as far as I'm aware - I'm the only person on earth who thinks it even remotely significant. It's like it exists in a blind-spot.

I've been into science since I was young, and studied politics at university, so it jumps off the page at me - that there's a stark contradiction between the two conceptions of reality, and approaching upon extinction - I maintain we need to learn from that mistake.

It's like Biden in the US; he has acknowledged the scientific fact of climate change, at last - but his approach to addressing it is entirely ideological. Wind and solar cannot meet US energy demand, less yet the rest of the world. They're profitable industries - he'll get kick backs from industry, and create 'green jobs' - but barely take the edge of carbon emissions, and 25 years from now it will all be scrap.

Looking at the problem in scientific terms, we need to tap into the heat energy of the earth on a massive scale, sufficient to solve climate change and set humankind on course for a high energy prosperous and sustainable future. We cannot solve this if we cannot see beyond ideology to the scientific reality.

but we're talking here more about the criteria by which something could be judged as normatively important or not, — Pfhorrest

Ah, I see. For me, philosophy is a means to an end - and that end is the continued existence of the human species. It's like the old proverb: "Society grows great when old men plant trees in the shade of which they know they shall never sit." That's a normative justification of sustainability. A hedonistic justification might be the utter triviality of one's own existence if it's not part of an ongoing concern. A deontological justification might follow from the struggle of all previous generations. In terms of universalism - science and sustainability are an is and an ought everyone might be able to agree in common. But phenomenalism? Phenomenalism is essentially subjectivism.

"Phenomenalism is the view that physical objects cannot justifiably be said to exist in themselves, but only as perceptual phenomena or sensory stimuli."

Do you run back into rooms to see if everything is still there?

Science is objectivism. Science assumes an objective reality exists independently of our experience of it.

Might you not be better off establishing sustainability as a bridge between is and ought
— counterpunch

I’m not sure what you mean by that. — Pfhorrest

Malthus believed population would outstrip food supply and there would be mass starvation. His logic was sound, but he was proven wrong by the invention of the tractor. Initially, steam powered tractors developed land faster than population grew. Later we invented the internal combustion engine - and things really took off. So sustainability is a fact in that we have survived in large part due an application of technologies that support our way of life. It's sustainability as function; a factual arrangement of technologies and resources - that now runs up against the same problem again.

Sustainability is also a universal value - an ought in terms of which it is possible to prioritise the hypothetical 'list of facts' inherent to a scientific understanding of reality, as a basis for policy that would create a level regulatory playing field that ends the race to the bottom inherent to capitalist economics.

Some kind of hedonic consumer sovereignty cannot prioritise facts in a way that secures a sustainable future - in large part because the consumer cannot be expected to bear the cognitive burden of knowing how everything they consume is produced, even if the information were available - even if the consumer would prioritise the ethics of sustainability over price, they cannot be expected to handle the sheer volume of information necessary to make consumer decisions that secure a sustainable future.

The only way to secure sustainability is to regulate production to ensure the right technologies are applied, starting with energy technology, carbon capture and sequestration, desalination and irrigation, hydrogen fuel, recycling, fish farming - as a basis to promote continued capitalist growth, employment and prosperity.

"trusting to the moral sense playing out in political and economic systems, to prioritise factual information to that end?
— counterpunch"

That is a part of the deontological side of my ethics. — Pfhorrest

The only deontological ethic in my approach is sustainability. Otherwise, given a scientific understanding of reality, I regard morality as a sense, fostered in the human animal by evolution, made explicit for the purposes of political organisation when hunter gatherer tribes joined together to form societies and civilisations. Sustainability aside, morality is culturally relative. God save the Queen!

I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve - or how the various concepts you've said you adhere to can possibly fit together into any sort of workable whole. Universal phenomenalism seems like a contradiction in terms, that refutes acceptance of a scientific epistemology, that again, grinds gears with deontological ethics, that again disputes any kind of moral hedonism.

