Philosophy Now Forum

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 5:57 pm . that there
is no such thing as the supernatural... outside of nature, outside
of the natural...it is just events we haven't yet understood...
like in the past, we didn't understand thunder and lighting and
we created supernatural means for thunder and lighting,
whereas today, we don't need supernatural explanations for
thunder and lighting...

Supernatural arrived as a term in the Middle Ages, it is coupled to Abrahamic and post-Abrahmic contexts.
Indigenous, animist and many pagan groups would not have categorized things around natural vs. supernatural. They would have considered it all nature, including what modern people call supernatural.

So, yes, they would have believed in spirits and other things, but would have considered them natural., or simply 'real.'

Science has arisen out of Abrahamic contexts and these tended to oppose animism, for example. Humans were unique, life and certainly sentience very rare exceptions. A semi-unstated axiom in this tradition is that the default is that something is not alive, unless proven otherwise. Animists came with a different base.

Because of science's axiom, it had a very hard time accepting that animals had subjective sides. In fact well into the second half of the 20th century is was taboo to write, in professional settings, about the intentions, emotions, cognitive states of animals, something taken for granted by animists and many Westerners also. It was, however, considered anthropomorphizing within science.

My point in bringing this up is that there can be antiexplanations and what seems cautious or obvious is actually paradigm laden and sometimes really quite hilarious.

Humans were implicitly not really considered part of nature by science while in the Amazon, say, indigenous groups assumed this.

We may find that we don't need some of modern society's assumptions, however much these are claimed not to have the burden.

This base in Abrahamism and even, to some degree the greeks and romans, led to this idea of supernatural vs natural. But this is actually a rather modern sickness.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 8:41 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 6:34 pmThe inner workings of the human mind perfectly satisfy the requirement of being called "supernatural"

Is it beyond scientific understanding? Yes.

Does is obey the laws of natura? No.

It's supernatural.

You computer is not "natural" . Does not mean it is supernatural.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 9:50 pm 1) support your claim that it is derived.

derive /dɪˈrʌɪv/ verb past tense: derived; past participle: derived obtain something from (a specified source).

Got morality? Where did you obtain it from?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 9:50 pm 2) what makes you think human culture is not "natural".

The Oxford definition of what "natural" means.

natural /ˈnatʃ(ə)rəl/ adjective 1. existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 9:53 pm You computer is not "natural" . Does not mean it is supernatural.

Is an anthill, along with the tunnels in and beneath it, natural?
When did humans leave nature? Or which ancestor of humans was no longer part of nature?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 9:53 pm You computer is not "natural" . Does not mean it is supernatural.

Obviously.

supernatural /ˌsuːpəˈnatʃ(ə)rəl/ adjective (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Are computers beyond scientific understanding? No.
Do computers obey the laws of nature? Yes.

NOT supernatural.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 9:52 pm It's skeptics problem because he either does ot know what he is talking about, or has failed to offer definitions.

I am using standard English words with standard definitions as per the Oxford dictionary.

What's confusing you about my words?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 9:52 pm If the thread is a bunch of crap it is because he is an anti-intllectual twat

Anti-philosophy is not anti-intellectualism. Anti-philosophy is pro-intellectualism.

ideas are first and foremost about taking action in the world (Oxford again)

idea /ʌɪˈdɪə/ noun 1.a thought or suggestion as to a possible course of action.

In so far as philosophy is not about taking action - it's devoid of any intellectual content.

What used to be known as analytic philosophy is now effectively Computer Science. So I have no idea what kind of philosopher you think you are, but the sort of "reasoning" you are demonstrating is harmful to the intellect and is probably immoral.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 6:34 pm

The inner workings of the human mind perfectly satisfy the requirement of being called "supernatural"

Only in conceptual language, can this that in reality cannot be named, be called... outside of which, no word exists. In other words, words are fictional, there are simply no words to call reality/existence any thing at all because a word is made up of pure emptiness straight out of the great inky deep void of nothingness, and besides, known concepts/words have no consciousness to know anything. Even consciousness is a word that knows nothing. Isn't that a smart and clever trickless trick, that nothing actually knows stuff, pretty neat huh?

