I've been away for a time.

By way of explaining how we differ, I wonder if you can elaborate on how you think the capacities of our mind you've referred to in our past exchanges came to be if not through our interaction with the rest 9f the world?

I think ambiguity and misconceptions arise when ordinary language is misused in philosophy, myself.

In fact, I think we agree on several things discussed here. But I'm uncomfortable with your terminology in some cases, and concerned about what I think are inferences which I believe are unsubstantiated.

OK. But I think when we claim each of us create or construct the world, and cats and bunnies do so as well, the world tends to multiply.

For the record, I don't assume there's a world "external" to me. I'm part of the world, like everything else. I'm not sure what you mean by an "internal world." It wouldn't be surprising if you assume there's one though. It seems you think worlds abound. You have a rococo conception of reality, or realities.

But regardless, I think you define and use "intend" and other words in ways I think are so beyond ordinary use I don't think further discussion would benefit either of us.

So, each of us cause the world to exist? I suppose it would be more accurate to say that each of us causes a world to exist, though, as each of us has a mind, each mind therefore causing its own world.

I don't think anyone claims we physically cause the world to exist, building it as bees build a hive and birds build a nest, but perhaps I'm wrong,
as Wayfarer seems to think we (I don't distinguish between myself and my mind) construct the world, or each of us causes a world of our own.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I've been under the impression that the characteristics or capacities of our minds under discussion are those that operate or obtain regardless of any intent on our part to use them. For example, to the extent my mind is involved in seeing or hearing, I normally don't will myself to see or hear. I just see or hear. Sometimes I look for something, or try to hear what someone is saying, and in those cases I may be said to intend to see or hear though I think it would sound odd, but I hear and see things without intending to do so merely by being alive. I can't help but do so.

I interact with the rest of the world and experience it merely by being a living human being, but I don't think it's correct to say that I intend to do that when I don't. Similarly, I don't think it's correct to say that I create something merely by being alive.

I think you're overfond of using words implying that intent is present (e.g. "create" "enact") without any reason to do so. You need not respond.

And "universe" is derived from the Latin "universum" meaning the entirety of existing things, which would include the world.

Sorry. My response appears above. The world I create is lopsided.

Isn't it true then we're merely more sophisticated creatures than others we know of, as much products of and part of the world as they are? And if that's the case, isn't talk of our "creating" the world just hyperbole or metaphor?

I'm not sure what you mean by "empirical additions" but the capacities you refer to are, I'd suggest, the result of evolution--as you seemed to acknowledge in an earlier thread--and so are as much a result of our interaction with the rest of the world as are our thumbs (the evolution of which it seems played a role in the development of our intelligence).

So I'd say our capacities, like our thumbs, are the products of experience. They're derived from it. Which wouId suggest that the world created the mind instead of the mind creating the world, if we want to use such language. But I don't think we should treat them as separate in that sense.

Thank you. But I don't see how the fact we possess intelligence indicates that our minds "bring" the form or concept of a triangle, or anything else for that matter, to experience. It merely indicates that we (minds and all) are able to interact with the rest of the world in a way other organisms cannot.

Thanks also for the reference to Maritain. I'm not a fan of Catholic apologists, though.

I confess I don't understand the point of the exegesis on triangulation. I'm uncertain just what an imperfect triangle might be. My guess, however, is that it isn't a triangle. In which case a "perfect" triangle is, simply, a triangle. It should be unsurprising that when we think about a triangle, we think about a triangle. It's difficult to ascribe much significance to this fact. But it seems some do and I wonder why.

We know how "triangle" is defined. We've seen triangles. I'm reasonably certain I didn't know what a triangle was until I saw one and was told it was called a triangle. On what basis, then, do we maintain that a triangle is a form or concept our minds "bring" to experience (assuming for the sake of argument our minds are separate from experience)?

I was happy you referred to "MAGA conservatism." I thought that might indicate you distinguish it from Conservatism, which once championed individual rights and limited government. But then you disappointed me, and stopped using the "MAGA" qualifier.

The grotesque rogues gallery that is the regime now in power in our Great Republic (it resembled a republic, once) is intent on empowering the federal government and restricting individual liberty. MAGA, it seems, consists of its bewildered and besotted followers. If that's Conservatism, it's mutated considerably.

Well, you mentioned white people and certain northern Europe countries, you know, so I thought you were going there. As for Italy, which one? Most regions have their own dialect, and hate those others who don't speak it. Most of my ancestors come from around Potenza. I don't know if a Genoese would let me in the door.

Those swarthy, southern Europeans aren't quite white enough, are they?

Which particular non-or-un-Americans/Europeans are the targets of your ire? Who are they who sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids?

I'm uncertain whether any thread so entirely devoted to claimed non-legal rights is an appropriate place to respond to your posts. That's because it should come as no surprise that such supposed rights have no place in what I think is moral conduct.

I favor a kind of virtue ethics, together with consideration of what conduct is appropriate to achieve eudamonia. It's based on ancient views concerning what is right conduct on our part rather than demands we be treated in certain ways by others. Hope that suffices for now.

Ah, but I do believe in a rational moral structure apart from the law. I don't make the all too common mistake of equating one with the other, though.

You seem to want me to declare whether I believe rights I don't think exist ("human rights") include certain rights which, if they are "human rights," I would likewise believe don't exist. That's an odd request. I'm not sure how to respond.

To the extent I can understand the OP in its enumeration of various so-called "rights," those said to be claimed by transgenders involve drivers licenses and other documents, use of bathrooms, use of certain clothing, and medical treatment aligned with gender identity.

Unless some legal right applies, I don't think that I have a right to use a bathroom I prefer. I don't think I have a right to be identfied in a particular way in any license or other document. I don't think I have a right to dress as I please, for any reason. I don't think I have a right to medical treatment of any kind.

Unless a legal right right applies, I don't think anyone has such rights. I don't care whether they're called "human rights" or anything else.

And as you may have noted, my observation was that your concern over this "cultural phenomenon" is hackneyed.

I think "human rights" as referred to in this thread are largely a creation of the Enlightenment. I don't view them as being significant in law or morality before the late Renaissance.

Regardless, if natural law as conceived of by the ancients is considered the basis for morality I don't believe it provides for a morality based on entitlements. Instead, it provides that we have obligations towards one another. For example, the Roman jurist Ulpian considered a slave to have a status contrary to nature. That's not to say that an enslaved person has a right to be free; it means it's unnatural for a person to be a save. According to natural law, we're obliged to act in certain ways, not others.

Good Heavens!

Breaking Bad ended 12 years ago. Will we be learning that someone is appalled by The Sopranos next (it ended in 2007)?

The anti-hero has been a fixture in "modern cinema" for decades. A fixture in literature far longer. It's difficult to take such "what's wrong with people these days?" complaints seriously.

Only that if there is an answer, it will be determined by science (physicists probably, or cosmologists).

There doesn't have to be a reason. Nor does the question have to be considered.

I don't know what "insuperable immersion in being" means. But as I said, I think the only meaningful question is "why does the universe exist?" No purported inquiry into "nothing" is needed to address that question.

My disappointment doesn't apply to you personally. I find us disappointing, in this case, for considering this question as if it can be answered through philosophy.

I agree with those who've noted "nothing" isn't an option. So the actual question would seem to be--Why does the universe exist?

This seems to me to be a question which science may answer someday, if the question addresses how the universe came to be. But I don't think philosophers will no matter how hard they think about it.

There are moments when I find "something" disappointing, I'll admit. This is one of them.

Gosh. You sure seem disappointed to me. Extensively so, in fact. Or is indignant a better word? Regardless, quod scripsi, scripsi.

Speaking for myself, being bullied and told I should die wouldn't convince me I don't exist.

But in that case "you" don't and can't know what "you" were. All you know is that "you" weren't what "you" are now.

Why call it " you" in that case?

I'm merely trying to explore what you were before you became human. I don't know what "commonplace matter" may be. I suppose you may have been "just" commonplace matter up to the time you became human. But over the billions of years you lived you may have been an animal, or perhaps commonplace matter that was part of an animal.

I assume you were born, and had a mother and father, or were commonplace matter which was a part of either or both. If not, did God or something else intervene and make you human?

Probably not, I would say. But if not, wouldn't you have been your mother and/or your father, or a part of them? And before that their ancestors down through the ages (who may have included non humans)?

It seems you may well have been a mammoth, then. Or that you may have a very peculiar way of defining what you are.

So you have existed for billions of years. We're you ever a mammoth? What was it like?

Well, I think you'll find my thoughts, such as they are, disappointing.

As for the title of this thread, I'm leery of the use of the word "created" (or other variations of "create"). I think it's too often associated with a conscious choice or act. I have the same concerns when it's claimed that we, or our minds, "create" the world. We don't. We're organisms having certain characteristics that are part of an environment. We don't make the world of which we're a part.

So I don't think it's appropriate to speak of the cosmos creating mind if it's intended to suggest the cosmos somehow intentionally made mind, or us for that matter. I know of no evidence supporting those claims. Nor do we have any evidence that something transcendent (outside of the universe) did so.

Given the information we have, I think the best evidence suggests mind arose as a result of substances or processes that are part of or take place in the universe. If that's the case, I have no idea how that worked. We seem to have a lot yet to learn about the universe, so maybe we'll know someday. Now we can only speculate.

For my part, I think that until such time as it's established we can know anything beyond the universe of which we're a part, we shouldn't claim to know of the existence or characteristics of any being or souce outside of it.

Perhaps that's a theological statement, though.

It seems to me that the issue which first must be addressed is whether theology is appropriately a subject of discussion in this forum. Sadly, there have been many threads devoted to the question whether God exists (a question which I wish would never be raised). So, perhaps that question, at least, may be considered here, much to my regret.

Christianity has a history of having recourse to philosophy in a relentless effort (which I think has been unsuccesful) to justify or at least provide something resembling a rationale for some of the bizarre beliefs and questions which arise due to its convoluted, confusing narrative--three persons-in-one deity, which includes God's Son, who is nonetheless begotten not made, one in being with the Father, born of a virgin, both God and man, who was cruelly killed for our salvation, descended into Hell, then resurrected, etc. So I think Christian theology is peculiarly suspect as philosophy. So much to explain!

But maybe some issues are allowed. I don't know.

I would call it an awkward relationship. Christianity's debt to pagan philosophy is enormous, but Christian philosophy, such as it is, is necessarily a kind of special pleading. All inquiry has a pre-established end.

Well, that's one way to insert the Bible into a philosophy forum. But I wonder at it, as the Bible warns us of philosophy's evils more than once. For example:

"See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ."
Colossians 2:8, Bible, Standard Revised Version, Catholic Edition.

Thanks for the information.

Many thanks.