Comments

  • Not exactly an argument for natalism
    Be calm! I entreat you to hear me before you give vent to your hatred on my devoted head. Have I not suffered enough, that you seek to increase my misery? Life, although it may only be an accumulation of anguish, is dear to me, and I will defend it. — Wretch/Fiend/The Demon/Thing (Frankenstein)
  • A rationale to decline some Revelations.
    The astonishment which I had at first experienced on this discovery soon gave place to delight and rapture. After so much time spent in painful labor, to arrive at once at the summit of my desires was the most gratifying consummation of my toils. But this discovery was so great and overwhelming that all the steps by which I had been progressively led to it were obliterated, and I beheld only the result. — Victor Frankenstein

    I thought I might just update my relationship status with revelation.
  • The Problem with Monotheism?
    It would seem you don't realize you're already committed. Open your eyes and take a look around. — tim wood

    So it would seem...so it would seem. I follow, more accurately try to follow (I'm not sure) in the footsteps of (is that the right expression?) Pyrrho (didn't he found skepticism?) :grin:
  • Mary vs physicalism
    Is velocity a true physical quantity?

    If time is unreal what are colors and sounds, these phenomena being defined in terms of time (Hertz)? 

    In a Timeless Universe, how are colors and tones defined?

    Mary doesn't have a physical description of red in a timeless universe. Mary's Room Argument fails.
  • The Problem with Monotheism?
    There is always sufficient data for an answer — tim wood

    What's the speed of a car that travels a distance of 45 km?

    All answers are meaningful. — tim wood

    Question: Why did the chicken cross the road?

    Answer: The electron is negatively charged.

    And in case you haven't noticed - and it would seem you haven't - that's pretty much how life works. — tim wood

    :up: but I dunno why :up:

    As to your wanting your beliefs to to have a corresponding reality, you do know what reality is, yes? No? — tim wood

    I might but I wouldn't want to commit...not for now at least.
  • The Problem with Monotheism?
    That it doesn’t require two deities for it to be possible that there are both people who kill for fun and people who save drowning children. — Michael

    Perhaps God suffers from multiple personality disorder and quite possibly it isn't a disorder. Check out how one actor plays many parts over a lifetime. We can assume various modes - I once tried to go Buddha on life but every time I tried it was like "THAT DOES NOT COMPUTE!" I asked why? and it (my brain) replied "THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER."
  • Is the United States an imperialist country?
    Here's what I think is going on. Kurt Gödel (mathematician, logician) was supposed to have confided to Albert Einstein (theoretical physicist) that the US constitution has a loophole that would allow a dictator (read emperor) to assume power without violating the constitution.

    Perhaps this malignant loophole manifests itself in other, more subtle, ways as well. :chin:
  • You don't need to read philosophy to be a philosopher
    Best introductory philosophy book?
  • Why are Metaphysics and Epistemology grouped together?
    Methinks the relation between metaphysics and epistemology has all to do with the correspondence theory of truth, the dominant idea on what truth is.

    Epistemology despite attempts to restrict its scope with logic seems rather indifferent to how it is that we acquire truths - logic (rationality) isn't the only game in town.

    That's my two bitcoins worth.
  • The Essence Of Wittgenstein
    haha! Good catch — Caldwell

    Recruitment Officer: Mr. Forester… you’ve been elevated to Active-2 status.

    Forester: What?

    Recruitment Officer: You meet all requirements for conscription.

    Forester: Wh-What… what are the requirements for conscription? A pulse? (sigh)

    [Script from the movie Tommorow war]
  • The Essence Of Wittgenstein
    Update

    Ludwig Wittgenstein: Meaning is use. Check.

    Therefore,

    I can use words as signs to refer to things, their essences.

    In other words, philosophy as was done before the linguistic turn is a subfield of Wittgenstein's universe of language games. We're good!
  • The Essence Of Wittgenstein
    Skrpx tsiptb qlpch!
  • The difference between philosophy and science
    @T Clark

    Why are metaphysics and epistemology grouped together?
  • Neither science nor logic can disprove God?
    ↪god must be atheist


    I classify thinking in the following way:

    1. Logical (consistent) [e.g. moral]
    2. Illogical (inconsistent) [e.g. immoral]
    2. Alogical (neither consistent nor inconsistent) [e.g. amoral]

    A statement is either logical or illogical. Alogical could be things like "blue" (the word), orgasm (the feeling), basically anything that's not a statement.

