180 Proof

Maybe the thread to which the following post is linked will be helpful: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/548752 ... Is Gilgamesh "wis...

:smirk: Freddy Zarathustra e.g. resentment, slave morality, decadence ... :up: Not at all. If and when, Oscar, you learn to recognize the difference b...

Can't hold on to smoke or moonlight ... except for epiphaneous moments. Those ephemerae are the most sublime of all. "Ecstasies" I call them. I stoppe...

Failure of (your) imagination isn't an argument, O. Consider: suppose the "One" thing is dynamic, unstable, chaotic, unbounded ... suppose flowing, fl...

I imagine that's the end-in-itself goal of philosophy: contemplation (i.e. reflective praxis, lucid dreaming, Csikszentmihalyi's Flow) in contrast to ...

Yes, yes. :100: And we can spend our "leisure time" reflectively rehearsing (like practicing (habitualizing) martial arts) "logic and morality" in ord...

"Our Nada, who art in Nada, hallowed be thy Nada ..." I think you're quite mistaken, Oliver. Daoism, for instance, is fundamentally monistic. To wit: ...

Idealism (i.e. disembodied cognition / volition). :roll: Descartes' error. (vide A. Damasio) Neither would I. It's strongly implied nonetheless by the...

Who says one can't? (e.g. Socrates, Montaigne, Nietzsche, Cioran, S. Weil, I. Murdoch ...) Insomniacs tend to disturb sleepwalkers.

When "the game" is all there is ... the question is moot. :fire:

full moon risin' ... :mask: :death: :flower:

*Winter Solstice* Story Competition. :smile:

Definitions are useful, not truthful. And again, "Buddhism is just realism" is not an argument, so no "fallacy" applies.

"Buddhism is just realism" is a (stipulative) definition, not an argument. So no fallacy.

3 "I enjoyed it." 2 "It's okay." 1 "Okay, but not for me" 0 "Not for me." as per e.g. Hey Baden, My votes story A – 1 story B – 0 story C – 3 story D ...

:up: :party: Oh no, let's forget Derrida (& his "traces" ...)

Yeah, smoke 'em out of that platonic cave, counselor. :fire:

:rofl:

No, don't confuse Negative Utilitarianism (i.e. Epicureanisn) with Transhumanism (i.e. Abolitionism). Mr. Scarecrow, Fool! :smirk: :chin:

:up: 'Each member (voter) submit a tally of his / her votes via PM to Baden' would work better.

:wink: Same here!

My premises are not so specieist and anthropocentric. Again, "moral" is an articulation – generalization – of eusocial group behavior which exercises-...

"The play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King." ~Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2 Selections from my ludic library: • Finite and Infinite ...

:smirk:

Okay. Just a thought, thanks for considering it.

Yeah. Tickle me, therefore you are. :smirk:

Yes. Human primates, non-human primates, cetaceans, elephants ... groom feed protect & even adopt each other's young; cooperately gather / provide & s...

@"Baden" Suppose a poll(?) is affixed to the bottom of each submission with three options 3 "I enjoyed it." 2 "It's okay." 1 "Not for me." and each me...

For these eusocial mammals, like humans, empathic behaviors are not accidental or exceptional. A focus on anti-social behaviors is "cherry-picking" th...

The work of many primatologists, for instance, suggest otherwise.

As Freddy might say, logic-usage is an expression of life. They're not mutually exclusive.

IME, the most efficient "dissolution of pollution" would be a global transition to a (spaceship systems-like) circular economy.

Consensus gentium fallacy.

What?

Tell me what makes Epicureanism unrealistic in comparison to (X tradition / school of) Buddhism.

Yeah, I've read several of works beginning with I and Thou in the mid-80s. His 'dialogical existentialism' (I call it) very much influenced and lead m...

:up:

To the degree they survive, 'herd species' are better adapted to false positives (i.e.guessing predators are present when they are not there) to false...

I'm afraid Newton didn't understand Galileo or Einstein. Clearly, you don't either.

No. Reread my previous posts.

You're quarreling with some of the most profound scientific successes of at least the last century, Fool. Good luck with that! :rofl:

What about e.g. Mach, Darwin, Poincare, Planck, Einstein, Bohr, Schrödinger, Pauli, Turing, von Neumann, Feynman, Bohm, Everett, Deutsch, et al? :roll...

Do they? Not in my experience. Not according to theoretical scientists, historians, historical novelists, political / military strategies, long-term f...

Just flypaper. Don't get stuck. :up:

Contemplating gendankenexperiments (in science, history & fiction) are my metaphysical jam! :smirk: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/...

As an antitheist (inspired by Via Negativa), I claim that whatever is said "about God" is not true – theism is not true (type), therefore Abrahamic, G...

:up:

:up: Very much my experience (though my devotion to Zen was brief during the early '80s, then followed by (overindulgent) explorations with hallucinog...

:up: :cool: