It's always been a matter of degree. — Hanover

Indeed it has/is, but you commented that we are afeared of independence, when there is no longer independence to be had. Unless you suggest we should emulate N Korea in their isolation? And even they depend (heavily) on China, the only nation that will deal with them. Independence is only attractive in theory, in today's world.

The potential of harnessing scientific functionality to human affairs certainly allows for a sustainable future — karl stone

No, with about 8000,000,000 of us on the planet today, and we have done nothing to slow the rate at which that becomes 9000,000,000, and 10,000,000,000 of us soon after that, there can/will be no future for our species, sustainable or otherwise. We have consumed too much. The root of the problem revolves around capitalism and greed, I think.

I've never seen a nation so in fear of independence. — Hanover

There are no independent nations these days. We live in a global economy, and all nations are linked by this into mutual dependence. :roll:

"lies" are part of what's to be expected — S

No, they aren't. It seems you are happy to tolerate lies, but I'm not. Not lies that have been properly investigated, and court sentences handed out.

Emotional reactions to events come from the subconscious mind. — Tim3003

Do they? Specifically, what I'm wondering is if our emotions are associated only with our subconscious minds? You state this as though it's a fact, but I don't think this is a fact that we know, but maybe wishful thinking? Maybe I'm wrong, do you know this to be so?

We are emotion-based, but we can influence whether those emotions come to us as advice or commands. — Tim3003

I don't think we can do that either. This is what I'm getting at. People like you suggest that we should somehow become more logical, and less emotion-based, but it isn't possible for us humans to achieve this. Yes, by following the Zen path, there are changes we can achieve, and maybe we should. But 'taking charge' of our emotions, as you suggest, is this really possible, or do you just wish it was?

I'm completely open to learning something new here. Do you really have something new to offer, though? :chin:

You're right: authority is neither required nor relevant. Justification is a different matter. To discard a theory or idea requires exactly as much justification as accepting it. No more, no less. ... If you're working with logic and reason, that is.... :chin: — Pattern-chaser

The absence of a crew member, that is, not being present at a bank robbery, does indeed require the crew member to do some reasoning. It still doesn't mean the crew member was present at the bank rubbery if indeed he wasn't there.

I think the analogy above nicely matches your grossly invalid logic. — VoidDetector

Never mind your strange 'analogy'. Please state clearly and logically exactly how my own logic is faulty. That would be most helpful. Thanks. :smile: :up:

the results haven't been declared invalid by anyone with the authority to do so. — S

True, but the lies have been recognised by our courts as such, and where they contravened our law, cases are already in progress, or already over. People and organisations have been found guilty. But you're not bothered because the vote hasn't been formally declared invalid? It looks like you're taking a pretty partisan perspective on all this: defend everything to do with Leave; attack anything that might support Remain. That's a shame.

And remember, it's not the fault of those who voted to leave, and were declared winners, that the Vote Leave campaign overspent, or that politicians on either side put out false or misleading claims. Sure, punish the cheaters, condemn the liars, but don't penalise all of the innocent people who came out to vote leave and won. — S

But if those "innocent People" were swayed by lies, and might otherwise have voted differently, or chosen not to vote at all? A free and fair vote does not involve lies, and the lead-up to the Brexit vote did.

But there's much more to the current crisis than these lies. They're just part of the problem. :fear:

↪Pattern-chaser
A little off-topic, but who's worse, in your opinion: Jacob Reese-Mogg or Boris Johnson? It's a toughie, but I'm thinking Reese-Mogg. — S

Like Dubya, Boris is not the buffoon he pretends to be. Nor is he as clever as he thinks he is, by a mile. He's out for everything he can get, and will do anything at all to get it. But Rees-Mogg is pure evil! You know that Sauron serves Morgoth, right? Well the complete hierarchy (in order of increasing evil) goes: Sauron, Morgoth, Thatcher, Tebbit, Rees-Mogg. IMO, of course. :wink:

If you like art, think about philosophy as the art of creating concepts. Consider whether ontology is created or discovered (or both).