    "God exists" is...
  • Emotional Health vs Mental Health: What’s the difference?
    Yes, I was horrified at the notion of cognitive hygiene, even when links were given. It seems like cleaning out the negative as if it is 'dirt'. I hope that is not the way forward for management in the mental health professions. — Jack Cummins

    :up: Righteous anger! :chin: If everything has a reason (the principle of sufficient reason), then so-called negative emotions, our dark side in general, have a purpose.

    That said, as I recall vaguely, a case can be made that "unwholesome" feelings are now obsolete - our more advanced intellect recognizes this but the...er...reptilian brain seems to be unaware of this fact and persists in imposing itself on us at, well, inappropriate times.

    How the vermiform appendix is no longer required and is only a potential source of sickness and death, bad emotions too are simply vestigial remnants of a more savage past.
  • The difference between philosophy and science
    :flower:
  • The difference between philosophy and science
    Metaphysical claims can't be true or false, you say.
    — TheMadFool

    Yes, I said that.     — T Clark

    I do not reject metaphysical claims. — T Clark

    :chin:

    So, in what sense do you accept metaphysical claims. I have some idea of what that would look like :point:

    metaphysical propositions are not true or false, only more or less useful. — T Clark

    You'll have to explain what you mean by "useful".
  • The difference between philosophy and science
    I don't think you read my OP very carefully. — T Clark

    Metaphysical claims can't be true or false, you say.

    Scientific antirealism is the view that science should refrain from making metaphysical claims, it being possible that metaphysical claims are true or false.

    I know there's a difference between your claim and scientific antirealism but look at the similarity - you reject metaphysical claims and scientific antirealism holds that truth is not what science is about. An analogy will clarify the matter further. What's so different between saying "God exists" is neither true nor false and believing "God exists" isn't what's important?
  • Neither science nor logic can disprove God?
    Not illogical. The faith in god is unassailable by logic. — god must be atheist

    I can't seem to parse this sentence. What do you mean "faith in god is unassailable by logic"? In my book it means "faith in god" is illogical and that's why it is, in your words, "unassailable by logic"!

    But unscientific, yes. Science is based on evidence. — god must be atheist

    That's not completely on point is it?
  • Neither science nor logic can disprove God?
    Why is it that neither science nor logic can disprove God? — Shawn

    Something unscientific and illogical about God perhaps. That is to say what is unscientific is illogical and that which is illogical is unscientific. Materialism triumphs. Cui bono?
  • Is Social Media bad for your Mental Health?
    you can see which apps and websites you use most, and set daily limits.

    is pretty much a babysitter app to make sure you don't over do it.     — TheQuestion

    Ah! I should've pressed the icon and dug a little deeper into the feature. So, Digital Wellbeing basically provides an overview of how you've used the internet - app & website history & time spent browsing/surfing. This should, if it works as intended, give you some idea of your inclinations - what interests you - but more importantly your addictions - those websites and apps in the form of most-visited and most-used. The objective then is to give one insight into one's own nature, one's digital life, that information helping you to exercise some degree of control over one's digital avatar.
  • The difference between philosophy and science
    ↪T Clark
    You're espousing scientific antirealism - that science doesn't/shouldn't resort to making metaphysical claims which would be the case if scientists say that scientific theories are true i.e. for example a theory about quarks means that quarks actually exist.

    Scientific antirealists hold the view that science is about building models that are empirically adequate i.e. they provide explanations for observational data and that's where science should stop, eschewing metaphysical baggage that comes with truth.

    I don't quite get what you mean by science being "useful"

    That's all I have on the philosophy of science.
  • The Problem with Monotheism?
    I don't understand the relevance of your question. I'm addressing your claim that one deity cannot be the source of both good and evil. "Good" and "Evil" aren't things. Rather there are certain behaviours that we describe (rightly or wrong) as being good or evil. Killing someone for fun might be an example of something that is evil and saving a drowning a child might be an example of something that is good. So your argument is that if only a single deity exists then it shouldn't be possible for there to be both people who kill for fun and people who save drowning children. That seems like a non sequitur. — Michael

    I don't quite understand your point. What exactly do you mean by '"Good" and "Evil" aren't things"? As far as I can tell they're qualities.

    The concept of god is just a concept. However, the nature of god well and properly understood is that he/she/it/them cannot be other than a concept. Except that for a lot of people the concept of a concept, as a concept, is not enough. So they make it right by conceiving the concept as real - and then insisting on the reality. Which when you think about it is a form of insanity — tim wood

    I recall listening to a Daniel Dennett lecture where he says that if you hear anyone stating "God is a concept," be assured that you're talking to an atheist.
  • The Problem with Monotheism?
    You seemed to reify good and evil. — Michael

    Does the "fact" that good and evil are just concepts have any consequences that I/we should be worried about? Since these are just concepts, am I now at liberty to murder, rape, pillage, plunder, etc?

