I agree with some of this, others not. There is very good evidence to suggest that [1] is not true: the universe cannot be understood by human beings, at least not metaphysically (which is the purpose of this thread) - the ultimate grounds of reality are sealed out for us.

[2] Is more terminological than anything else. Yes, there is a universe out there - it can be called "physical", "neutral", "material", "immaterial", it does not have consequences for our inquires- for whatever the universe is made of, whatever word is used - this is what we study.

[3] Yes, sure. We could substitute "laws" for "habits", but it is fine.

[4] Yes. Or at least, we can best describe its behavior through applied mathematics.

[5] Given the time period, perhaps this was assumed to be true. There may be exceptions, but, fine.

[6] Yes.

[7] So far as was known, correct.

[8] And assumed to be infinite too.

[9] Space and time are considered absolute and not the same thing, as is now the case.

Pretty good OP Clark.

Let us get all our spiritual sustenance from STEM then.

Because of course, during the pandemic, we all made it through because the humanities did nothing to help any of us.

I know this is not your view. But it is a sad state of affairs when such things are said to contribute no value to society. Reflects our cultural poverty or, if not, then highlights our admiration for the superficial (how much it contributes to the economy as opposed to how it enriches us as human beings).

It's a very good OP, with the only caveat that it is a bit long. It seems to me that, if you haven't done so already, you should go ahead and read Schopenhauer.

What you are saying towards the end is very similar to what Schopenhauer argues. Granted, both Kant and Schopenhauer are a bit dated in terms of physics (space and time are not a-priori conditions of sensibility, we now know it's spacetime, etc.), which surprisingly doesn't hurt them too much.

It's a fine tradition.

I suppose it depends who you ask.

One could explain it in terms of which areas in the brain are directly responsible for consciousness (frontal lobe, etc., etc.). Maybe we'll find which areas are strictly necessary for this.

How to interpret this, would be difficult. But the distinction between science and philosophy on this topic is more slippery than in other areas, I think.



Sure. No one knowns what the future may hold. We have different intuitions on this and it's not possible to say who will end up being correct.

It's too long to explain here again (I've discussed this too much here), there is a thread I started in which I shared an essay by Chomsky that explains the reasons why.

Besides Chomsky: Locke, Hume, Reid, Kant and up to Russell, share similar intuitions. In a nutshell, we have quite a rigid nature that allows us to pose some questions to nature, but not others. We can ask all kinds of questions, some which may be well posed, of which we have no inkling of an answer.

No one doubts all biological creatures have rigid natures: dogs, dolphins, birds, etc. Why would we be the exception to this rule? Sure, we are vastly more intelligent and unique than any other animal, by a lot, but we don't have an advanced alien civilization to which we could compare ourselves.

I think it's a matter of human cognitive limitation and being epistemologically realistic, not pessimistic.

I haven't seen a poll of professional philosophers in relation to this question, so I can't vouch that "most living philosophers" accept the hard problem as stated.

I'd very slightly change the formulation and instead say that the so called "hard problem", has generated of a lot of literature in contemporary philosophy.

You ask 10 different philosophers, and you'll get 10 different replies. Some take it to be solvable, others don't.

Personally, I side with those who think that it is not solvable in a manner in which we would like the answer to be, namely, to explain how matter produces experience.

Much more importantly, in my view, is that it is only one of many "hard problems". We've gotten so used to accepting these problems, that they don't bother us anymore: gravity was hard problem for Newton, motion was a problem for Locke and Hume and many others, the identity of objects is a hard problem going back to Heraclitus, and so on.

What you point is very much true. Those of us not gifted in math, have no choice but to rely on physicists to try and explain this at some level of generality and simplification.

But how do we make sense of math in relation to the external world, if we (non-specialists) can't visualize the information in any way?

It seems as if we are more satisfied when we can picture things than when we are left with no choice than write equations.

It's a tough topic to talk sensibly about, you are correct.

Well, there's a whole lot of things science cannot prove, nor even sensibly talk about, which we take for granted:

Literature, the arts, issues pertaining to the will and much else.

We may find some very general and not very interesting suggestions in art by arguing that we like certain symmetries in objects. That doesn't say too much.

Science doesn't really say why Shakespeare or [insert favorite author here] was a genius. Nevertheless, we need not abandon rationality when talking about this and go to mysticism.

There very much are "edge-cases" such as the issue of the self, free will and object constancy that can be somewhat studied, or denied, marginalized or ignored. We have no choice but to deal with them in real life however.

Included in all this is suffering in general: it's very hard to measure. No one doubts it exists.

Are you arguing for the sake of it?

