Philosophize This!

Hot topics in delusion and rationalization.
User avatar
gnome
Posts: 21511
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:40 am
Location: New Port Richey, FL
Has thanked: 315 times
Been thanked: 322 times

Re: Philosophize This!

Postby gnome » Fri Nov 03, 2017 6:03 pm

Kiri-kin-tha's First Law of Metaphysics: "Nothing unreal exists."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgoB2JMEowc
"If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight! Sun Tzu said that, and I'd say he knows a little bit more about fighting than you do, pal, because he invented it, and then he perfected it so that no living man could best him in the ring of honor. Then, he used his fight money to buy two of every animal on earth, and then he herded them onto a boat, and then he beat the crap out of every single one. And from that day forward any time a bunch of animals are together in one place it's called a zoo! (Beat) Unless it's a farm!"
--Soldier, TF2

User avatar
Witness
Posts: 14073
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm
Has thanked: 1618 times
Been thanked: 2171 times

Re: Philosophize This!

Postby Witness » Fri Nov 03, 2017 9:04 pm

ed wrote:PROP. V. There cannot exist in the universe two or more substances having the same nature or attribute.

A Hydrogen atom, asshole.

Substances, ed, substances! Nothing to do with something as vulgar as matter.

Some say he destroyed Medieval Scholasticism by turning it against itself. Not sure that's a compliment. :mrgreen:

And yes, still too much gOD.
Walter Ball (1888) wrote:“Laplace went in state to Napoleon to accept a copy of his work, and the following account of the interview is well authenticated, and so characteristic of all the parties concerned that I quote it in full. Someone had told Napoleon that the book contained no mention of the name of God; Napoleon, who was fond of putting embarrassing questions, received it with the remark, ‘M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator.’ Laplace, who, though the most supple of politicians, was as stiff as a martyr on every point of his philosophy, drew himself up and answered bluntly, ‘Je n’avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là.’ ['I had no need of that hypothesis.'] Napoleon, greatly amused, told this reply to Lagrange, who exclaimed, ‘Ah! c’est une belle hypothèse; ça explique beaucoup de choses.’ ['Ah, it is a fine hypothesis; it explains so many things.']”

Numerous variants exist, of course.

User avatar
ed
Posts: 32007
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: Rhino of the Florida swamps
Has thanked: 397 times
Been thanked: 664 times

Re: Philosophize This!

Postby ed » Fri Nov 03, 2017 9:56 pm

Witness wrote:
ed wrote:PROP. V. There cannot exist in the universe two or more substances having the same nature or attribute.

A Hydrogen atom, asshole.

Substances, ed, substances! Nothing to do with something as vulgar as matter.




ed humpty dumpty.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
- new minimalist ethos -

User avatar
Witness
Posts: 14073
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm
Has thanked: 1618 times
Been thanked: 2171 times

Re: Philosophize This!

Postby Witness » Fri Nov 03, 2017 10:51 pm

↑ Semantics Nazi! :godwin: (Or is it just Postmodernism? :notsure: )

(I note you capitalize "ed" – take a stance.)

User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 20359
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan
Has thanked: 1255 times
Been thanked: 1034 times

Re: Philosophize This!

Postby Anaxagoras » Sat Nov 04, 2017 12:36 am

Abdul Alhazred wrote:
ed wrote:I. Everything which exists, exists either in itself or in something else.

WTF does that mean?


Just go with it.

That's step one in proving God sort of exists. :P


"God" to Spinoza was different from the one in the Bible. He used it interchangeably with "nature". The universe, everything that exists, was all part of God.

As far that quote goes, most things exist within something else: The Earth exists within the solar system, the galaxy, the universe. The universe at least exists within itself. As far as we know, the universe is all there is. Some have speculated about other things, other universes, but I don't think there's any experiment or observation we could do that would confirm or falsify such speculation.
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 20359
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan
Has thanked: 1255 times
Been thanked: 1034 times

Re: Philosophize This!

Postby Anaxagoras » Sat Nov 04, 2017 12:45 am

Witness wrote:
ed wrote:PROP. V. There cannot exist in the universe two or more substances having the same nature or attribute.

A Hydrogen atom, asshole.

Substances, ed, substances! Nothing to do with something as vulgar as matter.


What he means by "substance" is a little confusing, but does give a definition for it:

"III. By substance, I mean that which is in itself, and is conceived through itself: in other words, that of which a conception can be formed independently of any other conception."

I don't totally understand it either, but in the Podcast, Stephen West gives an example of something that is not a substance according to Spinoza's definition: an iPhone. You cannot form a conception of an iPhone independently of any other conception. You need many other concepts as a basis to form a concept of an iPhone, like the concept of "communication" and innumerable others.

http://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/C ... .00015.pdf

Some of Spinoza’s most well-known doctrines concern what kinds of beings there are and how they are related to each other. For example, he claims that: (1) there is only one substance; (2) this substance has infinitely many attributes; (3) this substance is God or nature; (4) each of these attributes express the divine essence; and (5) all else is a mode of the one substance. These claims have so astonished many of his readers that some of them have surely concluded that they must not know what Spinoza means by “substance,” “attribute,” and “mode.” In this article I shall try to explain how Spinoza understands the basic ontological categories denoted by these expressions.
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

User avatar
ed
Posts: 32007
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: Rhino of the Florida swamps
Has thanked: 397 times
Been thanked: 664 times

Re: Philosophize This!

Postby ed » Sat Nov 04, 2017 2:34 am

Anaxagoras wrote:
Abdul Alhazred wrote:
ed wrote:I. Everything which exists, exists either in itself or in something else.

WTF does that mean?


Just go with it.

That's step one in proving God sort of exists. :P


"God" to Spinoza was different from the one in the Bible. He used it interchangeably with "nature". The universe, everything that exists, was all part of God.

As far that quote goes, most things exist within something else: The Earth exists within the solar system, the galaxy, the universe. The universe at least exists within itself. As far as we know, the universe is all there is. Some have speculated about other things, other universes, but I don't think there's any experiment or observation we could do that would confirm or falsify such speculation.

Banality, thy name is Spinoza
- new minimalist ethos -

User avatar
ed
Posts: 32007
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: Rhino of the Florida swamps
Has thanked: 397 times
Been thanked: 664 times

Re: Philosophize This!

Postby ed » Sat Nov 04, 2017 2:35 am

Anaxagoras wrote:
Witness wrote:
ed wrote:PROP. V. There cannot exist in the universe two or more substances having the same nature or attribute.

A Hydrogen atom, asshole.

Substances, ed, substances! Nothing to do with something as vulgar as matter.


What he means by "substance" is a little confusing, but does give a definition for it:

"III. By substance, I mean that which is in itself, and is conceived through itself: in other words, that of which a conception can be formed independently of any other conception."

I don't totally understand it either, but in the Podcast, Stephen West gives an example of something that is not a substance according to Spinoza's definition: an iPhone. You cannot form a conception of an iPhone independently of any other conception. You need many other concepts as a basis to form a concept of an iPhone, like the concept of "communication" and innumerable others.

http://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/C ... .00015.pdf

Some of Spinoza’s most well-known doctrines concern what kinds of beings there are and how they are related to each other. For example, he claims that: (1) there is only one substance; (2) this substance has infinitely many attributes; (3) this substance is God or nature; (4) each of these attributes express the divine essence; and (5) all else is a mode of the one substance. These claims have so astonished many of his readers that some of them have surely concluded that they must not know what Spinoza means by “substance,” “attribute,” and “mode.” In this article I shall try to explain how Spinoza understands the basic ontological categories denoted by these expressions.


A mere nut kick is far too merciful.
- new minimalist ethos -

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 68400
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 2511 times
Been thanked: 995 times

Re: Philosophize This!

Postby Abdul Alhazred » Sat Nov 04, 2017 2:35 am

Anaxagoras wrote:
Abdul Alhazred wrote:
ed wrote:I. Everything which exists, exists either in itself or in something else.

WTF does that mean?


Just go with it.

That's step one in proving God sort of exists. :P


"God" to Spinoza was different from the one in the Bible. ...


Implicit in the phrase "sort of" :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 68400
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 2511 times
Been thanked: 995 times

Re: Philosophize This!

Postby Abdul Alhazred » Sat Nov 04, 2017 2:37 am

How does one say "New Age touchy feely" in Latin? :wink:
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
ed
Posts: 32007
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: Rhino of the Florida swamps
Has thanked: 397 times
Been thanked: 664 times

Re: Philosophize This!

Postby ed » Sat Nov 04, 2017 1:46 pm

Nonne novae huius aetatis feelie queri
- new minimalist ethos -

User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 20359
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan
Has thanked: 1255 times
Been thanked: 1034 times

Re: Philosophize This!

Postby Anaxagoras » Sat Nov 04, 2017 3:40 pm

ed wrote:
Nonne novae huius aetatis feelie queri


RETRACT THAT!!!! :x :x :x
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 68400
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 2511 times
Been thanked: 995 times

Re: Philosophize This!

Postby Abdul Alhazred » Sat Nov 04, 2017 3:49 pm

:BigGrin3:
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
Witness
Posts: 14073
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm
Has thanked: 1618 times
Been thanked: 2171 times

Re: Philosophize This!

Postby Witness » Sun Nov 05, 2017 12:45 am

Depending on where you stand on the Heraclitus – Democritus spectrum, the Wiki page on substance will seem hilarious or depressing.
Wikipedia wrote:Substance theory, or substance attribute theory, is an ontological theory about objecthood, positing that a substance is distinct from its properties. A thing-in-itself is a property-bearer that must be distinguished from the properties it bears.

Substance is a key concept in ontology and metaphysics, which may be classified into monist, dualist, or pluralist varieties according to how many substances or individuals are said to populate, furnish, or exist in the world. According to monistic views, there is only one substance. Stoicism and Spinoza, for example, hold monistic views, that pneuma or God, respectively, is the one substance in the world. These modes of thinking are sometimes associated with the idea of immanence. Dualism sees the world as being composed of two fundamental substances, for example, the Cartesian substance dualism of mind and matter. Pluralist philosophies include Plato's Theory of Forms and Aristotle's hylomorphic categories.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory

My son is taking a course in philosophy, and last night we were looking at something by Spinoza and there was the most childish reasoning! There were all these attributes, and Substances, and all this meaningless chewing around, and we started to laugh. Now how could we do that? Here’s this great Dutch philosopher, and we’re laughing at him. It’s because there’s no excuse for it! In the same period there was Newton, there was Harvey studying the circulation of the blood, there were people with methods of analysis by which progress was being made! You can take every one of Spinoza’s propositions, and take the contrary propositions, and look at the world and you can’t tell which is right.
Richard P. Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 68400
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 2511 times
Been thanked: 995 times

Re: Philosophize This!

Postby Abdul Alhazred » Sun Nov 05, 2017 12:49 am

Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
Witness
Posts: 14073
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm
Has thanked: 1618 times
Been thanked: 2171 times

Re: Philosophize This!

Postby Witness » Sun Nov 05, 2017 12:50 am

Abdul Alhazred wrote:'nuff said. :p

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_abuse

I refrained from that easy pun! :mrgreen:

User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 20359
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan
Has thanked: 1255 times
Been thanked: 1034 times

Re: Philosophize This!

Postby Anaxagoras » Tue Nov 07, 2017 12:01 am

Voltaire in a letter to Frederick II:

“[Christianity] is assuredly the most ridiculous, the most absurd and the most bloody religion which has ever infected this world. Your Majesty will do the human race an eternal service by extirpating this infamous superstition, I do not say among the rabble, who are not worthy of being enlightened and who are apt for every yoke; I say among honest people, among men who think, among those who wish to think. … My one regret in dying is that I cannot aid you in this noble enterprise, the finest and most respectable which the human mind can point out..”
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

User avatar
Witness
Posts: 14073
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm
Has thanked: 1618 times
Been thanked: 2171 times

Re: Philosophize This!

Postby Witness » Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:26 am

Ah, the rabble.

After becoming persona non grata in Paris, Voltaire went into serious watchmaking in Ferney (now Ferney-Voltaire) near Geneva:
Voltaire's initial marketing efforts largely consisted of appeals to his highly placed personal contacts. He sent a box of samples to Choiseul, to distribute at the forthcoming marriage of the dauphin and Marie-Antoinette. He sent circular letters to French ambassadors requesting them to establish outlets for the watches; predictably, he had little success with Cardinal Bernis in Rome, though he fared much better with Pierre Paul marquis d’Ossun in Spain. He also prevailed upon the goodwill of Catherine the Great, who to a large extent floated the industry in early days; in mid-1771 it was reckoned that deliveries to Saint-Petersburg were worth no less than 60,000 livres. As time progressed Voltaire sought out more regular markets. The watchmakers themselves had contacts with Turkish outlets: by June 1771 Voltaire boasted that 30,000 livres worth of watches had been sent to Constantinople. According his nephew d'Hornoy, in 1775 Turkey and the Levant were the principal export markets. Nearer home Voltaire managed to market Ferney products in twelve French cities, although he complained that Parisian watchmakers would resell the watches under their own names for a considerable mark-up. After initial difficulties, he was able to enlist the help of the celebrated Parisian watchmaker Jean-Antoine Lépine, a native of the pays de Gex, who sold Ferney watches in his Parisian shop in the place Dauphine, From 1774 until 1792, Lépine also had watch movements made at Ferney, and Voltaire wrote proudly: "I am well acquainted with L'Epine, watchmaker to the King, who has an establishment at Ferney, under my dependency indeed...“
http://rodama1789.blogspot.ch/2016/10/voltaire-watchmaker.html

At that time watch smuggling through the French-Swiss border was in full swing.

User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 20359
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan
Has thanked: 1255 times
Been thanked: 1034 times

Re: Philosophize This!

Postby Anaxagoras » Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:45 am

From a discussion about the difference between deontology and consequentialism

A quote from a certain Cardinal Newman:

The Church aims, not at making a show, but at doing a work. She regards this world, and all that is in it, as a mere shadow, as dust and ashes, compared with the value of one single soul. She holds that, unless she can, in her own way, do good to souls, it is no use her doing anything; she holds that it were better for sun and moon to drop from heaven, for the earth to fail, and for all the many millions who are upon it to die of starvation in extremest agony, so far as temporal affliction goes, than that one soul, I will not say, should be lost, but should commit one single venial sin, should tell one wilful untruth, though it harmed no one, or steal one poor farthing without excuse


'Tis better for millions of people to die in agony than for one person to tell a harmless lie. :roll:

Put me in the consequentialist camp. Some ends justify some means.

Even the great Kant seems to be some sort of moral absolutist (definitely more of a deontologist than a consequentialist).
https://philosophynow.org/issues/61/Kant_On_Suicide

All Enlightenment thinkers who wrote on the subject – Hume, Voltaire and Rousseau among others – agreed that the religious condemnation of suicide was not only preposterous but also entirely lacking in charity. Kant, on the other hand, denounced suicide in the most unqualified and indeed quite furious terms. According to him “suicide is in no circumstances permissible.” The man who commits suicide “sinks lower than the beasts.” We “shrink from him in horror.” “Nothing more terrible can be imagined.” “We look upon the suicide as carrion.” And if a man attempts suicide and survives, he has in effect “discarded his humanity” and we are entitled to “treat him as a beast, as a thing, and to use him for our sport as we do a horse or a dog.” (from The Metaphysics of Morals, 1797.)

Kant maintains that man is God’s property, and hence has no right to dispose of his own life. However, Kant also has a number of purely secular arguments, two of which deserve some discussion. According to the first of them, the suicide is abasing and degrading his humanity by treating himself as no more than a thing:

“Man can only dispose of things; beasts are things in this sense; but man is not a thing, not a beast. If he disposes of himself, he treats his value as that of a beast. He who so behaves, who has no respect for human behavior, makes a thing of himself.”


Not very charitable, is it? :notsure:
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 65751
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom
Has thanked: 3025 times
Been thanked: 1931 times

Re: Philosophize This!

Postby Doctor X » Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:14 pm

What a pissant.

--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out."--Don
DocX: FTW.--sparks
"Doctor X wins again."--Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry."--His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone."--clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far."--Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig."--Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power."--asthmatic camel

WS CHAMPIONS X3!!! NBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup! SB CHAMPIONS X5!!!!!


Return to “Religion & Philosophy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CCBot [Bot] and 0 guests