Comments

  • Why Can't the Universe be Contracting?
    If you look at the link, you will observe that GR is used in the explanation for galaxies accelerating faster than light, even though SR denies the possibility. — Rich
    No it doesn't. Spacetime itself expands faster than light, but spacetime isn't actually an object the way galaxies, planets, etc. are. Galaxies, etc. travel in spacetime, but spacetime doesn't travel in anything.
  • Why Can't the Universe be Contracting?
    It's true that in special relativity, nothing can move faster than light. — Rich
    The same is true in GR.
  • Why Can't the Universe be Contracting?
    Something is happening but SR and GR are contradicting each other. — Rich
    https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/134417/is-special-relativity-a-special-case-of-general-relativity-qualitatively
  • A Sketch of the Present
    And China? It is close to USA in GDP, but no where near US in defense spending. It has maintained it at 1.3% of GDP for last several years. Less than half USA defense spnding, so much for your argument (N)
    As stated, USA does not get what it pays for in defense spending.     — Cavacava
    Yes, the US could possibly reduce defense budget to 2-2.5%. My only question is why US military is not tens of years ahead of everyone else already...
  • Why Can't the Universe be Contracting?
    So which SR or GR are we to believe if either? — Rich
    SR and GR are not different...

    This seems to be very pseudo-scientific right here. SR is a special case of GR, which occurs mainly when we're dealing with flat, non-curved space.
  • A Sketch of the Present
    ↪Cavacava
    Yes, but you of course ignore how that spending relates to a country's economic power. When we compare it to GDP, we'll see that the US rests around 3% of GDP. That's where most countries are, give or take. Russia, Saudi, and Israel all have a greater military spending given their economies for example.

    But of course, propagandists will never look at the facts as they really are. Just put a nice graph showing total value, and show how the US eclipses everyone else put together.

    The real question though should be, if the US spends so much on military, why doesn't it completely dominate the world? Its military should be many tens of years ahead of everyone else. But I don't think this is actually the case.
  • A Sketch of the Present
    To pin the blame on these sorts of things - 'skepticism', 'cynicism', etc mistakes a symptom for a cause. In this regard, I'm an old school historical materialist: look at the conditions - the political economy and beyond - which give rise to such attitudes, and direct change at that level. — StreetlightX
    And I'm an old school spiritualist :P - look at the spiritual climate of the times and try to adjust to it, for you can certainly not change it by yourself. In my view, material circumstances - what you call political economy and beyond - are driven by spirit. Thus, to really succeed with any significant change, one needs the help of the gods as the Ancients would say. If they are on your side, nothing can stop you, and if they're not, then nothing can help you.
  • Idealism poll
    The point is not to refute metaphysical positions through psychology but to move away from them, cast them aside as being unnecessary. — darthbarracuda
    Then you ought to certainly cast both of them aside if you really want to rely just on psychology.

    But materialism fails for the self-evident truth that the mind is not reducible or identical to the brain.

    I'll admit, dualism a la Aquinas are plausible as well.     — darthbarracuda
    Okay.
  • Alan Watts & St. Thomas Aquinas & Mysticism
    I suppose you could ask, "why are there quantum fields rather than nothing?" But if by something, you mean something physical, then it appears you can get physical stuff from the non-physical. (if quantum fields are defined as being non-physical). — anonymous66
    Of course quantum fields can't be defined as non-physical. Why would you think so?
  • Alan Watts & St. Thomas Aquinas & Mysticism
    Yes, something does come from nothing. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627596.300-quantum-wonders-something-for-nothing/ At least in the quantum world. — anonymous66
    A quantum field isn't 'nothing'. If anything, QM proves that nothing (a pure vacuum) is impossible.
  • A Sketch of the Present
    No idea. I'm still in 'mapping' mode as it were, trying to make sense of where we stand. There's alot here that needs to be filled in, corroborated, and mapped in more detail. Most of this I've only begun to put together in the last few months. Right now in my reading I'm exploring the 'life' side of things - all the literature regarding biopolitics , for instance. There's so much more I need to read/explore. — StreetlightX
    I see. But that does mean that you will, at the minimum, be slow to take positions and act towards bringing them about no? I think we should always strive for a balance of action/contemplation given our limited/finite time in life.
  • A Sketch of the Present
    ↪StreetlightX
    That is interesting. Now what?
  • Idealism poll
    It's a satisfying solution to the mind-body problem because it denies the body exists in any way transcendental to the mind. — darthbarracuda
    Yeah, what makes it the best? Materialism for that matter is also a "satisfying" solution because it denies that the mind exists in any way transcendental to the body. And of course, then we have positions like substance dualism, or neutral monism.