As for your reading issue. Yes there are linear threads to be followed throughout philosophy. A succession of discourses where one philosopher refers to a previous philosopher. Chronology is boring and limiting.

Read rhizomatically. Pick something up, if it interests you keep reading, if not, put it down. Books don't have to be finished. Create your own path. Regard philosophical reading as a self-made tapestry. Let the work prompt you into new thought. New directions. Academics might complain that this is not the way, but mostly they care more about regurgitation than creation. — emancipate

Nice post. Good advice. Thank you. :up:

Lakoff and Johnson aren't known as philosophers, but it doesn't matter. My point, and it is only a minor one, is that I have gained more from mere thinkers than I have from studying the philosophers that feature in academic philosophy courses. YMMV.

So, you're saying you believe God exists - and surely, that's a claim about the nature of reality. — karl stone

I should've been clearer, sorry. I believe that God exists, in some sense, but I stop short of the more-concrete claim that God exists in the 'real' world. There is no evidence, after all. So I am happy to say what I believe, but not to make claims that might appear scientific or 'objective'. That's going too far, for me at least. :wink:

Is that what you mean when you say you believe in God - not that you believe God exists, so much as you believe the concept of God exists, and has real world effects you believe are positive and desirable? — karl stone

For me: no. I believe that God exists, because I choose to. I find the concept beneficial in many different ways, which is why I make this choice. But I accept, openly and consciously, that this is wholly a faith position.

I expect he'll win, and soon, which will probably be the worst thing for us. Hence my fright.

why was such a poor term chosen for computing operations and data processing of a machine ? — Anthony

It was a mistake.

If you have no problem making a claim that something exists without having an evidential basis for that claim, then you're not doing philosophy. — karl stone

I'm sorry, I dispute that. I think you mean "...you're not doing scientific or logical philosophy." Philosophy is about thinking, and there is more to thought than logic and evidence.

But, as you say, this thread asks whether science is inherently atheistic, which it is not. Science cannot comment on any aspect of God, because there is no evidence at all to work with.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the latest incarnation of Norman Tebbit, via John Redwood, frightens the hell out of me. I cannot express my concerns more exactly than that. Fright. :scream:

OK, let's not get side-tracked. I accept what you say. :up: For myself, I use "believe" to describe something I think is true, but accept that others may not. I use "know" to express facts, whose truth can be demonstrated in some more or less formal way. The important point is to know whether what you say or think can be logically justified, or not. It doesn't matter if it can't, it only matters that you know this when you say whatever-it-is. IMO.

Don't read so-called philosophers is my advice. :smile: Philosophy is about thinking, and there's much more out there about thinking than is generally associated with 'philosophy'. Here are some books that I have found inspiring, or otherwise beneficial:

Robert M. Pirsig - Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance and Lila, an inquiry into morals.
Guy Claxton - Hare brain, tortoise mind.
Alan Watts - Everything I have read by him has been a revelation. [YMMV :wink: ]
Benjamin Hoff - The tao of Pooh and the te of Piglet.
Lakoff and Johnson - Metaphors we live by.
Herman Hesse - The glass bead game.

None of the above are known as philosophers, except maybe Pirsig?, but I have found them all to catalyse my thinking, one way or another. You may enjoy them?

So it would be fine to say for example - I hope God exists, but not okay to say I believe God exists, or I believe God doesn't exist. — karl stone

Nitpicking, I know, as I agree with nearly all you say. :smile: But I think it's OK to say "I believe that God exists", as long as I don't go to the next step and assert that God exists. But this does depend on how we define "believe", and then proceeds to get even more confused as we delve deeper. :wink:

[ Edited to add: Of course, if I did say "I believe that God exists", and I do, I should be clearly aware that I am working outside logic, based on faith, and probably little else. I do believe God exists, but I know that I can offer no logical justification for my belief. None at all. And I'm happy with that. But it does need saying explicitly, so I'm going to say it again: I do believe God exists, but I know that I can offer no logical justification for my belief because there is no such justification.]

