Comments

  • War & Murder
    ↪BitconnectCarlos
    I'm quite familiar with the writings of Hannah Arendt, Primo Levi, Elie Wiesel et al. The crimes of oppressed-populations (i.e. the dispossessed) are no more atrocities than the crimes of oppressor-regimes (i.e. the dispossessors). My read of history, as well as moral philosophy, amply shows that resistance by any means necessary (including "terrorism") is warranted in response to the inhuman regimes of tyrants, slaveholders, genocidists, dispossessors ... and that an Intifada is morally equivalent to e.g. the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising or Nat Turner's Rebellion.
  • Metaphysics as an Illegitimate Source of Knowledge
    ↪Bob Ross
    I think my posts throughout our discussion have been clear enough, Bob. Again, I find the OP is incoherent for the reasons given. You're not persuaded – that's okay. I've made my point, we disagree.
  • Poll: Evolution of consciousness by natural selection
    Consciousness is partly shaped by physical events, but partly determined by metaphysical (mental) interactions. — Gnomon
    Clarification: so you are a substance dualist?

    If not, what non-trivially distinguishes "physical events" from "metaphysical interactions"?

    If so, how do you solve 'the interaction problem' and account for the apparent violation of the physical substance's Conservation Laws (i.e. causal closure)?
  • Speculation: Eternalism and the Problem of Evil
    You [@Wayfarer] are simply reading your preconceptions into the quotes you posted. — wonderer1
    Yep, that's his usually m.o.
  • War & Murder
    So... not a fan of the Irgun? — Vera Mont
    :smirk:
  • A Case for Transcendental Idealism
    ↪Banno
    :smirk:

    I also find myself wondering, if accurate. so what? Does it make any difference to how one lives? How is this way of thinking of use? — Tom Storm
    :up:
  • Metaphysics as an Illegitimate Source of Knowledge
    What do you mean by a conceptual supposition or interpretation? — Bob Ross
    Again: philosophical statements.

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/847527
  • War & Murder
    ↪BitconnectCarlos
    Nazis were genocidal oppressors and Jews et al were the oppressed and mostly slaughtered by Nazis. I'm consistent, BC – no matter how bestial the oppressd (dispossessd) become, IMO, the oppressor (dispossessor) is always worse. :mask:
  • War & Murder
    ↪BitconnectCarlos
    Krauts!

