Baroque Naturalist 🫒

𑣲⋆ Cosmology -God as causa sui -Logos as active nature -Double aspect monism -Conatus -The PSR 𑣲⋆ Ethics -Virtue -Prudence -Affects & Passions 𑣲⋆ Politics -Classical Humanism -Panamericanism -Bioregionalism « Ad astra per aspera »

@x00ge_ii63 If I were a marxist I'd be a leftcom because the only thing I hate more than the western working class is peasants

guy who became a marxism to hate on the proletariat for being passive cattle even more effectively

@JamesJouissance @mouse_math Peirce is so underrated honestly. Incredible that I only know who he is because my engineering university's ethics classes focused heavily on pragmatism.

@mouse_math Disagree. Peirce created the field independently of Frege and his notation and concepts were far more influential through Schröder to Skolem. Tarski and Putnam have both observed the inflated role that has been given to Frege.

No amount of caring for Bertrand Russell is reasonable.

@ATOMIKSAICO Please do cape verde

PARAGUAY 🇵🇾 ⚽️

@souljagoyteller The crazy thing is that what china is doing is very close to what Europe did in the early modern era. Where's all the outrage over occitania? Why is no one reporting on the death of sicilian culture? And weirdly enough, Spain, which is easily the most lenient, gets the most hate

2 things can be true 1. Pre-PRC takeover Tibet was incredibly feudal theocracy 2. China has done much to attack and destroy Tibetan culture in Sinicization campaigns

@Chris196883 @shahanSean Because just like christian, liberal, feminist and socialist it's a label with like a million definitions. The average anglo humanist is straight up just an atheist liberal. This is very different from the original use of the word humanist that mostly only catholics now follow

@shahanSean I dunno, "humanist" is maybe the most pathetically thin ideology imaginable, not clear it implies much of anything. The only thing really that you would have to believe to be a Humanist is something like "F*ck the clankers" and I don't think too many even believe that.

A humanist does not believe, "These are stories for Iron-Age herders and farmers, not for us;" a humanist believes that these stories are for Iron-Age herders *and* us. We are not the last men; we are not the angels of history.

@lymanstoneky Grok is latin american

“Grok inhabits a moral space shared with virtually no human societies” is my favorite part of this

@philosophymeme0 "Capitalism is an idea" -totally marxist account I like how this guy never defends himself either it's like he's a bot that just posts whichever memes he's sent

@Frenchlet1 In that specific sense yes but the issue is the brits were extractive colonists par excellence so the good they did is far outweighed by the bad. Rome, ottomans and the Spanish are better examples of empires that were ultimately very historically progressive

british colonization ended slavery in a large portion of africa, does that mean the UK freed africa?

@taxspendlib Genghis khan's reputation is the one thing that makes me think hitler, ww2 and all that won't be taken quite so seriously in the future. It really makes no sense to me as to how the liberal christian west can portray him so neutrally. I wonder if iranians do so too.

people love saying "history will not judge us kindly" as if history books aren't just like "Genghis Khan epicly killed 40 million people. what an absolute legend"

@CatholicCo200 I'm not sure if God is incomprehensible in kind rather than just in terms of infinity. The human mind is finite so grasping the full essence of God is impossible by definition. But we can say God has certain properties as he is the logical outcome of a strong PSR

@baroquerational How do you respond to the fact or assertion that since any fact about reality already presupposes reality, then Reality (the One, ipsum esse subsistence, the necessary being, etc) is beyond all limit and comprehension?

1. Naturalism is not simpler. That's just begging the question. Natualism has dozens of things it can't account for and just adds them in as brute facts. Each brute fact INCREASES the complexity, because you need some kind of underlying principle to not be able to insert unlimited facts under the brute one. 2. Naturalism straight up cannot account for normativity, and I believe this is by definition. Nothing can be an end in itself. It can only be an end within certain contexts. It is always a means to the greater ends of nature, which itself cannot be a being of intrinsic value, because nature is not a being under naturalism. 3. Naturalism does not entail atheism proper. It entails a rejection of the God of classical theism... and perhaps not even that. Naturalism makes no proclamation whether anything can be worthy of worship. And a being that is truly worthy of worship is truly proper to call a god. No offense to modern philosophers, but you suck at your jobs. I really mean that in the sincerest and most helpful way. I mean this towards the theistic philosophers too. You've ceded entirely too much incomprehensible ground to nonsense categories about the world.

@CatholicCo200 I think free will can only coherently be autonomy or activity I analogize the necessity of constraint to freedom through how in algebra the more degrees of freedom for numbers (imaginary, quaternions, octonions, etc) the fewer algebraic properties are retained

@baroquerational What's your view on free will?

@zenahitz The shepherd of hermas is an early Christian work that was read extensively at the time

Please reply with the best poetry / literature / philosophy on the sin lust that you know.

@CatholicCo200 And yes I do believe in strict necessity and in univocity so to me the one and logos are the same

@CatholicCo200 Actually yeah I agree I meant particular things like a book or a dog. I do think we have to have an adequate idea of God for the intelligibility of nature to be possible at all. But of course by God I mean logos, not an anthropomorphic God

@CatholicCo200 Also, we don't fully know the essence of any particular thing, our certain knowledge is restricted to geometry and laws of physics/logic. This makes ethics an active and evolving science rather than an a priori framework.

@CatholicCo200 Essence is literally just the capacities, needs and conditions for flourishing of each thing. It's not really exclusive to living things either. We do share a relative essence with similar creatures which is what allows for animal ethics under naturalism.

@CatholicCo200 Because we're both the same sort of animal with similarly complex minds and bodies. The difference between human beings is a difference generally of passions and circumstance, not essence.

@baroquerational That seems ad hoc and special pleading. Why should my conatus resemble yours, on naturalism (necessarily)?

@IMPERATORAUS The sort of opinion one has having vaguely heard of some edgy nonsense he wrote in his 20s and being unfamiliar with his actual system. Isn't the usual charge that he's a radical materialist which inspired the soviets? How does that fit with this view?

Karl Marx was not an atheist, he was a prophet of Luciferianism masquerading as a humanist.

@CatholicCo200 Since the conatus isn't just a will to live or a subjective ego but a genuine species essence it implies a human nature, dignity and entire virtue ethical system. Just not exactly the catholic/aristotelian one. Sure you can reject it, I just dont think it would be reasonable to.

@baroquerational Right. So, normativity can still only be a convention, or an evolutionary pressure. But not a real universal binding obligation.

@CatholicCo200 1. Because you pretty much do by virtue of existing. In a way it's not really possible not to. 2. Even if you could just be ignorant and passive by choice it's pretty obvious why you wouldn't want to be.

@baroquerational Why ought I follow my drives tho?