    Nietzsche's position is that people cling to metaphysics, especially metaphysics of eternal, unchanging, present substance, as a psychological defense mechanism against the flux of existence. — darthbarracuda
    This psychological reading of philosophy is in the final analysis pathetic. The reason is that both poles of the dichotomy can be conceived as the cause of fear. Let me give the clearest example. Atheists frequently pull out the trope that the theist believes in God because they are afraid of death and non-being. The theist, can of course, always retort that the atheist doesn't believe in God because he's afraid of having to bear eternal responsibility and accountability for his actions.

    So just like the metaphysics of being is a psychological defense mechanism against the flux of existence, so too the metaphysics of becoming is a psychological defense mechanism against immutable, unchanging Being. These are of course neither arguments for nor against one metaphysics or the other. They're just red herrings.

    But regardless, my original question was what does idealism have to do with flux/being? :s
  • Idealism poll
    I voted idealism because I think it's the best solution to the mind-body problem. Also it's a super sexy position. The metaphysical weak are those who depend on an unchanging reality to cope with the flux of existence. — darthbarracuda
    What do you mean it's "the best solution" to the mind-body problem? And what does that have to do with the becoming/being dichotomy (flux)?
  • Depressive realism
    It's great things worked out in your favor but that is not the case for a very large amount of people. — darthbarracuda
    Well, it is the case for most people in Western societies, where life expectancy is quite high.

    It's certainly not the case for most organisms living in their natural environment, who usually die in horrible ways (if they even survive gestation - see R-selection). — darthbarracuda
    Yes, this may be true for some non-human organisms, but that's a different consideration now.

    It cannot be a real challenge if success is not guaranteed — darthbarracuda
    Is success guaranteed in any challenge though? No challenge has a guaranteed outcome, if the outcome were guaranteed, it wouldn't be a challenge anymore.

    but if success is not guaranteed, then it cannot be the case that life can be success for everyone. — darthbarracuda
    Sure, I never said everyone can achieve happiness on earth.

    The circumstances you find yourself in are largely due to what we usually call luck. — darthbarracuda
    To a large extent sure. But this is nothing new, it has been known for a long time. Almost all cultures in the history of man have attribute fortune to the gods, or to fate. Indeed, the very word fortune means luck.

    This includes your mental states - you are lucky not only that you are in favorable circumstances but also that you have mental states that help you survive. — darthbarracuda
    This is highly disputable now. You may want to say that I am blessed to have certain mental capacities (such as intelligence) and avoid having others (such as depressive rumination). But that's not exactly true. For example, I've battled with anxiety, depression, etc. in the past, and it is largely due to my own efforts that I've overcome them. You don't control the cards you're dealt, but you do control how you play them - and that also plays an important role in the outcome.
  • Alan Watts & St. Thomas Aquinas & Mysticism
    My view is that individualism is superior but only if it is anchored to a proper spiritual understanding — Wayfarer
    Yes, I too hold that in the debate between society and individual, the individual ultimately stands superior from a spiritual point of view. I'm not a Communist lol. Christianity would agree with this, especially in its anti-herd and anti-sacrificial (of others, not of self) elements.

    Nevertheless, this idea is different from what is today generally understood by individualism.

    (Hey I stumbled on a great series of six lectures on Platonism by Peter Kreeft linked to the above video. Number 1 is here . I'm hanging out in a lakeside cabin this week, I will spend some time listening to these.) — Wayfarer
    Thanks for sharing that.
  • Alan Watts & St. Thomas Aquinas & Mysticism
    ↪Wayfarer
    Yes, this has certainly been my experience interacting with Eastern culture. — Agustino
    Not that this is a bad thing, it's certainly much better than our Western rampant individualism :P
  • Alan Watts & St. Thomas Aquinas & Mysticism
    insofar as the person is not prized in traditional Eastern cultures which subjugates the personal to the familial or social. — Wayfarer
    Yes, this has certainly been my experience interacting with Eastern culture.

