dimreepr
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by dimreepr
-
-
53 minutes ago, studiot said: Philosophy deals with the notion of cause and effect, both identifiable with the latter following the former.
What I have never seen so would like to ask is
How does Philosophy address feedback and feedforward processes in relation to cause and effect ?
Like a traffic jam that starts with a flash of brake lights on a busy road?
Some say this is how our brain deal's with reality.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a variation of the tree making a sound in a forest?
-
On 11/6/2025 at 3:11 PM, Phi for All said: Instead we're told the government is bad for requiring all these rules and regulations and taxing us to enforce them, and that we should instead vote to protect our freedom. The institution that could save us is painted as the cause of our problems. I think the wealthy are the ones interested in doing whatever they feel like doing, and the average citizen is better served by reasonable rules than the ability to do whatever they want.
This is write large here in the UK, I have so many friend's that grew up in a council house and went to the local school free of charge; then Margret Thatcher happened, she decided to sell the family silver and enjoy it now rather than invest it in our 'children'.
Now we've got tub thumping flag wavers, that grew up poor, pulling up the drawbridge and hoping they survive the siege.
-
-
21 hours ago, sethoflagos said: No, not at all. The economic analysis of capitalist production in Das Kapital is just objective algebra. The dialectics stem from the class conflict over who gets to pocket the surplus value and the subjective moral judgments associated with that. As @Otto Kretschmer states, these two aspects are quite separable.
Your bible stories seem utterly irrelevant.
Not at all, philosophically they are examples of different attempts to put a saddle on the beast; you can't separate philosophy from economics, any more than you can separate philosophy from science.
21 hours ago, sethoflagos said: Drivel.
DM is a philosophical approach to the resolution of conflict through creation of a new 'synthesis'.
Lack of sufficient funds to sustain my me/family is a reason for conflict, the resolution is often a desperate struggle; philosophy is for after...
-
Money is a fundamental part of human society, you can't divide it into haves or have not; philosophically it's the same.
For instance, Nietcshe assumed that Jesus was fundamentally wrong bc it was based on a slave mentality, and that a greater understanding will logically follow bc we're better than that...
-
-
On 10/31/2025 at 6:33 PM, Otto Kretschmer said: Marxist analysis of capitalism is really a separate thing from Marxist philosophy, Marxist economics is a development of the works of Adam Smith and David Ricardo while the philosophical part is based on Hegel + Feuerbach. There is a think called Analytic Marxism which takes the Marxist analysis of capitalism but combines it with analytic philosophy in place of dialectical materialism.
How can it be (bolded mine), that's like saying Jesus ignored the money lender's bc money has nothing to do with our lives, or that Mohamed didn't include it in Shariah laws.
Dialectic materialism is an excuse, not a reason.
-
6 hours ago, Gees said: There is no such thing as a secular religion. Marxism is an ideology.
Marxism is a philosophy based on the economic 'false' god, money, and the potential for it to be our downfall.
A secular religion depends on your definition of religion, a secular society is certainly capable of a dogmatic faith in it's doctrine.
6 hours ago, Gees said: Are you sure that Christianity was not used as a template?
Pretty sure.
Islam seems a closer fit, given shariah law in the banking sector.
-
1 minute ago, pinball1970 said: Yeah I mentioned that.
Most Christians do not think the OT stories are historical.
Scholars have a general consensus about where myth and history meet.
But what if it was raining really hard? 😉
Do I really have to explain the joke, given that we fundamentally agree?
On 10/28/2025 at 1:11 PM, npts2020 said: This is but one example of how you do not even understand what science actually is. No scientist I know talks about any theory (such as evolution) as "truth", it is simply the current best explanation that agrees with all of the evidence for a given phenomenon.
Sure, but it should be more than sufficient to get the gist of what is written and decide whether it is worthwhile to become a student of something. The first time I read the bible cover to cover, I was 12 and an acolyte at our local church. At that time I didn't really have knowledge to critique what it contained from a scientific point of view but there are more than enough contradictions (an eye for an eye vs turn the other cheek for example) to have gotten me to consider perhaps it was not an infallible document. The next time, I was 20 and an engineer on a nuclear vessel by which time it seemed to me that scientists agree with and trust each other FAR more than do religious proponents (ever hear of even a threatened war over competing TOE theories?). The reason for this is that scientists have to adhere to rigorous rules of discovery and fit their debate within the confines of what is knowable in order to construct a theory and this applies to every discipline, whereas every proponent of religion I have ever met will evade answering contradictions or try to overcome them with magic.
