This argument that freedom happens in the thinking (the act of thinking) is not just articulated by Descartes and Aristotle, but also by the likes of J. S. Mill. But Mill used the society or group as the location to bring out this proposed freedom by the individual.

Yes, that's a good one. I also remember reading about talking to plants make them thrive more. This is a scientific experiment conducted by qualified experts, so I will not argue against its validity.

Another findings -- babies in the womb benefit from music and mothers talking to them. Again, I don't know how valid this finding is .

Are you arguing our brains do not change as we age leading to greater wisdom with age? — Athena

I'm not sure I understand this point. Please clarify as to your reaction to what I said regarding the change in wisdom.
My point in my previous post was: the enlightenment happened. Now it's our task to examine what lasting effects did enlightenment provide? Because you seem to say we should bring back the enlightenment -- it isn't an organization or an institution that could be established again. And why do we need to bring it back? It doesn't look like it had a lasting effect if we're still unhappy with the state of affairs.

The renaissance -- you're thinking that the search for scholastic knowledge, rediscovering of the ancients writings, and other arts and politics ideas are sought or willingly craved by the greater population. No. It didn't work that way. The thinkers, the historians, the scholars were the ones. They were what they were before the renaissance and because of that, this renaissance thinking happened.

My practical question for this thread, is why do Anti-Metaphysics Trolls, waste their valuable on-line time, trying to defeat something that they assume to be already dead, and although perhaps a ghostly nuisance, cannot by their definition, make any difference in the Real world? — Gnomon

I'm thinking cause they're choleric -- easily irritated. So, your posts are doing their job just fine.

Theories of Preception :
The four main bottom-up theories of form and pattern perception are direct perception, template theories, feature theories, and recognition-by-components theory. Bottom-up theories describe approaches where perception starts with the stimuli whose appearance you take in through your eye.
https://philpapers.org/browse/the-causal-theory-of-perception — Gnomon

Yup! Interesting. Thanks for the link.

Emission theory (vision) :
Emission theory or extramission theory (variants: extromission) or extromissionism is the proposal that visual perception is accomplished by eye beams ... — Gnomon

:grin:
Yeah, this is the superman theory of perception. Where we give off beams from our eyes and we see objects behind walls.

:shade:
This is exhausting. Why do I feel like I'm in the dating scene again? Cause this is the convo you get when you're in one. Just letting you know that.

Okay, what's the connection of this clip again?

I can't read minds. I'm not telephatic. If you want something from me, you need to tell me in words.

What doesn't compute? Spit it out!

What is it?

I continuously think about these things and I just want to know other people's perspectives. If there is a chance to be relatively happy and cause minimal suffering in the world through living like a monk why would we not do it? Is it because temporary/materialistic pleasures (new cars, fancy computers, good food, sex) ARE NEEDED for some people's happiness? Are things like music and movies/stories/art needed for your happiness? If these things were not available in the world and everyone meditated, socialised, volunteered and lived simply all day, there would be MUCH less non-human and potentially human suffering AND we could still possibly attain happiness? — Troyster

You probably need to draw the line between what you call ascetic (monk living) and living with just the basic necessities, which many ordinary people are able to do. I have already mentioned my own experience in another thread, but I will repeat it again here. I lived the bare minimum when I stayed away from the city and the grind -- I was still wired, meaning connected to internet and phone. It was great. That is, if you don't have to worry about bills. So it is realistic to think of living happily (no anxiety and worries).

:razz:
Good one.

Objective reality must exist independent of subjective reality. Just because we do not or cannot perceive it, does not mean it does not exist. — Gnomon

I think it's incorrect to say here "just because we do not or cannot perceive it". We do perceive objective reality, but it's only a perception. So, we really do not know objective reality. What we do know is our perception of it.

Now some would try to be sleazy about this by saying, then how do you know what you're perceiving is the objective reality and not something else? Good point! So what is that "something else"? Don't answer this directly.

