Posts by Amanda Jackson5

placidranger said:It isn't. Nothing we can actually discuss as a "thing" exists outside our subjective reality. The moment we start talking about objects, we are inevitably discussing perceptions—or abstractions of those perceptions. There is no other way to frame it.

We might claim that atoms or physical forces exist objectively, but those are just our models of an objective reality—abstract concepts that no one has ever truly witnessed. They’re incredibly useful, sure, but they remain trapped within subjective reality. There is no escape from perception.

Quincy:

By using the term "subjective reality," you've implicitly invoked "objective reality" as its opposite. And once you establish an opposition like that, their inherent unity becomes a logical necessity. Your only alternative is to find some other rational way to dismantle that dichotomy.

Objective reality isn't the opposite of subjective reality. It is necessarily a subjective model of "something"—which makes it part of that same subjective framework.

As for essences... essences are imputed, not inherent, regardless of how convincing they seem. At the end of the day, there's nothing in a chair but atoms.

Look, I’ve already told you why that just doesn't work. If we follow your logic, we end up with only one single reality. Now, I’m perfectly fine with the idea that there is only one reality—one that essentially bridges the gap between the subjective and the objective. That position is actually logically coherent. Your approach, on the other hand, isn't; you're picking one side of the subjective/objective opposition and just deleting the other one entirely, which is, unfortunately, a logical impossibility. That said, you probably aren't trying to be nonsensical; you're likely just struggling to articulate what you actually mean. You're probably trying to argue that humans can only ever experience phenomena, leaving the Kant's noumenal "thing-in-itself" forever out of reach. But I've pointed this out before: even that stance falls apart under scrutiny. It's like telling someone they are perceiving the world around them with perfect accuracy, yet somehow, that perfectly accurate perception is fundamentally false. As Hegel would put it, it's a total non-sequitur. It’s a classic case of *contradictio in adjecto*—a fancy way of saying someone is trying to marry two ideas that just plain refuse to live in the same house. It’s like ordering a "dry martini" from a bartender who thinks salt is a primary flavor profile, or claiming you want a "silent rock concert." You’re essentially building a house out of nothing but contradictions and wondering why the roof keeps falling in on your head.You’re essentially talking about an empty abstraction that lacks any actual determinism—which is exactly what you’re baselessly claiming about essence. It would be like me arguing that the world is inherently irrational and unknowable, or suggesting that something like science is a total impossibility. That kind of logic is more aligned with a schizophrenic mind or the deep subconscious than anything resembling reality. If we follow your line of reasoning, what happens to the laws of nature? In a world like that, laws simply can't exist. The reality is that if something is truly unknowable, it isn't true. You can't even apply a criterion of truth to something like that, so it can't logically occupy a state we would recognize as existence. Sure, we can imagine a thing that exists entirely detached from its own being, but we wouldn't call that a "thing"—we'd just call it a possibility.

placidranger said:It isn't. Nothing we can actually discuss as a "thing" exists outside our subjective reality. The moment we start talking about objects, we are inevitably discussing perceptions—or abstractions of those perceptions. There is no other way to frame it.

We might claim that atoms or physical forces exist objectively, but those are just our models of an objective reality—abstract concepts that no one has ever truly witnessed. They’re incredibly useful, sure, but they remain trapped within subjective reality. There is no escape from perception.

Quincy:

By using the term "subjective reality," you've implicitly invoked "objective reality" as its opposite. And once you establish an opposition like that, their inherent unity becomes a logical necessity. Your only alternative is to find some other rational way to dismantle that dichotomy.

Objective reality isn't the opposite of subjective reality. It is necessarily a subjective model of "something"—which makes it part of that same subjective framework.

As for essences... essences are imputed, not inherent, regardless of how convincing they seem. At the end of the day, there's nothing in a chair but atoms.

I’m struggling to wrap my head around this one—are atoms and fundamental forces actually objective realities, or just subjective constructs? It feels a bit arbitrary to grant them some kind of privileged status in our understanding of the world. If you're going to be truly consistent with your own logic, you can't claim they exist objectively. In fact, if we follow that thread to its logical conclusion, you can't really argue for the existence of objects, material reality, or nature itself. All you're left with is a collection of ideas, which basically drags us straight into the territory of absolute subjective idealism.

placidranger said:It isn't. Nothing we can actually discuss as a "thing" exists outside our subjective reality. The moment we start talking about objects, we are inevitably discussing perceptions—or abstractions of those perceptions. There is no other way to frame it.

We might claim that atoms or physical forces exist objectively, but those are just our models of an objective reality—abstract concepts that no one has ever truly witnessed. They’re incredibly useful, sure, but they remain trapped within subjective reality. There is no escape from perception.

Quincy:

By using the term "subjective reality," you've implicitly invoked "objective reality" as its opposite. And once you establish an opposition like that, their inherent unity becomes a logical necessity. Your only alternative is to find some other rational way to dismantle that dichotomy.

Objective reality isn't the opposite of subjective reality. It is necessarily a subjective model of "something"—which makes it part of that same subjective framework.

As for essences... essences are imputed, not inherent, regardless of how convincing they seem. At the end of the day, there's nothing in a chair but atoms.

So, are we really suggesting that objective reality is just some subset of subjective reality? I've already laid out why that logic falls apart above. Honestly, does anyone have a single rational argument for why subjective experience shouldn't be considered an integral part of the objective world?

placidranger said:It isn't. Nothing we can actually discuss as a "thing" exists outside our subjective reality. The moment we start talking about objects, we are inevitably discussing perceptions—or abstractions of those perceptions. There is no other way to frame it.

We might claim that atoms or physical forces exist objectively, but those are just our models of an objective reality—abstract concepts that no one has ever truly witnessed. They’re incredibly useful, sure, but they remain trapped within subjective reality. There is no escape from perception.

Quincy:

By using the term "subjective reality," you've implicitly invoked "objective reality" as its opposite. And once you establish an opposition like that, their inherent unity becomes a logical necessity. Your only alternative is to find some other rational way to dismantle that dichotomy.

Objective reality isn't the opposite of subjective reality. It is necessarily a subjective model of "something"—which makes it part of that same subjective framework.

As for essences... essences are imputed, not inherent, regardless of how convincing they seem. At the end of the day, there's nothing in a chair but atoms.

Why stop at just atoms? You literally just argued that atoms themselves are useful abstractions. Essences function the exact same way—they're just another layer of abstraction. The only real difference on that abstract level is that atoms are phenomena (assuming they even exist in a way we can actually perceive?), whereas essences act as the counterpoint to those phenomena. What I'm getting at is that a phenomenon without an essence is just an absurdity. If you strip away essence, you effectively strip away the laws of nature too. Does a chair contain subatomic particles? Or molecules?

Zachary Mendoza2 said:@Amanda Jackson5: I mostly agree with you, though I still get the impression you view emergence as something mystical and beyond calculation. You described how concepts emerge quite accurately. It is true they exist in reality, and also in consciousness through our recognition and naming of them. They derive from relationships with other concepts, which were formed by the same process.
There is an element here that is difficult to calculate, but my sense is that you aren't just talking about difficulty; you seem to believe emergence is inherently unpredictable. How is a whole greater than its parts? Because it possesses properties beyond its components—specifically, its relations to things outside itself. If the entire universe consisted only of those specific parts, the whole would simply equal the universe. But that isn't the case. We recognize distinct wholes and assign them names because we perceive their mutual relationships, not just the internal connections of their constituent parts.

