I think if something is “absolutely true” it is not useful. For example “There cannot be a square circle” is absolutely true, but also completely obvious and useless information. The only things that can be true always are true by definition which makes them useless. — khaled

The only absolute truth is immediacy, which ironically enough, is impossible to show objectively (thereby rendering it positively factual).
I would argue that truth-as-such is of critical importance to the particular subject of immediacy in question.

And you are mistaken, absolute truth is not the same thing as absolute fact. That there "cannot be a square circle” is NOT absolute truth, it is an absolute fact of geometry - a mathematical truth.

black knights' lives matter

Living with no legs doesn't really sound like the better option. At least decapitation is a really cool death, and living headless (hypothetically speaking) is also a very appealing prospect.

Either way we are gonna bleed to death! — Maw

Exactly.

Cant you just puncture it by denying God? — frank

God is not necessary for idealism. But the notion of God is quite coherent and rational from an idealist perspective.

I cast my ballot today, and y'all will all be relieved that as to the presidential race, I voted for nobody, which I do believe will be better than either of the candidates. — Hanover

I salute you :up:

I voted for nobody ...
— Hanover
Aka "whoever wins". — 180 Proof

Nobody is going to win here...we are all losers in this one.

Certainly this is the idealist and pansychist's view of things. — schopenhauer1

Absolutely. They are definitely hard perspectives to argue against.

What are mental states, and what are they in relation to physical states? — schopenhauer1

The problem is that physical states are always reducible to just another mental state. There is nothing necessary about a physical state, it is merely a notion that mind projects upon the raw substance of experience...if we call it "matter", it is the mind doing so.

The true nature of things being apparently inaccessible, let's focus on how we perceive mental phenomena, and perhaps how we can explain our perceptions of them. — Olivier5

This begs the question: whether or not "mental phenomenon" qualifies as an object of perception? Even if we arrive at an adequate answer for how we percieve mental phenomenon, and can explain those perceptions, we would simply be pushing the problem farther down the line. We'd only be able to explain the true nature of our perception of mental states as we percieve it, as an object of perception (as it is for us, and not what it is in itself)...in the end, we get nowhere that hasn't already been gotten.

I don't see any triangle, but I do see three pacmans

But providing such a definition, to be fair, is not up to Dennett, if he is rejecting them, but up to their advocates. — Banno

That does not follow. Terrible reasoning. What good is it to analyze or critique some notion or concept without comprehending it fundamentally? I agree, there is no better source than the advocate, but if the advocate cannot provide an adequate definition for us to work with, we are all just making shit up - masturbation my friend.

I believe that there is some authority on qualia, who is the first philosopher to mention it? It would be more philosophical to address that person's ideas. My goal here is edification - to quine quining.

If you want a fuckbuddy, try Tinder. I care as little about your existence as you do about the million that died from the disease you continue to downplay. Deal with it and piss off. — Baden

Who's looking for a fuckbuddy?

If you're making claims about the metaphysical, does that show you're a believer? — frank

Making metaphysical claims does not show that one is a believer. Strictly speaking, there is no actual way to show (to prove) that one is in fact a true believer. Even claiming oneself to be a believer, or practicing religious ritual, does not show that one holds actual religious belief.
This is because everyone else has only indirect access to that person's belief via his actions and words. Only the believer himself can know, with any certainty, whether he is truly religious since he is the only person with direct access to his own belief.

Lol.

I speak in that accent in all of my posts on TPF.

My impression is that many people use the term "fascist" inappropriately. What they're trying to convey is someone is conveying a point of view that is similar to that of the guy who wrote these words
— Relativist

Maybe. I just really mean fascism. — StreetlightX

I always thought "fascist" emerged, loosely speaking, from Hegelianism --- that the spearhead of evolutionary progress, as the expression of absolute will, would rise to the surface of all phenomenonal existence as a supreme species or race. A state based on such an ideology would look an awful lot like the Nazis. Also, the idea of "state" was a critical component of phenomenology.

Sometimes I wonder where the Great philosophers got their pharmaceutical tech from. How else did they think up that shit?

In your case I believe that less pharmaceutical technology would be most beneficial. — praxis

Lol. You know me too well!

Might I add, more might be beneficial for you.

In your case I believe that pharmaceutical technology would be most efficacious. — praxis

Love pharmaceutical technology!