Instead, ask back "Then why posit perception at all if we're not gonna settle on something being perceived?". So, now we are forced, and rightly so, to take the path of least resistance -- CAUSAL THEORY OF PERCEPTION.

There is no perception without the perceiver who is in fact part of objective reality, and there is no perceiver without a cause to it being a perceiver. You know, instead of a perceiver, maybe a vegetable like turnips or eggplant?

In the current state of the term ‘propaganda’ it is a fair assessment to state that ‘propaganda’ in colloquial terms is general framed as something intrinsically tied to patriotism/nationhood?

If this is a fairly reasonable statement then is propaganda then to be assessed as ‘negative’ in that it is a means to manipulate and spread falsehoods? — I like sushi

There are two different mindsets here. One, those who call out government programs and public statements as propaganda are the anti-manipulation group. They believe that anything coming out of the government's proverbial a$$ is propaganda that is designed, as you said, to manipulate and spread falsehoods. The other mindset is the public officials themselves, or their cohorts and supporters, whose work tries to avoid being labeled propaganda because of again, of the image it projects -- manipulation and falsehoods. So, the term propaganda is only used by the anti-nation or anti-government.

To answer your question, is infinity necessary? Infinity is what we could only point to whenever we talk about the beginning of everything.

What is the history of Infinity? I know it exists at least for the sake of math, but has anything ever been to indicate that anything about it goes on forever? — TiredThinker

Infinity was first posited by Anaximander. The apeiron as the first principle is boundless. The first principle meaning the "beginning of everything". So, beginning here doesn't mean a start (a bound), rather infinity is the beginning and we couldn't posit anything prior to infinity.

FWIW, belief in telepathy has been around for a while. It is the process of sending out thoughts to another person without the use of technology or other channel to transmit the message. Of course, face to face, this is easily done as body language is real and could be read like a written note.

But what happens if two people doing telepathy are far apart, and not seeing each other. Then they're doing extrasensory communication, the mystery of which we haven't figured out. (This is what my OP is suggesting). Nonetheless, we all do it. If anyone said to you they don't believe in it, then that's bullshit as everyone had wishes in their brain at one point in their lives.

The law of attraction is not extrasensory because it involves two or more people seeing each other and having the perception that is required for the LOA to happen.

This question, this one, this one, this one, this one, or not to forget this one or this one. All asked within 2 weeks. Conspicuous! Seems a popular subject. Why would that be? — EugeneW

Yeah, true. That's suspect -- all within 2 weeks. But, again, I think the allure of physicalism/materialism is that it is easy to grasp, and therefore easier to talk about. You have a strong foundation with physicalism. I mean, at least the rebuttal you're up against are manageable.

That's him there, riding a unicycle while juggling. — Wayfarer

Nothing impressive. I've seen jugglers on bike circling around a tight circular platform.

Is it that the focus given to physicalism is due because it is truly central to philosophical discourse, or is it just an accident that occurred by coincidence due to the interests of the forum's userbase? — Kuro

I can only take a guess. Physicalism/materialism is an interesting view in metaphysics and philosophy of the mind -- it is anti phenomenology and idealism. So given this brief description, your argument could take you very far as there's enough material (no pun intended) there to support your argument.

You lack faith, that's why.

In my case, I wasn't even feeling religious when I uttered that for a friend. I did that out of frustration. I couldn't reach the dude. And he was living on the 24th floor. In another country. So what to do? Send the message "Be strong!" through the air, par avion.

And hoped that it reached him. (That has nothing to do with anything, but just being human).

I want to say is, we went into the Age of Enlightenment when enough people got old and had the ability to communicate with each other in large cities. Leasure time and the ability to own books and write letters would be vital to this. The Enlightenment could not happen before these advancements. It sure could not happen when the life expectancy was 35 or 45 years because people died before having enough knowledge to be enlightened. — Athena

I reject this. Sorry, Athena. Books and writings came about because of enlightenment, not the other way around. And no, the life expectancy at 35-45 was overblown. There are many philosophers and historians in the ancient times that lived through their 70s and 80s.
It's been written that the causes of the age of enlightenment happened in small advances in science and other field of studies, until it became a movement and reached wider audience.

I'm interesting in how marketing seems to have superseded sophistry in taking false arguments and adding scientism, technology, research and public relations psychology to the mix. — Tom Storm

Big time!

In truth, this has been a horrible whore of Babylon, constant, endless mutilation, and attack, and I can't withstand it any longer. I'm really begging for them to stop at this point...

All over with completely, 100%. — Wosret

If you need help, will you reach out?

Life is always a transition from one phase to the next, always in pursuit of righteousness. — Hanover

Okay I get that. Thanks.

Nothing much, just dancing and attempting to raise the true savior of my world. Tis the noble stoat. — Wosret

Yeah, I dig stoats.
Check this out:

The Enlightenment is about universal knowledge and raising the human potential. That is a wonderfully romantic idea, isn't it? We are working towards more humane wars and the possibility of no wars. Putin doesn't see things this way, but I think NATO does? If global warming made the winters in Russia more pleasant, perhaps that would improve our relationship with Russia? Not all things about reason. Emotions are important too. — Athena

I agree, reason without emotions is a machine. I don't know about Putin. I think what's happening is a bloop and a blast --

Enlightenment gets thrown about a lot in the forum. I never really paid much attention to it. But now, I have the following definition for you. Let's see what is enlightenment:

The Enlightenment, a philosophical movement that dominated in Europe during the 18th century, was centered around the idea that reason is the primary source of authority and legitimacy, and advocated such ideals as liberty, progress, tolerance, fraternity, constitutional government, and separation of church and state.

So, it looks to me like enlightenment is from a bygone era where people didn't have separation of church and state, tolerance, progress, liberty, fraternity, constitutional government. Why do we keep on praying for enlightenment? It doesn't make sense to ask for this now as we do have these things in our society.

What you should be asking is, what did enlightenment do for us? Well, do you feel that the enlightenment affected how our society is in any way? I think you don't think it has had any effect at all. And it's not like we can point to it and identify it using scientific evidence. Yet, here we are, always saying "If only we have enlightenment, Putin would not have done what he did." Who knows! Maybe Putin is the most enlightenment individual on the planet right now. I don't know. I'm just needing some perspective because enlightenment is really about individualism. Well, Putin is being "individual" with his decision.

War is here to stay. I don't really understand how people could not understand this. Why do you think countries stockpile on weapons? Nine countries with nuclear weapons spent almost 73 billion dollars in one year alone. What's the purpose of this spending? So they could put them in museums? Or sell on Ebay? No. The weapons are made for killing.

What's going on with you?

What kind of writing is this? Fiction or non-fiction?

Thinking is very hard. Articulating the problem explicitly allows one to contend with it more readily. Pleas and prayers are the first step to facing the problem head on and bringing the power of rationality to the fore. Meaning, when we feel a situation is hopeless often we just need to break it down into smaller problems and attend to the one/s that are easiest to articulate. — I like sushi

Oh big time!
I forgot about this -- writing down your thoughts on paper.

Or, you can choose to believe every thing is where it is for some purpose and live your life that way. — Hanover

Humans give meaning to the universe. We assigned emotions to things.
Are you saying that the most basic unit of physical existence coming together to form the moon and the stars, did so for some purpose that has nothing to do with humans? Or do we interprete the existence of objects as we perceive them?

(Oh, and by saying this, did I just switch my thinking to subjectivity?)

Because to say there is meaning to the world, the universe, means that there is objective reality. Oh yeah, I noticed that the two notions -- meaning and objective reality -- haven't been put together in an OP in this forum. There are OPs that talk about objective reality, and then OPs that talk about meaning. But never together -- or could you point me to those OPs?

