I'm not getting notifications for your posts. Weird.

I mean, you are speaking about objects, things in the world. Mathematics is rather different, I wouldn't say it's an object in any sense of that word. I mean, where are the numbers? Nobody can point them out in the sense an ordinary object could be pointed out, or maybe even a particle or atom.

2+2 and much, much more difficult formulations are still true, absent anything else. Though of course, to make this explicit, you need a conscious agent.

I'll check that article out, thanks for sharing.

Empiricism goes out the window if empiricism is construed as implying "publicly observable phenomena". But if you include experience in empiricism, as one must, if any empiricism is going to make any sense at all, then it remains as a method of investigation.

I agree with what you say about math being independent but requiring a mind to comprehend it. Mathematics is extremely strange and may be one of the reasons why Plato required knowledge of geometry to enter his academy, aside from its timeless otherwordly nature.

But math doesn't depend on objects.

Absolutely. And that it doesn't seem to depend on the universe, somehow. Utterly baffling.

It's hard to imagine a possible world in which this wouldn't be the case, we can change the symbol "2" to "II" or something else, but it's still a mathematical fact.

Not that I take you to be saying the opposite, but, the ontology of math is pretty crazy.

Hey James, nice to see you around again! :victory:

This conception itself comes from Newton and Liebnitz' religious intuitions, but is now perhaps more associated with militant atheism than religion. The thing is, this supposes the existent of eternal Platonic laws, something that seems at odds with physicalism. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It's tricky. I mean we can say that Newton and Leibniz were wrong in terms of specifics, though oddly now physics may be giving Leibniz the edge in terms of considering what constitutes the universe, Leibniz did not think atoms exist or if they did, were fundamental.

The ontology of mathematics. Can it be said that 2+2=4 was true prior to the universe and after its predicted collapse? That's difficult, but, the truth of this claim appears to be independent of the universe.

But I agree generally, that such views are at odds with mainstream physicalism.

I'm also not sure that idealism necessarily opens the door to the supernatural anymore than physicalism. There are plenty of naturalist flavors of idealism. Idealism simply entails that mentation is fundemental. The natural sciences can still be said to describe all that can be known about that mentation. — Count Timothy von Icarus

You said it: "naturalist flavors" of idealism, but in general, idealism can also be used by Deepak Chopra, or some current guru-of-the-moment in India, where they seem to appear with frequency. In that respect, these idealists are liable to say incoherent things.

I don't know of any spiritualist or mystic who would call themselves a materialist.

But if you stick to naturalistic idealism, then yes, claims made would be much more sober.

Existence is just a fact of life - reasons why don't apply, in terms of looking for a justification for it. According to the evidence we have - which is quite different from the optimal evidence there may be, for creatures with a higher cognitive faculty than us - we are here because the laws or habits of the universe so happened to combine in a way that we arose.

Ethics I know not, these are so little understood, which shouldn't be surprising given that we are likely the only animals to have such a thing - there may be hints that other higher mammals have the barest of glimpses of such a phenomena. I think that it is in our best interest to take ethics seriously, given that existence is so rare in the universe - maybe unique. So we should treasure what we have, each other, and the humanist legacy.

I am liable to change some of my views, according to new evidence. In terms of epistemic-metaphysics, that's much more difficult and would need a very strong argument from dissuading me that rationalistic idealism - a la Descartes, Cudworth and Chomsky - is false. It could happen, but as of today, I think it's unlikely.

You didn't ask in your post the title of your OP. In which case, I currently think Raymond Tallis view is correct: I'm an ontological agnostic. I do not know what kind of things exist or do not exist in the world, absent the sciences, which say little on this topic. An ontology based on physics leaves an awful lot out.

Yes, I think the topic of humility is one that should be re-visited again, especially in philosophy. It's really quite remarkable he could draw such arguments so soon after Newton's legendary work.

I think his arguments are, more often than not, persuasive, sober and thoughtful. I'm going to open a discussion group to talk about 3 chapters in the book.

In any case, good idea to re-read him. :up:

It is well worth the effort, there is a treasure trove of useful and insightful stuff in it. And even in areas in which one might disagree with him, there is food for thought.

