Comments
-
Descartes and Animal CrueltyIn the article Descartes on Animals in the Philosophical Quarterly, Peter Harrison argues that the view that Descartes denied feelings to animals is mistaken. — RussellA
I did find a copy of that work, and scanned it, but it doesn't make any mention of the allegations that I found in the post I linked to, about Descartes actually mounting demonstrations of torturing dogs. Towards the very end, Harrison says 'Whether Descartes' hypothesis encouraged such practices as vivisection remains an open question', so presumably Harrison is not aware of such claims. Now this thread has attracted so much attention, I'll put some more time into double-checking the substance of it. -
How can metaphysics be considered philosophy?(Incidentally for those unaware the original poster has been banned.)
I find the relationship between metaphysics and religion frustrating. On the one hand, as you note, religion is intended to "account for the foundational basis of being itself," which is exactly what metaphysics does. On the other hand, the existence of any particular god understood as a literal being rather than metaphorically is a matter of fact. — T Clark
I think I'm starting to get some perspective here. I've been following a very good, scholarly writer who publishes on Medium Castalian Stream, specialising in stoic philosophers through the perspective of Pierre and Isletraut Hadot. Pierre Hadot is famous for his revival of the values of ancient philosophy, through his books such as Philosophy as a Way of Life, and What is Ancient Philosophy, among others. (More details below if required.)
RevealAccording to Hadot, twentieth- and twenty-first-century academic philosophy has largely lost sight of its ancient origin in a set of spiritual practices that range from forms of dialogue, via species of meditative reflection, to theoretical contemplation. These philosophical practices, as well as the philosophical discourses the different ancient schools developed in conjunction with them, aimed primarily to form, rather than only to inform, the philosophical student. The goal of the ancient philosophies, Hadot argued, was to cultivate a specific, constant attitude toward existence, by way of the rational comprehension of the nature of humanity and its place in the cosmos. ....
According to Hadot’s position as developed in What is Ancient Philosophy?, philosophical discourse must in particular be situated within a wider conception of philosophy that sees philosophy as necessarily involving a kind of existential choice or commitment to a specific way of living one’s entire life. According to Hadot, one became an ancient Platonist, Aristotelian, or Stoic in a manner more comparable to the twenty-first century understanding of religious conversion, rather than the way an undergraduate or graduate student chooses to accept and promote, for example, the theoretical perspectives of Nietzsche, Badiou, Davidson, or Quine.
....Hadot acknowledges his use of the term “spiritual exercises” may create anxieties, by associating philosophical practices more closely with religious devotion than typically done. Hadot’s use of the adjective “spiritual” (or sometimes “existential”) indeed aims to capture how these practices, like devotional practices in the religious traditions, are aimed at generating and reactivating a constant way of living and perceiving in prokopta, despite the distractions, temptations, and difficulties of life. For this reason, they call upon far more than “reason alone.” They also utilize rhetoric and imagination in order “to formulate the rule of life to ourselves in the most striking and concrete way” and aim to actively re-habituate bodily passions, impulses, and desires (as for instance, in Cynic or Stoic practices, abstinence is used to accustom followers to bear cold, heat, hunger, and other privations) — IEP
The point is, ancient stoicism and other philosophies were indeed ways of life, on the basis that to make the 'philosophical ascent' required to attain insight into the 'first principles' required certain characteristics and attributes which the ordinary man (the hoi polloi) lacks. (This is very much the topic of many of the Castalian Stream entries.) It was presumed that those who had such insight were aspiring to be, or actually were, sages (although it was always felt that the true sage was exceptionally rare.) Even stodgy old Aristotle had that side to him.
RevealAristotle never stated this exactly, but in 6.7.2-3 said that Wisdom [σοφία] is the most perfect mode of knowledge. A wise person must have a true conception of unproven first principles and also know the conclusions that follow from them. “Hence Wisdom must be a combination of Intelligence [Intellect; νοῦς] and Scientific Knowledge [ἐπιστήμη]: it must be a consummated knowledge of the most exalted objects.” Contemplation is that activity in which ones nous intuits and delights in first principles.
The point is, us hoi polloi don't see these things, because we're not sufficiently trained. But don't worry! saith Martin Luther. All you need is faith! Who needs all this 'wisdom of the Greeks?' (which is likely to be luciferean, anyway). 'Faith in the Word' is sufficient!
I will grant that is something of a caricature, but I think it's near the point. Interestingly, the one mainstream Western cultural tradition in which Aristotelian metaphysics is still a living culture is the Catholic, and there are Catholic intellectuals who are adept in it (I'm thinking of Jacques Maritain, Edward Feser, Stephen M. Barr, and others of that ilk) because of Aquinas' synthesis of Aristotelian and Neoplatonist philosophy with theology.
In any case, the upshot of a lot of this is that large elements of the consensual metaphysical framework which used to underpin Western culture and society have been forgotten or abandoned, and not really replaced (although there are always nascent forms of a new metaphysic emerging.) But I think this is the deep cultural reason for the uneasiness (not to mention the outright hostility) directed towards metaphysics - too close to religion for comfort! -
The role of observers in MWIFantastic answer from ChatGPT. But there's a lot of 'in principle' there. I agree, it's 'in principle' testable, in a way that much speculative physics is not, but a lot would have to happen first. I'm confident you and I will never see it, it will remain 'in principle', possibly forever.
Deutsch is a very imaginative individual, and this whole many-worlds idea appeals on that level. But the Copenhagen attitude is much more modest, in my view. May not be as exciting.
I remember reading years ago the Guardian review of Brian Greene's book on the multiverse (which I know is a different thing to the many worlds interpretation, but still)....
When Moses asks to see who or what he has been conversing with on Mount Sinai, he is placed in a crevice and told to look out once the radiance has passed (no peeking now!). Anything more than a glimpse of God's receding back, the story implies, would blow his mortal fuses. The equivalent passage in Hindu scripture occurs in the Bhagavad Gita – and, as befitting that most frank of all religions, is more explicit about the nature of the fatal vision. Krishna responds to the warrior Arjuna's request by telling him that no man can bear his naked splendour, then goes right ahead and gives him the necessary upgrade: "divine sight". What follows is one of the wildest, most truly psychedelic episodes in world literature.
No longer veiled by a human semblance, Krishna appears in his universal aspect: a boundless, roaring, all-containing cosmos with a billion eyes and mouths, bristling with "heavenly weapons" and ablaze with the light of a thousand suns. The sight is fearsome not only in its manifold strangeness but because its fire is a consuming one. "The flames of thy mouths," a horrified Arjuna cries, "devour all the worlds … how terrible thy splendours burn!"
Until recently, a physicist would have regarded this scene as the picturesque delirium of a pre-scientific age. Most still would. And yet the contemplation of the unspeakable flowering of an infinity of worlds is no longer the province of "mystics, charlatans and cranks", as the leading string theorist Michio Kaku has written, but instead occupies "the finest minds on the planet".
Welcome to the multiverse. — Ned Denny, TheGuardian -
How can metaphysics be considered philosophy?The other point that might be considered is the confluence of metaphysics and religion. Quite often the two will be grouped, as they were by the Vienna Circle, who routinely lumped them together. Why is that? I think it's because they're both the attempt to account for the foundational bases of being itself. There also an historical factor - which is that early Christian theology incorporated a good deal of the terminology and conceptual tools from Aristotelian metaphysics (and neoplatonism) to provide the philosophical superstructure for belief. That found its ultimate expression in Thomism in the West and orthodox theology in Eastern Europe. They can be dealt with separately but because of the way they've ended up being blended there is a fairly porous boundary - it is clear that movements like positivism, again, tend to regard them as different aspects of the same meaningless morass of verbiage.
-
The role of observers in MWI...the quantum AI experiment that he describes... — Andrew M
You mean this?
if we had a quantum computer on which an artificial-intelligence program was running, say, with human level artificial-intelligence then this entity would be able to experience interference in its own consciousness. — Are There Many Worlds? David Deutsch in conversation with Markus Arndt
You think that is remotely close to what Popper would consider 'falsifiable by empirical evidence'?
‘When we create an artificial human using technology that doesn’t exist yet, all will be revealed!’ -
How can metaphysics be considered philosophy?I think that's pretty accurate. Metaphysics mainly comprises unproven first principles - unproven, because they are understood as the basis for any investigation to proceed. If you wonder what they are, it's because they're generally so deeply embedded in your outllook that they condition how you think about things, without your necessarily being conscious of them. They are often principles that are thought to 'go without saying'.