Should happiness be the main aim of education? — Wallows

Happiness. That's an interesting take on education. :smile: I think there's an obvious answer here: education should prepare us to take part in the grown-up world as well as it can. These preparations could and should take many forms, ways to achieve happiness not being the least of them. :wink:

Education, in practice, and in the present day, is about teaching us to pass tests that should indicate we've learned something. But it's not the 'something' we concentrate on, it's the tests, and the test results. This surely cannot be optimal?

Yes, we are predominantly a social species, so communication assumes huge importance. I find this especially difficult, being an autist. Setting aside the many variations within the autistic community, most of us share communications difficulties, because we do it a little differently. I don't think it would help or entertain to delve into autistic communications any more than that, but our issues clarify the huge importance of communication to us humans. If you can't communicate easily and fluently, you are at risk of being outcast, as lepers once were.

People come in all shapes and sizes, and some of them can be difficult to get along with, as the OP observes. But we manage it anyway, or we disappear (as a species). :chin:

you cannot reject absolutely all emotions because philosophy is based on them as well. — hks

And, as well as philosophy, ... everything else. Emotion is an intrinsic part of any human personality. We cannot function without emotions. I despair when I see, time and time again, people proposing that we leave our emotional heritage behind us, and move toward logic and reason. It is not possible for humans to achieve this, whether you think we should or not, because our emotions are linked to every part of us. That we should try to understand ourselves better, particularly the effect that our emotions have on our thinking, is a good idea, IMO. But to try to deny what actually is (i.e. that humans are unavoidably emotion-based) is surprising and unhelpful, I think. :chin:

We know that leave won — S

Yes, we do, but this isn't my point. I would be as unhappy - alright, almost as unhappy - if Remain had 'won' with such a small majority. The losing minority is far too big for there to be a solution that is acceptable to all. We are at an impasse. I don't see where we go from here, if we are to achieve some form - any form - of compromise that is acceptable to more than just 52% of us...

Of course none of us can predict: we can't and don't know the future. But it doesn't take much consideration to realise that the country, and all of its political parties remain split (roughly) evenly. The majorities that exist are small enough to (more or less) ignore.

A solution that would be acceptable to 75% of us would be a good start, 90% would be better. With a sizeable majority, the minority who lost can see that their beliefs are not shared by everyone, and are willing to accept our society's overall course. But 52-48, if it is still that? It isn't enough to support a solution that is generally accepted by us all. And this is my point.

This argument still rages because we cannot seem to reach any kind of consensus. As long as that continues, we are stuffed. And I can't see a solution with any promise of acceptance by more than the tiniest of majorities (e.g. 52-48 = 4%). Can you? :chin:

Please bear in mind that, in the fateful referendum, 17.4m voted Leave, 16.1m voted Remain and 12.9m chose not to exercise their vote. This is a very balanced thing, not a decisive victory. If it was (decisive), we wouldn't have a problem.

On subjects of such enormous scale, reason leads to a clear minded recognition of our ignorance. — Jake

:up: On many (most? all?) subjects, reason leads to a clear minded recognition of our ignorance.

:smile:

Science is agnostic with regard to hypotheses lacking conclusive evidence. — karl stone

Exactly. :up: Science (and the logic that underlies it) demands that we not reach a conclusion if the evidence is less than conclusive. We must suspend judgement (i.e. actively avoid drawing any conclusions) until such time as there is sufficient evidence available to justify a conclusion.

I disagree with your first sentence. Not believing in something is not a truth claim. — DingoJones

I think it is. Refusing to reach a conclusion, perhaps because of insufficient evidence, is not a truth claim. Reaching a conclusion is a truth claim. And proclaiming that something is, or is not, is a truth claim. How could it be otherwise?

