And what do people mean by the "nature" of war? What is the "nature" of let's say commerce or of scientific research, or education? There are the objectives of war, the technology and military thinking that has let it to be as it is now. What do you ask when you ask for the "nature" of war? — ssu

There is no such "nature" of war, scientifically speaking. The best that such an idea has "going for it" is perhaps the Warrior Gene stuff, as in, the genetics of aggression, but not much more than that.

Sure humans evolved, and so too the ability to count, speak, tell stories and much else besides. But that doesn't mean that Frege's 'metaphysical primitives' such as integers and logical principles, can be legitimately depicted as a result of evolution. The aim of evolutionary theory is to explain the origin of species, not an epistemology. — Wayfarer

But there is currently an evolutionary explanation of epistemology underway, and of science more generally. For now it's just a research program in the perhaps Lakatosian sense, but they have not produced any opinion-swaying papers just yet.

I am proposing that he is talking about it many times but with the humility of being a mortal creature who only can remotely glimpse the divine. Note how often he uses "perhaps" in Book 3. He does not state as a matter of fact that nous is separable. In Book 2, Aristotle is more comfortable with locating the "act of knowing in the context of the individual as receiving the power from the kind (genos) they come from. The same immediacy of the actual is being sought for without the naming of the agent in Book 3. — Paine

But it's a very... "subtle" point, isn't it? If Aristotle is effectively talking about it as many times as you say, why isn't it more ... obvious? Humility notwithstanding and all that, this is Aristotle that we are talking about. Are his scholars really sure that the Prime Mover is "the same thing" as the active intellect? It seems like -pardon the expression- "a stretch of the imagination", as people say nowadays, a simple act of "stretching" or even of "reaching", if you will.

No, I honestly am not: everything you just said is way too high-level and vague. An OP has to be concise, clear, and well-organized. — Bob Ross

Unless it is an exploratory investigation in the methodological sense, unlike an OP which represents another type of discussion, such as the pros and cons of certain moral standpoint.

Let me try to help. It sounds like you want to discuss Speculative Realism. What specifically about it are you wanting to discuss? Korman’s mereological argument? Be specific (: — Bob Ross

Thanks for the help, it is much appreciated. Yes, I want to discuss Speculative Realism, but more specifically After Finitude, and more specifically the meaning of the term factiality, because that is what undercuts what I wrote in the OP.

Consider the first comment of the OP, from now own, "Version Zero" of this document (this Public Thread, which is now at page 5).

Henceforth, we will begin with "Version One" of the document from now on. I have the authority to make that call (as in, I am legitimized in my capacity to make that decision), for I am the author of the OP of this Thread.

Question of this Thread: What is factiality?

Why you should care about the Question of this Thread:
(this part needs to be completed. Can you please help me with this part, @Bob Ross? Just share your thoughts, think of it like a brainstorming exercise. Don't worry if your words become too "rambly", we're not at the "Painting stage" yet.

I get all that (thanks for responding, BTW), but the part that I can't understand is the following one: if the concept of the active intellect is so important, why doesn't Aristotle talk about it anywhere else but in one obscure passage in De Anima? It just strikes me in the manner that an odd thing would. It just doesn't make sense.

I don't think that's what Arcane is asking about. They — Bob Ross

Well how nice of you, Bob. How genuinely nice of you to use the pronoun "They", in reference to me, as a signal that you are not taking for granted what my individual biology is like. That's very thoughtful of you, very moral in character. Everyone just calls me "he" on this forum, though I don't think I've given any explicit indication as to what my actual biology is (however, do not panic, as I can guarantee you that I am not a Mind Flayer, of that I am quite certain).

They seem to be asking how one can know what reality is as it were absolutely in-itself. — Bob Ross

No, I am not asking anything, dear Bob. I am not the author of this particular Thread, someone else is, someone who just so happens to share some of my beliefs about realism, it seems. I, for one, am not asking anything. I already know what the ultimate truth about reality is. For I have seen it with my very own set of eyes: It is Hegel's concept of the Absolute Spirit.

