Comments

  • On anxiety.
    Perhaps anxiety is metaphorically similar to creation ex nihilo, but unlike the rectification of nothing, this 'nothing' is primal in us. Anxiety as an artifact of the necessary human experience of separation which a child undergoes as part of its determination of itself as an independent unified self. The feelings of anxiety a child experiences literally from the get-go, which are inaccessible to our conscious memory but perhaps retain unconscious somatic viability/memory, which can re-express them self when there are significant imbalances, stresses in our lives.
  • Thoughts on Epistemology
    ↪Metaphysician Undercover


    "...but you do not agree that this division is a true, or real one."

    This assumes that what is real or true is out there, and I don't agree . Reality is what we make of it, a construction...which is manifest to us which enables our understanding of the world. We don't have any independent access to what is in the great outdoors because it must be thought and we are habituated to think in certain ways based on the social constructions which comprise the context where we find our self.

    I think purpose of ontology is to explain why what appears, appears as it appears, and that what appears is a body, not a soul, but I don't think that this description, in itself is sufficient to explain the vitality of life or human thought. I think the indivisibility of the body/soul must be posited to explain human reality.
  • The Right to not be Offended
    While we can all agree when some one is dead, it is quite different when it comes to whether or not someone was or was not offended, or needed to be offended. I think that unless 'giving offense' can be guided by objective principles its concept is too ambiguous, too relativistic, too liberal to be good or moral.
  • Thoughts on Epistemology
    ↪Metaphysician Undercover
    Regardless, let's consider the proposition I mentioned, "the human being consists of body and soul". This is a statement of what it means to be a human being, and in particular it gives an indication of what a "soul" is. It says that the soul is a part of the human being which is other than the human being's body. Without acceptance and institutionalization of this proposition, the word "soul" has no referent or meaning at all, and it would be nonsense to speak about a soul. The proposition may have been better stated to form a proper rule, but it is clearly constitutive in the sense that it gives an indication of what a soul is, so that we can proceed to speak about a soul. Without such propositions we couldn't reasonably speak about souls because there would be nothing to indicate what a soul is.



    I am not really responding to the thread, but rather to your thought.

    I don't believe there is a separation between body & soul they are not parts of a whole. I agree with social construction of these notions, but on an epistemic level but not as ontically given. I am not sure how it works ontically, however I am of the opinion that matter can assume many states of existence, including that of life.
  • TPF Quote Cabinet
    Let me tell you why you are here. You are
    here because you know ... that there’s something
    wrong with the world. You don’t know what it is,
    but it’s there, like a splinter in your mind, driving
    you mad. It is this feeling that has brought you to
    me. [...] The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is
    our enemy. (Morpheus, in Wachowski and
    Wachowski 1999)
  • #MeToo
    If you have a guys’ place, you have a guys place. I have a hard time letting go of that. Maybe I’m not gonna have a choice.

    If you can’t handle some of the basic stuff that’s become a problem in the workforce today, then you don’t belong in the workforce. Like, you should go maybe teach kindergarten. I think it’s a respectable position.

    Donald Trump Jr. on SiriusXM radio program The Opie & Anthony Show back in 2013.

    The acorn does not fall far from the tree.
  • Follow up to Beautiful Things
    ↪apokrisis

    I don't think so. It is primarily about making ideas manifest. Matter doesn't actually need to be involved.

    Perhaps for conceptual art, but even here it is a stretch. Sure the artist has an idea, but that idea must be made into something, otherwise it is not a work or art.

    Poetry relies on the infinite range of language, finding just the right words. Words their history, their root, their sound, all these and more comprise the matter of poetry.

    So modern art has discovered the pleasures of masochism?

    Nope, art has found that reality, without the glam can beautiful in its own way, even if that way is aesthetically something the observer might rather not view...this is really not new, but the way it is presented is new. Take a look at Francis Bacon's works.

    It's complicated, but not impossible to understand.
    :-O
  • Follow up to Beautiful Things
    ↪apokrisis
    So there is matter without form?

    The creative process consists of taking matter and forming it. I don't agree that this is only about social purpose to art, which is important in that it negatively drives artists to explore the unusual, the new. I think art's history and progress feeds on its own concepts and it moves beyond them, it is stylistically directed by them, to form new conceptions. The reasons why this is so may or may not be related to what is happening in culture. Art's flexibility allows for new mediums which require new kinds of art works and new narratives, but there is still room in the art world for anachronisms re-imagined such as Picasso's Guernica which is is a history painting, or the ability of some classical works to reach across the generations and still aesthetically move us such as a Grecian vase or statue.

    I don't disagree that pleasure is associated with the aesthetic effect, Kant takes that up in his Third Critique. He thought that what is beautiful is pleasurable, but what I think what the art world is finding is that reality can rendered beautiful, regardless of whether or not it is pleasurable, that the aesthetic effect can also be painful.
  • Follow up to Beautiful Things
    ↪apokrisis


    You can see something physical at the heart of aesthetic judgements
    yes, matter, the constituents of pigments, words, notes, et al.

    natural properties like symmetry, balance, and economy of effort. So there are objective properties that appeal.

    These are properties of form, not matter.

    I agree that surprise has a lot to do with it, but we still have a very Platonic/Greek, the classical conception of beauty. This classical conception is changing. The history of art in the 20th Century suggests that artists were reassessing what it meant to be beautiful. The surprising works of Du Champ, Kandinsky, Picasso, Pollock and others have begun to change that conception. The problem with the classical conception of beauty (I think) lies is its connection to a conception of the divine which became prevalent during the Renaissance and has remained so.

    Look at Lucian Freud's works. Many of his works are hyper-realistic. It was not unusual for him to spend 1500 hours on a portrait. They are not beautiful in any classical sense, but they are beautiful. He managed to use hyper-realism to transcend what is simply realistic. The beauty and the truth of his work startles you, its aesthetic affect as it transcends our normal sense of what is real.

    Or look a Pollock's splatter paintings...matter is here overtly presented with the artist allowing form to arise from the juncture of the pigments on the surface of the canvas, and not by any thought of fractals or symmetry. Kandinsky takes subjective feelings and presents them corporeally. Even Picasso's who changed styles multiple times, can hardly be said to have followed a classical notion of beauty for many of his works.

    I think similar notions hold true in music, such as the a-tonality of Schoenberg, the sounds & lack of sounds of John Cage and others.
  • Thoughts on Epistemology
    ↪Banno
    Maybe we are misunderstanding, I agree that all we can say is that the cat is on the chair, because it is manifest. I thought you mean't that this 'is' the case, as if it could somehow be beyond what we sense.
  • Thoughts on Epistemology
    ↪Banno


    The phenomenology of the 'cat is on the chair' presupposes that we can say the cat is on the chair, but not that the cat is ontically on the chair, since we could be wrong.
  • Thoughts on Epistemology
    ↪Banno




    I agree to some extent with the article you referenced, as I stated to MU,

    I think suggests that your perception that thought it is going on in your head is part of the multi-sensory unity of your body has created, and your mind's dependence on that unity for its sense of self ownership.

    but then let me quote your question.

    So what is, is what can be said?


    If there is truth it can only be said of what is manifest, which is reality as we know it, and is not located in the brain, or in objects outside ourselves. The epistemic move, I think has to be aside from any ontological assertion, at least in regards to the reality, that which is manifest.
  • #MeToo
    Halsey's poem is powerful testament

  • Thoughts on Epistemology
    ↪Metaphysician Undercover


    I think, and it seems like my thinking is going on in my head

    Look at the rubber glove illusion, which, I think suggests that your perception that thought it is going on in your head is part of the multi-sensory unity of your body has created, and your mind's dependence on that unity for its sense of self ownership. If so then you as a multi-sensory being who's locus is your body, your body in this limited sense thinks.
  • Thoughts on Epistemology
    ↪Banno
    We can say why the stick looks bent in a glass of water, or why gravity affects us the way it does, we can truthfully explain why things appear the way they appear.
  • Thoughts on Epistemology
    Thoughts on Epistemology

    Assuming we all confront the same world, then reality is all we can say about what is manifest in it. If so then epistemology's locus of truth then lies in the manifest and not in judgments about a reality behind it. We observe the world and presume conditions that make its manifestations possible which is the work of epistemology.
  • The Right to not be Offended
    ↪Bitter Crank


    I got the impression that the purpose of this new Canadian law is to try to formalize transsexual's rights in legal terms of labor, housing, and other areas where bias is possible and that it was not the intent of the law to ban or control informal speech (as I get it).
  • Trump and "shithole countries"
    ↪Thorongil


    Listened to part of his broadcast. Got to the part about Obama saying Libya is a "Shit Show" which he said after Qaddafi's death in regards to acceleration of violence in that country. Obama didn't characterize Libya or any other country as a "shit hole" as Trump is alleged to have said, also Obama's words were widely reported and quoted. There wasn't an uproar because what Obama said described the situation.
  • The Right to not be Offended
    ↪Roke
    The Right to not be Offended

    I think everyone has the right to say "no", and typically the force of that statement ought to be respected.
  • Follow up to Beautiful Things
    Socrates by all reports was an ugly man. Alcibiades described him as a little bearded man, (a sileni ...drunken old man with the legs and ears of a horse). He also compared Socrates'speech to the ill fated musical satyr Marsyas, whose beautiful musical notes got him killed.

    The ugly is the necessary precondition for the possibility of the beautiful. Whether by nature or man, base materials (ugly as such) are formed by chance or purpose into something we experience as beautiful.
  • The Illusion of Freedom
    ↪VagabondSpectre


    Both are social constructions, which are not constituted in nature, only made real by the existence of society who believes in their reality, same goes for cash.
  • The Illusion of Freedom
    Free Will is an illusion in the same way a field goal is an illusion.
  • To what extent are a people allowed to violently protest in the face of injustice?
    ↪rickyk95
    where do you draw the line between legitimate protesting and immoral violence?

    I think there must be a relationship between the violence that is experienced in unjust rule and the violence used against such a system, in an effort to resist it, to rectify it. The greater the injustice, the less responsive the ruling force is to the needs of people, thereby creating unbearable lives for its citizenry, the greater the response by its citizens must be. This is not a warrant for gratuitous violence, but it recognizes that one ought not have to suffer such violence without struggling against it with whatever tools are available.

    In the USA:
    The Civil Rights Bill of 1964 is inseparable from the threat of riots. The housing bill of 1968—the most proactive civil-rights legislation on the books—is a direct response to the riots that swept American cities after King was killed. Violence, lingering on the outside, often backed nonviolence during the civil-rights movement. "We could go into meetings and say, 'Well, either deal with us or you will have Malcolm X coming into here,'" said SNCC organizer Gloria Richardson. "They would get just hysterical. The police chief would say, 'Oh no!'"
    Ta-Nehisi Coates
  • What is the use of free will?
    ↪apokrisis


    In summary, folk want one or other extreme to be true - absolute determinism or absolute freedom. But as you outline, a sensible position depends on zeroing in on the tricky border where both sides seem to be saying something believable. And zoom right in and the very distinction itself evaporates.

    Perhaps absolute determinism primarily refers to the concrete world we experience and free will to the social reality we experience. Depending on which way you look $50 dollars can mean a little or a lot.
  • What is the use of free will?
    dc1608071.jpg
  • What is the use of free will?
    ↪Pierre-Normand


    If I recall correctly, Aristotle was writing to and for a class of gentleman in Athens society, if so, then his position is not unexpected, and I think Kant's moral works were framed more towards the general public (poor people) of his time. I think their thoughts need to have modern interpretation.
  • Is Calling A Trans Woman A Man (Or Vice Versa) A Form Of Violence?
    ↪Bitter Crank


    At what point do you start calling a man a woman, if you know they are going through a change of gender. From the get go, or do you wait until the change is manifest, or perhaps just ask them what they prefer to be called. My friends name is Dana which makes this a little easier, I tend to avoid referential pronouns at this point with Dana.
  • Trump and "shithole countries"
    ↪charleton


    I don't think he believes he is a racist.

    There is a type of racism that does not believe it is racist. People who are not overtly racist in their dealings with others (perhaps this is why they think they are not racist), but who in their private conversations with other like minded, are blatantly and disparagingly racist. Go to most any local service club and listen to their private conversations. Many of these organizations have bake sales for the poor, gather turkeys to distribute or have Christmas Trees sales and so forth and I think they mean to do good, but in private with others of their ilk, they shed their pretense and enjoy their bigoted sense of superiority. Archie is not gone, he is just no longer blatant in public, he's on the down low.

    If that makes any sense.

    Florida has approximately 425,000 people of Haitian origin in its population, more than twice that of any other state. The few Haitians I have spoken to are very upset with the Trump's characterization of Haiti.
  • Is pleasure always a selfish act
    ↪CousinVinnie
    if one does an act that brings pleasure to another individual or group of individuals and that very act also brings immense pleasure to the individual performing the act, is the act selfless or selfish?

    I think it is the ends or the goals of our actions which determine whether or not they are selfless or selfish, and not the intensity of pleasure or lack thereof that determines an action's goodness or badness.
  • Trump and "shithole countries"
    Trump: "I am not a racist"
    Nixon: "I am not a crook"

    Two shitheads.
  • Can God defy logic?
    ↪JustSomeGuy


    Reading William James.

    I was just trying to get you to understand that perfection needs qualifiers
    I guess we will have to disagree here, I don't think that perfection can be qualified or limited in any manner.

    ps. good night.
  • Can God defy logic?
    ↪JustSomeGuy


    Actually I don't disagree, I have recently thought that some sort of plural pantheism might be close to the case.

    However, I took this discussion to be more of an epistemological discussion about the nature of god, as the absolute, as a subjective concept. Your sphere participates in god's perfection, as Plato would have it.
  • Can God defy logic?
    ↪JustSomeGuy


    Well tell me what do you think god is?
  • Can God defy logic?
    ↪JustSomeGuy


    The question makes no sense.

    Perfection is a state of being, it is not for anything except itself.
  • Can God defy logic?
    ↪JustSomeGuy
    Again, as I said (and you agreed) "flaws" or "defects" are also subjective. What is all of this in reference to? Perfection and flaws only make sense in context or comparison.

    Perfection is only understood in regard to what is not perfect.
  • Can God defy logic?
    Noun:the condition, state, or quality of being free or as free as possible from all flaws or defects.
  • Can God defy logic?
    Depends on how you define god...as I stated...
    If god is perfect
  • Can God defy logic?
    ↪jorndoe


    What? Does that mean?
  • Can God defy logic?
    ↪JustSomeGuy


    All concepts are subjective.
  • Can God defy logic?
    ↪bahman
    I was wondering whether there is an argument in favor or against this statement: "God can defy logic".

    This issue raised up in another thread. I was questioning whether 1+1=3 is possible.

    If by 'God' you mean a perfect being, then no I don't think so. If god is perfect he can have no flaw and not being logical is a flaw. If perfection is the essence of god's being then god cannot defy logic, because he can't defy his essence, which is always in perfect balance.

    1+1=3, I heard a joke like that once. A business man was interviewing for a new accountant. He asked each person he interviewed 'what does 2+ 2 =?' and they all said 4 , then late in the afternoon when he asked the question to one of his prospects , the prospect went over to the window and pulled the blind down, turned and asked the business man "what do you want 2 + 2 to equal?" He got the job.
Home » Cavacava