:up: But speculative philosophy is a no no. Or so I’ve been told.

My analogy was: if you reduce your pre-systematic notions of momentum to mass times velocity, at the obvious cost of sidelining all sorts of helpful pre-systematic notions of momentum and wider aspects of motion, you gain a powerful theory which you may even find develops and generalises to apprehend all of those other pre-systematic notions, including notions of inertia. I don't claim this is the actual historical sequence with mechanics. Just that any theory is, typically, reductive (we certainly don't insist it is complete), but we hope that it produces thereby a more complete and systematic view, long term. — bongo fury

Just to clarify, I’m not picking on you. I haven’t read the whole thread as I stopped after the OP and the first few responses. Then I picked it up again later on. If one were a psychiatrist or psychologist reading these discussions on this philosophy forum, one might conclude that ALL philosophy enthusiasts or philosophers have loose associations and thought disorders. Just how did we get here from where it all started? One might also conclude that such people ALL have mood disorders given the general moodiness on this forum. Then again, I may just be projecting.

Anyway, carry on.

What is a bicycle computer?

You can't say they are anything other than perfect. — Razorback kitten

Well, to me “perfection” is a value-laden term. I agree that atoms are, well, well-designed? Well-conceived? Adequate in their function? None of these seem right. Neither does “perfection.” Atoms just are.

Someone has to pick up your rubbish and stock your food, cook your bread and make all your clothes, long in advance of the day when you have enough time and luxury to sit back and think, "Why should an individual matter when there are so many different people in this world?" — Razorback kitten

Haha! So true! Existential despair is a luxury that a lot of people can’t afford.

That’s right. I seem to remember that discussion.

Fresco/Derrida claims meaning doesn't exist. I say it does. How can we both be right? — Harry Hindu

Not sure about Derrida. However, @fresco described how meaning could work. How he described its function is not inconsistent with other definitions of meaning. It’s just another mode of understanding meaning. If Derrida deconstructed meaning into nothingness (I’m just speculating as I’m not familiar with his philosophy) that is another manner, and it shouldn’t be analyzed through the Anglo-American analytic tradition as then his meaning would be missed.

Interesting. Thanks for bringing that to my attention!

I would disagree and say every atom is technically perfect unless you're lumping it in with light. — Razorback kitten

This is opinion, just as Sheik’s is an opinion. Of course opinions can disagree.

It may be an expression of despair, but there is no despair when nothing matters. — Fooloso4

Best answer so far.

what argument do you employ to justify that which is intrinsically valuable must physically exist in the present? — Mark Dennis

That indeed is the question.

It seems to me that some individuals are demanding collective consideration for their individual features, even those “features” conjured out of thin air, like the various freshly minted genders. — Bitter Crank

Have you met someone with, say, gender fluidity? There seem to be a not insignificant number of these people. If you have met some, have you tried to understand them first before passing this kind of judgment?

Edit: Gender is not the same thing as biological sex to these people. It is a social construct. You might want to argue against that if you disagree.

Why should an individual matter when there are so many different people in this world? Like a giant anthill swarming with unimportant individuals that will soon fade into nothingness. — DanielPhil

Individuals matter to themselves and the people who rely on them and/or love them. Individuals are not indispensable to the system, as someone else could easily take his or her place. However, an individual consciousness has intrinsic value to most. Also, individuals do not matter to the indifferent universe.

Yes. Opinions on Derrida tend to polarize due to his iconoclasm.
Have a go with Maturana. He doesn't do 'mind' or 'thinking'...only behavior. — fresco

To whom is this a reply?

I understand (I think) what each of you thinks meaning is. What I don’t understand is how you both can’t be right at the same time. I am dumb. We all can agree on that!

On the other hand, I know I detest Lima beans, so it is absolutely required that it be true Lima beans be something in order for me to know I detest them. When I was 6 it was 18 steps from my bed to the bathroom. When I was 16 it was 14 steps from my bed to the bathroom. The truths and the knowledges of each set of circumstances are exactly the same, but not so are all the states-of-affairs. — Mww

I think this helps explain your first paragraph, but I would need more of a demonstration or explanation with more examples to fully understand it. That is up to you whether you want to, of course.

When Kant talks of the universe in the context of his antinomies, he means the physical universe, i.e. the universe that humans perceive. Since humans cannot perceive infinity, the universe cannot be infinite. — Echarmion

Also, the antithesis that the universe is finite cannot be perceived. That is what makes it an antinomy.

Truth is conditioned by thought, knowledge is conditioned by possibility; both are conditioned by time — Mww

Could you flesh this out for me so I can understand it better?

Truth is conditioned by thought, knowledge is conditioned by possibility; both are conditioned by time. I don’t see as one will ever be a requirement for the other. Not all truths are known and not all knowledge is true.

On the other hand, I know I detest Lima beans, so it is absolutely required that it be true Lima beans be something in order for me to know I detest them. When I was 6 it was 18 steps from my bed to the bathroom. When I was 16 it was 14 steps from my bed to the bathroom. The truths and the knowledges of each set of circumstances are exactly the same, but not so are all the states-of-affairs.

One can talk about truth, or one can talk about knowledge, for days. But trying to put them together is a whole ‘nuther can of metaphysical worms. — Mww

You’ve given me a lot to think about.