Do you honestly think there's any sort of Brexit that would command a majority of the British people? — Pattern-chaser


But, irrespective of my answer to that question, the fact of the matter is... — S

I'd hoped for an answer to the question, not tired propaganda. :confused: The problem now, today, is that there is no solution that will satisfy enough of us for it to be considered acceptable. Do you dispute this?

The situation isn't great, but we're locked into it, lest we face the double whammy of betraying the people and damaging the credibility of our political system. — S

I rather think we here in the United Kingdom have a long-established tradition of our governments betraying us, whereby our political system long ago lost its integrity and credibility.

And she will be replaced by [ insert the name of a suitable candidate here]? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

And she will be replaced by [ Pattern-chaser ] — Pattern-chaser & Evil

Oh no, I don't think so. I'm not much of a diplomat. If I was in charge, anyone who owned more than £5m would have the balance removed; income tax would be abolished and moved onto resource-consumption, business and commerce (from where it would return to the common people via retail pricing); Brexit would be cancelled; the national anthem will be replaced by "21st century schizoid man", and so on. I suspect the British people wouldn't like/want me, despite the good I would do....

Theresa May may be a goner by the end of today... — Evil

And she will be replaced by [ insert the name of a suitable candidate here]? :chin:

I'd wager that the consequences of a soft Brexit which meets most people's expectations... — S

Do you honestly think there's any sort of Brexit that would command a majority of the British people? I don't, and I think that's why we're in such a serious mess. There is IMO no solution that "meets most people's expectations". [ Unless "most" is meant to mean just-barely-over 50%.] :fear:

Putting all the wrangling to one side we are left with the fact that the majority of voters in the referendum indicated a wish to leave the EU. — TWI

Yes, but equally straightforward is the observation that the majority you refer to is quite a small one, so the people who voted against are not many fewer than those who voted for. That is the problem: the split is more or less even, in the country and across the government. The original referendum should have had a 66% or 75% threshold for change, given the seriousness of the decision being made. That was Cameron's crime against the British people: not putting that threshold in place. But now, given the mess he's left us all in, there's no fixing it, that I can see.

If it was possible, I would re-run the original referendum, with a 66% threshold, allowing 15+ year-olds to vote, and disallowing anyone over 70, who will not be around to suffer the consequences (or reap the benefits). But that can't happen, if only because of Cameron's failure to ensure a threshold in the first vote.

Can anyone see a way out of this catastrophic mess?

I'm just happy the Brits, every now and then, are taking the pressure off us Americans for being the biggest shitshow country — Maw

Yes, every time I'm tempted to show my contempt for the US, and the President it chose, I remember we chose to teach the world a lesson :worry: by walking away from the most favourable membership-position in the biggest economic power block on the planet. :fear:

One doesn't require authority to lack belief in something... — VoidDetector

You're right: authority is neither required nor relevant. Justification is a different matter. To discard a theory or idea requires exactly as much justification as accepting it. No more, no less. ... If you're working with logic and reason, that is.... :chin:

You misunderstand. I'm not assuming anything. I am using terms only because they describe the thing I'm trying to refer to. You didn't like "mental", so I tried "cogitations" instead. If I must, I will describe them as whatever-it-is-that-results-in-the-emergence-of-ideas-into-our-conscious-minds-without-the source-being-apparent, but it seemed a lot easier and simpler just to use such terms as have been used in the past to describe these things. :wink:

Because otherwise the source of my cogitations is external, and they're someone/something else's cogitations? :gasp:

I've defined my view of the term enlightenment - but what's yours? A claim to superior understanding and authority that has no practical means of demonstration? — karl stone

I don't think any claims have been made. The topic here is enlightenment in the sense that Eastern philosophy uses it. You have chosen to derail it by focussing on a valid alternative meaning that was not and is not the subject of THIS topic. Enough, I think. :up:

Why is it okay to needlessly kill non-human animals for food, but not humans? — chatterbears

The selfish view says that we don't eat humans because they're poisonous. We eat such crap.... :vomit: