Explain in what way (e.g.) a fatal birth defect is "meaningful".

Never once has a human being witnessed meaninglessness — Astrophel

This statement doesn't make sense (e.g. birth defects, natural disasters, mass murders, vague utterances, discursive nonsense, random events ... are instances of "meaninglessness").

If life is not a struggle with god[death]... — Astrophel

... then its not "life".

Btw, why do you assume being human "means" anything at all?

Yeah, and decadent cynics bleated like that about Nero too.

Apologies for not reading the entire thread before responding ...

I often wonder, what makes a person interested in philosophy? — Rob J Kennedy

My 'philosophical interest' was/is rooted in everyday encounters with stupidity (i.e. maladaptive, incorrigible behavior) in all of its insidious forms as both an enabler of and constraint on practice (or agency). Though I've always had strong affinities with Zapffean-Camusian absurdism, more than anything else I'm a fallibilistic Epicurean-Spinozist (i.e. committed to a critical form of anti-supernaturalism).

What is it about them that draws them to read, study and discuss philosophy?

In practice, IME philosophy is an infinite game (i.e. fractal-like maze, not 'solvable' labyrinth) one falls into and cannot / doesn't want to escape from (unless you're a fly named "Ludwig" trapped in his own flybottle). :smirk:

Usually they are people who prefer to be alone than constantly around others.

Yes. Solitaire ...

They are people who care about politics and the arts.

... et Solidaire. Yes.

They are writers.

Yes ... sentences cage me.

They are introspective and educated.

Yes ... very bookish.

They want the world changed ...

Yes ... and themselves.

So, ethics, under your view, is a personal habit? — Bob Ross

Insofar as "personal habits" – in the context of my previous post – specifically means virtues, then I think so.

Could you give an example where the "community policy" is not underpinned by "interpersonal conduct" 

Two policies come to mind: retributive justice (i.e. proportional punishment) & distributive justice (i.e. social welfare). Neither policy is based on how individuals ought to treat each other or (non-reciprocally) conduct themselves.

... (so that I can understand where you are coming from)

Again, I refer you to this old post (esp. 2nd para.)...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/857773

... the original purpose of Philosophy: to give practical wisdom that every man—even the blindest and poorest—could understand and apply to their lives to better themselves. — Bob Ross

:fire: :up:

Some of my own 'aphorisms' ...

(2023)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/851181

(2025)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/959723

Addendum to
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/851181

Bemusings 2 ...

Death merely randomizes memories & awareness.

All that we are and have ever built are, at most (and forever!), sand castles in the surf.

Since existence is the sky, universes are nothing but the weather.

Origin of the universe? = Edge of the Earth?

What question is not begged (is not fallaciously answered) by "a mystery"?

How is anything explained by or justified with "a mystery"?

If 'God is the ultimate mystery', then a godly (i.e. inexplicable and unjustified)
world is indistinguishable from a godless world, no?

You escape from reality via fantasy but we can escape from fantasy via ecstasy.

Pray to the presence ...
meditate on the nonsense ...
or contemplate the absence.

As a life-commitment, you can only love the world (group think) or only love god (that thinks for you) or only love wisdom (learning to think for yourself even against yourself).

Not meeting the burden of proof only means the claim at issue remains unproven and not that it is false. For this reason alone a thinker ought to accept the burden of proving that theism is not true.

There is no god but Death and Sleep is her prophet.

... And therefore we have metaphysics ('order, cosmos') in order not to howl in despair at the real (disorder, chaos).

... Branes to Black Holes to Brains to Brains to Black Holes to Branes ...

There are no antirealists in foxholes.

Usually the beautiful tend to be boring, the flawed on occasion more interesting, and yet the beautifully flawed are always irresistible.

Every professional liar knows that facts are never as persuasive as stories.

Astronauts went where all religions call 'the heavens' and discovered two things which had impressed me as a child: (1) they saw no God, no gods, no angels, no souls and (2) they saw that the Earth is round, not flat. What's impressed me even more ever since is that not one of the world's great religions have ever sent their own astronaut-priests into 'the heavens' to find out the truth for themselves.

As weak as gravity that orders the universe, reason orders minds which dis/order our world.

