To me all your claims about what nature has in mind, which was the phrasing you used at the start of this thread, are about what you have in mind, which you ascribe to natural principle because of your belief-system, which is your own choice within a culturally, historically determined set of 'constraints', which was in turn originally set in motion by our 'natures'. — mcdoodle

It is always going to be the case that we model the world to the best of our abilities. I haven't claimed absolute knowledge in some thing-in-itself fashion. So your epistemological argument is moot.

That leaves the validity of my claims. And they are based on modern science. So well based - as good as it gets when it comes to inquiry into nature.

It's actually a famous line. You know that, don't you? — apokrisis

I know, I'm just joking around. Take a famous line literally and see where you can go with it...

We know that our vacuum is both quantum and three dimensional. — apokrisis

I think that this is self-contradictory. The "quantum reality" is produced by a discontinuity of time created by relativistic principles. There is a disjunction between time from the perspective of a moving object, and time from the perspective of pure energy, which is radically different from a moving object. This is analogous to, or actually the same disjunction in a different form, as the disjunction between rest and movement, in a conceptual structure which allows for absolute rest. Quantum principles were developed to account for the observable effects of this gap in the understanding of time. Therefore anything "quantum" is necessarily four dimensional as time is understood as a fourth dimension in quantum principles.

In my book, absolutes represent limits and so are by definition unreal in being where reality ceases to be the case. And that's why reality always needs two complementary limits to give it somewhere to actually be - the somewhere that is within complementary bounds. — apokrisis

I really don't think this is the case. I think you are misrepresenting, or perhaps even misunderstanding your own "book" in this statement. You allow that the absolute "energy" has real existence. Energy is an absolute, it represents the limit of physical existence, as formulated in the special theory of relativity. You clearly allow that this limit has real existence.

You are employing a dualistic ontology and you don't see that as a problem. — apokrisis

Why is employing a dualistic ontology seen as a problem by you? Dualistic ontology has proven very successful in the past, and it was developed due to very successful arguments, demonstrations and proofs, such as Plato's, that monist principles cannot grasp reality. Why do you apprehend dualist ontology as a problem rather than the solution, which it really is.

It is always going to be the case that we model the world to the best of our abilities. I haven't claimed absolute knowledge in some thing-in-itself fashion. — apokrisis

If we reject dualist ontology, as a problem, for no apparent reason, except that it complicates our understanding of the world, or makes us face the reality of things which we would rather not face as real because they complicate our lives, when the world is clearly complex, we are not modelling the world to the best of our abilities. The models are deficient due to this failing to account for aspects of reality which dualism gives us the capacity to account for. That is the real problem, rejecting the best models, dualist, for no reason, accept perhaps to facilitate the simple life.

.

Why is employing a dualistic ontology seen as a problem by you? — Metaphysician Undercover

It's a problem if the dualism is positing non-physical existents. Why? Because there are no non-physical existents.

People call other things "dualism," too, though. I'm not sure what he meant by your supposed dualism. (I haven't read through every post since I last saw this thread yet . . . this board seems to go in spurts. It's really slow for awhile, then suddenly there will be 100 long posts in just a few hours.)

(to apokrisis) You allow that the absolute "energy" has real existence. — Metaphysician Undercover

Did he explicitly say that? It seems like he'd say there is no such thing as "absolute energy," and I'd agree with him.

It's a problem if the dualism is positing non-physical existents. Why? Because there are no non-physical existents. — Terrapin Station

What is time then?

Did he explicitly say that? It seems like he'd say there is no such thing as "absolute energy," and I'd agree with him. — Terrapin Station

I didn't mean "absolute energy", what I meant is the absolute which is called "energy". According to the principles of special relativity, energy is conceived as a limit to physical existence. Apokrisis had defined absolutes as "limits", which are by definition uneal. But by the way that Apokrisis refers to entropy, and entropification, it is clear that this absolute, energy, is believed to have real existence.

What is time then? — Metaphysician Undercover

Change and/or motion. Or in other words, it's processes, or changing relations of matter.

the absolute which is called "energy".

