Comments

  • Trouble with Impositions
    ↪Tzeentch
    True, true, suicide isn't a joke, it's painful; it's superfluous too - after all nonexistence is desired, the intermediate life and the subsequent suffering involved in taking one's own life is unnecessary/avoidable. Pointless sorrow in a way.

    However, it seems rather odd that someone who advocates for antinatalism would have any objections to suicide. That's like someone championing the anti-smoking cause and getting all worked up about a person who kicks the nicotine addiction. :chin:
  • Cognitive bias: tool for critical thinking or ego trap?
    It is better to be alive & wrong than dead & right!
  • Defendant: Saudi Arabia
    Witchcraft isn't against Islam;
    Islam is against witchcraft.

    What gives?
  • Understanding the Christian Trinity
    This is really old news but I heard this man, John be his first name, refer to himself as I ("Hey, I wanna talk to you about something really important."), as you ("You say the stupidest things John, the stupidest things.") and as He/John ("John is feeling sick, he went home to rest.")

    1st person (I The Father)
    2nd person (You The Son)
    3rd person (S/he The Holy Spirit)

    :lol:

    Try it out (at your own risk of course): You (1st person) can talk to you (2nd person) about you (3rd person).

    3 persons!!! :chin:
  • Trouble with Impositions
    Nonexistence Nonexistence [path 1]

    Existence [path 2]

    Path 1: No imposition; there's no one to impose on.

    Path 2: To be consistent, no imposition; there was no one to impose on, just like in path 1.

    However path 2 leads to the creation of a human, call her X. Did this human, X, choose to be born? Obviously, no s/he didn't because she didn't exist to make that choice.

    However now X analyzes her situation carefully - she could come to the conclusion that she's happy and is happy with life or she could be down in the dumps 24×7 and this thought crosses her mind: I wish I had never been born! Therein lies the rub.

    In my humble opinion, to aid parents in making sound decisions, one must assume persons exist antepartum: Given how things are - the state of the world, finances, etc. - would anyone want to be born (to us)? Thinkin' for someone else is the tricky part; how do you know your child isn't going to be a masochist (pain is fun)?

    Summary:

    Firstly, we realized that we need to assume people exist prior to their births; otherwise, we wouldn't be addressing the documented sentiment "I wish I had never been born!" which is nothing more than the claim that had I existed prenatally, I would've chosen nonexistence over life.

    Secondly, there's no satisfactory way of predicting how your child will respond, positively/negatively, to the world.

    Argument from reversal of position

    If you're born and you don't like life, you can always kill yourself (not easy, but doable).

    If you're never born, that's it; you don't have the choice to be born - that ship has alreasy sailed/left the harbor as it were.

    Ergo, natalism is preferable over antinatalism given the uncertainties that inhere to the problem of suffering (in life)?
  • On whether what exists is determinate
    "Something" is a subset of "everything", so your formulation of the "conundrum" makes no sense. Why is there anything at all? There is no why avoids begging that question. :fire: — 180 Proof

    You're right on the money 180 Proof, as always. :up:
  • On whether what exists is determinate
    I don't think so. Nature's "filter" sifts the adapted from the maladapted and Reason's "filter" sifts the intelligible from the unintelligible, in/defeasible truths from fictions, signals from noise ... possible versions of actuality from 'mere possibilities' from impossibilities, etc. — 180 Proof

    It's just that the possibles the actuals. This leads us to the question "why is there something rather than everything?" another metaphysical conundrum worth mulling over in my humble opinion.
  • On whether what exists is determinate
    I agree "M > P" which, to me, means that M – P = extrinsic mere possibilities, which necessarily cannot be actualized – necessarily are not actual (in P terms) – à la Spinoza's first kind of knowledge. — 180 Proof

    :smile: In a sense Momma Nature aborts some, how shall I put it?, bad ideas. Did you know, a significant number of fetuses are abnormal and these are terminated as it were via spontaneous miscarriages that go unnoticed? The same must be true of the universe itself - there's a filter between possible and actual.
  • If you were the only person left ....
    Survival mode, or horde mode, is a game mode in a video game in which the player must continue playing for as long as possible without dying in an uninterrupted session while the game presents them with increasingly difficult waves of challenges. — Wikipedia
  • On whether what exists is determinate
    ↪180 Proof


    What you say kinda makes sense - possible worlds as intrinsic to actual ones and thus "Nothing to see here! Move along, move along."

    However, reconsider my argument.

    Take two sets, M = {z, €, ♡, 8} and P = {♡, €}. Which set can be created from the other and which set simply can't yield the other? The answer is easy - you can't get M from P, but you can get P from M - and comes as a revelation to me if one then goes on to say, salva veritate, M = set of mental objects and P = set of physical objects.

    I believe I'm repeating myself; apologies if you find that annoying. It's just that I feel I'm onto something.
  • On whether what exists is determinate
    Possible/Potential Real/Actual.

    Step 1: Objects A, B, C, and E (pure language)
    Step 2: Only objects A, C and E are possible (logic)
    Step 3: Only objects A and E are actual (causality/PSR)

    Set theoretical argument that the physical world is created from the mental world.

    It isn't possible to build a subset B that's got more elements that the set A whose subset B is. We can, however, build a subset Y that's got less elements than the set X whose subset Y is.

    Ergo, since the set of mental objects has more elements than the set of physical objects, it follows that the latter was created from the former. As Parmenides once said ex nihilo nihil fit (nothing comes from nothing).

    :snicker:
  • Faster than light travel.
    ↪noAxioms
    I got it! Danke!
  • Understanding the Christian Trinity
    sacrad math — Athena

    The term I was lookin' for! :up: & Gracias.
  • Agnosticism, sensu amplo
    I rest my case. — 180 Proof

    :smile:
  • Agnosticism, sensu amplo
    ↪Gnomon


    A most commendable response!

    I feel you should encourage strong but genuine, well-considered opposition to your thesis as it would validate your BothAnd philosophy. If no one can do that, you yourself should take up this task - either you complete your system or you test how strong it is. It's a win-win as far as I can tell.
  • Kuhnian Loss
    Kuhn seems to be referring to the fact that what passes for improvement in science is not a case of taking an old theory A and upgrading it to A', so and so forth; what actually happens is theory A is replaced by another brand new theory B.

    This is, from my limited experiences, mirrored in romantic relationships - men/women replace rather than upgrade their partners! :lol:
  • Pantheism
    ↪Count Timothy von Icarus


    Well, it's intriguing that someone with a dim view of psychoanalysis knows so much about the subject.

    Anyway, I've always had problems in re logical vs chronological order in re history. Chronologically, in the most general of terms, religion precedes philosophy, but the possibility remains that religion could be post-philosophy, logically speaking. I hope this isn't tangential to your point.
  • Climate change denial
    Just saying it as I see it... Many Americans are only discovering the problem now, and they are unaware of the fact that the US has had an oversized contribution to this problem. — Olivier5

    Well, you're correct! There's a very good reason why the synonym for foreigners is aliens - we could as well be living on different planets, that's how different we are.
  • Climate change denial
    ↪Ansiktsburk


    Well, assuming you're not being sarcastic, the rule is rather simple: If anyone says "you're too blah blah blah" it's time to do a systems check!
  • Evolution, creationism, etc?
    ↪Wayfarer
    Couldn't have said it better!
  • Evolution, creationism, etc?
    ↪Wayfarer
    A**holes! They'll bend over backwards to be right! Don't we all, don't we all!
  • Trouble with Impositions
    Striking the right balance between pernicious optimism and unbridled pessimism is quite important! — DA671

    Hear! Hear!
  • Evolution, creationism, etc?
    purpose — Wayfarer

    Do you realize that anyone who objects to teleology in evolution hasta prove their point by making a Kantian phenomenon (appearance - purpose) vs. noumenon (real - no purpose) distinction.

    I say to these naysayers DUCK TEST!

    If it looks like a duck teleology, swims like a duck teleology, and quacks like a duck teleology, then it probably is a duck teleology. — Wikipedia
  • Understanding the Christian Trinity
    ↪Athena


    It's possible that ancient people

    a) had a very different notion of identity.

    and/or

    b) were using loose terminology.

    and/or

    c) left to the readee as an exercise.
  • The elephant in the room.
    The closest Aristotle came to elephants was vicariously, via his pupil Alexander the Great in Hindoostan!
  • Evolution, creationism, etc?
    "god did it — 180 Proof

    The best religion could do was plagiarize from potters - that was hi-tech back in the iron age it seems.

    Vide Creation of Life from Clay
  • Order and chaos in the human body
    Well, I can control my fingers quite well - I'm typing this. However, as your keen sense of observation has led you to ask, why can't I control my immune system (in the same way)? There's gotta be a perfectly good explanation for this rather depressing fact - information overload which seems inevitable may cause a mind crash amd that would be disastrous.

    In scientific terms our minds' have power over the physics (motion) but not the chemistry (biological reactions) of our bodies! Intriguing oui?
  • The Ultimate Question of Metaphysics
    Don’t forget dark energy. You haven’t budgeted for that. — apokrisis

    I see! Much obliged.
  • The Ultimate Question of Metaphysics
    The zero-energy universe hypothesis proposes that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero: its amount of positive energy in the form of matter is exactly canceled out by its negative energy in the form of gravity — Wikipedia

    Net Energy of the universe = 0.

    Ergo, net Mass m = = 0

    There's no something to explain or there's nothing to explain!
  • Climate change denial
    even the optimists don't believe it will happen — Benkei

    Uh oh! We're in thick soup!
  • Climate change denial
    What is true in the US is not necessarily true elsewhere — Olivier5

    :up: Most illuminating.
  • Forrester's Paradox / The Paradox of Gentle Murder
    My hunch is temporal logic is in order.
    There's also something weird going between necessary and obligatory.
  • Climate change denial
    Greed — Xtrix

    :up:

    Radix omnium malorum est cupiditas.
  • What Are the Philosophical Implications of the Concept of "Uncertainty' in Life?
    ↪Jack Cummins
    ↪180 Proof


    Subjectivity has been, for obvious reasons, always associated with our senses (look up illusions in Wikipedia). Objectivity, on the other hand, has always been about the mind, reason/logic/critical thinking to be precise.

    However, the mind, as they say, can/does play tricks on itself (fallacies, cognitive biases).

    Philosophy is, as you would've already noticed, is a struggle against, sensu amplo, subjectivity. The idea behind it is simple - facts, not opinions. How do we tell 'em apart? Rationality and Observation. The former is a general methodology and applies across the board, the latter is the lifeblood of science, sensu lato.

    The above is simply how it's supposed to be and how it actually is is an altogether different story. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz believed that all disputes could be resolved via logical calculation (he was a diplomat too). He initiated a project to develop a language for this purpose but could never complete it (it was ambitious and probably beyond the paradigms of his time).

    Coming to intersubjectivity, to my reckoning it refers to beliefs that aren't objective i.e. aren't justified but still are shared by a group of people. In other words opinions, opinions to be understood in the broadest sense possible, not facts, that some people subscribe to/endorse are what intersubjectivity is all about. In short an intersubjective belief is one that has spread (think memes) in the population but it lacks any justification, kinda like a rumor.
  • Climate change denial
    I completely reject that view of human beings. It's silly and simplistic, and for some reason chooses to elevate our vices and paint all of "human nature" by them. — Xtrix

    I see. What's your theory then about why we're in this mess, climate change and all?
  • Agnosticism, sensu amplo
    ↪Gnomon


    So your thesis has an antithesis which is as legit as your thesis and should be incorporated into your thesis (BothAnd). Shouldn't you be more welcoming of opposition to your ideas then? For example 180 Proof's objections should be part and parcel of your system, based as it is on yin & yang.

    ↪180 Proof
    I like Gnomon's ideas, especially its yin-yang theme. I see great potential in it. What gets me stoked is how, in a sense, enemies are friends (vide supra).
  • What Are the Philosophical Implications of the Concept of "Uncertainty' in Life?
    ↪Jack Cummins
    I'm not exactly an expert/an authority here señor. Maybe the beliefs I have given my stamp of approval are just a stage in the life of a philosopher. I'm deeply saddened that I have to abandon objectivity as a dangerous idea and I sincerely hope that in the coming few years I'll be led back to it and will appreciate its true value for humanity. Fingers crossed!
  • Climate change denial
    ↪Xtrix
    All we had to do to prevent climate change was to follow Aristotle's advice: aureum mediocritas (the golden mean) or nec quid nimis (nothin' to excess). These simple rules, if followed in the right way, would have worked like a charm - no wars, no global warming, no poverty, no nothin'!

    Unfortunately our (human) nature got in the way - we drink until we pass out, we eat until we die of heart ailments, we drive past the speed limit and die in a collision, you get the idea.

    Climate change in my humble opinion is nothing more than a manifestation of very human flaws.
  • What Are the Philosophical Implications of the Concept of "Uncertainty' in Life?
    ↪Jack Cummins


    There were times, when Christendom was at its zenith, when skepticism (religious) meant horrific torture & certain death. The current iteration of religious persecution is Islam.

    These days skepticism is the only thing that keeps you from being cheated/tortured/killed/worse!

    The winds of change Jack, the winds of change!

    We could return to the dark ages though. Americanistan (Christian Theocracy) is just a few decades away now that the religious nutcases know they can pull if off (re Roe vs. Wade revocation).

    Anyway, to get right to the point, certainty tends to be more deletorious to our collective well-being than doubt.

    Diagreement is always possible, whether rational or irrational, with grounds or groundlees. Just ask flat-earthers and godists. — 180 Proof

    :up:
  • What Are the Philosophical Implications of the Concept of "Uncertainty' in Life?
    risks — Jack Cummins

    The crux of the issue Jack, the very :heart: of the matter!
Home » Agent Smith