• It is Immoral to be Boring
    I will offer an example of each category that I don't think can be debated by personal perspectives.SatmBopd

    Essentially, I fear Nietzsche's "Last man" if that makes any sense.SatmBopd

    These don't seem to fit together.

    You're worried about young people choosing shallow entertainment over more stimulating thought and investigation? I would argue that the danger here is precisely that their lives will become less "variable" without more dangerous, and creative investigation into a wider "variety" of ideas and concerns.SatmBopd

    I'd say so. But I might be completely wrong about the youth today being any different to the youth from the past. The environment they live in is different enough to perhaps make a significant difference - the price for greater freedom.
  • Why are there just two parties competing in political America?
    The divide and rule strategy has been quite successful many times.ssu

    And due to the geographic divide will lead to the inevitable outcome of a more literal split. In other countries the political division is generally scattered in the US you can pretty much see borders in the map.
  • Why are there just two parties competing in political America?
    Democracy and simplicity. People can vote however they wish to and most prefer an A or B option so they don’t have to think too hard.

    Note: Even in European countries there are usually only two main parties in the running at any particular time. That said there are certainly others that have waxed and waned over the decades and at least have some minute impact even when far behind the others. The system in the US is puzzling to me tbh.

    Overall I think the vast majority of governments have too much to deal with. Decentralising power makes the most sense and for whatever reason (probably the delusion of ‘patriotism’) the chance passed us by several decades ago. Meaning countries should’ve split up so individual votes effected individual lives rather than merely feeding into a monster they had no connection to.

    Politics for the people now seems to take form in poor and weak rebellions by the uninformed and cowering intellects.

    A split in the US seems to be the best possible outcome in the near future for everyone across the globe. Given that the US is so dominant right now it could still retain dominance over other bodies that are feared too whilst breaking/splitting into more manageable forms.

    Either way I’m still convinced that the idea of ‘nation’ is in its death throes right now and that ‘God is dead’ will be of less interest soon enough as I’m sure the more relevant point now is ‘Nation is dead’ … when this is noticed maybe politics for the people and of the people will revive itself.
  • From Meaninglessness To Higher Level
    To live is to evaluate.180 Proof

    More succinct that my rant :D
  • From Meaninglessness To Higher Level
    First problems above:

    I think a big problem here is the English language. When talking about a ‘meaning of life’ we’re just
    talking about ‘purpose’ or ‘reason for something’.

    ‘Building’ meaning makes no sense. Either something has meaning in reference to something else or it doesn’t. The colour blue has meaning if colour is important to an aim. Meaning is inherent in the aim of a task.

    The problem framed with the terms ‘purpose’ and ‘meaning’ is when they are applied in a universal manner. That is the mistake.

    Second:

    Life is not ‘meaningless’ anymore than blue isn’t a colour. We are temporal so necessarily directed in one way or another towards something in way way or another. Understanding how we are directed, what we’re directed towards (relative to other items) and distinguishing items, is all there is to life.

    What is the meaning of blue? Without context a useless question.

    What is the meaning of life” Without specifics (ie. contained within tangible bounds) equally useless.

    To further break this down we find ‘good’ and ‘bad’ (meaning valuation). The purpose/meaning grows from the context of a question/proposal and how we consider it as ‘better’ or ‘worse’ and for what reasons. We have small goals in life not some ultimate goal because we’re not privy to any kind of complete picture. We naturally investigate and map out our experiences and make up ideas and plans to help understand our direction - and possibly alter it (as we’re just time machines).
  • It is Immoral to be Boring
    Always worth engaging with - Creative, variable things
    Sometimes worth engaging with - Non creative but harmless variable things
    Rarely worth engaging with - Actively destructive variable things
    Probably not worth your time - Static things
    SatmBopd

    And all of these are delineated by personal perspectives. Generally there isn’t anything that is ‘boring’ there is simply a preference by individuals and boring people (those who think almost everything is boring). Calling something ‘boring’ is much easier than admitting to ourselves that we’re just plain lazy, stupid or fearful.

    Repetition is certainly one factor in what is boring. Some people adore repetition and others loath it.