I don't expect you, or anyone else, to believe me, though. And you are of course free to disagree. After all, I might be wrong about this, right?...

... so, "carry on", and that sort of talk?

Not in any meaningful sense. An OP is supposed to ask something of the audience: what about your “Love Letter” has to do with us? Are you asking us to critique it as a work of literature? Are you asking about a specific aspect of “Speculative Materialism”? Do you see how this is an incredibly vague agenda. — Bob Ross

Ok, let's start with that. Let's make a better agenda. Agree? Don't mind if I just assume that you do, for the sake of expediency. Let's invent an agenda. I'll tell you my premises, and I'll tell you what my agenda is, taking those premises as mere "starting-point hypotheses" in the epistemological sense.

My premises, the premises of my personal philosophy, the ungrounded statements that I simply accept, for no other particular reason than the mere fact that I actually believe them to be true, are the following five terms.

1) Realism
2) Materialism
3) Atheism
4) Scientism
5) Literalism

From there, I can deduce, as a conclusion (due to a series of logical deductions that I will simply omit for the sake of expediency) that, the OP itself, which is literally my "Love Letter" to the book After Finitude, IS the agenda of the OP, not "the agenda" of me, Arcane Sandwich, as a person, or citizen, or what have you.

In the methodological recognition of the fact that Speculative Realism has already been discussed in this particular Forum in the past, the OP is simply an instance of a research activity that begins in media res. I am effectively charting new conceptual territory with Speculative Materialism itself in the OP, and I do so as a fan of Quentin Meillassoux and also as an informed, critical reader of After Finitude. If you do not agree even to these very basic terms of the discussion itself (i. e., the methodological decision to begin in media res), then I ask you to "look at this thing" from a more Medieval perspective, instead of the Classicist perspective so eloquently displayed as an image in you Forum avatar.

Catch my drift, Bob?

Note: I have edited this message for Clarity's sake. Who is Clarity, anyways?

what would be said in an encylopedia — Wayfarer

Like Wikipedia.

what you would say if you were asked to explain it for an exam question. An objective explanation. — Wayfarer

Then I would explain it like so. Materialism is the black part of the Ying Yang, Idealism is the white part of the Ying Yang. Apply the rest of the ying-yang theory accordingly.

So, again, what I call the absolute, can be pictured like the symbol of the ying-yang. So, let us proceed:

I declare that the Phenomenological Subject is the "white dot" inside the black part that is Materialism. And I also declare that the Noumenological Object is the "black dot" inside the part that is Idealism.

And that, is what I call "The Absolute". Its truth is in its Spirit, not in its Letter. Its Law, however, is outside of itself as mere symbol, and its Chaos is what we do with...

... well, you "catch my drift", so to speak.

EDIT: And what I call "The Blind Spot of Science", is the black dot in the white part: what I have called the Noumenological Object.

And what I call "The Blind Spot of Phenomenology" is the white dot in the black part: what I have called the Phenomenological Subject.

Do you understand the difference between them? Not according to your personal philosophy, but what would be said in an encylopedia or what you would say if you were asked to explain it for an exam question. An objective explanation. — Wayfarer

Right. But I'm just stupid like that, mate. I mean, if that's how you want to phrase this talk, then I'll tell you that I'm just plain stupid. As in, you're literally smarter than me. So, should I feel bad about that? I don't don't think so. I genuinely don't see how our Philosophies are different, @Wayfarer. I appreciate the fact that you're trying to explain to me that there even is a difference to begin with, but my brain just can't process such a notion, so I'm kindly asking for a more simple, common-sense friendly explanation, if you would be so kind.

Unless, of course, you tell me that you are somehow unable to do such a thing.

The good of the country may involve actions that, from an individual perspective, may range from merely wrong all the way to abomination. — BC

Then in that case, the ethical thing to do (or at least, aim to do) is to be merely wrong. It is possible for a citizen to be wrong, since they have the basic right to think. It does not follow from there, however, that they (the citizens) have a right to perform an act of abomination.

