Let's have another vote on the deal. That's what I say. Fifth time's the charm?

On perhaps the most important question of all, whether you can get something from nothing, you left out "unsure".

Massive oversight.

I'm going to buy a pack of cigarettes. Sovereign Dual.

Philosophy of fuck it.

A piece of advice: just use another word. Religious language is redundant when you use it that way. It only causes problems, as we've seen. It causes problems if we've trying to be clear, as I firmly believe we should be when doing philosophy. As for poetry and flowery writing from the heart, go for it. But back to philosophy, if you mean personality or consciousness or something like that, then just say so. We already have words in the English language sufficient to convey that meaning. If you do that, then the controversy will dissipate, along with the problem. And then we can move on to the real problems in philosophy.

WHAT did we name? — Mww

It.

WHAT existed? — Mww

That which is prior to language. In it's entirety.

If it sounds like nonsense, then that's probably because it is. Like I said earlier, he is trying real hard to make sense of nonsense, which is quite amusing.

But WHAT is a jabberwocky, my son??? WHAT 'twas brillig, and the slithy toves???

Yes, reminds me of the joke. There's two cows in a field, one of them says "moo", the other turns to it exasperated and says "what do you mean 'moo'?" — Isaac

Hmm. More like a duck and a parrot. One's a quack and the other just echoes whatever Kant said! :lol:

What are you talking about? — creativesoul

A fair question, given his style of writing. Though hugely ironic coming from you.

:smirk: Alright... you had me going for a moment. Though I wondered if perhaps you’d bumped your head or saw the Ghost of Christmas Future last night. April Fools continues! — 0 thru 9

I'm a good writer. Others could take a leaf out of my book.

Hint, hint, @creativesoul.

"Spirit" can also be an integral basic foundational element of a larger worldview. The notion, idea, and/or conception referred to by using the term "spirit" can be an operative and quite influential interconnected set of different thought/belief. That which is real has an affect/effect. The notion of(one's thought/belief involving and/or about) "spirit" exists as numerous different conceptions thereof. Those conceptions can be operative influences regarding deliberately chosen behaviour. Thus it is very real. — creativesoul

You could've just said that the concept influences how we think and feel in ways which you judge to be of importance.

You should learn to speak more plainly.

Beautiful, beautiful. It brought a tear to my eye... Can't say anymore right now.... Too emotional... — Isaac

I'm both crying, yet at the same time jerking off. Let's all join in and form a circle.

What is it about this debate we're having right now that differs from the debate about God's existence that justifies you raising counter-arguments using reason and logic? — Isaac

Nada. What differs between our aporoach and his is that he separates the one and the other without justification, also known as special pleading. We do not.

Okay. Although for the record, my stock answer for the question "Where on the political spectrum do you fall...with extreme liberal at 1 and extreme conservative at 10?...is...

...purple.

I've used that often. — Frank Apisa

I would've guessed you were a yellow. Not like a canary yellow, more of a munsell yellow. Although I best be careful, lest you angrily respond, "I am NOT a yellow! I am a PURPLE!".

I think that spirit is a sense of belonging. It is that wondrous and inspiring sense of there being a connection to energy and consciousness, to something outside of yourself, yet paradoxically and profoundly deep within. It is what makes you, you. It is like a flower under the sun, ever growing upwards, reaching out. It fills you with awe and appreciation, and I'm making this up as I go along, and only talking such poetic drivel to prove a point.

Yes, so is it cruel of me to poke him just to watch him run against the wall? What do you do with these people? I hadn't realised posting here would raise such ethical dilemmas. Its more like working as an orderly in an asylum than discussing issues with peers.... "Yes Napoleon, I'm sure the aliens are coming to take you away again, but it'll all be better if you just take your pills and sit calmy down here..." — Isaac

So true! :lol:

You’re taking a statement out of context. I wasn’t talking about extraordinary claims - I was talking about intuition, falling in love, ‘gut’ instinct, etc: the ‘feelings’ that we tentatively accept as part of human experience, yet in a rational discussion we’d probably dismiss them. The scare quotes are there for a reason - ‘psychic phenomena’ was praxis’ term, not mine. — Possibility

So you're off topic. Unless you can make a relevant connection to the topic.