    In terms of this here political environment I think people tend to prefer to be entertained for 5 mins rather than think for 30 mins. This is a sad state of affairs, if true, and I wonder if the youth will be able to pull themselves out of a potential trap - or if they’ll even recognise it as a trap. Entertainment for the sake of entertainment is okay, but entertainment at the detriment of self-reflection and dispensing with difficult freedoms is another.
  • The Problem with Monotheism?
    No idea what you’re talking about. It doesn’t look relevant to the thread.
  • Is reality only as real as the details our senses give us?
    Yes.

    I would guess the most important thing is memory.T Clark

    Memories are sense based.

    Can anything ever be real without sensory feedback?TiredThinker

    No. Even abstractions are … well, abstracted from sensory input not from some mysterious ether.

    All in all I think Kant put it well enough. The capacity to think is empty without sensory input. What we deem as ‘real’ or ‘the world’ is due to sensory perception but that sensory perception alone isn’t much in and of itself. An eye is pretty much the same as a camera, but we don’t ‘see’ with our eyes as the main gubbins is in the occipital lobe.
  • Is Social Media bad for your Mental Health?
    Just the philosophy forum is bad for your health
  • The Problem with Monotheism?
    Why do you favor a polytheistic framework?frank

    Pretty much for the reason you outline above. Realism. A bunch of interacting entities (that are neither good or bad) is more comparable to humans than some ideal.
  • Is philosophy becoming more difficult?
    A degree, any degree, informs your potential employer that you can dedicate yourself to something longterm. If you do a degree then it means you’re generally more likely to commit to their company rather than quit job after a year or two.

    If you wish to become a teacher then a degree in teaching is the way to go. Teaching is a viable career but you’re better off teaching abroad if you’re from the west (in middle east or asia).

    I would also recommend doing some actual work teaching (volunteering if necessary) to see if you actually enjoy teaching. Plus there is the question of what level you prefer to teach at. Some like to teach kids and others prefer young adults (often it’s one or the other). Teaching kinds generally pays less for some reason.

    If you wish to teach at university level then you’re probably best off starting out for smaller (and probably foreign) institutions as there will be more opportunities for you there. Online teaching certainly something you should start right now if you want to teach as you can do it in some capacity right away.
  • A first cause is logically necessary
    I'm just trying to speak in the terms you were using. I don't value anything more than another.Philosophim

    That cannot be true. I value 'first' more as most people do. I am not saying it is logical just more a condition of culture I think.

    The rest is just repetition of physics. Not interested. You can find plenty of discussion abut that on science forums with people who know what they are talking about.

    Nothing you are saying looks or sounds like philosophy so I'm out. Have fun :)
  • Who are the 1%?
    Well, my point was YOU are in the 1% on the global scale so are you running the world like you're part of an international crime family?

    Turns out I am WRONG about this now as wages have increased dramatically so you'd need to be earning around $700,000 a year to qualify as being in the top 1%.

    Even so my point was that the few at the very top are kept there by those below them. I don't for a second think they are all criminals though. I do think they have too much potential power though. The fact that lobbying is allowed in the US make the situation worse in that country.
  • A first cause is logically necessary
    Well, I am valuing two things. A first cause leads to a second right?Philosophim

    Is that a 'value'? Why is it important what comes 'first' or if something does come 'first'? Do you apply more value to first or second and if so why do you do this?

    But, I don't think you've succeeded in showing the premises of cause and effect aren't real.Philosophim

    Real in what way? Why does the value 'real' come into play here? Are claiming that cause and effect are real because you value them or because you value cause and effect or because you don't value them. I'm guessing you apply the term 'real' to them because you value them so when you say 'real' you mean of 'value'. The question is then 'value' how and due to what distinction?

    Try to explain to me how you can type words on your keyboard without cause and effect.Philosophim

    I can show you. Here. I had no need whatsoever to type the words you said I wouldn't be able to stop myself from typing! :D

    Seriously, that is part of what I'm getting at. You are reliant upon a certain means of communication to express ideas and can only, at best, vaguely adumbrate certain feels and senses about other vague feelings and senses. The problem is we're not exactly accurate and you did note that.

