Comments

  • What is the mind?
    Philosophy is supposed to be based on logic
    — bioazer

    Who says? Your Logic course professor? Logic is a game, not philosophy.     — Rich

    You don't have to agree, but there's a pretty longstanding tradition going back to folks like Socrates, Plato, and Artistole that philosophy is supposed to be based on logic.

    What is philosophy to you?
  • What is the mind?
    What is the mind without its contents? What is the mind when it is vacant of thought, perceptions, ideas and concepts? Is it still in existence or is non existent without these properties? — Fumani

    On my view a mind without contents would cease to be a mind. A mind is not a container for thoughts; it IS the thoughts.
  • Trump and "shithole countries"
    That Trump is qualified to be president — Thorongil

    What in your view makes someone qualified to be President? What are some of the defining characteristics?
  • Can God defy logic?
    I was wondering whether there is an argument in favor or against this statement: "God can defy logic".

    This issue raised up in another thread. I was questioning whether 1+1=3 is possible.
    Can God defy logic?     — bahman

    I don't think even an omnipotent being could defy hard rules of logic. 1+1=3 is not possible in the traditional system of mathematics and it would not be any more possible for us than for God.

    However, I don't think any legitimate definition of omnipotence would require a deity to be able to defy th laws of logic. I don't even think that 1+1=3 is even intelligible. What would it mean? What would it look like? What would it represent?
  • Philosophical Starting Points
    I would disagree, to some extent, that one cannot really decide a philosophical starting point. Doing philosophy is a metacognitive endeavor. It is thinking about one's own thought and belief. As such, it requires that one first have thought and belief, otherwise there is nothing to think about. One has no choice in either the socio-economic situation they are born into, nor their own cognitive capabilities, nor their initial world-view. So, in that sense, one does not decide their starting point.

    However, that is not doing philosophy.     — creativesoul

    I like a lot of what you say here. I think Heidegger described what you are talking about as our "thrownness" into a pre-made world that we always are already starting out from. Philosophy is an endeavor to rise above our pre-given belief structure and examine its integrity. Does it hold up under scrutiny or do we need to revise our beliefes?
  • Philosophical Starting Points
    The myth of physical objects is epistemologically superior to most
    in that it has proved more efficacious than other myths as a device for working a manageable
    structure into the flux of experience.     — Quine

    This sounds a little bit like American Pragmatism, yeah?
  • Philosophical Starting Points
    I'm curious about how participants here factor a starting point into their own philosophical position(s).

    For me, when I took up philosophy, I figured that one's position ought at least be agreeable to known facts. Thus, in short I basically attempted to set out all the things that are known and looked for a means to tie them all together, so to speak...

    And you?     — creativesoul

    Hello everyone, haven't posted here in awhile. Thought I'd say hi!

    My philosophical background is mostly in phenomenology and existentialism. To that end, my methodological starting point tends to be phenomenological.

    When a philosophical question is posed, I look to the phenomenological data that manifests itself in our everyday world for a starting point. From there, I can use other tools and methods like logical analysis to make sense of the phenomenological data and see if what manifests itself at first blush holds up under stricter scrutiny.

    So, take a question in metaphysics as an example. i.e. "Do numbers exist?" The place I would tend to start is by examining how numbers show up for human beings in everyday life. What role do they play in our world?

    Places I would not start are methods such as listing out necessary and sufficient conditions for being a number, or, looking to physics and the natural sciences to answer the question for us.
  • What does it mean to exist?
    ↪MysticMonist
    Ah, the question of Martin Heidegger, "What is the meaning of being?"

    Perhaps the toughest philosophical question to answer.

    But what about thoughts and emotions? They are experienced but don't have material substance, right? Yet neuroscience is beginning to explain to us how these experiences arise out of physical reality. — MysticMonist

    Mental states certainly exist. This kind of leads immediately to the mind / body problem. If mental states are actually physical states, then to say they exist is pretty straightforward. If they are somehow distinct from physical states, then they must exist in a way that is wholly different from material entities.

    At the end of the day, I think neural firings and mental states are two sides of a coin. So I would say yes, they exist and in a relatively straightforward way.

    But what does it mean to exist? That a great question. I guess the intuitive answer that I can think of is "to be a a part of the world." Whatever that means...
  • The value of truth
    I think truth is an equiprimordial value along with happiness. Truth doesn't necessarily make us happy, that much is self-evident. But yet we seek truth anyway. We find it important, perhaps as important, as happiness. I don't think there's anything higher than truth that can justify its value. We value it in itself.
  • What is the purpose of government?
    What is the purpose of government?
    MonfortS26
    145
    What should the focus of a government be? How much power should it have?     — MonfortS26

    1. The purpose of government is to lift humankind out of the state of nature and the war of all against all that the state of nature essentially entails Government creates an ordered, civil society in which human beings can not only coexist - when they aren't killing each other - but cooperate with each other.

    2. The focus of the government should be twofold:

    a) Creating a society that's worth living in - i.e. better than the state of nature
    b) defending that society from external and internal threats that would destroy it

    3. The power of the government should be however much power is needed to accomplish its purpose of creating an ordered, civil society that's worth living in and to be able to defend that society.
  • Do you cling to life? What's the point in living if you eventually die?
    I know I don't want to live forever because that would be a drag, but I feel instinctively deep down in my unconscious like I want to live forever. It feels that if I don't live forever then everything I do is just a waste of effort. Yet despite this, I know that the appreciation of beauty does not depend on eternal existence. How can such contradictory thoughts/feelings be imputed on to the mind of man? — intrapersona

    I think life is more meaningful and important and beautiful because it is impermanent. Eternity would rob life of all of these things for me. Also, eternity sounds kind of boring to me. I cling to life for now - I am not ready to die yet. But I hope if I make it to 80 or so, I shall be ready when the time comes.
  • Heidegger's ontology of others is solipsistic. Others are not contingent upon 'being-with'.
    But what if say you were born on a desert island and never met or knew about other humans? How could 'being-with' others be a part of your experience? — dukkha

    I think Heidegger's response would be that such a human being would not be a Dasein at all, as being Dasein and being a biological human being are not for Heidegger the same exact thing.

    Being-with, Heidegger argues, is only a necessary feature of the experience of any entity that could be called a Dasein. Much of Dasein's understanding of the world is determined by its experience of other Dasein.


    It's existence without other Dasein would be so radically different - would such a being even have language? - that it would probably be more akin to what it is like to be a biological animal than to be a Dasein.

    I look forward to your response to this.
  • The society depicted in Kubrick's Eyes wide shut
    ↪Meta
    I have put this into the General Philosophy section because it is connected to several topics such as art, politics or religion. So in Kubrick's Eyes wide shut we can see that members of the elite basically do what they want. They get along with murder, drugs, prostitution and they rule everything. They form a social class which means what they do they do it systematically. On top of that they occasionally oranize occult rituals which makes that even scarier in some sense (how rational or moral could they be?).

    The masked ritual scene with the naked chicks is full of masonic and religious (Christian) symbolism.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhV-4658syE
    I think one of the main messages of the movie is how religious and elite groups manipulate and rule society in a very destructive way.

    The strangest part is that three days after Kubrick gave the movie to Warner Brothers he died of a heart attack.

    Do you think that we are living in this distopian future or just Kubrick was a brilliant director with the most brilliant real world ending for his movie (but all the symbols are what they are: symbols and images of imagination)?     — Meta

    Meta, I love this film! I've only seen it once but I think it's an underrated masterpiece, one of Kubrick's best out of an incredibly filmography.

    I think the dystopian society we are living with is quite different than the one Kubrick suggests. In Kubrick, the cult is a secret of the elites. But in the Trumpian age, Trump and his fellow aspiring oligarchs have been emboldened to pretty much flout the rule of laws out in the open. In many ways, I think the American moral-political landscape now is far more dangerous than even the one suggested by Kubrick. Might you agree?
  • Post truth
    ↪Agustino
    No religions cannot be obliged to recognise gay marriage for example. Indeed, that would be to harm religious believers and to restrict their freedom. Now gay people can surely set up their own "weddings" in gay communities, officiated by whoever they want to, but they cannot force a priest to officiate their ceremonies. — Agustino

    Hi there Agustino. I am assuming your would agree that, like speech (help! in a crowded fire) even religions have a legally binding limits to their freedoms in non-theocratic states like the USA.


    Outside of self defense, for example, a religion has no legal standing in the USA to physically harm an LGBT person, for example. I think it's less clear to what extent a religious person or organization would be legally restricted from psychologically harming them, though I'd imagine there are definite limits there too.


    I think it's practically impossible to legislate belief though, so I'd agree with you there. It would be pretty hard to legislate against a belief that, for example, it is morally permissible to harm or kill an LGBT person or any person who does not subscribe to your religious faith. You can only legislate against speech that criminalizes such an exhortation to my violence and, of course, the violent acts themselves.

    Does that sound about right to you?
  • What I'm Getting Out of Existentialism
    Hi Anonymous,

    I am not nearly as familiar with the thinkers you cited as I am with Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, & Sartre. I find it very, very hard to lump all of the existentialists into one particular camp because they disagree on many, many points.


    But yes, I think it's fair to say that all of them think that philosophy has left out what I think you'd call the actual lived, human experience of the world. Instead, philosophy has traditionally emphasized highly theoretical or abstract interpretations of what human experience is like. If I had to pick one dominant theme in existentialism, it would probably be that one.


    They also, I think, have a tendency to emphasize the negative sides of the human experience. Negative emotions like dread, anxiety, despair, etc. And phenomena that are traditionally conceived of as negative, especially the concept of death and human finitude as well as the idea of "the nothing" and nihilism in general.


    Most of my academic studies were focused on Martin Heidegger. Undoubtedly the Heidegger of the early period, when he wrote Being & Time, is extremely considered with what he considered to be actual human experience, or what he called being-in-the-world.


    He also certainly rejected scientism and egoism. Science, after all, only studies beings or entities. It never studies being itself, which is the task of philosophy as ontology as Heidegger sees it. And Heidegger's chapter devoted to the "who" of being-in-the-world with its conception of "das man" is a direct argument against the concept that we are isolated, egoistic selves primarily rather than social beings that are thrust into a world of other people, or other Dasein.


    Heidegger would also agree with your last point that are choices, in terms of over-arching life project - the things that we most care about - being a mother, being an artist, being a factory worker, being a good friend - are somewhat arbitrary.


    It's harder to say what Heidegger thinks about authenticity. To my knowledge he never explicitly argues, at least in Being & Time, that the authentic life is *better* than the inauthentic life. But he certainly seems to imply it with just the word choice alone.


    Does Marcel have anything to say about being authentic? I would imagine he does as it's a pretty common existentialist theme.


    Love existentialism. Always very happy to discuss!
  • Question for non-theists: What grounds your morality?
    - This is a question for non-theists who hold to objectivity in ethics (moral realists) - e.g. it is always true that murdering someone for no reason is morally wrong, etc. — Modern Conviviality

    I'm pretty much a subjectivist on morality, so I don't think anything really objectively grounds it. I would say that an individual person's system of morality, insofar as it is coherent, is grounded in subjective first principles. However, once you make use of these first principles and assume their value is true, there are many logical truths we can derive from it.


    i.e. 1. Murder is always wrong --> subjective principle

    2. Abortion is murder (I personally reject this premise so to me the argument is not at all sound)
    -----------
    3. So therefore abortion is wrong, too. The conclusion follows from the premises.


    First principles themselves are based on what I would call existential choices made by the individual subject. So accepting premise #1 as true would be such a choice.
    I'm not sure if there's anything that can objectively ground morality, not even God. If morality is the divine command of God, it just seems to be that God is putting forth her own preferred subjective system of morality.
  • Emotions are a sense like sight and hearing
    So there is an emotional style that speaks to a set of shared values and serves as the expected way to behave. — apokrisis

    Good point. Heidegger, it is sometimes argued, was saying this in his writing on the phenomenon of being-in. Just as an individual person has its mood, so does the broader society.


    I think it's pretty obvious that the dominant mood of the USA right now is anger. I won't elaborate on why, but I am sure you can figure it out!
  • Why Relationships Matter
    Having children may create stronger bonds between people, but you don't need to procreate in order to make intimate bonds with others...right?[/quote]

    Certainly you do not. And to be frank I've heard that having a child puts a lot more stress and difficulty on a relationship or on marriage.     — Buxtebuddha
  • Why Relationships Matter
    getting an education and a job is important, but if we forsake forming bonds in order to focus entirely on getting ahead in life, when we finally achieve that goal, how much time will be left? Would you have to desperately rush into a relationship as my parents did when you realize there is a such thing as too late? Or should you simply hope that when the end comes being surrounded by all of your trophies will be of some comfort? — Eric Wintjen

    I would basically agree with the argument that relationships are primary for a flourishing life and achievements and property are definitely secondary. Study after study shows the social bonds are the most important factor for human happiness. And since happiness and or a flourishing life is generally our overarching goal, taking the most direct and efficacious route there makes a lot of sense.

    Rushing a romantic relationship can be OK, but I would not rush into marriage because of all the legal ramifications that separating engenders.
  • Post truth
    ↪Saphsin
    ↪Thanatos Sand I'm with you there, but neoliberal liberal/centrism still has a sizable gap from the Extreme Right politics of the Republican Party, it's just that the gap is a lot narrower than what most people think. But I would still say MSNBC still very different from Fox. — Saphsin

    I have to agree with you here. There are many, many types of people for whom the party in power has a major effect on my life. If, for example, I'm a woman who needs an abortion, a transgendered man seeking to live an equal and normal life, an undocumented immigrant, or a peaceful Muslim who is attempting to come to the United States, which party is in power makes a tremendous difference on my life.

    I acknowledge that I am a partisan Democrat,a Hillary fan, and all the rest. Nevertheless, I don't think that undercuts my first point. Hilary's America, at least the first half year, would have looked extremely different from Trump's.
  • Do you believe in the existence of the soul?
    ↪Rich
    ↪Brian Sheldrake provides concrete lines of experimentation. — Rich
    Not familiar with him or his work but I'd be interested to learn about it. Not because I'm likely to accept or condone it, but just cause I like to know stuff.
  • van Inwagen's expanded free will defense, also more generally, The Problem of Evil
    van Inwagen suggests that an explanation for why human-oriented horrors exist is because there is no "cut-off" line to be drawn that isn't arbitrary. The atheist may reply that there is a minimum level of horrors that God could have chosen to exist for his plan to work. I'm not entirely sure why van Inwagen thinks such a minimum line does not exist. He equates it to asking how many raindrops needed to fall on England in 1941 for it to be fertile, or a prisoner asking to get released a day early, which at least for me is confusing, because obviously you can't fertilize England with one rain drop. — darthbarracuda

    Wouldn't that also be like saying that because the amount of raindrops needed to fertilize England is vague then there are no such things as raindrops or fertile lands? Me am confused, Mr. van Inwagen.

    The problem from my perspective has always been that whatever we designate as good or evil is not that way objectively but is a subjective valuation of an entity or event. This would be true for anyone, including God. However, if God doesn't find the kinds of things abhorrent that most people do - like war, rape, starvation, etc., this would be a very questionable God to approve of.

    But to van Inwagen's point, either God (assuming he existed) doesn't think that these things are evil, or he does and he's powerless to stop himself from creating them - OR God does think they are evil and creates them anyway. If the last is true, God is not all good. If the middle option is true, God is not omnipotent. If the first is true, God is pretty hard to relate to. Regardless, to me and without a doubt if one accepts any of these three alternatives then God is very different than how we imagined him throughout the history of monotheism.
  • Do you believe in the existence of the soul?
    ↪Rich
    ↪Brian If one was interested in pursuing a line of investigation, this would be one avenue that can be pursued. Persistence of memory during one life and multiple lives could provide the fundamental key to understanding this metaphysical question.

    For this idea to have merit, it must be shown that memory is not stored in the brain but rather in the underlying fabric in the universe, while the brain acts as a filter just as a TV tuner might.     — Rich

    In theory, but in practice, I am not sure how a scientist could really research the persistence of memory in a way that was meaningful and would verify the existence of survival of death. That seems like a pretty tall order to me and not at all realistic.
  • Who do you still admire?
    What about you? If you like a writer/philosopher/historical figure, are there things about their personal life that would turn you off? — anonymous66

    In some cases. Heidegger is the philosopher I've studied most and I love his thought and writings. But he was a member of the Nazi party and expressed significant anti-semitic feelings. This bothers me tremendously, although it does not undermine my admiration for the philosopher, just the man behind it.


    I guess the figure that comes closest for me, and I have no real idea what, if anything, I know about him is true, is Siddhartha Guatama, the Buddha. Even if all the supposed facts about him are false, though, the received story about him is pretty tremendous and he is the regulative ideal towards which i try to aspire in minor ways.


    I am pretty liberal when it comes to sexual morality though. Someone cheating on their spouse is probably not going to sway my opinion too much. Being abusive towards your wife in a physical, emotional, or sexual way, however, would be a pretty huge sin for me.
  • Do you believe in the existence of the soul?
    ↪Rich
    ↪Rich
    ↪Brian Exactly. Talents (memory of skills) that we are born with. This would be evidence of persistence of memory. It is no more supernatural than the skills we learn while playing sports or learning a musical instrument. It is the nature of evolution. — Rich

    It theoretically could be evidence of a previous life, but I think that link is weak. I think some babies and children just have an incredible ability to learn new things based on their biological makeup very, very quickly and to an exceptional degree.
  • Do you believe in the existence of the soul?
    I understand the word 'soul' to mean 'the totality of the being' - as suggested by sayings such as 'body, mind and soul'. it's not a precisely defineable term, but I think that is what I think it suggests.

    I think it's mistaken to speak in terms of the soul as being something you have. It is not an appendage or add-on, but the totality of the being. That is my reading of it.

    A book I have noticed about the subject is this one:

    A Brief History of the Soul, Stewart Goetz et al. http://a.co/dL2D8xA

    (If anyone has read it, I would be interested in their opinion.)     — Wayfarer

    I haven't read that book but I like this line of thinking. It dovetails very nicely with much of our colloquial use of the term "soul." I also think it has connotations with the factor that every person has his own unique mix of characteristics and qualities. "No two souls are alike." Of course, it also means something like deep feeling, i.e. "that musician / song had a lot of soul."

    The fundamental structure of my life is pretty much organized around my atheistic beliefs that there is no God and that there is no soul. As a consequence, I try to live my life knowing that my life and consciousness will be temporally limited by death and so I have only one shot to make it amazing along the way.
  • Do you believe in the existence of the soul?
    What has ruled out the existence of souls? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

    I don't see why something like a soul is a logical impossibility. On the other hand, I've seen no real a priori or a posteriori evidence that something like a soul exists.
  • Do you believe in the existence of the soul?
    ↪Rich
    ↪WISDOMfromPO-MO For me, evidence of persistence of memory would give rise to the possibility of a continuation of self - possibly through multiple physical lives. What we call innate skills and natural talents can be considered such evidence. — Rich

    I think such things are better explained by simply appealing to the fact that we have certain innate capabilities that we are born with and thatthese are different for anyone. Exquisite talent can often seem supernatural in some way, but I see no real reason to suppose that it actually is.
  • Do you believe in the existence of the soul?
    ↪Locks
    Hi, I'm new, I'm a deep thinker addict and I've been so for about 20 years of my 25. Please forgive me if this is the wrong place to post or if my posts are not scientifically or APA/MLA/Chicago format inclined. This is a question I've pondered and struggled with for a long time, participating in a sort of tug of war with my emotions and logic. I need a sense of clarification on the topic. I think it will give me satisfaction. I need input. Do you think the soul exists as a separate entity from our body, do you think personality has to do with the soul, do you think some souls shine brighter than others or can our existence and disposition be chalked down to environment and biology?

    I am personally on the fence and will be happy to expand on my thoughts later on.     — Locks


    I do not believe in the soul at all in anything other than a metaphorical sense of the unique being of a particular person.


    But no, I believe that we are thoroughly physical beings. Science has not discovered anything like a soul, nor do I have any phenomenological or empirical experience of one.


    While I acknowledge that the human mind is an incredibly complex and unique entity, unlike anything else we encounter in the world,I have no reason to think it is anything beyond an evolved capability of our biological makeup, continuous with but far more developed than the minds of other animals.


    As a consequence, I do not believe in anything like survival of death, let alone immortality. Further, the libertarian notion of free will seems pretty much out to me too.


    That said,life is still wondrous and should be celebrated. Maybe even all the more so!
  • Theory of knowledge for a noob
    Definitely read up on the Gettier probem, for sure, as someone else pointed out in here. And as also mentioned, Plato and Descartes are great starting points as well.
  • Is the brain/mind a digital computer?
    This was one of the more popular threads on the old forum so I'm remaking it.

    Here is Searle's original essay:
    http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Papers/Py104/searle.comp.html

    Some objections are what defines computation? If everything (the entire universe) is a computation then the statement "the mind is computation" is only trivially true.
    Another is that it could in theory be made out of anything so long as the system represents binary symbols (so minds can exist in anything). There is a longer Lanier essay on that problem available. http://www.jaronlanier.com/zombie.html
    Searle also notes the homunculus problem: IE: that someone has to be around to interpret and operate the system.     — JupiterJess

    I generally tend to think that while computation is some of what the brain does, it is far from everything. So, there is overlap but no, the brain is not just a digital computer. I've always enjoyed Searle's work on this topic and I find that the Chinese Room argument reveals deep intuitions about the importance of semantics for determining the nature of the human mind. I tend to think understanding is more basic to the human mind than computing is. And I don't think computers understand, though I obviously can't prove this.
  • The placebo effect and depression.
    Depression seems to be characterized by many thoughts, behaviors, and expectations about the future. However, people get lost in this forest of descriptive characterizations about depression. I've been pondering about the core belief that depression is characterized by and, I think, the issue is rather than wrong beliefs is rather a lack of belief in anything.

    Expectations run on beliefs, so too is the placebo effect a belief about the effect of some action or activity. Even if we assume that depression is a result of a negative belief system, then such an individual would have to adapt to a situation or otherwise perish. The fight or flight response is part of that mechanism of adaptation.

    It seems intuitively obvious that depression is a lack of belief in some expectations about the future, whether these expectations are real or illusory. This is called a loss of hope, which seems intrinsically tied to the placebo effect and expectation fulfillment. With this predicament of losing hope, an individual gives up the beneficial effects of the placebo effect.

    Before I ramble further, I'm wondering about any other beliefs or thoughts on the matter.     — Posty McPostface

    A good friend of mine does a lot of scientific research on the question of hope and the efficacy of treatment. He is found that optimism about the result of your treatment generally correspond with a better outcome from treatment. Very interesting point to ponder, as you yourself mention.

    I have been on depression medication for a long time. I've since fully recovered. I don't know how much the medication helped, but I am too afraid of back sliding to go off of it, unfortunately.

    I tend to think my recovery is a combination oh pharmaceuticals, cognitive and dialectical behavioral therapy practices, mindfulness, improved life circumstances, and self help. But I'll probably never know for sure.
  • What are you listening to right now?
    "Bank Robbery (Prologue)" from The Dark Knight soundtrack. Favorite movie, favorite film score. I usually listen to songs from all three soundtracks before bed.