If you're stuck or need help in one section, let me know, I'm happy to help.

That took. a. long. time.

Should've been finished much sooner, but attention issues and all. Just finished Locke's Essay for a second time. Majestic and a true classic. I will forever be a fan.

Now onto Leibniz' New Essays.

As for novels, finished reading Higashino's latest novel am now reading Tales from the Gas Station by Jack Townsend.

Wrong thread.

Indeed. I guess idealists Like Kastrup would say that physicalism is itself a kind illusion and the universe is entirely mentation - material objects are what mental processes look like when seen from a particular perspective. Sometimes this strikes me as just the opposite of Dennett - instead of consciousness being a type of illusory phenomenon, the body is the illusion. — Tom Storm

Ahh, Dennett. I'm not a fan of his views at all and in fact, seem to rather distort very elementary experience, so let's use someone else, if you don't mind.

Let's take, say, Rovelli, who says calls himself a physicalist, and he tends to allow for physicalism to encompass quite a lot.

The consequences of idealism vs materialism make little difference in practice to how one lives it would seem to me, except that idealism makes room for a reboot of the idea of the supernatural. — Tom Storm

I think you are on to something here. Though I don't see why one couldn't be a physicalist and allow for God to be physical and be agnostic about things like real intuitions (if they exist) and similar phenomena. Though they may be less likely to argue for this.

Now, if you include talk about ghosts and astrology, then I don't think that neither idealist nor physicalists (in as much as one can form a coherent distinction) would defend such view that much.

In so far as you believe than enactivism is the correct approach to these issues, can it be said that it is "a fair distance" from it.

But if one takes a kind of idealism to be true - say a variety of innatist idealism -then one could argue that enactivism is a fair distance away from it.

But that in turn depends on the strand of enactivism being elaborated, I would assume. And then there would remain only a difference in emphasis between one view and another.

To be fair, there are important differences between say, Kant, Hoffman and Kastrup. Sure, they could be called "idealists", but that's a bit like saying that Strawson and Dennett are both materialists, which they are, but vastly different in what the word entails.

These are perhaps heuristics, but they need not signal agreement in terms of entailment.



I know it was aimed at me at all, but I cannot resist making but some comments, as your post is quite useful.

1) I think there are many hard questions, we just happen to live in a time in which one problem appears to be the central focus of attention, and not others, which were "hard problems" that were never solved, but accepted: the nature of motion, for instance.

2) Yes - a category error. Eliminitavism like Dennett or Churchland is cute, but fruitless.

What's the difference between a physicalist monism and a non-physical one? Is consciousness not physical? Or alternatively, if consciousness is not physical, why isn't the rest of the universe non-physical? There seems to be a lot of "empty space" - very far removed from any ordinary notions of physical stuff we have in everyday life.

Not to mention "dark matter" and "dark energy", which constitute a combined 95% of the universe - the vast majority. Is that physical or not? What consequences follow from proclaiming one term instead of another one?

The substantial issue here, I think, is that of mind independence or no mind-independence...

No, I read your OP and skimmed a bit from others, but little - I prefer to go in "new", as it were. Now you've added plenty of context and renders the notion more clearly, so thanks for that it is useful.

The issue here isn't to poke holes into an account - that can be done in almost any post concerning issues as large and complex as human relations and psychology, what we can do is provide some tools that help clarify some of the problems at hand.

We only have a data set of one here, ours, and the way its changed over time. So the question of the inevitability of such dilemmas necessarily arising need not follow. Given the results you point out, one can even question if this society should be deemed "advanced".

It's correct to point out how social media plays an important role in the identity crisis we currently face. Though this is merely a new phase of an old playbook, going back to the early 20th century, with the advent of PR and how companies realized how easy it was to manipulate people into consumers.

So we've had a consumer identity forced onto people that carry with them certain patterns of behavior that signal what makes for a proper "man" or "woman" and what a typical person of each gender should aspire to in each respective subfield.

Again, what strikes me is the degree of specificity in which gender has become an object of obsession. I don't quite understand why this topic is of such importance to many young people.

