But I don't see the problem in just saying 'life is a good', from within experience, from the perspective of a living being... if that is what the happen to value, which I think we do. I don't think we make some kind of reflective evaluation of life VS non-life when we are saying this, it's more basic and instinctive.
— ChatteringMonkey
But I think people are saying that I think. It’s as if experience wins some sort of points for some reason over non experience. As we’ve agreed, that isn’t a valid evaluation. Error or undefined ensues.
If what they mean is that they really like the experiences of working, maintenance, and seeking forms of entertainment, what makes this any better than nothing? Still invalid. — schopenhauer1
↪ChatteringMonkey
To further make the point, let's say there were these two scenarios:
1) A universe devoid of any experience. No people working, maintaining, entertaining themselves/each other.
2) A universe with experience. People working, maintaining, entertaining themselves/each other.
Because of what we have said earlier, there is no reason why scenario 2 is better than scenario 1 in any inherent way. It is absurd if you follow the logic to say that it is. — schopenhauer1
Again, I don't think we want it, but once alive most homeostatic activity becomes what we want out of shear fear of pain of death and being destitute. — schopenhauer1
I think we are actually on the same page as to the nonsensicalness of the idea that existence is "good". I'm just pointing out that it is often a fallacy in philosophical thinking when people say, "existence itself is a good". But as we are both pointing out, that is nonsensical at best, and wrong at worst. — schopenhauer1
We are a living being, we want to live, generally... that is what life does.
— ChatteringMonkey
But other life does it unthinkingly. We know how life perpetuates and can even prevent it. It wouldn't be enough to say, "That's just what humans do" because it's precisely because humans can freely evaluate and act upon it that this can be a debate; it is not inevitable, but contingent on each person's choices and actions. — schopenhauer1
We have a need to get things done in order to survive, stay comfortable, and stay entertained. I don't see why this particular arrangement is "good". In that respect, what we do is inevitable. This situation does not change. But why do we want this situation in perpetuity? Your fingernails grow and have to be cut, weeds have to be pruned, vegetables need water, the deer has to be chased after and hunted, the nuts and berries have to be cultivated.. and on and on and on.
Nothingness is something foreign to us. It is an imaginative leap we take symbolized by voidness, sleep, the idea of nothingness. Why is this bad? Again, the stage of experience, and striving after, what's so good anyways? — schopenhauer1
Why is human experience a good in itself? — schopenhauer1
1) It literally would not matter to any thing if no thing existed from here on out. — schopenhauer1
Moral philosophers, at least the ones I've read, and I'll admit I had some graduate work in ethics and have done some reading but am by no means an expert, seem to ignore the role human nature plays in morality. A system that doesn't take account of the fact that people are more likely to sacrifice for others the more genetic material they have in common is a system doomed to faliure. — Count Timothy von Icarus
The two big competing groups of moral philosophies are the deontological and the utilitarian approach. Both, it seems to me, presuppose an already delienated community as their frame of reference. But does either approach provide a clear answer as to how to draw the borders around that community? — Echarmion
Are there moral philosophies which, in your opinion, provide an adequate method to determine the borders of the community? — Echarmion
Are perhaps virtue ethics not just relevant, but unavoidable when it comes to this first step? — Echarmion
It's pretty much the status quo but no argument has to be made in 99% of cases. Just disregard benefit. How many debates about theism cross over into the territory of whether people should even be trying to convert each other? Or whether one outperforms the other in the area of benefit? Truth-value doesn't go that deep, you simply call the other party wrong, deluded, invalid, unreasonable and walk away. — Judaka
I see. How would you determine when it's better to accept the utility of a belief or criticise someone for being wrong? And could you see yourself promoting a falsehood you knew to be false because you thought it'd be of benefit to others? — Judaka
Another example could be a Christian who is charitable, compassionate, has a sense of belonging and more, this could potentially take precedence over an atheist's disapproval of what he sees as the Christian's incorrect beliefs or it might not. If the Christian is convinced to be an atheist, perhaps all of those valuable traits will diminish or disappear with the beliefs. — Judaka
It only really gets interesting when we admit or speculate that the benefits exist but the belief is invalid, faulty, lopsided, wrong. Otherwise, the answer is obvious. I agree that if we have no strong feelings about whether there's a benefit to being inaccurate then we should try to be accurate. — Judaka
I'm no moral realist, but I suppose regardless of you meta-ethical stance, one thing that might happen if you violate moral principles regularly, is social exclusion... which for a social being is bad enough.
