Comments
-
What religion are you and why?
:up:If i myself had any spiritual leanings, I'd be attracted to some form of animism... — Vera Mont -
What religion are you and why?
This very much reminds of my mother's idiosyncratic non-doctrinnaire, or ceremonial, Catholicism: quiet prayer-focused and weekly charity work usually in lieu of Mass. I wonder if this 'blessed' state is why she's still the healthiest, most optimistic octogenerian I know.Her relationship with the version of God she believed in was secure without intervention or interpretation. — Vera Mont -
What makes nature comply to laws?
... you vapidly conflate with Kant's use of transcendental (which you further confuse with "Transcendentalism"). Apparently, it never occurs to you, Gnomon, to first read, let alone study, what you wantonly bloviate about. More shameless sophistry. :sparkle: :sweat:I'm not a Kant scholar, and have never read any of his works. But, "Transcendence" ... — Gnomon
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/881651 -
What makes nature comply to laws?
Only some (idealist) philosophers ... most of whom argue from rather than towards their conclusion. Anyway, at least since Democritus in the 5th century BCE, many philosophers have inferred and then modern natural scientists have demonstrated that nature is, in fact, vastly "outside of consciousness" and that "consciousness" is therefore nature-dependent (i.e. reality-dependent) rather than the other way around. In other words, Pez, it's reasonable to infer that it is also a (meta) "law of nature" that intelligent minds can abstract "laws of nature" from (modeling) nature.The question, if we can infer from this experience to something outside of consciousness, has been a long dispute among philosophers. — Pez
Btw, I understand the concept of noumena (Kant mostly uses the plural form whereas Schopenhauer critically uses the singular "noumenon'") to denote the asymptote-like limits of phenomena – limits of ap/perception – and not a posited "beyond" or "behind" phenomena (i.e. "transcendental illusion"? pace Hegel et al). IMHO, Buddhist "shunyata" is completely different from – opposite of – Kantian noumena insofar as, so to speak, (1) 'we can think but not experience' the latter whereas 'we can experience but not think' the former and (2) Kantianism posits things-in-themselves (we just cannot 'know' them) and Buddhism denies things-in-themselves (there are only 'transient illusions'). -
Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)From a 2020 thread Ranking American Presidents...
154 varied and distinguished scholars agree: Loser-1 is still ranked at the bottom of the list of 46 US Presidents – and if this Republic is lucky, no future president will be nearly as bad as or worse than this malignantly narcissistic demonstrable ignoramus, misogynist, defamer, rapist, racist, con artist, fraudster, insurrectionist, wannabe gangster / autocrat & pathological liar who was once (thanks, Shillary!) the 45th – and never to be again – occupant of the White House.My assessments, I'm afraid, are fairly conventional. Wiki, etc has helped me to recall the devilish details (always mindful of historical contexts and the risks, constraints, & opportunities (missed & taken) for presidential leadership). Of course, in the end, just a game of charades (or ideological rorschach) ... :cool:
5 Best U.S. Presiden(ts) - 2 or more of the following: leadership in war; statemanship (i.e. diplomacy to prevent armed conflict); strengthened 'the rule-of-law' (i.e. constitutional order & norms); promoted civil political or fiscal reforms in order to minimize domestic social conflicts; etc
1. Lincoln
2. FDR
3. Jefferson
4. TR
5. Washington
5 Worst U.S. Presiden(cies) - 2 or more of the following: mal-administration (i.e. conspicuous incompetence); flagrant corruption (further undermining public trust ...); demogoguery (i.e. inciting / pandering to "racists" "xenophobes" "misogynists" "nationalists" "religious bigots" "conspiracy" wingnut agitprop, etc); weakening 'the rule-of-law' (i.e anti-democratic abuses of one or more branches of government, etc); hawkish militarism (e.g. "wars of opportunity"); etc ...
1. TR45H (aka "Individual-1" "Putin's Bitch" "Agent Orange" "M.oscow A.sset G.rifting A.merica" "SCROTUS" ...)
2. Buchanan (+ Pierce + Tyler + Fillmore)
3. Harding + Bush 43 (aka "Dubya" "Shrub")
4. A. Johnson + Cleveland 2nd
5. Cleveland 1st + B. Harrison — 180 Proof
https://www.npr.org/2024/02/19/1232447088/historians-presidents-survey-trump-last-biden-14th -
What makes nature comply to laws?