    I can type without any real consideration towards what I am doing as a matter of 'cause and effect' so in that respect (as with walking and breathing) I do not take part in such activities due to being consciously attentive to the world as a 'causal stream' of happenings. I merely live and do for the vast majority of my actions and at certain alarms and triggers happen to draw my attention to or from one matter to another. I do not consider my general actions as being the 'cause leading to an effect' as I probably wouldn't get much done.

    I'm aware of how physics models the world. Of course in that department there has been great discoveries and successes regarding cause and effect. The matter of 'time' is not something humans seem to have much of an idea about as it is part of us not apart from us ... or maybe we do have an atemporal element? Or maybe we're just caught up in the whole obsession of measuring and comparing x to y to see beyond it.

    If we break down the cause and effect into the item you gave (typing) then I can just keep on dividing up any given act. For example I could say that the cause of me typing on a keyboard is my want to communicate, but then I could ask where this 'want' comes from. I could say my thoughts instigate my want, but what instigates my thoughts. Or I could move in another direction and ask what instigated that particular thought to type, or did I even think about typing or merely acted to the cause of reading your post? Where does this go? What direction do I take? Is this meaningful and if so, or not, how?

    First cause makes no sense no more than 'cause and effect' makes sense out of specifically defined boundaries. Then we're back to value and distinction.
  • A first cause is logically necessary
    Cause and effect are brought about due to categorical distinctions. Within distinctions values are emergent.

    We can ask if values beget distinctions or distinctions beget values. It is only of ‘value’ to ask not to answer.

    To ask about a ‘first cause’ states that there is a first cause as ‘cause’ and ‘first’ are framed via temporal appreciation not via atemporal appreciation.

    I cannot value one thing about another without two things. I can value myself above myself in terms of temporal difference (the me previously to the future me) but this is likely a trick as the ‘now’ is the accumulation of past/future me not distinct from it.

    None of this likely helps the discussion though because it is meant as means of putting an end to it :)
  • Who are the 1%?
    If we're talking global scale most, of not all, people here are the 1%.

    If you narrow it down to a specific country then it is easier to look with distain upon those who have a considerable amount more than you do.
  • Phenomenology vs. solipsism
    He is literally the founder of phenomenology. The term you use talking about phenomenology (intentionality) is his specific to phenomenology.

    Some of the leading ideas of the phenomenological tradition can be traced back to this issue. Following the lead of Edmund Husserl (1900, 1913), who was both the founder of phenomenology and a student of Brentano’s, the point of the phenomenological analysis has been to show that the essential property of intentionality of being directed onto something is not contingent upon whether some real physical target exists independently of the intentional act itself. To achieve this goal, two concepts have been central to Husserl’s internalist interpretation of intentionality: the concept of a noema (plural noemata) and the concept of epoche (i.e., bracketing) or phenomenological reduction. By the word ‘noema,’ Husserl refers to the internal structure of mental acts. The phenomenological reduction is meant to help get at the essence of mental acts by suspending all naive presuppositions about the difference between real and fictitious entities (on these complex phenomenological concepts, see the papers by Føllesdal and others conveniently gathered in Dreyfus (1982). For further discussion, see Bell (1990) and Dummett (1993).
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality/

    Although not the first to coin the term, it is uncontroversial to suggest that the German philosopher, Edmund Husserl (1859-1938), is the “father” of the philosophical movement known as phenomenology.
    https://iep.utm.edu/husserl/

    If we're talking about phenomenology then it makes sense to talk about, and refer directly to, Husserl. If you say 'intentionality' and talk about 'phenomenology' you are necessarily involving Husserl just as you'd be talking about Wittgenstein at the mention of language games or beetles in matchboxes.
  • What is Nirvana
    If you’re here just to act like a dick good for you. You asked what should I do and I assumed you meant in order to attain ‘bliss’ so I answered.

    ‘Enlightened’ is something a buddhist might say not me. I had an experience that completely changed everything for me but I’m not, nor have I ever been, ‘religious’ in the common sense of the word. If you’re a buddhist and what I say upsets you I don’t really care. I’m not trying to upset people just stating what I know and what I’ve experienced.

