NATION

PASSWORD

Philosophical Discussion Thread

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)
User avatar
Dagashi Shojo
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1919
Founded: Jun 20, 2016
Ex-Nation

Philosophical Discussion Thread

Postby Dagashi Shojo » Tue Jul 26, 2016 2:55 am

Image


Philosophers are a strange bunch from all walks of life. They can range from mustachioed existentialists such as Nietzsche to egotistic anti-egoists like Schopenhauer, and even Berkeleyan Fascists such as Giovanni Gentile. I figured that it would do no harm to create a philosophy thread on NSG to discuss philosophy in general. As a broad category, philosophy covers varying subjects such as epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, etc. which will be covered under this thread.

To kick-start the conversation: Aside from a belief in the primacy of will and the irrational in life, I'm not entirely convinced of any philosophical system. Berkeley and the subjective idealists made some convincing arguments against how we normally see reality, and Gentile (the father of Actual Idealism) argued even further that reality is a product of the act of thinking, which appears bizarre and untenable though he provided strong arguments for his case. At the moment, I'm inclined to believe reality is primarily mental, to what extent, I am not sure.

Where do you fall on the philosophical scale, NSG?

If anyone wishes for a poll, you will have to suggest one.
Last edited by Dagashi Shojo on Tue Jul 26, 2016 2:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
The hime cut will always be the best hair cut.
Corporatist, Voluntarist, and Idealist.
Eternal Corporatist, she who is always mistaken for corporatocracy.

User avatar
Benuty
Post Czar
 
Posts: 37330
Founded: Jan 21, 2013
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Benuty » Tue Jul 26, 2016 5:11 am

I am convinced of Hobbes claim the universe is predetermined, and that God is composed of material matter. Considering I met Hobbes, and know the gods I serve are made of material matter then they were right.

Their claim of souls dying upon death, and being resurrected upon judgment day is found wanting.
Last edited by Hashem 13.8 billion years ago
King of Madness in the Right Wing Discussion Thread. Winner of 2016 Posters Award for Insanity. Please be aware my posts in NSG, and P2TM are separate.

User avatar
Dagashi Shojo
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1919
Founded: Jun 20, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Dagashi Shojo » Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:06 am

Benuty wrote:I am convinced of Hobbes claim the universe is predetermined, and that God is composed of material matter. Considering I met Hobbes, and know the gods I serve are made of material matter then they were right.

Their claim of souls dying upon death, and being resurrected upon judgment day is found wanting.


If God were material, wouldn't it stand to reason he would be observable? Yet we've found no evidence of any sort of deity, especially not a material one who would need to reside somewhere. The idea of the soul "dying" and being resurrected at some point has always been strange to me. Though it might just be due to me having been a former Neoplatonist with Aristotelian and Aquinian influence.
The hime cut will always be the best hair cut.
Corporatist, Voluntarist, and Idealist.
Eternal Corporatist, she who is always mistaken for corporatocracy.

User avatar
Ifreann
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 163857
Founded: Aug 07, 2005
Iron Fist Socialists

Postby Ifreann » Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:09 am

I love knowledge as much as the next person, but I don't know if I'm in love with knowledge, you know?
He/Him

beating the devil
we never run from the devil
we never summon the devil
we never hide from from the devil
we never

User avatar
Dagashi Shojo
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1919
Founded: Jun 20, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Dagashi Shojo » Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:10 am

Ifreann wrote:I love knowledge as much as the next person, but I don't know if I'm in love with knowledge, you know?


Nonsense. Ifreann x Knowledge is OTP.
The hime cut will always be the best hair cut.
Corporatist, Voluntarist, and Idealist.
Eternal Corporatist, she who is always mistaken for corporatocracy.

User avatar
Benuty
Post Czar
 
Posts: 37330
Founded: Jan 21, 2013
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Benuty » Tue Jul 26, 2016 8:06 pm

Dagashi Shojo wrote:
Benuty wrote:I am convinced of Hobbes claim the universe is predetermined, and that God is composed of material matter. Considering I met Hobbes, and know the gods I serve are made of material matter then they were right.

Their claim of souls dying upon death, and being resurrected upon judgment day is found wanting.


