Still in denial — praxis

We know you are Praxis, but he’s trying very hard to get you not to be.

You're one of the only posters here, aside from Tom Storm whose online moniker or "screen name" I read aloud with ferocious excitement. Like, it just seems required. Sorry just had to mention that. Probably some latent movie-originated programming that has overtaken my sen — Outlander

Thanks I think?

Anyhow, to your point. The people who favor "wokeness" simply deem it, according to them, as your basic cookie-cutter "speaking truth to power." Something like: "Yeah, I'm not white, and you are, but as it so happens to be, the majority of this geographic or otherwise socio-policital region or sphere is, and so that means, I'm calling you out! (as one who holds power)" Basically saying, it doesn't matter whose in charge or why, all that matters is that you're in charge and I'm not, and per old adage, Heavy hangs the head that wears the crown.

Which is interesting, because, in theory, hypothetically, being "woke" in a place where such is the opposite, say, Africa, talking about unfairness and inequity targeted towards that given majority and power structure (which yes, happens to be Black), should basically be similar. — Outlander

I would say this is an example of woke over reach not necessarily woke itself. That was the point I was getting at by starting with a definition of woke that can at least be a starting point for discussion. So far so the discussion has been mostly in the weeds.

A suggested definition of woke that should satisfy left/woke folk. Then if I may suggest the task then becomes discussing what parts of the spectrum that definition captures and where parts of that spectrum corrupt/change/evolve or flat out avoid that definition. That should apply to both sides I think.

Woke - the introduction of progressive values into traditional spaces that contain opposing values such as inequity, racism or sexism.

Is that a satisfying definition for the left/woke portion of this discussion?

Pretty obvious to me Boethius is the disingenuine (and likely mentally ill imo) one here. How could a question so simple be impossible to answer? Instead, evasive, obtuse and…of a weasel like nature.
So much for outside arbitration.

Could the analogy be to a prohibition era bootlegger who goes around touting the benefits of alcohol, says a certain number of alcohol-related deaths are "worth it" so we can freely drink, and then gets nailed by a drunk driver? — RogueAI

That would be an analogy of the irony of a gun guy getting shot, sure.

In the case of cars, we're willing to accept a certain amount of deaths to drive at speeds that make cars economically viable. Nobody would drive a car at 5mph on the freeway. We sacrifice safety for efficiency.

How is that the same with guns? — RogueAI

It is the same in the “sacrifice” regard. The trade off of lives is analogous, not the reasons why or even what those lives are traded for. We are willing to trade lives, if it is a problem to trade lives (for anything… I think) then cars are a much better place to start than guns numbers wise.
Anyway, obviously I didnt state the analogy clearly enough and I hope that even if you disagree its at least more clear what I meant.

Oh, suppose I say, "There is a genocide in Gaza", then the response -- not from you but due to media -- would be "Israel has a right to defend itself"

But that's not what they're doing. They're committing a genocide.

Yet if they succeed, as the United States did, they'll win. If they eliminate everyone then they'll get to keep the land. We passed on the genocide stick to them.

How do you vote to influence that? — Moliere

I see. Honestly Im not really buying your broader premise here. Im not even a fan of Kirks but Im not going to pretend him and gaza have anything pertinent in common for the sake of justifying violence and assassination.

Again, because cars are essential for many people in this society. Driving is inherently dangerous and we accept the risks because cars are so necessary for so many. That's not analogous to guns.
4m — RogueAI

Cars are not analogous to guns when it comes to necessity, I agree. Thankfully for my point I am not making an analogy about necessity. Im making an analogy about the trade-off for lives, in that sense cars and guns are analogous.

I think my points stand.

Sure.

I'm still disgusted with the means of politics. I've often found that raising this disgust about other such scenarios results in excuses so I'm a bit skeptical.

I want to point to the genocide in Gaza at the moment more than this sensationalist plot in asking the question, though. I am looking for a wider perspective than this one event. — Moliere

Im honestly not sure what you mean here.

Are you sure it wasn't one of them? — RogueAI

Nope, it may well turn out to be them or any number of other motives…but I doubt you’d wanna bet much money on it :wink:
If it turns out to be a jilted lover or something, Ill stand corrected.