— ChatteringMonkey
Violating principles which are believed by society to be moral principles could lead to social exclusion, but simply violating moral principles wouldn't. — Michael
What do you think might happen if you regularly violate your taken-for-granted moral principles?
So what do you think, moral realists? — spirit-salamander
Though I don't pay attention to how I'm received on the internet, I know nobody cares. As for developing my thinking, I don't like the idea of being trapped in the matter of true answer to somebody else's question. A valid response to a question like "is God real" should be "why do you even care to debate this?". Well, maybe I won't actually post that response but that's what I think about their thread. Briefly looking over your threads, you do tend to ask questions beyond the scope of what is true. Your threads could be answered by speaking in terms of and often include a challenge of analysing pros and cons. So even though you say that you aim to speak about only what is true, it seems mostly you are questioning what we should or shouldn't be doing, which I like. — Judaka
We can't only ask what is the situation with X, that is not a valid answer. We can't answer what to do without understanding how things are either. We need both. — Judaka
It's only situations where there's a competing narrative where this "versus' can apply. That a descriptive claim like "I am intelligent and beautiful" we get to choose to emphasise the reasonableness or validity of the claim versus how these beliefs are making the individual feel about themselves. Does that make sense? — Judaka
Feel free to suggest any of your own examples for discussion on this topic. — Judaka
If you knew that the one which produced the superior effects was the one you believed to be incorrect, would you oppose its promotion or support it? — Judaka
Yes, there will be more roles (processing food, building stores defending stores in addition to hunting, fishing, gathering) but that doesn't necessitate a hierarchy or an authority. Yes, there will be a territory, more surplus and thus the opportunity for, but not a necessity of, unequal private property. Even if people specialised, that doesn't suggest inequality, and an annual surplus can and did drive peaceful trade between groups.
Cooperatives exist even now in our very hierarchical, very unequal societies. Executive roles exist, but are populated by rotation. All profits are shared equally irrespective of effort or skill. That's more the kind of thing I had in mind.
Stiles outlines in great depth the opportunity for hierarchical structures to form, but concludes that egalitarian DR groups are impossible. — Kenosha Kid
That's in stark contrast to what I've read on the subject, so I'd be interested to hear more. My understanding is that, while we at some point in our lineage evolved social characteristics that drive or give capacity to egalitarianism and altruism that our ape ancestors do not have, there are no similarly unique characteristics for dealing with life in hierarchies. So yes we inherit the pre-social and sub-social apparatus of our parent species, but we are evolved beyond that.
— Kenosha Kid
I did not want to claim that we have a similarly unique tendency towards hierarchy, only that we also have this tendency, which seems to explain a number of biases when it comes to political struggle. Of course these might also merely be side effects of other, more general cognitive biases. — Echarmion
Yes, but if you have neither 1 nor 2 then there is nothing you can do.
There will be no social upheaval/discontent because the state will find ways of bribing people or otherwise suppressing their movement.
If there is no appealing political vision, there will be no coherent or organized movement. That's why there isn't any.
You could take communism for your political vision but most people will not go along with that. That's why you only get minority or single-issue movements like Occupy or BLM. — Apollodorus
maybe massive social upheaval would be what it takes
— ChatteringMonkey
Do you mean like Trump's Capitol insurrection or something bigger? — Apollodorus
The answer is education — James Riley
I know the basic question has been asked many time and in different ways but what I would like to hear and discuss from others the why of religion or more exactly why do humans have the belief that there is some entity or entities outside of their own species that have influence and determination of their being something after the physical death of a human.
— David S
In homo sapiens evolution has delegated part of the species survival functions to culture because we have the capability for language.... we need an education to become fully functional.
Before written language myth and stories were for the longest time the vehicles to transfer knowledge from generation to generation. Religion as a subset of myth, was the veneration of the highest values in a given society. Deification and personification of said values enabled turning them into narratives which could serve as mnemonic devices.
Also, one shouldn't confuse contemporary monotheistic religions with earlier religions, they are mere echoes of something that once served a vital function, pale and impoverished in comparison with the original. — ChatteringMonkey
I know the basic question has been asked many time and in different ways but what I would like to hear and discuss from others the why of religion or more exactly why do humans have the belief that there is some entity or entities outside of their own species that have influence and determination of their being something after the physical death of a human. — David S
This thread is a fishing expedition. I'm seeking out those who disagree with this proposition: Science is a good thing, to see what their arguments are. — Banno
But, it may be that philosophy will remain a minority interest but I do think that the issue is to what extent will it survive at all. I think that it partly depends if it can be a bit less abstract and obscure in some ways. — Jack Cummins
Well in the case of BlackRock it's kind of interesting. The CEO is a lifelong Democrat, and so already buys into this stakeholder theory version of capitalism. But besides that, when it comes to asset managers, where the mentality isn't so short-term, it does well to consider things like climate change -- it's sensible, just as it is with insurance companies. Therefore, shifting investments to ESG funds (which no doubt have their issues) and promoting more transparency and accountability for climate-related strategies seems like a self-interested move. These aren't stupid people.
When it comes to industries most culpable for climate change, like Big Oil and Big Agro, while they are beginning to acknowledge climate change is real and will try to convince everyone that everything they do is "green" are always going to be the ones most resistant to change, as it directly effects their livelihoods. For asset managers, who make their money off of how much they make for their investors (along with fees), there's a different set of priorities. If they see the energy sector as unprofitable in the long term (meaning fossil fuels), it stands to reason they will divest -- if they have any sense at all and, again, this is assuming they're not idiots.
Too little too late, perhaps. — Xtrix
What do we make of this? More window-dressing? A much-needed transitional step away from Friedman/neoliberal economics? — Xtrix
He tries to psychologize everything , but how can we trust his conclusions if they're not based on empirical evidence, data and hard facts. Just dreamt up from his own head . His genealogy of morals , explaining ideas in terms of their historical development to explain morality is probably flawed. — Ross Campbell
sometimes I wonder why Nietzsche is so popular, so influential , is it because he's so provocative, radical, and easily misinterpreted. He seems to be unique among philosophers in that he attacks every tradition and thinker in the history of western thought. — Ross Campbell
There doesn't seem to be any coherent social, ethical or political set of values or structures in his thinking . I think his philosophy is only of relevance to the life of an individual, it couldn't be applied to society. A Nietszean worldview would be anarchy, devoid of ethics, and of science, religion or political systems. — Ross Campbell
Perhaps Nietzsche's ferocious attack on Christianity was his reaction against the puritanical Victorian Church of his time which was anti semitic, misogynistic, anti gays, authoritarian and conservative. This is as Kierkegaard said a warped hypocritical version of Christianity, not the true message of Christ. I personally think Nietzsche had an agenda or a chip on his shoulder, he was hostile to democracy and modern science also which he claimed strangely were products of a Christian culture which seems absurd. — Ross Campbell
It is not clear what Jesus meant by "Kingdom of God is at hand". Some take it to mean a geopolitical change, but others interpreted it as a change in the person. Paul, on the other hand, is quite clear. The world was at any moment going to undergo a fundamental change with only the saved remaining as "spirit bodies" (I think he gets this from Plato's Phaedo). It, of course, did not happen.
Paul taught that we are born in sin and must be saved. The physical body is a slave to sin. Hence the saved will be "spirit bodies". The Earth will be transformed to Heaven on Earth. — Fooloso4
What are they? Or, more precisely, what were they before the recent response to immigration? The reason I ask is, I want some of that, and yet my fellow Americans scream "Socialism" at the top of their lungs whenever anyone mentions the tax rates and benefits in the rest of the developed world. — James Riley
Personally, I'm confused about all the slings and arrows toward socialism. — James Riley
Then your notion of "socialism" is strange indeed, and scope of history limited. — Xtrix
I'm really not sure what you're talking about here. There's risk in anything -- whether we join together or not. There is far greater risk, in my view, of clinging to this dogma of rugged individualism, and so keeping ourselves isolated and trying to "go it alone" on everything. There is far greater power in numbers, working as a team, collaboration, networking, solidarity, education, etc. This is the only point. It has been systematically beaten out of people's heads for decades.
