Sorry to appear nit-picking, and for the potential derail, but this isn't a minor misunderstanding, it's a hotch-potch of confusion — Pattern-chaser

Since the discussion is metaphysics, I would like to second the implicit ontology in this sentence. I think the primary substance is confusion. Occasionally there are order coalescences of confusion that we call belief and sometimes even knowledge. These are very thick, consistent portions of the monism.

I think the presocratics with their water, fire, etc. are just as confused as modern physicalist scientists.

The primary substance is confusion.

Well, it's not the entire culture, and there are degrees of it. And some cultural things do not create anxiety, they can create just joy or fun, or are rather neutral like many politeness phrases. But it might be a way to analyze culture. What creates neurotic relations to certain behaviors (and purchases), what does not?

etymology

neurosis (n.)
1776, "functional derangement arising from disorders of the nervous system (not caused by a lesion or injury)," coined by Scottish physician William Cullen (1710-1790) from Greek neuron "nerve" (see neuro-) + Modern Latin -osis "abnormal condition."

And there are people who do not buy the collective neuroses in most cultures and subcultures. There can be tremendous pressure, economic, peer, parental, religious to be neurotic, but often one can manage to at least minimize one's neurotic conformism. There is often a cost however.

We can keep the distinction up. Collective neuroses and individual neurosis. I think these are different phenomena. I just want the collective behavior recognized for what it is. Then it gives a tool to attack, for example, corporations that create and/or cynically utilize neuroses for their own gain. I certainly don't want psychiatrists to have a new set of customers. But in a sense they likely already have them. The collective neuroses cause more anxiety, those who are on the more anxious end of that group are more likely to be told they have anxiety disorders, for example. So they do benefit from other organizations creating neuroses.

It might also have a soothing effect on neurotics, when they start to see that 'normal' people act like they do, but it is considered normal because large groups share neuroses. I would guess that what we now call neuroses have a lot to do with modern culture, the detachment from nature, lack of meaningful work, lack of meaningful physical activity, and collective neuroses also. IOW we pathologize individuals when their anxiety is probably in large part more of a sociological event. Now critics of my position will say there are genetic factors. No doubt. But here's the thing: all that indicates is that some people are genetically more reactive to modern society's faults and lacks. Just because some people react in certain ways gets, as a rule, diagnosed and pathologized, in a sense as we used diagnose gays. They are a minority, so their difference is pathologial and we can call it a disease. But minority reactions to

the way things currently are..

may very well just be normal, but further out on the bell curve, reactions to problems in the society.

Now I am being polemical here. I don't really know what happens if we start viewing the categor of behaviors I called collective neuroses as neuroses. I don't know for sure what underlies much more modern humans anxiety and depression.

I think https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Connections-Uncovering-Depression-Unexpected/dp/163286830X
makes an excellent case that our problems are much more to do, in general, with our situations, and further that these can be changed on an individual and even societal level and without drugs and without pathologizing people and emotions.

So I would like to pathologize norms, for a while, and depathologize emotions, because emotions are being heartily pathologized in our society. Of course they always have been, but now technologies are coming in to crush them..

Though in a sense it is an unfair distinction. You are pathologizing people who have neuroses that are not shared socially with other people, allowing people with power to utilize the anxieties of collective neurotics (most of us). If we started to call these collective neuroses for what they are, it might make slight inroads into ending them, at least for some people.

Right now in the US we have 80 million people on psychotropic meds. I certainly don't want to increase diagnosis to medication type paths, but we are already via psychiatry/pharma and the pathologization of emotions blurring the normal/pathological boundary.

I notice where we do not do this, and I think we avoid doing it around power and corporate use of anxiety.

There's an opportunity to empower people here. Right now neurosis and many other diagnoses are used to disempower people.

I do understand that people doing those things are not diagnosed as neurotic. I am arguing that they are neurotic. That these are cultural neurosis. In fact I would make the case, for example, that the fashion industry through its various marketing strategies, tries to (successfully) create and sustain neurotic behavior. Individual neurotic behavior is seen as pathological, but collective neurotic behavior generally not so. But we have exactly the same structure psychologically.

