:100: :fire:I don't think philosophy is a quest for truth at all; it's more a search - quest is too romantic a word - for some modus vivendi that would yield the best results - best, that is, by the philosopher's reckoning, which is formed by his time and culture and experience and convictions. — Vera Mont
Do cripples value crutches? :chin:Do people value truth? — Andrew4Handel
I suppose history and math have failed too ... When does it ever make sense, Andrew, to blame a tool because fools neglect or misuse it? :roll:Morality has failed ... — Andrew4Handel
If by "theories" you mean explanations of how states of affairs change or formal abstractions work, then I don't think "religions qualify as theories".Would you say that religions qualify as theories? — Hallucinogen
They are about as "incompatible" as observational evidence and circumstantial evidence, respectively.Would you say theories among scientific theories or theories among historical theories are incompatible with each other?
Religions proselytize with fact-free myths and folk tales which do not explain any publicly accessible facts of the matter whereas, at best, "scientific and historical theories" are rigorously critical, abductive, attempts to do so.If your answers to these two questions aren't both "yes", what is the substantive difference between religion and theories (historical/scientific)?
Ah yes, "ruled by reason" such as that of misogynistic slave cultures like Classical Greece and Rome upon which our ethnic cleansing settlers' "constitutional republic" had been founded and had legalized chattel slavery and then systemic apartheid until about a half century ago. :brow:The point I am always trying to make is we can not have rule by reason without transmitting a culture that manifests that. — Athena
My post prior to the one with that clip ends with an emphatic Live Long and Prosper (not Make America Great Again).My second point is education for technology prepares us to be ruled not to have rule by reason. The 1958 change in education changed our culture and the clip Proof gave us is a pretty good explanation of that. In the clip, Scott represents all of us who remember when things were different, and f**k the damn computer that has replaced a human receptionist.
No less sense than it makes to quantify ignorance.Does it even make sense to quantify knowledge? — Moliere
For me "view from everywhere" refers to objectivity / perspective-invariance (immanence), whereas "view from being there" refers to subjectivity / perspective (bias) and "view from nowhere" corresponds to a God's-eye view (transcendence).How would a view from everywhere look different from either in your understanding? — schopenhauer1
:up: :up:The logistical 'problems' mentioned in the OP are features of a representative form of government not flaws [ ... ] the US government has been erring on the side of the few for around 50 or 60 years. That's the result of the corruption, not the form of government. — creativesoul
"From either" what?How would a view from everywhere look different from either in your understanding? — schopenhauer1
Well, in comparison to ST TOS's aircraft carrier-like Enterprise, the ST TNG's Enterprise-D is a "Love Boat"-like cruise ship. :smirk:Does anything stand out to you about the difference, such as the captains' relationships with their crews and with headquarters? — Athena
:100: :fire:Just for the record, the art of mass manipulation was brought to modern form by Edward Bernays (November 22, 1891 − March 9, 1995) considered a pioneer in the field of public relations and propaganda, and referred to in his obituary as "the father of public relations".
[ ... ]
Walter Lippman was Bernays' unacknowledged American mentor and Lippman's work The Phantom Public greatly influenced the ideas expressed in Propaganda a year later. — BC
:clap: :sweat: As an original Trekkie myself, I can't argue with you there, Athena. LLAP (n o t MAGA :mask:)If you were to watch old TV shows you might notice cultural differences between the 1950's and the present. The original Star Trek TV shows contrasted with the Next Generation Star Trek TV shows is an excellent example of what the change in education did to our culture. Captain Kirk is the John Wayne of outer space and Picard is the "Group Think" generation. — Athena
:up: Mostly, yeah, especially since the 1980s.Without irony I say - I think it's simpler here in the US - the Republicans did it. — T Clark
To my mind, 'the administrative state' beginning in the 1930s had postponed for almost cenrury this US collapse we're currently living through. During the last 80-odd years, women and minorities have been substantively enfranchised, business cycles have been extended and flattened due to effective regulations the public-private synergy of which has produced both unprecedented national prosperity and fewer boom & bust crises than before the 1929 Crash, far more and effective social welfare policies have been enacted, etc etc. The problem was not, IMO, the "German model of bureaucracy" itself but rather the postwar (i.e. "Cold War military industrial complex") use of "the German model" to perpetuate the American (internally contradictory) model of political democracy and economic anti-democracy – a laissez-faire settlers' slave republic – that had been established by anti-monarchal plutocrats in 1789.And this is made possible by adopting the German model of bureaucracy. Before Hoover and Roosevelt worked together to give us Big Government, the US government was relatively weak. — Athena
Not at all. I'm suggesting that it's not the merely symptomatic 'degradation of values' in our lifetimes but instead it's the congenital defect of the decadent values of the Founding generation – patriarchal plutocratic slavers – of the late-18th century America who'd been the architects of 'this house' which have contributed more than any other factor to the current, status quo collapse (and populist reactions to it).Are you saying it is not values that lead to shoddy construction, prolonged disrepair, and entropy?