Well I disagree with this antirealist suggestion, Pez – "concepts" do not "change" themselves, we change our concepts in order to adapt. Turning on house lights at night in an unfamiliar house does not change the house, rather you change only your capability for orienting yourself within that unfamiliar house. Likewise, given that we inhabit the world, the 'models (i.e. pictures, maps, simulations) of the world' which we make conform with varying degrees of fidelity to the world and thereby inform our expectations of how we can adapt to the world. For instance, GR & QM were as true about the physical world in Aristotle's day and in Newton's day as they are today even though Aristotle, Newton and their contemporaries, respectively, were completely ignorant of them. Thus, changing our concepts of reality, in effect, only changes us and not reality itself.These concepts change and so does the world we live in. — Pez -
How May Esoteric Thinking and Traditions be Understood and Evaluated Philosophically?"Beliefs" such as? Also, please clarify what you mean by "embracing them fully".
-
How May Esoteric Thinking and Traditions be Understood and Evaluated Philosophically?
As I understand it, philosophy concerns making explicit – problematizing – the "limitations of the mundane" beginning with reasoning itself (e.g. Plato, Kant) so attempts to reason-without-limitations (i.e. thinking/knowing-beyond-thinking/knowing) is, it seems to me, pseudo-philosophical nonsense (Witty) or not doing philosophy at all (e.g. religious / spiritual / therapeutic fantasy). Except maybe in poetry, IMO, there is no "beyond".I am inclined to agree [with] Pantagruel about the limitations of 'the mundane'. — Jack Cummins
We exist on a plane of immanence (Deleuze et al) that is unbounded in all directions. We are also inseparable from this plane (i.e. "the mundane"), therefore, though limited, we are not merely finite beings. :fire:It seems such a 'flat perspective'.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_of_immanence (scroll down half way)
Aren't we all? :monkey:I may be my worst enemy here.
Play Chess or Go, Jack: the real is always "hidden" from you in plain sight on the board (i.e. "the mundane", "the surface") while you play the game (i.e. live/think). Play Jazz music or European / Indian Classical music – truth is there if you listen with both your body and your ears.However, it is also a quest for 'waking up' and looking beyond surfaces. The idea of 'hidden' may be mythical as opposed to an objective 'reality' beyond the visible. -
What’s your description of Metaphysics?Spinoza is my (modern) 'metaphysical' touchstone ... then Freddy & Witty, Zapffe-Camus, C. Rosset ... and more recently Meillassoux-Brassier. Not the usual post-Humean/Kantian suspects or Hegelians either. Nonetheless, my point is: when discussing the history of (western) metaphysics I think it's more useful to clearly distinguish it from an anthopological / social psychological term like "worldview" rather than to conflate them (pace Hegel). If clarity is "analytical", Joshs, then I'm guilty as charged. :smirk:
-
US Election 2024 (All general discussion):smirk: Yep, it's only February ... and so it goes.
-
What religion are you and why?
I've witnessed this sort of "divorce" afflicting several friends and acquaintances throughout my life and always have felt fortunate that I didn't go through such "agony" because I'd realized while still at my Jesuit high school that, despite a decade or more by then of a fairly strict Catholic upbringing and education, I had had no "faith" to lose, recognizing that I didn't believe the biblical stories were any truer than the superhero comics (& Greco-Roman, Egyptian-African myths) I'd geeked-out on or that Catholic symbols & practices were anything but tribal customs like wearing team jerseys and flag waving. I can't say forty-five years later that the experience of 'coming out as a nonbeliever' (I wasn't aware of the word atheist or freethinker yet) was anything like "enlightening or triumphant" since it greatly displeased my mother, irritated both of my favorite teachers who were priests and confused my younger brother and our closest friends.I'm still not a believer in losing one's faith as being a universally enlightening or triumphant experience. Loss of faith has been one long, agonizing divorce for me. — Noble Dust
Fortunately, all I had to do was shut-up about my apostasy and go through the obligatory motions like before and no one mentioned it again until after I'd graduated high school a couple of years later. "Loss of God", however, was more of an intellectual than existential difficulty for me only after I'd been seriously reading philosophy for almost a decade because the "loss" had deprived my thinking of any "foundation" or "absolute" or "teleology", etc ... which, ironically, had gradually become illuminating.
NB: My irreligious 'road to Damascus':
i. apostasy —> ii. agnostic/negative atheism —> iii. positive atheism —> antitheism —> pandeism ... -
What’s your description of Metaphysics?:chin:
It seems to me that the terms 'worldview' and metaphysics' are too often used interchangeably and this is confusing. I think, by reflective reasoning, the latter attempts to globally make sense of (i.e. translate into conceptual categories) the local 'presuppositions and implications' (i.e. parochial biases ~ e.g. mythological, theological and/or ideological blindspots) of the former; in other words, 'worldview' is to (native) grammar plus (naive) vocabulary/idioms as 'metaphysics' is to theoretical linguistics – or object-discursive & meta-discursive, respectively – such that 'metaphysics' problematizes the limitations-constraints (i.e. the nature) of 'having a worldview' as such. Thus, given this distinction, one's (implicit, lived) 'worldview' can be either commensurate or incommensurate with one's (explicit, contemplated) 'metaphysics' without inconsistency (e.g. religious atomist or agrarian immaterialist or patriarchal nominalist). -
What religion are you and why?