Whatever that would be. <shrugs>

Change and/or motion. Or in other words, it's processes, or changing relations of matter. — Terrapin Station

Right, and I don't believe that these things, relationships between individual things, are properties of the things themselves. How could they be? A relationship between A and B is neither a property of A nor B, it is the property of the thing which determines that relationship, a human mind.

Whatever that would be. — Terrapin Station

Exactly, Apokisis speaks as if this thing called "energy" is something real, but denies that limitations, absolutes, are real.

Right, and I don't believe that these things, relationships between individual things, are properties of the things themselves.How could they be? A relationship between A and B is neither a property of A nor B, — Metaphysician Undercover

Obviously if we're talking about the relation of A to B, it's not a property of just A or just B. The property in question obtains via how A and B are related to each other. That's what relations are. That doesn't mean that the relational property is something nonphysical that's separate from A and B. It's supervenes on A and B; how they move/change with respect to each other. That's all it is. That doesn't depend on a human mind. Things really move/change with respect to each other.

Please explain to me what exactly is involved in the reasoning of vegetarians and Nazis that make them both "romantic" according to your book. — darthbarracuda

In a word, spiritual purity.

Romanticism boils down to the complaint that the modern technological mode of existence is soul-less and impure. It is dirty, messy, disgusting, unclean, ugly and joyless.

So Romanticism inspired a particular kind of back to nature organicism and back to the past Volkisch-ness or rural community lifestyle.

Of course early Romanticism had a lot of overlap with the Humanism arising out of the enlightenment. But Humanism was anti-theistic and socially optimistic. It was forward looking and celebrated the modern possibilities for human growth, personal freedom and the triumph of rationality.

Evolutionary theory also plays into it because it showed that humans were animals and so raised questions for both the rationalists and the irrationalists (the sentiment driven romantics) in terms of how animals ought to be treated.

Anyway, the association between vegetarianism and romanticism is well known.... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_and_Romanticism

Just as is that between Nazism and romanticism.....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%B6lkisch_movement

So on the one hand there is a rationalist version of back to nature that arises from the rejection of theistic world views and a proper scientific, ecological and evolutionary, understanding of life. This views does not seek spiritual purity as its ultimate good. Instead it is more likely to celebrate the messy and confused imperfections of existence. Life is a balance, a negotiation, full of dynamism and passing variety.

Then there is this other view of back to nature that unites the romantics, Nazis and vegetarians. Purity is the ultimate good. Hence the sentimentality about children, bloodlines, untouched nature, medieval peasantry, animal innocence, etc.

An obssession with purity allows the rationalisation of extreme or absolute positions. That's how the Nazis could justify their concentration camps. That's how vegans can justify their own non-negotiable beliefs. If purity is the good, it is rational to argue imperfection should be eliminated by any means necessary.

But if your view of nature is instead essentially stochastic, then there will always be variety and imperfection. The good is now always about a global dynamical balance that constrains existence in a statistical fashion yet is also creatively sloppy, still fruitfully disorganised and playful at the margins.

The property in question obtains via how A and B are related to each other. That's what relations are. — Terrapin Station

Correct, and what carries out this act of relating other than a human mind? You know, A and B cannot be related to each other unless something actual relates them. If it's not a human mind, it must be something natural which is non-physical.

That doesn't mean that the relational property is something nonphysical that's separate from A and B. — Terrapin Station

Of course it means that it's separate from A and B. It's not described as part of B nor as part of A, it is described as A moving in relation to B. Clearly, it's in the mind which does the relating. If it is not in the mind, what do you think it is. If it's a physical object, we should be able to see it, or otherwise sense it. But we see A, and we see B, and we do not see the relationship between them, that we infer.

It's supervenes on A and B; how they move/change with respect to each other. — Terrapin Station

What supervenes on A and B, the human mind where the relationship exists?

That doesn't depend on a human mind. Things really move/change with respect to each other. — Terrapin Station

Obviously it does depend on the human mind, because as relationships, is simply how we describe the world, and descriptions are produced by the human mind. That one thing is moving in relation to another is simply how we describe things. Show me the physical object which is called "one thing moving in relation to another" if you really think that movement is a physical object.