Consider the epistemological approach known as radical constructivism, which is a kind of anti-realist attitude - 'radical constructivism is an approach to epistemology that situates knowledge in terms of knowers' experience. It looks to break with the conception of knowledge as a correspondence between a knower's understanding of their experience and the world beyond that experience. Adopting a sceptical position towards correspondence as in principle impossible to verify because one cannot access the world beyond one's experience in order to test the relation, radical constructivists look to redefine epistemology in terms of the viability of knowledge within knowers' experience'. The metaphysical claim shows up in the inevitable debates with realists. 'What?' realists will demand. 'You think the whole world is only in your mind?' I've been a party in this debate many times, generally as the former, and it proves difficult or impossible to bridge the gap between worldviews, because there's a kind of foundational or temperamental disposition that I think is associated with those respective views, that is very hard to articulate. -
Descartes and Animal CrueltyMight also add, by way of full disclosure, that I am very much a dog lover. I've had quite a few, though none currently - my dear other is indifferent to them - but the last one in particular, named River, I had a very close physical relationship with, as I used to take him to the dog wash every week, and he was also a rather emotionally needy dog, as he'd been neglected for years prior to being rescued by us, and had apparently been caged alone for a great many years. Took him six months to settle down.
(He was also an exceedingly lazy dog, although it turned out he might have been suffering from diabetes for the 3 years that we cared for him.) -
Descartes and Animal CrueltySomething I'd like to see is the connection between Cartesian philosophy and how we still treat animals. — Moliere
That was in the back of mind when I started this debate, although since joining forums ten years ago I've become aware of how deeply influential Descartes is in modern culture (much more so that most people are consciously aware.) But his mechanistic view of organisms is deeply embedded in today's culture although being seriously challenged now by (for example) semiotics in biology, embodied cognitivism, and other more holistic philosophies. -
Descartes and Animal Cruelty
-
Descartes and Animal CrueltyI know I'm the one who introduced Dennett into the conversation, but let's try and keep the thread on track, or else I'll split it into a new topc.
-
Descartes and Animal CrueltyThanks for that! Jonathan Bennett's editions are always very helpful. I'm nowhere near really understanding the background to these disputes, I will admit.
Quite what Descartes means by 'thought', why humans have it and animals don't - I have a rough idea, but I'll do some more reading. But one point is that I'm sympathetic to the idea that the faculty of reason is (in Descartes' terms) 'an incorporeal power', i.e., something that cannot be explained in physical terms (contra the philosophical materialists.) Reason comprises the ability to grasp the relationship of ideas, and is not reducible to any notion of physical causation (a theme I'm exploring under the 'argument from reason'.) I'm of the view that when h. sapiens evolved to the point of being able to reason, speak and tell stories, then a new horizon of being opened up which is not reducible to the physical domain, including the biological domain. In other words, that humanity transcends biology. I think that is a modernised version of Descartes' belief.
But it seems to me that Descartes' understanding of the mind or soul is too narrow. It's not that I would rather say that 'dogs have souls', but my conception of what 'the soul' stands for is much broader than Descartes allows. There is mention of the Pythagoreans belief that souls transmigrate between different species (there's a famous anecdote that Pythagoras recognised the departed soul of a friend in the bark of a dog), which Descartes dismisses. He's on firm ground there, of course, because reincarnation is anathema to the Church. But me, I'm not so certain......
In the article Descartes on Animals in the Philosophical Quarterly, Peter Harrison argues that the view that Descartes denied feelings to animals is mistaken. — RussellA
It is not available for free online reading, but I do know and respect Peter Harrison's work.
Before cancelling Descartes and tearing down his statues... — RussellA
Please notice I've already stated that:
and alsoI'm not someone who wants to tear down statues of famous people connected to the slave trade, for instance.... — Wayfarer
I have respect for Descartes - certainly I don’t want to ‘cancel’ him! — Wayfarer
Criticism is not cancellation! In fact the inability to make this distinction is one of the primary drivers of 'cancel culture'. -
Descartes and Animal CrueltyWell talking to orchids sure is preferable to torturing dogs, I’ll give you that.
-
Descartes and Animal Cruelty
-
The role of observers in MWIThe observer problem is a problem because there’s nothing in the maths to indicate where the observer must come into the picture. But the act of observation seems to be fundamental to determining the result. This undermines the principle of objectivity, that things are ‘just so’ irrespective of whether they’re observed or not. And that is one of the planks of Galilean science. As soon as the observer has to be acknowledged - that’s where the trouble starts, as far as science is concerned.
