Comments

  • Commandment of the Agnostic
    ↪Joshs
    Can you distinguish between politics (or jurisprudence) and ethics, Joshs? Hillel's principle, as I call it, concerns moral encounters with others (M. Buber, H. Arendt, P. Foot), not some instrumental, or ideological, calculus.
  • Metaphysically impossible but logically possible?
    ↪Lionino
    "Infinite person" is one person that is infinite in extent, not "more than one" person. The concept is no more contradiction in logic than "pegasus" or "chocolate fudge mountain".
  • Commandment of the Agnostic
    ↪Joshs
    I can't follow you.

    You can help victims by locking the criminal up; this does not change the fact that this action also "harms" the criminal, thus invalidating this action if you follow this "moral conduct" in any literal way. — mentos987
    Literalism is the death of reasoning and judgment.

    It is hateful [harmful] to me to be amputated unless it is medically necessary to prevent more amputations or worse. Likewise, it is hateful [harmful] to be imprisoned except as the only way to (temporarily) prevent me from continuing doing to others what is hateful [harmful] to them/me.
  • Metaphysically impossible but logically possible?
    ↪Lionino
    Elaborate on what?
  • Commandment of the Agnostic
    If locking someone up is "hateful" then we can't imprison criminals, if it isn't then anyone can imprison anyone. So many loopholes here. — mentos987
    The above misses the point. You are talking about 'public policy"' and Hillel is talking about moral conduct. No "loopholes" when comparing apples and oranges.

    Notice in my prior post I interpret "hateful" also as harmful (footnote¹), emphasizing dysfunction of a person rather than merely negative preference. Hillel the Elder proposes a way of responding to others (i.e. a heuristic, a principle), not a mere calculus (i.e. an algorithm, a formula). Also consider your example, mentos: in most instances it is, in fact, more hateful/harmful to victims not to "imprison criminals" than it is to do so.

    In sum: that there are limits to a general prescription, or rule, does not entail a (legalistic) "loophole" but instead indicates an edge case that requires moral reasoning and judgment. Isaac Asimov's "Three Laws of Robots" is a fantastic cautionary tale about "perfect commandment"-misconception of ethics like yours (& Kant's).

    Shouldn’t that be changed to UNJUSTLY hateful or harmful? Isnt hate just a strong version of blame? — Joshs
    No. "That which is hateful [harmful] to you" does not "blame" or has anything to do with whether or not the thing is "unjustly". For example, being deprived of food and water, under any circumstances, is hateful/harmful to each one of us, so Hillel suggests that therefore one should not (by action or inaction) intentionally deprive another of food and water.
  • On Fosse's Nobel lecture: 'A Silent Language'
    ↪javi2541997
    I still don't know why I bother. I've been scribbling incessantly since preschool. Why do it? Like for most who write, putting down 500 words of prose daily, along with obsessive note taking & marginalia, collecting specimens of unusual wordplay & quotations, reams of memos-to-self-cum-essays, etc is the best way I've found of keeping my own company. "Sanity"? That's saying too much. About twenty years ago I told myself I write to correct, or clarify, my younger selves; I still believe that, even more so now. But why bother go on when not one of those younger selves will ever read me. I can't go on, but I go on anyway, out of spite, or kicks, because at this age I've forgotten how to do anything else. :death: :flower:
  • On Fosse's Nobel lecture: 'A Silent Language'
    Reasons for suicide are similarly diverse. Some people are just fed up with living. Some people are unwell. Some are unable to deal with trauma. Some are reacting to situational factors. Suicide is one word for many situations. — Tom Storm
    :fire:
  • Commandment of the Agnostic
    This is a thought challenge where I try to form the perfect commandment for anyone that isn't religious. — mentos987
    Welcome to the forum! :up:

    IMO, no one yet, secular or religious, has improved on ...
    That which is hateful¹ to you, do not do to anyone. — Hillel the Elder, first century BCE

    i.e. harmful¹
  • A Normative Ethical Dilemma: The One's Who Walk Away from Omelas
    ↪L'éléphant
    :up: :up:

    Can we morally justify sacrificing people for the greater good, especially if it is a huge sacrifice (like getting tortured constantly)? — Bob Ross
    IMO, that's instrumental reasoning (re: things, i.e. means-to-ends) and not moral reasoning (re: persons, i.e. ends-in-themselves) which I'd sketched out in this old post mentioning Le Guin's "Omelas":

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/365307
  • Metaphysically impossible but logically possible?
    ↪Lionino
    A metaphysical impossibility such as 'an infinite person' is logically possible, no?
  • Is supporting Israel versus Palestine conservative?
    "Conservatism?" To conserve the status quo (ante).