Really? You think so? You think if an angel came down and said, "Charlie, I can make this assassin miss you be a hair, or you can be gunned down and leave your wife and kids behind and you can become a martyr for the 2nd amendment. What shall it be?" Charlie would have picked martyr? — RogueAI

No idea how Kirk would react to an angel. That is not the trade off I stated I was referencing your direct quote not your non-sequitur hypothetical scenario. Accepting that you yourself would be included in a statistic is obviously not the same as choosing to die a martyr.

Again, cars have important uses outside of killing things. — RogueAI

Sure, I agree a car is a more useful tool. More necessary to my day to day life certainly. I don’t think the right to have a gun is about variety of use or day to day need though.
My point with that analogy was specifically about accepting some deaths as a trade off for freedom to have a gun. We do the exact same thing with cars, we accept that some people (many more than gun deaths actually) are going to die as a trade off for our speed limits and traffic volume (or as a trade off for the freedom to drive and if you prefer).

Can we not appreciate the irony AND be disgusted by the reaction to a political assassination? One shot from a sniper position. Primary suspicion of motive has to be political. Liberals may not know him but he was big with the right, an important political figure.
But lets talk about how justified it was?

"I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights." — RogueAI

Not reasonable statement? Replace “guns” with “cars”. Still unreasonable?

It just seems so...karmic. — RogueAI

The irony isnt lost on me, but I think Kirk would 100% include his own death as part of that acceptable trade off. Say what you want about Kirk, he did not lack conviction. To the point above, we certainly accept that trade off with driving vehicles dont we? Vehicle accidents kill more than guns, why dont we ban cars? Or make everyone drive 5mph? And thats just for our convenience, there are many who think right to bear arms is much more important.

So you are arguing or asking if the assassination of Charlie Kirk was justified?
Youre a mod?
Thats pretty fucked up.

Are you a 'meaning seeking' type of person such as you have described? Where do you sit on this? — Tom Storm

I am not. Ive spent a lot of time talking to those folks and learning but I don’t seem to be built that way. Where I stand depends on what the claim is but in general Im not moved by appeals to “mystery, “the transcendent”, “the universe” or other such vacuous basis. I guess Im comfortable a) not knowing and b) that there is no greater meaning to it all. Perfectly content with the mere mortal meaning found in friends and family.

I don’t disagree with this. All I mean is that some people are 'turned on' by theism and some are not, just as some are attracted to boys and not girls. I meant preference in that sense, that it is essentially an orientation rather than a reasoned choice. But I think “need” works fine too in a broader sense. And I would include the need 'not to believe' in God along with the 'need to believe'. Both atheism and theism could be understood as sources of affective satisfaction. — Tom Storm

The point of disagreement is “reasoned choice”. Obviously it depends on the specific belief or claims but in general I think a lack of belief can be reasoned choice. As you pointed out atheists can belief in similar non rational things as the average believer and I would agree but also think an atheist can have arrived at atheism by “reasoned choice”. Im much more hesitant to say the same about a theist.

It has sometimes interested me how many atheists actually believe in supernatural claims. It’s only God they don’t accept. Some atheists I’ve known believe in astrology, ghosts, clairvoyance, and other occult phenomena. So I’m not sure what the connection between God, religion, and the occult actually is for some folk. It’s more the Dawkins-style atheists who are galvanised by empiricism who seem to find any supernatural thesis anathema. — Tom Storm

I think it is because these “atheists” are of the meaning seeker type but are just upset with religion and reject it for whatever reason.

Even many theists, especially the apophatics, argue that nothing sensible can really be said about God. It’s all mystery. I just take their move one step further: if that’s the case, why not forget about it and piss the God idea off altogether? — Tom Storm

As we should with all things reduced to “mystery” as a description.

In the end, I think theism (as I’ve often said) is a matter of preference, much like sexual orientation: you can’t help what you’re attracted to. It’s shaped by culture, upbringing, aesthetics, and a person’s preferences for how they construe meaning.
7h — Tom Storm

I disagree here. I would call it need rather than preference. Some people seem to need religion or god or mystery or whatever and some people do not, some people are comfortable with no greater meaning and some are not. Preference implies an array of different paths on a journey but actually its a matter of being on a journey or not in a journey at all.
I think even when a meaning seeker rejects religion they will find another path to it by another name. The ones who aren’t searching for meaning (or at least meaning beyond the physical world), aren’t selecting any preferences because they aren’t looking for anything (beyond the physical world)

s there any way we can demonstrate either way for certain? — Tom Storm

Not beyond Cartesian doubt obviously, but It think we can be reasonably certain….but it sounds like you believe no one has any knowledge about god, from the bible or otherwise. Is that correct, and if so why do you suppose that is?