To return to the part that is hard to calculate—which I don't see you identifying as the actual issue, even though that is where the problem lies, rather than in this silly logic of "let me limit the whole to its parts and see if I have a whole, oh, I don't."
It is difficult to calculate what constitutes a pile or a chair for you, versus what it is for me, or for a Japanese person or a Martian.
While your chair, my chair, and his chair all physically exist, we recognize them differently in reality. For me, a chair is roughly something mobile, designed for one person to sit on comfortably, among other traits. It could be wood or metal, with or without a back, in any variety. I have a mental framework, so I recognize certain objects as chairs. Since our conceptual structures differ slightly, the objects you identify as chairs won't perfectly match mine. Those Japanese people prefer to sit differently, so their chairs are different. And Martians have entirely different anatomy, so we wouldn't consider their seating to be chairs, nor would they consider ours. This is what is difficult to calculate, but it isn't mystical. If you understand reality, and if you understand someone else's conceptual structure (which is the problematic part), then you can deduce how a concept emerges for them to correspond to an object or a whole within reality.

No, I’ve never claimed anything was mystical, nor do I hold any sort of private, occult beliefs. Honestly, I’m a spiritual child of the Enlightenment. But it’s also a mistake to assume that everything which defies calculation is inherently mystical. You can't reduce everything down to mere math or pure quantity. It’s pretty straightforward—quantity is essentially meaningless without its counterweight: quality. You see this even in the concept of "magnitude," which is really just the marriage of quantity and quality.

Zachary Mendoza2 said:@Amanda Jackson5: I mostly agree with you, though I still get the impression you view emergence as something mystical and beyond calculation. You described how concepts emerge quite accurately. It is true they exist in reality, and also in consciousness through our recognition and naming of them. They derive from relationships with other concepts, which were formed by the same process.
There is an element here that is difficult to calculate, but my sense is that you aren't just talking about difficulty; you seem to believe emergence is inherently unpredictable. How is a whole greater than its parts? Because it possesses properties beyond its components—specifically, its relations to things outside itself. If the entire universe consisted only of those specific parts, the whole would simply equal the universe. But that isn't the case. We recognize distinct wholes and assign them names because we perceive their mutual relationships, not just the internal connections of their constituent parts.

To return to the part that is hard to calculate—which I don't see you identifying as the actual issue, even though that is where the problem lies, rather than in this silly logic of "let me limit the whole to its parts and see if I have a whole, oh, I don't."
It is difficult to calculate what constitutes a pile or a chair for you, versus what it is for me, or for a Japanese person or a Martian.
While your chair, my chair, and his chair all physically exist, we recognize them differently in reality. For me, a chair is roughly something mobile, designed for one person to sit on comfortably, among other traits. It could be wood or metal, with or without a back, in any variety. I have a mental framework, so I recognize certain objects as chairs. Since our conceptual structures differ slightly, the objects you identify as chairs won't perfectly match mine. Those Japanese people prefer to sit differently, so their chairs are different. And Martians have entirely different anatomy, so we wouldn't consider their seating to be chairs, nor would they consider ours. This is what is difficult to calculate, but it isn't mystical. If you understand reality, and if you understand someone else's conceptual structure (which is the problematic part), then you can deduce how a concept emerges for them to correspond to an object or a whole within reality.

It’s difficult, or rather impossible, to calculate because we aren't talking about quantity here. Pure quantity is basically the negation of being. What we're dealing with is essence, not just a conceptual structure itself. I actually went into quite a bit of detail about this in that other thread on emergence, where I was unsuccessfully trying to explain the concept to Aphex Twin:

Essentially, for something to exist, it has to be determined. Existence is only possible in the form of a determined being. For any existence to be genuine, actual, or real, it must be rational; in other words, actuality is the union of existence and essence (or reflection; actuality is the realization of formal possibility, or the concretization of an idea). Actual things are the unity of appearance and essence (which implies that contingent or irrational things aren't truly "real," even if they can manifest as appearances). Appearances are fleeting, whereas essences are enduring (or at least relatively more stable). Put simply—though it's not particularly helpful—essence is that which is not an appearance within a thing; that is, it is what does not merely "appear" (even though the very nature of an essence is to manifest, at which point it ceases to be purely essence). Essence is internal, while appearance is external. Essence is what people claim varies subjectively across different cultures when discussing chairs or similar objects. If essence were determined to the same degree as appearance, it would merely be its correlate. Instead, essence is what a thing truly is—its thing-in-itself. By that same logic, a law of nature is also an essence.

John Palmer9 said:It’s more of a linguistic thing, I guess. If we can see the exact number of grains right away, we might say there are, say, seven of them. But if we can't count them instantly—like if there are thirteen—we just call it a pile. I think psychologists suggest that for most people, that threshold for quick counting sits somewhere around seven to nine items.

And what about that example regarding baldness?

placidranger said:I found it impossible to accept any concept that exists outside of a person's own subjective reality.

But let me ask you this: is the existence of things outside of our subjective reality acceptable to you? By using the phrase "subjective reality," you’ve essentially invited an "objective reality" to the party as its logical opposite. Once you establish an opposition like that, their inherent unity becomes a mathematical necessity. Your only other option is to find some other rational way to dismantle that duality entirely.

Zachary Mendoza2 said:I do not believe emergence is non-existent. Whether it is illusory is a separate matter, but I would argue it is no more illusory than anything else.

From my understanding of our previous discussion regarding the chair—which likely applies here to the heap—you believe emergence creates something entirely new, a whole that cannot be reduced to the sum of its parts. This is where we differ. To me, this is simply the formation of a new concept, one whose components are derivable from the parts themselves. If you take all the parts of a heap and perform a statistical analysis, examining their spatial configuration and other vital metrics, the results are clear. The size of the heap is derived from the number of grains. The volume is derived from their size and arrangement. The weight of the heap is derived from the weight of all individual grains.

The qualitative property of the heap that seems different from the sum of its parts does not spontaneously manifest; rather, it is something you attribute to a new concept in order to create (or "emerge") it. You simply decide that you will no longer count these grains individually and instead say, "that is a heap." Any such collection of items that defies exact counting will be labeled a heap. Thus, the concept emerges because you created it, not because the grains themselves underwent a transformation.