Sophia says ...
'Your god isn't even a providential being who can do anything for you. He's nothing but that hole in your bucket – nonbeing.'

I'm not religious or a trumper, so I don't discuss American politics any more – I'm too literate historically, culturally and scientifically for that.

(To be continued ...)

10Jan25

It's official:

DJT, Convicted Felon-in-Chief

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/trump-sentencing-hush-money-new-york-9f9282bc

Sometime in the next ten days the US DoJ, at the very least, should release the partial (or complete) Special Counsel's Report on DJT's January 6 Insurrection Indictment Case. The US AG should also release the Special Counsel's Report on DJT's Stolen National Security Documents and Obstruction of Justice Indictment Case and then receive an unconditional pardon from POTUS. History is watching, Mr Biden. TBD.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2025/01/09/trump-special-counsel-report-federal-appeals-smith/77549818007/

Shameless and insipid non sequiturs. Good job, lil troll. :clap:

Logos alone ... — Jack Cummins

I didn't say anything about "logos alone".

The reason why we need[practice] philosophy is to disentangle the two, because they can get muddled.

Yes, analytically. We also ought to strive to live according to logos over above mythos in order to flourish (according to e.g. Laozi ... Heraclitus, Epicurus, Epictetus ... Spinoza ... Peirce-Dewey, Zapffe, Camus, C. Rosset ...)

6Jan2025 :mask:

"In your ruins I find shelter."
~Samuel Beckett, from letter to Emil Cioran

Do you agree or disagree that we as individuals, communities and as a civilization should outgrow – overcome (as Nietzsche says) – evidence-free stories (mythos) by striving to live according to evidence-based stories (logos)? If you agree then, what you suggest about "the significance of myths" is hyperbolic at best. However, if you disagree, Jack, tell me (us) why philosophy matters.

Isn't this "interpersonal conduct" that you are referring to underpin the "community policy"? — Bob Ross

Not necessarily.

Or are they completely disparate areas of ethics?

Yes. Afaik, personal habits (ethos) are normative and institutional priorities (polis) are applications of norms to public conflicts (or issues) which are not limited to or by those norms.

A cursory search for what the Big Bang is shows that it actually is the beginning of the universe. — Brendan Golledge

"Cursory searches" are more often too simplicistic (lazy) and misleading, especially in modern physical sciences, than deliberate study. Given the extent of current astrophysical evidence, your claim doesn't make any sense scientifically, and therefore metaphysically (as categorical generalizations, or (tentative?) synopsis, of the 'absolute presuppositions' of current physical sciences).

... the transcendent exists in the form of mathematics. Math appears to exist independently of matter and time.

Reification fallacy (à la Platonic forms, Aristotlean essences). "Math" concerns abstract objects structures & patterns and only an infinitesmal fraction of them are computationally possible to instantiate in (human) discursive-cognitive practices.

So I repeat the question:

Please explain why do you assume that a so-called (un-knowable, ubiquitously nonevident) "Deity" can be "the uncaused cause of all other causes-effects" and yet also assume that the (know-able, inescapably evident) universe itself cannot be "the uncaused cause of all other causes-effects". — 180 Proof

@Gnomon :roll:

all the events in life can be seen as the enfoldment of mythic possibilities. — Jack Cummins

What do you mean by this? (re: archetypal psychology à la James Hillman ... C.G. Jung ... Joseph Campbell ... :sparkle: )

Hegel sees history as a realisation of potential[destiny].

Ex post facto teleological historicism (i.e. eschatological rationalization) aka the old Crusaders' "Deus vult!" :pray: :eyes:

Interesting: so it sounds like you are a bit of an Aristotelian too. — Bob Ross

In what way do you think so?

How would you define Justice?

:chin:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/955844

Do you see any solution to the A and B conceptions of Justice that I noted?

I don't. Your concept concerns 'what persons deserve' 'rights' or 'needs' but by justice I understand 'nonzero sum conflict resolution' (i.e. fairness) as a community policy priority / standard.

Wouldn't you agree, that justice has a normative and applied aspect? There is what is just ideally (which is normative ethics), and there is what can be applied in practical law (which is applied ethics)---no?

No. The latter pertains to community policy whereas the former pertains to interpersonal conduct. "Justice" is a policy priority, not a habit / rule of conduct.