The only way to get rid of this feeling is to repeat the same exact email but restructure it without the parenthesis. Once they have done this compulsion, they immediately get rid of the "stupid feeling" and their mind goes back to full capacity. The person was well aware that this makes no rational sense, and that physiologically, except for perhaps adrenaline of feeling "triggered" (that might actually be causing the diminished cognitive feeling), there is no real change. It was simply OCD coupled with a psychosomatic feeling that has a very immediate and negative impact for that person. — schopenhauer1

This description, which I am not disagreeing with, has parallels with a lot of traditions, cultural habits and normal behavior. For example, all sorts of politeness, the not wearing of a tie in a corporate setting for a man, having the 'right' hairstyle, being in fashion in a variety of ways, bowing when meeting someone in certain cultures, all sorts of status behaviors with people who are (supposedly) higher and lower statuses...and so on.

These are all irrational behaviors that if not carried out give people anxiety. The different is that they are 'understood' and 'expected' by the various cultures or subcultures. One can see the neuroticness in big cities, say on the subway, where a bunch of different subcultures intermingle. There you will see people conforming to a wide variety of norms that look entirely differently, inlcude different ways of speaking, dressing, coiffing, standing, moving...and most of those people would feel extreme anxiety if they did not do all these things 'right'.

I would conclude that we have cultural neuroses and not only do these cause people stress, they are further used to ostracise people and create random hierarchies, and then they cost a lot of money, especially with clothes, the 'right car', trophy houses.........

But I just gave you a rea...oh, damn. This new style of yours, now including humility...it's cruel, brutal. I've never felt so weak and ineffective.....

Wait, you're saying you disagree with me in this polite, rational manner? I feel diminished. God is real! God is love!

Actually yes. I think if the person espoused racist views by presenting arguments in favor of their positions, other people should respond by pointing out the weaknesses in those arguments. Further it's not really an exact parallel. yes, you classify them the same, but a racist will have as conclusions that insult and demean a group of people, perhaps dehumanize. A theist might, but a theist might not in making their arguments or discussing their beliefs or religion.

I think both anti-natalists and at least one anti-anti-natalist were pretty insulting. I didn't mean just anti-natalists. But it seems like some issues are more likely to bring out the knives. S seems to enjoy bringing knives to any issue. He does seem to have a sense of humor about it. Even that is rare.

I think that's a fair paraphase of my post, yes.

↪T Clark As you know, I'm trying my best to be a nice and considerate philosopher. So, perhaps you can help me. If someone has a religious belief which is stupid or ridiculous, what should I do? Should I give them a hug? — S

You could be skeptical, focus on their justification or lack of it. Point out logic flaws or unsupported assumptions. Avoid calling them or their ideas stupid. IOW role model rational thinking for people you think are being irrational about whatever the issue is.

If someone is pressuring you to hug people, just ignore them.

I bet there are a few people who would rather have had Bernie Madoff et al betray them sexually than lose their entire wealth and security. — Bitter Crank

Well, that's the thing...how do we measure across crime types? What is the monetary value of a rape?

A guy's penis may not be quite long enough to place in somebody else's lap. If they cut it off first and then put it in this person's lap, is it still a crime? — Bitter Crank

Might be two crimes. At the very least cutting your penis off in public would get you taken into custody. Putting in someone's lap would be a crime. Of course you'd be heading for psychiatric wards not prison most likely once all the legal smoke cleared.

I think it is a part of a larger issue. Much of the problematic behavior can be seen, for example, in antinatalist threads or even with metaphysics (admittedly as least considered family to religious threads) and likely with political threads, though I read these less. Basically there is a kind of team play with the goal of winning. On some topics, even people who disagree can be exploratory, together, making clear their areas of disagreement, but generally not trying to score points, not going ad hom, conceding things, etc. IOW having a discussion. But on many topics, and in fact, I would say in general, there is a back to the wall, no more being victimized by Team X, barely held rage that infects many of the posts. I don't think the answer is to eliminate the discussions wehre people disagree. Because with the trends in society, this will likely end up that we can only discuss symbolic logic here, and who knows, perahps even that topic will at the end of the decade bring out the knives.

epistemologist
— Coben

Are you swearing at me?

I am French and cant even pronounce that without slapping myself with my own tongue; tabarnac de calisse. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

epistemology = épistémologie
epistemologist = épistémologiste

My guess is most native English language philosophers would understand the French pronouciation, so should you be cornered on the street in a discussion of knowledge, just go with the French version and no one will complain.

