Comments

  • We don't know anything objectively
    We don't know anything objectively. — Truth Seeker
    False. Some obvious examples – "We know objectively" that no individual was born before her parents were born. "We know objectively" that we are natural beings whose existence is both consistent with physical laws and inseparable from nature itself. Also "we know objectively" that we cannot in any way know at any time 'all that is knowable'.

    Again ...
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/901112

    ↪BC
    :up:
  • What is truth?
    "The red pill" really shows that there is no red pill ... just as "there is no spoon", "the matrix" means there is no matrix. ~ Agent 180 Proof :cool:

    How do I know that I am not in the Matrix? — Truth Seeker
    Well, for starters, you don't have any reasonable grounds to doubt that you are "not in The Matrix" ...

    How can we really know what is and what is not external to my mind?
    Whatever makes "my mind" mine (e.g. embodiment) cannot be internal to "my mind".

    Solipsism can't be proven or disproven.
    Speculative suppositions are not matters of "proof" like (e.g.) mathematical theorems; rather they are matters of reasonableness. For instance, do you believe it is reasonable to doubt that there are 'other minds, the external world'? Apparently, Seeker, as this discussion demonstrates, you do not.

    The simulation hypothesis can't be proven or disproven.
    How do you know this? Are you an expert or non-superficially familiar with universal quantum computation¹ (D. Deutsch)? Cite a fundamental physical law that is inconsistent with – prohibits – "the simulation hypothesis"; if fundamental physical laws do not prohibit it, propose some reasonable grounds to doubt that this universe is 'a simulation within a simulation within a simulation, etc' (N. Bostrom ... R. Penrose², S. Lloyd, S. Wolfram³, G. Mandelbroit ...) Again, it's a hypothesis about – model of – (aspects of) the physical world that is either experimentally testable (i.e. scientific) or it is not (i.e. pseudo-scientific or metaphysical) and therefore, in either case, is not a matter of "proof".

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

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology [2]

    https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/11/the-concept-of-the-ruliad/ [3]
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    ↪BitconnectCarlos
    And as usual, BC, you don't have a substantial or factual point, only another vapid non sequitur. :roll:

    ↪Moses
    On the contrary, whenever in recent decades "Isreal" is mentioned I think of that (US-backed) war criminal Netanyahu and mentioning "Palestine" I think of the criminally dispossessed masses suffering under Israeli occupation since 1967 (or 1948).
  • What is truth?
    I counted that there are two bananas in my fruit bowl. — Truth Seeker
    This is only datum, not "knowledge" (i.e. a historical and/or scientific explanation), that is more-than-subjective insofar as (a) you can actually eat the bananas and (b) you cannot actually eat the fruit bowl and, even more so, (c) you can actually measure (e.g.) the resting masses of the bananas and fruit bowl, separately and together. What grounds, Seeker, do you have to doubt that "two bananas in a fruit ball" refers to more than just your "subjective sensory perception"?
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Gaza (Intifada) = Warsaw Ghetto (Uprising) ...

    "Never Again" unless we do it to the goyim! :shade:
  • What is truth?
    How would I know anything objectively? — Truth Seeker
    :roll: (e.g.) Start counting ...
  • What is truth?
    I think that my claim is merely subjective. — Truth Seeker
    And therefore it's imaginary at best (i.e. not a true "claim") or self-refuting at worst.
  • We don't know anything objectively
    All of my sensory perceptions, thoughts, emotions, etc. are subjective. How can I possibly know anything objectively? — Truth Seeker
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/901112
  • What is truth?
    ↪Truth Seeker
    How do you know that "all of my sensory perceptions, thoughts, emotions, etc. are subjective"? If your claim is merely subjective, then it's only a belief; however, if it is more-than-subjective, then you (we) know it is not true.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    ↪BitconnectCarlos The double standard is to say colonisation is wrong but to support Israel, to say oppression is wrong but to support Israel, to say human rights are universal but to support Israel, to say self determination is a right but to support Israel, to say war crimes are wrong but to support Israel.

    None of that excuses Hamas.     — Benkei
    :clap: :fire:
  • What is truth?
    We can't know anything outside our subjective perceptions and understanding. — Truth Seeker
    Including your merely "subjective" claim that "we can't ..." :roll:
  • We don't know anything objectively
    Do you agree that "objective truths" are actually shared subjective truths? — Truth Seeker
    No. If that is all they are, then they are not objective (i.e. subject/pov-invariant, language-invariant, gauge-invariant AND fallibilistic).
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ↪NOS4A2
    And yet non sequiturs even if true, dude, because Criminal Defendant-1 is conspicuously guilty AF. :victory: :lol:
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    If the roles were reversed, sure. If it were mostly Israelis living in a concentration camp and being killed at 10x the number as their occupying oppressors, I for one would be condemning the latter. — Mikie
    ↪Mikie Indeed. I think power is important. I'm less concerned about who is evil and who isn't (like orcs vs elves) and more about who has power and what are they doing with it. — bert1
    :100: :100:

    And moral cretins like @BitconnectCarlos are pathetically incorrigible with respect to (our) critique of historical oppressions. Why do we keep casting these pearls before apologetic swine? I suppose we must ... or else risk becoming (or abetting) the oppressors we oppose.
  • A poll regarding opinions of evolution
    natural selection is not random — wonderer1
    :100:
  • Christianity - an influence for good?
    Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. — Ephesians 6:5
    Re: the Pauline "Christ" myth (i.e. conspiracy theory) conjured together by committee in Nicea during the 4th century CE reign of Constantine the Great from the diverse strands of hand-me-down hearsay gossip about 'an itinerant, Aramaic-speaking, wonder-worker who preached mostly to (& for) oppressed, poor, illiterate masses' in and around Galilee in Roman occupied Judea during the 1st century CE reign of Tiberius and who was named "Yeshua" (Iesus in Latin) ...

    ... addendum to
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/892455
  • Is atheism illogical?
    Is atheism illogical? — Scarecow
    The answer depends on the argument. I find the OP's argument is illogical (unpersuasive).
  • A poll regarding opinions of evolution
    If you say X is eternal and X is all there is and from X all new combinations and variations arise, how do you parse out your claims from the deist's? — Hanover
    Easily. Simply put – Deism posits a separate X & Y: 'the uncreated creator deity' and its 'created world(s)/universe(s)' in which the latter is temporal and the former eternal (i.e. causa sui). However, my "claim"
    ↪180 Proof
    is acosmist (Spinoza) and/or atomist (Epicurus), therefore, in either case, not deistic.

    I also wonder about the possibility of 'no origins' ... — Jack Cummins
    This corresponds to 'no edges' (in space). If existence (i.e. everything that exists) is the effect, then its cause (i.e. origin) is non-existence (i.e. nothing-ness that is also the absence of any conditions for any possibility of existence) – which is nonsense, no?
  • Usefulness vs. Aesthetics Regarding Philosophical Ideas and Culture
    So what is leftover when discarding the aesthetic/metaphysical? — schopenhauer1
    Mostly, I think, we are deflating – deemphasizing – rather than "discarding the aesthetic/metaphysical".

    What is this impulse in philosophy for an aesthetic view?
    Intellectual desire.

    What does it matter if the aesthetic view exists?
    It doesn't matter except to a subject who adopts an "aesthetic view".

    Why are some people drawn to it and some not?
    Sensibility.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Responsibility sticks to power. I rather suspect anti-Israel sentiment, and the relative downplaying of Hamas's nastiness (at least in this thread - it's not the case in most the media I've come across) has to do with the fact that Israel can, and indeed is, killing a great many people and destroying all the buildings and infrastructure, and Hamas is not. If the boot were on the other foot, I rather suspect we'd all be slagging off Hamas. But each cunt has its day, as someone famous might have said, and today it's Israel who is the cunt. — bert1
    :100: Typical tactic of the oppressor (and their apologists) to blame the oppressed for mirroring their oppression. Yeah, if only the jackboot was on the other's throat ...

