Comments

  • On Freedom
    Mostly I think of freedom as liberation from fear and suffering. — Tom Storm
    :up:
  • "Aristotle and Other Platonists:" A Review of the work of Lloyd Gerson
    ... without chance and contingency ... The fixed intelligible world is unintelligible. — Fooloso4
    :fire:
  • The best analysis is synthesis
    ↪Pantagruel
    Never mind.
  • Some Thoughts on Human Existence
    Which thought then do you find scarier? — jasonm
    Neither. Only this life in time is "scary".

    If we die and reach the afterlife, what if there is life but not eternal life? — jasonm
    Same shit (again), different "life".
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    I don't hate Israel. I'm anti-zionist. — Benkei
    Same here. :up:

    Do you believe in the preservation or destruction of the Jewish state? — BitconnectCarlos
    I'm too cosmopolitan and leftist to do anything but militantly oppose every ethnonationalist (and/or theocratic), war criminal state.

    If you're an anti-zionist then you ultimately aim at it's destruction.
    The patently false assumption here is that (post-1967 ethnonationalist) "zionism" is the only, or best, governing principle (i.e. ideology) for preserving and securing the State of Israel. Thus, your vapid and false dilemma, BC: support the elimination of either "all non-Jews" (Us) or "all Jews" (Them) from the river to the sea. No doubt I am all for the "destruction" of the right wing, AshkeNAZI-racist, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, colonizer-settler establishment in Israel beginning with the immediate and permanent cessation of ALL US-Nato military support for & economic aid to (including total economic boycott of) Bibi's mass murdering regime.
  • The best analysis is synthesis
    Bunge has some other remarkable observations, that energy is the only "universal physical property," for example. But what I like most is his conclusion that "the general concept of energy is so general that it belongs in metaphysics." Because it is so big that it overflows our scientific conceptions of it. — Pantagruel
    I'm not familiar with Bunge's work. Say something more about his conception of "energy" that 'belongs in metaphysics" (like e.g. Schopenhauer's Will). Thanks.
  • "Aristotle and Other Platonists:" A Review of the work of Lloyd Gerson
    To reify is to make a thing', — Wayfarer
    No, it is to treat an abstraction (e.g. "Form of Goodness") as if it is "a thing" in causal relation with other things which is why, misplaced concreteness (i.e. reifying an abstraction) is fallacious. It is Platonists who misuse/abuse language and thereby fetishize the definite article.

    ... ideas [Forms?] don't exist - not because they're unreal, but because they are beyond existence (which is precisely what 'transcendent' means). — Wayfarer
    ... ideas [Forms?] are transcendental.
    Confusion of "transcendent" with "transcendental" – which is it, Wayfarer? :roll: – "by those who cannot grasp" this Platonic fallacy.

    I had the idea it is impossible to admire both Nietszche and Plato.
    You're wrong again, sir. Like many, I admire both thinkers[ yet for different reasons. (not the least of which for poetically dramatizing the characters of 'Socrstes' & 'Zarathustra', respectively). And don't forget that admirable duo Wittgenstein & Spinoza who I also mentioned in support of my criticisms.
  • What are you listening to right now?
    Baby, don't you let your
    dog bite me

    "I'm in Love Again" (2:00)
    A-side single, 1956
    writers F. Domino & D. Bartholomew
    performer Fats Domino
  • "Aristotle and Other Platonists:" A Review of the work of Lloyd Gerson
    With regard to Plato and Aristotle their shared common ground is that they are both Socratic skeptics, inquirers who know that they do not know. — Fooloso4
    It should be understood that Socratic skepticism differs from other types of skepticism. It is the desire to know based on the knowledge of our ignorance. It is, as the root of the word indicates, the practice of doubt and inquiry.

    With regard to evidence, we must follow the argument and action of the dialogues in Plato that lead to aporia and the dialectic of Aristotle.     — Fooloso4
    :100: :fire: This sums up my own freethinker-naturalist interpretation of 'Platonism' (which non-exhaustively includes 'Aristotleanism').

    The heuristic I prefer is that forms or ideas don't exist - not because they're unreal, but because they are beyond existence (which is precisely what 'transcendent' means). We are blessed with the intellectual facility, nous, which is capable of grasping these forms (or perceiving rational principles) — Wayfarer
    I.e. fallacy of reification / misplaced concereteness (which Nietzsche astutely points out is an inversion, or confusion, of effects & causes). As you anti-naturalists et al construe, Wayf, 'Platonic-Aristotlean' essences (universals) aka "Forms" are only abstractions from concrete entities generalized over them as classes (sets kinds types etc) by 'the need' (i.e. cognitive bias? will to power? the absurd?) of the human intellect to (aesthetically) impose (moral) order on (epistemic) chaos by justifying this slight-of-mind (nous) retroactively – at worst a sophistical subterfuge of implicit rationalization. To wit:
    I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar — F.N.
    Likewise I interpret what Wittgenstein means by 'patent nonsense from (traditional) philosophy misusing ordinary language (i.e. grammar) in order to try to say (meta-grammatically) what can only be shown' – or later, philosophers confusedly, or carelessly, 'playing some language game by the rules of another (à la making category mistakes)' – "transcendent illusions" of meta-nonsense. :eyes:

    Anyway, if as you say, sir, that "Forms transcend existence", then it is a contradiction in terms to assume or assert that entities which "transcend existence" (e.g. super-naturalia like "Platonic Forms") have any explanatory – causal – relation to existence (e.g. nature).

    Read Spinoza. :victory: :wink:
  • On Freedom
    Better to be a sad Socrates than a smug swine
    — 180 Proof

    John Stuart Mill said in an essay titled A PIG, A FOOL, AND SOCRATES: It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question.

    That's not quite as pithy as your version     — BC
    :smirk: :up:
  • Radical Establishmentism: a State of Democracy {Revised}
    focusing on parts at the expense of the whole can lead to conspiracy theories and paranoia — tim wood
    :up:

    [C]ivilisations tend to suffer from entropy over time and slide into decadence. — ChatteringMonkey
    :up: :up:
  • Fate v. Determinism
    The point of determinism is that there are no options, but that there is only one course of action possible. — Hanover
    You're mistaken, sir. That's predeterminism, not determinism (i.e. every effect necessarily has at least one cause). For instance, stochastic / nonlinear dynamic systems are deterministic (re: initial conditions) with a probabilistic spread of outcomes (e.g. hurricanes, tornadoes, stock markets, traffic flows).

    The only true free will would be an uncaused cause ...
    Well, I use the terms voluntary action or uncoerced behavior rather than (idealist / essentialist) "free will".
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    ↪Benkei
    :mask: :up:
  • Fate v. Determinism
    (i.e. conditionally voluntary actions)
    — 180 Proof

    Conditionally voluntary is a self contradictory phrase to the extent "conditionally" means deterministically. If you mean something other than that, explain what it is.     — Hanover
    I'll put it this way: by 'conditionally voluntary' I mean embodied, or being mindbodies the behaviors of which are both enabled and constrained by deterministic physical laws (i.e. regularities constituting nature).

    Why am morally responsible for X if I couldn't have done otherwise?
    You are not; I haven't suggested this.

    How is determinism of any sort, hard or soft (i.e. compati[bil]ism), compatible with moral responsibility.
    Firstly, 'indeterminism' (i.e. randomness) negates minds (mine-ness), bodies, actions, consequences ... responsibility (moral, legal, political, or otherwise) which are enabled and constrained by physical laws; in other words, "libertarian free will" within the physical world (i.e. nature) is conceptually incoherent – here even Kant agrees with ... as well as Spinoza & Epicurus
    ↪180 Proof
    .

    Secondly, within constraints, our mindbodies are uncoerced iff they have two or more actionable options in any given (historical-social-existential) situation; therefore, each deterministic (i.e. physical laws-bound) mindbody is responsible for the (foreseeable(?)) consequences her uncoerced actions (volo) or inactions (veto).
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    ↪jgill
    Yessiree!
  • Concept of no-self in Buddhism
    ↪Heracloitus
    I appreciate the correction. Thanks.
  • Concept of no-self in Buddhism
    The most that can be said about thought then, is that we are unaware where thoughts come from and where they go - so why the leap to no-self? — Heracloitus
    IIRC, by "no-self" Buddhists (or Advaita Vedantists) mean there is no permanent, unchanging, non-transient, unconditional or transcendent self. I think Hume's "bundle theory" is analogous. That we are subjectively unaware of 'the comings and goings of our thoughts' implies only that this is (a) limitation of first-person awareness. I believe "the leap" (insight) originally was from 'the coming and going of thoughts' – not from lack of awareness of why they come and go – to the coming and going (anicca) of all things, which includes "self" (i.e. anatta). :fire: :eyes:

    NB: I don't know how "Buddhists" (which school? eastern or western?) account for (explain away) apparent inconsistencies in their teachings or worldview with non-Buddhist perspectives (e.g. daoism, classical atomism or modern naturalism/physicalism). My guesses above are merely 'non-Buddhist interpretations' which to me seem (pragmatically) reasonable. No doubt, most Buddhists (like Wayfarer) will probably disagree ...
  • Fate v. Determinism
    I accept libertarian free will as a necessary component for any understanding, analogous to Kantian space and time intuitions, which is simply to say it's necessary for any understanding of the world, even if it makes no sense under deep analysis. — Hanover
    On the contrary, sir, I think [1] naturalism (i.e. nature as 'the more-than-human-mind ontology that necessarily constitutes-conditions any view-from-everywhere epistemology') and [2] compatibilism (i.e. conditionally voluntary actions) taken together make much more "sense under deep analysis" to me¹ as constituents "necessary for any understanding the world" (that is also consistent with both modern physical theories and contemporary social-historical facts) than idealist – antirealist, subjectivist (i.e. romantic / existentialist), immaterialist or Thomist – alternatives such as crypto-Cartesian/quasi-Platonist "Kantian libertarian free will".


    ¹e.g. read Epicurus-Epictetus, read Spinoza, read Hume, read Zapffe-Camus-Rosset, read Dewey-Popper-Feyerabend-Haack, read D. Parfit-M. Nussbaum-P. Foot, read Q. Meillassoux-R. Brassier...
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ↪Mikie
    Gump's "stupid is as stupid does" has devolved into Trump's Morons Against Great America. :mask:
  • On Freedom
    "The unexamined life is not worth living" may be a bit extreme, but the examined life is certainly better, ceteris paribus, than the unexamined — Janus
    :up: No doubt – (to paraphrase I don't recall whom) Better to be a sad Socrates than a smug swine.
  • Fate v. Determinism
    Both deny free agency. — Hanover
    If by "free" you mean unconditional, then I agree.
  • On Freedom
    What is freedom? — Nemo2124
    'Being free from fear enough to work for freeing descendants and others from fear enough to work for ...' is how I understand freedom. On this basis, I also think one is responsible (i.e. blameworthy à la mauvaise foi) to the degree one neglects or denies this emancipatory work.
  • Fate v. Determinism
    What is the difference between Fate and Determinism? — Frog
    I think this is the existential difference: determinism denotes 'all actions necessarily are effects of causes' (i.e. actions are conditional) whereas fate denotes 'all actions necessarily cause effects' (i.e. actions are consequenntial). Ouroboros-like head & tail (e.g. strange loop). For innstance, 'breaking a promise' is both determined and fateful.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ↪Benkei
    :smirk:
  • The essence of religion
    ↪Constance
    I've reread the OP and that's why I stand by my first post in response ...

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/903982
  • Using Artificial Intelligence to help do philosophy
    So if it's not internal models that make them more than "very fast GIGO, data-mining, calculators", then what would, in your view? — flannel jesus
    As I've already said, I think AIs must also be embodied (i.e. have synthetic phenomenology that constitutes their "internal models").

    What evidence would you have to see about some future generation of ai that would lead you to say it's more than "very fast GIGO, data-mining, calculators"?
    I'll be convinced of that when, unprompted and on its own, an AI is asking and exploring the implications of non-philosophical as well as philosophical questions, understands when and when not to question, and learns how to create novel, more probative questions. This is my point
    ↪180 Proof
    about what current AIs (e.g. LLMs) cannot do.
  • Using Artificial Intelligence to help do philosophy
    ↪flannel jesus
    Maybe. Yes. No.
  • Using Artificial Intelligence to help do philosophy
    ↪flannel jesus
    About "current AIs (e.g. LLMs)"? No.
  • Using Artificial Intelligence to help do philosophy
    ↪flannel jesus
    Yep, only.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    You mean Likud or Hamas. Neither, because I dislike terrorists. — Mikie
    :up: :up:
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Take it from somebody looking at American Bullshit from the outside; it's been rotting since [Nixon]. — Benkei
    :victory: :mask: From the inside too the reek of imperial rot has been unbearable except to the last few of generations of "my fellow American" shiteaters.
  • Using Artificial Intelligence to help do philosophy
    ↪Bret Bernhoft
    Current AIs (e.g. LLMs) cannot philosophize (i.e. raise and reflect on foundational questions in order to reason dialectically towards – in order to understand when and how to create – more probative inquiries) because these 'cognitive systems' are neither embodied (i.e. synthetic phenomenology) nor programmed-trained to emulate metacognition (i.e. self-in-possible-worlds-modeling). IMHO, these machines are still only very very fast GIGO, data-mining, calculators.
  • Is atheism illogical?
    ↪LuckyR
    I claim that many questions are answered by religion (i.e. scriptures, dogmas, sacraments/rites) and require "faith" because those "revealed answers" are merely question-begging "mysteries". Unanswered (or unanswerable) questions are not fallacious – begging the question (e.g. with "mysteries") is fallacious, ergo illogical.
  • The essence of religion
    It precedes reflections about ethics logically; historically who cares. — Constance
    Yeah well, the logical precedent happens to be manifest historically since the topic concerns a concrete, social institution and not a mere abstraction. :roll:

    This is an apriori argument.
    What "argument"? There is no "argument", just speculative observations which are either informed by anthropology, history, psychology, etc or they are not.

    But you have to ask why he took that position. — Constance
    No we don't because Witty isn't the topic of this thread as per the OP. Folks shift the goal posts when they are confused by the obscurity of what they think they are talking about. As far as I'm concerned, Witty is a non sequitur you've introduced that further obscures the issue.
  • The essence of religion
    ↪Constance
    The OP raises a question of "the essence of religion" and not "what Witty says about religion (in the TLP)". Nothing I've discussed here shows what I do or do not understand about "Witty's ethics", so that's a non sequitur at best. The fact of the matter is, Constance, religion long preceeds (by scores of millennia) philosophical reflections such as ethics and that's where its "essence" (foundation) lies – in facticity (e.g. exigency), not ideality (i.e. effable ineffability).
  • Is atheism illogical?
    ↪LuckyR
    Insofar as 'religious faith' denotes worship of and/or practices justified (i.e. rationalized) by Mysteries – which only beg questions becsuse they are not answers (to e.g. "what is source, origin or cause of all things?" "why these values rather than those values?" "is there an afterlife? or day of judgment?" "what is the ultimate plan?" etc) – it is fallacious, or illogical. So explain what I get wrong about 'religious faith'.
  • The essence of religion
    The OP says nothing about mortality. — Constance
    Thus, the failing (obscurity) of the OP.

    Radical contingency, this is a Sartrean term as I remember.
    No doubt he derives it from classical atomism.
  • The essence of religion
    Well, fear of the world is obvious and the need to flee is just crystal clear. But what IS it that one has to flee from that is in and of the world? — Constance
    We flee mortality :fire:, or as Buddhists say: impermanence of ourselves, one another & everything else (NB: I prefer 'radical contingency'). IMO, this fleeing is fundamentally (i.e. atavistically) religious.
  • The essence of religion
    This fuss is a structural feature of our existence, this death by a thousand cuts, say, IS the fuss, and to simply ignore it is entirely disingenuous to philosophy ... — Astrophel
    And what "structural ... death of a thousand cuts" have I ignored?
  • Is atheism illogical?
    ↪LuckyR
    Yeah, but is "religious faith" logical?
Home » 180 Proof