This immanentist agrees. :up:Reality apart from human personality is a useful fiction. — plaque flag
Whatever reality is, reality necessarily excludes – negates – unreality (i.e. ontological impossibles (e.g. un-condittionals, un-changeables, reified ideas ('ideals'), etc)).What isthisreality ? — plaque flag
:up: :up:Zapffe himself pointed out that his produced works were the product of sublimation.
— Wiki
Becker and others make the same point. Life has a horrible aspect, and we meet it with narratives and symbols that mitigate that horror. The first heroic task as a child is ceasing to shit one's pants. A 'spiritual' being is a cultural or sublimated being — plaque flag
Flesh (facticity).What does the game of philosophy always presuppose ? — plaque flag
I suppose to the degree one believes the path is not the destination.The living breathing ontologist has a certain kind of personality. To what degree is philosophy a personal quest for honesty that leads toward a self-consciously critical and fallible conversation ? — plaque flag
IIRC, Husserl begins as a mathematician ... I imagine Spinoza, like Epicurus, would "take" thinking – reflective inquiry/practice – impersonally.Does the true scientist (I include, controversially, a person like Husserl) take science personally ? How else could it be taken?
Maps are not "far from" models yet neither are equivalent to the territory as (sub)personal – existential – biases would have us believe (re: folk psychology). Btw, I'm with Beckett (even Cioran): I don't think we ever "understand" one another any more than we chew swallow digest & shit one another's shits. :smirk:I don't think it's an accident that we understand one another and ourselves as total characters, nor do I think literature is far from ontology.
:point: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/827494I'm saying for my own self, not quoting scripture, that the ego is and must be flesh. No doubt a mystic can claim otherwise — plaque flag
Exemplary daily exorcisms of foolery (re: meta-ignorance (i.e. agnotologies (e.g. pseudo-discourses, sophistries)); expectations misaligned with reality (i.e. self-immiseration, alienation, dukkha); maladaptive habits of mind (e.g. mis/ab-uses of communication, judgment, knowledge), etc) aka "spiritual exercises".What can the philosopher offer ? — plaque flag
Apologies for continuing to flog this equine's carcass:We probably have passed the point of no return in some ways ... — universeness
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
No. We haven't yet outgrown religion, politics or science, all of which require critical analyses and reflective interpretations.Has our civilization evolved to the point where philosophy can be dispensed with? — Pantagruel
I suppose it depends on where, what and why one studies.[H]as philosophy moved from being an "outlier" to a superfluous branch of study?
Yes.Does philosophy still contribute?
Yes.When you are reading it, do you feel you are contributing?
:100: :fire: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
I don't understand this reply.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
How do you KNOW this?... or science could explain how matter gives rise to consciousness, which it can't[
You have not provided any publicly accessible evidence or sound arguments for an "afterlife" which hold up under even the most rudimentary scrutiny. What you think you "know", sir, is unwarranted, and therefore, dogmatic at best or delusional at worse. Your threads on this topic conspicuously corroborate my criticisms – and I have never based my rejection of your claims on "materialism" but on the demonstable insufficiency of your claims themselves.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
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.There's a vested interest in materialism ... — Quixodian
This leap is unwarranted. Assuming that "life" is an "essential feature" of the universe, on what grounds – factual basis – do you claim Intelligent life (ergo "intention and teleology") is inevitable?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
This anthropomorphic projection renders the premise incoherent at best.My first premise says intentions and teleology are essential to all forms of life.
e.g. "Philosophy" ...My experience of discussing philosophy over the years has been an experience largely consisting of debates centred on umbrella terms. — Judaka
Yes, and since you're making a fact-claim that there is "the universal mind" by which "consciousness is best explained", you're argument is pseudo-science, not metaphysics.If by ‘evidence’ you mean just something you can tangibly test, then obviously no one can offer you that in metaphysics; ... — Bob Ross
If this is so, then this so-called "use of reason" does not consist of sound arguments (i.e. lack of factually true premises ergo lack of factually true conclusion). This sort of "guess" consists of an untestable explanation about matters of fact (e.g. "experience") which is mere pseudo-science unlike, for instance, Kant's transcendental arguments which are epistemological critiques of metaphysical speculations of "pure reason".... the whole point of metaphysics is to use reason to guess what lies beyond that experience which explains that experience.
Agreed. Also, science rules-out bad (i.e. falsifed or untestable) explanations and thereby abductively affirms only provisionally better (i.e. successfully tested) explanations. As the original Aristotlean corpus suggests, metaphysics – First Philosophy – consists in categorical generalizations abstracted from the 'observed' conditions and limits of nature – physus – which first must be learned by 'empirical inquiries' Aristotle calls "Physics" – science; thus, the relation between 'metaphysics and physics' is a form of reflective equilibrium so that First Philosophy only conceptualizes and interprets scientific – successfully tested (or testable-in-principle) – explanations but cannot itself – as metaphysics – "explain" anything.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).
Firstly, anecdotes are not scientific evidence. Secondly, the "experience" of "vivid dreams" cannot itself be conclusive "evidence" for anything "beyond experience" which could be a candidate for – "guess" of – an "explanation of experience".There’s plenty of evidence that we can explain the world in terms of mind. For example, have you ever had a vivid dream?
And what "best explains" this "mind-dependent world"?That consciousness is best explained via a mind-dependent world.
Non sequitur (i.e. quantum woo woo).That quantum physics, such as entanglement, is best explained when thought of as extrinsic representations within a universal mind.
I object to "P1"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?
which is obviously not true in many cases.P1: A quantitative process cannot produce a quality. [p → !q] — Bob Ross
So "universal mind" is not fundamental – dependent on – "mind-independent existence". Yes, minds are dependent on non-mind (i.e. physicalism).Just to clarify, I am not saying that the universal mind is itself mind-dependent; as existence itself is mind-independent.
I agree. Thus, the physicalist paradigm: the universe is fundamental and minds are (or "the mind is") emergent in, dependent on, derivative from the universe.There isn’t some mind outside of the universe that willed it into existence.
An "unmanifest mind" – how do we know it "objective exists"?... 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
I'd asked about your phrase "objective reality" ... and so you're saying – referring to the above – "mind is mind-independent"? :chin:By ‘objective’, I mean ‘that which is mind-independent’ and by ‘mind-at-large’ I mean that reality is fundamentally a mind.
By "it" are you referring to "mind"? If so, then the evidence I'd requested is for a specimen of "a disembodied mind".It is disembodied in the sense that it doesn’t have an organic body...
2.1 Miami, Federal Superceding Indictment (1), 27Jul23 :up: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
Arithmetically "infinite?" – no actual thing. Geometrically unbounded? – many things (e.g.) planets, moons, suns, apples, donuts, melodies, knots ...So maybe the question is, if there is and can be something infinite, what would that be? — Gregory
I don't grok your statement. Clarify what you mean by "objective reality" and/or "mind-at-large".I would say that objective reality is a mind-at-large ... — Bob Ross
:100: :up:↪T Clark ↪Judaka What we have here is a failure to communicate, or worse, a failure to think clearly — BC
:mask: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
Natura natura (i.e. Modes aka "everything") is not divine (i.e. not eternal, not self-caused) according to Spinoza, only natura naturans (i.e. Substance (which is eternal & self-caused)) is divine. "The world is illusionary" only in the sense that it merely exists, or is contingent, sub specie durationis but is not real, or necessary (re: Substance), sub specie aeternitatis.If for Spinoza God is everything ... — Gregory
Classical atomism (Epicurus-Lucretius) – insofar as atoms are conceived of as Modes and void is conceived of as Substance – works fine enough for me (& Marx, Deleuze et al).So I am not sure any kind of materialism would work with Spinoza.
Reread my posts, I can't make my meaning any plainer. There ain't no "interpreting" on my part happening here.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
