I've argued that my usage is objectively true.... objectively true, not a subjective assertion. — Philosophim
:lol:I want to thank everyone who responded to this thread. It lasted 8 years, and this is my last post. Thanks again. — Sam26
My guess is that he would have concluded, as Einstein & Penrose have, that QM is an incomplete physical theory (à la "Schrödinger's Cat") because it is incompatible with deterministic, local reality (re: EPR paradox, Bell's Theorem) because Spinoza is a strict determinist and realist.I wonder what Spinoza, and many of us philosophers would have made of quantum physics. — Jack Cummins
One benefits by dispensing with 'substance dualism' and superstitious connotations of the (non-explanatory) 'supernatural'. The primary disadvantage of a 'Godless' philosophy is that one must struggle with – to overcome – despair / nihilism / scientism. Philosophical naturalists, like classical atomists and Spinozists for instance, rationally avoid these disadvantages.One question may be what are the benefits and disadvantages of throwing the idea of 'God' aside in philosophy?
Why "consider" this when "God's truth" about "quantum physics" is not revealed in ANY of thousands extant sacred texts? :eyes:What we want is the truth; seeing quantum physics as God's truth is something we need to consider. — Athena
Without grounds to do so, such challenges, or questioning, is, at best, idle. You've not provided any compelling grounds which throw how either physics or biology works into question. Poor epistemology.It would put into question things we know about how physics and biology works.
— Apustimelogist
But that's the whole point: It's questioning those paradigms. It's challenging what you believe you know, which is why I emphasize epistemology. — Sam26
Non-existence, however, includes "good" ...And yet non-existence means that if good exists, that would mean the destruction of good. — Philosophim
I don't see any reason to accept this "definition". "Should exist" implies a contradiction from the negation of a state of affairs, yet I cannot think of such an actual/non-abstract negation. A more apt, concrete use for "good" is to indicate that which prevents, reduces or eliminates harm (i.e. suffering or injustice).Good by definition is what should exist ...
Well, I think "complete non-existence" (i.e. nothing-ness) is impossible ... and who said anything about "eliminating" existence? Non-existence is an ideal state of maximal non-suffering in contrast to existence (of sufferers) itself.... so it would never be good to eliminate good, and thus have complete non-existence.
Here's my secular/naturalistic, negative consequentialist shorthand:How do you define good and evil? — Truth Seeker
Here's my take on pre-linguistic / pre-cognitive "moral sensibility" from a 2022 thread Do animals have morality?What do you make of the notion that morality is prelinguistic? — Tom Storm
"At a societal level", in terms of governing (i.e. maintaining order and security of equitable, public goods), I !think the public concern is not moral "right and wrong" of personal conduct (e.g. D. Parfit, P. Foot) but politically just and unjust laws/policies/investments/regulations (e.g. J.S. Mill, J. Rawls, M. Nussbaum) – deliberative judgments of public reason (informed, of course, by the prevailing 'moral conscience' of the day/historical situation).Setting aside the abstruse, speculative material of academia or in a forum like this, what can we say (as per the OP) that is accessible and useful at a societal level about right and wrong? — Tom Storm
:up: :up:Clearly, the issue is that you [@Sam26] treat naturalism with disdain, so your standard of evidence for the supernatural is much lower than most other people who think that the success of naturalism demands extraordinary evidence for extraordinary contradicting claims. — Apustimelogist
Here are a couple of articles on vat-grown meat that can reduce animal suffering today:In short: veganism reduces real suffering today, and consciousness, while not what it seems, is still a real phenomenon of experience. — Truth Seeker
... entity-illusion of consciousness. — 180 Proof
:up: :up:What if the basis of All is the permanent quantum vacuum and you are a temporary arrangement of it? What if you disperse back unto it? — PoeticUniverse
:monkey:... quantum consciousness ...
It is with sadness that every so often I spend a few hours on the internet, reading or listening to the mountain of stupidities dressed up with the word 'quantum'. Quantum medicine; holistic quantum theories of every kind, mental quantum spiritualism – and so on, and on, in an almost unbelievable parade of quantum nonsense. — Carlo Rovelli, theoretical physicist
:fire:A path is made by walking on it; ethics are made by questioning our actions. — unenlightened
Yes, but that "truth" does not entail that "non-veganism" is immoral or necessarily so. Imo, eating either non-industrial or vat-grown/3-d printed meats is no less ethical than a strictly plant-based diet.Veganism is more ethical than non-veganism because it reduces suffering and death by a massive amount. [ ... ] Now that I have provided argument and evidence, is it now the truth? — Truth Seeker
Given that the human brain is transparent to itself (i.e. brain-blind (R.S. Bakker)), it cannot perceive how the trick is done and therefore that consciousness is an illusion (i.e. not the entity it seems to be or that one thinks it is).How can consciousness be an illusion when I am experiencing it right now and you are experiencing it right now? — Truth Seeker
:up: :up:If you're culture thought the Earth was flat , you probably did too. But surely this doesn't give us grounds to believe that there is "no fact of the matter," or that the shape of the Earth varies depending on which cultural context you are currently in. — Count Timothy von Icarus
"Personal pain and suffering" define you?How would I know who I am without my personal pain and suffering? — Athena
E.g. friendship (vide Epicurus), solidarity (vide Camus) ...What would give my life purpose and meaning?
Well, unless you're an Advaita Vedantist, you are not "God", so ...What would hold me separate from God?
You're welcome, though I don't believe I've explained anything. Anyway, I do agree with Spinoza that understanding makes one "free" and Einstein's quip "Any fool can know; the point is to understand". :wink:Thanks for the explanation of being free. I think I will pursue knowledge.