I think it's time we explore the connection of those notions. :)

Boredom has a bad reputation, and people generally don't think of it in terms of suffering. In fact, it seems perverse to think of boredom as kind of suffering. It seems to be the privilege of the rich and the idle. — baker

Good point. Boredom afflicts many people in the low economic status. And yes there is bias that goes on about boredom. If you're poor, you can't complain of boredom because "why don't you go out there and find a job or find a way to enrich yourself just like how the rich people do it."
It's almost like poverty or low income trumps all other attributes of a person: gay and poor (you're poor); single mother and poor (you're poor); stupid and poor (you're poor); intelligent and poor (you're poor). There's an oxymoron that goes on in "intelligent and poor" that some people would argue about.

Common sense is accepted without question. We believe it just because we hear it all the time. — Athena

Okay I have no objection to this. We're on the same page. I'm only citing those examples that have been proven to be sensible. The calm before the storm is true -- you feel it in the air.

That's how cruel the universe is: it tears apart our delicate souls. — Agent Smith

I can assure you that the universe has no meaning or emotion.

Yes, this is a common objection that I find objectionable. Since there is no person prior to existing for whom consent can be obtained, it is okay to do X which may lead to future outcomes for a person who actually will exist..

You can see the flaw in that right? — schopenhauer1

My post is purely out of socio-political reasons. Consent is attached to that notion. But if you want to talk about obligation of parents to unborn children, that's a different issue. Honestly, I can't think of a way to "apologize" to those born into a bad situation. The only thing that I can think of is the liberty of individuals to happiness, which is in the constitution of most, if not all, nations. This right to happiness includes forming a family and bearing children. Now of course we do have laws to protect the children from harm -- which is obvious to everyone. So, I'm not sure what else to say about that.

My own addition is that by being born at all we are forced into a socio-culturo-political agenda (lest suicide by slow or fast death). Solution: Griping and self-understanding (consolation through shared Pessimism) and not forcing others into the agenda (antinatalism). — schopenhauer1

The notion of consent is a socio-political notion. So, yes, it is talked about in the world of philosophers, not just Schopenhauer's. There's actually an argument about the formation of a society, say a first society, where adults gather together to talk about the rules and laws. Well and good. But then, after this society is formed, there'd be babies born into this society without the benefit of providing their consent, so what to do if you're one of those babies who become an adult and find that the society you live in, whose rules you didn't consent to, is disagreeable to you.
One, people can't tell you to move to another society since not everyone can for various reasons. (Of course you can if you volunteer, but this is not the point).

Two, people shouldn't force you to accept the rules and laws you find objectionable.

Third, so what should those people do? Apparently, you can't blame the first people who formed your society for making those rules since you weren't born yet or weren't of age to consent. When you're born into a fully formed society, the first people are not under obligation to ask for your consent. Your consent isn't on a level of their consent.

We agree those are not examples of scientific thinking, right? They are knee-jerk reactions done without much thinking — Athena

Uhm, I think I didn't make that clear. The examples I gave are scientific facts, but we act like they're common sense. There's a scientific explanation of the calm before the storm, moldy and sour foods, and looking both ways so we don't get hit by a car because the speed of the vehicle is a lot faster than our speed of avoidance.

Romantic thinking is not really thinking either. — Athena

Not necessarily. I mean, are you just talking about romantic feeling of love? Or are we still in the romanticism movement? The attitude that predominates the 18th century? Where a young mind is filled with hopes, and dreams, and goodness, and yes, courage?

this too is a romantic vision of sorts.. It's not the romantic vision of a dictator but of the idealistic parent hoping for some sort of Platonic stability that doesn't exist. — schopenhauer1

Okay I give you that. Early on in life, people have romantic vision, and as they get older the romantic vision becomes impractical or unrealistic. Then finally, they see that life is about suffering and hardships -- so they join capitalism.

Somehow that breaks my heart. Good day. — Agent Smith

Okay, I think you're wrong. Don't walk away with a broken heart.
I believe in the law of attraction.

Actually I think you're right.

Speaking of which, I actually had a dream of Hanover. :gasp:

There was a knock on my door and there's freakin' Hanover. First thing I uttered was "WTF!"