OK, I sort of agree with you, but since you're talking bollox I can't...
-
-
-
-
-
-
1 minute ago, Otto Kretschmer said: IMHO the most successful politics is pragmatic and done with ideology as a broad guiding principle and not absolute truth.
Indeed, but I have no doubt that most religion's started with ideology, absolute truth is a post hoc ergo propter hoc.
At some point Marx will be proved right, most of the argument's up till now is, it hasn't happened yet.
-
4 hours ago, Otto Kretschmer said: But with Marxism the number of similarities with Christianiy is just astonishing - in Marxism Leninism and Marxism Leninism Maoism there was a thing called "criticism and self criticism sessions" during which people would confess their own doctrinal errors in public, so basically a religious confession.
Except a religious confession is a private affair, in order to forgive oneself for being a flawed human; besides I see nothing wrong with editing ones doctrine when confronted with an error.
-
-
1 minute ago, studiot said: I agree that practicve has defoinitely crossed the line.
We are meant to be discussing extremism here, not benign exceptions.
But the title "is extremism the default for faith" I'm saying it's not and that extremism is born of the politicos and their faith is used against them to achieve a jihad et al.
It reminds me of that WW1 poster "your country needs you" and conscription in WW2.
-
6 hours ago, npts2020 said: My biggest problem with religions is when the practitioners want impose their own beliefs (which almost none of them follow 100% of the time, anyway) on others.
Sound's more like a politician, not every priest/religious teacher wants to impose anything or fails to follow their chosen moral code; I'll bet the politicos get much closer to 100% bc political morality is very fluid/ambiguous/optional and is mostly for others...
-
-
5 hours ago, pinball1970 said: Why did people buy into Trump? They believed his stories because they want a better life.
Exactly, they're not content with the life they already have.
5 hours ago, pinball1970 said: Without being too blunt about it, I think lack of political, economic, awareness plays a part.
I think the biggest part, is believing the news that tomorrow has the potential, every day, to be disaterous; if only we had the ability to not watch or care what it says.
Imagine the war's we could avoid...
Nietsche called it the slave morality
But I think his argument fails, bc the master morality can only flourish by disrupting the slave mentality.
IOW fear of tomorrow.
-
15 hours ago, Pathway Machine said: Where does faith cross the line into extremism?
When we forget what the word's mean.
In the UK the words are "Lest we forget" and in the USA the word's are "MAGA".
In the bible it's "an eye for an eye". 😉
48 minutes ago, pinball1970 said: That's the dangerous part isn't it? Thinking you are absolutely correct because god tells you so in his book?
I'm not sure why, yet history is replete with examples of the 'so called' sheeple being exploited.
But what's so wrong with being content with what we have,?
It strikes me that the dangerous part, that is exploited, is that I'm not content with what I have...
-
17 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said: One doesn't care that they suffer? Uh. Cool with me. To each his own. You know . . . sweet dreams are made of this. Who am I to disagree? I travel the world and the seven seas, everybody's looking for something
Some of them want to use you
Some of them want to get used by you
Some of them want to abuse you
Some of them want to be abusedWhatever, you know. Whatever floats your boat. Or ark as Noah and Moses would say. But from the Biblical perspective, as I am want to give, everlasting punishment by God is, ultimately, just death. We are worm food. No heaven. No fiery torment. Hell is a pagan concept. Look at it like this. If a friend is about to jump off a ridiculously high and jagged cliff and you say "you'll be sorry." You don't mean they will literally regret it because they will be dead. Same thing with God's punishment of the wicked.
I mean, if that's your thing I hate to break it to you, but that's what it is. Biblically.
it seems nuance is lost on you...
-
Calling all Philosophers - A question about cause and effect.
in General Philosophy
A loop that has no cause must be a paradox...