So then, is it more appropriate to say Einstein "invented"/"created" or Einstein "discovered" that monumental interplay of abstract ideas (mathematical and physical) that constitutes the Special Theory of Relativity? Or, should we say he did both, simultaneously?

Also, I think concrete objects (entities), not being abstract ideas, are encountered, neither discovered, nor invented.

Pfhorrest, you stated: "The first thing we need to do to structure our experiences is to identify patterns in them."

Is structure (patterns or patterning) something that is imbedded in, or native to, experiences which consciousness uncovers and identifies, or is structure (patterns or patterning) something extraneous to, or not native to, experiences which consciousness brings to, or contributes to, experiences?

Which is your meaning?

For example, does my consciousness create, or encounter, the pattern of the object I name "elm tree"?

Also, how can the truth of either alternative be verified empirically?

Thanks so much for your comments and especially the photos. I've been to Italy and never saw these structures, mainly because the focus for tourists is Greek, Roman, and Renaissance architecture.

I completely agree with your comments about BLM.

I never said I liked the Nazi, or the Fascist, or the Communist idea of utopia. In my opinion they are all dystopian. But, whether we like it or not, the fact remains that there was a well-defined ideological Nazi utopia which appealed to the Nazis, a well-defined ideological Fascist utopia which appealed to the Fascists, and a well-defined ideological Communist utopia which appealed to the Communists.

The Italian Fascist Party and its ideology was founded by Mussolini, who was formerly an ardent Socialist. He and the party were not inherently anti-Semitic until circa 1938 when he sought to ingratiate himself with Hitler and solidify their alliance. In fact, several of the high-ranking founding members of the Italian Fascist party were Italian Jews, and many Italian Jews were fully integrated into Italian society. So, for a time, a significant number of Italian Jews bought into the Fascist utopia.

There was a faction within the Nazi Party, e.g., like Ernst Rohm, leader of the Brown Shirts, who felt that Hitler had to continue the National Socialist movement to the point of transforming Germany into a genuine Socialist State. Hitler had him and his faction killed.

Both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were limited Socialist states and limited Capitalist states -- synthetic hybrids, whereas, Communist Russia was completely Communist.

Assuming total agreement with what you've said, how then does BLM think the "internecine" violence of black on black can be ended?

By the way, Fascism came about as a more radical form of Communism. As I understand it, Fascists were frustrated with the lack of progress made by the Communists and they claimed that Communists were not radical enough because the latter were willing to operate within the existing democratic political framework of European nations at that time (the 1920s and 1930s) to obtain power. If one eliminates the aberration of Hitler's racism, I think, in many fundamental ways, Fascists and Communists are really kindred spirits, despite protestations to the contrary. As I said, both are equally utopian, both are equally dogmatic, both are equally totalitarian, both are equally socialist, and both, when all else fails, consider violence to be a viable means to realize their ideological goals. One significant difference appears to be the magnitude of the political domain within which to operate, as indicated precisely by the contrast between the terms NATIONAL Socialism and INTERNATIONAL Socialism.

I believe Alicia Garza was quoted as saying she and her fellow organizers of Black Lives Matter, Patrisse Cullors and Opal Tometi, were "trained Marxists." If this is true, then they certainly would not have been "hard put to present any sort of cohesive ideological point of view," even if their followers were not aware of it.

In the interests of fairness, I also think that: "What does matter (equally) is that crypto or pre-Communist groups, like ANTIFA and BLM, as well as pre-Fascist groups not be allowed to develop into militias, parties, or street gangs that have the power to disrupt democratic society." In the interests of fairness, there are extreme left wing politicians in the Democratic party whose actions and omissions also unify and validate the crypto or pre-Communist groups.

Perhaps the more accurate question ought to be about the allure of totalitarianism, be it fascist or communist? In my opinion, both are equally objectionable forms of government because both place the rights of the state above the rights of the individual. Both subscribe to the basic principle: Everything within the state, nothing outside the state. Both forms of totalitarian government promise (propagandize about) utopia and various forms of security if only you relinquish your individual freedoms and abide by what the state demands of you. The totalitarian state, not you, defines who you are. Each form of totalitarianism appeals to the weaker individual who values the comfort of personal security over the hardships of personal freedom and individual initiative; and the state refers to such weaklings as the superior, heroic Fascist or Communist Person. Both forms of Totalitarianism have killed millions of persons because, for one arbitrary reason or another, they did not fit the state sanctioned Fascist or Communist ideal.

I believe our form of Representative Democratic Republic, even with all its imperfections, when it functions properly as per our Constitutional principles, the Bill of Rights, and the separation of powers is a marvelous, realistic remedy against the double scourge of fascist and communist totalitarianism.

Mysticism is utterly crucial to philosophy????

I don't think so!

Fundamentally, mysticism, in all its forms, is not so much meaningless or nonsensical as it is primarily ELITIST. The Gnostics, for example, were very forthright about their inherent superiority. They promoted, among themselves, a false kind of consciousness of superiority. They claimed to be a special breed of pneumatic humans who were above the majority of merely material or psychical humanity. Only they were able to have a direct, intimate, personal encounter with the transcendent via some secret (magical) way of knowing, which the rest of us poor slobs, by our inferior natures, could never hope to be privy to. Mysticism evolves by promoting a religious frame-of-reference that would turn the rest of humanity into inferior beings. It is this dangerous elitism that I find shallow and self-serving about the paradigm of mysticism. It promotes, either explicitly or implicitly, the idea of the transcendent Nothingness of the worth of the rest of humanity.

You are confusing the Principle of Cause and Effect with the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Just because natural phenomena have causes which explain "how" they occur doesn't mean they have reasons which explain "why" they exist. Do you see the relevance now?????

The Principle of Sufficient Reason is a universally shared transcendental prejudice. It is a cognitive knee-jerk reaction. It necessarily and inescapably distorts all human thinking about consciousness and natural phenomena. Its persistent and tiresome theme is: "THERE HAS TO BE, SIMPLY MUST BE, A REASON WHY!!!!"

Quite the contrary!!!! "THERE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ANY REASON WHY I, YOU, OR ENTITIES EXIST!!!!! In fact, the positing of a Thing-in-Itself is nothing more than an expression of this prejudice!!!

Everything may just be gratuitous and The Principle of Sufficient Reason may simply be the most universal, abstract expression of the Principle of EPISTEMIC ANTHROPOCENTRISM!!!!

YOU CAN'T DIE BECAUSE YOU DON'T EXIST

should be

I CAN'T DIE BECAUSE I DON'T EXIST


First of all, I do exist!

As Descartes showed: Ego Cogito, Ego Sum. In other words, when and while I am thinking in the first person present tense mode, I must necessarily exist, and this fact is always intuited as being indubitably certain!!!

However, my indubitably certain existence is not a NECESSARY existence because the Cogito (my thinking activity) upon which my indubitably certain existence depends is a CONTINGENT activity; i.e., nothing precludes my thinking activity from ceasing to occur.

I can die because I cannot have an indubitably certain intuition that my thinking is a NECESSARY activity.

In other words, I do exist, and I can die!!!!!!!!

Both matter and energy exist and can be transformed into one another.

It remains an open question as to whether, or not, matter and energy are ultimate forms of being, or are simply forms of something yet more basic.

If matter and energy are not ultimate forms of being and can be destroyed, then would the purported "something yet more basic" continue to exist?

Is this another, more parsimonious, way to state Hippyhead's original thesis?

Lamarch, no disrespect intended, but didn't Nietzsche say all of this years ago? What exactly is different, or original, about what you're saying?

The more it is denied any audience!!!!

How is it possible that for all the time the Philosophy Forum has been in existence only the articles by Jamalrob and Lamarch have been deemed worthy to be posted???? This defies common sense!!!!!!
I thought only Twitter and Facebook engaged in this kind of censorship!!!! Why not post all articles and let the readers rate their worth????

If someone had an absolutely free will, then this would mean that, at some point, they were able to choose whether, or not, to exist (participation in the ultimate choice). Clearly, however, this is an impossible situation. Thus, absolutely free will cannot exist.

Sartre claimed that human experiences of Nothing (everyday examples of experienced negations) happen just as frequently as human experiences of Something. He claimed that this is so because the Pre-Reflective Consciousness (or Being-for-Itself) is the source of Nothingness. In other words, the more accurate question is: Why is there both Something (Being-in-Itself) and Nothing (Being-for-Itself)? So the Sartrean answer to this question is: Being-for-Itself is the source of Nothing and Being-in-Itself is the source of Being-for-Itself. However, Being-in-Itself is de trop, gratuitous, it just is.

The question: Why is there something, rather than nothing? presupposes, uncritically, that the Principle of Sufficient Reason, according to which my intellect operates, must also necessarily be applicable, without exception, to everything that exists, including myself.