Sure, a concept is formed, but it also exists objectively outside of our own mental reflection. If we don't acknowledge that, we’re forced into a purely psychologistic view of logic, which would basically make any kind of actual knowledge impossible because you'd be stuck in that radical subject-object dualism. It’s pretty obvious that the components of a heap of grain are derivable from the individual grains themselves. Those single grains aren't anything other than the building blocks, the parts of the whole. The whole directly implies the parts, and vice versa. When you claim we're just forming a new concept, it sounds like you're suggesting the unity between the whole and its parts isn't inherent, but is instead something created by external reflection—though, in reality, it’s both. That essential relationship is what bridges the gap between immanence and external reflection (and by "essential relation," I mean that every concept is a unity of itself, of another, and of the unity between itself and that other). If you focus too much on negative unity, you end up seeing the whole and the parts as separate entities. From that perspective, the whole becomes nothing more than a reflected self-subsistence, or just a momentary postulate—which seems to be your angle. In that case, the whole is alienated from itself, existing only in "the other." But the truth is that the relationship between the whole and its parts is conditional; you simply can't have one without the other.
Common sense tells us a whole is equal to the sum of its parts, yet the whole isn't quite the same as those parts. The whole represents a reflected unity. The parts essentially say, "we aren't the whole." It should be fairly intuitive to see that the relationship between the whole and its parts is tied to the nature of appearance itself, leading to the realization that existence and appearance exist within that aforementioned essential relation. Existence is the whole, while appearances are the parts. You could broadly say that any attempt to isolate a single abstracted moment of a whole will inevitably be undermined by the re-emergence of another moment within it.

Zachary Mendoza2 said:I do not believe emergence is non-existent. Whether it is illusory is a separate matter, but I would argue it is no more illusory than anything else.

From my understanding of our previous discussion regarding the chair—which likely applies here to the heap—you believe emergence creates something entirely new, a whole that cannot be reduced to the sum of its parts. This is where we differ. To me, this is simply the formation of a new concept, one whose components are derivable from the parts themselves. If you take all the parts of a heap and perform a statistical analysis, examining their spatial configuration and other vital metrics, the results are clear. The size of the heap is derived from the number of grains. The volume is derived from their size and arrangement. The weight of the heap is derived from the weight of all individual grains.

The qualitative property of the heap that seems different from the sum of its parts does not spontaneously manifest; rather, it is something you attribute to a new concept in order to create (or "emerge") it. You simply decide that you will no longer count these grains individually and instead say, "that is a heap." Any such collection of items that defies exact counting will be labeled a heap. Thus, the concept emerges because you created it, not because the grains themselves underwent a transformation.

Of course. Those are all quantitative measurements—just a summation of parts. However, the pile as a whole possesses a quality that is fundamentally distinct from any individual grain within it.

Zachary Mendoza2 said:I do not believe emergence is non-existent. Whether it is illusory is a separate matter, but I would argue it is no more illusory than anything else.

From my understanding of our previous discussion regarding the chair—which likely applies here to the heap—you believe emergence creates something entirely new, a whole that cannot be reduced to the sum of its parts. This is where we differ. To me, this is simply the formation of a new concept, one whose components are derivable from the parts themselves. If you take all the parts of a heap and perform a statistical analysis, examining their spatial configuration and other vital metrics, the results are clear. The size of the heap is derived from the number of grains. The volume is derived from their size and arrangement. The weight of the heap is derived from the weight of all individual grains.

The qualitative property of the heap that seems different from the sum of its parts does not spontaneously manifest; rather, it is something you attribute to a new concept in order to create (or "emerge") it. You simply decide that you will no longer count these grains individually and instead say, "that is a heap." Any such collection of items that defies exact counting will be labeled a heap. Thus, the concept emerges because you created it, not because the grains themselves underwent a transformation.

I didn't create it. Concepts actually exist in reality; we just give them labels. This applies to every single thing that truly exists—whether it's a subatomic particle, a freight train, Frogger, the entire universe, or the absolute. A concept is just a reflected unity of real relationships that can all be traced back to one essential connection. Every concept carries its own internal tension, some kind of contradiction or insufficient definition that forces it to evolve beyond itself. An emergent property or a new quality is simply the byproduct of those underlying relations. So, it's pretty obvious that nothing just "creates itself." Nothing in this world does.

placidranger said:Now we’re getting into philosophical territory. A heap is whatever you decide constitutes a heap. A dozen is twelve of something—precise. Five is just the number of fingers on your hand. But a heap? That’s mostly an indeterminate amount of something—just enough to be more than what you can easily count.

🤦

The actual question was: how many grains make a heap? Or, where exactly does the line fall between a heap and a non-heap? For a more technical breakdown, check out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox
Like I mentioned back in post #3, we’re dealing with the indeterminate limit of predicate application (which you pointed out yourself), and this concept actually extends beyond simple predicates; it eventually evolved in analytical philosophy into the idea of "vagueness". So, the heap itself isn't really the point; it’s just a convenient little exercise for testing logic, demonstrating that when formal logic hits a wall, you inevitably have to bring in dialectical reasoning or "fuzzy" logic to make sense of things.

Zachary Mendoza2 said:@Amanda Jackson5: Honestly, I was reading that thread regarding emergence, and I find myself agreeing with placidranger. Either your presentation was flawed, or you are defending the wrong thesis. It is possible I missed something and simply do not understand, but I assign the same level of probability to my confusion as I do to you experiencing the same issue.
Based on the arguments presented both there and here, I see no evidence of emergence. Fundamentally, a "heap" is nothing more than a "grain"; it is merely a label we apply. It is not as if a collection of grains spontaneously creates something entirely new called a "heap." Rather, you arrive, you cannot determine the exact number of grains, so you call it a "heap." It is trivial. They are just grains. I see no emergence occurring at all.

I might have glossed over some details in my previous explanation, but now I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Are you suggesting that emergence is somehow nonexistent or just an illusion? If you think quality is an illusion, then emergence is an illusion too. In fact, quantity would be an illusion as well, since they're just mutually defining binary oppositions. A heap isn't the same thing as a grain, because a heap possesses a different quality than a single grain. If the quality of the heap differs from that of the grain because its properties have changed, then that is precisely what emergence is.

Zachary Mendoza2 said:In computer science, you can have zero grains. You might have a pile where you add or subtract grains. But even if that pile is empty, it still counts as a pile 😬

That logic holds up fine if you’re treating a "heap" as a pure abstraction—just a concept floating in the ether. But why call it an abstraction? Because our actual experience tells us that a heap is inherently tied to the quantity of what's inside it. In the real world, you can't really have quality without quantity, much like how you can't have form without substance, or substance without form. It's like saying matter only shows itself through its properties, or that essence only exists when it actually manifests in something real... you get the idea.

People usually credit Eubulides from Miletus with this paradox, much like his famous riddle about the bald man: if having one single hair makes you bald, and two hairs still leaves you bald, but ten thousand hairs clearly means you aren't, where exactly do we draw the line? The Greeks used to call these kinds of brain teasers "elenchi," which was basically just a way to trip someone up until they ended up contradicting their own initial argument. This whole cluster of riddles eventually became known as the Sorites paradox, stemming from the Greek word for a heap. At its core, we're looking at an indeterminate limit in how we apply predicates—though this concept isn't just limited to predicates, which is why analytical philosophy eventually expanded it into the broader idea of "vagueness." If you want to look at it through a more speculative lens, it’s an aporia that traps the faculty of understanding—which is what formal logic represents—into a corner, and the only real way out is through dialectics. Hegel actually points to this specific paradox as a prime example of how change often starts as a simple quantitative shift before suddenly flipping into a qualitative one—that classic transition from quantity to quality. Or, to put it in terms we might actually use today, a heap is essentially an instance of emergence.

mellownomad30 said:Why would I be talking out of my ass?

