Interesting analogy of the vector.

What do you mean by "natural"? What distinguishes the natural from the supernatural? Is it the apparently-obvious (but actually vague) notion of "spooky" things?

Do you consider yourself a religious person? — Thorongil

No.

To what religion do you belong? — Thorongil

None.

Buddhism is chill though so I said that.

So you think the way we see emotions as "separate" from their symptoms is more of a social-language thing than an actual ontological thing?

Also:

If you look at the Iliad you'll see that there is much less talk of emotions there. Agamemnon is not a jerk in his own eyes -- "the gods made me do it". Different narrative styles. The wrath of Achilles is more like a force of nature than our modern subjective "I'm really pissed off". — Mariner

It's probably wrong, but the bicameral theory of mind uses the Iliad and the Odyssey and other ancient works of literature as examples of the transition of a split-mind consciousness to a unity consciousness. The fact that Agamemnon says "the gods made me do it" is seen as evidence of the way consciousness actually operated back in the day - where there was a slave and a master psyche. Once these two aspects were joined, people were left wondering what happened to "the gods" who had told them what to do. Lost and confused, they attempted to retrace their steps and connect back with the gods that had abandoned them.

1. Is philosophy as a science having some basic principles or some undeniable truth about the things that it examines? — kris22

No, in philosophy, everything is up for grabs. Schopenhauer talks about this in the beginning of one of his works (I can't remember which, I think it was The World as Will and Representation).

2. Is there a discussion among other people in the methodology of philosophy? — kris22

Absolutely, every great philosopher had their own meta-philosophy. Self-reflexive criticism is the greatest asset of philosophy, because no other discipline can do it.

Kant had the idea that one does not "learn" philosophy, otherwise it would be subjective-historical. When one studies philosophy, they are studying all the previous attempts people had with philosophy. They are learning how to do philosophy by learning how others did it.

3. Are there strict rules in philosophy such as in mathematics, or can anyone create his own philosophy and worldview? — kris22

The rules are, be logical, rational, consistent, creative, honest, determined, etc. Also it helps to be a brilliant genius.

The paradox of hedonism leads me to believe it is better to simply focus on minimizing pain, avoiding harm, and satisfying basic needs and enjoy the pleasurable experiences as they come. Usually what ends up happening is that we are coping with existence more than we are enjoying it. Well actually we're always coping with existence, but enjoyment is when we're cool with it.

Okay

I'm not sure what any meaningful instance of value would be that isn't essentially a conscious judgement, that doesn't equivocate.

But even here, what about the possibility that something might have unconscious psychological value, insofar as it might benefit a person without their recognition of that benefit? — John

If a person does not recognize a benefit, it can only have an instrumental benefit by maintaining things that are recognized as valuable. I don't see how something can be valuable and yet not be consciously appreciated.

For example, fruits, nuts and seeds have nutritional value; but that value must be actualized by being consumed; it need not be recognized in any psychological sense. — John

Of course, but the value comes from the perceived ability for the food to provide nutrition. As soon as you consume it, you begin to forget about it. It is valuable only when recognized, and what is recognized typically is that which is not-be but could-be.

The food may be instrumentally valuable as a means to maintain a healthy lifestyle - but in this case, a healthy lifestyle is what is being projected ahead in the future as potential. I would say that which has the most value is that which is potential, and the actualization afterwards is the sudden burst immediately followed by a process of decline. Think about an orgasm. The build up, the anticipation, is great. The actual orgasm itself feels good, but was not as good as you hoped, and lasts only a few moments. The best positive actualizations are those which take us by surprise, as we were not expecting anything.

Perhaps you are speaking in terms of emotional or psychological value here? Otherwise, I can't see how any potential could have any actual value unless it is actualized. — John

Not actualized, but recognized, by a psychological agent capable of encountering value.

Potentiality is physical, as opposed to merely logical, possibility, then? — John

I would say potentiality is "actual possibility" whereas abstract, imaginary possibility is "hypothetical possibility". But yes, potentiality is "physical" if we are saying that the conditions actually exist for this possibility to become actuality.

I want to say there is some connection to causal dispositions of things that is important here. Something could be potential if there is a disposition that is waiting to "react" as soon as the conditions present themselves.

But I don't think we can really make any sharp distinction between potentiality and non-potential possibility. It seems like anything with potential is logically possible, and from there we just see which ones have a greater likelihood of happening.

I think that's why potentiality is the most valuable thing. It's better than possibility because it actually has a chance of happening, and it's better than actuality because it hasn't started to decay or disappoint. It's pure anticipation.

On a more serious note, I suspect that much of metaphysics is basically just speculation about things that we will never actually be able to know. The most we can do is figure out what probably is not the case in order to triangulate what might be true, i.e. an estimate of the truth.

In my opinion, the hard problem of consciousness is indeed a problem, and one that we will never solve. I do not think we will ever know why there is something rather than nothing, for even if we prove God exists, we are still left wondering why he created what he did. The question of Being is so mysterious and abstract that we have to resort to almost poetic words to articulate it.

So those are examples of things that I think are metaphysically impossible for us to figure out. But there's also things that we will not be able to figure out simply because we lack the means to. We will never have a genealogy of every single organism on earth. We will never find out what the king of England had for lunch before he was assassinated. We will never discover every single possible process or configuration in the world. We just don't have the time, energy or need to. Also nobody really cares either, because actually most of the world is extremely dull and repetitive, and if it's not it's usually only because it's ultimately disturbing.

I will never understand women.

Probably there should be a distinction between potentiality and possibility. Potentiality is a sort of possibility, but one that is "almost immanent", i.e. not just imaginary or purely abstract but literally just waiting for something to make it actual. Potentiality is possibility that is right on the edge of becoming actuality because the conditions are ripe.

(I refuse to work in retail) — Thorongil

Excellent decision.

"I believe God exists because I feel him in my heart".

"I believe God exists because faith in God transcends logic".

"I believe God exists because that belief offers me comfort".

Even pascals wager is an example of a theistic argument from an agnostic perspective. "I believe in God because I'm gambling intellectual integrity on a hypothetical afterlife"... — VagabondSpectre

Are these the sort of arguments you expect to see in philosophy, though?

But again, the gnostic-agnostic thing doesn't even exist in philosophy of religion. It's just stupid.

Right but the point of the OP isn't to figure out what the colloquial terms mean.

But why should philosophy need to cater to those being irrational?

But for our purposes, those who call themselves gnostics in this context are pretty much irrelevant, because philosophy is not about conviction.

Do you think these people are a good representation of actual philosophy of religion?

Who exactly calls themselves a gnostic, apart from those fourteen-year-old wannabe tryhards?

But certainly nobody actually claims that they have absolute knowledge of God's existence. If they do they're a hack.

In terms of being logical and being very certain beyond doubt that trillion of dollars exist, you must have the requirement of first hand experience in seeing it physically. Therefore, you heavily believe trillions of dollars exist because of conformity, yet aren't 100% certain beyond doubt that it exists. — WiseMoron

Then this applies to basically any judgement at all, and agnosticism becomes an annoying baggage term. I'm an "agnostic" about the real external world. I'm an "agnostic" about my car existing. I'm an "agnostic" about how many toes my dog has. I'm "pretty sure" the real external word exists, that my car exists, and that my dog has twenty toes, but of course I'm not absolutely certain.

But since when did absolute certainty become a requirement for belief? Why is it so important? Why can't we just say, you believe God exists = theism, you believe God does not exist = atheism, you lack a belief in God = agnosticism? Making all these extra terms only muddies the water and makes things even more pretentious than they already are.

What's common between both positions is specifically: lacking belief in god. — VagabondSpectre

But asserting that lack of belief in God makes you an atheist is to beg the question. What if I just don't believe in God, one way or another, but neither do I disbelieve in God?

Not believing in God is a necessary but not sufficient condition for atheism.

Yes but it has to to with knowability, not belief. It's an epistemic position about whether something is knowable, not whether it is believed. — VagabondSpectre

In this case, the etymology of agnosticism is not really accurate at all.

A theist who claims their belief in god is based on faith rather than knowledge is a good example of an agnostic theist. — VagabondSpectre

But they nevertheless believe God exists. They may think they cannot "know" if God exists, but clearly they do think they have some reasons to believe God exists.

If you truly do not believe one way or another, then you are an agnostic, plain and simple. Nobody actually goes around denying knowledge of God and yet believing anyway. That's stupid.

Saying "I don't know God exists" but believing anyway is confusing and dishonest. Why would anyone believe anything they didn't think was actually true? And how can someone actually know that they know something? And why should anyone else care how "strongly" you believe in God or whatever? Why don't we just ask them what their reasons for belief are and go from there?

Nobody knows that they know God exists, but that doesn't matter at all. What matters is their belief.

The bad rap of atheism (people insisting it's a claim to knowledge, rather than a lack of belief or disbelief) is what drove people to try and redefine agnosticism in this way. — VagabondSpectre

Disbelief is a claim of knowledge. Any sort of belief is held because it is seen as true, even if one is a fallibilist or whatever.

Agnosticism applies to things outside of the god debate.

Many people are skeptical of human knowledge pertaining to god but they believe in god none the less. — VagabondSpectre

Which makes them theists, not agnostics.

How am I employing it in a bastardized form?

That diagram is basically cancer precisely because it leaves out, or rather bastardizes, agnosticism, or the mere lack of belief. Agnosticism entails not being either an atheist or a theist - it is to have an indeterminate belief. But for some funny reason both sides, especially the atheistic side, demand that everyone pick a side when in reality there are many people, myself included, who have little interest in the debate currently and have no wish to be associated with those who are.

