1. God necessarily exists (proof at Spinoza, Ethics, 1p11d).
2. From God’s infinite nature there necessarily follows everything conceivable by an infinite intellect (1p16).
3. Electrons are conceivable by an infinite intellect.
4. Therefore electrons exist.
Hope this helps.
Why don’t more people discuss this book? Or have I missed the discussions? It has it all: Gödel, Daoism, thoughts on Chinese communism, Quine being wrong, rationalism being true, the ontological proof being valid, the way to immortality - all the philosophy a lifetime needs.
G.E.M. Anscombe: "once, entering a smart restaurant in Boston, she was told that ladies were not admitted in trousers. She proceeded to take them off."
Many UK universities were forced to rethink their policies when it was discovered in September 2020 that coronavirus can be transmitted from one person to another.
Peer-review in the humanities makes no sense. There are no data sets to check, no replications to request, just the instinctive feelings of some randomly chosen opinionates who got into their own positions as the outcome of the same random process. It’s a joke. In my opinion.
@philoso_foster
Peer review creates some extremely strange results in philosophy sometimes. Amazing amounts of great work has a ton of trouble getting published, and quite a surprising amount of bad philosophy makes it through too. It's weird out there!
My wonderful dad, James John Douglas, died a couple days ago, though Alzheimers had taken most of him for years. Miraculously, I got to see him just before - maybe he held on for me through Covid. Here he is with my mum on their wedding day. An invincible love.
I'm Reviewer 2, and I just accepted a manuscript, within a week of receiving it, with a list of optional suggestions. This is the New Way for Reviewer 2, please spread the word.
Reading David Hume, and continue to be impressed by the clarity of the prose and the honest precision of the thought. Such a relief from the undisciplined metaphysical speculations of Spinoza.
People talk about ‘cancel culture’ and ‘the Enlightenment’ as opposed. It’s worth noting that the Enlightenment was mostly smug intellectuals, convinced of their superior virtue, relentlessly casting the first stone.
If your philosophy can be described as ‘naturalism’ you will one day be tweeting evolutionary explanations of why women find aggressive men attractive. You might think that’ll never be you, but it will.
Academics who don't respond to review requests -- no agree, no decline, just no reply until you've chased them for months. Why is a yes/no question hard? Why do they have no respect for the poor author's time? I hope they step on a Lego.
If you went to Oxford you can write like this: "Shall we begin? If so, how should we begin? And once we have begun, should we go on? If so, how would we go on?Would we give answers or dwell longer in the realm of questions? But if we dwell in the realm of [1 / 5.3*10^358786]
I’m going to start saying I study Qing dynasty Western philosophy/logic. The years line up perfectly with my interests. A bit weird to use a Chinese reference to characterise a period of Western philosophy, but then people say things like “medieval Japan”.
If I could have drinks with just one philosopher? No surprises here. It’s Spinoza, of course. We wouldn’t talk. We’d just drink and grunt approvingly, and eventually arm-wrestle.
In the review mentioned here, Warburton states that Pluckrose and Lindsay "have done their homework, and can’t fairly be accused of a superficial understanding of the thinkers they engage with". I have done extensive research into three pages of the book. Below are my findings.
I was at a conference dinner, facing a barrage of objections to some heresy I had propounded. A great scholar cut through the noise to say: “excuse me, I’d like to understand this idea, and I can’t unless you let him finish explaining.” I’ll always remember this ❤️
When I was a grad student I was invited to give a paper at Yale and I was pretty nervous. My first big outing. A senior historian (who is on Twitter) was in the second row and she nodded vigorously during my talk.
6 years later, I would still follow her to the end of the earth.
I’m sorry to ask, but can people stop publishing new philosophy until we’ve finished doing the history of the existing philosophy? I’m just concerned that we’re falling behind.
not to be dramatic but genuinely how does anyone make peace with the fact that one day you’re just gonna not exist anymore without like being delusionally religious
As a philosophy lecturer you get to spend all day discussing the Big Questions: Why won’t the reporting website load? Why won’t the procurement database load? Why won’t the applications website load? Why won’t the seminar sign-up tool load? Why won’t your emails load?
"Empiricism is an intellectual tradition of using experience, or trial and error, or experiment to prove or disprove, or to investigate an idea." -
@stephenfry
Another clip from my conversation with Stephen Fry talking about empiricism and rationalism.
I've supported all the strikes so far. But
@ucu
calling for this strike now makes little sense to me. I don't feel that many members are signed onto the agenda of
@UcuLeft
. But when I ask other members about their position they generally confess ignorance of the issues. (1/)
The point
@StephanieKelton
actually made is that deficit spending *at first* credits reserve accounts and increases M1, though Treasury or the Fed can *then* sell bonds and drain the excess reserves. Krugman is being deliberately obtuse, but I post this for the honestly curious.
So one thing I learned from the past few days of discussion is that MMTers believe that budget deficits necessarily increase the money supply. That's an interesting view, where by "interesting" I mean "completely wrong" 1/
I have a joke about contemporary philosophy, best illustrated by the example JOKE below.