    I think Jesus crying out on the Cross, 'why have you forsaken me', and then actually dying, symbolises total sacrifice of the self. — Wayfarer
    To me, it symbolises the priority of God's will over man's will - of the divine nature, over the human nature.
  • Alan Watts & St. Thomas Aquinas & Mysticism
    Yes, but.....the Buddha himself, as tathagatha, was presumably one whose identity was 'gone thus' - and yet, in all the dialogues, he is a figure of utmost civility, courtesy, and compassion (see for instance the story of the monk with dysentery). He devoted his whole life to patiently explaining, expounding, leading, and teaching, when he could just as easily have vanished from society at the outset. — Wayfarer
    No disagreement there.

    What is 'gone' in Buddhism, is the 'burden of selfhood', the concern with me and mine. — Wayfarer
    I think the concern with me and mine is valuable up to a point. Love your neighbour as yourself. I think this idea of complete and total abandonment of oneself is wrong. The point being that the personality of someone shouldn't be annihilated by enlightenment.

    But, and this becomes especially so in the Mahayana, there is endless and infinite compassion for suffering beings. — Wayfarer
    Yes, I know that the enlightened one in Mahayana refuses to cross over into Nirvana fully in order to save all other beings first.

    The idea of the detached and apathetic yogi, immersed in his private bliss and indifferent to the suffering of others, is I think a caricature in many ways. — Wayfarer
    It is present in some forms of Buddhism though. Not all of them, and not Mahayana, that is true.
  • Alan Watts & St. Thomas Aquinas & Mysticism
    As far as 'identity' is concerned - the distinction between Christian union or theosis, and the Eastern sense of union, is supposed to be that in the former, the person retains an identity, whereas in the latter, personal identity is annihilated. — Wayfarer
    Indeed, that's what makes Christian mysticism different.

    Besides, the idea of 'identity' was more that the aim of any form of unitive mysticism is to realise an identity that is not subject to death. — Wayfarer
    Hmmm - maybe, but there are certainly forms of Buddhist mysticism where the goal is the blowing out of identity.
  • Alan Watts & St. Thomas Aquinas & Mysticism
    Interesting with relation to some of these same points:

  • Alan Watts & St. Thomas Aquinas & Mysticism
    That is why Christian mysticism teaches 'naughting' or 'being nothing' so as to attain identity via theosis with the source of being. — Wayfarer
    I'm not sure if "identity" is the right word. You don't obtain "identity" since personality is still preserved. Rather you obtain communion with the divine Trinity.
  • Idealism poll
    We never experience other minds, only other bodies. You learn to predict other people's behavior that you know well. — Harry Hindu
    Nope, that's not what I said. And you just repeated what you previously said, so you're clearly talking past what I'm saying.
  • Idealism poll
    Are our minds touching when I read your words on this screen? How is that different than being in each other's presence? I can experience you as words on a screen, or as a body, or as a voice on the phone, but never as a mind. — Harry Hindu
    Actually, sometimes it is possible to experience people as a mind if you develop the sensitivity for it. In this way, you can catch what they're thinking before they even say it. But it takes a bit to build such a connection.
  • Alan Watts & St. Thomas Aquinas & Mysticism
    created world dualistically — Janus
    Yeah, I was referring to dualism / non-dualism as commonly used in the religious traditions of the East. For example, even Advaita Vedanta admits that there is such a thing as the dualistic mind - it is not ultimate reality, but nevertheless exists - is present qua illusion.

    Non-dualism seems to be the attempt to solve the problem of monism. Namely that "one" - identity - can only be hypothesised through many - difference. So the ultimate reality according to this line of thinking cannot be "one" - for then it would not comprehend the many with regards to which it is itself the one. Without the many it could not be itself one, and if the many aren't included, then the one is not ultimate reality. So to make it ultimate reality both the one and the many need to be included, which leads to non-duality. Because it is a coherent and complete whole - and nothing is missing - it cannot be called one. Neither can it be called two, because two also requires one to be made sense of.

    because between any two things there is always either a relation or a median depending on the nature of the things in question — Janus
    That would depend, I suppose, between what the two things are. For example, is there a relation between squares and jealousy? It is only when we try to conceive things as forming a whole that we have to postulate relationships between them. Without interrelationships, there can be no wholeness or unity. So relationships are constitutive of wholeness and oneness, while the many and difference are constitutive of the objects which make relationships possible in the first place.

