Category Archives: Notes

For additional information

Pause (April 2024)

My friend took a pause from doing nothing. Why is it so difficult to get people on board to do something together?

“What are double standards? Is engaging in public debate worthwhile, or should we cultivate discussion environments that encourage alignment with truth? What exactly constitutes truth? Is it motivated by the desire to be right? How can societal norms and truth come into harmony? Can relying solely on coherent rationality provide us with an understanding of what is morally good?”

The Philosopher – April 5th 2024

The Philosopher reflected on his day: Today, amidst feelings of depression, friendship, and the complexities of social interactions, he was reminded of the value of time that gives a glimpse of light.

He realized that he cannot afford to waste precious moments. Although he made some effort, progress on his work about Adam Smith feels slow, especially on a holiday.

Yet, despite the challenges, he is determined to make the most of his time. Turning Time into Memory, and Memory into nothing again.

Living up to once Possibilities – Another Account of Relativism

Formal Part, an analysis of Baghramian, passage where she talks about the unconnected history of analytic philosphy and how it is providing a semantic notion of relativism.

Abstract: We live in

As humans, we have the reflective capabilities to distance ourselves from the community views. As I would like to express it, we can adopt a stance of being open for truth that has not arrived yet and may not arrive. In other words, we live in the possibility of truth. I regard this as a relativist stance and which I would also attribute to Hegel.

Practices are not necessarily arranged with regard to how things really are, but according to how we take things to be in an experiential, historical process.

It is important to remark that in this process nobody denies that reality has somewhat an influence on us. The difficulty lies in the question to explain what reality exactly is and how to qualify they extent it has on us.

Putnam’s Ideas

The idea that we are brains in a vat is an extreme thought scenario.

Relativism of Belief

Philosophy on its destructive side aims at destroying all our beliefs. A task for which many are not ready.

The theist believes in a God or Gods, the atheist believes that there is no God. The agnostic often believes that the answer is unknown and possibly unknowable. However, there may be a fourth possibility: it may be knowable but not yet known.

A relativist position works differently: instead of dismissing the question as unknowable and therefore unimportant, it can accept that the question itself is important and probably speaks to the deepest nature of us. The religious form of a human being is its openness for the question so that if he encounters truth one day he can accept it.

Problems–a further problem I have with relativism

If another person believes that embryos have already souls and I respect this as an individual position that is true according to their framework but at the same time I also support the person who champions abortions at all times and everywhere, I am not doing justice to the moral feelings of the first person

Baghramian does not say anything about the possibility of truth

We can neither say that embryos have a soul, nor that they do not. The intuition is that we should consider the possibility that would have the largest effect if it is true compared to the effect it has when it is not true.

A large part of the debate has focused on abortion rights, but little is said about the question of how to avoid unwanted pregnancy.

The Philosopher

“Of what use is a philosopher who doesn’t hurt anybody’s feelings?”
― Diogenes of Sinope

“I do not ask the wounded person how he feels, I myself become the wounded person.”
― Walt Whitman, Song of Myself

“Starcraft involves Soulcraft”
― Michael Sandel

“Of what use is a philosopher who doesn’t hurt anybody’s feelings?” ― Diogenes of Sinope

“I do not ask the wounded person how he feels, I myself become the wounded person.” ― Walt Whitman, Song of Myself

“Starcraft involves Soulcraft” ― Michael Sandel

“Of what use is a philosopher who doesn’t hurt anybody’s feelings?”
― Diogenes of Sinope

“I do not ask the wounded person how he feels, I myself become the wounded person.”
― Walt Whitman, Song of Myself

“Starcraft involves Soulcraft”
― Michael Sandel


Professor Nordhoff:

The Hellscape-Theory posits that the insertion into the three-dimensional universe was an attempt by singular dimensional entities to escape a realm inundated with ceaseless suffering. By traversing into our three-dimensional realm, these entities sought to materialize bodies capable of interacting with matter, emotions, and the spectrum of pain and joy. Through the process of evolution, the universe purportedly harnesses these elements – matter, pain, and joy – to sculpt neurological beings poised for transition into another dimension.

While this theory presents intriguing facets, it undeniably treads the line of absurdity, though not devoid of merit.


Arguments are not for convincing the other, which is seldomly possible and requires the consideration of psychological factor. Arguments are mostly for the clarification of your own mind.

Learning to argue is for your life beneficial.

A hierarchy of standard arguments

File:Argument terminology used in logic (en).svg

Alfred Eisleben-All or Nothing

Norman Schultz: What is reality?

Alfred Eisleben: Nobody doubts that there is a reality, but the question is, what is reality made of? Is it spirit or matter? Or both? Or neither? And the abyss of questions pulls us deeper. Does it consist of mental atoms or material atoms, or even nothing of both or both?

Norman Schultz: Many decide.

Alfred Eisleben: One can decide for various reasons. Some believe they have knowledge.

Norman Schultz: You believe it?

Alfred Eisleben: Well, maybe they do actually know. So far, I am not aware of any arguments that provide a final justification argument regarding ontology, regarding the being of beings. I would be happy if someone could provide me with proof. It’s just the question of the proof of God.

Norman Schultz: The man in heaven.

Alfred Eisleben: Well, these descriptions are just silly. God has long been the definition of that which is greater than anything that can be thought or even the thought that contains all other thoughts.

Norman Schultz: A spontaneous definition.

Alfred Eisleben: Not necessarily. We just want to know what all in all is put together — Everything. God can be material, mental, or none of both.

Norman Schultz: So, you don’t believe that we know, but can we know it?

Alfred Eisleben: I don’t know if there are people who know it. I don’t know if we can know it.

Norman Schultz: You know that you know nothing?

Alfred Eisleben: I know that, compared to what I want to know, I know almost nothing about it.

Norman Schultz: But you know something?

Alfred Eisleben: I know what I want to know.

Norman Schultz: But could what you want to know also be an illusion?

Alfred Eisleben: Absolutely. But I just want to know about the illusion, what is reality, and I believe we would all want to possess that knowledge.

Norman Schultz: Was ist Realität?

Alfred Eisleben: Dass es eine Realität gibt bezweifelt ja niemand, aber die Frage ist doch, woraus setzt sich Realität zusammen. Ist sie Geist oder Materie? Oder beides? Oder weder noch? Und der Abgrund der Fragen reißt uns tiefer. Besteht sie aus geistigen Atomen oder aus materiellen Atomen oder gar aus nichts von beidem oder aus beidem.

Norman Schultz: Viele entscheiden sich

Alfred Eisleben: Man kann sich aus verschiedenen Gründen entscheiden. Manche glauben Wissen zu haben.

Norman Schultz: Sie glauben es?

Alfred Eisleben: Nun ja, vielleicht wissen sie es ja tatsächlich. Bis jetzt sind mir keine Argumente bekannt, die ein Letztbegründungsargument im Hinblick auf Ontologie, auf das, was das Sein des Seienden, nachweisen. Ich bin glücklich, wenn mir jemand einen Beweis erbringen kann. Es ist ja einfach die Frage nach dem Gottesbeweis.

Norman Schultz: Der Mann im Himmel.

Alfred Eisleben: Nun ja diese Beschreibungen sind nun mal seltsam dämlich. Gott ist ja schon lange die Definition von dem, was größer ist als alles, was gedacht werden kann oder auch der Gedanke, der alle anderen Gedanken enthält.

Norman Schultz: Eine spontane Definition.

Alfred Eisleben: Nein, nicht unbedingt. Wir wollen halt einfach wissen, was alles in allem zusammen genommen ist– Alles. Gott kann materiell, seelisch oder nichts von beidem sein.

Norman Schultz: Sie glauben also nicht, dass wir es wissen, aber können wir es wissen?

Alfred Eisleben: Ich weiß nicht, ob es Menschen gibt, die es wissen. Ich weiß nicht, ob wir es wissen können.

Norman Schultz: Sie wissen, dass Sie nichts wissen?

Alfred Eisleben: Ich weiß, dass gemessen an dem, was ich wissen möchte, nahezu nichts davon weiß.

Norman Schultz: Aber sie wissen etwas?

Alfred Eisleben: Ich weiß, was ich wissen möchte.

Norman Schultz: Aber könnte, das, was sie wissen möchten, nicht auch eine Illusion sein?

Alfred Eisleben: Durchaus. Aber ich möchte, ja nur über die Illusion wissen, was das ist Realität und das glaube ich, wir würden alle dieses Wissen besitzen wollen.