I’m really not at all interested in this debate intellectually. I find it amusing, however.

You present a good argument. However, in the field of battle, an order may feel more like coercion than a choice.

Well played. :clap:

So, let me just ask you this (as I am having trouble with it): does a game with rules, such as basketball, have meaning outside of its meaningful value in personal taste/judgment to so many people? Because I think @alcontali might say that pure mathematics is a lot like basketball in that it is something like a game with rules.

:clap:

Though what do we do with this. Does this idea of yours preclude getting more information/comign to a closer model of reality? If it does't then how do we use the idea? How would one know you are correct, that we have reached the limit already`? How do know what future evidence will or will not refine about our knowledge and models? — Coben

My thoughts are often aligned with Janus’. I love Kant.

We can always learn more about the physical world as it is presented to our reason, but reason cannot give us the things in themselves, or noumena. The noumenal world is inherently out of bounds from our perceiving minds.

I know mine represents a minority view but will generally attempt to argue for it and defend it. — Wayfarer

I think you’re doing fine.

The antinatalist seems to completely ignore the fact that the vast majority of conceptions are unintentional. Do antinatalists differ on abortion?

Edit: well maybe not a vast majority. I’m not sure on that, but they are very common.

Arbitrary stuff invariably allows for lots of mischief; which, again, I am not necessarily up in arms against, because from my lazy chair, I enjoy letting the laws of nature run their course. — alcontali

Only complete maniacs such as myself or 5 sigma geniuses such as yourself have the luxury of letting the laws of nature run their course. :wink:

Conservatives spend plenty, and all they have to do is divert a few billion from weapons systems to Central American Reconstruction (or some such moniker. — Bitter Crank

That’s true, but as a Democrat or Democratic-leaning person, I was working under the assumption that we actually had to pay for these things and not just put it on Uncle Sam’s credit card. I seemed to forget how Republican minds work.

Following orders is not an excuse to be ignorant. — Possibility

Unfortunately, as in nearly all domains of human experience, there will be ignorance and the ignorant. Even many mathematicians are ignorant of constitutional law, for example. Are soldiers, who as a plurality seem to come from poor and underprivileged communities with underperforming educational systems, to be held to the same standard as the physician in ethical concerns? I’m not sure.

Furthermore, any American should feel gratitude to the all volunteer military for protecting our homeland. It is a great sacrifice. That said, soldiers are sent into questionable wars all the time. Politicians should be held to a higher ethical standard than the common GI.

These are my thoughts on the subject.

:lol: Is everything going okay? Your dog didn’t die, I hope.

My interpretation of the antimonies is that reason is limited by experience (not to say that reason is derived from experience), so one cannot through reason or experience determine the truth of the thesis or the antithesis. I may be wrong.

I have that need as well.

Not sure how I inferred that you were a psychiatrist. I infer a lot about people when I shouldn’t. A lot of the time I’m right, though. It’s a defense mechanism I’ve developed as a means to not be taken advantage of... or maybe as a means to figure out people’s intentions.

If these are his beliefs then I do not see how it furthers the argument that he understands people, it just means that they are all motivated by fear and resentment, including Trump. Trump knows it plays well, but that does not mean he understands people, just that he is encouraged by their approval. — Fooloso4

Maybe. Or maybe it’s both? I tend to think it’s both that he’s a racist prick and that he understands that there is a large proportion of the country that he can string along.

Psychiatrists know how to be the biggest pricks of all. Many choose not to be most of the time, but I had one once who said he hoped I’d kill myself. :lol:

I think we struggle to understand and therefore discover the world at this level, and instead feel compelled to position all interactions in relation to our perspective of value - particularly moral value. And so everything must be positioned somewhere within our own value structure, otherwise it cannot be deemed to exist.

Until very recently, and in other discussions here, I struggled with what I considered to be a dual concept of ‘meaning’: that even though I cannot decipher the meaning of something, it is still meaningful. But I think recognising that elements of the world can matter without being significant to me is the key. I don’t have to evaluate every interaction with the world from my perspective in order to understand it exists in the world, just as I don’t have to touch something or to be there myself to understand that it’s real.

Can we recognise something we deem to be insignificant or worthless as something that matters in the world without then deriving some position of value for it? — Possibility

This is very well said. I suppose I was looking for more responses like this... but then that would be imposing my values on the discussion instead of allowing it to grow organically. :wink:

Subject specific morality? :) :) — James Pullman

You’re right. Discuss what you like I suppose.

I have all of the traits you describe plus more that are negative.

Good traits that I have? I suppose that I’m empathetic much of the time. I find a lot of things humorous. I’m curious, and I have good relationships (though not many).

This thread is getting way off topic. Recognizing and accepting that there is the Other, that the Other lives in our communities, that we should engage with the Other (because there will always be an Other) and try to understand and learn from them; lest our beliefs and ideas become stagnant (like lizards of the mind). Through learning and synthesizing ideas from the Other, progress becomes possible.

There is no cabal that is pulling the strings and pulling the wool over our eyes. There are only and have always been opportunists. Opportunists who passed on their legacies through the generations, maybe, but there is no conspiracy aimed at keeping you in the dark and powerless.