Agreed. I don't advocate assassinating any current/former elected politician or candidate for office. I never have. Even though SCOTUS recently granted "immunity from criminal prosecution" to POTUS for "killing a political rival".

No "fantasizing", just talking about what the orange shit "deserves" as you said.

Point at something Trump did that makes him deserve to be assassinated. — Tzeentch

Nothing. He desires to die very slowly in excrutiating agony while fully aware of Sleepy Dark Brandon's 2nd inauguration, then mercifully expire a world-class loser on 21January25. That's what The Clown & his cult of worshipful idiots deserve.

Are actions in general (such as buying, walking, flying etc.) considered universals? — SEP lineolata

If I understand your question correctly, I suppose so sub specie aeternitatis (or from a 4-d pov) ...

Here are brief articles which summarize my understanding of 'philosophy as therapy' beginning with the Socratic method in (early) Plato's Dialogues, followed later by the Pyrrhonian epoché (re: undecidable statements (e.g. metaphysics, theology, ethics)) ... and reimagined explicitly via Wittgenstein's clarification of latent nonsense inherent in meta-discourses (early) and then more broadly as descriptions of conceptual confusions as symptoms of philosophers' misuses of everyday language (late)):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quietism_(philosophy)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_approach

My point is, Amity, that 'rigorous conceptual clarification' (i.e. dialectics / therapy) is only a means and not the end (which is, imo, 'eudaimonic praxis') of Stoicism; thus, the Stoic philosopher reminds us, in part, of (Plato's early) Socrates. No doubt others will take issue with this sketchy interpretation; hopefully, however, the above is informative enough to point you in a fruitful direction.

NB: I do not consider myself a 'philosophical quietist / therapist' (even though I agree with Witty that philosophy is not theoretical (i.e. doesn't explain matters of fact) – that, for me, it's only reflectively hermeneutic-pragmatic (Epicurus ... Spinoza ... Hume ... Peirce-Dewey ...)).

Even Fox Noise ... :sweat:

I ain't worried about the MAGA Circus (or "Project 2025") ... just the next assassination attempt. :zip:

:mask: :up:

:up: :up:

What criteria do you use when judging someone's justification for a policy or a course of action? — Vera Mont

A two-step criterion: (1) performative self- consistency, if an action/policy is not, then the relevant, problematic inconsistency should be exposed and possibly reformed; (2) efficacious harm-prevention/reduction, if an action/policy is not, then It should be opposed and/or replaced with an evidently more efficacious alternative.

Is it different from the criteria you apply to justifications for an isolated act?

I don't know what you mean in this context by "isolated act".

When justifying your own actions or statements, according to what factors do you formulate your argument?

I rely heavily on (to the best of my ability) non-fallacious, defeasible, sound reasoning.

On what grounds do you decide whether a justification is appropriate and valid?

Whenever a moral agent acts/doesn't act (re: harm) or a public/private institution enacts policies which affect the public (re: injustice) I think are grounds for requiring justification.

15July24

(Day 15 of the American Monarchy)

Roevember 2024:

POTUS Biden & VP Harris
(plutocratic neoliberals) :zip:

versus

The Criminal Clown DJT & MAGA-bitch J.D. Vance
(autocratic neofascists) :down:

You exist. This is self-evident to you. — Treatid

How do you know this if it is only "subjective"?

However, you cannot prove your existence to me beyond all possible doubt ...

Firstly, "proof" only pertains to logic and mathematics, not matters of fact.

Secondly, "beyond all possible doubt" is neither a necessary condition nor sufficient condition for any claim to have a(n objective) truth-value.

Thirdly, whether or not you/we believe "beyond all possible doubt" any X exists is neither a necessary condition nor sufficient condition that that X exists.

Lastly, given that you/we/I lack compelling, reasonable grounds to doubt any X exists, believing that that X exists is reasonable until such grounds for doubt are evident. Thus, Descartes' "Cogito" fails due to the unwarranted premise of "doubting everything that can be doubted" since, though merely "possible", there are no grounds ever to do so. (Read Wittgenstein's On Certainty.)

So - "your existence is self evident" is subjectively true. Your existence is evident to you.

Again, how do you know my so-called "self-evident ... subjective truth"?

[ ... ] isn't an objective truth. This applies to every concept you can imagine. It is impossible to objectively prove anything. 

e.g. Such as this merely "subjective" statement. :roll:

Like the logician Lewis Caroll's "Alice", Treatid, you've fallen down the ancient sophist Gorgias' self-refuting rabbit hole to "Jabberwocky"-land.

I love eating meat (in smaller portions and less frequently than I used to decades ago). Neither periods of being a vegetarian nor a vegan had been nutritious enough or made me anything but miserable. I'm still waiting for vat-grown meat to become a sustainable, economically feasible and appetizing alternative to industrial livestock meat production. Until then, I remain an 'immoral' (guilt-free) carnivore.

(2021)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/582423

I oppose Bush-ism and support most of Trumpism. — fishfry

So what small part of "Trumpism" don't you support?

They are determined, ergo involuntarily choose to do so.

:up: :up:

If determinism is true ... — NotAristotle

... then involuntarily determined sometimes I deliberate and sometimes I do not deliberate; thus, it is an illusion (i.e. cognitive bias) that "retrospectively I feel" I could have "voluntarily" done A instead of B or "prospectively feel" I will "voluntarily" do X and not Y ... as if my volition is not embodied-conditioned-constrained (i.e. determined) by causes known and unknown to me moment to moment.

The primary distinction between my worldview and that of most physicists & chemists is Holism vs Reductionism. — Gnomon

False dichotomy – modern science (physics, chemistry, etc) is both reductive and holistic.

On a good day, your "worldview", sir, is merely a flavor of New Age pseudo-metaphysics (i.e. fact-free poor reasoning). :sparkle: To wit:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/916851

[In] a science-constrained metaphysical discussion, you have to take more account of what the science actually says. — apokrisis

:100: :up:

Of course, that's not going to happen because Gnomon gets science conspicuously, incorrigibly wrong. :eyes:

I despair of the American situation. — Amity

Apparently, so did a registered Republican nutjob (allowed to be?) on a rooftop with an AR-15. :mask:

:up:

Pardon my intrusion but

The notion of objective (fixed) truth should be dead and buried millennia ago. — Treatid

i.e. a truth claim such as ...

The universe is an iterated network of relationships ... This is the linchpin observation. — Treatid

therefore "should be dead and buried" as well, which is self-refuting and so there's no need for

If you can find an exception - my position collapse(s). — Treatid

:confused:

Karma.

13July24

(Day 13 of the American Monarchy)

FWIW, my guess is that The Neofascist Criminal Clown will announce he's selected either Kari Lake of Arizona or Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina to be his running mate. :meh:

Yep, more

gibberish to deflect from incoherent claims — 180 Proof

I despair of the American situation. And can only hope that Trump doesn't win again. It doesn't bear thinking about... — Amity

It doesn't, but the thought haunts me.

It's strange but when I read 'Socratic philosopher', I was thinking of Stoicism. I wouldn't say I am a 'Stoic philosopher' but I adopted the perspective. — Amity

Maybe that's because Stoicism is, putting it simplistically, the Socratic method applied covertly (or strategically) to practical / political life. 'Radically moderate' yet effective. Unapplied, however, elenchus is mostly therapeutic (e.g. (late) Wittgenstein).

:up: :up:

You have either not understood my questions (as you conspicuously do not understand modern physics (e.g. conservation laws¹) or modern philosophy (e.g. interaction problem of substance duality², non-causal property of abstract objects³)) or you are disingenuously replying with gibberish to deflect from incoherent claims that "energy is abstract" and yet "by definition" somehow (via woo-woo) "abstract energy" "causes" non-abstract "matter". :lol:

https://www.britannica.com/science/conservation-of-mass-energy [1]

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/#VarDuaInt [2]

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abstract-objects/#AbouAbstDist [3]

(1) If, as you claim, energy is not material, then how does it interact with the material (e.g. mass-energy equivalence) without violating fundamental conservation laws?

