97
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2023
97 points (100.0% liked)
Ask Lemmy
26753 readers
1064 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Time is likely B-theoretic, not A-theoretic. There is no absolute simultaneity, so the relations between points in time are probably best described in the B-theory.
Substance dualism is a silly conjecture, and neutral monism is just a sad attempt to grant legitimacy to shoddy arguments about mental constructs existing as some kind of concretia. It's dualism in sheep's clothing.
The only thing sillier than substance dualism is substance idealism.
Universals are descriptive, not proscriptive. Nominalism and particularism are better views of what actually exists.
There is no such thing as an essentially ordered series. While they're useful abstracts, in reality all series are accidentally ordered.
Of the four causes, only material and essential usefully describe anything. Formal and final causes are, again, only useful in the abstract.
I could go on, but I doubt anyone's still awake...
No I love this. Fuck dualism, all my homies hate dualism.
Glad it wasn't completely unintelligible to everyone. Any background in philosophy?
Used to be one of my main hobbies, yes.
tbh I would love a longer post that explains all this for normies like me
I'm going to attempt to understand this. Tell me where I'm wrong.
No idea what A or B theory means, but relativity kind of blows a hole in simultaneity, so I assume that B theory has other implications like determinism or something. Something about relationships defining everything.
Chairs only exist in our brains I guess. Brains also invented themselves. Spooky
Plato is silly?
This might have some implications about there not being underlying rules to reality, or that we can never really get anything more than a shadow of them.
Not sure about this one. It might be more epistemological than metaphysical.
The creation and end of existence aren't as important as the rules and the observable state of things?
I could google these things, but I had fun doing it this way.
Solid! I'm going to put together a broader and more detailed comment that should clarify some things, but if you're a newbie to philosophy, you did a pretty darn good job.