Comments

  • In any objective morality existence is inherently good
    What needs to be defined therefore is what precisely do we mean by existence? ... And what is morality? Ray Liikanen
    Read on through the rest of this thread, particularly page 2 (re: my proposals for "existence" and "morality" in the context of (how I understand) Western philosophy).
  • Is the real world fair and just?
    Do you cause unnecessary harm?schopenhauer1
    This question addresses the subject of moral concern: actually living, present persons, n o t possible, future persons (which is AN's category mistake).

    AN's "asymmetry argument" is based on a misconception of ethics ... which your trolling is too lazy to pick-up on or too disingenuous to acknowledge my references elsewhere in this thread (as well as on @schophenhauer1's other "AN" threads), so STFU, STFD and maybe you'll learn something, kid.
  • The essence of religion
    Explain what? Your "bad metaphysics" post speaks for itself.

    ... 'religious' has not been defined in a concrete, understandable, verifiable manner.Ray Liikanen
    Apparently, you've not read this thread from the beginning. A little more than semantic quibbles is going on here. Besides, definitions are not "verifiable" (unless they are tautologies). :roll:
  • The Sciences Vs The Humanities
    ...since classical-scale systems (e.g. brains-sensoriums) cannot directly interact with planck-scale systems (re: decoherence).
    — 180 Proof

    How do you characterize ontically and empirically the physicist and its experimental_inferential connection to planck-scale phenomena?
    ucarr
    My layman's best guess: only the interaction of the measuring-apparatus and "planck-scale phenomena" is manifestly ontic – quanta (e.g. photons) "perturbing" quanta – and the physicist's readings of her measurements (thereby making inferences) are empirical.
  • The Sciences Vs The Humanities
    QM tells us the observer perturbs what s/he observes.ucarr
    If by "observer" you mean measurement and by "observes" you mean measures, then I think you're correct here about QM. Afaik, "sentience" itself cannot "perturb" quanta since classical-scale systems (e.g. brains-sensoriums) cannot directly interact with planck-scale systems. That way leads to the dark side (imo, p0m0 / Berkeleyan nonsense :sparkle:).
  • The Sciences Vs The Humanities
    Yes, as e.g. Spinoza points out, human knowledge of unbounded (infinite) reality is necessarily perspectival and therefore bounded (finite). Basic epistemic mereology (re: maps < terrain), no? Also consider the ancient method of exhaustion. I think your "strategic incompleteness" overstates the case and incoherently conflates teleology with formalism with empiricism.
  • Is the real world fair and just?
    My core principle is that there is always a dialectical balance in anything that could matter. A trade-off. And trade-offs ought to be optimised in a win-win fashion. That is the answer that is worth seeking. My approach leads me to pragmatism. We do the best we can by reasoning. We should always expect a complementary balance to exist in nature. Complementary balances is after all how nature can even exist.apokrisis
    :100: :fire:
  • Is the real world fair and just?
    Who could care about AN concerns? They are ridiculous given that there is plenty enough of pragmatic importance to be getting on with in our already extant lives.

    A fashion statement and not a philosophical conundrum.
    apokrisis
    :up: :up:

    ANists hysterically confuse 'preventing possible lives' with 'preventing (and reducing) harm to / suffering of actual lives'.
  • The essence of religion
    As to false hopes: one needs to go into this: false hopes about what?Constance
    "Life after death.". "Resurrection." "Past lives." "Reincarnation." "Release from the Wheel of Rebirth." Etc

    bad metaphysics. This is a straw person
    Your accusation of "bad metaphysics" is clearly a projection and non sequitur.
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    27August24

    The Criminal Clown is running like a raped ape but he still can't hide ...

    https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4850566-superseding-indictment-trump-election-subversion-case/

    Roevember is coming! :victory: :cool:
  • The essence of religion
    Its overpromising and underdelivering is itself metaphysics, that is, beyond verification and falsification.Constance
    :roll:

    Well, ime, metaphysicsmaking sense in the most general way of the whole of realityis conceptual (i.e. presuppositional > descriptive), not theoretical (i.e. propositoonal > explanatory). Besides, metaphysics does not entail the 'false hopes' which are the basis and motivators of religion.