Since you might keep expanding this, I'm just going to do a bit at a time.

Correct, and what carries out this act of relating other than a human mind? — Metaphysician Undercover

A and B.

You know, A and B cannot be related to each other unless something actual relates them.

Yeah, they're actual and they have various relations.

\If it's not a human mind, it must be something natural which is non-physical.

You're making zero sense. Why would it have to be something non-physical? We're talking about two physical things. The relation, since it supervenes on the physical things in question, is physical.

The relation, since it supervenes on the physical things in question, is physical. — Terrapin Station

If "supervenes" is meant to suggest that the relation follows the physical things, as a result, or effect of their existence, this is a false premise. Human beings plan the relationships between things, manufacture the things, and put them into those intended relationships. So the relationships which the things will have, after they come into existence, are prior in time to the things themselves. The relations exist before the things do. That's what planning is.

If you mean "supervenes" in some other way, you have no premise to conclude that if a relation supervenes on a physical thing, it is necessarily physical. Then your argument is non sequitur. There is no reason to believe that things of different categories cannot interact. That, I think, would be a ridiculous proposition.

Either way, this claim is very unsound. It does nothing to support your claim that there are no non-physical existents.

Romanticism boils down to the complaint that the modern technological mode of existence is soul-less and impure. It is dirty, messy, disgusting, unclean, ugly and joyless. — apokrisis

Do you have any examples? Until you provide specifics, you'll have the advantage of ambiguity.

As far as I can tell this is just Luddism.

Philosophy has been a struggle against nihilism. You have the side that rejects aspects of the world, and you have the other side that tries to affirm them. Plato vs Aristotle, Stoics vs Epicureans, Aquinas vs Augustine, Schopenhauer vs Nietzsche, etc.

Of course early Romanticism had a lot of overlap with the Humanism arising out of the enlightenment. But Humanism was anti-theistic and socially optimistic. It was forward looking and celebrated the modern possibilities for human growth, personal freedom and the triumph of rationality. — apokrisis

Sure, at least the French Revolutionaries were, who came at least a century after Locke, who was a deist, and Hobbes who had a sour view of society in general. It wasn't until Rousseau that we have a major thinker who thought everything would be a-ok if we all just went back to nature.

Evolutionary theory also plays into it because it showed that humans were animals and so raised questions for both the rationalists and the irrationalists (the sentiment driven romantics) in terms of how animals ought to be treated. — apokrisis

In fact it seems that Darwin himself was a product of a "proto-Darwinian" movement, stemming from the Enlightenment, which was trying to formulate a new "secular religion" that could explain the human condition in a more "naturalistic" manner. He was right, of course, but his theory owe a lot to the environment that Darwin was a part of.

Anyway, the association between vegetarianism and romanticism is well known.... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_and_Romanticism — apokrisis

But the association between vegetarianism and romanticism does not mean that vegetarianism is bullshit because romanticism is bullshit (which it's not obvious that it is either).

It would be akin to saying that philosophy is bullshit because an extraordinary about of philosophers in the past were misogynistic, and misogyny is irrational, therefore philosophy is irrational. Correlation does not equate to causation, and in any case the arguments presented for vegetarianism should be analyzed for their own merits and not from their apparent "origins" in romantic thought, despite vegetarianism being practiced thousands of years ago, cross-culturally.

In any rate the article you cited goes on to show how scientific theories of the day, as well as perennial liberal thinkers, were important motivating reasons to see humans and non-human animals as "interconnected", as opposed to "God's chosen", which we see so commonly in religious and rhetorical assertions.

Then there is this other view of back to nature that unites the romantics, Nazis and vegetarians. Purity is the ultimate good. Hence the sentimentality about children, bloodlines, untouched nature, medieval peasantry, animal innocence, etc. — apokrisis

It's a good thing that my vegetarianism, as well as a good deal of others' vegetarianism, is not motivated by that wishy-washy poetic nonsense. "Back to nature!", la-dee-dah, for the Fatherland!, nope, that's not my position at all.

Unless of course you want to argue that compassion is somehow "romantic" and not just basic decency.