    Oh, you answered my question! We're good. It's distinction without a difference.
  • The Problem with Monotheism?
    No, good and evil are concepts. — Michael

    How does that make reifying relevant? Where did I go wrong?
  • The Problem with Monotheism?
    For one thing, you're reifying. — Michael

    So, God's just a concept! :ok:
  • The Problem with Monotheism?
    I like Yuval Noah Harari's (Israeli historian) views on monotheism. It, simply put, makes zero sense. How can one entity (God) be the source of , grabbing the low hanging fruit here, both good and evil. At a minimum we need two deities. More the merrier of course. Polytheism easily avoids this inconsistency with its orgy of deities.
  • Anti-vaccination: Is it right?
    Some times we must give up our freedom for life. Sometimes we must give up our life for freedom. Tough call! Don't expect an easy answer.
  • Is Social Media bad for your Mental Health?
    I was exploring the features of my uncle's smartphone and happened to come across Digital Wellbeing! Anyone know what that means?
  • Afghanistan, Islam and national success?
    As an Afghan citizen, I am really tired of this war, suicide and explosions. How long do we have to endure this misery? — Sayed Ahad (BBC)
  • Does reality require an observer?
    @Benj96

    Does reality require an observer? — Benj96

    With respect to Kant's phenomena, yes but in re noumena, I don't know.
  • Love doesn't exist
    There is nothing money or power can't buy or acquire and that includes "love" but @tim wood would caution caveat emptor.

    There's a reason I suppose why the word "romantic" applies to love and also to being "too idealistic" (read unrealistic). True love, as some like to call it, is unrealistic very much like the truth (@180 Proof deems this notion imaginary). Despite "hopeless" romantics having been brought down to earth on more occasions than there are grains of sand in all the beaches and deserts of the world the myth persists.

    That said, I'm glad, in fact deeply touched, to know that love in its most exalted form persists in the hearts of a handful of men and women even if only as unrealized pure potential. Isn't it amazing and inspiring that love still makes sense to a dying "breed" of peeps?
  • Why is there Something Instead of Nothing?
    @Ash Abadear

    Why is there something instead of nothing? — Ash Abadear

    Complex question fallacy. What if all this which we call something is actually nothing?

    :point: Śūnyatā

    For everything there is somebody to which that thing is nothing.

    Nxy = x is nothing to y



    Correct me if I'm wrong.
  • The Essence Of Wittgenstein
    Also it is obvious to anyone with a pulse that...
    — StreetlightX

    :sweat: You guys are killing me.     — Caldwell

    Recruitment officer: We need soldiers!
    Draftee: What's the qualification? A heartbeat?
  • The Essence Of Wittgenstein
    ↪Antony Nickles
    :ok:
  • The Essence Of Wittgenstein
    ↪Banno
    :ok: I defer to your better judgment!
  • The Essence Of Wittgenstein
    I feel like a... — TheMadFool

    ... like a 'numerologist' yammering on about ZFC. — 180 Proof

    :grin:
  • The Essence Of Wittgenstein
    Update

    Wittgenstein's Ladder

    My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them—as steps—to climb beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.)

    He must transcend these propositions, and then he will see the world aright.     — Ludwig Wittgenstein

    Dsp skzliwl wqstm qpiterd!


    I feel like a...
  • The Essence Of Wittgenstein
    Update

    The Rule-Following Paradox

    This was our paradox: no course of action could be determined by a rule, because any course of action can be made out to accord with the rule. — Ludwig Wittgenstein

    1. There's a rule: Anything goes (the rule is never violated)
    2. There's no rule: Anything goes (there is no rule to violate)

    There's a rule = There's no rule

    This is the rule-following paradox.

    If meaning is use and use is completely arbitrary there are no rules. There's no essence to ground meaning, a rule for word usage. Hence, if someone claims there is a rule then that rule is basically do whatever the hell you want...with words that is.

    Short language in grammar games no Wittgenstienian have!
  • The Essence Of Wittgenstein
    I've been outed. :blush:
    — TheMadFool
    I'll give you the clues that gave you away:

    my hunch is,
    — TheMadFool

    Another Wittgensteinian idea I haven't got a handle
    — TheMadFool

    :ok:     — Caldwell

    Private Language Argument (Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy). Somewhere in that article is a very important sentence that states that no one really understands ol' Ludwig, an oft-repeated warning notice that we should all pay heed to. I'm not alone thought that doesn't comfort me as much as it should I guess. Reminds me of the following quote:

    If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics. — Richard Feynman
Home » TheMadFool