    There's indeed no moral equivalency. Hamas' violence is a drop in the ocean of Israeli aggression. — Benkei
  • Metaphysics as an Illegitimate Source of Knowledge
    ↪Bob Ross
    Hypotheses (your tv example) are propositional; however, conceptual suppositions, or interpretations, are not propositional, Bob, insofar as matters of fact cannot make such concepts '(i.e. metaphors) true or not true'.
  • War & Murder
    Is the pilot and the group of armed men morally equivalent? — BitconnectCarlos
    Of course not. The oppressor (group B) is more morally reprehensible than the oppressed (group A).
  • Bravery and Fearlessness.
    ↪TheMadMan
    So ... acting without fear (i.e. "fearless") and acting despite fear (i.e. "brave") seems to correspond to self-deception and lucidity, respectively.
  • Speculation: Eternalism and the Problem of Evil
    My reason for not believing in any form of personal rebirth or afterlife is not that there is any definitive evidence against it, but simply that I cannot make rational sense of the idea, and I cannot believe something I am incapable of even making coherent to myself. So, I can honestly say that my thoughts on this are not at all driven by wishful thinking. — Janus
    :up: :up:
  • Future Generations Will Condemn The Meat Industry As We Condemn Slavery
    Why will no one care or remember? — Judaka
    Our descendants' lab-grown steaks sausages & chicken tenders will be too convenient and taste too good to fret about obsolete barbaric practices.
  • Future Generations Will Condemn The Meat Industry As We Condemn Slavery
    Do you agree with my prediction? — Judaka
    No. IMO, none will not care – even remember – once industrial meat has been completely replaced by lab-grown meat.
  • Speculation: Eternalism and the Problem of Evil
    ↪baker
    I was raised Catholic and educated for twelve years by Franciscans & Jesuits; most, if not all, of the "doctrines" I had "internalized" stopped making sense to me by age of fifteen (and still don't forty-five years later). Nonsense, baker, is nonsense whether "religious doctrine" or not – whether "internalized in childhood" or not. For instance (a famous historical example), Spinoza was excommunicated for not keeping to himself that the "doctrines" of Torah, which no doubt he had "internalized", did not make sense to him.
  • Metaphysics as an Illegitimate Source of Knowledge
    ↪wonderer1
    :up:
  • Speculation: Eternalism and the Problem of Evil
    ↪Wayfarer
    Your learned incorrigibility embarrasses you again, Wayfarer. Carry on ...
  • What is a strong argument against the concievability of philosophical zombies?
    ↪Patterner
    :up: More or less my own objection to the "p-zombie" construct.
  • Speculation: Eternalism and the Problem of Evil
    I responded, 'As I understand it, Spinoza ... — Wayfarer
    As @Janus was first to point out, sir, you clearly do not understand what Spinoza says quite clearly in his Ethics. :kiss:
  • Poll: Evolution of consciousness by natural selection
    Yeah, I can appreciate such possibilities, but I can imagine a lot of dangers humanity is woefully unprepared to understand. — wonderer1
    Such as – ? The prospective rewards seem to me more than worth the un/foreseeable risks.
  • Speculation: Eternalism and the Problem of Evil
    ↪Wayfarer
    I'm afraid, sir, nothing you've said here demonstrates you've read anything more than an online high schooler's notes lifted from Spinoza for Dummies. :smirk:

    Everything in nature, every natural phenomenon, is transitory and subject to decay. — Wayfarer
    Proof you've not read (or understood) Spinoza's Ethics, esp. section I "Of God". qed.

    Things, beings, entities are not eternal, but nature itself is. Spinoza drew a distinction between natura naturata and natura naturans. The former is created nature, transient nature and the latter is the eternal active creative power which brings about created nature. — Janus
    :100: :fire:
  • Speculation: Eternalism and the Problem of Evil
    ↪Wayfarer
    There are also "books which explore the links between" [name a philosopher] and [any flavor of woo that strikes your fancy]. Take Janus's recommendation, Wayf, and actually (re)read Spinoza on his own anti-transcendent terms (re: for Spinoza, natura naturans corresponds to what Einstein recognized as physical laws).
  • Speculation: Eternalism and the Problem of Evil
    I consider Spinoza an ecstatic rationalist. :fire:

    Spinoza was a mystic. — Wayfarer
    And this means what? Not 'seeking union with a transcendent being/reality' (because Spinoza, in effect, argues that 'transcendence' is incoherent, illusory or superstitious).
  • Speculation: Eternalism and the Problem of Evil
    [W]hy bother with philosophy? — Wayfarer
    Spinoza says philosophy seeks understanding and that our freedom expands as our understanding deepens.

    For what reason was Spinoza exiled from the Jewish community?
    Probably because the very young Spinoza wouldn't keep to himself his critical view that the Torah fundamentally consists of 'superstitious myths' (which years later he expounds on in the masterful Tractatus Theologico-Politicus).

    Why undertake the laborious task of composing such complex and lengthy philosophical works, and why read them?
    Those who wish to share their understandings – wrestle with nontrivial conceptual & existential aporia – with other reflective thinkers read and write philosophical texts.

    Why is not any man in the street equal to the wisest?
    Unlike many philosophers, the "man in the street" simply isn't explicitly aware that he, like "the wisest", often doesn't know that he doesn't know or what he/we cannot know.

    If you [Wayfarer] want to understand Spinoza you need to actually read him. — Janus
    :up: :up:
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Future generations will see that trying to establish a Jewish state was a bad idea which just stained their religion with blood. — frank
    :100:
  • Meaning, Happiness and Pleasure: How Do These Ideas Differ As Philosophical Ends?
    ↪Jack Cummins
    Again, you've lost me, Jack. Tell me what you may find problematic about the answers I gave to your question.
  • Meaning, Happiness and Pleasure: How Do These Ideas Differ As Philosophical Ends?
    is there any inherent purpose in life, including the evolution of human life and history? — Jack Cummins
    With respect to (subpersonal) "life" in general, except conatus (i.e. "to persist in being" ~Spinoza), there is not any "purpose". As for "human life" in particular, neither to survive (i.e. "evolution") nor to thrive (i.e. "history") are "inherent" as far as I can tell.
  • Meaning, Happiness and Pleasure: How Do These Ideas Differ As Philosophical Ends?
    ↪Jack Cummins
    And your philosophical question / aporia is – ?
  • Theory of mind, horror and terror.
    ↪mcdoodle
    :up:
  • Are you against the formation of a techno-optimistic religion?
    ↪Bret Bernhoft
    :up:
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Simplistic, I know – Iran has used Hamas to open the slaughterhouse-trap door and Israel is raging through it like a bull bristling with US/NATO arms & advsors. Soon less military aid for Ukraine and relief for Russia's failed invasion? :chin: TBD.
  • What are your philosophies?
    I like the world. — Vera Mont
    :flower:
  • Meaning, Happiness and Pleasure: How Do These Ideas Differ As Philosophical Ends?
    Are you looking for discussion on what past and current philosophers have stated regarding 'meaning,' 'happiness,' and 'pleasure,' or are you asking for what these terms mean in the everyday lives of any TPF poster, including philosophy novices such as myself? — universeness
    @Jack Cummins it's also not clear to me (Epicurean-Spinozist by day & absurdist bluesman by night ... mostly) what you're asking in the OP.
  • Theory of mind, horror and terror.
    You have suggested that the point is moot, as developments in AI will make the point moot ... — universeness
    :up:
  • Speculation: Eternalism and the Problem of Evil
    Eternal recurrence strikes me as rather silly. After all, one doesn't know one is a recurrence — Banno
    I know the notion is quite ancient but Nietzsche conceives of 're-experiencing – consciously re-living – one's exact same life eternally' as a psychological (i.e. conative) thought-experiment, or test, of the degree which one affirmatively lives (i.e. becomes). Existentially, IMO, not a "silly" exercise at all.

    ↪Wayfarer
    I have not found any idea or conception of "soul" (i.e. immortality) in Spinoza. I think you're mistaken, Wayf.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Israel has been beating a dog for years and now wants to retaliate because it was bitten. I'm quite certain many now feel justified to kill the dog, looking only at the bite, but any sane person realises that's not the real problem here. — Benkei
    :100:
  • Speculation: Eternalism and the Problem of Evil
    What would a 'public specification' comprise? — Wayfarer
    Demonstrating ...
    ... what exactly is allegedly "reincarnated". — 180 Proof
  • Poll: Evolution of consciousness by natural selection
    ↪wonderer1
    Given the complexity of the human brain, comprehending it theoretically and thereby eliminating dysfunctions produced by the brain's organic defects probably requires more-than-human-intelligence (via cognitive augmentation and/or AGI). Technical capabilities of indefinitely postponing human senescence (i.e. disease & aging) is worth the price / risk of "them understanding us better than we understand ourselves" (or them), no? I think so.
  • Speculation: Eternalism and the Problem of Evil
    ↪Wayfarer
    None of that amounts to a cultural "taboo" as the growing pervasiveness of various Western "New Age" subcultures since the 1950s shows. "Reincarnation" simply does not make sense, except as an article of faith (i.e. figment of imagination), without publicly specifying what exactly is allegedly "reincarnated". It's an Eastern version of the so-called "afterlife" that's just as incoherent an idea as "disembodied subject", "north of the North Pole", etc. :sparkle:
Home » 180 Proof