Well there's the pure act of creativity itself and then there's sub-category of creative industry. Being involved in industry presupposes there's a reason to produce already determined. But being involved in any type of creativity doesn't have to involve producing for the work-return benefits of an industry, which would account for the big difference in these two types. Suppose you were independent, and had decided to make a software app or a painting. What are the reasons why you would do this, pure love of one's neighbour, G-d, or on the other side vanity or glory maybe? I presume the reasons would be similar or comparable in nature despite ending in very different results.

Let's escape the 'money' connotation of value and settle that it can be any value, even not having value can be considered a value. Lets flip it upside down and say they should at least have the general aim of not becoming a slave, not becoming homeless, rather than becoming graspy, greedy or cynical. If we think of it this way I think it will be more realistic.

In response I’d ask if you yourself would produce said video, of $5000 cost for equipment, actors, along with approximately 40 hours (one week) of time if you knew for certain only you would ever watch it? I do not see the point there, if you had the vision already why not simply save yourself the work and make recourse to it whenever you felt like watching it?

I’m glad you brought up the creative impulse or instinct. In my world these are two separate entities. The second is more difficult to account for, because we can’t really prove right now that creativity is instinctual. Other animals don’t seem to do it so much in the form we see it in humans. If it were true, what would be the benefit to them to do so? We must be talking about apes, chimpanzees, and other primates.

Thanks I fully agree with your thoughts on this. By speaking of ‘we’ ‘our’ I presume you have the belief that creativity is a social act. Nobody should make an art installation only for themself, or videos that only they watch, etc. With some minor exceptions the creative act is social, and in this sense would be subject to forces concurrent with any other social act. I can’t speak for you but it is my observation that humans don’t form into groups and do anything without it being in their interest to do so.

Creative work takes great time and effort to produce for the most part. Are we to expect that for reasons of ‘pure joy of creation’ that a person should work? Surely they can expect some use value to be transferred to the art by the society as is the case everywhere. Otherwise it could with a little imagination be turned into slavery by a particularly crafty capitalist.

Thanks for your response. The analogy to Natural Selection is valid, but then what’s the reason for those individuals to strive for? Is it that creative work is its own reward so to speak? The reward being the equivalent of survival in the animal.

Personally, I think that post-modernism is more of a symptom than a real cause of the rise of extreme leftism. We can't really say 'post-modernism caused x,' as it's simply an extension of certain forms of expression. There isn't really any particular categorical form we can say 'that is post-modern.' It's essence is definitive, open, and self-consciously so.

Could you cite an example or two of "competition based on making others' life better"? Taking the definition of 'compete' from the online dictionary, for example,

strive to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over others who are trying to do the same.

Not that this proves anything, but just to highlight the initial non-correspondence between the two concepts.

Everything's true nature is to end, and those things that are self aware become self-aware of their nature to end, and consequently seek to speed up their own demise.

Thanks, I found myself wrestling this problem in part to escape the recent notion of the pure biology of existence. This model seems greatly flawed from a practical standpoint because it appears to deem the idea of unquestioned collective and moral willpower as invalid. That is, the willful contradiction of biological necessities not from the unconscious but conscious as definitively against short and long term welfare.

If we’re to accept this model into common understanding, then it will stand in the way of problems where the collective must act with ‘organized unreason.’ Take climate change for example, what reason would such a race have to place greater interest in the next generation of humankind than the satisfaction of their own biological survival instincts?

From this kind of materialism it seems wise to maintain the G-d possibility or G-d doubt concerning the discourse on the subject. We can make an analogy of the informant. Say there was a claim of a murderer on his way to you. You could veritiably claim that you don’t believe it, but can you systematically respond that it’s untruth without somehow degrading truth’s stature? When it’s suggested ‘G-d is a myth,’ ‘G-d is a delusion,’ etc that to me is like the person from the analogy saying ‘I can say I know absolutely there is no murderer because it is sufficiently unlikely.’ What does one consider unlikely, but all the things that contradict their frame of reality.

Keep in mind this doesnt concern physical verification of a deity but of an infinite being beyond comprehension.

Dawkins sounds like a smart scientist, but the question of how to frame interpersonal religion and justify it is best left to the philosophers and theologians rather than scientists. They are really reinventing the wheel in their work, and it’s painfully mundane. Never picked up his book though, maybe I’m off the mark.

It seems pertinent to reiterate the distinction here between ‘non belief’ in G-d and the claim that ‘G-d does not exist.’ The second being an type of social contract to marry belief with existence. That is a man-made concept whereas the first of the two could be deemed a personal choice of no philosophical interest for the present discussion.

