thx my guy

The US doesn't have an illustrious past, and instead has a history of struggling to survive. American white supremacism is directly related to fears about the survival of "white culture" and America itself amidst the stresses of becoming multi-racial.

Tbh I think that this is a general narrative among all white supremacists. Europe sure has an illustrious past, yet white supremacists there echo the same narrative with a sprinkle of "white genocide".

2. The fine tuner’s environment must be fine tuned for life so that implies another fine tuner — Devans99

Am I dumb or how is the second proposition valid at all? If the fine tuner is an omnipotent deity (and take any form), why would it need to be "fine tuned for life"?

My claim is not that Stoics are therapists, or that Stoicism is therapy, but that it is either therapy, or a collection of true, but banal ethical injunctions (such as 'be good'), or controversial but false claims, such as that guilt is irrational and that wrongdoing is a product of ignorance.

In reality, Stoics flit between these - that is, they may defend a controversial ethical claim - such as that all wrongdoing is a product of ignorance - by appeal not to evidence (as a true philosopher would), but by appeal to the supposed therapeutic benefits that may come from believing it.

You're essentially appealing to a dog-whistle. I'm willing to entertain that stoicism is heuristical in nature but I don't think that's inherently bad. After all, stoicism has done much to help the development of cognitive-behavioral therapy, and that would not have been possible if stoicism was completely devoid of profound ideas. Also, a therapeutical motivation doesn't necessarily have any bearing on the quality of the philosophy.

Stoicism surely can't be merely therapy. The stoic ideas were formulated with a metaphysical doctrine in mind. It is the relation between the therapy and the metaphysics that effectively makes stoicism a philosophy.

A natural world doesn't necessarily entail determinism. Even though natural laws exist, they are excruciatingly difficult to find. For every attempt to formulate them we need to apply endless scrutiny to make sure that we are right. Subsequently, the future is uncertain which logically discards determinism.

It seems that our definitions are different. I agree with Popper that science is merely critical mythmaking. Atheism and naturalism are both ideas that weren't fully developed until the 19th century. I think it's a mistake to think that any of these two foundational ideas were incremental for the development of science. Definitely for materialism and other metaphysical philosophies that are held by many scientists, but not science itself. Many of the ancient scientists had God in mind when developing their ideas, although that didn't prevent them to do science.

I have determined that this is the appropriate definition, although I agree that sometimes it's extremely difficult to determine when an action infringes on someone's freedom.

I was a huge JBP-head 5 months ago so I might've "rage-quitted" on you. But now I see that you were right about him.

Freedom is the ability to exercise any activity that doesn't impede upon anyone else's freedom.

God and Canada are both equally valid heuristics for moral guidance and community. People can get together and decide that they exist to make life easier and more comfortable. Different renditions of these heuristics and completely different ones can all compete with each other in the world of wisdom.

The Never Ending Story and Momo and the Time Thieves are great books and I found them very thought-provoking when I was younger. Metaphysical problems like "what is time" are heavily prevalent.

I agree that he's not a top notch philosopher, but this argument is also psychological in nature. Can you elaborate on what I've misunderstood exactly?

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. What's important is that I myself find meaning (in my career, family, learning etc.) so that I won't fall into an endless pit of nihilism.

I didn't think of that. I guess that kind of solves the dilemma.

How about cancer or other diseases affecting the genes? If DNA is the primary predictor of individuality wouldn't that person be biologically changed in such a manner that they're not the same anymore (especially if said mutation/condition has large implications on appearance and/or personality)?

I think that memories are perhaps our only feature that persists over time to some extent. To what extent is a mystery. — Wallows

The extent may even be infinite, considering the existence of history. One may regard history as a collection of memories reaching back to the dawn of humanity.

A good author to look at is Michael Ende. I think he employs some of the most sophisticated and profound philosophical ideas in such simplicity that even a child can understand. Check out 'Momo' and 'The Never Ending Story', they'll provide you with plenty of inspiration.

There is no dilemma. Unlimited tolerance equates to complete indifference - to being an immobile lump. Nobody that has thought about it advocates unlimited tolerance. — andrewk

Well, how would you explain the likes of the hypertolerant post-modernists? They sure as hell aren't "immobile lumps"
.

It's simply a populist agenda that has taken hold in the Midwestern middle class because of their diminishing status on the global market. Examples are how Trump is "bringing back coal and steel". Many Blue Collar Americans become entrenched in this movement out of desperation and subsquently become ideologically possesed.

