"Everything happens for a reason".......well yeah, of course. Every choice you make is important. But that doesn't mean every choice you ever made, has served to maximize your life satisfaction. You might not be the happiest you could be, depending on your choices.

I would very much like my brain to be used as a model for a new society.

(October 3, 2021 at 5:15 am)Ahriman Wrote: I would very much like my brain to be used as a model for a new society.

Munchkinland?

Boru

(October 3, 2021 at 6:56 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(October 3, 2021 at 5:15 am)Ahriman Wrote: I would very much like my brain to be used as a model for a new society.

Munchkinland?

Boru

I assumed as a cautionary tale.

(October 3, 2021 at 6:59 am)arewethereyet Wrote:

(October 3, 2021 at 6:56 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Munchkinland?

Boru

I assumed as a cautionary tale.

Yeah, that's better...

Boru

(October 2, 2021 at 5:20 pm)emjay Wrote: I've been getting interested in reading philosophy again, long overdue, and was just thinking how cool it would be if the formal debates area of the forum was used again, as it hasn't been in a long time. At the moment my main philosophical interest is in 'God of the philosopher's' type stuff (eg, Anselm, Aquinas etc) and coming on here looking for threads about that, I came across @Neo-Scholastic's, ahem, failed debate... so I just thought, as a random thought, how cool it would be if he would be willing to debate that subject again, but with someone else, say @vulcanlogician or @The Grand Nudger... someone willing to debate it thoroughly on logical grounds and take it seriously. I mean, I know I'm not in a position to ask for much on this site given I rarely post any more, but just offering it as a suggestion in case anyone was interested. I'd certainly read it, with interest And it's just nice seeing debates in that form, so even if no to this, I think it would still be cool if the debates area started getting used again.

Well, I suppose I could argue on behalf of atheism :-) againt pantheism.

Anyway, one of my main motivations for that debate was to present the 5W in an organized and nuanced way. IMO detractors of the 5W tend to dismiss them based on misunderstandings about classical notions of causality.

(October 4, 2021 at 1:49 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(October 2, 2021 at 5:20 pm)emjay Wrote: I've been getting interested in reading philosophy again, long overdue, and was just thinking how cool it would be if the formal debates area of the forum was used again, as it hasn't been in a long time. At the moment my main philosophical interest is in 'God of the philosopher's' type stuff (eg, Anselm, Aquinas etc) and coming on here looking for threads about that, I came across @Neo-Scholastic's, ahem, failed debate... so I just thought, as a random thought, how cool it would be if he would be willing to debate that subject again, but with someone else, say @vulcanlogician or @The Grand Nudger... someone willing to debate it thoroughly on logical grounds and take it seriously. I mean, I know I'm not in a position to ask for much on this site given I rarely post any more, but just offering it as a suggestion in case anyone was interested. I'd certainly read it, with interest And it's just nice seeing debates in that form, so even if no to this, I think it would still be cool if the debates area started getting used again.

Well, I suppose I could argue on behalf of atheism :-) againt pantheism.

Anyway, one of my main motivations for that debate was to present the 5W in an organized and nuanced way. IMO detractors of the 5W tend to dismiss them based on misunderstandings about classical notions of causality.

Well FWIW, I for one would love to see you redo that debate, since it never really got off the ground, to put it charitably, the first time round. I understand what you mean about it being nuanced and open to misunderstandings, and that's why I would love to see it clarified and then argued on it's own terms. For instance I'm reading at the moment about 'essentially ordered series' and the concept is pretty complicated, but I understand that it's necessary to understand that, and similar concepts, before I can even hope to truly understand what Aquinas is actually arguing in the five ways. For instance, I've watched quite a few videos on YouTube about it and I have to say, the ones claiming to debunk it, have been disappointing thus far; even in my limited understanding I can see terms - like 'necessary' for instance - getting conflated and used in multiple ways left, right, and centre. So basically I would just like to see a good, honest, and thorough logical debate on it, one with clearly defined terms that help avoid equivocation or misunderstandings.

I don't believe that truth can be arrived at using the Socratic method. It may be useful for exposing obvious B.S., but it doesn't actually lead to truth. Objective truth is hard-won through evidence and experiment.

As for discussions around frameworks for morality and other social constructs, those are best discussed in terms of values. i.e. given the premise of Societal Value X, does Social Construct Y conform to it? Then, we can determine on what basis we decided on Societal Value X. These are nothing but opinions, but they reveal something about ourselves as human beings. Our common humanity is the only thing that allows us to have any agreement on these, not any objective philosophy.

I don't see formal debates as being that useful. I usually give my opinion, and see if anyone can shoot it down (and see if someone comes up with a good idea I haven't thought of). I'm not going to debate endlessly as if there is the possibility of "winning the internet"

(October 4, 2021 at 4:16 pm)HappySkeptic Wrote: I don't believe that truth can be arrived at using the Socratic method. It may be useful for exposing obvious B.S., but it doesn't actually lead to truth. Objective truth is hard-won through evidence and experiment.

As for discussions around frameworks for morality and other social constructs, those are best discussed in terms of values. i.e. given the premise of Societal Value X, does Social Construct Y conform to it? Then, we can determine on what basis we decided on Societal Value X. These are nothing but opinions, but they reveal something about ourselves as human beings. Our common humanity is the only thing that allows us to have any agreement on these, not any objective philosophy.

I don't see formal debates as being that useful. I usually give my opinion, and see if anyone can shoot it down (and see if someone comes up with a good idea I haven't thought of). I'm not going to debate endlessly as if there is the possibility of "winning the internet"

Are there IHO objective facts about humanity that warrant normative judgements? For example, a poor diet can lead to disease. Is it therfore valid to say that objectively it is better for your body to have a healthy diet and therefore you should strive for a healthy diet, all other things being equal?

---

(October 4, 2021 at 3:06 pm)emjay Wrote:

(October 4, 2021 at 1:49 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Well, I suppose I could argue on behalf of atheism :-) againt pantheism.

Anyway, one of my main motivations for that debate was to present the 5W in an organized and nuanced way. IMO detractors of the 5W tend to dismiss them based on misunderstandings about classical notions of causality.

Well FWIW, I for one would love to see you redo that debate, since it never really got off the ground, to put it charitably, the first time round. I understand what you mean about it being nuanced and open to misunderstandings, and that's why I would love to see it clarified and then argued on it's own terms. For instance I'm reading at the moment about 'essentially ordered series' and the concept is pretty complicated, but I understand that it's necessary to understand that, and similar concepts, before I can even hope to truly understand what Aquinas is actually arguing in the five ways. For instance, I've watched quite a few videos on YouTube about it and I have to say, the ones claiming to debunk it, have been disappointing thus far; even in my limited understanding I can see terms - like 'necessary' for instance - getting conflated and used in multiple ways left, right, and centre. So basically I would just like to see a good, honest, and thorough logical debate on it, one with clearly defined terms that help avoid equivocation or misunderstandings.

I agree that debate, if it was one, was a disaster. I too was dissapointed. And I agree that many debunkers do a poor job...almost as bad as many defenders. That said, I am an amateur at philosophy so maybe I am way of base with my interpretation too (despite the tone of certainty in debate). If my interpretation of the Aquinas is off, I would certainly like to know.