A Tolkienesque 'theodicy' (re: mission of the Istari). :sparkle:The divine presents the possibility for actualization and satisfaction for each occasion of experience (actual occasion or event) but the divine acts through persuasion not coercion. [ ... ] Perhaps artists, musicians and writers [and scientists] are closer to the divine than priests and preachers [and politricksters]. — prothero
For me, an even more "sophisticated" conception is the natura naturans of Spinoza's unmanifest substance (i.e. Deus, sive natura) that is consistent – imho has strong affinities – with both sub specie aeternitatis acosmism and sub specie durationis pandeism (à la Eriugena).The only form I can think of which might be more sophisticated is the thought of the mystics and their extreme forays into the abstruse and their stronger emphasis on the via negativa and apophatic theology ala the Divine Nothingness of Jon Scotus Eriugena — Bodhy
:100: :up:My own tentative view is that we do not access reality directly, nor can we claim any definitive knowledge of what reality ultimately is. What we encounter instead are multiple realities, each intelligible through particular conceptual frameworks or perspectives. The pursuit of a single, foundational, unifying reality strikes me as superfluous in that it overlooks the plural and interpretive nature of our engagement with the world.
— Tom Storm
You have summarized the fundamentals of my personal metaphysics. — T Clark
I didn't claim an "absolute ... "unfree choices". In effect, IME, our "notions" are enabled – instantiated – by our practices (e.g. "choices', habits, etc), and not the other way around as you suggest.If no free choices exist, what becomes of notions of free v. unfree choices? They're rendered nonsensical. — tim wood
No. One's "choices" can be – often are – "free from" one's awareness or volition (or awareness / volition of others). The more one is unaware of the causal / consequential path(s) of one's own "choice" the more one is unware that that "choice" is not, in fact, "free from determinants, constraints and consequences" (like e.g. flying in dreams).Can our choices ever be free from determinants, constraints and consequences [spacetime+localiy]? — Truth Seeker
:100:I imagine Japan of the time of WW2 as culturallymedieval[pre-modern] in character, the romantic culture of Arthurian legend that concerned itself only with the aristocracy. 'Might is right'; 'death before dishonour'; there are only masters and slaves and only masters have any value. It is a culture of trial by ordeal, where cruelty is not only functional but an aristocratic virtue. I can see how those of the land of Don Quixote, might find an affinity with such a culture, but WW1 I think largely destroyed the vestiges of it in British culture. It turned out that machine-guns have no romance and do not distinguish between gentlemen and peasants. — unenlightened
Got to roll me
Got to roll me
Got to roll me
Got to roll me
(oh, yeah)
Got to roll me ...
Keep on rollin'
Got to roll me
Keep on rollin' ...
This might be so for "philosophers" ignorant of Conservation Laws¹ (modern physics > Noether's theorem²). You're right, Gnomon, not hang your tinfoil hat on "form-pattern ... reconstituted" à la miraculously un-scrambling eggs, perpetual motion woo-woo, etc. Sean Carroll is right, of course, insofar as complete dissolution of a dynamic system – death – in effect, randomizes the system-pattern (i.e. information processes) as per maximum entropy.³I noticed the Sean Carroll quote: "there is no life after death". And I must agree, except [nonsense]. So, a particular form-pattern could in principle be reconstituted,just as computers can copy & paste data. I wouldn't organize my life around the expectation of a better life in the hereafter (bird in hand . . .). But it's a possibility that philosophers could argue endlessly about. — Gnomon
Like animist / mystical "true names", it seems to me that Platonic Forms – essences, universals – are merely reified abstractions (and therefore a mistaken theory of reference).In your own view, what are The Forms, which Plato alluded to? — Shawn
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:As usual, 180 alcohol content responds to myphilosophical arguments--- in favor of a Cosmic Cause (hidden hand) for the contingent universe we living & thinking beings inhabit --- with ad hominem political attacks : e.g. liberal (logical) inference bad vs conservative (physical) evidence good. I assume he is appalled at the worldwide popularity of the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob, who frequently punished his chosen people with mass death and deportation. 180 may also have had a bad experience with pedophile priests or knuckle-rapping nuns. — Gnomon
