Listened to them all.

I'll have to listen to more Wayne now. That was great.

What do you think the power of religion is? or rather the primary power or purpose? — praxis

I think it morphs, really... as @Jamal pointed out, these are, through history, political ways of organizing. Or, at least, we'd look at them like that, having little invested in the various disputes between or within religions. And when you start considering religion, in general, it might be too abstract a category to definitively say. (how much of a similarity is there, really, between the worship of Cleopatra, and the modern civic religion, though we can reasonably call them both religions?)

What I really mean by the power of religion is more in the political sense: however religion operates, which I'm uncertain about, it's demonstrably a powerful manner of organizing people, up to even having state powers, though that has diminished in some parts of the world.

When I say I think secular people underestimate religion, I mean that it's not going to fade away. Further, while its power has diminished in some parts of the world, it is still very powerful in the sense of how many people are organized around religion. That's not to say why it's appealing, nor am I trying to say something like "oh, these are brainwashed persons, that's the power of religion!" -- I'm just talking about the raw numbers, and the political power that comes from having numbers of people organized together.

IIii..... probably will not anytime soon. :D

I did read the Anti-Christ once upon a time... but I've forgotten its contents by this point.

And I tried the Theological-Political Treatise last year! I put it down, though. I remember getting impatient with all the arguments from the Bible (I'm a bad Spinoza student, I'm afraid). A buddy loved Spinoza for that stuff, but my rejection of theism has always been on a more general level.

Though, these days, I'm more inclined to listen to see what people mean by "theism", because often times they mean things closer-to-metaphor, like Hegel, which is where things get interesting -- it's often been put that we have a civic religion, for instance. And if we're not getting caught up in fairy-land tales or ancient histories, then differentiating between a civic religion and a non-civic one is a lot harder when one means "theism" to mean something like "love", or an ideal. Anthropologically -- materially -- they function similarly.

I'm saying if nothing we feel is truly genuine then what's the point of living? Your life is essentially a lie. — Darkneos

Right!

So suppose that my life is a lie, and it's a comfortable lie. Might it be possible for a person to say "the point of living is comfort" rather than "the point of living is to be truly genuine"?

And, even if we are truly genuine, one could also demand some other condition to satisfy "the point of living" like "life should also be exciting" -- we could be genuinely bored for all eternity, and feel like living life is pointless just because of this.

Which should highlight how the question "What is the point of living?" is open-ended, and the answer is dependent more upon the speaker asking the question than anything else.

Which, in this case, would be you.

For me, I don't mind living a comfortable lie, in the sense that you've outlined what is genuine. I don't need to be genuine in the sense of not-influenced. Even further, the way I look at the world, to be not-influenced would be disingenuous, because we are connected to a world, we are connected to people, and we should listen to them. We are only an island when we choose to be, and then there's no one else around anyways. Genuine, and entirely alone.

Sounds awful to me. Why would I care about that?

Hell, even if everything we feel happens to be genuine -- in the case of our set definition at this point, God -- why bother living? Everything can be exactly as you want it to be. How dull.

Not all artworks are beautiful in any straightforward sense; some that are considered great may even be grotesque. — Janus

And in-between (thinking of Guernica here, one of my favorite paintings)

the idea of aesthetics is tied to the idea of non-ethical value judgement and the question is what exactly are we valuing if not beauty? — Janus

Sounds about right to me. Or, upon accepting the beautiful (or the sublime), explaining why they are appealing, or what they are, or how to judge them, or which artworks are beautiful/sublime. (contra those categories, I think "the comedic" might work)

One response I have gotten when I complained about academic publications is surprise that I cared. "Why do you want to know about what is happening in the context of our dialogue?" — Paine

Hrm! Well, goes against the kindness I've been treated to. Though, upon reflection, that gets along with the elitist sentiments often expressed in philosophical writing. I probably was lucky in my encounters.

That makes it similar but different than issues of copyright in music and literature. — Paine

Yup. Academia sits in a very weird position, economically. It seems like a guild system, primarily. Even in the sciences (or maybe even especially so, given that the sciences care what you trained in and who trained you)

Well, that's why you drive an hour to the nearest city...

Oh I definitely think people should be paid, and I respect the work of academics.

Something I've often felt about academic publishing, given that it's widely funded by taxes, is that it ought to be available to everyone. So this criticism would actually apply not just to philosophy, but the sciences, and all the academic disciplines.

But even more, I've noticed that people who do the work aren't the ones who are opposed to this idea, for the most part, of making academic research widely accessible. It's the monster that is the academic world that prevents it.

I loved the drum transition right around after the 6 minute mark.

And the trio upped intensity at the 7 minute was great.

