Comments

  • A way to put existential ethics
    Totality and Infinity, and Anthony Burgess' A Clockwork Orange, which I hadn't made the connection to before but actually is a great story for exploring Totality and Infinity since the main character sort of makes the arc which Levinas is describing in the essay. — Moliere
    :up: Thanks for this! I'd never made this connection either. Taking both off the shelf now ...
  • Rules and Exceptions
    ↪Agent Smith
    A "rule without exception" is, ceteris paribus, equivalent to a tautology (i.e. inapplicable).
  • Deep Songs
    ↪Amity
    Wow!
    I'm sure I have heardn't this song since when it was new on my transistor AM radio at summer camp. :sparkle: :clap:

    Another oldie from that era ...
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/680466
  • Xtrix is interfering with a discussion
    ↪Olivier5
    :100:
  • On beautiful and sublime.
    Starting with the Presocratics, Greek philosophers were very sceptical of mythology. Plato (and probably Socrates) thought the ideal republic ought to curtail the teaching of myths. — Jamal
    :fire:
  • Is the mind divisible?
    ↪Pie
    :up:
    ↪Pie
    :clap:
  • Climate Change and the Next Glacial Period
    ↪Agent Smith
    That's a fair summary. :up:
  • Is the mind divisible?
    ↪Bartricks
    :yawn:
  • Is the mind divisible?
    ↪Bartricks
    :eyes: :sweat: Wtf, kid. Space "does not occupy space" and it's divisible above 1 planck length.
  • Xtrix is interfering with a discussion
    ↪Agent Smith
    Pro tip: We live on the surface of the Earth which is not navigable body in space whereas astronauts live inside a navigable spaceship; ergo, inapt metaphor – Earth is not a "spaceship". :nerd: LLAP.
  • Evidence of conscious existence after death.
    Quick survey. Was Descartes an idiot? — TiredThinker
    Not at all. Dubious assumptions / distinctions simply undermined his conclusions (e.g. substance dualism, pineal gland, machine animals). Algebriac geometry, however, is genius though. :nerd:

    ↪Bartricks
    :razz:
  • The ABC Framework of Personal Change
    ↪praxis
    :ok: Nothing personal, just ... we disagree.
  • Is the mind divisible?
    Mind isn't just one thing, it's more like an umbrella term [ ... ] — jorndoe
    :up:

    Is the mind a single thing, or does it have parts? — TiredThinker
    Neither. IMO, a mind is an embodied, metacognitive process constituted by a system of hierarchically tangled (D. Hofstadter, T. Metzinger) cognitive functions.

    If it has parts, what are they?
    Like a running river, I don't think a mind has discrete "parts".

    Are its parts tied to parts of the brain?
    No. Just as choreographed dance-steps are not "tied to parts of" legs ..., mind(ing) is what a sufficiently complex brain do enacted by its (developmental) environment.
  • The ABC Framework of Personal Change
    ↪praxis
    :roll:

    ↪Xtrix
    :ok:
  • The ABC Framework of Personal Change
    ↪praxis
    Neither do I.
  • Deserving and worthy?
    Desert is not a concept. We have the concept of desert. That does not mean it's a concept. — Bartricks
    This deserves a savage beating! :brow:
  • The Ultimate Question of Metaphysics
    ↪Pie
    :up:
  • The ABC Framework of Personal Change
    If I’m following it right, in Xtrix’s framework A & B are validated by C. If C (practice) is ineffective then something must be amiss in A and/or B. — praxis
    If I understand you right, "the framework" is "validited" by the efficacy of (i.e. feedback from) C, which is external to "the framework", and not C itself. My objection was an internal critique of A (goals-forming/setting). As for "the framework" itself – even a broken clock is correct at least twice a day.
  • Evidence of conscious existence after death.
    ↪sime
    I'm not following you ...
  • Climate change denial
    Nature favors those organisms which leave the environment in better shape for their progeny to survive. (2000)

    I don’t think we’re yet evolved to the point where we’re clever enough to handle as complex a situation as climate change. (2010)     — James Lovelock 1919-2022
  • Evidence of conscious existence after death.
    ↪Bartricks
    3 does not follow from 1 or 2 because both are nonsense (i.e. circular definitions, not valid premises). I guess you're really really not as "smart" as you believe you are, Kid D-k. :lol:

    ↪Bartricks
    More nonsense. :sparkle:
  • Evidence of conscious existence after death.
    If you exist yet your body does not, then you are not your body, yes[/s[? — Bartricks
    I say no one exists without the living body. I may be wrong and you may be right. So refute my contention if you can – make the case:

    (A) How do "you" exist when the living body no longer exists?

    (B) Without a living body distinct from every other living body, what differentiates "you" from not-you?

    Simple enough. Not scared, are you? Also, if you can't make the case and this substance dualism is merely an article of faith (i.e. metaphysical first principle), then just say so. However, if you're as smart as you think you are, Dr. Bartricks, you will make the fucking case. :smile:
  • Climate change denial
    ↪Janus
    :smirk:
  • Evidence of conscious existence after death.
    Because you still exist. Your body no longer contains you. But you still exist. — Bartricks
    How?

    And, without a spatiotemporally discrete body, what differentiates you from not-you?
  • On beautiful and sublime.
    ↪javi2541997
    Yukio Mishima was almost too much for me in my early twenties, I owe his sublime works a rereading – renewed encounter – soon in order to discover how they will affect me now in my late fifties.

    :death: :flower:
  • Evidence of conscious existence after death.
    ↪Bartricks
    I'm obviously not as smart as you, Dr. Bartricks, so tell me: (A) Is it the fear of death that harms one? (B) Is it one's actual death that harms one once one is dead? or (C) Both? Also, in the case of (B), tell me how does one, when dead, experiences being harmed. :razz:

    And by 'deaths' here is meant the discontinuation of our residence in the body. — Bartricks
    What resides in the body? And where else can it reside?
  • On beautiful and sublime.
    I don't see why a pleasure can "terrorizes" me. — javi2541997
    Perhaps traumatizes (i.e. to wound, to disturb, to call-oneself-into-question) is more precise than "terrorizes". Aren't there any e.g. works of art, experiences of nature or erotic encounters, javi, which have irreparably changed some aspect of your life, your self-awareness, in large or small ways? Sublime events, I feel, can leave deep, ecstatic scars.
    For beauty is nothing but the beginning of terror
    which we are barely able to endure, and it amazes us so,
    because it serenely disdains to destroy us.
    Every angel is terrible.     — Duino Elegies
    I suppose I do not agree with Burke or Kant ...

    Perhaps beauty corresponds to pleasure from "unknown knowns" (i.e. what we don't (want to) know we know ~ sex) and sublimity corresponds to pleasure from "unknown unknowns" (i.e. what we don't (want to) know we don't (want to) know ~ death). The latter, of course, is unrepeatable whereas the former seems to deepen through exquisite repetition.
  • Climate change denial
    ↪Tate
    :roll: No fucking way :point:

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/722883
  • Xtrix is interfering with a discussion
    PSA – fyi folks, the last Ice Age ended about 10,000 years ago and the Earth is currently 1/10th of the way through an estimated 100,000 year interglacial cycle that scientists refer to as the Holocene. A few centuries ago the northern hempisphere, specifically pre-industrial Europe had experienced what is now referred to as a "Little Ice Age" when average global temperatures had dropped; this does not mean, however, we are "currently in an Ice Age". In the last 150 years the Earth (mostly the northern hemisphere, due to accelerating, industrial greenhouse gas emissions) has warmed 1°C and continues to rise due to human activity. The average global temperature difference between Ice Ages and interglacials is 6°C and currently we are trending towards 4-6°C above this differential average. It is simply factually incorrect to claim "the Earth is currently in an Ice Age" when, in fact, glaciers and polar sea ice and permafrost everywhere are melting with corresponding methane releases and sea-level rise as well as increasing frequency and intensity of heavy storms / precipitation, flooding, wildfires and droughts.

    :point: Concept of the Day: radiative forcing :fire:

    https://climate.nasa.gov/ :victory: :mask:

    That’s the good thing about science: It’s true whether or not you believe in it. That’s why it works. — Niel deGrasse Tyson
  • Evidence of conscious existence after death.
    ↪Bartricks
    :up: Broken clock.
  • Evidence of conscious existence after death.
    Dunning Kruger. Have you heard of the Dunning Kruger effect? — Bartricks
    You've been my favorate D-Ker for years, dude! :smirk:

    I'm not among the hoi polloi.
    Res ipsa loquitur. QED. Wassup, Doc? :rofl:
  • The ABC Framework of Personal Change
    Having goals based on faulty assumptions or poor value is a big obstacle. — Xtrix
    Thus, insofar as "having goals" requires applying "the ABC framework" to goal-formation itself, this infinite regress – problem of the criterion – tends to invalidate "having goals". Rather, practice aligning one's expectations with reality by reflectively unlearning maladaptive habits (vide Laozi, Buddha, Epicurus, Epictetus, Montaigne, Spinoza, Peirce-Dewey, Wittgenstein, Zapffe-Camus, ... Beck ... Yalom ... Achenbach-Schuster).
  • Evidence of conscious existence after death.
    ... could disembodied consciousness work? — TiredThinker
    Of course not. :roll:

    Most people are very stupid and do not know good evidence from their elbow. — Bartricks
    Tbus spoke the hoi polloi! :eyes: :lol:

    You can't have half a mind, can you?
    Half wits – those who don't know that they don't know – are usually the last to know.

    ... our deaths will be harmful to us.
    Nothing is "harmful" to the dead. Status quo bias harms your "reason", Batshitz, causing these kind of reification fallacies.

    I'm assuming you do believe in nonphysical existence? — TiredThinker
    I guess it depends on what you mean by ""nonphysical" ...
  • Trouble with Impositions
    ↪schopenhauer1
    Oh yeah, riiiiiiiiight, "imposed" on an inexistent person? Look out, Frodo! :rofl:
    ↪180 Proof
  • Who do you want to see as 47th President of the United States?
    ↪Maw
    :cool: (Go Yankees!)
  • Evidence of conscious existence after death.
    The problem with all of the testimonials is the brain wasn't fully dead. — Philosophim
    :100:
  • On beautiful and sublime.
    What is beautiful? Are we missing the basic sense of beauty inside aesthetics? — javi2541997
    This link to an old post is my general treatment of the topics raised here:

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/344963

    Furthermore, how would you describe the sublime?
    A pleasure so extreme it terrorizes as it fascinates.

    Is there a distinction between "beautiful" and "sublime?"
    The latter terrifies and the former seduces.
  • Agnosticism, sensu amplo
    ↪Agent Smith
    Exactly. Bostrom's argument is DOA. :up:
  • Trouble with Impositions
    Since life does not offer a personalized utopia, it is creating major impositions onto someone else, — schopenhauer1
    Like the old Academic Skeptic's canard "since knowledge is never certain, there cannot be knowledge", to wit: if existing is not painless, then existing should not be reproduced (or prolonged). Let the perfect be the enemy of the good, huh? That'll show 'em ... :sweat:
  • The ABC Framework of Personal Change
    [M]y heart sinks to read such stuff. Always more, always strife, always heading for a goal somewhere else, never content, forever becoming what one is not. It is a capitalist psychology par excellence and it is nothing new, but the same outdated paradigm that has brought us to the [edge] of destruction.

    I won't interrupt again, I just wanted to register my personal dissent.     — unenlightened
    Yeah, wtf?! :100: :clap:

    :death: (memento mori)
    :flower: (memento vivere)
Home » 180 Proof