Re: Joy of this, Joy of that

On Fri, 6 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 06/12/2024 06:48, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

On 12/5/24 4:36 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 05/12/2024 09:31, D wrote:

There is great good and great evil in man. That's what makes him so fascinating and why fighting is such a necessary sport to give an outlet for all that aggression.

 Only man creates the categories of good and evil.
Science does not include them

>
   The Real World exists. What any of that MEANS,
   entirely our own inventions.
>
   And those inventions tend to CHANGE over time.
>
   Yea, kinda Nietzsche-esque ...

>
More Kant-ian.
>
His metaphysics draws a clear distinction between the 'world-in-itself' and how we perceive it. His point being that the objects we reify it into are not actually there as discrete entities, they are simply how we describe it to ourselves and to others.
>
Which immediately solves the 'Theseus' ship' paradox*, as such a ship doesn't exist, it is merely how we refer to a collection of rotting bits of wood.
>
(The Ship of Theseus, also known as Theseus's Paradox, is a paradox and a common thought experiment about whether an object is the same object after having all of its original components replaced over time, typically one after the other.
>
In Greek mythology, Theseus, the mythical king of the city of Athens, rescued the children of Athens from King Minos after slaying the Minotaur and then escaped onto a ship going to Delos. Each year, the Athenians would commemorate this by taking the ship on a pilgrimage to Delos to honour Apollo. A question was raised by ancient philosophers: After several hundreds of years of maintenance, if each individual piece of the Ship of Theseus were replaced, one after the other, was it still the same ship? )
>
Modern philosophers still get their knickers in a twist over this. If you are a died in the wool realist and materialist it is a problem because you believe there exists such a thing as 'Theseus' Ship' in reality.

I would argue that the ones who most certainly do not have a problem with this are materialists. It's a bunch of atoms, and we can then make up labels. The problem guys are the platonists with their ideal heavens, concepts etc. which are forever beyond proof. The ding an sich is an absurd konzept an sich. If you postulate something which can never be known, it is kind of useless. It goes the same way as god, or a postulated first mover etc.

Kantians say that it's just a label: Distinct from the object that it refers to. Meta data. A pointer.
>
>
>