But honestly, when I was watching that, I actually felt this weird rush of excitement. I don't get why I sometimes get so worked up over stuff that shouldn't even matter—like some random song, a video game, or a movie. It feels like it’s more about how it’s packaged and presented rather than what’s actually going on inside the content itself.

Actually, maybe I am talking out of my ass just a little bit.☕

That’s just called having "emotions." They stem from the reptilian part of your brain, basically. Emotions are just the primal, animalistic side of our nature. So, really, it's just proof that humans are animals at heart.

ironmarlin1 said:Yes, it really does seem that's how Nietzsche views the whole thing. Aristocratic morality is defined by the self; it dictates what is good without ever bowing to some external benchmark. Our tendency to project an outside ''ideal'' or a set of rigid ''criteria'' for the N. Overman to follow is really just a symptom of our own failure—our inability, unlike Nietzsche, to finally break free from the shackles of Platonic categories.

If that's the case, then the N. Overman is basically just an autist. It leads straight to madness, much like Kurtz in Conrad's "heart of darkness" (or Coppola's "Apocalypse Now").

ironmarlin1 said:Regarding that second point, I suppose it’s all a bit moot since he eventually turned his back on German music anyway, which makes me wonder if I was even right to suggest he saw any real potential in modern compositions. He essentially argued that Wagner, acting as the quintessential decadent, had poisoned the entire well of music. To be clear, he wasn't necessarily championing the school of thought held by Brahms or Hanslick; rather, he was launching a broadside against the entire musical landscape of his era as a whole.

Does anyone actually know which composers he was a fan of?

urbanwalker72 said:That is an excellent suggestion. One might also consider including The hidden reality to round out the collection.

Risks here be Dragons_The Scientific quest for Extraterrestrial Life Dog Behaviour

It would be wise to include The eerie silence as well.

I definitely plan to. I actually stumbled upon it on my hard drive earlier—I didn't even realize I had it sitting there, but considering I have a digital mountain of about 10,000 books (most of which I clearly won't ever get through), it’s really not that surprising.

rapidmaker77 said:

Amanda Jackson5 As stated by:
Well, if you really insist on having it this way:

The Elegant Universe
The Elegant Universe Global Catastrophic
Risks here be Dragons_The Scientific quest for Extraterrestrial Life
Dog Behaviour, Evolution, and Cognition
Cognition Earth sciences Demystified Key Contemporary Concepts9rom Abjection
Key Contemporary Concepts_From Abjection to Zeno's Paradox
Paradox Key Thinkers fra Critical Theory to Post-Marxism Lost Histories
Post-Marxism Lost Histories~ Exploring The World's most Famous Mysteries
Mircea Eliade, Cosmos and History
Cosmos and history Mystery of America_Enigmatic Mysteries and Anomalous Artifacts Neanderthals and Modern Humans Neurophilosophy
Neanderthals and Modern Humans
Neurophilosophy, by Patricia Churchland
on Deep history and The Brain Origins and Revolutions_Human Identity in Earliest Prehistory baš ti hvala uljepšati biti ja dan
on Deep history and The Brain Origins and Revolutions_Human Identity in Earliest Prehistory

Much appreciated.
You’ve truly made my day.🙂 I have always found a certain fascination in observing what people choose to read, what captures their curiosity, and which specific books they hold closest to their hearts.
I’ve only managed to get through The Elegant Universe from your list.
The rest of the items on this list fail to hold my interest entirely.

I'm heading out on a trip tomorrow, which involves at least five or six hours stuck on a bus. I'm currently weighing my options on which book to pack, primarily because I've decided against bringing my Amazon; there are just too many practical and security-related headaches involved with carrying it.😢

On my waiting list are...

Paolo Zelina’s *a brief history of infinity*. Italo Calvino was a huge fan of his work; he practically lived inside those pages.
The mystery of Aleph by Amir Aczel Word made flesh by ramsey dukes
Word made flesh by ramsey dukes—a work I highly recommend.
The Book of Lies.

If you want my absolute top recommendation—the one book that seems to hold the answers to every question ever asked since the dawn of time—look no further. It was written by a street vendor who used to sell cigarettes and trinkets in Mumbai. 😲 Yes.

Nisargadatta Maharaj's "I Am That." 🙏 🙏 🙏
(translated here as It’s me. One could easily track it down via torrents or through various other alternative channels.

There is a profound sense of liberation that comes from finally possessing the answers to life's most pressing questions. Reading *I Am That* provides a clarity that is hard to articulate; it’s an experience that fundamentally shifts one's perspective. While reading this work, it becomes increasingly evident that while giants like Hegel, Kant, and Heidegger were undoubtedly monumental philosophical figures, they never truly experienced the very realities they spent their lives attempting to intuit, grasp, and express through pure intellect.
If you find yourself wandering through the labyrinthine corridors of spiritual inquiry, you might eventually stumble upon Nisargadatta Maharaj. His work, specifically "I Am That," available on Amazon, serves as a profound anchor for those attempting to navigate the turbulent waters of self-realization. It isn't merely a book; it's more of a direct confrontation with the ego, stripped of all its usual pretenses and distractions. For anyone looking to peel back the layers of perceived identity, this remains an essential waypoint. (Noting the 208 five-star reviews)

There was this one vendor in Mumbai who sold nothing but cigarettes and trinkets, yet he wasn't just a philosopher on par with the greats; he actually managed to catch a glimpse into "the other dimension." 😉 (Which you would likely argue doesn't even exist) 🙂 He resided within her, and through her, he spoke.

There is something else coming—something you will undoubtedly dismiss with that trademark philosophical disdain of yours—but I feel compelled to say it, if only to shake you out of your classic philosophical slumber. Words, words, words. 🙂

If we are discussing the only truly enlightened Western philosopher—someone actually operating on the level of Nisargadatta—we are talking about Plotin. Period.

By the way, how do you usually consume these texts? Are you reading physical copies, or are you strictly a PDF or Amazon reader?

👋

If you find yourself falling down the rabbit hole of occultism or Hermeticism, I’ve got a few recommendations to help you navigate the madness:
Patrick Harpur: Daimonic reality - a Field Guide to The Otherworld Florian Ebeling : The Secret history of Hermes Trismegistus - Hermeticism fra Ancient to Modern Times Quote
If you ever find yourself wandering through the dusty aisles of a bookstore looking for something that actually challenges your brain, you might stumble upon a Field Guide to The Otherworld Florian Ebeling : The Secret history of Hermes Trismegistus - Hermeticism fra Ancient to Modern Times Quote. It’s one of those deep dives that doesn't just skim the surface of esoteric traditions but really tries to map out how these ancient ideas trickled down into our modern understanding of the world. It’s a bit like trying to trace the lineage of a complex family tree where half the relatives are mythical figures and the other half are philosophers who spent way too much time staring at the stars.

rapidmaker77 said:

Amanda Jackson5 As stated by:
Well, if you really insist on having it this way:

The Elegant Universe
The Elegant Universe Global Catastrophic
Risks here be Dragons_The Scientific quest for Extraterrestrial Life
Dog Behaviour, Evolution, and Cognition
Cognition Earth sciences Demystified Key Contemporary Concepts9rom Abjection
Key Contemporary Concepts_From Abjection to Zeno's Paradox
Paradox Key Thinkers fra Critical Theory to Post-Marxism Lost Histories
Post-Marxism Lost Histories~ Exploring The World's most Famous Mysteries
Mircea Eliade, Cosmos and History
Cosmos and history Mystery of America_Enigmatic Mysteries and Anomalous Artifacts Neanderthals and Modern Humans Neurophilosophy
Neanderthals and Modern Humans
Neurophilosophy, by Patricia Churchland
on Deep history and The Brain Origins and Revolutions_Human Identity in Earliest Prehistory baš ti hvala uljepšati biti ja dan
on Deep history and The Brain Origins and Revolutions_Human Identity in Earliest Prehistory

Much appreciated.
You’ve truly made my day.🙂 I have always found a certain fascination in observing what people choose to read, what captures their curiosity, and which specific books they hold closest to their hearts.
I’ve only managed to get through The Elegant Universe from your list.
The rest of the items on this list fail to hold my interest entirely.

I'm heading out on a trip tomorrow, which involves at least five or six hours stuck on a bus. I'm currently weighing my options on which book to pack, primarily because I've decided against bringing my Amazon; there are just too many practical and security-related headaches involved with carrying it.😢

On my waiting list are...

Paolo Zelina’s *a brief history of infinity*. Italo Calvino was a huge fan of his work; he practically lived inside those pages.
The mystery of Aleph by Amir Aczel Word made flesh by ramsey dukes
Word made flesh by ramsey dukes—a work I highly recommend.
The Book of Lies.

If you want my absolute top recommendation—the one book that seems to hold the answers to every question ever asked since the dawn of time—look no further. It was written by a street vendor who used to sell cigarettes and trinkets in Mumbai. 😲 Yes.

Nisargadatta Maharaj's "I Am That." 🙏 🙏 🙏
(translated here as It’s me. One could easily track it down via torrents or through various other alternative channels.

There is a profound sense of liberation that comes from finally possessing the answers to life's most pressing questions. Reading *I Am That* provides a clarity that is hard to articulate; it’s an experience that fundamentally shifts one's perspective. While reading this work, it becomes increasingly evident that while giants like Hegel, Kant, and Heidegger were undoubtedly monumental philosophical figures, they never truly experienced the very realities they spent their lives attempting to intuit, grasp, and express through pure intellect.
If you find yourself wandering through the labyrinthine corridors of spiritual inquiry, you might eventually stumble upon Nisargadatta Maharaj. His work, specifically "I Am That," available on Amazon, serves as a profound anchor for those attempting to navigate the turbulent waters of self-realization. It isn't merely a book; it's more of a direct confrontation with the ego, stripped of all its usual pretenses and distractions. For anyone looking to peel back the layers of perceived identity, this remains an essential waypoint. (Noting the 208 five-star reviews)

There was this one vendor in Mumbai who sold nothing but cigarettes and trinkets, yet he wasn't just a philosopher on par with the greats; he actually managed to catch a glimpse into "the other dimension." 😉 (Which you would likely argue doesn't even exist) 🙂 He resided within her, and through her, he spoke.

There is something else coming—something you will undoubtedly dismiss with that trademark philosophical disdain of yours—but I feel compelled to say it, if only to shake you out of your classic philosophical slumber. Words, words, words. 🙂

If we are discussing the only truly enlightened Western philosopher—someone actually operating on the level of Nisargadatta—we are talking about Plotin. Period.

By the way, how do you usually consume these texts? Are you reading physical copies, or are you strictly a PDF or Amazon reader?

👋

I’m not exactly one to dismiss anything out of hand without giving it a fair shake, but I have to admit I’ve always been pretty skeptical of those suburban Buddhas—especially the ones who peddle books claiming to hold the ultimate answer to every single question under the sun. I’ve waded through some of his quotes, and honestly, I’m just not seeing anything groundbreaking or even particularly profound. Believe me, if something sounds too perfect to actually be true, it almost certainly isn't.

If you’re actually into this kind of stuff, I can definitely point you toward something I was reading recently:
I’ve been spending some time with The Long Discourses of The Buddha - a Translation of The Digha Nikaya by Maurice Walshe, specifically the version from Oxford World's Classics. It’s one of those books that really makes you slow down, which is a bit of a struggle when you're used to the constant, frantic pace of life here in the States, but there's something deeply grounding about it.
If you find yourself needing a bit of ancient wisdom to navigate the chaos of modern life, you might want to pick up the Sayings of The Buddha - New Translations fra The pasti Nikayas from the Oxford World's Classics collection. It’s one of those books that feels less like a dusty relic and more like a practical survival guide for anyone trying to make sense of their own head.

rapidmaker77 said:

Amanda Jackson5 As stated by:
Well, if you really insist on having it this way:

The Elegant Universe
The Elegant Universe Global Catastrophic
Risks here be Dragons_The Scientific quest for Extraterrestrial Life
Dog Behaviour, Evolution, and Cognition
Cognition Earth sciences Demystified Key Contemporary Concepts9rom Abjection
Key Contemporary Concepts_From Abjection to Zeno's Paradox
Paradox Key Thinkers fra Critical Theory to Post-Marxism Lost Histories
Post-Marxism Lost Histories~ Exploring The World's most Famous Mysteries
Mircea Eliade, Cosmos and History
Cosmos and history Mystery of America_Enigmatic Mysteries and Anomalous Artifacts Neanderthals and Modern Humans Neurophilosophy
Neanderthals and Modern Humans
Neurophilosophy, by Patricia Churchland
on Deep history and The Brain Origins and Revolutions_Human Identity in Earliest Prehistory baš ti hvala uljepšati biti ja dan
on Deep history and The Brain Origins and Revolutions_Human Identity in Earliest Prehistory

Much appreciated.
You’ve truly made my day.🙂 I have always found a certain fascination in observing what people choose to read, what captures their curiosity, and which specific books they hold closest to their hearts.
I’ve only managed to get through The Elegant Universe from your list.
The rest of the items on this list fail to hold my interest entirely.

I'm heading out on a trip tomorrow, which involves at least five or six hours stuck on a bus. I'm currently weighing my options on which book to pack, primarily because I've decided against bringing my Amazon; there are just too many practical and security-related headaches involved with carrying it.😢

On my waiting list are...

Paolo Zelina’s *a brief history of infinity*. Italo Calvino was a huge fan of his work; he practically lived inside those pages.
The mystery of Aleph by Amir Aczel Word made flesh by ramsey dukes
Word made flesh by ramsey dukes—a work I highly recommend.
The Book of Lies.

If you want my absolute top recommendation—the one book that seems to hold the answers to every question ever asked since the dawn of time—look no further. It was written by a street vendor who used to sell cigarettes and trinkets in Mumbai. 😲 Yes.

Nisargadatta Maharaj's "I Am That." 🙏 🙏 🙏
(translated here as It’s me. One could easily track it down via torrents or through various other alternative channels.