Also, why would "macro top-down" justice require consequentialism?

I don't understand what you mean.

Addendum to
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/954898

@Brendan Golledge

Please explain why do you assume that a so-called (un-knowable, ubiquitously nonevident) "Deity" can be "the uncaused cause of all other causes-effects" and yet also assume that the (know-able, inescapably evident) universe itself cannot be "the uncaused cause of all other causes-effects". :chin:

The 13th century Cosmological Argument, making a distinction between Necessity and Contingency, was scientifically supported by the Big Bang theory. — Gnomon

False.

Actually, your statement is not even wrong. :roll:

Multiverse Theory[MWI of QM], which is just as un-falsifiable as the God Theory[mythology]

Incorrigible nonsense. :zip:

knowable Cosmos* is finite

This idealist (antirealist)-solipsist-creationist (fabulist) assumption is both incoherent and factually incorrect: as aspects of nature, all that we (can) know cannot exhaust, or encompass, the whole of nature. To wit: based on current astrophysics, the observable cosmos is only a finite region of an exponentially larger, unobservable – i.e. we know that light from over the Hubble horizon (13.8 billion light years (re: CMBR) has not had m o r e than 13.8 billion years to reach terrestrial instruments – ergo in-de-finite (possibly infinite) cosmos. Pay attention, Gnomon: the "BB" is as much the "beginning of the universe" as the South Pole is the edge of the Earth. :smirk:

[deleted]

We are clearly in bodies. And it is because we are in bodies that we have a reality. — Questioner

– ergo reality is necessarily more-than-subjective.

So you're a 'disembodied subject'?

We're just 'disembodied subjects'?

What "demon"?

:up:

:up: :up:

... ethical androids (i.e. androids with substantial moral beliefs [habits (i.e. priorities-constaints]) — ToothyMaw

I.e. AGI (neural network (not program)) that learns (to mimic?) empathy, eusociality, ecology and nonzero sum conflict resolution (e.g. fairness) for discursive practices and kinetic relationships with other moral agents¹/patients²...

Okay, maybe; but why would any for-profit corporation or military organization ever build an "ethical android" that would be useless as either a slave or a killer?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_agency [1]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_patienthood [2]

:nerd: :up:

I am of the view that inner as opposed to outer, objective aspects of 'reality' are important here in the tradition of human understanding. Science, similarly to religion may be embedded in mythic understanding. What do you think, especially in relation to the concept of myth?. — Jack Cummins

A topic-adjacent interview you might find interesting:

Re: the relevance / significance today of (German) Idealism?

https://philosophynow.org/issues/165/Robert_Stern

:up: :up:

Addendum to
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/947477

You'll know AGI is here when the exercise of creating tasks that are easy for regular humans but hard for AI becomes simply impossible. — François Chollet, author of ARC-AGI and scientist in Google's artificial intelligence unit

https://www.zdnet.com/article/openais-o3-isnt-agi-yet-but-it-just-did-something-no-other-ai-has-done/

:nerd:

:lol:

:up: :up:

He does not even attempt to answer, but rather just ignores the question.

No doubt Woo-farer doesn't even understand the question. :smirk:

Welcome to TPF!

Consider the following post from a (2022) thread On the beautiful and sublime

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/722906

also a (2019) post from a thread The Goal of Art

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/345235

Are you saying my thought experiment was invalid (on grounds of some sort of conflation)? — Bob Ross

Yes, because, as any experienced attorney or judge will attest to: "justice" is not normative (re: micro bottom-up –> well-being (i.e. utilitarian)) as you seem to conceive of it, Bob; in a naturalistic moral framework¹, "justice" is applied (re: macro top-down –> nonzero sum conflict resolution (i.e. consequential)).

(2023) first 2 sentences ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/857773 [1]

An excerpt from p.14 ...

The notion of a "blind spot of science" is, at best, a worn-out, old romanticist caricature or otherwise, worse, akin to a polemical categorical mistake: science no more engages in (explicit) philosophy or mysticism / subjectivism than jack-hammers are used instead of chainsaws to cut down trees; in fact, it's the best tool(kit) humanity has ever devised insofar as natural science is the attempt to (abductively, fallibilistically) solve more-than-subjective problems, which is a feature, IME, and not a bug (i.e. "blind spot"). — 180 Proof

[W]hat kind of fool thinks they only are alive and the world is dead? — unenlightened

Well, I'm the kind of fool who thinks the world is undead: a shambling zombie that appears to be moving inexorable towards oblivion as every part(icle) of the cosmic corpse (including maggots like us) burns out, rots, decomposes, cools ... Ask any virus (or Schrödinger's Cat) – for (late) moderns "dead" & "alive" are indistinguishable. :smirk:

Fyi – I've not read this thread but, fwiw ...

You & co seem to be conflating normative ethics (re: interpersonal harms) with applied ethics (re: structural/policy injustices), Bob. Consider this post reply to @Leontiskos from the thread The Breadth of the Moral Sphere
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/899132

:smirk:

I enjoy mythic fiction, including Marion Zimmer Bradley and Bernard Cornwell. Being half Irish by descent, I am particularly interested in Celtic and British legends, including those in the Magbinon, Arthur and those surrounding Glastonbury. Tolkien also presents a fascinating journey into the mythic imagination. — Jack Cummins

:nerd: :100: :sparkle:

22Jan69

Thanks for Billy, George! :up:

"You're in the group!" :cool:

What is meant by the universe being non locally real? — Darkneos

Suppose spacetime is fundamentally entangled ...

[Religions] also have associated metaphysics that guide people's understanding of the universe ... — T Clark

I think rational-pragmatic philosophies aspire to much more than 'superstitiously living according to the folk stories of miracles and magic' canonized by religions (& cults).

@Jack Cummins

Apologies if the following rambles too far off-topic ...

An excerpt of a post from a (2022) thread The Philosopher will not find God

Recognizing that "God" does not explain anything (re: mythos) is what motivated the Presocratic proto-scientists (physiologoi) in Ionia & Elea to speculate on rational explanations (logos) for nature (phusis) and our minds (nous). — 180 Proof

In other words, it seems g/G is just a primitive – atavistic – personification of (an) unknowable-inexplicable power(s), likely beginning as animism (i.e. the world is enchanted aka "magical thinking"). Later Mythos had been invented to ethno-narratively memorialize such personified – anthropomorphized – power(s) by and around which (the) cultus formed and then, iirc, medieval scholars had called "religion" (from religare). For two and half millennia the Western philosophical tradition has striven to exorcize, or domesticate (deflate), ineliminable Mythos (i.e. narrative g/G-of-the-gaps pathos) by making explicit – reflectively meditating on – (its) Logos. :fire:

(2020) An excerpt of a post from your thread What is the purpose of dreaming and what do dreams tell us?

Logos confronting, or reflecting on, mythos (but within the hermeneutical context of mythos) was once the grounds for doing philosophy and, I think, still is; otherwise, Jack, why bother? — 180 Proof

Also, Jack, from your (2021) thread To What Extent Does Philosophy Replace Religion For Explanations and Meaning?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/614799

We wanted to fix what was wrong with Deism, ... by determining why it failed. — Gnomon

Afaik, deism is just 'the god of theism' on its day off (or on vacation), and so, if the latter is a fiction (e.g. ontologically separate – "transcendent" – from existence aka "nonexistent"), then the former must also be fictional. :chin:

Alternatively, by analogy, just as "the big bang" is a (measureable by current physics) twist in a Möbius-like loop process that marks only a (ca.13.8 billion year old) developmental change to the latest version of the universe and not "the beginning" (à la Hartle-Hawking), pandeists speculate that 'the current phase – observable, explicable nature – in the eternal cycle of existence (à la Laozi, Epicurus, Spinoza, Nietzsche) is only an undead-like decaying corpse of (the) deity that will reincarnate and subsequently destroy itself (à la P. Mainländer) and then reincarnate again infinitely many times (à la the multiverse and/or R. Penrose's conformal cyclical cosmos). Imo, this myth of ontological immanence is much less unintelligible (i.e. question-begging, evidence-free, nihilistic) than typical transcendence – dualist / supernaturalist – myths, and thereby more rational. :fire:

I think the UFO/alien folks are looking for meaning beyond the mundane. — schopenhauer1

Yes, that's why I wrote

"UFOs" = angels & ghosts — 180 Proof