The fact that so much evil has been done in the name of Christianity has no bearing on whether there's a god or not. — Tom Storm

Unless the god in question could/would/should stop or curb that evil. The fact that there is no intervention, even just a quick “do not kill in my name” from a mountain top or something, suggests no such being exists. No? I mean why wouldn't an all good god say orvdo something?
Or what about prayer? Thats behaviour, can we not judge from the lack of prayer return calls that perhaps there is no such being?

I’m not sure the behaviour of believers has much bearing upon the existence of a god. Can you say more? — Tom Storm

In the sense that a god of certain traits (all good being my example) would not allow that/those traits to be represented by followers. Since the traits are being misrepresented with acts by followers that contradict those traits then we might think that such a god doesnt exist. If it did, surely it would do something about evil being done in it all good name?
I guess its a sort of argument of evil that Im making.

I wouldn’t think so. If you believe in divine command then killing apostates is good. — Tom Storm

Thats why I Mentioned how you define god as part of the basis of my argument above. Divine command justifies all things, not really about morality but authority.

I think that’s right. And given this is a philosophy site I’d expect less focus on this type of god and more on philosophical arguments. — Tom Storm

Are the philosophical arguments much better? Are any of those cartoonish in your view?

Well there ARE bible literalists, so some people do believe a cartoonish thing. Of course it is also low hanging fruit as you say, the easiest attack vector against religion.

Wouldn't the behaviour of believers reflect whether god exists depend on how one is defining god and specifically some of the wisdom or rules he lays down? Like if you claim god is “all good” and believe god wants apostates killed then that contradiction might cast doubt on the gods existence?

I’m an atheist, Paula. But I prefer to have an informed view of religions than the simple cartoon accounts of many atheists. I was brought up in the Baptist tradition but found the notion of a god incoherent from an early age. I was never a believer. — Tom Storm

Im curious what the cartoon account is in your view. Are you seeing any of that in Paulas posts or do you mean in general?

Well, its a good thing you’ve brought this to this forum. Once its in the hands of an obscure philosophy forum there is no end to the help such a highly influential internet place will provide.

God, holy spirit, jesus.
Water, ice, steam.

Same substance, different form.

ife is eternal suffering. — kirillov

One is just as justified to say life is eternal joy as saying life is eternal suffering. I wouldnt say either is accurate though becuase obviously both exist, and generally one experiences both until death. If you choose to focus only on the suffering (necessitated by the view “life is eternal suffering) then thats on you, not life. If your life is eternal suffering then thats your life, not life in general.
So the only thing you are justified claiming is that your life is full of suffering. Maybe it is I dont know, but it really makes very little sense to make the same claim for all lives or on the behalf of everyone.
Regardless, you will not find the answer in philosophies. Perspective is the issue here, starting with acknowledging that even if your life is eternal suffering that doesnt mean life in general is.

Fair enough.

I think we’ve seen enough failed predictions about Trump to see how the people you speak of react. Most of what they say now they said about his first term.
The response was to double down, to proclaim the same things louder. Maybe they are right this time I don’t know, but I do know how they reacted to their first Trumpacalypse, and it didnt involve admitting error. It involved amping it all up again.

Thank you

Odd, this thread isnt showing up in any of the forum catagories…

Test

The problem is that living things are suffering and dying every second. Keeping doing what I am doing is not enough to achieve the goals. — Truth Seeker

It is enough to achieve your goals though, in fact its all you can do. It seems to me the hidden problem for you is the timetable. You cannot achieve such lofty goals in a single lifetime, your goals are not something you can enforce or convince on the massive scale of the whole of humanity. Yours goals will take time. A lot of time. Look at history and you see how things, very slowly, change. It happens by leading by example, spreading your ideas and leading your life with those goals in mind.
So when I say keep doing what you're doing I dont mean because you cannot achieve your goals but rather because that is the way, the only way, to achieve your goals.
Make the best contribution you can while you're here and let the ripple effect of your hard work shape the future. Thats the only way progress to your goals that has ever been made, you just have to have the long view.

If you pay taxes you are addressing a lot of those. The answer to your question is to be more involved in the institutions which it seems like you do.
So….keep doing what youre doing?

Some gems in there, thanks Bob.

