Comments

  • Was Schopenhauer right?
    ↪Ciceronianus
    Yes, and it was the 'orgiastic worship (i.e. revels = revelations) of the Dionysus-myth' in particular – not the myth itself –that N found life-affirming in contrast to e.g. Christianity ... or S's life-denying ('world weary') pessimism (and his quasi-Stoic response to 'suffering').
  • In any objective morality existence is inherently good
    Morality is more than one's own self-interest. — Philosophim
    Agreed, just as I point out here (this link below was included in the post before my previous one):

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/887625

    In sum, the objective fact of the matter is this: 'all human beings suffer because we are alive and to varying degrees we human beings flourish – e.g. (in general) form more adaptive than maladaptive habits by daily preventing and reducing suffering without causing more suffering – in order not to merely languish'. For me, this is the objective, naturalistic basis of ethics and I observe that moral conduct or norms, to varying degrees of customary or subjective performance, manifest and/or conflict with this ethos.

    Correct. But how should I respond to my suffering?
    Prevent or reduce your (or another's) suffering without increasing your (or another's) suffering. In other words, you should either seek help from others or help yourself and both without causing more harm to others or yourself.

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/843592

    And this still does not answer the more fundamental: 'Why should I exist to suffer at all?'
    You exist, there is no "why" (because every conceivable "fundamental why" begs the question). Also, "why should ... exist" conflates prescription with description which is a category error; the question is incoherent (and therefore not "fundamental").

    No disagreement here [ ... ] And the more fundamental: 'Why should humanity exist to flourish at all?'
    Humans exist, there is no "why" (because every conceivable "fundamental why" begs the question). Also, "why should ... exist" conflates prescription with description which is a category error; the question is incoherent (and therefore not "fundamental").

    We are (often) reasonable in order to cooperate, or negotiate non-zerosum resolutions to conflict. 
    — 180 Proof

    And what if it is reasonable that murdering the other person resolves my conflict and helps me to flourish?
    "Murdering" is not a non-zero sum resolution to conflict, which may "help" you to survive but survival is not the sufficient condition for flourishing. Again, your question – in effect, 'what if being un-reasonable (maladaptive) helps me to flourish' – does not make sense as a reply to what I wrote above about being reasonable.

    And once again, to the more fundamental: 'Why should beings with reason exist at all?'
    Beings with reason exist, there is no "why" (because every conceivable "fundamental why" begs the question). Also, "why should ... exist" conflates prescription with description which is a category error; the question is incoherent (and therefore not "fundamental").

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/887625
  • In any objective morality existence is inherently good
    ↪AmadeusD
    An assertion without argument deserves to be dismissed without argument. :wink:
  • Christianity - an influence for good?
    ↪schopenhauer1
    :up:
  • In any objective morality existence is inherently good
    ↪AmadeusD
    :ok: :roll:
  • In any objective morality existence is inherently good
    I still don't see it as objective. — Philosophim
    Suffering (i.e. dysfunction, loss of homeostasis, fear) happens, like life itself, is a ubiquitous, objective fact (e.g. human facticity).

    For example, why should humans flourish?
    We flourish in order not to languish. Not to flourish is maladaptive.

    Why should humans be reasonable?
    We are (often) reasonable in order to cooperate, or negotiate non-zerosum resolutions to conflict. Not to be reasonable (more often than unreasonable) is maladaptive.
  • Christianity - an influence for good?
    I would not call the original sect prior to Paul, "Christianity". Paul put the Christ in Christianity — schopenhauer1
    :up: Nazarenes ?
  • An Argument for Christianity from Prayer-Induced Experiences
    (5) There are prayer-induced experiences of observations that correspond to Bible-specific propositions, therefore they are evidence Christianity is true. — Hallucinogen
    Asylums are rife with such "true ... evidence".
  • Was Schopenhauer right?
    ↪Tom Storm
    :up:
  • Was Schopenhauer right?
    the mad god Dionysus — Ciceronianus
    i.e. life-affirming ("ja-sagen")
  • ChatGPT 4 Answers Philosophical Questions
    I think you may have meant 'can't'. — bert1
    Yes, thanks for catching the typo.

    See? It doesn't work.
    Well, at least @Sam26 got the sarcasm. :wink:
  • ChatGPT 4 Answers Philosophical Questions
    ↪Sam26
    I can't ask the question any clearer If you don't get it, then I assume the answer is "no". LLMs are still just sophisticated toys. Never mind, carry on.
  • OpenAI chat on Suicide and Yukio Mishima
    ↪javi2541997
    :up:
  • OpenAI chat on Suicide and Yukio Mishima
    ↪javi2541997
    Are you familiar with the Keiji Nishitani's Religion and Nothingness? If so, what do you think of his outlook on death, etc? If not, consider this video synopsis of thought (which, IMO, far exceeds Y. Mishima's 'romanticize death'-wish):



    Ask OpenAI what it "thinks" of Nishitani's "overcoming nihilism through nihilism". :smirk:
  • Is atheism illogical?
    God had an idea that something very unpleasant and sometimes fatal was a good idea. I suspect that a kinder omnipotence would have found a better way to achieve those good ends. — Vera Mont
    :up:

    If a deity is "omnipotent" (which entails "omniscience"), then why didn't it create a reality that fulfills its goals without severely, often fatally, harming its creatures? And if it cannot, then, as Epicurus asks, why call this deity – why worship – "God"? No doubt, just another informal version of

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design
  • In any objective morality existence is inherently good
    ↪Bob Ross
    :up: :up:
  • ChatGPT 4 Answers Philosophical Questions
    ↪Sam26
    So what, if any, philosophical questions does ChatGPT# ever raise (without begging them)?
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    13May24

    Today in Trumpenfreude

    It must be Monday morning (poor effin' MAGA). With a boat load of receipts, former "fixer" Michael Cohen flagrantly flips on Don Snoreleone and apparently without even waking the soon-to-be convicted felon. :yawn:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/05/13/donald-trump-trial-news-hush-money-case-live-updates/73665779007/
  • Was Schopenhauer right?
    Schopenhauer's assessment of Stoicism was more profound than that of Nietzsche.
    Perhaps it seems that way because N's assessment was Dionysian and not as Apollionian as S's assessment.
  • Was Schopenhauer right?
    ... in your opinion, is his enduring influence to this day due to him being right? — Shawn
    No, it's more to do with his style and curmudgeonly charming wit and the potent way he braids together Kantianism and (philosophical strands of) Hinduism. He certainly offers a lot of idealist/antirealist/subjectivist philosophical grist for the 'bourgeois New Age' mill (though it might not be apparent to most). Schopenhauer is also, IMO, a more intelligible alternative 'philosopher of being' to Heidegger and other p0m0 sophists which is why his thought has long been so influential (second only to Nietzsche?) on various, great literary and musical artists throughout the late great Twentieth century.
  • Are War Crimes Ever Justified?
    Zionism is the Jewish liberation movement. — Moses
    Nazism is the Aryan liberation movement. :roll:

    I would have been a [Ashken]Nazi in the 40s. :up: — BitconnectCarlos
  • Was Schopenhauer right?
    Schopenhauer is an (quasi-ascetic) antinatalist as a consequence of his (transcendental) pessimism. 'Better to not have been born' sums up his view of the human condition. :sweat:

    NB: As much as enjoy I reading Schop, I much prefer Spinoza before him and Nietzsche after. Also, Zapffe-Camus-Cioran-Rosset's absurdism (along with folk blues & jazz) have helped me to despair more cheerfully. :death: :flower:
  • Are War Crimes Ever Justified?
    I think quite a few of them would have been Nazis or sympathizers in the 40s. — BitconnectCarlos
    Projection like this is often a confession (e.g. Zionfascists or sympathizers in the 2020s). :shade:
  • Axiology is the highest good
    ... profess the study of value to become more content or cognizant of what to value. — Shawn
    I'm (very) old school: they (we) are what we do and not merely what they (we) say – practice alone cultivates habits. To "profess" is merely to preach which, more than anything, promotes hypocrisy. Besides, axiology is the study of how to reflectively form and apply value that necessarily begins with critique of "what to value" (i.e. givens re: customary, sociological, religious, ideological, etc) and therefore, IMO, does not (except, maybe, by process of elimination) posit/justify "what to value".
  • In any objective morality existence is inherently good
    Do you have a counter proposal for existence 180 Proof? — Philosophim
    For me, "existence" is atemporal and things which "exist in time" are temporal – like the relation between 'the continuum' and 'sets', respectively – following from how Spinoza conceives of Substance (sub specie aeternitatis) and its Modes ... (sub specie durationis). So while (some of) that which "exists in time" might be "good" – better (for you/us/all) existing than not existing – "good" "bad" & "indifferent" existents presuppose existence that makes possible – is prior to and in excess of – any and all "value". Thus, in my understanding, evaluating the ground of all evaluations (i.e. judging the ground of all judgments) – e.g. "existence is inherently good" – seems to me viciously circular and therefore incoherent.