    Christian metaphysics is not at all egoic ...
    All Christian sects preach that every person has an "eternal soul" (i.e. "I AM" = EGO sum (re: "imago dei")) that will be either "saved" or "damned", no? Iirc from my Jesuitical education, each follower of Christ seeks only the "eternal salvation" of his "eternal soul" ... in the world to come". Augustinian / Kierkeegardian subjectivity (i.e. "leap of faith") metaphysically screams "ME ME ME". :pray: :eyes:

    what is essentially religious about our existence
    Humans' denial of death via myths / symbols of 'immortality' (e.g. scapegoating, redemption / propitiation sacrifice, martyrdom, "teleological suspension of the ethical", etc) as I've pointed out on this thread ...

    (page 1)
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/904100

    (re: religion – more broadly from another thread)
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/676697
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    Today in Trumpenfreude ...
    NASDAQ (DJT :rofl:)

    16August24 – $23.06 per share
    (NASDAQ 17,631.72)

    Loser The Clown's pump-n-dump scam is down 40% in five months. Not bad for an OG grifter who even 3x BANKRUPTED A CASINO.
    180 Proof
    26August24 – $21.72 per share :down:
    (NASDAQ 17,725.77) :up:
  • The essence of religion
    Religion's answer: know that your ego is nothing. There is a Reality that is/does without your ego. And that's your salvation from su[ff]ering.ENOAH
    This story (myth) is not "salvation" because, in fact, one's "suffering" (i.e. frustrations, fears, pains, losses, traumas, dysfunctions) ceases only with one's death. The world's oldest confidence game ritually over-promises and under-delivers: false hope. Besides, most historical religions preach that every person has an 'eternal soul' – imo, there isn't any notion that's more of an ego-fetish than this.
  • How 'Surreal' Are Ideas?
    In general, idealism may be about a realm beyond the physical.Jack Cummins
    I think "in general, idealism" asserts that "the physical" is only an idea and not real (i.e. mind-independent). Maybe you mean platonism or cartesian dualism? :chin:
  • Is the real world fair and just?
    You would have a point if natalism and antinatalism were symmetrical- but they’re not.schopenhauer1
    They are not because "natalism" is not an ideology or doctrine or dogma –"unlike antinatalism. Natality is a biological function that animals can prevent or terminate. Having been born does not in any way entail procreating. Thus, "antinatalism". (i.e. natality : antinatalism :: mortality : denialism¹)

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism [1]
  • How 'Surreal' Are Ideas?
    Plato and Kant basically say that "all is maya" too by arguing "appearances are not reals" and "phenomena and not things-in-themselves", respectively, so I think in this context the specific dichotomy you draw, Jack, between Western and Eastern metaphysics is exaggerated. Also, the doctrine of "maya" is self-refuting insofar as it is "maya" as well like (existential? ontological? moral?) nihilism.
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    RFK is just another gaping hole in DJT's 'stay-out-of-jail' boat imo. :smirk:
  • Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body
    Here's the crux:
    Testimonial evidence only explains a subjective interpretation of a situation. And people's subjective interpretation of things is no indication of its truth as an objective reality, only the truth in that is what people feel. There are plenty of people who feel there is a God, but is that objectively true? No.Philosophim
    :100: :up:
  • How 'Surreal' Are Ideas?
    @Jack Cummins
    And, besides, what existential-pragmatic-ethical difference does it make, Jack, if metaphysically (according to some ancient tradition) "all is maya"180 Proof
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    Really?Baden
    Just a speculation, more hope than worry.
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    24August24

    Orangeutan-see, Orangeutan-do: batshit RFK, Jr replaces fake-redneck JD Vance as VP canditate in MAGA-GOP bait-n-switch (instigated by Kelly Ann Conway) in the days or weeks to come. Will this trumpster fire blow up into a flaming hellscape by Kamala's September 10th debate beatdown? TBD.

    Roevember is coming! :victory: :cool:
  • Is the real world fair and just?
    :rofl: Oh Dunning-Kruger ...
  • Is the real world fair and just?
    So we agree: in sum, your "panENdeistic G*d" is an empty name (cipher) for mysterium tremendum (i.e. "Enformer"-of-the-gaps) that does not testably explain anything. :smirk:

    We now understand the "How" of Nature much better, but not the "Why".
    This is because (A) "why" (i.e. goal, purpose) only pertains to intentional agency – an unwarranted, anthropomorphic assumption – and therefore does not pertain to "Nature" itself (re: teleological / transcendental illusion (i.e. a metacognitive bias aka "pure reason")); and (B) the only answer to the foundational/ultimate "why of Nature" that does not beg the question (i.e. infinitely regress) is There Is No Why of Nature. :fire:
  • A Thought Experiment Question for Christians
    Well, Spinozists like me don't "believe in Spinoza's God" or that "everything is God" either because (A) only natura naturans (e.g. laws of nature) are real and (B) everything else, or natura naturata, is not real (i.e. merely exists transiently ... like breath on a mirror or footprints in beach sand at low tide or the shapes of clouds). The characters (& plot devices) in the Bible/Quran also are not divine – do not "reveal God"; they are just superstitious fictions (according to Spinoza).
  • Is A Utopian Society Possible ?
    "Real courage", as you say, would be to quit your "maliciously useless" life asap instead of cowardly whining on and on that you (we) "should never have been born". A coward's "coping mechanism" is living by the resentful hypocrisy of this kind of defeatist pessimism. Like daoists & epicureans, pyrrhonians & spinozists, pragmatists & absurdists..., otoh, my coping mechanism for 'radical indifference' begins and ends with defiance – memento mori :death:, memento vivere :flower:.

    So, for all us dead men & women walking, to each his or her own: your cowardice (i.e. futility of preaching "nonexistence") OR our courage (i.e. agency despite existence), your defeatist pessimism (re: ideality) OR our defiant pessimism (re: reality): no doubt for many, maybe most, an involuntary – unreasonable – decision. :fire:
  • The Linguistic Quantum World
    I don't see the relevance to the OP or to my reply to it. I didn't exoress a "belief" so much as a conceptual description / interpretation of [/i]your[/i] "what I believe about myself" in the context of the post from which its quoted.
  • A Thought Experiment Question for Christians
    God is already there is Scripture.BitconnectCarlos
    Yes, like the plot device of "Manwë" in The Silmarillion (or "Sauron" in LotR). :smirk:
  • Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body
    The idealist's existence cannot be dependent on her idealism.Fooloso4
    True, but @Sam26 (the Jedi) might be a solipsist ..
  • Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body
    Existence swings on the hinge of consciousness. It requires no justification. It just is. It’s the presuppositional axiom of existence.Sam26
    Existence itself is absolutely presupposed, and therefore requires no justification; also, it's self-contradictory to assume that 'IS possibly is not'. Existence "just is" the hinge on which all existing swings. Your inversion, Sam, assumes an unwarranted 'dualism' that is both incoherent and unparsimonious. Spinozism had refuted 'Cartesian duality' over three centuries ago.and Berkeley's 'subjective idealism' is clearly question-begging (see Kant's critique).

    I do believe we are individuals that are part of the core mind, i.e., we are individuals that are connected with the core ... The core consciousness is constantly creating experiences for the innumerable conscious beings that are associated with the core mind ... the essence of who we are cannot be harmed ....
    This :sparkle: "core mind, core consciousness" :sparkle: reminds me very much of the sage woo--woo of an ancient Jedi Master:
    For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter.  You must feel the Force around you; here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere, yes. 

