Recycling souls in samsara! Makes sense to me! — Agent Smith

Precisely!

only thing I've read is Kierkegaard's "Repetition - An Essay in Experimental Psychology".

he also says something interesting in Philosophical Crumbs:

we encounter the difficulty that Socrates draws attention to in the "Meno" as a ‘trick argument’, that it is impossible for a person to seek what he knows and equally impossible for him to seek what he does not know; because what he knows he cannot seek, because he knows it, and what he does not know he cannot seek, because he does not know what he should seek. Socrates ponders this difficulty and suggests as a solution that all learning and seeking are merely recollection, so that the ignorant person needs only to be reminded, in order by himself to recollect what he knows. The truth is thus not imparted to him, but was in him. Socrates develops this further in a way that concentrates the pathos of Greek thought, in that it becomes a proof for the immortality of the soul, though— and this is important — retrogressively, that is, a proof of the preexistence of the soul. This shows with what wonderful consistency Socrates was true to himself and realized artistically what he had understood. He was and remained a midwife; not because he ‘lacked the positive’,* but because he understood that this was the highest relationship one person could have to another. And in this he is eternally correct. Because even if there is ever given a divine point of departure, between one person and another this remains the true relationship, provided one reflects on the absolute and does not fool around with the contingent, but from the bottom of his heart renounces any understanding of the half-truth that seems to be man’s desire and the system’s secret. — Kierkegaard

That's why I wished to take nonexistence out of the calculus by proposing we assume people exist before they're born on Earth. — Agent Smith

And, recycling souls makes for an efficient universe and leaves enough space in hell for everybody, if necessary :naughty:

are you familiar with Kierkegaard's concept of repetition? It's a very interesting take on Socratic recollection.

I think that's a different point.Socrates' claim is that (some?) knowledge is accessed via recollections of past lives. — Janus

That is the popular interpretation. But I've never seen any indication that is what he actually meant, at least not in the works of Plato. The more mundane interpretation is: to know something means you are capable of recollecting it...and I must admit, there are things I have fogotten that I no longer know about.

I don't think we can know the future (in general). I'm claiming we know that which we have a successful model of. The success obviously requires testing in the present. — Isaac

Which can, at best, give us a more or less arbitrary approximation of the future, never any certainty.

Hey thanks for clearing that up, then. — Wayfarer

Piece of cake. :kiss:

Avoid beauty (pulchrum), you hairy beast! Alack, it's too late for me! I've already tasted flesh!

↑ My attempted at a joke! — Agent Smith

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Made me laugh

How to do philosophy?

By using our brains (truth) & hearts (good) [Xin (heart-mind)]. Wisdom (sophia) is knowing what is true (verum) and what is good (bonum). — Agent Smith

Abstinence :blush:

The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. — Wigner

I say: The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of extension and duration for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve.

There are interminable arguments in philosophy of mathematics as to whether maths is invented or discovered, whether it's in the mind of humans or is something real in the world. — Wayfarer

And that debate is no different than the debate of whether space and time are only a construct of the mind or have external existence.

But I'm saying the regularities and rational relationships inhere within the conscious experience-of-the-world - so it's neither 'in the mind' nor 'in the world', and that this indicates a deep philosophical issue. — Wayfarer

I agree, its a very deep philosophical issue. It doesn't help when you speak in riddles. You mention "regularities and rational relationships inhere within the conscious experience-of-the-world", and then say "so it's neither 'in the mind' nor 'in the world'". I always thought the mind was associated with "conscious experience".

So then, where is this "conscious experience-of-the-world" if it is not in the mind nor the world?

Solipsism maybe? No, that can't be

There is no point questioning memory as such; if we have no faith at all in memory, then we can have no faith in any knowledge at all. Memory is the foundation of who we are, to question it in a general way would be absurd. — Janus

We cannot know something we can't remember. Socrates was correct.

mathematics conforms to formal structures within conscious experience and so overcomes the perceived separation between observer and observed that seems to be a basic fact of existence, but is actually not. — Wayfarer

Does mathematics overcome the perceived separation? It seems to me that it feeds into the illusion of a separation by treating extension and duration objectively, when they properly belong to the a priori structure of the mind.

Space and time have their actuality in our immediacy, yet they are mediated through mathematics, which also belongs to the immediate (apriori) structure of the mind, and they ultimately come to appear as something separate - something external that we apprehend and manipulate, when it is actually, to put it crudely, simple masturbation.

Oh no, are you adopting 180 Proof's {idiolect?} :chin: — Noble Dust

:lol:

Do I know the meaning of absolute properties and properties of relation? Honestly, no. — A Christian Philosophy

The former are properties that are imutable and self evident, the latter are relativistic - contingent on their relation to other things.

properties of relation are: Paternity, Filiation, Procession and Spiration. — A Christian Philosophy

Not so sure what procession and spiration are specifically referring to. Any thoughts?

The doctrine of the Trinity does not make sense because it is an attempt to combine the monotheistic God of Judaism with the pagan belief in a man who is a god. — Fooloso4

I would say it makes no sense because it is an absurdity. No matter how it is explained, it will always seem preposterous. However, it has an undeniable edifying ineffability for any one who approaches it with humility and due respect.

A more pious view might regard it as pointing to the limits of human understanding which cannot comprehend the divine. Or as something to be contemplated rather than something to be rationally understood.

:up: Couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, we are in the epoch of reason, and religion has no place in this world.

Rationality is its own kinda irrationality. Paradoxically, if you haven't ever contemplated ending your own life, you're most definitely insane! — Agent Smith

:lol: very true. Your wisdom is endless

is either many or one giant Zen Koan(s), meant to evoke :chin: (deep thought) then :confused: (aporia) then :smile: (ataraxia) — Agent Smith

Precisely. It comes in handy when dealing with the irrationallities of real life.

I try not to splash around in somrbody else's mythological (superstitious) bathwater. — 180 Proof

It's gotta be tough, superstitious bathwater is what makes the world go round.

Can a Christian explain to me, a non-Christian believer in God, why so many of you think there is 'three persons in one person'?? — Bartricks

Don't sweat it. It's just religion. It's not meant to be taken literally or rationally. The concept of the trinity is meant to be a sort of brain teaser - the contemplation of the trinity is merely a practice that helps one to reduce dependence on reason. It is only for people interested in cultivating their religious faith.

The point, however, is that death is clearly extremely harmful. That's in the bank. There's no serious dispute over it. — Bartricks

What about the sacrifice of one life to save millions of other lives? That seems like a death that is extremely helpful to millions (assuming they are not suicidal).

(What if Hitler could have been snuggled to death as a baby?)

We must assume that the fetus has a soul and that abortion is nothing less than murder. — Agent Smith

In US, when a pregnant woman is murdered the defendant is usually charged with two counts. Seems like this is an implicit admission of the sovereignty of fetal life on the part of the state.

Legislate female bodies, legislate male bodies, seems fair.
Watch pro-life males complain (whine) loudly. ;) — jorndoe

Yeah, it takes two to Tango. Why should only one party take all the flak, the shit? — Agent Smith

The problem is that abortion and vasectomy are elective procedures. There is no legal means of forcing a vasectomy, just like there is no legal means of forcing abortion. All that can be done is to preserve the legal status . I hear there was a drastic increase in vasectomies immediately following the new law.

I see reason extending a hand, but faith, no, it's pouting and in the corner, sulking! — Agent Smith

That is because reason cannot seem to abide its silent magnanimity, it is constantly nagging faith to go further and be rational.

:cool:

look, you're not cuckoo alright, but you aren't exactly sane either! :snicker: — Agent Smith

:lol:

Someone yells across the canyon. You can hear the voice echoing off the walls. Do you think the experience of the voice convinces you the sound was produces immediately? — Marchesk

The moment you recognize the sound as originating from an external source, the immediacy is lost.

(Edit). Simply recognizing the experience as sound destroys the immediacy.

Would you agree that we have an impression of presentness? That is, some sensible events appear to be happening now, whereas there are others that appear to have pastness (and then we say that we seem to be remembering them). — Bartricks

I would call it immediacy. But we mostly relate to the other in the realm of recognition and recollection (mediation).

