Comments

  • Carlo Rovelli against Mathematical Platonism
    ↪Banno
    :fire:
  • Emergence
    ... if you are a philosopher, hoping to answer Ontological & Existential questions, considering First & Last & Ultimate Intent would be a part of your job description. — Gnomon
    IME, a thinker's first duty – intellectual hygiene and metacognitive fitness exercise – consists in not asking idle questions or raising paper doubts (Peirce, Witty, Kant, et al) such as "first, last & ultimate" whatever. As for "ontological and existential" questions, the theoretical works of natural scientists presuppose such aporia which most do not explicitly explore or examine because that almost always falls outside of the remit of scientific inquiry. And pragmatists, which you allude to, whether or not they are doing science, raise such abstruse questions, as Dewey or Popper might say, only to facilitate transforming indeterminate problems into determinate problems which can be dis/solved. :chin:

    However, your musings and notions, Gnomon, demonstrate a penchant for overdetermining pseudo-problems because, apparently, you lack the acumen of a rigorous, as you say, "amateur philosopher" to avoid these incorrigibly dogmatic traps. You're not here to learn from our motley community of 'thinkers', as your post history attests to, but rather, evidently, to preach a quixotic sermon that pseudo-scientistically rehashes perennialism (though your expansive, well-documented blog does bedazzle, sir :sparkle: :clap:). "Hoping to answer ...Ultimate ... questions" is the "job description" of false prophets, televangelists and other charlatans pimping snake-oil "worldviews" or "beliefs", which may be what "philosophy" looks like from the outside to many folks who're still squatting on splintered pews in their burnt-out old cathedrals. :pray: :sweat:

    postscript:
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/746676 Yeah, it's déjà vu all over again. :smirk:
  • Carlo Rovelli against Mathematical Platonism
    ↪T Clark
    :up:
  • What is your ontology?
    What's the justification for a physicalist ontology? — Agent Smith
    None. Physicalism, in practice, is an epistemology (re: a paradigm used in natural science).

    Why is it that when talking about material stuff, nobody goes "is the chair I'm sitting on real?"
    The question lacks grounds for raising it (Witty, Peirce).

    ... while quite the opposite happens when we discuss apparently nonphysical stuff like numbers.
    Nominalists & pragmatists, naturalists & existentialists don't ask 'whether or not numbers are real'. Platonists & rationalists, for example, promiscuously misplaced concreteness like that. By "nonphysical stuff", by the way, you do mean abstract objects, not "angels", right? :smirk:
  • Golden Rule vs "Natural Rule"
    ↪Agent Smith
    :ok:
  • Carlo Rovelli against Mathematical Platonism
    ↪Agent Smith
    :strong: :sweat:
  • Carlo Rovelli against Mathematical Platonism
    ↪Agent Smith
    :ok: I think Plato & Peirce (at least) agree with you.
  • Carlo Rovelli against Mathematical Platonism
    ↪Agent Smith
    As per Meinong, multiplicities are real (i.e. exist) and numbers are only abstractions (i.e. subsist), no?
  • Carlo Rovelli against Mathematical Platonism
    Bodies always perish in the end. — Wayfarer
    Thus, the a priority of the material (fundamental) and a posteriority of the ideal (emergent).
  • Atheism and Lack of belief
    @Andrew4Handel :chin:

    But what counts as evidence for God?
    — Andrew4Handel

    You tell me your definition of "God" and I will derive from that definition "what counts as evidence for your God".     — 180 Proof
    Why do you believe, Andrew, that nature doesn't ground a definition of morality like mine that has no need of 'supernatural support'? — 180 Proof
  • Carlo Rovelli against Mathematical Platonism
    "Materialism is the philosophy of the subject who forgets to take account of himself" ~ Arthur Schopenhauer — Wayfarer
    Idealism is the philosophy of the subject who forgets to take account of being a body. :eyes:
  • Atheism and Lack of belief
    It depends on how you are defining morality. What does morality mean and where did you learn the notion from? — Andrew4Handel
    The way I defined morality in the post you quoted from will do for the sake of this discussion. Why do you believe, Andrew, that nature doesn't ground a definition of morality like mine that has no need of 'supernatural support'?
  • Atheism and Lack of belief
    So either atheists are not looking for an explanation for existence. — Andrew4Handel
    Scientifically-literate dis/believers abductively look for testable explanations within nature.
  • What is your ontology?
    ↪Agent Smith
    :roll: :lol:
  • Atheism and Lack of belief
    ↪Andrew4Handel
    So nature itself isn't grounds enough for natural beings to conceive of and practice morality (i.e. eusocial cooperation strategies). Why?
  • Atheism and Lack of belief
    I personally don't think a god will appear as an explanation. But what a god stands for in an explanation ... — Andrew4Handel
    You're incorrigibly talking in circles, Andrew. :roll:
    Cause takes place within the world. There's no demand that the world as a whole be caused. — Banno
    You can't explain a mystery (existence or consciousness) with another mystery (god/s). God/s have no explanatory power. — Tom Storm
    The quesrion of an 'ultimate explanation', especially in religious terms, is simply incoherent.
  • Atheism and Lack of belief
    You can't explain a mystery (existence or consciousness) with another mystery (god/s). God/s have no explanatory power. They are being used as a kind of hole filler to cover up the gaps in knowledge. — Tom Storm
    :fire: Amen, brother!

    ↪Banno
    :100:
  • Atheism and Lack of belief
    Because all around me things have causes. — Andrew4Handel
    Quantum indeterminancy is "all around" every thing (i.e. QFT, quantum fluctuations). This is known with about nine decimal places of precision. Also, causality as such is not an explanation (i.e. what's the cause/s of causality? Oops! :yikes:).

    We may find an infinite regress of reasons ...
    ... which does not explain anything. :eyes:

    Consider: if "God" is conceived of as "uncaused" or "self-caused", why can't we conceive of what you call "the existence of reality" as uncaused or self-caused but without the non-evident middle man-"Creator" (as per Occam's Razor) instead? :chin:
  • Causes of the large scale crimes of the 20th Century
    Ennui. — Paine
    :100:

    "All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone."
    ~Blaise Pascal
  • Atheism and Lack of belief
    "I don’t want to believe, I want to know." 
    ~Carl Sagan

    I believe the existence of reality asks for an explanation. — Andrew4Handel
    Two questions:
    1. Why do you "believe the existence of reality asks for an explanation"?
    2. Does this "explanation" beg the question (i.e. also requires its own explanation)?

    But what counts as evidence for God?
    You tell me your definition of "God" and I will derive from that definition "what counts as evidence for your God".
  • What are you listening to right now?
    Ol' Croz has left the building. 1941-2023
    Don’t waste the time. Time is the final currency, man. Not money, not power – it’s time. — David Crosby


    "Long Time Gone" (4:17)
    Crosby, Stills & Nash, 1969
    writer David Crosby
    CSN

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AdiuqQ7xm30
    "Wooden Ships" (5:29)
    Crosby, Stills & Nash, 1969
    writer David Crosby, P. Kantner & S. Stills
    CSN
  • Emergence
    ↪Agent Smith
    Survival is a mitzvah. :fire:
  • Golden Rule vs "Natural Rule"
    Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

    Natural Rule (I made up): Do unto others as you actually do unto yourself.     — James Riley
    Both "Rules" have the same problem of assuming 'preferences for yourself are also the preferences of others'. I second
    ↪Tom Storm
    's substitution: the negative formulation of Confucius / Hillel the Elder:
    What you find hateful – harmful – do not do to anyone.
    This form of reciprocity doesn't depend on 'projecting personal preference' but depends on recognizing species defects (i.e. what's bad, or harmful, for our kind) instead. Minimal guesswork, less self-centered, and, IME, easier to practice even in violent situations (e.g self-defense). This is primarily a preventative moral principle (i.e. "good cop" or carrot) in practice that's made more effective, IMO, as the alternative to the 'Iron Rule' of lex talionis (i.e. "bad cop" or stick). After all, we're mostly primates, not angels, right?

    Hope that's the kind of feedback you're looking for.

    Welcome back, JR. :cool:
  • Emergence
    :fire:
    ... some of us choose extinction ... El Rachum. — Agent Smith
    :death: :flower:

    Memento mori, mi amigo.
    Memento vivere!

    ↪universeness
    :up: :up:
  • Emergence
    ↪universeness
    ↪universeness
    With respect to your engagement with @Gnomon's notions, I must offer you this caveat, universeness:
    I can't lie to you about your chances, but... you have my sympathies. — Ash, a severed head
    :victory: :mask:
  • Kant and Work Culture
    Should everybody have children? No, right? — Agent Smith
    Right! Only those who want to have children for no other reason but to love them and bring them up strong. My (panglossian) guess is that's only about one in four, if thst many, who actually have a children. :smirk:

    The rest, three-quarters of the species, however, needs to be sterilzed! :brow:
  • What is your ontology?
    ↪Agent Smith
    Correction: nature is primarily material, secondarily physical. A metaphysical interpretation, no,
  • Atheism and Lack of belief
    ↪Agent Smith
    I'd put it this way: we begin as children and need to outgrow 'naivete, ignorance and undisciplined emotional insecurities' in order to become adults striving to maturely master ourselves in order to thrive not just survive. 'Return to childhood' is often a symptom of dementia, Smith (e.g. fundie revivals). :yawn:
  • Emergence
    ↪universeness
    :up: This ain't the eithor-or issue that
    ↪Agent Smith
    believes it is: preparing ourselves for both 'whether or not to die' and 'how to die once we've had enough' is the issue. :death: :flower:
  • What is your ontology?
    As I pointed out perception is unreliable (re Descartes?). — Agent Smith
    Freddy points out, paraphrasing both the Epicureans and Stoics (IIRC), that 'the senses don't lie, it's our interpretations of the senses which introduce lies into our perceptions.'