I think you’re misunderstanding my argument. I’m not advocating for anyone’s academic freedom to be taken away. After all, there are Marxists and Creationists at many universities and it’s not like I want them banned off campus. However, because of the Popperian influence of the sciences, these people are criticised beyond belief and noone takes their theories seriously. (Creation scientists have some of the least amount of notation of all scientific groups.) This is because people are providing sound and rational arguments, which I agree with you is the right way to go.

If we were to apply Feyerabend’s doctrine of science to the academies however, we would have a problem. The poor scientific performance of these pseudoscientists could be rationalized by ”pluratiy of method” and ”anything goes”. Science would infected by improductive forces. That is my primary concern.

Also, I feel as if you’re being very uncharitable about what could be considered useful. In my opinion, anything that brings us closer to the truth is fundamentally useful, which includes philosophy, language study and the Humanities.

exactly.

considering the surge of popularity attributed to both Kuhn and Feyerabend (who where fierce anti-Popperians). I wouldn't say it's a banality. Nonetheless, Popper still deserves credit for reinvigorating old ideas.

well, along as universities are publicly funded I don't want my taxes to go to something that will ultimately lacks usefullness. Science is about solving problems, but Marxism nor Creationism solve problems: they merely provide explanations taken directly from their ideological framework (which is essentially a set of conclusions). Basically, their work festers in confirmation bias, which I think would be dangerous for academia and civilization as whole.

The crucial issue is the Computional Theory of Mind. If you accept that theory, you subsequently accept the existence of intelligent machines.

I realize that his intent was to multiply knowledge by multiplying metod, but his unwillingness to outline what science is is a huge issue. If Feyerabend's ideas were to be applied to the scientific enterprise, things with merely heuristical (if even that) use would appear a lot more in the academies like Marxist Science, Creation Science and Astrology.

I see no reason to believe only the human mind should be capable of generating experience, it is no different or more complex to many systems in the universe. — Xav

It is though. According to all credible science, the human brain is the most advanced cognitive structure on Earth (if you accept CTM at least partly). Speculating about a hypothetical alien mind I find meaningless, so what is your point exactly? Isn't the burden of proof on the holistic organicists to prove the existence of their universal mind entity?

The problem with Feyerabend is that his doctrine is heuristically destructive. If we were to apply his ideas to how we conduct ourselves, how could we ever know anything? Feyerabend provides no principle to differentiate between science and pseudoscience which possibly throws us into a fruitless limbo of anti-knowledge.

modern science does follow Popper's ideas to some extent. The critical discussion around science today is exactly as Popper described: people trying to falsify eachother's theories.

completely agree. The biological aspects of Popper's writing is what I found the most interesting. There's seems to be a lot of people that think he's a status quo shill with no radical ideas, but it's just not true.

While it is true that physical processes provide a restricted framework for our actions, it also true that this framework merely provides probabilities but not certainties (in most cases). For example, it would be ludicrous to claim that an introverted person could never perform an extroverted action, it would only happen at lower frequencies. The introverted person may raise this frequency to the best of their ability, which is essentially what free will is. This is what I mind is the biggest problem with determinism, in that it provides such an unnuanced view of processes and completely rejects the concept of actors in a framework.

why would you follow your heart in this instance? Wouldn't using reason be more helpful for solving metaphysical problems? I understand that this idea might have an entertaining/aesthetic quality which could justify its pursuance (I share that sentiment with you), but ultimately in everyone's best interest we should all try to align our beliefs with the facts as much as possible (which in turn stem from reason).

It only depends on if the central impact of the moral system is fundamentally neutral, negative or positive. I'd say the mere act of eating animal products is neutral, while being a child rapist is actively negative.

The neutral-positive relationship is inherently different to a neutral-negative relationship, in that the neutral actor can point out that they themselves don't do the negative acts that are carried out be the negative actor. A positive actor can't look at neutral actor in the same way though, because the neutral person can declare their voluntary choice and say that as long as their actions aren't directly negative, they are free to do whatever.

Subsequently, the positive actor has to proclaim the neutral actor as a negative one, in order to combat them intellectually, which leads to that moral grandstanding which you describe.

I think you're unknowingly stumbling into Aristotilean teleologism, which is an unfalsifiable idea (and thus holds no merit).

There's no way for me to know if the rock I'm throwing is doing so because "it wants to" along with omnipotent mind of the universe. These spiritual entities are not possible to discern from experiment, they have to be established a priori, which is a signifier of pseudoscience. Everything points to that rocks can't think, but even if they could, they would have no means of communicating it to us.

The idea that of a teleological and "conscious" universe is just a heuristical layer we apply to the world to avoid confusion. We do that because of our tendency to attribute meaning to things to orient ourselves in the world.