Comments

  • Are we ready for extraterrestrial life ?
    Yeah, we're ready for "extraterrestrial life".

    We may never be "ready" for (the tender mercies of spacefaring) extraterrestrial intelligence, however, especially so long as we remain a mostly Earth-bound species.
  • Bannings
    :clap: :fire: IMO, fuck 'em.
  • Intuition and Insight: Does Mysticism Have a Valid Role in Philosophical Understanding?
    de-mystify mysticism without denying or contradicting it? That works for me as it is consistent with a naturalistic philosophy also.Pantagruel
    :up:
  • Bannings
    :clap: :100:

    :up: Mea culpa too.
  • What is religion?
    You said I was referring to an individual. I was not. Re:
  • What is religion?
    I wasn't referringvto Lucretius; 'recorded' disbelief in state or hearth gods predate him by centuries, if not a millenium or more, in ancient India, China and Greece.
    The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. — Psalms 14:1 (KJV)
  • What is religion?
    In a religious milieu, "atheism" has a sanitary function as cognitive hygiene (practice) or an intellectual prophylactic (theory) ~ anti-magical / anti-supernatural thinking and living. Also, "atheism" is a very late cultural development compared to the antiquity of religion (i.e. organized superstition), such as e.g. naturalistic philosophies.
  • Perspective on Karma
    You don't know your woo?
    I was counting on you :groan:
    Amity
    Well, at least I know what I don't know. :sweat:
  • What is religion?
    Why have they been with us for so long?Tate
    'Monogamy' (re: prohibitions / stigma of prostitution) is a very recent cultural development of our species and 'denial of mortality' (e.g. religion) is an atavistic coping (anti-anxiety à la placebo) mechanism that might have given rise to culture in the first place. They are legacies of the childhood of the species, IMHO, and nothing more, and their antiquity no more justifies them than e.g. cannibalism is justified by its antiquity.
  • The End of the Mechanistic Worldview
    I think that we need to acknowledge the boundaries of science ...Tzeentch
    This is, in fact, how science works (e.g. peer review, experimental testing and repeatability, defeasibility, etc).
  • Perspective on Karma
    Sorry, that woo is above my pay grade. :smirk:
  • What is religion?
    Modern science does not "rely on verification" insofar verificationism is itself unverifiable. Empirical knowledge is fallibilistic, not justified. Read Peirce, Popper, Haack et al. Consider: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallibilism
  • Who believes in the Flat Earth theory?
    I believe the OP is looking to uncover/analyze [u[a particular mindset[/u] that's, in a sense, susceptible to what in the current epistemic climate can be described as bizarre beliefsAgent Smith
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/577241 :mask:
  • Bannings
    :up:
  • Who believes in the Flat Earth theory?
    Yeah, I know "flat earthers" are violently allergic to all contrary evidence; still, I have to scratch this WTF itch:

    i. Assuming "Earth is flat", explain why GPS, real-time satellite images or red-shifting sunsets are either individually or combined not sufficient evidence that Earth is round.

    ii. Assuming "Earth is flat", explain why long distance callers can – often do – talk to each other during day (west) and at night (east), on either end, simultaneously.

  • What is religion?
    Religious faith (noun, concept), traditional or doctrinal belief in the unbelievable in order to defend the indefensible and excuse (rationalizes) inexcusable conduct by "true believers". :eyes: :pray:

    Religion is really old.Tate
    Göbekli Tepe is about 12,000 years old ..
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe
  • Perspective on Karma
    Essentially the concept is that the unconscious mind is conditioned by ones thoughts and actions. And, most importantly, it can be reconditioned. Ultimately ones unconscious mind is the result of self-conditioning.ThinkOfOne
    I interpret "karma" in a pragmaticist's way (re: Peirce, Dewey): actions-reactions where the reactions are – become – good/bad habits, or virtues/vices (i.e. adaptive/maladaptive), in which the latter are self-immiserating (i.e. "dukkha") in the long run.
  • Intuition and Insight: Does Mysticism Have a Valid Role in Philosophical Understanding?

    Maybe this:

    • Intuition concerns mere thatness (haecceity, e.g. that X is) and not whatness (quiddity e.g. what X is).

    • Mysticism concerns attention to – encounters with – ineffable / sublime thatness (haecceity).

    The concept 'of the fundamental reality underlying our own existence' is ...Jack Cummins
    Incoherent (e.g. realer reality, reality behind / beneath / beyond reality, etc).

    Are waves on the surface of the ocean any less the ocean than the deepest extent of the ocean?

    Is this a difference in kind or just a difference in degree?

    Is the horizon any less "fundamental" than the ground beneath us or sky above? If so, tell me how so.

    Like ocean waves, life paths are existents – ripples of reality, no?

    To say something is "hidden" says something about us and nothing much about the so-called "hidden" X. "Perennial wisdom?" – or rather just developmental, vestigial biases / naïvetes at work with "ancient sages & mystics" like
    • change blindness
    • confirmation bias
    • cognitive dissonce
    • status quo bias
    etc ... which they had intuitively guessimated have distorted perceptions-conceptions of nature? :chin:

    Philosophers have always speculated on the causes and extent of these perceptual-conceptual distortions, and mostly compounded them with additional, extravagantly speculative projections which, in some notable cases, they've developed proto-psychological conjectures to account for "seeing things as we are" instead of "seeing things as things themselves are" (e.g. Democritus' "atomic combinations", Plato's "shadows in the cave", Descartes' "secondary qualities", Spinoza's "modes" (natura naturata), Kant's "phenomena", etc).

    Re: contra gnosis, "fundamental"( or "hidden") "reality" ...
    How the “True World” Finally Became a Fable. The History of an Error

    1. The true world — attainable for the sage, the pious, the virtuous man; he lives in it, he is it.

    (The oldest form of the idea, relatively sensible, simple, and persuasive. A circumlocution for the sentence, “I, Plato, am the truth.”)

    2. The true world — unattainable for now, but promised for the sage, the pious, the virtuous man (“for the sinner who repents”).

    (Progress of the idea: it becomes more subtle, insidious, incomprehensible — it becomes female, it becomes Christian. )

    3. The true world — unattainable, indemonstrable, unpromisable; but the very thought of it — a consolation, an obligation, an imperative.

    (At bottom, the old sun, but seen through mist and skepticism. The idea has become elusive, pale, Nordic, Königsbergian.)

    4. The true world — unattainable? At any rate, unattained. And being unattained, also unknown. Consequently, not consoling, redeeming, or obligating: how could something unknown obligate us?

    (Gray morning. The first yawn of reason. The cockcrow of positivism.)

    5.The “true” world — an idea which is no longer good for anything, not even obligating — an idea which has become useless and superfluous — consequently, a refuted idea: let us abolish it!

    (Bright day; breakfast; return of bon sens and cheerfulness; Plato’s embarrassed blush; pandemonium of all free spirits.)

    6. The true world — we have abolished. What world has remained? The apparent one perhaps? But no! With the true world we have also abolished the apparent one.

    (Noon; moment of the briefest shadow; end of the longest error; high point of humanity; INCIPIT ZARATHUSTRA.)
    — Twilight of the Idols
    :fire:
  • What is religion?
    So what justifies the epistemic standard of justification? (re: verificationism)
  • What is religion?
    Insofar as "faith" is, in practice, suspension of disbelief, objects of "faith" are merely fictions. (Re: scriptural contents of religions)
  • What is religion?
    Whatever is real does not require "faith".
  • What are you listening to right now?
    If anyone shows up for my funeral, these pieces crystalize how I'd like those people to remember to me and so I probably won't change my mind. :grin:
  • What is religion?
    Some theists hold that theism is a common sense default state ...Yohan
    "Some theists" also hold it is "common sense" that the Earth is" flat, only 6,000 years old & the center of crearion". :mask:
  • The End of the Mechanistic Worldview
    A thousand years from now, our science may be as unrecognizable as alchemy.Pantagruel
    Sure, but science "a thousand years from now" will not be inconsistent with, or refute, science today (which, btw, will never be comparable to "alchemy") but will extend it as e.g. Copernicus extended Ptolemy and Einstein extended Newton.
  • The End of the Mechanistic Worldview
    I'd say, if my use of "adaptive" is circular (it's not), then it's virtuously circular.
  • The End of the Mechanistic Worldview
    Modern science is a tool. Though not without its limitations, it is still the most efficacious and prolific tool-developing tool ever developed for self-correctively adapting to nature; and, like all tools, modern science has been misused (misapplied) in many instances. The solution to the problem of misusing a tool is to stop misusing the tool and not, however, in luddite / primitivist reaction, just to abandon and/or replace modern science with demonstrably less self-corrective, less adaptive "traditional" tools. Gross misusage of "traditional", or pre-scientific, tools (e.g. magical thinking, mysticism, spiritualism, sectarian dogmatics), no doubt, five centuries ago had begun driving the exponential development of modern science, which has been so widely adopted precisely because it remains more self-correctively adaptive to nature than modern science's precessors. Nothing mentioned yet suggests a demonstrably more adaptive alternative to modern science which, if there were such an alternative, would be reasonable to consider.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    I believe you're misremembering, or confusing me with someone else.