To equate agnosticism with "weak atheism" is to beg the question and ignore the legitimate concerns actual agnostics have against either theism or atheism.

There is absolutely no need for any of these silly "sorting" diagrams, as if it's a political spectrum but for theological issues. You're either a theist, an atheist, or an agnostic, with the particulars happening within these three positions, just like any simple ontological debate. If I do not believe electrons exist, but I don't "know" electrons don't exist (wtf?!), I'm not an "agnostic a-electronist". I'm just an a-electronist. Nobody gives two shits how "strong" your belief is - because the actual strength of your belief is brought up through testing your reasons.

If you ask me "do you believe in God?" I will respond with "tell me what God is and I'll tell you whether I believe in it." I do not believe in the gods of organized religion, but that does not make me an atheist. It just makes me non-religious. That's it, folks. These are not the droids you are looking for. Move along, move along.

Was listening to Portugal. the Man before they were cool...

How do you feel about the species being doomed? — Bitter Crank

I have asked myself this question repeatedly for a very long time.

On one hand, there is a tremendous amount of suffering, naturally and inevitably occurring by life simply being here. And a lot of the suffering humans in particular endure is caused primarily by a moral decay of sorts, where people just don't care about other people (and animals!) and treat them horribly. The history of life is a story of conflict, with the strongest luckiest turning out on top, only to eventually die anyway. It's all very brutish, clunky and disappointing. From this perspective (admittedly nihilistic), I would welcome the end of the human race and life in general.

But from the other hand, there is great beauty in the world, and I have increasingly become more attuned and appreciable of it. I find that denying the beauty in the world is simply an affirmation of it, for I would not need to deny it if it did not exist.

So from an ethical perspective, I think the end of life would be good. From a purely aesthetic perspective, it might be a sad loss.

The best case scenario I can think of is one in which everyone decides to cease reproducing, which would halt worries of overpopulation, resource deprivation, etc, which would largely stop international conflict. With no fear of running out of fuel or food, we could focus all our efforts on artwork and play. The finale of the human race, its apex, would be right before it ends in a furious flurry of free artistic expression. We could leave the Earth painted and with a clear conscience.

No, might does not make right, just as having power does not give one authority.

How about instead of "whatever begins to exist has a cause", "everything that I'm aware of has been brought into being by something else". The only problem with that change of premise (if it's true) is that you can't argue from me being aware of things having a cause of its coming to be, to there being a God. — Purple Pond

I don't see where you're going with this. To exist, at the bare minimum, means to be not-nothing. Demonstrations like the cosmological argument are typically not based in the sort of Humean empiricism you are advocating here, where reality is a disconnected disunity with only contingent repetitions.

If we take your Humean empiricist route, we can ask, why shouldn't what we aren't aware of have a cause? Or, alternatively, we can make our way back in history and find the moments in time which things we were not aware of come into our awareness. And we'll see there were causes for these.

Going all the way back, then, brings us to the hypothesis of God. You can say "this does not prove God exists" but this is basically akin to saying "there is rain, but this doesn't mean clouds exist above me". It's this sort of thing that makes me acknowledge that it's not entirely proven that God exists (just as the "rain" could just be a sprinkler) but I think the evidence favors the existence of some sort of uncaused, prime mover. Without any reason to believe it's a sprinkler, I'm going to believe it's clouds.

I'm kinda addicted to this song.

Stumbled upon a great piece by Susan Haack - "Scientism and its Discontents"

Love, love, love Tame Impala.

So which is more important in ethics; intention or consequences? — Mine

Well, both are necessary for the ascription of responsibility. You can't have one without the other. The intention is the psychological state and the consequences are the content of this psychological state.

So from a consequentialist perspective, the intentions that are directed towards the best possible outcome are those that are preferable.

The question isn't "why ought I to do what I ought to do?". The question is just "why do what I ought to do?" It's a question of motivation. I don't think the existence of some claimed obligation is sufficient. If it could be shown that I was obligated to kill babies, I still wouldn't. — Michael

Are you talking about motivation from an egoistic perspective? As in, what's in it for me? If so,I already said that morality does not require you to want to observe it.

Or are you referring to externalism/internalism schemes of moral motivation?

Anyway, it seems wrong to me to say that last bit about killing babies. Clearly you wouldn't kill babies not just because you don't want to get your hands dirty but because you think it's wrong to kill babies. The methodology of ethics rests largely on appeals to "intuitions" or whatever you want to call them. There isn't going to be some scientific or mathematical proof that killing babies is morally obligatory (nor impermissible). It's going to come from reflection. If you're a realist, then moral facts are exposed through this rational deliberation. If you're an anti-realist, then moral facts are created through this deliberation. At any rate, the discussion (hopefully) leads to a convergence of belief to an equilibrium.

So the fact that you find killing babies wrong is evidence that killing babies is wrong - unless of course you were ignoring good reasons against your view. But I doubt there would ever be a good reason to kill anyone, really.