>"do things exist" is actually unironically a heated debate in philosphy
>"do things exist" is actually unironically a heated debate in philosphy
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
Why are intellectuals so dum and stoopid?
> In previous editorials I have written about the absent-minded and socially-inept 'nutty professor' stereotype in science, and the phenomenon of 'psychological neoteny' whereby intelligent modern people (including scientists) decline to grow-up and instead remain in a state of perpetual novelty-seeking adolescence. These can be seen as specific examples of the general phenomenon of 'clever sillies' whereby intelligent people with high levels of technical ability are seen (by the majority of the rest of the population) as having foolish ideas and behaviours outside the realm of their professional expertise. In short, it has often been observed that high IQ types are lacking in 'common sense'--and especially when it comes to dealing with other human beings. General intelligence is not just a cognitive ability; it is also a cognitive disposition. So, the greater cognitive abilities of higher IQ tend also to be accompanied by a distinctive high IQ personality type including the trait of 'Openness to experience', 'enlightened' or progressive left-wing political values, and atheism. Drawing on the ideas of Kanazawa, my suggested explanation for this association between intelligence and personality is that an increasing relative level of IQ brings with it a tendency differentially to over-use general intelligence in problem-solving, and to over-ride those instinctive and spontaneous forms of evolved behaviour which could be termed common sense.
This is describing high neuroplasticity, which is also asociated with some personality disorders
Nihilism and post-modernity are the conclusions of thousands of years of philosophy being incapable of determining anything, with absolutely nothing being known for certain and everything being treated as a mere opinion. That things exist and there is an objective truth is obvious to anyone without brain parasites, but the failings of philosophy, well-meaning as the endeavour may have been, have ultimately made humans dumber than they were before.
>there is an objective truth is obvious to anyone without brain parasites
Truths such as?
There is grass outside that you can touch. Whether I can prove this with some logical system is irrelevant, you just need to accept it and move on.
Idealism is a fucking disaster and the fact that it's respected as some sort of sensible position rather than schizophrenia is a failure of our society.
>There is grass outside that you can touch.
What defines you, objectively speaking?
You are human refuse
It's really the fault of insisting magic sky daddies exist, which implies existence in some way that differs from normal existence.
Also your post has nothing to do with OP, do things exist is a philosophical question pondered in antiquity
Most reasonable people without severe mental illness seem to know the hardest “what is” questions are now handled by scientific study.
What is the meaning of life?
>sam harris with a BA in philosophy: akshully something something blah blah philosophy 101 but with nonscientific drivel
>What is the meaning of life?
Well that’s for you to figure out. I would say having a family, career and enjoying yourself when you can, but if that doesn’t work for you I don’t know what to tell you.
Keep in mind I said science is for what exists what you should do with your life is less black and white.
Does Schrodinger's cat exist as a living cat? Do many universes exist?
There isn’t going to be an answer to every question yet or maybe ever.
>what doth life
> Nihilism and post-modernity
Doesn't deny that things exist. 😐
>Nihilism and post-modernity are the conclusions of thousands of years of philosophy being incapable of determining anything
Post-modernity comes from capitalist accelerationism, capitalism literally changes the world so fast that in 5-10 years your society is already radically different. You cannot have any coherent philosophy that requires stable definitions in such an environment, it just doesn't work, because the environment itself isn't stable and coherent. Market capitalism literally destroyed a 400 year old definition of woman in the span of 7 years.
Postmodernism starts from deconstructivism and poststructuralism which are mainly about linguistics and semantics and are basicaly part of the overall reaction to the first half of the 20th century, wathwith a bunch of academic bozos thinking it would be a good idea to dissasemble all the 'systems of meaning' they percieved as responsible for shit like never again and muh colonialism etc, as if theyre dissarming a leftover plane bomb
This then combined with baudliards analisis of mass media and capitalism and such
Another root would be existentialism, even if theyr conclusions are in some conflict
Thing is you cant realy define what is postmodern is by content, you can say derrida is a postmodernist, but anything that begins in a postmodern context is by extention or asociation postmodern, even if its not postmodernist, say peterson for example, hes not a postmodernist, but hes whole thing is completely postmodern
Thats the real problem with postmodernity, postmodernism as such is just a small part of it, just the initial charge, everything that happens or becomes in the context and under the conditions of postmodernity simply is postmodern by default, tradcaths are as postmodern as any intersectional circushead, the thing integrates its own opposition
This is in fact one of the most typical aspects of it, reflected in contemporary politics and ideology, the opposition itself is wholy integrated, supportive even, of the system it supposedly opposes
This is a screwed up problem because that way the thing becomes total, final, allprewasive, moreso each day, it covers all horisons and defines the basics of any potential alternative, it offers no way out
>everything that happens or becomes in the context and under the conditions of postmodernity simply is postmodern by default, tradcaths are as postmodern as any intersectional circushead
I disagree. Tradcaths are vastly more postmodern than the intersectional circushead because the intersectional circushead is riding the wave of capitalist accelerationism's changing of definitions and therefore supports the system in its entirety and is even conscious of this fact, while the tradcath is desperately trying to cling to something that cannot and will never exist again.
Well yes, but you get my point
>cling to something that cannot and will never exist again.
Well when you think about it thers two problems with that statement
First of all, it never existed, ever, in the firsplace, its a silly retrofantasy
Secondly, who says it cant, im sure if enough of them congregated in whichewer way the thing would be willed into being trough shere force of autism
They could form theyr own city state in 5 minutes
In fact im sure it would be perfectly functional and compatible in the context of liberal capitalism
And it wouldnt break the rules of postmodernity in any way
>In fact im sure it would be perfectly functional and compatible in the context of liberal capitalism
Probably the most delusional part of your entire post. Anon, progressive neoliberalism doesn't even allow Andrew Tate to be on Facebook and Instagram because he says things the regime doesn't like. If you think they'd allow the existence of a Based And God-pilled CathoCuck City State™, you are actually retarded.
Philosophy was rendered completely useless by STEM
>In philosophy, the term idealism identifies and describes metaphysical perspectives which assert that reality is indistinguishable and inseparable from human perception and understanding; that reality is a mental construct closely connected to ideas. Idealist perspectives are in two categories: subjective idealism, which proposes that a material object exists only to the extent that a human being perceives the object; and objective idealism, which proposes the existence of an objective consciousness that exists prior to and independently of human consciousness, thus the existence of the object is independent of human perception.
"& humanites" fags will read word vomit like this and be like "yeah i agree"
No one agrees with idealism
No one has agreed with idealism in the last hundred years
More interesting I think is how much interpolation your brain does of what you're experiencing. And on top of that, there being a lag, however slight, between what you perceive and the perception of it. It's true though that our entire participation in reality is due to our senses, and our senses are fallible, not to mention the possibility that sense information can be faked, which is proven all the time by people with mental illness.
And that's not even considering how different people interpret the same sense information.
If you’re not mentally Ill and your senses work this should not be a problem.
Sometimes I think about ideas like this and they’re immediately negated by functioning normally and seeing the same things that others are seeing
Science shows that people don't perceive the same things
Yeah anon it’s not perfect but it’s absolutely workable. How often do you go to point at something and it’s invisible to someone else?
Every time I point at magic sky daddy
Having functional perception and coordination dosent even enter into it, and even so human perception is limited as is our comperhension of sorrounding reality, youre just trivialising the problem for edge
>What is the meaning of life?
Incoherent question, what is the meaning of my smelly ass?
>Does Schrodinger's cat exist as a living cat?
Yes, I killed it
>Do many universes exist?
Incoherent question because the reference points of time and space are internal to the universes
>>Does Schrodinger's cat exist as a living cat?
You completely misunderstood the point of the thought experiment. It was a way to show the ridiculous nature of quantum physics, Schrodinger's cat is not about if the cat is both dead or alive when in the box, it's in a superposition where it's both alive and dead until an observation collapses the superposition.
I misunderstood jack fucking shit, literally how do you read my post and then feel the need to write this response
External world is prima facie, same as God
You're all fucking gay
just read the Bible
takes one to know one, homosexual
Because there are loads of old texts like this:
(Fragment form 3rd chapter of Ge Hongs Baopuzi from 4th century AD)
"If we say that there are no immortals in the world, then will it not turn out that we will reject what was written down by wise people, of whom there are at least a thousand, their names and surnames are known, and they have studied all beginnings and ends? Were they just empty speeches?! But if we say that they were endowed with a special pneuma and had a special nature, then I remind you: they are said to have reached their state through training and taking drugs, and not as a result of the possession of some innate knowledge.
If, however, one asserts that the art of the Tao cannot be learned, then I will recall deeds that have been unconditionally attested and have taken place, such as changing the body and appearance, swallowing knives, breathing out fire, the ability not to cast shadows, summoning clouds and clouds, conjuring snakes, bewitching fish and tortoises, liquefying thirty-six kinds of minerals, liquefying jade into a paste, liquefying gold, walking on water as if on dry land, walking on knife blades without wounding the legs, creating illusions and mirages—more than nine hundred such things. All of them can be learned, why can't only one art of gaining the state of immortality be learned?"
The english is a bit broken because I had to google translate Torchinovs russian translation, I had an epub of a lower quality translation on my previous hard drive but it broke and I couldn't be bothered to take the time to find a translation into english.
People write nonsense in wikipedia and in various articles, but the treatises all say more or less the same thing, though they obfuscate a lot, terminology varies etc.
Sorry, wrong thread
When does the circle start?
Thats not a circle
It starts with the first nonwhite pixels
So your average philosopher can’t argue against this anymore than your average polturd?
No, it is not really, but of course it is complicated, very much depends on how one understands the term "thing" and much of the debate may look stupid to people who don't understand what is at stake. I think that the much more important question is "Is X fundamental or is it grounded in something else?" is the much more important question.
Your question is not very refined: you neither clarified what you mean by "things" nor did you clarify what you meant by "exist". There are many ambiguities here. Just let me give you a possible line of thought:
1) Things are only the bundles of their properties
2) therefore, things are individuated like sets
3) accidental change is impossible, only substantial change, i.e. generation and corruption of things. But things cannot change, because change would require that some property changes, but if things are only the set of properties, nothing can stay numerically the same while altering qualitatively.
3) Therefore physics cannot describe the laws which govern the processes of accidental change, since there are no such processes.
At that point one may ask: do things (i.e. the bundles of properties) cause change or do their properties. This question is fundamental for understanding the proper logical structure of the laws of nature.
I) to exist means to occur in space-time
II) things have a spatio-temporal objects, i.e. they are extended into four dimensions
III) Numbers or mathematicl laws do not occur in space-time, they have no spatio-temporal dimension
IV) Mathematics cannot be a science of discovery, which means that mathematics must be constructed in some way or another, which leaves us with either formalism or intuitionism.
V) if conceptualism/mathematical intuitionism (as espoused by Pincaré, Brouwer or Weyl) is true, certain mathematical paradoxes concerning actual infinity can be disregarded, because we are simply unable to conceptualise actual infinites
Read "Semantics, Empiricism and Ontology" by Rudolf Carnap for arguments, why that question is actually interesting in a pragmatic way. Read Quine's essay "On what there is" for further arguments, why ontological questions actually matter in fields like mathematics or physics. (You can also read Stephen Yablo's "Does Ontology rest on a Mistake?" for an evaluation of the differences between Carnap's and Quine's meta-metaphysics and for arguments why one should possibly favour Carnap's side)
Finally, read "On what grounds what" by Jonathan Schaffer for arguments why the question "Does x exist" is not actually a heated debate in philosophy, but rather the question "Is X fundamental or is X grounded in something else?"