180 Proof

Can you suss-out what Gnomon's onto and succintly clue me in? I've asked quite a few times, the last being this .

Only one out of the thousands of mutually exclusive religions can be true whereas all of them can be false. The latter is the smart (sane) bet; yet th...

It's at most an argument that "sentient life" is rare and that sapience is (maybe exponentially) even rarer still. What makes sapients (like us) signi...

"Flatter" me, @"Merkwurdichliebe", and show me where this conception goes wrong Again, show me where this conception goes wrong

The image that comes to mind is of 'a dope rope-a-doping himself' which is kind of funny (ridiculous, not ha-ha). :smirk:

Incorrigibles always call what they can't grasp "bullshit".

"Objectivity" is not an intentional agent, so "does not tolerate dissent" is an incoherent assumption on your part.

False trichotomy. Jesus was also either misquoted or a fictional character. :halo:

Apparently, you don't get it.

For objectivity, 'whether or not there is consensus' is N/A.

This does not follow https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/721614

Instrumental reasoning.

:100:

Self-delusion is a helluva drug. :smirk:

:up: In other words, as a disciple of Sunzi once said: "A man's got to know his limitations." https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t2JnCXvm_Qc (The gnosis of...

What "mutual goal"? IMO, they're not comparable in any non-trivial way.

Okay. But since creationism (religious fiction) does not explain anything, it's in no way related / comparable to evolution (natural science).

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/21/january-6-hearing-donald-trump-us-capitol-attack :fire: :mask:

:fire: :up:

:smirk: :up: The problem with a dogmatic mindset like Gnomon's is that questions & counter-examples are perceived as biased / malicious attacks and so...

:rofl:

:up:

"Something" is a subset of "everything", so your formulation of the "conundrum" makes no sense. Why is there anything at all? There is no why avoids b...

I don't think so. Nature's "filter" sifts the adapted from the maladapted and Reason's "filter" sifts the intelligible from the unintelligible, in/def...

I agree "M > P" which, to me, implies that M – P = nothing but extrinsic, mere possibilities, which necessarily cannot be actualized – necessarily are...

Procreating causes conditions for existing, not suffering (just as planting a sapling causes a tree to grow but does not cause the harm when that tree...

Suppose every possibility is only instrinsic to – only constitutive of – actuality (like e.g. the set of possible matches in chess; or set of possible...

Your scenario reminds me of the novel Wittgenstein's Mistress. Personally, I'd probably wind up like the character in that old Twilight Zone episode o...

Clearly, there's no point in questioning Gnomon's dogmas further, so I rest my case. :smirk:

The object of both is life; however, the latter explains life's variations (re: descent via natural selection) whereas the former does not explain any...

You are mistaking the map (collection of) for the territory (an apple's atoms).

As you can see from Gnomon's reply, he cannot directly address criticisms of his pet dogma, I think, because, though well-documented, it's vacuous. :s...

Again: "no" – apples exist.

Objectivity does not negate or even threaten / undermine "subjectivies"; it simply refers to an epistemic status, so to speak, what I refer to as subj...

True. I should have written 'the map = territory fallacy" by which I mean idealists tendency for confusing – conflating – epistemology (i.e. what I/we...

No. The concept "collection" subsists.

:cool:

Non sequitur, IMO. "Sets" subsist, they do not "exist" (as per the OP).

Disagreement is always possible, whether rational or irrational, with or without grounds. Just ask flat-earthers and godists.

:gasp:

:fire:

Nope. Blame it on my twelve years of working-class, Roman Catholic education. By the time I'd opted out of mandatory religion classes for my first phi...

:up: More precisely: 'how you think and do what you think and do matters' ...

Of course philosophy is "about truths", but that doesn't mean "truth is the goal" – truths are "attainable" means to philosophy's end. I'm (mostly) a(...

Interesting. I can't think of a philosophy in which life is not significant in some way :chin: How about ... • M-string theory? • Cosmicism? • Meillas...

Truth was never the goal of philosophy. 'Love of wisdom', not love of truth, Smith. Stop kicking up sand and then complaining you can't see. :mask: Bt...

Okaaaaaay. Got my buttery popcorn! :yum: :party:

No, that's silly. :smirk: I thought 'wisdom', or 'the good life', is (traditionally) "the be all and end all" of philosophy, and for life it's 'happin...

Natural science and religious fiction, respectively.

:cool: