I believe I have a location and I don't separate me from my body.

Nope

Yep

Objective/subjective has an ontological component (in fact I'd say it's only ontological). It's about where something occurs. Does it occur in minds (which I'd say are brains functioning in particular ways), or does it occur external to minds?

I don't think we separate ourselves from the world, until we become aware of our self. It is only upon attainment of self consciousness that a child begins to separate itself from the world, the child's experiences becomes mediated as its unity of apprehension (the ego) forms . The ego which is capable of taking the world and itself as something aside from itself, as an object, and in doing this the child loses its immediate connection, and its intimacy with its experiences is lost. So no, I don't think there is an ontological locational component in the subject/object relationship. We are entities in a world, and we make this shit up.

I think "brains functioning in particular ways" is an impoverished concept. n.b., I am not saying it's wrong, it's just not up to the task in my opinion.

"God", is this type of higher consciousness that we are able to connect with not through "looking out into the world" but looking "up into the present". God transcends the physical reality and so if you try looking out into the world for it, you won't find it. It could be the case that we have built within our psyche this "God Gene" of sorts, sort of like the Freudian "ID", that motivates us to search for a higher presence, but I actually feel the presence because I'm "in it" and it seems so real that I can't honestly say that something isn't there.

God is a "type of higher consciousness" that we "connect" with by "looking 'up into the present', and this experience is not communicable, "but it's a collective sentience that brings everything together"

The experience of the present is not communicable, but when we speak with each other, we occasionally 'stay in the moment' we share an experience, which we take each in our own way. If God is a higher consciousness, one that we connect with by thinking about what is neither past nor future, then perhaps God dwells in us, but I've not gotten that far.

"but it's a collective sentience that brings everything together" I like the collectivity notion, perhaps this and the possibility that the experience of God is not communicable is why religions have rituals, so the faithful can share their motions as a way of sharing their experience of the ineffable.

I just looked under those names. Here is graph:


This info is also shown geographically:

Plato, Kant, Descartes, Aristotle, in that order were the top Google searches worldwide over the last 5 years. Plato appeared to be significantly more sought after versus the others

Realism, Phenomenology, Idealism, Analytic Philosophy. The term 'Realism' was significantly more sought than any of the others....Phenomenology and Idealism basical the same results and Analytic Philosophy trailing.

I think speculative realism is popular in academia and most of these philosopher trace their roots back to Hume.

"Value judgments" usually denotes good/bad, right/wrong, worthwhile/waste-of-time, beautiful/ugly etc. etc. -type judgments, not true or false.

So are you saying that truth/falsity are not judgements but statements of fact (or not), that their content does not contain any value claims. If someone tells me it is raining and I say it is not raining we are claiming mutually exclusive facts. Don't we normally ask who's right and who's wrong, which amounts to the same thing as asking which statement is true and which is false, in asking this aren't we asking how we are to value these statements.

How about truth/falsity. If something is true isn't that a value judgement, is it objective or subjective? Don't truths about the world like scientific truths, claim a natural/intrinsic objectivity, an objectivity that does not depend on our existence. Human truth/falsity is about us as living beings collectively or singly, shouldn't we ask if they also can be categorized as objective or subjective? So then objective human truths are not possible, in the same sense as truth/falsity claimed regarding the world. I suppose that human truths involve what must apply to man qua man, that this type of truth/falsity involves universality, which is as objective as human truths can get, that universality is not the same as objectivity in humans.

Equal gender rights, the right to practice religion freely, speak freely...et al may have universal validity, but many cultures curtail these rights, and the relativist might say that each of these rights are only applicable relative to each specific culture. But I think it can be held that these rights are universal for man, and that their truth or falsity must be supported, not culturally/relativistically but rather universally as part of what it means to be able to flourish as a human in the world.

I think the real miracle is that the universe appears to be uniform, causally based, I don't accept that there is any necessity behind this, it is just the way it is. If something is 'miraculous' it would not conform to reality as we understand it and it is doubtful we could be conscious of it.