    So, I think it can be said that nature is also non-dualistic, insofar as it is both one and many. — Janus
    Maybe - we understand it in terms of both the part and the whole. But I think "natural" consciousness to call it so, does have a tendency towards seeing the world dualistically - as either/or - as separated by dichotomies such as living, non-living, and so on. This seems to be an integral part of creation. I suppose we would expect the uncreated to somehow be beyond the dichotomy since it is the source of the dichotomy itself.
  • Depressive realism
    A depressive realist is hypothesized to have a better grasp of reality than the normal — darthbarracuda
    I think the hypothesis is clearly false. A depressive realist does not have a better grasp of reality because they typically ignore the role they themselves play in reality.

    It is true that life can at times be terrible. But there can also be times of expanding horizons when things are always going in a direction which surprises you (joyfully). Sometimes life can also change exceedingly fast. Meaning that you can go from being a no one to extremely famous, or from millionaire to poor man, from sick to healthy etc.

    But, as Heraclitus said: "If you do not expect the unexpected you will not find it, for it is not to be reached by search or trail"

    At several points in my life things hung by a thread but what saved me was precisely that I kept expecting the unexpected which allowed me to capitalize on the opportunity when it arose. You never know - even in the worst of circumstances - how things may swing in your favor. Even when you are in a concentration camp. Things look hopeless many times but you must always remember in the back of your mind that things could change rather quickly. That a lucky break could be just around the corner, and that may be all that you need if you're ready to take it. Patience is key to victory.
  • Do you cling to life? What's the point in living if you eventually die?
    I pursue music, philosophy, painting, and writing in order to understand myself; nothing else, other than intimate human relationship, and generally trying to do no harm, is of much interest. — Janus
    Have you always been this way, ever since you were young?

    I think this matter is largely one of personality. For example, I always remember myself having similar aspirations, ever since I was a child. The only way to understand them is to say that they are an expression of my being. And probably the same would be true for you.

    I think that those who are great in any of the above fields (and other fields of course) will probably be of real help in the world, even if that is not their primary directly-felt motivation. — Janus
    Well yes, I think for the most part I agree.
  • Alan Watts & St. Thomas Aquinas & Mysticism
    Non-dualism would not recognize this dualistic dichotomy in the first place. — Janus
    We have to be careful around this though because non-dualism is something that is applicable to God's essence in-so-far as He is uncreated, and not to creation (which is clearly dualistic). Thus, from the point of view of creation, Watts' and Aquinas' reasoning about the First Cause is valid (and the main point is that the Final Cause cannot be blind, non-living). So from universe towards God such reasoning works, his point is that from God to the universe such reasoning no longer works.
  • Alan Watts & St. Thomas Aquinas & Mysticism
    the creation of the universe by God is a freely willed act. — Metaphysician Undercover
    Yes, Alan Watts also assents to this. In fact, he says that precisely because creation is a freely willed act, and not necessary, we can distinguish from pantheism - in pantheism union with God is necessarily given.

    is to have intimate knowledge of the agent — Metaphysician Undercover
    Exactly, and Watts wants to claim that in the mystical union that the mystic achieves with God, he has such knowledge. That is how he justifies the attempt to use mystical religion to complete the understanding from God to the universe.
  • Do you cling to life? What's the point in living if you eventually die?
    OK, well, I guess we differ here, I love self-cultivation for its own sake: I haven't progressed to the stage of loving God and the world in the kind of sense I think you mean it. — Janus
    I see. For me, I love self-cultivation too, but I can't say it I do it as end-in-itself. I do it because I know it will be useful on my path. Otherwise, I wouldn't do it. I wasn't always into self-cultivation, it's only when I realised that it's necessary in order to be of any real help in the world that I got very interested in it.
  • Does karma exist? Is it advantageous to belive in karma or pretend that it exists?
    ↪Bitter Crank
    Another thing that he misses that is extremely important is not following the herd. You cannot follow the herd and do what most people do and expect outlandish success. That's just foolish.
  • Does karma exist? Is it advantageous to belive in karma or pretend that it exists?
    ↪Bitter Crank
    The bigger problem, of course, is that any "method" for success that is widely known will no longer be a method for success, as everyone will be doing it. No doubt that being:

    1) Be Proactive
    2) Have a Goal
    3) Keep First Things First Things (Prioritise)
    4) Think win-win
    5) Understand others first, then seek to be understood (empathy)
    6) Synergy & Teamwork
    7) Continuous self-improvement/growth