:ok:There is a leap of faith involved [ ... ] why I believe something revealed is a revelation from God: it is precisely because the story of God told in the bible makes no sense that I believe it has to be true. — Fire Ologist -
What religion are you and why?Why interpret such an incredible ("I can't believe what I'm seeing") encounter as "God" or in some religious way?
-
How May Esoteric Thinking and Traditions be Understood and Evaluated Philosophically?@Jack Cummins ( @Pantagruel )
A. Tell me – a freethinker – what of significance I am missing or fail to understand by dismissing so-called "esoteric" doctrines in order to critically think through and contemplate "exoteric" questions.
B. Describe concrete differences which "esoteric" ideas make to practicing (non-academic) philosophy. -
Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)Thanks, but I've read the official J6 Report by the US House Special Cmte as well as paid close attention to the MAGA movement since 2015 as well as the Birther & Tea Party movements before that. This "weaponized victimhood" goes back 30-40ish years with many rightwingers and blue collar whites. Loser-1 is only a dangerous symptom, not the cause – the paranoid impulses in American politics are at least as old as the republic. We're overdue for a political, if not national, course correction which I'm confident is happening as we watch the dominoes begin to fall in 2024. :mask:
-
What religion are you and why?So ... 'believing is seeing', is that it? or "Seek and ye shall find?" Seems to me an instance of the placebo-effect of confirmation bias.
No doubt, which is why I prefer the exemplary teachings of legendary "normal persons" other than Jesus of Nazareth like Socrates or Epicurus ... Btw, from what I recall (from reading the book in the 1980s), The Last Temptation of Christ is, IMHO, a great gnostic novel (i.e. 'existentialist' à la Hans Jonas / Gabriel Marcel). -
Numbers start at one, change my mind"Counting" may start at 1. Numbers, however, do not "start" (i.e. begin / end).
-
Agnostic atheism seems like an irrational label
:fire:It's not as if theists don't find life meaningless. I have worked in the area of suicide intervention and on balance those who find life meaningless and become suicidal are just as likely (if not more so) to believe in a god. — Tom Storm
:100: -
Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
Of course they do – their audience is a loser cult that lives to be lied to – which is good for business. Fox Noise, OAN, NewsMax, Alex Jones, RT, etc still manage to sell the "witch hunt" bs even though ALL the prosecutions' witnesses are MAGA-GOP "flying monkeys". The grift never sleeps. :mask:And yet, the Pro-Trump media continues to feed the "witch hunt" narrative. — Relativist -
What makes nature comply to laws?
I don't understand what you're saying here. Please reformulate and clarify....these concepts are actually the respective world we live in and beyond our world-view and in abstraction from it there is definitely nothing left we could talk about – — Pez
More simply put, my position is : nature does not "comply" with "physical laws"; rather our best, unfalsified models conform via physical laws (i.e. generalizations of transformations of phenomena) to the observable, objective regularities of nature. -
Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)Loser-1's KARMA WATCH: 16Feb24
criminal trials (pending):
• GA 2020 Election Interference RICO Indictment, 13 felonies – TBD in Atlanta
• NY 2016 "Hush Money" Business Fraud Indictment, 34 felonies – trial begins 25Mar24 in NYC
• Federal "January 6th" Conspiracy Indictment, 4 felonies – TBD in Wash. DC
• Federal Espionage, Classified Documents & Obstruction of Justice Indictment, 40 felonies – TBD in Fort Peirce, FL
4 jurisdictions, 4 indictments, 91 charges :up:
civil trials:
• E. Jean Carroll Sexual Assault & Defamation 1 – $5 million verdict
• E. Jean Carroll Defamation 2 – $83.3 million verdict
• Civil financial fraud – +$450 million (disgorgement + interest) verdict
+$538.3 million (currently) :cool:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/881649
civil trials (pending):
• 2 "January 6th" lawsuits by members of the US Congress threatened and traumatized by armed MAGA rioters who stormed the US Capitol Building
• "January 6th" lawsuit by US Capitol Police Officers injured & PTSD'd by armed MAGA rioters who stormed the US Capitol Building -
What’s your description of Metaphysics?
