:up:How is young Jordan, I wonder?
— Banno
I expect he is still making profitable use of the vacuum in many people's lives, like L Ron Hubbard, Ayn Rand and many others before him. — Tom Storm
For fuck's sake – Biological determinism? Teleological reductionism? Pre-(ahistorical)-historicism? etc :zip:... the biology of males [ ... ] Simply put, the necessity for governors, administrators, military, and more for a society to function calls upon the male biology of a hierarchical structure. The female biology of gathering and caring for children [ ... ] gender roles arise naturally ... and women are meant to be the homemakers and child caretakers, while men are meant to be the organizers [ ... ] Most women are simply not capable, by biology ... — ButyDude
Not "Eeerybody has a view on religion and God" that is evidence-free – faith-based – and thereby supports an ideology (e.g. patriarchy-misogyny-caste) rationalized with logical fallacies and sophistry.Yes of course I have religious views, does not everybody have a view on religion and God? — ButyDude
In this dialectical context, "religious beliefs" are problematic only when they're relied upon in lieu of reasonable assumptions or valid arguments. No one here cares what you "believe", BDude; instead what matters is how good (or poorly) you reason despite (or because of) your unstated, so-caalled "religious beliefs". :mask:... get over my religious beliefs
:clap: Excellent!I highly recommend The Dawn of Everything by anthropologist David Graeber and archeologist David Wingrow. — Joshs
:up: :up:The only possible way is if the multiverse is true, if all probabilities has their own branch, but then there's no point in going back in time to do anything as you cannot change the future you came from. It would be closer to traveling to other universes rather than specifically traveling back in time. And any change would only just fraction into new branches ... — Christoffer
Difficult physics and math subjects are not esoteric in my book, they are just difficult. — Janus
Well, the circularity of your "metaphysical belief", sir, begs the question. Besides, Christians mostly do not "actually live" Christ-like or miraculous "lives" even though 'Christ & miracles' are explicit "metaphysical beliefs" (e.g. Thomism, Calvinism) just as atheist materialists mostly do not "actually live" purposeless "lives" even though 'the purposelessness of material existence' is an explicit "metaphysical belief (e.g. nihilism, absurdism). Under existential-pragmatic scrutiny, sir, your espousal of Collingwood's absolute idealism does not hold up.I hold that our metaphysical beliefs underpin the way we actually live our lives. — Pantagruel
Scientists "make" working or methodological assumptions which themselves presuppose "metaphysical" commitments; changing such assumptions can also change what those assumptions presuppose (e.g. Newtonian absolute space & absolute time vs Einsteinian relativistic spacetime vs (background-dependent) string theory vs (background-independent) loop quantum gravity ...)science makes metaphysical presuppositions. — Pantagruel
I suspect one person's "mysteries" (pace G. Marcel) are another person's misconceptions ... or false positives (D. Dennett) or nostalgias (A. Camus).I do really enjoy philosophy and the exploration of new ways of seeing and framing 'reality'. The mysteries themselves are part of the adventure. — Jack Cummins
Nope.If you could go, would you go? — BC
Do you fear becoming "overwhelmed" by particular questions or inquiry as such?The worst possibility is to become so burdened by the nature of philosophical problems as to be incapacitated or dysfunctional. At an an extreme point, it would be possible to become so overwhelmed as if one needed answers in order to live. — Jack Cummins
:100: :up: :up:[T]he limits of our knowledge and as such is not a problem, but a demarcation or delimitation. The absolute nature of things is an intractable mystery in one sense, but in another it can simply be seen as a matter of definition: that is that we cannot by mere definition see beyond our perceptions, experience and the judgements that evolve out of those. Anything that we project into that space must be confabulation. — Janus
Have you ever considered the 'left-handed' school, or counter-tradition, of freethinking in philosophy (a wiki link is below)? Once the insight had struck me that "answers" were mosty just questions' way of generating more questions, I finally gave up the "religious" pursuit of "answers" (and stopped titling at windmills!) for philosophizing – reasoning to the best, or most probative, questions – only about what natural beings (encompassed by nature and with limited natural capacities) can learn about nature – and therefore about how to flourish. :fire:... esoteric thought as a way of going beyond literalism. Esotericism was also a way of going beyond the fundamentalism of many other religious ideas [ ... ] focusing on the idea of God, life after death and free will. Such ideas are answered so subjectively because there is no proof. — Jack Cummins
:up: :up:... unreasonable expectations ... As if by asking a question there must then be an answer. — Fooloso4
:up:Metaphysics [ ... ] the question shifts somewhat from what is the nature of the world to: "what is it that can we say, given the creatures we are, about the nature of the world." — Manuel
Oh. You wrote "metaphysics" not "metaphysicians" and, in reference to my post on negative ontology, your response here to my reference to Spinoza Ethics makes even less sense especially since I'm engaged in a "back and forth" with the OP, you (so far) and other readers of this thread.I was thinking more of the back and forth between different metaphysicians over history. — Count Timothy von Icarus
i.e. What does "esoterica" significantly add (or subtract) that "exoterica" is missing in philosophy?Tell me/us why "exoteric" philosophy is not sufficient or in principle, if not practice, fails to do what it sets out to do. — 180 Proof
Those that are "rejected" are ones referred to as impossible and thereby are self-negating; however, whichever "assertions" are not negated, whether they are stated explicitly or not, are "granted" ...Would it be fair though to say that such a project requires positive metaphysical assertions that they might be either rejected or granted a stay of execution? — Count Timothy von Icarus
I think, Count, Spinoza's Ethics exemplifies an exception to such a rule (pace Hegel).It seems to me that metaphysics, like other disciplines, must be dialectical.
My jam is negative ontology (i.e. a deductive process of elimination of the impossibie, or ways the world necessarily could not have been or cannot be described), a rationalist near-analogue of negative theology. :smirk:[W]hat is your best description of Metaphysics? — Rob J Kennedy
:up: Or Gretchen Witmer.It would help if he chose another VP this time around. Gavin Newsom, perhaps. — jgill
"Often seen as" by whom? After Kant, Hegel is probably the most influential philosopher in the Continental tradition (e.g. ... Marx ... Sartre ... Habermas ... Žižek...)Hegel is often seen as obscure and disregarded. — Jack Cummins
6Feb24: DENIED by Federal Appeals Court, Washington DC Circuit. The order of the Federal District Court is upheld and affirmed. Criminal Defendent-1 has to appeal to SCOTUS by 12Feb24, otherwise the district court can proceed with the "J6 Conspiracy" trial.:mask: 30Jan24 predictions:
• US courts will deny that a president or former president has "absolutely immunity" from criminal prosecution. — 180 Proof
Whatever immunities a sitting President may enjoy, the United States has only one Chief Executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong 'get-out-of-jail-free' pass. Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability. — Judge Tanya Chutkan of Washington DC Federal District Court
I hear some of us are rarer birds than that: thinkers.I don't know if philosophers are elitist. — Tom Storm
At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes — an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense. — Carl Sagan
:nerd: :up:If someone claims to have mathematical knowledge it can be demonstrated. Can the same be said of someone who claims to have mystical knowledge? — Fooloso4
So what is 'mind'? AFAIK, basically mind is a recursive (strange looping, phenomenal self-modeling) aspect of More/Other-than-mind – a nonmental activity (process ... anatman), not an entity (ghost-in-the-machine ... X-of-the-gaps), that is functionally blind to its self-recursivity the way, for instance, an eye is transparent to itself and absent from its own field of vision. — 180 Proof
Again, changing the subject – or you're just confused, sir: "metaphysical physicalism", which you claim to "take issue" with, is not synonymous with "scientific materialism". :roll:scientific materialism — Wayfarer
The jist of my criticism of that post: Insofar as mind is nonmind-dependent (i.e. embodied), only conceptions – interpretations – of nonmind are "mind-created" abstractions from nonmind (i.e. mappings of the territory). Consequently, "idealism" equates mapping (meaning) to the territory itself as if from outside the territory (re: transcendence / transcendental (i.e. dis-embodied viewpoint)) – which is a cognitive illusion, or delusion :sparkle: – whereas "physicalism" proposes using (useable) aspects of – abstractions from – the territory for mapping other aspects of the territory ineluctably from within the territory (re: immanence i.e. embodied viewpoint). IME, modern scientific practices work in spite of the former 'metaphysical bias' and are facilitated by the latter methodology. This is why I think idealism and physicalism are not "equally compatible" with modern science.This post outlines why I don’t believe there’s any specific conflict between idealism and science.
I never claimed or implied "idealism implies anti-realism"; I think the terms are interchangeable because they both, in effect, denote a 'rejection of the nonmind-dependence of mind.' (i.e. both imply a version of dis-embodied cognition). :sparkle:First please demonstrate why idealism implies anti-realism in the first place. — Wayfarer