| Theoretical Philosophy » Intellectualist freedom » 12/26/2018 4:08 pm |
- Due_Kindheartedness
- Replies: 8
-
Which is the true definition of freedom?
1. Being able to make choices all of which are free from punishment? Elections where Stalin was the only option weren't free elections. Being able to say anything you wanted against Stalin as long as you could endure the gulag isnt free speech, so it seems that multiple options and freedom from punishment for taking advantage of options is essential to freedom.
2. Being unlimited? If freedom instead equals being unlimited, then having one option doesn't take away freedom. Being in the presence of the BV may remove your ability to say no, but you would be unlimited in some sense and so could be freedom.
| Theoretical Philosophy » Intellectualist freedom » 12/25/2018 9:40 pm |
- Due_Kindheartedness
- Replies: 8
-
In respect of this forum's administration's rule that only old Feser blogposts can be discussed, I would like to discuss "voluntarism and PSR" from November 2014.
I think that there is a reductio ad absurdum that can refute one of the points in favor of intellectualism. I am talking about this from said blogpost.By contrast, on the conception of free will as “freedom for excellence,” which is endorsed by Aquinas, the will is inherently directed toward the good in the sense that pursuit of the good is its final cause. The implication is that the will is more free to the extent that it finds it easy to choose what is good and less free to the extent that it does not.
1. The easier it is to choose the good, and the harder it is to choose the bad, the more freedom you have.
2. So we can incrementally create more freedom by making the good choice easier and easier and the bad choice harder and harder.
3. Therefore, the maximum amount of freedom is when you have only one choice (to do good), a contradiction!
| Practical Philosophy » I hate libertarianism » 12/23/2018 4:59 pm |
- Due_Kindheartedness
- Replies: 28
-
Libertarians believe all externalities are irrelevant. Social externalities are irrelevant, so the only thing that matters are laws that defend property. Economic externalities are irrelevant, so the only thing that matters is market fundamentalism. National externalities are irrelevant, so the only thing that matters is free trade. But they haven't proven that these externalities are irrelevant. They just want you to shut up and support them. Your opinions and personal values are also another externality that doesn't matter.
Libertarians also lie. For instance, they claim that they're "objectivists" but they don't actually believe in objective reality. What they believe is no externalities so their internal model of the world is objective reality. When they say everyone should be objective they mean "other people's worldview is another externality I won't bother with so shut up and accept my externality-free worldview."
| Religion » Jesus Christ » 12/23/2018 4:43 pm |
- Due_Kindheartedness
- Replies: 17
-
History is a very bad field because history is a collective story you tell to yourself. It is much worse than economics. Nobody is unbiased when it comes to history because everyone has an emotional investment in the story they want to live by. I believe atheists have an emotional investment in rebutting Christianity so they're going to approach the NT era by that perspective. Meanwhile, Jesus Christ is accepted by Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists who have no emotional investment whatsoever with respect to Christianity.
| Chit-Chat » Does "Hardcore" Evangelical Christianity scare the shit out of anybody » 12/23/2018 2:50 am |
- Due_Kindheartedness
- Replies: 1
-
I don't owe the evangelical god any kind of relationship or worship because his logic doesn't make sense. My priest taught me that it is foolish to believe that God created 99% of mankind just to damn them, and I don't owe any god belief in something foolish.
| Theoretical Philosophy » Aquinas and embodied cognition » 12/23/2018 12:02 am |
- Due_Kindheartedness
- Replies: 9
-
John West wrote:There are also very likely useless things I know (quite a lot of them, I imagine). For instance, suppose I were to go out and count the number of blades of grass on my lawn. I would then know the number of blades of grass on my lawn. But the number of blades of grass on my lawn isn't useful.
FUCK! But why does it seem as if utility is something integral to knowledge? You're aware of Norzick's utility theory of truth, right?
| Theoretical Philosophy » Aquinas and embodied cognition » 12/22/2018 10:53 pm |
- Due_Kindheartedness
- Replies: 9
-
ficino wrote:Due_Kindheartedness wrote:
Knowledge is propositions that are strong and have a lot of utility. True is not necessary, because a lot of things that are not true are knowledge. E.g. you believe your Aunt Tilly is alive and before you get any news update she dies of a fever. Your belief that she is alive isn't true anymore, but it's still knowledge.
No, it is not knowledge. You are not entitled to make up your own definitions unless you are willing to stand outside the community of discourse.
What if I believe my definitions are better than the consensus? And besides, philosophers cope with other philosophers coming up with different definitions. They just argue or refute the idea on their terms. And philosophy was founded by a gladfly and non-comformist after all
And truth might be implicit in strong. Look at music theory, which is a body of knowledge (because that is the definition of a theory: a body of knowledge is knowledge but it doesn't involve describing reality in some way. But claims in music theory are strong (they characterize what sounds good near-completely) and has a lot of utility (you can use it to make video game music, symphonies, or just enjoy music you like more).
| Theoretical Philosophy » Aquinas and embodied cognition » 12/22/2018 9:02 pm |
- Due_Kindheartedness
- Replies: 9
-
John West wrote:Due_Kindheartedness wrote:
One good definition of knowledge is anything that is strong and useful. Aquinas is not only strong, but also useful. Therefore Aquinas had a lot of knowledge.
One good definition of knowledge is anything that is strong and useful. Hammers are not only strong, but also useful. Therefore hammers have a lot of knowledge.
Beasts of burden, like ox, are also strong and useful and, so, also serve as counterexamples. But perhaps I'm being a pedant.Knowledge is propositions that are strong and have a lot of utility. True is not necessary, because a lot of things that are not true are knowledge. E.g. you believe your Aunt Tilly is alive and before you get any news update she dies of a fever. Your belief that she is alive isn't true anymore, but it's still knowledge.
| Theoretical Philosophy » Eliminative materialism » 12/22/2018 12:26 am |
- Due_Kindheartedness
- Replies: 7
-
ADDENDUM: Not ever Ancient Greek believed in this theory. Source.
Why the Heraclean stone attracts iron. Empedocles says that the iron is borne towards
the stone by the effluvia emanating from both and because the pores of the stone are
fitted to receive the effluvium of the iron. The effluvium of the stone then expels the air
from the pores of the iron. Once the air is expelled, the iron itself is carried along by the
abundant flow of the effluvium. Again, when the effluvium of the iron moves towards the
pores of the stone, which are fitted to receive it, the iron begins to move with it
| Theoretical Philosophy » Eliminative materialism » 12/22/2018 12:07 am |
- Due_Kindheartedness
- Replies: 7
-
Descartes believe in an immaterial substance and believed that magnetism was something that was just a physical mechanism. So just because the ancient greeks (and was it even every ancient greek? I don't know if Aristotle thought this theory was true). The two are not necessarily conjoined by logical necessity and I'm not even sure if they had a common origin.