    Materialism is an ontological claim...
    A paradigm (or interpretation), not a "claim". In modern terms, it's epistemological rather than ontological. Material is synonymous with embodied. I prefer to use physical to differentiate scientifically modelled material from raw material (though, yeah, the terms are used interchangeably). I think it's less overdetermining to conceive of materialism as 'nature is primarily, not ultimately, material' or 'materiality is nature's primary, not ultimate, property'. What is the 'ultimate property'? Whatever 'ultimate' is, it's still purely speculative – I fail to see how 'the ultimate' matters (no pun intended) to proximate beings (e.g. humans living and reasoning). Anyway, this conception I derive from classical atomism with a focus on void over atoms.

    ... all that exists is physical ...
    This utterance is unwarranted, purely speculative and, by my interpretation (above), incoherent.
  • What is your ontology?
    ↪Agent Smith
    Too scattered, I can't follow replies like that.
  • Emergence
    Are you sure the TS hasn't taken place? One possible reason why we haven't met ET is because they don't want to (be discovered). — Agent Smith
    Maybe the TS has already happened and we are being kept from discovering ETI by our TS-saturated satellites, telescopes & space probes? Maybe the TS covertly studies both ETI and us? :yikes:
  • What if cultural moral norms track cooperation strategies?
    ... as an ultimate goal for moral behavior. — Mark S
    Well, for proximate beings like us, I think "an ultimate goal" is about as useful for flourishing as tits on a bull.
  • What is your ontology?
    First off, noticeably using negatives. Why? — Agent Smith
    I find those "negatives" more specifiable (and irrefutable) than the alternative. IIRC, I've shared my negative ontology with you (& Mr. Enformy) on more than one occasion. :smile:

    Second, you're, to my reckoning, stipulatin' metaphysical conditions (obviously, ontology is metaphysics), but existence, over the past thousand or so years, has gone through an empirical...
    Empiricism pertains to epistemology, not ontology; and had the OP raised the question of 'epistemic criteria', my first thought would have been 'X exists' insofar as X-predicates are consistent with model-dependent realism, etc.
  • What is your ontology?
    By critetion for existence I mean specific conditions something (x) has to meet before one can say x exists. — Agent Smith
    My supposition is that 'X exists' factually IFF the sine qua non properties of X are not (a) non-relational, (b) un-conditional, (c) un-changeable and/or (d) in-discernible from (~X). :chin:
  • Atheism and Lack of belief
    I don't believe that atheists have ever started a society from scratch without the influence of prior human religions, dogmas and supernatural beliefs etc. — Andrew4Handel
    All believers are atheists insofar as there are many gods, etc which they don't believe in except their own. (We disbelievers are just more consistent atheists then you believers.) Also, large complex societies based on "religious faith" alone have never been viable or lasted long. In fact, people can live a long while on bread alone but not on "faith" alone – thus, their relative values for life. Lastly, we are a superstitious species, and all that means is, like dogs, we can't help barking at shadows (à la Plato's Cave), it's how our brains are wired – so your statement, Andrew, amounts to saying 'adults have never built societies who were also once children'. :roll: To the degree cultures and societies are secular is the degree to which they have outgrown, or put away, childish things like gods, religious dogmas & superstitions (e.g. conspiracy theories, institutionalized discriminations, patriarchy, celebrity-worship, pseudo-scientism, etc). As a species, in the main, we're still only adolescents.
  • What is your ontology?
    It is presumptuous to assert that the ideas are coherent outside of the context of human thought and experience. — Paine
    :up:
  • Philosophical Pharma
    Live long and prosper :victory: — Spock (science officer, USS Enterprise)
    "Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end." ~Captain Spock, USS Enterprise (c2291) :nerd:
  • Atheism and Lack of belief
    ↪Andrew4Handel
    Maybe your conception of "moral claims" is inadequate for assessing their truth values or you lack a sufficient, or relevant, criteria of truth? :chin:

    As an ethical naturalist and fallibilist, the truth value of moral claims about 'what harms persons, other animals and ecosystems' is discernible, ergo preventable or reducible. 'Supernaturalist criteria' for "justifying the moral norms" of natural persons was a brief, maladaptive interlude of the last several millennia out of an almost two hundred millennia span of eusocial h. sapiens existence. 'Divine command theory', as far as I can tell, is moral nihilism (e.g. Plato's Euthyphro, Nietzsche's The Antichrist), and the last century or so of substantive secularization has been and continues to be a struggle against vestigial priestcraft and normative superstitions.
  • What if cultural moral norms track cooperation strategies?
    ↪Mark S
    No. "Moral norms" are like dialects (or even distinct languages) – complementary, not oppositional. Besides, plurality is more adaptive than uniformity.
Home » 180 Proof