Aesthetics includes art in all its forms it seems.

Too, do you recall there was a thread on Marcel Duchamp's urinal (Fountain)? Art, philosophy, art, philosophy. Interesting, oui, mon ami?

I was probably fortunate in h — Jack Cummins

Great! What about aesthetics, allegedly a branch of philosophy?

Interesting topic Jack. Creativity & philosophy are to be found in novels, movies, plays, etc. Didn't know this until I saw a review of Sartre's play No exit online.

Atheism is the absence of belief in God.
— Agent Smith
Every monotheism is "the absence of belief" in every god except "the one God" ... that's not saying much. I prefer to be clear: either (A) belief that there aren't any gods or (B) disbelief in every god. – they are roughly synonymous as far as I'm concerned (and is my preferred definition of atheism until about fifteen years ago when I traded-up from mere clarity to precison ...) Anyway, the latter formulation (B) may seem more defensible than (A), but it's not, as they are two sides of the same shekel; complementaries such that (A) warrants (B) and (B) assumes (A).

Smith, my point is: disbelief is a mode of active belief and not a passive "lack of belief" as Andrew4Handel's thread's title (OP) suggests. — 180 Proof

Well, that's absolutely amazin'! I couldn't have figured that out on my own mon ami. Gracias, muchas gracias.

One of me all-time favorite ideas is The Principle of Sufficient Reason, abbreviated as the PSR. It asserts ...

1. If x exists, there's a suffucient explanation why x exists.

2. If e is an event, there's a sufficient explanation for why e occurs.

3. If p is true, there's a sufficient explanation for why p is true.

I see. So, if I may ask, what's the German model? Are we talking about the bureaucracy or education here? Did you know America is #1 in tertiary education?

I would answer that question put to Bertrand Russell more or less the same way he does but with slight variations: (1) intellectually trust nothing but publicly accessible evidence and sound reasoning; (2) morally practice Hillel the Elder's principle: "What you find hateful (or harmful), do not do to anyone." — 180 Proof

We should put the above short, sweet, & pithy paragraph in a time capsule - a message for our children on what's important in life (how to "live together and not die together" ~ Bertrand Russell)

:up:

Really? I was dead sure you'd say yes to that.

@Shawn

Surveys, we need surveys i.e. data is a sine qua non if we 're to make inferences. 180 Proof has evidence that supports the existence of some kinda moral instinct in both nonhumans and humans. We might wanna review biological theories, specifically evolution and also, guys, let's face the facts - we're at the top of the food chain.

Am I right to say that science has room for religion, but the converse is false? In other words, the animosity/antagonism is one-sided.

Too, the OP doesn't mention that India has a homegrown religion - Hinduism. Give the Hindus another century or so and they'll start claiming Jesus was an avatar of Vishnu; this isn't something new to them - Buddha now figures as a Vishnu avatar in the Hindu pantheon. @Vera Mont "omnivorous and voracious". We're all Hindus, get it? :pray:

So, I'm not sure who you have a beef with - the bureaucracy or politicians? The question Hannah Arendt asked is critical to the plot of course.

I'd say we need ta dig a little deeper and try some role swapping along the way. "Are we worthy to be saved, o lord?" muttered the kneeling priest.

That is due to the failure of philosophy. The philosopher's task is to lead the people out of the cave. After 2.5k years, the philosophers have failed, and we remain, in the cave. — Metaphysician Undercover

That hurt! I'm not a professional philosopher, but that hurt!

I'd say to those scientists who hold a dim view of philosophy (there a quite a number of big names on that list) to trade places with philosophers. Let's see how they fare?

Headline: Science makes a great leap forward. Philosophy on the verge of extinction!

:smile:

I see. Exploring science is going to go a long way towards settling the matter; if not, it'll explain the situation we're in. Gracias for the clarification.

As I said, will is wrongfully linked to choice. When we drive a wedge between the two it is to change the way we look at the world. Then the world looks more real because we see causation in a realistic way. Consider Plato's cave allegory, the real existence of "the good" is not even acknowledged by those still in the cave. — Metaphysician Undercover

Will and choice to be delinked, si!

Causation, again si!

As for Plato's cave, really big cave if you ask me! After 2.5k years of dedicated effort, we're still inside it. :groan:

An excellent question OP. We're all somebody as in each one of us is unique - there's a something that makes me me and not you or somebody else and the same goes for ya too and anyone else for that matter. Why would I want to be someone else i.e. what I am not? Is it even possible and if it is, is it desirable? And if it is desirable, is it good? If it is good, is it really good? So on and so forth. Fascinating, oui monsieur?

Now that I've had the time to consider your question properly, I'd say it's a profound question. Parmenides, I was told, claimed that if one even talks about an x, that x hasta exist (it seems he had issues with nonbeing, an impossibility in his universe).

The arguments for climate change aren't watertight - that's the problem. Also, you might wanna review the claim scientifically. In other words, climate scientists havta get their act together. Sorry if this offends you, not really my style. It's 11^thDecember and where I am, it's unusually warm this year. :chin:

I don't know much about education. I don't have the relevant qualification. I remember, rather vaguely, attending classes in high school and then a few lecture halls back in my college days but alas these do not add up to an appropriate credential
to comment any further than I already have which, as you would've noticed, is an example of someone talking out his/her bung hole, er, I mean hat!

God points though. You seem to be aware of the flaws in our system, but as I reported in the climate change thread, something really weird is going on.

Climate change. What's the latest? COP26 was a hot topic around 6 moons ago ... the fire fizzled out in a about a week. If climate change is true and going by how much good quality data is available saying that it is, I'd say something really weird is going on.

:up:

Glucose + O₂ $\to$ Thoughts + CO₂ + H₂O

Also related may be forgetfulness, amnesia, etc. associated with a constellation of psychiatric illnesses.

It would be interesting to do a lexical analysis of writing - which groups prefer which words to express what is essentially, in Buddhist terms, dukkha.

Aah! Gracias for the clarification.

Pandeism has residual elements of religion while pantheism doesn't. The latter is basically naturalism, but viewed with a religious lens, just as religion is, dare I say, nonsense at worst or security blanket at best to science.

:chin: Eureka!

:grin:

I really haven't had the time to develop a nuanced view of the sciences and it shows. However, as far as I can tell there's a fundamental difference between the physics-chemistry duo and the biological sciences. When does a biologist sit down and take a break, satisfied that he's reduced biology to chemistry & physics.

Good definition of evil and the linked post, another well-considered position. Is it advisable to explain evil?

:up:

So it's simple.

1. God is imaginary, let's stick to the facts.

2. God is harmful. Let's not go down that road.

Pandeism fits in your worldview. You're in good company ol' chap! Albert Einstein, allegedly, was a pandeist and his name is synonymous with intelligence. I wonder why smart folk, if they're at all spiritually inclined, are usually pandeists? What's up with that?

A list of relevant words/word phrases: Pain, unhappy, sad, sorrow, anguish, agony, grief, loss, glum, gloom, doom, excruciate, torment, angst, the blues, the doldrums, hell/ish, nightmare, etc.

Mushin no shin

Empty yer mind ... :party:

Do you really believe that theism is false (atheism)? Do you also think that having a god would be a bad thing (antitheism)? Questions that have been asked and answered numerous times, but what's yer take mon ami?

I don't know what "good" (value) means but minimally bad (reducing disvalue) makes pragmatic sense to me. Ambiguities, complementarities & degrees of difference grounded in human facticity (i.e. needs, defects ... of our species) seem more concrete and consistent (à la fuzzy logic) with lived experience than formalist / structuralist 'binary oppositions'. — 180 Proof

As usual, a superb post. You never disappoint do you?

@Benj96 seems to be suggesting, not quite the opposite, but nearly so (of what you, so wisely, proposed - the trimming down of, sensu latissimo, negatives). I'm not averse to the idea of course; as you said, the binary paradigm we experience day in and day out is impossible to either ignore or deny. Before I forget, the fuzziness you mention is also a fact in our faces.

Nevertheless, what's the MO of evil? See anything worth talking about?

Ok. It makes sense alright and I have a feeling you'll find many takers with regard to self-organization. It also seems to square, quite perfectly, with your Enformy which is G*D (you should learn some Latin, quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur). Good job!

I haven't given the matter enough thought mon ami. All I can say is, it's not at all clear to me why opposites would be needed to prop each other to exist simpliciter.

You should ask @180 Proof.

I'm aware that some people think light doesn't make any sense without dark.

I don't see anything theistic in the OP.