It's worse than wrong. — BC

It is, that is why neither citizens nor folk can afford to commit such crimes. Because that is what they are: a crime is a crime because it is an Ethical abomination to begin with.

Generals and politicians, even some citizens, may decide that mutually assured destruction is OK as long as the other side doesn't win. Most citizens, some politicians, and even some generals will consider reject the idea. — BC

Exactly. So it's about power and influence, essentially. Fame, prestige, and all that. It is, quite literally, a Power Game. That, however, does not necessarily mean that "powergamers" the best players or agents to rely on such intellectual fronts.

In the case of the October attack by Hamas on Israel, it's difficult to take a pacifist position. — BC

Because it is a very complicated conflict to begin with, it is not exactly easy to look at this conflict from a militaristic standpoint.

The attack was bad and the reprisals (the apparently goal of which is to destroy Gaza) leave nothing to approve. What we have is Iran (Hamas) and the State of Israel pursuing their interests, and damn anybody who gets in the way. — BC

Well, all I can say on the topic of the War in the Middle East, I can only share with you a music video that I like and that I agree with, more or less:

↪J
I studied De Anima in detail as an undergrad. I've forgotten most of it. To dismissive? — Banno

It's an admittedly strange book, in that it outlines a theory of the mind and the soul that is very remote from how we understand such topics from a modern perspective.

Personally, I never cared much for De Anima, but what makes it seem so odd to me, from a merely bibliographical standpoint, is that Aristotle's concept of the "active intellect" only appears once in the entire works of Aristotle, and it appears in one specific passage in De Anima. That's what most odd about that book, specifically.

Nevertheless, the topic of the "active intellect" was widely discussing in Medieval European Philosophy. It's just one of those strange things about Aristotle, I don't think anyone can really explain it.

materialism is a tendency at a certain point of the development of cultures — Wayfarer

Hmmm... Do I agree with this? This is the part where it becomes a complicated discussion. Just for the record, no, I do not believe that materialism is a tendency at a certain point to the development of cultures. Maybe it was in the past, in some instances. But it is not today, and has not been, for a very long time. And, honestly speaking, I don't think that materialism will ever be in a position to "get that back", so to speak. But that is of no important consequence, for "materialism" is not my only premise. Whatever deficiencies materialism might have as a premise, it compensates for its weakness by drawing strength from the other premises of the system, premises such as realism, atheism, and scientism. Lately, I've been considering the public addition of literalism to that list, but the system already had it as a "secret" axiom.

In any case, I don't see why I would switch the term "materialism" for the term "idealism". What do you "get out of" idealism that you don't get out of materialism? What "objective benefits" does idealism bring to the table, that materialism can't bring? I'm listening.

At that point of your own phenomenology journey, one becomes a materialism. — Arcane Sandwich

OK, I can't leave this just like this. Let me invent an excuse for it (yep, 100% honesty mode right not).

First of all, the syntax. It's not necessarily wrong. Because what I clumsily said in my original quote might qualify as a garden path sentence.

So, what I said, now means "At that point of your own phenomenology (your personal Phenomenological) journey, one becomes (through a process of increasing abstraction), a "materialism" in the sense that one has forgotten about oneself as a subject in the ontological sense of the term.

How about that?

, there is an 'absolutisation of the objective' — Wayfarer

I agree that this is a problem, comparable to reification. One should not absolutize what is not absolute to begin with, just as one should not "thingify" what is not a thing, just as one should not reify what is not a res. And one should certainly not objectify what is not an object. That, is one possible argument, and further line of inquiry.

Yet, for the very same reason, you seem to be suggesting that one should not materialize what is not material. And I would agree with you: that should not be done. It would be a category mistake to do even do such a thing.

But then you seem to be suggesting that one should not idealize what is not idea. And I expressed, even said plainly, that I agree with you: one should not do such a thing. It would be a category mistake to even do such a thing.

So I sincerely do not understand what is the actual difference between our Philosophies. The only difference that I perceive, the only difference truly "worthy" of the name, is a difference-making Aesthetic difference, and only that. Allow me to explain what I mean, with the help of a metaphor. Speaking less formally, here's the "picture" that I would suggest as a conceptual metaphor of "what I've been saying" in this specific Thread.



It is, as you already know, the symbol of the Yin and the Yang. We can "appeal to erudition" if you want, in this discussion, yet I would begin in a non-erudite way. In other words, I would "go about it" as a commoner would, because that is precisely what Wikipedia does:

In Chinese cosmology, the universe creates itself out of a primary chaos of material energy, organized into the cycles of yin and yang, form and matter. 'Yin' is retractive, passive and contractive in nature, while 'yang' is repelling, active and expansive in principle; this dichotomy in some form, is seen in all things in nature—patterns of change and difference. For example, biological and seasonal cycles, evolution of the landscape over days, weeks, years and eons (with the original meaning of the words being the north-facing shade and the south-facing brightness of a hill), gender (female and male), as well as the formation of the character of individuals and the grand arc of sociopolitical history in disorder and order. — Wikipedia

And a chord is dependent on the scale in which it sits. The first, third, fifth and seventh sound distinctly different, as does a minor chord.

But I'm not clear as to what you are getting at. If you understand that the major is the root, third and fifth, while the seventh chord is the root, third, fifth and seventh note of the scale, is there again something more that is needed in order to have the concept of major and seventh?

In a sense perhaps putting your fingers on the right strings to produce each? The doing? — Banno

If you want to talk about Math & Music, then we need more musical concepts here. I would suggest incorporating rhythm, harmony and melody as mathematical and musical concepts into this specific aspect of the discussion.

Yep. it's the doing that has import here. — Banno

If that's the import, then what's the export? What does it "get out of it", in economic and/or thermodynamic terms, and/or systemic terms?

The carry on is just meant to indicate my total shoulder-shrug with respect to the OP. — Mww

Yes, that is a High attitude, and justly so, rightly so. Objectively speaking, of course.

Nothing to do with secrecy; ol’ Bob and me, we go down this dialectical inconsistency road every once in awhile. — Mww

Yes, Dialectics is a pseudoscientific concept that some people have utilized for Evil. And yes, I said what I just said. For there is Evil in the world. It cannot be described, in moral terms, any other way.

At that point of your own phenomenology journey, one becomes a materialism. — Arcane Sandwich

And yes, I said what I said, even grammatically. I will not edit that part.

@Wayfarer my Internet connection is not "cooperating" with me right now, so I'm on another device right now. It might be a fallacy, though. If so, it is a very rare one, hardly ever appears in a human discussion. I call it "Appeal to the Machine".

Right, so think of the OP this way:

The Living Subject is like a dot. It is surrounded by a sea of Blind Spot. Then it Phenomenologizes on an Ontological level, and it concludes, from inference-to-best-hypothesis that Realism is "More True", in an important sense, than idealism and materialism. It is "conceptually superior", so to speak, in a purely formal way. It has nothing to do with materiality as such.

But then, The Living Subject looks at the world. The Subject forgets about itself, ontologically speaking. It becomes "metaphorically blind". And thus you are now in the state of awareness that you are already familiar with: the state of awareness of ordinary life.

At that point of your own phenomenology journey, one becomes a materialism. Matter is just the brute fact that there is a physical world outside of your consciousness. The world just imposes itself upon you like that. And if one were to ask? What is the reason, for such a fact?

Well... That's what we all want to know. That is why we all philosophize.

But never mind. Carry on. — Mww

I don't know, friend. It sounds to me like you just said something important, right there. Why do you seem to be so "secretive" about it?

But that's people for you: we are never very far from barbarism. — BC

And yet we try to be. To be very far from barbarism in that sense, because that is the Ethical thing to do. We can Romanticize barbarism itself, but that's a mere fantasy that we are indulging in when we do that. In the world of responsible citizens, no one has the right to kill another human being without a valid and sound Ethical justification for it. Wars are not Ethical by definition.

Every OP has an agenda, just like a meeting does, or else it is just a tangent. — Bob Ross

Would the following part qualify as the agenda?