(2) And the philosophical corollary to the physics question: how does a non-material substance 'interact with material substance (re: substance duality)?

If your position makes sense, then you should be able to cogently answer both questions, sir – years ago when I'd read your thesis/blog I didn't come across anything remotely resembling a cogent answer. :smirk:

I've always wondered why folks who are convinced there is "life after death" do not kill themselves especially when they are healthy and happy. No doubt it's for the same reason fortune-tellers do not win lotteries everyday or put casinos and insurance companies out of business.

Thanks 180. Good to be with you again. — Amity

Yes hello! I hope you are well (or at least feeling better now that the Tories have been sacked). :flower:

Hope your story-telling is still going strong?

I'm afraid not: the Muse has been gone for several months ...

It seems we have to go through a great deal of hellishness and deterioration of lives and services until rock bottom is reached. Before we can begin to climb out.

:up: Sisyphus' amor fati.

Knowing enough to get by and then leaving it. Going for a walk and enjoying life and health when you can. Appreciating some interaction with others...returning to previous interests, to be raised from the dead...mixing it up. Using the brain cells...sharing stories.

:clap: Memento mori, ergo memento vivere.

:up:

[W]hy do sentient beings contemplate the concept of a creator? — Shawn

Only language-using "sentient beings" seem to do so. To wit:

I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar. — Friedrich Nietzsche

the dichotomy between theism and atheism — Jack Cummins

Bald is not a hair color; there is no "dichotomy" between bald (atheism) & blonde (theism). I can't follow the rest of your post, Jack.

:ok: So you do not have any concrete grounds to assume or claim that energy (i.e. activity) is not material. Just checking ...

Why do you assume that energy (e.g. massless particles ... mental activity ...) is not material?

It is the current state of political affairs that most concerns me. Does being a 'Socratic philosopher' help? — Amity

Maybe, but imo not as much as being either an Epicurean philosopher or a Stoic philosopher ... or even being an absurdist (Zapffe/Camus-like) philosopher ... might help.

If we observed midichlorions, it would indicate Jediism is true. — Hallucinogen

:roll: These are not the droids you are looking for.

:up:

↪180 Proof That seems to be a very good account of morality — Tom Storm

Thanks.

I recall Slavoj Žižek making the entirely reasonable riposte that, 'If there is a God, then anything is permitted'.

Like e.g. absolute ends justify/excuses all relative means (Biblical / Quranic theodicy); "teleological suspension of the ethical" (Kierkegaard); etc ... but (iirc) it was Camus (or Voltaire) who said something like even godlessness does not imply that nothing is prohibited as a riposte to traditions of theologically rationalizing atrocities committed "in the name of God".

Do you think that the development of morality is a significant aspect of our evolutionary trajectory?

Yes, I think morality as such, like language, gives our species some adaptive advantages.

a world where there are no absolutes — Fire Ologist

Nature might not be "absolute" but for all natural beings, including we humans, Nature is sovereign and inescapable.

:smirk: Yes, (dogmatic) rationalizing is always easier than (reflective-dialectical-defeasible) reasoning ... especially for foolosophers.

Do you agree with me then, that anyone who does not believe in natural, objective truths, really has no ground to stand on to build up a morality? — Fire Ologist

No, of course not. One does not entail the other. Besides, it's more adaptive (or pragmatic) than not, to have a morality (from the Latin word mores meaning 'customs') like developing and using a common language or practicing good diet & hygiene.

Would you call your morality utilitarian?

It's a form of negative consequentialism¹ (i.e. my term for it is aretaic disutilitarianism meaning 'virtue-based harm-prevention/reduction').

