Philosophy Now Forum

Walker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2024 1:40 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 9:48 am Discuss??
Views??

Justice is a thought and thoughts are real. Thoughts are of a corporeal nature in the sense that they exist physically, but not physically like a chunk of wood or a rock. They are a more subtle form of physicality, like the wind is physical but more subtle than a rock. This relates to the conclusion here, it’s an important premise to make the point, a premise being one of two starting points to make a point, and knowledge being the other.

The physicality of thought is simple to experience and everyone does, although because of assumptions about the nature of the world, not everyone notices the subtlety of the experience concerning the thought, where thoughts come from, and where thoughts go.

Thoughts have various sources, such as in a chain of one thought beginning with a memory and connecting to present experience. Or, a thought can begin as a rationale. The source to consider for the point of the conclusion of this is, a thought can have an external origin.

The simplest way to consider this is through the experience of an outside thought. An outside thought is one that is not of your own making. It comes from out of the blue, so to speak. Out of thin air. This thought is a transmission from an outside source, not through any of the five senses, but through the sixth sense, which is the mind sense. The mind senses the world without the other five senses, and the beginning of this is picking up thoughts that originate outside of the skin.

Conclusion of the previous proof, based on the evidence of knowledge: Just as thoughts external to the skin can be perceived with the mind sense, many minds transmitting the same thought are a strong transmission that can be perceived in a gross, meaning unsubtle, way.

Everyone experiences this, although everyone does not parse the phenomenon according to an organized, rational framework or commonly experienced FSK, because a lot of what is going on is connected to what is personally emotional rather than concepts.

Therefore, a commonly held physical thought by a society, such as the physical principle of justice made simple by the first experience of injustice as a child (hey, that kid took my toy!) is a physical thing that requires a most subtle instrument to detect, and that subtle instrument is the brain-mind connection.

When an entire society carries the same physical concept of justice, that is a powerful transmission that any mind sense can detect, and if ignored then it is ignored with knowledge that injustice is being done, which is also a physical thought.

I have heard that Elon Musk created a physical apparatus, a machine-mind connection, that can transfer physical thoughts to a computer screen, without voice or fingers, which is akin to the point, which is continuous transmission and reception of the physical thought of justice.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2024 3:55 pm The problem with mysticism is that it's untethered to any need for evidence, and so sound argument. Mystics can make any old woo-woo claim they like.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 05, 2024 3:59 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 05, 2024 3:59 am My point is the sense of justice is represented by a 'software program' that all humans inherited via evolution as as essential part of human nature.

Human beings have the unique ability to view the world in a detached way: We can think about the world in terms that transcend our own experience or interest, and consider the world from a vantage point that is, in Nagel's words, "nowhere in particular".

At the same time, each of us is a particular person in a particular place, each with his own "personal" view of the world, a view that we can recognize as just one aspect of the whole.

How do we reconcile these two standpoints--intellectually, morally, and practically?

To what extent are they irreconcilable and to what extent can they be integrated?

Thomas Nagel's ambitious and lively book tackles this fundamental issue, arguing that our divided nature is the root of a whole range of philosophical problems, touching, as it does, every aspect of human life.

He deals with its manifestations in such fields of philosophy as: the mind-body problem, personal identity, knowledge and skepticism, thought and reality, free will, ethics, the relation between moral and other values, the meaning of life, and death.

Excessive objectification has been a malady of recent analytic philosophy, claims Nagel, it has led to implausible forms of reductionism in the philosophy of mind and elsewhere.

The solution is not to inhibit the objectifying impulse, but to insist that it learn to live alongside the internal perspectives that cannot be either discarded or objectified.
Reconciliation between the two standpoints, in the end, is not always possible

The View From Nowhere
Thomas Nagel -1986
https://philpapers.org/rec/NAGTVF

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 6:04 am The Malady of the External World Dogmatism:

Human beings have the unique ability to view the world in a detached way: We can think about the world in terms that transcend our own experience or interest, and consider the world from a vantage point that is, in Nagel's words, "nowhere in particular".

At the same time, each of us is a particular person in a particular place, each with his own "personal" view of the world, a view that we can recognize as just one aspect of the whole.

How do we reconcile these two standpoints--intellectually, morally, and practically?

To what extent are they irreconcilable and to what extent can they be integrated?

Thomas Nagel's ambitious and lively book tackles this fundamental issue, arguing that our divided nature is the root of a whole range of philosophical problems, touching, as it does, every aspect of human life.

He deals with its manifestations in such fields of philosophy as: the mind-body problem, personal identity, knowledge and skepticism, thought and reality, free will, ethics, the relation between moral and other values, the meaning of life, and death.

Excessive objectification has been a malady of recent analytic philosophy, claims Nagel, it has led to implausible forms of reductionism in the philosophy of mind and elsewhere.

The solution is not to inhibit the objectifying impulse, but to insist that it learn to live alongside the internal perspectives that cannot be either discarded or objectified.
Reconciliation between the two standpoints, in the end, is not always possible

The View From Nowhere
Thomas Nagel -1986
https://philpapers.org/rec/NAGTVF

Nagel is a scientific realist but he suggested that one should not be dogmatic and claimed absoluteness of it. i.e. an absolute mind-independently reality is an impossibility.

I don't agree with scientific realism [it is not tenable]; thus I am indifferent to the idea of an absolutely mind-independent reality.

Whatever is real and objective cannot be absolutely mind-independent.
Thus the most optimal view to accept reality is that it is contingent upon a human-based framework and system of emergence, realization and cognition of that emerged-reality.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 6:04 am Nagel is a scientific realist but he suggested that one should not be dogmatic and claimed absoluteness of it. i.e. an absolute mind-independently reality is an impossibility.

I don't agree with scientific realism [it is not tenable]; thus I am indifferent to the idea of an absolutely mind-independent reality.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2024 9:05 am

Contrary to popular belief 'facts' are not based upon 'physical things' alone.

This is a claim which incurs the burden of proving (demonstrating) that any non-physical thing exists - a burden unmet, so far, to my knowledge. Which means that skepticism with regard to non-physical or abstract things is the only rational position.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2024 3:03 am As such, the concept of 'justice' exists as really-real as contingent within a legal FSERC which is translatable to practical use.
The consideration is whether the legal FSERC relied upon is credible and objective.
Therefore, justice is real as qualified within a legal FSERC subject to its credibility and objectivity.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2024 3:26 pm It can't be so impossibly fucking hard to have simple, rational thinking.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 6:04 am Nagel is a scientific realist but he suggested that one should not be dogmatic and claimed absoluteness of it. i.e. an absolute mind-independently reality is an impossibility.