Philosophy Now Forum

As I say elsewhere: the only existentialist I pay attention to, the only one worth payin' attention to, is Bugs .

You won't find him pushin' some stone around, like a dung beetle, for eternity.

That kinda pointless shit, that's for life's Fudds.

bahman wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 21, 2020 5:26 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 21, 2020 5:24 pm

bahman wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 21, 2020 4:59 pm

Sorry, but I think that you said that the spirit (mind in my vocabulary) is the information. That I disagree.

And I disagree with you: pistols? At twenty paces?

LOL.

The mind is different category. Yeah, I said the same thing... 😒 I just didn't want to repeat myself I know how you feel... 😒 Sorry, but I think that you said that the spirit (mind in my vocabulary) is the information. That I disagree . And I disagree with you: pistols? At twenty paces?

Yeah, I agree...to both. :wink: 👍🏻 But I can't figure out how Peter thinks "selfishness and violence" can even exist, if there's no propensity in human beings to choose those things. If that were the case, they simply wouldn't exist. Nobody would ever be "selfish" or "violent." Mebbe I misread him,...

What's your take on how somebody who rolls a rock up a hill for all of eternity can be regarded as "happy." He's a dumbass. Heh. Plausibly. Camus didn't think it worked out that way, though. He thought that there were two undeniable, irrefutable "facts" that had to be believed. First, that there wa...

Now, suppose all people were selfish and violent. Would it be morally wrong to constrain or punish their selfishness and violence? This raises a further question, Henry. Why would anybody be "selfish or violent" -- indeed, why would any human "selfishness or violence" exist, if human beings were in...

What's your take on how somebody who rolls a rock up a hill for all of eternity can be regarded as "happy."

He's a dumbass.

The mind is different category.

Yeah, I said the same thing...


I just didn't want to repeat myself

I know how you feel...

Now, suppose all people were selfish and violent. Would it be morally wrong to constrain or punish their selfishness and violence? If we lived on War World (and that's what it would be) would morality ever come up? A world where everyone is a monster would never entertain morality or language or sc...

bahman, I note you never commented on ⬇️ . Not worth your trouble? Information can be carried in a radio wave. This Ipad I'm pokin' at, it receives and transmits a radio signal. The signal is conducted by a little box, the wifi hub sittin' on a desk about three feet away. The hub transceives signal,...

👍🏻 thankew If man has an intrinsic "nature" that requires him to be free, As I reckon it: bein' one's own is at the core of a person. I don't know in what sense a man can "belong to himself," Doesn't matter if man is an ensouled being (as you see him) or a composite of flesh and spirit (as I see hi...

Lacewing wrote: 🦨

As I pointed out up-thread, some things are real unambiguously, like a stone; some things are real but only exist when certain conditions are in place, like fire; some things are real but only exist in a certain context, like my hunger. I believe morality (the rightness or wrongness of an action) i...

if the criterion for the moral rightness or wrongness of an action is its consonance with a (supposed) feature of human nature, then selfish and violent actions are morally justifiable - if selfishness and violence are inherent to human nature. I assume you accept that conclusion from your argument...

As I pointed out up-thread, some things are real unambiguously, like a stone; some things are real but only exist when certain conditions are in place, like fire; some things are real but only exist in a certain context, like my hunger. I believe morality (the rightness or wrongness of an action) is...