What I'm trying to do is create an authoritative rationale for the application of technology on the basis of scientific merit, without undermining current systems of political and moral authority, in order to secure a sustainable and prosperous future - going forward from where we are, as who we are, without turning the world upside down. Help me!

The big picture of my overall philosophy involves using science to discover how the world is, and an analogue of it based on hedonic rather than empirical experiences to discover how it ought to be, and then combining those two sets of findings to figure out how to change the former to the latter. — Pfhorrest

Might you not be better off establishing sustainability as a bridge between is and ought, and trusting to the moral sense playing out in political and economic systems, to prioritise factual information to that end? The hedonic; whether you mean Revealed Preference Theory in economics, or a more generic form of moral hedonism is not a responsible means of prioritising facts.

Why not engage with others contentiously? Civility is so sterile. Why not bang the table, and scream "you can't handle the truth." Besides, with the pineal gland thing, I thought we were coming around to your question.

But, perhaps, the most fundamental question of all is whether the occurrence of my "thinking" and of my "existing" is vulnerable, or invulnerable, to the possibility of complete cessation? — charles ferraro

...afterall, it is pretty much the same question as:

"is an impersonal "thought-in-general" the ontological precondition for the existence of the "I,"
— charles ferraro — charles ferraro

Both can be summed up as:

Do you mean, is his soul the thinking thing? Dues Ex Machina? Descartes thought so, yes! He located the soul in the pineal gland! — counterpunch

So there's a direct answer to both your question.

Too bad you're a crappy writer - who opens by bombarding the reader with questions that are not the subject of the post - using unnecessary jargon in an attempt to impress. I'd be more impressed if you said what you meant directly, using simple terms where possible - and jargon where unavoidable.

is an impersonal "thought-in-general" the ontological precondition for the existence of the "I," — charles ferraro

Do you mean, is his soul the thinking thing? Dues Ex Machina? Descartes thought so, yes! He located the soul in the pineal gland!

To be honest Charles, I found your verbal gymnastics in the opening paragraph - somewhat incomprehensible. I'm not sure what it is you're trying to say - other than, "I'm struggling to make sense of Descartes." I'd scrap it. Now I look again, it's completely unnecessary to the question you ultimately settle upon - which is whether thinking might cease. If that is your primary concern, I'd make this your first line, and continue from there.

"For it might indeed be that if I entirely ceased to think, I should thereupon altogether cease to exist." — charles ferraro

Because of the inclusion of that first paragraph, it didn't seem to me you knew, quite what's up with Descartes - and the question you settled upon isn't the biggest problem. The problems I described are the biggest problems. A method of sceptical doubt, leading to Solipsism - escaped with reference to God. If that doesn't interest you, that's fine and dandy. No harm no foul. But conversely, I have no interest in an idea that assumes cogito ergo sum is established by sound reason, by discussing the implications thereof.

cp, you need to grow-up. Thanks for the conversation. — synthesis

Your lack of grace in defeat deprives me of the privilege of being magnanimous in victory, you dick!

Okay, listen carefully. There's something that you do not understand - that I am going to try to help you see. Just go with it, and after you "get it" - then you can object. But if you go into this objecting, refusing to understand, you won't see it. Okay?

I'm going to contrast and compare an ideological understanding of reality with a scientific understanding of reality.

Broadly, religion describes reality as heaven above, hell below - the earth inbetween, God in heaven, Satan in hell, and man inbetween. God is good, Satan is bad, and man is inbetween. Politics describes a world made up of nation state shaped jigsaw puzzle pieces. God is traditionally, the authority for political power in a given territory, and different territories have different ideas of God. There's also money, but let's put that aside. That is an ideological understanding of reality.

In contrast, science describes a single planetary environment, and the evolution of humankind - who emerged from Africa about 70,000 years ago, and dispersed in every direction. Human beings began as nomadic hunter-gatherers, in tribal groups between 40-120 strong, then hunter gatherer tribes joined together to form societies and civilisations, began farming, and adopted a settled way of life. Science describes a solar system, with the sun at the centre, and planets in orbit around it - as one solar system of 200 million in our galaxy, and our galaxy as one of trillions in an infinite universe. That's a scientific understanding of reality.