    Worshipping Elvis surely then is theism, as well, and Elvis fans are theists.baker

    Why? Is Elvis supernatural? If people believe that I guess it would be theism in the broader sense of the term. Reincarnation is a supernatural idea not an objective proven fact - same goes for pantheism. Buddhism is categorised more as autotheism I believe but there are some who are buddhist that believe in gods (outside of buddhism), because in eastern traditions people have no real issue with a pick and mix style ‘religion’. It isn’t all that uncommon.

    A monk I met in Thailand (who was running the pagoda) had friends (fellow monks) who were both muslim and buddhist, and knew of others who were hindu, buddhist and christian.
    Note: These were actual full time monks not merely ‘people in the street’.

    There are also people who follow christian beliefs BUT don’t take the literally (as mentioned). They are more or less agnostic rather than theistic, and don’t hold to any of the idea of an afterlife but merely say they don’t dismiss as they don’t know (but I would still call Christianity a theism).
  • What is Nirvana
    I have no idea why broadly categorising buddhism under ‘theism’ (rightly and justly done by many) is so upsetting. No creator god, fine. No creation, fine. Those are NOT the sole items that make some doctrine theistic or non-theistic.
  • Phenomenology vs. solipsism
    I'm not sure that means an awful lot to me. I don't really give a toss about what might be possible in reflecting upon my own conscious experience. Reflecting upon time holds almost no interest either.Tom Storm

    If you’re not interested in studying consciousness then a science of consciousness is pretty much a waste of time for you then.

    Note: phenomenology isn’t really a kind of ‘idealism’ anymore than cognitive neuroscience is. What is different about it from the positive sciences is it deals with the item of experience irrespective of any dualistic notions.

    His concern with psychology in general was the atomisation and reduction of psychology’s subjective nature to quantifiable objectivity. The very principle of psychology is that of subjective feel not some measured representation of a subjective experience. The over application of positive scientific method towards psychology was something he felt as a wrong move. If we’re measuring motion fair enough, the positive sciences make sense. When it comes to understanding the very cognitive function that formed the positive sciences he was not as convinced.

    I think I’d agree with what someone else mentioned here. That is that in the US anything regarded as ‘continental’ is viewed with the upmost suspicion. That is why I see many categorising Husserlian phenomenology as ‘idealism’.

    I’d say proof is off if he has labelled phenomenology as ‘assuming there is nothing external’. It does no such thing. It just isn’t interested in such things as the item under scrutiny is consciousness and ‘intentionality’ is necessarily ‘consciousness of …’ and the ‘thinghood’ of the … is not of any direct concern for the purposes of exploring the conscious experience. That is why Husserl talks about ‘bracketing out’ not ‘denying the existence of’.

    Framing phenomenology as solipsism is missing the point. If you can say you are conscious you can explore consciousness through being conscious to some degree. One approach is to go through empirical science with experimentation in a physical setting by taking clear (or the best) measurements you can and the other is to enter a kind of meditative state by which you can articulate items of conscious experience and determine what is and isn’t fathomable. One will necessarily feed off of the other.

    Personally I think it is a useful tool for some and something that others have no real concern or interest in. Just like some people will attach themselves to stoicism or morality more whereas others will be wholly consumed by logic or epistemology or something else.
  • What is Nirvana
    The problem is you choosing to hold to a very specific and narrow definition of ‘theism’. If the vast majority of people who speak English don’t agree then you will have either repeat what you mean by theism every time you use the term OR just say buddhists don’t believe in a creator god (I’d go with the later).
  • What is Nirvana
    I don’t much care whether some group of people accept the definition of theism or not. I don’t accept the definition of ‘religion’ as it is commonly used but I do understand roughly how almost everyone else uses it.

    You mean buddhists don’t believe in a creator god. Okay, that doesn’t make it NOT theistic in the general meaning of the term theistic. It just doesn’t, sorry.

    And as I stated there are groups that hold to the belief in ‘higher beings’ and just because they don’t refer to them as ‘gods’ in the more Judeochristian sense doesn’t make them any less ‘supernatural’ - same goes for Confucianism where it is more or less about ancestor worship (still theistic in that there is ‘other’ or ‘void’ - a beyond).

    Not all Christians believe in an actual personification of god either. Many see it is a ‘force’ or ‘power’. That doesn’t make the foundation of Christianity non-theistic though.