-
Descartes and Animal CrueltyPhilosophy long pre-dates, and post-dates, Descartes. I have respect for Descartes - certainly I don’t want to ‘cancel’ him! But the discovery of the particular acts under discussion here does change my opinion, not so much of Descartes the man (though there is that) but of the overall credibility of Descartes’ philosophical model. That discussion upthread about Descartes denying that animals are in any way different to rocks or earth - Aristotle's ontology was better than that! He recognised that animals possess attributes which mere matter does not, even if he also acknowledged that they lack reason. Something really fishy about all this.
I started the thread as a kind of :yikes: - so far, the most significant further discovery has been the article that Hanover linked to on the Friesian school website. There's probably a lot more to be discovered.
I'm kind of a dualist, myself - but as far as I understand it (which is probably not far), I'm much more persuaded by the matter-form dualism of 'A-T' (Aristotelian-Thomist) than by Descartes'. -
Descartes and Animal CrueltyAs often I have no idea what you’re on about, but please don’t try to explain, it will probably only confuse things further.
-
The role of observers in MWIHow is it possible to even discuss these things without a deep knowledge of the machinery of experiments? — jgill
PBS SpaceTime video on the double-slit experiment.
Dr Quantum video on the double-slit - short and to the point.
They both cover the same basic subject matter. The basic point is graspable without any deep knowledge of physics, but of course learned exposition on the competing interpretations - why we see what we see - is a different matter. -
What is the root of all philosophy?Did philosophy begin somewhere? If so, where and how and when and why and who and what? — Bret Bernhoft
The actual word, 'philo-sophia', 'love-wisdom' is derived from Greek, and what is recognised in Western culture as philosophy is likewise derived from ancient Greek culture. Some say the first to be given the title 'philosopher' was Pythagoras, others that philosophy proper begins with Plato's Apology. Some will argue that philosophy is universal and found in other cultures also, and there's some truth in that, but I think for the English-speaking world, it's worthwhile trying to think about the subject in the terms that are associated with the philosophical tradition, proper. Trying to re-invent it from scratch would be rarely productive, save for the occasional prodigy. -
Is pornography a problem?Morris' book was ostensibly scientific - he had been (just looked it up again) keeper of primates at a zoo. But he made a lot out of the sexuality of h. sapiens - basically that was the main subject, or at least the only bit that made an impression. :yikes:
I recall barely anything about 'sex education' at school but I vividly recall my encounters with erotic magazines and literature. -
Is pornography a problem?We're sexual creatures, our libido being, as is obvious, liberated from the rhythms of the universe; quite unlike other animals, we're arousable 24×7, 7 days a week, 30 days a month, whole year round — Agent Smith
Gotta say, there was a book in the 60's called The Naked Ape, by Desmond Morris, which made all these points in abundant detail. God, it was hot 1. It was where I first learned about fellatio. (Parent's bookshelves were a treasure trove of erotica in the 60's - who could forget Burgo Partridge's A History of Orgies? None of it actual porn, although that, and Philip Roth's Couples, was as good as, at that age....)
-------
1. "In February 1976, the book was removed from high school library shelves by the board of education of the Island Trees Union Free School District in New York." -wikipedia. -
Descartes and Animal CrueltyHow does the additional fact of now knowing of Descartes' predilection for dog hammering affect your previous understanding of the Meditations? — Hanover
That it indicates his philosophical dogma is radically insufficient in a way which I hadn't previously understood. It's one thing to argue abstractions, quite another when infliction of actual suffering is involved.
This just seems such an aside held out for outrage. — Hanover
I have no particular axe to grind against Descartes. Up until this disclosure, I had no reason to think ill of him, and frequently refer to him in discussions. -
Descartes and Animal CrueltyThat's a downgrade from Descartes, because Descartes was not crazy enough to think we doubted consciousness - while Dennett does. — Manuel
I quite agree, but I think this discussion is helping to understand the progression from Descartes to Dennett. Dennett's major foil is Descartes, and many of Dennett's critics note that he seems to act as if philosophy begins with him. Perhaps Descartes' metaphysical schema is such that one of it's consequences would inevitably be something like eliminative materialism, because of the way it depicted mind as a kind of ghostly substance (bearing in mind, what Descartes means by 'substance' is really nearer to 'being' or 'subject').
All that said, I recognise Descartes' genius. The invention of algebraic geometery alone provided one of the fundamental tools in the arsenal of modern scientific method.
Oh, and I agree with you about Janus' 'straw Dennett'. ;-) -
The role of observers in MWIWayfarer, I know you have a hard time with a 'bigger' universe, — noAxioms
Notice the quotes around 'bigger'. What I think you actually mean is, 'many'. They're very different things.
Einstein didn't like the uncertainty principle or the 'quantum leap' because he was a determinist. -
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?There is no invisible thing associated with consciousness. There is no soul, as some envision, that is the essence of consciousness. — Sam26
What the human mind does - uniquely well, as far as we can ascertain - is grasp abstract ideas and see causal relations (among other things) which are foundational for the ability to speak and reason. Consider for example the ‘imperfection argument’ from the Phaedo - that there is no physical or empirically existent instance of what is denoted by “=“. No two things are exactly the same (other than numbers, which are not things). And yet we rely on the concept of equals (and other like concepts) for all manner of rational thought. Rational thinking relies on such abilities, which have no physical equivalent, but without which there would be no science or mathematics. That is an attribute of the faculty of reason. That is a far cry from an ‘invisible thing’ yet it is a unique characteristic of the rational mind. Nor is it an ability for which there could feasibly be a scientific explanation, as any scientific explanation will of necessity rely on the very faculty which it would be here seeking to explain. -
Descartes and Animal Cruelty:up:
It's all ad hom. — Hanover
Ad hominem means 'attacking the man not the argument'. I'm criticising the metaphysic which can overlook or endorse such activities. It's not an ad hominem argument. To my mind it indicates a serious deficiency of the understanding, especially significant because of the role which Descartes occupies in the formation of the modern mind.
Also, as I stated, I'm not one who favours indiscriminately judging past actors by present standards, but this seems a different kind of case (although I must admit I did say it lowered my opinion of him.) -
The Debt Ceiling IssueNever noticed that. Will seek it out next visit (which may well be in about 6 months.)
-
Descartes and Animal CrueltyYou mean to say Descartes' conception of body. — Manuel
But they're defined in opposition to each other. Body is only extension with no thought, mind is only though with no extension. Even the human body is conceived of being like clay or earth, nothing alive about it, and the bodies of animals collections of mechanical parts. Man is different solely because of the divine gift of reason.
Dennett, as I read him, does not deny the existence of mind — Janus
We've been through that umpteen times. He does not deny it straight up, he says something like 'of course, I don't deny the existence of mind, but.....' - and then what comes after the 'but' amounts to denying the existence of mind. That is what eliminativists seek to eliminate. See The Consciousness Deniers.
The connection between Ryle and Dennett is that the former taught the latter, at Oxford. (Incidentally, this is a great profile of Ryle, who took over from Collingwood after the latter's untimely death. The article argues that Ryle pretty well single-handedly engineered the 'analytic-continental divide' in philosophy.) -
Descartes and Animal CrueltyWell, sure, there's plenty of violence committed in ostensibly Buddhist cultures, it's human nature, regrettably. (With some exceptions, it is said that the Himalayan Buddhist cultures are kind to animals to a fault, I remember from that Seven Years in Tibet, when the Dalai Lama wanted a cinema constructed, the whole project was delayed by months as the monks moved all the earthworms.)
I think, more to the point, it's not a large jump from Descartes' conception of the mind, to Dennett's eliminative materialism. First, define 'mind' in a way that is completely unfeasible. Then, declare that only humans possess it. Gilbert Ryle and Daniel Dennett take the next step of saying it's something that doesn't exist at all. -
Descartes and Animal CrueltyThe article that @Hanover linked https://www.friesian.com/jowers.htm is informative. I hadn't realised the absolute nature of Descartes' division between mind/ reason (which he seems to grant only to humans) and body. Some snippets as follows. It begins with an objection and Descartes' reply.
... ... animals... possess life, which is said to be "nobler than any merely corporeal grade of being". Descartes responds by simply denying the notion that "life" is nobler than inanimate being. In accordance with his mechanistic philosophy, he holds the body to be "nothing but a statue or machine made of earth," and apparently thinks this conclusion sufficiently well established that he need not defend it at length...
...Descartes expands this claim by asserting that "it is certain that [animals] have no perfection which is not also present in inanimate bodies". It follows, therefore, that any argument, derived from the observation of nature, which purported to prove that dogs or apes have reason would apply with the same force, not only to sponges, but even to rocks....
