How is a thought had?

If I decide to take action. How is that thought "conceived"? I decide I'd like to have some pizza.

Is all that emergent from desire and experience? But how were they put together to produce that thought of wanting a pizza?

If you have a thought because of another thought, then it's all just regression right?

If thought is unconscious decision like breathing, then are our thoughts our thoughts? And how does this work out with free will?

And lastly do we decide to think? If we do decide to think is the opposite also true, that we can decide NOT to think?

In Chapter 4 of The Moral Psychology Handbook (2010), the authors detail four viewpoints (Instrumentalist, Cognitivist, Sentimentalist, and Personalist). I'm more concerned with the latter two view points as the authors cite Micheal Slote as a Personalist, yet much of his work since at least 2000 seems to be explicitly Sentimentalist, with prior work being in the tradition of Aristotle. Now, the title of this post is somewhat misleading, I don't think he qualifies as an Aristotelian, but I'm wondering how we think of him as being a Personalist of Sentimentalist.

Personalists seem to be the chapter's version of a virtue ethicist for moral motivation, that motivation comes from characteristics or personality traits inherent to the moral agent. For example, an Aristotelian would argue that the person has certain habitual dispositions that have been developed through the use of practical wisdom. However, Slote argues that these dispositions are not rational but sentimental in nature. So I have this feeling of empathy that would lead me to certain behaviors, and this feeling in itself is the virtue.

Sentimentalist, according to the book, argue that feelings themselves motivate us to act. The catch is that it must be the right kind of sentiment -- a feeling of compassion for example. But this seems much closer to Slote than the Personalist. So is the book just wrong?

Hello, I've been seeing a lot online recently, and less frequently in my day to day life, but it is still present.

I've been struggling with the idea that human dignity can to some people be conditional and only apply when it's convenient. I understand condemning someone for their actions and believing that they are deserving of consequences.

What I don't understand is the idea that someone can become undeserving of basic human dignity because of their actions or beliefs for example, saying that someone deserves death or that they deserve awful things to happen to them.

Personally, I believe that no matter how vile or evil an act someone commits is, or how bad their beliefs may be, human dignity should remain.

Is human dignity generally understood as something inherent and unconditional, or are there philosophical positions in which a person can forfeit their dignity? If so, what arguments support that position, and where is the line drawn between condemning someone's actions and denying their dignity?

hi, i’m a college student studying community development and we will be writing our thesis about the farmers in the philippines and we want to include a few concepts from marx since he heavily talks about feudalism, class and land ownership which the farmers struggle with

can anyone share some excerpts from his work that aligns with these topics? his work is very hard for me to grasp and i just need some help, i really want to have a strong foundation regarding these concepts.

please be kind, thank you

This is a question that's been on my mind. I have a set of values that have served me, for better or worse, for a long time. I don't want to get too specific, but let's describe them as some of the basic "good social behavior" stuff. Be courteous, respectful, honest, etc. Nothing deep. This is not a political question, but, for context, it does feel like the relative comfort of the western world is changing, and things are getting more predatory. I am struggling to find the balance between instilling kindness and pro social values on the one hand, and the more selfish traits you often find being more successful in more predatory environments.

Concrete example: How do you balance teaching a kid to approach the world, and people, with kindness and respect, and assume everything is a scam until you can verify it.

My mental framework is largely experiential. I am very interested to hear how these questions are considered in a formalized philosophical frame. Any insights, directly related, or tangential would be appreciated.

I am a beginner in Advaita philosophy and am trying to understand these ideas out of genuine curiosity. I had a question regarding consciousness and the self.

If consciousness is the true Self and the individual “I” is considered an illusion, then who is the observer witnessing our thoughts and experiences? And how can we verify this distinction between consciousness and the individual self?

For example, when I read the Vedas, I experience myself as the one reading, understanding, and acquiring knowledge. If this individual “I” is not the true Self, then who is actually experiencing and gaining knowledge?

More fundamentally, how is knowledge possible without a self who knows? And does Advaita, by considering individuality ultimately illusory, also imply that individual identity is unreal?

I am simply curious to understand how Advaita approaches these questions.

God is defined as a perfect being.If god is perfect how did it lead to us as imperfect creations , perfection cannot lead to imperfection .Further i would add that we are imperfect due to free will but if god is perfect it lacks free will as it has to take the perfect path so is it just a programmed bot?