Listening now. Never heard this one before. (youtube, once you get past the algorithm, has so many jazz classics on it)

More thoughts:

I'm interested in philosophy, but I'm not well-read in philosophy. On the topic of theism... my main drive is understanding what theists are trying to tell me when they talk about God. — Dawnstorm

I think this is one of the most interesting questions with respect to the philosophy of religion -- and I think it may get at why religion is as powerful as it is. (I think secular persons tend to underestimate the power of religion too...)

The topics themselves don't interest me much; what's interesting is why they interest others. When it comes to questions such as "Does God exist," I'm not keen on joining discussions, and I feel like building a philosophy around this is... walking into a trap? It feels like fly paper...

I agree that building a philosophy around that question is a fly paper trap :). At least, in our day and age. The medievals get a pass, due to it being their economic way of life. It'd be downright strange if philosophers didn't write about God when the Church ruled.

I can never tell if I'm strawmanning, or if they're shifting goal posts. I can't tell the difference. It's not native mind-space, and I have no good map.

While I claim it's native mind-space for me, I also feel this -- generally speaking religion fulfills more than philosophic desires, so the tools of philosophy will be used to defend rather than explore, even if we're just wanting to know "ok, really, I don't care what you believe, I just want to understand!" -- but that understanding is often viewed with suspicion. Understandably so, since a common religious outlook is that the faith is a way of testing others to see if they conform to your belief structure, and hence can be trusted. So if you start picking at those sorts of beliefs, the natural instinct is to protect the beliefs, and mistrust the person picking at them.

It's not exactly a rational conversation, so often times it's a mixture of strawmanning and goalpost shifting, but you just have to go with it.

Atheism, then, interests me more as a social phenomenon than as a topic for philosophy. I just can't see enough substance to gods to start serious thought.

I can see this, but I guess along the lines of "the power of religion" that I mentioned... I think along those lines and asking what people are talking about are philosophically interesting.

So, yeah, not the denial of gods conversation -- but atheism as a starting point? "OK, God doesn't exist. Sure. So why in the world does this idea have so much influence today, and why did it have influence before?"

Hm, I remember when The God Delusion hit the shelves. I knew of it before I ever saw a physical copy, so I was curious when I finally cam across one and picked it up to read a little. I read an excerpt about the evils religion wrought, I think I remember the section being about Australian aboriginies, and I wondered, so what about the British Empire and it's take on civilisation? I wasn't impressed. It felt too much of a simplistic polemic, so I put it back. Over the years, I found I liked some of Harris and Dennett, but Hitchens has always been nails on chalkboard for me. All in all, I'm not well-read in them, though. — Dawnstorm

I agree that the books that the New Atheists published were generally uninteresting. Even looking back at Richard Carrier's book: I like the idea of building your own worldview. So I still admire him for that. But I look back at a worldview and think: "Hrmm... but here's a problem here, and here, and here..." :D

It's an interesting idea, but I wonder to what extent one can actually accomplish "building a worldview" -- it seems like a lifelong project. In which case, we're sort of talking about a way of life, which starts sounding like a religion on its face.

I'm an atheist. I'm not inherently against religion, but personally I'm bored by ritual, and I've just never found anything to be certain about (which as a negative effect means there's a constant background-radiation anxiety underlying anything I do, but when I'm fine it expresses itself a good-natured ironic attitude towards life - or so I hope).

I'm interested in philosophy, but I'm not well-read in philosophy. On the topic of theism... my main drive is understanding what theists are trying to tell me when they talk about God. The topics themselves don't interest me much; what's interesting is why they interest others. When it comes to questions such as "Does God exist," I'm not keen on joining discussions, and I feel like building a philosophy around this is... walking into a trap? It feels like fly paper... I can never tell if I'm strawmanning, or if they're shifting goal posts. I can't tell the difference. It's not native mind-space, and I have no good map.

Atheism, then, interests me more as a social phenomenon than as a topic for philosophy. I just can't see enough substance to gods to start serious thought. — Dawnstorm

Fair.

I think, just with my background, it's very much native mind-space, but in this weird way due to being an atheist. Maybe that's why I come back to it.

New Atheism feels like jumping the shark. My reaction is always something like, do we really still have to talk about this stuff? New Atheists, famous and not, tend to just make me cringe. I have to tell myself that many vocally atheist atheists have grown up religious or live in countries in which religion does damage. — Jamal

Heh. Being the self-critical sort, I've felt that cringe in spite of basically being a part of the group :D.