Explanation for this whole thing: This is my "Love Letter" to Speculative Materialism, especially as developed by Quentin Meillassoux (particularly in his first book, After Finitude). Which is not to say that I agree with him on every topic, but sometimes his statements just leave you wondering... — Arcane Sandwich

Then you say:

Lol, you are the one that told me to chill out being so kind. — Bob Ross

Of course I did. I'm glad that you complied with that request.

What I am suggesting to you (although you can do as you please) is to accept the challenge of refining the OP to remove the ambiguity in your own thinking — Bob Ross

And all that I am humbly saying, is that I lack the knowledge, as a professional philosopher, to accomplish the task that you are suggesting that I perform. I need to tackle the problem of the OP step-by-step. It begins with a sketch (the OP itself), it continues as a progressive discussion throughout the Thread (the blacks, whites, and grays of the eventual painting), and finally it becomes a full-colored painting in the form of the comment that I personally choose as the comment that has solved the problem that the OP presented. Here's the trick: due to how good forum etiquette actually works, the "winning comment" in that sense cannot be mine. I cannot answer my own question, simply out of courtesy. Someone else, some other forum member, has to be the winner, and this is by definition.

So, again, can we please focus our attention on Korman's argument about composition? You're under no obligation to agree or to even contribute anything in that sense, you are obviously free to do as you please.

it reads to me like you don't really know what you are exploring but you know you are exploring something. — Bob Ross

Yes, that is exactly what is going on. This discussion that we're all having here, ever since the Thread started, is an attempt to clarify what is unphilosophical about the OP, for the purpose of turning it into a legitimate philosophical question.

Briefly re-reading it, you didn't even mention the PSR; which, as far as I can tell, is what you really want to talk about. — Bob Ross

Not quite. It's something else. What I want to talk about is factiality as such, which is related to, but not identical with, the PSR.

Re-reading the OP, I just find it confusing and lacking clarity on what is going on: what's the agenda? — Bob Ross

I mean, that's a bit of a brutal assumption to make in the first place, Bob. I don't have an agenda to begin with. Why would you assume that I have "an agenda"? What do you even mean by that? What is your intent when you ask such a question? Think of it as a Phenomenologist would, please. That would be very helpful for my investigation and thus, for the topic that the OP proposes to explore in this Thread.

Perhaps I am just missing the point. — Bob Ross

I don't think that you are. If you were, I would have told you. Or, if I was a very rude person, I would have "kicked you out of the Thread", or some nonsense like that. I mean, you are somewhat of a rude person, but that tells me nothing about your actual thoughts and opinions.

In other words, Bob, the bet that I "got for ya" here is a proposal, to look at how Korman himself proposes to resit the Argument From Vagueness against Restricted Composition. That is the only "philosophical lead" that I have found that could solve the problem of the OP.

Deal or no deal?

I don’t. Isn’t ultimate reality the same as absolute reality? — Bob Ross

Yes, it is. But, like North Americans like to say, "that's an opinion, not a fact". And all I'm saying is: "no, mate, that's not an opinion. That is indeed a fact. An absolute fact."

I think if you wrote the OP in a manner that was sufficiently clear, well-organized, and had legitimate argumentation for the conclusion; then it would be a good philosophy OP. — Bob Ross

Bob. Honest question. How could I even do that, if the topic of the OP is literally unexplored, at least in a purely bibliographical sense?

Wouldn’t you rather come up with a good argument for why your position is true? — Bob Ross

Sure, but I don't even have a position to begin with, that's the problem that I've been alluding to. There isn't much work that's already been done in this specific, uncharted area of the philosophical map.

I get what you are going for here; but that’s not what the terms traditionally mean. Unsoundness is when the logic is invalid. What you are talking about is internal and external coherence. — Bob Ross

Call it whatever you like, I simply share the viewpoint of my colleagues in the Analytic Metaphysics of Ordinary Objects on that topic.

Your OP is unphilosophical, as I said before, in the sense that, although it addresses a philosophy subject, it does not provide sufficient clarity and argumentation for it to be considered formally philosophical (by my lights). — Bob Ross

And that is fair. That you make such a judgement. It is fair.