    The oppressor always desires peace in the form of a completely pacified, oppressed population – perpetual status quo. E.g. Nazi Wehrmacht & Paris, France in 1940, respectively; PRC & Tibet since 1951, respectively; US-client state of Israel & Palestinian territories since 1967, respectively; ... Russia & Crimea/Donbas, Ukraine since 2014-22, respectively; etcetera.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    ↪Baden
    "Shalom!" :mask: :up:
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    ↪tim wood
    :lol: Wtf are you talking about, tim?! Your (Dunning-Kruger level) historical illiteracy and/or self-deception are stunning.
  • Meaning of Life
    :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
  • Meaning of Life
    ↪javra
    Plenty of "controlling" females have crossed my path but not enough commanding women (or men for that matter).

    And thus spoke the little old woman: You go to women? Do not forget the whip! — Also Sprach Zarathustra
    :fire:
  • Meaning of Life
    Humans (predominantly, I think, human males) seem in every age preoccupied with their own significance and dashed when they are compelled to admit how very small it is in the scheme of things. This is part of the reason for inventing gods: in a way, gods are magnified sock-puppets for men who want/need to feel in control of the world; who therefore provide themselves the purpose of imposing meaning and order - at least on their fellow humans. It is also the reason for the entire body of Metaphysics: If only we could reduce life, the universe and everything to basic principles, we could wrestle into submission. — Vera Mont
    Brilliantly succinct – Wille zur Macht – oh yeah! You 'mansplain' that much much better than I ever could, lady! :clap: :cool::flower:
  • Meaning of Life
    I’m confused. What is life? — George Fisher
    This.

    Why is life?
    Chance.

    Where did [life] come from?
    The universe.

    Life seems to go against the basic law of entropy.
    "Life" (i.e. local order) is just entropy's rarified way of increasing entropy (i.e. global disorder).

    Are we special?
    Compared to what? And what difference does "special" or "not special" make?

    Is there a God?
    The best evidence compellingly suggests that 'there is a god' only in our just-so stories.

    What is God?
    An empty name.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_name

    Why is God?
    It's h. sapiens' oldest placebo and still works on far too many of us.

    Here I am, one of 8,000,000,000 people on earth. What on earth could be special about me?
    Like the rest of us, George, you are a grain of sand that isn't exactly identical to any other grain of sand on the beach. And you can know this. That's not much but it ain't nothing.

    There is a maelstrom of stuff out there. How could I ever hope to grasp the meaning of it all.
    You also can't count all the stars in the observable universe and visualize all of their relations relative to one another and hold that image in your mind either. So what. It's absurd (A. Camus, P.W. Zapffe) to desire such an omni-grasp of things. Now what does one do in such a vast, encompassing "maelstrom"? You might take
    ↪Ciceronianus
    ' sage counsel for a start ...

    Do I have any meaning or ...
    I think you do to the degree you strive to make your choices and relationships "meaningful" each and every day.

    ... responsibility within this milieu?
    Like everyone else, George, you are responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of your actions and inaction.

    Would it make any difference if I did not exist?
    To you, it might. From the universe's perspective, well, you don't even "exist", none of us ephemerae "exist". (Read Epicurus, then read Spinoza)

    A more interesting question might be: Why do you need to look for a meaning? — Vera Mont
    :fire:
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    ↪ssu
    So what's your point?

    Israel (& its settler-colonialist apatheid policy) has been a US-client state for over a half-century.
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    ↪Pantagruel
    You shouldn't be. :sweat:
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    @BitconnectCarlos @RogueAI @tim wood @schopenhauer1

    Can you handle some more truth?


    "This is not a war against Hamas"
    by Jeremy Scahill, 11Dec23
    https://theintercept.com/2023/12/11/israel-hamas-war-civilians-biden/


    addendum to ...
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/847621

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

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/858450
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    ↪Pantagruel
    You are my example. :zip:

    ↪javra
    Of course, science cannot address non-scientific topics (and vice versa).
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    ↪Pantagruel
    Thanks for proving my point that you have no idea what you are talking about, Pantagruel. :clap:
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    ↪Pantagruel
    :sweat: Gotcha, it's so basic or fundamental to science that you can't provide a single example.
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    ↪Pantagruel
    That's not my understanding of scientific practice. Science certainly does not "study itself". Again, you got examples? There must be countless many if, as say, "it's the basis of science".
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    Is a dualist ontology more than a misattributed dualist epistemology? — Fooloso4
    I don't think so. :up:

    Science is a process of selective limitation. — Pantagruel
    Please clarify. Examples would be helpful.
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    180's approach to philosophy is dialectical. A mode of inquiry. It is antithetical to doctrines. It asks questions but a doctrinaire approach is based on the assumption that answers to these questions have been given. There may be some common ground here in undecidable. Socratic (but not Hegelian) dialectic is an examination of opinions ... — Fooloso4
    Thank you for pointing this out. @FrancisRay is like too many others who traffic in "doctrines" and dogmas and take offense when someone attempts to cross-examine their so-called "truths". So now @universeness is taking a different approach but I suspect he won't get anywhere philosophically interesting with FrancisRay either because there is no there there – just :sparkle:
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    ↪universeness
    :up:
    ↪universeness
    :up:
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    ... why disturb my peace? — FrancisRay
    This is what thinkers, particularly philosophers, do, Francis: we disturb the peace (i.e. smug givens, unexamined assumptions, etc). You're right, though, I am "not interested" in unwarranted, or dogmaric, beliefs; I prefer to dialectically discuss speculative ideas. Go vegitate in an ashram if philosophizing disturbs you.
  • How May the Nature and Experience of Emotions Be Considered Philosophically?
    [A]ll organisms are reactive creatures. The physical world and the cosmos are causes to all organisms. The reactions of those organisms is in turn cause to the physical world, and the cosmos. It's all one system. Emotions more than thought, hardwire in the organism's measures and meanings of all things relative to the given organism. Our emotions are about the physical world relative to our security and well-being. Thoughts and feelings alter continuously the chemistries of our body relative to the organisms experiences. Organism is the source of all meanings through experience and projection [expectation, belief] applies its meanings and emotions to what it then calls its apparent reality. — boagie
    :up: Well said.

