Comments

  • What is faith
    Why do you say "usually"? Just curious — Gregory
    I find that irrationality isn't always incompatible with rationality (e.g. conative/desirous, sublime, absurd, tragicomic ... feelings)
  • What is faith
    What is faith? — Gregory
    Afaik, faith is "devotional" make-believe (i.e. suspension of disbelief in superstitions, fairytales and/or myths) and, in extremis, delusion (i.e. "leap of faith" (e.g.) faith healing, willing martyrdom, jihadism, religious zionism ... denialism), and thereby usually incompatible with discursive reasoning, or rationality – in other words, a path of least cognitive effort that's universally accessible, especially to pre-school children and even cretins.
  • Logical Arguments for God Show a Lack of Faith; An Actual Factual Categorical Syllogism
    ... beliefs cannot be verified by the faith or intuition. And note, this is not to say that the faith or intution cannot be convincing to the one inhabiting it, it is just to say that it cannot provide sufficient grounds for an argument intended to convince others. — Janus
    :100:
  • Logical Arguments for God Show a Lack of Faith; An Actual Factual Categorical Syllogism
    Ye pull back the curtain and there'll be either a person or a statue. Some prefer to expect a guy, some stone — Gregory
    ???
  • What do you think about Harris’ health analogy in The Moral Landscape?
    In Sam Harris’ The Moral Landscape he uses health as an example of something that may not have an objective definition but can still be rationally discussed and meaningful statements made about it. — Captain Homicide
    For me it's more fruitful to analogize ethics with medicine because ill-health is an objective biological matter of fact (e.g. loss of homeostasis, dis-ease) that can either be prevented by behavior or reduced through treatment. Likewise, more generally, harm to self/others (as well as injustice) aka "suffering" can be prevented or reduced through moral behavior. Iirc, Harris proposes moral scientism instead of (more coherent, pragmatic) negative consequentialism

    update:

    ↪Pierre-Normand
    :up: :up:
  • Logical Arguments for God Show a Lack of Faith; An Actual Factual Categorical Syllogism
    "faith" (i.e. unconditional trust in / hope for (ergo worship of) unseen, magical agency) — 180 Proof
    – make-believe, not (epistemic) belief.

    As an atheist, I would say I have heard no reasons to suggest that god is a useful concept. It seems incoherent and does not assist my sense making activities. — Tom Storm
    For some g/G is a fetish (of the gaps), for others it's a placebo (anti-anxiety), and for many it's (the) "big Other" (e.g. conspiracy thinking, superstition) ... but it's still the case that too few of us have outgrown these (self-crippling) crutches.

    Some atheists think they "know" there is no God. I'm not one of those.
    Well, splitting the baby Yeshua, I know that every g/G of theism only exists in the minds of believers, but I'm agnostic about nontheistic "divinity".

    So those with the greatest faith would be the ones convinced by logical arguments that god does not exist, and yet who believe despite this. — Banno
    Like e.g. Tertullian, Eckhart, Pascal, Kierkegaard, Wiitgenstein, Tillich ..?

    The most faithful will be seeking to disprove that god exists.
    :smirk:

    One can review what one takes as granted, but to review what one takes on faith is to breech that faith. — Banno
    :100:
  • PROCESS PHILOSOPHY : A metaphysics for our time?
    What we refer to as objects are really repeating patterns of events. For people used to thinking of the world as permanent objects with inherent properties the process way of thinking takes some adjustment and getting used to. Objects are repeating patterns of events and properties are relationships between these events. There are no fixed objects with independent properties. Everything that exists is in the process of becoming (not being, there is no static being) and everything depends on its relationships to the rest of reality (no independent objects with inherent properties). — prothero
    Yes, and these "repeating patterns of events" remind me of Democritus' "atoms swirling in the void" ...

    Atoms are mostly empty "space" and subatomic particles can display both properties of "waves" and "particles". These are really just fluctuations or standing waves in quantum field theory. The distinction between matter and energy is somewhat artificial.
    :100:
  • Autonomous Government + Voluntary Taxation
    ↪T Clark
    ↪T Clark
    :up: :up:
  • Logical Arguments for God Show a Lack of Faith; An Actual Factual Categorical Syllogism
    ↪Tom Storm
    :up: :up:
  • PROCESS PHILOSOPHY : A metaphysics for our time?
    ↪flannel jesus
    Iirc, in philosophy of mind circles, that's the thesis of functionalism (usually favored by non-reductive physicalists and eliminativists).
  • Logical Arguments for God Show a Lack of Faith; An Actual Factual Categorical Syllogism
    ↪T Clark
    :sweat: Really? Okay. Pax tibi. (John 20:21)
  • Logical Arguments for God Show a Lack of Faith; An Actual Factual Categorical Syllogism
    ↪Tom Storm
    :up:

    Faith in God requires belief without reason-based thought.
    — DifferentiatingEgg     — T Clark
    ↪T Clark
    Which "Christians" have been "arguing about" which "this"?

    fyi – A dozen years of Catholic schooling and an honor student in religious studies and church history throughout high school, I'm sure I haven't forgotten all of (the) catechism(s) or even some Patristic & Scholastic "doctrines" yet. :halo:

    So what are you talking about, TC?
  • Logical Arguments for God Show a Lack of Faith; An Actual Factual Categorical Syllogism
    This one:

    Faith in God requires belief without reason-based thought.
    — DifferentiatingEgg     — T Clark
    That's (maybe) a definition but not a "religious doctrine".
  • Logical Arguments for God Show a Lack of Faith; An Actual Factual Categorical Syllogism
    I firmly believe more than one mind can occupy a body... — DifferentiatingEgg
    Why do you – what warrants your belief? And what difference to you/us does that (un/warranted?) belief make?

    I don't like Anselm's and Aquinas' and Descartes' or any arguments purporting to demonstrate the existence of God. They can be shown invalid and/or unsound. — Fire Ologist
    :up: :up:

    And we need to have faith in our senses to navigate crossing the street, and faith in our logic to navigate a conversation.
    In the context of this discussion and for precision's sake, we shouldn't use "we ... have faith in" where we don't have grounds to doubt makes more sense.
  • Logical Arguments for God Show a Lack of Faith; An Actual Factual Categorical Syllogism
    Therefore using reason-based thought for God is necessarily a showing of a lack of faith in God. — DifferentiatingEgg
    Even if true (I don't think it is), so what? As Daniel Dennett points out many (most?) people believe they ought to believe – "believe in belief" – in order to benefit socially or psychologically even when they "lack faith".

    Without faith, we go nowhere, and without reason, we cannot find the way! — MoK
    I think you (and others here) confuse "faith" (i.e. unconditional trust in / hope for (ergo worship of) unseen, magical agency) with working assumptions (i.e. stipulations); the latter are reasonable, therefore indispensible for discursive practices, whereas the former is psychological (e.g. an atavistic bias). "Without assumptions, we cannot proceed ..." is evidently true, MoK, in a way that your "faith" claim is not.

    ↪T Clark
    Which "religious doctrine" is mentioned in the OP or is being discussed in this thread?
  • PROCESS PHILOSOPHY : A metaphysics for our time?
    Mr. Dunning-Kruger folks! :zip:
  • PROCESS PHILOSOPHY : A metaphysics for our time?
    20th century cosmology has found evidence that space-time had an inexplicable beginning point. — Gnomon
    :sweat: No, that's false, sir.

    Modern cosmologists have only found evidence of the planck-scale limit to current physical theories about and observations of the developmental history (i.e. inflationary expansion of the Hubble volume) of spacetime. In short, there is no more of a demonstrated "beginning point" to the observable universe than there is to the real number line or the surface of the Earth.

    NB: Clearly Fr. Georges Lemaître, priest and so-called "Father of the Big Bang", never believed BB was "the inexplicable beginning" (or any indication of a transcendent, non-physical "origin" or "causal agency") as the following article makes clear:

    https://www.hprweb.com/2019/01/the-enriching-complementarity-of-faith-and-science/ :smirk:
  • What you can control
    ↪Benkei
    My guess is – since I'm not "wise"– as a general rule: strive to undertake reflective inquiries / practices (e.g. reflective equilibrium) all day every day.
  • What you can control
    ↪180 Proof tell me how. — Benkei
    "How" what?

    ↪Truth Seeker
    I don't know for sure. Certainly they are constrained by them.
  • PROCESS PHILOSOPHY : A metaphysics for our time?
    As I understand it, ↪180 Proof's worldview — Gnomon
    :roll:

    To wit:
    In my Epicurean-Spinozist (i.e. p-naturalist¹) terms [ ... ] — 180 Proof

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy) [1]

    @punos
  • How to Live a Fulfilling Life
    ↪Vera Mont
    :up:
  • What you can control
    ↪Truth Seeker
    Not completely (or mostly).
  • How to Live a Fulfilling Life
    A fulfilling life consists of purposeful, positive and pleasant participation in life. — Truth Seeker
    Imho, I think, in order to live every (or most) day(s) in a "fulfilling" way, one has to learn how to enjoy – satisfy oneself with – boredom and being alone by unlearning the habit (vice) of "purpose" – social status-seeking / ambition. Without purpose, there's no "now what?" (i.e. dukkha, angst). Only 'being useless' is sovereign (i forget who said that); consider content (healthy) elderly persons and (well-kept) toddlers. Wu wei is the way (Laozi, Zhuangzi). Thus, very few are ever "fulfilled" ...

    :death: :flower:
  • "Underlying Reality" for Husserl
    Husserl himself in "The Origin of Geometry" gives us the tools to get out of the enclosure when he speaks of ideality as something constituted by repetition and reactivation through tradition. This repetition, however, cannot occur by means of an epoché. We interact with things in a theoretical way but without the need to leave the natural attitude. — JuanZu
    :up: :up:
  • PROCESS PHILOSOPHY : A metaphysics for our time?
    Perhaps you did not like that i used the word "idealism"? — punos
    ???
  • Thus Spoke Zarathustra
    Russell portrayed he of the moustache as [ ... ] — Banno
    There's very much to admire about Lord Russell's works (& logic-chopping) but his potted and unscholarly A History of ... is certainly not one of them.

    Nietzsche remains the [twilight] idol of post-pubescent males. Someone to consider and grow beyond.
    As Freddy Zarathustra himself cautions his close readers (foreshadowing his Ecce Homo) ...

    Now I go alone, my disciples, You too, go now alone. Thus I want it. Go away from me and resist Zarathustra! And even better: be ashamed of him! Perhaps he deceived you… One pays a teacher badly if one always remains nothing but a pupil. And why do you not want to pluck at my wreath? You revere me; but what if your reverence tumbles one day? Beware lest a statue slay you. You say that you believe in Zarathustra? But what matters Zarathustra? You are my believers – but what matter all believers? You had not yet sought yourselves; and you found me. Thus do all believers; therefore all faith amounts to so little. Now I bid you to lose me and find yourselves; and only then when you have all denied me will I return to you… that I may celebrate the great noon with you. — Also Spoke Zarathustra
    (emphasis is mine)
  • "Underlying Reality" for Husserl
    chaos — Wayfarer
    i.e. classical atomists' swirling void or (in contemporary physical terms) random – acausal – vacuum fluctuations

    Metaphorically, we're maybe ripples that fall in on themselves and disappear - but it's all water. — Dawnstorm
    :fire:

    From Thales to Heraclitus & Democritus ... to Spinoza & Nietzsche ... to Deleuze, Badiou & Meillassoux ...
  • "Underlying Reality" for Husserl
    ↪Joshs
    :up:
  • James Webb Telescope
    We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars. — Oscar Wilde

    https://www.scimag.news/news-en/68801/budget-cuts-loom-over-the-webb-telescope-can-nasa-save-this-scientific-marvel/

    Thanks, DOGEbags! :shade:
  • PROCESS PHILOSOPHY : A metaphysics for our time?
    So where do I go wrong?