If God is invisible, intangible, impossible to detect under any circumstances, will never involve itself directly or indirectly in human affairs--then why not "philosophize" about something that matters?

There is zero evidence and zero reason to provide evidence. While we're at it, I'm sure we can find a few more paranoid ramblings from ancient times and go around telling people they can't be disproved either. — whollyrolling

That's ironic. We're both doing it right now. You tell me. It's not a serious dilemma in my life. I am not in turmoil over it. I just said that it would be trivial and make no real difference. I only philosophise over it out of interest. I do that with lots of things.

No one here is a philosopher, but at least some people contribute to coherent or even rational discourse. — whollyrolling

I meant "philosopher" in a looser sense than being a recognised philosopher with formal qualifications, published writings, and a professorship, but not so loose a sense as anything goes, so long as it has a vague resemblance to what a philosopher might say.

Like you say, the point is to contribute to coherent or even rational discourse, not just to let loose brain farts.

He is hopelessly trapped in his own self-defeating performative contradiction.

I'm unable to take it for anything if it's vague and has no bearing on the conversation. That's why I asked you to elaborate, but if you're unwilling to speak with clarity, there's nothing I can do about it. — whollyrolling

He's not a philosopher on this matter, he just wants to be recognised as one. Maybe we should just give him a pat on the head and walk away.

It is delusion if it exists in your mind and nowhere else but your mind. It is not a delusion when it corresponds with events in the external world. And my experiences very much do have a correspondence with the external world. — Ilya B Shambat

That is not doing philosophy. That is doing wishful thinking.

These examples are mainly to demonstrate that ‘psychic phenomena’ is not as ‘out there’ as some people think. — Possibility

Well it isn't working. We all experience the redness of red, unless we're colour blind or something. It is perfectly ordinary. That is certainly not true with regard to claims of psychic phenomena, or at least, it would require a hell of a lot more support. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

And even then, what was more true in the past does not always continue to be most true contemperaneously. — Joshs

Hume took this to the logical extreme, and concluded that it's just habit.

Just being truthful :100:
I know somewhere deep down within you that you know that I truly love you and would be devastated if something were to happen to you. So know that in discussion we may be brutal but in heart we are one. :hearts: — ArguingWAristotleTiff

You are a good Samaritan, Tiff.

Fair enough I suppose, but I can't see what the "point in agreement with Hume" that Russell made has to do with the nature of truth or determinism. If it's an abstruse association you are making, then further explanation may help. — Janus

I suppose it was more of a related point to do with knowledge. I was just trying to think how we could know that theory to be true, and test out how it would work, and what the logical consequences would be. If a statement about what will happen has a truth-value, could we ever know what it is, prior to the event? Prior to the event, it seems susceptible to the problem illustrated with the Turkey example. It does seem to make some sense to say that it would become true or false after the event, but anything that seems to imply rigid determinism seems problematic to me. To me, it seems to make sense that, at the time, any outcome isn't absolutely set in stone. An outcome can be predicted, but can go this way or that way or another way, out of a number of possibilities. I find it more acceptable to consider such statements to be truth-apt than that they actually have a truth-value, i.e. that a statement of that sort is true (or false) at the time.

I think you could be the next Sokal, we're about due another. — Isaac

Funny, but also sadly true.

My specific disagreement is this: I don't see why claims about the existence of God require a larger amount of substantiation than claims (for example) about the capitals of cities. It seems to me that it is perfectly sufficient - there is nothing objectionable about it - to base a claim that God exists/doesn't exist on good but inconclusive evidence. I thought you disagreed with this. Am I mistaken? — PossibleAaran

Can you explain how you'd be justified in claiming that you know that God doesn't exist, under the strongest possible conception of God? That would be a God which makes no practical difference to what we know of the world, so there wouldn't be any evidence against the existence of God. This God wouldn't intervene in our affairs or anything, as far as we know.

I don't claim that I know that God, under this conception, doesn't exist. It is sufficient to claim that there is no reasonably justified basis to believe that God exists, and that even if God does exist, it would be trivial and make no real difference.

This is the only reason for me being, or the only sense in which I am, a weak atheist. With other conceptions of God where we're reasonably justified in saying that we know that God doesn't exist, the best example being a conception which leads to contradiction, I am a strong atheist. I am justified in saying that I know that this God doesn't exist, per the law of noncontradiction.

I am agnostic on the strongest possible conception of God. Yet this doesn't mean much. If I went around calling myself an agnostic, people would probably get the wrong idea. They'd probably think that I didn't lean more in one direction than the other. Yet I would say that, overall, I am more befitting of the term, "atheist". I do lean more in that direction. It also fits with how it is often used in common parlance, which is to call someone an atheist if they answer the question, "Do you believe in God?", with a, "No", as well as with the etymology of the word. I've even been called a militant atheist and associated with the New Atheists. I like Dawkins and Hitchens. I'm more sympathetic towards them than many others on this forum, from all sides of the debate. I also count Hume, Nietzsche, and Russell amongst my favourite philosophers.

There is no big problem in terms of what we call a position, only people who want to make it a big problem. They should be given a brief explanation of why this is so, and then largely ignored to stew in their own juice.

I have sass running through my veins. :lol:

You can be surprisingly perceptive at times.

Well to be honest Im not really behind either side of that debate. Ive been following along, I just don’t think of morality in either terms. That having been said, the mental gymnastics and emotional attachments to “objective” morality you guys are dealing with is pretty painful. You guys are not even able to get a proper understanding of your positions through that stubborn wall, let alone actually debate the sides. — DingoJones

Yeah, it's a shame. You don't have to take sides to see the problems in that discussion. And I don't think that the responsibility for these problems is evenly distributed or tips the scales against those of us in the discussion such as myself, Isaac, and Terrapin. The responsibility very much falls on a handful of people on the other side of the debate. The problem indicated in my last reply to you falls on a single participant, and he is encouraged to continue undeterred by a few others, which just exacerbates the problem. They have isolated themselves from the main discussion at times and refused to engage criticism in a productive manner. Then, of course, there are the countless ingrained misunderstandings which have been corrected a million-and-one times to little avail. And then there's the repetitive crackpottery, dogmatic proclamations, and red herrings - again, mostly down to a single participant, though a different one this time - which really ought to be frowned upon and ideally stamped out, given that this is supposed to be a reputable philosophy forum.

The question then becomes, who in the hell made it "your" role to advise other people on how they ought to live their lives? — Wallows

Are you suggesting that that's what he was doing? That wasn't contained in what you quoted. Where are you getting that from?

Its astonishing! The resistance you get for asking simple qualifying questions. I guess I get it, answering pesky questions like “what are you talking about” interfere with the feel good mental masterbation and whats a circle jerk without masterbation... — DingoJones

Haha. Have you been following the "Morality" discussion lately?

[Technical-sounding philosophy gobbledygook]

Can you translate that?

No.

That's a really bad attitude: trying to shut out those who are critical and labeling them as "spoilers". This is a philosophy forum.

You really do not seem to have much of a philosophical attitude. You did a similar thing in the discussion on political correctness. You seemed in support of more of an uncritical, status-quo maintaining, people pleasing approach, instead of a critical and frank approach. Why are you here?

But, if you consider this discussion pointless, what are you doing posting here, in this topic? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

Because he cares about philosophy! Maybe, just maybe, he cares about how we should be doing philosophy. Maybe questioning how many angels can dance on the head of a pin isn't good philosophy.

Did you ever think about that?

If I choose not to “enjoy a general discussion” that doesnt mean I lack understanding about any aspect of the discussion. This is just you being condescending because I have no respect for the nebulous terminology demanded by a feel good discussion about nothing. You are perfectly welcome to your irrational, substanceless circle jerk, I stepped out and left you all to it after it became clear thats what you were all interested in.
Your desire to bring me back in has nothing to do with actual engagement, but rather a need to satisfy your offended, authoritarian sensibilities. — DingoJones

Indeed, and we need more people speaking out about this sort of thing, not less.

Consider something newly discovered. We, just this second, discovered that it exists, even though we have no idea what it is (yet). Imagine this is our first enquiry into this new discovery.

I think that answers your question. — Pattern-chaser

Tell us about it then. Then we can actually make some headway. It's not like you've suddenly lost your ability to describe things.

How absurd.

The only way I'd say it exists would be if someone offered some clear definition, where I thought that what the definition picked out exists. — Terrapin Station

Exactamundo.

However, it is obvious that a religious/moral discussion makes many people uncomfortable and combative. For them, it is more comfortable to re-frame the question in terms of psychology, fantasy, or the paranormal. — Galuchat

Kind of like what you just did.

I'm not sure you've fully thought this through. You mentioned talk of supernatural, yet you call responses about paranormal a "reframing". That seems an inappropriate word to use. The connection between talk of supernatural and God and the like, on the one hand, and psychology and fantasy, on the other, is clear enough. It's not a "reframing", it's just an explanation.

However, it is obvious that a religious/moral discussion makes many people uncomfortable and combative. For them, it is more comfortable to re-frame the question in terms of psychology, fantasy, or the paranormal. — Galuchat

Kind of like what you just did.

This is simplistic and not apposite because I acknowledge that my moral judgements are determined by how I understand general positions on whatever is being judged as well as my own conscience. I also acknowledge the socially constructed nature of my moral feelings. So, I don't say my judgements are relative only to my moral feelings; if my feeling yielded a judgement that was contrary to the rest of humanity, for example if I felt that it was right to murder people, then I would consider my feeling and the judgement associated with it to be wrong. — Janus

Except that, in practice, you don't, so you're just deceiving yourself. You're merely choosing as an example a judgement which, in reality, you don't have. When it comes to your actual judgement, you abide by it without exception. So I have no reason to believe it would be any different if you believed that it was right to murder people.

And to deal with your silly example about a society who believed the wanton killing of babies is good, I would not agree with that being right even relative to that community because it would be contrary to the judgement of the rest of humanity and I would have to think that the whole community was brain-damaged by in-breeding or something in the water or something like that, and that their belief in the rightness of wanton bay-killing was a sign of profound moral degeneration. I doubt there have ever been any communities like that in any case. In some hunter-gatherer communities babies who are not robust enough are routinely killed, but that is a matter of the survival of the community, and I see nothing wrong with it. — Janus

It's not a silly example. It's silly to call it silly, because it shows the obvious fault in your position. Your position is inconsistent. You suggest that morality is defined by herd-morality or humanity or whatever, yet whenever you're presented with a counterexample going by your own criteria, you deny it or undermine your own position.

As I've said again and again, I judge things to be right or wrong relative to the almost universal cross-cultural opinion about their rightness or wrongness. — Janus

Yes, and that's entirely unnecessary. You don't need to repeat what your position is over and over again, you just need to get yourself out of the pickle you've put yourself in.

Where there is no such almost universal opinion, in matters which are of much less moral significance, like whether one should have sex before marriage, whether it is OK to do illegal drugs or whatever other minor moral matter, then of course I will follow my own thoughts and feelings. — Janus

No, you will do so regardless. That's the part you fail to realise and deny.

So, just how would you say my position differs from yours? — Janus

It doesn't in practice, like I said. We both follow our own thoughts and feelings, and we both happen to agree over the big issues like murder.

Aaaaaaah! No! Stop being nice. You're supposed to call me a jerk or a troll like the others do. I'm a villain, don't ya know?

Your meaning of "spirit" is the other approach. Not the magic and wizards approach, but rather the approach where it's just something ordinary and uncontroversial, like a personality.