Except that your interpretations consist in appeals to ignorance fallacies, as quite a few members have exhaustively pointed out over the years, and my interpretations do not.Note --- We read the same science books, but interpret their philosophical implications differently. — Gnomon
As a libertarian leftist and negative consequentialist, I find reductionist – simplistic – statements like yours, Brendan, meaningless (ahistorical). The last century or so of 'political' events and conflicts amply shows that, especially for most citizens, governing ideologies are not determined by – not consistently derived from – ethical principles (or practices), even though the domains (can) overlap. Of course, any concrete, real world counter-examples would lend some credibility to the OP.I think leftists are in the preconventional stage of morality, and MAGA are in the conventional stage. — Brendan Golledge
I can see her looking fast
in her faded jeans
She's a hard loving woman,
got me feeling mean
Sometimes
I think it's a shame
When I get feeling better
when I'm feeling no pain
Why do you ask? (I was) a New Yorker, I'd lived in their ruins ...Did you ever read the “Power Broker?” — T Clark
I think it's primarily our actions, practices, commitments & habits which 'define' us politically. My own pessimism can seem "conservative" in isolation from my other overt concerns and agitations.Yes, and I guess there's always a risk that my kind of reflections are effectively conservative. — Jamal
:clap: :fire:That’s what’s so compelling in Lefebvre—he rescues liberalism from the charge of moral emptiness not by denying it, but by reframing it. Liberalism isn’t a doctrine, it’s a discipline. It's what we do. A lived ethic of coordination, mutuality, and restraint. Less about asserting the good, more about making life together possible.
And I liked that Hadot echo too—quiet, but clear. Ethics as practice, not rulebook. That’s why the capabilities approach fits so well here: it’s not just about rights or choices, but cultivating the real power to live well. Not a retreat from meaning, but a wager that meaning can be plural.
And still, what is the alternative? — Banno
:victory: :cool:My dad was a communist turned socialist - how was I supposed to rebel against that? Oh, I remember now, "turn on, tune in, drop out". — unenlightened
:smirk:I do rather like the developing argumentum ad peanutem. — Banno
:fire: :up:Do onto others as you would have them do onto you, and communism: To each according to need from each according to ability. Neither can be achieved, or even approached, in the overpopulated, god-ridden, money-driven, propagandized societies of today. All liberals can do is attempt to mitigate the worst outcomes. In some countries they do fairly well; in others, they fail, get knocked on their keesters, get up and try again. And again, and again.... — Vera Mont
I don't think the answer is found in a dicitionary but a history book. Liberalism and capitalism developed in tandem and share core assumption about the individual, property and greedom (that was a typo but I like it). — Benkei
:100:A pessimistic view is that capitalists need freedom to operate, so they champion liberalism because it diminishes religious and governmental interference. — frank
Assume that the physical in the state of S1 has the caus[al] power to cause the physical in the state of S2. Physical however is not aware of the passage of time.Therefore, the physical in the state of S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause the physical in the state of S2.
—MoK
These misplaced concreteness & anthropomorphic fallacies render your (latest) OP "argument" gibberish, Mok. — 180 Proof
:strong: :mask:And the essence of liberalism is to justify capitalism with the ideology of equality, individual liberty and property rights.
And not only to justify capitalism, but to justify colonialism, slavery, and class hierarchy. — Jamal
:up: :up: e.g. Demarchic-Economic Democracy (i.e. libertarian socialism) ... as you, no doubt, know.most collectivist thought wants to maximise democratic processes where they are currently barred due to the structure of liberal/capitalism. — Benkei
:smirk:On your logic, if someone goes looking for the Loch Ness Monster, then there must be a Loch Ness Monster.
Very good. — Banno
Funny thing, though, Einstein didn't see a reason for "an update of Spinoza's Deus, sive nature, perhaps because he actually studied Spinoza, unlike you, Mr Enformer-of-the-gaps, and therefore does not conflate, or confuse, metaphysics with physics as pseudo-thinkers do. Fwiw, the philosophical speculation I find most parsimonious and consistent with "modern cosmology" is pandeism¹ (not your "PanEnDeism" or panentheism or pantheism).an update of Spinoza's deus sive natura, to accommodate modern cosmology — Gnomon