Like I said before, it is philosophy in the sense that the subject matter which you wish to discuss is a part of philosophy. — Bob Ross

No Bob, please don't do that. You just said that my OP is unphilosophical, and I said that I'm fine with that. Now, out of pure intellectual curiosity, I want to know: what is it? The OP. What genre of writing does it belong to, in your honest opinion? Because that would help me in a a purely methodological sense. It doesn't matter if you give me the "wrong answer", for example "I think it's the literary genre of garbage pseudo-philosophy" or something like that. I promise I won't take any offense at your honest answer to the question that I'm asking.

↪Arcane Sandwich

I'm not sure I see where you're going with this. — Apustimelogist

I'm not going anywhere with it, I'm just trying to see if we can reach a common understanding, by slightly enforcing the rules of language. If not, then I will stop.

the diplomacy of nations with gun boats will be more 'effective'. — BC

Even if that's true, it does not follow from there that the diplomacy of nations with "gun boats", as you call them, would be more dignified. And yeah, I mean that as an opinion, not necessarily as a fact.

The US or China can be much more persuasive. — BC

I don't think that persuasiveness has anything to do with their success. Their international policies seem barbaric, speaking frankly. Barbarians may be good at war, but they tend to leave a bit of a mess once they're done extracting whatever they were here to extract in the first place. Then they leave, and that mess that they made is now someone else's problem. And that "someone else" is usually some common folk. Some of them might move to another country. Others will move to somewhere else within the country. Others will stay where they are, right next to whatever problem the International "Powers that Be" have created in that area. And some others, out of pure resentment, ideology, or perhaps simple need, or even any combination of those three, become completely radicalized.

So who should take the blame, in such an "abstract" scenario?

Makes sense to me.
I should read Eco. Does the film do it justice? Thanks — ENOAH

Sure. Sean Connery wouldn't have acted in it otherwise (or at least I would hope not).

I'm really not that passionate about Eco myself. In fact, I am not passionate about any aspect of his theory. It just seems to me that there are more sophisticated semiologists in the world. And on the literary side of things, The Name of the Rose just sounds unappealingly "Europe-ish" to me. It's not "close enough to my heart", you could say. As far as Literature goes, I prefer the work of Macedonio Fernández and the work of J.R.R. Tolkien.

It is likely that people became more questioning of war after the first and second world wars. — Jack Cummins

And then it became even more complicated during the Cold War, in which there were several "subset wars", if you will, such as the Vietnam War, for example. And it is even more complicated in more recent times, especially in recent times, for example in places like Ukraine.

So, I have to ask: was there a point in Modern history in which there weren't any active wars going on, anywhere on the planet? If one finds such moments, then one has discovered something edifying, since those moments are objectively peaceful, in the literal sense of Peace understood as the concept that is diametrically opposed to the concept of War in that same literal sense.

a red rose is not what it might have been to a prehistoric human animal. Try as we might, we cannot see it with our senses, unmediated by our shared Mind. — ENOAH

This theme is something similar to what Umberto Eco intended to portray in his novel The Name of the Rose. A very interesting book, but very difficult to follow at times. I remember when I learned Medieval Philosophy at the University, one of my Professors was obsessed with that novel, as in, she would talk about it almost every class, whenever she had to state her personal opinion on some Medieval philosophical thesis or whatnot. She was quite good, actually. She knew "Medieval stuff", you could say.

Do I think that she had an extra-ordinary memory, in some sense of the term? Hmmm... that is actually an excellent question, I think, because our "folk" idea of what memory actually is, has become somewhat "tarnished", if you will, by the "commonality" of our ordinary lives, if that makes any sense to anyone.

But are "parts" really any different from the "part" that contains those "parts"? Does this question really need an answer? Is there even any definitive sense into how "parts" are divided or aggregate into more "parts" that we uphold all the time or even any of the time? I am not sure I think so. We notice distinctions and similarities in our sensory landscape which are multiplicitious, overlapping, redundant. — Apustimelogist

Hi, allow me to say something about that: there is a sense in which we should not mix up two very different meaning of the very word "part", for it has a mereological sense, as well as a metaphysical sense. In the former case, you are debating mereology: the domain of philosophy that studies the part-whole relation. In the latter case, you are debating metaphysics of ordinary objects: the domain of metaphysics in the Analytic Tradition that is concerned with the being and the existence of ordinary objects and extra-ordinary objects.

your existence must also might be an illusion. — A Realist

This is the "wrong part", in my opinion. Just look at the sentence: it's not even grammatical to begin with. Look at that part in the middle, it literally says "must also might be". That's not even English, in any sense of the term.

Hello, Good Day to Everyone.

I will join this discussion at this point, if you don't mind. Let's attempt to leave aside the formalities as much as possible, otherwise this specific topic tends to degenerate into an abstract discussion about the rules of War. In other words, let's keep things sharp and on point, shall we?

The OP asks: "war: How May the Idea, its Causes, and Underlying Philosophies be Understood?"

I'll say a word about the philosophical part. Technically speaking (yes, I'm playing the "war lawyer" part here, please tolerate me for a moment in that sense), the Underlying Philosophies of war, are to be best understood (this is my thesis, anyway) in a literal sense. What does that mean? That there are (at the very least) two good "candidate words" for that literal sense, and those are the following ones:

Warriorism, from Warrior-ism, from Warrior, from War. That is the literal etymology of that word.

Martialism, from Martial Law, from Martial, from the Greek God of War: Mars.

Which one of those is the "correct one", so to speak? Evidently, it is "Warriorism", for that is a far more "ancient" way of thinking. If we compare the very word "Warriorism" to the very word "Martialism", we can just sort of detect that the former, and not the latter, has "more dignity", so to speak. And how do we "detect" it, exactly? Well, I'm afraid to disappoint you, as there is no scientific explanation of it yet, and there is hardly any scientific evidence for some of the hypothesis that cognitive neuroscientists are attempting to systematize at the moment. However, there is some "hope", since that detection that I was speaking about is sort of like an Aesthetic phenomenon, if you will. The very word "Warriorism" just sounds preferable to the very word "Martialism", at least to my mind, it does. Of course, that does not by itself prove that anyone else is having a similar experience to mine, or that they could even have it to begin with (though I think it's at least possible that they might have a similar experience under similar conditions).

What are your thoughts on all those things that I just said? Do you agree? Do you disagree? To what degree do you agree or disagree, or just simply don't even agree or disagree to begin with?

our so called individual memories — ENOAH

Forgive me, I became "lost at this point", so to speak. I sincerely believe (and I might be wrong) that memories are individual. You say "so called". And I ask: what can a memory be, if not individual? Are you perhaps suggesting that there are "collective" memories, so to speak?

Or perhaps an underlying, "unifying" memory?

Please help me understand this point, for it is very rare for me to encounter someone of your admirable intellect in my ordinary life, and I say that as one would when in recognition of a fact.

If it's physical, it ought to be describable, without residue, in terms of the principles of physics and chemistry. — Wayfarer

Not quite, at least not if one is not a reductionist, and that is precisely the case of Mario Bunge, for example. He's not the only one to think that, many realists (even anti-materialist realists) postulate (or deduce) that emergence is indeed real, it is "out there", in the external world, not merely "in our minds".

This is not to say that the mind "emerges" from the brain, for that would be to speak nonsense. The mind is what the living brain of an organism does. It is more like an act than a series of processes, but that is what it is: a series of neuro-cognitive processes, which have a "one to one" mapping (1:1) to biochemical processes that the brain undergoes.

But I'm of the school of thought that as soon as living organisms form, no matter how rudimentary, there is already something about them that cannot be so described. It is not an element, a literal elan vital, some mysterious thing or substance, which is reification again. — Wayfarer

Sure, but then I would humbly argue that the same can be said for the case on an inanimate object, such as a stone. As soon as a stone forms, no matter how "rudiementary" (whatever that means, in absence of values), there is always something about the stone and other inorganic objects that cannot be so described.

