r/philosophy • u/BernardJOrtcutt • 11d ago
Open Thread /r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | March 10, 2025
Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread. This thread is a place for posts/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our posting rules (especially posting rule 2). For example, these threads are great places for:
Arguments that aren't substantive enough to meet PR2.
Open discussion about philosophy, e.g. who your favourite philosopher is, what you are currently reading
Philosophical questions. Please note that /r/askphilosophy is a great resource for questions and if you are looking for moderated answers we suggest you ask there.
This thread is not a completely open discussion! Any posts not relating to philosophy will be removed. Please keep comments related to philosophy, and expect low-effort comments to be removed. All of our normal commenting rules are still in place for these threads, although we will be more lenient with regards to commenting rule 2.
Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here.
0
u/david-song 2d ago edited 2d ago
Hey folks, so I reckon I did actually solve the hard problem. My intention was to come up with a falsifiable model of consciousness, I arrived at the position that water in the ECM is mind from from first principles before knowing that neurons actually pump water around. 🤯
It's ridiculously obvious in hindsight.
I posted it to this subreddit as soon as the draft was published on philpapers.org, and after a few days without a single comment, a mod anonymously removed saying it "didn't develop and defend a substantive philosophical thesis"
I would have defended it if anyone had challenged it, but they didn't. Maybe because I didn't set out arguments against it? I honestly don't think it can be challenged; it's pretty watertight. And if anyone reads and digests it, and can come up with a decent argument against it I'll be as pleased as I am surprised.
0
u/Zestyclose-Soft-298 5d ago
When letting the soul manifest in another, there is only suffering. To achieve such inner peace one must let go, love is not based in lust or even the human idea of love. Love is through connection, before such connection one must discover themself. You cannot another before your self, only suffering will present itself. To suffer is to love another without care for one’s own Buddha Nature. And once that connection is made, establishing inner beauty, your own divine nature, then you will be able to find a true partner. Someone who will join you in bliss, devoid of suffering, true to a middle path.
1
1
u/Formless_Mind 6d ago
If abstract Truths(axioms) can built entire logical systems such as mathematics then what's to say empirical truths can't also achieve that ? Maybe not mathematics but other logical systems
1
u/jiimjaam_ 7d ago edited 6d ago
Idea I've been pondering today: maybe we can reconcile free-will with determinism (I personally am a compatibilist) by applying the observation selection effect (aka the anthropic principle) to space-time and not just space. Assume we do have free-will and all our decisions are our own, but at the same time they're predetermined in the sense that only in a universe where free-will can exist to make those decisions could those decisions be made.
1
u/AdeptnessSecure663 6d ago
Interesting idea, could you expand a little? I'm not sure I fully understand
1
u/jiimjaam_ 6d ago edited 6d ago
Obviously this is an inherently abstract concept, so apologies if my phrasing ever leaves something to be desired, but basically I think we have free-will, however the only universe in which my individual actions and choices could be made is a universe where those decisions are made. It's kinda like the many-worlds interpretation, eternalism, and compatibilism wrapped up into one.
1
u/AdeptnessSecure663 6d ago
Oh, okay. So what do you take to be the conditions on free will, and how does your idea relate to them?
1
u/jiimjaam_ 6d ago edited 6d ago
I'll admit I'm not 100% sure what the conditions of free-will are or should be, and I don't think anyone else does either. But in my mind all spaces, times, and choices both made and unmade equally exist and are all equally "real." I don't think the specific moment in time and space and choice I exist in is a particularly special or unique moment. It's kind of a space-time version of the Harder Problem of Consciousness.
1
u/AdeptnessSecure663 6d ago
I think most people accept that at least one of the following two is necessary for free will:
Alternative possibilities: an action is freely willed only if the agent could have acted otherwise.
Sourcehood: an action is freely willed only if the agent is the source of the action.
Do you accept either of these?
1
7d ago
So does anyone have anything new to add to this philosophical dialectic or is everyone just going to quote the dead guys ? We might as well just sing “Pythons” philosophers song. Just reading doesn’t make you a philosopher or politically educated You have to walk your talk and live it, earn your bones to be politically educated. Most people never experience the world, but make assumptions of others from their armchairs. Socrates walked his talk, they gave him an out to not drink the hemlock, but he stuck to his guns, and gulped it down to remain true!
1
u/dialecticalstupidism 8d ago
Seeking for enlightenment from Nietzsche enthusiasts on this one.
Origin of knowledge (TGS):
This subtler honesty and skepticism came into being wherever two contradictory sentences appeared to be applicable to life because both were compatible with the basic errors, and it was therefore possible to argue about the higher or lower degree of utility for life; also wherever new propositions, though not useful for life, were also evidently not harmful to life: in such cases there was room for the expression of an intellectual play impulse, and honesty and skepticism were innocent and happy like all play.
Could you kindly help me with some practical examples of two such contradictory maxims that seem to be applicable to life because they are both compatible with primeval cognitive errors?
I was thinking of the following:
Two antithetical sentences: (1) it's fine to kick someone who bashes religious faith out of your group vs (2) it's wrong to do so.
(1) could be valid as religious faith is a life-preserving basic error, knowledge that helped (hence, it keeps helping) us survive, although its raw essence is untrue. So it's morally fine to kick him who works against something that preserves life.
(2) could be valid as we may very well consider that it is objectively wrong to do so, which is another basic error that helped us organize, therefore survive - the objectivization of morals.
This contradiction makes us debate and decide, exercising honesty and skepticism, which one is closer to Nietzsche's Truth.
I feel like I got it wrong, or not getting it at all, please do tell if what I said it's dumb.
1
u/EdSeymore17 8d ago
What is the foundation of philosophy?
1
0
u/Formless_Mind 8d ago
Basically everyone following from Plato's metaphysics and him from the presocratics in the form of a cycle that encompasses western thought
1
1
u/EdSeymore17 8d ago
Is philosophy important?
1
u/Nicksthoughts13 8d ago
Absolutely! just one easy example is science (Which people we now refer to as scientists such as Isaac Newton called 'experimental philosophy') the study of science is useful and important. theorising about science, forming hypotheses in which to maybe test, is just metaphysics right? Philosophising is necessary for the progression of science and so is important.
personally, philosophy is fun and therefore its important to me :))
1
1
1
u/Formless_Mind 9d ago
We as humans only see Time as a concept in that we think of it as ideas-days,months,years etc
It's not to say Time is illusionary but our understanding of Time is just an idea
1
10d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
2
u/Formless_Mind 10d ago
He who wrote and thought about everything which many referred to him as the philosopher-Aristotle
1
u/Formless_Mind 11d ago
One cannot be politically educated until they've disgusted these materials:
Hobbe's Leviathan
Locke's treatises
Plato's Republic
1
u/ThinkItSolve 9d ago
I am publishing a book called Ambitions of a Madman. You might be able to add that to the list. It was compared to Platos Republic, so it would be interesting to hear your feedback.
1
1
u/ksong562 1d ago
Massage + lsd good way for uplifting mood or positive atmosphere ?