You appear to be overthinking it. — Xtrix
I don't know if we're just talking (metaphorically) different languages here, but this juxtaposition makes no sense to me. What people hope and wish for is usually a central part of what communities are "actually" build around. — Echarmion
That's basically the exact opposite of how I see things. The whole reason Marxism was so powerful and ended up so terrible was because it had, as it's goal, a powerful utopian vision - the classless society. A Rousseauean paradise. And because it was such a grand goal, people were willing to do grand things for it - including grand destruction. — Echarmion
Marxism didn't "build" the communities, or "Marxist" states... it usually had to devolve into some kind a authoritarian person-cult to created some kind of shared ideology (i.e. Stalin, Mao, Castro etc...)
— ChatteringMonkey
This view isn't compatible with the evidence. There were significant Marxist movements around the world, united by a shared vision. They were occasionally close to coming to power in Germany and France. Nor can either the USSR or the PRC be reduced to "Stalinist personality cult". In the beginning, genuine hope and Identification with the ideals of Marxism existed. And there was genuine societal transformation that is visible until today, for example in the area of women's rights. — Echarmion
Marxism is literally the most powerful political movement in recent history. The only movements of comparable scope and influence are the major world religions (and perhaps capitalism, though there is an interesting discussion about that to be had). Given the tremendous influence on world history exercised by this ideology, it seems weird to claim that it hasn't "build" anything. — Echarmion
So beware what you wish for. "Valuing what we do together", building communities usually implies values and stories build around common goods and goals, and those usually end up not being very sensitive to particular individuals. Or do we really think we can have our cake and eat it too?
— ChatteringMonkey
No, I think this is backwards anyway. Once the original sense of community is lost, it cannot be rebuild. It's like an arm that was cut off and then sewn back on: it's never quite the same and doesn't have the same functionality. — baker
Just read this, by Anand Giridharadas, which also sums up nicely what I was driving at before:
The only solutions to our biggest shared challenges are solutions that have the following four characteristics: they're public, institutional, democratic, and universal. In other words, they solve the problem at the root, for everyone.
Anybody trying to sell you the notion that they have some quick-win, low-hanging-fruit, fill-the-gap thing that happens to be funded by the people causing the problem is trying to sell you a bill of goods.
What we have to do is reclaim the story that what we do together is more interesting, more compelling, more powerful, more valuable, than what we do alone.
The religion of the neoliberal era, the spiritual tradition of the neoliberal era, has been the notion that what we do alone is better and more beautiful than what we do together.
That was a massive propaganda push. It's incredibly counterintuitive. It goes in defiance of most traditions in the world, so it took a lot of work, but they did it. They pulled it off.
Margaret Thatcher literally saying, "There's no such thing as society” — which of your ancestors in any community around the world would have understood the notion that there's no such thing as society, only individual men and women?
That is a profoundly modern idea, a bullshit idea, a ridiculous idea, that none of our ancestors would have recognized, because all of our ancestors, wherever they came from, understood that they live in societies and would have felt dead to not live in societies of people with whom they had interdependence.
Over the last 40 years, we got sold this fraudulent religion, which only benefits those at the top, that what we do alone is great — and what we do together is corrupt, is tyrannical, is evil. It's false. It has hurt untold numbers of people. It's come crashing and burning down with Covid, which is the ultimate expression of a phenomenon where being left alone is literally death.
It's time to reclaim the story and venerate the tradition of valuing what we do together.
— Giridharadas
I agree wholeheartedly. — Xtrix
I'm having a hard time pointing out what apathy may be about; anyone care to elucidate? — Shawn
Willy has the agency not to create the world or rather not to force others into the world in the first place, no? — schopenhauer1
What happens if Willy can imagine other worlds that are better, but the best he can do is create the one described in the OP? — schopenhauer1