John Locke is an empiricist, Leibniz is a rationalist. — Dharmi

Let's try to avoid simplistic labels. These terms were not used by the aforementioned men themselves, are not very well defined, and do little except help philosophy undergraduates pass multiple-choice exams.

Locke was as much a "rationalist" as any reasonable person is, because he's not an imbecile. Ditto with Leibniz. It's just not so simple. It's like saying Augustine was a Catholic and Pascal was a Protestant. Does that tell us much of anything? Not really.

Of course both Locke and Leibniz believe in a natural endowment, what today we'd call "genetics," and of course both believed in the importance of the environment on human development. A lot is made out of phrases like "tabula rasa," etc., but again -- usually taken from philosophy 101 survey classes where they assign a few pages, plunk down a few labels, and move along to the next "famous philosopher."

These dichotomies are almost always useless for all but the most superficial understanding: nature/nurture, mind/body, subject/object, internal/external, rationalist/empiricist, etc. etc. Avoid them like the plague, I say.



I find Locke's political ideas to be highly interesting and still relevant today. Have you managed to read Two Treatises on Government?

Why do you bother with this imbecile? Let the thread die and just let him talk into the online ether.

A once booming thread. NOS4 has managed to put everyone to sleep. Well done.

I understand where you're coming from. My reply before was kind of pompous sounding. You sound sympathetic to mysterianism. — RogueAI

Not sure. I think if we can one day formulate a technical notion of "consciousness," then perhaps we can explain it. Right now it's obviously too hard -- but who knows what comes of it. I'm open to it. Clearly the brain has something to do with consciousness, for example -- I'd be crazy to deny that. And I think that's where a lot of mistakes are made -- with thought and language, too: it's as if because we currently don't understand something the only alternative is that we have to become mystics, and resort to magic. But that's not the alternative to our lack of scientific understanding in the realms of economics or politics or sociology or even the weather. We can make some progress here and there, but overall they're just too complex to currently grasp. It's not classical mechanics -- and even there it's only simple principles and processes that allow us to generalize.

My basic position is that before this project gets off the ground, before the question gets asked, we're already in troublesome waters. That shouldn't necessarily stop us from trying to answer, of course. But from my perspective it seems like a dead end.

The reason I don't think this is a language problem is that "mind" while hard to define for someone else is easy to define for one's self- we all know what our own mind is, even if we can't put into words just what it is. So, for any person who can think, they're going to realize it's impossible they can be mindless. — RogueAI

Of course. But like you said, "mind" doesn't necessarily refer to consciousness or awareness, which (in my opinion only) are slightly better terms for what you're talking about, also called "subjective experience," etc. If "mind" is taken as reason, or a kind of "soul," or the brain, or Descartes' res cogitans, then a different set of issues may arise. But let's just take your definition: here we are. It's impossible to really "deny" that, however we want to speak about it. All of this is as true as day, and I'm not so naive as to make the presumptuous claim that Descartes or later thinkers are "wrong."

My only gripes would be (a) whether or not "mind" in this sense describes the entirety of human being and (b) if not, whether "mind" (and consciousness generally) is primary. At first these gripes sound ridiculous, I admit. But again, this isn't to say they're wrong and it isn't to doubt conscious experience or existence.

They're also going to ask themselves how a bunch of non-conscious stuff can combine a certain way with some electricity and produce conscious awareness. I don't see a language problem anywhere there. — RogueAI

Maybe it isn't -- maybe it's more conceptual. Because in this case, although it seems obvious that there are non-conscious entities in the world (rocks and planets and trees and molecules, etc), I don't see a way around the fact that whatever these non-conscious objects are (or any objects whatsoever), they are objects for me, the conscious subject, and so conditioned in part by how I perceive them. (Obviously this is Kant, Descartes, Berkley, etc. etc.) And since that's the case, to fully grasp how this "outside" world of (material?) stuff evolved into my consciousness is perhaps impossible to understand fully. As hard as understanding the big bang, in any case. Whatever story we tell, with mathematics, precise terminology, and evidence, is still just thinking. I'm not convinced that materialism or "naturalism" or physicalism are ever going to get us to any satisfactory answer; I think they're off-track in this sense.