    Millions of people practically worship buddha (and I mean that literally) I’ve seen it and spoke to people about it who practice this. They don’t know why they are doing it most of the time though and refer to ‘tradition’.
  • Phenomenology vs. solipsism
    It is the same as asking how is science of use. That was kind of my point. Husserl frames phenomenology as a science of consciousness - ask cognitive neuroscientists who use phenomenology in their work why it is of use and I imagine they’d say it helps to categirise and delineate between various cognitive functions by parsing them up via feelings of agency and comparing brains scans to persons subjective appreciation.

    As a purely theoretical means of modelling conscious experience it is also useful in that the ‘lab’ is yourself. You cannot get to the ‘essence’ so to speak and it is the thought of an ‘essence’ that is revealing as it tells us something about consciousness - as does attention, awareness and our sense of time and authorship. Time is a very difficult problem to deal with and in the phenomenological sense we’re always talking about items that CANNOT be measured. As in time is not about seconds and minutes, because time is ‘felt’ differently by different people in different circumstances. This is where the phenomenological investigation can explore where the natural/positive sciences cannot.

    Note: Husserl was staunchly opposed to psychologism.
  • What is Nirvana
    Note: most religious folk have no clue what they’re doing or why they’re doing it. It is a system of perpetuating a myth more than understanding the mythic symbols. Jung is probably the only one in modern times that really opened this up more.
  • What is Nirvana
    This points to the fundamental distinction between the uncreated and created. In theistic religions, that is represented as the relationship between creator and created. And that is a distinction which has been completely lost to modern thought.Wayfarer

    I think in all Buddhism gods are part of samsara but have been released. I haven't seen Buddhist talk about a being that is necessary existenceGregory

    Buddhism is a theism. This isn’t really up for dispute. I find it evasive to not reply and evade questions. I find this happens a lot when someone theistic guards their sect/beliefs. Buddhists believe in a ‘higher plane’ of being and some believe in higher beings. That is a description of theism and there need be no belief in and creator god to qualify a religion as a religion.

    @baker If you wish to experience ‘bliss’ then I can tell you what to do but the chances are you won’t do it. Basically you need to stress yourself for a prolonged period of time. How much and for how long would be completely dependent upon your physiological makeup.

    The triggers for altered states of consciousness are sleep deprivation, fasting, intense concentration, trance dance, hyperventilation and/or prolonged periods of ‘pain’ in some form or another. It won’t be pretty but the chances are if you achieve something like the desired goal you won’t recall half of what really happened anyway (in terms of the negative side of it). A lot of it is about being brutally honest with yourself, getting rid of distractions and facing up to fears.

    Meditation - in the philosophical sense - may get you there. Meditation in the buddhist sense won’t. It can give you glimpses though. What you should be doing is what you want to do. The problem is you don’t know that so just live of a little more instinct and exploration if you are seeking some ‘answer’. Never give up, I mean never … if you experience ‘bliss’ you’ll understand why those words are ironic :D
  • Bias inherent in the Scientific Method itself?
    Humans are biased (if you're human don't believe this means everyone else is more bias than you).
  • When is a theory regarded as a conspiracy?
    It is a term that had a legitimate meaning until governments put a 'this guy's a crazy' spin on it.
  • Philosophy/Religion
    It depends on what is meant by 'religion'. In terms of institutions 'religion,' 'science' and 'philosophy' have more in common than not.

    As a way of understanding and viewing our place in the world none of the above do so in any one particular way and none of them do so without the existence of the other in mind (however it may be represented).

    An economist will view the view differently to a teacher, and all teachers and all economists will, for the most part, have a particular shared view. Would we call this a 'religion'? I don't think so, but the systems under which economists and teachers operate will tend to give them a common frame with which to view the world.

    The 'frame' is important and we spend absolutely no time looking at the frame. The frame is there and unseen. How we move and direct the frame has a lot to do with its shape and the current view it gives us.

    How people choose to apply 'science,' 'philosophy' and 'religion' to this story of The Frame would be interesting to hear. I am assuming some would say the frame is X or the view is Y etc.,.
  • Philosophy/Religion
    Of you ask someone what something means to them they will give you an answer even if they had never really thought about what it meant and they will believe that what they answer they have always believed.