He should be popular because he made important contributions in epistemology, metaphysics, morals and aesthetics, among several other topics.

Modern philosophy developed in part as a reaction to his thought.

Nevertheless, I think there are classical philosophers that are more interesting than him and anticipated his thought. And I also think Kant exaggerates his own importance.

But that he should be popular, is evident.

He sure is, as he should be.

All I'm saying is that people vary wildly in what they get from him - either a great deal, something or very little and everything else in between.

Parts of it were discussed, not the whole book. There was more emphasis on obscure phenomenologists and the Ancient Greeks. Maybe related tot he fact that it is a Catholic university, I think.

To force people to read the entire Critique, would be cruel. Several distinguished philosophers, like William James or Bertrand Russell, got very little to nothing out of him.

But I'm rectifying that mistake :halo:

Currently reading:

Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant (finally and damn, it really is hard-going even knowing the main ideas before reading it).

The Kimono Tattoo by Rebecca Copeland

Yes. One need not have to be put in the default position of *having* to say, "Putin's invasion of Ukraine is a major crime.", every time one want to make a point about how poorly the West in handling this situation.

This level of discourse is pretty crazy.

I won't do it now (@ him), but, Baden's contributions here seem to be level headed.

Maybe comes with his position here.

One would just want this war to be over with. For everybody's sake.

Yes.

The first one (it being illegal) is just a fact. But not morally wrong at all.

As to the convenient moralizing, yes, with the caveats mentioned.

It is illegal, as a matter of fact, in Russia. It's an empirical affair. Not morally wrong in the least, actually the opposite.

According to you, to criticize the Russian government is either illegal (if one lives in Russia) or convenient moralizing (if one lives outside Russia). — Olivier5

Correct.

Where you live affects this, in my opinion. If you live in Poland or Finland, I think it's different. If you live in say, France, the US or Australia, then yes, most of what I hear (not all) is convenient moralizing.

I own things I say and have retracted if relevant information arises, as I did at the start of this invasion.

But I will not retract things I did not say.

And yes, I think one has to asses who merits continued engagement, and who does not. My reading of your comments suggest that you extrapolate what you want to hear, so you attack something somebody did not say.

I think it doesn't make sense to discuss imaginary statements.

If you call that running away or cowardly, fine. I don't care.

I haven't said nor insinuated that one cannot speak about Russia's actions, of course one speaks about Russia's actions, that's part of the thread.

Ukraine would literally not be a topic of discussion here if NATO weren't a massive factor, as I posted in the OP.

People should talk about whatever they think is interesting and important.

That's a different issue from saying that by condemning Russia, we are being morally correct or righteous. That Russia is engaging in war crimes is a truism.

That I think my governments (US and Spain) are doing much to improve the situation, I don't think is the case.

you are not allowed to do so — Olivier5

You can do it and you get arrested. Those protesting in Russia are very brave and deserve moral praise.

when it's legal, then it's immoral. — Olivier5

I am impressed by your reading comprehension skills, given how creative you can be extrapolating words I never said.

I enjoy speaking to someone like @SophistiCat, even if we may disagree. You simply distort meanings to a remarkable degree.

What do you take metaphysics to be?

And who does good metaphysics in your opinion?

I'm not sure I'm understanding what you mean by showing this link. I agree metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, and that work is done in the field.

I still maintain that what one person calls "metaphysics" another says isn't or is bad philosophy, etc. I think metaphysics now is more obscure than it was during Descartes time, because the topics are much more technical, and we know less that the classical figures hoped we could know.



Perhaps that's more accurate than what I said.

It causes considerable contention, as you well know.

I don't think it's even possible to have a modern day war, without committing war crimes. It comes with the territory.

I do agree that the evidence needs to examined by independent legal scholars, looking at the facts - as far isolated from ideology as possible. But to get rid of ideology entirely I don't think is possible.

It's part of being human, to have biases. It need not be bad.

But sure, hypocrisy from the West, no doubt at all about that.

They sure are. It's not clear to me however, that many of these questions pertain to metaphysics exclusively, that is, that we're going to find some kind of answers to questions about the self, free will, and say, materialism, from looking at the world.

These questions I think need to be re-integrated into epistemology. In this respect I think Descartes
"launch" of modern philosophy is quite correct.

My point being, that if you ask anyone here, what metaphysics is, you'll get many different answers. And with contemporary philosophers, it's not much better.

Then again, if it's clear to you, then that's a massive plus to you. I still puzzle over it, after having spent considerable time on it.

That's probably true.

It is however, fiendishly hard to pin-point what it actually is, outside of saying that it's about the nature of the world.

Epistemology, ethics, etc., in this respect are much more straightforward to define, imo.

I agree. Therefore, I do not think metaphysics can be eliminated.

One aspect of what the positivists did, and latter Wittgenstein (in opposition to his earlier, I think deeper, work) was to try to frame "traditional metaphysical" questions is such a manner that apparent difficulties could be dissolved.

And while this is one way to approach the problem, with some good results, it's far from the only one. And yet despite the critique of it, many metaphysical problems are still with is. It's up to each person to decide whether such questions are worthy of pursuit or a waste of time.

I think that, despite not being capable of arriving at definite conclusions, the journey is very much its own reward. Of course, your miles will vary.

By pressuring our governments, voting our politicians in or out, engaging in demonstrations that could push or stop legislation, sending letters to our representatives all of which are an essential part of democracy.

As we are not citizens of Russia, we do not have this option - and also they get arrested if they do protest.



Yes, it has a very long, ugly history, curiously supporting the more radical elements of Islam, which often coincide (not always) with Western economic and military interests.

Nevertheless, that's a topic deserving of its own thread.

Who supplies the arms to Saudi Arabia? You think SA would dare due this if they US didn't allow it?

Iran is blown way out of proportion due to Israeli interests.

Nevertheless, don't want to derail the main topic here. It's easier to condemn an enemy than admit the faults of one's own state.

This very much applies to the Russia war in Ukraine.

Well. If you get rid of metaphysics, you will also need to get rid of epistemology. Epistemology has to be about something, and if you remove the world, then you are merely left with reason dealing with itself - if that's even conceivable.

But even this is problematic, because without a world, it is not at all obvious that one could tell apart what belongs to the world and what belongs to mind. So mind may not even develop.

If you get rid of epistemology, you get rid of philosophy: morality, aesthetics, etc.

But the positive take is rather extreme. They actually have a metaphysics, since they believe the world exists. So all there is, everything, is sense data. So all we deal with in the world is this, sense data.

There are few views as radical as this, not even Hume or Berkeley were as radical.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the OP doesn’t seem to disallow “pro-Russian” or “anti-NATO” arguments. So, saying that an argument is “pro-Russian/anti-NATO” isn’t really a valid objection. — Apollodorus

Correct. There are obvious biases, proclivities and lenses through which we look at this war. It is tempting, because if it often true, to say that a poster here is "pro-West/Anti-Russia" or "Pro Russia/ Anti-NATO". And all varieties of such combinations.

Nevertheless, once we reach a point in which such accusations are made, I see little by way of argument that could persuade a person on any side.

There's been much discussion here, and I've only skimmed a good portion of it, but my feeling is that @Isaac is correct in the following: that we are responsible for what our governments do and can act on that to some extent.

Unless we are Russian (and even then it's hard, given the current regime in Russia) we can't do much about it. And merely saying how horrible Russia is, over and over, is convenient moralizing.

I draw exceptions with people living next to Russia, but besides that, its just much easier to condemn Russia, than what's happening in say, Yemen, which is almost entirely the fault of the US. But, people wave flags, for good and ill.

I mean, these types of threads lead to thinking that suicide is a good thing, because there's nothing else that can be extracted here that is positive in any way. And for some cases, I think suicide is completely legitimate.

But if that's not in the background, then all we are left with is damning this existence. What's the point? Either do something, or don't do it, but trying to get people to see that existence is suffering is silly, especially if there's a way out.

You can define a word however you like.

Doesn't mean that that definition maps onto what people who are interested in philosophy and those who engage it do.

It's a field of enquiry encompassing several fields: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, morality and logics, among much else.

@Benkei @Baden @Jamal @Srap Tasmaner

There's quite some filth here, above Maw.

No, it's not. :rofl:

Glad it's not only me.

But the effort pays off, in most areas. :up:

,,,,and how’s that going for ya? — Mww

Not great. :lol:

It's harder than I was expecting and some of the distinctions he draws between inner and outer sense escape me. In fact, many of his distinctions are a bit dubious in exact formulation, but not in general outlook (the big picture, as it were).

I tend to prefer his comments about our ignorance of things themselves and his ideas on the imagination are a step forward from Hume's conception and is quite interesting.

Then again, I've learned the essential points of Kantianism from very reading some excellent philosophers so, I keep that in mind, despite my reservations on some of the precise exposition he makes.

Yes, the parts where he talks about Hume have been the best so far, I like the attitude and the reply in general. I think the problem remains concerning external objects, but the framing of causality as something we bring to the world, was quite lucid and penetrating.

He found it puzzling that he couldn't find the idea of "necessary connection" in our ideas of causality. I admit that to me, the issue is at times a bit hard to grasp. Sometimes I see the difficulty he is pointing out, other times, I take your attitude and simply say that's just the way things are.

I tend to appreciate Schopenhauer's comments here that "motives are causes experienced from within", but, am not sure it is true.

Thanks for replying.

What's the alternative to doing this for life? Going on intuition and emotion all the time?

That's not going to help you get very far, in fact, it's likely to get oneself killed. The "postmodernists" who argue otherwise are using reason to justify whatever they say, so...

I'm finally - after much fear and trepidation, am reading Kant's Critique, and it certainly helps to have read a decent amount of commentary on it, makes it much smoother.

I'm currently into his Of the Deduction of the Pure Concepts of the Understanding Third Section. I'm aware there is likely more about Hume here, aside from his comments on the Prolegomena.

It seems to me that the move Kant makes is correct, in essence. Nevertheless, causality is a bit harder that merely arguing that it must be an a-priori aspect of our cognition. It undoubtably is, but there is no guarantee that these apply in "ordinary experience", as a necessity, there are exceptions and illusions.

But, even granting that most of the time, we are roughly correct in our causal inferences in everyday life, the problem of causality in the objects outside ourselves remains entirely untouched.

And the concept is rather obscure, in as much as we can only perceive that it is a constant conjunction, though there has to be more than this to causality.

Of course, Kant would say, plausibly, that of these things in themselves we know nothing. Maybe we don't. But Hume's statement of the problem remains rather fierce, as I see it.

I mean, I think the paradox he points out makes sense. The bit about him going a bit senile or losing steam has been going on for well over ten years.

Either agree with him or disagree with him, that's fine. But I don't think attributing this to his brain power - or alleged lack thereof, is a good critique.

The paradox he points out is a good one. The western media (by and large, with exceptions) are simultaneously claiming that Russia is a ferocious enemy that will not stop at Ukraine, and then also saying how embarrassing the Russian army is. Those are contradictory views.

If you say that it is not, because now there is a "window of opportunity" to join NATO, and that this solves such paradoxes, OK. I think that's a post-hoc rationalization, because, regardless of how Russia did (and is doing) in Ukraine, the issue would have come up.

But, some of you think that there is no double speak and that this makes sense, well then OK. No point in me continuing to argue about something we won't be able to solve by going back on forth on the same points.

Well, Putin certainly gave the Hawks in NATO the biggest gift he could possibly offer, and they will take it, as they have been.

We will see how Russia reacts to this, it won't be pretty. It will likely cause Russia and China to become really close allies now.

It's an excellent opportunity for politicians to bloviate about the dangers to democracy and international order, when they gladly wipe their arses with these things whenever they wish.

It doesn't offer any justification for the invasion Russia launched, we may disagree here, but, it's total hypocrisy. And dangerous.

But Russia hasn't and will not be able to control Ukraine.

Why would Russia want to invade Finland and Sweden? Again, as far as we've seen, Russia's military has been quite bad at war. Why then go after these countries?

I don't see any benefit, from any perspective, that would justify such actions, maybe there's some crazy person in the military or some extreme right-winger in the Kremlin that wants Russia to invade all Europe.

It can't.

If you think joining NATO will be good for Finland's security, then this is a positive move - a good window as the NATO chief explains.

I don't think it is, but, as I said, I could be wrong. The only "contribution" I want to make here is that it seems to me that there is too much confidence in the belief that things cannot possibly go wrong in terms of nukes.

That attitude is just a mistake.

But Chomsky refers only to those instances where it's either the US or an ally of the US that shows aggression. Chomsky doesn't see it's his role to comment on the aggression of Russia. If Russia does something bad, he doesn't see it's his role to comment it. Well sorry, but we have that over 1000 km border with Russia, not Israel or the US. — ssu

There's no need for him to condemn Russia, which he has actually, several times. There's an abundance of criticism already readily available everywhere in Western media.

Of course what you say about a conflict will depend on where you live, and what the circumstances are like for your country.

So, I do see your concern and I would be concerned too, if I were Finnish.



I don't see the point to these hypotheticals, but, my guess would be that if Ukraine had completely fallen, then, Finland and Sweden would be even more enthusiastic about joining NATO.

But since that hasn't happened and likely won't, it doesn't matter much. Either joining NATO makes Finland and Sweden more safe, or it does not. I'll entertain agnosticism about Finland and Sweden.

I would not be agnostic about the issue of the world being safer if such a move takes place. Of course, I could be wrong, as I was about this war even happening.

But I'm seeing too much confidence, when the stakes are so high. I think this is a mistake.