I suppose my own "axis mundi" consists of the 'principle of non-contradiction (PNC) sans principle of sufficient reason (~PSR) —> universal contingency (UC)'.And we all hold confirmation biases in terms of this personal, typically implicitly maintained, axis mundi. — javra -
What’s your description of Metaphysics?As always, sir, your Dunning-Kruger, woo-of-the-gaps, quasi-scientism is :rofl: :lol: :razz:
-
US Election 2024 (All general discussion)16Feb24
Apparently, an Appellate-proof (restrained) judgment of over $450 million (disgorgement + interest), barred for (only) 3 years from doing business in NYS & borrowing from NYS chartered banks, an (enhanced) independent financial monitor & corporate compliance officer – straitjacket – for 3 years, but no "corporate death penalty" (yet?) ...By31Jan24the Trump Org will be effectivelydissolvedin NY State by order of Justice Engoron and no less than $300 million USD (re: "ill-gotten gains") will be disgorged as well as Fraudster-1 (maybe Beavis & Butthead too) will be barredfor lifefrom the real estate industry in NY State. NB: Liquidations to commence soon in order to put up a $300 million or more cash bond that's required by law to Appeal the civil judgment – Loser-1 clearly isn't that liquid (thanks, Ms. Carroll! :clap: :kiss: :flower: Loser-1 also has to put up a total of $88.3 million in order to Appeal both her judgements too) – otherwise, without that combined half-billion in cash (USD), the collection agencies for NYS will slap enforceable liens on all defendents' personal & real properties asap and savage tf out of them like piranha. :wink: :party: — 180 Proof
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/16/politics/takeaways-donald-trump-fraud-ruling/index.html
Still a BFD, Frauster/Loser-1 is butthurt. :kiss:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/881709 :eyes: :rofl: -
What religion are you and why?There seems to be far far more compelling, objective evidence that, for example, dinosaurs had existed +65 million years ago than there is that an itinerant rabbi from Nazareth in Roman-occupied Judea named Yeshua ben Yosef (aka "Iēsus Chrīstus") had existed two millennia ago ... or, btw, that any g/G has ever existed. Just my two shekels.
-
Supervenience Problems: P-Regions and B-Minimal Properties
:100: :up:we want to use superveniance to explain in some way how the mental is in some way dependant on the physical
— Count Timothy von Icarus
Supervenience isn't an explanation in itself. It's more of a category. It's a way of categorising models, and the MODELS are the things that have the potential to explain. — flannel jesus -
What makes nature comply to laws?Welcome to TPF ...
In sum, I understand modern natural sciences in this way – from an old post (2021):
In other words, "physical laws" are invariants in the structure of physical models which attempt to explain regularities experimentally observed in the physical world. To the degree such models themselves are objective, the "physical laws" derived from them are objective.'Physical laws' are features of physical models and not the universe itself. Our physical models are stable, therefore 'physical laws' are stable. If in current scientific terms, new observations indicate that aspects of the universehave changed[differ from previous observations], then, in order to account for suchchanges[differences], we will have to reformulate our current (or conjecture new) physical models which might entail changes to current (or wholly different) "physical laws". E.g. Aristotlean teleology —> Newtonian gravity —> Einsteinian relativity —> — 180 Proof -
To What Extent is 'Anger' an Emotion or Idea and How May it Be Differentiated from 'Hatred'?
On the contrary, mate, it's quite easy to know the impacts of emotion on thinking from lived experience (e.g. frustration, romance, intoxication, stress, trauma, etc) as well from disciplines such as cognitive neuroscience, behavioral psychology & cognitive behavioral therapy which corroborate (ancient) 'philosophies of life' both East and West.It is difficult to know to what extent emotions help or hinder in thinking. — Jack Cummins -
What religion are you and why?I'm irreligious ...
-
Postmodernism and MathematicsAFAIK, no one, including any p0m0, has ever pointed out a 'culture' wherein mathematics does not work (e.g. "0 > 1" ... "2 + 2 = 87" ... "C = 3 π r" ... "150° triangle" ...) or is inapplicable for time-keeping, drumming-dancing-chanting, farming, buillding megastructures, accounting, navigating, etc. Like bivalent logic (Ibn Sina^^), the universality of arithmetic-geometry (Kant) is inescapable. Whether or not a 'culture' adaptively makes use of elementary / advanced mathematics, however, is another matter all together – perhaps, I suspect, mostly an accident of cognitive anthropological development.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/692175 ^^
180 Proof
Start FollowingSend a Message
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2025 The Philosophy Forum