I would not have supported the jihadist Hamas party over PA-affiliated, secular parties in Gaza and not have promoted the violent settler land-grabs in the West Bank, etc in order for both policies to sabotage all prospects of a "Two-State Solution" as Bibi's governments have done since 2004; thus, no October 7th atrocities and retaliatory mass murdering by the IDF today. — 180 Proof

More circumstantial evidence of the Netanyahu regime's complicity via strategic neglect...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67958260.amp

None of them were previously President either though — AmadeusD

And none had to run for president just to stay out of prison because they had been indicted with 91 felonies, or had been found civilly liable of sexual assault (rape in most other jurisdictions) or had been sued by their home states and found civilly liable for massive tax, bank & insurance fraud either. :mask:

The last three GOP primary candidates for president who have won the Iowa Caucus before Loser-1's victory yesterday:

Mike Huckabee - 2008
Rick Santorium - 2012
Ted Cruz - 2016

None of them went on to become the GOP nominee for president. :up:

Ironically, Berkeley's arguments against... — sime

Non sequitur. My critique of @Wayfarer's Buddhist idea (re: subjectivity) has nothing to do with "Berkeley's argument".

:ok:

It's meaningless because the caucus had the lowest turn out since 2000 due in part to brutally frigid weather and yet about two-thirds of the voters are right-wing Evangelical (i.e. faux) Christians. Next week in very Independent / libertarian, much better educated New Hampshire, which is an open primary in which non-Republicans can also vote in the GOP primary, Loser-1's margin will be very slim (or he'll lose outright, which is quite possible). He'll kill Haley in her home state of very evangelical, less educated South Carolina after that though.

So I guess Biden / Dems rigged the Iowa Caucus because Criminal Defendent/Sexual Predator/Fraudster-1 only got 51% of the vote. :mask:

What do We Mean By “The Meaning of Life”? — George Fisher

I think a more significant question (or challenge) is Do you have the courage to live – thrive – despite Life having no discernible or agreed upon meaning?

Maybe the ancients were wiser than we are. — Ciceronianus

:up:

So tell me, according to current science, what does ultimately exist? — Wayfarer

Well which "current science" is your non-scientific question referring to, Wayf?

I face the issues of being human every day, they don't involve

'a certain sense of angst, existential dread, isolation, loneliness, ennui, and meaninglessness."
— schopenhauer1

Sorry. — Ciceronianus

:fire:

Amor fati.

Basically, I'm simply arguing that whatever exists, always exists for some mind. — Wayfarer

And this 'idea' is incoherent because it implies either (A) a Matryoshka doll-like infinite regress of minds-which-exist within minds-which-exist within ... ad infinitum (i.e. 'it's turtles all the way down) or (B) that "some mind" which "whatever exists for" is not ultimately "whatever exists". :sparkle: :eyes:

We agree that appearance is mind-created. Here we also seem to agree that the appearance is a perspective on mind-independent reality. — hypericin

I don’t think it’s indirect realism, as the external world can’t be said to exist outside of or independently of the mind. But neither does it not exist. — Wayfarer

:roll: :monkey:

I actually wrote "soundly reasonable to conclude" referring to us here and now which is a posteriori. Misquoting – partially quoting – only gets you strawmen with which to shadowbox.

:up:

If you haven't read him yet, you might find interesting the writings of the naturalist philosopher of mind Owen Flanagan who has studied and appreciates Buddhist meditative practices. I've also previously recommended to you the works of naturalist neurophilosopher (and former Buddhist) Thomas Metzinger but you've never given any indication whether or not you've read him. Btw, Flanagan's writings are much less technical than Metzinger's and more explicitly concerned with ethics. These are two thinkers out of many others who do not find "naturalism inimical" to (philosophical) Buddhism and its "concerns" as you do, Wayf. The naturalistic conjecture of 'user-illusion' (i.e. phenomenal self model or Hume's bundle theory) is quite consistent with the doctrine of anatta (anatman), no? :chin:

:sweat: Nice try, Count, but not compelling evidence of anything.

... why you think it is the case that mind is not dependent on non-mind if solipsism is the case. — Lionino

By "solipsism" I understand – ontologically, not epistemologically – that only one mind exists and that all else are merely thoughts, ideas or dreams in that one mind. Thus, for the (ontological) solipsist, there is not any "non-mind" for her mind to be "dependent on". No doubt, however, this is not the case.

