That may well be true, but doesn't apply to my case, since I wasn't getting heated. I was merely pointing out what I thought was an inconsistency with actuality in what you were saying. I hadn't realized you were talking about others with authority stipulating the boundaries of the current linguistic paradigm (or, more accurately imagining that they are).

Shall we test you by placing you on a desert island, alone? — baker

If I am on a desert island I may be frightened; concerned about being able to survive. If there is plenty of food, I doubt I will be bored, but I may well be lonely, which is a different matter altogether. If you posit that lack of people around you produces boredom rather than loneliness then it would seem that you see other people as commodities, providing nothing more than distraction and/ or entertainment, or in other words, diversion. It's a bit sad.

Do we understand one another? — Garrett Travers

OK, seems I misunderstood you.

Joe, it seems that you have not come to realize that one persons profound experience and realization, no matter how profound and real it might seem to them, can never be evidence to justify another's belief. If you want to convince others who are given to critical thinking of your standpoint or theory then you need to provide convincing argument of either the logical, phenomenological or empirical variety.

Or else create poetry or some form of art work which so powerfully evokes your realization that it might have a chance to bring about the kind of experience and realization you claim to have enjoyed. So you need to convince by either argument or by becoming a prophet, a revelator.

But you should remember that perhaps there are not many these days who have the ears and eyes or disposition to be moved by revelation, or even to recognize its existence.

It isn't rational within the context of our current linguistic paradigm. — Garrett Travers

Linguistic paradigms are ever-changing; they are not determinate objects. Even if they were not constantly evolving, who could be qualified to establish the supposed boundaries of a linguistic paradigm?

All I can say is that if boredom lies at the root of your existence then your existence lacks a certain serenity and creative sensibility. You would be better served by trying to find that in yourself than navel gazing at your apparently chronic, self-obsessed dissatisfaction.

I agree, my astute friend. I agree. And I hope Epicurus, and the the dicoveries of that tradition do find a way to come in and lead us. I fear that such is our only hope as a society moving forward. Great chat, bud. Think about that Dirigisme thing for me, if you would. It's important, if you follow the trail. — Garrett Travers

It seems we are pretty much in agreement, Garrett, on the most pressing issues at least. I haven't heard of the "Dirigisme thing" before, but I'll certainly look into it, suffering from chronic curiosity syndrome as I do.

His discussion of capitalism is not explicit, but implicit in his critique of technology and the understanding of nature as a "standing reserve", as I interpret it.

I don't imagine that rationality, fair-mindedness, social justice and commonsense will necessarily win out (they may or may not), but I doubt that Epicurus will have much to do with whether they do or do not. In any case what is important is that they should win out, whatever enables that; otherwise our civilization won't be long on the planet I would hazard to guess.

So, yes, you're sure to be influenced by him, with almost no way of denying it. — Garrett Travers

What I've said is that the idea of liberating women (and slaves and the oppressed in general) does not come from him, and would have been around without him; he was just one of its proponents. The idea is natural to rational fair-mindedness which, if not common, has nonetheless been kicking around, I have no doubt, through the ages. Anyway it's the rationality, the fair-mindedness and social justice that matter, not who its first, or for that matter any of, its proponents were. The ideas stand on their own, in my view.

And I'm afraid I'm also different from you in that I view capitalism as a disease, and this was one of the points that your much beloved Nazi philosopher also propounded (although of course, he wasn't the first).

So, I don't know where this common sense analysis was coming from in you. — Garrett Travers

It's coming from the thought that even though rationality is uncommon, natural human diversity suggests that it is plausible to think it exists and has existed throughout history, even among those who have or had never heard of Epicurus, much less been influenced by his philosophy.

Epicurus does not have the monopoly on, and is not the sole source of, rationality AKA commonsense. So I remain convinced that it is an overblown claim that the movements for liberation of women finds their origin in Epicurus, even if he may have been the first proponent of it known to us.

Rubbish...the inclusion of women in "important affairs" is largely on account of women's movements. The US has been well behind some other countries in this regard. To try to refract all of this complex social struggle for the equality of women, something so fundamental to human life, through the Epicurean lens is nothing more than an example of confirmation bias towards a pet theory which you hold up like a zealot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women's_suffrage

As I said it is commonsense to include women in all affairs simply because there is no rational reason not to, and a rational sense of justice demands it. But rationality has been, and remains, uncommon.

Being inclusive of women in important affairs is a concept stolen from the epicureans, — Garrett Travers

That it is"stolen" from Epicurus is an overblown claim. Being inclusive of women in important affairs is (not so common) commonsense and social justice.

Cheers. Enjoy.

Can God, according to you, create something infinitely greater than himself?

I don't think seeing it that way is a matter of cultural context, but of phenomenological clarity; of getting our categories straight.

That said I would change "scientifically demonstrable" to 'empirically demonstrable'. The other point is that there is nothing wrong with having faith; we all do it one way or the other, since the scientific worldview as a metaphysical position is itself not empirically demonstrable, however plausible it might seem.

And logic actually tells us nothing about what is really the case it just tells us what form things must be in in order to be the case. I would also add in there "phenomenologically demonstrable". since even though phenomenological truths are not strictly empirically verifiable, they are I think obvious to anyone with an open mind who is willing to reflect on the ways in which we experience.

I agree that such intuition as a sign of truth is an imaginable possibility. Whether or not we place our faith in such intuitions as revelatory is just that...faith, though. I also acknowledge that if such intuitions are powerful enough they may well dispel all doubt for the intuiter. But then that is a personal matter... "between oneself and God", as the saying goes..and those kinds of intuitions, however profound they may seem, cannot be expected to possess, or ever gain, inter-subjective currency. That is my considered view on it, anyway, for what it's worth.

But when you say this:

We are part of the world of course. But it doesn't seem that the world depends on us, on our perceiving it, in order to exist. Of course to exist in the form in which we (uniquely) perceive, it does depend on us, but even there we also depend on it, or at least that seems most plausible. — Janus


you're speaking from the natural attitude. It's the taken-for-grantedness of the separate reality of the world which we generally start from. — Wayfarer

No, it's not correct to say that I'm speaking from the natural attitude. If you think I am then you are misunderstanding what I'm saying. I don't say that the world doesn't depend on us; I say that it seems, according to our experience, that the world doesn't depend on us. And then I make the distinction between the world considered as it is "in itself", and the world as it is known by us, the latter of which, insofar as it is represented by our ideas, obviously does depend on us, by definition.

But then we can further question what "depends on us" really means. Do we create ourselves? Do we "depend (only) on us" in the final analysis? If it were so, then we should automatically understand everything about us, and the world of our experience that depends on us.

If we and our experience do not depend exclusively on us, then there must be "something" which sustains our being and experience and that does not depend on us or our experience at all. The salient question is as to what that something is. I say that since it is outside our realm of experience and control it is unknowable; which means that if we want to commit to some view about it, that view will be based on faith, not reason or observation.

Personally, I don’t think objects with infinite properties are even possible. Given that an object is the sum of its parts describable by properties, then an object of infinite parts is immediately impossible because the sum of them is impossible. It follows that knowledge of impossible objects is itself impossible. But then....how do we know the objects we experience don’t have properties we can’t describe? And, if we don’t know how many of those there may be, we don’t know there aren’t an infinite series of them. — Mww

This reminds me of Spinoza, who understood God/Nature as being one substance possessing infinite attributes of which only two "extensa" and "cogitans" are accessible to us. Since encountering the idea, I always wondered whether "inifinite attributes" should be interpreted as " infinitely many attributes" or "attributes which are infinite", that is, attrbutes which are not finite or in other words, not determinable.

Leave it to a human, to wish to know everything, and then come up with something, all by himself, he can’t know anything about. Sometimes I think we got away from throwing rocks at each other, by sheer accident. — Mww

Haha. Yes, what's the alternative? God did it, I guess.

Platitudes won't get you there, unfortunately. Perhaps educate yourself further. This might help orient your thinking (it's free to download):

https://archive.org/details/johndeweymartinh00blac

His insights on Hitler and National Socialism are indeed very interesting, and very clearly stated. There's no need to decipher what he wrote about them, I must admit. — Ciceronianus

A small and relatively insignificant corner of his philosophy. If you find that part the most interesting, then by all means read that, and refrain from troubling yourself about the other 99% which remains incomprehensible to you, or perhaps inaccessible on account of your poisoned feelings..

Heidegger presents many interesting insights, but of course they won't be interesting if you are not interested. What could be more obvious than that? If you are not interested in the kinds of things he has to say, then why trouble yourself thinking about him at all?

They can asses whether a particular person has come to a certain attainment or not. — baker

They can assess behavior according to some criteria, but they cannot know the other's experience and hence cannot know that the other (even granting that the other could know themselves) that they are enlightened.

In any case, people can be morally superior without believing, thinking or "knowing" anything about being enlightened, so superior moral behavior is not going to tell you anything about whether someone is enlightened. People who are believed to be enlightened can also be morally inferior; think about the notorious "bad behavior" of supposed gurus and enlightened ones.

Anyway if you can't come up with anything more than assertions I'm over this conversation, Baker. You are not providing arguments, much less convincing ones, you are just saying "no it isn't" to my "yes it is" and "yes it is", to my "no, it isn't", we are not getting anywhere and it's becoming boring, so let's leave it there, eh?

No, that's _you_ don't know whether God exists. Doesn't mean everyone else is the same as you. — baker

How could anyone know that God exists (as opposed to feeling or believing deeply that he does)? Do you know that God exists? If not then how do you know that others know, or even could know, that God exists? If you want to claim that you or others know, or could know God, then it is on you to explain how that could be possible.

Remember, knowledge is generally defined as being capable of demonstration to others. Even if it were possible to "know" that God exists (in the sense of being absolutely convinced of it) how could the "knower" demonstrate her knowledge to others?

Apart from that there, are simply no claims made by the major Western religions that it is possible to know God; it is acknowledged to be a matter of faith in view of human limitation. To claim that God can be known is considered to be a gnostic heresy. And the Eastern conceptions of God are totally different such that it is thought that knowing the essence of the self just is to know God.