Kind of, at least. More just a participant than an organizer (though I did grow up religious, so I fit that part of the description). The one interesting trend that I saw coming out of it all was Atheism+, or something along those lines, where people wanted to say more than "Boo, religion!", but wanted to create ethical secular communities. Those are still around, though definitely not as sexy for the press as "Boo, religion!" :D

But, for me, the political has a deeper pull. I was interested in world-changing philosophies and action, not just acceptance under the norm. (tho that's a worthy goal, too)

And that’s the thing. There’s plenty of bad religion around. Intolerant theism in the US and the Middle East, a whole Christian church in the service of an authoritarian state in Russia. So maybe we need some better New Atheism after all.

But no, I don’t think so (I’m thinking as I write here). I’m an atheist but I don’t think the problem is religion as such, just the bad stuff. Take Islam. It’s stupid for Western atheists to tell Muslims that their whole way of life, in its most important aspects, is not only false and a sham but is also responsible ultimately for some terrible crimes against humanity. This does not help reformers at all. — Jamal

Heh, no worries. I'm also thinking as I write. I think that this would have been a much better approach -- helping reformers, fostering acceptance, that sort of thing. Definitely better than "You're a bunch of dummies and I'm super smart and ethical!" :D

And, yes, I despised the "criticisms" of Islam from the New Atheists -- the so called rationalists couldn't see that where they thought they were being rationally consistent, in that time it was just clear they were talking about it due to geopolitics -- and leaning into Islamophobic talking points to be "part of the conversation". So incredibly stupid.

So when I think fondly of the New Atheism, I guess I think more along the lines of the people who were asking for much less than what I was looking for: the people that just wanted a community, and to not be discriminated against for not believing. I was driven away by the talking heads, but looking back those were the people I'd consider to be the only reason it took off. When you're pissed, angry talking heads can sell books. It's consoling to find a voice for an anger you couldn't express.

The leaders were just stupid enough to really believe they were these rationally enlightened people, which totally killed it for me :D (plus, I remember one of the talks I went to, an organizer trying to explain science, and even as an undergrad I was like "Uhh... you're sort of using these Aristotelian notions which are not applicable at all", but that's just the philosophy nerd in me)

So throw New Atheism in the bin and foster tolerance and understanding for religious people while helping reformers within religions. This is a basis for fighting the bad religion.

It has nothing to do with believing in things without evidence or all that. It’s not about faith. What someone is expected to do for their faith, how far they will go, and exactly how the holy texts should be interpreted, are political and historically specific. — Jamal

Oh yeah, we're on the same page here.

There are many communities of faith that just straight up rock. So there are counter-examples to the atheist screed, at least if you have a political viewpoint. As a for instance, Quakers.

Still... sometimes one wishes that things went different. Could still happen! But I agree, overall, that for me at least, I'm not willing to organize along these lines because I really do want more than the status quo. (even though that is a respectable political goal)

Ahh, OK. Gotcha. And it looks like that's more where the OP was headed, too, so that makes sense.

Interesting that you'd call it a problem. Why is it a problem?

I suppose that's the point I take issue with, then.

Though, if we're just taking that definition as the rule -- then your conclusion does follow. You and everyone else is disingenuous, as they are, in fact, influenced by the things around them.

Only God could claim to be authentic under such a criteria, though.

not quite what I'm getting at here. — Darkneos

No? M'kay. Then my mistake.

"Propaganda" was introduced by me, mostly because it fit, to my mind, with what you were saying about our emotions being the result of cause-and-effect, that we are puppets to society, and that these influences render us disingenuous, and under control. But I'm willing to drop that, only justifying where I was thinking from.

Still -- I'm pointing out that I disagree that these influences make us disingenuous, in my first post. That we feel means we are connected to a world, which is, in fact, where we are. If we do not feel, then while we are in a world we are no longer connected to it.

It's not being under influence which makes us disingenuous. It depends upon more than that. Such as being manipulated in a particular way. (hence why I immediately went for propaganda)

Interesting!

I think I'd prefer to reserve the term "ideology" for something which can be "unseen": basically in the manner I was using it before, where ideology is that which makes propaganda acceptable, uncrude, and functional, and the removal of ideology is the reduction of propaganda to a command (seeing propaganda as propagada)

But if ideology is that which we must have in order to conceive at all -- like a fish out of water, as you say -- then it would be inescapable. You could switch out the water, because it's gone bad, but there'd always be an environment which we're needing...

Something like a social environment? Or a set of beliefs? Or what?

Oh, definitely. What a great flick!

Though I don't think that I'd say that ideology is inescapable -- he does put on the glasses after all, and is able to perceive the subtext as text, and see the aliens that live among them.

