The 'thing-in-itself' can't be made nor can it break, because it can't have any parts, which makes it to be eternal; its Existence has no alternative, no opposite, for 'Nothing' cannot be, since 'it' has no it. — PoeticUniverse

Wow... You're on roll lately, just delivering pure wisdom! You might even convince me that divine magic exists in the same sense that arcane magic does! And I don't say such a thing often : )

An aphorism is a short and concise statement that contains a general maxim or expression. Most of yours are just long paragraph quotes. — Bob Ross

Hmmm... Ok, I'll bite. By your lights, what should I do in this case in relation to my previous posts, then? What would be the best thing to do here, objectively speaking? Should I delete them? Edit them? Just leave them there? What?

I mean, we should be horizontal, always — Moliere

Hmmm... Ok, I'll bite. We shouldn't be hierarchical, ever? A hierarchy is just an arrangement, objectively speaking. It's just an organizational instrument or tool. By itself, as a concept, it doesn't really mean anything to me. If humans are arranged hierarchically, will the top group always oppress the bottom group? Is there no such thing as horizontal oppression in that sense? Would peer pressure count as oppression in a horizontal sense? I think it would. I'm curious to know your thoughts on such conceptual topics.

Newton’s fixed space and time got Einstein’s boot;
Particle spigots making fields went mute;
Classic fields had no fundamental loot. — PoeticUniverse

Lovely verse!

What's left? The quantum vacuum with its quantum fields that rearrange to form the elementary 'particles' as stable quanta! — PoeticUniverse

Hmmm...

Well, there are substances you might ingest, which would have results on your thinking which don't seem too consistent with what one would expect the substance to have on a steam and gear mechanism.

I.e. you could conduct experiments. — wonderer1

Indeed. But it seems that people nowadays want to call experiments themselves into question, just because "philosophy is cool". Just look at the people who, for philosophical reasons, say that all of the simple experiments that one can do, which prove that the Earth is not flat, are dubious to begin with because such experiments "are theory-laden" or whatnot.

that because a scientist wrote it in their scientific capacity it ought be treated as superior to other forms or expressions of writing.

Crudely: there's an academic hierarchy of two slots, and the sciences are on top. — Moliere

Sure, but that's just like, a state of affairs. It doesn't really tell me how we should "go about it" in any meaningful way. Should there be an academic democracy in the sense that the two slots are next to each other, horizontally, instead of hierarchically? Or should literature dethrone science, so to speak, so as to preserve the hierarchy, but inverting the terms occupying those slots? Should there be slots to begin with? Is there an academic continuum, so to speak, between literature and science, or is there an exact cut-off that marks the difference between science and non-science, or between poetry and non-poetry?

"Scientism" is a pejorative -- no one actually calls themselves that way unless they want to challenge some notion that people who use it as a pejorative have. — Moliere

Well Mario Bunge uses that term in a positive sense, in many different texts, for example in his article titled In Defense of Realism and Scientism.

I use the word "scientism" myself in a positive way. It's a word that started out with a negative connotation, but then some people (like Bunge) started to use it in a positive way.

Think of it like an ethic slur or a racial slur that has been appropriated in an positive way by the community that it initially targeted.

Sure thing, my apologies.

I find it pleasing because it feels like independent confirmation. — Moliere

This happened to me with Hegel, before reading Deleuze's book Nietzsche and Philosophy. Before reading Deleuze's book, I had wondered if someone could philosophically argue for the concept of the "affirmation of the affirmation" (since Hegel's philosophy is usually said to contain 1) affirmation, 2) negation, 3) negation of the negation). I never developed that thought, it was just some random thing that I used to wonder from time to time, so it was a bit of an interesting surprise to find out that in Nietzsche's writings (according to Deleuze) there is something like an "affirmation of an affirmation".

I don't put much stock in such concepts myself, if I even put any stock in them to begin with, but it was just one of those odd things that happen from time to time.

Thanks to you for asking -- I don't know what the underlying concept is! I have some ideas upon you asking, but I didn't mean to invoke a whole ass concept as much as make a quip. — Moliere

That's fair.