    *

    Deceive you, eyes can. In the Force, very different each of you is.

    *

    Death is a natural part of life, rejoice for those around you who transform into the Force.

    *

    Twilight is upon me, and soon night must fall. that is the way of things. The way of the Force.
    — Sayings of Yoda
    In sum: "NDEs" = temporary FORCE GHOSTS. :sweat:
  • Is A Utopian Society Possible ?
    I agree: not "malignantly indifferent", just reasonably indifferent to MALIGNANT USELESSNESS – courage – like e.g. (non-academic) epicureans, stoics, spinozists & absurdists. :fire:

    Absurdism is a response, similar to existentialism, but it doesn't see the problem for what it is.schopenhauer1
    Apparently, as your 'dogmatic ontophobic idealism' shows, you do not grok absurdism as expressed by (e.g.) PW Zapffe, A. Camus, C. Rosset ... Instead, schop, you fetishize the lyrical "antinatal" musings of a minor horror novelist and latter-day disciple of a haute bourgeois, misanthropic, dyspeptic pessimist (who also happens to be a great neo-kantian philosopher).
  • A Thought Experiment Question for Christians
    Suppose you somehow became convinced that Christianity is false.Art48
    Raised & educated by strict Roman Catholics, I'd reach this conclusion by senior year in my Jesuit high school (though my apostasy had begun two years earlier).

    Suppose you came to believe that Jesus was just a man. How would you proceed?
    In the late 1970s I'd critically compared his purported teachings to that of others like Socrates, Epicurus, Buddha, Laozi, Kongzi ... who were also "just men" and had found Yeshua ben Yosef far less compelling.

    What would you do?
    I'd become a freethinker and naturalist / anti-supernaturalist; then had for years studied comparative religion and religious histories on my own; all the while growing more secular, even irreligious, from apostate to weak athiest to strong atheist by the mid 1990s to antitheist (with strong speculative affinities for pandeism) about two decades ago.

    Make a choice and explain why.
    1. This is ridiculous. Christianity IS true and that’s all there is to it. I’m not doing this silly thought experiment. Count me out. (No further explanation needed.)
    2. I would become an atheist.
    3. I would search for a God that isn’t false.
    4. None of the above. I would do something else.
    Well, as sketched above, my path had been from 4 through 3 to 2. :halo:
  • Is A Utopian Society Possible ?
    I wouldn't know, mister sad sack, because I'm not very sociable anymore and yet, absurdist bluesman that I am, for decades I've been growing more cheerful with age. Memento mori et memento vivere. :death: :flower:
  • Is A Utopian Society Possible ?
    That's the basis of my "Communities for Catharsis" and "fellow-sufferers of compassion" notion.schopenhauer1
    And yet consistent with your (Ligotti's) defeatist premises that's still a MALIGNANTLY USELESS "notion", no? :smirk:

    ... if one is feeling isolated, lonely, and the only one suffering, it may be best to communicate this in a communal way with others feeling the same way."schopenhauer1
    Yeah, of course, because (like in cults, asylums, prisons, marriages) misery does love company. :mask:

    Of course, as previously noted, this presupposes a considerable reduction in population. That's not something I advocate - that's something I predict.Vera Mont
    :up: :up:

    "Utopia?"
    a post-scarcity, philanthropic AGI-managed (automated), sprawl-free municipality (arcology)180 Proof
  • Is the real world fair and just?
    Likewise, we don't know what G*D is,Gnomon
    On the contrary, g/G is an empty name that

    only what it does:
    pacifies the superstitious. :pray:

    a hypothetical explanation for the existence of [ ... ]
    If this "hypothetical explanation" is testable, then cite such a test or what one might be in principle; however, if it is not testable, then there is not any reason to consider g/G an "explanation" for anything at all.