Faith, something based on nothing concrete.
Belief, something based on something but not proven. Close to " I think so and think it true.
Knowledge, something based on facts that are provable. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

You could break it down like this. The problem with 'facts' is that what fallible humans consider 'facts' can change. The problem with provable, is that proofs are restricted to closed systems, like math, say. Empirical knowledge cannot be proven. Though one can be incredibly confident in some of it. Even in science, things that seemed proven turned out not to be true.

But you can decide, of course, since you are an épistémologiste, as we all are, that this is how you break things down and define them. I don't think it's the best way, me also being an épistémologiste with his own experiences and take.

Alors, vous êtes Québécois. J'ai vécu de belles expériences en provenance du Vermont, dérapant par-dessus la frontière. On entend dire que les gens vont être prétentieux, mais j'ai toujours été traité si merveilleusement.

because knowledge is not an alternative to belief - according to what he said - but a subset of beliefs, a subset rigorously arrived at, however the individual epistemologist, which each of us are in our own way, defines 'rigorously'.

The 2015/17 requests included Muted discussions and Ignore list.

Are those now active functions? If yes, how does one use them?

It is not intentionally misleading, it is due to a mishandling of 'knowledge'. — A Gnostic Agnostic

In philosophy there are a myriad of 'handlings' of knowledge. There are many, many different takes on what knowledge is and how it should be handled and how one achieves knowledge. So which of the various ideas about knowledge in philosophy do you consider a mishandling of knowledge and which philosopher or school is this associated with?

As far as my own epistemology, I notice that I use a number of different methodologies to arrive at what I consider knowledge. It seems to me other people do that also, though they seem to, generally, argue that route X is the only way to knowledge or knowledge is only Y, all the while acting like there are a number of ways to get to knowledge and a number of different kinds of knowledge. So I have no specific approach. I notice a more ad hoc approach in myself. And in general I am satisfied.

:up: + I would add or perhaps stress that there are metaphysical assumptions in place underlying current understandings, models and what is consider possible in science, and these lead to what is chosen to research and what isn't and how new information is integrated. It also guides ruling metaphors - which are often not considered metaphors - like 'physical' for example.

it varies. There isn't agreement on what is ethical nor on how one determines it. I am not sure we were all bellyaching.

It seems like bosons might be able to be in the same place at the same time as others.

or on the behalf of oil companies and the arms industry. Or a mad politician. Or partly on racism, partly for the finance industry and partly because a president wants a second term and just messed up something. Then there really, really wild cases like WW1.

Oh, I was just playing.

what you don't respect people who pee?

I got used to the eye
and the eye got used to me
someone needs to be watched
from birth until I die

Who is the I that needs to be eyed
Surely not a good 'ol guy
implicit mantra by which I'm dyed
self-hatred rules and on the sly

Yeah, sure. I wasn't really disagreeing (I don't think). I just decided to come into the thread in response to you. I had this sneaking feeling if I started with anyone else it would get all snarky after a few posts.

The thesis, not yours, but the question in the thread is so binary. Let's say it's some soldier fighting what is basically a muddle of a war, like WW1. Does the German soldier deserve respect? Well, he's a person. He went through some tough experiences most likely. I can respect him for those things. Or respect the fact that he did. If he acted bravely and protected his fellow soldiers, I can respect that. If he bought the whole patriotism thing, well, I don't really respect that. Though I also know how brainwarshed people were back then. And out of respect for how tough it is to extricate yourself from upbringing and culture, I find it hard to condemn someone for that. I can respect the draw to not having others think you are dishonorable. I can respect the self-care in not wanting to go to prison. If the war had been more clearly immmoral for the germans, then there is less respect. I mean, how does one weigh in with a single answer?

Hey, maybe. It would have to have some way to be matter that shows certain attributes that include 'responsiveness, growth, metabolism, energy transformation, and reproduction.' I don't know how that would all work in a gas, but it's hard to rule out. It would be, well duh, very different from us.

Oh, well, please send my apologies to "philosophy" for not treating it as an authority on any real matter whatsoever. It may be pleased to "know"... whatever that means. — A Gnostic Agnostic

I am not concerned about philosophy's feelings or honor. I don't know what to say otherwise to someone who raises a number of concerns about knowledge and beliefs that philosophy misleads people about, when in fact the concerns are very carefully looked at within philosophy and are part of basic texts on philosophy, basic articles and essays on epistemology. What should I say to a person making accusations about philosophy that clearly show that person has not read or has forgotten fairly basic stuff. I don't think I am the only person raising similar concerns in the thread. You can go boldly forward in part based on assumptions that are false, or you could consider the possibility that you don't know what you are talking about in this particular area. Up to you.

And the East Germans had Stasi. Stasi was extremely effective, for the time, about finding out a lot of stuff about people. I am not sure East Germany was more moral than West Germany. Panopticon societies, which, it seems to me are on the way, depend on good governments and corporations and banks, since they will end up being the ones able to use the tech. Oddly, I don't trust them. The hope with God was that you'd have a nice guy in the security booth monitoring all the CCTVs. Unfortunately the various scriptures didn't really describe a nice guy. We have demiurges or defacto big brothers. And what does it do to people who grow up in the panopticon? What kind of humans are we creating? What are we saying to them about who and what they are?

Should we consider only objective truth when talking about lying or should we take in consideration also what *we* consider being the truth, so subjective factors? — Patulia

Can you be honest and dishonest at the same time is a tighter question, I think. IOW it puts more pressure as a paradox. Lying and telling the truth are not quite opposites. I just had a sexual encounter. My wife asks me where I was. I say, the library. Why were you there? to find an article on X. Find, but I met a woman and I'm late because we spent two hours having sex in the zoology section. I lied. If I were the one cheated on, I would consider that all a lie, especially if my tone had been surprised in my question, since you are very late coming home or whatever. One can lie with the truth.

Can one be dishonest and honest at the same time?

Well, sure, but probably not in the precise moments and precise communicatory acts.
and what he or she said, too....

I hope for the sake of humanity, philosophy as a common practice shifts its attention toward clearly defining what "knowledge" actually is - I find it has a self-imposed boundary condition that would not otherwise be there by virtue of its treatment of such stuff. — A Gnostic Agnostic

There's a lot of work on epistemology in philosophy.

I find there can be "knowns" that need not "beliefs" supporting them — A Gnostic Agnostic

It is not that beliefs support them. I am not saying the knowledge is supported (or not) by beliefs, just that knowledge is a set of certain kinds of beliefs. Ones arrived at rigorously.

Unless you are saying you are infallible when deciding 'known A' is true, then it may turn out to have been a belief that was not true.

In some religious buildings, "belief" can also mean things that are not supported by ANY evidence, therefor things like "faith" (established upon "beliefs") serve in its place. — A Gnostic Agnostic

Of course.

In some religious buildings, "belief" can also mean things that are not supported by ANY evidence, therefor things like "faith" (established upon "beliefs") serve in its place. Else: knowledge of the evidence that clearly undermines the "belief" - to which they would not be bound - had they known (of) the evidence available to them, accomplished by way of the conscience having the ability to inquire, investigate, learn, discern and eventually graduate a "belief" into either a known of that which is true, or a known of what (ie. claim, worldview, belief etc.) not to "believe" by virtue of it being known to be untrue.

And this is where I think philosophy is dead: mishandling of what knowledge is. — A Gnostic Agnostic

This whole section shows that you have not read much epistemology. Nothing you say here about the problems of belief, faith, the difference between beliefs that are not knowledge and knowledge is even slightly controversial in philosophy.

You're tilting at windmills.

Now of course you don't have to take on philosophy's use of the terms. But 1) this will cause confusions in philosophy discussions, here for example in a philosophy forum and 2) your final separation of belief and knowledge entails an implicit claim of infallibility.

But I'll leave you to it. It seems to me you are basing your beliefs not on the evidence.

We are humans, we are fallible. But can one gain knowledge via introspection? yes. Can people improve their use of introspection? I think they can. I also think one uses introspection in all sorts of other methods, even if these seem outward focused and rational. We are always checking in internally and intuitively during any trying to gain knowledge process.

There is no knowledge possible without an epistemic knowledge-justification method; two of which, in the context of the real, physical world, are science and history. So, there we have two epistemically sound knowledge domains. — alcontali

but it's not an either or situation. Scientists often work(ed) with a certain epistemic knowledge justification method while at the same time having metaphysical assumptions about the world and reality. These may have biased them at times but also have been fruitful. One does not need to choose between metaphysics and having a rigorous method and no one does. Or, better put, no one with a rigorous method lacks a metaphysics.