As per Jakes arguement, for most of us this is preaching to the converted. But the question is ‘why it is the case that collective societies repeat generally destructive behaviours collectively in order to reach greater profit individually?’ It is a philosophical problem. But bringing it back to the general topic at hand, Are the materialistic motives you point to in some way connected to our complacence in accepting the two distinct ideas as one?

Whether one chooses to be or not as a product of their will/upbringing is not relevant. My criticisms are not of the individual but of the discourse. It to me is not wholly negative to look for truths that pertain to the purely physical world. I’m constantly amazed at what is possible to produce, but it does appear to be of a decided lack of intangibility, inspiration, or spirituality. Whether the individual has willfully subscribe to true atheism or not, it’s influence appears to be causal, the suredness of which is under debate. When one is brought up Christian, though never having subscribed do they not still embody aspects of the will of that mechanism through their attitudes and tendencies?

We occupy a particular place, where many who previously have a long history of following certain religions are no longer doing it. We aren't in an easy position to differentiate our own constructs and ideologies from those we can sustain once those religious beliefs and completely 'flushed' from society. That being said, there doesn't really seem to be any reason besides earthly desires for money, power, comfort, and so on that anyone would have to make an extremely small or minuscule addition to any field of inquiry, despite the fact that they continue to do so for the time being.

If man has only what's set before him by natural probabilities, then he doesn't really need what you're calling the 'a priori.' This seems to me by nature non-useful for practical gain by that we can't use it for reliable explanations or predictions in the real world (like the paying/building example). By claiming that G-d does not exist for reasons like 'human suffering' the only sound argument seems to be a rejection of everything not related to immediate existence, or else some type of arbitrary decision to believe or not without reasoning. One in this position would have to accept a certain incapacity of believing in escape from their immediate reality by justification, otherwise they'd be admitting some chance that G-d could exist.

I don’t see how we can make a clear discernment between something like ‘ghosts’ and G-d by saying “I don’t believe it can be because this is unreasonable,” and on the other hand claim that there are unreasonable things that can exist. As an arguement it would lead me to believe this atheist were more agnostic or chooses to ignore the point altogether.

Religious truth is, therefore, a species of practical knowledge.

It doesnt follow to me that this is a valid conclusion based on incommunicability or lack of rational proof. That faith only holds up for a multitude when gone unquestioned doesn’t mean it’s practical in nature. There are things that are irrational and not practical. What about irrational numbers? To suggest its like riding a bike is also a flimsy analogy. This is just lazy thinking like saying “philosophy is a waste lets just live, man!”

Well I’m glad we all agree that guy was just insane. The question still remains though, is it possible to be a-religuous and not be in contradiction in believing something beyond what is plausible given the current body of knowledge? We all seem to agree that its not absurd for individuals to believe, but does this mean it is absurd not to believe there could be something beyond it all? If knowledge can only be obtained through direct observation and there should be nothing to consider beyond the agency of chance, then one can’t seriously consider a sufficiently unlikely truth and they wouldn’t believe it without observable proof. After all, they wouldn’t have any reason to seriously investigate those things they believe could never possibly be, since they too would be beyond reason; only upon a cue from some chance observation or on some previously existing train of thought.

certainly AFAIK (not brought up Christian) Christianity includes the concept of Sin that we have Original Sin and struggle for redemption against our core nature. All things in in their core nature are perfect. That is, they obey least energy least work principles and tend to a state of perfect harmony. Man does not, I suppose this might be part of what constitutes this ‘pre-apprehension.’ That we need this because the nature of what we know is so miniscule and pales in comparison to what nature provides but we cannot know.

above

Well he claimed that the Qu’ran particularly is a call to violence, misogynistic, and that Islam itself is particularly dangerous. The Bill Maher type approach to the problem. Of course also intersperse claims that “It’s bull,” various cursing, so on. But it has got me thinking because he also believed strongly that science and theism were binary opposites. It is getting very common that we humour religious beliefs rather than scoff at them, taking our claim that their falsity is real. I am trying to find if this is in essence agreeing to deny all outside of the empirical under the presumption that there is nothing truly there.

The person you were discussing this with should have had an argument re why believing in something, without question, with no room for rational argument is necessarily "dangerous." Because if that's not necessarily dangerous, it's a moot point.

In a nutshell their claim was that now because of global terrorism, violence/oppression of women, and so on religions thenselves are causing harm and are unnecessary.

If something is not reasonable we could equate that to saying it is unlikely, as our reason’s function to prediction of events means this at most. To believe all theistic religion should be crushed, the basis is that this case of something being extremely unlikely should make it be considered false. The hypothesis is ‘that which is sufficiently unlikely should not occur.’ But of all things to change is unlikely as their state of rest exemplifies. Given sufficient time those of greater unliklinesses are known to diminish and the event becomes likely to occur. So the reasoning seems to contradict itself.

Two people observe similar lives, one believes in a G-d the other does not. One’s claim clearly has a better ‘chance’ of being right by existing rational arguement the other is much less so. Neither fully understands those observations. I say it is irrational that one should claim the right that the other is not correct to the point of taking away that liberty of speculation.

What about the discipline of chemistry. The first atomists had no clear reason to believe for sure on their specultions based on observation, but later on come 1700/1800 individuals chose to investigate and found those ideas to be true. Those initial folks were perhaps laughed at or ridiculed that their ideas were beyond sense. Who knows of that would have ocurred had not those initial seeds been planted. How did they base what they thought on direct observation?

Nihil I suppose what you're referring to is the ‘Death Drive’ as mentioned by Freud in ‘Beyond the Pleasure Principle.’ Here it seems to me to diverge from your view because the death instinct keeps us in a state of predication to the outer world. I don’t fully believe it should be our right to exercise the ego in all cases simply because it has been defined. Freud himself wrote that if our repressed sexual drives were to be allowed to rule, society as a whole would probably break down. But your notion of transcending the necessary and of our human privilege to do so is wholly agreeable. There are inspirations and disorders, and the advantage of one comes with the burden of the other. It is our right to follow what we are told not to follow from within but not without. Our liberty rests in the opposite of the outward expression of repressed motivations, because with that as a global rule nobody would posess any liberty.

Its unfortunate, but theism gains the greatest insights in fields such as philosophy and mathematics for good reason. Subscribing purely to materialism and pop culture existentialism looks great on the outside but is fruitless.

If you believe you can posess the truth, there is no point in examining the subject. More relevant is the question: does one ever know the truth, or is it unobtainable? It seems unlikely that anyone will ever synthesize ideas of value from examining the outer world only incidentally without seeing past the circular cause and effect ecosystem of animal existence.

"Reasoning concerning causal interactions, however, can lead to an understanding of the physical world as a realm of causal interactions with which we all interact."

Maybe I misunderstand you, but I fail to see how this is harmful. Any examination of reality eventually leads to cause and effect in an endless chain that is always carried out in observance of man's pride. He/she unlike other animals can look back, understand, and master reality but only through the fogged lens of his desires, through the senses and mental faculties he has been endowed with presumably honed for acquiring the means of subsistence - and thus he has to constantly fight in a pathetic attempt to break away from his yoke.

"I do uphold that perceptions are important, but very much believe that the external world can best be evidenced via its causal interactions, this whenever the question of its presence holds a potential to arise."

Keep in mind that we are in no way distinguishing between what is correct, false, true, erroneous, that these are all separate from what it means to be a subject of the material world.

Two different definitions, one a collective affirmation of existence, and the other seemingly reliant on appearance, though nobody can totally refute the legitimacy of the experienced reality, only as it is described through language. Without life bodies have no existence in either sense, leaving the material world dependent on the observing mind.

How are we defining existence? In my definition, an object only has existence if an implementation of life can interact with it. No life, no existence. Any error due between individuals is concurrent to other causes. To exist presumes that life is there to observe it, otherwise it would be equal to a product of the mind. Alternatively, we could define that something exists by the greater quantity of men on Earth confirm it by experience or presumption; we'd be holding two separate conversations.

The world outside us could have permanent existence or it could be just a imagined world. Imagine for instance, as world where life could never exist as it was an impossibility. This world would be equal to an imagined world, having nothing within it capable of giving it significance above any other arbitrary posited thing that our minds could conjure up. Existence in this sense as having fixed time and place is dependent on life. We can observe ways that what we see in the outside world is our own reflected image. Can we think of anything in the world, for instance, that has nothing to do with our human existence? Every rock, flower, star, bit of cosmic dust has relevance only because it describes man and his limited field of perception. If we were to drop a lab rat into a maze at birth, and have it live there indefinitely, almost everything the rat immediately observes would be condusive to the fact that it is in the maze. Every noticed thing that impacts it’s existence points to it’s reason for being in it’s present state. A person can lay claim to no more sophisticated understanding of anything beyond what exists for them to see.