***
I think, upon first being able to see subtext, we get this sense that it's inescapable because it's also everywhere. Or, at least, upon first being able to perceive propaganda as propaganda, it is surprising how ubiquitous it is since the very function of ideology is to make the crudeness of propaganda acceptable, a part of the day to day.

So I feel empathy for @Darkneos's thoughts. There's a sense in which it can feel like you're being controlled, that there is no escape, and that the people around you don't even acknowledge the propaganda around them.

But that's actually because the best propaganda doesn't look like propaganda to its target audience -- the crudity of propaganda is only apparent upon being perceived as propaganda, upon being able to reduce it to a command. And if you're just putting the glasses on for the first time, it can seem like nobody else has "figured it out" -- but the truth is, just enough people have "figured it out" that it's still effective. (And, as the movie more or less preaches to us, those alien persons who see the field of desire as a machine to be manipulated for their own ends -- They Live! :D)

Yup.


Another way to look at emotions and manipulation is that this is how we are connected to an environment. Yes, we are deeply influenced by those around us -- they are a part of our environment. While the emotions can be manipulated for a purpose, in the non-malignant form, it's a good thing that our emotions respond to the world -- it's how we act and feel and know.

"brainwashed" isn't the right word, because that would be a programmatic approach -- and on a large scale we're just not that in control of even ourselves to get up to the point of controlling others. Propaganda is much more crude than that. It's flashy -- often times it can be reduced to a command: "AVOID" "FEAR" "BUY" "VOTE". And it's crude because it doesn't need to be sophisticated: it works on emotions that are already there. It's not brainwashing as much as calling attention.

Clever. :)

Now.... what that is.... eh. Usual philosophical wondering stuff... :D

It does!

I'm thinking it does more than that too, though.

Uh... thinking -- on the other side, I'm saying the dry subjects people hate -- logic and such -- not only should but does address itself to everyone. Even if they don't like it.

I'm thinking along the lines of The Forms and the cave. Maybe there's a way of concieving the forms elsewise -- but my thoughts with regards to the mythic, at least, are along those lines: the cave makes sense to me. When Plato writes about the light which you turn to, this is a feeling, at least, that I think I've had.

And yet it is also a myth which orients me, rather than a truth. I'm tempted to say "literal", but I know I mean more than that.... I'm just uncertain how to make more of a differentiation at this point.

Heh.

So -- no! :D

Or, at least, only in part -- the part of philosophy I still have no idea what to do with. (the mythic)

:(

Accessibility is a big issue for philosophy, I think. And not because of those who practice philosophy -- if anything, anyone who is a professional philosopher is usually pretty open to talking philosophy, even though it is their day job. (and willing to use their privileges of access to help)

That is way too high a price. IMO. I've bitten the bullet before, but jeeminy.

Yup.

I have felt the need to ask "Why?", not only to myself, but also to others.

Sometimes the world just feels unfair.

We feel as if it ought not be, but it does feel that way.

What I've found is the world is, in fact, unfair. It's not the universe, though. Just us in our place at a time. Unfortunately, due to there being no cosmic reasons for disparity, it's actually just up to the person who has bad luck to get out of it.

Hrrm!

So if every human has a metaphysic, then should philosophy address itself to every human?




That quote gave me the good feels. :hearts:

Does a person really have to separate themselves of ego and thinking they themselves are important in order to successfully be philosophical? — TiredThinker

Nope!

One of the reasons I love philosophy is its open-ended nature. There are rules as you start to think philosophically, but you are also free. Ala existentialism, at least a certain interpretation of that in a general sense, the only philosophical question is to know yourself. If you know yourself, then you have succeeded, philosophically.

Alas, meaning is use, I understood it -- grammar is post hoc. (thereby confirming the meaningless mess of the cosmos)

That's even worse. Now I have to choose! :D

Cheers!

(trying to adopt the phrase. this is the right time I believe)

I woke up a little early, and realized I had a copy of the book. I'm glad the forum's collective resources did something! See, we're not just goofing off. (we're helping others goof off too)

:D

What can I say, I'm a big softie, and I'm just glad that anyone is following along.

Or, well -- "time to do so" -- sounds annoyed. I don't care if you do chime in. Only noting I won't have all the clever banter I've been putting up :D -- maybe I'll focus more on interpretation, as I ought to.

Hrmm... they did say "next week" in the stream. I'm going to be straight and say, I'm catching up. That's a good opportunity. For thems following along and who have the companion and who want to chime in, that'd be the time to do so.

:D Got a good belly laugh out of me.

Well, after we solve the foundations of analytic Marxism, maybe we can start a reading group ;)

I'm really interested that "species-being" came up. I thought that would drop dead.

My buddy would always made the joke that he's left of Marx because he didn't believe in a species-being, and only believed in freedom.