Reality/existence is an extremely perplexing, weird and strange place, it's totally unknowable....there simply ain't nothing here that can unravel and solve this mysterious puzzle, that is conscious existence, not even you...all you've got are empty words, and that knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of reality, as words are totally without meaning, except to say as makebelieve / dreamscape in this conception.

How's that for a pot load of word salad.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 10:01 pmAre computers beyond scientific understanding? No.

Do computers obey the laws of nature? Yes.

NOT supernatural.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 10:05 pm
ideas are first and foremost about taking action in the world (Oxford again)

idea /ʌɪˈdɪə/ noun 1.a thought or suggestion as to a possible course of action.

In so far as philosophy is not about taking action - it's devoid of any intellectual content.

Philosophy is the description of an action taken. It is the research of what must already exist before there is a reactionary description of it, and is why reactionary research is simply knowledge on demand, that must already exist, and therefore could never have been known, or possible to describe, had it not been for philosophy in the first place.



You cannot just talk about actions taken if you first don't know who and what is taking the action.

Philosophy: the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.

The philosophy inseparable from the philosopher have to both exist at exactly the same time for any intellectual content to be presently known, otherwise, nothing is known, not even you. There are only reactions known, not actions.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 2:54 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 2:47 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 2:16 pmFunny thing though...If you accept the premise as true (which makes the argument sound in your view), why do you reject the conclusion?

The argument isn't even valid

That's also one of those counter-example requiring claims

Ha! It doesn't follow from the fact that an argument is invalid that the conclusion is false.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 2:54 pmPlease provide it.

Give me an example where the premises are true but the conclusion is none the less, false

On what planet will that affect the validity of your own argument?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 11:55 am P1. It's impossible to derrive morals from nature.
P2. It's not impossible to derrive morals.
C. A source of morality exists that it's NOT natural.

It's your use of impossible:

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 2:37 pm"Impossible" simply means NOT possible. And I say that it's NOT possible because I haven't seen anybody do it.

That differs from your favourite dictionary's "not able to occur, exist, or be done". The fact that you haven't seen it done doesn't mean it is not able to be done.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 2:54 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 2:47 pmbut other than the fact that therefore it's not really a conclusion, what makes you think I reject the conclusion?

Yeah, your on-going refusal to accept it. As well as nit-picking the soundness and validity of the argument.
But most of all, the fact that you haven't said "Yeah, that's true" or something to that effect.

Philosophy can be confrontational; it's the Socratic way. You started this thread looking for a fight, and now your whining that people are fighting. If you just want someone to agree with you, go upstairs to mum.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 8:12 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 2:54 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 2:47 pm The argument isn't even valid

That's also one of those counter-example requiring claims

Ha! It doesn't follow from the fact that an argument is invalid that the conclusion is false.

Who says that it does? Do you actually understand what logical validity is?

It's quite ironic, because validity itself is an impossibility claim, so a counter-example suffices for rejecting a validity claim.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 8:12 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 2:54 pmPlease provide it.

Give me an example where the premises are true but the conclusion is none the less, false

On what planet will that affect the validity of your own argument?

On this one; and any other planet which defines validity in the way that we do.

Q.E.D you don't actually understand validity.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 8:12 am It's your use of impossible:

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 2:37 pm"Impossible" simply means NOT possible. And I say that it's NOT possible because I haven't seen anybody do it.

That differs from your favourite dictionary's "not able to occur, exist, or be done".

You are correct. I was 100% mistaken about which definition I was using. It turns out that I was using the Oxford definition all along - thanks for pointing it out. Silly me.

A counter-example is not able to ocur, exist or be done. Which is why you can't provide one; or point to anyone who can or has.
A derivation of morals from facts is not able to occur, exist or be done. Which is why you can't do it; or point to anyone who can or has.

So it's impossible. By definitoon.

Q.E.D

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 8:12 am The fact that you haven't seen it done doesn't mean it is not able to be done.

Yes, but it's not just me who lacks evience of possibility - it's everyone. Even you.