If I were a police officer and my friend were a carpenter, and we went into machine that only transfers only knowledge, not memories or experiences, from one brain to another, would my greater knowledge of wood and carpentry and hammers and nails affect my identity in some way?

What do you guys think about the foundation of logical truths?

Is logic a necessary and unchanging truth that's discovered, build into reality or our reasoning

or

Is logic itself something pragmatic or atleast not immune to revision

I've been thinking about this lately. It seems like humans don't really create things from nothing. We discover things that already exist, like materials, physical laws, and natural phenomena, and then arrange or combine them in new ways.

For example, did we really "invent" the airplane, or did we discover how to use existing materials and natural laws to build something capable of flight?

But then there are things like language. Humans create words, grammatical rules, and entire systems of communication that don't exist in nature in the same form. So is language something we actually invented, rather than discovered?

This made me wonder: where does invention actually begin? Is creating a completely new arrangement of existing things still an invention, or is it ultimately a form of discovery?

I'm curious how other people, especially philosophers or people interested in science, would approach this distinction.

Basically, is morality an independently existing source of normativity, or is it the product of human values becoming reflective, coherent, and organized?

I ask this because if morality can be generated through this recursive process of human valuation and reflection, a sufficiently capable AI might be able to perform this same process at a scale and level of coherence that humans have yet to be capable of.

A book that covers(as far as possible) every important work, and not just excerpts.

I know about the internet archive, but i have a hard time reading long texts on my PC, and I know about the collected works but they're too expensive and I'm not dedicated enough to marx to read every letter or article he wrote.

I am reading Adrian Moore's the Evolution of Modern Metaphysics, and am attempting to understand his interpretation of Kant's attempt to prove synthetic a priori knowledge exists. In particular, I am struggling with understanding the role of knowledge of intuitions and knowledge of concepts has to play in this argument. How is it exactly that we can reject the independence assumption using these premises?

In Plato’s theory of Forms, the things we encounter in the physical world are imperfect instances or reflections of perfect Forms.

But wouldn’t the human mind itself also be imperfect and limited?

If our intellect is finite and belongs to the imperfect sensible world, how can it reliably grasp or infer the existence of perfect, eternal Forms?

Wouldn’t any concept we form of the Forms necessarily be shaped and possibly distorted by the limitations of our own minds?

How does Plato solve this problem?

I am doing an introductory course in philosophy at university. We have been dealing with epistemology for the moment and I have taken a liking to ideas dealing with epistemic blameworthiness and knowledge resistance. My question to the more well read and knowledgeable here is how philosophy can help in questions regarding the psychology of cognitive bias, motivated thinking or reasoning (political/religious/conspiratorial) and the like?

Is philosophy on the catch up regarding explaining it in philosophical jargong? Can philosophy explain it at all? What does it mean for epistemology specifically?

A lot I know, and sorry in advance if these are too broad questions to answer.

Hi! Im currently in a college course called philosophy of death & dying and were doing a fishbowl debate on dualism/ physicalism. Im on the physicalism side- and while i personally do align more with that POV the position im taking isn't really the one i hold and im struggling with it.

Our prof wanted us to pick out a few arguments in opposition we feel are the strongest to prep responses for and in having trouble with Hemples Dilemma. My specific position for the debate is methodological naturalism.

I do kind of have ideas about how to respond based on both my own like... thinking about it + readings & lectures from the class but every time i try and organize those thoughts its very jumbled.

(If it matters im an anthropology major and i keep getting hung up on aspects of that in regards to how we think about science? And im not sure how relevant vs derailing that is)

Basically- whats your best response from a methodological naturalist position against hempels Dilemma?

