What "new thinking" are you talking about?

You're still only talking about philosophy without doing it – at most, IMO, that's gossip, not thinking.

Putting aside the quality of why one might prefer the Buddhist answer to the Western one, how do we evaluate, philosophically, the limits of our own intellectual garden and evaluate whether we wouldn't be better off being replanted somewhere else? — Ennui Elucidator

Well, "we evaluate our limits", so to speak, by actually doing philosophy instead of just talking about philosophy given that "answers" are merely how philosophical questions generate new (more probative) philosophical questions.

not a philosophical materialist/naturalist (he considered the two terms synonymous) but he was a methodological materialist/naturalist. He then went on to clearly explain the difference. So, are you declaring the same as him, in the quote above? — universeness

Yes, there's a difference ... (Btw, I adopt both positions as the latter, I think, is a function of, or entailed by, the former.)

You are a methodological naturalist and not a philosophical one as you refuse the burden of proof that is assigned if you state that there IS no existent outside of the natural universe. — universeness

As a philosophical naturalist, I speculate that

whatever else the whole of reality is, the aspect of reality that beings like ourselves are ontologically inseparable from, cognitively enabled-constrained by and that asymptotically encompasses us as the fundamental horizon of our possibie prospects I think of as nature (i.e. the universe).

Whatever is "outside of the natural universe" – supernaturalia – I further surmise natural beings like us are naturally incapable of both perceiving and cognizing (i.e. more than merely fantasizing about) and that, therefore, does not contribute anything explicable to our understanding of either nature itself or the flourishing of natural beings.

This is only a 'metaphysical supposition' – not an axiom, theorem or statement of fact – so no "burden of proof" required. :smirk:

Furthermore, consistent with this supposition, I'm also a methodological naturalist, by which I mean that

aspects of nature are assumed to be sufficient for various uses which facilitate in explaining other aspects of nature (and their dynamic relationships) to the exclusion of supernatural ideas, entities or considerations "outside of the natural universe".

Does that clarify my position?

... the assumption that we humans are special. We're not. We're instead just another kind of creature in a vast universe, not special but different from others in some respects. I don't see this recognition as a defense mechanism; it's merely what is the case. — Ciceronianus

:fire:

(à la atoms swirling in void ... modes of substance ... the mediocrity principle ... descent with modifications by natural selection ... entropy ...)

:sweat: Projection (i.e. confession) ... okay.

I want to learn!! — AmadeusD

So do I but I can't learn anything from time-wasting questions like yours which a close, or careful, reading of my posts make unnecessary. Lazy (shallow) responses get old quick – especially semantic muddles & word salads. Disagreements are great only when they are substantive and thereby facilitate reciprocal learning.

I've stated and clarified my position. My apologies if it's still not clear enough. You antinatalists seem to worry yourselves about what you can't change or control and thereby make yourselves more miserable than you need to be, then spread that self-inflicted, pointless misery in order to have company. You wish were never born, or 'that is a better to never have been born', and yet, like other antinatalists, you're very much still here – apparently, surprise surprise, you'd rather suffer than 'not to be' – oh, but that's self-refuting, ain't it? Well anyway, good luck with all that, Amadeus – tediously spoon-feeding ain't my jam, so I'm off to find a more substantive topic to chew on.

There's nothing to be done about current suffering. — AmadeusD

Nonsense.

i cannot see what the futility is in relation to? — AmadeusD

Choosing (as I inadvertantly have, btw) to defy one's biological drives, or genetic programming, in order not to breed ...

neither undoes – compensates for – the suffering of past sufferers nor, more significantly, reduces the suffering of current, or already-born, sufferers. — 180 Proof

In other wods, antinatalism as speculation or (voluntary) policy does not positively affect the quality of the lives of those who are suffering here and now.Thus, what's the point of opposing (human) reproduction (which can ony make most sufferers suffer even more (e.g. despair))? :mask:

Neither.

And like it or not, humans are as much a part of nature as any other animal. — Ciceronianus

:fire:

Influenced by Ravi Shankar's music and John Coltrane's album Impressions, particularly the piece "India"

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/870442

"Eight Miles High" turned on Western listeners along with the psychedelic-raga rock groove of the mid-1960s ...


