Comments

  • TPF Quote Cabinet
    ...
    "Since the insignificance of all things is our lot, we should not bear it as an affliction but learn to enjoy it."

    "'Why don't you ever use your strength on me?' she said.
    'Because love means renouncing strength,' said Franz softly."

    "The objection to shit is a metaphysical one. The daily defecation session is daily proof of the unacceptability of Creation… The aesthetic ideal of the categorical agreement with being is a world in which shit is denied and everyone acts as though it did not exist. This aesthetic ideal is called kitsch…"

    "As you live out your desolation, you can be either unhappy or happy. Having that choice is what constitutes your freedom."


    *

    "A novel that does not uncover a hitherto unknown segment of existence is immoral. Knowledge is the novel's only morality."
    ~interview, 1984

    "The stupidity of people comes from having an answer to everything. The wisdom of the novel comes from having a question for everything."

    "These days, when sexuality is no longer taboo, mere description, mere sexual confession, has become noticeably boring. How dated Lawrence seems, or even Henry Miller, with his lyricism of obscenity!"
    — Milan Kundera, d. 2023
  • A basis for objective morality
    ... committing the naturalistic fallacy (which is close to the is/ought fallacy).Tom Storm
    I don't necessarily subscribe to the 'you cannot get an ought from an is' [ ... ] I believe that implicit within facts are values. From this paradigm, there is no gap between fact and value. We do not merely percieve a fact. Even in our most unlearned state, we filter that fact through biological and mental apparatus that we have inherited from millions of years of evolution, and that fact holds a relevance for us beyond it's mere 'is'ness - the two are inseparable.Kaplan
    "Relevance for us" (i.e. a natural species.) :100: :up:

    (e.g. Epicurus, Epictetus ... Spinoza, Nietzsche ... J. Searle, P. Foot, M. Nussbaum, et al)

    *

    A post from an old thread on "Objective Morality" wherein I had sketched-out reflections on various facets of ethical naturalism ...

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/575905

    (Apologies for the length.)
  • I’m 40 years old this year, and I still don’t know what to do, whether I should continue to live/die
    There is no wasted life - there is only unappreciated life.Vera Mont
    :100: :fire:

    I’m also basically jobless/unemployed, and not interested at all to run his (my father’s) businesses ...niki wonoto
    Stop being a selfish asshole. Help your father with his struggling business in any way you can – help your family, help your brother, contribute to your community. Whatever good you've experienced and benefitted from, sir, you owe them all – which is a debt none of us can repay but we can honor by taking care of others beginning with those closest to us.

    You will have plenty of time after your parents are gone to kill yourself; until then, be of service to your family and the community inspite of your "feelings". The impact of depression – "existential crisis" – is limited, or managed, by exerting and exhausting oneself by taking care of others – if only an extra pair of hands for your father – rather than obsessively wallowing in morose self-pity. BE THE FUTURE [IDEAL] YOU IMAGINE NOW ... even if only a very small version of that future [ideal]: full of the purpose to help save the family [business]. You don't need to like it or love it, be "interested at all" or be happy about it – fuck that, you're 40, sir, not 14! – just obey the imperative of loving your family who clearly love you [son, brother] enough to keep sheltering, clothing and feeding you. THE BETTER WORLD YOU IMAGINE, NIKI WONOTO, BEGINS WITH YOU, HERE AND NOW, BECOMING THE BETTER SON, BETTER BROTHER, BETTER CARETAKER OF YOUR COMMUNITY.
  • Is Intercessory Prayer Egotistical?
    :up:

    Prayer is a sacrament for you, not for me. Obviously my will is always done on Earth as it is in Heaven. And I already know what you want and the answer is going to be "No." except when you happen to want what I will. But you like to assuage your feelings of helplessness and even pretend to get your Mother Mary to ask me for for you. But really, all you need to say is 'sorry', and 'thank you' and even that is for your own comfort, not for my benefit. The Creator needs nothing from his creation.
    — God
    unenlightened

    :fire: :smirk:
  • Why should we talk about the history of ideas?
    the "argument from the history of ideas". The general form is: Lots of people used to believe X, but then in modern times (glossed as appropriate, usually the Enlightenment or the 20th century) people mostly starting believing Y instead, and that's the current orthodoxy, but X has started making a comeback because look! A, B and C are contemporaries who believe X and they say Y is on the way out!"Srap Tasmaner
    Yep, that's @Wayfarer. As far as I'm concerned, this approach to discussion is a crutch used in lieu of admitting he isn't clear on, or hasn't thought through, the topic at issue well enough to reply cogently with his own thoughts.

    I used to always ignore these paragraphs ...
    I always do (until its clear nothing significant follows). :up:

    So here's the question: what sort of point are you making when you post something like this? 
    Maybe it's uncharitable (or impolite) of me to say so, but after a decade and a half of exchanges with Wayfarer I am convinced that his "appeal to the history of ideas" is used to indicate that he disagrees with me because he agrees with some historical figure/s rather than critically engaging my points and/or defeating my arguments. It's a rhetorical dodge, nothing more. Wayfarer is quite well read, no doubt, but, IME, he's much more skilled at arguing to a foregone conclusion (rationalizing) than validly arguing from clear, explicable premises (reasoning). Typical 'religious/idealist' mindset. No matter how interesting his citations are – often they are – they're just lengthy footnotes to 'the reasons' he fails to give. :eyes:
  • Kant's Notions of Space and Time
    Kantian space and time are not experiences.Mww
    :up:
  • The Argument from Reason
    ↪180 Proof in a post above, responded to my question : "Is human intelligence merely an accidental pattern of a hypothetical "universal cellular automaton"?", with : "Define 'human intelligence' ". Of course, he was not really interested in my opinion on the subject ...Gnomon
    And, of course, once again, you project by impugning my motives for requesting clarification in order to deflect from the conspicuous fact that you have no idea, Gnomon, what the hell you're gibber-jabbering about. :yawn:
  • Is Intercessory Prayer Egotistical?
    180 Proof, Carlin was a better theologian than some professional theologians.Art48
    :up:
  • Is Intercessory Prayer Egotistical?
    In Ambrose Bierce’s “The Unabridged Devil’s Dictionary,” we have: “Pray, v. To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner, confessedly unworthy.”Art48
    :fire: :pray:

    Here's more on the learned placebo-narcissism of prayer from a fellow Bronx street sage (wiseass) ...
    So, I worship the sun. But, I don't pray to the sun. Know why? I wouldn't presume on our friendship. It's not polite.
    I've often thought people treat God rather rudely, don't you? Asking trillions and trillions of prayers every day. Asking and pleading and begging for favors. Do this, gimme that, I need a new car, I want a better job. And most of this praying takes place on Sunday His day off. It's not nice. And it's no way to treat a friend.

    But people do pray, and they pray for a lot of different things, you know, your sister needs an operation on her crotch, your brother was arrested for defecating in a mall. But most of all, you'd really like to fuck that hot little redhead down at the convenience store. You know, the one with the eyepatch and the clubfoot? Can you pray for that? I think you'd have to. And I say, fine. Pray for anything you want. Pray for anything, but what about the Divine Plan?

    Remember that? The Divine Plan. Long time ago, God made a Divine Plan. Gave it a lot of thought, decided it was a good plan, put it into practice.
    And for billions and billions of years, the Divine Plan has been doing just fine. Now, you come along, and pray for something. Well suppose the thing you want isn't in God's Divine Plan? What do you want Him to do? Change His plan? Just for you? Doesn't it seem a little arrogant? It's a Divine Plan. What's the use of being God if every run-down shmuck with a two-dollar prayerbook can come along and fuck up Your Plan?

    And here's something else, another problem you might have: Suppose your prayers aren't answered. What do you say? "Well, it's God's will." "Thy Will Be Done." Fine, but if it's God's will, and He's going to do what He wants to anyway, why the fuck bother praying in the first place? Seems like a big waste of time to me! Couldn't you just skip the praying part and go right to His Will? It's all very confusing.

    So to get around a lot of this, I decided to worship the sun. But, as I said, I don't pray to the sun.
    — George Carlin
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    FWIW, my two bits – political democracy without economy democracy is, in effect, 'democracy in name only' (DINO). The United States, I think, much more so than other G7/Western European welfare-states is now – has always been – a DINO wherein the broader stakeholder population is substantially disenfranchised by structural as well as partisan machinations of the shareholder (i.e. investor) class.
  • Change versus the unchanging
    Space-Time is not an objective thing...Gnomon
    :lol:
  • Nice little roundup of the state of consciousness studies
    A theory of “consciousness” is just the pursuit of a ghostly spirit stuff. Or can you frame the task in a way that is scientific rather than a search for immaterial being?apokrisis
    :smirk:
  • Enthalpy vs. Entropy
    Human facticity / adaptivity – insofar as misery needs ("loves") company, miserable bastards are homeostatically hardwired to breed more miserable bastards ad nauseam. 'Reduce misery' (how?) in order to voluntarily reduce breeding. 'Eliminate misery' (how?) in order to voluntarily eliminate breeding. On the other hand, antinatalism puts the proverbial cart before the horse by, in effect, absurdly attempting to 'destroy the species in order to save the species'. :eyes: :mask:
  • Nice little roundup of the state of consciousness studies
    What part of 'it's a "hard problem" only for philosophers of mind and not for neuroscientists' don't you understand?
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    I think Trump would be seen by Nietzsche as an exemplar of the last man. The uberman is first and foremost not a matter of dominance over others but of self-dominance, self-mastery, self-overcoming. The uberman is a higher man, a superior man, a man of a higher order. The creator of new higher values not someone who disregards values.Fooloso4
    :100: :fire:
  • Nice little roundup of the state of consciousness studies
    I don't think the so-called "hard problem" is the main, or even a significant, focus of neuroscience. It's mostly the philosophers who worry about it.Janus
    :100:
  • The Argument from Reason
    Would you (180) also accuse Fredkin ... of "hasty generalization" and "unparsimonious and the pseudo-speculative equivalent of (neo-Aristotlean / neo-Thomistic / neo-Hegelian) intelligent design"?Gnomon
    Yes and no.

    Yes, Fredkin's "computer universe" proposal/conjecture is, in fact, an unparsimonious hasty generalization. Read Seth Lloyd, David Deutsch & Stephen Wolfram.

    No, I only "accuse" you, Gnomon, of pseudo-speculations, etc: "enformationism" = "intelligent design" = "pan-en-deism" = "first cause/unmoved mover" (i.e. WOO-of-the-gaps). :smirk:

    Is his "law enforcement agent" a god-of-the-gaps posit to cover our ignorance of ultimate answers?
    I'll drink to that. :up:

    Is his "computer" a self-programmed natural intelligence, or an artificial intelligence created by an even more intelligent Programmer?
    This "computer" metaphor amounts to an infinite regress – it's "enformers" all the way down. :lol:

    Is human intelligence merely an accidental pattern of a hypothetical "universal cellular automaton"?
    Define "human intelligence". :sparkle:
  • The Argument from Reason
    And when it comes to taking literally the claim that “reality is a computer program”, you have to scratch your head at how it can in any sense run without material hardware or a handy power socket.apokrisis
    :up:
  • The Argument from Reason
    Read Seth Lloyd, David Deutsch and Stephen Wolfram – 'computation' has been operationally defined quite rigorously for decades.
  • The Argument from Reason
    FYI: One of the pioneers of digital philosophy (re: pancomputationalism/digital physics) died a couple of weeks ago, Edward Fredkin. If you are not familiar with him, here's a wiki article with a summary of view on the fundamental nature of information ...

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics#Pancomputationalism

    I became aware of Fredkin through references to him in the writings / interviews of
    David Deutsch,
    Seth Lloyd,
    Max Tegmark,
    Stephen Wolfram,
    Richard Feynman,
    John Wheeler,
    Frank Tipler,
    Eric Drexler,
    Douglas Hofstadter,
    Nick Bostrom et al.
    In the history of Western philosophy, speculations as divergent as Peirce's semiosis-tychism (pragmaticist), Leibniz's monadology (rationalist) and Democritus-Epicurus' atomism (materialist) are the closest analogues to digital philosophy I've yet found.

    I'm not convinced (it does not seem to me to follow), however, 'that if physical events-regularities are computable (which they are), then physical reality must be a "computer" executing a nonphysical program (and, in your case, Gnomon, that's written by a "nonphysical programmer")' – at best, this hasty generalization is too unparsimonious and the pseudo-speculative equivalent of (neo-Aristotlean / neo-Thomistic / neo-Hegelian) "intelligent design". :eyes:

    @Wayfarer @universeness @apokrisis @Janus
  • US Supreme Court (General Discussion)
    What do you think?

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/03/us/harvard-college-legacy-admissions-lawsuit/index.html

    As a non-lawyer I suspect that if this lawsuit rises to the level of SCOTUS review, the Supremes will vote 6-3 in favor of pro-"legacy preference", etc.
  • US Supreme Court (General Discussion)
    IMO, in an egalitarian merit-based – color-blind, race-neutral & gender-neutral – society, (A) legacy preferences for scarce social goods like higher (elite) education would be prohibited by law; also, at minimum, (B) admissions hiring & promotions at all public institutions and nonprofit firms would be regularly conducted by monitored lotteries of eligible candidates from well-regulated pools of qualified applicants; and lastly, (C1) inheritance of over e.g. $1 million (USD) would be taxed at 100% (minus $1 million) and/or (C2) payroll taxes (targetted for funding social security & other social welfare programs) on income would not be capped – or excluded from capital gains (collect via e.g. Tobin Tax) – as they always have been, AFAIK, in the US.

