Neither claiming nor implying such, how does "heroism" equate to "masking the reality" when a hero is usually someone who defies reality, fatally risking herself, rather than someone who denies reality? :chin:Masking the reality with heroism — schopenhauer1
No "existential gaslighting" or "performative resiliance" – the fact is, schop, there are philosophies of defiance ("unselfing") such as those mentioned above contrary to sophistries of denial ("suicide") like fideism, anti-natalism or nihilism. :mask:At the end of the day, there is no relief, only sleep and death. Everything else is MALIGNANTLY USELESS...
— schopenhauer1
As daoists, epicureans, pyrrhonists, spinozists, absurdists et al know first-hand: humor & creativity, friendship & compassion also provide "relief" during the often tedious intervals between "sleep and death". — 180 Proof
Absolutely. The indispensible virtue. With courage, cheerful-defiant pessimism (e.g. Nietzsche); without courage, resentful-defeatist pessimism (e.g. Schopenhauer) – singing the blues :death: :flower: or crippling anxiety :cry: :sad: , respectively.Yes. Do you think this requires a type of courage? — Tom Storm
As daoists, epicureans, pyrrhonists, spinozists, absurdists et al know first-hand: humor & creativity, friendship & compassion also provide "relief" during the often tedious intervals between "sleep and death".At the end of the day, there is no relief, only sleep and death. Everything else is MALIGNANTLY USELESS ... — schopenhauer1
:up:Consciousness surviving the body? If you are dualist, perhaps. — Manuel
Not so. Consider ...You can find the oldest record of moral rules in the Torah and the Quran. — Tarskian
IFF, imo, it's a post-scarcity, philanthropic AGI-managed (automated), sprawl-free municipality (arcology) ... ideally, an O'Neill/McKendree cylinder (asteroid terrarium). :nerd:Is A Utopian Society Possible? — kindred
Probably rabid domestic terrorists ...So then I'm wondering what will the Trump cult morph into next? — Benkei
You're entitled to "believe" whatever you like but these "beliefs" are not supported by either corroborable evidence or valid arguments. You're merely rationalizing, not reasoning – preaching, not philosophizing. We don't even disagree, Chet; we're playing different games, talking past one another.(I believe)
The belief is all I have.
I am only really speaking of order and chaos as emotions ...
I would say that COMMON sense shows this is very true.
My belief is that the entire universe has as a rule ...
... the seemingly ephemeral 'thoughts and prayers' all have an effect.
... my model of belief suggests ... — Chet Hawkins
No they aren't. For example, dying is not life's goal, only life's direction; thus, it's incoherent (or "disingenuous") to conflate them.the philosophical difference between 'direction' and 'goal' is rather disingenuous ... The terms are effectively synonymous.
Stalinism & Maoism, like Nazism/Fascism, were totalitarian theocratic-gangster systems wherein dehumanizing means undermined, or eliminated, humanizing ends. Nothing to do with indigenous communisms (or libertarian socialism).What are your thoughts on the matter? — Shawn
Parsimony be damned, the principle of explosion (& effect of other "obvious" fallacies) always ... works in mysterious ways. :pray:The obvious implication of my argument is that there’s intelligence (consciousness or mind) behind the universe ... — Sam26
Confession is good for the soul, they say; don't you feel better now, Sam? :smirk:Ifour[my] goal is to win an argument at all costs because we don’t like aparticular[valid, scary] conclusion, thenwe are[I'm] not doing good philosophy ... especially ifour[the] goal is truth.
No doubt, @Wayfarer, you accidently missed this request.And I've long argued that if an individual life is understood as part of a continuum extending before physical birth that has consequences beyond physical death, that this can provide a framework within which the life beyond is at least conceivable.
— Wayfarer
Okay, so make the case – a sound argument – for this alleged "continuum" ... Once the facts of the matter are established, then we can interpret their philosophical ramifications (and, maybe, derive cogent, metaphysical conclusions). :chin: — 180 Proof
More precisely, "spirituality" is a stance or disposition towards daily experience (like e.g. creativity) and not merely a means-to-ends "tool".Spirituality is a non-rational tool — Tarskian
Not so. "Survival instinct" is autonomic (like e.g. respiration) and therefore does need to be extrinsically "stimulated".... to stimulate survival instinct ...
I.e. metaphysics (i.e. categorical / absolute ideas) that is expressed via rational (inferential, dialectical) and/or non-rational (analogical, mythical) discursive practices.... by connecting to something that is greater than ourselves and which is divine in nature ....
Really? Tell that to Daoists, Confucists, Vedantists, Pythagoreans, Epicureans, Stoics, Neoplatonists, Aristotleans, Spinozists et al ... Each of these philosophies are manifest "spiritual" ways of life.Philosophy is not meant to do that and therefore cannot replace that.
This may be true of modern academic philosophy (e.g. Anglo-American analytical philosophy, Viennese logical positivism, Parisian post/structuralism, etc) but not true of contemporary variants on and applications of way of life philosophies (some of which I've already mentioned) such as (e.g.) rational emotive hehavioral therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, existential therapy, logotherapy, clinical philosophy, etc.Unlike spirituality, philosophyis not meant toassist with mental healthcare.
I.e. mygoddidit-of-the-gaps :sparkle:physics after thefreemiracle — AmadeusD
What do you mean by "philosophy"and "spirituality" – what makes them fundamentally different?Philosophy cannot replace spirituality. — Tarskian
:up:You will find no other philosophy so reviled, misunderstood, and scorned, yet still true.
— schopenhauer1
Hallmark belief of a religious cult. — Lionino
Yeah, of course, you"re making my point again: you traffic in slogans – strawmen – rather than informed, valid arguments. :smirk:Physicalism is, in slogan form, the thesis that everything is physical....
—Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy — Wayfarer
If so, then vote against him in the most effective way based on your situation: if you live in a swing state (i.e. polling trends are within the margin of error so that there is a reasonable chance for Trump to win your state), then vote "Harris-Walz"; if, however, you live in a safe state (i.e. Trump can't either lose or win that state), then vote for a third-party candidate who most aligns with your policy preferences (e.g. I will write-in "Cornel West" here in Washington state).There’s no way I’m voting Trump — John McMannis
Your second statement does not follow from the first statement which is why physicalists do not – I do not – make such a claim. Sadly, Wayf, you're still shadowboxing with strawmen rather than making actual valid arguments.Defenders of physicalism will say:
1. The predictive [& explanatory] power and technological applications of physics are unparalleled by those of any other purported source of knowledge.
2. Therefore what physics reveals to us is all that is real. — Wayfarer
Suitable for flora but not fauna.... without pain, suffering, disease, wars, poverty or even death. — kindred
Are you paying attention to someone patient enough to spoon-feed criticisms I and others have made countless times of your non-philosophical non-arguments, @Sam26? :eyes:Where is your evidence that people's perceptions that they are real, means they are real?
Remember the sun circling around the Earth? Feeling like things are real is not the same as it actually being real. Even if a lot of people feel that it is.
The problem again, is you keep presenting information that definitely shows that NDEs are real subjective experiences, but does not have enough weight to argue that the interpretation of these subjective experiences match reality. — Philosophim
Not so "open", I hope, that your brain falls out. :smirk:I have an open mind ... — Wayfarer
:100:Well, we just disagree.
— @Sam26
It is more than that. Your claim is objectively not a strong inductive argument, and you have objectively failed to present a good and cogent argument worth considering. This is the philosophy boards, not the opinion boards. — Philosophim
Okay, so make the case – a sound argument – for this alleged "continuum" ... Once the facts of the matter are established, then we can interpret their philosophical ramifications (and, maybe, derive cogent, metaphysical conclusions). :chin:And I've long argued that if an individual life is understood as part of a continuum extending before physical birth that has consequences beyond physical death, that this can provide a framework within which the life beyond is at least conceivable. — Wayfarer