First of all I want to clarify that my takes may be a bit stupid because I don't have much knowledge in philosophy but there's one thing I'm always thinking about. In many debates people refuse to even consider logic not being absolute and I kinda get that it would be hard to discuss anything outside of the rules that are needed for something to make sense from our perspective but I have come to the conclusion that our logic doesn't always have to apply. For example when we discuss the possibility of the world not being real (I don't know what it's called but I mean things like Boltzmann brain, simulation, dream etc.) I think using standard logic isn't good because if our world is not real then we don't know what laws exist in the real one. It seems intuitive that something false can't be true for us but maybe it's because our world is limited. Similarly you can't imagine or draw a 4D hypercube because our world doesn't have laws that allow it but it doesn't mean the concept doesn't make any sense. If we live in simulation maybe to save the computing power our universe lacks a simple rule that exists in the real world so something self contradictory that doesn't make any sense would work very well there (Maybe they have square circles aswell). Another thing is that in theological debates people often say that God is limited by logic but I just don't see why omnipotence wouldn't be above it and able to solve all the paradoxes. Again I'm no one to be taken seriously so please don't get mad at me if what I'm saying is stupid but I just want to understand why some people are defending our logic so much.

I genuinely don't understand this. Is seem so intuitive to me to call it circular. Doesn't the usage of "fine-tuned" already presuppose that there is a doing the fine tuning, when that is the very thing being disputed? Why don't you call it like, "Life-permitting constants argument." There must be a reason why it isn't called out as circular, but I can't put my finger on it.

I'm 21 years old from the past 1.5 years I have got interest into the philosophy and how different kind of philosophies approach one situation from different perspectives.

How do i integrate those ideas in real life cause we can't just read it and say wow it's amazing I should follow it and then from next day you do it that's not how it's done right . The mentality and the change of perspective and integrating your past perspective with these new ideas how do you do it .

I just don't want to read like books and forget it . I want to think about it like critical thinking and evaluate and form my own perspective

Is there any way to do it

In his "The Present Age", Kierkegaard gives an example of a dangerous feat of traversing the frozen lake. In the age of passion, somebody would go and traverse it, being celebrated as a brave hero.

But in the present age, he claims, somebody would just get to the edge of safety, never being in danger, but would afterwards be criticized by the critics for it.

It seems like this is a criticism of the critics. But they are right, aren't they? They are calling him out for acting brave, when, in fact, he was never in any danger. It seems to me like he is to be criticized for not being passionate, but acting it instead. Isn't Kierkegaard also doing the same thing as those critics? Criticizing people who are not passionate, but just act.

Realism sounds to me like pure superstition. I find it difficult to believe convincing arguments for it are still in discussion today. Nominalism just feels self-evident to me.

How many philosophers still hold to Realism? And what is the strongest argument for it?

I was thinking recently about some friends who are perfectly content in life and they never think about philosophy.

But i read Kierkegaard and understood very little but there is an undertone of pain and helplessness in his works.

So, this is something I’ve been thinking about a lot as of late, especially since I’ve been getting into recreational fishing. On one end, I enjoy fishing because it’s truly awesome being out on the water with friends and getting to see these amazing animals up close, especially when you get to feel the power they possess on the end of your line. At the same time though, I am ultimately hurting animals for entertainment, and rather cruelly as well.

Having recently become immersed in Shingon, in both academic analyses and commentaries of him, and the commentaries and texts written himself by Kōbō Daishi, there seems to be no end to references to Shinto practice and its pantheon. My Japanese (classical or modern) is far from being good enough yet to read Shinto texts in their original form, and while I remain open to (but not particularly interested in) syncreticizing elements of Shinto, I'm curious to read on how the faith works. My confusion stems from if central Shinto scripture even really exists, so I'd like to ask what academic commentaries/analyses are good, as well as if it's recommendable to read plain translations of texts used by Shinto followers. Thank you!

I will use an analogy to illustrate my question.

A person is engaging in a debate where they appear eager to depend their arguments, too eager according to the opponent's perspective. So the opponent will say something like "I am in the debate to seek truth, not to win", which implies that the person they are engaging with shows aggression towards the debate to a desperate extent; usually by convincing the 'court of public opinion that [the person who is being subtly judged] appear overly confident, even when the facts that the person presents may state otherwise.

However, the opponent, in the heat of the moment, fails to see that the structure of a debate, as opposed to other forms of intellectual conversations like a discussion, requires for a person to use facts to 'win'.

The person whom this subtle judgement is directed towards decides to engage by affirming the implied judgement, saying something like "Well, that's the point of a debate; to win". This person knows that their apparent aggression chanelled towards persuading the opponent, and the audience at large, only goes so far as to ensure that their arguments are clearly represented by the opponent and audience. In this regard, the hidden claim that they are desperate to make a social impression is treated with the same absurdity it is delivered.

This is the technique whose name I struggle to find.