In other words, my intellect is compelled to assume that there must be a reason that explains why anything, including myself, exists.

Which may not be so. The Why may simply be an expression of the ultimate in anthropocentrism.

Also, one could argue that there IS nothing; that the question presupposes what is not the case, and that experiences which involve nothing (negatites) are quite common occurrences, as Sartre has shown.

Along these lines, Sartre states: "... the total disappearance of being would not be the advent of the reign of non-being, but on the contrary the concomitant disappearance of nothingness."

OK! Agree with your take!

Silencing hate speech is really nothing more, or less, than an indirect way to try to sabotage our constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of speech.

The existence of Material Being is dubitably certain and contingent, whereas, the existence of Thinking Being is indubitably certain and contingent. Both types of Being, the dubitable and the indubitable, are CONTINGENT because they are experienced as "always being open to the possibility of complete cessation and non-existence."

Unfortunately, there is no NECESSARY being that can be experienced by humans which is experienced as "always being closed to the possibility of complete cessation and non-existence."

If, instead, Descartes had shown us how we could not doubt the NECESSARY existence of either thought or matter, then that really would have been an astounding discovery!

You see, it's not so much the INDUBITABLE CERTAINTY of the existence of what he is talking about that's crucial as it is the NECESSARY, rather than the CONTINGENT, existence of what what he is talking about.

But, as I said, it is impossible for humans to personally experience such a being.

Yes, the Nazis were completely defeated in World War II but, unfortunately, China's government today proves that the totalitarian ideology of Fascism certainly was not. It survived! Why do the Antifa (ANTIFASCIST) goons exist at all, anywhere, if your claim is true?

It is Communist governments that ultimately self-destruct, but not Fascist governments. Fascist governments have to be defeated by force-of-arms because, given the availability of adequate resources, they can continue to deliver the economic goods to the people.

By contrast, Communist governments self-destruct because, bottom line, pure Communist ideology and practice just cannot continue to deliver the economic goods to the people. This is why China, in order to survive and compete successfully economically, voluntarily transitioned to a state controlled National Socialist/Capitalist Fascist government.

China's Muslims are being persecuted "reeducated" in concentration camps aren't they? Senators Cruse and Rubio seem to think so and, as a result, are now being sanctioned by China.

China has transformed from a totalitarian Communist state into a totalitarian National Socialist state.
However, unlike National Socialist Germany, it has a ruling oligarchy, rather than a single leader, and it is implicitly, rather than explicitly, racist. National Socialist China practices a government subsidized form of capitalism with respect to major industries, while permitting limited free enterprise. Hong Kong and Taiwan are China's Sudetenland and Austria.

[reply="ssu;433562"

Today, the Socialist controlled Democratic Party condones, with deafening silence, the outrageous rioting, violence, and attempted culture destruction fomented and perpetrated by Antifa and Black Lives Matter (both of which, by the way, were founded and funded by self-proclaimed Communists) throughout our democratic controlled major cities.

These have become the militant wing (street fighting goons) of what has now transformed into the Sozialdemokraten Party of the U.S.A. If Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi turn any further to the left, pressured by AOC and her political ilk, they'll simply fall off the cliff. Clearly, the trend is toward totalitarianism: cancel culture, political correctness, on-campus assault and battery, on-campus censorship, defund the police, etc.

"You shall know them by what they do, not by what they say," has never been truer.

One could argue that Socialism and Democracy are inherently antithetic concepts.

Socialism is nothing more than a provisional form of totalitarian International Socialism/Communism or, for that matter, a provisional form of totalitarian National Socialism/Fascism.

Both ideologies seek to gradually infiltrate and weaken non-totalitarian democracies by using the latter's very own democratic institutions against them.

The Marxist views the Socialist as being a much too TIMID ideological brother, but an ideological brother nonetheless, and views the Fascist as distorting and betraying the Communist ideology by being a much too Nationalist and Racist Socialist, but a Socialist, nonetheless.

It certainly is! But that's what I see when I look around. A rose by any other name! I perceive no clear divide ideologically, just shades of difference, or degrees of extremism. They all seek to demolish and replace the best (certainly not the most perfect) system of governance yet devised by humanity with what? More centralized, more totalitarian versions of governance based upon political correctness, cancel culture, group think, and even mindless violence?

As it was intended by the Founding Fathers and as it is structured still to this day, our system of governance does allow for significant change to occur through new legislation, through the courts, and through the vote!

The contemporary version of the method for bringing about a Communist revolution in the USA is in line with the thinking of Antonio Gramsci and the Cultural Marxists, not with the thinking of Lenin (instigating violent economic revolution).

Today, the preferred method among Cultural Marxists is to bring about a Communist revolution through the infiltration and the subversion of the traditional, prevailing cultural values that support and help define our educational system at all levels, our economic system, our historical memory and identity, our military, our kinds of entertainment, our types of news media, our Judeo-Christian religious values, our public taste and moral standards, our Constitutional rights, our executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government, and the separation of powers.

Tell Chinese Virologist Li-Meng Yan how wonderful and desirable the communist state is!!!!!

Communist ideology stresses how crucial it is to bring about "classless societies." Instead, at most, it seems to have repeatedly established "societies that have no class."

Well said!!!!! Hmmmmm!!!! Kinda' like what's happening today in the USA? N'est-ce Pas?

Perhaps a non-totalitarian communism has never been tried in practice because real grownups know that such a thing is really nothing more than a utopian fairy tale foisted among the gullible by ideological wolves in sheep's clothing. Isn't the true ethos of communism the purported DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat? And don't real grownups also know that dictatorships are, by their very nature, inherently totalitarian, no matter who wields them? The government where I live is based upon a democratic system of checks and balances, a constitution, a bill of rights, and a popular vote at the local, state, and federal levels. Thank you for feeling happy for me. I'm overjoyed!!!!!

Both national socialism (fascism) and international socialism (communism) are totalitarian systems of government. Totalitarian systems of government put the rights, interests, values, and economic welfare of the state above the rights, interests, values, and economic welfare of their citizens. Both the fascist and communist forms of state totalitarianism seek to exercise absolute control over each and every aspect of their citizens’ lives from cradle to grave.

Citizens exist solely to serve the state, the state does not exist solely to serve the citizens. Under such systems, citizens’ rights do not exist; only states’ rights and citizens’ responsibilities as defined by the state, exist.

Whatever the fascist or communist state permits its citizens to establish, produce, buy, or sell economically must, first and foremost, directly benefit and enrich the state. The state is the only legitimate entrepreneur permitted in a totalitarian society. All the rest work for the state.

Under fascism and communism, the police, the legislature, the judiciary, all branches of the military, all forms of culture, education, entertainment, science, social interaction, and informational media must be tightly controlled and regulated by the state. Everything within the state, nothing outside the state!

In fact, whoever dares to operate outside of this comprehensive totalitarian context will be re-educated or destroyed. And, as a matter of historical fact, under both systems MILLIONS of lives have, in fact, been destroyed

Now, please try to convince me why such oppressive systems of government should be preferred to the democratic, free enterprise system of government of the United States of America.

No. I'm just trying to determine if death is some kind of point reached by Being-in-itself where it "re-integrates" with itself because its effort to overcome its contingent nature through the nihilating activity of a Being-for-itself has failed.

Very nice overview of Schopenhauer's philosophy. It's obvious to me that you really admire his philosophy.

If you are also familiar with Schopenhauer's "Critique of the Kantian Philosophy," you might enjoy reading, if you haven't already, the article I posted on this site a year ago entitled "Issues Not Addressed by Arthur Schopenhauer's Epistemology."

" … the essence of the religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Marcionism, but not Judaism or Islam) was in fact leading towards truth,..."

What truth?

The "truth" that the world is Will and Representation? Or the "truth" that the existence of humans and their world are mistakes, or existences that ought not to have been? Or the "truth" that existence itself is the result of a fall, error, or mistake? Or the "truth" that human freedom is located in the "esse" and not in the "operari"? Or, the "truth" that humans were free to choose their characters only before they existed? Or the "truth" that humans, after they exist and have already chosen their individual characters, are not free to choose their actions. Or, the "truth" that the principle of individuation is illusory and that we are all really of the same essence (Will)? Or the "truth" that contemplating the Ideas can temporarily detach us from the Will? Or, the "truth" that the Principle of Sufficient Reason applies to everything but the Will? Or, the "truth" that personal non-existence (nothingness) is preferable to personal existence (being)?

The epitome of a truly nihilistic philosophy!

Schopenhauer is trying to be an "atheistic saint." And Nietzsche is simply calling him out on this! Although Nietzsche admires Schopenhauer for his unvarnished characterization of the irrational, godless, "Will-to-Live," nevertheless, he is disappointed over his ethical hypocrisy. If Schopenhauer rejects the Judeo-Christian God, then, in good faith, how can he subscribe to the "saintly" Judeo-Christian system of values? If you reject a God, then you're obligated to reject that God's values, aren't you?

Suffering is not "enacted"? upon individual wills by someone or something, suffering is inherent in, an integral characteristic of, individual wills, their very essence or nature. The quietude, or quiescent? is an ascetic means, or practice, that would enable the individual to commit a non-physical suicide.

Regardless of who comes before or who comes after, he who personally loves life and vigorously wills life is definitely a healthy specimen over the sickly specimen who personally hates life and wills, instead of life, the advent of nothingness (emotional and psychological suicide). Nietzsche was recommending physiological health and strength over physiological sickness, weakness, and retrogressive degeneracy.

Schopenhauer's philosophy is, essentially, an unhealthy rebellion against life itself in favor of death, nothingness, and non-being, while, by contrast, Nietzsche values and vigorously affirms and accepts life with all of its concomitant sufferings, trials, and hardships. Nietzsche espoused nothing unwittingly, he knew exactly what he stood for and why he stood for it!

According to Nietzsche, the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, whom he greatly admired, had already successfully demolished and discredited the notion of the Christian God. Schopenhauer had shown the notion of the Christian God to be a contradiction, since it was totally incompatible with the true nature of reality as it expressed itself in nature and in humanity; viz., as a blind, endlessly striving will-to-live which was constantly at war with itself.

For Nietzsche, Schopenhauer had, for all intents and purposes, "killed" the idea of the Christian God and all possibility of continued belief in him among the intellectually honest. Thus, Nietzsche simply asserted, quite bluntly and sensationally, what he thought Schopenhauer had already demonstrated in his philosophy; viz., that "God is dead." But, to Nietzsche, Schopenhauer had not gone far enough in his thinking. Schopenhauer had "killed" the Christian god and had asserted the sole reality to be the will-to-live, but then, paradoxically, he continued to extoll the virtues of the Christian "herd-morality" and its will-to-nothingness. Schopenhauer had not thought through to the bitter end the full consequences the "death" of the Christian God ought to have had for the values of the Christian "herd-morality"; be it the strictly religious, or secularized, versions of the "herd morality."

Since the only basic reality expressing itself in nature and in humanity was a blind, endlessly striving will-to-live, Schopenhauer should have bravely accepted this inescapable fact of life. He should have not recommended that humanity try to deny the will-to-live or try escape from it by pursuing an ascetic will-to-nothingness. Instead, asserted Nietzsche, he should have encouraged strong, superior humans to actively and deliberately embrace the will-to-live, as being synonymous with their own nature, and to give it conscious direction. Thus, claimed Nietzsche, would Schopenhauer's will-to-live be transformed into humanity's conscious, deliberate will-to-power. The will-to-power is, according to Nietzsche, a universal drive, found in all of humanity. It prompts the slave who dreams of a heaven from which he hopes to behold his master in hell no less than it prompts the master. Both resentment and brutality are expressions of it. As Nietzsche proclaimed: "This world is the Will-to-Power -- and nothing else! And you yourselves, too, are this Will-to-Power -- and nothing else!"

According to Nietzsche, the Christian God had not only served to sanction and legitimate the values of the Christian "herd morality," but had also provided the inspirational ideal or goal toward which the adherents of those values strove. Now, with the "death" of the Christian God, the Christian value system was no longer tenable in any form, be it religious or secular, and a new value system could take its place.

Unlike the atheism of the extreme political left, which relinquished allegiance to the values of the Christian "herd morality," in their religious form, but preserved allegiance to the values of the Christian "herd morality" in their secularized form, the atheism of the extreme political right (a more rigorous, consistent, and honest form of atheism according to Nietzsche) relinquished allegiance to the values of the Christian "herd morality" in both their religious and secularized forms.

Thus, by extending and correcting Schopenhauer's thought, Nietzsche created the atheism of the extreme political right -- an atheism that he thought would ultimately require the creation of a new inspirational goal and a new, neo-aristocratic value system for select Europeans.

Frank:

My paternal grandfather came from a little hamlet called Sant Angelo a Cupolo and my paternal grandmother came from a neighboring hamlet called San Nicola Manfredi, both located in Benevento in the province of Campania. Like you, I hurt for those beautiful people who love life, art, and family so much.

Even though I fully understand and can completely identify with where you're coming from, still, I hope you and I will, in the end, be pleasantly surprised.

Stay healthy buddy!