philosophy

I recently leaned about how the dogma of divine simplicity shaped the history of philosophy, especially metaphysics and the problem of universals in the Islamic world as well as in Christianity. Basically it's the idea, that God is identical to each of his (her/their/just) attributes. By extension, each of the attributes is identical to every other one. So this obviously touches on the problem of universals. Ibn Sina (Avicenna) added the conclusion, that for God, essence is existence. Ibn Sina is key for this in Islam, as well as Christianity (because people like Thomas Aquinas learned his teachings and shaped scholastics for centuries).

Divine simplicity is central in the different schools of Islam and a dogma in Catholicism. Protestants kind of stopped talking about it, but never officially gave it up and Calvinists revived it. Only cool new streams like process theology distance themselves from it.

About the stupid joke in the title: Divine simplicity means, God has literally no parts you can point to (no pun intended), to determine their gender (no material parts, no temporal parts, no metaphysical or ontological constituents). If God has a gender, it must therefore be identical to all their other attributes, as well as themselves.

Question: If you got any religious education, was divine simplicity ever mentioned? Cause I never heard of it until recently, even though it's so central, that other attributes are typically derived based on it (for example immutability, infinity, omniscience) in official doctrine. Or, in Ibn Sina's case, even existence as well as every other attribute.

Do religious people still care about this? What would be cool pronouns for justice, freedom, truth, omniscience, etc.?

Edit: Also, do you know people who reject this dogma or accept it, but make mistakes around it? Like saying:"God might get angry or have wrath, but God IS love", which mistakenly elevates one attribute above the others.

I have no stake in this, as an atheist, just interested and willing to learn. And like I said it's historically relevant for the history of philosophy, no matter what you believe.

A long read for an article or blog post, but well worth it. If you or anyone you know suffers from a chronic illness, ailment or pain, you might relate to some of what is written here. I certainly did, and can share the author's dislike of positivity and therapy culture.

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/4842538

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/4840505

*Forgive any formatting as I'm on mobile.

As I read in themes, I'm currently focusing on philosophy to try and understand it, see where I fit in the world and also reconstruct my own atheist/nihilistic worldview.

I just got done with Existentialist Cafe and got a really nice overview of all the main players in the Existentialist camp but want to finally take the leap into nihilism and absurdism proper. I've read The Stranger and Myth of Sisyphus and like Camus a lot so far but also wanna tackle Satre, Beauvoir, and Merleau-Ponty eventually but wonder if I need to read Husserl and specifically Heidegger and Nietzche since they are controversial because of their politics. Would I be able to get away with just reading synopses of their work? I do currently have Being and Time in my list of books to get.

Also, aside from Nietzche, who else should I read regarding nihilism? I'm currently working through The Trouble with Being Born by Cioran and wanna find some more by him but also have The Antidote by Burkeman and Conspiracy Against the Human Race by Ligotti in my backlog. I did read The Book by Alan Watts the other day and though it felt like reading my stoned friend's wild ramblings on society and how we exist in it, some coherent stuff did come through. But I don't know if it was what I was after. I did appreciate it for introducing me to some concepts like ego and self but maybe I should have saved it for another day?

Sidenote but I'm planning on moving back and force between philosophy and socialist theory so socialist philosphers are also welcome. Generally I'm open to all suggestions.

Thanks in advance!

Lately I’m running into more and more situations where I am forced to patronize a private company in the course of doing a transaction with my government. For example, a government office stops accepting cash payment for something (e.g. a public parking permit). Residents cannot pay for the permit unless they enter the marketplace and do business with a private bank. From there, the bank might force you to have a mobile phone (yes, this is common in Europe for example).

Example 2:

Some gov offices require the general public to call them or email them because they no longer have an open office that can be visited in person. Of course calling means subscribing to phone service (payphones no longer exist). To send an email, I can theoretically connect a laptop to a library network and use my own mail server to send it, but most gov offices block email that comes from IP that Google/SpamHaus/whoever does not approve, thus forcing you to subscribe to a private sector service in order to do a public transaction. At the same time, snail-mail is increasingly under threat & fax is already ½ dead.

Example 3:

A public university in Denmark refuses access to some parts of the school’s information systems unless you provide a GSM number so they can do a 2FA SMS. If a student opposes connecting to GSM networks due to the huge attack surface and privacy risks, they are simply excluded from systems with that limitation & their right to a public education is hindered. The school library e-books are being bogarted by Cloudflare’s walled garden, where a private company restricts access to the books based on factors like your IP address & browser.

Example 4:

Twitter decides who may microblog to their public representatives.

So where are my people?

So, I’m bothered by this because most private companies demonstrate untrustworthyness & incompetence. I think I should be able to disconnect and access all public services with minimal reliance on the private sector. IMO the lack of that option is injustice. There is an immeasurably huge amount of garbage tech on the web subjecting people to CAPTCHAs, intrusive ads, dysfunctional javascript, dark patterns, etc. Society has proven inability to counter that and it will keep getting worse. I think the ONLY real fix is to have a right to be offline. The power to say:

*“the gov wants to push this broken reCAPTCHA that forces me to feed a surveillance capitalist

no thanks. Give me an offline private-sector-free way to do this transaction”*

There is substantial chatter in the #fedi about all the shit tech being pushed on us & countless little tricks and hacks to try to sidestep it. But there is almost no chatter about the real high-level solution which would encompass two rights:

1. a right to be free from the private sector marketplace; and
2. the right to be offline

Of course there could only be very recent philosophers who would think of the right to be offline. But I wonder if any philosophers in history have published anything influential as far as the right to not be forced into the private sector marketplace. By that, I don’t mean anti-capitalism (of course that’s well covered).. but I mean given the premise is that you’re trapped inside a capitalist system, there would likely be bodies of philosophy aligned with rights/powers to boycott.

(update) The famous Leary quote “Turn on, tune in, drop out” seems to be kind of consistent in an abstract way. Not necessarily as far as the ideology but in inspiring action.

Never try to engage with Ayn Rand's work in good faith: worst mistake of my life. She and her fanboys are basically the human version of brainy smurf. Even the name, Objectivism, is her bragging about herself. Thus since they are akin to brainy smurf, don't bother arguing with them because they will claim omniscience. Instead, deal with them as the rest of the smurfs dealt with brainy smurf.

Me: "Oil companies are using their private property to inflict environmental pollution that I do not consent to. Since they are using their property for evil, we should limit their use of a property. This way no one gets physically harmed, not even the oil tycoon."

Rand's Response: "This is stupid, how dare you tell someone what to do with their property. Live and let live! It is actually moral to let people use things that rightfully belong to them for immoral reasons."

Native Americans: "I just want to be left alone please."

Rand's response: "No! You are dumb dumbs so the government should steal from you! You clearly aren't blessed with perfect intelligence like me so you don't know what to do with your property. I do! Now make me some treats!"

Native Americans: "Didn't you just say people who own property should do whatever they please with it, and anyone who has a problem with it should mind their own business?"

Rand's Response: "Ugh, you fucking IDIOTS! Clearly you know nothing about my philosophy of IKnowEverythingIsm."

Me: "Uhhh...okay. I gotta say, insisting that you are the standing authority on all knowledge is a little dogmatic, it sounds kind of like a reli..."

Rand's Response: "UGH! RELIGION IS FOR IDIOTS AND IS AN INSULT TO THINKING!"

I genuinely wanted to read something from the right's POV so I could better understand them, lest I become as dogmatic as Rand here. So far, the closest I got was reading some classical liberal stuff like Plato's Republic, Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, and some Nietzsche. But it seems like anything further is just full on pompous dogshit. The Chapo book had more depth than this.