Comments
-
What are you listening to right now?
"She's Nineteen Years Old" (3:14)
A-side single, 1958
Muddy Waters
*
"These Arms of Mine" (2:35)
A-side single, 1962
Otis Redding -
LuckI've been waiting for over four decades for someone to point to or cite an description of 'the sufficient reason for the PSR'. Since +99% of nature is vacuum consisting of random (i.e. a-causal) quantum fluctuations, to the extent the PSR obtains, it is an ex post facto mirage of epistemology (like 'intentionality') and not a feature (or bug) of fundamental ontology (pace Leibniz et al). Of course, I could be mistaken ... but then the question of "What is the PSR of random processes (e.g. vacuum fluctations, quantum uncertainty, spontaneous symmetry-breaking, etc)?" seems begged at least. :chin:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/693943
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/720487 -
A definition of "evil"
'To deliberately inflict and prolong, willfully ignore or derive pleasure from suffering' is my quick & dirty idea of evil.But if you had to describethe most heinousevilone could commitwhat would it be? — Benj96 -
Near death experiences. Is similar or dissimilar better?
:sparkle: :ok: :meh:... in relation to the nature of a potential other reality. The Quantum Mind is surely an interesting proposition ... — Mojo
What "phenomenon"? :roll:I recommend more research on this phenomenon ... — Agent Smith
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/586454 -
Does Camus make sense?Not "aggro'd", just calling you out on your conspicuously uninformed misinterpretations of Camus and the other philosophers you've mentioned, misinterpretations on which you seem incorrigibly fixated, introbert. I've posted a quite good youtube on Camus for the sake of other lazy neophytes who might be mislead by your superficial OP, etc.
-
Aliens don’t exist.:up: :up:
My own take on the implausibility that "we are alone" :nerd:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/380306 -
The Futility of the idea of “True Christian Doctrine”"Eppur si muove." ~Galileo Galilei
Thought crime. :eyes:Rome did not much care what you believed so long as you observed obsequence to the Emperor. They worried about what you did, not what you thought. Christianity seems to have been the source of right-think. — Banno
IIRC, Camus drew totalitarian parallels between Communism and Christianity on this basis in The Rebel, which butt hurt Parisian communists back in the day and ended his friendship with Sartre and others. Or maybe it was Arendt ... -
Antinatalism Arguments
He can't stop himself; "complaining", you see, expresses schop1's will to live. :death:↪schopenhauer1
No complaining, please. — Ciceronianus -
The Futility of the idea of “True Christian Doctrine”IFF a truth is "divine" (i.e. "revealed"), then it should not be open to interpretation; thus, Christian scriptures do not express "the divine, revealed truth".
-
Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)Today, a prominent MAGA mouth-breather, insurrectionist & conspiracy propagandist bankrupted himself & his great-grandchildren :clap:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63237092 Fuck 'em! :lol: -
Nature of the Philosophical Project
Really? :chin:Pragmatism tends to avoid ethics, or attempt to subsume it into other areas - metaphysics and so on. — Banno
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_ethics
Maybe the problem is I'm not a possibilist (i.e. actualism as well as an probabilist (ergo fallibilism)) and do not "believe" "possibilities" (abstraction entities) are "caused".So maybe the problem here is that you believe in frequentist ensembles and other products of modal realism? This is the reductionist image fixed in your mind? — apokrisis -
Nature of the Philosophical Project
I think, rather, a context limits what is probable.A context limits what is possible. — apokrisis
What?So it is an apophatic cause.
This makes about as much sense as saying the living room floor I'm standing on "causes" me not to be standing on the living floor in the apartment below.It causes by suppressing what might otherwise be the case. -
Nature of the Philosophical ProjectNo. IIRC, 'First Philosophy' concerns archai, or first principles, of theoria (ontology theology & cosmology) and, by implication, phronesis.
-
How Much Is Certain or Uncertain in Life and Philosophy?Referring back to the OP: "uncertainty in philosophy" is doubt; "uncertainty in life" is emotional confusion and/or unquantifiable risk. The latter is more urgent yet less profound than the former though. Life seems a game in which we never have enough time to learn enough of its rules in order to make the best moves. So, Jack, angst or amor fati? (i.e. neurosis or psychosis? – or, instead, skepsis?) The Absurd says 'God does not play with loaded dice.' :smirk:
I disagree. When there are publicly accessible grounds to doubt, doubting is not subjective and not to doubt is subjective.Doubting is purely subjective, whereas the indubitable is objective. — Pantagruel -
How Much Is Certain or Uncertain in Life and Philosophy?However doubt presupposes the indubitable, don't you think?
-
Does Camus make sense?
Ritual grunt work. Creative self-sabotage. The reflex of respiration is absurd, no? Camus says, in effect, human dignity only manifests in clear-eyed living – without evasions or nostalgias or indifference – in spite of the world's indifference to human life. Makes sense to me.Are we engaged in recursive grunt work, or a form of ritual? Is this grind and toil an act of self-creation or of self-sabotage? — Tom Storm -
Nature of the Philosophical ProjectSo Aristotle et al are wrong about 'First Philosophy' being first (i.e. fundamental)?
-
How Much Is Certain or Uncertain in Life and Philosophy?From your previous thread on "uncertainty" ...
Psychological uncertainty and epistemological uncertainty are very different in my mind. — 180 Proof -
Does Camus make sense?
:up:It's only by reading a multitude of interpretations and judging their relative merits that you'd be able to select the right one at all. So, at a bare minimum, even presuming there is a correct reading, the point would be to make sure the explanation or interpretation you have on hand is the right one or not. — Moliere
:roll: -
Is it possible to be morally wrong even if one is convinced to do the right thing?:up:
:death: :flower:
Read Laozi & Zhuangzi.
Read Epicurus-Lucretius & Seneca-Epictetus.
Read Spinoza & Nietzsche.
Read P. Foot & M. Nussbaum.
Like waves in the ocean, humans belong to nature – for better and worse. Yeah, we "stand out" but not so much that we are separate from or rise above nature anymore than ocean waves are separate from or rise above the ocean. -
Nature of the Philosophical Project
:up:The ideal as a goal is in a sense not-real though, isn't it? — Pantagruel -
Does quantum physics say nothing is real?:sparkle: :victory:
Hey! A dead cat from QM sings"nothing is real" ...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5lUZvNljHU8Living is easy with eyes closed
Misunderstanding
all you see -
Foundational Questions of Physics & MetaphysicsFyi – On the contrary, scientists build models from which they derive predictions in order to test (falsify) their models. When a model has survived a gauntlet of the most rigorous experimental tests which other scientists can throw at it, usually by abduction at least a plurality, if not majority, of the community of scientists will eventually consider the model provisionally useful enough – a working theory – which they can rely on to guide further research and build different (or better) models. The point is: scientists do not "prove" anything because science is a critical, experimental, explanatory activity and not a "belief system". Modern natural science is the only social institution I'm aware of that manifestly is based on, however imperfectly, criticizing and correcting its own productive work.
-
Does Camus make sense?
You have confused philosophy with mathematics. Proposing criteria for judging and methods for "finding the truth" is not itself "finding the truth". Philosophical statements are useful – suppositional – at best; they're not truthful – propositional – themselves (e.g. the problem of the criterion, the hermeneutic circle, reflective equilibrium, language-games, dialectics, etc). In philosophy, perhaps more than any other rational discipline, answers are merely how questions generate more questions ... Thus, Sisyphus' boulder is also known as "the philosopher's stone." :fire: :eyes:I should have thought that philosophy was about finding the truth, which is necessarily singular ... — god must be atheist -
Nature of the Philosophical Project:cool:
I do not conceive of "global constraints" as "causal", perhaps because I'm not convinced that a systems science paradigm provides an adequate framework, or model, of the universe (i.e. whole of nature). Your thoughts on this topic are very insightful and deeply provocative – I'm still processing the briefs on biosemiotics, etc you've shared, apo – but "my ontology", simplistic though it may be, consists of this mereological constraint: local dynamics (e.g. biosemiotics) cannot, without performative self-contradiction, encompass the global structure (e.g. the cosmos) that also encompasses those local dynamics. -
Is it possible to be morally wrong even if one is convinced to do the right thing?Your prior statement below I called into question as incoherent because your statement implies that a practice we humans use to regulate expressions of human nature, which is sapient constituent of more-than-just-human-nature aka "Nature", does not belong to (or in) "Nature".
Since humans are natural beings and therefore inseparable from nature, applying human morality to ourselves is indistinguishable from applying human morality to nature, and therefore not "unnatural". Maybe, in most instances, to do so is impractical, missplaced, anthropomorphizing, etc; not, however, "unnatural".Trying to apply human morality to nature is unnatural. — god must be atheist
Besides, we cannot help but "apply human morality to nature" insofar as we judge our environments and ecosystems as not worthy of our moral concern, thereby denying any moral culpability for us destroying them and their natural inhabitants with our thermal & chemical pollution, overdevelopment, non-renewable resource extraction, etc. -
Pantheism
Well, since "God" is infinite, the meaning of "life and death" must be infinitesmal, or zero, by comparison. It stands to reason that whether or not one "believes" amounts to the same objective "meaninglessness".I can't give up my belief in God either because it's a concept that gives meaning to life and death. — Michael McMahon -
Is it possible to be morally wrong even if one is convinced to do the right thing?Better than your non-answer ...
180 Proof
Start FollowingSend a Message
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2026 The Philosophy Forum