    Will all help, but "key" to success? Doubt it. Though the last one I think is extremely important for long-term success compared to the other ones he has listed.
  • Does karma exist? Is it advantageous to belive in karma or pretend that it exists?
    Seven Habits of Highly Successful People — Bitter Crank
    I bought it quite awhile ago, useless book!
  • Deletion by Streetlight X of my post on Race Realism and the Moral Fallacy
    Streetlight X provided an enumerated standard which, as the site staff agree, was not adhered to. — Sapientia

    (1) it cited no sources, (2) it did not acknowledge the contentiousness of regarding IQ as a purely heritable trait, (3) it did not acknowledge the debates regarding the specificity of IQ as a measurement of intelligence, and (4) it's polemic tone was not suitable for a topic that deserves to be - if at all - treated with extreme nuance. — StreetlightX
    Okay, (1) is sensible, but (2), (3), and (4) seems over the top. I don't see why the post would have had to "acknowledge the contentiousness of regarding IQ as a purely heritable trait" - if this is precisely what was under discussion. (2), (3), and (4) are issues that would have had to be discussed in the debate.

    The main point is that SLX has proven - for example in his debate with me with regards to testosterone - that he doesn't have the intellectual honesty to face up to certain issues.

    There's nothing to discuss with anyone who consistently puts into question not what I say, but the fact that I am the one saying it (I'm 'emotional', 'overindulges in POMO literature', etc). — StreetlightX
    I don't believe in our debate with regards to testosterone I put into question the fact that YOU are saying it. The problem would have been there regardless of who said it.
  • Deletion by Streetlight X of my post on Race Realism and the Moral Fallacy
    Well, this is a rather incompetent attempt at character assassination. — Baden
    It's not meant to be a character assassination, it's just a fact that one of the moderators has an emotional bias (very likely due to an overindulgence in POMO literature) which doesn't permit him to make adequate (meaning rational) judgements with regards to issues that are sensitive to him. This is something that should be discussed. But to the contrary, the said moderator refuses to discuss the issue and says that it's "below him".

    Now can I please have an answer to my question here:
    Are biological differences between the races racist? :s To me, racism would be a certain type of ideology that encourages active discrimination, not just a look at biological differences between races. — Agustino
  • Deletion by Streetlight X of my post on Race Realism and the Moral Fallacy
    hereby call upon him to either defend the charge immediately or to have the moral integrity to do the honourable thing and surrender his position as a moderator on this forum forthwith. — John Gould
    I doubt he'll do either. Which is quite unfortunate, because I don't think he's actually a stupid person. He's just stubborn on certain issues that seem to affect him emotionally.
  • Deletion by Streetlight X of my post on Race Realism and the Moral Fallacy
    In either case he clearly lacks the kind of dispassionate critical intelligence that is needed to discharge his responsibilities as a moderator of comment on a philosophy forum. — John Gould
    That is without a shred of doubt.
  • Deletion by Streetlight X of my post on Race Realism and the Moral Fallacy
    Ah, the sheer arrogance (and impudence) of ignorance ! It never ceases to astonish me ! — John Gould
    In his case, it's not ignorance, but rather simply not wanting to admit to certain things based on emotional reasons.
  • Deletion by Streetlight X of my post on Race Realism and the Moral Fallacy
    The feedback thread is not an area where deleted threads get to be reposted with impunity. I suppose had the complaint been posed in the abstract (as in, "I think scientifically supportable hypotheses should be open to debate without regard to how offensive they may be), I'd agree with you, but to resubmit the specific argument is obviously not going to be allowed. — Hanover
    Okay, I don't know his original post, so I can't comment on that.

    But the problem with racism - in my mind - isn't that it offends the sensibilities of people, but rather that it is immoral. I would have thought at least that the immorality and cruelty of it (supported by its historical manifestations) are the reason for taking an active stand against it, not just that it "offends sensibilities".
  • Deletion by Streetlight X of my post on Race Realism and the Moral Fallacy
    It was non- responsive to my post, which is that racist views are off limits here, even if you believe they are scientifically justified. — Hanover
    Are biological differences between the races racist? :s To me, racism would be a certain type of ideology that encourages active discrimination, not just a look at biological differences between races.
Home » Agustino