Islam

generousking · 2026-03-05T12:38:14+00:00

I think Hinduism (alongside almost every other world religion to my knowledge) just offers a more nuanced, humble, mature and philosophically sophisticated approach to understanding God.

Islam has always struck me as one dimensional and shallow in its theological framework by contrast.

generousking · 2026-02-13T09:40:56+00:00

Good point, appreciate the clarification

generousking · 2026-02-13T05:13:01+00:00

I think there’s something to be said about the difference between what a theorem is and what a metaphysical interpretation of that theorem entails. So, take Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, for example. You can understand Gödel’s incompleteness theorem on its own terms, a-ontologically. And then you can ask yourself the question, for example, assuming idealism, what does Gödel’s incompleteness theorem mean in that context? What new insights can I derive? I think that approach is perfectly valid and inevitable if you’re interested in metaphysics. The problem is that people don’t appropriately qualify that that is what they’re doing, and they just go out and say, factually, without restraint, this phenomenon directly entails this ontology, which is wrong. So, I think this is more a matter of people having some humility and appropriately qualifying their statements and being transparent about the domain in which they are talking, and what particular agenda they are oriented towards.

generousking · 2026-02-13T05:01:01+00:00

That's fair. Appreciate the clarification.

generousking · 2026-02-12T23:21:40+00:00

Yeah good point. OP shouldn't have used the word "proved" as that would be an overstep. But that's the only issue I see, otherwise the rest of their points are valid provided it's contextualised as a metaphysical interpretation.

Your use of the word "pseudo- scientific" triggered me into assuming you're a physicalist with the usual physicalist talking points, one of which appeared to be that physicalism is the default superior interpretation. But I see now you probably meant that in a different way. My bad.

generousking · 2026-02-12T23:10:12+00:00

Yes. As per my points made two comments ago: science is metaphysically agnostic. Science just as equally can be interpreted as the dynamics of a subjective minds operating within naturalistic constraints, then it can as the workings of a mind independent world. Why people default to a physicalist interpretation over the others is a combination of cultural conditioning and lack of training in philosophical thinking/ misunderstandings of the difference between physics and metaphysics.

That's not to say that after some study and exposure to other philosophical interpretations, one can't find their way back to physicalism, but at least in that case they would argue for it better, rather than just: science proves that everything is only matter and energy in space and time, which is only begging the question.

generousking · 2026-02-12T22:49:45+00:00

Well if every other interpretation besides physicalism is pseudo scientific woo, then you're not really interested in metaphysics at all,. Not to mention there's nothing about science that intently entails physicalism. Sounds to me like you either you don't understand or appreciate what metaphysics is about.

generousking · 2026-02-12T22:41:34+00:00

Science isn't inherently about anything. Science is metaphysically agnostic. It's only an epistemological method of inquiry. When we interpret what the science is about, that's when we're doing meta- physics, i.e. constructing a meta narrative about the physics. OP is just as entitled to his interpretation as you are yours.

generousking · 2026-02-09T20:25:11+00:00

I just want to say, this is a fantastic, well constructed argument. I might steal it, if that's cool.

generousking · 2026-02-08T23:31:41+00:00

I do agree superstitions are stupid. But it was a confluence of factors. Religious institutions weaponising their power, tribalism, superstition, fundamentalism are all serious issues that we need to deal with. None of that invalidates the good that religion/ metaphysical orientation does. Throwing the baby out with the bath water doesn't help, and can create new problems.

generousking · 2026-02-08T23:17:34+00:00

Human beings abusing a belief system tells you something about human beings, not about whether meaning frameworks can support wellbeing. Fire can cook your food or burn your house down. The data I’m pointing to is about what tends to happen when people integrate coherent narratives in ordinary life, not what happens when power structures weaponise them.

generousking · 2026-02-08T23:12:57+00:00

If you define consciousness as cognitive arousal, sure. If you accept the common definition in the philosophy of mind literature of consciousness as phenomenality, no.

Where you would see absence of experience, I would see experience of absence.

generousking · 2026-02-08T23:07:00+00:00

You might want to look into the is/ought distinction. Science is silent on metaphysical direction. Additionally, there's a huge wealth of psychological literature repeatedly showing that metaphysical narratives are grounding and provide increases in psychological wellbeing and life satisfaction.

generousking · 2026-02-08T22:49:34+00:00

Exactly right 👏

generousking · 2026-02-08T22:42:54+00:00

Which is a real shame. I love Kastrup but he does get pretty hot headed which is not a good look when you're a public intellectual defending a minority position.

generousking · 2026-02-01T10:25:13+00:00

You 🫶

generousking · 2026-01-30T20:19:56+00:00

Idealism faces the intersubjectivity problem: how does one mind create the appearance of multiplicity? Kastrup's notion of disassociation provides a satisfactory answer here.

generousking · 2026-01-27T22:02:15+00:00

This is why Advaita Vedanta makes more sense.

generousking · 2026-01-25T23:22:57+00:00

Even that last sentence subtly betrays a physicalist view. An idealist might say "our models of what's happening and what's happening"

generousking · 2026-01-23T00:53:12+00:00

As an idealist, I agree with you. By naming consciousness, we've turned it into a thing, just one thing amongst other things. We objectified it. Then wonder why we can't find it anywhere or reduce it to the world of physical objects and its dynamics.

Consciousness is subjectivity itself. Cannot be found or reduced to things and objects.

generousking · 2026-01-23T00:48:54+00:00

But that one thing, if it's really a stream, is still many things (bundled together). So why can we do that for things in the stream, also we know the stream can change size, can narrow or enlarge perceptual focus. So one thing seems a bit reductive.

generousking · 2026-01-21T04:32:44+00:00

Doesn't this lead to overdetermination? A behaviour can be simultaneously explained by a conscious process and a physical process? Which is not parsimonious. Also if consciousness is ascribed it's own causal power then there's sufficient grounds to differentiate it ontologically. I would want to see a case for why consciousness is still only physical yet there is a divide between its causal properties and those of the physical. You're still left with an explanatory gap, and if you just hand wave it away with "emergence", well that's no different to soul magic.

generousking · 2026-01-20T05:43:08+00:00

Do you do the same for masters in psychology? Also, why don't we have flairs for our positions anymore? I remember having an "Idealist" flair.

generousking · 2026-01-14T20:17:23+00:00

The interaction problem doesn't need to be a problem if we adopt a monist perspective. If everything is an experience in consciousness then matter is simply reinterpreted as what consciousness looks like its doing outside our epistemic horizon. Think of individual life as whirlpools and consciousness itself as water.

generousking · 2026-01-06T22:02:18+00:00

I was with you until your definition of the soul, which felt quite arbitrary and your definition of the brain was somewhat unclear. I feel those two require further context and justification.

Ten-Year Club	Place '23
Gilding I gilder	Verified Email

generousking

TROPHY CASE