Hi...
Am looking for a concept I read a couple years ago related with the phrase of the tittle, of Bertrand Russel.
It was something like its necessary to think as real an Island where all that impossible concepts exist because you can think in that and express the idea.
I was thinking: we accept that we have different standards for people according to their gender. So i was questioning myself:
Despite we accepting God as genderless, we often associete with a fatherly nature, masculine gender etc. If we came to associate it with a women, would we have different standards? For example, would we find the problem of evil as less justifiable, or would philosophers think gods justification (free will, something we associate more with father care than a mother care) less viable as a defense?
Also: besides we admiting that god has no gender, we will asociate it with a man and a father. He display masculine freatures, but would it also (in a sense) mean that we would not be able to justify his behaviors (requirement of children sacrifice) as god-like if we thought of him as a women (because of higher standards on women and motherhood)?
I am mostly interested in a feminist view on this.
Alao, sorry about my english.
I’m somewhat new to these philosophical concepts and am very curious to learn more about these three ideas, including their significance and how they relate to everyday life. I recently heard someone discussing them and found them interesting.
If anyone would be willing to explain them or provide some insight, I would greatly appreciate it.
I'm not that good at philosophy, but I know that the reason why hedonism is bad is because gradually, you'll only want more and more happiness, which can lead you to ruining your own life.
But! As said in the title, if you tone it down a little, is it still bad? Like a person is doing things that make them happy but the things that make them happy aren't necessarily bad (examples: spending time on your hobbies, listening to music, cooking good food for yourself, enjoying the litte things in life) and at the same time, they avoid things that cause them pain? As long as they don't do things that would later on hurt them or others, I don't think that's bad.
If I'm being completely honest, that sounds like a good way to live but as I said, I'm not a philosopher in any way, so I figured out I should ask for opinions of other people here.
Theists say that morality can be objectively if it comes from a morally perfect infallible being named god. Because it's a perfect being then that means that it would also be morally perfect, much more perfect than flawed humans. How does that not establish objective morality? I know there is no evidence of such a being it's a hypothetical scenario but if it was true how would that not make morality objective? For clearance I am an atheist
I’m interested in whether the problem of other minds becomes fundamentally different with artificial systems, or whether we face the same epistemic gap we already face when attributing consciousness to other humans.
I mean really. Each time I think that yeah I get it. But after some time i happen to come across more complexities. When I was a kid, i thought it was "just an art style which doesn't make any sense" .. and now, really it feels like something which doesn't make any sense for me tbh.
Not a philosophy student whatsoever,not even an uni undergrad, just a random teenager who is curious to know
I am not sure I entirely understand what supervenience is supposed to mean/be synonymous with. I am reading “the conscious mind” by chalmers rn and this is confusing me a lot lol.
so is supervenience the same as saying two (or more) things depend on another? For instance, could I say that if X depends on Y, X supervenes on Y? Or can I only say X supervenes on Y if X depends on Y for it to be the case that X has A property?
Basically, I think a lot of my confusion about supervenience is that it seems so similar to concepts like “X depends on Y” or “the existence of X is determined by some property of Y” and so forth that it is hard to see the utility of supervenience as a distinct term. On the other hand, I am confused as to whether something supervening on something else depends on some property of that something being involved?
My brain hurts…
Hi there,
I am not new to philosophy, and have studied it previously at school and university. I was wondering whether anyone had targeted reading lists, ideally broken down by thematic area, for ancient philosophy, medieval philosophy, 19th century philosophy, 20th century philosophy, metaphysics, and the philosophy of language. It would be great to have a mix of primary and secondary texts.
I know this is a big ask, and I would really appreciate any reply, even if just pointing me in the right direction.
Thanks a lot!
Why did the universe give me this perspective? Why am I experiencing reality through this brain, with this body, beginning somewhere in childhood, instead of experiencing reality through a human who lived 10 thousand years ago or any body in general?
Hopefully I'm reading it right that Hume was ahead of his time with atheism, naturalism, physicalism and so on.
What did he get wrong (or most wrong)?
Recently I've been learning about the nature of morality. Apparently, the majority of philosophers and academics support moral realism (as in, moral judgments can be objectively true or false). This surprised me, since morality seems to be subjective in every way. I want to learn more about why this is the prevailing viewpoint. Many arguments I've seen so far primarily rely on examples of "moral truths" (e.g. torturing innocents is evil), but I don't see how examples alone can prove that moral truths exist to begin with.
I'm specifically looking for published sources (essays, articles, books) that propose logical frameworks and give counterarguments for anti-realism. But I'm also interested in any arguments, published or unpublished, that don't mainly rely on common sense.
You give a dog a nice, big yard to run around, lots of toys, food, and plenty of belly rubs and he’s good to go. You give a cow a large pasture to graze in, lots of hay, and a big scratching post to get those hard to reach itchy spots, and they’ve got no complaints. But with humans it’s not so simple. Western civilization is the wealthiest and safest part of the world, and yet we have extremely high rates of depression,suicide, and anxiety disorders. What is it about having the capacity to reason that makes material wealth insufficient on its own to make humans truly happy?
If it’s proven that the B-theory of time is true would it arguably be the single most devastating threat to the Kalam Cosmological Argument? I know that theists like William Lain Craig rely on an A theory of time for his argument work, hence why it would be worrisome if the other theory is true. Would this also mean that Quantum Mechanics disprove God?
Pretty much the title but I very frequently hear things like "To fully grasp Marx you need to first understand Hegel" and then "To understand Hegel you need to read Kant" and then "To understand Kant you need to read Hume" and then "To grasp Hume you need to read Descartes" and on and on
Recently* a friend of mine, who has a theology PhD, and I were talking about arguments for and against the existence of God (in the broadest sense, not any specific Christian flavour). We ended up disagreeing on the question of whether God is subject to or could alter necessary truths or logical axioms or the like.
Apologies in advance for any imprecise language or conflation of terms here.
The way I saw it, as an ignorant layman, is that statements we might consider necessarily true or to be logical laws or however you want to say it, are essentially properties of our universe (or of creation in general), and presumably an omnipotent creator could have specified these differently. It might be that we can't really conceive of how they could be different, but we are limited.
He didn't view it this way and took this to be incoherent, as (and I'm paraphrasing here - any error here is mine) by definition a necessary truth is true in all possible worlds. But I figure even the concept of possible worlds, the logical framework we use to conceice of this, and the set of all possible worlds in whatever sense that exists, are all creations of an omnipotent creator.
Am I totally missing something here? It seems odd to me to postulate a creator that is logically prior to existence (or creation or the universe or whatever) but is, itself, in some sense preceded by the rules of logic.
*About 15 years ago but you know how it is
Does anyone know of any good videos that actually defend nominalism against good objections? I’ve looked on YouTube but all I see are debunks or videos just explaining what nominalism is. Apparently its not really an uncommon position among atheist so how come there is so much more debunks than defenses?
Hi, I’m wondering what kind of connection there is between Hegel’s geist and the concept of World Soul in Platonism.
Both seem to be universal principles of divine discursive thought which inform the physical world…
I understand that they function rather differently, but they seem to have much in common as well.
Could somebody point me to some of the major similarities and differences between these concepts? Or perhaps an existing essay comparing them?
Thanks!
what are my career options as a philosophy major besides law and teaching? I'm considering majoring in philosophy due to my love for building arguments, writing, and examining classical text.
Also can focus well by multitasking (adhd) and have strong english skills. Any suggestions for careers would be great! They dont have to be law related or teaching related. I have been interested in Ai ethics lately but no clue how to get a job in it since my state (Wisconsin) only has a few AI companies and I dont think any of them are near me (def not moving to Madison, driving there is terrible).
Thanks!
I send greetings to everyone reading this post and hope that reading it will bring you pleasure, and I will try to make the reading comfortable. I became interested in philosophy, and at the age of 15, I read the Critique of Pure Reason. However, the terms were either in the book's comments or on the internet. So, while reading, I had a question. If, as Kant claims, the thing in itself is absolutely unknowable, doesn’t attributing this property mean we know something about it? Maybe I'm asking the question wrong, but still, I became curious and then thought, what if Kant wants to say that this is just our phenomenal knowledge of the thing in itself and not knowledge of the noumenon? But how can we even consider the truth of the claim that the thing in itself is absolutely unknowable if this is only phenomenal knowledge? Thanks for those who read, I hope I formatted this text well for convenient reading.