r/askphilosophy

When I google these terms, I find it difficult to understand the difference between them.

Physicalism is the view that everything is physical. While (ontological) naturalism is the position that only natural laws and forces operate in the universe. That is, everything is accounted for by reference to physical and chemical properties. But how is that any different from just saying that everything is physical?

Then there's materialism, which claims that everything arises from or depends on physical processes. Which again makes me question how this is any different from just claiming that everything is physical (or supervenes on it)? I suppose one could argue that materialism doesn't account for the existence of phenomena that are non-spatiotemporal such as energy or massless particles. But doesn't it go against the whole point of materialism to deny the existence of phenomena that are generally accepted by the scientific community?

And either way, it seems that philosophers like Chalmers are using the terms materialism and physicalism interchangeably. In his article 'Conciousness and Its Place in Nature', Chalmers talks about how materialism is a position "on which conciousness is itself seen as a physical process." So it looks like he's using the term materialism when he really means physicalism?

So, can anyone explain what the difference actually is between these theories?

Can a non-physical mind exist without God?

I’m an undergraduate studying philosophy and it really hit me how much I enjoy it as I reach the latter part of my degree. I’m double majoring in something I hate, and most of my effort in my studies have focused on that because I suck at it/ because it’s employable. However, I’ve had more time to solely focus on just my philosophy classes as of late and it’s been wonderful. I’m getting 5 hours of sleep at this point because all I want to do is read philosophy (corny I’m sorry).

My grades in philosophy are good. If it helps I go to a fairly prestigious institution and I have a decent bit of experience with tutoring. I love teaching and speaking, less so maybe the publication part. I do still like writing and am fairly good at it, but I think the teaching aspect is more appealing. However, I’m trying to be realistic and I know I’m no Nussbaum or Singer… I also realize how abysmal the job market is for PhDs in philosophy and the current issues with teaching philosophy (as I’ve heard from my profs). I’m planning on working in a lucrative field for maybe 10 years and then perhaps pursuing an MA or PhD in philosophy when I’m more financially secure. A lot of my phil/nonphil professors did some related/unrelated industry work for a while before pursuing academia. Should I just stick to reading books? What pushed you all to get that PhD even with all of the cautionary tales you’ve heard?

I’m reading Frankfurt’s introduction to his essay collection, The Importance of What we Care About. In it, he says “in the seventeenth century, mechanism became established as the dominant worldview of our culture. It has since that time come to seem obvious that either references to final causes are entirely illicit or they are no more than convenient ways of speaking designed to avoid clumsier (albeit strictly more accurate) formulations in terms of efficient causation.”

I take mechanism here to mean that causal determinism became dominant in a way that loops humans into it, rather than everything outside of us, which of course has had significant implications on the discourse of free will. Was there a specific event or philosophical work during that timeframe that shifted the common discourse among philosophers?

One of his quotes from Tao Te Ching is "the world is won by those who let it go"

His legend is quite fascinating,

According to what I read online
The Royal Archivist: According to the Han Dynasty historian Sima Qian, Lao Tzu was originally named Li Er and served as the Keeper of the Imperial Archives for the royal court of the Zhou Dynasty. This position gave him access to vast amounts of ancient knowledge.

Meeting Confucius: Legend holds that he was an older contemporary of Confucius, who supposedly sought Lao Tzu’s counsel on ceremonies and rituals.

Departing the World: Tired of the growing corruption within the court, Lao Tzu decided to leave society and head into the wilderness.

The Water Buffalo: As the story goes, he rode a water buffalo toward the western borders of the empire. At the Han Gu Pass, a border guard recognized the wise man and asked him to write down his teachings before passing into the unknown.

The Tao Te Ching: In response, the philosopher penned a short, profound text the Tao Te Ching (The Book of the Way and Its Virtue) and subsequently vanished from history.

I found Lao Tzu’s story to be quiet enlightening, apparently it’s the back bone of Taoism, if you do wanna read the Tao Te Ching, I’d recommend to read the oldest version found (as their have been likely many additions to the text) and also the translation be by a proper source theirs many inaccurate translations apparently.

What I learned from the story of Lao Tzu whether he was real or a legend is for me to work towards harmony in every respect.

Is Lao Tzu simply asking us to join with the Harmony of nature?

Idk the official terminology, but I consider there to be lesser and greater platonists. Lesser would be to believe math objects exist in some sense, and greater would be and that they exist and humans tap into this existence directly. I consider myself somewhere between a nominalist or lesser platonist.

Lesser platonists would seem to be okay if ai could do math, but greater platonists seem as though would have a live challenge, at least in that that direct access would clearly not be necessary.

Honestly even if it could do .5 of what humans could do these questions would start to form in my mind.

A lot of the general public (whether religious or atheist) seems convinced that morality can only be objective if there is a God. They are incorrect. Moral realism is most often defended on secular grounds. However, my question is not about that, but this:

Assume that a fact is objective if and only if it is that fact is mind-independent. That is to say, an objective fact is such that it obtains independently of anyone's mental states or mental dispositions (e.g., regardless of what anyone believes, assumes, thinks, feels, or desires).

That "anyone" includes God, so if moral facts depend on his judgments (his condemnation, approbation), or even his mental dispositions qua perfect being (i.e., his disposition to love), then it is not objective in the sense just specified. From my perspective and understanding, it seems that the objectivity of ethics requires that it be relatively independent of God. Can you explain why I am confused?

I’ve been watching a few debates of JBP and it seems like a majority of the time is spent arguing over definitions or just making a definition up. There are other issues where he tends to just ramble about issues he has no clue over (See JBP vs. Zizek).

I want to have constructive debates, but what is the best way to do this? You need to establish definitions but at what point does the defining become an issue?

I’m comparing two explanations for why the universe exists:

1. A conscious necessary being (God) created it through will/choice.
2. A non-conscious necessary reality exists and naturally generates universes (maybe infinitely many), and we observe this one because life can only exist in certain universes.
   My question:
   If the necessary reality is non-conscious, and universes started existing at some point, what explains the transition from no universes to universes?
   If there’s no will or agency, why would universe generation start at one point rather than another?
   Doesn’t a transition imply some kind of choice? Or can an impersonal necessary reality explain contingency without will?
   And if universe generation is eternal/infinite, does that avoid the issue or just create infinite regress?
   What assumptions am I getting wrong, and which view seems stronger philosophically?

So I was thinking about starting a climbing-gym in my city, since there's really nothing to do in my city aside from going to the mall and eating fastfood and it would be cool to have something new for people to do around here.

Also, I want to make some money, obviously.

But I then remembered that by starting a business I would be inherently exploiting the workers I employ, and the only way to avoid that would be to start a co-op which would probably mean I would be making the same amount of money I am making right now, which is not much.

How morally culpable would I be for extracting wealth from the workers in my employment?

Especially in the case of religion. The argument I hear is that morality then is grounded in the Religion/God and therefore is objective and can not change.

I saw that in some debates Religion like Christianity against Secular Humanism.

But I can not quit follow.

I could believe in a God and therefore in his moral framework and that framework might not change and can be seen as objective.
However, I can always change my opinion about that. I can be fully invested in that religion or not at all or just to a certain extend.

Why do I think murder is wrong? That could be because of my own subjective moral standards or because I believe in God. What difference does that make at all?

I think it is also just an extra step. Instead of my opinion being that Murder is wrong my opinion is that God exists and he then says Murder is wrong.

In fact even when people are highly religious their morals still might change or be different from the religion.

So, when it comes to Religion vs Secular Humanism I do not see Grounded morality being an advantage at all.

Or I am missing the point

If there really are competing moral values with no clear ultimate deciding framework - how then can any ethical choice be justified without resorting to some sort of relativism?

I’m currently studying Aquinas’ cosmological arguments for my course. Upon reading some critics for Aquinas’ second way ( argument for causation ), I’ve stumbled upon Hume’s critique regarding causation. What I’m failing to grasp is the idea that it is logically possible that some things happen without a cause. I’m just not sure how this makes sense. If anyone could help it would be much appreciated.

Recently, I read God, Necessity, and Evil by Alvin Platinga and I really enjoyed it. One thing that I cannot quite wrap my head around is what exactly his conception of free will is, in particular what it is with respect to God.

This is probably not a Platinga specific question, but broadly a question about the compatibility of free will with an Omnicient being.

Let's say we have a world W and a person in this world Hamid. In Platinga's reckoning, if there is an action A such that Hamid is free with respect to this action in W, then God knows whether Hamid will take action A or refrain. Let's say that given the state of W Hamid would refrain. Skipping over A LOT of detail, the upshot is that God cannot create a version of W where Hamid is both free and he chooses to perform A.

Now suppose there is a world S where Hamid is not free with respect to A, and nevertheless he does not perform A. Meaning that S is identical to W, except that in the former Hamid is not free with respect to A.

My question is, what is the difference between W and S from God's perspective. How can God distinguish between W and S? Is "Hamid is free with respect to A" a proposition in the book of W (and its negation in the book of S)? Is "If free with respect to A, refrain from it in W" part of Hamid's essence?

If this latter is true, and if Hamid's essence is instantiated by God, then in what sense is Hamid's choice free? In this telling, it seems more like free choice is a logical constraint God places on himself, and which makes very little difference to Hamid.

Thanks in advance for your responses!

I’m a high school history teacher in today’s world of egotistical, image obsessed society where students lack curiosity, creativity, and strive for money rather than living happy and full lives. I’m wanting to find some reading that will help me combat/think about these issues and the alternatives. I really enjoyed Seneca’s “On the Shortness of Life,” but would appreciate some other recommendations (including fiction). Thank you!

Hi!

I'm currently a philosophy master's student. Until now, I had straight As (during my undergraduate and graduate philosophy studies), but I got my first B recently. I feel completely lost, especially given the fact that I got this grade from a professor who supported me all along, and told me that I was going to do well in my graduate courses, as I always do. I didn't.

My problem was that I overreached, I tried to do too much. I worked extremely hard, rewrote the whole stuff after extensive feedback, and still fell short of an A.

I'm wondering if it's still reasonable for me to hope to get into a decent PhD program, assuming that I won't get more Bs (or perhaps even if I do get one in the remaining two courses). I know it damages my chances significantly, and I don't know if the professor will still support me. Previously, they liked my work very much. Now, they seem to have revised their view significantly, based on the grade I got.

I would appreciate any honest advice.

Hey, as the title says, what are some foundational texts on the idea of compatibilism, or ones that adequately challenge either free will and/or determinism.

Thanks!

*context-this is part of a larger article which seems to provide solutions to the question at hand,but ultimately the problem may still prevail*

Determinism relies on the idea of a preceding cause for every occurrence, but what caused the first occurrence?
Every cause is in itself an occurence. If we go to the beginning of time, we are able to find a first event. Since this is the first thing to exist, it seems reasonable to state that nothing came before it. If nothing came before the first event,then there could be no cause. Meaning that should there be a beginning of time, there is also at least one event that has occurred without a cause. This falls outside the rules of determinism and seems to challenge the idea that every occurence has followed determinism’s laws.