:100:"Effing the ineffable" is the job of art and poetry, not rigorous philosophical discussion. Poetry may be evocative, but it presents no arguments. That which cannot be tested empirically or justified logically is outside the scope of rational argument. That doesn't mean it has no value ... — Janus
:up:the core of the OP's question. The esoterica of the gaps.... — Tom Storm
:up: :up:I think it ironic how often Socrates' claim of ignorance is ignored. [ ... ] We remain in the cave of opinion. It is not that we do not know anything, but when we do not know what we do not know and believe we do know we are no longer even in the realm of opinion but ignorance. — Fooloso4
:100: :fire:We can know nothing whatsoever about whatever might be "beyond being". The idea is nothing more than the dialectical opposite of 'being'. Fools have always sought to fill the 'domains' of necessary human ignorance with their "knowing". How much misery this has caused humanity is incalculable. — Janus
:smirk: :up:Boundless arrogance?
— tim wood
Israel is the law
— tim wood
:chin: Kind of making my point for me there, buddy. — Tzeentch
:100:Netanyahu has no right to speak of deradicalizing anyone. He's a radical himself. Hamas is his baby. The murder of Yitzhak Rabin is his brain child. The death of Israel will be in large part his doing. — Tzeentch
This "insight" is partial because existents are only part(icular)s of – ineluctably encompassed by – existence and is, therefore, only "a glance" of an illusion of "the whole". However much a lightning flash momentarily illuminates in the night, the enveloping darkness – the unknown unknown – always remains; an existential reminder that one always already knows that one cannot know ultimately (e.g. Socrates, Pyrrho, Epicurus, Montaigne, Spinoza, Hume-Kant-Wittgenstein ...), which is why philosophy, consisting of questions we do not know (yet) how to answer, always only begins. Btw, Wayf, I don't think it's helpful to further conflate, or confuse, philosophy with mysticism (or with woo :sparkle:) as @Jack Cummins' OP suggests.'Esoteric' is [ ... ] an insight into the whole of existence — Wayfarer
You're damn right, comrade! :mask:↪180 Proof You're just biased and the guardian is a leftist rag. — Benkei
I'm unaware of any "real reason to live" other than that which one gives oneself by taking caring of – investing time in –anything or anyone other than just oneself.I don’t know why my mind keeps thinking there’s no real reason to live — rossii
IME, as a fellow negative utilitarian, I've found that anticipating & preventing or reducing just one other person's suffering (or nonperson's pain) daily helps to reduce (or "ease") my own suffering daily. Once it's habitual, rossii, disutilitarianism feels like and becomes a win-win practice (i.e. virtue).Maybe it stems from my ethics? - which I found out could be considered negative utilitarianism. It also means I don’t want to cause suffering to others, but I can't seem to ease my own suffering.
... and they may not. Which is it? What are you talking about, Jack? :roll:Metaphorical thinking may ...
Images may ... — Jack Cummins
:100: :up:I'll venture to say that those who so dismiss metaphorical thinking can only be hypocrites, for - as per my initial post - they live and breathe in metaphorical thinking just as much as anyone else does. — javra
"Beware lest a statue slay you.""great" men like FDR and MLK — RogueAI
Mythos as light that casts shadows of Logos on the cave wall ...the nature of esoteric forms of philosophy — Jack Cummins
IMO, more like mythification of ideas, etc.In this way, the ideas of the esoteric may involve more of a demystification rather than clarification of ideas and understanding. — Jack Cummins
So one can have, or acquire, reasons to choose or not to choose to be a philosophical pessimist (i.e. rationally committed to the idea that it is rationally worse ‐ more than merely not preferable – to exist than to not exist)? I've read a great deal on this topic (including all the "pessimists" cited by T. Ligotti & JF Dienstag) and the arguments either way seem ad hoc (or rationalizations) because the premises are often merely anecdotal.Philosophical Pessimism is debatable... — schopenhauer1
:up: :up:↪Corvus
What is an example of an objective system?
Each philosopher requires a lot of effort to hear what is being said. Is "objectivity" being able to answer simple questions without all that work? — Paine
:roll:Not asking for spoon feeding, — Corvus
Each reader has to answer that for herself after studying Spinoza (or any other metaphysician) for herself. My spoon-feeding apparently isn't helping you better understand Spinoza's God (i.e. substance/natura naturans (re: reality)).So, what does Spinoza's God do for Spinoza or for the rest of us in this planet? — Corvus
No more than its logical validity, or reasonableness, can bear.Spinoza's substance (i.e. nature or god) is a metaphysical supposition , not an empirical theory.
— 180 Proof
How much credence should we give to this supposition? — Fooloso4
Spinoza argues in the negative.Can a finite limited part know the infinite unlimited whole?