And yeah the advice they give you is hindsight, they can’t see the future. Some people never get over something and they just suffer in torment at feeling like they should be when they don’t.

You just don’t have a counterargument to what is obvious hindsight. You don’t know the future so you can’t say it’s a temporary problem. — Darkneos

You don’t need to know the future to rationally conclude something is a temporary problem. You can assess outcomes based on previous cases, scientific knowledge, experiences, case studies etc etc.
if a doctor tells you your cold is a temporary problem are you going to say the same thing? “You can’t tell the future doc so Im going to just assume this will be a forever thing.”
Of course there are cases in which what you're saying is true, that sometimes a persons suffering will be chronic or not temporary and suicide is a valid option but not in every case. Many times the suicidal thoughts do go away, or the problem is temporary.

The suicide prevention hotline has a success rate of barely 50% so their assessment on a problem isn’t exactly valid. — Darkneos

Doctors have a much less than 50% rate of curing certain cancers, should we ignore their assessments on cancer as not valid either?

I made that point already, such things matter only if you have to live and there is no have to when it comes to living. — Darkneos

I didnt ask you to make the point, I asked you to expand on the points and specifically:

“What kind of “greater reason” do you mean? Whats wrong with meaning people create for themselves?”

They’re not, you’re just not able to engage with them. It’s easier to just dismiss such things rather than wonder why we even bother with them. — Darkneos

You cannot engage with something incoherent, correct. However it is not true that I am being dismissive, I do wonder why people bother. Observe I have not made flowery appeals to lifes beauty etc.
That is because I don’t think those things are inherently good and people are free to place no value on any of that stuff (inner peace, self love, loving others, being part of a community…any of that pro life jibber jab)
Just answer my two questions above if nothing else.

Did you perhaps underestimate how full of shit politicians on BOTH sides really are? I do not know the politics but it seems obvious you were misinformed or lied to about the positions they actually had. I would posit that the only ideology these parties had was staying in power and not what they profess to believe at all but Im quite cynical about politicians.
How common is this sort of reversal in Australia?

To make a case against it you'd have to engage with why living would be preferable when it's not a requirement to be alive. — Darkneos

Why would ice cream be preferable if youre not required to eat it? Why is it preferable to drive your car when you don’t have to drive your car?
These questions don’t need to be engaged with because they are incoherent, and so is your comment above. Once you bring requirement into it you are no longer talking about preferences at all. Incoherent.

There is no reason to do it. Filling life with stuff to do only counts if you have to live and you don't. — Darkneos

You have yet yo explain why, make an argument instead of an assertion. Also, no reason for you doesnt mean no reason for anyone. Obviously plenty of people have found their own reasons reasons.

You didnt answer my other comment:

What kind of “greater reason” do you mean? Whats wrong with meaning people create for themselves? — DingoJones

You need to expand on these points youre trying to make if you're actually interested in discussion.

I’ve struggled to find a good argument against suicide that doesn’t involve either nonsense or special pleading to life or hindsight bias.

The way I see it if there is no greater reason to meaning to life then there isn’t really a reason to keep going. Not reason to really struggle and fight for a place in the world. No reason to really pursue anything. One can just end their life and be done with the pursuit and struggle. — Darkneos

What kind of “greater reason” do you mean? Whats wrong with meaning people create for themselves?

To me arguments for staying alive or for meaning only work if you HAVE to live. Filling life with good things, doing what you love, all that junk only has logical weight if one is unable to die until a set time. Baring that I see no reason for living. Desire for pleasures only applies if you are alive, if you die there is no need for any of that. Same with love, friendship, food, money, etc. — Darkneos

Huh? Nothing in life matters because you will die and when youre dead nothing in life matters? Is that what you are saying? If so, why wouldn't the life stuff matter while youre alive?

Why should one do that which is good? No, I don't think that good is synonymous with, "something one ought to do". For example, most people would agree that selling all your worldly possessions and donating the money to charity is something that would be good. However, that doesn't mean that one is obligated to do so. Please input into this conversation with your own takes. — Hyper

What we “ought” to do depends on the goal. “Ought” doesnt exist by itself, it is incoherent to posit what we “ought” to do without also positing a goal.
So to your question, if being good is your goal then you ought to do good things. If being good is not your goal, then naturally you will ignore what you “ought” to be doing in order to be good.
Is the goal an orderly society? The maximum well being for the most amount of people? The “ought” to be good is justified by its usefulness or necessitation to the goal.