Nobody in the history of humanity has made a counter-example ocur or exist. Nobody has done the work necessary to produce a counter example.
And neither have you.

So it's impossible. By definition.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 8:12 am Philosophy can be confrontational; it's the Socratic way.

Socrates was an idiot who didn't even know his own name. The burden of proof is not 50:50, but it's definitely not 100:0 either.

If you are being Socratic - I've met my burden and I don't know how to burden myself anymore.
Your end of the burden is one counter-example.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 8:12 am You started this thread looking for a fight, and now your whining that people are fighting.

No, I am whining because you aren't even putting up a fight. Can you actually throw a fucking punch?

None of your half-assed efforts are landing. Punch me with counter-examples.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 8:12 am If you just want someone to agree with you, go upstairs to mum.

I don't want you to agree with me. I want you to convince yourself; and me that there is no effective way to disagree with the argument.

And all you are doing is trying to disagree with it in all the ways I've already tried (and failed) to disagree with it myself.

It's like you think you can Socratize me better than I Socratize myself. If that were true then that would make you the biggest idiot, right? because Socrates was an idiot.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 8:29 amYou are correct. I was 100% mistaken about which definition I was using. It turns out that I was using the Oxford definition all along - thanks for pointing it out. Silly me.

Ah well, in that case since you are withdrawing your proof that one of your premises is sound, your argument isn't sound.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 8:29 amA counter-example is not able to ocur, exist or be done. Which is why you can't provide one.

I don't need to. The possibility of something does not rest on my ability to do it.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 8:29 amSo it's impossible. By definitoon.

The issue is not whether I understand logical validity, it is that you clearly don't understand English.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 8:54 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 8:29 amYou are correct. I was 100% mistaken about which definition I was using. It turns out that I was using the Oxford definition all along - thanks for pointing it out. Silly me.

Ah well, in that case since you are withdrawing your proof that one of your premises is sound, your argument isn't sound.

OK, here's the new and improved argument.

P1. It's impossible to derrive morals from nature.
P2. It's not impossible to derrive morals.
C. A source of morality exists that it's NOT natural.

It may look like exactly the same argument, but rest assured it's now using the Oxford definition of "impossible", instead of my own.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 8:54 am I don't need to. The possibility of something does not rest on my ability to do it.

Nobody said that it does.

The possibility rests on somebody being able to do it.

You can't seem to point out a single person who can; or has done it in the entirety of human history.

Your burden is just one example. Why can't you?

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 8:54 am The issue is not whether I understand logical validity, it is that you clearly don't understand English.

Oh, so my understanding of the Oxford definitions is confused, is it?

Please point out my misunderstanding.

Throw a fucking punch, already. You are doing the exact same idiotic philosopher bullshit I've already thrown at it.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 9:01 am

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 8:54 amI don't need to. The possibility of something does not rest on my ability to do it.

Nobody said that it does.

The possibility rests on somebody being able to do it.

Maybe someone can.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 9:01 amYou can't seem to point out a single person who can; or has done it in the entirety of human history.

Your burden is just one example. Why can't you?

Well again, the possibility of something does not rest on my ability to do it.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 9:01 am

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 8:54 am The issue is not whether I understand logical validity, it is that you clearly don't understand English.

Oh, so my understanding of the Oxford definitions is confused, is it?

Please point out my misunderstanding.

Here ya go:

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 8:29 amYou are correct. I was 100% mistaken about which definition I was using.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 9:19 am Maybe someone can.

Maybe nobody can. So far nobody has.

You could be the first. If you produce a counter-example.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 9:19 am Well again, the possibility of something does not rest on my ability to do it.

But your rejection of impossibility rests upon your ability to point out at least one counter-example.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 9:19 am Here ya go:

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 8:29 amYou are correct. I was 100% mistaken about which definition I was using.

A minor error. Now corrected - thank you for pointing it out.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 9:01 am OK, here's the new and improved argument.

P1. It's impossible to derrive morals from nature.
P2. It's not impossible to derrive morals.
C. A source of morality exists that it's NOT natural.

It may look like exactly the same argument, but rest assured it's now using the Oxford definition of "impossible", instead of my own.