Comments

  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    ↪jgill
    :up:
  • How May the Idea and Nature of 'Despair' be Understood Philosophically?
    ↪Jack Cummins
    I hope things work out better for you soon and more so as the new year unfolds, Jack. I've struggled with health problems and financial losses much more and persistently since 2020 than I ever have in my adult life. Despair and I are old dance partners often switching-up who leads whom. Humbled by this ordeal, my meditation on 'courage' up-thread is not an empty boast of false bravado or posturing machismo. I'm still breathing because of 'courage' as a first principle (e.g. Sisyphusean spite ...) and apparently, in your own way, Jack, you are as well.

    The idea of nihilism ... — Jack Cummins
    "... is as dead as God." ~T. Ligotti :fire:

    IME, contemplating – lucidiry of – the absurd is preferable to – healthier than – "nihilism".
  • How Different Are Theism and Atheism as a Starting Point for Philosophy and Ethics?
    If god doesn't exist, then it's business as usual. Philosophical thinking thrives on argument. — jkop
    :up: :up:

    Ethics do not depend upon a transcendent lawgiver but are based on the pragmatic need to live harmoniously with others. — Janus
    :100:

    , I am asking to what extent does the existence of 'God', or lack of existence have upon philosophical thinking. — Jack Cummins
    As an axiom, or first principle, ~G/G is definitive; however, as a conclusion, ~G/G is merely suppositional.

    ... what does the idea of 'God' signify in itself?
    Absolute power in every way.

    However, in this thread discussion, what I am asking is about materialism as being compatible with atheism, or idealism with a belief in some kind of 'spiritual reality'? — Jack Cummins
    Atheism is compatible with either materialism or idealism as well as with "a belief in spiritual reality".

    Does the stripping back of ideas, and ideals, especially in terms of the philosophy of realism lead to the most objective understanding of the existential conundrums of human existence?
    Maybe. I don't know. I suspect "ideas and ideals" are (mostly) degrees of "understanding" "existential conundrums".

    Where does materialism, idealism or philosophies of non dualism lead in the search to put such ideas together in the most synthetic and meaningful ways?
    I don't think any of these disparate "ideas" are attempts to unify, or synthesize, them with each other (or all other "ideas").

    So, I would ask how does an underlying assumption of theism [or] atheism result in an underlying philosoph[ical] viewpoint for living, including ethics, and a wider understanding of the purpose and ends of human life? — Jack Cummins
    It seems that theism is consistent with a teleological, or essentialist, conception of life that is, in part, derived from 'divine command theory' which atheism rejects.

    I wonder to what extent if God does not exist, if as Dosteovosky asks, whether everything is permitted? — Jack Cummins
    IIRC, Camus supposes, however, "this does not mean that nothing is forbidden."

    *

    Posts from an old thread of yours Jack "What Does It Mean, Philosophically, to Argue God Does or Does Not Exist?"

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/734883

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/734817

    Another post from your older thread "Are science and religion compatible, or oppositional philosophical approaches?"

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/541625
  • How Different Are Theism and Atheism as a Starting Point for Philosophy and Ethics?
    ↪wonderer1
    :sweat:
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    I still hope for a moderate candidate to arise from the quagmire in which we wallow. — jgill
    Any more "moderate" than Biden would be useless, a complete corporate tool. I'm hoping for (at least) a solid left-liberal like Gov. Newsom or Gov. Witmer if Biden drops out.

    ↪Tom Storm
    ... aka "FOX Noise Pollution" :mask:
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    I despise the far left — jgill
    With all due respect, sir, if you believe Biden in anyway represents "the far left" (i.e. to the left of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Nancy Pelosi, Ralph Nader, et al), then you've not been paying attention for the last half century to Biden's political career.

    And I despise both Biden and Trump equally.
    So in your mind, woke corporate welfare-statism IS JUST AS BAD FOR YOUR COUNTRY AS autocratic ethnonational populism? Biden the neoliberal EQUALS Trump the neofascist?

    (I guess, jgill, it's reasonable to assume, based on your reply, that in sum your answers to my previous post are: yes, yes, & difference in degree.)

    I practice harm minimisation in politics. Clearly some options are far worse than others, even if the less worse is still fundamentally flawed. — Tom Storm
    :up: :up:
  • How Different Are Theism and Atheism as a Starting Point for Philosophy and Ethics?
    ↪wonderer1
    :smirk: :up:
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    I despise the two candidates. — jgill
    Do you equally "despise" what Biden & Trump represent? Are their respective parties (coalitions) equally bad for the majority of communities in the US or equally detrimental to US interests vis-à-vis international relations (e.g. trade agreements, political treaties, strategic alliances)? Do you believe, jgill, the adverse difference between them is one of degree or a difference in kind? :chin:
  • Absential Materialism
    So, there is no category of apriori facts?
    — @Wayfarer

    "A priori facts" as far as I can tell are generalizations derived from experience. They cannot be discovered in the first place without concrete experience     — Janus
    :up:

    (i.e. ideality is merely abstracted from materiality)

    If a mind can know neither itself nor its thoughts, how can you call it a mind? — ucarr
    :smirk:
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    The ICJ's preliminary report:

    https://www.dw.com/en/un-court-ruling-on-gaza-hard-to-ignore-for-israels-allies/a-68099139

    ↪Benkei
    :up:

    also this:

    I've never been a fan of the NYTimes' (elite opinion) columnist Thomas Friedman, but can any of TPF's resident Israel/Netanyahu regime apologists @Rogue AI @schopenhauer1 @tim wood @BitconnectCarlos ... explain where Friedman's 'analysis' goes wrong? :chin:

  • What would Aristotle say to Plato if Plato told him he's in the cave?
    Get out of my light. — Tom Storm
    :cool:

    ↪NotAristotle
    :smirk:
  • Nietzsche is the Only Important Philosopher
    It has been said that all of today’s philosophy is built on Kant. I would add that all of postmodernist philosophy is built on [deliberately misreading] Nietzsche. — Joshs
    "Beware lest a statue slay you." :zip:
  • Nietzsche is the Only Important Philosopher
    ↪schopenhauer1
    So decadent you go on resenting 'this abject life' which you apparently lack the courage to quit ... you're welcome to your fashionably shallow caricature of N.
  • How May the Idea and Nature of 'Despair' be Understood Philosophically?
    There is an infinite amount of hope in the universe ... but not for us. — Franz Kafka

    From on old thread "Questions of Hope, Love and Peace" ...

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/759520

    and from an even older @Jack Cummins thread ...

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/511013
  • Nietzsche is the Only Important Philosopher
    Nietzsche goes hand-in-hand with individual self-involvement, and so it resonates with the modern man's sensibilities. — schopenhauer1
    So you blame 'a philosophy' for the fads which misuse and fools who misread it? :roll:

    'My Nietzsche' is primarily a cultural diagnotician-poet rather than a romantic individualist-decadent. Consider this old post, schop:

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/684298

    Lastly,
    I'm more Nietzschean (i.e. 'Dionysian' in approbation of the daily Sisyphusean grind) whereas Schopenhauer relies on music in a decidedly 'Apollonian' sense (i.e. to momentarily quell the (his) raging Will). — 180 Proof
  • Absential Materialism
    [deleted]
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    Well, as US Senator Tim Scott's proud and dignified "twin", I'm praying to the Light Fifty for a "Second Amendment solution" with extreme prejudice to this MAGA Cult problem no later than the Fourth of July 2024. :pray:
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    And Canada might build a border wall. :) — jorndoe
    :up:
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    ↪AmadeusD
    As things stand today, I can't imagine Loser-1 pulling a Grover Cleveland (1892) this fall. Of course, 9½ months is like many lifetimes in US electoral politics and so much could happen, no matter how improbably, to snatch Biden's & the Dems' defeat from the jaws of victory; in that case however, well, the banana republicanization of the US would be complete (spasibo, Vlad :shade:) and then I'd whole-heartedly support the secession of N. California, Oregon & Washington in order to form the independent Republic of Pacifica (btw, I'm a resident of Washington state) – or just resign myself and my community to riding out the obligatory, likely catastrophic, attempt to restore regular 'constitutional' order by military coup, etc. :mask:
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    ↪jgill
    IMO, all things being equal as of the 24th day of the year, Biden doesn't need to "start a war" to get reelected against a party that has lost every popular vote (i.e. general, midterm, off-year & special elections) since 2016 and against a (prospective) nominee whose support has shrunk since 2020 because he has done – continues to do – nothing to expand his support. The MAGA-GOP is a shrinking dead cult walking (à la Jim Jones) off of an electoral cliff. Just my $0.02. :mask:
  • Lost in transition – from our minds to an external world…
    ↪Vera Mont
    :100:

    That's how I see it: indivisible. But then, I'm a simple-minded biped, not a philosopher. — Vera Mont
    :smirk:
  • How May the Idea and Nature of 'Despair' be Understood Philosophically?
    ↪Jack Cummins
    Despair? If
    What is hell? I maintain that it is the suffering of being unable to love. — Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov
    then this must be despair.

    addendum to ...
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/874452
  • TPF Quote Cabinet
    Courage. That is the enabling virtue. All the other virtues are empty without courage. — Cornel West
  • The Blind Spot of Science and the Neglect of Lived Experience
    ↪Manuel
    :up: :up:
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    ↪Pantagruel
    Reddit & X(Twitter) are calling you, dude.
  • Absential Materialism
    ... you claimed that mind is matter. — Corvus
    I did not "claim" this. :roll:

    So you can't answer my questions
    ↪180 Proof
    .

    Okay, I'll move on to someone who has some idea of what s/he is talking about.
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    I'm not here to [think] challenge your beliefs. — Pantagruel
    'Challenging beliefs' is what a site dedicated to philosophy terms dialectic. "Your true colors" are quite evident: mere dogma (of an unthinking pedant). I welcome all challenges to my ideas (in order to learn) which you are obviously too insecure (or vapid) to handle. Maybe you'd feel less threatened, Pantagruel, on sites like Reddit or X (Twitter). :sparkle:
  • Absential Materialism
    ↪Corvus
    Mind is a process or activity like respiration or digestion and not a static thing. Mind-ing is what sufficiently complex brains (which are material-physical systems) do. To ask "where is mind?" is nonsensical like asking "where is breathing?" or "where is walking?"

    But you have not answered my questions, Corvus.
    Mind is immaterial substance.
    — Corvus

    How do you/we know this? How does the "immaterial" interact with materiality, as "mind" apparently does, without violating material-physical laws of conversation?     — 180 Proof
    I'll wait ... :chin:
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    ↪Pantagruel
    You made a claim, I requested evidence for it, not clarification. I understand perfectly well it's empty but gave you the chance to prove me wrong. So far, however, you haven't and, no doubt, you cannot because apparenrly you've no idea what you're talking about.
  • Absential Materialism
    In saying void is both physical and meta-physical... — ucarr
    I've not said this, just pushed back on your reductive implication which is contrary to the Democritean-Epicurean concept of void (or Spinoza's concept of substance): a metaphysical concept (i.e. an ontological presupposition of an empirical/observational supposition) for which there is a physical analogue or correlate (re: vacuum); I'm not "saying" the atomists' void is a "higher-order" anything (that somehow transcends the physical).

    All of the above: energy, mass and matter are material_physical. Your job, as immaterialist, involves showing the structure of the immaterial making causal contact with the material. — ucarr
    :up: :up:

    Mind is immaterial substance. — Corvus
    How do you/we know this? How does the "immaterial" interact with materiality, as "mind" apparently does, without violating material-physical laws of conservation?
  • The Blind Spot of Science and the Neglect of Lived Experience
    ↪Joshs
    I understand philosophy to be concerned with making explicit the gaps in – limitations of – rationality as manifest in, or expressed by, use of concepts and is not concerned with, or capable of, providing any "access to truths about the world". And science, for its part, concerns only the best available approximations – fallibilistic explanations of aspects– of the world.
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    ↪Joshs
    :up:

    ↪Pantagruel


    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/861285

    If we wish to study a thing, we are bound to select certain aspects of it., It is not possible for us to observe or to describe a whole piece of the world, or a whole piece of nature; in fact, not even the smallest whole piece may be so described, since all description is necessarily selective. — Karl Popper, The Poverty of Historicism
    I.e. the poverty of (e.g. Collingwood's) quasi-Hegelian caricature of both history and science.
  • The Blind Spot of Science and the Neglect of Lived Experience
    With the right woman, that kind of gorgeous language will get you laid around here. Better than any sonnet…. — Tom Storm
    Yeah .. but when I rub my scars, mate, I only remember the wrong ones. :yum:
  • The Blind Spot of Science and the Neglect of Lived Experience
    ↪Wayfarer
    The natural sciences are observational-experimental methods, force-multiplied by mathematical techniques, for the manifest purpose of publicly correcting "common sense" experiences (e.g. folk psychologies, customary intuitions (i.e. stereotypes, clichés, X-of-the-gaps stories, etc), cognitive biases, institutional (dogmatic) superstitions, etc) in order to testably explain aspects of the natural world and ourselves. The notion of a "blind spot of science" is, at best, a worn-out, old romanticist caricature or otherwise, worse, akin to a polemical categorical mistake: science no more engages in (explicit) philosophy or mysticism / subjectivism than jack-hammers are used instead of chainsaws to cut down trees; in fact, it's the best tool(kit) humanity has ever devised insofar as natural science is the attempt to (abductively, fallibilistically) solve more-than-subjective problems, which is a feature, IME, and not a bug (i.e. "blind spot"). Btw, I'm familiar with Glieser & Thompson and respect a lot of their work, respectively, but think this thesis is ludicrously antiquated (though yes, fashionably evergreen with the tie-dyed, pseudo-luddite incognecenti :sparkle: :roll:). That said, I'm sure I'll read the book ...
  • Absential Materialism
    ↪ucarr
    Yes.
  • Absential Materialism
    ↪ucarr
    :smirk: :up:
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    @BitconnectCarlos @tim wood @RogueAI

    A brief discussion about the new Jewish-American documentary "Israelism" ...


    addendum to:
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/856307

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/847621
  • Absential Materialism
    Can you understand that Energy is a metaphysical philosophical Principle, not a material object? — Gnomon
    Ah riiiight, just like "The Force" :sparkle: :rofl:
  • Absential Materialism
    Energy is [ ... ] immaterial in its thingness.
    — Gnomon
    So (rest) mass is "immaterial" too?
    — 180 Proof
    Yes. Mass is not an objective thing...     — Gnomon
    :clap: :lol: :sad: :rofl:
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    ↪Wayfarer
    :100:
Home » 180 Proof