I think the duality is not between mind and matter in that sense, but that instead intelligence, or reason, or what was known in the earlier philosophical tradition as nous, is 'that which perceives things as they truly are'. But, taking a leaf from nondualist philosophy of mind, this faculty is itself never the object of perception, and as today's empiricism wishes to ground itself wholly in objects of perception, then as far as it is concerned, this is a faculty that can't be accounted for, or doesn't really exist. There are of course many open questions left by that account, but considering the nature of the subject, this is preferable ... — Wayfarer

Nice! I'm never disappointed.

To add...the modern view (so to speak), was attempting to comprehend the existence of other minds. In my opinion, it can be correlated directly to the nature of modern doubt. The classic view seems to have taken for granteed the assumption that nous was universal to species, and in need of no extrapolation. Of course, classic doubt was more dialectical (less reductionist and eliminativist). Anyways, "fly in a bottle", the question of "objective minds" is one of the funniest board games ever invented.

Hard determinism...? — Banno

Only when I'm with my lady...cheers matey!

Even if a moral law were indisputably laid down by the good lord, it would remain open for people to choose to obey or not. — Banno

First of all, "good lord" is the greatest of contradictions, such a thing is less likely than a hexahedronical sphere.

The believer believes that he has only one viable choice, even though he recognizes that there is more than one choice (many wrongs, but one right). It is paradoxical in that the believer chooses, even though he has no choice. But on deeper examination, the right "choice" of the believer becomes indisputable for him. Nothing can tell against it, no reason can be considered, morality to the believer is eternal law.

The "choice" of the nonbeliever, can be explained better, and to me or you it definitely makes more sense from a practical standpoint, like doing things together. And as we know nothing is more stubborn or divisive than religious conviction, and rightly so. But none of that matters to the believer.

Who's George Floyd?
— Merkwurdichliebe

A famous victim. — frank

Not that famous. I know who James Brown is. Wait he's not a victim, nevermind

(Reginald Denny is the funniest victim, no offense to any victims)

For the nonbeliever, the metaphysical is only words we use for various reasons.
— Merkwurdichliebe

Isnt that a metaphysical statement? — frank

You'll have to explain what you mean by "metaphysical statement".

I would definitely call it a statement about the metaphysical, even a claim about one actor's relation to the metaphysical.

I think it has to do with love. As if: when we light candles for George Floyd, can we light one for all the others who have been forgotten? Like that. — frank

Who's George Floyd?

Infinite candles is a very poetic concept, but I think each person should light a candle to "his-self", the greatest tragedy one will ever experience.

And "love" is entirely metaphysical. That is in contrast to "blasting some pussy" and "making an army" yo! One more distinction....the metaphysical is only for the believer. For the nonbeliever, the metaphysical is only words we use for various reasons.

belief in god accrues no virtue. — Banno

For the unbeliever, true. For the believer, not true. There are definitely things that separate the believer and the nonbeliever. One of those things is that morality comes from god.

I have a thing for silent, forgotten victims. I dont guess it's really a matter of morality, though. Actually I dont know what it is — frank

If nothing else, its definitely cool. And being reasonless, we can ask if you believe it to be an incontrovertible truth or not? If so, I would call such a belief "religious in nature", but not necessarily religious as such, that is, holding such a belief will not make you a believer.

Merkwurdichliebe
I think morality is a massive engine of emotion. Take away the absolutes and things get sketchy. — frank

I would not disagree, whether religious or not, morality is definitely a matter of passion. Whether it goes one way or the other depends on the reason versus faith.

And that is the key distinction. The believer believes in something absolute, absolutely. Whereas the nonbeliever believer doesn't.

Do you reject this plot? Or would the murder be ok in this case? — frank

By the criterion of the nonbeliever, it is ok. By the criterion of the believer, it isn't. Keep 8n mind, this is an extremely simplistic answer

When your stranded on the lowest tier of philosophical acumen, everything becomes a brick wall.

So a personal insult is an improvement on special pleading in your moral system. — Banno

Personal insult? I wasn't personally insulted.

And you haven't demonstrated evidence of special pleading in the case you specify. You have merely made an allegation. Where specifically is the special pleading?

I predict you will not answer, but keep whining about your inability to comprehend.