Is there some reason for the existence of mankind? — George Fisher

It's soundly reasonable to conclude that there is no "reason for the existence of mankind" but mankind's reasons.

Is there a reason for my existence?

Likewise, it's also soundly reasonable to conclude that there is no reason for "your existence" but your reasons.

Aren’t we more special than that?

All of the extant evidence, contrary to the anxieties of our fragile self-esteem, strongly suggests we are merely different from other natural beings, not "more special" than any them.

Why would evolution produce a thinking being if there was no purpose in it other than continuation of the species?

Your question is premised on an pathetic fallacy, George. "Evolution" is a blind process biologically perpetuated by the "continuation of the species".

Could we not have been as successful in the world as a very clever ape?

H. sapiens were merely that for about 1.8 million years and they're still apes, just a bit more clever for the last two hundred millenia.

Does our ability to reason contribute to our ability to adapt and thrive on the world in a critical way?

If the "ability to reason" were indispensible to the "ability to adapt and thrive", then living things could not have ever evolved. We – our species – would not exist. I assume by "in a critical way" you are referring to culture: no doubt cultural developments – human competence at reasoning – are accumulated artifacts of (varied degrees of) human aptitude for reasoning, which emerged only very recently in human evolution, and possibly as a mere exaptation or spandrel.

If we are an exception to the evolutionary path of life, why should we be?

I'd really appreciate some compelling evidence supporting the proposition that h. sapiens are an "exception" or any more improbable on "the evolutionary path of life" than any other multicellular species. We're not, and that's a brute fact.



addendum to ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/861707

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/864393

Generalizing from a personal anecdote is very poor reasoning especially by a so-called "teacher".

:100:

Hasn't capitalism increased the standard of living immeasurably over the last 100 years? — RogueAI

Mostly for whom? To the extent "capitalism" has "increased standards of living", this has happened – "trickled down" – unevenly, cyclically, and at the cost of mass alienation – what John Dewey aptly describes as industrial feudalism – the return of "Gilded Age" wealth inequality (e.g. T. Piketty)¹ accelerated by the last half century of neoliberal globalization and fiscal austerity policies.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_and_Ideology ¹

Perhaps, just as fundamentalism (e.g. theocracy) is an antimodernist reaction to failed secularism (e.g. imperialism), autocracy (e.g. fascism) is a populist reaction to failed democracy (e.g. capitalism). :chin:

The gains made by minorities and LGBTQ aren't even close to being wiped out. — RogueAI

Clearly, either you've not been paying attention and/or you're just choking on reactionary grievance. :mask:

... "hearing why" what?

Whatever worldview they hold appears to be 'shallow' and tends not to be the product of examination. I guess underpinning these 'mythologies' are some vague presuppositions. Probably notions similar to: "Everything must makes sense." "God will take care of it." "No one can be trusted." — Tom Storm

:up: :up:

Most people certainly end up developing beliefs and assumptions about how the world is which may flirt with the key questions of philosophy. But I personally come down on the side that this is generally unsystematic, impressionistic, emotionally driven and often predicated upon unexamined templates provided by superstitions or religions.

:100:

FWIW, I walk 3-5 miles every day (weather permitting) as the entirety of my exercise regimen; other than water, daily I drink a pot of strong black tea; I try to stick to a strict 2-meals-a-day low carb, low fat, red meat-free, salt-free & sugar-free diet (except once or twice a week I have some dark chocolate) with fruit/veggie snacks; I take my meds & suppliments; and (unfortunately) I've been completely sober & recreational drugs-free since 2019.

Also, a very low-stress lifestyle since 2022 has helped immensely.

Even though I've slimmed down to my high school weight and waistline, I still look like a "linebacker" and a decade or so younger than 60 (even more so clean shaven). All things considered, given that I wasn't taking care of my health for decades and hard living/partying into my mid-50s, I am very fortunate today to feel as healthy as I do most days. These last years my healthy routines have been quite boring but I've learned not to be bored with this boring – feature, not bug, of – life.

:death: :flower:

:lol: You simpletons confess by projection.

Fascinating ...

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/jan/11/newly-discovered-cosmic-megastructure-challenges-theories-of-the-universe

Zion-über-alles! :strong:

I think this requires a level of intelligence and reasoning far beyond mere consciousness. — Vera Mont

Cats & dogs seem intelligent enough. Maybe what I wrote wasn't clear – there wasn't anything in that post about "mere consciousness".