    We have to believe what we say to be true and to have mostly always been true for us. We are not at all inclined to throw off certain lived narratives and so shed our skin with words all the time believe our new skin to be the original skin.

    It’s all a blur we choose to see certain images in. When the image changes we change with it so we cannot even appreciate our own progression from moment to moment nor recognise a moment passing.
  • What is Nirvana
    I'm not implying it, I'm stating it.Wayfarer

    Yu must be using the term 'theism' as rigidly meaning 'creator' then. I don't and others don't. It is only correct for certain branches of buddhism and in the cases where it isn't it is only correct - as far as I know - in terms of 'theism' being framed as belief in a 'creator'.

    Tibetan buddhism is clearly 'theistic' although they don't believe in a creator god or frame the 'beings' they talk about as gods ... just because they use different terms it doesn't mean the principles are any different from polytheistic beliefs.

    I can only agree (as far as I know) that there are no distinct buddhist groups that believe in a creator god but there are distinct groups that do believe in 'higher beings' they just don't frame them as gods in what would be identical to more western traditions.

    Those episodes were generally brief, but the point which struck me was that it was something entirely new, something I had never felt previously. It was like another dimension of experience. As I said, they were transient, but they left an impression.

    At that time I had been reading the literature of popular spirituality - Krishnamurti, books on Buddhism and related subjects that were circulating at the time. Something clicked at that time, or came together - it an opening or awakening experience. I think maybe what is called opening of heart chakra. There are such states as meditative realisations but they're impossible to describe. The consequence was a greater sense of empathy with others and also a sense of joy. It was a permanent change, although not a permanent state, because no state is permanent. But nothing exceptional, life goes on, although I think overall it made me a better person, but certainly neither sage nor saint. If you want an exceptional example read this account from the annals of Richard M. Bucke, who solicited accounts of individuals whom he said experienced cosmic consciousness. (Nothing like that ever happened to me.)
    Wayfarer

    You can do better than that! The link you provided did so so why can't you? I'm very curious about this. You can send DM if you prefer
  • Phenomenology vs. solipsism
    Phenomenologists still make decisions and have preferences in the world (politics, spirituality, jobs, family, schools) - how are these made?Tom Storm

    Phenomenology isn’t a ‘philosophy’ in terms of being a way of living life. That is probably why Husserl was quite explicit when framing phenomenology as a ‘science’ rather than a philosophy. There is no real ‘opinion’ involved just a regard for conscious experience upon which various different layers of investigation can take place in an endless task (as with the natural sciences).
  • What is Nirvana
    Rather it's that the deities they worship are not recognised as such by monotheism. Buddhism is not theistic in the sense of relying on God or gods, the basis of the religion is the recognition of dependent origination - emptiness. Of course, it turns out there's quite a lot of convergence between Buddhism and Christianity in terms of ethics and conduct, but the principles are nevertheless distinct.Wayfarer

    It is still incorrect to imply that buddhism is not theistic because there are examples of this.

    I don’t know what you mean (personally) by ‘bliss’ and I’m also interested to know whether you think there are other means of experiencing ‘bliss’. How would you describe the moment you had in the supermarket? You said it was more of glimpse, so how long did this fleeting experience last? Minutes? Hours? Days? After it had subsided what had changed for you?
  • Phenomenology vs. solipsism
    In what ways are phenomenology and solipsism alike, in what ways are they different?baker

    Phenomenology (Husserl) is meant as a scientific method of studying consciousness. Solipsism isn’t anything like that at all. Phenomenology does not take the stance that the physical world doesn’t really exist it just ‘brackets out’ that and focuses purely on the experience - to investigate consciousness.

    Solipsism is a pure kind of idealism and phenomenology isn’t (although too many pigeon hole phenomenology as idealism).
  • What is Nirvana
    Buddhism is not a theistic religion, though, and would never use that terminology.Wayfarer

    That’s not true. There are quite clearly buddhist practices that believe in deities. Of course you may not refer to these as ‘true buddhism’ but that doesn’t matter to those who practice that particular kind of buddhism.

    Btw have you experienced ‘bliss’? Just curious because it seems a bit daft for anyone to ask for advice from you if you haven’t.
  • The difference between philosophy and science
    Don't know and don't really care.
  • The difference between philosophy and science
    Science deals with facts. Philosophers often question what facts are based on ... but scientists don't care and continue with facts.

    Basic point being Science is that done by scientists and Philosophy is that done by philosophers. Some people can, amazingly (sarcasm), do both at different times.

    In more common terms philosophy is more concerned with the validity of questions and science is more concerned with answering questions. Needless to say they can at times make the other look rather stupid.
  • Mary vs physicalism
    Mary has never felt any severe in pain her whole life. She's lived in a nice comfortable room yet has studied everything there is to know about 'severe pain' other than experiencing it - obviously.

    I walk into her room and punch full on in the face shattering her nose and fracturing her cheek bones. She falls to the ground wailing and screaming then leave.

    Has she learnt anything new about pain due to my brief visit?
  • The Problem with Monotheism?
    That's because we're geniuses. Or not.frank

    We're 'geniuses' of a sort. Who isn't!

    The protocol broadcast by monotheism includes projection and shadow, all that stuff Jung was all over.frank

    Very much. As far as I can recall he didn't make a big deal about any differentiation between poly/mono ... I should probably look for that! ...

    At a quick glance he certainly does have something to say about this. It does relate to the Self and individuation as you mention.

    The monotheistic God can't accept part of his own creation, as if he doesn't realize he made that.frank

    You mean this (from the psychological perspective) as a kind of willed belief in a paradox so as to disown it and revere it? I'm going WAY out on a limb there :D

    It leaves the journey toward individuation, which I'm not sure I totally understand.frank

    This was so obvious (Individuation) I never really registered it as part of my thought. I do like Jung's framework but as far as I can tell (in this area specifically) he did little more than pass it over briefly than go for a deep dive.

    In very basic terms of the human capacity and inclination towards fashioning narratives a more readily way of examining the human psyche (purposefully or otherwise) would be through a multi-charactered personification of such items. That is the thrust behind why I would put polytheism above monotheism in terms of a guide for psychological development. Jung seems to equate monotheism with the Self (and hence the process of 'individuation').

    I think I finally got what you mean, correct me if wrong.

    You position is hat polytheism is sort of more "democratic" compared to monotheism which seem to be more "autocratic"?
    And, how these 2 affects development of social life and psychology at large?
    SpaceDweller

    I wouldn't have thought of putting it like that but I have to admit it makes some sense to frame it that way as long as we keep both "democratic" and "autocratic" in heavy parenthesis. The "autocratic" is analogous to the idea of 'Self' but I would say the path to Self is generally dangerous and why I would say monotheism was a step too far too quickly (as many accidents of human 'progress' tend to be).

    I think polytheism as "multiple perspectives" toward anything are source of division among society.
    You answer to that will surely be that deities don't influence or interact with each other and as such can't be source of division?

    If so, however while that may be true for deities it's far from true for society, because not everybody in society is reasonable enough to overcome influence or opinions.
    Society was, is and always will be divisible.
    SpaceDweller

    I kind of would answer like that and only say that the infighting within a pantheon of gods is common enough. Neither would I necessarily view 'division' as something to avoid and I'd say precisely the same for 'conflict'. In this sense polytheism allows for meaningful conflict and division whereas mono is mono. There is a lack of growth involved.

    I'm more than happy to admit there are potential advantages in one that don't exist in the other. That is precisely why I posted this.
  • Ethics explained to smooth out all wrinkles in current debates -- Neo-Darwinist approach
    The author will demonstrate why ethics has been an elusive philosophical concept. The great ethicists, from classical Greek to seventeenth- and nineteenth century European thinkers, to present day philosophers, talk about morality and ethics as if it were a probably very clear and well-defined concept. They talk about it as if it were a given that everyone understands what it is. The author will shine light on why this assumption is false and wrong. Then the author will attempt to show how ethics can be easily defined and understood to be what it is by introducing an evolutionary concept of ethics, which distinguishes between autonomous ethics and socially learned ethics.god must be atheist

    I can see why they didn’t bother to publish it ^^

    This is poorly written and one sentence doesn’t even make sense (italics). You should probably get people to proof read before attempting to get something published.