I am starting to find this Kantian/Hegelian view more and more incoherent day by day. — Agustino

On this point I think it should be noted that Hegel, contra Kant, re-introduced a kind of Spinozism by claiming that the world is God (Spirit). He perhaps doesn't precisely and explicitly say this but he holds that world history is the dialectical unfolding of Spirit, and if there is no more to Spirit than this then the corollary is that Spirit ( God) is absolutely immanent, which seems to amount to the same as equating God with the world.

Hegel's philosophy is certainly a denial of transcendence; so it would actually seem to agree, rather than disagree, with what you appear to be claiming.

Berdyaev (I think rightly) criticises Hegel for objectifying Spirit, and the same criticism would apply to Spinoza, but certainly not to Kant.

Spinoza's point is exactly that the self-causing principle is NOT in the world. Immanence is not being in the world, but rather being EXPRESSESED by the world. The self-causing principle is infinte (not fintite, not a state of the world, necessary), rather than finite(a state of the world, a moment of causality, contingent).

I engaged in a discussion along these lines many years ago with a poster, a self-styled expert Spinozist and "entropist", on the old forum. — John

180 Proof Ahh how I miss that man!

When I pointed out that the self-causing principle cannot be anything in the world by Spinoza's own arguments concerning the difference between necessary and contingent beings, and that from this it followed that God must be transcendent (as well as immanent, mind) the other poster became all huffy and accused me of 'refusing to learn', and would not, or more likely could not, explain himself further. What a cop out! — John

I'd be interested to see this discussion, if you could offer a link to PF via http://www.cachedpages.com/

I pointed out that Spinoza makes a distinction between natura naturans (the self-causing priniciple) and natura naturata (the causal nexus that is the natural world) and asserts that God is the former but not the latter (to which the other poster agreed) thus saving himself from pantheism. — John

180 Proof would go further and argue that Spinoza is an acosmist - only Substance is real.

When I pointed out that the self-causing principle cannot be anything in the world by Spinoza's own arguments concerning the difference between necessary and contingent beings, and that from this it followed that God must be transcendent (as well as immanent, mind) the other poster became all huffy and accused me of 'refusing to learn', and would not, or more likely could not, explain himself further. — John

Don't forget that according to Spinoza there also exist eternal modes (or infinite modes, can't remember how Spinoza calls them, it's been so long since I last read him). Before I say anything further, what arguments concerning the difference between necessary and contingent beings are you making reference to?

Heidegger was an idealist — John

Many would disagree - Heidegger bridges the gap between realism/idealism or at least attempts to.

I think the very notion of substance is deeply flawed. But you obviously support it, so please explain to me exactly what a material substance is, and if you can successfully achieve that, then explain to me what an immaterial substance could be. — John

Why is the notion of substance flawed per your view? Material or immaterial describes the characteristic of substance. For example, for idealists, the underlying substance is mental. Now whether substance is material or non-material is besides the point of whether the notion of substance is flawed or not. So why do you think the notion is flawed? I'll get back to you in more detail, but I'll need some time to dig into Ethics again, and into the many Spinoza commentary books that I have.

The only cogent alternative is materialistic realism (although it is certainly arguable that the independent reality of things cannot be truly coherently thought); but there is really no room for God on that picture. — John

So is there no room for God in that picture as an Aristotelian Prime Mover? Also I don't understand why realism has to be materialistic...

immanent

[im-uh-nuh nt]

Synonyms
Word Origin

adjective
1.
remaining within; indwelling; inherent.
2.
Philosophy. (of a mental act) taking place within the mind of the subject and having no effect outside of it.
Compare transeunt.
3.
Theology. (of the Deity) indwelling the universe, time, etc.
Compare transcendent (def 3).


If it is not in the world it is not immanent. I think the correct view is that it is in the world in the sense that it sustains the world, but transcendent of the world in the sense that it is not of the world, or an object in the world.

I'm still trying to figure out what went through Wayfarer's mind when he copy-pasta'd wikipedia,

Many would disagree - Heidegger bridges the gap between realism/idealism or at least attempts to. — Agustino

Yes, there are various interpretations of Heidegger (surprise, surprise!). But since "being-in-the-world" is primary for Heidegger and he claims that animals ( to refer tangentially to the OP) are "world poor" (meaning presumably that animals are not reallyin the world) then I think his idea must be understood in the experiential or idealist sense. For Heidegger it is not that we are in the world in some ontological sense prior to our phenomenological (experiential) being-in-the-world, for him phenomenology is ontology; Dasein is the being of the world.