Who should have won WW2? The Axis or Allies? — RogueAI

What's the relevance to the current Israel-Hamas conflict?

Why not just concede the point like an adult? Btw, your selective misreading is both tedious and disingenuous.

:up:

:rofl:

If you think living things are "conscious" or aware or have a "me" from which they reference the world, does this apply to all living things? — Benj96

No. All living things are responsive, some – relatively very few – are "conscious" (and only intermittenly).

Or where is the cutoff point?

For me "the cutoff of "consciousness" would be any organism with at least a central nervous system sufficiently complex enough to generate a phenomenal self model (the function of which being to facilitate adaptively coordinating the organism's behavior with both external and internal stimuli) by interacting with an environment. I suspect this subset of organisms includes many (though not all or most) mammals like primates, cetaceans, elephantidae ... canines, felines, ursidae (bears), etc; and even apparently cephalopods.

And why?

If "consciousness" suggests more than just some degree of (i) awareness or (ii) self-awareness but also (iii) self-awareness of others-as-self-aware-selves, then "conscious" organisms have to have biological capabilities – repertoire of behaviors – complex enough to recognize other "conscious" organisms as "conscious" organisms like themselves (with a self) rather by reflex-instinct being incapable of discerning other "conscious" organisms from living food or waste.

Finally, do we not ultimately base this in the 'how much of us do we see in them?'

A theory of mind. It's all we have to go on with each other since "consciousness" is (intractably?) subjective; otherwise we humans are all just zombies to one another.

Recent science indicates that trees and other vegetation in a forest communicate with one another through a complex network of fungi. You could consider that the brain of a communal entity. Whether individual plants have similar capacities is doubtful but not impossible — Vera Mont

:up: :up:

I very much doubt the elements of that definition come as a package. Rather, I think they're consequent and cumulative, as evolution built on simple capabilities and equipment to produce ever more complex ones. No solid lines in between; just continuity. — Vera Mont

:fire: ... like the simplistic fossil-picture of the reptilian, mammalian & sapient layers of the human brain.

[deleted]

I could have sworn you meant to subject these to critical revision. — Pantagruel

And again, your contention has nothing to do with what I've writeen. To wit:

philosophies (re: reflection) [ ... ] as critical/dialectical/existential self-correctives — 180 Proof

i.e. examining one's own 'unexamined life' (e.g. one's 'unexamined' assumptions, biases, desires, etc).

My guess (wishful thinking?): the oligarchic-corporatist "neoliberal" establishment (i.e. bankers-military industrialists) is hellbent on keeping a "neofascist" coup d'etat from killing the US hegemonic goose that's still laying the postwar-globalist golden eggs (e.g. currently $32 trillion petrodollar denominated US debt). Simultaneous proxy wars with Russia, Iran & China are the collective counterweight, perhaps for another decade, offsetting what looks like an inevitable American ethnopopulist implosion. No doubt a "superpower" nightmare the world can't wake up from soon enough. :death: :fire:

Hamas killed 1,200 Israelis and kidnapped c225. On the other hand, in retaliation, Israel has so far killed 23,000+ Palestinians and displaced c2 million more, and continues this onslaught in Gaza. That seems disproportionate to me. :mask:

You are criticizing these elements as faux-values — Pantagruel

I have not stated or implied this.

to be reflectively corrected.

The unexamined life is not worth living. ~Socrates

I stand with Collingwood's view, that everyone has a philosophy.

Your dogma, sir, flies in the face of the demonstrable fact (throughout history and across cultures) that very few people actually live examined lives (i.e. actually philosophize).

... (I hope I've got that right). They suffer from being misinterpreted by first-level dogmatic scientisms whose goal is to subjugate these disparate values, rather than understanding them.

Strawmaning non sequitur. We're obviously talking past one another .. :roll:

↪180 Proof You're a biased leftist. — Benkei

And there's no shame in my leftist game! :smirk:

You seem to be implying that mythologies, theologies, and ideologies do not have actual impacts on how people behave. — Pantagruel

Just the opposite as my previous references to 'evolutionary psychology', 'cognitive neuroscience' & 'critical/dialectical/existential self-correctives' of philosophy make clear (if you carefully read my post). I'm pointing out that any or all of these constituents of hand-me-down worldviews – mythology, theology, ideology – are the dominant drivers (i.e. culturally enabling constraints) of almost all human judgments and not, as you (or your reading of Collingwood) seem to imply, philosophical reflections (e.g.) on "absolute presuppositions".