What matters is the fact that there is existence. Existence is not a property of things. Things are properties of existence. Existence is not a property of God. Existence is God. Existence is that which is. All contingent/created things are properties of existence and are made out of existence. — "EnPassant

I follow Spinoza in thinking that the ideas of extensa and cogitans merely represent two perspectives on things. — Janus

If X is Transcendent AND if X is a Fact, then X belongs to TF-set. The set's okay, there just are not any members (so far) which (can) satisfy both rules  simultaneously. — 180 Proof, c2008

Has our civilization evolved to the point where philosophy can be dispensed with? — Pantagruel

[H]as philosophy moved from being an "outlier" to a superfluous branch of study?

Does philosophy still contribute?

When you are reading it, do you feel you are contributing?

While much is made of Nietzsche’s Dionysian desires, it is the Apollonian maxim: know thyself, that is central to Nietzsche. But to know yourself you must become who you are. This is not a matter of discovery but of creation. Nietzsche takes the exhortation to become who you are from the Greek poet Pindar. For both Plato and Nietzsche philosophy is a form of poiesis. Their knowing is creating.

Whatever light the philosopher brings to the cave it remains a cave. The transformation brought about by philosophy is self-transformation. — Fooloso4

Actually, there is far more of a vested – self-flattering – interest in im-materialism (i.e. spiritualism, idealism) than "materialism", as you say, which is much too impersonal and mechanical for any sort of emotional investment, or personal bias.
— 180 Proof

Might be true if the concept of matter was coherent, which it isn't, ... — Quixodian

... or science could explain how matter gives rise to consciousness, which it can't[

The thesis remains unclear, and prima facie incoherent. — Banno

I think the evidence is overwhelming, so for me I know there is an afterlife. It's an epistemological answer. I'm not guessing, surmising, giving an opinion, speculating, or expressing an intuition. — Sam26

There's a vested interest in materialism ... — Quixodian

My third premise says that if a universe has as one of its essential features the inevitability of life, then it has as concomitant essential features intentions and teleology. — ucarr

My first premise says intentions and teleology are essential to all forms of life.

My experience of discussing philosophy over the years has been an experience largely consisting of debates centred on umbrella terms. — Judaka

"It's quantum" has much the same utility as "God did it". — Banno

If by ‘evidence’ you mean just something you can tangibly test, then obviously no one can offer you that in metaphysics; ... — Bob Ross

... the whole point of metaphysics is to use reason to guess what lies beyond that experience which explains that experience.

Science is only a negative criteria for metaphysics (viz., it can weed out the really bad theories) but never a positive criteria (viz., that science confirms a metaphysical theory as true).

There’s plenty of evidence that we can explain the world in terms of mind. For example, have you ever had a vivid dream?

That consciousness is best explained via a mind-dependent world.

That quantum physics, such as entanglement, is best explained when thought of as extrinsic representations within a universal mind.

I gave an argument here in the OP for a mind-dependent, qualitative world: let’s start there. What premise (or premises) did you disagree with?

P1: A quantitative process cannot produce a quality. [p → !q] — Bob Ross

Just to clarify, I am not saying that the universal mind is itself mind-dependent; as existence itself is mind-independent.

There isn’t some mind outside of the universe that willed it into existence.

... reality is fundamentally a mind. That mind, however, objectively exists; that is, it’s existence is mind-independent—i.e., it doesn’t manifest itself nor uphold its own existence. — Bob Ross

By ‘objective’, I mean ‘that which is mind-independent’ and by ‘mind-at-large’ I mean that reality is fundamentally a mind. 

It is disembodied in the sense that it doesn’t have an organic body...

The timeline of MAGA Loser #1's legal reckoning for his 2016-2023 crime spree (excluding potentially ruinous civil lawsuits) is taking a definite shape:

1. NYC felony indictment
31Mar23 :up:
"34 counts of Business Documents Fraud Crealing and/or Covering-up Felonies", etc

https://apnews.com/article/trump-indictment-full-document-640043319549?utm_source=homepage&utm_medium=RelatedStories&utm_campaign=position_02
2. Miami, Federal indictment
8Jun23 :up:
re: 37 counts "Mishandling Documents, Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice, Violating Espionage Act, Making False Statements to Federal Authorities, Witness Tampering" etc

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/08/donald-trump-charged-retention-classified-documents

9Jun23 Federal indictment unsealed ...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/09/trump-indictment-unsealed-pdf-text-criminal-charges

[ ... ] — 180 Proof

So maybe the question is, if there is and can be something infinite, what would that be? — Gregory

I would say that objective reality is a mind-at-large ... — Bob Ross

↪T Clark ↪Judaka What we have here is a failure to communicate, or worse, a failure to think clearly — BC

Also, I reject racial and ethnic histories, cultures and groups. I don't think white people are responsible for anything, and as I told you before, I would prefer to see black Americans taking responsibility for slavery as Americans. That would represent the kind of progress I think would be helpful. — Judaka

If for Spinoza God is everything ... — Gregory

So I am not sure any kind of materialism would work with Spinoza.

180 Proof
Well, I think "descriptive talk" like yours tends to confuse bigots with racists.
— 180 Proof

How so? I'm just asking for your framework for interpreting something as contributing or perpetuating to racism, in a descriptive manner. — Judaka

Spinoza identified God with nature — Gregory

... But some people think the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus rests on the assumption that God is one and the same as ‘Nature’ understood as a mass of corporeal matter. This is a complete mistake. — Spinoza, from letter (73) to Henry Oldenburg

Hegel taught ac[osm]ism, as did Spinoza. — Gregory

The "doomsday" part is from the fact that no people will be around to keep the economy going. But the idea of, "Oh no! What shall I do if there isn't a future generation" doesn't seem to be a factor in our individual habits or behavior. — schopenhauer1

It was reasonable to struggle, to suffer, perhaps even to die, for a more just, a more compassionate society, but not in a world with no future where, all too soon, the very words 'justice', 'compassion', 'society’, 'struggle', 'evil', would be unheard echoes on an empty air.

https://web.archive.org/web/20070526121608/http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/15/bowman.htm — P.D. James, interview (2007)

I prefer to talk descriptively. — Judaka

In the 1970's, I remember a Baptist preacher giving us a talk about race and the coming end of Aboriginal Australians. The line I recall was something like - 'It will be for the best at some time in the future when the Aboriginal person will be bred out and be no more.' This was Christian compassion and inclusiveness at its most perverse. Naturally, there was a preamble at the start about how the Good Reverend was not a racist.. — Tom Storm

What is the "referent" for the term "noumenon"? — jancanc

"Cui bono?"

Racism (again for the slow fuckers way in the back) denotes color/ethnic prejudice plus POWER of a dominant community (color/ethnic in-group) OVER non-dominant communities (color/ethnic out-groups). Whether Hutus over Tutsis, Israeli Jews over Israeli Arabs, Hans over Uyghurs, Turks over Kurds, Kosovo Serbs over Kosovo Albanians, Russians over Chechens, Israeli Ashkenazim over Israeli Sephardim, American Whites over American Blacks Browns Yellows & Reds, etc, this description of racism obtains. — 180 Proof

We can't read minds though, and we can't prove intent, ... — Judaka

... and the pattern more than anything proves the oppression.

For something to be considered racist, we need to interpret it to be harmful to the relevant demographic.

In fact, you've argued an unwillingness to upend the legacies of racism to be racist. The inaction's harmfulness is what makes it racist, yes?

Basically, we can't parse between what's racially motivated, and where some other motivation is at play, and we can't be expected to prove it, so long as we interpret harm, we'll describe it as racism, is that fair?

I just want to know in a descriptive sense, how you'd avoid calling any harm to the relevant demographic as racist.