:up: :up:What would you say that "physical space" is made out of? [ ... ] The ancient Greek atomists limited the capacity to divide physical substance by positing fundament particles, atoms. The atoms would be indivisible. — Metaphysician Undercover
Clearly, Aristotle did not understand that Democritus' atoms are physical and not just abstract (i.e. not formal/metaphysical – "platonic").But Aristotle demonstrated ... why the dualism of matter and form was required.
Physical space is not "infinitely" divisible like abstract space. Like most paradoxes, this one is merely apparent – it's derived from confusing the physical and abstract.To reach the finish line, the tortoise must first cross half the distance to it, then half the remaining distance, then half of the remaining distance again, and onward infinitely. — Metaphysician Undercover
How do we know that the universe (multiverse) is not "self existent"? :smirk:If you canprove[demonstrate] that the universe is self existent ... — Gnomon
:100:My only point was that ideologies whether religious or not, being based on some dogma or other, are one of the main problems which plague humanity. — Janus
In fact, we don't – cannot – know that anything "comes after this life". We do know, however, that we have to live this life together is inevitable; thus, Hillel the Elder's response to the request to say the whole meaning of the Torah while standing on one foot:Yet our perspective is not the full picture and it lacks finality. We do not know what comes after this life. — BitconnectCarlos
Notice the Rabbi did not say "have faith"...What is hateful (harmful) to you, do not do to anyone.
No.[A]ren't all universal moral systems inevitably going to be flawed in some way ... — Dorrian
No – this does not follow (i.e. hasty generalization fallacy).... and therefore rendered futile?
e.g. flourishing via preventing or, as much as practically possible, reducing harm to others, no?... the concept of "goodness."
:up:If its a true[ly] universal moral system, it will be objective. Not saying it can't be improved upon ... — Philosophim
:up: :up:They're not futile systems as much as incomplete, but necessary (in spite of their incompleteness!) ways of thinking. Or suggestions. — Moliere
Not so. There is far more physical evidence of, for example, cyclical cosmogenesis than for (your) "fiat lux" ... i.e. Aristotle's teleological physics is as philosophically useless as Ptolemy's geocentric epicycles or (e.g. Whitehead's) pseudoscientific 'intelligent design'.All postulated explanations refer to something antecedent or transcendent to the Bang itself. — Gnomon
:100: :up:My point is that faith is a poor way to arrive at truth because there is nothing it can't justify. Which is why I've generally said if you have good reasons for believing in something, you don't need faith. For me faith is best understood as the excuse people give for a belief when they don't have good reasons. — Tom Storm
And when I,
I wanna kiss you, yeah
All I gotta do
Is whisper in your ear
The words you long to hear
And I'll be
kissing you
And the same goes for me
Whenever
you want me at all
I'll be here,
yes I will
Whenever you call
i.e. self-availing, self-unfolding, self-emptying :zip:Spiritual, philosophical, mystical... — Gregory
i.e. make-believe (opiate) vs knowledge (surgery)faith or science
aka "religious faith"belief in the impossible — Fire Ologist
Yes; like when an orchestra disbands, their music stops.When the body dies and decays, everything about me, everything particular to “me”, is gone.
That's merely empirical, not transcendental – in Kant's system (CPR); your statement doesn't make sense, Wayf.The division between self and world is itself part of what the brain constructs. — Wayfarer
False.The most generally accepted scientific hypothesis for the beginning of space-time is the Big Bang theory — Gnomon
Some deduce that embodied self-continuity is fundamentally what "I am", and therefore if no embodied continuity (i.e. no substrate functionality), then no self-continuity (i.e no PSM or user/introspection-illusion) and no self-aware identity (i.e. no autobiographical subject). Re: Buddha, Epicurus, Spinoza, Hume ... :fire:And some believe that I am what I remember. Hence, no remembrance, no Self ...