And what is that? OOO calls them "real qualities". They are inaccessible by definition. Think of it like the Kantian distinction between "phenomenon" and "noumenon", but in the sense of "appearance" and "reality". Inanimate things relate to each other in the same ontological sense that a living subject relates to an inorganic object. The flame that burns the ball of cotton does not access what the cotton is as a thing-in-itself, it only accesses an appearance, in the way that cotton "presents itself", "makes itself manifest" to the flame.

Aristotle said in the first place - that they posses an organising principle. (I mean, look at the etymological link between 'organ', 'organic', and 'organisation'.) That manifests in the way that all of the components of organisms are self-organising in such a way as to form a single unified being. As Aristotle put it, organisms possess an intrinsic organisational purpose (as distinct from artifacts, who's purposes are extrinsic.) — Wayfarer

I see what you're saying there, but I think Aristotle got it wrong there. And I say that as a rogue Aristotelian.

That manifests in the way that all of the components of organisms are self-organising in such a way as to form a single unified being. — Wayfarer

So? That's not exclusive to living beings. A tornado, for example, is the sort of object that Carmichael calls "event-based object", distinct from what he calls "lump-like object". Organisms are event-based objects. It does not follow from there that they have something different, in that regard, from inanimate objects, since tornadoes are similar to organisms in that sense.

Stem cells, as is well known, are undifferentiated - which is what makes them so useful for medical purposes - but depending on where in the body they begin to develop, they acquire the specialised characteristics that make them liver cells or eye cells or what have you. That resists reduction to physical principles, although that is still a controversial matter. — Wayfarer

Of course it resists reduction. It's emergent, in a literal sense, it is real emergence. Again, why is this a big deal to you? I'm not a reductionist in that sense, and neither is Bunge. I'm all for emergence, it's one of the premises of my personal philosophy (though I would prefer to deduce it as a theorem instead of merely postulating it as axiom, but that's Off Topic).

Again, where is the disagreement between us, exactly, @Wayfarer? Because, honestly, I can't see it. The only difference between our philosophies, as far as I can see, is some sort of Aesthetic difference, and only that.

Thank you for your clarification on the point. I disagree with the point totally. — Corvus

You're welcome. And yes, you're free to disagree with the point totally, as you say. That is what Metaphysics is all about (well, that's what Philosophy is all about, really).

whether something is alive or not, if something is imaginable, thinkable and conceivable, then it is possible to discuss about them. — Corvus

I agree. We can talk about anything. The problem is, that there's a point where out words just stop making sense, even to ourselves. Remember one of the games that we all played at some point: pick a word, any word, and say it out loud, and repeat that for a few minutes. For example, let's pick the word "tree". Now, say "tree" over and over again, for several minutes. At some point, you will notice a psychological effect occurring "somewhere in your mind", in which everything is normal, except for the word "tree", which just stopped making sense because you repeated it so much. Well, that sort of psychological phenomena can be scientifically investigated. And I, as a metaphysican, can talk about all that: but only up to a certain point, because if I continue to talk as a metaphysician on that point, my words start seeming like what happened with the word "tree" in the previous example. In other words, you can't do metaphysics in isolation: you need many other Academic disciplines to complement it, if you want to get any substantial metaphysical work done.

But there are vast majority of people in the world who are imaginative, creative and metaphysical and believe in the abstract existence, — Corvus

Some professional philosophers agree with that as well: that there is such a thing as abstract existence. I'm not sure what to think of that myself, honestly. It seems false to me, just from an intuitive standpoint. But, sadly, our intuitions sometimes are mistaken.

If you still deny that, then no artistic, creative, idealistic activities would be possible. — Corvus

That's an interesting argument. I'll have to consider it. Thank you very much for sharing it.

There would be no movies, novels, poems, abstract paintings and sculptures available in the world. There would be no religions. Is it the case? I certainly don't think so. — Corvus

Hmmm... I'm not sure, really. I dont know "what to make of it", as some people say. Can you explain to me why you certainly don't think so? Thanks in advance.