Unlike epistemology, there are no downstream practitioners who need any output from metaphysics.

They are not reading journals of metaphysics, but they have trickle down metaphysics.

Earlier in our dialogue you responded that you had made a facetious comment about not having to read these authors to dismiss them. You clarified that you had read the authors in question and/or had some knowledge of their writing. That's different. That's not what I disagreed with. Then when I respond to Janus in agreement about issues related to physicalism, which is not a book, nor the works of a single author, you simply assume I haven't read....

what actually?

A text on physicalism, a particular physicalist author?

despite my never having said that. You react as if my hypocrisy or bias has been shown. Also assuming that I am a fan of continental writers.

I don't think you can batch down continental writers into some single position, not that physicalism has just one form, but it is a vastly less diverse set of positions.

But even if you disagree with that...seriously????

I get so tired of people not conceding poop here. I am not a fan of continental writers, as I said. I don't think I hold the same meta-philosophical position they hold, if they actually have one in common. I don't reject physicalist books that I haven't read, though some scientific ones are too dense for me, but I don't reject these, I feel frustrated with myself. I think there is a lot of great stuff in there that has become part of the knowledge base I have or consider is knowledge anyway. I do think there is a coherency problem with physicalism, which, even if it is a direct parallel with a meta-position held by all continental writers, you were not talking about that meta-position in your original, now we know was a facetious comment, to some degree. We were talking about books by continental writers, not the meta-position.

You assumed a bunch of stuff about me and when it's pointed out that these were incorrect assumptions, you just come back with more stuff.

Had it with ya Isaac. Maybe you have an ax to grind, I dunno. Grind it with others. I'll leave you to them.

Do you consider, for instance, that merely assuming 'the natural world is explainable' is a "recourse to metaphysics"? — 180 Proof

Yes, I think that would be a metaphysical assumption. Especially, but not only, if it means in a complete sense or all parts of the natural world or all natural phenomena.

I've neither claimed nor implied that I or anyone else explains anything "without metaphysical considerations"; only that I understand naturalism consisting of the working assumption that no specific ontology, or explicitly metaphysical considerations are required to explain the natural world. — 180 Proof

So then naturalism is not tied to physicalism.

To be honest, this is where the interest lies with this discussion. We have the OP dismissing theology as mere 'verbiage' but insisting that continental philosophy is not included in that same concern. We have a requirement that accusations of 'waffle' to continental philosophy be backed up by deep understanding of the text, yet physicalism is casually dismissed a "incoherent" to mutual jeers of support.

Isn't this all just demonstrating as clearly as can be that meaning is imparted by the reader, not an intrinsic property of the text? It cannot possibly be the case that anyone not already disposed to do so would see the value in any given text otherwise it would be impossible to read two opposing texts (in value terms) without entering into a state of constant vacillation. — Isaac

Not quite sure what you are saying in paragraph 2, but as far as my involvement I think paragraph 1 is not a good summation of what happened, which my previous post goes into.

Paragraph 2 seems like an interesting idea, but the all the negatives and the possibility of irony I am not sure what the position or positions are here.

So dismissing an entire field as incoherent (not just as a personal opinion, but as a property of the field itself) is "peachy"? — Isaac

Physicalism is not a field. I mean, not in the sense of physics or biology. And since he was expressing views I agreed with, I just went emotional. People who identify as physicalists have done incredible work, but, yes, I think there are problems with the idea as a whole. That particular ontology. Which is quite different from dismissing philosophers without having read their books. Apart from the issue of category types being conflated in your comparison, I have read a lot within physicalism and on it.

Do you not think any physicalist work might be as you put it "a particularly dense type of text that needs work to tease out its meanings". — Isaac

I think the works of many people who are physicalists are excellent works from which I have learned a tremendous amount. I think there are problems with physicalism, however.

Are we not just being partisan here, it's OK to slag off the physicalists wholesale as incoherent, but dismissing the continentals as waffle is to show a lack of understanding of the text? — Isaac

I believe in our interaction I had a problem with not having read something and dismissing it as waffle.

And since this implies I have a bias in favor of continentalists, I have perhaps a less positive view of them than physicalists, especially if we take scientists who are physicalists into the latter category. I do think many of those who are very dense and, it seems to me at time ridiculous, also have things to say with much value.