Only that it was a personal reminder like wearing a skull ring or carrying a coin inscribed with "Memento Mori".What are we to make of the significance of Spinoza's signet ring: "CAUTE"?
For starters, that religious sects e.g. Protestant, Catholic & Jewish are merely superstitions which, lacking logically valid arguments (i.e. rationality), anthropomorphically project 'a supernatural personality that superintends the world it also transcends' that each tradition attributes miracles to, petitions with prayers and calls "God".He had good reason to be cautious, but he often seemed more daring then cautious. What was it that he dared not say or said only in a veiled way?
We shall see soon enough. :up:↪180 Proof I agree:
• SCOTUS will deny a former President has absolute immunity
• Trump will be cash constrained at some point this year (not as early as you say)
I disagree:
• that Engeron will dissolve the Trump Org in NY; I expect only a fine, commensurate with his savings on interest due to receiving interest rates more favorable than his finances warranted. This will contribute to Trump's cash constraints.
• that Trump won't be the GOP nominee. This is because 95% of delegates to the GOP nominating convention are committed to vote based on the primaries. They would be freed only if Trump were to drop out of the race - and that won't happen.
• that the J6 conspiracy trial will have concluded before the election, but even if it is - pending appeals will keep him out of prison. If he's elected, he'll pardon himself and put an end to that. — Relativist
For Spinoza, speculatively substance is the logico-mathematical structure of the universe (as distinct from the empirical contents in the universe) aka "the laws of nature". In other words, Spinoza's substance is like a player piano and "the actual world" is like a waltz it's playing.My question is still is there anything which represents "substance" in the actual world? — Corvus
:up: :up:I also think that people gravitate towards arguments that support their preferences. These arguments can certainly be debated and explored. I think this is about all we have - a conversation that coalesces around personal experience, preferences and the values and beliefs which result from these. — Tom Storm
and surmised that you believe it's more likely than not that Biden will lose the 2024 election. My mistake.Is it psychologically uncomfortable for you to ponder that soon Trump could be president again? — L'éléphant
IMO, it's merely wishful thinking to believe that the eight year losing trend of 'suppressing minority voters, misogynist anti-choice, The Big Lie propagandizing' Republican candidates will not be reversed merely by Biden dropping out of the presidential race. Like 2020, most likely voters still oppose Insurrection/Criminal Defendent/Rapist-Defamer/Fraudster-1 rather than support President Biden.if one believes the current president might not be president next time, things happen. Simple. He could suddenly keel over, for example — L'éléphant
:love:Naw, he's just a fleshy manifestation of the American Nightmare. — Vera Mont
All true emancipatory politics has to have a universal dimension in it. It doesn't mean you renounce your particularity, but you somehow read your particularity as a sign of what is wrong in our universality itself. — Slavoj Žižek
Well if you really want to be learn for yourself how misinformed you are ...[T]ell me how misinformed I am. — schopenhauer1
:roll: Again, you should know what you're talking about, schop. As I've posted probably hundreds of times on TPF, (if anything more than a freethinker) I'm an Epicurean-Spinozist and haven't been a Nietzsche fanboy since the 1980s. That your statements about N are ignorant, not that they are "maligning", call for a response. I'd do the same if you or anyone spouted uninformed nonsense about e.g. Heidegger or Derrida both of whom I loathe.Look, I know he is a philosophical hero of yours, so me maligning might hit a nerve with you. — schopenhauer1
Btw, the J6 Conspiracy criminal trial in Wash. DC will conclude with a guilty verdict on all 4 felony counts by the end of August 2024 or sooner. I'm guessing (soon to be) Felon-1 will not be the GOP candidate by the Fall (or even by July). — 180 Proof
:sweat: Yes, you're misunderstanding N completely – put down your dog-earred old copy of Nietzsche for Dummies, schop, and carefully read some of N's books (from The Gay Science onward).Perhaps I misunderstand something, but Nietzsche seems at odds with himself. He seems to believe in the "overcoming" of oneself, and the embracing of Suffering in some aesthetic appeal to the Ubermensch who thrives on pain in the idea of manifesting one's own values (power) into the world. — schopenhauer1
Spinoza's conception of substance is derived from – and, in his mind, critically corrects – Aristotle's / Descartes' "idea of substance". For instance, there is necessarily one substance argues Spinoza – thus, acosmisn – rather than many / two substances.Any idea what the "substance" meant in Spinoza? Could it be Aristotelian? Or something else? — Corvus
Simply put, Spinoza's "substance means" 'natura naturans (i.e. reality (which, as he points out, most traditions and his contempories superstitiously called "God")) as distinct from natura naturata (i.e. existents/things)'.I understand Spinoza to be (mostly) an acosmist (for whom the cosmos exists though it is not real, only "divinity" (re: the logico-mathematical structure of the cosmos) is real ...) — 180 Proof