Virtue is just another name for wisdom. So if you are wise, you are virtuous, and vice versa. — Hello Human

Very simple answer to this. Wisdom is the greatest of the four platonic virtues. It assumes the realization of the three other virtues. Soto have wisdom is to possess all the other virtues. Virtue is simply a category that unfolds onto itself.

To be fair, I've never personally met a theist who has said that God/gods is/are a mystery. Most (usually Christians) argue that one can come to know God personally. Deists, following neoplatonism, along with Stoics argue God can be "known" through our use of reason (i.e. reason is the way we become like the gods) — Paulm12

Comprehending God is like staring at the sun. In one instance you become catatonic, in the other you go blind. That is why God is the eternal mystery, the instant you apprehend/contact It, It simultaneously incapacitates you and renders you incoherent.

Talking about one's knowledge of God is in the same category as an account of bigfoot or the great UFO.

Humans need god like a fish needs a bicycle. — god must be atheist

Fish bicycle. That is a great concept! How would it operate?

Xin (heart-mind). God(s) is(are) an emotional need (crutch/fetish as you said in your previous post). — Agent Smith

It is an existential crutch because existence is heavy.

A good portion of it is irrational, so we have irrational faith as a way to cope with it. More recently, our generation has developed some crazy-ass anti-psychotics to help cope with the irrationallity of our existence.

Another portion of existence is rational, and for that we have reason, from which we construct our logic and beliefs (along with our toys and amusements) to help cope with it.

For my 2 shekels ...

I need God as an explanation (or justification) to why [ ... ] — Paulm12

Is there anything about this universe that requires the existence of God for an explanation? — Agent Smith

Of course not. "God" is the ultimate "mystery" (according to Abrahamic (& Vedic) traditions) and a "mystery" does not explain anything. "Mystery created it", "Mystery commands it" – beg cosmological and ethical questions, respectively, and therefore cannot answer them. — 180 Proof

The notion that God explains anything cosmological or ethical is a failure on the part of religious culture. God is not an object of knowledge, but is an object of faith (and as we all know, knowledge and faith are contradictory at best). Yet, it is incorrect to call God an "object" because God belongs entirely to subjectivity. Subjectivity has been lost in religious culture, but it is always relevant to the individual who genuinely observes his personal faith.

As the world consists of logical possibilities, and as the world is a totality of facts, does this mean that even though "my dog has fleas" doesn't obtain in the world, because it is a possibility, it is still a fact ? — RussellA

I can't get past this

1 The world is all that is the case.
[...]
1.21 Each item can be the case or not the case while everything else remains the same. — Wittgenstein

Does this suggest that any given case can be a world unto itself? Or that there are numerous/infinite worlds?

(Edit: the term "item" seems to come out of nowhere.)

@Banno

Why does "on certainty" receive little to no mention? I found it fascinating?

I should note I love Chalmers, even if this sounds disparaging. He's definitely one of my favorite living philosophers. — Moliere

Really, that's intriguing. I've heard of him on TPF before, but never investigated. I just read a few things about him, very interesting!

Lol. That was closer to the third century up to about the 18th. — Merkwurdichliebe

I imagine there were people like me back in the 19th century who thought: if art does not depict Christian themes, it was inferior.

You mean Christianity? — Joshs

Lol. That was closer to the third century up to about the 18th.

First, I am an artist who knows a lot of art history. So, I am interested in what art you do like, which seems to be 19th century art. — Jackson

I'm an artist too. Yes, 19th cent art is amazing. Mainly, I like all art that has its foundations in the classical school. The only two art sites I visit are artstation and ARC. I also really appreciate graffiti. Sorry , I'm a bit of an art snob.

And please explain what you mean by, "in the ealy 20th century, the art world fell victim to slave morality." What does any art have to do with slave morality? — Jackson

I mean that the market began determining what was good art. Now anything can be art, and all art is equal. Something like this could never happen in science, but philosophy is always at risk of this.

its just marxism. You could do it if you had the patience, but I don't blame you