In other words, "the God of the pews" doesn't hold up under logical or metaphysical scrutiny and therefore is ontologically eliminable; the speculative or supernatural fiat of 'classical theism' is an unparsimonious, ad hoc X-of-the-gaps, apologia – rationalized superstition (à la Spinoza et al).Of course, this may not be at all relevant to the God 'of the pews', but this is a philosophical discussion. — Wayfarer
According to Epicurus, while death is final, "the gods or God" represent moral ideals to aspire to and live by (re: aponia, ataraxia ... "bliss").That is because if one doesn't continue in any form what is the significance of God in relation to one's own personal identity. — Jack Cummins
:smirk:
Afaik, the vast majority of religious believers are not "classical" theists in practice and instead worship a personal God (or gods). As Pascal saysIn short, where theistic personalism projects human categories “upwards” into God, classical theism emphasizes God’s radical transcendence as the living source of all being, without collapsing Him into either a cosmic individual or a faceless principle. — Wayfarer
God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God
of Jacob, not of the philosophers and scholars
Read the most ancient religious scriptures; they all refer to God as "Him".... which makes Him vulnerable to anthropomorphic misunderstanding ...
Pre-modern atheism was also well represented by e.g. the Cārvāka & Ājīvika schools of Hinduism, Confucianism, classical atomism (e.g. "The Epicurean Paradox"), Sextus Empiricus, etc ...... and to the criticisms of modern atheism.
:smirk:The inhabitants of the earth are of two sorts: those with brains, but no religion, and those with religion, but no brains. — al-Ma'arri, 10-11th CE
It's consistent with historical usages of Hindus (e.g. Vedanta), philosophers (e.g. the absolute, the infinite), Scholastics & Thomists (e.g. necessary being), JCI 'mystics' (e.g. ground of being), ... deists.How is the idea of a non-personal deity consistent with the historical use of the term God? — Bob Ross
Spinoza does not conceive of God as "a person" (just as those mentioned above don't either).Doesn't it seem to radically redefine what one means by God to refer to a being that is not a person?
Spinoza uses "God" as the folk name/title for Nature (i.e. natura naturans), what human beings have always called reality (i.e. substance), or the fundamental power that causes all things to exist.What kind of definition is Spinoza using (to decipher if his Substance is meaningfully identifiable as God or a god)?
Read his Ethics - Part 1 "Of God" pp. 1-31 (iirc) — 180 Proof
Yes (see below).Is there any way to know for sure what is right and what is wrong? — Truth Seeker
Legality (institutional) =/= morality (interpersonal).Different countries have different laws.
Probably for the same reason carnivorism isn't "legal mandatory in all countries".Why isn't veganism legally mandatory in all countries? — Truth Seeker
Well I agree, more or less, with Thomas Ligotti (Cioran, Buddha et al): "nonexistence never hurt anyone and existence hurts everyone."[T]he one thing we can consider is that existence vs non-existence is good. — Philosophim
Consider this post from a thread An inquiry into moral facts (2021) ...How can you know whether morality is objective or subjective? — Truth Seeker
I just came across this video ("synchronicity?")Of course, I know that I am so influenced by Jung, as you are with Spinoza. I wonder how can the Jungian worldview can be compared and contrasted with that of Spinoza? — Jack Cummins
I think probabilities (epistemic), not just "possibilities" (speculative), are existential modalities which matter more for flourishing.The reason why one might be open to the possibility of a ‘life beyond’, or not, or why one might think it ridiculous, is the philosophical question at issue. — Wayfarer
David Bohm's conjecture is, I think, much closer to Spinoza's 'substance & modes' than to Plato's 'forms & appearances' because "the explicate order" (à la natura naturata (e.g. waves)) is immanent to – does not transcend – "the implicate order" (à la natura naturans (e.g. ocean)) as the forms do transcend appearances ("Plato's Cave").Bohm's ideas on the idea of the implicate and explicate order. — Jack Cummins
Square this circle for me – "non-dualism" + "the Platonic sense".I go towards the position of non-dualism.
I am a mystic in the Platonic sense. — Jack Cummins
Again, I say: Explain why "nature" requires a "source" (that is, why isn't the "source" itself also "nature"?)But, the question of source does seem important ... — Jack Cummins
Why assume "something" is not uncaused? not infinte? not eternal?... and is connected to the issue of how did something come from nothing?
F[eu]rerbach's 'projections' raise the question as to whether God created man in his own image or vice versa.
I agree with Feuerbach: projections.... whether there is a 'higher power' or not, which may come down to whether spirit or 'the supernatural' exist in any meaningful way. Or, are they mere projections of the human imagination? — Jack Cummins
More plausibly than not, a "transcendent realm" is an example of a "mere projection". :sparkle:I am inclined to think that there is a transcendent realm.
If "nature" has an edge, or limit, then "beyond" makes sense. Afaik, "nature" does not have an edge, or limit (i.e. is finite yet unbounded), therefore, imo, your question, Jack, doesn't make sense. Explain why "nature" requires a "source" (that is, why isn't the "source" itself also "nature"?)There is nature but does anything exist beyond this, as [the] source.
How is that different from reality? "Quantum reality" seems to me another woo-woo phrase that doesn't make sense.... 'quantum reality'.
:meh:... cultures the world over have reported [FLAT Earth] experiences, along with narratives of other planes of existence, re-birth (and there is substantial corroborated evidence of children with past-life recall) and so on. Might it be that the [ROUND Earth] worldview is deficient in some respect. — Wayfarer
:cool: :up:Yes, all the [emo] kids of my era were cheerfully fixated with deconstruction in the 1980’s. I never had the temperament to make it through the texts. They were so turgid and took time from women and booze. — Tom Storm