    Reminds me mostly of the ataraxia teachings of Epicureans and Stoics (which, no doubt, influenced Montaigne, Spinoza, et al).

    Psychology wants to treat the thoughts and feelings of the individual, focusing entirely on the organism's thoughts and feelings, and little to nothing about how the physical world plays the organism like a violin. The tunes it plays can be life supporting or negative, undermining the vitality of life.
    :up: :up:

    Yes, I call this homuncular psychology "The Cartesian Fallacy". In contrast, Nietzsche (& Merleau-Ponty), for instance, focus on the interplay of the body and culture.
  • How to define stupidity?
    It is EXACTLY 180proof's attitude that resulted in the first T election. — AmadeusD
    :rofl:

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/855739
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    Do you not want to investigate further? — FrancisRay
    :roll:

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/859880
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    ↪FrancisRay
    You say "Perennial Philosophy" explains but you do not give (or summarize) the explanation. You also say it "predicts"; but in the absence of any intelligible explanation, your "predictions" are just unwarranted claims (i.e. just-so stories). I'd hoped you would have answered both of my questions; apparently, however, New Age talking points is all I'm going to get. :yawn:
  • Evolution, creationism, etc?
    One has to prove God does not exist in order to prove that He did not create the universe, doesn't that follow? — FreeEmotion
    Only semantically. :roll: Rather, we only have to show by the preponderance of the evidence that the universe observed is just as predicted by theory without a "creator". Deep time, deep space, initial conditions of low entropy, nucleogenesis, accelerating cosmic expansion, etc are features of cosmic self-organization which is, of course, inconsistent with "creation by divine fiat". There is no evidence of a "creator" and yet there must be (some) manifest in the observable physical universe iff the observable physical universe was "created". Also, "goddidit" doesn't explain anything. As Laplace told Napoleon when the Emperor had asked about "God":
    Je n’avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là.
    :fire:
  • Deep Songs
    A cold girl'll kill you
    In a
    darkened
    room

    "Cars Hiss By My Window" (4:10)
    LA Woman, 1971
    The Doors

    b. 8Dec43

    When I hold you in my arms (ooh, oh, yeah)
    And I feel my finger on your trigger (ooh, oh, yeah)
    I know nobody can do me no harm (ooh, oh, yeah)
    Because ...

    "Happiness is a Warm Gun" (2:43)
    The Beatles, 1968
    The Beatles

    d. 8Dec80
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    If you mean the nondual doctrine of the Perennial philosophy, as found in advaita Vedanta, Middle Way Buddhism and Lao Tzu's Taoism then I'd happily and confidently bet my life on its truth.and on the inability of scientists and philosophers to falsify it. — FrancisRay
    i. What 'facts of the matter' do "the nondual doctrine of the Perennial Philosophy" explain?

    ii. What 'predictions' can be derived from this "Perennial" explanation which can be experimentally falsified?
  • How May the Nature and Experience of Emotions Be Considered Philosophically?
    ↪Tom Storm
    :up:
    ↪Tom Storm
    :100:
  • What are you listening to right now?
    Denny Laine d. 2023

    "Mull of Kintyre" (4:45)
    A-side single, 1977
    writers Paul McCartney & Denny Laine
    performers Wings
  • How May the Nature and Experience of Emotions Be Considered Philosophically?
    ↪Jack Cummins
    :up:
    ↪Jack Cummins
    :up:
  • How May the Nature and Experience of Emotions Be Considered Philosophically?
    ↪Jack Cummins
    Confusion =/= perplexity. 'Clarity of the latter' (inquiry) is not the same as 'more of the former' (word salad). :roll:

    Anyway, I recommend reading Parts III & IV of Spinoza's Ethics for a philosophical examination on "emotions, feelings, passions" etc.
  • How May the Nature and Experience of Emotions Be Considered Philosophically?
    ↪Jack Cummins
    On the contrary, Jack, I make a distinction between philosophical questions and non-philosophical observations such as you've made. I find your OP confused is all and I'd like some clarity. My own references to Spinoza et al shows that I find psychology a worthy topic in philosophy (and vice versa); you just haven't yet raised a philosophical question about any psychological concept.
Home » 180 Proof