I seem to recall you were arguing for idealism on these forums yourself not so long ago.

180 Proof Ahh how I miss that man! — Agustino

Personally I don't much miss his cryptic dribblings. But as I remember it, he certainly did occasionally come up with some original insights.

I'd be interested to see this discussion, if you could offer a link to PF via http://www.cachedpages.com/ — Agustino

I'm not that computer savvy and I don't know how to find the stuff on the old PF; which is a pity because I would have downloaded my posts for future reference.

I don't think idealism is incoherent - I just think Aristotelian realism is more simple and seems to describe the world much better. I've been reading a lot of Thomas Aquinas recently - this shifted my impression away from people like Berkeley, Kant, Schopenhauer, etc.

Personally I don't much miss his cryptic dribblings. But as I remember it, he certainly did occasionally come up with some original insights. — John

In my opinion, the man was one of the few from whom I've learned A LOT from, even though most of the time I disagreed with him. I probably can't compare anyone else currently in this forum with him. He always brought the hardest arguments against me, and made me think. I always missed him because I don't feel as challenged without him. Most other people I can dispatch easily or see through them but 180 was hard, and he always fought back - and his responses - I could hardly predict what he will respond with, he always said something original. So I find here a few people I agree with - and I generally agree with on most important matters. And then a few that I disagree with, but those that I really disagree with, they're not that hard to deal with - I don't find their arguments plausible at all.

180 Proof would go further and argue that Spinoza is an acosmist - only Substance is real. — Agustino

In a sense I agree with acosmism; I think the universe is ultimately illusory, but this is closer to idealism than to realism. The other thing is that "the world" merely denotes a logical totality, which, it might be said, has no existence over and above the transitory things that constitute it.

I'm not that computer savvy and I don't know how to find the stuff on the old PF; which is a pity because I would have downloaded my posts for future reference. — John

Okay let me teach you :P

type "site:forums.philosophyforums.com Something" without the quotes into google. This will allow you to search the domain forums.philosophyforums.com . Replace something with whatever you're looking for - the thread name, your username or whatever you would want to search PF for. So for example, I type: "site:forums.philosophyforums.com 180 proof spinoza" and the second thread that comes up is Spinoza's Critique of Cartesian Will . So I click it, and I can't access it anymore because PF is fucked. So I copy the URL/link :

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/spinozas-critique-of-cartesian-will-30044-2.html

and paste it into the cachedpages.com and click first google cache, if that doesn't work, then I click archive.org

Now not all threads will be archived, but some will. So maybe it will be there. In addition, if you don't find the respective page, maybe you can find other pages from the thread. For example - in the previous example I gave, in the link, you notice the "-2" at the end of the URL right? That means you're on page 2 of that thread. So maybe there is no page 2 archived, but the previous pages are archived. So you can remove "-2" and search for: http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/spinozas-critique-of-cartesian-will-30044.html which might exist.

Once you're in the archived page you can just navigate it normally.

In my opinion, the man was one of the few from whom I've learned A LOT from, even though most of the time I disagreed with him. I probably can't compare anyone else currently in this forum with him. He always brought the hardest arguments against me, and made me think. I always missed him because I don't feel as challenged without him. Most other people I can dispatch easily or see through them but 180 was hard, and he always fought back - and his responses - I could hardly predict what he will respond with, he always said something original. — Agustino

To be honest if you think your philosophical ability is superior to all of those on this forum, then I would say you are woefully deluded. I believe 180 also had an exaggerated idea of his own philosophical abilities, I found he always withdrew when I challenged his assertions; so maybe you were good for supporting each other's self-delusions.

You say you can "dispatch others easily" but I think you haven't considered the possibility that this perception is not of the reality but of your own little fantasy. I certainly don't find many of your arguments cogent or original. I would not count you as being in the top twenty percent of thinkers on this forum, for example, to be blunt. What you need if you are to develop philosophically is some humility, some honest assessment of your own abilities, and eschewing your usual practice of bluffing and trying to show off, in my opinion.

To be honest if you think your philosophical ability is superior to all of those on this forum, then I would say you are woefully deluded. I believe 180 also had an exaggerated idea of his own philosophical abilities, I found he always withdrew when I challenged his assertions; so maybe you were good for supporting each other's self-delusions. — John

I haven't said it is superior to all those on this forum (gosh who would even think about that). I've said that amongst people I disagree with here, most aren't challenging.

You say you can "dispatch others easily" but I think you haven't considered the possibility that this perception is not of the reality but of your own little fantasy. — John

No, I actually said that in the context of referencing people I disagree with. People I disagree with don't make me question myself. Their arguments are flimsy and weak. 180 Proof made me question myself. There are some I agree with here, and I think they have good philosophical aptitudes, and have honed in on the truth to a large degree.

The rest of the comment is just your own opinion, nothing more. Apparently you seem to be resorting to petty jealousies and the like, but that's your choice, so I wish you goodluck with that.

LOL, who do think I am being jealous of? Not yourself, surely! To be honest, your a young guy, and it shows; I see you as a philosophical pup, so to speak. I certainly think you have good potential.
Note, I said "if you think your philosophical ability is superior". I didn't say you did think that but some of your comments do make it seem so, to me at least.

No, I actually said that in the context of referencing people I disagree with. — Agustino

Well, yeah, that's obvious. Who else would you be "dispatching"?

Sorry man, It's really too much hassle for me. I have no recall even of what the thread was called where the exchange took place.

LOL, who do think I am being jealous of? Not yourself, surely! To be honest, your a young guy, and it shows; I see you as a philosophical pup, so to speak. I certainly think you have good potential.
Note, I said "if you think your philosophical ability is superior". I didn't say you did think that but some of your comments do make it seem so, to me at least. — John

Sometimes I think you don't even realise how small you're becoming :)

Sorry man, It's really too much hassle for me. I have no recall even of what the thread was called where the exchange took place. — John

:-} Right... >:O It's easy to defame people when they can't defend themselves, and when others can't defend them because you refuse to give them the chance to do it. But whatever, you defame me and 180, we'll let other people say what they think about us. Maybe you got jealous you never got more than +2 likes on PF or whatever. I don't know what's up with this attitude of yours.

Of course! Anyone who expresses an honest opinion about you that you don't like must necessarily be small, right? This is a common ploy you commonly employ. :-} Better try some arguments instead if you want to impress people.

Right... >:O — Agustino

Is this meant to convey that you think I'm lying, or what?

Really, Agustino, I'm finding conversing with you less and less appealing. I'm really not interested in the kinds of bullshit games that you seem to be intent on playing.
Say what you really think and why, or just don't bother; otherwise it's a waste of time. :-d

Of course! Anyone who expresses an honest opinion about you that you don't like must necessarily be small, right? This is a common ploy you commonly employ. :-} Better try some arguments instead if you want to impress people. — John

An argument to do what, to show what a fool you are?

Is this meant to convey that you think I'm lying, or what?

Really, Agustino, I'm finding conversing with you less and less appealing. I'm really not interested in the kinds of bullshit games that you seem to be intent on playing.
Say what you really think and why, or just don't bother; otherwise it's a waste of time. :-d — John

I did in fact write what I think and why. If you bother to read it. Really you're disappointing.

An argument to do what, to show what a fool you are? — Agustino

I did in fact write what I think and why. If you bother to read it. Really you're disappointing. — Agustino

I don't think you realize how infinitesimal you have become.

So I make a remark about how much I've learned from 180 Proof, and what a tough opponent he was (and that I have found no one like him - which is true! I haven't!), and suddenly you're up in arms about my philosophical ability and that of 180 Proof - really have you lost even the last shred of reason? Maybe you're growing too old and senile John. Who would even bother to get on the tirade that you're getting on and talk about other people's philosophical ability etc. I did indeed expect a young man to do this, not a grandfather. If you had even one shred of the wisdom you claim you have, you would never have started any of this. I really think you should be ashamed of yourself.

You should learn to respect your opponents, if even by your age you haven't yet learned it. Anyway, this is my last comment on this matter, if you want to continue satisfying your jealousies, you can do so by yourself.

Wouldn't it be safe to say that the answer to this is "yes and no" Most animals have one thing in common, the brain. Although they vary from animal to animal we humans know what the brain is capable of. At a certain state of development I don't see why it should be questioned if an animal can fear death. It's not so much a question of "animals" but more of a question of "at what point in the development of a brain does this become noticeable" At least that's how I see it.

You can characterize it however you want Agustino; I was simply expressing my opinion about your grandiose statements and behavior. Why not start a thread and ask others to honestly express their opinions, no holds barred, about your behavior on these forums; you might be surprised! Or I might be all alone in my view of you; I'm prepared for that, too. The fact is that I really don't care about this kind of bullshit; I'm not here to trade insults or to play boring games.

And I'm certainly not here to meet your expectations.

It's easy to defame people when they can't defend themselves, and when others can't defend them because you refuse to give them the chance to do it. But whatever, you defame me and 180, we'll let other people say what they think about us. Maybe you got jealous you never got more than +2 likes on PF or whatever. I don't know what's up with this attitude of yours. — Agustino

I didn't even mention 180 by name until after you identified him from my description. 180 is an online identity, so there is no question about "defaming". What I said would not constitute defamation in any case, even it we knew who 180 really is, because I just outlined what I remember of a discussion I had with him. I did say that I found him less than forthcoming when challenged. So what? Give it a rest, man; you're making a fool of yourself.

Stop bitching. And I don't care if you're on your man period or not.

Welcome to the forum!

I think the problem here is whether or not fear is an innate quality in all things. Can something living have fear without either being conscious of said fear, or even what fear is in itself? Say I go and find a tribe in the south Pacific somewhere that's never had contact with modern Man, and I show them a toaster. They'll probably fear it (along with me), because they don't understand, but would you say that they feared the toaster before they knew what a toaster was? I wouldn't say so. But again, it's probably more important to decide whether fear requires consciousness. This question, like every question, only matters when one thinks about it, then tries to apply it to others. Does the zebra fear the cheetah without there being a conscious observer that analyzes the behavior and labels from there?

Stop bitching. And I don't care if you're on your man period or not. — Heister Eggcart

Yes, that sounds like a good idea. :) What's a "man period" though? I've been on a man period my whole life, as far as I can remember. Maybe it's time I started listening to my feminine side? ;)

What's a "man period" though? — John

It looks like: shoulders straightened, chest puffed up, dick out, (Agustino's imagining Borat at this point), tie straightened, fedora donned, wikipedia pages on philosophy at the ready, and then the moody slapping ensues...

To be honest if you think your philosophical ability is superior to all of those on this forum, then I would say you are woefully deluded. — John

I would not count you as being in the top twenty percent of thinkers on this forum — John

To be honest, your a young guy, and it shows; I see you as a philosophical pup, so to speak. — John

An argument to do what, to show what a fool you are? — Agustino

I did in fact write what I think and why. If you bother to read it. Really you're disappointing. — Agustino

I don't think you realize how infinitesimal you have become. — John

Maybe you're growing too old and senile John. — Agustino

If you had even one shred of the wisdom you claim you have, you would never have started any of this. I really think you should be ashamed of yourself. — Agustino

if you want to continue satisfying your jealousies, you can do so by yourself. — Agustino

LOL, which of those comments would you count as being merely honest expressions of the one's impressions of the other, and which would you count as being 'adhominous', as imputing something that one could not possibly know about the other, or as being deliberately insulting as opposed to attempting to be a corrective to a perceived lack of humility and generally obnoxious behavior ?

And please stop with the dopey gifs...

which of those comments would you count as being merely honest expressions of the one's impressions of the other, and which would you count as being 'adhominous', as imputing something that one could not possibly know about the other, or as being deliberately insulting as opposed to attempting to be a corrective to a perceived lack of humility and generally obnoxious behavior ? — John

Because none of that claptrap is on-topic.

And please stop with the dopey gifs... — John

I was told by a moderator to only limit my use of Star Trek gifs, so... >:)

Plus that's how I looked reading your posts. I'm just attempting to be accurate.

Because none of that claptrap is on-topic. — Heister Eggcart

I agree that none of it was on-topic; that is hardly at issue. But your answer is not an answer to the question; or at least is not complete. Perhaps you forgot to say "I will not answer that" to begin the sentence. The off-topicness shouldn't bother you too much in any case, because the gifs certainly aren't on-topic, either; not to mention that they are kind of annoying.

Ah, so now that Agustino has gone to bed, you've chosen me as the next plaything for your boredom? Sorry, but I find your lack of tact disturbing. Toodles, o/