You say:

a possible cure for cancer is a product of science in the same way as the nuclear bomb is. — Tobias

I say, only if you're an ideologue. If you accept that science is a valid description of reality, there's no scientifically valid reason to create nuclear weapons. Get it?

"From 1629 to 1633, Descartes worked tirelessly on his treatise Le Monde ou Traité de la lumière, which detailed his ideas on physics. Unfortunately, in a seemingly knee-jerk reaction, Descartes stopped publication immediately upon hearing news of Galileo’s trial for heresy as he was convicted for Copernican beliefs."

Descartes wrote Mediations on First Philosophy, published 1641 - in terror of a Church that was burning people alive for heresy right through to 1792. In it, he asserts the primacy of subjectivism - 'I think therefore I am' as the only certainty.

I think actually Western scientific practice and method has rather triumphed no, — Tobias

No. Decrying science as heresy rendered science a whore to military and industrial power - justified by religious, political and economic ideologies. Technologies have been developed and applied, not as a scientific understanding would suggest, but for power and profit. That's why we are destroying the environment. That's why we are threatened with extinction. We have used the tools - but not read the instructions. A scientific understanding of reality is the instruction manual for the application of technological tools.

You seem to equate philosophy with science but I think that is mistaken. — Tobias

I'm an epistemologist. The questions 'what can we know?' and 'how can we know it?' are the two principle questions of epistemology, and are best answered by science. Epistemology is the epitome of philosophy, and in my view, the only real starting point for any philosophy worth a damn.

The OP asks a metaphysical question, one theory to rule them all and alas we do not have it. — Tobias

Odd, no - that philosophy has established no method, no approach, no prioritisation of truth, that it remains an undisciplined free for all. Do you suppose that explains why philosophy has become a marginalised pursuit engaged in almost exclusively by the socially challenged? Zero barriers to entry - and no required standards!

Science gives us access to reality, but does not answer the question what it is for anything to be real... — Tobias

That's a sceptical question based in unreason; which is rather the problem with Descartes subjectivism. It may be that you are deceived by an evil demon, but as with all methods of sceptical doubt, it raises more questions than it answers - because, as Occam's Razor states: the simplest adequate explanation is the best. We experience an objective reality because it exists, and exists independently of our experience of it. That is what it is to be real, and this assumption underpins empirical science.

Glad to see I was wrong about your conspiracy theoretical framework. It is a view I find reductionist though, but to each their own. — Tobias

If by reductionist, you mean exclusive of nonsense - then yes, it is a reductionist view.

Ohh and I would not advice listening to counter punch. He seems to hold an odd conspiracy theory informed vision of philosophy. — Tobias

Not exactly. It's irrefutable that science as an understanding of reality has been downplayed, by emphasising the subjective - as consistent with the spiritual, and de-emphasising the objective as consistent with the profane - in service to the religious, political and economic ideological architectures of Western civilisation.

It's a mistake rather than a conspiracy - a product of education reserved to the wealthy few, who prefer delightfully perfumed smoke to be blown gently up their well pampered arses to the brutal truth proven by scientific method.

For example, Galileo was tried for heresy, threatened with torture and held under house arrest for the rest of his life. His contemporary, Descartes - who flattered the Church, became the pet philosopher of Queen Christina of Sweden.

Newton had to hide his unconventional religious ideas to advance in his career, particularly when appointed to the Lucasian chair at Cambridge.

Darwin delayed publication of Origin of Species, for 20 years, and worried himself sick - before publishing, and then being attacked by the Church. Evolutionary denial continues unto this day.

Conspiracy implies deliberate deceit; and so the question becomes one of piety. I have no reason to doubt the piety of those who have bullied and demeaned science in favour of religious dogma. They think they're right. They're mistaken is all.