An obssession with purity allows the rationalisation of extreme or absolute positions. That's how the Nazis could justify their concentration camps. That's how vegans can justify their own non-negotiable beliefs. If purity is the good, it is rational to argue imperfection should be eliminated by any means necessary. — apokrisis

Yes, indeed people tend to be staunch believers in something and think that belief is all they need to do. We live in an imperfect and violent world, belief ain't gonna change shit by itself. We have to compromise. I accept this. But this compromise is what we ought to do in practical terms, simply because the theoretical (which we can certainly conceive of) cannot be brought about because of certain contingencies, typically those involving and laziness and apathy of humans.

These romantics you cited are approaching this whole game from an aesthetic point of view. Animals should be treated with respect because it fulfills some aesthetic for a modern day Garden of Eden, lah-dee-dah, we'll all be animal lovers and live in a great happy family, yay!

I'm coming from a purely ethical point of view, paintings and orchestras be damned, one that stems directly from a conception of the phenomenal experiences of another animal. "Intersubjective experience".

But if your view of nature is instead essentially stochastic, then there will always be variety and imperfection. The good is now always about a global dynamical balance that constrains existence in a statistical fashion yet is also creatively sloppy, still fruitfully disorganised and playful at the margins. — apokrisis

Yet it seems that it is you who has an aesthetic for the universe. You use words like "sloppy" and "playful", or "creative" and "balance", when you could have said "non-uniform", "complex", "different", and "equilibrium". There's an aesthetic going on here: the universe is something utterly fascinating and bottomless, just an explosion of amazing material, and has anthropomorphic qualities - the Scholastics thought the point of life was to come to know God, and now you are arguing that the point of life is to come to know the Universe (an aesthetic pantheism). The Universe is just bristling with potential, waiting for the memorable and curious scientist to discover something new in a blaze of intellectual passion and triumph. And the more we come to know the Universe, the more we see ourselves as part of some great, beautiful cosmic tale...

If that isn't romantic then I don't know what is.

You asked what the connection could be. I said notions of purity. So your rant aside, I take it you agree about that then.

If "supervenes" is meant to suggest that the relation follows the physical things — Metaphysician Undercover

The simplest way to put supervenience is that it's the properties of a collection of things interacting as a system. It's an identity relation rather than a "follows/following" relation.

Human beings plan the relationships between things, manufacture the things, and put them into those intended relationships.

In some cases, sure--when we're talking about artifacts. Of course, not everything is an artifact. I don't know why either you're focusing on artifacts all of a sudden or why you're maybe positing the ridiculous view that everything is indeed an artifact.

Then your argument is non sequitur.

I wasn't forwarding anything like a logical argument. I was simply stating a view. I certainly hope that you don't believe that you're mostly stating logical arguments, because you are not. Not at all.

The simplest way to put supervenience is that it's the properties of a collection of things interacting as a system. It's an identity relation rather than a "follows/following" relation. — Terrapin Station

OK, so you're making everything into a "system", a whole, things and interactions between things, and saying that the "system", or whole is physical. That's there is a whole, or "a system" and that it is physical is an unsupported assumption though. Clearly the empirical evidence indicates that things are not all part of one system. This was my point when you joined the discussion. Apokrisis had claimed that we make models to the best of our capacity. But if we model everything as one system, when clearly the evidence indicates that it is not, and we have the capacity to produce a dualist model, which can better account for the complexities which we observe, then we are not making our models to the best of our capacity.

If you assume that there are two systems, and one is "the physical", then the other is not. If there is two (or more) systems, and you wish to group them all together as "physical", then we have to account for the existence of whatever it is which separates one system from another. Either way, there is the necessity of introducing more principles then just things and interactions, and the claim that all is physical is unsupported by the evidence. That is because we need a principle to account for the existence of a "system", or a whole, if such a thing is supposed to be real.

Clearly you assume that the system is something real, as it is the grounds for your claim that things and interactions can be classed together as one, "the physical". But this is the exact issue I had with apokrisis. Apokrisis claimed that limits, are not real, they are simply ideal, but then continued to speak about systems as if they were something real.

