For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:11 pm
But I think that points to the deeper problem: namely, that Materialism is existentially bankrupt. It's the most desolate and sad of all dogmas,
not a dogma really: no morals plenty of morals, self-made no purpose, plenty of purpose, self-made no teleology, plenty of teleology, self-made no hope, plenty of hope, self-made no soul, right no God right and no person wrong.
Sure it is. You have to believe it, though Materialism itself cannot warrant itself...it has to be taken on faith.davidm wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:38 pmImmanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:11 pm
But I think that points to the deeper problem: namely, that Materialism is existentially bankrupt. It's the most desolate and sad of all dogmas,
not a dogma really:
For that reason, entirely unjustified and unjustifiable.no morals plenty of morals, self-made
Same problem: if you just imagine it, you can't justify it, or have reason to believe in it. Dogma again.no purpose, plenty of purpose, self-made
You can't "make" your own teleology, unless you can be your own Creator.no teleology, plenty of teleology, self-made
Imaginary again. No reason can be adduced for it.no hope, plenty of hope, self-made
If you came from nowhere, go to nowhere, and have no power over yourself because you're predetermined, then there's no person either. The idea doesn't contribute a thing to the whole.no person wrong
I did not quote you word for word. If I have misunderstood your belief you should tell me what your belief is. That would be better than quibling about words.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2017 6:17 pmPoint to where I said either, and I'll happily tell you. You need to explain what you mean by "omnipotent," since it's your word, and I did not use it. And then, for "unnecessary," I certainly did not say that.
That's funny.
How would I know what you "misunderstood" until after you "misunderstood" it? Hmmm...That's neither the conventional definition of "ominpotent," nor is it my definition of what that word imports. It seems we understand that word differently.If God is omnipotent He determines every event.
Thank you...I think.I know you are not stupid, and you know very well what I mean.
But even at the best of times, being "not stupid" does not entail mind-reading. I had to ask, and I'm glad I did, because I fear that otherwise you'd have assumed an answer I would not have intended.I think you are conflating materialism with nihilism for surely that is the most existentially bankrupt dogma from your perspective. As a nihilist I naturally do not share your opinion of it and here is why : the absence of any objective meaning to life or to the universe does not automatically mean that nihilism is negative. Rather it is neutral. Because in absence of said objectivity one can have a subjective meaning instead. One which gives meaning to my own life rather than to all of humanity. So for me personally nihilism is not an end in itself but a means to an end. Therefore to describe it as existentially bankrupt would be entirely falseImmanuel Can wrote:
But I think that points to the deeper problem : namely that Materialism is existentially bankrupt. It is the most desolate and sad of all dogmas really : no morals no purpose no teleology no hope no soul no God and no person
No. But they're related. Nihilism is what a logical or rationally-consistent Materialist has to practice. If he really believed Materialism was true, and acted on that, he'd be a Nihilist for sure.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:39 pmI think you are conflating materialism with nihilismImmanuel Can wrote:
But I think that points to the deeper problem : namely that Materialism is existentially bankrupt. It is the most desolate and sad of all dogmas really : no morals no purpose no teleology no hope no soul no God and no person
It is "nihil": nothing. It is not positive, and it is not negative, and it is not neutral either. It has no such scales of value.... the absence of any objective meaning to life or to the universe does not automatically mean that nihilism is negative. Rather it is neutral.
This just means, "You can still delude yourself." For under Nihilism, it won't be a real or actual meaning (no such are thought to exist), and won't find any counterpart in reality; but you'll believe in it anyway.Because in absence of said objectivity one can have a subjective meaning instead.
That's in a sense understandable, but in another highly ironic. To avoid full-on Nihilism, you choose an "end" or "right outcome for you" in advance, then tell yourself it's "meaningful" to pursue it.So for me personally nihilism is not an end in itself but a means to an end.
It is deterministic that a person will win the lottery but not which specific person. You could increase the odds of winning byPaul wrote:
I have a question for determinism and free will experts
Is it deterministic whether a person wins a lottery
No. I mean that the physicalist must accept that the human person is not the buck-stopping point of the causal chain. Materialism has to hold that "a human chose to do X" is not a good explanation, because "chose" must be nothing but a failed way to describe the previous causal chain.[/quote]Again, kindly stop applying your own definitions to views you don't hold.
Your choices function identically, except being defined outside the realm of 'forces', it is the wrong word to use.All "choices" are merely products of prior material forces, to which the human person and his or her "decision" actually adds nothing.
Again, your position seems based on what you seem to find to be a happier story. That's the worst possible incentive in a search for truth. X is what I want to be true, so I will cherry pick whatever evidence supports that. So your goal is happy delusion, not viable consistency. Go for it then, but not sure what the evangelism gets you. Wrong place to do it. I suspect you're here more to drown low confidence in the story with bravado.Right. The Materialist would have to be willing to accept that his or her very natural and understandable distaste for such explanations would not count as any reason against them being true.
...
But what I'm also demonstrating, I would hope, is that the physicalist or Materialist view is not a happy one, and results in some very, very unsavoury consequences. And that is a good incentive to be at least a little bit open to a better explanation, I would say.
Let them see their own problems. One of them might be that objectively, nothing matters (pun intended!). But that it must objectively matter seems to be a premise that leads you onto all sorts of strange paths in attempt to hang onto it. I suspect the rest of your unsavoury consequences are of your own making. Everything else was.Of course, I'm no Materialist myself, but I see their problem.
Intelligently as in using your definitions, or in their own? I'll admit that my definition of personhood is a long way from yours. But it has choice and responsibility and morals. Some things might have only one or two of those, and some have something else for which we have no word because humans don't have it.What seems rather to be the case is that every time Materialism is asked to talk intelligently about things like choice, personhood, identity, values or (gasp) soul, it turns hollow and tinny. And I think that's really indicative of something: that no matter if it explains some things, there are some other things that it is really pretty terrible at explaining. And when it comes to those, it goes sour.
Like I said, the search for objective meaning has led to some strange paths, but you seem tentatively satisfied with the answers it gave you, so go for it. What are you doing here?Ironically, those things at which Materialism has the weakest and worst explanations turn out to be the things that most human beings seem to consider most important to a significant life. I don't think that failure is a coincidence.
But man's freedom to be good is not all or nothing. Each person can be relatively free to be a good person. One of the means to be free to be a good person is to understand one's own emotional reactions.But I think that points to the deeper problem: namely, that Materialism is existentially bankrupt. It's the most desolate and sad of all dogmas,
not a dogma really:
Typical unbacked assertion about what a view not understood must entail. Next thing you know you'll be completely misrepresenting the position.Immanuel Can wrote:Nihilism is what a logical or rationally-consistent Materialist has to practice.
Right on cue.This just means, "You can still delude yourself." For under Nihilism, it won't be a real or actual meaning (no such are thought to exist), and won't find any counterpart in reality; but you'll believe in it anyway.
It wasn't a definition. It is just the logical consequence of the view. If you object to the logic of the view, I don't protest; I think it's wrong too.Noax wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2017 11:09 pmAgain, kindly stop applying your own definitions to views you don't hold.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2017 2:08 am No. I mean that the physicalist must accept that the human person is not the buck-stopping point of the causal chain. Materialism has to hold that "a human chose to do X" is not a good explanation, because "chose" must be nothing but a failed way to describe the previous causal chain.
This is an incorrect way to put it. Robots do not "make choices": they follow their programming. That programming can include "when X is sensed, do Y," and "when A is sensed, do operation B." That can fool us. But the robot has no comprehension of what it is doing, no genuine volition and no free will.Consider an automaton robot in a factory rejecting bad parts as they pass by. The robot's function is to make choices and act on them.
This is incorrect. You should read Searle's "Chinese Room" thought experiment, and you'd understand why it's wrong.So will seems to be the result of any choice making process, be it physical or not.
You could not be more wrong. Read the bold above again, and you'll see I've refuted that impression already. I assert no such thing.Again, your position seems based on what you seem to find to be a happier story.Right. The Materialist would have to be willing to accept that his or her very natural and understandable distaste for such explanations would not count as any reason against them being true.
...
But what I'm also demonstrating, I would hope, is that the physicalist or Materialist view is not a happy one, and results in some very, very unsavoury consequences. And that is a good incentive to be at least a little bit open to a better explanation, I would say.
I can see you affirm it does...but your affirmation looks entirely gratuitous and wishful, because nothing in Materialism warrants belief in either.I'll admit that my definition of personhood is a long way from yours. But it has choice and responsibility and morals.