There is a profound sense of liberation that comes from finally possessing the answers to life's most pressing questions. Reading *I Am That* provides a clarity that is hard to articulate; it’s an experience that fundamentally shifts one's perspective. While reading this work, it becomes increasingly evident that while giants like Hegel, Kant, and Heidegger were undoubtedly monumental philosophical figures, they never truly experienced the very realities they spent their lives attempting to intuit, grasp, and express through pure intellect.
If you find yourself wandering through the labyrinthine corridors of spiritual inquiry, you might eventually stumble upon Nisargadatta Maharaj. His work, specifically "I Am That," available on Amazon, serves as a profound anchor for those attempting to navigate the turbulent waters of self-realization. It isn't merely a book; it's more of a direct confrontation with the ego, stripped of all its usual pretenses and distractions. For anyone looking to peel back the layers of perceived identity, this remains an essential waypoint. (Noting the 208 five-star reviews)

There was this one vendor in Mumbai who sold nothing but cigarettes and trinkets, yet he wasn't just a philosopher on par with the greats; he actually managed to catch a glimpse into "the other dimension." 😉 (Which you would likely argue doesn't even exist) 🙂 He resided within her, and through her, he spoke.

There is something else coming—something you will undoubtedly dismiss with that trademark philosophical disdain of yours—but I feel compelled to say it, if only to shake you out of your classic philosophical slumber. Words, words, words. 🙂

If we are discussing the only truly enlightened Western philosopher—someone actually operating on the level of Nisargadatta—we are talking about Plotin. Period.

By the way, how do you usually consume these texts? Are you reading physical copies, or are you strictly a PDF or Amazon reader?

👋

It’s almost exclusively available in PDF format.

rapidmaker77 said:Please, either send me a DM or just post them here—I’m begging you—tell me which 5 or 6 books are next on your list.
I have a massive soft spot for seeing what people are reading and what they actually recommend.🙂

Do you have a specific argument in favor of the existence of God in mind, or perhaps a particular
argument pulled directly from one of the books?

Well, if you really want to go there:

The Elegant Universe Global Catastrophic
When you start poking around the concept of Global Catastrophic Risks, it feels a bit like standing on the edge of a massive canyon and realizing just how thin the safety railing actually is. It isn't just about some sudden, dramatic disaster falling out of the sky; it’s more about those slow-motion train wrecks where we realize too late that we’ve been heading toward a cliff at full speed. We spend so much of our time worrying about the day-to-day grind—paying the mortgage or dealing with traffic in Los Angeles—that we tend to overlook the existential stuff that could actually reset the clock on civilization itself. It's that nagging feeling that while we're busy arguing over local politics, there are much larger, more systemic threats lurking in the background, waiting for us to trip up.
Risks here be Dragons_The Scientific quest for Extraterrestrial Life
Risks here be Dragons_The Scientific quest for Extraterrestrial Life Dog Behaviour
Earth Sciences Demystified
Key Contemporary Concepts: From Abjection to Zeno's Paradox
If you ever find yourself wandering through the dense thickets of academic theory, you’ll eventually stumble upon the intellectual heavyweights who shaped everything from Critical Theory to Post-Marxism. It’s a bit like trying to trace the lineage of a complex family tree where everyone is constantly arguing about whether the tree even exists in the first place. You have these thinkers who didn't just want to observe the world, but felt an almost obsessive need to dismantle the machinery behind it to see why it was grinding so loudly. It’s less about simple observation and more about pulling the engine apart while the car is still speeding down the highway, hoping you can figure out why the steering feels so off.
Lost Histories—Exploring the World's most Famous Mysteries
When you dive into Mircea Eliade's take on Cosmos and History, you really start to see how much our perception of time and space shapes everything we think we know about reality. It’s like looking at the world through a lens that doesn't just record events, but actually gives them weight and meaning, rather than just treating life like a series of random, disconnected accidents.
Cosmos and history Mystery of America_Enigmatic Mysteries and Anomalous Artifacts Neanderthals and Modern Humans Neurophilosophy
Neanderthals and Modern Humans
If you ever find yourself wandering through the dense thickets of neurophilosophy, you’ll inevitably run into Patricia Churchland. It’s one of those subjects that feels like trying to map a hurricane while standing right in the eye of it—complex, slightly dizzying, and deeply transformative if you actually manage to wrap your head around it. She approaches the whole mess of consciousness and identity from a perspective that doesn't pull any punches, essentially arguing that if we want to understand the "why" of human existence, we first have to master the "how" of the biological machinery driving the bus. It’s less about lofty, ethereal abstractions and more about getting your hands dirty with the actual wiring of the brain.
When you really start digging into the connection between deep history and how our brains actually function—specifically looking at those ideas regarding human identity during our earliest prehistory—it feels a bit like trying to reconstruct a massive, complex machine from nothing but a few rusted gears and some fossilized dust. It’s easy to get lost in the weeds, but there’s something fascinating about how our neurological evolution shaped everything we consider "human" today.
on Deep history and The Brain Origins and Revolutions_Human Identity in Earliest Prehistory Quote

rapidmaker77 said:Please, either send me a DM or just post them here—I’m begging you—tell me which 5 or 6 books are next on your list.
I have a massive soft spot for seeing what people are reading and what they actually recommend.🙂

Do you have a specific argument in favor of the existence of God in mind, or perhaps a particular
argument pulled directly from one of the books?

Whatever works for you.

rapidmaker77 said:You should definitely pick up this book:

Why there is almost certainly 😲God
(A rebuttal to Dawkins 😁)

written by Keith Ward, a philosopher from Oxford
-----------------------------------------

This is an engaging, well-grounded, and witty response to Richard Dawkins' bestseller, the illusion of God. It was penned by his colleague from Oxford, the philosopher and theologian Keith Ward, who plays with Dawkins' own chapter titles—essentially flipping his "no" into a "yes." In his introduction, the now-retired professor notes, "In recent years, Alister McGrath, a theologian with a PhD in molecular biology, and John Lennox, an associate professor of mathematics at Oxford, have authored an excellent volume addressing Dawkins' arguments. Now, it is my turn to rejoin the Oxford debate regarding God." This serves as yet another rebuttal to Dawkins from one of those believers whom Dawkins describes as perhaps "the most convincingly unpleasant character in all of fiction."

Given the mountain of books already sitting on my nightstand waiting for attention, I can't imagine wasting any precious time on intellectual junk like that. It’s not even worth the effort since I can more or less guess what the content entails. If you actually have a substantive argument to present, go ahead and lay it out. But please, spare me the "exciting, well-grounded, and witty" pitch—that sounds more like a fever dream than reality.

Since God most likely doesn't exist, there’s really no point in wasting breath asking why He chooses to permit certain things or withhold others.

brightdrifter18 said:Wait, how is the Big Bang not proof of creation ex nihilo?
This quick video breaks down five different proofs. The first one specifically tackles the Big Bang and reaches the exact same conclusion I did:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNocC85MU6w
Help me out. Why are we misinterpreting the Big Bang as proof of something coming from nothing? Explain it to me.

It isn't, obviously. And honestly, why on earth would it be?
You might want to give this a look:
http://www.philoonline.org/library/morriston_5_1.htm

Looks like I’m actually a much bigger expert for fools than you are.

brightdrifter18 said:@ Amanda Jackson5,
The initial stage of what you're referencing actually contains all the proof for the existence of God according to Plato. Let’s look closely at what this starting point entails:

The Good and the One

Plato attempted to solve the problem of unity within the multiplicity of ideas by introducing the idea of the Good—the Good in itself, or the "supreme Good"—which holds a special place in *The Republic*. Here, the Good is compared to the sun, which illuminates everything, making all objects visible to everyone, and thus serves as the source of their value and beauty. The Good grants being (το εἶναι) to the objects of knowledge, namely the ideas; therefore, it is an all-encompassing and unifying principle that surpasses even being (essence, οὐσία) in both dignity and power (Rep. 509b 6–10). The Good allows everything it inhabits to be known, yet it is also the source of their very existence. For Plato, the Good is an ontological principle, the principle of being, truly in itself and existing for itself. In his *Metaphysics*, Aristotle clearly states that Plato considers the ideas to be the causes of the happiness of all other things, while the One is the cause of the happiness of the ideas. Consequently, one can conclude that for Plato, the Good, the One, and beauty (from the *Feast*) are identical, and that the intelligible world of ideas owes its existence to the One in some way. The One is the ultimate principle and the source of ideas. The One is also, in a certain sense, the source (though not a creator in time) of the divine mind (the Demiurge), which in Plato likely represents a symbol for the operation of the mind within the cosmos—essentially a "probable explanation" (κατὰ λόγον τὸν εἰκότα) of the cosmos.

Plato's One is, therefore, the idea of the absolute "in the beginning."

Regarding the Demiurge:

According to Plato, the material world came into being, and everything that comes into being does so because of a cause. That cause is the Demiurge, or the "divine craftsman." He "grasped" everything that was in chaotic motion and brought it into order according to a single, eternal, ideal pattern, shaping the world so that it becomes a visible, living entity endowed with soul and mind, modeled after the ideal living being containing all forms: the heavenly race, the winged race, the water race, and the land race. The Demiurge's motivation for shaping the world is to make everything as similar to himself as possible, because "order is better than chaos." The Demiurge is limited, however, by the raw materials available to him, but he does the best he can to shape the world "as beautifully and well as possible" (Tim. 29c 3–30a 6). The Demiurge, however, is not a creator-god in the way he is understood in American Christian theology: he uses material that already exists; he does not create it from nothing (ex nihilo), and he is himself constrained by it. Thus, the Demiurge represents a divine Mind (Νοῦς). The world he shapes arises as a mixture resulting from the union of necessity and mind. The atomistic theories of Democritus, and later Epicurus, suggest that the material world is built through the random collision of atoms, where a dimension of necessity must be present because a specific movement must connect with the preceding movement of another atom. Aristotle calls this random or necessary formation spontaneity (αὐτομάτον). According to Plato, however, the shaping of the world involves mind, which introduces purpose. This account of the world's origin is not presented as a temporal event, but is described solely for the sake of explanation: the Demiurge is a symbol of intellect.

Everything that comes into being does so because of a cause. That cause is the Demiurge, who represents the divine Mind. Mind implies purpose, and purpose is the foundation of the teleological argument. Alongside this, we have Plato's primary proof: the argument from perfection in things (the causa formalis, or the ideas).

Aristotle builds upon the cosmological arguments found in Plato by introducing the concept of the Unmoved Mover (causae prima) alongside efficient causation (causae efficiens).

The only thing missing is the argument from Necessity...

So here is the deal. Plato and Aristotle were walking this earth 2,500 years ago. Even without a grasp of modern physics, they grasped truths that seem to elude you. It’s funny, really. You might know what Penzias and Wilson stumbled upon back in 1965, which essentially validated the theory that the universe came into being EX NIHILO, yet you still can't see the bigger picture.

Just because you don't understand how a proof works doesn't mean the evidence for the existence of God isn't there.

What am I missing here? Are we seriously suggesting the entire universe just popped into existence ex nihilo? It’s basic common sense that nothing comes from absolutely nothing. Unless you’ve stumbled upon some groundbreaking evidence to the contrary, I'm not buying it. And just so we're clear, the Big Bang isn't some magic wand that proves the universe appeared ex nihilo, if you hadn't already realized that.

"Quote:"

ExpertForIdiots As if I needed more proof that some people just love to hear themselves talk, here’s what they had to say: Just because you haven't wrapped your head around what constitutes actual proof doesn't mean the evidence for God's existence isn't out there waiting to be found.

I don't actually need you to present me with some grand piece of evidence just to convince me that God exists. Since I’ve watched plenty of people attempt to "prove" His existence over the years only to come up empty-handed, I’d honestly just love to sit down and hear the argument myself if anyone actually had one.

"Quote:"

brightdrifter18 said:In his significant essay "end of philosophy and the task of thinking" (1964), Martin Heidegger argues that the foundational ideas of Platonic philosophy have largely shaped the development and framework of Western thought throughout history. It is widely recognized that Heidegger categorized the entire trajectory of Western philosophy—from Plato through Nietzsche—under the umbrella term "metaphysics," which essentially utilizes the conceptual toolkit from Plato's intellectual workshop.

Many followers of Plato argue that modern science—specifically mathematics, nuclear physics, and quantum mechanics—relies fundamentally on the language of Platonic philosophy. They distinguish between the realm of knowledge (episteme) and the conventional world we navigate daily. Our lived, perceptual reality is not the true scientific world, which is composed of elementary particles, electromagnetic waves, and energy states.

Alfred N. Whitehead suggests that the gap between the precision of abstract thought and the imprecision of physical perception—which Plato identified as the tension between "episteme and doxa"—actually serves as the bedrock upon which Western science is built and its civilizational progress achieved.

For centuries, people watched apples fall from trees and offered explanations rooted in mere opinion and belief, until Newton provided a logically sound explanation through the laws of gravity.

Paul Natorp attempted to interpret Platonic ideas as natural laws that govern the entire phenomenal world, representing true reality. In the Natorpian view, Plato’s concept of Ideas—used to explain the processual nature of the phenomenal world—anticipated the perspective of modern science, which seeks causes not within objects themselves, but within the laws represented by those objects.

That covers "Platonism for the masses."

As for proof of God, it’s like an American pastor once said: it’s a matter of scholarship, not superstition, with atheism leading the charge.

Oh, absolutely. There’s no denying that Plato was a heavyweight in the philosophical world.

brightdrifter18 said:In his significant essay "end of philosophy and the task of thinking" (1964), Martin Heidegger argues that the foundational ideas of Platonic philosophy have largely shaped the development and framework of Western thought throughout history. It is widely recognized that Heidegger categorized the entire trajectory of Western philosophy—from Plato through Nietzsche—under the umbrella term "metaphysics," which essentially utilizes the conceptual toolkit from Plato's intellectual workshop.

Many followers of Plato argue that modern science—specifically mathematics, nuclear physics, and quantum mechanics—relies fundamentally on the language of Platonic philosophy. They distinguish between the realm of knowledge (episteme) and the conventional world we navigate daily. Our lived, perceptual reality is not the true scientific world, which is composed of elementary particles, electromagnetic waves, and energy states.