If God were material, wouldn't it stand to reason he would be observable? Yet we've found no evidence of any sort of deity, especially not a material one who would need to reside somewhere. The idea of the soul "dying" and being resurrected at some point has always been strange to me. Though it might just be due to me having been a former Neoplatonist with Aristotelian and Aquinian influence.


I thank it stands to reason that if God, and the soul are composed of matter it might be taken to a logical extreme that matter itself is the soul, and god.

Hence why no one can detect a physical god since you are living in them.
Last edited by Hashem 13.8 billion years ago
King of Madness in the Right Wing Discussion Thread. Winner of 2016 Posters Award for Insanity. Please be aware my posts in NSG, and P2TM are separate.

User avatar
Conscentia
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 26681
Founded: Feb 04, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Conscentia » Tue Jul 26, 2016 8:12 pm

Dagashi Shojo wrote:[...] At the moment, I'm inclined to believe reality is primarily mental, to what extent, I am not sure.

I'm inclined to believe that idealism provides an inferior explanation of the evidence to physicalism.

Am I supposed to believe that I, or humanity collectively, imagined existence to appear as though it's billions of years older than I am/humanity is? And that the apparent physical explanation for human existence, and my personal existence, is just some illusion? Is that really plausible? More so than the physical explanation simply being correct?

Dagashi Shojo wrote:Where do you fall on the philosophical scale, NSG?

My 'test results and assorted other' factbook contains a list of several of my philosophical positions.
Last edited by Conscentia on Tue Jul 26, 2016 8:19 pm, edited 5 times in total.

User avatar
Kubra
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17192
Founded: Apr 15, 2006
Father Knows Best State

Postby Kubra » Tue Jul 26, 2016 8:20 pm

All philosophical problems are ones of language
“Atomic war is inevitable. It will destroy half of humanity: it is going to destroy immense human riches. It is very possible. The atomic war is going to provoke a true inferno on Earth. But it will not impede Communism.”
Comrade J. Posadas

User avatar
The New Sea Territory
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16992
Founded: Dec 13, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby The New Sea Territory » Tue Jul 26, 2016 8:36 pm

>inb4 "only real philosophical question is suicide" quote drop
| Ⓐ | Anarchist Communist | Heideggerian Marxist | Vegetarian | Bisexual | Stirnerite | Slavic/Germanic Pagan | ᛟ |
Solntsa Roshcha --- Postmodern Poyltheist
"Christianity had brutally planted the poisoned blade in the healthy, quivering flesh of all humanity; it had goaded a cold wave
of darkness with mystically brutal fury to dim the serene and festive exultation of the dionysian spirit of our pagan ancestors."
-Renzo Novatore, Verso il Nulla Creatore

User avatar
Kubra
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17192
Founded: Apr 15, 2006
Father Knows Best State

Postby Kubra » Tue Jul 26, 2016 8:36 pm

The New Sea Territory wrote:>inb4 "only real philosophical question is suicide" quote drop
one must imagine Sisyphus bored of it
“Atomic war is inevitable. It will destroy half of humanity: it is going to destroy immense human riches. It is very possible. The atomic war is going to provoke a true inferno on Earth. But it will not impede Communism.”
Comrade J. Posadas

User avatar
Hong Hua
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 3
Founded: Jul 26, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Hong Hua » Tue Jul 26, 2016 8:43 pm

I'm a Neoconfucian.

Among Western thinkers, I am particularly enamored of Whitehead and Deleuze.

User avatar
United Marxist Nations
Post Czar
 
Posts: 33804
Founded: Dec 02, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby United Marxist Nations » Tue Jul 26, 2016 8:49 pm

Morally speaking, I tend to go with divine command theory. I just don't see how there could be a moral system that is correct in the absence of a supreme being that defines right and wrong tbh.
The Kievan People wrote: United Marxist Nations: A prayer for every soul, a plan for every economy and a waifu for every man. Solid.

Eastern Orthodox Catechumen. Religious communitarian with Sorelian, Marxist, and Traditionalist influences. Sympathies toward Sunni Islam. All flags/avatars are chosen for aesthetic or humor purposes only
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
St. John Chrysostom wrote:A comprehended God is no God.

User avatar
Conscentia
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 26681
Founded: Feb 04, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Conscentia » Tue Jul 26, 2016 8:51 pm

United Marxist Nations wrote:Morally speaking, I tend to go with divine command theory. I just don't see how there could be a moral system that is correct in the absence of a supreme being that defines right and wrong tbh.

Divine command is still an arbitrary standard by which to judge the 'correctness' of an action.
Last edited by Conscentia on Tue Jul 26, 2016 8:56 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
United Marxist Nations
Post Czar
 
Posts: 33804
Founded: Dec 02, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby United Marxist Nations » Tue Jul 26, 2016 8:53 pm

Conscentia wrote:
United Marxist Nations wrote:Morally speaking, I tend to go with divine command theory. I just don't see how there could be a moral system that is correct in the absence of a supreme being that defines right and wrong tbh.

Obedience of divine command is still an arbitrary standard by which to judge the 'correctness' of an action.

I don't think so, because I think the presence of said being would make all truth relative to the existence of that being.
The Kievan People wrote: United Marxist Nations: A prayer for every soul, a plan for every economy and a waifu for every man. Solid.

Eastern Orthodox Catechumen. Religious communitarian with Sorelian, Marxist, and Traditionalist influences. Sympathies toward Sunni Islam. All flags/avatars are chosen for aesthetic or humor purposes only
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
St. John Chrysostom wrote:A comprehended God is no God.

User avatar
Conscentia
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 26681
Founded: Feb 04, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Conscentia » Tue Jul 26, 2016 8:56 pm

United Marxist Nations wrote:
Conscentia wrote:Obedience of divine command is still an arbitrary standard by which to judge the 'correctness' of an action.

I don't think so, because I think the presence of said being would make all truth relative to the existence of that being.

An equally arbitrary inverted standard - that God is evil, and it's commands evil - seems just as valid. Just because adherence to the latter standard supposedly ends in hellfire, while the former in salvation doesn't make the former more correct. It just makes it preferable to you.
Last edited by Conscentia on Tue Jul 26, 2016 8:58 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Hong Hua
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 3
Founded: Jul 26, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Hong Hua » Tue Jul 26, 2016 8:59 pm

United Marxist Nations wrote:
Conscentia wrote:Obedience of divine command is still an arbitrary standard by which to judge the 'correctness' of an action.

I don't think so, because I think the presence of said being would make all truth relative to the existence of that being.


Plato's Euthyphro problematizes this. Is an action holy because it is loved by the gods? Or do the gods love it because it is holy?

Frankly I do not see why truth has anything to do with the existence or non-existence of a 'supreme being'.

User avatar
Jumalariik
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5733
Founded: Sep 14, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Jumalariik » Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:01 pm

Hong Hua wrote:
United Marxist Nations wrote:I don't think so, because I think the presence of said being would make all truth relative to the existence of that being.


Plato's Euthyphro problematizes this. Is an action holy because it is loved by the gods? Or do the gods love it because it is holy?

Frankly I do not see why truth has anything to do with the existence or non-existence of a 'supreme being'.

Well the other is if something the pope declares to be is true because he declared it or if the pope declares it because it's true.
Varemeist tõuseb kättemaks! Eesti on Hiiumaast Petserini!
Pray for a new spiritual crusade against the left!-Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium
For: A Christian West, Tradition, Pepe, Catholicism, St. Thomas Aquinas, the rosary, warm cider, ramen noodles, kbac, Latin, Gavin McInnes, Pro-Life, kebabs, stability, Opus Dei
Against: the left wing, the Englightenment, Black Lives Matter, Islam, homosexual/transgender agenda, cultural marxism

Boycott Coke, drink Fanta

User avatar
United Marxist Nations
Post Czar
 
Posts: 33804
Founded: Dec 02, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby United Marxist Nations » Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:02 pm

Conscentia wrote:
United Marxist Nations wrote:I don't think so, because I think the presence of said being would make all truth relative to the existence of that being.

An equally arbitrary inverted standard - that God is evil, and it's commands evil - seems just as valid. Just because adherence to the latter standard supposedly ends in hellfire, while the former in salvation doesn't make the former more correct. It just makes it preferable to you.

I'm not assuming salvation or hellfire in this case. I am simply saying that, because the being exists, that therefore makes reality its domain, and that good can only exist as defined by that being, because all else is defined by that being, including all facts. I would say that denying that the being is good would be like denying gravity. You could do it, but it would be utterly pointless.
The Kievan People wrote: United Marxist Nations: A prayer for every soul, a plan for every economy and a waifu for every man. Solid.

Eastern Orthodox Catechumen. Religious communitarian with Sorelian, Marxist, and Traditionalist influences. Sympathies toward Sunni Islam. All flags/avatars are chosen for aesthetic or humor purposes only
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
St. John Chrysostom wrote:A comprehended God is no God.

User avatar
Hong Hua
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 3
Founded: Jul 26, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Hong Hua » Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:05 pm

United Marxist Nations wrote:
Conscentia wrote:An equally arbitrary inverted standard - that God is evil, and it's commands evil - seems just as valid. Just because adherence to the latter standard supposedly ends in hellfire, while the former in salvation doesn't make the former more correct. It just makes it preferable to you.

I'm not assuming salvation or hellfire in this case. I am simply saying that, because the being exists, that therefore makes reality its domain, and that good can only exist as defined by that being, because all else is defined by that being, including all facts. I would say that denying that the being is good would be like denying gravity. You could do it, but it would be utterly pointless.


Salvation and hellfire aside, that's quite a few assumptions you are making - the existence of a supreme being, the relationship between the supreme being and reality, the relationship between the supreme being and good, etc.

We should probably begin by asking: what is truth?, before attempting to dissect a claim that truth depends on the existence of a supreme being.

User avatar
Dagashi Shojo
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1919
Founded: Jun 20, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Dagashi Shojo » Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:14 pm

Conscentia wrote:
Dagashi Shojo wrote:[...] At the moment, I'm inclined to believe reality is primarily mental, to what extent, I am not sure.

I'm inclined to believe that idealism provides an inferior explanation of the evidence to physicalism.

Am I supposed to believe that I, or humanity collectively, imagined existence to appear as though it's billions of years older than I am/humanity is? And that the apparent physical explanation for human existence, and my personal existence, is just some illusion? Is that really plausible?


It's a common misconception that Berkeley believed that existence is imagined, and not all idealists are Berkeleyan (the Transcendental Idealists for instance). What Berkeley denied was that matter was independent of the perceiver. He was one of the first to point out that color is a production of light and not the object in question, and that all the qualities of the object that we associate with it (sensation, shape, etc.) only exist within our perception and nowhere else. To argue for mind-independent material was for the subjective idealists to argue for matter which lacked any and all properties.

Since Berkeley was a fervent Christian who had no objection to Deus-ex-machina, he was content say that God had always existed and the bundle of perceptions is a result of him. One could make the argument that the bundle of perceptions existed before the birth of the mind. Though I've not read enough of him to make a strong case for his philosophy.
The hime cut will always be the best hair cut.
Corporatist, Voluntarist, and Idealist.
Eternal Corporatist, she who is always mistaken for corporatocracy.

User avatar
Conscentia
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 26681
Founded: Feb 04, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Conscentia » Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:16 pm

United Marxist Nations wrote:
Conscentia wrote:An equally arbitrary inverted standard - that God is evil, and it's commands evil - seems just as valid. Just because adherence to the latter standard supposedly ends in hellfire, while the former in salvation doesn't make the former more correct. It just makes it preferable to you.

I'm not assuming salvation or hellfire in this case. I am simply saying that, because the being exists, that therefore makes reality its domain, and that good can only exist as defined by that being, because all else is defined by that being, including all facts. I would say that denying that the being is good would be like denying gravity. You could do it, but it would be utterly pointless.

Except it wouldn't, because purpose is intrinsically subjective. The maker's intent is irrelevant, as purpose is imparted by the user not the manufacturer.

Analogy: The user may not decide the form of a hammer's head but the user can decide whether to use it to bash nails into surfaces, or as a paper weight or whatever. No particular use is intrinsically correct or incorrect.
Last edited by Conscentia on Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Novsvacro
Diplomat
 
Posts: 981
Founded: Nov 10, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Novsvacro » Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:17 pm

The New Sea Territory wrote:>inb4 "only real philosophical question is suicide" quote drop

Literally Camus' entire relevance.
Cuando el amor llega así, de esta manera,
uno no tiene la culpa
quererse no tiene horario
ni fecha en el calendario

Genetics undergrad. Basketball analytics nerd.

User avatar
United Marxist Nations
Post Czar
 
Posts: 33804
Founded: Dec 02, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby United Marxist Nations » Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:18 pm

Conscentia wrote:
United Marxist Nations wrote:I'm not assuming salvation or hellfire in this case. I am simply saying that, because the being exists, that therefore makes reality its domain, and that good can only exist as defined by that being, because all else is defined by that being, including all facts. I would say that denying that the being is good would be like denying gravity. You could do it, but it would be utterly pointless.

Except it wouldn't, because purpose is intrinsically subjective. The maker's intent is irrelevant, as purpose is imparted by the user not the manufacturer.

Analogy: The user may not decide the form of a hammer's head but the user can decide whether to use it to bash nails into surfaces, or as a paper weight or whatever. No particular use is intrinsically correct or incorrect.

In that case, wouldn't the supreme being be the only being capable of using the entirety of the universe, and therefore be the only thing capable of assigning it purpose?
The Kievan People wrote: United Marxist Nations: A prayer for every soul, a plan for every economy and a waifu for every man. Solid.

Eastern Orthodox Catechumen. Religious communitarian with Sorelian, Marxist, and Traditionalist influences. Sympathies toward Sunni Islam. All flags/avatars are chosen for aesthetic or humor purposes only
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
St. John Chrysostom wrote:A comprehended God is no God.

User avatar
Novsvacro
Diplomat
 
Posts: 981
Founded: Nov 10, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Novsvacro » Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:20 pm

Dagashi Shojo wrote:
Conscentia wrote:I'm inclined to believe that idealism provides an inferior explanation of the evidence to physicalism.

Am I supposed to believe that I, or humanity collectively, imagined existence to appear as though it's billions of years older than I am/humanity is? And that the apparent physical explanation for human existence, and my personal existence, is just some illusion? Is that really plausible?


It's a common misconception that Berkeley believed that existence is imagined, and not all idealists are Berkeleyan (the Transcendental Idealists for instance). What Berkeley denied was that matter was independent of the perceiver. He was one of the first to point out that color is a production of light and not the object in question, and that all the qualities of the object that we associate with it (sensation, shape, etc.) only exist within our perception and nowhere else. To argue for mind-independent material was for the subjective idealists to argue for matter which lacked any and all properties.

Since Berkeley was a fervent Christian who had no objection to Deus-ex-machina, he was content say that God had always existed and the bundle of perceptions is a result of him. One could make the argument that the bundle of perceptions existed before the birth of the mind. Though I've not read enough of him to make a strong case for his philosophy.

So, according to Berkeley, unperceived matter is simply undifferentiated and undefined?
Cuando el amor llega así, de esta manera,
uno no tiene la culpa
quererse no tiene horario
ni fecha en el calendario

Genetics undergrad. Basketball analytics nerd.

User avatar
Dagashi Shojo
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1919
Founded: Jun 20, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Dagashi Shojo » Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:22 pm

United Marxist Nations wrote:Morally speaking, I tend to go with divine command theory. I just don't see how there could be a moral system that is correct in the absence of a supreme being that defines right and wrong tbh.


That would not fix the problem of morality being subjective though. It would be just another being defining morality, his power being irrelevant.
The hime cut will always be the best hair cut.
Corporatist, Voluntarist, and Idealist.
Eternal Corporatist, she who is always mistaken for corporatocracy.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Almighty Biden, Big Eyed Animation, Clante, Crpostran, Cyptopir, Delark, Eahland, General TN, GMS Greater Miami Shores 1, Hidrandia, Ifreann, Magical Hypnosis Border Collie of Doom, Mergold-Aurlia, Plan Neonie, The Apollonian Systems, Tryust, Tungstan

Advertisement

Remove ads