Well, I'm not nearly as nostalgiac as you seem to be, Athena, for a past 'Golden Era' which history ubiquitously demonstrates never was and, I suspect as long as civilization is scarcity-driven, never will be.I remember the older people who all about honesty and human dignity.
In a sentence or two, what's your objection?I just wanted feedback on my objection to mysterianism. — RogueAI
Regarding the US, our political democracy without economic democracy is a democracy-in-name-only (DINO) which, from periodic national crisis to crisis, has been dismantling itself brick by brick since 1789 by disproportionately serving Capital at the expense of Labor and Nature (both of which are in revolt: reactionary populisms and global warming, respectively). A house doesn't collapse because of its occupants' "values" but mostly from a combination of shoddy construction, prolonged disrepair and entropy. Likewise, "our institutions are failing" because the macro structural imbalances, of which they are functions, are imploding as the ramifications of those imbalances accelerate.[W]e are destroying our democracy as all our institutions are failing. — Athena
:100:I worry for my children. We know from history the world sometimes does go to hell. — T Clark
Clarify what you mean by "understood".1) Can objects be understood without reference to human subjectivity? — schopenhauer1
"The human aspect" can be deflated (e.g. mathematics, natural sciences).2) Is it even wise to try to overlook the human aspect to all knowledge?
Speculative Realists seem to be attempting a more complete and consistent application of the Mediocrity Principle (i.e. anthropo-decentricity) – neither a 'view from being there' nor a 'view from nowhere', but a view from everywhere – in ontology.Is this not only a fool's errand but somehow anti-human or is this just trying to take out a pernicious anthropomorphism that might lead to a more open field of exploration?
Like taking candy from a baby. :yum: :up:Also, when you say it won’t be Joe Biden as the nominee — care to bet on that too? — Mikie
Any idea how "idealism" can be used to solve "the hard problem"? Do share, Rogue.In fact, I think idealism is the obvious solution. — RogueAI
By 'nihilism' I understand the belief that nothing human (i.e. mortal, finite, caused, contingent, imperfect) is meaningful or significant or real. Thus, I interpret 'supernatural religions' (e.g. Abrahamic, Vedic, pantheonic, shamanic, animist, ancestral, divine rightist, paranormal, ... cults) as manifest 'nihilisms' which, as Freddy points out, devalue this worldly life by projecing – idealizing (i.e. idolizing, disembodying) – 'infinite meaning, significance & reality' as originating with and/or only belonging to some purported 'eternal otherworldly life'. :sparkle: :eyes: :roll:What is nihilism? It is variously expressed as the idea that nothing is real, or that nothing has any real meaning. — Wayfarer
Sure, at best, but not sound.Does theism as a philosophical position, act as a valid support for religious doctrine? — universeness
No, "just us"; specifically: only human brains cannot scientifically explain human consciousness. IMO, ChatGPT is a toy compared to the AGI that's coming, which I suspect will be exceedingly capable of comprehending human consciousness far in excess of however much we can or cannot comprehend ourselves. Perhaps AGI will even explain us to us in a way we can understand. Btw, I'm in no way a 'mysterian'.Does mysterianism entail that all brains in the universe cannot understand consciousness, or just us? — RogueAI
Maybe. I think it's more likely, however, that a "religious philosopher" is an apologetic critic of naturalism, irreligion and/or religions (or sects) other than her own.So, is a persons claim that they are a religious philosopher, the inevitable beginning of losing/rationalising away, their [own] religion? — universeness
:up: Yes, of course, beginning with internal critiques of 'mythologies, theologies & ideologies' – including and especially one's own (re: "Gnothi seauton").Against the common view that philosophy is a two-thousand-year-old failing enterprise, a body of thought that has produced no knowledge, couldn’t we say that philosophy has in fact done pretty well in bringing dominant beliefs into question, revealing their incoherence or baselessness, or just submitting them to rational enquiry? — Jamal
"Ecrasez l'infâme!" ~VoltaireBtw, philosophizing began for me in encounters with (raw) stupidity of other teens and adults, then authority figures and institutions, finally profound failures and missed opportunities I'd discovered throughout the histories I'd studied. Recognizing stupidity as endemic to the human condition was my initial existential crisis (i.e. despair) at 16/17 from which, over four decades later, I've still not recovered. — 180 Proof
Reality is a donut-hole, or nothing out of something. — Thus Spoke 180 Proof
Marriage [Love] is the triumph of imagination over intelligence. Second marriage [love again] is the triumph of hope over experience. — Oscar Wilde
Love is divine only and difficult always. If you think it is easy you are a fool. If you think it is natural you are blind. — Toni Morrison
If you have reasons to love someone, you don’t love them.
Love feels like a great misfortune, a monstrous parasite, a permanent state of emergency that ruins all small pleasures. — Slavoj Žižek