JOKE
Hokey McNormalname delivers to Plain Jane Abstract-Character a humorous remark, perhaps involving word-play or defied expectations. Jane is amused, and repeats the remark to others, who
Maybe the reason philosophers aren’t more politically engaged is that there’s a limited amount of philosophical interest in questions like: should children get to eat, even if their parents have been taxed and fined into poverty?
Has anyone else noticed that when you submit a manuscript on the work of a female philosopher, the reviewer comments are largely lists of male influences and interlocutors, whose work you should have extensively discussed, as directly shaping her thought? Seems sexist.
This week, we have opened a new multi-faith area in the free waiting zone.
Located just off the Silver Zone roundabout, the new area provides customers with a private space to reflect and pray whilst waiting to collect friends, family or loved ones.
Sometimes reframing the language around feelings can help you see them in a new light. For example, instead of “career ambitions” or “life goals”, try: “my great, insatiable, soul-devouring black hole of an ego again demands live sacrifice”.
Today's
#dailymaths
CHALLENGE PROBLEM. Problems are taken from the Mathematics 2021 calendar. Each day's problem is posted at 1am Eastern/6am London. Previous day's solution is added a few hours later. Guest mathematician posts welcome; DM if interested!
Analytic philosophers are always basing arguments on 'our' intuitions and what 'we' would say in such-and-such a case. I always wonder: what if I dissent from this? This is where Xunzi comes in. He proposes that if you don't conform to society's tastes, it crushes you.
How do philosophy academics have time to post comments on Daily Nous? I barely manage to keep up with teaching and admin, and I work up to 3 hours per day.
Thesis: I don't want no scrubs. I shall use 'scrub' to mean 'a guy that can't get no love from me', along with other typical scrub-making features (hanging out the passenger side, etc.). Given some uncontroversial assumptions, my thesis might appear true by definition, however
I’m not against analytic philosophy, I just think it should be in Latin and written in the seventeenth century and mostly focussed on questions of natural theology.
I started this recently and couldn’t put it down. It’s beautiful but also philosophically fascinating, because it shows what philosophy can do.
Everyone should read it. But if you’ve experienced incarceration, directly or through your loved ones, it’ll change your life.
People talk about "clarity" as a virtue in philosophy, but clarity at what level? Hume has very clear paragraphs, but put them together and who knows what he's saying. Spinoza assembles a clear overall meaning from very obscure propositions. No passage from the Inner Chapters...
I don’t want to single anyone out, but there are between 50 and 100 accounts on here that haven’t made a joke or analytical tweet in reply to Dawkins on Kafka - if you can get these in by the end of the weekend it would be greatly appreciated
This is such an interesting philosophical engagement. Becker's conversion of consumption into a form of production is one of the most philosophically-loaded moves in recent economics, yet few philosophers engage with it. Foucault (and now Schliesser) are welcome exceptions.
Today's post ep. 30 on Foucault's Birth of Biopolitics. I have finally reached the part where Foucault shows how Chicago economics feeds into social eugenics.
Libelling Descartes is the founding murder of contemporary philosophy. His symbolic expulsion establishes, in students’ minds, the academic consensus on materialism, empiricism, atheism, and naturalism.
@FeyeraBender
I’m often struck by how Descartes gets such a raw deal regarding how people characterise him compared to his actual work and achievement. I assume it’s because of the pedagogical role he plays as someone for first year undergrads to dunk on. Creates a lasting impression.
I have a little exam paper that I send out to all the internet trolls who post ‘I guess they don’t teach LOGIC in philosophy these days’ on my blog. The completion rate has been very poor. Please try to get your scripts in before the final exam board date.
Ordinary people learning a basic fact about something they never studied: “wow, every day’s a school day!”
Academics: “EVEN I, A CERTIFIED INTELLECTUAL ELITE, DID NOT KNOW THIS; I SHUDDER TO THINK OF THE DARKNESS INTO WHICH THE REST OF THE WORLD MUST BE SUNK O TEMPORA O MORES”
Does Spinoza have the answers to life's big questions? Yes!!
Can Steven Nadler help us to understand them? Find out tomorrow at 7pm BST (register to attend).
We are very excited to be hosting a dialogue between (Pulitzer Prize finalist) Steven Nadler and (fellow Spinoza scholar/our chum)
@alexxdouglas
!
Topic = Spinoza on How to Live and How to Die.
Date & Time = Monday 21st Sep. @ 7pm (UK time)
Register:
Investment tips: don't buy any shares. Don't talk about them either. Or bonds. Or crypto currencies. Or property. Just never buy or talk or think about them ever. Keep your mind on the eternal sleep that awaits us all. Subscribe to my Patreon for more tips.
Who was May Sinclair (1863-1946)? A great novelist and a great philosopher, now largely forgotten.
@emilytwrites
provides an excellent introduction to her unique brand of British Idealism:
When I ask people why they got into philosophy, the most common answer seems to be intellectual curiosity. This is weird to me; why wouldn't intellectual curiosity alone drive you instead to get your maths solid and pursue a natural science? What am I missing?