Read issue #1 of Daily Digest, by Mailbrew Team.
24
Friday May, 2024
Livestock Farming Is the Biggest Source of Suffering in the World

Livestock Farming Is the Biggest Source of Suffering in the World

If life is inherently meaningless, life might not be worth living. Camus' philosophy of the absurd confronts us with the most fundamental choice: "to be or not to be".

If life is inherently meaningless, life might not be worth living. Camus' philosophy of the absurd confronts us with the most fundamental choice: "to be or not to be".

No Foundations for Metaphysical Coherentism

No Foundations for Metaphysical Coherentism

For your consideration: The Longmire Intelligibility Argument

Introduction: The question of the origin and nature of reality's intelligibility has been a central concern in philosophical and theological discourse. This essay explores an original syllogism and supporting reasoning that argues for the existence of a mindful source behind the intelligible structure of the universe. By examining the axiomatic nature of intelligibility and its role in the syllogism, we aim to demonstrate the logical coherence and persuasive force of the argument. Defining intelligibility: Intelligibility, across various domains such as philosophy, science, and mathematics, refers to the clarity and comprehensibility of concepts, arguments, and information. It denotes the ease with which these elements can be understood, interpreted, and communicated. Key factors influencing intelligibility include precise language, logical structure, clear definitions, and effective visualization. High intelligibility ensures that ideas can be accurately shared, scrutinized, and built upon, facilitating learning, collaboration, and progress. Longmire’s Argument from Intelligibility : P1: Intelligible systems originate from a mind. P2: Reality is an intelligible system. C: Therefore, reality originates from a mind. This syllogism hinges on the acceptance of intelligibility as an axiomatic starting point. The first premise asserts a connection between intelligibility and mental causation, while the second premise identifies reality as an intelligible system. From these premises, the conclusion follows logically: if intelligible systems originate from a mind, and reality is an intelligible system, then reality must originate from a mind. The Axiomatic Nature of Intelligibility: The persuasive power of the original syllogism lies in its recognition of intelligibility as an axiom—a self-evident truth that requires no further proof or justification. Several key considerations support the axiomatic status of intelligibility: 1. The undeniable reality of intelligibility: Intelligibility is an inescapable aspect of our experience and interaction with the world. We rely on it in every aspect of our lives, from simple communication to complex scientific inquiry. Denying the intelligibility of reality would undermine the very foundations of reason and investigation. 2. The necessity of intelligibility for rational inquiry: Intelligibility is a prerequisite for any form of rational inquiry or knowledge acquisition. The success of scientific investigation, logical reasoning, and mathematical analysis all depend on the inherent intelligibility of the world. 3. The self-evident nature of intelligibility: The intelligibility of reality is immediately apparent and does not require further proof. We encounter intelligibility directly in our everyday experiences and cognitive processes, recognizing patterns, structures, and meaningful relationships in the world. 4. The transcendental argument for intelligibility: The intelligibility of reality is a necessary precondition for the very possibility of thought, reason, and argumentation. To question or deny intelligibility would be self-defeating, as it would undermine the basis of the question or denial itself. The axiomatic nature of intelligibility allows the original syllogism to proceed without engaging in circular reasoning or question-begging. It provides a solid foundation for the argument and aligns with our intuitive understanding of the world's intelligibility. Alternatives and Objections: While alternative explanations for the intelligibility of reality have been proposed, such as chance, necessity, or brute facts, these ultimately fail to provide a satisfactory account of the rational structure and organizational complexity of the universe. Such alternatives often beg the question by assuming the existence of an intelligible framework within which they operate, or they rely on counter-intuitive and unsupported assumptions about the emergence of intelligibility from non-mental processes. In contrast, the syllogism's alignment with our common intuition and experience of intelligibility as a product of mental activity lends it a compelling and coherent explanatory power. The connection between intelligibility and mental causation is deeply rooted in our understanding of the world and provides a rationally satisfying and intuitively grounded explanation for the intelligible structure of reality. Conclusion: The syllogism, with its recognition of intelligibility as an axiomatic starting point, presents a logically sound and highly persuasive argument for the existence of a mindful source behind the intelligible structure of reality. By grounding itself in the self-evident and necessary nature of intelligibility, the syllogism avoids the pitfalls of circular reasoning and question-begging that plague alternative explanations. The cumulative force of the philosophical and intuitive considerations explored in this essay strongly supports the conclusion of the syllogism. The axiomatic nature of intelligibility, the necessity of a mindful source for the rational structure of the universe, and the alignment with our common experience and understanding all converge to make a compelling case for the existence of a supreme intelligence behind the intelligibility of reality. While the syllogism may not provide an exhaustive account of the nature and attributes of this mindful source, it establishes a solid foundation for further philosophical and theological exploration. It invites us to contemplate the profound implications of an intelligible universe grounded in the creative and purposeful activity of a supreme mind. In conclusion, the syllogism, with its axiomatic starting point and logically coherent structure, offers a powerful and persuasive argument for the existence of a mindful source of reality. It challenges us to embrace the intelligibility of the universe as a reflection of the rational and purposeful nature of its creator, and to seek a deeper understanding of our place within this intelligible cosmic order. By recognizing the axiom of intelligibility and its connection to mental causation, we may unlock a richer appreciation for the beauty, complexity, and ultimate meaning of the reality we inhabit. Note: My research has not uncovered any similar phrasing of the argument, thus my eponymous titling, even though it is built on the shoulders of giants. I am looking for objections or support for the argument to further flesh it out.

Dichotomy of control is less of a useful concept

I like the stoic idea of "focus on the things, you can control". But I also think that there is no dichotomy. I would argue that it is a big spectrum of things we can control more or less, but there are not things that we can contol and we can not control. Depending on the level of effort we put in, in order to contol something, we can actually control nearly anything we want. I can control, if I want to sit down or not. I can control, if I lose weight or not. I can control uo to a point, how healty I am, and how long I will live. If I hate the behavior of my boss, I could analyze his behavior, and the factors that do cause it, and maybe I could try to interact with him, so that his behavior changes. Even if his personality is the reason, I could try to make him my friend and talk with him about his problems and help him. I could stop to worry about getting killed by a airplane that is flying into my house. But I could also analyze the flight routes, and move into a city that has the lowest possibility that this happens ...these are only examples to outline that it is a spectrum of having control, more or less. So what is the solution, if there are not things we can control, and things we can not control? We can only try to live a live based on appropriateness and balance, instead of distinguishing between having "control". I am curious what you guys and girls, especially the stoics think about it!

Jean Baudrillard's most famous work, Simulacra and Simulation, conveys no meaningful argument; The Matrix, supposedly inspired by the book, is a more valuable philosophical work

Jean Baudrillard's most famous work, Simulacra and Simulation, conveys no meaningful argument; The Matrix, supposedly inspired by the book, is a more valuable philosophical work

Twitter, RSS, YouTube, Newsletters, Weather, Calendar, ...

You can customize this digest to include all the sites and sources you want.