    @tim wood (in case you've missed it)
    https://youtu.be/J1N93pFcopE?si=btRT5nnIv2VkTmWp
  • A poll regarding opinions of evolution
    ↪Hanover
    :up:
  • A poll regarding opinions of evolution
    I don't think anything truly resolves the question of the origin of our existence. — Hanover
    Suppose there was no "origin"? Suppose, as Spinoza reasons, existence is eternal (and merely reconfigures itself every tens of billions years (à la Epicurus ... or R. Penrose))? I'm partial to as parsimonious a metaphysics as can be conceived.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Anyway, done with genocide apologists. — Mikie
    :up:
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    ↪RogueAI
    Any surveys of polling trends (with explicit margins of error) which sample only Likely Voters in 7 swing states (decided by 3 or less points in 2020) re: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania & Wisconsin? This won't be any more predictive six months out from the general election than daily/weekly snapshot cllickbait polls but rather would be more relevantly diagnostic of the respective campaigns' / parties' persistent weaknesses with respect to the electorate. :chin:

    @Relativist
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    ↪BitconnectCarlos
    :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
  • A poll regarding opinions of evolution
    "Evolution happened naturally ..." :monkey:

    ↪Lionino
    :up:
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    ↪BitconnectCarlos
    The Nazi ethnostate had oppressed its neighbors. Hamas terrorizes Israel the ethnostate oppressor of Gaza, West Bank, etc. (At least since 1967) IDF + Shin Bet¹ + Likud = "Nazis". :fire: :death:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gatekeepers_(film) [1]
  • What is 'Right' or 'Wrong' in the Politics of Morality and Ideas of Political Correctness?
    Personal preference and culture seem to be the source of our ethics. — Tom Storm
    And "personal preference and culture" are grounded in – are expressions of – being natural creatures inseparable from non-human nature, no?
  • Usefulness vs. Aesthetics Regarding Philosophical Ideas and Culture
    Okay, and your philosophical question is ...
  • Defining what the Science of Morality Studies
    .
    I don't know if the science of descriptively moral behaviors (the Science of Morality) will help with ethics. — Mark S
    Okay.

    I fear that ethicists will not recognize its usefulness.
    You have not provided sufficient philosophical grounds for (or any persuasive examples of) "its usefulness" to ethics (i.e. moral reasoning).
  • Defining what the Science of Morality Studies
    Does this science provide a foundation for morality? — Mark S
    Of course not. Why assume morality requires any "foundation" at all?

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/885373

    I regard this whole endeavor as a fruitless dead end. — Fooloso4
    Ditto. :up:
  • Can certain kinds of thoughts and fantasies be described as evil?
    IMO, there is no "evil" where there aren't any actual intentionally helpless casualties.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    ↪Moses
    Oppressors forfeit their descendants' lives because the oppressed have nothing to lose but their chains. Lex talonis, bitch. :death: :fire:
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    The hungry ghost of Nebuchadnezzar The Great (Azazel) has yet to cross the Jordan River again. :fire:

    ↪180 Proof Did you know that Jesus was a Palestinian? — Moses
    Unironically, however, you zionists are wanna-be Roman provincial occupiers entertaining yourselves with mass-crucifixions – "The only good Palestinian is a dead Palestinian!" – your apparent raison d'etre since Auschwitz. :vomit:
    .
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ↪jorndoe
    :rofl:
  • Is Nihilism associated with depression?
    ↪Tom Storm
    Well, I suppose that's why I didn't bold "nihilist" in your quote. Free of "transcendence", like me you're more of an absurdist or Spinozist, Nietzschean or freethinker, Epicurean or Pyrrhonian. :smirk:
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    ↪BitconnectCarlos
    :up: STFU.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ↪NOS4A2, the Clown isn't anti-state. Just pro-Clown-state. — jorndoe
    :smirk:
  • Defining what the Science of Morality Studies
    I am not trying to do ethics. — Mark S
    If so, then how do you know that your "science of morality" can help anyone actually do ethics?
  • Is Nihilism associated with depression?
    For me, as a nihilist, I find the idea that there is no transcendent meaning rather joyous and exciting and one full of possibilities. I am unencumbered by dogma and doctrine and need not concern myself with following any preordained path. — Tom Storm
    :cool: :up:
Home » 180 Proof