I'd guess that it depends on how hard-wired the pessimism is on that particular person. If it's not too deep, then surely Sisyphus could simply go up the mountain and enjoy the view and forget about the bolder for a while.

If it's more deep-seated, you still have options, but they're drastically reduced. Which further feeds into the whole pessimistic scenario. It has its own logic and lived experience can be a very powerful force in terms of how deeply felt such feelings are held.

That was a bit dense, read it twice and only have a vague idea of what you may be talking about - you certainly put a lot of thought behind it, that I can't deny. So I'll try to take something out of it, that I find useful, maybe even in a form of a question:

I think you are correct that how our current socio-economic society is structured fosters a sense of isolation while at the same time fomenting an image of "individuality", in which we falsely or misleadingly only show those aspects of ourselves we want to show - and then feel like shit in real life, when we cannot live up to the standards of the fiction(s) we have created for ourselves.

I think it would help to give a simple example of what you take an identity to be. Are you talking about what it means to be a modern woman or a father figure or what? If we want to create a sphere which we call "identity" and try to separate from it other aspects, work, for instance, then we need a more clear idea of what an identity is.

What I do see is a kind of mini-crisis in the topic of gender-identity, which is somewhat curious, in the sense that this out of all things is the topic of discussion, instead of something else.

Potential solutions? They say that genuine human connection helps with such things - in so far as these connections are truly genuine and not fulling in some box of things that one needs to do, which don't advance anything.

But why is identity specifically a problem? I agree it is, but it's curious that it's what's the cause of so many discussions. Clearing up what an identity is even more, could help I suspect.

You'd probably blow a fuse. End up in psych ward, heavily medicated. We assume crazy things like ending up with a prostitute or bungie jumping off a helicopter or something, but most of these types of requests are rather mundane, lots of it tedious and not of much consequence.

Assuming the people you will be saying yes to are immediate family and friends, and no is not an option, then you cannot argue, cannot get away, and so on.

Eventually you will break or blow up and your mental health will take a serious toll.

Unless your neighbor happens to a mountain climber or something exotic, this is the way to madness.

I mean, I agree.

But as you well know, some people aren't born with "reality-agreeing" lenses and choose the "rosy-picture" one instead and remain with them.

My intuition is that pessimism (which I share many sympathies with) is very much person dependent. Some people are more predisposed to such views, others are not.

And in the latter case, existential dread is at most covered by an hour long visit to the church on Sundays - if that.

I think these kinds of things are context-dependent. I mean, one thing is to have a website like this, in which you want to keep trolling and bad attitudes away from serious discussion - in such cases (and several others like it) then we need certain protections by way of restricting speech - otherwise many people won't participate.

In general however, it is not a good idea to restrict speech - for one thing you don't get rid of the speech by banning it, for another, you lose an opportunity to let others see why such beliefs are problematic, based on elementary reasoning.

And of course, this also carries the implication that only what people like me believe, are the ones who are correct. No, we could be wrong, and engaging others can help is discover reasons why what we believe is wrong, or if not, incomplete.

It's not easy.

:up:



Religion. Cults. Some types of nationalism. Politics.

It's a long list.

We should try and get people to pay attention to the evidence on these issues, the beliefs should follow naturally. It shouldn't be our concern to persuade people to our beliefs.

Because our beliefs could be wrong, and in fact, likely are, in at least several respects.

Gorgeous song.

:fire:

Truer words, never spoken.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBpB9kzVkH4&list=RDYBpB9kzVkH4&start_radio=1

Breathe, breathe in the air
Don't be afraid to care
Leave, but don't leave me
Look around, choose your own ground
Long you live and high you fly
Smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry
And all you touch and all you see
Is all your life will ever be

Run, rabbit, run
Dig that hole, forget the sun
When, at last, the work is done
Don't sit down, it's time to dig another one
Long you live and high you fly
But only if you ride the tide
Balanced on the biggest wave
You race towards an early grave

Home, home again.
I like to be here when I can.
When I come home cold and tired
It's good to warm my bones beside the fire.
Far away across the field
The tolling of the iron bell
Calls the faithful to their knees
To hear the softly spoken magic spells.

I suspect that part of it has to do with dwindling economic conditions for the vast majority of the population.

Instead of looking for the actual culprits, say, the billionaire class, a significant portion of the political class, and massive multi-national corporations, these politicians do what they've always done, they demonize minorities, vulnerable people and so on.

It's easy to do because you rarely see billionaires in real life, nor are you invited to board meetings in Goldman Sachs or are invited to Davos. But gay people, indigenous people, poor people - those you see every day. "They are responsible for your problems, not us."

And then there are other factors too, nationalism, religion, tribalism, etc., and you have a recipe for a disaster.

That's what I make of it anyway.

I've read that the attempted coup in Brazil was considerably larger than the one in the US, and also that the Brazilian Supreme Court was also targeted.

This may provida Lula an opportunity to reform certain police practices as well as getting some of the moderate Bolsonaro voters (if there are any) to denounce violence and this distance themselves from him.

This plague of right-wingers is very scary. They're still a problem even out of office.

Thanks, will do.

Yes, I should've added that that's what I found interesting in my reading of the Critique. But the point you mention is quite true and shouldn't require much by way of convincing, to think otherwise.

It took me a good 4 to 5 months to read the Critique, and mind you, I've read a decent amount of secondary literature. I won't deny that Kant has some very interesting theoretical observations, particularly concerning the relationship between things-in-themselves and experienced reality.

But I got more from the secondary literature honestly. I will go at it again - this time only reading version B, or however it is called.

You might get more (I know I did, on the whole) reading his Prolegomena, which is considerably clearer than the Critique. But, ymmv.

And your observations do? Given that all Ukrainians share the same motivation?

Because surely they all want to die to defeat the Russians.

You're speaking about pieces on a board game from me? Who are the ones giving Ukrainians arms with no echo of a though given about what the costs are nor who dies?

You think these "friends" of Ukraine give a flying f**k about them?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/26/us-has-big-new-goal-ukraine-weaken-russia/

I repeat, it is nice to see how so many people care about Ukraine, but don't give a damn about all the other on-going conflicts in the world.

Keep fighting the good fight.

It seems your reasons for your views stand on a better foundation than mine, given the apparently curious comment that you know that those who are dying all share the same view.

So, then, we are on equal footing, standing "above" the dead. The difference seems to be that I want the war to end sooner rather than later, while you opt for the opposite - the obvious consequences of such a view needing little elaboration, as we daily see.

Make of that what you will.

There is honor in fighting even for a cause that cannot be won.

The issue is the continued cost of doing so, in terms of lives at stake, not to mention those pesky "externalities" that are hurting the whole world. And further problems that may arise if escalation continues.

There comes a point in which one must consider the costs of further loss of life.

Yes, plenty of smugness - from those who aren't fighting, rooting for those who are dying.

It's all irrationality to the highest degree. Nationalism is poison, be it Russian, Ukrainian, American or whatever.

Combine that with modern weaponry and a comfortably-at-home support team rooting for "victory" and you get all those deaths you mention. As a bonus, you get to feel good for "supporting the good guys".

It should be added that it's actually supporting the death of the good guys.

:roll:

Well, some bombs are better than others, apparently. Putin's bombs hurt more. Ergo, lets guarantee he uses more of them.

Good times...

Use them in so far as you find them interesting and/or, more importantly, useful.

In so far as Mww knows Kant in a way very few professionals do - despite his claims to the contrary - one need not go this far, unless you are so motivated, which you need not be. There is something to be said about writing clearly, which goes beyond mere aesthetic...

It would require, many, many years to become an expert at that level. But there is so much to read and learn, often people who are ignored of overlooked say interesting things too.

Having said that, it's a good thread, surely some will find plenty of value here.

The US has many such friends everywhere.

These friends are all evil incarnate until a few bombs brings them freedom and democracy....

Yes, these so-called supporters of Ukraine really, really care for them - so much so that they don't mind how much blood is spilled in exchange for a piece of land.

It's good that they don't care nearly as much about those other countries you mention. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

He was a massive troll, wow, what a clown.