    Lately, the song "Now or Never" by very smart pop singer-songwriter Halsey is in constant rotation for me, too.
  • Do people have the right to be unhappy?
    On the question of responsibility for your own happiness, I think it's been pretty well documented scientifically that we can have at least some influence on our own happiness. There is definitely some element of personal responsibility involved.

    I guess my question is, why would being unhappy be a desirable state? And if isn't one, why would you bother worrying about having this kind of unenforceable requirement for happiness.
  • J. J. C. Smart on Sensations
    I think that token identity could accommodate multiple realizability, but type identity less so. Based on the description of Smart's position summarized here I'm not entirely sure which one he subscribes to. — Arkady

    Yeah that sounds somewhat more plausible to me. The notion would be that the mind just happens to be identical with the brain if its token identity, is that correct? I think some M-B Identity Theorists have been arguing this point.
  • Capital Punishment
    In short, since capital punishment is an incomplete application of the above mentioned principles, it's NOT justice.

    Comments.     — TheMadFool

    I like the idea of incorporating a humane principle into our understanding of justice. I think justice has to have some kind of basis in moral correctness. A humane principle helps us regulate that.
  • J. J. C. Smart on Sensations
    ↪A Son of Rosenthal
    Smart argues that sensations are brain processes. More precisely, Smart argues that sensations are identical to brain processes. So, the expression 'the sensation (or after image, perception, etc.) of X' is replacable with 'the brain process of X', according to Smart. I think that his theory is plausible. What he suggests is that mental phenomena are identical to brain-physical phenomena. If we accept identity theory, then we can explain mental life in naturalistic ways. So, it's an attractive suggestion. I wonder how others think about it. — A Son of Rosenthal

    I find the main argument against this view, that mentality is multiply-realizable, rather plausible. It seems like life forms with very different structures than the human brain could conceivably have a mind, but Mind-Brain Identity Theory doesn't allow for that. Functionalism is probably the better theory.
  • On Nietzsche...
    Nietzsche is filled with contradictory passages. I try to give him the benefit of the doubt as much as possible and try to assume he either changed his positions or that I'm not properly grasping his statement's meaning and that nothing else he said contradicts it.

    But that sort of sums up Nietzsche and postmodernism. We can have different truths that do not cohere because everything is all pretty much constructed anyway. We're not in touch with any kind of thing-n-itself behind the vale of appearances

    On the whole I tend to find that I think Nietzsche doesn't really value brute power. Sometimes he seems to, but he's often extremely critical of powerful dumb people.

    I've heard people assume that Nietzsche is much more concerned with something along the lines of intellectual power than of political power.

    Whether or not I buy that is dependent upon my mood. Today I give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he would hate Trump.
  • Suicide and hedonism
    I think the vast majority of people value life for its own sake, not just for the sake of experiencing pleasure and avoiding pain. It's hard to put your finger on precisely, but it's just good to be alive, is the position.

    Because we value our lives, we're willing to put up with a significant amount of pain before we generally consider giving it up. So suicide is generally not an attractive option until the horribleness of the pain outweights the good of any continuation of being alive.
  • "True" and "truth"
    ↪creativesoul
    I realize that the following quote wasn't directed at me, but it is something I find quite interesting...

    If I believe that lighthouses are lovely, the content of my belief is "Lighthouses are lovely," not "I believe lighthouses are lovely," unless you like infinite regresses...

    Doesn't this imply that thought/belief is existentially contingent upon language?     — creativesoul

    I think you are pretty much right about this. I had to think about it for a minute. Thinking about animals, who do not possess language, I suddenly find that I don't particularly think they have beliefs or thoughts.


    They have a certain basic level of consciousness / awareness, but I wouldn't go as far to say that animals have beliefs. A dog might stare at a lighthouse, even find it pleasant in some way, but I am not thinking that a dog could have a fully formed belief that the lighthouse is indeed lovely.

    If I really do hold a belief, I think I have to be able to express it in at least some kind of basic language, verbal, written, mental, on paper, etc.

    That goes even more for thought. i don't think you'r really doing what I would call real thinking without some kind of ability to express it in language. Would you agree?
Home » Brian