"Mind" is not a thing; it's merely what some very rare, complex material systems do.Mind coming from matter ... — RogueAI
Stuff is just stuff and very rare bits of stuff happen to be aware that they are just stuff like all the other unaware stuff.There is no matter. It's all mental stuff.
Based on Abrahamic, Hindi, pantheonic Greco-Roman-Egyptian-Babylonian-Persian-Mesoamerican-Aboriginal traditions, I understand theism as consisting of the following claims:As far as I know, there is no universal consensus that could legitimately be called the "sine qua non" of theism. i.e. you are making it up in order to then argue against it (as I have repeatedly pointed out). — Pantagruel
Sounds to me like made up woo-stuff :sparkle: just like e.g. "Flying Spaghetti Monsters" ... "The Great Old Ones" ... "The Force" ... nothing to do with any religious expression of theism as such.Mysine qua non theisticclaims are that there are greater-than-human conscious entities.
If I may – go to the source and read Ethics (Edwin Curley's translation); however, if you must read secondary literature, I recommend Spinoza by Stuart Hampshire. Careful reading of either book should clear up (most of) this "ambiguity" you're finding.I have been reading about Spinoza's philosophy and as far as I can see there is a lot of ambiguity over how his ideas are interpreted. — Jack Cummins
Spinoza does not argue this. Regardless of the laziness of centuries of academic fashion, Spinoza is an acosmist¹, not a "pantheist" or "atheist".God was 'nothing other than the whole universe'.
I don't think so. "The playwrite" would have to transform himself into "the play itself" – (analogously) that's pandeism².[ ... ] This is the God of pandeism.
A modern expression of this process ...In ancient philosophy, the term "anagoge" (from the Greek "ἀναγωγή") refers to a process of spiritual or intellectual ascent. — Wayfarer
Akin to atoms swirling swerving & recombing (in) void ...Being is the world of the 10,000 things. Non-being is the Tao. — T Clark
Yes, ³it's the least rational and pragmatic "way of seeing things" except for all the others tried so far.[³M]aterialism's objective reality is not the only way of seeing things.
Well, this "atheist" certainly is "qualified to speak about what" theism "is not" – the sine qua non claims of theism¹ are demonstrably not true.Atheists, bytheir[your] own declaration, are really only qualified to speak about what god is not. — Pantagruel
A post-scarcity, demarchic social system is as "fair and just" as I can imagine.... a social system that is on average fair and just? — apokrisis
I agree. :up:Consciousness is not in need of explanation ... — bert1
And, imo, this "object" conceals (its) absence. In broad strokes, I think religion (to worship) idolatrizes-fetishizes-mystifies '(the) absence' and mysticism (to meditate) denies – negates – 'whatever conceals absence' in order to "experience" absence as such whereas philosophy (to inferentially contemplate) describes – makes explicit – 'presence concealing absence' and science (to testably map-model) observes 'only fact-patterns (i.e. states-of-affairs concealing absence) in order to explain dynamics.There is ... One object of experience. — Fire Ologist
AFAIK, "logic" doesn't "explain" anything; its "applicability" consists in providing formal consistency to arguments (re: valid inferences, sound conclusions).the applicability of logic to explain — Fire Ologist
It seems to me that every (human) "individual" is a (eu/anti)social being first and foremost.But does every individual have to be fair and just or should we build a social system that is on average fair and just? — apokrisis
Yes; however, we h. sapiens have not been "fair and just" enough – too often not at all – to one another for the last several (recorded) millennia at least.Is the real world fair and just? — Gnomon
:sparkle: :lol:The experiences of NDErs... — Sam26
In light of Spinoza's dissolution of the "MBP" derived from the illusion – conceptual incoherence – of Descartes' substance duality (or Aristotle's substance plurality) which I've previously alluded to here , what actual "problem" remains to be discussed?The mind-body problem is made so complicated by an apparent duality of mind and body, but a clearconnection between[complementarity of] the two. — Jack Cummins
The unintelligent (i.e. weak-minded) often, occasionally even ubiquitiously, oppress the intelligent ... with (e.g.) pseudo-scientific nonsense, religious dogmas, conspiracy theories, ethno-nationalist demogoguery, PC/Woke-identitarian ideologies, etc. And afflicted by D-K as you seem to be, BC, you're obviously oblivious to the prevalence of such insidious forms of oppression. :mask:Show me examples of when the weak are more oppressive than the strong. — BitconnectCarlos
In contrast to the philosopher who reflectively contemplates (i.e. unlearns 'learned denials of') how every presence conceals absence, I think the mystic meditates (i.e. unreasons (paradoxically / dialectically) 'inferential reasoning') in order to encounter, or surrender to, (the) absence that encompasses and dis/en-closes (un/en-folds) every presence. In other words, simplistically, they seem the opposite ends of a telescope or like complementary photo negatives of one another.I think in many ways a philosopher is somewhat of a mystic, wouldn't you say? — Outlander
:sweat: Maybe diagnosed, certainly not "influenced" ...I would hypothesize it is substantially influenced by Nietzschien thought. — Bob Ross
:up: :up:When a clown moves into a palace, he does not become a king. The palace becomes a circus.
— Elizabeth Bangs · Jan 23, 2022 — jorndoe
I (mostly) agree but, since the relevent context of this thread discussion implicitly concerns "religion" (and explicity and more broadly concerns metaphysics), I think anti-supernatural is more precise and specific than "anti-delusional" (or, as you said earlier, "rational/logical").Because belief in the supernatural is one type of delusional belief. In being logical one rejects all types of delusion. — Harry Hindu
Why do you think so?I think that anti-supernatural is too restrictive. — Harry Hindu
Well, I think materialism (i.e. only 'the material' is real) is a form nondualism.I see both materialism and idealism as being a bit limited and 'flat'. Non-dualism may be one option amongst others. — Jack Cummins
On the contrary, they preceeded Berkeley by millennia in both Western and Eastern philosophical traditions.Naturalism and realism can be seen as a radical departure from the idealism of Berkley.
I.e.the dual existence of mind and body or their embodied unity
:smirk:Maybe a philosophy forum isn't for you. — Benkei
... but does not know because she cannot know. Her mere "belief" – desperate guess – is an unwarranted hope, or fantasy (i.e. ideation¹) – thus, the "choice" to kill oneself might be valid and yet unsound; and often is unavoidable, even involuntary.If the person believes ... — creativesoul
Perhaps, but my point is that suicide is always either unsound (choice) or involuntary (abject / pathological).suicide is not always irrational — creativesoul
Well, at best, theism is incoherent.What does theism mean by "separate from" if it still can affect its creation? — Harry Hindu
"Idealistic" (i.e. supernatural).What type of connection is it between a cause and its subsequent effects - physical, idealistic, something else or none of the above?
Yes. However, theism posits a supernatural creator of nature, which is incoherent.Would it not be a naturalistic stance to take to say that because God has a causal relationship with its creation that God is natural?
I prefer anti-supernatural (though absurdist (Zapffe-Camus) would do).There simply isn't any valid evidence to support any of these claims .. reasonable/logical?
