Philosophy is supposed to be based on logic
— bioazer
Who says? Your Logic course professor? Logic is a game, not philosophy. — Rich
What is the mind without its contents? What is the mind when it is vacant of thought, perceptions, ideas and concepts? Is it still in existence or is non existent without these properties? — Fumani
That Trump is qualified to be president — Thorongil
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.
Can God defy logic? — bahman
I would disagree, to some extent, that one cannot really decide a philosophical starting point. Doing philosophy is a metacognitive endeavor. It is thinking about one's own thought and belief. As such, it requires that one first have thought and belief, otherwise there is nothing to think about. One has no choice in either the socio-economic situation they are born into, nor their own cognitive capabilities, nor their initial world-view. So, in that sense, one does not decide their starting point.
However, that is not doing philosophy. — creativesoul
The myth of physical objects is epistemologically superior to most
in that it has proved more efficacious than other myths as a device for working a manageable
structure into the flux of experience. — Quine
I'm curious about how participants here factor a starting point into their own philosophical position(s).
For me, when I took up philosophy, I figured that one's position ought at least be agreeable to known facts. Thus, in short I basically attempted to set out all the things that are known and looked for a means to tie them all together, so to speak...
And you? — creativesoul
But what about thoughts and emotions? They are experienced but don't have material substance, right? Yet neuroscience is beginning to explain to us how these experiences arise out of physical reality. — MysticMonist
What is the purpose of government?
MonfortS26
145
What should the focus of a government be? How much power should it have? — MonfortS26
I know I don't want to live forever because that would be a drag, but I feel instinctively deep down in my unconscious like I want to live forever. It feels that if I don't live forever then everything I do is just a waste of effort. Yet despite this, I know that the appreciation of beauty does not depend on eternal existence. How can such contradictory thoughts/feelings be imputed on to the mind of man? — intrapersona
But what if say you were born on a desert island and never met or knew about other humans? How could 'being-with' others be a part of your experience? — dukkha
I have put this into the General Philosophy section because it is connected to several topics such as art, politics or religion. So in Kubrick's Eyes wide shut we can see that members of the elite basically do what they want. They get along with murder, drugs, prostitution and they rule everything. They form a social class which means what they do they do it systematically. On top of that they occasionally oranize occult rituals which makes that even scarier in some sense (how rational or moral could they be?).
The masked ritual scene with the naked chicks is full of masonic and religious (Christian) symbolism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhV-4658syE
I think one of the main messages of the movie is how religious and elite groups manipulate and rule society in a very destructive way.
The strangest part is that three days after Kubrick gave the movie to Warner Brothers he died of a heart attack.
Do you think that we are living in this distopian future or just Kubrick was a brilliant director with the most brilliant real world ending for his movie (but all the symbols are what they are: symbols and images of imagination)? — Meta
No religions cannot be obliged to recognise gay marriage for example. Indeed, that would be to harm religious believers and to restrict their freedom. Now gay people can surely set up their own "weddings" in gay communities, officiated by whoever they want to, but they cannot force a priest to officiate their ceremonies. — Agustino
- This is a question for non-theists who hold to objectivity in ethics (moral realists) - e.g. it is always true that murdering someone for no reason is morally wrong, etc. — Modern Conviviality
So there is an emotional style that speaks to a set of shared values and serves as the expected way to behave. — apokrisis
Having children may create stronger bonds between people, but you don't need to procreate in order to make intimate bonds with others...right?[/quote]
Certainly you do not. And to be frank I've heard that having a child puts a lot more stress and difficulty on a relationship or on marriage. — Buxtebuddha
getting an education and a job is important, but if we forsake forming bonds in order to focus entirely on getting ahead in life, when we finally achieve that goal, how much time will be left? Would you have to desperately rush into a relationship as my parents did when you realize there is a such thing as too late? Or should you simply hope that when the end comes being surrounded by all of your trophies will be of some comfort? — Eric Wintjen
↪Thanatos Sand I'm with you there, but neoliberal liberal/centrism still has a sizable gap from the Extreme Right politics of the Republican Party, it's just that the gap is a lot narrower than what most people think. But I would still say MSNBC still very different from Fox. — Saphsin
Not familiar with him or his work but I'd be interested to learn about it. Not because I'm likely to accept or condone it, but just cause I like to know stuff.↪Brian Sheldrake provides concrete lines of experimentation. — Rich
van Inwagen suggests that an explanation for why human-oriented horrors exist is because there is no "cut-off" line to be drawn that isn't arbitrary. The atheist may reply that there is a minimum level of horrors that God could have chosen to exist for his plan to work. I'm not entirely sure why van Inwagen thinks such a minimum line does not exist. He equates it to asking how many raindrops needed to fall on England in 1941 for it to be fertile, or a prisoner asking to get released a day early, which at least for me is confusing, because obviously you can't fertilize England with one rain drop. — darthbarracuda
↪Brian If one was interested in pursuing a line of investigation, this would be one avenue that can be pursued. Persistence of memory during one life and multiple lives could provide the fundamental key to understanding this metaphysical question.
For this idea to have merit, it must be shown that memory is not stored in the brain but rather in the underlying fabric in the universe, while the brain acts as a filter just as a TV tuner might. — Rich
What about you? If you like a writer/philosopher/historical figure, are there things about their personal life that would turn you off? — anonymous66
↪Brian Exactly. Talents (memory of skills) that we are born with. This would be evidence of persistence of memory. It is no more supernatural than the skills we learn while playing sports or learning a musical instrument. It is the nature of evolution. — Rich
I understand the word 'soul' to mean 'the totality of the being' - as suggested by sayings such as 'body, mind and soul'. it's not a precisely defineable term, but I think that is what I think it suggests.
I think it's mistaken to speak in terms of the soul as being something you have. It is not an appendage or add-on, but the totality of the being. That is my reading of it.
A book I have noticed about the subject is this one:
A Brief History of the Soul, Stewart Goetz et al. http://a.co/dL2D8xA
(If anyone has read it, I would be interested in their opinion.) — Wayfarer
What has ruled out the existence of souls? — WISDOMfromPO-MO
↪WISDOMfromPO-MO For me, evidence of persistence of memory would give rise to the possibility of a continuation of self - possibly through multiple physical lives. What we call innate skills and natural talents can be considered such evidence. — Rich
Hi, I'm new, I'm a deep thinker addict and I've been so for about 20 years of my 25. Please forgive me if this is the wrong place to post or if my posts are not scientifically or APA/MLA/Chicago format inclined. This is a question I've pondered and struggled with for a long time, participating in a sort of tug of war with my emotions and logic. I need a sense of clarification on the topic. I think it will give me satisfaction. I need input. Do you think the soul exists as a separate entity from our body, do you think personality has to do with the soul, do you think some souls shine brighter than others or can our existence and disposition be chalked down to environment and biology?
I am personally on the fence and will be happy to expand on my thoughts later on. — Locks
This was one of the more popular threads on the old forum so I'm remaking it.
Here is Searle's original essay:
http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Papers/Py104/searle.comp.html
Some objections are what defines computation? If everything (the entire universe) is a computation then the statement "the mind is computation" is only trivially true.
Another is that it could in theory be made out of anything so long as the system represents binary symbols (so minds can exist in anything). There is a longer Lanier essay on that problem available. http://www.jaronlanier.com/zombie.html
Searle also notes the homunculus problem: IE: that someone has to be around to interpret and operate the system. — JupiterJess
Depression seems to be characterized by many thoughts, behaviors, and expectations about the future. However, people get lost in this forest of descriptive characterizations about depression. I've been pondering about the core belief that depression is characterized by and, I think, the issue is rather than wrong beliefs is rather a lack of belief in anything.
Expectations run on beliefs, so too is the placebo effect a belief about the effect of some action or activity. Even if we assume that depression is a result of a negative belief system, then such an individual would have to adapt to a situation or otherwise perish. The fight or flight response is part of that mechanism of adaptation.
It seems intuitively obvious that depression is a lack of belief in some expectations about the future, whether these expectations are real or illusory. This is called a loss of hope, which seems intrinsically tied to the placebo effect and expectation fulfillment. With this predicament of losing hope, an individual gives up the beneficial effects of the placebo effect.
Before I ramble further, I'm wondering about any other beliefs or thoughts on the matter. — Posty McPostface
I think that token identity could accommodate multiple realizability, but type identity less so. Based on the description of Smart's position summarized here I'm not entirely sure which one he subscribes to. — Arkady
In short, since capital punishment is an incomplete application of the above mentioned principles, it's NOT justice.
Comments. — TheMadFool
Smart argues that sensations are brain processes. More precisely, Smart argues that sensations are identical to brain processes. So, the expression 'the sensation (or after image, perception, etc.) of X' is replacable with 'the brain process of X', according to Smart. I think that his theory is plausible. What he suggests is that mental phenomena are identical to brain-physical phenomena. If we accept identity theory, then we can explain mental life in naturalistic ways. So, it's an attractive suggestion. I wonder how others think about it. — A Son of Rosenthal
I realize that the following quote wasn't directed at me, but it is something I find quite interesting...
If I believe that lighthouses are lovely, the content of my belief is "Lighthouses are lovely," not "I believe lighthouses are lovely," unless you like infinite regresses...
Doesn't this imply that thought/belief is existentially contingent upon language? — creativesoul