Scientism, in this case, would prefer the literature of the people we call scientists over the literature of the people we call writers, novelists, philosophers, playwrights, poets, historians, or journalists. (EDIT: or activists, preachers, clerks, janitors, teachers, fast-food workers....) — Moliere

I would say that they have that preference during their routinely, day to day work as scientists. They have to. They can't be reading poetry when they have to read the latest paper on whatever they're working on, like, if a new species of beetle was discovered in the Amazon rainforest or whatever. During their leisure time, after work (or even before it), I don't see why they can't enjoy poetry, or novels, or the latest political news, etc. Or even "university stuff" from some other career. Perhaps Mary the physicist is interested in what professional historians have to say about commerce during the Middle Ages in France. Why would she be interested in that? Who knows, go ask her. Maybe John the economist likes to read what's currently being discussed in the world of chemistry. Why would he be interested in that? Who knows, go ask him. Or maybe Mary and John just like to play video games after work or whatever. Like, why is there this stereotype that scientists wear a lab coat 24/7?

I read the quote marks to refer to the problem of barely perceptible changes of grade. — Paine

Sure, so did I. That wasn't my point though.

Belongs in Lounge with others of the same ilk. — Paine

Fixed. It is now in the Lounge category instead of the Philosophy of Art category.

That's the reason for using a body of water, which could not have a "hill" in it. — Banno

Why are you using scare quotes? Honest question, genuinely curious. Like, just say it: a body of water cannot have a hill in it. It has waves. And a hill is not a wave.

Specifically, two things philosophers have taught me is, one, like Epicurus said, the best way to live is to be in a community of like-minded people, to live and eat simply and be open to others.

Two, Sartre, etc., once I was thrown into this world, I am responsible. This is my world and I make it.

I live by both these maxims. — Rob J Kennedy

Smart maxims to live by.

I've never seen my own brain. How do I know that I have one? Maybe there is a machine inside my skull, that has mechanical gears and Steampunk technology in general.

EDIT: Heidegger used the term "being-in-the-world". If I replace "being" with "brain", does that mean that I'm a brain-in-the-world?

Who was the one who knew about the boat?
How did he know the boat had weapons?
Who pulled the strings in that case? :smile: — javi2541997

I don't know. Does anyone know that? Things of that sort can be investigated, officially. At some point you kinda get to the bottom of it. It's just some random criminals, who happen to be semi-organized. They're not what I would call "the elite".

Choose a clear cool day and take a strong pair of binoculars or a small telescope to the headlands to watch a ship sail over the horizon. You will not see the ship shrink to nothing, but sink until at last the superstructure disappears.

Observe a number of lunar eclipses. The shadow of the Earth on the moon is always curved, both at the start and the end of the eclipse.

Consider how many other of your beliefs would have to be false if the world were indeed flat. And how many navigators would have to be in on the conspiracy.

But most especially, why not look up the answer, why doubt the consensus view, why think that your own experiences should have a primacy that is beyond doubt? Think about the attitude that folk take into a discussion such as this - are they looking to disprove their existing view, or just to confirm it? What, for them, counts as a disproof?

Becasue no evidence ever forces you to a particular position. There are always auxiliary hypotheses that you can employ to prevent your pet doctrine from being falsified. For some, the cup really contains the blood of Christ, despite all the evidence to the contrary. At some stage you, and only you, must decide what to believe, and that is about you, not about the way the world is. — Banno

Ok, this could be a Moorean answer in some sense. And Moorean answers tend to be correct. Perhaps not due to the right reasons, but Moorean arguments tend to have true conclusions. Just gotta make sure that the premises are also true, and that the reasoning is deductive.

I put this to both ChatGPT and Claude.ai, and they both said, this is eliminative materialism which fails to face up to the indubitably subjective nature of consciousness. — Wayfarer

Hi Wayfarer. For what it's worth, I don't think that ChatGPT and Claude AI are very good philosophers. They sound stupid to me, those A.I.s. Just an anecdote, I suppose.

Wonder if there is a correlation with that creation myth and John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God". — Hanover

I would say so. Probably. What would that mean?

EDIT: @Hanover I've found an English translation of that part (it's not my translation, but I'm linking it anyways)

EDIT 2: I've moved it to another Thread

Philosophy has taught me more about life than anything I have studied, or experienced. — Rob J Kennedy

That's an amazing thing to hear, and I say that as a professional philosopher. I can't believe that someone actually gets something that useful out of philosophy. It's honestly the most flattering thing that I have ever heard about my profession.

I'm trying to think of a Moorean answer to the OP's question but I can't think of any. That doesn't necessarily mean that there aren't any. Moorean answers, that is.

These are some of my favorites:

EDIT: I have moved the contents of this comment .

But then he added that ethics is fine, as if to appear less fanatic. — jkop

Smart move on his part. Nice.

My brain tells me that I'm thinking.

:rofl:

Does evidence prove everything? No. — javi2541997

Wait a minute, in the context of science as well as the world of lawyers, evidence does indeed constitute proof if certain conditions are met. Or do you disagree with that?

It is OK if you think I am in denial. — javi2541997

I don't think you are in denial. There is indeed a difference between the world of ordinary people like you and me, and the world of organized crime. I don't like mafias, for example. But I don't think that there's an "elite mafia" running the world. We (as in, the people who are not part of the criminal world) would have destroyed them by now. Or do you disagree with that?

But they are there, whether you accept their existence or not. — javi2541997

Ok. Is there at least one example? One person that belongs to that group?

What does your "gut" tell you?

@fdrake would you disagree with ? Does it make sense to you, or not?

The people who pull the strings in the dark don't play dice. :wink: — javi2541997

But who are they? Is Trump one of them? Is Dutton one of them? Is King Charles one of them? I don't think so. They're not "pulling the strings in the dark", as if they were some sort of secret, sinister minority that has diabolical plans for the human species. I just don't buy it. What evidence is there for such claims? I'm asking this as objectively as I possibly can.

Any discussions or thoughts about these aphorisms are welcome in this thread :smile: — Bob Ross

Hi Bob, quick question: is this Thread only for discussing or sharing our thoughts on those aphorisms, or are you inviting other people to mention their favorite aphorisms as well? Let's clear up that point just to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings.

Here are my two cents, for what it's worth.

Suppose (if only for the sake of argument) that an Artificial Intelligence becomes sentient. In that case, it will have something in common with human beings (sentience, subjectivity, whatever you want to call it) by not life. Why not? Because life has a precise meaning in biology. At the very least, a living being needs to have genetic material (i.e., DNA and/or RNA), and cellular organization (it must be a single-celled organism like a bacteria or a multi-cellular organism like an animal). No A.I. has DNA or RNA, nor are they composed of cells. In that sense, an A.I. is an inorganic object. It has something in common with stones in that sense, instead of having something in common with human beings. It is an intelligent and and yet lifeless, inorganic object. It would be as if a stone had intelligence and subjectivity, that's how I see it. And that, if it goes unchecked, can lead to all sorts of practical problems.

There's a lot of feeling to be together in Latin America than just being North American. — ssu

But it's just that: a feeling. If we give preference to Latin America over South America, then why wouldn't we take things one step further and give preference to Hispanoamérica, such that we exclude Brazil, Suriname, and the French-speaking regions? I prefer to bond over the land (i.e., the continent) than to bond over the language (i.e., Romance languages), but that's admittedly a personal choice.

Yet the most important question is, for what would you need Northamericanism? What is the narrative of it? Where do you use it? — ssu

"Northamericanism" is just an ugly word that I made up, in an attempt to refer to "North American Continentalism", which would be something like "The culture of the continent that runs from Alaska to the Panama Canal, including all of the Caribbean islands, such as Puerto Rico, Cuba, Jamaica, and Haiti, among others). Think of it like a "New York style melting pot", but at the continental level instead of the national level.

I'll take the loose definition of the Nordic Countries to explain this. First of all, it isn't Skandinavia, as Finland is not part of it and because when the idea of the Nordic countries emerged, the Baltic States belonged to the Soviet Union. Yet in order to have such a group, many things have to happen. — ssu

I don't recognize Scandinavia as a continent, if that's what you're asking. Scandinavia is just a group of three (very different) nations: Sweden, Norway, and Finland. The problem with "scandinavian-ism" is that it often turns into Borealism, which is the Northern equivalent to "Occidentalism" and Orientalism. It is, in some sense, "North-ism". Its opposite would be "Austral-ism" (as in, the Aurora Borealis vs the Aurora Australis). "Austral-ism" would be, in some sense, "South-ism". Being an Argentine, I have some things in common with Australians instead of Mexicans, since we're from the Southern Hemisphere. For a similar reason, being Argentine I have some things in common with Mexicans instead of Australians, since we're both from the Western Hemisphere. Argentina is South-West, Australia is South-East, while Mexico, the United States and Finland are North West. Yet, Mexico and the United states are part of the North American continent, while Finland is part of the European continent. Argentina is part of the South American continent, while Australia is part of the Oceanic continent. I don't recognize Australia as a continent, I recognize it as a country within a larger continent: Oceania (therefore, I don't think that Oceania is "just a region").

And above all, there ought to be a genuine feeling for borders being a needless division between friends. — ssu

Sure, I agree. To some extent, anyways.

Above all, there ought not to be any historical grunges and feeling that the other ones behind the border are totally different, even possibly a threat. — ssu

Yeah well, tell that to the "Swedish Death Metal vs Norwegian Black Metal" people, lol. You don't have that problem because Finnish metalheads have Finntroll and Nightwish, for example.

Not only with a bully like Trump, as his disrespect even towards Canada is evident, will there emerge anything like the idea of Northamericanism. Mexico lost huge amounts of territory in the Mexican-American war and the later US actions during the Mexican Civil War and afterwards is at the root of anxiety towards the "Gringos" in Mexico. And the imperialism that the US has shown earlier in Central American and in the Caribbean is there to be remembered. Trump's unabashed imperialist views that are meant to be a distraction only poke the fears and hatred towards the US. — ssu

Trump has quite a sizable group of Latin supporters, even within the United States of America, actually. Think of all of the republicans that happen to be from Spanish-speaking countries, or that have parents that came to the USA from one of the countries in question, such as the Cuban community in the state of Florida, for example. Not to mention his supporters in Puerto Rico.

And in the end, when states do have a national identity, this cannot be replaced. — ssu

Hmmm... I'm not sure if I understand this. What do you mean, when you say those words?

This is something that the EU ought to put more importance to than it does. The EU may have a flag, even a hymn, but it lacks at the present the ideological zeal and purpose. It isn't marketed to the member state citizens as it ought to be. The EU has never been marketed to the people as a savior from our bloody past seen from our history, but just as a technical bureaucratic institution that is good for commerce. Bureaucrats in Brussells won't do that. Their effect is the opposite. The EU-citizen hasn't been involved in the experiment, only the elites. — ssu

Well yes, no one says that continentalism is always effective, just as no one says that nationalism is always effective. If the European Union is Europe's best attempt at articulating European Continentalism, then it's not good enough, because if it was, people would have never even thought about Brexit as a concept, or even as "the right thing to do in such circumstances".

You said that you believe that you have good reasons to believe that the Absolute exists — Bob Ross

Yes, and I do. I have good reasons to believe that the Absolute exists. Because the current understanding of the Absolute is the one developed by Meillassoux, Harman, Grant, and Brassier. That's what I would say. Now, they don't agree as to what that Absolute actually is, but it can be summed up in the following way (which none of them would endorse, BTW): the Absolute is that which is less relative than the subject-object correlation. Think of the subject-object correlation as "relativism", and on the other side of that spectrum, you have "absolutism", as in, something that is not relative, to anything, not even to the subject-object correlation itself. It is truly "something else" in that sense. And it is, in my belief, identical to what Kant called "the thing-in-itself". This thing-in-itself can be thought (as Kant demonstrated), and it can also be known (as Mario Bunge and Daniel Z. Korman have demonstrated). Essentially, it boils down to the rejection of the following Debunking Argument:

(DK1) There is no explanatory connection between how we believe the world to be divided up into objects and how the world actually is divided up into objects.
(DK2) If so, then it would be a coincidence if our object beliefs turned out to be correct.
(DK3) If it would be a coincidence if our object beliefs turned out to be correct, then we shouldn’t believe that there are trees.
(DK4) So, we shouldn’t believe that there are trees. — Daniel Z. Korman

Korman himself rejects the premise DK1, and I agree with him: there is indeed an explanatory connection between facts and beliefs. And that connection, I would add, is an absolute one, not a relative one.

Perhaps this makes no sense to you, and perhaps your patience runs ever thinner in the presence of such words. Well, there is nothing that I can do for you there. I'm trying my best here. If that's not enough, then you'll have to find a better philosopher than me to explain to you why we, humans beings, have good reasons to believe that the Absolute exists.

not that you have good reasons to believe in the sense that Hegel means it. I then asked what good reasons you have for believing the Absolute exists in this non-Hegelian sense; and you answered that you mean the Absolute in the Hegelian sense. :roll: — Bob Ross

OK, let's disentangle this. There have been many concepts of the Absolute throughout history. One of the first ones was Hesiod's Xaos (Chaos). One of the latest ones is Heidegger's concept of Being. That is what I call the Absolute. The thing with the Hegelian version of this concept is that it is almost impossible to fully understand. After all, what is Sebastian Rödl doing, if not trying to wrap his own head around such a difficult philosophical concept? Indeed, it would be similar to what Meillassoux calls "factiality", since he believes that "factiality" is the Absolute. But he also says that the Absolute is hyper-Chaos, which I don't think exists. So, it is possible to say that some philosophers get it wrong when they theorize about the Absolute. Meillassoux gets it wrong, IMHO. Hegel seems to get it right, but it takes an intellectual the likes of Sebastian Rödl, not Arcane Sandwich, to explain it to someone like Bob Ross.

If you can't reconcile or acknowledge that blatant contradiction, then this conversation is over. — Bob Ross

So, have I reconciled or acknowledged that "blatant contradiction" with what I just said, yes or no?

If you can't reconcile or acknowledge that blatant contradiction, then this conversation is over. My patience is running thin with you, my friend. — Bob Ross

I'm just struggling to understand what you mean, Bob. My own beliefs seem quite clear and coherent to me, and when you ask me to explain them to you, your reaction strikes me as something along the lines of "I don't like your explanation, explain it differently". And I'm not sure that I can (explain it differently, that is). Let me think about the following words for a few minutes and I'll get back to you:

You said that you believe that you have good reasons to believe that the Absolute exists, but not that you have good reasons to believe in the sense that Hegel means it. I then asked what good reasons you have for believing the Absolute exists in this non-Hegelian sense; and you answered that you mean the Absolute in the Hegelian sense. :roll: — Bob Ross

You're not exactly asking me to explain to you why the sky is blue. Please understand that you're asking me a very difficult question here, and I need a few minutes to think about it, that's all.

Elites are the unknown persons who pull the strings in the dark with the aim of protecting the advantages of their privilege. — javi2541997

What evidence do we have that there are people doing that (pulling the strings in the dark)? Isn't that just a conspiracy theory?

It seems to me that the West has it better than the East — Bob Ross

Well yes, I might be wrong, of course, and you might be right. That goes without saying. All I'm saying is, that I, Arcane Sandwich, cannot see any meaningful difference between the concept of "Western Supremacy" and what may be called "Occidentalism", as distinct from Orientalism in Edward Said's sense of the term. Is Occidentalism a "real thing", or is it just Western Supremacy? I'm not sure. I think it is (the "same thing", that is), but I could be wrong.

So you think cultures are just different, not inferior or superior? — Bob Ross

I wouldn't say that. I don't believe in cultural relativism, or in ethical relativism. As you eloquently said yourself in the OP:

there is such a thing as having an inferior culture (e.g., the Nazis), and there is such a thing as having a view which should not be tolerated (e.g., a supporter of sex offenses). — Bob Ross

I agree with the intent of what you're saying here, but I'm not sure if I would use the term "inferior culture" or the term "should not be tolerated". I get what you're saying, and I agree with the underlying message, it just seems (to my mind) like an unfortunate choice of words. What I would say instead is that there is such a thing as evil, which applies to both the Nazis as well as the supporters of sex offenses.

Perhaps "evil" isn't the best word here, but I think it's better than "inferior" or "should not be tolerated".

Yeah, exactly. The classic battle between people and enterprises; we and them; the mass and the elite. Ah, beautiful. Isn't it? — javi2541997

I used to believe that, but it's a simplistic and reductionist thing to believe. I mean, where do you place the Royalty and the nobility in that analysis? Are they "the people"? Are they "the enterprises"? I guess you could say that they're "the elite", but they're not the same kind of elite that the enterprises are. I don't think that Lady Di, for example, was bad for the people of Wales. She was actually good for the Welsh people.

Where would one place the Pope in the classic battle between people and enterprises? Where would one place religion in general? Not just Christianity in general, not even Monotheistic religions in general. Where would one place religions like Hinduism or Buddhism in the "we and them, masses and the elite" battle?

All I'm saying is that the reality of politics cannot be reduced to the "mass vs the elite" battle, IMHO. I mean, some musicians (i.e., the Rolling Stones) and some athletes (i.e., Lionel Messi) are millionaires. Does that automatically turn them into oppressors of the poor? I don't think so.

for purpose of....( fill in your own word or phrase) — kazan

For the purpose of understanding how the Universe (Reality itself) itself works? Sounds good enough enough to my ear, at least.

A suggestion: self deprecating humour

hopeful smile — kazan

Self-deprecating humor in my own case? My very existence seems to be self-deprecating humor, at least part of the time.

Northamericanism? What is that? — ssu

It would be something along the following lines:

Note that Mexico is part of North America — ssu

Sure. And I would go even further: Central America, as well as the Caribbean, are part of the North American continent, in purely geographic terms. Central America is not a continent, nor is the Caribbean a continent. All of that is geographically part of North America, and so is Greenland. The problem begins when a particular country (i.e., the United States of America) wants to conquer another country in their own continent (i.e., Mexico, Greenland, etc.).

so why if logical with continentalism, then simply both South and North America? Mexico is actually very close to the US than to Europe. — ssu

Of course. That's what I'm saying. There are two "Americas", in purely continental terms: North America and South America. Those are the continents. By contrast, Latin America is not a continent, it's just a group of countries in which the inhabitants speak a language derived from Medieval Latin, such as Spanish (Castellano) in the case of Argentina, Portuguese in the case of Brazil, and French in the case of the French Guiana. Suriname (formerly known as the Dutch Guiana) would not be part of Latin America, since they speak Dutch. And the French Guiana is not even an independent country, it's essentially a French colony. South America, in contrast to Latin America, is indeed a continent, not just a group of countries that share a common language. Same as Europe, which is indeed a continent, and not a group of countries that share a common language. Same as North America. After all, California was part of Mexico in the past, and Louisiana was part of France.

And notice that many countries embrace that civic nationalism. Few truly embrace ethnic nationalism, like Israel does. — ssu

I don't believe in ethnic nationalism, really. But I do believe in civic nationalism.

Totally unrealistic thought, of course.

sad smile — kazan

Let me help you out there, fellow inhabitant of the Southern Hemisphere. A totally unrealistic thought is nothing to despise. As an Oceanian (or as an Australian) you might perhaps connect it to the concept of the Dreamtime. It is similar to what the ancient Greeks called Xaos (Chaos), it is the thing that existed before the gods, and it existed even before the titans. It is what Heidegger calls "Being", the stuff of poets and philosophers alike.

With all of that in mind, and even if it's scientifically incorrect, there is no reason to smile sadly about having a totally unrealistic thought. Quite the contrary, in fact. It should be reason enough to happily frown.