I doubt this statement is true.Truth is always seen. — Gregory
No doubt.It's not always reco[gn]ized
For different reasons, e.g. Democritus (re: sensory conventions, limitless divisibility of things) and e.g. Parmenides/Plato (re: change/appearances aka "the many") proposed the idea of (subjective) "construct of mind" millennia ago. Kant just 'a prioritized' this with arbitrarily complex – convoluted – schema; of no use, as you acknowledge, pragmatically or in cognitive scientific terms.That knowledge-of is a construct of mind. — tim wood
However, we can approximately – defeasibly – "understand it" and sufficiently enough for us to adapt and thrive in the world (i.e. nature) with which a priori we are entangled (pace Descartes, pace Berkeley).[W]e experience the world but can't truly understand it. — Gregory
Yes, Kant's antimonies are (it seems to me) a modern reformulation of classical equipollence (re: Pyrrho / Sextus Empiricus ... no doubt inspired by, or derived from, Socrates' elenchus (esp. early Platonic dialogues)).Kant's use of the antinomies was to demonstrate that we do not know such things -- we can rationally argue for both the assertion and the negation, and both will appeal to reason, and they can be put side-by-side and end up in contradiction. For Kant this shows a limitation on reason's ability to answer some questions. — Moliere
:100: (re: LNC)I rather think contradiction is certainly a necessary part of logic. Or, maybe, if not a necessary part, then at least the fundamental ground for the validity of logical constructs [reason] . — Mww
Given that "subject" is also an "appearance", this so-called "great idea" amounts to a tautology. :smirk:Kant'sgreatidea: that science is the science of appearances, and that appearance always entails the subject for whom it is appearance. — Wayfarer
Such as? :chin:And while it is fashionably modern to be dismissive of many of his [Kant's] ideas, at close look, they still hold! — tim wood
As death is inevitable, one of the main questions any person can ask themselves is what awaits us when we die. — Zebeden
when you are dead, there is no longer a "you". — Banno
when you are out of the game nothing will disturb you because there will be no 'you' to be disturbed. — Janus
On the contrary, all impersonal evidence suggests that, even while alive, "self-consciousness" is the river one cannot step in twice. What you/we "believe" doesn't change this fundamental fact of nature. (Re: "afterlife" from a 2023 post)What bothers me, though, is that there is no reason to believe that consciousness cannot reoccur again. — Zebeden
If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present. — Ludwig Wittgenstein
Babylon (OT).It is a fact that the United States of America is not in the Bible. — Arcane Sandwich
:up: :up:The point is not necessarily to seek a greater, cosmic purpose, but to improve the quality of life for ourselves and others, fostering a world where suffering is alleviated and wellness maximised. In this sense, you might say that improving the world becomes its own form of meaning; rooted in the tangible, real-world consequences of our choices and actions. — Tom Storm
Given that you are not an "absolute" being (or clinically neurotic/paranoid), imo you are "certain about" whatever you lack rational grounds to doubt.What can I beabsolutelycertain about? — Kranky
Afaik, it's impossible for a classical being (with classical sensorium) to be conscious of non-classic (planck-scale) phenomena. Thus, without consciousness of the wave function, "consciousness collapses the wave function" does not make sense (pace N. Bohr et al).consciousness collapses the wave function — Gregory
I find that irrationality isn't always incompatible with rationality (e.g. conative/desirous, sublime, absurd, tragicomic ... feelings)Why do you say "usually"? Just curious — 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.What is faith? — Gregory
:100:... 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
???Ye pull back the curtain and there'll be either a person or a statue. Some prefer to expect a guy, some stone — Gregory
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 consequentialismIn 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
– make-believe, not (epistemic) belief."faith" (i.e. unconditional trust in / hope for (ergo worship of) unseen, magical agency) — 180 Proof
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.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
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".Some atheists think they "know" there is no God. I'm not one of those.
Like e.g. Tertullian, Eckhart, Pascal, Kierkegaard, Wiitgenstein, Tillich ..?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
:smirk:The most faithful will be seeking to disprove that god exists.
:100:One can review what one takes as granted, but to review what one takes on faith is to breech that faith. — Banno