:fire:For me, the point of philosophy is not answering questions, but becoming more self-aware - not the end goal but the journey. — T Clark
:yawn:But the astro-physical evidence of a singular point-of-origin for space-time made our cosmos seem contingent upon some outside force. — Gnomon
If I correctly understand his work, I suspect Spinoza would say "to create substance" is impossible.Would it be possible to create Spinoza's form of substance itself in a system as opposed to in nature?
My scenario^^ makes immortality completely voluntary so worrying about 'existing eternally' isn't warranted.having to exist for eternity
Thanks, comrade. :fire: :mask:Like I said, I think there are two arguments for affirmative action. One s reparation for past wrongs and the other is equal representation. The facetious counter argument of 'color blindness' is poignantly laid to rest by 180 Proof. — Tobias
Wtf :roll:virtual afterlife ... simulation of resurrected bodies — Jack Cummins
I don't think so. Conceivability –/–> possibility.It is questionable but it is a possiblity. — Jack Cummins
Suppose "reflective self" (ego) is nothing but a metacognitive illusion¹ – hallucination – that persists in some kluge-like evolved brains? Meditative traditions focus on suspending / eliminating this (self-not self duality) illusion, no? e.g. Buddhist anattā, Daoist wúwéi, ... positive psychology's flow-state, etc.I generally see artificial intelligence as problematic as being without reflective self. — Jack Cummins
No doubt. To wit:I understand [fascism] to the extent that I see it as right wing populism. I don't see how it can be anything else. — Arcane Sandwich
Populists are politicians who appeal directly to the people when they should be consulting the political process, and who are prepared to set aside procedures and legal niceties when the tide of public opinion flows in their favor. Like Donald Trump, populists can win elections. Like Marine Le Pen in France and Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, they can disrupt the long-standing consensus of government. Or, like Nigel Farage and the Brexiteers in Britain, they can use the popular vote to overthrow all the expectations and predictions of the political class. But they have one thing in common, which is their preparedness to allow a voice to passions that are neither acknowledged nor mentioned in the course of normal politics. And for this reason, they are not democrats but demagogues — not politicians who guide and govern by appeal to arguments, but agitators who stir the unthinking feelings of the crowd. — Roger Scruton, 2017
This sort of bourgeois-feel good ahistoricism is always futile. In order to "emphasize commonality and common goals","future-oriented" whites should stop disproportionately benefiting political economically asap from the centuries-long legacy of dispossessing, enslaving, exploiting and discriminating against nonwhites. After all, it's "racism" that (still) systematically "emphasizes difference" (re: ethnic/color supremacy) and antiracist survivors who have always "fought" for "commonality" (i.e. we are all equally human).IMHO racism is best fought by emphasizing commonality and common goals rather than repeatedly emphasizing difference and/or prior victimhood within groups. The approach should be more future-oriented. — BitconnectCarlos
:fear:Kristi Noem confirmed as Sec'y of DHS. — FOTUS 47's Cabinet
IMHO, by reductive conceptual conflation of (e.g.) Heraclitean flux + Democritean ceaselessly swirling atoms in void + Spinozist conative infinite & finite modes (sub specie durationis) + Schopenhaurian Will + Bergsonian élan vital + Peircean-Deweyan truth as inquiry ... A.N. Whitehead produces a baroque panpsychist teleology he calls (the) "process" as the fundamental property, or ground, of reality – there are only happenings ("occasions of (possible?) experience") and their inter/relations (i.e. "complexes", or patterns of events); there aren't any static or unrelated 'things' (i.e. Aristotlean substances (or unmoved mover)). Yeah, okay. So an explicit "process philosophy" seems to me preposterously redundant (re: predecessors), and almost Heideggerian in its obscurant ponderings and neologisms (or Hegelian prolixity). But I'm a quixotic pandeist so what the hell do I know? :smirk:What exactly is Process Philosophy? — Darkneos
:rofl:Pete Hegseth confirmed as Sec'y of Defense — FOTUS 47's Cabinet
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_illusionDo you think that's all an illusion? — RogueAI
Philosophy, as Wittgenstein points out, only describes how we use concepts (by which to interpretively frame 'experience') whereas unfalsified theories in science are used to explain – model the conditional causal relations of – transformations from one physical state-of-affairs to another. AFAIK, (fundamental) sciences are hypothetico-deductive (i.e. experimental) and not merely inductive (i.e. experiential) as per Popper vs Hume, et al. It's philosophy, in fact, that "explains nothing" about the world (i.e. existence & reality) but instead non-trivially interprets whatever we think we know about the world, etc. — 180 Proof
:roll:I don’t see how I’m committing a fallacy. — Bob Ross
No. They seem to me unrelated capabilities.Is mind a necessary condition for intelligence? — RogueAI
:up:I don't think we can avoid a human-centered morality, even if we avoid putting what is good for humans at the center. It is human beings who judge questions of morality. — Fooloso4
:100:The Tao does not replace god, it comes before it. God is just one of the 10,000 things - the multiplicity of phenomena in our world brought into being by the Tao. — T Clark
I don't think so. For us, 'this world, this life' (i.e. nature red in tooth & claw) is "sacred" insofar as existing is tragicomic – the power to de/create "meaningful" lives (relationships).Does atheism entail that the category of 'the sacred' is meaningless? — Wayfarer
Atheism, as I understand it, denotes (at minimum) lack of belief in any literal "transcendent referents" such as supernatural entities (or ideas) like god/s, angels/demons, miracles, curses, spells, heaven/hell, reincarnation, nirvana, etc.Does it entail that the 'mokṣa' of Hinduism or the 'Nirvāṇa' of Buddhism have no transcendent referent?
Much thanks for this and the podcast interview (I'll listen later)! :up:For an alternate atheistic take on Taoism , especially the thinking of Zhuangzi, I highly recommend the recently published book by Brook Ziporyn, one of the top translators of ancient Chinese texts. It is called ‘Experiments in Mystical Atheism: Godless Epiphanies from Daoism to Spinoza and Beyond‘. — Joshs
I don't think he's a nazi either (btw, why does it matter?), just an über-rich, sociopathic, racist provocateur.I don't think that white supremacists liking his salute means he himself is a nazi. — Christoffer
And yet it's only a "definition", not a publicly corroborating, sound argument that warrants believing "classical theism" is not just a (dogmatic) myth.the definition of classical theism, which is considered rationally coherent — Tom Storm
Which "God" do you mean?God is good. — Astrophel
I imagine that AGI will not primarily benefit humans, and will eventually surpass us in every cognitive way. Any benefits to us, I also imagine (best case scenario), will be fortuitous by-products of AGI's hyper-productivity in all (formerly human) technical, scientific, economic and organizational endeavors.'Civilization' metacognitively automated by AGI so that options for further developing human culture (e.g. arts, recreation, win-win social relations) will be optimized – but will most of us / our descendants take advantage of such an optimal space for cultural expression or [will we] just continue amusing ourselves to death? — 180 Proof