Alfred N. Whitehead suggests that the gap between the precision of abstract thought and the imprecision of physical perception—which Plato identified as the tension between "episteme and doxa"—actually serves as the bedrock upon which Western science is built and its civilizational progress achieved.

For centuries, people watched apples fall from trees and offered explanations rooted in mere opinion and belief, until Newton provided a logically sound explanation through the laws of gravity.

Paul Natorp attempted to interpret Platonic ideas as natural laws that govern the entire phenomenal world, representing true reality. In the Natorpian view, Plato’s concept of Ideas—used to explain the processual nature of the phenomenal world—anticipated the perspective of modern science, which seeks causes not within objects themselves, but within the laws represented by those objects.

That covers "Platonism for the masses."

As for proof of God, it’s like an American pastor once said: it’s a matter of scholarship, not superstition, with atheism leading the charge.

And they’re dead wrong on that one too. By the way, I wasn't aware we actually had people calling themselves "Platonists" these days. If that's actually true, it's a pretty bizarre thing to claim.

"Quote:"

brightdrifter18 said:In his significant essay "end of philosophy and the task of thinking" (1964), Martin Heidegger argues that the foundational ideas of Platonic philosophy have largely shaped the development and framework of Western thought throughout history. It is widely recognized that Heidegger categorized the entire trajectory of Western philosophy—from Plato through Nietzsche—under the umbrella term "metaphysics," which essentially utilizes the conceptual toolkit from Plato's intellectual workshop.

Many followers of Plato argue that modern science—specifically mathematics, nuclear physics, and quantum mechanics—relies fundamentally on the language of Platonic philosophy. They distinguish between the realm of knowledge (episteme) and the conventional world we navigate daily. Our lived, perceptual reality is not the true scientific world, which is composed of elementary particles, electromagnetic waves, and energy states.

Alfred N. Whitehead suggests that the gap between the precision of abstract thought and the imprecision of physical perception—which Plato identified as the tension between "episteme and doxa"—actually serves as the bedrock upon which Western science is built and its civilizational progress achieved.

For centuries, people watched apples fall from trees and offered explanations rooted in mere opinion and belief, until Newton provided a logically sound explanation through the laws of gravity.

Paul Natorp attempted to interpret Platonic ideas as natural laws that govern the entire phenomenal world, representing true reality. In the Natorpian view, Plato’s concept of Ideas—used to explain the processual nature of the phenomenal world—anticipated the perspective of modern science, which seeks causes not within objects themselves, but within the laws represented by those objects.

That covers "Platonism for the masses."

As for proof of God, it’s like an American pastor once said: it’s a matter of scholarship, not superstition, with atheism leading the charge.

Look, there’s no denying that Plato anticipated a whole lot of things, but I was specifically calling out those nonsensical ramblings about a Demiurge crafting the universe, that whole business regarding a realm of eternal, unchanging ideas, and those tired arguments for the existence of God—all that other nonsense. My reaction wasn't directed at the idea that Plato holds weight in the history of philosophy, because honestly, I agree with you there.

"Quote:"

brightdrifter18 said:In his significant essay "end of philosophy and the task of thinking" (1964), Martin Heidegger argues that the foundational ideas of Platonic philosophy have largely shaped the development and framework of Western thought throughout history. It is widely recognized that Heidegger categorized the entire trajectory of Western philosophy—from Plato through Nietzsche—under the umbrella term "metaphysics," which essentially utilizes the conceptual toolkit from Plato's intellectual workshop.

Many followers of Plato argue that modern science—specifically mathematics, nuclear physics, and quantum mechanics—relies fundamentally on the language of Platonic philosophy. They distinguish between the realm of knowledge (episteme) and the conventional world we navigate daily. Our lived, perceptual reality is not the true scientific world, which is composed of elementary particles, electromagnetic waves, and energy states.

Alfred N. Whitehead suggests that the gap between the precision of abstract thought and the imprecision of physical perception—which Plato identified as the tension between "episteme and doxa"—actually serves as the bedrock upon which Western science is built and its civilizational progress achieved.

For centuries, people watched apples fall from trees and offered explanations rooted in mere opinion and belief, until Newton provided a logically sound explanation through the laws of gravity.

Paul Natorp attempted to interpret Platonic ideas as natural laws that govern the entire phenomenal world, representing true reality. In the Natorpian view, Plato’s concept of Ideas—used to explain the processual nature of the phenomenal world—anticipated the perspective of modern science, which seeks causes not within objects themselves, but within the laws represented by those objects.

That covers "Platonism for the masses."

As for proof of God, it’s like an American pastor once said: it’s a matter of scholarship, not superstition, with atheism leading the charge.

So, we’re actually expected to sit there and listen to some anonymous American pastor lecture us on what true scholarship looks like? That’s just great. 😁 At the end of the day, we’re still stuck with the plain old fact that there isn't a shred of actual evidence for the existence of God, and honestly, you haven't offered a single real answer to that.

brightdrifter18 said:Limited discourse? You mean this part in bold:

Plato (Greek: Πλάτων, Plátōn) (Athens, 428 BC or 427 BC – Athens, 347 BC or 348 BC) was an incredibly influential Greek philosopher. He was an idealist, a student of Socrates, a teacher to Aristotle, and the founder of the Academy.

His whole philosophy starts with his theory of ideas. To him, those ideas are the only true reality. Everything we see and touch in this world? It's just a blurry reflection of that higher realm. Ideas are eternal and unchanging. Physical things, though, they shift and fade; they are imperfect versions of those ideals, existing only because they participate in them. There’s a clear hierarchy among these ideas, too. At the very top sits the Idea of the Good, which is essentially one and the same with God. Every other idea occupies a specific rung on that ladder based on how much it participates in that ultimate Good. On the flip side, you have matter. Matter is just this chaotic, disorganized mass that has existed forever. The Demiurge takes that raw material and shapes it, using the ideas as a blueprint. Interestingly, Plato doesn't really explain the exact relationship between the Demiurge and the Idea of the Good—or how the ideas relate back to God. He mostly focuses on proving God's existence and defining His core attributes through various arguments. So, when you look at him, all the evidence for God's existence is already baked right in from the very start. A person belongs to the world of ideas through the soul, yet remains tethered to this fleeting material world by the body. Since the soul existed long before inhabiting this physical form—having arrived here as a consequence of past actions—true knowledge is really just a form of remembrance. One succeeds by living a virtuous life, which gradually frees the soul from the heavy influence of the flesh. Once the body eventually fails, the soul simply continues its journey in the realm of ideas.

Give this visual a shot:

An interpretation of these hysterical hypomanic outbursts would look something like this:

Honestly, this would require more of a psychiatric analysis than a philosophical one.

Look, those are just religious metaphors—mythological imagery at best. It’s no surprise you decided to cling to Plato, considering how much Christianity is essentially just "Platonism for the masses," as Nietzsche put it.

As for any actual "proof" regarding the existence of God, let's be real: there isn't any. We pretty much settled that debate earlier in this thread:

And honestly, I'm a little surprised you haven't stumbled upon the term "God-man" before. I didn't just pull that out of thin air.