Huh? Are you saying something? Rubbish

Liberal education is education for good moral judgment and it results in a much higher morality and has done far more for humanity than religion. Our life span has doubled and in the US few die of starvation, and if they stopped listening to their preachers and Trump, they would stop spreading a deadly virus! Life long liberal education is far superior to being dependent and as a child who must be rewarded or punished to do the right thing. — Athena

You are kinda getting off topic. There's no reason liberals can't be the most moral people ever. I personally think all those ideologies like liberalism, conservatism &c. are antiquated shit. fit for inferiors and clods. But I could be wrong, it's a terrible tragedy.

We have advanced civilization

I strongly disagree

I am afraid "believers" hold many false ideas.

That's obvious, they're believers! Lol

Oh no! Little banno is upset. Somebody get him his bottle before he starts whining.

Why isn't this equally true of the believer? They also have a choice, to believe or no. But in their case they pretend that they hand the responsibility over to someone else.

The argument you present here reeks of special pleading — Banno

I didn't say it wasn't true of the believer. Did I?

Whenever I plead to you it is special, and it is special because it reeks for you.

What you miss in this analysis is that the religious person still has to choose. They are not in a different position to the non-religious in that regard. So if the choice of a non-believer is in some way arbitrary, so is the choice of the believer.

You cannot avoid responsibility for your moral choices by blaming god — Banno

I don't think you understood me, maybe I didn't explain it clearly enough. I forgot about your intellectual handicap, let me dumb it down for your. The choice of the believer IS arbitrary for the nonbeliever, but for the believer the choice is of vital interest, because it affects his place in eternity, a thing he believes in. For a nonbeliever, his choice is arbitrary in the sense of its triviality, afterall, his decision is only pertinent to the context to which it relates, it has no relevance beyond that. This means the believer actually believes he will be held responsible for every decision, whereas the nonbeliever believes he will be held responsible only for the decisions that hold weight in relation to a particular context.

Okay, let us address dogma and authority.

dog·ma
/ˈdôɡmə/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: dogma; plural noun: dogmas

a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. — Athena

Good. I wonder...of an authority that lays down a principle as inconvertably true, would that authority have the authority to convert said principle into something else? Or would the incontrovertability of the principle trump the authority? I wonder. There seems to be a disparity between authority and principle, one must needs outweigh the other.

What does one study to be a religious authority?

I don't know.

What does one study to understand reality?

I don't know.

[/quote]I think science and the liberal arts give us much better moral judgment than the God of Abraham religions... Democracy is self government and it is everyone's responsibility to serach for truth. This is totally different from relying on authority above the people.

This issue of authority is a screaming problem right now and lives are on the line.[/quote]

I think both give us shit for morality. And democracy is a system for the weak and inferior - it's a a game for ignorant mobs, as evince by the 2020 presidential election.

But I like that you are working on becoming your own authority. Keep it up.

The key is that religious belief is a conviction, impossible to change by any other notion or reasoning.
— Merkwurdichliebe

Ok, sorry, not really meaning offense or trying to start a food fight, nothing personal intended, but this is just rubbish. — Hippyhead

No worries, you're all good. But you are only telling me your subjective preference. Why is it the case that religious belief is not impossible to change by any other notion or reasoning? I would say that is the very thing that separates religious belief (of the believer), from the nonreligious belief (of the nonbeliever). How is this not the case? I'm curious.

Well, words have whatever meaning we assign them. But, to address your question, as a start I would offer that religion is about our relationship with reality, whereas other methodologies such as science concern themselves with facts about reality. — Hippyhead

So we'd better do a good job assigning that meaning.

I agree more or less. I might say: religion pertains to a direct relation to existence and is quite simple sounding, and the non-religious pertains to an interpretation or abstraction of reality and it gives us an indirect relation to existence.

First, discussion of religion can be greatly improved on philosophy forums if we can get past the extremely common assumption that religion is almost exclusively about belief, ideological assertions. — Hippyhead

I understand religion to be about many things - there is no question that religion is multifaceted.
Perhaps you could enlighten me. What is more fundamental to religion than belief?

Next, it seems to me that, generally speaking, there is considerable more acceptance of doubt in religious communities than is typically demonstrated by atheists and philosophers.

Religious communities often doubt sound science. Is that what you mean?

As one example, the Catholic saint Mother Teresa spoke honestly about the deep doubts that she experienced. I don't see that happening too often with atheist philosophers.

I would say philosophy begins with doubt. And nobody has done philosophy without first doubting.

And, from the athiests I've conversed with, I would call them some of most skeptical people to ever walk the earth.

And about Mother Teresa, she may have doubted, and doubted deeply, but she was a believer (according to the accounts). Take Steven Hawking, a known athiest, he had beliefs about things, but he wasn't a believer.

BTW, in case it matters, I'm not religious.

No, it doesn't matter.

I don't think you answered the question. What is being judged, the person or the act? — Athena

For the believer, ethical judgement falls upon both. The decision and the person are inseparable. An ethical decision is a matter of will, it cannot be accidental or unintended, hence the decision cannot be taken back or done over.
The only recourse from a wrong decision is tied into his individual eschatology, that is why concepts like forgiveness, sacrifice, repentance &c. are so important to believers.

For the nonbeliever. It is only the act that is judged. Even reputations are built upon cummulative acts, so that one with a bad reputation has it merely on account of perpetrating acts which disagree with other people. In contrast, each moment of ethical decisiveness is vital to the believer's repututaion, but not with other people, rather, with himself and his eternal judge, for one wrong decision could potentially result in eternal damnation.

Hope I answered it better.

Lying is another example. Most of us get away with a lie or two, but this destroys trust, and once trust is destroyed, a lot more goes wrong. Or worse a person's lies can result in the deaths of millions of people. Our wrongs affect others and can even impact life in a big way. — Athena

This is a great example. For the nonbeliever, that which makes trust inherently right is that one can list reasons. But one can list reasons for lying as well. Then we must go to the reasons to see what they say. Ultimately, for the nonbeliever, there can be nothing inherently right or wrong, it all hinges on reason. Then we can go even further and list reasons for our reasons. In ethical argument between two nonbelievers (one who is truthful, and one who is a liar), concessions and exceptions will be made on each side for the rightness of truthfulness and lying - hence the relativism of morality for the nonbeliever.

This also highlights the character of dogmatism, that the believer needs no reason for his morality - it is a self-evident truth as far as he is concerned. I think this is what pisses off nonbelievers most about believers.

How many people died because the tobbacco industry lied? What is the affect of the oil industry lying about the consequences of extracting and burning oil? A limited consciousness that leaves a person to believe s/he can away with lying is a terrible thing. — Athena

People got rich during their own lifetimes, from tobacco and oil, I'm sure they thought it was the right thing to do. And, I agree that a person who believes he can away with lying is, indeed, a terrible person. But I doubt such a person, one who sincerely holds to that morality, thinks so.

Lying is another example. Most of us get away with a lie or two, but this destroys trust, and once trust is destroyed, a lot more goes wrong. Or worse a person's lies can result in the deaths of millions of people. Our wrongs affect others and can even impact life in a big way. — Athena

This is a great example. For the nonbeliever, that which makes trust inherently right is that one can list reasons. But one can list reasons for lying as well. Then we must go to the reasons to see what they say. Ultimately, for the nonbeliever, there can be nothing inherently right or wrong, it all hinges on reason. Then we can go even further and list reasons for our reasons. In ethical argument between two nonbelievers (one who is truthful, and one who is a liar), concessions and exceptions will be made on each side for the rightness of truthfulness and lying - hence the relativism of morality for the nonbeliever.

This also highlights the character of dogmatism, that the believer needs no reason for his morality - it is a self-evident truth as far as he is concerned. I think this is what pisses off nonbelievers most about believers.

How many people died because the tobbacco industry lied? What is the affect of the oil industry lying about the consequences of extracting and burning oil? A limited consciousness that leaves a person to believe s/he can away with lying is a terrible thing. — Athena

People got rich during their own lifetimes, from tobacco and oil, I'm sure they thought it was the right thing to do. And, I agree that a person who believes he can away with lying is, indeed, a terrible person. But I doubt such a person, one who sincerely holds to that morality, thinks so.

These are reasonable concerns, but "shining a light" on them will not get a majority to agree these are problems, much less agree on how to solve them. — Relativist

You are probably correct. Nevertheless, it is as though those issues are hiding in plain sight. Everybody knows about them and can see what's happening, but we never hear anything substantial about it from our leaders. Until it becomes a concern for them, for instance if it affects their chances to be elected, we will never see any attempt at a solution to the big issues.