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_consequentialism [1]

Just because God said to Moses “thou shalt not murder, steal, and lie” [ ... ]

The ancient Hebrews like all other tribal peoples survived, in part, because they had adopted customary prohibitions "not to murder, steal and lie" long before any elder heard a voice telling him/them to do so. 'Core morality' long precedes religion and, in fact (re: anthropology), makes cults & reiigions, as well as trade & politics, possible, and therefore is based on human eusociality (& empathy) constitutive of being a natural species.

It’s still an objectively good idea to say murder is wrong, no matter how you derive that idea.

'Killing is wrong' (all things being equal) because everyone fears being killed. This core moral idea is, afaik, an objective requirement of every eusocial grouping especially but not limited to humans.

Aren’t suffering, pain and pleasure subjective ...?

Not exclusively. We are harmed by and suffer from whatever makes our kind (species) of natural being dysfunctional. This harm and suffering, while experienced subjectively, is also objective, which is why the old maxim "A physician who treats himself has a fool for a patient" is more often than not a true statement.

Don't limit yourself. — Harry Hindu

Using a more precise and specific term – "anti-supernatural" in this case – is no more limiting (imo) than using a better, perhaps the best, tool for the job.

Is it not relevant in a thread discussing religion and metaphysics to assert that religion is a type of delusion?

I didn't say or imply "delusional" is not "relevant" in this context but that it's too broad and psychologistic rather than a precise and metaphysical term like supernaturalistic.

And does this assertion provide a non-dual "bridging" between theism and atheism ...?

No. Atheism, as I've pointed out up-thread (p. 2), implies nonduality by rejecting theism which consists of (e.g. creator-creation, spirit-flesh, supernatural-nature) duality.

Would the answer to the thread's question ...?

I suppose that depends on how one answers ... which thread question? :chin:
.

Do you know what is the Good? — Janus

No, but I understand that "The Good" is nonbeing.

If someone claims to know what is the Good, do you know, can you know, that she knows what is the Good?

I know that if she's a mortal, then she cannot "know" ...

Show me where this thread is about the defining attributes of "theism". — Pantagruel

Non sequitur. It was you, Panta, who asserted without argument that my sine qua non claims of theism, which are easily falsified (i.e. atheism), is "ad hoc" or that I "made it up" and so I'm requesting of you to put up – respond with a citation that counters my concept of theism (yeah, we both know you cannot :sweat:) – or shut up.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/915456

Some people who don’t believe in God, also say things like “there is no truth” or “there are no absolutes.” — Fire Ologist

I definitely do not agree with your "some people" as my previous posts point out. Maybe below (A, B, C1, C2) my reasoning will be clearer to you.

So something is there for you to work out a morality.

Yes, see (B) below.

(A) I believe there are objective truths.

(B) I believe moral naturalism consists of objective truths

• humans are natural beings which are imbedded in and inseparable from nature and its regular processes (re: objective facticity);
• natural beings suffer from what they do to and what they fail to do for themselves or others;
• humans know what makes humans (and other natural beings like humans) suffer and therefore how to prevent or reduce human (natural beings') suffering (re: disvalue);
• virtues are habits reinforced by preventing and reducing suffering (re: disvalue) whereas vices are habits reinforced by neglecting or increasing suffering (re: disvalue);
• human flourishing means maximizing virtues and minimizing vices)

which can be demonstrated using sound arguments. No doubt, open to discussion and debate. "Why bother?" you ask. To expose the flaws in the argument and explore via thought-experiments / scenarios moral naturalism's (as conceived here) pragmatic plausibility because we are thinking adults instead of dogmatic or supertitious children.

(C1) I do not believe (theistic) gods are anything more than subjective (ideas fictions or dreams) without any objective referents (i.e. enpty names).

(C2) I believe that any 'morality' based on or derived from merely subjective ideas like (theistic) gods are also merely subjective (i.e. arbitrary, relativist, emotive, dogmatic, superstitious, etc), therefore not objective.

... moral laws ...

Does the above make sense to you now? — Fire Ologist

No. Again, morals =/= laws. :roll:

if I didn’t believe in God and objective truth

I don't believe in "God" ... and, because there are objective truths, I'm a moral naturalist.

:up: