Philosophy Discussion Thread

[Meryuma]

I know, but incompatibilism (shared between indeterminist advocates of free will and hard determinism) is predicated on the idea that indeterminism grants freedom.

Except the video explicitly argues that indeterminism would not grant free will, and there's no such thing as an indeterminist advocate of hard deteterminism. Indeterminism and hard determinism are incompatible.

I forgot to mention that I haven't got around to the video yet and was just respond to the post.

Her first line is "I'll suck your cock for a thousand dollars."

To be fair, anyone would suck cock for a thousand dollars.

Could be a win-win, depending on the person.

The difference between God and man is the difference between time and timelessness, between birth and eternity, between flesh and spirit, between death and life...Christianity signals this over and over again. For a Christian, whenever the sacred erupts into our mortal world, it does so in the form of paradox. Christ is God and man, all at the same time. The Trinity are three and one, singular and plural inseparably bound together. The communion cup is blood and wine, wholly both and singularly neither. As Kierkegaard noted, the indispensable act of faith for the Christian is to accept sacred paradox for what it is: the fingerprint of the divine, the evidence of a truth too vast to be encompassed by human logic and too profound to be reduced to tidiness by the human mind. In that incomprehensible, paradoxical truth lies the Word of God.

Are you a literally a reverend? I don't agree with you at all, but that was some pretty awesome writing.

[Conscentia]

Except the video explicitly argues that indeterminism would not grant free will, and there's no such thing as an indeterminist advocate of hard deteterminism. Indeterminism and hard determinism are incompatible.

I forgot to mention that I haven't got around to the video yet and was just respond to the post.

Except my post didn't mention indeterminism - only determinism, free will, and compatibilism. If you never watched the video linked to, that just makes your response to my post just seems irrelevant to what was written.

[Reverend Norv]

The difference between God and man is the difference between time and timelessness, between birth and eternity, between flesh and spirit, between death and life...Christianity signals this over and over again. For a Christian, whenever the sacred erupts into our mortal world, it does so in the form of paradox. Christ is God and man, all at the same time. The Trinity are three and one, singular and plural inseparably bound together. The communion cup is blood and wine, wholly both and singularly neither. As Kierkegaard noted, the indispensable act of faith for the Christian is to accept sacred paradox for what it is: the fingerprint of the divine, the evidence of a truth too vast to be encompassed by human logic and too profound to be reduced to tidiness by the human mind. In that incomprehensible, paradoxical truth lies the Word of God.

Are you a literally a reverend? I don't agree with you at all, but that was some pretty awesome writing.

That's very kind of you! I am not ordained, but I am a lay preacher, and I take that job seriously enough to keep up on my reading.

[The Grey Wolf]

Her first line is "I'll suck your cock for a thousand dollars."

To be fair, anyone would suck cock for a thousand dollars.

Speak for your itself.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Compatibilists miss the point of the free will vs determinism debate by re-defining "free will".

The philosophical debate centres around whether or not human will is the result of external causes or independent of external causes. The former view being "determinism", and the latter being "free will". As such "free will" is synonymous with "non-deterministic will".

Here's a video for you, and it should skip to the part relevant to compatibilism:
https://youtu.be/Fln2bG7oKn0?t=197

I would argue that it is you, and the non-compatibilists, who are redefining what is meant by "free will". The question of free will only exists because of the question of whether an agent can act uncompelled enough that he can be held morally responsible for his action, so what the various camp of the compatibilists attempt to provide a definition that meet that criteria. The question of whether it is the result of external causes or not only is relevant in so far as it answers the question of whether an agent can be said to be free enough that he is held morally responsible for his action.

[Tutukerala]

Anyways, I definitely liked Kant. I agreed with him on most things.

Ew. Try your best to remedy that, okay?

I am happy that somebody as smart as Pruss started this thread.

Awww. *ego visibly swells*

I am a Christian Existentialist. I find life meaningless and useless, and have Faith in God to help me fight this absurdity.

You don't think Man's purpose is to bring glory to, and worship, God?

My favorite thinkers are: Kierkegaard, Camus, Aquinas, Descartes, Locke, Augustine, and Plantiga

Good, fantastic, *gross noise*, *gross noise*, *sounds of a constipated wildebeest being eaten alive by dull-toothed lions*, meh, and I know nothing of this man.

Well Man's original purpose was to bring glory to God. But after the Fall, we are sinful, and no longer having purpose, unless we have God.

I would be a nihilist without God.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Well Man's original purpose was to bring glory to God. But after the Fall, we are sinful, and no longer having purpose, unless we have God.

I would be a nihilist without God.

If man's purpose originally was to bring glory to God, what is God's purpose. Given that he's on the top of the food chain, so to speak, he should be the ultimate nihilist.

[Tutukerala]

Well Man's original purpose was to bring glory to God. But after the Fall, we are sinful, and no longer having purpose, unless we have God.

I would be a nihilist without God.

If man's purpose originally was to bring glory to God, what is God's purpose. Given that he's on the top of the food chain, so to speak, he should be the ultimate nihilist.

Well God is a Trinity, and each person acts in a way that brings glory to themselves. So God's purpose is too bring glory to himself.


Or maybe I am speaking bull, and your right.

[Tutukerala]

Something I'm interested in hearing about actually, is how the religious, Christians in particular, reconcile the Problem of Evil with Omnipotence. That one's been bugging me for a while.

Evil was decreed by God so that he may glorify himself, by showing both his mercy and wrath.

[Alvecia]

Something I'm interested in hearing about actually, is how the religious, Christians in particular, reconcile the Problem of Evil with Omnipotence. That one's been bugging me for a while.

By "the religious", you mean classical monotheists.

Yeah, I did type out a qualifier 4 or 5 rimes, but couldn't get one I was happy with, so gave up.

[Meryuma]

Something I'm interested in hearing about actually, is how the religious, Christians in particular, reconcile the Problem of Evil with Omnipotence. That one's been bugging me for a while.

Evil was decreed by God so that he may glorify himself, by showing both his mercy and wrath.

How is that morally good tho? Isn't God supposed to epitomize goodness?

[Wallenburg]

Philosophy most certainly is scary. I find it so much easier to look at social and economic and political problems and reason my way to their solution, but philosophy is not like ideology. Philosophy, oftentimes, rests on little to no foundation, for it is the foundation itself; it is the bedrock upon which everything we believe and think and do. Philosophy scares me, because I am not sure where I fall on the several greatest areas of inquiry. I studied some of Descartes's work, and read a lot about Plato and Kant and such, but I'm not really sure what to think about all of it. I guess I'm still just looking for the right philosophy to live by, or to discover whether such a philosophy exists at all.

[Zottistan]

The question of free will only exists because of the question of whether an agent can act uncompelled enough that he can be held morally responsible for his action,

Ah, no, the question of whether or not we have free will exists on its own for the existential implications it has. Accountability is an interesting tangent to this, but it isn't the core question.

[Hurdegaryp]

Philosophy most certainly is scary. I find it so much easier to look at social and economic and political problems and reason my way to their solution, but philosophy is not like ideology. Philosophy, oftentimes, rests on little to no foundation, for it is the foundation itself; it is the bedrock upon which everything we believe and think and do. Philosophy scares me, because I am not sure where I fall on the several greatest areas of inquiry. I studied some of Descartes's work, and read a lot about Plato and Kant and such, but I'm not really sure what to think about all of it. I guess I'm still just looking for the right philosophy to live by, or to discover whether such a philosophy exists at all.

It gets worse. Ideologies and economical systems are actually influenced by philosophy. And let us not even speak of religion.

[Wallenburg]

It gets worse. Ideologies and economical systems are actually influenced by philosophy. And let us not even speak of religion.

In a way, that's my point. Ideology and the like are built upon philosophy. If one chooses to argue with me--through my own philosophy--on a certain topic, I am more open to them and can accept their basic understanding of reality. I can change my worldview without starting it from scratch. Challenging personal philosophy, however, requires a total reassessment of one's previous beliefs that were built upon a now discarded philosophy.

[Hurdegaryp]

It gets worse. Ideologies and economical systems are actually influenced by philosophy. And let us not even speak of religion.

In a way, that's my point. Ideology and the like are built upon philosophy. If one chooses to argue with me--through my own philosophy--on a certain topic, I am more open to them and can accept their basic understanding of reality. I can change my worldview without starting it from scratch. Challenging personal philosophy, however, requires a total reassessment of one's previous beliefs that were built upon a now discarded philosophy.

And we still lack the technology to reboot human brains while disposing of obsolete or downright dangerous 'software' in the process.

[Wallenburg]

And we still lack the technology to reboot human brains while disposing of obsolete or downright dangerous 'software' in the process.

What? Of course we can--I mean, sure. Too bad. One consciousness per head, no refills. Your brain is safe.

...for now...

[Alvecia]

Something I'm interested in hearing about actually, is how the religious, Christians in particular, reconcile the Problem of Evil with Omnipotence. That one's been bugging me for a while.

Bear in mind that this is not an attempt to persuade you of anything. What I am about to say is deeply illogical, and it would not persuade me if our positions were reversed. You don't have to like it; you don't have to believe it. But it is an answer to your question: here is how this Christian reconciles the Problem of Evil with divine omnipotence.

For me, the fault in the Problem of Evil is that it is set up empirically. It assumes that, by making observations about the world, you can compile data that will tell you something about God. For example, if I observe that bad things happen, then it follows that God must lack either omnipotence or omnibenevolence. This is empiricism: it is rooted in observation and analysis.

But here's the problem: observation and analysis do not get you any closer to the truth about God, because God cannot be fully observed and God cannot be logically analyzed.

Kierkegaard and Barth call this the Infinite Qualitative Distinction. The difference between God and man is the difference between time and timelessness, between birth and eternity, between flesh and spirit, between death and life. God is more different from me than I am different from a blind worm crawling in the dirt. I have less right to judge the morality of God's actions than that worm has the right to judge the physics of Einstein. Any attempt to use my rules - logical, empirical, or ethical - to judge God is doomed to failure. I am far too small, and God is far too big.

Christianity signals this over and over again. For a Christian, whenever the sacred erupts into our mortal world, it does so in the form of paradox. Christ is God and man, all at the same time. The Trinity are three and one, singular and plural inseparably bound together. The communion cup is blood and wine, wholly both and singularly neither. As Kierkegaard noted, the indispensable act of faith for the Christian is to accept sacred paradox for what it is: the fingerprint of the divine, the evidence of a truth too vast to be encompassed by human logic and too profound to be reduced to tidiness by the human mind. In that incomprehensible, paradoxical truth lies the Word of God.

So can I answer why God directs the universe in such a way as to cause suffering? No. And I never will be able to do so, because making that kind of statement about God is beyond the power of any human being. Which leaves me with a choice: do I throw God away and assert that man is the measure of all things, and that my empirical analysis has the power to disprove God? Or do I double down on faith, and accept that even this most painful of paradoxes is the fingerprint of the divine?

For me, that's not much of a choice. I trust the goodness of God more than I trust my eyes, and I trust the power of God more than I trust my ears. Faith is the fundamental truth of my universe, not empirical observation and not logic. And so when I look at the world and see unspeakable suffering, and know that God has caused it - then I know not that God is evil or powerless, but that my understanding of right and wrong is radically incomplete, and that what is wrong for me is not necessarily wrong for God.

So my answer to the Problem of Evil is that I do not know - that I cannot know - and that such an answer is good enough for me. In the end, the Book of Job puts it better than I ever could:

Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?
When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,
And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,
And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?

Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;
That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?
It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.
And from the wicked their light is withholden, and the high arm shall be broken.

Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?
Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?
Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all.

My answer to the Problem of Evil is the answer of Job: "I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee. Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not."

It may not satisfy you. I don't expect it to satisfy you, in fact. But you asked how Christians reconcile this issue, and that's my answer. It's good enough for me.

I guess there's not much to say to that. If you admit your belief is illogical then arguing the minutiae is kinda pointless.

[Alvecia]

Something I'm interested in hearing about actually, is how the religious, Christians in particular, reconcile the Problem of Evil with Omnipotence. That one's been bugging me for a while.

Evil was decreed by God so that he may glorify himself, by showing both his mercy and wrath.

That makes God both not All-Loving, and vain.
Given that God is supposedly perfection, does that make vanity a virtue?

[Lady Scylla]

It gets worse. Ideologies and economical systems are actually influenced by philosophy. And let us not even speak of religion.

In a way, that's my point. Ideology and the like are built upon philosophy. If one chooses to argue with me--through my own philosophy--on a certain topic, I am more open to them and can accept their basic understanding of reality. I can change my worldview without starting it from scratch. Challenging personal philosophy, however, requires a total reassessment of one's previous beliefs that were built upon a now discarded philosophy.

Philosophy is about questioning, and building an understanding of a world through rational argument. Physics is Science, Metaphysics is Philosophy.

[Lady Scylla]

Evil was decreed by God so that he may glorify himself, by showing both his mercy and wrath.

That makes God both not All-Loving, and vain.
Given that God is supposedly perfection, does that make vanity a virtue?

