IMO, religion is for mystifying answers (i.e. placebos, snakeoil) whereas philosophy is for clarifying questions (i.e. medicine, surgery). Believers seek certainty; thinkers seek lucidity. — 180 Proof

Well I was referring only to philosophical puzzles (per the OP). Otherwise, I suspect neither QFT or GR are "solved" (i.e. complete) theories which may be why QG is so intractably elusive. String theory, btw, makes untestable (due to astronomically high energies required) predictions. And, as Gnomon says, "Enformationism" is not scientific but "Meta-physical", therefore its a pure speculation (e.g. transcendental illusion) that does not make any predictions, testable or not, in the first place ... like "First Cause", "Intelligent Design" or other woo-of-the-gaps. — 180 Proof

Or a five-sided triangle. :smirk: — 180 Proof

Since life only begins at the molecular level, there is no need to search for life on all the scales below.
— Wolfgang
:up:

Since the philosophy of mind addresses consciousness as an entity in its own right, it fails to present it as an (emergent) consequence of life.
:fire: Ergo the 'panpsychic' woo-of-the-gaps of (pseudo-scientistic) idealists / anti-physicalists.

NB: Excerpt from an old post ...
The MBP was dis-solved in the 17th century by Spinoza (re: property dualism). Furthermore, given that mind is an activity or process (i.e. minding) and not a thing, the dualistic fetish of "mind" separate from, or without, "body" (or brain) is a category error (e.g. dancing without legs? digesting without guts?) ...

And why confuse the scientific problem of explaining 'mind' with antiquated metaphysics of making up shit without evidence or sound reasoning about 'mind'?
— 180 Proof — 180 Proof

In my book, they certainly are failed and attempts at knowledge, so that’s fine.

It is also true that my tipster believes that his horse will win. So that's my preferred classification. — Ludwig V

A puzzle solved fits some other puzzle. — 180 Proof

what am I missing then? If you can explain me, I would be so much appreciated — javi2541997

I suggest a single "Elizabethan age", subtitled "the age of Empire" to stretch from Liz 1. to Liz 2. Brexit is the thus the last gasp of Colonial sentimentality and the final end of British dominance in the world, orchestrated by the same buccaneering (rapaciously exploiting) spirit that built the Empire in the first place, turned full force on the populace and accumulated wealth of the mother country. — unenlightened

It is not the sleep of reason but the awakening of the imagination that begets monsters. — Numerius Negedius

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate. — Novacula Occami

The sleep awakening of reason imagination begets monsters. — Numerius Negedius

Someone who has a time of age named after them surely has a legacy.

But how much of that is of her political decisions is a different thing. I assume that later Elizabeth II's reign will be talked about the Elizabethan era too. Especially if Britain in the time of the current and future monarchs is very different — ssu

I'm not an observer, no, I'm definitely not. — Numerius Negedius

You then should convince us just why Queen Victoria's policies have still effect today, and having more effect than for example the decision of the conservative party of the present holding a referendum on the issue thinking it won't get the reply from the people that it did.

Simple as that.

And I would think the prime ministers and the leaders (political and economic) and their policies and decisions would be more important as Queen Victoria wasn't an autocrat. — ssu

It isn't defined because it is gotten at indirect means. He can only gather that it strives, and thus there needs to be a playground for striving to take place... I guess?

He at the same time seems to want Will to be a double-aspect to reality, yet seems to also think it is prior in some sense. The Will, "wills life". But that implies that the Will was there first before the "will-to-live". But then again, I don't know. — schopenhauer1

The main question that is hard to answer with Schopenhauer, is how it is that there are objects when there is only Will. What is objectification of Will? He goes on about Forms as the original objects, and how artists perceive them best in their expressions in art and music. But this generates more questions..
Why does Will (unified and solo) have Forms? Why do forms have lower gradations of physical objects? It's all a bit obtuse. — schopenhauer1

Cancel my subscription to the
Resurrection ...
... moksha :fire: — 180 Proof

Your rambling has lost me again. — 180 Proof

Who am I and what happens to me (postmortem)?
— Agent Smith
"Who" you are is constituted by your personal and social relationships. Self-identity (ego) supervenes on self-continuity (embodiment). And, like an orchestra after the final encore of an evening's symphony performance, your (everyone's) identity's constitution dissipates due to entropy into oblivion "postmortem". Anicca —> anatta, no? — 180 Proof

They decided a fake happiness avoiding reality or truth. Like when a drug addict consume narcotics because he is engage to the "fantasies" or "trips" that the drugs provide to him. Paradoxically, he wants to avoid truth but at the same time is addicted to an artificial lie :chin: — javi2541997

Perhaps, but as Raymond Chandler said “A writer who is afraid to overreach himself is as useless as a general who is afraid to be wrong.” — RussellA

It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. — William Kingdon Clifford (Clifford's Principle)

Reality is that which doesn't go away when you stop believing in it. — Philip K. Dick

Why is happiness good?
— Agent Smith

Almost. Better, "Is happiness the very same as what is good?" The answer is "No", since it is conceivable that we might have to give up one's happiness for what is good. Happiness anf the good are not the very same thing. — Banno

In ethics, I think 'X is less harmful than Y' (or 'X is least harmful of all') is much less vague or arbitrary, therefore more reliably actionable, than "X is good". It's pragmatic to address disvalue by preventing or reducing disvalue (e.g. harm to h. sapiens); however, we can only aspire to value because value tautologically transcends (in "platonic heaven") our condition such that "moral value" judgments / actions are arbitrary in practice (à la nihilism). Moore seems half-right but wholly for the wrong reasons. Rather than "good", less bad – minimize ill-being (re: disvalues) for its own sake (like medicine or ecology) rather than tilting at the windmill of "well-being" (re: value, ideal). Epicureans / Stoics rather than Bentham-Mill / Kant. — 180 Proof

I disagree with it as well, but the reasons are given in the Nichomacean Ethics. Basically there is the appearance of infinite regress, as you described. So Aristotle looked for something "self-sufficient", wanted only for the sake of itself, because that would put an end to that regress. If X is good because it is for the sake of Y, and Y is good for the sake of Z, and Z for A, etc., he figure that there needed to be something final, that all the others would lead to, as ultimately being for the sake of that final thing. That's the ultimate end, wanted only for the sake of itself. This he assumed is the person's happiness — Metaphysician Undercover

Why is happiness good?
— Agent Smith

Almost. Better, "Is happiness the very same as what is good?" The answer is "No", since it is conceivable that we might have to give up one's happiness for what is good. Happiness anf the good are not the very same thing. — Banno