Is there any difference between "transcending the ethical" and "being unethical'?

Point of view. The person who transcends the ethical out of love or force of will, is unethical by definition but I don't think that translates into their having to act unethically. It means that they don't feel themselves bound by normative oughts, or perhaps the guilt for behaviors that we normatively might feel guilty about don't affect them in the same way.

Why are you asking about the Ubermensch though?

They seem very much alike, both leap and in doing so transcend the ethical same as Abe and perhaps Gauguin

Can the Knight of Faith fall in love with anyone besides god?
Can the Ubermensch love anyone except her/himself?

Philosophy is at least about arguments.

Yes, and I don't agree that philosophic arguments about god are about God. I think these arguments conflate the search for the absolute/universal/god, with a search for God.

Is rationality all there is?
I ask because despite its being so fervently touted as the sparkling jewel of philosophy there's so many ''issues'' that have not yielded the desired results

I think part of your answer lies in "desired results"

Rationality is a tool that we can use to plan, to decide a course of action. At its thinnest rationality is what is true or false. Desire/emotions gives rationality purpose, an inner dimensionality, desire and reason are inexorably enmeshed in our imagination. Reason without desire goes nowhere, desire moves reason in action.

Is there more than reason and desire...I think community makes us more than reason/desire. The narratives we tell ourselves, that we create, our history...art that drives us beyond the instrumental.

So then what kind of belief do you hold, is it the perfect being god, a personal god. or? and why?

I am agnostic, what type of atheist are you?

Hi! What counts as a choice? Are our preferences chosen by us? If they are, based on what do we choose our preferences? If they are not, are the things we choose -based on our preferences- chosen?

Isn't choice primarily about the future (repetition is about the past), what we anticipate will happen when we act in a certain manner. We negate the present transforming it into the future as it were a completed action (as past). The force of that negation is the willing ego.

In addition to the city of NY liking Fearless Girl, she generated according to Bloomberg's estimates $7.4 million in free public relations for State Street Bank.

The foundry that cast Fearless Girl is very well known

I, unfortunately have not had an opportunity to visit the 'confrontation' and I think it is very difficult to judge any work of art online. However, I know that some members here live, work in NYC, and I wonder if any of them have gone over to take a look it and could respond? It would be nice to know; it is getting to that point where a trip to NYC (my hometown) is a must for me over the next couple of years. That part of NYC is great place to visit, along with the Staten Island Ferry, the Fulton Fish Market, Chinatown, Little Italy and SOHO...

The artist holds copyright on bull, I think he spent around $300,000 of his own funds making it and I read he was trying to sell his rights to it.

Poseidon/Neptune was virtually banned from Facebook earlier this year.

Facebook blocked a photo of a 16th-century statue of Neptune that stands in Bologna’s Piazza del Nettuno for being “sexually explicit” and revealing the human anatomy “to an excessive degree.”

They apologized latter. He still struts his stuff around virtually, upsetting modern tech's literal streak.

So is dog pissing on femininity, capitalism, perhaps it was just peeing on corporate femininity, or is it just codswallop. It was made of paper mache or something like that and It's was removed by the artist several hours after placement.

Most people apparently did not like the dog, unlike the girl, which the city liked well enough to give license to stay where it's at at least until February next year.

It was codswallop.

No clue really, unless the image was still tied to my computer in some way. I recently reset its defaults settings, and I have been resetting my regular internet connections for the last several days.

Tks, hope Kevin stays around this time.

Well, I mean that any conception of 'the future' is dependent on some concept of the past by an individual. So, to answer my own question, so it would seem, that to have a concept about the future, some point of reference is necessary.

Do you agree that there are two concepts of future:

1) The future that entails making that dentist appointment, being somewhere at some later point in time, the future as being part of the flow of time.
2) Chronological future, the history of events, I think future here is more anticipatory, one event does not cause the next , rather they are just ordered in a certain manner.

Think about how these respective points of view must vary. The POV of being in the flow is the ego, no ego, immediacy and no flow. The POV of chronology is scientific, god like, transcendent.

My question, Question is whether or not a synthesis of these two POVs is possible or not, what would that entail. Can something to be experienced imminently and transcendently at the same time. Maybe the effect of a work of art where the universal particular lives, in which the observer adopts the POV of the work.

Since you bring up reason and passions... Say that our reason and our passions are inherent to our design, and in that way, determined. Yet we have the ability to deliberate between them and choose our preferred. Does this undermine self-determination/free choice? In other words, we have the choice between n options, but the options presented to us are externally determined.

Passions cause reason to bust a move, and yes they can be externally determined, but the will occupies our internal (reflexive) point of view (ego), which self determines itself based on history, circumstances and what reason and passions tell it.

Aristotle's concept of choice (liberum arbitrium) is the mediation between reason and the passions.

It was Christianity, specifically Paul who discovered 'free will' as a faculty wherein I struggle with myself. In Romans he says "I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate" (7:15) The emphasis on God's laws changes from the blind obedience of Thou shalt, to the love of God' and his laws in freely willing of their fulfillment, and one's own guilt when his laws are nilled.

Ok, but if the universe is truly infinite, then all sorts of weird shit is possible and we apparently we don't know if it is finite or infinite.

https://phys.org/news/2015-03-universe-finite-infinite.html

The person with the larger kitty can afford to sit in and play more hands than the person with smaller kitty, which means they will have more opportunities to have a good playing hand. The person who plays does not always have to bet, they can fold, sit and wait for a high margin hand, and then they can challenge whomever is playing, in fact many do not bet unless they are the dealer, because they want to bet in the last position where they can see what others have bet.

It is a rare game where the person who wins the first pot ends up winning the entire game, probably because most bettors are more prudent. They set limits on their bets and will not risk betting a major portion of their holdings, unless certain other conditions are met, such as holding a full house, four of a kind are similar strong hands with no apparent other contenders in sight.

You can have the biggest kitty on the table, but if you keep getting dealt [7,2] or similar under, you will not have the biggest position for long.

If something can exist, then it must exist.

I wonder if the universe were infinite, then wouldn't what is actually possible have to become actual at some point?

The cards are the cards, you are just as likely to get a good hand and you can still go all-in.

I'm not sure if anyone noticed, but, is it possible for the future to have a meaning regardless of (time) age?

Not sure. Do you mean that most people have a bias towards the future, which fits in well with our culture's sense of progress? But, not everyone.

I like the Blue Oyster Cult. Time is one of the ways we intuit what we experience, and at that level, it, is the ego's point of view that counts, without an ego there is no disco. They do seem to interpenetrate each other, so yea they slip through each other, but time as intuition goes nowhere.

The Sound and the Fury

When the shadow of the sash appeared on the curtains it was between seven and eight o' clock and then I was in time again,hearing the watch. It was Grandfather's and when Father gave it to me he said I give you the mausoleum of all hope and desire; it's rather excruciatingly apt that you will use it to gain the reducto absurdum of all human experience which can fit your individual needs no better than it fitted his or his father's. I give it to you not that you may remember time, but that you might forget it now and then for a moment and not spend all your breath trying to conquer it. Because no battle is ever won he said. They are not even fought. The field only reveals to man his own folly and despair, and victory is an illusion of philosophers and fools.

Fine, but do you agree that what is chronological, depends on, is derivative from, our POV in the flow of time?

Sure the past occurred before present chronologically but my point of view is in the present, in the flow of time, and from that POV what has occurred I call the past, what is yet to occur I call the future.

Isn't ..."Any time after the present", the past"?

I think Keats was suggesting that if what we find mysterious, beautiful, enchanting in the world, is an illusion (the Lamia), one which Science sees through, that in doing so, Science loses the world's apparent mystery, beauty and enchantment. He is also suggesting that not seeing through this illusion can be deadly, as in the poem her spouse's 'true' vision of Lamia as she is came too late and at the end she kills him at their wedding feast. The paradox between sense & reason is the rub, which I think prevails in the poem.