    All feasible reforms applicable within the current American legal and fiscal system which, no doubt, would be violently opposed by (both Dems & GOP) plutocrats/oligarchs, their managerial class flunkies and the 24/7 media-triggered reactionary populist (e.g. patriarchal white supremacist) rabble. :brow:
  • James Webb Telescope
    Recently observed 'time-dilation in the early universe' might account for JWST's anomalous "six galaxies" ...

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/jul/03/astronomers-observe-time-dilation-in-early-universe
  • Avi Loeb Claims to have found evidence of alien technology
    Smart people are as capable of believing their own bullshit as anybody else is.BC
    :up:

    e.g. Newton was an alchemist, etc
  • Change versus the unchanging
    ... because physical things cannot reach these limits, does that mean these limits don't exist? What is the nature of their existence?Benj96
    Horizons "exist" as properties of facts (not things). They are both ever approachable and unreachable; encompassing, yet never encompassed. It doesnt makes sense to me to leap to the groundless supposition that 'more (faster) than everything else' and/or 'less (slower) than everything else' might not "exist".
  • Enthalpy vs. Entropy
    A systems view speaks to the balance of flow states and habits that integrate selves and their worlds.apokrisis
    :cool: :up:
  • Enthalpy vs. Entropy
    More precisely: denials of complexity, uncertainty, contingency ...
  • Enthalpy vs. Entropy
    What is enthalpy's relationship to entropy? I am asking for a broader ethical point.schopenhauer1
    Maybe this: right conduct's unintended, or unforeseeable, consequences á la local ordering that increases global disorder.
  • What's the implications of this E.M. Cioran quote?
    So why make this choice for someone else?schopenhauer1
    Obviously, because they can't make it for themselves before hand.
  • Change versus the unchanging
    On the other end we have that which never changed in its entire existence.Benj96
    I don't know what you mean, Benj. Cite an unchangeable – impossible to change, or necessary (i.e. unconditional) – extant state of affairs (i.e. fact). :chin:
  • The 'Self' as Subject and Object: How Important is This In Understanding Identity and 'Reality'?
    ... the 'self' as coexisting as subject and object?Jack Cummins
    A parallax (or strange loop) e.g. mine or my corresponds to "self as subject" and yours or his/her corresponds to "self as object", no?

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/819465
  • The 'Self' as Subject and Object: How Important is This In Understanding Identity and 'Reality'?
    So, I am asking, how do you see the 'self' as coexisting as subject and object?Jack Cummins
    "Self" is a confabulated, continuously sensory-updated, virtual model of this-body-moving-within-its-world.

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

    As an index of 'emotional identity' (subject?), "self" supervenes on 'physical continuity (object?)'; and that we cannot directly perceive the subpersonal processes which generate "self" seemingly renders it ghostly, disembodied, or free-floating aka "soul" (i.e. spectre of libertarian metaphysics, or idealism).

    "Self" is to symphony as embodiment is to orchestra; disband the orchestra (death), silence the symphony (oblivion). :fire:
  • TPF Quote Cabinet
    Last year, I had a life-changing experience at 90 years old. I went to space, after decades of playing an iconic science-fiction character who was exploring the universe. I thought I would experience a deep connection with the immensity around us, a deep call for endless exploration.

    "I was absolutely wrong. The strongest feeling, that dominated everything else by far, was the deepest grief that I had ever experienced.

    "I understood, in the clearest possible way, that we were living on a tiny oasis of life, surrounded by an immensity of death. I didn’t see infinite possibilities of worlds to explore, of adventures to have, or living creatures to connect with. I saw the deepest darkness I could have ever imagined, contrasting so starkly with the welcoming warmth of our nurturing home planet.

    "This was an immensely powerful awakening for me. It filled me with sadness. I realized that we had spent decades, if not centuries, being obsessed with looking away, with looking outside. I did my share in popularizing the idea that space was the final frontier. But I had to get to space to understand that Earth is and will stay our only home. And that we have been ravaging it, relentlessly, making it uninhabitable.
    — William Shatner, actor

    *

    Man cannot endure his littleness unless he can translate it into meaningfulness on the largest possible level. — Ernest Becker