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/970076

    @punos @PoeticUniverse
  • From the fascist playbook
    Critical awareness has never been our long suit. — Vera Mont
    :up:
  • Thus Spoke Zarathustra
    Have you read Nietzsche, The Aristocratic Rebel by Domenico Losurdo? — Maw
    No. Give me the quick & dirty (no doubt it's worth reading if you mention it).
  • From the fascist playbook
    [Trump] is literally enacting fascist ideology, as it was formulated by a celebrated fascist ideologue.

    Perhaps this crisis of democracy is really ...     — Pantagruel
    ... what pluralities(?) of voters really want: "trickle down" plutocracy (i.e. Reaganism (B-movie actor –> reality tv performer) on steroids) – strong man politics, sugar daddy economies. Maybe a half century or more of neoliberal globalism (& keynesian US militarism) has groomed most(?) proles, or precariats, to demand "freedumb" (i.e. licence, libertinage) over liberty (i.e. accountably self-governing) and fascistic clowns like Trumpstain (& his sugar daddy Mr DOGEbag) are "the poorly educated" rabble's Id-wanking avatars.
  • The Mind is the uncaused cause
    Now this is a problem, not an explanation. — J
    I disagree with your semantic jugglery here, J. I may come back to this "problem" when I have more time later.
  • Meinong rejection of Existence being Prior to Predication
    I ask again, if two people disagree about the terms, how can they resolve the disagreement? — J
    And again, as I've pointed out ...
    Afaik, only better, more sound, arguments can resolve rational disagreements. — 180 Proof
    For example, having greater scientific efficacy (i.e. unfalsified predictive model) "resolves the disagreement" a chemist and an alchemist have about the definition of "heat" or an astronomer and astrologer have about the definition of "planet". In philosophy, however, e.g. a German idealist (i.e. disembodied X) and a French materialist (i.e. embodied X) can only "resolve the disagreement" they have about the term "existence" by either one adopting – becoming convinced via arguments of – the other's metaphysical framework. Competing terms / definitions, in effect, belong to competing vocabularies; one simply learns to speak the other's language (game) in order to use the other term / definition in a way other than one agrees with in one's own language (game).
  • Meinong rejection of Existence being Prior to Predication
    Joe offers a particular doctrine about existence, Mary offers a different one. Is there anything either can appeal to, in order to determine whether one is correct? Let's just pick "conceptual definition" from your list. Would Joe and Mary be able to consult such a definition in order to resolve a disagreement between them? — J
    A "definition" is a statement without a truth-value and therefore cannot be used to "resolve a disagreement"; rather, in a given discursive context, it's either useful to some degree or not at all. Mary's conceptual definition is either more or less coherent consistent & sensible than Joe's. Afaik, only better, more sound, arguments can resolve rational disagreements.

    Let's just pick "conceptual definition" from your list.
    Re: Meinong's predication (OP), the definition I think is more useful – less ambiguous – in this context is (a) 'exist' indictates a non-fictional, or concrete, object (or fact) and, by extension, (b) 'existence' denotes the (uncountable) set of all non-fictional, or concrete, objects (and all facts). I'm open to any definition more useful than mine. Maybe I should read past this post
    ↪philosch
    ...
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    20February25

    "O Canada!" :party:

    Congrats, Team "Fifty-first State", for overtime defeat of Team DOGEbag!

    2025 World Hockey Champs! :clap:
  • The alt-right and race
    The primary beneficiaries of alt-right politics are members of the 1% / ruling class. Their rag-tag army of supporters and voters are not material beneficiaries. — BC
    White workers bear the double burden of recognizing how they themselves are the victims of discrimination (as wage slaves) and how they may discriminate against other workers. Don't feel guilty about it; just recognize reality and do better in the future. Blacks are not your #1 enemy: it's the 1%, the rich man who is your enemy and the black man's enemy alike. Unite in solidarity. — BC
    :100:
  • The Mind is the uncaused cause
    ↪J
    Demonstrable evidence of "disembodied" subjects / agents? If not, you're merely fantasizing rather than philosophizing.
  • The Mind is the uncaused cause
    This assumes that the only way to be "mine" or "yours" is to be embodied, doesn't it? — J
    Yes.
Home » 180 Proof