For two reasons. First, these issues are so complex and so poorly understood that it's next to impossible to currently study. But secondly, science too is based on a perspective and thus an interpretation of the world -- an ontology. I do think it's the most successful and most powerful ontology we have to date, -- but like anything else, it has its scope and limits.

So again, maybe your question can be answered -- or maybe there are unjustified, tacit assumptions in there that makes it a dead end. Since we really don't know what consciousness is (in the sense of an explanatory theory), and any scientific notion of "material" (or "body") was abandoned in the 17th century, it's hard to even imagine a right answer to the question of how material, non-conscious stuff assembled into what you and I are (if we say that's a mind or a consciousness).

Seems nit-picky and like entering a rabbit hole, yes. But again, I mean this strictly in a sense of theory, not in an everyday, common sense respect. In the latter, yes of course we have minds, of course we're conscious, of course there are material objects "out there" that I interact with, and so forth.

But first, what do you mean by "means"? I don't care to go down this rabbit hole. — RogueAI

But if you want to get anywhere, you really should. Same as in the sciences. When we talk about mind, or body, or tree, or anything else in everyday life, of course I know what you mean. I have a good sense of what most people mean by God, too, But this is a philosophy forum, in which you ask a question about materialism and oppose it to the mental. The answer is simple enough: your question is meaningless. Not simply because mind hasn’t been explained, but because there hasn’t been a scientific notion of material for centuries, since the destruction of the mechanical philosophy and notions of contact action.

True, you can go on debating if you’d like. But we can debate the weight of ectoplasm as well. What’s more of a rabbit hole?

Regardless— only my opinion. You’re welcome to continue.

They are just words as well, yes. But I’m not claiming they’re beyond question. As I went on to explain.

Before we decide if we’re mindless, tell us what mind means. Otherwise it’s like discussing God. Are you Godless?

I know -- funny because it's true. I wonder what Spinoza would say? :lol: Perhaps you should go study him.

Yet still incoherent. :lol: Can't expect miracles!

Right -- stick with Spinoza. Doing so has clearly benefited you. :yawn:

Good -- so next time spare me your incoherent blathering. I have no interest in it. Go read more Spinoza.

"Mind"? "Body"? "Subject/Object"? "Physical"? ... Will you please study Spinoza — 180 Proof

"Will"? "You"? "Please"? "Study"? (Excellent argument, yes?)

Your obsession with Spinoza is your own. Putting quotation marks over those words explains exactly nothing -- especially considering that you've not demonstrated that you've understood anything I said. If you want to explain, do so. Otherwise I'm really not interested in your recommendations -- you've not earned being taken seriously.

PS -- for others who haven't settled upon their philosopher-guru: Spinoza is still operating on the basis of Greek ontology, and was influenced by Descartes. This appears in his references to "substance," of which he discusses at length. Even ideas of "nature" date back to Greek ontology. So while Spinoza may be worthwhile in many other ways, referencing him has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Might as well recommend Sinclair Lewis.

the existence of mind and ideas can't be doubted. — RogueAI

Sure it can. "Mind" and "ideas" are just words. Why not simply start where Descartes does, with conscious awareness?

But here again we're back to dualism, a subject/object distinction (or "mind/body"), which may be fine when reflecting on the world abstractly, but which doesn't tell the entire story.

Also, we cannot say whether or not materialism has a problem until someone explains what "material" means. Or "physical," for that matter. No explanation has been given for hundreds of years. There was one, and it was destroyed by Newton. There hasn't been one since. So the so-called problems of mind vs. body is essentially meaningless, because dividing the world up dualistically is derivative and because no one can tell us what "body" means.

The entire tradiitonal emphasis on truth (as correctness, as certainty) and knowledge in which you pose this question is itself questionable, and worth studying historically. You go back to Descartes, and the beginning of modern science, and the picture becomes clearer. Most of the questions just fade away. If you go back to the origins of Western thought even prior to Descartes, in the ancient Greeks, even more insights get revealed. For example, that this entire Western tradition has inherited the ontology of Plato and Aristotle.

I find this way of asking as being the product of the educational system, particularly in colleges and universities. Philosophy majors and their teachers aren't themselves philosophers at all. What they're studying is the history of what someone has deemed "philosophy," and so it gets relegated to an academic department.

The "linguistic turn" is basically meaningless. It's a historical construct. Ditto "existentialism," "continental philosophy," "analytic philosophy," and so on. No one really agrees on what these terms mean, and we shouldn't get hung up on them any more than "postmodern" or "post-World War II."

Thinking is what's called for these days -- and that doesn't end. What we need is a different kind of thinking, which is defined by the questions being asked. The questions being asked these days should be in response to our current place in time, our historical situation. To ask "what next?" is a good question, but it could have been asked in any period in history, even during what's now labeled the "linguistic turn."

Only we can determine how history talks about our lifetimes.

The chess.com ratings aren’t very accurate, but I hover around 2000. I have no idea if I’d be considered a candidate master in actual scoring and was never formally taught. I’ve never felt I was exceptional at it.

I don’t tutor in chess, no.

Real philosophy like contemplation of the forms is also like this. — Nikolas

:rofl:

Yeah, and an excellent job you’re doing with that. Keep up the very important “work”.

Good thing you're here to enlighten everyone with your insufferable pseudo-intellectual nonsense. Keep talking in circles, by all means. Just do it without me (or anyone else, apparently). This thread isn't worth giving any more attention to -- and neither are you.

:yawn:

:yawn:

I believe that one identical thought is to be found—expressed very precisely and with only slight differences of modality—in. . .Pythagoras, Plato, and the Greek Stoics. . .in the Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita; in the Chinese Taoist writings and. . .Buddhism. . .in the dogmas of the Christian faith and in the writings of the greatest Christian mystics. . .I believe that this thought is the truth, and that it today requires a modern and Western form of expression. That is to say, it should be expressed through the only approximately good thing we can call our own, namely science. This is all the less difficult because it is itself the origin of science. Simone Weil….Simone Pétrement, Simone Weil: A Life, Random House, 1976, p. 488

"To restore to science as a whole, for mathematics as well as psychology and sociology, the sense of its origin and veritable destiny as a bridge leading toward God---not by diminishing, but by increasing precision in demonstration, verification and supposition---that would indeed be a task worth accomplishing." Simone Weil

Is this just wishful thinking? — Nikolas

No way to tell, until someone explains what this "identical thought" is. Personally, I find Heidegger to be more compelling in this vein. What's thought is "being," which gets interpreted in various ways throughout history, with varying consequences for culture through history.

If this is what is meant, fine. But I don't see what the big deal is. Seems to me like a truism. Heidegger gets into exactly why its important, but he goes through a mountain of historical and linguistic evidence. It's not just assertion and re-arranging or re-defining of words.

I'll skip the rest.

Honestly, though, you sound like someone very similar who was posting gibberish on here not long ago. I see you have only 61 posts, so I wouldn't be surprised if you were the same person. That same level of unresponsive numbness is evident. If you want to rattle on with definitions while capitalizing various words, you're welcome to.

But don't expect to be taken too seriously.

Happy to play anyone, on chess.com or anywhere else. I prefer shorter games -- 3-10 minutes. I play slightly below master level.

