Great stuff (as usual), jorndoe (Y)

Can you clarify in a way that is intelligible?

Check out Spinoza's Ethics and Joshua Dienstag's Pessimism: Philosophy, Ethic, Spirit

SPQR by Mary Beard
The Silmarillion by Tolkien

It would be the duty of theologians and theists to prove God exists. The objective of the non-theistic scientist in this scenario is to show why any supposedlyscientific evidence (as presented by the apologist) for such a being would be unsound.

I have certainly never heard of corroborative, sound science that evidences God (whatever that may be).

It is true that pain and pleasure are incommensurate, with the former being more potent physiologically and psychologically, all things being equal. than the latter. For a rudimentary introduction (particularly on the psychological aspect), check out Prospect Theory (the graph in particular). From an evolutionary standpoint, it certainly makes sense: an organism feeling pain will react quicker depending on the potency of the pain, and escaping that pain will enable it to survive). An organism feeling pleasure isn't likely to be in any danger, and feeling overwhelming pleasure may in fact distract it from potential dangers, thus its restrained force relative to pain.

Shame the old forum wasted away. Doesn't seem like this one retained the spark of the original.

In no order:

A Short History of Decay by Emil Cioran
The Trouble With Being Born by Emil Cioran
Ethics by Spinoza
Freedom as Development by Amartya Sen
Joyful Cruelty by Clement Rosset
Nihil Unbound by Ray Brassier

Raised Jewish, been an atheist for about 13 years

If the Holy Spirit is present during intercourse, does that mean all acts of sex are threesomes?

Anyway, I've only glanced at the comments in this thread...is anyone participating actually pro-life here? What's interesting to me is that despite accusations that abortion is murder, why isn't childbirth by extension torture? Why would God make it painful? Why does stillbirth occur in 1 out of 160 pregnancies?

I wouldn't include Rick and Morty under the placard of "Horror Philosophy". There are, undoubtedly, similarities, such as the stance that life is meaningless and purposeless, etc., but Rick and Morty takes a comedic approach rather than one of traumatic horror. I think a TV show that better encapsulates Horror Philosophy would be True Detective (at least the first season).

Peeling Potatoes or Grinding Lenses: Spinoza and Young Wittgenstein Converse on Immanence and Its Logic by Aristides Baltas

I dont like modern design, it looks to me like just another post-truth simplification. — ernestm

That's a pretentious way of saying nothing, but whatever floats your boat.

Undoubtedly one of the most poorly argued articles I've seen from Aeon

2002 called and it wants its website design back

Hobbesian, and Lockean Contractarianism, as a conceptual political framework, entails sacrificing individual "natural" rights, because it presumes that human nature, when left to its own devices, would produce chaos. Therefore, a government would be required to mitigate and control these excesses. Implicit to this view, is that government is distinct from human nature.

This distinction between government and human nature was anathema to Spinoza and, later, Diderot and other thinkers of the Republican Democratic persuasion, who, while agreeing with the Contractarianists that it was in humanity's best interest to join together to form a government (albeit a republican one, contra Hobbes), argued that such a socio-political configuration was an extension of human nature, rather than apart from it.

What is correct in schopenhauer's opening analysis, is that, assuming a Contractarianism framework, it would be perfectly acceptable for individuals or minority groups to sacrifice their rights or their "nature" (think LBGTQ, or religious or ethical minorities) in order to maintain a wider group cohesion. This is how Locke is able to argue for intra-toleration between Christian sects only, rather than wider, full toleration that includes Jews, Atheists, and other religious minorities, as Spinoza argued for.

If the world is the totality of perception (i.e. mind-dependent) as opposed to fact (i.e. mind-independent) than the world began, so to speak, at the advent of consciousness, which is absurd.

I would say that the world is the totality of perception — Heister Eggcart

Facts are a knowledge construct, even though they are about the world. But they are not the world, as if facts could exist independent of any minds. — Marchesk

Nonsense solipsism

Ariel just wants to be part of your world

According to neuroscientist and quasi-philosopher, Antonio Damasio, consciousness is self-awareness + awareness of one's environment (i.e. immediate surroundings).

What's wrong with being depressed? — Question

The only thing "wrong" with depression, is that in many of it's forms, it's temporary, ameliorable or curable as is highly evident by numerous (if not most) cases in which it manifests. Otherwise, and ultimatum, what is "right" about depression it is simply the acknowledgement of the "disenchantment of the world". Perhaps this is best expressed by the Hungarian philosopher, László F. Földényi, who argues that there is a dichotomy (but not diremption) between depression, which is medicinal, vs. melancholy, which is an existential weltanschauung

For whatever reason I can't upload the photo, but I am very Left Libertarian

Pathetic fallacy; nature is amoral

The Sixth Extinction by Elizabeth Kolbert
The Second Treatise of Government by John Locke

What Is Populism? by Jan-Werner Muller

Glad you are enjoying it. If you find those subjects intellectually appealing, you might also enjoy Black Mass and Straw Dogs by John N. Gray

I had just turned 20 when I joined the original PF and now I'm nearly 27 :-O

Hey @dclements I joined about two weeks ago for the same reason as yourself.

Therefore, scientifically speaking God must exist by virtue of the multitudinous effects God has on us humans. — TheMadFool

Textbook example of circular reasoning

I've only just started, about 100 pages in. I've read the two previous works in Israel's Enlightenment Trilogy,Radical Enlightenment and Enlightenment Contested, and loved them both, so I have no doubt this will be of similar high standard work.

Democratic Enlightenment: Philosophy, Revolution, and Human Rights 1750-1790 by Jonathon Israel

The argument is highly flawed as it ignores asymmetries of power within such populations whereby the elites may act to preserve and perpetuate "traditions" that are intolerable for other population segments. Unenlightened mentioned Slavery, and I would also mention that Monarchy is older than Republicanism, and Feudalism older than Capitalism.

Is that book any good? I heard you're re-reading it. I was thinking of picking it up. — darthbarracuda

Dienstag's book is excellent. Highly recommend it.

I mentioned Leopardi because I'm currently reading The Philosophy of Disenchantment by Edgar Saltus, and Saltus spends almost an entire chapter talking about Leopardi's life and how he, at least for a while, intentionally isolated himself from everyone else, and thought the only duty one had was to oneself: "be true to oneself". — darthbarracuda

I am not familiar with Status' book, but he is correct that Leopardi was a withdrawn figure. He was also a sickly man, and physically frail, which also heavily contributed to his isolated nature. However, I think there is a noticeable contrast between his views on leading an active life, versus, say Rousseau or Cioran.

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a God. It says nothing about what happens after death.

Better late than never ;)

I liked him when I was first reading philosophy (so about 7 years ago now), and over time my good opinion of him has faded.

I'm not going to get into a detailed debate over it, but the way this forum is laid out reminds me of watching a video on Youtube that was filmed vertically. Given the dimensions of my laptop, the way the commenting is laid out is simply jarring to me. I am not aware of any other forum or website that features a similar design. I was by the way, taught Design, including website Design in College.

Too bad 180 Proof and BusyCuttingCrap didn't stick around. Maybe they will come out of retirement some day.

Personally, I think the layout is very bland, and there is also a lot of unused space. Granted, it does look a lot better on Mobile, but I usually use Desktop when writing on forums. Wouldn't mind user profile pics being bigger either, but all that is just my 2 cents.

I also miss the approval or disapproval ratings.

Also where is 180 Proof?

Though I don't agree with much of your characterization or the usage of non-neutral terms such as "comfortable" or "convenient", what you are discussing reminds me of Joshua Foa Dienstag's thesis in his excellent work, Pessimism: Philosophy, Ethic, Spirit which delineates the common themes and minor divergences between prominent Pessimists from Rousseau to Unamuno. Part of Dienstag's project is how Pessimism can and has been used as a foundation for political action, and while he himself doesn't provide an appellation to either categories, he nevertheless separates the Pessimists into two groups of what may be described as "Active Pessimism" vs. "Inactive Pessimism" in a strictly political sense.

For Dienstag, Active Pessimists include Leopardi, Freud and Camus, while Inactive Pessimists include Rousseau, Schopenhauer, and Cioran. I'm actually surprised that you would group Leopardi with the latter considering that Leopardi writes positively about taking action despite the unhappiness often generated by it. He uses the figure of Christopher Columbus as an exemplar of one who took action despite the risks it involved.

Given the descriptions you provide, I would have to argue that you don't exactly understand the thinking behind Pessimism. For any pessimist, the inaction of a 'Comfortable Pessimist" wouldn't lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy of human suffering because human suffering would be unavoidable regardless of any action taken. Likewise, for the "Active Pessimist", there can be no "prescription to end the problem once and for all", as that assumes a linear ending to history which betrays a foundational pillar of Pessimism. An Active Pessimist may attempt to mitigate or eradicate gratuitous forms of human suffering, but would need to acknowledge that such attempts can fail, or that such problems can always return during or after the lifetime of the Pessimist.

Very good to be seeing you all again!

The old forums layout was more of a standard internet forum layout, so it was simply easier to navigate. This layout is pretty unusual to me.