"Eight Miles High" (3:34)
Fifth Dimension, 1966
writers G. Clark, R. McGuinn & D. Crosby
performer The Byrds

along with


"Tomorrow Never Knows" (2:58)
Revolver, 1966
writers Lennon-McCartney
performer The Beatles

followed-up and surpassed by


"Within You Without You" (5:05)
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, 1967
writer George Harrison
performer The Beatles (only G. Harrison & members of the Asian Music Circle)

[ ... ]

and eventually back to Miles ...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/870507

"Shhh/Peaceful" (16:16)
In a Silent Way, 1969
composer Miles Davis
performers M. Davis, W. Shorter, J. McLaughlin, C. Corea. H. Hancock, J. Zawinul, D. Holland & T. Williams

my own conclusion that 'anitnatalism is futile'
— 180 Proof

Hey mate - would you mind bumper-stickering your basic reasoning here? — AmadeusD

Gladly. From a previous post ...

Antinatalism proposes 'preventing future suffering' that neither undoes – compensates for – the suffering of past sufferers nor, more significantly, reduces the suffering of current, or already-born, sufferers. — 180 Proof

So of what value is it?

"India" (14:10)
Impressions, 1963
composer John Coltrane, 1961
performers J. Coltrane, E. Dolphy, M. Tyner, J. Garrison, R. Workman & E. Jones

Ok, but how, why? — schopenhauer1

Besides our many previous exchanges on the topic in the last few years, schop, this post sums up my outlook:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/870315

Ligotti isn't really pessimistic enough (like e.g. P. Mainländer was) about his pessimism (which is kind of funny). Antinatalism proposes 'preventing future suffering' that neither undoes – compensates for – the suffering of past sufferers nor, more significantly, reduces the suffering of current, or already-born, sufferers. Useless, futile, absurd. :sweat:

I did not state or imply that I agree with Ligotti (or Zapffe), only that his book inspired – reinforced – my own conclusion that 'anitnatalism is futile' (which I only characterize as 'Zapffean').

We're alive. No amount of bewailing will change that; in fact, it will likely make us miserable (more miserable, if you prefer). Horror can be self-imposed, particularly that horror claimed to be cosmic. This is the ultimate example of disturbing yourself over matters beyond your control. — Ciceronianus

:clap: :100:

:up: :up:

Trying to slip spirituality or Zen into physics is like trying to win Chess by presenting a full house. — Banno

:smirk:

I suspect you just lost @Wayfarer @Gnomon et al.

The discussion is about physicalism, not physics. Physicalism is a philosophical doctrine. — Wayfarer

Told ya. :roll:

'Spirit' comes from the Latin word 'to breathe.' What we breathe is air, which is certainly matter, however thin.
— Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

Should I be a smart-ass and disprove Carl Sagan? — Lionino

Yes please.

It is with sadness that every so often I spend a few hours on the internet, reading or listening to the mountain of stupiditie dressed up with the word 'quantum'. Quantum medicine; holistic quantum theories of every kind, mental quantum spiritualism – and so on, and on, in an almost unbelievable parade of quantum nonsense.
— Carlo Rovelli, Hegoland, pp. 159-60 — 180 Proof

For those who wish to avoid pseudo-science traps and quantum woo sophistry, I recommend as a start The Unconscious Quantum¹ (reviewed here). — 180 Proof

https://www.skeptic.com/insight/the-fifth-horseman-the-insights-of-victor-stenger-1935-2014/ ¹

I'm a huge fan of T. Ligotti's horror fiction and love his book The Conspiracy Against the Human Race the arguments and insights of which have convinced me of the futility (i.e. Zapffean absurdity) of 'antinatalism'.

:death: :flower:

I had gf for over a year who was half-Ojibwe and I can't recall now (three decades later) her or her dad (or our friends from Red Lake) telling me about this "game". :cool:

How are “essential” and “fundamental” distinct? Webster’s Thesaurus .... — ucarr

Maybe you should consult a 'dictionary of philosophical terms'. :roll:

I don't recall that critter so I can't say I have been "bitten", unless by "snow snake" you mean frostbitten which I definitely have (e.g.) on both ice fishing trips I took up to Bemidji :groan: and International Falls. :cry:

:100:

Number is an essential, material property. — ucarr

Hylomorphism? :chin:

IIRC paraphrasing Peirce / Wittgenstein, arithmetic (e.g. counting) is a practice, therefore material in effect; numbers, however, signify patterns (i.e. ideas) abstracted from the arithmetic practice and so themselves are not material. In other words, we assign "properties" to objects (à la Kant) rather than "discover" that objects "have" them. Or as Meinong might say: 'arithmetic exists' whereas 'number subsists'.

Noooo. As they often say in the Twin Cities (from October to May back when I lived there): "Oh, it's too cold to snow." :smirk:

Zionism is littered throughout the Torah with God promising the land to the Hebrews and describing Israel as a "land of milk and honey." Zionism is biblical. — BitconnectCarlos

... ergo a fundamentalist ethnonational delusion; thus, the many generations of secular Jews who were/are conscientious anti-Zionists.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/858450

:up:

Michael Brecker's "Syzygy" &
Brick's "Dazz"

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/754042

Paradigm =/= model.

If one models the universe as beginning-less, and thus origin-less, does cosmology then cover the totality of existence? — ucarr

We don't know – possibly not. The observable universe is the only "existence", however, that matters significantly to us (i.e. terrestrial life).

Perhaps a categorical essence is out of domain, but essential things aren’t.

In this statement, for clarity's sake, I prefer fundamental to your term "essential".

This raises the question whether metaphysics has any place within a physicalist universe.

The doesn't make sense to me because I think of "physicalist universe" itself as a metaphysical construct, that is, merely a speculative supposition – way of observing and describing nature.

You clearly credit metaphysics with real status. How do you reconcile this with your physicalist identity?

These terms don't make sense to me. I am not a (logical) positivist or (Humean) empiricist. My methodological physicalism is a function, or corollary, of my philosophical naturalism which is a metaphysics (or speculative supposition).

Is it the case you think metaphysics not a categorical separation from physics but instead a higher-order physics?

No. I think metaphysics concerns 'a priori speculative suppositions about nature (i.e. humanly knowable aspects of existence)' and physics concerns 'explaining transformations in nature by making testable, hypothetical-deductive models'. I consider methodological physicalism only a paradigm for making/evaluating 'physical models' (sans non-physical ideas or entities) and interpreting their results, or problematics.

My read of (modern) history is that the pendulum, so to speak, swings back and forth from intolerance to tolerance, some times in faster-shorter cycles than most other times, and "social progress" is mostly a mirage because achievements in tolerance-inclusion tend to be quite fragile (e.g. in the US in recent decades, eviceration of civil & voting rights; increase in voter suppression policies, rise of virulent ethnonationalism and nonwhite immigrant scapegoating (à la MAGA-GOP politics); ahistorical expansion of 2nd Amendment & denial of women"s reproductive healthcare rights; rise in rate of hate crimes against LGBTIs Asians Muslims & Jews; etc). It seems axiomatic that while there is (mostly) "progress" in technosciences, struggle for dignity against injustice in social relations is an existential constant. IME, epithets, "reclaimed" or not, are almost entirely inconsequential.

I am openly not straight and being insulted for it doesn’t bother me because I’m not ashamed. — AmadeusD

:up:

:up:

I no longer listen to what people say, I just watch what they do. Behavior never lies. — Winston Churchill, British imperialist politician

In other words: "sticks and stones ..."

postpone progress? — GTTRPNK

As a Black man, I wonder what you mean by "progress" ... specifically "progress" of what and for whom?

IMHO, cosmology (physics) concerns only modelling the development of what we call "the observable universe" and not "beginnings" or "origins" or "essences" of all things (metaphysics).

align ourselves with our nature as a species: — Bob Ross

Describe "our nature as a species" and explain how you determine that to be so (unless you mean something like 'Aristotle's teleology', then never mind).

I finished my BS (it took me 6.5 years) at Syracuse U in the 1980s and had some good visits to Rochester & Buffalo during those years. Thought I knew what bad winters were like until I'd moved on to Minnesota for graduate school. :grimace:

Okay ... if you say so.