Human psychology interests you. You want to understand the human condition as it exists in the world and why you are as you are and can believe any old thing. This is basic inductive reason and supports the Socratic axiom "Know Thyself." — Nikolas

It's not basic inductive reasoning, it's basic curiosity and thinking. If you want to impose order on this type of phenomenon, and call it inductive or deductive logic, that's fine -- but that's already one step removed from what happens, and is itself more thinking, with words and concepts and categories. For the record, I have nothing against logic. But if you study the origin and history of logic, you'll find that it's not equivalent to "thinking," which is far more basic a concept.

Also, "know thyself" is not an axiom and not from Socrates. It was an inscription at the Temple of Apollo, in Delphi. (Which, by the way, I highly recommend visiting.)

But what of those others who are driven to know the purpose of our universe and humanity within it? It requires beginning with our source. Can understanding leading to meaning be built on it? If they are all nuts then the pursuit of philosophy defined as a being in search of meaning is really just futile since life is meaningless — Nikolas

"Requires beginning with our source." What is "our source"? Why does there even have to be a source? Sounds like the cosmological argument, and rather stale.

I consider Plotinus' conception of the ONE as our source beyond time and space and Nous as its first expression within creation or within the isness of ONE — Nikolas

The "source" or what? Anything "beyond" space and time is simply nothing. We can't know it, see it, or really even talk about it, because doing so is referring to "something" (cf. Parmenides).

It's fun to try to sort it all out -- but always remember: this is just thinking. It's just words, concepts, classifications. You may want to try to organize it all into some system, because it gives you a sense of satisfaction or certainty or understanding -- and that may be important and useful. But there's a thousand ways to do that. You've fallen into what most armchair "philosophers" also fall into: organizing the world by way of definitions. So you, some guy on an internet forum, now feels he's discovered some truth that's been debated for millennia, and that's fine. But it gets us nowhere.

We're not interested in simply defining things. If you want to make something a technical notion, then explain what it means and how it fits into a larger theoretical structure, gives evidence and examples, show why it's an improvement on other theories, etc. But here we simply have baseless assertions.

Citing Plotinus doesn't help much. Sounds to me like simply another way of interpreting the world, this time using the word "one." Later on, that very man was a major influence of early Christian thinkers as well. Not a far leap from the "one" to "God."

Interpretation normal for the visible realm we experience through our senses are not the forms. The forms are universal ideals. A perfect circle would still be a universal idea even if Man on earth were destroyed by a meteor. — Nikolas

The Forms are indeed universal prototypes. Whether they go on without human beings is a separate issue. The concept and word "circle" and "perfect" are both very much human constructs. Given that only humans have language, if humans were destroyed then there would be no language, and therefore no way to express anything like "perfect circle." Does that mean it doesn't exist? Maybe numbers and words go on without human beings too, who knows? Who cares?

Protagoras said that "Man is the measure of all things." From this point of view Man creates the ideas which manifest as the Source and are studied by inductive bottom up reason. But if Man becomes extinct, does this mean our universe falls apart into meaningless chaos? Deductive reason begins with the ONE or Plato's good and involves vertically to create our universe. — Nikolas

Logic itself, inductive or deductive, has a long history and is itself a human construction. You seem to be hung up on it, take it as an absolute, and want to privilege it. This is very common in Western philosophy, but in my view is a huge waste of time. If you want to reduce things to some "oneness" or "source" or "God" or anything else, fine -- that's been done many times before. What's more interesting for me is the psychology which leads people to interpret things this way, or even has a desire to.

You're not going to settle upon some ultimate truth just by re-arranging and re-organizing words. Nor are you going to get anywhere with mere assertions, free of any citations of the texts of which you refer (in this case, Plato's).

Also, to say deductive reason "creates" our universe is so ridiculous it's barely worth discussing. You might as well write a New Age book. Perhaps re-think your entire notion of "creation" or causality.

Where do forms come from if not perennial apriori ideas? — Nikolas

What do you mean by "come from"? Where does that idea come from?

The Forms (or Ideas) arise in the human being, and are described by the human being. It's like asking "where does language come from" or "where does abstraction come from"? Where do numbers and words "come from"? They arise in the human being, often called the "mind" or "reason," and there's little else to say about it. If you want to make up a story about their arising from some supernatural or mystical realm, or "nothingness," or anything else -- fine. But it's not interesting.

The discussion of forms requires deductive reason. It begins with the first manifestation by our source not limited by time and space into creation itself: ideas (something from nothing) sometimes called the body of God. — Nikolas

You're already way off track. Ideas aren't "something from nothing." This has to be clearly justified and explained. Ideas, or forms, are generalities/classes/prototypes. When discussing "tree" or "dog," the Form refers to the "what-ness" of that entity. What makes it a stick, a dog, a tree. These are the forms. What's the problem, exactly? What's your question? We classify and generalize and conceptualize things all the time.

The rest is just verbiage. Bring it back to earth, quote Plato himself, give examples, etc. Otherwise this isn't interesting.

In trying to understand Plato's forms, it is wise to consult what Plato said about them. Anything less is not a discussion about Plato's forms. — tim wood

Exactly.

mainly conservative media
— Xtrix

I disagree. It's lefty media who are outraged by him. See Cathy Newman. — counterpunch

This is predictable. Try to get beyond this thinking of "left" and "right." That's reducing things to the level of sports teams.

The right are programmed to be outraged by things like gender pronouns, unisex bathrooms, and whatever else is played up by their media. The same boring narratives: liberals are against free speech, especially in universities, political correctness is destroying the country, etc. That's just as much manufactured as the left. Jordan Peterson sees these manufactured controversies, and rather than analyzing them rationally, decides to exploit it to sell books and garner attention. Which clearly works, given that you and others are forcing it upon the rest of us, as if he's serious enough to be worthwhile. I'm not wasting another word on this man.

Peterson came to public attention because he refused to use politically correct gender pronouns; and I think that is key to understanding who he is, and why he's so popular. — counterpunch

Exactly. He's great at exploiting "outrage" manufactured by the media (mainly conservative media, in this case: Fox News, Breitbart, NY Post, talk radio, etc). Gives the right an "intellectual," like other talking-heads but with the distinction of being professorial, more nuanced (by his followers' standards), and with the extra credit of being from the very fields which those of a conservative political persuasion have come to largely dismiss or reject: academia and science (in this case, psychology).

Pretty easy to figure out, if one takes 30 seconds to step outside their media-created prejudices.

:rofl:

Or maybe you're just a right-wing nut job? Hmm...

Jordan Peterson is a pseudo-intellectual and a waste of time. Look no further than the fact that he sells millions of books and garners lots of attention. Basic charlatanism. Why people choose Peterson as "their guy" is beyond me, but to each his own.

This article sums it all up rather nicely: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve

If you want to appear very profound and convince people to take you seriously, but have nothing of value to say, there is a tried and tested method. First, take some extremely obvious platitude or truism. Make sure it actually does contain some insight, though it can be rather vague. Something like “if you’re too conciliatory, you will sometimes get taken advantage of” or “many moral values are similar across human societies.” Then, try to restate your platitude using as many words as possible, as unintelligibly as possible, while never repeating yourself exactly. Use highly technical language drawn from many different academic disciplines, so that no one person will ever have adequate training to fully evaluate your work. Construct elaborate theories with many parts. Draw diagrams. Use italics liberally to indicate that you are using words in a highly specific and idiosyncratic sense. Never say anything too specific, and if you do, qualify it heavily so that you can always insist you meant the opposite. Then evangelize: speak as confidently as possible, as if you are sharing God’s own truth. Accept no criticisms: insist that any skeptic has either misinterpreted you or has actually already admitted that you are correct. Talk as much as possible and listen as little as possible. Follow these steps, and your success will be assured. (It does help if you are male and Caucasian.) —

Or here:

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/a-messiah-cum-surrogate-dad-for-gormless-dimwits-on-jordan-b-petersons-12-rules-for-life/

A Messiah-cum-Surrogate-Dad for Gormless Dimwits: On Jordan B. Peterson’s “12 Rules for Life”

:yawn:

I wonder who this could be? Another person recently banned, no doubt. My advice: don’t bother engaging. Let them talk to themselves.

Let’s first define “thing”. To reformulate: why are there beings at so instead of nothing? Leibniz asked this question as well.

The best analysis I have found is Heidegger’s introduction to metaphysics.

“Whereon is every answer to the question of beings based? That is, wherein does the unconcealment of being originate?

To say it with an example: the Greek interpret being as “presence” of the present. “Presence” indicates time.”

It has nothing to do with Trump.

Health mandates are left to the states for a reason. — NOS4A2

Let me be as unambiguous as I can: I look at you with utter contempt. Your "opinions" are completely worthless. You made your choice a long time ago.

Thus, having you come out strongly against something furthers my confidence that it's the right move. For example, I was on the fence about a national mandate -- now I know it's the correct move. So thank you.

Terrible move. America’s downfall is occurring at a frightening pace. — NOS4A2

lol. What a shocker that the guy up Trump's ass would say this.

Not a bad start. Ezra Klein had a decent article today in the NY Times about the Democrats. If they want to win, they should enact legislation that effects peoples lives directly. Unlike the early days of the Obama administration, they should be much bolder. In order to do that, they'd have to destroy the filibuster -- and that probably won't happen, mainly because of Joe Manchin. So we'll have to see what they can do through reconciliation.

If they haven't learned anything, and lay down, then there's no chance for this country or for their chances in 2022.

If it was a choice there would be no punishment for refusing to do it. A better phrase might be “collective coercion”. — NOS4A2

Right out of Ayn Rand.

You wouldn’t have wealth we see in the US without a strong nanny state. So I agree— we should get rid of it. I don’t want my tax dollars going to massive corporate subsidies.

But “charity” is the real problem, of course. Forget the 700 billion a year on defense contracts— Those damn welfare queens are the true problem.

What a sick, perverted, warped worldview. Again I repeat: you can’t die off quickly enough.

It's preferable if you cite your source: https://philarchive.org/rec/SOFAPC

If you're not the author of this, that's plagiarism.

is contrary to the constitution
— NOS4A2

You just saying so does not make it so. — Tobias

Trump supporters live in Opposite Land. Shamelessly. So if Trump is impeached for violating the constitution, YOU’RE violating the constitution. If Trump says something racist, and you call him such, YOU’RE a racist. Etc. And of course “both sides” deserve equal consideration.

It’s as predictable as it is childish. Pure tribalism.

One of the House freshman (Green) has already drawn up impeachment papers for Biden. I suppose NOS and other deluded Trump cultists will say this is perfectly constitutional.

If we were to leave it up to them, nothing will happen until we’re all dead. No consequences for Trump, no action needed on climate change, no need for police reform, no such thing as racism, etc. All that’s relevant is giving away as much as possible to the plutocracy. Cut their taxes, get rid of any regulation, privatize everything — all while screaming about “small government.” Capitalistic nihilism at its finest.

Again I repeat: these people can’t die off quickly enough. I just hope they don’t bring the entire human species down with them, which is their goal.

It sets a dangerous precedent to impeach a politician—or anyone—for advocating the peaceful exercising of their constitutional rights. — NOS4A2

Yeah, definitely peaceful. Except for the sacking of the Capitol, which Trump incited.

Go gaslight somewhere else.

Defending Trump is now akin to defending OJ. His supporters are still looking for the “real inciters.”

Remember where all this started: demonstrably untrue claims about voter fraud and a stolen election. That rhetoric alone should be impeachable.

How long before all these “soulful” corporations reneg on their pledge not to fund republican election objectors?

:lol: