The paradox of fiction, or the paradox of emotional response to fiction, is a philosophical dilemma that questions how people can experience strong emotions to fictional things. The primary question asked is the following: How are people moved by things which do not exist? — Wikipedia
Faith, derived from Latin fides and Old French feid, is confidence or trust in a person, thing, or concept. In the context of religion, one can define faith as "belief in a god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion". Religious people often think of faith as confidence based on a perceived degree of warrant, while others who are more skeptical of religion tend to think of faith as simply belief without evidence. — Wikipedia
Mathematical platonism has considerable philosophical significance. If the view is true, it will put great pressure on the physicalist idea that reality is exhausted by the physical. For platonism entails that reality extends far beyond the physical world and includes objects which aren’t part of the causal and spatiotemporal order studied by the physical sciences. Mathematical platonism, if true, will also put great pressure on many naturalistic theories of knowledge. For there is little doubt that we possess mathematical knowledge. The truth of mathematical platonism would therefore establish that we have knowledge of abstract (and thus causally inefficacious) objects. This would be an important discovery, which many naturalistic theories of knowledge would struggle to accommodate. — SEP
In his seminal 1973 paper, “Mathematical Truth,” Paul Benacerraf presented a problem facing all accounts of mathematical truth and knowledge. Standard readings of mathematical claims entail the existence of mathematical objects. But, our best epistemic theories seem to debar any knowledge of mathematical objects.
I'm not going to launch to an exposition of Parmenides, as I am not in the least qualified to do so, other than to note that it was the subsequent response to his ideas which gave rise to the Western tradition of metaphysics — Wayfarer
This is what leads to the arguments about, well, if you say numbers and ideas are real, then how about Bugs Bunny, or Sherlock Holmes? — Wayfarer
Mathematical objects are not the kinds of things that we can see or touch, or smell, taste or hear. If we can not learn about mathematical objects by using our senses, a serious worry arises about how we can justify our mathematical beliefs.
....
Sets are abstract objects, lacking any spatio-temporal location. Their existence is not contingent on our existence. They lack causal efficacy. Our question, then, given that we lack sense experience of sets, is how we can justify our beliefs about sets and set theory.
Some philosophers, called rationalists, claim that we have a special, non-sensory capacity for understanding mathematical truths, a rational insight arising from pure thought. But, the rationalist’s claims appear incompatible with an understanding of human beings as physical creatures whose capacities for learning are exhausted by our physical bodies.
instead of saying "god is nonexistent" we could offer what I feel is a more useful alternative like, "god exists but not in the same way as a stone does." I'm sure some philosophers must've already hit upon this idea. Such a tactic would allow a universalist to respond to a nominalist by saying that universals exist in such a way that to talk about them in terms of existence as applies to other things that are claimed to exist would amount to a category error. — TheMadFool
It also seems to me that spiritual pursuits so often are a form of abstracted status seeking - all that talk of 'higher level' things - accessible only to special states or special people. It's like crass materialism has been sublimated into a type of crass higher consciousness virtue signalling. — Tom Storm
He [ Jesus ] is teaching us the ultimate method of self-protection. Jesus is showing us how to get out of “even exchange” consciousness. He recommends spiritual one-upmanship—going to a spiritually more expansive understanding. Jesus advocates asserting our self-respect and dignity. When we “turn the other cheek,” we are realizing that we, not the other person, have the power. We are the one who has the choice. We are not subjugated. When we “turn the other cheek” in consciousness we discover that wise practical actions come to mind. — Unity Church, Austin
5 Ego Traps That Make Spiritual People Fall into Narrow-Mindedness
5 ways the ego can turn our intention to be spiritual people into something less wholesome. — Learning mind - ego traps
Sure, reality may consist of waves with discrete blobs of energy floating upon it... But at an important level this is insignificant to a life lived. — Tom Storm
Eight central attributes of secular spirituality can be identified: eclecticism, self-growth, relevance to life, self-direction, openness to wonder, authenticity beyond churches, metaphysical explanations, and communal and ecological morality. The persistence of both traditional and nontraditional forms of religiosity and spirituality should adjust the current popular views of secularism. — Robert C. Fuller
After your reply, I am tempted to put the thread back in the main discussion chamber. I partly moved it because I am creating too many. It can be a bit addictive, but I do enjoy inventing them as I don't have many creative outlets at the moment. — Jack Cummins
But if you accept that universals are real - then the question becomes, in what sense are they real? — Wayfarer
In another life, I discussed 'secular spirituality' - it acknowledges that it is not an either/or reality. — Amity
Yes, a well-aimed, large enough stone can end my life but so what? I'm also stoked when I read Sherlock Holmes. :chin: — TheMadFool
As far as faith goes, I think that it has to be able to withstand the test of rationality. — Jack Cummins
Hmm. Not really a 'so what' though, is it? When was the last time a Sherlock Holmes tale ended a person's life — Tom Storm
The mind makes it real — Morpheus (The Matrix)
I nearly died watching a Marvel superhero film once. The soft-core, quasi-fascist iconography and we-solve-all-problems-with-a-big-fight were too much for me — Tom Storm
I recall in another forum you talking about Robert Solomon, maybe his "Spirituality for the Skeptic". — Fooloso4
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.