So be a bum. Many people give up, get off the hamster wheel and drop out of "the struggle" e.g. monastics, hermits, homeless, (RV) nomads, off-the-grid preppers, et al. Ancient traditions of (e.g.) Epicureans & Kynics celebrated this marginal way of life as attaining "ataraxia". For some, dumb animal "happiness" suffices. :strong:[No] reason to really struggle and fight for a place in the world. No reason to really pursue anything. One can just end [one's] life and be done with the pursuit and struggle. — Darkneos
This assumes that "beyond the Actual" – possibilism¹ – makes sense whereas beyond the merely "logically possible" – actualism² – is a much more reasonable and parsimonious metaphysical approach.To go beyond the Actual(physical)to inquire into what's logically Possible(meta-physical). — Gnomon
:fire:This is the first and last question that philosophy must answer - 'What's the point?' The answer is "love". If you wonder what love is, I can only tell you that it is what you lack, whenever you ask this question. Suicide makes sense if there is no love, but only self. We are not here to be satisfied, but to become satisfactory. — unenlightened
Well I have never found a "good argument" for suicide either. Afaik, empirically, suicide does not solve any unsolvable problems or change anything that cannot be changed (e.g. past events, past actions, persisting consequences) and often only deeply harms the suicide's own family, (former) lovers and/or close friends.I’ve struggled to find a good argument against suicide ... — Darkneos
:100:The human condition in a square bracket. We have caused most of our own misery - not entirely unknowingly, because there was always at least one 'enemy of the people' who warned us and was overruled for all the wrong reasons. — Vera Mont
:fire:Those who have almost nothing are usually thankful for the little they have.
Those who have almost everything usually think they deserve better.
— unenlightened
The whole point of institutional religion.
Yeah "common" for philosophers, iirc, since A. Meinong¹. Simply put: existents are causally relatable to each other and subsistents (which are only instantiable via existents) are logically / grammatically relatable but are not causally related at all.So, chairs exist and numbers subsist? Is that a common understanding? — Art48
This is a pseudo-question because of its 'something/nothing' (fluctuation/vacuum) false dichotomy. The physical fact is 0.999 of every something (nonzero dimensional X) is nothing (zero dimension).Why is there something instead of nothing? — Benj96
Also, there is no ultimate "why" that doesn't beg the question except There Is No Ultimate "Why" – existence (i.e. fundamental disorder-dynamics-void fluctuations ... 'necessary contingency') is the brute fact.'Nothing' is unstable. — Frank Wilczek, theoretical physicist
Fallacy of misplaced concreteness (i.e. mapmaking =/= terrain). At most the PSR is, "like logic", a foundational property of reason.Since the PSR is a first principle of metaphysics, like logic, then it is part of the fabric of reality. — A Christian Philosophy
In contrast to 'instrumental good' or 'aesthetic good', I define ethical good as flourishing (eudaimonia) from the moral conduct (eusocial habits) of non-reciprocally reducing harms (re: suffering).How do you define good? — Matias Isoo
All that you touch
You change.
All that you change
Changes you.
The only lasting truth
Is Change. — Octavia Butler, Parable of the Sower
:up: :up:I do think that there is likely to be a lot of population reduction through many factors, from war and inequalities. Of course, this is not the first time and the ability to cope with change is questionable. — Jack Cummins
The former is in part constituted by the former just as higher dimensional spaces / bandwidths are constituted by lower dimensional spaces / bandwidths. Subjectivity (i.e. my view from here) is an emergent property – phenomenal-perspectival aspect – of objectivity (i.e. public view from anywhere).How to account for subjectivity in an objective world? — bizso09
To prevent life =/= to prevent suffering just as to destroy the village =/= to save the village. Your ANist cowardice and hypocrisy are pathetic, schop, but it's not yet too late to redeem yourself à la Mainländer. :smirk: — 180 Proof
:roll:↪180 Proof is making a statement of personal belief, not a fact of science. — Gnomon
Also, by implication, I'm saying that, while "God" and the universe are equally improbable, "God" is completely nonevident such that parsimoniously the universe (as e.g. eternal, cyclical, a vacuum fluctuation, etc) suffices both as a physical explanation and metaphysical presupposition.So you're saying the probability God exists is extremely low? — RogueAI
:up: :up:... it is likely that the mythical idea of the 'end times' has an influence on the shaping of history and how people live. — Jack Cummins
Nothing new in this sort of "end times" anxiety except for the historical circumstances and particulars.I am just concerned that what is happening now may be the point of no return. — Jack Cummins
:mask:Well, a chunk of Americans cared more about voting against a black woman. — RogueAI
:up: :up:As described, the first cause is uncaused - but it's not an "accident", in the traditional sense as being synonymous with "contingent". — Relativist
My reading of "great histories" informs me that civilization is always on the brink of collapse. Periods of long, gradual decline culminate in sudden unforeseeable crashes (à la chaotic systems (e.g. avalanches, cancers)). Besides increasing entropy (i.e. environmental degradation & destruction, runaway dominance of accumulated disinformation), endemic political and cultural corruption seems the recurring culprit.Use your head, can't you, use your head, you're on earth, there's no cure for that! — Samuel Beckett, Endgame
:roll: Incorrigible & lazy ...Spinoza hedged his bets by labeling hispantheisticdeity as Deus sive Natura. — Gnomon
:clap: :100:So we must start out by asking the question 'is this world more likely a product of intelligent design or chance'? Well, we are not allowed to start out by assuming a designer with a particular character. So, [to do] the calculation we must consider how many different plans and intentiosn a designer may have. And there's the problem: there are going to be a potential infinite number. Certainly the odds of there being a designer who wished to create a world such as this are going to be everybit as long as the odds that a world such as this arose by chance. And given that the latter is a simpler thesis than the former - it doesn't assume a designer - then the chance thesis is the more reasonable one, other things being equal. — Clearbury