    update:

    [H]ow many times have you steadfastly predicted his downfall and been wrong?
    After a quick search of my post history, DJ, I'm batting 1.000 so far. Only withinbthe last eight days have I "steadfastly predicted his downfall"; previously, my predictions ranged from aspirational to qualified. However, since Individual-1 left the WH in 2021 after a failed coup and second Impeachment in 13 months:

    • 2021 prediction on 2022 indictments
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/559282

    • 2021 year-end predictions for 2022-2024
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/629464

    • 2021 comments on insurrection and disqualification from Federal office:
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/486293

    • 2022 prediction about indictments & the 2024 elections
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/689938

    • 2022 prediction since the August 8th search warrant
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/728272
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Nothing will happen to Trump.Xtrix
    Won't he die someday?
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    July 2022: At least our "British cousins" have (so far) dodged their own bullet. :up:

    Recap (in light of treasonous Individual-1's pending indictments in multiple jurisdictions) & still-relevant caveat:

    Jan 2017: faux 'Weimar '33 redux' ... first impressions :sweat:
  • What is religion?
    Faith connotes worship.

    Agnosticism – "I don't know whether or not to worship any god."

    Atheism – "I don't worship this god, or I don't worship those gods, or I don't worship any god."
  • What is religion?
    A religion is a practice.

    A g/G is a theory.

    Some practices have (need) a theory and some don't.
  • What type of forum is this?
    Maybe asking for clarity on lightspeed travel versus hypothetically manipulating space to travel faster than light without actually reaching that speed.TiredThinker
    Ez-pz. :nerd:

    According to physical laws (SR), "lightspeed" is only possible for massless particles (e.g. photons). Spaceships have mass, therefore "lightspeed travel" is prohibited.

    Alcubierre warp drive is a speculative method of "FTL travel" and plausible to the degree it's consistent with (known) physical laws..
  • Intuition and Insight: Does Mysticism Have a Valid Role in Philosophical Understanding?
    :up:

    Do you have a useful working definition of mysticismTom Storm
    In (Western) philosophy, "mysticism" seems the consequence of reason recognizing its own limits – active attention to the gaps in and between reasons (as well as between breaths or heartbeats).

    Also, add to my list above of speculative analogues to "intuition": Karl Jasper's encompassing (transcendence), Emmanuel Levinas' infinity (meontology) and Henri Bergon's la durée.
  • Intuition and Insight: Does Mysticism Have a Valid Role in Philosophical Understanding?
    In his Ethics, Spinoza teaches there are three kinds of knowledge (from the subjective to objective to universal/absolute)
    • knowledge from imagination (lowest, common)
    • knowledge from reason
    • knowledge from intuition (highest, rarified)

    The last kind Spinoza refers specifically to scientia intuitiva – infinite intelligence, mind of god/natura naturans (I think this concept, by analogy, had inspired David Bohm's implicate order) – a rationalist variation on the Hindu Tat Tvam Asi or Martin Buber's I-Thou (i.e. encounter with "the eternal Thou"). Another term for this concept I prefer is reflective understanding.

    I happily endorse mysticism within the context of philosophical naturalism.Pantagruel
    I do as well, and consider myself an ecstatic naturalist (after Spinoza's 'estatic rationalism').