If we are to assume God is perfect, than he has made an imperfect world. Furthermore, humans are allegedly created in his own self-image, and we are imperfect, so what, the question begs, does that make God?

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

I want to say I'm a nihilist, but I feel the true nihilist is too nihilistic for labels, ya dig?

[Old Tyrannia]

Philosophy is depression in its purest form; to be philosophical is to be ill.
It is an error of the mind, a disgusting sickness, to think in a metaphysical sense.
To obsessively ponder about purpose and meaning in a universe so clearly devoid of these things
should be classified as a type of psychosis.

This quote. I identify with it.

I'll admit, I'm not super-clued up on philosophy. I've read Plato's Republic and Confucius' Analects, but beyond that my knowledge is limited to what I have gleamed from Wikipedia articles and blog posts. That doesn't stop me from philosophising, of course; I spend a lot of time thinking about the meaning of life, whether there even is one, the nature of reality, ethics, and so forth. In general I'm more interested in ethical philosophy than metaphysics (allowing for the fact that there isn't exactly a clear line separating the two), as the latter contributes more to society in my opinion; I don't feel there's much to be gained by dwelling on philosophical questions that don't impact one's conduct in life in any way. Natural philosophy has given way to science. I prefer Confucius to Plato because although Plato's exploration of the meaning of morality is interesting, Confucius' more practical outlook on ethics, focusing on the way to become a better person and to construct a better society, seems more relevant and useful to me. I've identified as a Confucian for several years now; within Confucian thought, I align more with the school of Xunzi rather than the more orthodox views of Mencius. The primary difference is that Xunzi regarded human beings as inherently immoral, and requiring education and moral cultivation to become "good." Mencius and his followers, on the other hand, tended to view people as inherently good but susceptible to corruption without proper cultivation of their moral nature. As I've drawn closer to Christianity, I've began to see similarities between Xunzi's Confucianism and Christian beliefs, both considering humanity to be inherently "bad," "immoral" and "sinful." Of course, Christians would posit that faith and belief in God is necessary for salvation and true moral growth, rather than education and ritual alone; but the two philosophies are broadly compatible.

Apart from the Confucian philosophers, Western philosophers I'm fond of include Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, Edmund Burke, René Descartes and St. Augustine of Hippo. I'd describe myself as an Aristotelian, an empiricist, and a romanticist. I have felt inclined towards both virtue ethics and deontological ethics at various points. My major objection to the latter is that it's too rigid and lacks nuance; the former, on the other hand, falls foul of my scorn for philosophy that lacks practical applications, since virtue ethics doesn't actually provide any real sort of guidance when making moral decisions. Taking the problem in the poll as an example, a deontologist would not pull the lever, because then they would, by their actions, be bringing about the death of another person and so violating an ethical guideline. On the other hand, a consequentialist would pull the lever, because the consequentialist would posit that the survival of five people and the death of one is a preferable outcome to the survival of one person and the death of one. A virtue ethicist, though... Well, a virtue ethicist might do either; it would depend on what the virtue ethicist thought each choice would reflect about their own character. So virtue ethics really isn't much use when making an ethical decision. For what it's worth, I tend to come down on the deontological side of the fence when it comes to such dilemmas, so I would not pull the lever. I have a tendency towards moral absolutism; fiat iustitia, pereat mundi is my mantra.

With regards to absurdism- I understand absurdist philosophy and I can see the appeal. I sort of like, from an aesthetic point of view, the concept of stoically carrying on with life in the face of the sheer absurdity of existence. But I'm not sure if I could ever fully accept and tolerate a morally and existentially nihilistic universe; it simply would not compute. I generally like Kierkegaard and find a great deal to admire in his philosophy, although I disagree with his views on established religion. I think that Camus would consider me to have committed "philosophical suicide" by taking a "leap of faith" and opting to believe in a higher power, morality and purpose. Considering my love/hate relationship with philosophy in general and metaphysics in particular, I suppose that wouldn't be out of character.

[Zoice]

Something I'm interested in hearing about actually, is how the religious, Christians in particular, reconcile the Problem of Evil with Omnipotence. That one's been bugging me for a while.

Evil was decreed by God so that he may glorify himself, by showing both his mercy and wrath.

Dick move.

[Hurdegaryp]

That makes God both not All-Loving, and vain.
Given that God is supposedly perfection, does that make vanity a virtue?

If we are to assume God is perfect, than he has made an imperfect world. Furthermore, humans are allegedly created in his own self-image, and we are imperfect, so what, the question begs, does that make God?

A hobbyist at best.