There is some sophisticated argument, or rather, some sophistry, deployed in defense of Descartes dogma, but it strikes the modern reader, I think, as manifestly absurd, and not just on humanitarian grounds. Even in the 17th century, it would be easy to demonstrate, I would have thought, that all living beings possess attributes which are entirely absent in non-organic substances. -
The role of observers in MWIthat attitude involves saying that there are certain questions about reality that you're not allowed to ask. — Andrew M
It would be better to simply recognise there are things science is unable to ascertain and leave it at that. As a general rule, knowing you don’t know something is preferable to thinking you know something that you don’t. -
The Debt Ceiling IssueMadison is a nice place, we visited late August last and went down to the lakeside of the University campus. My son lives in Oconomowoc, it’s kind of a satellite suburb of Milwaukee. Got taken to a ball game at Milwaukee Stadium. Beginning to feel very at home there.
-
The Debt Ceiling IssueIt's kind of unfortunate that you travel all the way to North America to visit Wisconsin. — frank
I've only began to visit the United States later in life, I've had, I think, 7 trips there now. (Highlight was catching the California Zephyr from SF to Chicago about ten years ago). America has always exceeded my expectations - it's a lot like it looks on television, but I've always been treated with courtesy and friendliness, and it was just better than I expected. Just as well, as I now have two American grandkids (although they will be dual Australian citizens.) I get the Wisconsin is kinda dull, but Lake Michigan is something.
Anyway, to get the discussion back on track, here's today's updates. -
Ukraine CrisisIt seems inevitable that the only ending to this war can be great disaster - either great disaster for Putin, or great disaster for the whole world. It's plain that he's not going to back down because any acknowledgment of defeat will cause his own collapse. He doesn't care how many die on either side, so he has to keep attempting to advance at all costs, like a shark who can't stop swimming forwards lest it drown. Hopefully the very worst-case scenario of actual nuclear war conducted by ICBM missiles will not be triggered, but I'm sure there is no easy ending.
-
Descartes and Animal CrueltyThat article on the Friesian website is right on the mark, I will take time to read it.
I will add, my overall estimation of Descartes has always been very high. He was subject of the first unit I ever studied in undergrad philosophy as 'the first modern'. I have always shared his estimation of reason and frequently refer to his writings. I'm also very interested in the assumed connection between reason and the soul, it is a topic I'm researching.
But I'm dubious that these acts can be rationalised merely by the fact that they occured in the past. I have no doubt that if I did enough research I could find examples (other than Buddhism, already mentioned) of ancient philosophies that abjured cruelty to animals. -
Ukraine CrisisIf Russia finally captures Ukraine by mass murder, torture, and nuclear threats, then everything the world has gained since the defeat of the Axis in 1945 and the end of the Cold War in 1991 will be in mortal peril. Putin will prove to himself and to every dictator on the planet that nothing has changed since Hitler, that lawless nations can achieve their aims by using force at will, by killing and raping innocent people and then literally grinding their ashes into the dirt. This is no longer about Russia’s neo-imperial dreams or Ukraine’s borders: This is a fight for the future of the international system and the safety of us all. — To Defend Civilization, Defeat Russia - The Atlantic
-
Descartes and Animal CrueltyWhilst I see the point of the views expressed above, I'm still very shocked by this discovery. I'm not someone who wants to tear down statues of famous people connected to the slave trade, for instance - the past is a different country, as the saying has it, they do things differently there. So be it. But this case seems uniquely egregious. I can understand how farm animals would be worked to death or cattle treated with extreme harshness throughout history - not that I think it a good thing - but the deliberate infliction of appalling cruelty in support of a so-called philosophical model seems another matter to me.
-
Convergence of our species with aliens:up: I only summarised what was in the original but yes you hit the nail on the head. One thought that occurs to me is that current culture has to dislodge itself from this ‘either/or’ dilemma - of either ‘God did it’ OR ‘it’s random chance’. (That too will resonate with @Gnomon). Although, I will add, often both sides of the ‘culture wars’ cling to a caricature of the idea of ‘Creator’, which the physicalists depict in terms of bad science, and the creationists as a super-engineer. I’m still hopeful there is a spiritual philosophy which can accomodate whatever facts are there to be discovered but still orient us towards the fundamental mysteriousness of existence.
Wayfarer
Start FollowingSend a Message
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2026 The Philosophy Forum