I wasn't forwarding anything like a logical argument. I was simply stating a view. — Terrapin Station

This is what you did say.

The relation, since it supervenes on the physical things in question, is physical. — Terrapin Station

I take the word "since" to imply "by reason of". Therefore the logical argument is implied that if something supervenes it is of the same category as that which it supervenes. In reality though, according to the concept of supervenience, the opposite is the case. Supervenience requires a separation between two distinct categories. So to think that supervenience implies that the two things are of the same category, is completely wrong.

If this is the "view" which you wee stating, I just thought I should point out that it is based in some extremely faulty logic. Perhaps you'd be wiser to quit stating that view.

Can't you type shorter replies so that a bunch of stuff doesn't get lost? I'm not going to respond to an ever-expanding number of topics each time. I can't stand interacting that way. I'll just do a couple different things:

That's there is a whole, or "a system" and that it is physical is an unsupported assumption though. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, of course one thing that supports it is that the idea of nonphysical existents is incoherent. What would you be positng aside from matter physically situated in the world, and dynamically changing in those physical situations, with respect to other matter?

Clearly the empirical evidence indicates that things are not all part of one system. — Metaphysician Undercover

Where the heck is "one system" coming from? Why would we be bringing up counting how many systems there are?

Can't you type shorter replies so that a bunch of stuff doesn't get lost? — Terrapin Station

OK

What would you be positng aside from matter physically situated in the world... — Terrapin Station

Matter, and "the world". Two things, necessity of dualism.

How would "the world" be different from matter + its dynamic situatedness with respect to other matter? In other words, what are you positing additional to matter + its dynamic situatedness?

One is "matter + its dynamic situatedness with respect to other matter". The other is "the world". I see that these are two distinct titles. You somehow see these two titles as referring to the very same thing. I see the need to posit something additional, if we are to say that these two titles refer to the same thing, some principle whereby we can equate these two different things. Otherwise we just have your unsupported assumption that these two titles refer to the same thing.

As opposed to your unsupported assumption that they don't refer to the same thing?

Mine's not unsupported, they are different words, therefore there is no indication that they refer to the same thing. Unless there is some indication that the different words are referring to the same thing there is no reason to believe that they refer to the same thing. If you think that these two are the same thing, the onus is on you to demonstrate that. From my perspective, the fact they are different words has already demonstrated that different things are referred to, unless there is reason given to believe otherwise.

Mine's not unsupported, they are different words, therefore there is no indication that they refer to the same thing. Unless there is some indication that the different words are referring to the same thing there is no reason to believe that they refer to the same thing. — Metaphysician Undercover

That makes an assumption that just in case words differ, the words refer to something non-identical, at least in lieu of an argument for them being identical. But that assumption is unsupported. You're simply claiming that it's so.

OK, I'll follow you lead then, and start with the assumption that all words refer to the same thing.

You asked what the connection could be. I said notions of purity. So your rant aside, I take it you agree about that then. — apokrisis

Not really. I agree that vegetarianism has been held by romantics, but also of non-romantics. It is incorrect to assign a causal relationship between the two.

Yeah, jokey strawmen is a good way to have a conversation when challenged.

Anyway, re what words refer to, that's determined by what an individual has in mind by the term in question.

??? The question was what romantic connection could explain Nazi vegetarianism.

Actually it was you trying to find a connection between Nazism and vegetarianism by claiming that both depended upon romantic thinking. In which case I pointed out how both non-romantic and romantic thinking can lead to vegetarianism.

Darth, it's not easy when you pretend you said something else....

Please explain to me what exactly is involved in the reasoning of vegetarians and Nazis that make them both "romantic" according to your book. — darthbarracuda

And I stand by that quote. I asked you to provide evidence showing that the same reasoning involved in vegetarianism is involved in Nazism. And I defended the position that vegetarianism can be adopted out of both romantic and non-romantic reasons, thus showing how the apparent link between vegetarianism and Nazism is a red herring. The concepts held by those who think romantically will be connected in virtue of their romanticism. The same applies to non-romantic thinking. It's wrong to say that vegetarianism can only be arrived at by romantic thinking.