In any case, when I tell you I don't believe it is possible to know God and why I think that, I am telling you my opinion; you don't have to agree, you can go on believing that you know God or that others do, or that it is possible that others do; or whatever, so all this talk of me imposing my opinion is childish and tantrum-like; I am not imposing anything on you, I'm just telling you what I think and why.

It means that it wasn't created, didn't come into existence at some time and place. I'm not saying I believe that, but it is undeniably a logical possibility.

a PhD in philosophy. :lol: — ZzzoneiroCosm

Seriously... ?

Also he wants to make sure everyone knows he has — ZzzoneiroCosm

Know? Or think?

Or a sentence?

Yes, I do agree that thoughts exist as processes of thinking.

Oh well. lucky you for being so young, then.

Yeah, you may be right. I've had a bit of to and fro with Bartricks, and he is an odd one with a very weird conception of reason and what it entitles one to claim.

Charming, Hugh. — Bartricks

Hugh Janus, get it? He's clever this boy, but he still doesn't know how valid arguments work. Willful blindness?

What? Death?

No I don't. I conclude that I exist at the time of my death. — Bartricks

"Premise 2: I am harmed by the event of my death when it occurs" . This premise assumes that I exist at the time of my death, which is also your conclusion. Hence premise 2 assumes your conclusion.

And none of my arguments assume their conclusions. — Bartricks

1. If I am harmed by an event at time t1, then I exist at time t1

And the meaning of 2 can be expressed thusly:

2. I am harmed by the event of my death when it occurs.

From which it follows that:

3. Therefore, I exist at the time of my death. — Bartricks

In the above argument you assume both that you exist at the time of your death and that you are harmed by the event of your death. You say " I am harmed by the event of my death when it occurs", and this is merely a premise the truth of which depends on your conclusion "I exist at the time of my death".

Question begging. Read what I wrote. Don't substitute my words for yours. — Bartricks

Your words are your words and mine are mine; there is no substitution going on. I am not paraphrasing you. Make an argument or fuck off.

I don't know whether death is a harm or not because I don't know whether I will exist when I am dead. And neither do you.

I said the reason of virtually everyone represents it to be a great harm — Bartricks

Only because they are reasoning from their fears. That is the point you are failing to get.

As we cannot even Imagine a means of Creating a Consciousness other than by Evolution in a Material Reality, then isn't the Consciousness itself Proof of the Objective Material Universe? — Michael Sol

No, because as I said to you in the other thread, the other logical possibility is that consciousness is uncreated.

It,s not Garrett's logic, but yours which is invalid. You assume your conclusion; a rookie error.

Because death is a harm. If death improves our condition, then it is not a harm. If death is nothing, then it is not a harm. If death makes our condition worse, then it is a harm and we have reason to avoid it - and that is clearly the case, for the reason of virtually everyone confirms that death is a great harm. So great we use it as the most severe punishment. So great it is only if you are in agony with no prospect of it ending that you have reason to opt for death. We can reasonably conclude then that life after death is worse than life before it by some margin. — Bartricks

I don't agree with your logic. People are afraid of death (apart from the being afraid of the suffering that dying might entail) because it is the unknown. I think it is reasonable to think that people generally fear non-existence more than they fear the possibility that after death they may find themselves in a worse situation than they did during life.

We also arguably have a very powerful instinct for self-preservation that we share with the animals. So fear of death is not hard to explain. If death is non-existence, then dying would be a harm if we hate the idea of non-existence, but death itself would not be a harm, because that which is nothing cannot be harmful. If our condition after death were worse than it was during life, then death would be a harm, and if our condition after death were better than during life, then death would be a boon.

Sheer genius......space and time are both incontestably infinite, and no empirical knowledge is at all possible of objects with infinite properties, so investigating the possibility of empirical knowledge necessarily begins by removing that which prevents it. — Mww

Agreed. So, do you think any knowledge of objects with infinite properties is possible at all, or are we confined to examining the logical implications (the a priori) if any? The other possibility that has been imagined is gnosis, or perhaps something less bold, like Spinoza's "intellectual intuition" or seeing "sub specie aeternitatis" (under the aspect of eternity).

Correct. In Kant, transcendental merely indicates that which is given from a priori pure reason alone, having many conceptions subsumed under it. — Mww

I agree with that summation.

Ok, so let’s not worry so much about making propositions, then. Let’s understand language as a logical structuring of qualitative ideas relative to affect. Let’s recognise this relativity even in our relation to propositions, rather than taking them on face value, as if subjects and objects exist unaffected. — Possibility

You seem to be saying that we should recognize that true and false propositions are so only contextually, not absolutely. If that is what you are saying, then I heartily agree.

FWIW, I don’t believe this relativity is impossible to navigate, just complex and uncertain. But then, so is life, if we’re honest. — Possibility

:100:

I was merely pointing out that consciousness being uncreated is a logical possibility; i.e. that there is no contradiction involved in the idea.