    ↪Philosophim
    As for "objective morality", I propose that its objective basis is nature in general and disvalues (i.e. suffering of natural beings) in particular – whatever harms, or is bad (dysfunctional, maladaptive) for, our kind (and other species) – which I summarize in this post ...

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/843592

    and elaborated on here ...

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/887625
  • Which theory of time is the most evidence-based?
    I am talking about physically visiting another point in the past — Truth Seeker
    Like I said in my previous post ...
    travel faster-than-light (backwards in time according to Einstein's GR) in order to reach [the] past ... — 180 Proof
    :nerd:

    e.g. going back in time and preventing the murder of John Lennon.
    Well, I suspect that that sort of 'temporal change' would branch-off into another timeline (i.e. 'parallel' version of this universe) in which JL lived at least one more day ... but in y/our native (original) timeline JL would still have been murdered.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    ↪Mr Bee
    :up: :up:
  • Axiology is the highest good
    The study of axiology enhances the appreciation of value. — Shawn
    "The study of axiology" is not itself axiology (i.e the study of value), so how does this "enhance the appreciation of value" when its object of study is not even (a) value?

    And "appreciation of value" does not even evaluate (or act consistently with) (a) value, so what does such "appreciation" mean, that is, what is one doing when one is "appreciating" value itself – a mere abstraction (like a number)?
  • Are War Crimes Ever Justified?
    Lincoln once said "If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong." We can apply that to the Holocaust as well. — RogueAI
    Also applies to the Nakba ... :mask:
  • In any objective morality existence is inherently good
    This apple on a tree at exactly 1.23 seconds after existence is an apple. — Philosophim
    I do not understand this sentence.

    Also, "existence" =/= "existing" (i.e. ground =/= grounding).

    Again:
    Existence can be an action ...
    — Philosophim
    Explain how.     — 180 Proof
  • In any objective morality existence is inherently good
    Existence can be an action ... — Philosophim
    Explain how.
  • In any objective morality existence is inherently good
    existence is good — Philosophim
    – for what?

    "There should be existence"
    This statement doesn't make sense (i.e. is a category mistake) because "existence" in not an action or practice and therefore cannot be prescribed.
  • What is Philosophy?
    ↪Sam26
    :ok: If you say so ...
  • What is Philosophy?
    A kind of meta-psychotherapy? — ENOAH
    If you say so ... sorry I can't follow the rest of your post.

    So, in a very general way, it's [philosophy is] about what we believe. — Sam26
    Superficially maybe. I'd rather put it this way: philosophy consists in reflective questioning of the assumptions and implications of "what we believe" (i.e. logic-grammar-dialectics preceeds epistēmē).
  • Which theory of time is the most evidence-based?
    If the past still exists, why can't we visit it and change it? — Truth Seeker
    We do it all the time – the "visits and changes" are our memories.

    Also, all the starlight that reaches Earth is years-to-millennia millennia old and would require us to travel faster-than-light (backwards in time according to Einstein's GR) in order to reach those past stars.

    Some reasons why a "Block Time Theory" doesn't make as much sense to me as the "Growing Block Universe".
  • Is atheism illogical?
    ↪Pantagruel
    :ok: I must've missed all that ...
  • Which theory of time is the most evidence-based?
    Growing Block Universe: This theory is similar to the block universe theory but adds the idea that time is "growing" or expanding as new events come into existence. The past and present exist, but the future does not yet exist. — Truth Seeker
    This interpretation seems to me both the most evidence-based and consistent with human experience.
  • Is atheism illogical?
    ↪Pantagruel
    Okay, summarize the relevant part of Durkheim's thesis that accounts for (or explains away) this observation:

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/902702
  • Axiology is the highest good
    What they value. — Shawn
    :roll:
  • Axiology is the highest good
    ... anyone concerned about "the good." — Shawn
    And what is "the good" to "anyone" – philosopher and non-philosopher alike?
Home » 180 Proof